Sitting of 11 March 1875

MINUTES.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee—NAVY ESTIMATES.
WAYS AND MEANS—considered in Committee—Consolidated Fund (£2,139 7s. 7d.)—(£7,000,000) *.
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—First Reading—Public Health (Scotland) Provisional Order Confirmation (No. 1)* [92]; Public Health (Scotland) Provisional Order Confirmation (No. 2) * [93]; Foreign Loans Registration (No. 2) * [94].
Second Reading—"Elementary Education Provisional Orders Confirmation (Caister, &c.) * [88]; Consolidated Fund (£880,522 1s. 4d.) *.
Committee—Report—Epping Forest (re-comm.) * [87].
Withdrawn—Foreign Loans Registration [60].

METROPOLIS—TOWER OF LONDON.

  QUESTION.
  MR. RITCHIEasked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether he can say when the arrangements for the free opening of the Tower of London will he completed?
  MR. W. H. SMITH, in reply, said, the new rules regulating the free opening of the Tower of London on Mondays and Saturdays would come into force on the 1st of April next.

ARMY—LONGFORD BARRACKS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. ERRINGTONasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether he can state how soon the long contemplated improvements in the married soldiers' quarters in the Cavalry Barracks at Longford are likely to he carried out?
  MR. GATHORNE HARDY, in reply, said, that estimates for improvements to he made in the different barracks throughout the Kingdom were sent in to head quarters and were dealt with in order. The case of Longford Barracks would not for a year, in all probability, come on for consideration by the War Office, which was now proceeding with those cases which were most pressing.

SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE ACT, 1873—MR. WALPOLE'S NOTICE OF RESOLUTION.—QUESTION.
MR. OSBORNE MORGANasked the right honourable and learned Member for the University of Cambridge, What course he intends, under existing circum
1604
stances, to pursue in regard to the Motion of which he has given Notice respecting the Supreme Court of Judicature Act, 1873, and the Appellate Jurisdiction of the House of Lords?
MR. SPENCER WALPOLE: Sir, my hon. and learned Friend will allow me to remind him that the Motion of which I gave Notice was, that I would on an early day call the attention of the House to the defective state of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act with reference to Appeals, and move a Resolution. It is obvious, I think, under the existing circumstances to which the hon. and learned Gentleman seems from his Question to refer, that the branch of the subject to which I more particularly wish to call the attention of the House will require a very careful and calm consideration. If I am right in that conclusion, as I think I am, the course I propose to pursue is not to attempt at present to push forward that Motion; but to reserve to myself the fullest power of bringing it forward at a future period, in case I should find it advisable to do so.

PASSENGERS ACT, 1865—SURGEONS IN PASSENGER SHIPS.—QUESTION.
CAPTAIN PIMasked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether it is true that both British subjects and foreigners have been and are still permitted to sign the Articles of British Ships as Surgeons, and to serve on such British Ships as Surgeons, who are not possessed of a diploma or other qualification required by Act of Parliament, and whose names do not appear on the Medical List published under authority; and, whether such persons are authorized to sign the usual and necessary professional certificates without their names having so appeared in such authorized Medical List?
SIR CHARLES ADDERLEY: Sir, some few foreign practitioners have been appointed to British passenger ships with diplomas of their own country, as provided for insuitable cases under the Passengers Act. Neither British nor foreign subjects have, to my knowledge, been appointed as medical officers of passenger ships not duly authorized under the requirements of the Passengers Act, 1865, which, however, are specially excepted from the Medical List Act Either of these practitioners,

1605
British or foreign, are, therefore, authorized to sign the usual and necessary professional certificates.

NAVY—RETIREMENT OF ADMIRALS—ORDER IN COUNCIL, 1870.—QUESTION.
MR. ANDERSONasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, If it is under the so-called "temporary provision" of 1870 that the three Admirals of the Fleet are still on the "active" list, in seeming contravention of the general regulation that Admirals of seventy years of age must go on the "retired" list; if it is under the same "temporary provision" that the Senior Admiral also remains on the "active" list; and, if he will not now set aside the "temporary provision," and put those officers on the "retired" list?
MR. HUNT, in reply, said, that in the temporary provision of the Order in Council of 22nd February, 1870, the following reserve was made in favour of the officers referred to in the Question:—
"Admirals of the Fleet and Admirals in command of ships, Captains, or Commanders, prior to the termination of the war in 1815, will he allowed to remain on the active list, such officers to be eligible for promotion to be Admirals of the Fleet."
It was quite true that Admirals of over 70 years of age could not be considered to be on the active list in the sense of being likely to be actively employed; but there was no doubt that standing at the head of the list under these circumstances was a very coveted distinction among naval officers. He considered that privilege had been secured to the four distinguished officers in question by the Order in Council, and that it would not be proper to deprive them of the position. But supposing that the retirement of these officers were brought about in the way suggested, the interests of other officers would be affected, and some of them affected injuriously. He was therefore not prepared to force those four gallant officers to retire.

NAVY—THE PACIFIC ISLANDS—ALLEGED CONFLICT WITH NATIVES.

  QUESTION.
  MR. ASHLEYasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether it is true, as narrated in the "Times" of February 19, that there have been, between Her Majesty's schooner "Sandfly," and natives
  1606
  of the Islands of Tapona, Santa Cruz, and Api, three affrays, in one of which thirty natives were killed; if so, whether he will state what number of men, if any, belonging to the "Sandfly" were killed or wounded, and whether there was an interpreter on board, or any means of communicating with the natives; and, whether he has directed any inquiries to be made of the officer in command as to the necessity for his burning native villages after the attacks on the schooner had been repelled?
  MR. HUNT, in reply, said, the account given in The Times of the occurrence set forth in the Question of the hon. and learned Gentleman was substantially correct. The information received at the Admiralty was to the following effect:—The schooner Sandfly was engaged in cruising in the New Hebrides group for the suppression of kidnapping and the regulation of the labour traffic. In August she visited Api for the purpose of discovering the perpetrators of an outrage on the British schooner Zephyr, in which some of the crew were murdered. Negotiations were opened with the Natives, the captain of an American trading vessel acting as interpreter; but the murderers were not captured. There was no actual encounter with the Natives, but some boats and buts were destroyed. The Sandfly visited Tapona in September, when the Natives evinced a friendly disposition; but they suddenly made an attempt on the schooner, which compelled the lieutenant in command to fire. Sixteen canoes and two villages were destroyed, and it was stated that only one Native was killed. In September the vessel visited Santa Cruz, and upon her arrival was immediately surrounded by 200 canoes, with a Native in each. A native acted as interpreter, and informed the islanders, in reply to their questions, that the schooner was a man-of-war. They disbelieved him, and commenced a fierce attack, which failed, and the commanding officer fired upon them and destroyed some villages and canoes. The number killed was not stated, but the Natives were said to have suffered severely. There were no casualties on board the Sandfly. He was not at all satisfied that the retaliatory measures taken were not too severe, and he had sent for a report on the subject from the Commodore in charge of the station.

NAVY—H. M. SHIPS—CORK MATTRESSES.—QUESTION.
CAPTAIN PIMasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, "Whether there have been complaints of want of buoyancy and stability in Her Majesty's ships; and, whether, considering the acknowledged efficiency of cork mattresses for the purpose of saving life at sea in cases of fire, wreck, or foundering, it is the intention of the Admiralty to introduce these mattresses generally in Her Majesty's Naval Service?
MR. HUNT, in reply, said, he was not aware of any complaints of the nature referred to; but if any had reached the hon. Member he should be happy to have them passed on to him. The question of the introduction of cork mattresses had recently been under consideration and experiments directed to be made. It was found that when cork mattresses had once become damp, either from the state of the atmosphere or otherwise, it was exceedingly difficult to dry them again; and, under those circumstances, they were not thought suitable for the naval service.

ARMY—AGE OF RECRUITS TO INDIA.—QUESTION.
COLONEL MUREasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether, either by General Order, War Office Circular, Private Memorandum, or any other method, the age at which soldiers may go to India has been relaxed to one year after enlistment or nineteen years of age?
MR. GATHORNE HARDY: Sir, if the hon. and gallant Gentleman had looked into the Parliamentary Papers, he would have become acquainted with one which was presented in June, 1872, by Lord Cardwell—namely, the Report of the Committee who had been appointed to consider the age at which recruits should be sent to India. The Committee consisted of Major-General Edwards and other officers. Having considered the question, they recommended as follows:—
"It remains to consider with respect to the Medical Examination of these drafts, which, last season, was based first upon the actual age of 20, whether it might not be desirable to substitute a certain length of service, whereby the physical constitution of the recruits may become fully known, for a simple declaration of age
1608
which is often deceptive. The Committee having ascertained that the declared age shown in the recruit's attestation can be no sufficient guide, as it is in the recruit's power to make that declaration according to his desire to proceed abroad, and that this declaration cannot be proved in most cases by baptismal certificate, nor can any experienced medical officer give any definite opinion as to the age between 18 and 22 years, recommend that till the new organization has come fully into play, the decision of the fitness for foreign service rest, not upon declared age, but the knowledge of the physical constitution of each man, acquired by not less than a period of 12 months' effective service, which can be fully ascertained by the commanding officer, and surgeon in medical charge of the regiment or depôt."
Upon that recommendation a letter was issued from the Horse Guards, I think in 1872, containing the following regulations:—
"The men to compose these drafts are to be selected in the following order:—1, Men who have completed one year's service and have not been to India; 2, men of less service, but who will be 20 years old and have completed their drill by the above date; 3, men who have served in India and are fit to return, but no such men who have been sent home as invalids are to be again embarked before they have completed one year's service at home. The men to embark must be in every respect fit for service, and no man is to be included in these drafts who has less than 18 months to serve of the term for which he enlisted, unless (in the case of men in their first term) he is eligible and willing to reengage."
These regulations have been acted upon since 1872.

MERCANTILE MARINE—ST. TUDWALL'S ROAD LIGHTHOUSE.

  QUESTION.
  MR. HOLLANDasked the President of the Board of Trade, When will the promised Lighthouse proposed to be erected at St. Tudwall's be commenced, several shipwrecks and disasters to shipping in Cardigan Bay having occurred this winter for want of it?
  SIR CHARLES ADDERLEY: Sir, the Trinity House informs me that the plant is being prepared, and that they hope to commence the work this season.

MERCHANT SHIPPING ACTS—THE STEAMSHIP "THORNABY."

  QUESTION.
  MR. PLIMSOLLasked the President of the Board of Trade, If his attention has been called to the case of the steamship "Thornaby," lost with all hands,

  1609
  twenty-nine, which sailed from Cardiff for Bombay on the 10th of December, she having a mean clear side of 2 feet 10½ inches only, though drawing 19 feet 10 inches forward and 21 feet 2 inches aft, and having on board 2,122 tons of coal and patent fuel, her net register tonnage being 957 tons; and, whether he is prepared to institute a prosecution against the owners on a charge of sending a ship to sea unseaworthy by reason of her excessive over-loading?
  SIR CHARLES ADDERLEY: Sir, I believe the ship Thornaby is lost, and probably with all hands. Before she left Cardiff she was reported by the Board of Trade surveyor as heavily laden; but owing to the length of her poop and forecastle he did not think it necessary to telegraph for immediate authority to stop her. He communicated by post, and it was then too late for the Board of Trade to take any steps further than to communicate the nature of the surveyor's report to the owners. We have now put the Papers in connection with the subject in the hands of the solicitor of the Department, and an inquiry is proceeding, and it will depend upon the issue of that inquiry whether there shall be material for a prosecution.
  In reply to Mr. GOSCHEN,
  MR. HUNTsaid, that Captain Fairfax's Report had been sent to the papers as being matter of public interest.

IRELAND—ROYAL IRISH CONSTA-BULARY.—QUESTION.
MR. O'SHAUGHNESSYasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to introduce a Bill during the present Session regulating, not merely for a period of twelve months but until further legislation, the Pay and Pensions of the Royal Irish Constabulary; and, at what time of the Session he intends introducing any measure on the subject?
SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH, in reply, said, that the section of the Act of last Session regulating the pay of the Royal Irish Constabulary had been made temporary, in order to afford time to the Government to consider the question of the incidence of the expenditure upon that body. The question was under the consideration of the Government, and if he had any proposals to make with regard
1610
to it which would necessitate a change in the law he would make them in proper time for full consideration by the House.

MASTER AND SERVANTS ACT—CASE OF LUKE HILLS.—QUESTION.
MR. P. A. TAYLORasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he has received a memorial from St. John's Common, Sussex, signed by 1,302 persons, calling his attention to the case of Luke Hills, an agricultural labourer sentenced by the Cuckfield magistrates to three months' imprisonment on a charge of breach of contract,; and, whether, taking into consideration the peculiar circumstances of the case, and the fact that the man has already been imprisoned for about a month, he will recommend that the rest of his sentence should be remitted? There was some mistake in the Answer which the Secretary of State gave the other day on this subject. Therefore, he wished to know whether the right hon. Gentleman was aware that a communication from the Home Office was sent on Monday, the 8th, the day before he gave his answer to the memorialists, which stated that Mr. Secretary Cross had thoroughly examined the question and was unable to comply with the prayer thereof?
MR. ASSHETON CROSS: What I stated, Sir, was perfectly true—namely, that my attention had been called to this matter by the Question of my hon. Friend, and that when I asked for Papers they were placed in my hands that very morning. I was not aware that a letter had been sent. But the matter has been very carefully investigated, and I am not aware that there are any very peculiar circumstances in the case. The man was not an agricultural labourer, but a carter, and was brought up under the Master and Servants Act because, having been engaged for 12 months, and, although warned not to do so, he gave a fortnight's notice. His master proceeded against him, not for fine, but because his horses were left idle, and he had thus incurred damages to the extent of £10 The master asked for a fine of only £5. The magistrates, after very carefully considering the case, came, in my opinion, to a very proper decision—that the master had a perfect right to have damages awarded to the extent of £5, and 18 s. 2d.

1611
costs, not £3 18 s. 2d., as stated in the memorial. It is quite true that, in default of payment, the man was sentenced to be imprisoned, with hard labour, for three calendar months. Having taken this into consideration and considering also that the Commission on the Labour Laws have come to an unanimous conclusion that matters of breach of contract should be treated simply as civil questions, and not as criminal questions, I will consider how far the remaining portion of the sentence may be remitted. The Report of the Commission is not in the hands of the magistrates; but I will consider whether the sentence shall be remitted in order that the man shall not be put at a disadvantage because he happened to be convicted just before this Report was made.
MR. P. A. TAYLORgave Notice that on going into Committee of Supply on Friday, the 19th, he would call attention to the case of Luke Hills, and move that an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that She would be graciously pleased to grant him a free pardon.
MR. ASSHETON CROSS: The hon. Gentleman must have misunderstood me. What I stated was that it was under my consideration how much of the sentence ought to be remitted, and probably long before the hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity of bringing the matter before the House it will be entirely settled.

EMPLOYMENT OF YOUNG CHILDREN—CRIMINAL LAW—DANGEROUS EXHIBITIONS.—QUESTION.
MR. WILSONasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been called to the employment of young children at public entertainments in a manner dangerous to their lives or otherwise; and if he will consider the advisability of making such regulations as will lessen the risk or prohibit these performances?
MR. ASSHETON CROSS, in reply, said, his attention had been called to the subject. The invariable practice had been in the first instance to send a warning to the parties concerned that they would be held responsible for any damage that might occur. That warning had been almost always attended to. No complaints relating to this subject
1612
had been brought under the notice of the Home Office of late; but if his hon. Friend would bring under his notice any case he would undertake that a proper warning should be sent to the parties.
MR. WILSONsaid, he understood that a child engaged in connection with a Chinese troupe at Stoke-upon-Trent had been injured.

NAVY—H.M.S. "VOLAGE."

  QUESTION.
  MR. GORSTasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether his attention has been called to the following Report of Captain Fairfax, as to the behaviour of Her Majesty's ship "Volage," under his command, on a voyage from the Cape to Kerguelen Island:—
  "All the poop cabins were deeply flooded, and on several occasions the depth of water on the lee side of the quarter-deck was such as to cover the guns, and two men were carried off their logs, washed over the guns, and nearly over the netting. The freeing ports under the gun-ports relieved the ship very soon of the water; without them such an immense weight of water, accumulating each roll and rushing from side to side, would have been most serious. As neither I nor any officer in this ship had seen a vessel ship water in this way, perhaps you may think fit to draw their Lordships' attention to it;"
  and, who was the designer of the "Volage," and how many other ships in Her Majesty's Navy, whether composite or ironclad, are built upon the same scientific plan?
  MR. HUNT: Sir, I have read the letter from Captain Fairfax to which my hon. Friend refers. The designer of the Volage was the late Chief Constructor of the Navy (Mr. E. J. Reed), whom I have the pleasure of seeing opposite. There is another ship in the service, the Active, which is similar to the Volage. I have to state, however, that my hon. Friend has not read out that part of the Report of Captain Fairfax in which he describes the seas in which the ship was in as exceptionally heavy. I have to inform my hon. Friend that this ship was built for great speed, and that ships built for speed cannot be expected to keep as dry as other ships. I believe that Captain Fairfax has never been in a ship of that kind before. I have special means of knowing something about the Volage, because the gallant officer who acts as my private Secretary (Captain M. C. Seymour) commanded her some time

  1613
  back; and he reports to me that he considered her a perfectly safe and sound ship. The Volage served one commission in the detached squadron, and both captain and admiral reported extremely well of her.
  MR. GOSCHENasked in what Report the statement was made?
  MR. HUNTsaid, Captain Fairfax had been engaged to conduct an observation of the Transit of Venus, and had furnished to the Admiralty an official Report of his proceedings in that service. The subject was of so much interest that it was deemed advisable to send copies of his Report to the newspapers.

PARLIAMENT—THE EASTER RECESS BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. DISRAELI: It may perhaps be convenient that I should refer to the probable state of Business before Easter, and a few days after Easter, so that the House may know as accurately as possible the situation. I hope the discussion on going into Committee upon the Artizans Dwellings Bill will be concluded to-night, and in that case the Bill will be proceeded with in Committee on Thursday next. The Friendly Societies Bill will be in Committee tomorrow, and the Regimental Exchanges Bill will be the first Order on Monday. I trust we shall pass it through Committee on that day; if not—but I will not anticipate such a result—we may have to ask the House to consent to an arrangement of another character. The Peace Preservation Bill will be the first Order on Monday, the 22nd, and we intend to proceed with it until the House adjourns, on Thursday, the 25th instant, until Monday, the 5th of April. On the latter day we propose to take Supply. On Thursday, the 8th of April, we shall propose the second reading of the Merchant Shipping Acts Amendment Bill, and we shall take it as the first Order of the Day. On Thursday, the 15th of April, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will make his Financial Statement.
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: It is most important that the measures which have been introduced by the Government should not be placed on the
  1614
  Paper as second Orders. Last Monday the Regimental Exchanges Bill was put down as the second Order, and a great number of hon. Gentlemen were kept here at considerable inconvenience to themselves until a late hour in the expectation that the Bill would come on. This evening the first Order is the Navy Estimates, which usually give rise to a protracted discussion, while the Artizans Dwellings Bill is put down as the second Order. To-morrow I understand the same course is to be followed; and, after a discussion on going into Supply, the Friendly Societies Bill is to be discussed at a late hour of the evening. Confining my attention for the present to the Artizans Dwellings Bill, I would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, looking at the fact that there are two very important Motions on the Question that the Speaker do leave the Chair, it would be convenient to attempt to enter into a discussion upon that Bill?
  MR. DISRAELI: I quite agree with the noble Lord that it is very desirable that every measure of the Government should stand as the first Order of the Day; but that is impossible, especially with a Government which has many important measures. The noble Lord is, I think, completely mistaken in supposing that discussions on the Navy Estimates absorb the whole night, for I think, on the average, they are brought to a close about half-past 10 or 11 o'clock, and the noble Lord will hardly think that is too late to proceed with business of grave interest. I think that, on the whole, the noble Lord will find that the arrangements of the Government are most convenient for the House to adopt. I can truly say that the convenience of the House is always considered in making them consistent with the progress of Public Business, and, indeed, the progress of Public Business is a common cause. Of course, I shall be very glad, whenever I possibly can, to meet the views of the noble Lord by putting our measures as first Orders of the Day; but I believe that, in practice, it will be found very difficult in every case to make arrangements of that kind.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERasked if the Friendly Societies Bill would be taken after 11 to-morrow?
  MR. DISRAELI: No.

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

INCOME TAX—EXEMPTIONS.

  RESOLUTION.
  MR. SANDFORDrose to move—
  "That, in the opinion of this House, incomes not exceeding £300 per annum should be exempted from the payment of Income Tax."
  The hon. Gentleman remarked that, considering the exemptions proposed by Mr. Pitt, Sir Robert Peel, the right hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Gladstone), and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of London (Mr. Lowe), he did not think it was too much to ask the House to exempt incomes up to that amount. He believed the income tax was a proper tax if fairly levied, and if it were repealed the revenue would be mainly derived from the Customs and Excise duties. The burden would then fall almost exclusively on the shoulders of the working classes. If there were one class more than another interested in the maintenance of the income tax, it was the county Members. Now, if they endeavoured to shift the burden of local taxation and place it on the Imperial Exchequer, he believed such a system would not be tolerated for one moment. While the working classes at any period of national prosperity shared that prosperity by a rise in wages, people with fixed incomes suffered by the rise in prices. To repeal the income tax on incomes not exceeding £300 a-year would, he calculated, not cost more than £300,000 or £350,000 a-year, and he did not know how relief could be so largely afforded to a suffering class by any other similar remission of taxation. He did not appeal to this House on behalf of any wealthy classes or interests, but for a class upon whom direct taxation pressed most severely, and he hoped that he should not appeal in vain. The hon. Member concluded by moving his Resolution.
  LORD ARTHUR RUSSELLseconded the Amendment.
  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, incomes not
  1616
  exceeding £300 per annum should be exempted from the payment of Income Tax,"—(Mr. Sandford,)
  —instead thereof.
  MR. HERMONmust oppose the Motion, fearing that it would put recipients of £300 a-year to much trouble and vexation in proving their exemption, and would be as bad as paying the tax. The chief objection to the income tax was its inquisitorial character. Apart from this objection it was a fair tax.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he did not object to the discussion of financial questions at whatever time seemed convenient to hon. Members; but it would be very inconvenient for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to enter prematurely into these discussions, raising as they did many important points connected with Imperial taxation. With respect to the principle involved in the Amendment of the hon. Member, it was a principle which had been admitted ever since we had an income tax—that was, that there should be some limit of income below which people should not have to pay the tax. The precise limit, however, raised a question of a very delicate and difficult character, and one which ought to be approached with sufficient preparation, and at a time when the attention of the House was directed to subjects of this kind. He thought that at the present moment the House was hardly prepared to enter into a full consideration of all the points which had been raised; and therefore he hoped his hon. Friend would feel that it was from no want of respect to him or appreciation of the importance of the question that he asked to be excused from entering now into any discussion of the question. To adopt such a Resolution as had been proposed was, in the first place, rather to anticipate and settle the question as to the permanence of the tax itself, a question to be discussed at the proper time; and, secondly, it raised a great number of questions which ought to be discussed when the whole finance of the country was before the House, and they could deal with the subject as a whole. He hoped, therefore, that the House would consent now to proceed with the business of the Navy Estimates, and that his hon. Friend would reserve any other discussion on this subject till the 15th of April, when practical proposals would

  1617
  be submitted on the part of the Government, and that of his hon. Friend might be brought forward in opposition to or in competition with them.
  MR. HANKEYsaid, that, according to the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the time being, Motions like that submitted by the hon. Member were never submitted at the right time. When brought forward before the Budget they were too soon, and after the Budget they were too late. Having acted for many years as an Income Tax Commissioner in the City of London, he did not agree with the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Hermon) that there would be much practical difficulty in proving the exemption. He trusted that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would, before making his Financial Statement, give the question his serious consideration, with a view to bringing about some relief from the tax. What he would himself propose would be to exempt everybody up to a certain point, which he thought would be a very equitable mode of dealing with the matter.
  MR. WHITWELLsaid, the circumstances were very different when the limit of exemption was fixed, and therefore the minimum below which incomes were not charged ought to be raised. He trusted the Chancellor of the Exchequer would take this matter into serious consideration in making his financial proposals.
  Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  The House divided:—Ayes 213; Noes 77: Majority 136.

NAVY—OFFICERS OF THE ROYAL MARINES.—OBSERVATIONS.
MR. GORSTrose to call the attention of the House to the present unsatisfactory position of the Officers of the Royal Marine Corps. The hon. Gentleman said, it was not now, by the Forms of the House, in his power to ask hon. Members to express an opinion on this important subject by a formal Resolution, but he trusted that he should be able to elicit the views of the House respecting it; and he did not anticipate any reluctance on the part of the Government to promise their attention to the matter. Before
1618
he proceeded to the details of his case he would make a few general observations on the Marine service, in order to show that that service had disadvantages attached to it which were capable of being mitigated. At the present moment active routine service afloat was, unfortunately, not popular amongst the officers, and it was easy to see why that should be the case. Officers of Marines were placed under the command of officers belonging to an unsympathetic branch of the service. Their position and duties on board ship were not very clearly defined; they were, of necessity, under the command of the senior officer of the sea branch of the service, and they were often interfered with in a disagreeable manner. The effect was that active service, which was so much coveted in all other branches, whether of the Army or Navy, was not much sought after by the officers of the Marines. Of course, when they were afloat they discharged their duties to the best of their ability, and no complaints against them, so far as he knew, had over been made. But though they served efficiently they did not like it. In their peculiar position, being neither of the Army nor of the Navy, Marine officers were deprived of those opportunities of distinction which formed the attraction of the services—they had no power to win those honours which were the object and the admiration of both Army and Navy. Besides this, they had no collateral advantages—no employment on Commissions or Scientific Committees, or in any of the lucrative civil posts which fell to the lot of the officers of the Artillery and the Engineers. It seemed to him that the officers of the Marines had all the disadvantages which appertained to service in the Army and Navy and none of the advantages. He did not say that it was possible, from the nature of the service, for any arrangement to be made by which all their grievances could be remedied; but he was anxious to draw attention to those which were capable of being mitigated, if not done away with altogether. It was generally supposed that the Royal Marines had good pay, regular duty, and better retirement allowances than other branches of the service; but he would ask the House to consider how far the present system secured the promotion and retirement which were the sole inducement for its officers to enter

1619
the service? If they looked at the actual position of the officers of the Royal Marines they would find that the subalterns had scarcely any chance of promotion or advancement. In 1860 there was an increase of 104 in the officers of Marines and in 1870 a scheme was settled for their promotion and retirement which greatly affected the position of all the officers in the service. That scheme was accompanied by a great reduction of officers. The number of men remained unaltered—it was 14,000 in 1869, and it was 14,000 still; but the number of officers in the Light Infantry in 1869 was reduced by 61, and in 1870 by 33, making altogether 94; which, out of a total of 287, it must be admitted was a very considerable reduction. He found on inquiry that the senior lieutenants in the Marine Light Infantry had all been in the service more than 15 years, and since 1870 only 16 lieutenants had been promoted to the rank of captain, and in the present year only one. In the next five years there would be only a promotion of 18 lieutenants, and if they carried their view to the end of the five years the senior would have been 20 years in the service without attaining a single step in promotion, he would be 40 years of age, and he would be receiving the munificent pay of 7s. 6d. a-day. He would ask the House whether it was reasonable, when men served for 20 years in a profession without making a single step in promotion, and received no more than 7s. 6d. a-day, to expect them to be much attached to their profession, or to serve with much zeal and activity? The lowest pay of officers of corresponding rank in the Navy was 10 s. a-day, and the highest pay of the Marine Lieutenant was 7s. 6d., a fact which of itself placed the latter in an entirely inferior position. But those who obtained captaincies did not find that they had much bettered themselves. The present senior captain had been 29 years in the service, and the 25 senior captains had all served more than 24 years. Since 1870 only eight captains had been promoted to the rank of lieutenant-colonel, and there would be no more promotions until September, 1876; so that for a year and a-half there would literally be no promotions, and in the whole of the next five years only 11. At the end of that time the senior captain would have served 31 years, and
1620
the senior lieutenant 20 years. It was evident, then, that promotion in the Marines was decidedly slow. Under these circumstances, it was not surprising that the captains should take means, if possible, to accelerate their promotion; and the other night the hon. Member for Glasgow (Mr. Anderson) pounced on two unfortunate captains of Marines, who were charged with purchasing, or trying to purchase, the retirement of one of their seniors. The zeal of that hon. Member in the public interest no doubt entitled him to admiration, and the First Lord of the Admiralty very properly said he would take steps to put a stop to the practice supposed to exist. It would have been better, however, to have shown equal zeal in order to put a stop to the present stagnation of promotion, which was the cause of the misconduct—if it could be so regarded—of these two captains. A few captains did get promoted to lieutenant-colonelcies, but they did not find that a state of advantage and unmixed satisfaction under the present regulations. The great prize of the service was the position of colonel-commandant, which a senior captain of not less than 30 years service might hope to obtain. The pay, however, was only £1 a-day, and by some evident mistake the colonel-commandant of Marine Light Infantry got 6s. 3d. a-day less than the colonel-commandant of Marine Artillery. This he supposed to be a mistake made in drafting the orders, because there was no such difference in other ranks. Thus the difference between the pay of a lieutenant of Marines and a lieutenant of Light Infantry was only 4d. per day, in the next rank it was 6d., then 1s. 6d., and then came this extraordinary difference of 6s. 3d. Then in the matter of retirement they were placed also at a disadvantage. While the age at which admirals and rear-admirals had that privilege was fixed at 60 and 65, in the Marines the age for general officers was fixed at 70. The quartermasters, who were the only commissioned officers who rose from the ranks were subjected to a similar injustice. Since the year 1857, whilst 20,000 Marines passed through the ranks only five had obtained commissions, and two of these had been waiting no less than 18 years. Thus the attraction held out in all other branches of the service was practically denied to the Marines. He thought he had given figures enough to

1621
show that there was a great stagnation of promotion among the officers of the Royal Marines. It was not exactly his duty to point out how this block might be remedied. That was a question for the consideration of the Government. But the custom existing in the Navy showed very clearly and very simply the remedy that might be supplied. All that was wanted was, to make the senior officers of Marines retire at the same age as the corresponding officers of the Navy; to do away with the position and rank of reserve colonel altogether, and to give to the captains, as we gave to the lieutenants in the Navy, a bonus of £75 a-year, adding to it a regulation that the total retiring allowance should not exceed a certain sum. That would immediately clear the lists, and create a healthy and steady flow of promotion. He would also give a retirement sum to the quartermasters as well as to the other officers. These simple measures would, in his opinion, remove the discontent and despair existing among the subalterns and captains, and quicken their zeal and their devotion to the service. Very probably, although the Government would admit the correctness of his statements and the aptness of his remedy, they would put in a claim for delay. Well, all he could say in that case was that delay was dangerous. Many of the officers who were now suffering injustice would soon have to retire, and no justice could then be done to them. But apart altogether from that, delay would increase the prevailing discontent, and cause it to pervade the whole corps, so that when the remedy came to be applied that discontent would not easily be removed. When, as in the present case, they had a large body of men suffering under a real grievance, it was desirable to relieve that grievance as soon as possible. But he might be told that there was a Commission sitting just now on the question of Army Promotion, and that it would be undesirable to deal with the question of promotion in the Marines until that Commission had presented its Report. In reply to that he would urge that the Commission had nothing to do with the Marines, nor had the Commissioners any jurisdiction in respect to promotion in the Marines. The case of the Marines was so entirely different from that of the rest of the Army, and promotion in the
1622
Marines was so different from promotion in the Army generally, that no prejudice to anyone could arise from dealing with the case of the Marines, quite irrespective of what the Report of the Commission might be. He had some figures which would at once make his case clear, and illustrate the difference in the rate of promotion between the Army and the Marines. The average service of captains and majors in the Cavalry was 17 years; in the Infantry 19 years; while of captains in the Marines it was 22 years, an average which would now be enormously increased. The average service of lieutenants in the Cavalry was five years; in the Infantry eight years; whilst in the Marines it was 10 years; and from the causes mentioned they would now serve longer in the Marines. The promotion in this corps was the slowest in the Army. Then, again, during the last five years one officer in 33 had been promoted to the rank of lieutenant-colonel in the Artillery and Engineers, as contrasted with one officer in 75 in the Marines. The captains, moreover, came out quite as bad, for in the Artillery and Engineers the promotion of lieutenants and captains was I in 20 as contrasted with 1 in 45 in the Marines. These figures proved that promotion in the Marines was twice as slow as in the Artillery and Engineers. It was altogether unreasonable to say that promotion in the Marines should not be accelerated for fear it should make it faster than it was in the Army. Delay might be urged upon another ground—namely, that reform would cause a slight increase of annual expenditure by the Treasury; but that surely was no valid reason to urge against the improvement of the service. Everybody must admit the truth of the facts he had submitted. Everybody, moreover, must recognize the importance of putting the important branch of the service to which he was alluding in a proper state of efficiency. Officers who had joined the Marines ought not to be left to despair of promotion, or to have the feeling confirmed in them that their branch of the service was not sufficiently recognised by the country. Both sides of the House must desire that these men should have a fair position secured to them. He would therefore leave the matter in the hands of the Government, trusting that they would take it into their considera

1623
tion on the ground that the present condition of things was unsatisfactory, and therefore adverse to the efficiency of the public service.
MR. ANDERSONsaid, the hon. Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst) had passed some strictures upon a question which he had put to the House a few days ago; but the hon. Gentleman apparently did not know the grievance of which he complained. The circumstances were that there was a captain who was to be put on compulsory retirement on account of reaching the age of 48; but he having found a lieutenant-colonel who agreed to retire before his time, the captain got a step and a lease of six years' longer service. The effect of that moneyed transaction on the junior officers was that, whereas they would have got one step in a month and a second in about a year, yet as now arranged they got one step now, but they would not get their second step for six years, and therefore they were defrauded of that promotion which they had every reason to expect. He admitted it was a little hard that a captain should be obliged to retire at 48, as a man had still a good deal of fight left in him at that age; but he was very doubtful whether the hon. Member for Chatham would be successful in obtaining any improvement in the position of the Marine officers from the present Government, as they had that day given himself a reply about the Navy which was not encouraging.
GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURsaid, he thought that the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty might, with great propriety, take into his consideration the best mode of improving the position of the officers of our Marine corps. There was no corps in the service where the pecuniary advantages of officers was so small, and where the promotion was so much retarded. He was convinced that if the Government would endeavour to effect a flow of promotion it would not be necessary to interfere with the previous arrangements which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Pontefract had made. He could testify to this fact, that there was no branch of the military service with so few officers above the rank of captain as in the Marines, and there was no branch of the service which could supply so many privates or gunners
1624
at so moderate a rate per head as the marines now furnished. This was entirely owing to the far greater proportion of captains and subalterns to senior officers than existed in any other branch of the service. It was also mainly due to the few head-quarters of corps, and to the diminished number of companies which to the other branches of the service so greatly increased the charges. It would be easy to show this by merely comparing the number of battalions and companies into which the privates of the Marines would be distributed if they were organized in the expensive form followed by the infantry of the Line. He would therefore urge that it was wise to maintain the existing great disproportion of senior officers, but to counterbalance the evils which must follow in having slow promotion for the rank of captain, it was only just that openings for retiring old officers should be provided to a greater extent than at present, in view to guard the Marine service from those evils which must attach to captains and subalterns of long service and advanced age.
SIR EARDLEY WILMOTcordially joined in the appeal to the Government to take the just grievances of a gallant body of men into their consideration. During the last year and a-half he had had frequent opportunities of coming into contact with officers of the Marines, and he was firmly convinced that their complaints were not without foundation. They had the authority of a distinguished officer for saying that the exertions of the Marines at the Gold Coast laid the foundation of the victories which ensued afterwards.
MR. CHILDERSbelieved there was no more gallant body of men either in the Army or the Navy than the Marines, and none whose well-being ought to be more attended to by the Government. There was, moreover, nothing that he would see with greater regret than any weakening of the efficiency of that most valuable corps. But as to what the hon. Member for Chatham had said with reference to the disinclination of these officers for sea service, he must give it the most absolute contradiction. It was the primary duty of the Marines to serve afloat, and when in office he had never found that there was any reluctance on the part of parents to place their sons in that corps, or any indisposition on the part of young

1625
officers to remain in it. The Marines, however, were not, as the hon. Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst) appeared to think, merely a branch of the Navy. They stood between the Navy and the Army; their organization was military, while their services were chiefly naval, and in making arrangements for promotion in, and retirement from, a corps of that kind they had to consider what relation those arrangements bore to the corresponding arrangements, not only for the Navy, but also for the Army. He was Chairman of a Committee of that House, which in 1867 entered very minutely into that very case of the Marines which the hon. Member now brought forward. That Committee had to inquire into promotion and retirement in connection with the Artillery and Engineers, as well as with the Marines. But anyone dealing with the question would be met at once with this difficulty—that in the Army the officers were on their regular active service up to the rank of colonel or general; whereas in the Marines it hardly ever happened, except in the case of great expeditions, that officers of higher rank than subalterns and captains went to sea at all, field officers being only employed in garrison towns at home, and hence arose the main difficulty of the case. In 1867, when the Committee made their inquiry, there was no certain rule for retirement from the Marines except that officers commanding divisions of that corps had to retire at the age of 60 unless the Admiralty thought it desirable to retain them. The system then existing was, as the Committee reported, "complicated, uncertain, and based on no principle"; and they recommended that there should be a code of regulations under which officers of different ranks should be compelled to retire after certain ages, their pensions being on a graduated scale, much exceeding the former rate. When he afterwards went to the Admiralty he had to carry that out in the best way he could. The hon. Member for Chatham seemed to think that a great reduction was made by him in the number of officers when these rules were promulgated. Technically the hon. Gentleman was right; but that reduction had nothing to do with the new rules, except that it took place within a year of their coming into force. It was the result of the re
1626
ductions made in the number of men in 1867 and 1868 by his predecessor; and all that he did in 1869 was to bring down the number of officers in the Marines to the proper proportion with the number of men. He found a draught Order in Council on his table when he went to the Admiralty, and he carried it out in 1869. But it must not be forgotten that the arrangements of 1870 were a very great improvement on those previously in force, which provided no compulsory retirement except for officers commanding divisions above 60 years of age, unless the Admiralty thought proper to retain their services. If the former system, or no system had been now in force, there would have been the most gloomy outlook for the officers, whose promotion would have appeared hopeless. The complaint now was rather that the compulsory retirement was enforced at a too early age than that promotion was at too late a period of service. When, therefore, the hon. Member for Chatham spoke of the present age being high, and the present years of service being long, he was bound to say that, looking at the state of the Marines in past times, if it had not been for the Rules of 1870 the stagnation in the corps would have been two or three times as great as it was now. The principles laid down in that Order in Council and by the Committee of 1867 were the only principles on which any self-acting system of retirement could be carried out. They were principles which they hoped to see applied to the Army, which had been applied to the Navy, and which, after a few years' working, would have a satisfactory effect. What he would suggest was that anything which was done to improve the conditions of retirement from the Marine Corps should be done at the same time, and, to a certain extent, though not wholly, on the same lines as any improvement with regard to the Army. There was a Commission now sitting to inquire into the subject of Rules for retirement in the Army, and his impression was strong that those Rules would be of a liberal character and would provide for a considerable amount of compulsory retirement. He thought that, with the Report of this Commission before them, and keeping in view the principles of the Orders in Council of

1627
1870, as recommended by the Select Committee, the Board of Admiralty would have no difficulty in dealing with the comparatively moderate grievances complained of by the senior officers, especially the senior captains, of Marines.
SIR JOHN HAYsaid, his hon. Friend the Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst) had omitted to allude to one point of some importance. He (Sir John Hay) was a Member of the Committee referred to by the right hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. Childers), and had the Report of that Committee been carried out, the subject would have been in a very different state from what it was now in. It was quite evident that if the rank of major had been given to the Marines, as it had been restored to the Artillery and Engineers, the officers in question would be placed in a position more like that which they ought to have at the age they had attained, and which would hold out to them some chance of promotion. This would be only a temporary remedy, he knew. Allusion had been made as to the difficulty of employing Marines as field officers, but it had been found perfectly practicable and useful to give them employment.

NAVY—THE "BRITANNIA"—CADET TRAINING SHIP.—OBSERVATIONS.
MR. BASSdrew the attention of the First Lord of the Admiralty to a report, published in The United Service Gazette, of five naval cadets having been flogged on board the Britannia training-ship. Flogging had been abolished in the Army, but it still flourished in the Navy. In the last week in October, five cadets were flogged for fagging, and, setting aside all other considerations, it was a question whether it was legal on the part of the Admiralty to take the course which they had adopted. In 1867 this question was brought before the House of Commons, when the late Mr. Corry was First Lord of the Admiralty, and after some discussion, Mr. Corry stated that the Admiralty had come to this conclusion—that the punishment of flogging on board the Britannia should be now discontinued, and an Order to that effect was issued on the 8th of June, 1867. He (Mr. Bass) was decidedly against the flogging of young
1628
men who in a short time would be themselves in command. Flogging would never contribute to the improvement of the discipline of the Navy. It had been abolished in the Army—why should it be continued in the Navy? Those young men who had been thus publicly flogged would feel the degradation as long as they lived. He hoped they would hear from the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord, either that these punishments should not be repeated, or the grounds upon which it was considered expedient to break the decision of 1867, to which he had adverted, and to renew that which was disapproved of by the parents of the cadets and by the majority of the country.

NAVY—WARRANT OFFICERS.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  CAPTAIN G. E. PRICErose to call the attention of the House to the present unsatisfactory position of the Warrant Officers of the Navy. The hon. and gallant Gentleman said, those officers performed duties that were both onerous and responsible. In years gone by they used to rank next to the captain of the ship, and at present, they took sole charge of the ship during the watch. The Commission on the Manning of the Navy, appointed in 1859, had spoken of them in eulogistic terms. The warrant officers had been described on very high authority as being the backbone of the Navy, and it was, therefore, very desirable that their position should be made satisfactory to them. The subject was really more important than it appeared on the surface, because it was related to the larger question of manning the Navy. By improving the position of the warrant officers, a considerable check would be placed upon the desertion of our seamen to another English-speaking nation. It was well-known that great difficulty was at present experienced in getting the best men to become warrant officers, the principal reason being because there was not sufficient inducement held out to them. What they required was increased pay. At present on being appointed they received 5s. 6d. per diem, and during the whole of their service did not receive any addition to it: and what they asked for was 6s. a-day to begin with, with a rise of 1s a-day at the end of every five years' service

  1629
  up to the 18th year, when they would retire with the rank of chief gunner or chief boatswain. There were several reasons why, independently of the good effect it was likely to have upon the Navy, these requests should be complied with. In the first place, when on shore they were no longer employed on harbour duty, which they regarded as a kind of pension. It should be remembered, too, that since the present scale of pay of the warrant officers was fixed the price of the necessaries of life had risen some 45 per cent. and that the petty officers who in our Navy received £40 a-year, received £62 in the American Navy. Their position, too, relatively to the other officers was not a comfortable one. The commissioned officers could not associate with them, and they could not associate with the petty officers, so that the three officers on board a ship-of-war were limited to their own society. On some ships there were only two, and should any disagreement arise between them, each would be in an isolated position; and he knew that good seamen refused to go in for their warrant because of this seclusion. He complained that the Royal Warrant of 1853, which provided for the promotion of warrant officers to the rank of lieutenant, with a donation of £100 for outfit, had never been carried out. He would like to see that warrant acted upon once or twice a-year, and would recommend that the officers so promoted should be put in command of gunboats, or have appointments in the coast service. There would be more than a mere "bubble" in the reputation to be gained by such promotion, as it would render the sons of the warrant officers so advanced eligible for positions to which they could not otherwise aspire. He might mention that as between the present year and the year 1870 there was a reduction in the number of warrant officers from 1,063 to 860, and a saving under the head of £10,000 in the Estimates of this year; while the number of seamen in the Navy had been increased by over 1,000. The men desired to retire from the service at the age of 45, but he, himself, thought they ought to serve until 50. He was sure Her Majesty's Government felt the importance of the subject, and regarded it as one which merited their consideration.
  MR. BRUCEconcurred in the views expressed by his hon. and gallant Friend, and observed that the expenses of the warrant officers were now considerably greater now than they formerly were. It ought not to be forgotten that the warrant officers were the backbone of the Navy. Upon their efficiency and trustworthiness the discipline of the ships, under the control of their superior officers, rested; and it was, therefore, of the utmost importance to secure the services of a trustworthy, intelligent, and steady class of men. The inducements now held out for that purpose were not, in his opinion, sufficient. If the Navy was called into active service, the ranks of the warrant officers must be filled up by men who would require great care and exertion on the part of those placed over them to bring them rapidly into a state of efficiency. It was of much importance that the position should be made sufficiently attractive to induce the best men to look forward to attaining it. He trusted that the Admiralty would feel justified in taking the case of these warrant officers into their favourable consideration, and he felt certain that in so doing they would receive the support of the House.

NAVY—SWIMMING—OBSERVATIONS.
SIR WILLIAM FRASERsaid, that, having been for 15 years a member of the Committee of the Royal Humane Society, it had come to his knowledge that by far the greater number of seamen in Her Majesty's Navy were unable to swim. He had received a letter from a gentleman on board one of our largest line-of-battle ships, who said that when she came into the harbour at Gibraltar, it was found that, while all the officers could swim, not more than a third of the sailors could swim, and they were obliged to bathe in a sail. Such a state of things could not occur in a public school, or even in a private school. Some most valuable lives were sacrificed in the attempt to save the seamen who could not swim. It seemed to be a point of honour on the part of the officers or men who could swim, that if a sailor fell into the water, they were to jump over and attempt to save him. He had consulted with a great many Naval officers, who all agreed that there was no reason why the men should not be

1631
compelled to learn to swim. In all the preparatory Naval schools swimming was taught. The life of a seaman in the Royal Navy was the property of the State; and it was not the lives of the men who could not swim that were alone in question, but the lives which were sometimes sacrificed in futile attempts to save them. He thought it high time that something should be done in this matter with regard to the Navy.
MR. HUNTsaid, he would refer to the different topics which had been brought before the House as briefly as possible, because he would, when the House went into Committee, have to speak at some length. The question of swimming was a very important one. He could not say what proportion of seamen in the Royal Navy were able to swim; but he could assure his hon. Friend (Sir William Eraser) that in the different training ships, swimming was taught systematically, and that in all ships on foreign stations, when the weather and climate permitted, every facility was given to the men to learn swimming. Just as, however, you might take a horse to water, but could not make him drink, so you might take men to bathe but could not make them swim. The seamen certainly showed in too many cases a great inaptitude, although he agreed that they ought to be encouraged to learn to swim as much as possible. With regard to the question put by the hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Bass) he (Mr. Hunt) entirely differed from the view taken by the hon. Gentleman. The hon. Gentleman thought it a degrading thing that young men should be flogged with the birch. Five of these youths, between 13 and 14 years of age, were thus flogged in the Britannia last October. If flogging was degrading, many of them who had been to public schools had been degraded in the same way, but they had survived the disgrace—if disgrace it were—and had become all the better for it. The hon. Member said that the Admiralty had taken away from the captain the power of inflicting corporal punishment; but they had specially ordered these young men to be flogged. They had thoroughly deserved it for insubordinate conduct. Fagging had been persisted in, notwithstanding that minor punishments had been inflicted; and a solemn warning was then sent down from the Admiralty as to the
1632
consequences that would follow if the practice were persisted in. In the teeth of this warning, evidently by concerted action, the offence was repeated, and at last it became a question whether the Admiralty or the cadets were to govern the ship. It was absolutely necessary that some strong measure should be taken, and the boys must either be dismissed or flogged. The hon. Member said the parents of the boys would have preferred that they should be dismissed; but he (Mr. Hunt) knew the contrary to be the case. One parent wrote that he preferred that his son should be flogged, rather than dismissed. He heard that the punishment had had a satisfactory effect upon the discipline of the ship, and that the ordinary minor punishments had since diminished in number. He had been asked to assure the House that the punishment should not occur again All he could say was, that he hoped there would be no occasion for it; but if the offence were repeated, it would be the duty of the Admiralty to repeat the punishment. It was his duty to maintain the discipline of the ship, and in dealing with young gentlemen of that age, the right course had, he thought, been adopted under the circumstances. He now came to two matters of a different character—the question of the Marine officers, so ably brought before the House by his hon. Friend the Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst), and the warrant officers, whose case had been stated by his hon. and gallant Friend behind him (Captain Price). The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Pontefract (Mr. Childers), who was Chairman of the Committee on the Promotion and Retirement of the Marines and other corps, advised him not to deal with this subject until the Royal Commission now sitting on Army Promotion and Retirement had reported; and in doing so, he gave the reason why this matter had not been dealt with by the Admiralty. The grievance of the officers of the Royal Marines was very well known. It was one of the most painful parts of his duty to witness the stagnation of promotion, and it did not need the able advocacy of his hon. Friend the Member for Chatham to make him (Mr. Hunt) fully alive to the evils from which they were suffering. Anxious as he had been to do justice in the matter, he found that under the state of things existing with regard to promo

1633
tion, and retirement in the Army it would be perfectly impossible to deal with the question of Marine officers until the principles upon which the Army was to be treated were settled. He hoped his hon. Friend would see that it was from no unwillingness on his part, but simply owing to the position of affairs, that he had not been able to settle it at present. With respect to the case of the warrant officers, which had been introduced by his hon. and gallant Friend (Captain Price), it must come before the House before long. Their case was deserving of consideration, and he hoped before long to be able to hold out some prospect of improvement. The present was not a very favourable time for proposing an increase in the Estimates. The circumstances of the year were so peculiar, as the House would shortly be informed, that it was a remarkably unfavourable time for putting these claims before Parliament. He trusted that this difficulty would be only temporary, and that he should be enabled at no distant period to place before the House a satisfactory proposal in regard to the claims of the warrant officers.
MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, that when Mr. Corry informed the House that the punishment of flogging on board the Britannia was to be discontinued, nothing was said as to the power of the Admiralty to interpose on special occasions. For his own part, he objected more to the manner in which the punishment was inflicted than to the punishment itself. This particular punishment for such small boys was not altogether undesirable; but, in the present case, it was inflicted by the ship's corporal in the presence of all the other boys and of the officers. Now, when flogging was inflicted in public schools, it was not administered before the other boys. [Mr. HUNT: It was in my time.] fie believed that in the early part of his own career it used to be public; but the public flogging was discontinued while he was at school. It destroyed the self-respect of the boy who was flogged, and the flogging on board the Britannia should have been in private, as in our public schools.
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.) 60,000 Men and Boys, including 14,000 Royal Marines.
MR. HUNTsaid, it was customary in moving the first Vote for the Minister occupying the position he had the honour to fill to enter upon a general review of the Estimates and the naval policy of the year. On the present occasion, before entering upon any question of figures, it might be interesting to the Committee that he should glance at a few questions affecting naval services during the past year, together with changes that had been made and others that were in contemplation.
The first matter he would bring under the notice of the Committee was a very gratifying movement which had emanated spontaneously from the crews of several ships in commission, and which, while unexpected by the Government, would probably be surprising to the Committee. It was a proposal made by the crews of a considerable number of ships, and also by the Marines, to establish a fund, by means of stoppages from their own pay, for the benefit of their widows and children. It was well known that British seamen and Marines possessed many noble qualities; but they had always had the character of being a thriftless sort of men, and it was exceedingly gratifying to find that habits of forethought and providence had taken root in their minds, and that they had come forward to make this proposition. They had applied to the Admiralty for assistance in carrying out their wishes in the matter, and he need scarcely say that the Admiralty had, with the utmost alacrity, done their best to fall in with their views. It was impossible, however, for the authorities to decide as to the best course to be adopted without knowing how much the men were willing to contribute. He had, therefore, caused a Circular to be issued to the Fleet on the subject. The whole of the replies had not yet been received; but when they had all come to hand, they would doubtless furnish the material for actuarial calculations as to the kind of provision it would be possible to make. It was hoped that if sufficient funds could be contributed the wishes of the men could be carried out with the as

1635
sistance, in a business point of view, of the Patriotic Fund Commissioners.
The next subject upon which he wished to touch was the patronage promotions. It had been decided within the last few months that hauling down promotions and promotions on death vacancies should cease. Where the numbers in each rank were limited as at present it was impossible that this system of promotion could continue without prejudice to the service. Supposing the choice of officers for flag-lieutenants was exercised in favour of the young men most distinguished by their talents, it would be an advantage to the Service that they should gain rapid promotion and so get into the upper ranks in an active period of life; but there was no security that the choice would be regulated upon this principle instead of upon motives of friendship and ties of kinship. In consideration of this fact and of the very limited promotion at the disposal of the Admiralty, it was thought right that this kind of patronage should be abolished.
One of the most important questions that had come before him since he went to the Admiralty had been the primary education of naval officers in the duties of their profession while they were in the cadet stage. He appointed a Committee to inquire into the question of the training given on board the Britannia, opinions having got abroad that the conditions of life on ship-board were not those best suited to boys of the age of naval cadets. The Committee which he appointed consisted of naval officers, medical men, and distinguished University men, and they reported unanimously as follows:—
"As the result of the most careful consideration of this important question, we are led to the opinion that it would be desirable to substitute for the two years' course on board the Britannia a three years' course at a College on shore, broken by two summer cruises in sea-going training-ships. One reason for this proposal is the doubt whether it is possible in two years, without undue mental strain, to pass the cadets through a course of training adequate to their future position as officers and as gentlemen. Another and broader reason is that we are convinced that a man-of-war, to whatever excellence she may be brought as a place of residence, is not and cannot be made a desirable place of education. The necessary presence of naval discipline is, in our opinion, antagonistic to the work of the schoolmaster."
He was led very much to the same conclusion by a visit which he paid to the
1636
Britannia. What with the discipline enforced on board, and the time taken up with studies, it seemed to him that, with the exception of the time allowed for them to go ashore, the boys were kept on the stretch from the time they got up until the time they went to bed, and that they had none of that relaxation between the hours of labour that was essential. He had therefore to inform hon. Members that the Government had determined upon carrying into effect the recommendations of the Committee in this respect. The right hon. Gentleman who preceded him at the Admiralty (Mr. Goschen) had under his consideration the advisability of establishing a College such as was now contemplated, and he went so far as to institute inquiries as to the best site for the purpose. The proposal of the present Government would come before the Committee in the form of a small Vote for a site. There were many recommendations in favour of Dartmouth. It was a healthy place, the harbour was well closed in, and it had other advantages for the training of young men for service. A proprietor in the immediate neighbourhood, or the trustees of a proprietor, had offered as much land as they wanted at a very moderate figure.
Another matter which had engaged his attention was the present system of competition on entrance as naval cadets. On this point, too, the Committee had unanimously reported in entire disapproval of the present method of entry by competition. Even when restricted as at present by the nomination of only two boys for each vacancy, the system was hurtful to the boys, and therefore injurious to the service. He had acted upon this recommendation, and the nominations granted for the next examination had been granted without reference to competitive examination. There had been a change made in the examination, also recommended by the Committee. They proposed that Latin should be included in the subjects of examination, on the ground that it would be impossible for boys to be crammed on that subject, and that it would be a better test of educational acquirements. The Committee also disapproved of the enormous number of subjects in which the boys were examined on the Britannia, and in accordance with their recommendation, the

1637
course of study had been altered, and the subjects of examination reduced. Until the College was opened, it would not be possible to act upon the recommendation of the Committee as to the three years' course of study, broken by summer cruises, but it would be carried out, if Parliament sanctioned the institution of the College.
With regard to the higher education of officers, he had to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Goschen) on the success which had attended the institution of a Naval College at Greenwich. He stated last year when he moved the Navy Estimates, that the number of officers studying there was 194; the number of officers now studying there was 230. He believed the institution of the Naval College at Greenwich would tend very much to the efficiency of the service.
Probably it was known to Members of the Committee that a short time ago a new Order in Council was made with reference to the position of Medical Officers. The feeling of the medical profession generally had been that medical officers did not hold their proper place on board ship—that they were not sufficiently considered with regard to relative rank and other matters. The Order in Council had given them a further advancement as regarded rank, a corresponding small change had been made in their uniform, and an improvement had been made with regard to retirement. No addition had been made to their pay; but now every medical officer who entered the Service would, after he had been 20 years on full pay service, be able to retire on 15 s. a-day, if he preferred it. The new Order had not been long enough in operation to ascertain whether the objections of the medical gentlemen would be removed; but from the tone of the organs which represented the medical profession, he thought the new rules would give satisfaction.
As to the Boys who were being trained as seamen, the Admiralty found that the advantages which were offered to them were not sufficient. The boys, on joining, had recorded against them a debt for their kit, and it was impossible for them to have any money to spend, or anything to send to their parents. They contrasted the unfavourable nature of their employment in this
1638
respect with that of occupations on shore, and that led to a very considerable falling-off in the number of boys that the Admiralty were able to recruit for the service. A very short time ago the number of boys was less by 900 than the number required. Now, considering that we depended for our best seamen on the boys we trained ourselves, that was a very serious matter. "Without waiting for the bringing forward of the Navy Estimates, he appealed at once to the Treasury on the subject, and the result was that the boys now received free kits on joining, and the deficiency in the number had been reduced by nearly one-half.
He now came to a question which his hon. Friend the Member for Hastings (Mr. T. Brassey) had on several occasions brought before the House—namely, the question of the Naval Reserve. That was a matter to which he (Mr. Hunt) had given—as was probably known to the Committee—a great deal of personal attention. In the course of last autumn he had an opportunity of visiting nearly all the principal training ships and stations on the coast, and of talking to the men themselves, to those who enrolled them, and to those who trained them. He was accompanied in his inspection by a late Colleague (Sir Walter Tarleton) who took great interest in the matter. They found the facilities for drilling given to the men, particularly to second-class men, were not sufficient; that they had to go very great distances for drill; and also that there were other impediments in the way of men joining which the Admiralty hoped to get rid of when the rules were revised—and they were now undergoing revision. They found that the distance of the drilling place from their ordinary residences deterred a great number of men from joining. The Admiralty had established a drilling station at Stornoway, and had received 400 or 500 men; and at Inverness, a considerable number of men had been obtained. On the 1st of March, 1874, the number of men of the first-class was 11,606, and the number of men of the second-class was 2,122. The number of men in the current month of the first-class was 12,392, and of the second-class 4,599. The number of men provided for in these Estimates was 18,000, and it would be seen that the two last numbers

1639
added together amounted to nearly 17,000. With regard to the second-class, he knew that a great many people of authority rather disparaged men of that class, and thought it was hardly worth while to recruit them. He did not share that opinion, and the specimen he had seen of them, consisted of very strong, powerful, and active men. They acquired their drill very easily, and one great advantage was, that you could always find them when you wanted them, whereas a great many of the first-class men were in distant parts of the world, and could not be got when they were wanted. The second-class men were thoroughly acquainted with the coast, and when drilled, they could fight the guns well. It was true they could not, as a rule, go aloft or steer with a wheel; but they were very useful men, and would be ready to go afloat if wanted. The Admiralty thought that the organization of the Reserve Force might be carried still further. As was well known to hon. Members of the Committee, there was now a movement with regard to training ships for the Mercantile Marine. The hon. Member for Hastings (Mr. T. Brassey) had often urged the utility of training boys to employment in the Mercantile Marine, in order that they might join the Naval Reserve. There were, as the Committee knew, many training ships now, but they were mostly philanthropic institutions. Some of them were more or less a species, he was going to say, of gaols, but that, perhaps, was too hard a term. Some of them were a sort of reformatory schools, and others were industrial schools—boys in destitute circumstances who had been rescued from the temptations to a life of crime being placed on board these ships. The Admiralty were not disposed to ask any boys in reformatory schools to join the Naval Reserve; but as regarded boys trained on board industrial ships, he saw no reason why they should not be invited, and he proposed that those who managed these ships should be asked to allow guns to be placed on board those ships for the purpose of drilling. He did not think these ships could furnish a very great number of boys whom the Admiralty could invite into the Reserve; but the proposal to train boys for the Mercantile Navy in various ships around our coasts he thought opened a much larger field. In
1640
fact, he felt so strongly the importance of movement as regarded our Reserves, that he had been considering in what way the Admiralty should assist the establishment of those ships in a national point of view. His right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade (Sir Charles Adderley), a short time ago informed the House what contribution he proposed should be given to the men per head from the Mercantile Marine for training boys in these ships. What the Admiralty proposed was this—it must be understood, however, that they could not undertake to do it all at once—they would provide a ship, her moorings, and an amount of rigging sufficient for training purposes. They proposed to put one or two heavy guns on board, and to pay a pensioner as an instructor. The Admiralty must be entirely at liberty to limit the number to be received, but those who were received would be required to produce certificates of good conduct and proficiency in drill, and for those so received £3 per head would be paid to the ship. He did not mean £3 per annum, but £3 for every boy who was taken into the Naval Reserve. For this purpose it was proposed to institute a third-class of the Naval Reserve. Then it was intended that every boy who was taken into the Naval Reserve should receive a suit of clothes every year; but as a condition of his service he would be bound to go to sea. Thus the boys, after being trained on board the ships, would not be received into the Naval Reserve, unless they had actually served at sea or were prepared to do so. The actual regulations with regard to that were not yet framed, but these would be their main provisions. Besides, it was proposed that the boys, when they reached the age of 18 years, should be enabled to pass into the other classes of the Naval Reserve; and he looked forward to the time when we should have an ample supply in the higher classes of the Naval Reserve of men who had been trained as boys on board these ships, who had been accustomed to the use of arms of all kinds from their earliest years, and who had been thoroughly drilled. We should then feel that we had a real Reserve which we might depend upon in case of emergency. The Commission on Manning the Navy recommended that 30,000 should be the

1641
number to be enrolled in the Navy Reserve. Whether that number would be fixed upon now that the crews of ships of war were smaller than they used to be, was a matter remaining to be settled. Therefore, the limit to be put to the Naval Reserve had not yet been fixed. We had lately, however, had 17,000, and it was now proposed to have 18,000. While upon this subject, he ought not to omit saying that the consideration of all these matters had led him to the conclusion that there ought to be a head to this Force. Of late years the Naval Reserves had been under the administration of the Second Naval Lord. Inspections were made from time to time by the Commander-in-Chief of the District, but there was no head of the force to whom the officers employed in the service could refer, and nobody who could stimulate the zeal and ability of the officers concerned in the drilling, or of those employed in enrolling the men. Therefore, he had appointed an Admiral Superintendent of the Naval Reserve outside the Admiralty, and he looked forward to great advantages accruing from that appointment, because the officer in question took the deepest interest in the matter, and had had great experience with regard to the Reserve Forces. Although the extra expense figured a little larger in the Estimates, it would be only £2,400 a-year after allowance was made for the abatement on Vote 1, by reason of the officer not drawing half-pay. So small a sum ought not to stand in the way of the most efficient organization we could get. He had discussed this subject with a great many naval authorities, and had been unable to find two opinions with regard to it.
And now he wished to touch upon a question which had been a matter of great concern to him—namely, the stagnation of promotion generally through-out the service. In the year 1874 three captains were promoted to be admirals, eight commanders were promoted to be captains, and 15 lieutenants were promoted to be commanders. Of these lieutenants, one had been promoted from the Royal yacht and six were promoted for services during the Ashantee War. He could not say he was satisfied with this state of things. It might be said that this was only a temporary evil. Well, perhaps it was only a temporary evil; but, at all events, it was an evil which
1642
would last long enough to wear out the hearts of some of the best officers in the service. He could not disguise from the House that he must look forward, before a very long interval elapsed, to introducing a measure on the subject. He did not wish to go into details about the measure now; but he would only say that having accepted the office he now held without having had any previous experience in it, he was unwilling to make any sudden proposals or to attempt to frame a scheme without due and mature consideration; and therefore he had not been in haste to do so. It was a subject of very great difficulty, in which the interests of the officers and the advantage of the public service were involved, and it required to be well considered; but he looked forward to proposing a scheme at no distant date to remedy what he regarded as a most undesirable state of things.
There were one or two other matters to which he wished to refer. One of them was the getting rid of what last year he called the "old lumber" of the Admiralty, when he remarked that when a ship was useless and never likely to be useful again, she ought to be broken up and disposed of. This policy he had endeavoured to carry out last year, and the House had assented to his taking an additional sum for breaking up ships in the Dockyards. £4,000 was taken in the original Estimate, and £2,000 in the Supplementary Estimate presented a few days ago. He had also made a contract with a firm of shipbuilders for the sale of some 35,000 tons of old vessels. The hon. Member opposite (Mr. Reed) had spoken of the exceptional mode in which these ships had been disposed of; but when he saw the Returns moved for by his hon. Friend the Member for Reading (Mr. Shaw-Lefevre) he would find that the bargain was more advantageous to the Admiralty than any previous one. The sum it would bring into the Exchequer in the financial year was £128,000.
Last year a good deal was said on the subject of boilers. That question, he was sorry to say, had not yet been solved. He had appointed a Committee to consider it, and they had made a short preliminary Report. He had been promised another Report before he moved the Estimates, but it had not yet come to hand. The Committee had examined

1643
boilers of all descriptions; but considered it necessary to prosecute their inquiries further, and he was told the information was exceedingly valuable. [Mr. E. J. REED asked, whether the right non. Gentleman would lay the Report before the House?] He (Mr. Hunt) was not sure whether the first Report would be of sufficient importance to submit to the House alone; but if his hon. Friend wished to look at it, he should have no objection to show it to him. He hoped the Report he was likely to have in the course of a few days would go more fully into the matter, in which case, perhaps, both the Reports might be laid upon the Table together.
He now proposed to go into the more dry part of the subject, and that was the figures in the Estimates. The total amount of the Estimates was £10,784,644. That was the gross amount; the net amount, after deducting extra receipts and Indian contributions, which together amounted to £322,000, was brought down to £ 10,462,644. But he was bound to add a certain sum to this. It was well known to the House that the Army Estimates provided a sum for naval ordnance, while there was no sum in the Navy Estimates for the transport of troops. The balance against the Navy was £60,419, and this made the total of the net charge £10,523,063, or, in round numbers, £10,500,000. This net charge was almost to a pound £500,000 in excess of the net charge for 1874–5 according to the original Estimates he laid upon the Table, and according to the statement he made about 11 months ago. Taking the gross sum he had stated—£10,784,644—there was a net increase of £344,539 as compared with that of 1874–5, including the Supplementary Estimates. This comparison, however, was not altogether a just one, because the Estimates for 1874–5 included an exceptional service of a peculiar description—namely, the Arctic Expedition. The Vote for this expedition in 1874–5 was £98,620, while for the present year it was only £13,000. The increase this year might, therefore, be more justly taken at £430,000. The year 1875–6 was an exceedingly unfortunate one. He had been obliged to include under different Estimates a sum of £43,000 which did not really belong to the year at all, but was required to satisfy the claims of India in past years, the amount of those
1644
claims having only just been arrived at. But the financial misfortune did not end there. Next year was Leap Year, which not only added another day's pay, but a 53rd weekly pay-day instead of 52; and these two disturbing elements together caused an increase of no less than £25,000. There was an increase for the non-Effective Service, over which he had no control whatever. The right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Lowe) used to call that an automatic increase; and there was an automatic increase this year to the extent of £38,000. These figures taken together amounted to about £106,000. India had been his bane again. The terms on which we found men and officers for the Indian troop-ships had been readjusted; he had been bound to admit that we had been too exacting, and that the amount, formerly charged in respect of these ships, charged for the whole year was not what India ought in justice to be called upon to pay. One Indian troop-ship had also been put out of commission, so that there were now four, instead of five. These re-adjustments threw upon the Estimates a sum of £8,000 spread over two Votes. It was a question whether the number of seamen should be reduced on this account, but it was thought unadvisable to make any reduction in numbers. The sum just named, however, was not all lost, because the result was that the country had the advantage of the services of 100 men throughout the whole year and of 500 for five months of the year, while otherwise these men would have been bound to serve India and India alone. A slight increase of pay to the Artificers of the Fleet would account for about £7,000 of increase, and the free kit to the boys would cost £15,000. On the Victualling Vote there was an increase of £21,000; about £18,000 was due to the increase of numbers in the Naval Reserve, and about £8,000 on account of an issue of clothing to some of the Marines, which happened to fall within the present year. The addition to the Royal Naval Reserve increased that Vote by £25,000, of which about £2,400 was due to the establishment of the new office of Admiral Superintendent. There was an increase under both sections of Vote 10—Naval Stores and Machinery for Ships and Ships built by Contract. The increase appeared to be £160,000; but if

1645
allowance were made for the increase in 1874–5 on account of the Arctic ships in victualling, the increase would be £182,000. The increase in the Vote for Stores was, in a measure, owing to the fact that experience had shown that the sum taken last year was insufficient. Only a few nights ago the House was called on for a large excess Estimate for 1873–4, in which the item of Stores figured largely; and in 1874–5 there would be an excess upon the Store Vote. At this period, it was impossible to say exactly what the excess would be, and he was in hopes it would be met, to a great extent, if not entirely, by surpluses on other Votes; at all events, the Estimate for Stores in 1874–5 would be insufficient. In proposing the Supplementary Vote, he stated that he hoped there would be a saving upon the Stores. It turned out that, though prices were lower, the quantities would be greater, and therefore, instead of a surplus upon that Vote, he feared there would be a deficit. The sum taken for the present year, though in excess of the previous year's Estimate, was not in excess of the expenditure. The sum now asked for, however, was intended to cover the increased consumption of Stores, because it was proposed to do more work in the Dockyards. With regard to that part of the Vote relating to Machinery for Ships built by Contract, there was nothing new involved in the way of policy. The increase was due to the sums it was necessary to take for instalments under existing contracts, and partly to provide machinery for ships being built by contract, and for breaking up of ships. That was only the natural sequel of the Votes already taken in previous years, and the policy which had been pursued. The Scientific Vote showed a decrease of nearly £6,000, due almost entirely to the cessation of expenditure with reference to the Transit of Venus, and to a slight extent in connection with the scientific branch of the Arctic Expedition. There was a decrease of nearly £30,000 in Vote 11, for Works, but the amount taken includes a small sum for preliminary operations in connection with the building of a naval college at Dartmouth.
With regard to New Works, one of the chief was the extension of the Dock-yard at Chatham. The original Estimate for this work was £1,700,000. As the
1646
work went on, however, prices rose and unforeseen difficulties of a physical character presented themselves; some changes were found necessary, and a revised Estimate was made, adding to the original Estimate no loss than £250,000. Nearly the whole of the sum originally estimated had been spent already. Of these works Colonel Pasley, the Director of Works, said—
"Of the three basins or floating docks, four dry docks, two locks, and the public wharf at Gillingham which form the principal features of this work, two basins, all the four dry docks, and the public wharf are completed and in use. [The position in which the steamboat landing-stage is intended to be placed being at present blocked by the dam at the eastern end of the third basin, it has been temporarily placed in another site, from which it will be removed eventually at the expense of the Admiralty. This will be a work of very trifling cost; and in all other respects the wharf is complete.] Of the third basin, rather more than one-half is, with trifling exceptions, finished, and the remainder, together with the two locks and the river wall adjoining them, has yet to he completed. The ground in which these are to be constructed has been laid dry by the construction of a great earthen dam, and the excavation for the basin walls has been commenced."
Thus the Committee would see from this Report the beginning of the end of the works at Chatham. For the extension of the Yard at Portsmouth the original Estimate was £2,207,000, the revised Estimate, £2,350,000, showing an increase of £143,000. The works there were still more nearly completed than at Chatham. Colonel Pasley said of them—
"The repairing basin, with its two dry docks, and the tidal basin with the deep dock, as well as the two entrance locks, are now completed, and only await the removal of the dam, and the fixing of the caissons in their places, to be brought into use. Some delay has arisen from the novelty and complexity of the machinery and arrangements connected with sliding caissons of such unprecedented dimensions as these, but I hope nothing will occur to prevent the opening of the two basins and three dry docks early in the coming summer."
There was a new item of £18,000 under the head of Keyham for the construction of a pontoon for docking vessels of 1,000 tons and under. There was a great want of accommodation for docking this class of vessels, and Colonel Pasley said—
"The small docks at Woolwich and Deptford are no longer available, and no new ones have taken their place. Under existing circumstances, therefore, ships of small tonnage have frequently to await a chance of going into docks which are much too large for them, in which

1647
they cannot be economically or conveniently accommodated, and which they can only occupy to the exclusion of ships for which the docks are better adapted."
This work was represented to the Admiralty as one of urgent necessity. At first new docks were thought necessary, but the plan of a pontoon was devised for docking vessels of 1,000 tons and under, and, of course, cost much less than docks did. The next point to which he would refer was the extension of the works at Haulbowline. That was a subject which was brought before the House by the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Ronayne) last Session, and on that occasion the Junior Lord of the Admiralty (Sir Massey Lopes) promised that they would go and have a look at the works. In the course of last autumn they did go, and experienced some very rough weather in doing so. The conclusion which they came to was that if the work was worth going on with at all it ought to be proceeded with faster. Great importance was attached to this work by naval authorities of great judgment. As it was now dragging on from year to year, we were getting no benefit from what was already done; and therefore he had come to the conclusion that the work should be carried on with greater expedition. He therefore proposed to increase the Vote for 1875–6 to £30,000, being an addition of £10,000 to last year's Vote. The revised Estimate for the work amounted to £420,000, which was an excess of £90,000 over the original Estimate. He came then to the question of Alderney. There was a Report from Colonel Pasley on that subject, which suggested one of three courses. Colonel Pasley said—
"It may be dealt with in any one of the three following methods:—namely, 1, the whole work may be abandoned to its fate; 2, the whole may be maintained; and 3, the outer portion may he abandoned and the inner maintained."
And he added—
"In every respect the abandonment of the outer and the maintenance of the inner portion of the work appears to me to be the best policy to pursue."
He proposed to adopt the course which had been thus recommended by Colonel Pasley. That completed the observations which he had to make upon the "Works Vote, and also upon the increase and decrease in the Estimates, with one exception. That exception
1648
referred to the employment of men in the Dockyards. He had not taken that subject before, because, being a a question of policy, it appeared better to deal with it separately, inasmuch as it was possible that some controversy might arise on the point, though he hoped that would not be the case. The increase under Vote 6, for Dockyards, &c, was given in the Estimates as £68,743; but, as £18,000 under that head was taken for the Arctic Expedition in 1874–5, the increase was really £86,000. Of this £22,000 was for the 53rd weekly pay-day of Leap Year. The main part of the increase, however, was due to the proposal to add 880 men to the existing dockyard strength, which would bring the total numbers up to 16,000. He was unable to deal with this question without referring to a matter which caused some excitement last Session, namely—the state of our Fleet. He hoped the same animated discussions on the matter would not again arise. He had no wish to treat it in a controversial spirit; but it was utterly impossible that he could avoid dealing with the subject. He made a statement last year with regard to the condition of our ironclad fleet, which was forced upon him by the fact that there was a Motion for Inquiry into the matter, and there were letters in the papers, from persons more or less acquainted with the subject, giving an exaggerated account of its condition. He felt it his duty, therefore, to lay what he believed to be the actual state of our ironclad fleet before the House. He did so after laborious investigation, and to the best of his ability. That statement was criticized very much in this House, and still more in the Press; but he could only say that now, after 11 months' reflection and inquiry, he entirely adhered to what he had then said. It was argued in the Press that the statement he had made was utterly impossible, and it was attempted to put the First Lord of the Admiralty in this dilemma—either that he had exaggerated the ill-condition of the ironclad fleet, or that he had not taken sufficient means to remedy it. Well, he would admit, to a certain modified extent, the truth of the latter charge, and his repentance in that respect would be seen in the proposals he was now about to make—namely, a further addition to the Dockyard strength, as well as other proposals for

1649
the improvement of the condition of our Fleet. He had said to "a modified extent;" but, with regard to his proposals generally, he did not consider himself open to the charge. Those who looked to the Navy Estimates simply were apt to say—"Oh, the Navy Estimates were originally £10,000,000, and the First Lord of the Admiralty only proposes to add £150,000." But those who went carefully into the matter knew that was not a fair remark. First of all, the Navy Estimates were not entirely taken up with the building and repairing of ships. That formed but a small part of the total sum taken in the Estimates. When they struck off about £2,000,000 for the non-Effective Services, and took into account what was spent on the personnel of the Fleet and other matters, that would leave out of £10,500,000 in round numbers, the Estimates of last year, only about £3,000,000 for the building and repairing of ships. The addition, therefore, to this total to which he proposed to make in the Supplementary Estimate was, in his view, not a very small one. Besides, those who made the charge against him omitted to observe what a large addition to the number of men in the Dockyards was made the year before by the right hon. Gentleman his Predecessor. In 1863–4, 640 men were added; in 1874–5. 700 men were proposed to be added by the right hon. Gentleman opposite; while he, himself, added 800 men, 100 in the original and 700 in the Supplementary Estimate. So that 2,140 in the course of two years were added to the Dockyards. That was a very formidable addition, and one which ought not to have been disregarded, when the means which he proposed to take for improving the conditions of the Navy were criticized. He pointed out in his speech on that occasion, that the Navy Estimates which had gone down for some years, had of late been swelling in the hands of his Predecessor. Therefore, the conditions of things was to be considered, not with reference to the Estimates framed by the right hon. Gentleman opposite last year, but to the Estimates put before the Committee in previous years. His out-of-door critics of last year had this year returned to the subject, and said that in the Estimates now lying on the Table was to be found a decisive argument for invalidating the statement which he made as to the condition of our Fleet last year. He
1650
had shown what the total net addition to the Estimates this year was. The proposal which he now made was, to add 880 men to the Dockyard establishments; but he would like the Committee to see what the difference was between the money which he proposed should be devoted to the building and repairing of ships this year, and what it was under the Estimates of 1872–3. The Paper which he held in his hand had been prepared for him by the Departmental officers, and it was well known to the Members of the House who studied the Estimates, that the sums taken for the matériel of the Fleet were comprised in Votes 6 and 10. In Section 1, Vote 10, there were some matters which had no reference to the matériel of the Fleet; but these had been eliminated by the Departmental officers who drew up the Paper. That being so, he came to these figures—In 1872–3, £2,189,000 was taken for the matériel of the Fleet, and according to the Estimates now on the Table £3,280,000 were taken; so that there was this year a difference of a little over 1,000,000, or an addition of some 50 per cent to the amount taken in 1872–3. So that those who said that the proposals which he now laid before the Committee were inadequate for putting the Fleet in proper condition had not their attention directed to the difference of the Estimates now proposed as compared with those of 1872–3. He knew it would be said that there had been a rise in prices since that time. According to the Estimate made by the Department that rise did not exceed 20 per cent. and if hon. Gentlemen deducted that, they would still find £800,000 and over as the addition to the expenditure on the ships. He had thought it necessary to state so much, because he had been somewhat roughly handled in reference to this matter. One re-presenting such a Department might expect to be duly and sharply criticized; he did not complain, but he thought the criticism should be tempered by all the knowledge that could be brought to bear on the subject. The facts he had stated would, he hoped, be duly considered. When he said that he adhered to the statement he made last year, he was going to make a qualification. He stated that there were nine ships of war not worth repairing for seagoing purposes. It had been thought that one of those ships might possibly be worth repairing

1651
—the Royal Alfred. It appeared in the programme for this year; but it could not be known that she would be worth repairing till she was examined. But with that qualification he adhered to the statement he made last year. He also told the Committee last year that there were at that time 14 ships thoroughly effective for service "in the proper sense of the term," and he meant those words to be part of his statement. He said also, that in the course of the year four more would be ready, making 18 ships "in the proper sense of the term" thoroughly efficient, and that expectation had been realized. He now would inform the Committee how they should stand in the immediate future. By the end of the financial year there would be four more, and by the end of 1875–6 four others, making 26 thoroughly efficient vessels altogether. He was not speaking of what were termed at the Admiralty "special ships," such as the Devastation and the Thunderer. He did not undervalue ships of the Thunderer and Devastation type; but he had been speaking of ironclad ships fit for cruising purposes. But by the end of the year their Fleet would be strengthened by the addition of the Thunderer, which would be completed. The difference that would result from the addition of the men he had asked for would be that one ironclad would be completed in 12 months instead of two years; and one, coming in for repairs, in 8 months instead of 20; and they would make progress with the Inflexible and Téméraire to the extent of 300 or 400 tons each more than they would have done. They would also be able to commence and make some progress with a new class of vessels to which he would allude presently. That was the prospect before them, supposing the proposals he now made to the Committee were accepted. It might be asked, considering the condition of the Fleet to be such as he had pointed out, why had nothing more been done? He had been governed by these considerations. He thought it exceedingly undesirable to add an enormous number of men to the Dockyards for one or two years. The shortness of the employment was bad enough in itself, and when they were discharged great distress very often was the result. A disturbance in the labour market was also created which it was exceedingly
1652
desirable to avoid. One, of course, had to consider whether such a spasmodic effort was necessary, and he came to the conclusion that though things were not in a satisfactory state there was nothing either in the condition of other fleets or in the condition of our own to make such a spasmodic effort necessary. He thought it better to proceed more quietly, making considerable additions, and, at the same time, spreading the work over a greater number of years. He said just now, he admitted he had not made sufficient provision last year. It was said by many that the Treasury was the obstacle—that he had formed grand notions of spending millions on the Fleet; but the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not accept the bills he drew on him. There never was the slightest foundation for that assertion. His right hon. Friend and he were entirely at one on the matter. He generously accorded him all he had asked, and if anyone in the Government was to blame for the proposals made last year he was alone to blame. He did not say his knowledge was now all it ought to be; but with the experience he had since acquired he came to the conclusion that the number of men he had asked for last year was insufficient. He was not ashamed to say he was then entirely new to the work. He was exceedingly anxious to give full weight to the administrative ability of the right hon. Gentleman who preceded him, and he shrank from proposing a larger addition to what the right hon. Gentleman recommended to the House. But the experience of the last year, and the discussions which had occurred at the Admiralty, satisfied him that unless additions were made to the Dockyard strength they would not be able to make much progress, and the Fleet would not be what it ought to be within a moderate length of time. Under these circumstances, he now made the proposition he had stated to the Committee.
Now, with regard to the programme of ships, he did not propose to contract this year for any new ship except a torpedo vessel. In some respects the contract work would be greater, but it would be on ships already commenced. In the Dockyard he proposed to commence two new ships of the Arab class and two vessels of an entirely new type—very fast despatch vessels, the exact design of which had not yet been settled. But it was pro

1653
posed that they should be vessels having a speed of 17 or 18 knots. There were ships building in foreign yards of that speed. They would be exceedingly useful in overtaking an enemy's ships of commerce or protecting our own, and they would be able to render great service in case of war. It was proposed that some progress should be made on one of these in the course of the financial year; the other would be commenced, but little progress would be mad'; with her. With regard to the ironclads, the Committee would remember that last year two new ironclads were sanctioned. They were being built by contract. He proposed now to do no work on new ironclads, but to get the sanction of the House for the laying out of two new ironclads in the Dockyards, so that they might be ready to put the men upon them when they were taken off the ships about to be completed. The designs for those two new ships were not yet matured; but in getting the consent of the Committee without laying the plans before them he was only following the example of the right hon. Gentleman two years ago.
MR. GOSCHEN: But they will be laid on the Table before the end of the Session if you follow my example.
MR. HUNTsaid, he would be happy to do that as soon as the designs were settled. Perhaps the Committee were hardly aware of the number of ships now in course of construction. There were in the Dockyards and by contract no less than 42–8 ironclads, 4 iron corvettes wood-sheathed—6 composite corvettes, 9 composite sloops, 5 composite gunboats, 2 troopships, 1 paddle vessel, 1 tug-boat, 2 iron barges, 1 wood barge, 2 armed despatch boats, and I torpedo vessel. He did not count the two ironclads he proposed to lay down this year. The Committee, he thought, would be of opinion that when these were completed they would form a large addition to the efficiency of our Fleet. It was proposed to build in Her Majesty's Dockyards in the course of the year 13,812 tons, and to employ for building work 5,194 men. The contract work proposed to be done was 5,853 tons, making with the work in the Dockyards a total of 19,665 tons. The principal work undertaken by the Government this year was the repairing rather than the building of ships. Last year he pointed out
1654
that the expectations held out by the late Government as to the amount of tonnage to be built had not been realized, and he was sorry to say that in this respect he was no better than his Predecessors. The total tonnage which the Government proposed to build last year was 19,962; but the actual work done was only 15,258 tons, so that they had boon behindhand in the year's operations to the extent of 4,704 tons, including the contracts. This deficit, however, was partly due to the fact that the work connected with the ships of the Arctic Expedition had employed a great number of men who would otherwise have been employed on now ships. With regard to the work done by contractors, he believed that in many cases strikes and difficulties with their workmen prevented them making so much progress as was expected. Perhaps, as he said something about the desirability of doing more boiler work in the Dockyards it might be as well that he should state what they had done during the last financial year. The total number of horse power of boilers completed in the year was 3,299, or about 15,000 indicated horse power. They proposed last year to take on 100 additional men for boiler work, but those were only taken on after May in that year; the increase of boiler work due to those additional men was 1,010 horse power; and the additional boiler work per annum, owing to the additional men, if employed for the whole year, was estimated at 2,000 nominal horse power.
Now, he believed that he had gone through all the matters that he had thought it necessary to bring to the attention of the Committee. He had occupied the Committee a considerable time; yet it might be that he had omitted many things upon which the Committee might have desired information. It was almost impossible upon any one occasion to advert to all the matters of interest; but they all knew perfectly well that hon. Members would have an opportunity of putting questions and eliciting information with regard to the different Votes; and therefore that night was not the last occasion upon which he should have to be upon his legs as to the Navy Estimates of 1875–6. He thanked the Committee for its kind attention, and concluded by moving the Vote for the number of men.
MR. GOSCHENsaid, he was not sorry to take part in the ceremony of that evening, which included, among other things, the burial of a great many past controversies. Some of these controversies had been long and fierce, and after having hoard so much of them for the last five years, the House would no doubt be heartily glad to part with them. The right hon. Gentleman, in his clear exposition of the various topics which came under his notice, alluded to much which was of great interest to the Committee, and to all who paid attention to naval affairs. But perhaps many hon. Members were as much interested by the omissions from that speech, as by that which was contained in it. They were happy to hear that the number of Men proposed was precisely the same as the number which had been submitted to the House for the past four or five years. There was a time when very lively attacks used to be made on the late Government in regard to these matters. The hon. Baronet the Member for Portsmouth (Sir James Elphinstone) was always complaining in former days that our ships were under-manned, and the Estimates insufficient; but the right hon. Gentleman in the speech which had just been heard, made no mention whatever of an insufficiency of men. Again, it used to be said that the number of boys was deficient, but that number had been for years past either 7,500 or 7,000. This year it was to be 7,000. Both as regarded Men and as regarded Boys, the proposals of the right hon. Gentleman were satisfactory. Then there was the question of our foreign establishments, the number of squadrons which were to be employed, and the number of ships in those squadrons. About these things also there had been animated controversies. Now, however, the controversies had died out. The right hon. Gentleman had not thought it necessary to say a word with regard to the number of ships to be kept in commission; and it might, therefore, be assumed that in respect to the amount of naval force which was deemed necessary for the protection of our Colonies and the general service of the Empire, the right hon. Gentleman had thought it right to abide by the lines laid down by his Predecessors. Another subject which every one must have been glad to find omitted from the speech of the right hon. Gen
1656
tleman was the organization of the Admiralty. It was to be hoped they had heard the last of this subject, and that the right hon. Gentleman found the machinery of his Department working in a fairly smooth and satisfactory manner. The time of the House would be infinitely better employed in debating the work of the Admiralty than in constantly disturbing the Department by taking its machinery to pieces. In regard to the Coastguard, as in other important respects, the policy of the late Government had been accepted. 4,300, the force which had existed during the last five years, still remained on the Estimates. Altogether, there was good reason to be satisfied that so many controversies had been got rid of. For his own part, he had always been anxious that naval matters should be discussed in that House without Party spirit, and that the important and difficult questions which naturally arose in connection with these Navy Estimates should be considered solely on their merits. The right hon. Gentleman had alluded to one controversy which still remained—namely, as to the number of men employed in the Dockyards—but that was a small matter in comparison with the disputes which now seemed to be at an end. He was happy to be able to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman upon the constitution of the Board of Admiralty, and upon the ability of the naval advisors by whom he was surrounded. He had called to his councils Sir Alexander Milne, who had been associated with the late Board—Admiral Hornby, than whom no more able officer existed, and Lord Gilford, whom he (Mr. Goschen) had been most glad to appoint to the Steam Reserve at Ports-mouth. There was every reason, there-fore, to rely upon the advice which the First Lord of the Admiralty would receive from those who formed his council. There were various topics which called for brief notice before coming to the more important subjects which were touched in the concluding part of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman. In regard to the question—no doubt a difficult and delicate question—as to the Warrant Officers, he thought it a pity the right hon. Gentleman had said they had made out a case, when he was not prepared, on account of the heavy pressure upon this year's Estimates, to deal

1657
at present with their grievance. It was rather a delicate matter to hold out hopes to any branch of the profession, though he had no doubt that the right hon. Gentleman would do his best to meet the question. He regretted that the right hon. Gentleman was not silent upon the matter, though he (Mr. Goschen) quite recognized the temptation to sympathize with a most deserving body of men; and as the right hon. Gentleman had acknowledged that something ought to be done, it might be wise that he should try, in connection with this year's Estimates, to do what justice required. In connection with the question of "hauling-down" vacancies, he thought the right hon. Gentleman had taken a very wise step. The matter frequently occupied the attention of the Board in his (Mr. Goschen's) time, and he gave the right hon. Gentleman all credit for what he had done. Next, as to the training of cadets, the right hon. Gentleman had correctly stated that the substitution of a college for the training ship Britannia had occupied the attention of the late Board, and he (Mr. Goschen) was himself strongly in favour of the substitution. He believed that, notwithstanding the unanimous view of the Committee appointed by the right hon. Gentleman, there was a considerable difference of opinion among naval officers; but, on the other hand, there was, among men well competent to judge, a desire to see the college substituted. He himself could only say that he wished the latter scheme every success. He could not, however, go entirely with the right hon. Gentleman when he said that he had already abolished competition as regarded entry into the naval service. The new regulations under which the nomination would be given had not been very clearly stated; but perhaps it might be assumed from what had been said, that it would be simply a matter of patronage with a test examination. This would be a very serious change. He admitted there were objections to competitions in the ease of very young boys—still, it was well known that there were scholarships offered in public schools to boys about the same age as those who sought to enter the Navy. The whole question of the admission of cadets was involved and required investigation; and it would be well to have a separate discussion de
1658
voted to it, in order that all the arguments might be thoroughly threshed out. It was his anxious wish that by some means boys might be drawn into the Navy from the great public schools. He was very strongly opposed to a system which made it necessary for the boys to go to one or other of a very few cramming establishments before admission. These establishments, he was aware, were exceedingly well conducted, and very successful in many respects; but it was desirable that the boys who entered the Navy should have the same general training as other boys. He was obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for the complimentary terms in which he had alluded to the College at Greenwich and spoken of its success. There was no reason to find much fault, if any, with the step which had been taken in regard to the admission of boys as sailors, and the grant of free kits to them. Certainly the sum of £15,000 was rather a large one; but if it made the difference of 300 or 400 boys, the expenditure would not have been altogether ill-advised. A number of stringent regulations existed at present in connection with their admission. They occasionally found that by the relaxation of some of the over-strict regulations, the supply of equally good boys might be increased. The number of boys who went into the Navy also varied much at different times of the year. During the first two years that he was at the Admiralty, he was constantly told that the supply of boys was short and the supply of seamen falling off. Nevertheless, at the end of the year the number of boys remained the same, and the supply was increasing. The right hon. Gentleman did not state the number of blue-jackets at present on the establishment; but he gathered from his silence that it was not unsatisfactory. With regard to the Reserves, he was pleased to hear from the right hon. Gentleman that they were increasing in number, and he (Mr. Goschen) hoped improving in quality he under-stood that the satisfactory entries of upwards of 4,000 into the second-class Reserve had occurred under the regulations which he had himself made, with certain increased facilities which had been given within the last few months for drill. The controversy with respect to the Reserves had been a warm one for years. Many Gentlemen had de

1659
clared that they would not be able to get the men; but he and his Colleagues had always believed that they would get them by slightly modifying some of the regulations. He rejoiced that their expectations had been so fully realized, and that at last the number of men had overtaken the amount of money voted for them. He had no doubt that the increased facilities referred to by the right hon. Gentleman would continue to attract men to the service, and that they would be able to raise the number thought necessary. As to the assistance to be given by the State to ships for training boys for the Mercantile Marine, that subject was also considered by the late Government, who, although disposed to give a certain sum of money towards that object if necessary, found that the difficulties connected with the matter were extreme; and he was therefore anxious to see the regulations by which the right hon. Gentleman proposed to carry out that purpose. The great difficulty was to secure a sufficient hold on the young lads. It was absolutely necessary that they should present themselves annually for a certain amount of drill in order to receive the retainer. Again, many training ships took boys almost as late as they were taken in the Royal Navy—so that when they went to the ships they were rather above the age when they should be taken into the Navy. However, if the right hon. Gentleman could solve those difficulties, and insure that the lads should be made efficient by a regular system of drill, he hoped that he would be able to carry out his scheme. With regard to promotion, every one must feel sympathy with the right hon. Gentleman in the difficulty he now experienced, and must also feel that he had been rightly advised in not dealing at all hastily with that matter. Half the existing difficulties arose from the somewhat inconsiderate way—if he might say so—in which naval cadets were entered years ago. He had heard it rumoured that the right hon. Gentleman and his Board had been increasing the entries of cadets. At the close of his own tenure of office he reduced the number considerably, partly with the view of changing the regulations under which they entered; and therefore, in fairness, he allowed that the right hon. Gentleman was entitled to increase somewhat the
1660
entries, so as to make up the deficiency of the year before he took office. But he trusted the right hon. Gentleman would be able to show them that he had not by an excessive entry of cadets exposed them to a recurrence of their old difficulties by and by. It was all very well as long as those cadets remained in subordinate ranks; they wanted them as sub-lieutenants and lieutenants; but they would have assuredly to pay the penalty of the system in after years in that stagnation of promotion which was so detrimental to the service. The right hon. Gentleman should, therefore, guard against future danger of that kind by checking any undue entry of cadets. The right hon. Gentleman's next topic—he (Mr. Goschen) took them in the same order—was that of ships and stores, and he had informed the Committee that he had taken vigorous steps to sell 35,000 tons of useless shipping. He had forgotten to include that subject among the buried controversies of which he had already spoken. The late Government had been strongly attacked for parting with a number of ships of the Navy for the sake of a paltry sum of money; and the charge was even brought against them—and it went the round of the papers—that they were going to put up Nelson's ship for sale. Why was that? Because they thought fit to sell some useless ships. Now, however, the right hon. Gentleman was to sell 35,000 tons of useless ships besides those that were to be broken up in the Government yards. It might be well to dispose of those ships provided every care was taken that none were broken up which might be used as receiving ships, training ships, or for any of the other purposes for which there were many applications. Acting, no doubt, under the impression that the late Admiralty were virulently assailed because they put up ships to auction, and thinking it a thing which went against all sentiment that they should be knocked down by the hammer—the right hon. Gentleman adopted the hole-and-corner mode of disposing of them by private contract. Much might be said on the particular method in which that was done; but, on the whole, the late Government had no cause to complain that the right hon. Gentleman had substantially pursued their policy in that matter. The right hon. Gentleman having disposed of his preliminary discussion, came

1661
to the figures of his Estimates, and it appeared that he did not know whether the increase of them would be considered large as compared with those of last year, or small; but he (Mr. Goschen) believed the right hon. Gentleman inclined to the idea that they were small. He had pointed out that India had been a very heavy pull upon him—that he had to make an addition to the charge for the non-effective service, and by various items, amounting altogether, in round figures, to £200,000, he accounted for an increase in the Estimates. But in a later part of his speech he tried to show that he had added a great deal to the Estimates; and one could perfectly understand why he did so. The right hon. Gentleman, he might here remark, had taken the lowest year he could find among the late Government's Estimates—namely, 1872–3, and stated that he was adding £1,000,000 to the shipbuilding Votes—Nos. 6 and 10.
MR. HUNT: I did not say I had added £1,000,000; but I said that the right hon. Gentleman and myself had done so.
MR. GOSCHENsaid, he disclaimed all share in that extraordinary arithmetical transaction. The right hon. Gentleman had said that £1,000,000 having been added to Votes 6 and 10, he had really increased the shipbuilding votes by 50 per cent as compared with 1872–3. But while the right hon. Gentleman asked for 50 per cent more in money, he only asked for an increase of 3,000 men—the number in 1873–4 having been 13,000, whereas he proposed 16,000—but he altogether disputed the correctness of the right hon. Gentleman's accounts, although they might be intelligible if it were intended to devote the £800,000 to building ships by contract. Then as to the stores, the right hon. Gentleman had been obliged to ask an increase of £182,000 under that head [Mr. HUNT said, that included two sections of Votes.] Yes. In the first section he understood there was an increase of £85,000; but the right hon. Gentleman admitted that there had been a continuous rise of prices, and he (Mr. Goschen) was glad that it was not necessary to ask for more. The details of the Vote did not appear as if the Liberal Government had starved the stores and their successors had been obliged to increase the quantity. On timber there
1662
was a decrease of £4,000, on coals of £14,000, and on hemp and canvas of £6,800, and the increase was only on metal. The late Administration would plead guilty to having bought as little iron as possible during the years when iron was so high. Upon the face of this Vote it conveyed no slur upon them. To have a sufficient stock of seasoned timber in store was, he might add, a matter of great importance, and he hoped, therefore, the right hon. Gentleman would subscribe to the doctrine which was acted upon by the late Board of Admiralty—that there should be large stores of articles which could not be bought at the shortest notice, but that there was no use in laying up such stores of things which could be readily procured in the market. Coming now to the shipbuilding policy of the Government and the number of men to be employed in the Dockyards, he would congratulate the right hon. Gentleman that as regarded Vote 10 Section 2, and the building of ships by contract, there was no new policy involved. The right hon. Gentleman had informed the House that there were 42 ships being built, two being new ships which were laid down this year, and two which were ordered by him on last year's Supplementary Estimates. Out of the 42, therefore, 38 had been commenced by his predecessors in office, which showed, he thought, that they had not been unmindful of the wants of the Navy. It now appeared that after the right hon. Gentleman had been a year in office he was satisfied that although it was necessary to repair ironclads more rapidly than had been done by the previous Government, yet that it was not necessary to commence, or hurry on the building of, any new ships. He did not propose to begin the building of any new ironclad frigates or corvettes, large or small, but only one small sloop of the Albatross and two of the Arab class. He did not complain of the right hon. Gentleman for adopting that course; on the contrary, he approved of it, although, as he himself had stated, he had not to deal with a close-fisted, but with a generous, Chancellor of the Exchequer, from whom he could if he wished have obtained more money had he deemed it necessary to reassure the public mind with regard to the strength of our Navy. As he had not asked for

1663
it, it was clear the right hon. Gentleman considered the number of ships to be adequate; and while he might, if he wished to be critical, take exception to the proposed repair of some obsolete ships, yet he could not help admitting that the right hon. Gentleman, with a clear field before him, a generous Chancellor of the Exchequer, and a majority behind him, who would have been prepared to sanction the building of a large number of ships, had been exceedingly modest. He was aware, to use his own expression, that it would be wrong to indulge in any spasmodic increase of our Navy, and that the state of foreign Navies as well as public opinion did not warrant him in proposing a larger programme. He was justified, no doubt, in taking that course, and he felt himself to be so, after the expiration of five years during which time his predecessors had been in office, and during which period millions had been saved to the country. He came now to the right hon. Gentleman's allusions to the controversy raised between them last year; and, in referring to this subject, he did not intend to follow the right hon. Gentleman very closely into the defence which he had made upon this point. The right hon. Gentleman said that he did not alarm the country by what he had said last year. But the right hon. Gentleman had to submit to the Committee an Increase of 1,000 men in the Dockyards, and his explanation brought out in the most clear—he might almost say in the most charming—manner the exact point of difference between himself and his predecessors in office. The right hon. Gentleman had explained that by the addition of 1,000 to the number of work-men employed in the Dockyards he should be able to turn out two ironclads in 12 instead of in 24 months, and one ironclad in 12 instead of in 20 months, and that he should be able to complete some 300 or 400 tons of shipping besides. That, therefore, was the whole difference between the right hon. Gentleman and his generous Chancellor of the Exchequer and those who had preceded him with their ferocious guardian of the public purse. He took no exception to the right hon. Gentleman's proposals. It did not matter much to this country whether we had 1,000 men more or less in our Dockyards, or whether one or two iron-clads were completed in 12 or in 24
1664
months. Therefore, this old controversy of the number of men in the yards might be buried with the other matters of discord. The right hon. Gentleman had found out, as his predecessors had done, that the point to be kept in view was not the number of men employed in the yards, but the quantity of work which they would be able to do, and that it frequently happened that, from the greater difficulty of supervision, or from some other cause, a less proportion of work was obtained from a larger than from a smaller number of men. It was doubtful whether when these 1,000 men should be added to the yards there would be 1,000 men's work added; and he was not quite sure whether the right hon. Gentleman would not have been better advised if he had given a little more building by contract and kept the number of men in the dockyard at their present point. He should, however, give the right hon. Gentleman such support as he could in his demand for an additional number of men so as to enable him to hasten the completion of the two or three ironclads which he appeared to think it was so necessary for the country to have a year earlier than was originally intended. The work of the year was as disappointing as it had been in many previous years, and there had been few years when the amount of building had been more in arrear than it was this year, notwithstanding the additions that had been made to the number of men. The right hon. Gentleman could not be personally blamed for that shortcoming; but he trusted that he would use his great authority to concentrate the efforts of these additional men and of all the men in the dockyards in real fighting ships, and to prevent any large portion of their force being diverted from such ships to peace ships and those stationary ships on behalf of which demands were always so strongly pressed. He also trusted that the right hon. Gentleman would preserve Chatham and Pembroke as building yards, as opposed to repairing yards; because he had always found that when ships were sent to a dockyard to be repaired the regular building work of the yard was greatly interfered with, and often came to a complete standstill. He had now run through most of the topics to which the right hon. Gentleman had referred,

1665
and it was a satisfaction to many who sat on the Opposition side of the House that they were able to give the right hon. Gentleman their support with regard to the main proposals which he had made. He might say that the right hon. Gentleman's Estimates were a very outspoken epitaph upon many mistaken beliefs which had existed before; and he only hoped that our neighbours abroad and the whole service would be able to gather the true meaning and import of those Estimates, and to be able to read in them that two successive Governments, differing in political principles, were of opinion that the manning of the Navy was in a satisfactory state—that two successive Governments differing on many important questions were united in thinking that the squadrons maintained by this country abroad were adequate for the purpose for which they were established, and that the number of ships to be kept in commission need not be increased. He hoped they would also see that the charges of chaotic and disorganized administration in the Department were also unfounded, because, otherwise, some changes would have been proposed; and, above all, that they would see that, while the two parties in this country might differ among themselves on the point whether two ironclads should be built or repaired in one year or in two, and whether we should have a few stores more or less, they were agreed upon one vital point—namely, that about 20,000 tons of shipping was the amount that ought to be built annually, in order to repair the deficiency in our Navy, caused by the wear and tear of our ships, and that they would see that Parliament generally was united in being ready to vote the Estimates, large as they were, in full reliance on the discretion of the responsible Minister who thought it right to ask for them. He cordially hoped that with those £10,000,000, which the generosity of Parliament would place at the disposal of the right hon. Gentleman, he would be able to conduct the naval service of the country creditably and successfully; and he felt sure that no one who had a spark of public spirit would wish to see the authority of the Admiralty lowered for a moment by accusing that Department of administrative failure. The right hon. Gentleman and his Board had many points in their favour—
1666
they had started in an open sea, and they had a favouring breeze; those clouds had lifted which had overshadowed their predecessors, and had impeded their freedom of action; and they now set out on their voyage with the good wishes of all. He hoped that they would make the most of their favourable opportunity, and he could assure them that they could rely upon his supporting the authority of the Admiralty to the utmost of his power, because he knew the extreme difficulty there was in securing the smooth working of a system of combined civilian and professional administration presided over by a civilian. He cordially trusted that the right hon. Gentleman and his Board upon whom lay such heavy responsibilities, would, as long as they continued in power, be the strong, respected, and authoritative rulers of a contented service and of an efficient Navy.
SIR JOHN HAYremarked that it would have been gratifying if the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Goschen) had been as anxious for the increase in the Navy during the years he was at its head as he was now. It would have appeared from the speech of the right hon. Gentleman as though the increase now proposed in the Navy was a mere continuation of that which had been going on for years. But he should wish to remind the Committee of what had fallen from the right bon. Gentleman his Predecessor (Mr. Childers) in making his official statement on the 1st of August, 1870, on the occasion of the outbreak of the Franco-Prussian War. He had then stated that we had 28 sea-going ironclads and 12 special harbour defence ships, making a total of 40 in all, fit for going to sea, besides 8 ironclads which were building. At the present moment we had also 8 ironclads building; and, therefore, the ironclads building might be put aside as being equal. The right hon. Gentleman, the First Lord of the Admiralty, had, however, been obliged to tell the Committee that evening that we had at the present moment only 16 sea-going ironclads in addition to 3 in the first reserve, making a total of 19 ships fit for service as against the 28 referred to, as complete and ready five years ago, by the right hon. Gentleman opposite. As far as he could gather there were

1667
now only 9 special harbour defence ships as against 12 which existed on the 1st of August, 1870. Even if he were wrong in that supposition it was clear that the number of harbour defence ships as compared with that of the year to which he had alluded had not been increased. He understood his right hon. Friend to say that he proposed to repair 4 additional sea-going ships this year and an equal number next year; but even that rate of progress would only give 27 ships as against 28 we possessed, in August, 1870. [Mr. HUNT said 26.] His right hon. Friend expressed dissent, and he now understood that instead of having but one, they would have two ships less than they had nearly five years ago. It could not, therefore, at all events, be said that his right hon. Friend was making undue efforts in that direction. He quite recognized the fact that, owing to commercial failures in 1866, a large number of men who were thrown out of employment were, rightly or wrongly, taken into the dockyards, and that they were taken in for a particular time and for a special purpose, and that that circumstance accounted for the number of ships in the year 1870—but the fact remained that that number had not been increased. He wished to know whether the Devastation was one of the ironclads ready for sea? Were the Bellerophon and Resistance included in the number? He was glad to hear that his right hon. Friend proposed to revise the condition of promotion in the Navy. The present position of affairs was most deplorable. They had all heard how much the service was injured by the present want of promotion. His right hon. Friend the Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst) had contrasted the dissatisfied state of the Marine with the satisfied condition of the Naval service; but he could state that, so far from such satisfaction existing, there never was a time when the officers of the Navy were so little pleased with the prospect before them. It would, he thought, be for the benefit of the service if his right hon. Friend had continued the "hauling down" vacancies, as that system afforded the only process by which young officers obtained promotion; and nothing could be worse than that promotion should be left to take place entirely by seniority. He had so frequently urged the doing away of the
1668
Britannia and the establishment of a college on shore, that he was greatly pleased to find his right hon. Friend had it in contemplation to carry out that proposal. He looked with some regret to the additional number of cadets which had been entered—namely, 55, as against 41 added by his right hon. Friend's predecessor. The only way, in his opinion, to make the Navy content was to diminish the number of officers admitted to the profession, and 55 was a greater number than could be advantageously advanced; and on this point he would suggest that warrant officers might be increased with advantage, and employed in the discharge of duties which now devolved upon the cadets. Then as to the admission of boys, the fact that it was proposed to give each boy a kit worth £5—and the proposal he regarded as an excellent one—showed that the service was unpopular as compared with the estimation in which it was held 20 years ago, when every boy paid for his own kit and a sum of £2 as well for entrance, notwithstanding which payments, there was no lack of boys desirous of joining. It would be a great advantage if there were training-ships for the Mercantile Marine, as thereby boys would be fitted for the naval service if required. He was glad to find that the expenditure upon the Dockyards at Chatham and Portsmouth was coming to an end. It had been a most necessary expenditure, and in view of the fact that Germany had completed six docks for the reception of the ships of her Navy, three at Wilhelmshaven and three at Kiel, which were as complete as those at Chatham, and had arranged a Budget providing for the addition to her new-born Navy of 10 first-class ironclads and 60 cruising ships, it behoved the Admiralty to see that they did not fall behindhand. The arrangements made by his right hon. Friend seemed very satisfactory so far; but he hoped that next year there would be no arrears of shipbuilding such as those mentioned that night. 4,000 tons was a considerable amount of arrears, although it had been exceeded in previous years. When they were told some five or six years ago that at least 16,000 tons of ironclads ought to be added to the Navy in each year, and found that in two years only 4,000 tons had been added, he did not think his right hon. Friend was open to

1669
the taunt that had been levelled at him with reference to the considerable delay which had occurred.
MR. E. J. REEDproposed to say a few words on the general question as to the state of our Navy in relation to the Navies of other Powers, for the purpose of deriving indications of the merits of our policy and of what that policy should be. With regard to unarmoured ships, the indications furnished by foreign Navies were of a most decided character, and he was glad to find that they had been fully recognized by Her Majesty's Government. Those indications were in the direction of great speed in unarmoured vessels. Last year the right hon. and gallant Gentleman who had just spoken protested in that House against the multiplication of small and slow vessels, foreseeing as he did what was now taking place—namely, the existence of many fast unarmoured vessels in foreign Navies. Yet, at the same time, this country had been inclining in an opposite direction, because, as they were told, one of the means which had hitherto existed for obtaining very high speed——namely, size—was to be set aside for reasons of supposed economy; though, in fact, they were reasons of extravagance. Only two vessels were building for speed. They were both to be built at Pembroke, and were to attain a speed of 16 knots. Foreign Governments were building vessels of a similar type, and only the other day he himself saw in Venice a vessel which, if the intentions of the designer were fulfilled, would go 18 knots an hour. That speed was to be produced when required by some peculiar device of which he did not know the secret. He doubted whether such a high speed would be attained as was anticipated; but it was quite possible there might be some superior genius at work in the matter, and it was worth our attention. He should be glad if the First Lord saw his way to advance a little faster one of the two vessels building at Pembroke. We had taken the lead in the production of purely coast-defence vessels with enormously thick armour. Whatever might be said about the sea-going qualities of the Devastation, there could be no doubt about her fighting powers. With regard to armour-clad vessels also, there were very notable indications derivable from the practice of Continental nations,
1670
and one of the most striking of these was the production of purely coast-defence ships with enormously thick armour. There was another class of vessel being very much built on the Continent, particularly by one Power—a class of very fast vessel, with a very limited amount of armour at the water line. He referred more especially to the two fast vessels being built by Russia, which were no doubt well known to the right hon. Gentleman opposite. We were building ships with a speed in excess of that of their predecessors, of the Shannon class, which might be regarded as a type of fast armoured vessels. There was another class of vessel, heavily armoured and armed, and thoroughly capable of going to sea. The Inflexible was a notable and admirable example of that type of ship. The Italians were building two such vessels, and France and other Powers were turning their attention to the same class. What he observed with great regret was, that this ship of the most modern sea-going type was precisely that ironclad of our Navy from which the work had been taken during the past year. The present Estimates showed that whereas the House was encouraged to believe, when last year's Estimates were moved, that there would be a very considerable advance of tonnage—in fact, it had been advanced only one-half of the expected amount. It was deplorable that the sort of services which fell with such constancy upon Portsmouth Dockyard should be performed at the expense of one great modern vessel. He was glad, however, that the right hon. Gentleman proposed to make up for that deficiency, as far as possible, by giving a great degree of advancement to that ship during the present year; and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman's intention would be fulfilled. The total deficiency upon the ironclad shipbuilding for the year in the Dockyards was 1,300 tons, and upon unarmoured vessels a total deficiency of 1,200 tons. With regard to the two armoured ships that were to be laid clown, and of which the designs were not prepared, it was to be wished the Committee knew what sort of ships they were to be. The Admiralty was no doubt responsible; but that responsibility ought to be exercised in view of the House of Commons, and not in disregard of it. The dock question was of

1671
great importance. There had been launched this week at Pembroke the Dreadnought. From the Land's End to Liverpool there was not a dock capable of receiving either that ship or the Inflexible. He purposely left out the Bristol Docks on account of the navigation; but there ought to be a means of docking Her Majesty's vessels on the west coast. The House had adopted the policy that the Government ought to avoid making costly docks, but should encourage private enterprize. Now, docks were being constructed at Milford, and the privilege of using them was offered to the Government for a small amount. He regretted that the Government did not see their way to the acceptance of this proposal. If a better place than Milford could be found, he would not find fault; but it was impolitic to build ships 200 miles away, and to have no dock in case of war along the whole west coast into which Her Majesty's Ships could put. He observed that there were three "Chief Constructors" of the Navy. Now, the responsibility for the designing of ships was a very serious one, and the House was entitled to know on whom it ought to be placed. For himself, he certainly did not understand how anybody could be saddled with that responsibility if there were three Chiefs in the same office doing the same work. The falling off in the ironclad shipbuilding at Portsmouth had been attributed in part to the Arctic Expedition. But it was highly unsatisfactory that when money was voted for the Arctic Expedition, the ironclad shipbuilding should suffer at the same time. Then, again, a certain number of men were supposed to complete a certain amount of tonnage; but, although the men had been there, and the money voted, the work had not been done. He thought the Government were to be blamed for continuing to bring forward Estimates based on calculations which always proved to be wrong.
MR. GOURLEYregretted that the right hon. Gentleman had thought it necessary to ask for increased Estimates for the Navy, and would be glad to know where the men they were asked to vote that evening were stationed, or in what ships they were employed. It was his impression that a large number of men were employed merely at hide-and-seek—officials looking after officials, and
1672
other officials, again, looking after subordinates; and he suggested a great saving might be effected by contracting with private firms more extensively than was now done for the building of our ships. Then as to our Coastguard service, they were asked to spend about £500,000 upon it, though the great object of such a service had long since disappeared. Smuggling was rarely heard of in these days of low tariffs, and what little remained could easily be dealt with by the country police, the water police, and Customs' officers. Yet he saw that they were to spend £25,000 for coastguard houses. He thought, further, that we had a great deal too many Dockyards. We had 16 Dockyards abroad, many of which were obsolete; but all were kept up as in the days when we had a large wooden fleet. The ironclads only carried fuel for four and a-half days; and in case they had a war with America, how were those ships to reach that country? He would suggest the advisability of the Admiralty introducing a regular torpedo system at all the ports and instructing the men of the Naval Reserve in the use of the weapons. Further, he deprecated the construction of any additional ironclads of the type now in existence in the Navy, and urged that the fighting ships of the future would be small, swift vessels, armed with heavy guns.
COLONEL EGERTON LEIGHsaid, he knew nothing of naval matters and should not attempt to speak upon them. All he wished to urge was that, instead of relying upon the spasmodic action of charity for the provision of lifeboats round our coasts, they should be provided and maintained, where necessary, by the Government out of Imperial funds.
MR. SHAW-LEFEVREsaid, that with regard to the provision of stores for the Navy and the Dockyards he was glad to find that the present authorities at the Admiralty were following the example of their predecessors, to whom they also, in the most candid manner, gave credit for having adopted a sound system. With regard to the sale of disused vessels to shipbreakers, he wished to know by whom the sale was negotiated—and why it was not effected either by public auction or by private tender, following upon public advertizement—the course adopted with advantageous results by the prede

1673
cessors of the present authorities at the Admiralty. He had long been of opinion that large public Departments could not well discharge the duties of landowners; and therefore he was glad to find that during the Recess a part of the Greenwich Hospital Estates had been sold for good prices. He should like to hear some explanation respecting the increase of the salaries of the master shipwrights in the Dockyards. He hoped the alteration of title would not affect their position in the Dockyards, and that the late divided authority of the principals would not be reintroduced by the present Government. He was pleased to hear that the Government proposed to abolish the Britannia training ship. Its abolition would have taken place two years ago if the late Board had not been occupied with the more important work of establishing a Naval College at Greenwich Hospital. The expense of the Britannia was out of proportion to any benefit connected with it. There were many places more preferable for a site than Dartmouth, if the Government had not finally decided upon it. As to the advantage of transferring cadets to a college on shore, he thought there would be little difference of opinion in the Committee. If he rightly understood the First Lord of the Admiralty, he had no intention of commencing the building of any now vessel by contract. The right hon. Gentleman stated last year that, out of 27 ironclads, 14 or 15 were unfit for service in consequence of their boilers being out of repair. [Mr. HUNT: The terms I used were "not effective for the service of the year in the proper sense."] Did the right hon. Gentleman mean that they could not go to sea at all? Some of the vessels of which the right hon. Gentleman spoke were actually included in the service of the year.
MR. HUNTexplained that what he meant by "not effective in the proper sense" was that in case of war the ships in question could only perform a certain amount of work in an inefficient manner.
MR. SHAW-LEFEVRE: A ship after four or five years' service was not quite so fit as at the commencement of her service. Apart from this, the right hon. Gentleman said four more were added to the list of vessels unfit for service during the past year. But the right hon. Gentleman
1674
must recollect that the late Board had provided for the repair of those four vessels. The late Board always admitted that the boilers of a number of ships required repair; and the only question was whether they should be repaired by a spasmodic effort, or whether the repairs should be spread over a number of years, and the arrangement made was that the repair of 12 vessels should be spread over three years. On the whole, he approved of the general policy outlined by the right hon. Gentleman, though he thought the number of men to be employed in the Dockyards was in excess of the normal amount required. The difference between the policy of the late and the present Board was so insignificant that it was not worth while to make any Party fight against it.
MR. SAMUDAsaid, he could not agree with the remark of his hon. Friend who had just sat down that the number of men in these Estimates ought to be taken as more than the normal number of men required. During each of the past 10 years, he believed, with one exception, the programme of the previous year had never been carried out. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London (Mr. Goschen), when at the head of the Admiralty, stated that 20,000 tons of new shipping was the smallest quantity annually required to meet depreciation and maintain the efficiency previously acquired. But during the last 10 years 20,000 tons had rarely been proposed, and nothing approaching to it had been built in each year on the average. In the present programme, however, it was proposed to build 13,800 tons in the Dockyards and 9,000 tons in private establishments. Consequently, we should get more than the 20,000 tons which were admitted to be the minimum quantity required for the service of the Navy. He thought that more ships should be built in private yards—that would effect a saving in the outlay. He feared that the right hon. Gentleman would hardly be able to fulfil his programme with the number of men he asked for. With respect to the two ships which it was said had been laid down, it was clear, from the fact of only a few men being employed on them, that no progress had been made with them, and no particulars were given to the Com

1675
mittee respecting them. With regard to the designs for ships, the only way in which ships could, in his opinion, become formidable in action, was to have a large number of them almost of the same pattern. No doubt there was a necessity to have several types of ships in the Royal Navy; but, at the same time, he thought it desirable to have a large repetition of similar vessels of each type, and for cruising ships he preferred the class of the Alexandra to that of the Inflexible. His hon. Friend (Mr. Reed) said that the Inflexible was a sea-going ship of the future; he (Mr. Samuda) was of a different opinion; and with respect to the Alexandra, he considered her the finest ship in the service. He wished to impress upon the Admiralty to choose the best types of ships. Some reference had been made to foreign ships which had speed of 17 or 18 knots an hour; but he asserted that that had not been done. He did not at all regret the proposed expenditure on Chatham Dockyard; but it was intended to build only 3,000 tons there during the year, and if the interest on the costs of the extension were taken to represent £60,000 a-year it would be a charge of £20 on every ton of shipping built in the year. This was a serious increase in the cost of building our ships. When the Government, in their transactions with private builders, pressed competition to such an extent, they should recollect, from their own experience at Chatham, what great cost private builders' establishments involved, and if the Government accounts were so kept as to show the cost of corresponding expenses incurred in Dockyards for similar matters, the country would know better than at present how much advantage resulted from employing private enterprize, equally with Dock-yards, in the annual additions to the Fleet.
CAPTAIN G. E. PRICEreminded the House that a Naval Power was growing up at our doors—a country determined to have good ships and which had good men to put into them. A struggle with such a Power would be no child's play. He wished particularly to know whether more small coast defence vessels could not be provided, especially gunboats, which exerted a great moral effect in time of war. The Russian gunboats during the last war well protected their shores, while we were now very deficient
1676
in this class of vessel, which in the absence of our Fleet, or in case of its defeat, would be very useful. There ought to be at least 100 of them armed with the heaviest guns. Due weight had not been given to the subject of torpedo vessels, and it was the fact that Germany had built or was building a considerable number of these vessels. With regard to the loading of heavy guns, he had heard that was to be done by means of hydraulic pressure, the muzzle of the gun being depressed. Great care in that case would have to be taken lest, while being loaded, the gun should go off and blow the ship to pieces. The hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Samuda) had stated that 3 per cent would be saved if ships were built by contract in private yards. In his opinion, a very much larger profit than 3 per cent was made by private shipbuilders, and that profit would be saved by building our ships in Her Majesty's Dockyards.
MR. GORST, in reference to Chatham Dockyard, explained that the new works there were not yet available for shipbuilding. A great portion of the extension work was still incomplete, and the part completed was entirely destitute of the machinery and plant necessary for the building of ships. It was now made use of only for the breaking up of old ships. Before the works at Chatham would be available for shipbuilding it would be necessary to make a much larger outlay upon them.
MR. MACGREGORsaid, he hoped the First Lord would not take all the advice that had been given him. He had been advised to make a great reduction in the Coastguard service. He (Mr. Macgregor) hoped this would not be done, because if smuggling had been to a great extent abolished, it was due to the efficiency of the Coastguard, who were also extremely useful in cases of shipwreck. He trusted, further, that the right hon. Gentleman would not put torpedoes into the hands of all the Coastguard, and allow them to experiment in all the harbours of the country. The consequences of doing so might be very serious. The suggestion put him in mind of a gentleman of his acquaintance who told him he had discovered a new method of extinguishing fires on shipboard, and asked him for the loan of one of his steamers to experiment

1677
upon. He did not feel inclined to agree to this, and in the same way he thought the country would not like to lend the harbours for these torpedo experiments.
MR. BENTINCKconfessed to a fooling of disappointment. His opinion agreed with that expressed by others, that this year's Estimates were precisely the same as those of the late Government. That was not satisfactory. He did not think that the Estimates came up to the requirements of the country we not only required more ships, but we ought to overhaul those which we had. Were a war to arise we should be placed in a position of great difficulty, Because we should not have enough of ships, and before we could build as many as we wanted we might be taken at a very great disadvantage. He regretted that it was intended to do away with the Britannia, as he thought that boys being trained for the Navy learnt more in six months on board ship than in 1:2 months on shore. He agreed with the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Samuda) that we wanted two types of ships; but he should like to know whether we had yet arrived at the right type of ship. As to coasting vessels we were extremely ill-found. Our Army was being reorganized—in other words, it was in a state of disorganization; there-fore, a double responsibility rested on his right hon. Friend to look well to the efficiency of the Navy, to whose care the honour, the safety, and welfare of the country were specially intrusted.
MR. HUNT, in reply, said, he had every reason to be satisfied with the way in which his statement had been received generally by the House. It appeared that he had done what his predecessors would have done had they remained in office, with the exception that he had sold ships by private treaty when they would have sold them by public auction and would not have realized so good a price. There was no mystery about it. The gentleman came to him personally and said he could make a good offer if insured a number of ships sufficient to make the business continuous to employ a number of men for a long time. After consultation with the Controller's Department, he was encouraged to send in a formal proposition; it was referred to the Director of Contracts, who communicated with the Controller's Depart
1678
ment, and after a good deal of negotiation with Mr. Castle, an arrangement was concluded, the terms of which he believed would be considered quite satisfactory. In reply to the hon. Member for Pembroke, he had to say that the "chiefest" of the constructors was the Director of Naval Construction; he used to be called the Chief Naval Architect. No definite decision had been come to with regard to storekeepers; he could not say the abolition of them had been a success. At all events, not in the larger yards; but the question was in abeyance, and he had not any immediate intention of making a change. The duties of the engineer had been more clearly defined he was subordinate to the Chief Constructor as regards questions of construction generally, but was the highest authority with regard to engineering matters. The despatch vessels were not to be armoured; but they were to be armed; armour was incompatible with their speed. It had been necessary to increase the number of cadets to make up for the discontinuance of a separate navigating class he had no intention to reduce the Coastguard. Thanking the House for the way in which it had received his statement, he trusted that he should be allowed to take the Vote for the money as well as the Vote for the Men, as there might be no other opportunity of getting the money Vote before the end of the financial year.
Vote agreed to.
(2.) £2,636,162, Wages, Seamen and Marines.
(3.) £2,139 7s. 7d, Greenwich Hospital and School, Excess on Grant for year ended 31st March 1874.
Resolutions to be reported To-morrow;
Committee to sit again To-morrow.

EPPING FOREST (re-committed) BILL.
(Lord Henry Lennox, Mr. William Henry Smith.)
EPPING FOREST (re-committed) BILL.

  [BILL 52.] COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  COLONEL MAKINSsaid, that the Bill in its former state contained no provision to prevent waste or demolition of property by unauthorized persons, but the Select Committee had inserted what he wished to see in the Bill; and that being so, he should beg leave to withdraw the

  1679
  clause for the purpose, of which he had given Notice.
  MR. RITCHIEsaid, there was another improvement in the Bill, and that was the substitution of one year for two for the duration of the powers of the Commission. His constituents felt that the noble Lord (Lord Henry Lennox) had consulted the wishes of those who took an interest in the preservation of the Forest.
  MR. SHAW-LEFEVREsaid, he was glad the clause introduced by the hon. and gallant Member opposite had been withdrawn, and thought that the complaints as to lopping had been exaggerated he was glad also that the suit in the Rolls Court had ended as it did, as the landowners would otherwise have converted the whole Forest into private property.
  Bill considered in Committee, and reported, without Amendment; to be read the third time To-morrow.

  WAYS AND MEANS.
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  1. Resolved, That, towards making good the Supply granted to Her Majesty for the services of the year ending the 31st day of March 1874, the sum of £2,139 7*. 7d. he granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom.
  2. Unsolved, That, towards making good the Supply granted to Her Majesty for the service of the year ending the 31st day of March 1876, the sum of £7,000,000 he granted out of the Consolidated fund of the United Kingdom.
  Resolutions to be reported To-morrow;
  Committee to sit again To-morrow.

  PUBLIC HEALTH (SCOTLAND) PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIEMATION (NO. 1) BILL.
  On Motion of The LORD ADVOCATE, Bill for confirming a Provisional Order made under "The Public Health (Scotland) Act, 1867," relating to the parish of Beith, in the county of Ayr, ordered to be brought in by The LORD ADVOCATE and Sir HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 92.]

  PUBLIC HEALTH (SCOTLAND) PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (NO. 2) BILL.
  On Motion of The LORD ADVOCATE, Bill for confirming a Provisional Order made under "The Public Health (Scotland) Act, 1867," relating to the barony of Fraserburgh, in the county of Aberdeen, ordered to he brought in by The LORD ADVOCATE and Sir HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 93.]

  FOREIGN LOANS REGISTRATION (NO. 2) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. H. B. SHERIDAN, Bill to provide for the compulsory Registration of Foreign Loans and the Statutes of Foreign Companies, ordered to be brought in by Mr. H. B. SHERIDAN, Mr. CHARLES LEWIS, and Mr. M'LAGAN.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 94.]
  House adjourned at One o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Committee—Patents for Inventions (15–36).
Report—Increase of the Episcopate* (35).
Third Reading—Police Magistrates, Metropolis (Salaries) * (31), and passed.

PARLIAMENT—THE EASTER RECESS.
EARL GRANVILLEinquired of the Government, what were the arrangements they intended to propose in connection with the Easter Recess?
THE DUKE OF RICHMONDsaid, he proposed if it met the convenience of their Lordships, that they should adjourn on Friday, the 19th inst., and reassemble on Tuesday the 6th of April.

THE CLERK OF THE PARLIAMENTS.
The letter from Sir John George Shaw Lefevre, K.C.B., tendering his resignation of his Office of Clerk of the Parliaments, considered (according to Order).
THE DUKE OF RICHMOND: My Lords, I have now the opportunity, which I accept with great pleasure, of paying my tribute of respect and regard to Sir John Lefevre, and to express my regret at the course which he has felt bound to adopt, of resigning the office of Clerk of the Parliaments which he has so long held. I cannot refrain from saying that I consider I have an hereditary right to express the feeling of respect and regard which I entertain for him, because I know that it was also entertained by my late Father, who was associated on many occasions, both in public and in private, with Sir John Lefevre. No man stood higher than he did in my Father's estimation. After what was said the other evening, I do not think that I should be doing right in trespassing any further on your Lordships' time—the more particularly as the subject is one on which the utmost unanimity exists. I beg to move the following Resolution:—
"That this House has received with sincere concern the resignation of Sir John George Shaw Lefevre, K.C.B., of the office of Clerk of the Parliaments on account of recent indisposition and his advancing age, and they think it right to record the just sense which they entertain of the zeal, ability, diligence, and integrity with which the said Sir John George Shaw Lefevre, K.C.B., has executed the important duties of his office during the period of nearly twenty-seven years."
LORD SELBORNE: I wish, with your Lordship's permission, to make a few observations, founded on experience before I was a Member of your Lordships' House, as to the kind assistance given by the late Clerk of the Parliament to the counsel and solicitors who had duties to discharge at the Bar of the House on Appeals. For very nearly the same period of time that Sir John Lefevre has been Clerk of the Parliaments, I was constantly in the habit of practising in this House, and I must say that during the whole of that time, even if I had been a Member of your Lordships' House, I could not have received more courtesy and assistance than I received from Sir John Lefevre. On all occasions he was ready to give to every one—solicitors as well as members of the Bar—all the assistance that was in his power to give. From which I infer that all the officers and servants of your Lordships' House, from the highest to the lowest, would bear their testimony, with

1595
one accord, to the universal courtesy and untiring assiduity with which he discharged his duties.
Resolution agreed to nemine dissentiente.
Ordered that the Lord Chancellor do communicate this resolution to the said Sir John George Shaw Lefevre, K.C.B.
Then, on the Motion of the Duke of RICHMOND, it was—
Ordered, nemine dissentiente, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty laying before Her Majesty a copy of the letter of the said Sir John George Shaw Lefevre, K.C.B., and likewise of the resolution of this House, and recommending the said Sir John George Shaw Lefevre, K.C.B., to Her Majesty's Royal Grace and Bounty.
Ordered that the said Address be presented to Her Majesty by the Lords with White Staves.

PATENTS FOR INVENTIONS BILL.
(The Lord Chancellor.)
PATENTS FOR INVENTIONS BILL.

  (NOS. 15–36.) COMMITTEE.
  House in Committee (according to Order).
  Clauses 1 to 5, inclusive, agreed to.
  Clause 6 (Examiners of Patents).
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, that certain verbal Amendments in this clause were necessary, in order to give effect to an alteration which he proposed to make in those provisions of the Bill which applied to the Examiners and the Referees. As the Bill stood, it was proposed that the Examiners who were to make reports for the Law Officers should not be more than four or less than two in number, and it was intended that each application for a patent should be examined by one Examiner and one or two Referees. This plan had been much considered in various quarters, and numerous representations on the subject had been made to him. As the result of the best consideration he could give the point, he would move Amendments in Clause 6 and other clauses, having for their object to effect this alteration—that there should be two, and not more than six Examiners; that the list of Referees should be made by the Commissioners of Patents without the necessity of the concurrence of the Board of Trade; and that the association of a Referee with an Examiner should not be obligatory, but permissive. It was in consequence of this last alteration that
  1596
  it was thought advisable to provide that as many as six Examiners—instead of four, the number at present in the Bill—might be appointed.
  Amendment moved, Clause 6, page 2, line 31, to leave out ("four") and insert ("six").
  THE DUKE OF SOMERSETwished to make this inquiry of the noble and learned Lord—who would be responsible for giving a patent after this Bill passed? Would it be the Commissioners of Patents, or would it be the Law Officers? He apprehended that it was not usual to grant such a power to unpaid Commissioners; and as to the Law Officers, he believed they had too much other business to do, to attend to patents in such a way as would enable them to act as judges. He wished also to ask as to the progress of the register and index of existing patents? He believed that there was a great deal yet to be done, and he doubted whether the proposed staff would be adequate to overtake the work in arrear and to keep abreast with the new work.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he concurred with the noble Duke, that there was a great deal to be done in the way of indexing and classifying existing patents, but a great deal in that way had already been done. He was led to believe that the arrears might be cleared up by the time the working part of the Bill would come into operation with the assistance of the Examiners, who could be appointed immediately on the passing of the Act. In reply to the noble Duke's question—"Who was to be responsible for giving a patent?" his reply was, that beyond doubt the Law Officers would be responsible, subject to an appeal to the Lord Chancellor or a Judge of the High Court designated for the hearing of such appeals. No doubt the Law Officers were very much engaged; but up to a recent period, when a fixed salary was settled on them in lieu of fees, those learned Gentlemen drew an income of £4,000 or £5,000 from patents. From experience he knew that the hearing of applications for and objections against patents was a very troublesome duty for the Law Officers; and the most troublesome point about it was that although they heard both sides, they had to hear one side in one room and the other side in another room. It was

  1597
  proposed under this Bill that when any objection was made against the granting of a patent, the Law Officers should hear and dispose of it; and he did not think that was too much to expect of them.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed, to.
  Clause 7, lines 3 and 4, to leave out ("with the concurrence of the Board of Trade").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clauses 8 and 9 agreed to, with Amendments,
  Clause 10 (Reference to Examiner and Referee).
  Amendment made, after "Commissioners shall refer the application to an Examiner," insert "and a referee, or, if in any case they think it expedient, two referees."
  Clause 11 (Report of Examiner and Referee).
  Amendment made, after "after the invention," leave out "is new, as far as they can judge thereof from an examination of," and insert "appears open to objection on the ground of want of novelty, as far as can be ascertained from."
  New Clause to follow Clause 11 (Association of referee or referees with examiner).
  "In any case, as prescribed, there may be associated with the examiner a referee or two referees.
  "The referee or referees shall be nominated according to a fixed rotation, which shall not be made public, or in the other mode prescribed (if any).
  "Every referee before acting with reference to an application shall make a declaration, as prescribed, to the effect that he has no interest therein.
  "The referee or referees shall join with the examiner in considering the application, specification, and relative documents, and in reporting thereon."
  Clause 12 (Reference to and Report by Law Officer).
  Amendment made, after line 13, add as new paragraph—
  "The Law Officer shall consider the same, and may, if he thinks fit, hear the applicant and any person having filed notice of opposition."
  Clauses 13 to 15, inclusive, agreed to.
  Clause 16 (Times for Sealing.)
  Amendment made, after ("application") add—
  1598
  ("But it shall not be competent for the patentee to institute any action, suit, or proceeding in respect of an infringement committed before the publication by the commissioners of the application, specification, and relative documents.")
  Clause 17 (Extent of Patent).
  Amendment made, page 5, line 6, leave out ("the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man.")
  Clause 18 (Power for Lord Chancellor to extend time in certain cases) agreed to.
  Clause 19 (Conditions of patents for foreign inventions).
  Amendment made, after line 3, add as new subparagraph—
  "(3a.) The publication in the United Kingdom of the invention, by the circulation or republication therein of the foreign patent, or of any specification or document referred to therein or connected therewith, shall not affect the validity of the patent."
  Clauses 20 to 47, inclusive, agreed to, with Amendments.
  Clause 48. (Power for Commissioners to make general rules regulating details, business of office, &c).
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEsaid, he proposed to ask their Lord-ships to omit from the clause these words—
  "For establishing, subject to the approval of the Treasury, and opening to public inspection, a museum or collection of models of inventions, and other objects relating to patents and to inventions.
  Reading these words by the light of the Reports of the Commissioners of Patents, he thought it was not difficult to see why this provision had been inserted in the Bill. During a considerable period those Commissioners had been clamorous, and with good reason, for better accommodation for themselves, their officials, and their library, and in the Report of 1873 they dwelt on the necessity of providing it. No doubt, it was the purpose of these words, that the increased accommodation should it be accorded, should be appropriated to the purposes of a Museum of Patents. Now, he could not but think that the Patent Commissioners were not the best body to whose care and management such a Museum should be intrusted, composed as the Commission was of 13 gentlemen, no fewer than eight of whom were judicial or legal officials, whose time was occupied with other matters. He objected to any such addition to the duties of the Commis

  1599
  sioners, upon the ground that the formation and custody of a collection of inventions had nothing to do with the real purpose of this Bill. It was not desirable to have in this country such a collection of patents as was to be found in the United States and other countries, where before an inventor could get a patent it was necessary for him to deposit a model. The result of the American system had been, he was informed, the accumulation of a mass of models, a great part of which were of a more or less rubbishy character. In this country our Patent Museum would be made up of models and specimens voluntarily contributed. From an inscription which was sufficiently prominent at South Kensington it must be pretty generally known to their Lordships that we already had what was called a Patent Museum in the metropolis. As the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack lived in the neighbourhood, perhaps he occasionally visited the Patent Museum; and if that were so, he thought the noble and learned Lord could scarcely think the arrangement there afforded a favourable example of the management of such a museum. The first object that caught the eye was a glass case containing a collection of articles illustrating the manufacture of india-rubber, conspicuous amongst which was a pile of small india-rubber objects, over which was an inscription "Omnium Gatherum Tobacco Pouches." And "omnium gatherum" was a very proper description of the contents of the Museum. It was true that more important objects, such as the locomotive which had killed Mr. Huskisson, another known to its admirers as "Puffing Billy," and other venerable locomotives, occupied the centre of the Museum. Now, a collection of models of steam engines and locomotives was both interesting and instructive; but he thought the noble and learned Lord and his Colleagues scarcely desired to be the custodians of a collection so extraordinary and ill-assorted as that now in the Museum at South Kensington. But what he wished more seriously to point out was that the subject of such collections had recently been under the consideration of the Royal Commission on Scientific Instruction and the Advancement of Science, of which Commission he had the honour of being a Member, and that Commission,
  1600
  after suggesting in their Report, the formation of a collection of physical and mechanical instruments "submit for consideration whether it may not be expedient that this Collection, the Collection of the Patent Museum, and that of the Scientific and Educational Department of the South Kensington Museum, should be united and placed under the authority of a Minister of State." He believed the step which the noble and learned Lord was about to take was opposed to the spirit of that recommendation, and he trusted the noble and learned Lord would consider whether means might not be arrived at for reconciling the provisions of this Bill with the recommendation of that Royal Commission. He begged to move the omission from the clause of the words quoted in the commencement of his observations.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he should give the noble Marquess's proposition the most unqualified resistance. No communication had been made to him on the subject of an interference with the present management of the Patent Museum. As to the suggestion of the noble Marquess, it was already under a Minister of State—the Minister who held the Great Seal. Before the Committee of the House of Commons there was given a large body of evidence quite sufficient to justify the proposition contained in the Bill. It was quite true that the present Patent Museum was not well arranged; a state of things which had been complained of for many years. It was said that the present Museum was simply a warehouse. "What the Royal Commissioners recommended was that as the existing collection of patents had cost the country a large sum of money, a portion of the building at South Kensington should be appropriated to their collection and arrangement; and a Committee of the House of Commons recommended that a portion of the large sum of money which remained in the hands of the Commissioners of the Exhibition of 1851—upwards of £170,000 he believed—should be appropriated to the same purpose. There were already proper officers to arrange the models, and if at any future time it was thought desirable, it might be placed under a State Department. As to what the noble Marquess had said about the collection of tobacco-pouches, facetious observations might be made

  1601
  on the contents of every Museum, though he doubted that the term "rubbishy" was applicable to the Patent Museum at Washington. The Committee of the House of Commons recommended that the Museum of Patents should be in connexion with the Patent Office, and in the absence of a more definite alternative scheme than that shadowed forth in the recommendation to which the noble Marquess had referred, he would ask their Lordships to reject the Amendment, and concur in the proposal made by the Bill.
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEwould remind the noble and learned Lord that the Committee of the House of Commons sat in 1864, while the Royal Commission had held its sittings very recently. He was aware that the Patent Commissioners were not to blame for the disorder at South Kensington. But what he objected to was, that the Patent Museum should be under the Commissioners at all—he desired to see it and other collections and museums under the control of a State Department. He wished to ask who was to be responsible under the Bill for the selection of the men of science who were to form the Board of Management? As for what he had said of the American collection, he did not wish to be disrespectful towards the Museum at Washington; but when models of all the inventions for which patents were asked in the United States must be deposited, he thought some of the models must be very trumpery objects.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORquite agreed with the noble Marquess that some of the models must be of the character he described; but, as a whole, the Museum at Washington would not deserve such a character.
  LORD SELBORNEsaid, that the difference between his noble Friend (the Marquess of Lansdowne) and his noble and learned Friend was scarcely any difference at all, and as the clause in its present shape did not pledge anyone against any step which Parliament might think fit to adopt hereafter with reference to the hands in which such Museums should be placed, he would recommend his noble Fried to withdraw his Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave of the House, withdrawn.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 48 and the remaining Clauses agreed to, with Amendments.
  The Report of the Amendments to be received on Friday the 19th instant; and Bill to be printed as amended. (No. 36.)

INCREASE OF THE EPISCOPATE BILL. (Nos. 8–35.)
(The lord Lyttelton.)
Report of the Amendments.
On the Report of Amendments in this Bill
LORD COTTESLOEgave Notice that on the third reading he would move to limit the operation of the Bill to the five cases which were considered most urgent.
LORD LYTTELTONsaid, he would ask their Lordships to reject the Amendment of which the noble Lord had just given Notice.
The Report was then agreed to.

OWNERS OF LANDS, &c., (ENGLAND AND IRELAND)—THE RETURNS.

  QUESTION.
  VICOUNT HALIFAXasked the Lord President of the Council, When the Returns of the owners of Land in England and Wales, presented to the House on the 6th of August, 1874, would be delivered to Members of the House; also the Returns of owners of Land in Ireland?
  THE DUKE OF RICHMONDsaid, that in the case of England the Returns would be completed with all possible despatch, and would, he hoped, soon be in the hands of Members. As to Ireland, he was unable to give his noble Friend any positive answer; but he should endeavour to get the necessary information without delay, and would communicate to his noble Friend the result.
  House adjourned at a quarter past Six o'clock, 'till To-morrow, half past Ten o'clock.