Sitting of 26 June 1876

MINUTES.
Supply—considered in Committee—Navy Estimates.
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—First Reading—Turnpike Acts Continuance, &c.* [209]; Limited Owners Residence (Ireland)* [210].
Second Reading—War Department Post Office (Remuneration, &c.)*[206]; Tramways Orders Confirmation (Bristol, &c.)* [203];Medical Act (Qualifications)* [170];Medical Practitioners* [81].
Committee—Supreme Court of Judicature (Ireland)* [161]—R.P.
Committee—Report—Settled Estates Act (1856) Amendment* [193].
Considered as amended—Poor Law Amendment [190], debate adjourned.

REGISTRY OF DEEDS OFFICE (IRELAND)—LEGISLATION.—QUESTION.
MR. O'CONNOr POWERasked the Secretary to the Treasury, If it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to introduce, this Session, a Bill effecting alterations in the working of the Registry of Deeds Office (Ireland); and, if so, whether inducements will be held out to the officials in this and other public de-

419
partments where the recommendations of the Playfair Commission are not in operation, to retire on pension; and, whether the Treasury is at present prepared to entertain applications for retirement on pension from those officials?
MR. W. H. SMITH, in reply, said, that the Government intended, if possible, to bring in a Bill that Session in regard to the working of the Registry of Deeds Office (Ireland), and, if not, early next Session. If the legislation took the form of a reduction of the Staff, the ordinary rules applicable to the public service would be applied to the Office in question.

SCOTLAND—FATAL FIRE IN AYR.

  QUESTION.
  LORD LINDSAYasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If his attention has been called to the unfortunate fire which occurred in a cotton mill in Ayr, by which a large number of lives have been lost; and, if he is rendering such assistance as is necessary to enable the inspector and the jury to ascertain the reason why these workpeople were unable to make their escape?
  MR. ASSHETON CROSS, in reply, said, that immediately after the occurrence of the fire the Procurator Fiscal made a searching inquiry into the origin of the fire, and of the causes which led to so great a loss of life. On account of the great difficulty of approaching the ruins, and of recovering the bodies, the inquiry had not yet been completed. Every assistance was being given by the town authorities, and if it should appear that there had been any neglect of the provisions of the Factory Act by the proprietors of the mill, the Inspector would be at once communicated with; but, so far as the inquiry had gone, there did not appear to be any ground for such a suspicion. The Lord Advocate had put himself in communication with the Procurator Fiscal on the subject, and it would receive the utmost attention.

ARMY—THE MONCRIEFF SYSTEM OF ARTILLERY.—QUESTION.
COLONEL BERESFORDasked the Secretary of State for War, If he will lay upon the Table of the House a com-
420
munication, dated July 8th, 1875, giving Major Moncrieff reasons for recommending the further development of his system of artillery, and requesting inquiry?
LORD EUSTACE CECIL: It is not the custom to publish ex parte statements of gentlemen who communicate with the Public Offices without the publication (which would be manifestly improper) of confidential replies made to them by the officers of the Department.

INDIA—MADRAS IRRIGATION COMPANY.—QUESTION.
MR. SMOLLETTasked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether interest has been paid upon the debenture debt due to Government by the Madras Irrigation Company for the years 1874 and 1875, a period during which repayments of the principal sums due have been postponed as a matter of grace and favour by the Secretary of State, or whether any interest on this debenture debt has ever been paid since 1866;whether it be true that the sums needed for the working of the navigation and irrigation canals of this Company have been defrayed for some years by the Government of India, less the receipts from the works; and, if so, why this charge is met by the Indian Exchequer while the undertaking is in the possession of private parties; whether there is any present intention on the part of the Secretary of State for India to receive a transfer of these works from the existing shareholders, and to guarantee payment of the private debenture debts, understood to be very considerable; and, whether he will undertake, before the works are acquired,, to place upon the Table of the House a Return showing distinctly the actual indebtedness of this undertaking?
LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: Sir, no interest has been paid by the Madras Irrigation Company upon the debenture debt due to the Government, which debt was contracted upon an Act of Parliament. The receipts from the irrigation do not equal the working expenses, and the sum necessary to meet the deficiency has been advanced out of the revenues of India; but the Company has been informed that no further advances will be made on this account. In any negotiations which may be entered into, the main object of the Government will be

421
to reduce the annual burden which has been imposed upon the Indian Treasury by the agreements which have been entered into with the Company. If the hon. Gentleman wishes for further information as to the income and indebtedness of the Company, and will move for such a Return, we shall be glad to give him any information which it may be in our power to grant.

NATIONAL SCHOOL TEACHERS (IRELAND)—CASE OF MICHAEL MOYNA.

  QUESTION.
  MR. W. JOHNSTONasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether his attention has been called to the Petition of Michael Moyna, formerly teacher of Three Mile House National School, county Monaghan, presented to this House on the 28th April last; and, whether he will causean inquiry into the whole circumstances connected with his leaving Ireland, with a view to his restoration to his former position as a teacher under the National Board?
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: Yes, Sir, my attention has been called to the Petition in question. The teacher, Michael Moyna, was dismissed not only for infringing the regulations of the National Board on Education by taking active part in the election of Poor Law Guardians in his district, but also for breaking the law by signing to voting papers the names of voters who were dead, and witnessing them in his own name. After his dismissal he left Ireland for America, of course, at his own option; and under all the circumstances I do not think it would be advisable that he should be restored to his position in the employment of the National Board of Education.

ARMY—THE GRENADIER GUARDS—DEATH OF COLOUR-SERGEANT BROWN.

  QUESTION.
  MR. J. HOLMSasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether it is true that Sergeant Brown, of the 3rd Battalion of Grenadier Guards, on returning from exercise at Wormwood Scrubs on or about the 12th instant, was suddenly taken ill, and died in hospital; and, whether he will state if an inquest has been held; and, if, not, why not?
  MR. GATHORNE HARDY, in reply, said, Colour-Sergeant Brown, 3rd Battalion Grenadier Guards, was taken ill on parade immediately after return of the battalion from Wormwood Scrubs; he was admitted to hospital, and died about 4½ hours after admission from apoplexy. As he had been treated in the hospital, and as his death was from natural causes, the surgeon major of the battalion did not consider that there was anything to justify him in applying for a coroner's inquest.

INLAND REVENUE—OUT-DOOR EXCISE ESTABLISHMENT.—QUESTION.
MR. MONKasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, in reference to the Recommendations of the Civil Service Commissioners, dated the 23rd day of July 1875, as to the Out-door Excise Establishment, and of the Treasury Minute relating thereto, dated the 15th day of March last, When the alterations decided upon will take effect?
THE CHANCELLOR OFTHE EXCHEQUER, in reply, said, he trusted the hon. Gentleman would not think him wanting in courtesy if He declined to answer the Question. The recommendations dated July, 1875, were in the hands of the House; but in regard to the Treasury Minute, it had never been made public, and there was very great inconvenience in Questions being publickly put on matters involving large interests in relation to the Civil Service.

NAVY—THE ARCTIC EXPEDITION—THE ADMIRALTY INSTRUCTIONS.

  QUESTION.
  CAPTAIN PIMasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether he has any objection to lay upon the Table of the House the Admiralty instructions to Captain Nares, and also those given to Mr. Allen Young, for whom a sum of £8,000 is to be taken in Vote 14 of the Navy Estimates, under the head of "Communication with the Arctic Expeditions by Mr. Allen Young?"
  MR. HUNT,: in reply, said, that the Instructions had already been laid on the Table.

MERCHANT SHIPPING ACTS—MERCHANT SEAMEN DESERTERS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. BIGGARasked the President of the Board of Trade, If his attention has

  423
  been drawn to the case of Henry Jacobs and John Scott, two seamen, who were reported to have jumped overboard in the Thames from the ship "Cullmon" rather than go to sea when they found to whom the ship belonged, and are now undergoing six months' imprisonment for so doing; and, whether he will direct that the shipping master before whom the men sign articles should make the men acquainted with the names of the owners before they sign articles?
  SIR CHARLES ADDERLEY: Sir, my attention has been called to the case of Henry Jacobs and John Scott, who jumped into the river at Gravesend to get into a boat to desert from the Callirrhoe, not Cullmon, as the ship is named in the Question. They were pursued and taken before the Mayor and sentenced to six weeks imprisonment—not six months as stated by the hon. Gentleman. They could not have truly pleaded that they had not known the owner of the ship, as, before they signed the articles at Tower Hill, they were, as is always done, fully informed of the owner's and master's name. For the same reason I cannot direct shipping masters to give such information generally, as they are bound to give it always, and in fact always do give it. This case, among many others, involving great loss to the ship and the fraud besides of making off with advance notes, shows the necessity of stringent punishment for desertion. The Mayor of Gravesend, who tried the case, expressed his opinion that these men had joined with the purpose of desertion, to get their advance notes, and repeat the trick.

METROPOLIS—PAVING, CLEANSING, AND LIGHTING.—QUESTION.
MR. BAILLIE COCHRANEasked the Chairman of the Metropolitan Board of Works, Whether, under the Metropolis Local Management Act, powers were given to the Metropolitan Board of Works not only for the purposes of sewerage and drainage, but also in respect of the paving, cleansing, and lighting of the Metropolis; and, if so, whether his attention has been drawn to the state of the streets in some parts of the Metropolis, especially in the Knightsbridge district; and, whether some better arrangement cannot be made for cleans-
424
ing and purifying the great thorough-fares?
SIR JAMES HOGG: Sir, in answer to the Question of my hon. Friend, I have to inform him that under the Metropolis Local Management Acts the powers as to paving, watering, and lighting streets were expressly placed under the control and management of the Vestries and District Boards, and not of the Metropolitan Board of Works; and that in every Act extending the powers of the Metropolitan Board as to making new streets, the obligation has been put on the last-named Board to give up the streets when completed to the Vestries and District Boards, to be managed by them as to paving, watering, and lighting. I should state that as regards two of the Thames Embankment roadways these provisions originally inserted in the Acts have been altered by Parliament, and they have been placed under the control of the Metropolitan Board for all purposes.

TURKEY—ALLEGED MASSACRE IN BULGARIA.—QUESTION.
MR. W. E. FORSTER: The House will, I trust, allow me to make a few observations in explanation of the Question which I wish to ask the Prime Minister, and of which I have given him Notice, respecting the atrocities alleged to have been committed by the Turkish troops in Bulgaria, and especially described in a letter printed in The Daily News of last Friday. Many hon. Members will have read that letter, but for the information of those who have not, I may state that it described with much detail the total destruction of many villages and the massacre of their inhabitants, men, women, and children, by Turkish troops. Those troops are stated to have been generally irregulars, but the name of a Turkish Pasha is given as implicated in the outrages, and it would not appear that the inhabitants of these villages were actually in rebellion. As a rule I should not think of asking the Government a Question either with regard to the treatment by a foreign Government of its subjects or as regards the correctness of anonymous statements in any newspaper, however respectable and influential; but it seems to me important, in forming an opinion on affairs in Turkey, in which we appear just now to be

425
unfortunately much involved, that if allegations such as I have stated are true we should be aware of them, and that if false we should not be misled by them. I should not be acting fairly to the House if I did not add that since last Friday I have received information, not from the office of The Daily News, but from a quarter which is certainly not prejudiced against the Turkish Government, which information appears to me to confirm the substantial truth of these distressing statements. This, however, only makes me the more anxious to know whether the Government have obtained from official sources any contradiction or confirmation, and I, therefore, beg to ask the right hon. Gentleman, Whether he can give the House any information with regard to the truth of the statements which have recently appeared in the public papers, and especially in the "Daily News" of June 23rd, respecting the cruelties alleged to have been committed by the Turkish troops in the suppression of the insurrection in Bulgaria?
MR. DISRAELI: Sir, we have no information in our possession which justifies the statements to which the right hon. Gentleman refers. Some time ago, when troubles first commenced in Bulgaria, they appear to have begun by strangers entering the country and burning the villages without reference to religion or race. The Turkish Governmen at that time had no Regular troops in Bulgaria, and the inhabitants, of course, were obliged to defend themselves. The persons who are called Bashi-Bazouks and Circassians are persons who had settled in the country and had a stake in it. I have not the slightest doubt myself that the war, if you can call it a war, between the invaders and the Bashi-Bazouks and Circassians was carried on with great ferocity. One can easily understand, under the circumstances under which these outrages occurred, and with such populations, that that might happen. I am told that no quarter was given, and no doubt scenes took place which we must all entirely deplore. But in the month of May the attention of Sir Henry Elliot was called to this state of things from some information which reached him, and he immediately communicated with the Porte, who at once ordered some Regular troops to repair to Bul-
426
garia, and steps to be taken by which the action of the Bashi-Bazouks and Circassians might be arrested. Very shortly after, the disturbances in Bulgaria seem to have ceased. That is all the information I have to give the right hon. Gentleman on the subject, and I will merely repeat that the information which we have at various times received does not justify the statements made in the journal which he has named.

ARMY MEDICAL OFFICERS.

  QUESTION.
  DR. WARDasked the Secretary of State for War, If it is true that Medical Officers who were appointed by His Royal Highness the Commander in Chief to the medical charge of regiments for five years, prior to the issue of the last new Warrant of April 1876, are to be removed from those regiments and sent on Foreign Service before the completion of said period of five years?
  MR. GATHORNE HARDY: Yes, Sir, they are; as by the recent medical Warrant of the 28th of April, 1876, the Department has become unified, and the paragraph attaching medical officers to regiments for five years, as a rule, under the Warrant of 1873, has been abolished. All medical officers, whether formerly attached to regiments or depÔt brigades, or not, are now placed on one general roster, according to their service at home, sending abroad first those who have served at home longest. I may mention that the first of these has not served out of this country for 15 years.

INDIA—ACTS OF THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL.—QUESTION.
SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLasked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether he has any objection to lay upon the Table of the House, Copies of the Acts passed by the Indian Legislature, either from time to time or periodically?
LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: Sir, until 1858 it was the practice to lay Acts of the Legislative Council of India upon the Table of the House, and I do not know why the practice was discontinued. There will be no objection to lay in future, upon the Table of the House Indian Acts after they have received the sanction of the Secretary of State for India.

TURKEY—THE PLAGUE IN BAGDAD.

  QUESTION.
  MR. TWELLSasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If his attention has been directed to the alarming reports circulated of the existence of plague in Bagdad, and to state what reports concerning the disease and mortality Her Majesty's Government has received from Her Majesty's Consul General at Bagdad, and the present sanitary condition of that city and the neighbourhood; and, further, to inquire if the stringent quarantine restrictions imposed by the Turkish and Egyptian authorities against ships arriving in the Red Sea from the Persian Gulf have been strictly in accordance with duly notified regulations, and if British shipping and shipping of all other nations have alike been impartially subjected to them?
  MR. BOURKE, in reply, said, that the attention of the Government had some time ago been called to the subject of the hon. Gentleman's Question, and that reports had been received from Her Majesty's Consul at Bagdad with respect to it. The first disease which broke out did not appear to have been the plague, but some other form of epidemic; a report, however, had been lately received which stated that it had turned into that very dreadful disease. The last Report on the subject was received yesterday, and it was dated at Bagdad the day before. According to that, it appeared that the disease might be said to be to a great extent worn out. It was to this effect—"No deaths in Bagdad from plague during last three days. Health generally good." The number of deaths in February, and in March, he might add, was 259, in April 1,717, in May 1,550, while in June they were only 143, making a total of 3,669. According to Dr. Colville, the resident doctor at Bagdad, he said it was the real plague, and that it had been brought into the city from the low country lying between the Tigris and Euphrates, but he did not consider quarantine to be necessary in the case of passengers, although it might be with regard to the sending of wool. As to the restrictions on shipping, complaints had been made by the British Consul at Jeddo to the Turkish and Egyptian authorities, that British, ship-
  428
  ping was subjected to vexatious quarantine regulations which were not imposed on the vessels of other nations, and a correspondence on the point had for some time been going on with the Turkish Government. He need hardly assure his hon. Friend that the Government would use every exertion to obtain for British shipping the favourable treatment to which it was entitled.

CHANNEL ISLANDS—THE JERSEY STATES.—QUESTION.
MR. LOCKEasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether it is competent for the Jersey States to criticize the enactments of the Imperial Legislature, and question the propriety of Orders in Council legally and regularly made; if not, whether steps will be taken to protect the privileges and dignity of Parliament?
MR. ASSHETON CROSS, in reply, said, he could only refer the hon. and learned Gentleman to the Report of the Royal Commission which inquired into the laws of Jersey in 1847. From that Report it appeared that the Jersey States had legislative power, and that the form which this authority now assumed was that of Orders of Her Majesty in Council. The Orders were registered in the Royal Court, and were not binding in law until such registration was effected. This was settled by the Code of 1771. It was, however, declared by the same Code that it was competent for the Royal Court, in any case where the Order in Council appeared to be contrary to the charters or privileges of the Jersey States to suspend the registration until the pleasure of the Crown was further taken; although, if the Crown did not withdraw the Order, it must be registered.

THE "MISTLETOE"—FURTHER INQUIRY.—QUESTION.
MR. ANDERSONasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If, he will consult with the Law Officers of the Crown as to applying to the Gosport Coroner's Jury on the "Mistletoe" disaster the precedent that has just been successfully adopted in the Balham case, and move for a writ ad melius inquirendum, so as to institute a complete inquiry under a new Commission?
MR. ASSHETON CROSS, in reply, said, he thought the hon. Member would see on reflection that there was no analogy between the two cases. In the case of the Balham inquiry the Court had quashed the inquisition and ordered the coroner to hold a second inquiry into the circumstances of the case; whereas in the case of the Mistletoe a second inquiry had already been held by another Court.

CRAB AND LOBSTER FISHERIES (NORFOLK) BILL.—QUESTION.
MR. MELDONasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether, in the event of the Motion to refer the Crab and Lobster Fisheries (Norfolk) Bill to a Select Committee being withdrawn, the Government are prepared to advise the appointment of a Select Committee to inquire into the necessity for legislation with the view of protecting the Crab and Lobster Fisheries throughout the United Kingdom?
MR. ASSHETON CROSS, in reply, said, the Crab and Lobster Fisheries (Norfolk) Bill was founded on an inquiry made by the Fishery Inspectors. It had the unanimous approval of the fishermen and of the owners of fisheries, and therefore he should like to have it passed, if possible, this Session. He was perfectly willing, however, that in the Recess an inquiry should be instituted by the Inspectors for the whole Kingdom, so that next year a Bill not limited to Norfolk, but operating throughout the United Kingdom, might be introduced.

PARLIAMENT—ARRANGEMENT OF PUBLIC BUSINESS.—QUESTION.
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: Sir, I believe that the course of the Business of this House for the present week was stated to this House on Friday last by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I have no Question therefore, to ask on the subject. I wish, however, to ask the right hon. Gentleman at the head of Her Majesty's Goverment a Question with reference to a Notice which has been placed on the Table by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Oxford (Sir William Harcourt), relating to the Papers on the subject of the Extra-
430
dition correspondence with the United States. The Question I wish to ask is, Whether it will be in the power of the right hon. Gentleman to give any facilities to my hon. and learned Friend to bring on that discussion? My hon. and learned Friend will, of course, if necessary, take his own chance of bringing forward that discussion, but I wish to point out that my hon. and learned Friend could have no opportunity of doing so for a month at least, and it is very likely that he might fail altogether. Looking to the importance of the subject and the desirability of having a discussion on it, I consider that neither of these contingencies would be desirable. I also wish to ask whether, now that the last set of Papers relating to Egyptian affairs has been laid on the Table, the right hon. Gentleman will name a day on which he proposes to take the discussion on the Vote for the expenses of Mr. Cave's mission? I have also been requested by many of my Friends to ask, whether it will be in the power of the right hon. Gentleman to make a statement as to the intentions of the Government respecting the University Bills? I know that in the arrangements of the Government for this week those Bills are not included. I do not ask the Government to state precisely on what day they will bring them forward; but it may be in the power of the right hon. Gentleman to say, in the event of the Business set down for this week being disposed of, what is the next important Business which it is the intention of the Government to take up?
MR. DISRAELI: Sir, I propose to place the Cambridge Bill on the Paper as the First Order of the Day for Thursday, the 6th of July. With reference to the noble Lord's inquiry respecting the Extradition Papers and the Motion contemplated by the hon. and learned Gentleman, I would observe that those Papers are not yet completed. We ought, before discussing the question, to have before us the despatch of Mr. Secretary Fish, and also the answer of Her Majesty's Government. The answer of Her Majesty's Government to that despatch is written, but has not yet been sent, though, probably, it will be sent immediately. With regard to giving facilities to the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Oxford, I may say it is always my duty and pleasure

431
to assist the course of Public Business; but I should hardly like to fix any day for the discussion of the subject until I have seen the terms of the Motion of the hon. and learned Gentleman. He has only given Notice of a Motion without stating what the Motion is to be, and, of course, at this period of the Session, I must weigh the circumstances which may influence me in advancing other measures before I can indulge myself in the pleasure of obliging the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite. Of course, when I see the Motion, I will state the course which the Government may think it their duty to take with respect to it. Under the circumstances, I think it is desirable that before the House consider the question they should be in possession of two of the most important documents which the issue had produced—namely, the statement of the case of the United States Foreign Minister and the answer of Her Majesty's Government. With reference to the third inquiry of the noble Lord respecting the discussion on the question of the Suez Canal and the mission of Mr. Cave, I would also remark that, although the Papers connected immediately with the purchase of the Canal are complete and are in the possession of the House, yet a great many other Papers will be presented which are immediately connected with the surtax question and also with the administration of the Canal, and which I think it desirable that the House should possess before we enter into any discussion. Therefore, I will only say at present that I will take care ample Notice is given to the noble Lord and his Friends before we ask for a Vote.

SUPPLY—COMMITTEE.
MR. DISRAELI: I have now to move that this House do immediately resolve itself into a Committee of Supply. It is a formal Motion made in consequence of Supply being a dropped Order from the House terminating its sitting rather abruptly on Friday. I mention this because a misapprehension has existed in some quarters as to the nature of this Motion as if it were an invasion of the privileges of hon. Members. Every privilege of hon. Members may be exercised as usual on the Question being put from the Chair.
Motion agreed to.
Resolved, That this House will immediately resolve itself into the Committee of Supply.—(Mr. Disraeli.)
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."

ADMINISTRATION OF THE NAVY.

  MOTION FOR A ROYAL COMMISSION.
  CAPTAIN PIMrose to move—
  "That, considering the present administration of the Admiralty is practically that introduced and adopted by this House in 1833, on the recommendation of Sir James Graham; and considering the advance made in Naval armaments and the unsatisfactory condition of the personnel and materiel of Her Majesty's Navy, it is desirable that a Royal Commission be appointed to inquire and report whether the present system under which the Navy is administered is the most efficient and most economical, and what improvements or amendments, if any, it would be desirable should be introduced."
  The hon. and gallant Member said, that the wretched state of our Navy was every day becoming more notorious, and people began to understand that never before were our ships so indifferent and our officers and men so little cared for, and consequently so discontented. The House voted plenty of money to give the country a splendid Navy and the command of the seas; but under the present system this money was to a great extent wasted. When, in 1833, Sir James Graham, then at the head of the Admiralty, re-organized the administration and civil departments of the Admiralty in a fluctuating Board of Admiralty, personal responsibility as well as every check to extravagance came to an end. The effect of this change was anticipated at the time by every one experienced in the administration of naval affairs. Mr. John Wilson Croker, speaking on an experience at the Admiralty of 22 years, denounced the proposed change in strong terms, and said—
  "That if such a system were adopted he knew what must happen—the subordinate or executive chief of the Department must obey without remonstrance, and they could be subject to no responsibility. What with despotic command on the one hand, and servile subordination on the other, all checks would be at an end, and responsibility nowhere exist."
  And similar opinions were expressed by such men as Mr. Goulburn, Admiral Sir Byam Martin, Sir George Cockburn, and other eminent persons. Well, what had been the result of the re-organiza-

  433
  tion of the Admiralty by Sir James Graham? The consequence had been that our naval expenditure had increased from £4,500,000 in 1833, to an expenditure, on an average of 10 years, of £11,000,000 a-year. No doubt, the amount voted was of secondary importance, if only the Navy were kept in really efficient order; but the degree of inefficiency to which we had arrived only too clearly indicated the waste of this money. As to the personnel of the Navy, he deeply regretted to say there was not a single class in the Service without just cause of complaint. He had in his hands statements printed and circulated by nearly every class of executive officers, describing the grievances under which they lay. Such a course had never been known when he was young in the Service. From the cadet to the Admiral there was room for reform. The masters, engineers, surgeons, and Paymasters had all injustice and inequalities to complain of as respected pay, position, and promotion. The case of the masters was a disgrace to the Service; they were the very backbone of the Royal Navy—the best seamen and navigators in the Fleet, and without any substitute for them he could not conceive how they could afford to abolish them. The navigating officers were the most useful men in the Service. The treatment of the Warrant officers was such as to give the idea that it was the object of the Admiralty to get rid of them altogether. The policy adopted towards the Royal Marines was simply suicidal—they were a magnificent body of men, absolutely unequalled under arms—in fact, our men-of-war could not be manned without them. Yet their memorial set forth that the 22 senior lieutenants of the corps were not in the 16th year of their service; and such was the stagnation in the higher ranks that it amounted to an absolute block to promotion; 1,108 captains in the Army and several majors were actually junior in the Service to these lieutenants. With regard to the seamen the case was still more serious. The number of bonâ fide seamen (including pensioners) who had left the Service from all causes during the year 1872–3, the last printed Return, appeared to have been, according to the Return, as follows:—By purchase, 48; invalided, 647; died, 124; deserted, 800; disgraced, 6; pensioned for long ser-
  434
  vice, 310; objectionable, 42; coastguard on shore, 265; other causes, 165;total, 2,847. Of this number, no less than 800 deserted in 1873. Last year no less than 1,100 men deserted; so that the discontent was steadily increasing. The men would not remain a moment longer on board a man-of-war than they could help. One glance at the youthful appearance of the crews proved that. They no longer saw the weather-beaten, grisly petty officers, prime seamen, the heart and soul of the ship's company, the natural leaders of the men in any emergency, whether of storm or battle. The men would not stop, and the House would be astonished at the number of commitments to prison, and other punishments inflicted, to keep up the very ordinary discipline of the present day in the Fleet. Take the case of the Challenger. That ship, as hon. Members were aware, had returned from an exceptionally pleasant cruise, where the men were well treated, no doubt, and more or less picked men; but out of a crew of 240, some 60 deserted during the cruise of the ship—say 25 per cent of her ship's company. As to the Royal Naval Reserve, it was thoroughly unreliable, not to say useless. This year Parliament had voted a sum of £240,000 to provide for 20,000 men; but he ventured to say that on an emergency not 1,000 men could be obtained even by pressing. In war time they could not take one single man from their Merchant Service; they must have food, and their merchant ships must bring in that food constantly, or they would starve, as the island never had more than two months' provisions in stock at the same time. Their so-called Naval Reserve was useless, and they were worse than wasteful in spending their money upon it. He now came to the matériel of the Navy. Our iron-clad ships were of so heterogeneous a description that it would be impossible to classify them; but he would take a few typical examples, sufficient to show how little they were to be relied on in the hour of need. The hon. and gallant Member proceeded, at great length, to read Reports on the efficiency of various iron-clad ships. The Research, he said, had proved such a bad sea boat that in a coasting voyage, in moderate weather, her captain was nearly washed overboard from the central battery; the Vixen and the Waterwitch rolled and

  435
  pitched to such a degree that the crews went aft in a body, and protested against being sent to sea in such unseaworthy vessels. The Pallas was built expressly for speed, yet the Pallas and Research were the only two vessels that could not keep company with the squadron. The Bellorophon was to have surpassed every other iron-clad, but what was her practical performance? Admiral Yelverton reported of her that she ranked below the Lord Clyde, and on a par with the Caledonian and the Ocean—these last being wooden line-of-battle ships converted into iron-clads to meet an emergency. The Van guard class was to be weighed by the result of the trial trip of the Invincible, when that ship on her return had the appearance of being on her beam-ends. She was actually heeling over 17 to 18 degrees, and the greatest anxiety prevailed on shore for the safety of the ship. The Audacions, Iron Duke, Triumph, and Swiftsure were equally bad, and on an average 400 tons of ballast had to be placed on board of each of these vessels. Then as to our coast defenders, the Devastation and Thunderer class, Admiral Sir Thomas Symonds said—
  "I should be afraid to go at any great speed at sea with, them (the Devastation class); I have seen very heavy seas, and I know no limit to their power. If steaming, you are obliged to go at a certain speed, or you drown yourself. All I know is, that so far as I am myself concerned, I should be very sorry to be in those vessels."
  He (Captain Pim) could hardly speak with patience of huge mastless iron-clads as coast defenders. Coast defenders, indeed! Why, putting on one side the unseaworthiness of these vessels altogether, what did they want, he asked, with such coast defenders? The first thing they must do in war was to blockade any enemy's ports—shut them up—fancy one Alabama only amongst their commerce! What they wanted was a vessel capable of keeping the sea under sail in any weather. He should like to ask hon. Members if it was possible for the Devastation to keep the sea off the Elbe in a gale of wind! Why, she would be smothered. What they wanted was a cloud of gunboats able to carry sail in all weathers, and to claw off a lee shore under sail; they should have a crew of above 25 men, one heavy gun, full brig or schooner rig, and steam power for action; with four of these
  436
  vessels the finest iron-clad ever built in the world could be easily destroyed. In short, every one asserted in unmistakable language that their unwieldy, unmanageable iron-clads—
  "were not safe when near land or one another, at sea, at anchor, or in bad weather, without steam power."
  The gallant Sir George Sartorius, Admiral of the Fleet, said—
  "They are equally unfit for the exigencies of coast or distant warfare; and for the blockading of an enemy's ports, impracticable."
  The Report, 1872, of the Scientific Committee appointed by the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty to examine the designs of ships recently built, was to the effect that diligent research throughout the Royal Navy was in vain to discover even one type of ship as desirable to reproduce. He repeated that nothing could be more unsatisfactory than the present state of the Royal Navy. And nothing was more easy than to remedy it. The nation and the Navy united as one man in pointing to the Admiralty as responsible. And how could the country expect anything but mismanagement and misrule from a Department so curiously constituted? In less than 50 years there had been more than 20 changes in the First Lord of the Admiralty, whose tenure of office had, on an average, been about two years. The hon. and gallant Member then quoted from the Report of the Select Committee on Navy, Army, and Ordnance Estimates of 1858 numerous instances of waste and extravagance which had resulted from the bad constitution of the Admiralty—
  "In 27 cases investigated, the Admiralty bought back the old copper from the purchaser of a ship at a greater price than that for which they sold the ship itself, including the copper, costly engines, and other valuable stores."
  Some instances were stated of fortunate purchasers of a ship receiving back from the Admiralty (for the old copper returned) two, three, four, and even five times over the original price they had paid for the ship, &c.
  MR. E. J. REEDwanted to know whether the hon. and gallant Gentleman was quoting now from the Report of the Committee, or the Report of the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. Seely), which was rejected by the Committee?
  CAPTAIN PIMsaid, the hon. Gentleman would find it in the Library. He had found it there himself. He found that of the ships valued by the Dockyard authorities for breaking up, some were sold at about one-half the estimated value of the old materials. The Report went on to assert—
  "If the cost of all the iron-clads built in Her Majesty's Yards between 1858 and I865 bears the same proportion to the cost, as that of Achilles to the Black Prince and Warrior, the excess cost of Admiralty-built iron-clads during these years has been £1,663,000 on an expenditure of £3,500,000."
  The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Montrose stated in that House—
  "That the country was paying for stores and material at rates 20, 30, 60 per cent above the market value, and that a system of bribery by contractors had been established within the walls of the Admiralty."
  The cost of the Admiralty was somewhat startling, as would be seen by the following:—Sir James Graham's scheme of naval re-organization was to effect a saving in salaries under the head of Commissioners, secretaries, superior officials, inferior officers, and clerks, of no less a sum than £49,059 per annum, and—
  "He hoped still further to reduce the professional and clerical staff of the Admiralty Office (Vote 3) from 70 in number to 40."
  That was in 1832. In 1872 Mr. Corry told that House—
  "That the Admiralty staff numbered 432 individuals in 1869, and the personnel has increased since to 537 clerks and writers."
  Could any system of administration be good when the Board itself was radically wrong, both in its constitution and in its distribution of duties? Let them look for a moment at the opinions of those most competent to pass judgment on this subject. The Earl of Malmesbury said—
  "My impression and conviction are, that if such a change took place—if the administration of the patronage of the army were assimilated to that of the navy, it would become the same hotbed of jobbing and trickery which has been, unfortunately, for many years a reproach to the Admiralty of this country."—[3 Hansard, cxxxvi. 1360.]
  [Mr. Hunt: What is the time of that speech.] In 1855. Sir James Graham would not hear of a Board for the War Department. He said—
  438
  "Having been six years at the Admiralty, he knew what a Board was. The machinery of a Board is known to be cumbrous and uncertain in its operation. It only works well when the head of the Board acts as if he were alone responsible. A Board, therefore, would be a retrograde measure, which your Committee cannot recommend."
  He might be told that in 1869 this state of things was rectified by the alleged reforms inaugurated by the right hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. Childers). He would not trouble the House with the merits or demerits of those reforms, but what were the results—had our naval expenditure been diminished, or did they find the state and condition of the Navy in any respect improved? And as to responsibility, to quote the words of the right hon. Member for Pontefract, "has that been sheeted home?" He need only mention three notorious cases—the capsizing of the Captain, the loss of the Megæra, and the foundering of the Vanguard, to prove that such was not the case. Admiral Sir Spencer Robinson, late Controller of the Navy, in September 1873, said—
  "As to the Navy, its management was simply deplorable."
  And further thus expressed himself—
  "Is it wonderful with such an organization the working of the Dockyards is not satisfactory? If there were not waste, if there were not mismanagement, it would be a miracle."
  England at the present moment stood in a very precarious condition, her Navy being quite inadequate to protect either her coasts or her commerce; the personnel of the Navy was in a deplorable condition; the matériel was equally bad; and the Administration was notoriously inefficient. The hon. and gallant Member concluded—Sir, I am no alarmist; I firmly believe that if our seamen and Marines have anything that will float to fight upon they will give a good account of their enemy, but the nation must not expect a miracle in its favour in the hour of need. That the Navy has been, and always must be, the real strength and bulwark of England is acknowledged on all hands, and especially by this House in the Preamble to the Naval Discipline Act, 29 & 30 Vic, cap. 109, which runs thus—
  "The Navy.—Whereon, under the good Providence of God, the wealth, safety, and strength of the Kingdom depend."

  439
  Sir, it is because I am deeply anxious that the wealth, strength, and safety of this Kingdom should still be maintained that I ask the House for a Royal Commission, and I therefore now beg to move for it.
  SIR EARDLEY WILMOTseconded the Motion.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "considering the present administration of the Admiralty is practically that introduced and adopted by this House in 1833, on the recommendation of Sir James Graham; and, considering the advance made in Naval armaments and the unsatisfactory condition of the personnel and matériel of Her Majesty's Navy, it is desirable that a Royal Commission be appointed to inquire and report whether the present system under which the Navy is administered is the most efficient and most economical, and what improvements or amendments, if any, it would be desirable should be introduced,"—(Captain Pim,)
  —instead thereof.
  MR. HUNTsaid, his hon. and gallant Friend had brought a very serious charge against not only the Admiralty of the present day, but against almost every Admiralty in his recollection, and he had attributed the faults he found with their acts and omissions to the constitution of the Board. He (Mr. Hunt), however, hardly thought he had made out his case in that respect. He was quite aware that a difference of opinion prevailed, and he believed always would prevail, as to the constitution of the Admiralty. At one time they had a Board with a Lord High Admiral at its head, and at other times a civilian with a Naval Council; but he did not know that the results had been very different from what they were now. The change would be only one of name, and the work would be found to have been done very much as it was done at present. There might be a difference of opinion on that subject, but he did not think the proof which had been brought forward would support the conclusions his hon. and gallant Friend had arrived at, or that he would induce the House, instead of going into Committee of Supply on the Navy Estimates for the current year, to appoint a Royal Commission on the constitution of the Admiralty. His hon. and gallant Friend had found fault with the personnel and
  440
  Matériel of the Navy, and urged that it was necessary that the Admiralty should be differently constituted, saying that there was not a single branch of the Service which was not dissatisfied. A great many, however, of the complaints which his hon. and gallant Friend mentioned had already been removed. He asked his hon. and gallant Friend, when referring to the case of the Warrant officers, the date of the pamphlet he quoted, and the answer he received was 1874. His hon. and gallant Friend did not seem to be aware that since then a new Warrant had been issued, improving the position of the Warrant officers, and since then he had heard no complaint. With regard to the executive officers, he had not asked the date of the pamphlet quoted; but last year a new Warrant was issued, improving the flow of promotion as regarded the executive officers. It had effected a great improvement in their position, and gave a reasonable flow of promotion. In this case also he understood the complaint was dated before the issue of the new Warrant. He must protest against grievances which had been met being again brought up as if nothing had been done to remedy them. [Captain Pim: The men are just as discontented now as they were before.] His information was not to the same effect. He knew how difficult it was to satisfy every one in the public Service; a certain number would always be dissatisfied. Within the last few years they had had to deal with the Civil Service, and the other day with the officials of the London Custom House; but he was not aware that, because some of these officers might be dissatisfied, any hon. Member had thought proper to move that a Royal Commission should be appointed to inquire into the constitution of the Treasury. His hon. and gallant Friend had also referred to the medical officers; but either last year or the year before there was a new Warrant improving the condition of the medical officers. Again, he spoke of the engineers. Well, nothing had been done yet as regarded the engineers, but a Committee had been appointed by the Admiralty which had gone into the case of the engineers and how the service could be improved, and that Report was under the consideration of the Admiralty. The complaints of his hon. and gallant Friend had, therefore, to a great

  441
  extent been already met or were under the consideration of the Admiralty. He spoke of the number of desertions as showing that the Service was unpopular. That subject had been discussed some few weeks ago, and he thought he then showed that the Service was not unpopular, and the places where desertion took place showed, not the unpopularity of the Service, but the great attractions of some foreign ports, where wages were high and land cheap, to which the men, unfortunately, yielded. He alluded specially to the desertions from the Challenger; but the Challenger had been over nearly all the world, and therefore the crew had been exposed to greater temptation than almost any other ship ever sent out from this country, because they had the attraction presented to them of the whole world except the Arctic regions. His hon. and gallant Friend had also referred to the iron-clad Navy. No doubt, after it was determined to turn our wooden Navy into an iron-clad Navy some mistakes were made. That was to be expected; but when mistakes were discovered, they did not continue to build ships on the same design. The Devastation had been referred to, and he was not surprised that great doubts should have been entertained regarding that ship. He himself, when he first spoke on the subject, had great doubts as to her sea-going qualities, but he did not entertain them now; with the experience he now had on the subject he had no hesitation in passing her as a sea-going ship. He had sailed in her company for some hours, and, although the sea was very heavy for the ship he was in, he was very much surprised at the way in which the Devastation behaved. He knew the opinion of naval authorities had very much changed in regard to the Devastation, and he believed she was commanding very great respect where she now lay in Besika Bay. One of the best proofs of the superiority of their designs was this—that whenever a new design of a ship was adopted almost the whole world followed it. All the naval Powers of Europe looked to the English Admiralty for new designs of ships. The other day he was in a German port, and there he found a ship just laid down on the same design the Admiralty had previously adopted. He did not pretend to say that there were no defects of admi-
  442
  nistration at the Admiralty. Indeed, he was desirous that all shortcomings should be pointed out with a view to being remedied; but he hardly thought that, either as regarded the matériel or the personnel of the Navy, his hon. and gallant Friend had made out a case for a Commission. He therefore trusted they might be permitted to go into Committee to vote the supplies for the year.
  MR. E. J. REEDsaid, the House would remember that the hon. and gallant Member for Gravesend (Captain Pim) read some passages strongly condemnatory of the administration of the Admiralty from what the House probably understood to be the Report of a Committee of Inquiry. He (Mr. Reed) asked the hon. and gallant Gentleman at the time whether He was reading from an actual Report, or only from a draft Report which the Committee had distinctly rejected, and the hon. and gallant Gentleman, with all his honour and gallantry, did not give him a candid reply, but referred him to the Library to discover the truth. Well, he (Mr. Reed) had consulted the Library, and he had to inform the House that the hon. and gallant Member's quotations were not from the Committee's actual Report, but from a draft Report which they had decidedly refused to adopt. Some of the other statements of the hon. and gallant Gentleman had been presented to the House with a similar amount of candour. He had read at considerable length Reports or extracts from Reports on ships. But most, if not all of them, were of old date, and referred to the ships in question at a period when they were entirely novel, and when, consequently, it was only natural that they would be exposed to no small amount of misconception and misrepresentation. Adverse opinions with regard to a novel type of ship were always to be looked for, and he might say he should despair of naval architecture altogether, if naval architects had to inspire every admiral with a favourable idea of the qualities of the ships he commanded. He believed that in the progress of naval architecture there would always be found, especially on the part of the senior officers, a tendency to take objection to great novelties, though such objections frequently disappeared as experience was gained.

  443
  The objections formerly urged against the Devastation were no longer heard—she had lived them down; and so it was with other types of vessel. As for the Devastation, which many persons had suspected of being unfit to go to sea, but which had been to the Mediterranean, and engaged in a variety of service, he ventured to assert there was no ship afloat at the present time worth anything like so much to any country in Europe as she was to England; and he was certain that if the development of European complications should call upon us to vindicate our strength upon the ocean, she would prove herself to be a most important element of our naval strength. The Research had been alluded to by the hon. and gallant Member as if she were some first-class ship. In reality she was only a small vessel which was originally intended to be wood, but had afterwards been converted to an iron-clad; and, therefore, nobody expected that she would be a first-class ship. She, however, had been successful. She carried into the Mediterranean the largest guns that had then ever been taken into that sea in a man-of-war. There were complaints of a certain amount of wetness forward, until a forecastle was built; but that was no ground for condemning the design of the ship. The Holy head and Dublin packets were all built without forecastles, and had to have them added afterwards. If the House were to judge of her from the hon. and gallant Member's statements, they would make a great mistake. Another proof of the failure of the British Navy was drawn by the hon. and gallant Member from the case of the iron-clad gunboats Viper, Vixen, and Water witch. No doubt the Vixen rolled when she went to sea, but these vessels were not built for seagoing service. They were built for special service in a distant country, and for the purpose intended he maintained that they were perfectly fit in every respect. When the Vixen was finished she was thought to be so much better than she was expected to be, that she was put into commission and sent to the coast of Ireland, where the service was of the most trying description. It was true she rolled so heavily that the officer in command admitted to a Court of Inquiry that he was afraid she would capsize, which, he added, would have been a very serious matter; but, under the
  444
  circumstances, there was nothing in her case or in that of her sister ships to justify a sweeping condemnation of the British Navy. The Research and Pallas might not have kept company with the other vessels when steaming down Channel against a head wind; but the Research was only a 10-knot ship, whilst the others were 13 or 14-knot ships. When he was asked how it was the Pallas, that did so well at the measured mile, did so badly after, the question, he said, should be addressed to her captain, and not to her designer; and when the Admiralty sent for her captain, although the hon. and gallant Member for Gravesend omitted to state it, on her next cruize she steamed away from all the rest of the fleet. He contended that the character of a British man-of-war or that of her designer ought not to be frittered away in consequence of occasional incidents of that kind happening in transacting the business of a great naval service. The hon. and gallant Member said that his (Mr. Reed's) shorter vessels required more horse-power than the majority of large ships to drive them through the water at the same speed. That was perfectly true, and it was what, he contended, that ships should require. The hon. and gallant Member forgot to tell the House that the Bellerophon, which required a little more steam power than the Achilles, had cost £106,000 less than the latter ship. They encountered this little extra cost as to fuel by saving £106,000. With respect to the Bellerophon he would relate a story. When she was ready for a trial trip, the then First Lord of the Admiralty, Sir John Pakington, came down to Portsmouth. The wind for several days had been against making such a trial, but Sir John said to him—"What speed do you expect from her?" He replied 14 knots an hour, and he felt confident he could do it, even if the wind was against them next day, if he was allowed to try. Sir John said—"I am told by several eminent officers that she will not make more than 11 knots, and then she will be one of the best ships in the Navy." He (Mr. Reed) did take the Bellerophon against the face of an unfavourable wind, and she made 14¼ knots, and even when steaming with half her engine power made 12¼ knots. It was true that some officers had said she did not always keep up to that; but of course the

  445
  capability was there, and this defect must be attributed to the way in which the engines were worked. The blame, if any, could not be attributed either to the House of Commons, who voted the money, or to those who designed the ship. The hon. and gallant Member had been equally unfortunate in his references to the Caledonian, the Ocean, and the Invincible class of vessels. Instead of going for the latest information, he had taken that which he found in the Library, taken years ago. No doubt the Invincible class of ships did require some ballast, but then they were sailing as well as steaming ships. They carried a large amount of sail, and were excellent sea-going ships. It was too long a question to go into the vindication for the necessity of ballast, but he appealed with confidence to those who had served in the Admiralty to show that the value of the Invincible class had been fully ascertained. The ships when on active service were the very opposite of what the hon. and gallant Gentleman would have them believe. He spoke of the vessels having a certain amount of list, but no one could give a guarantee against that arising when first taken out; but it was not right to speak of their performance when in an incomplete condition. They had been tried, and a distinguished officer of the Navy—Admiral Ryder, whose flagship on the China station, he believed, was of the Invincible class—had written a most eulogistic letter upon the ship, pointing out that when in a heavy gale, in company with a ship of another great European Power, he could not help thinking with what ease he could destroy her, because of the superior qualities of his own vessel. Further, the Swiftsure and Triumph had both given proof of their excellent qualities. He thought, therefore, the hon. and gallant Member, in seeking to influence the judgment of the House, ought to be careful, for his own sake, to give the House the latest and most trustworthy information, and not spend his time in the Library in digging out statements which events had shown to be entirely wrong, and unworthy of the present consideration of the House. He (Mr. Reed) had always looked upon Admiral Sartorius as a man of advanced views. He was probably one of the oldest officers in the Navy; but it was necessary to take the opinions of officers of a past period with
  446
  some care, and not be too ready in times of progress and change to take them as the true standards by which the judgment of the country was to be guided. During the seven years he served the Admiralty, and the interval that had elapsed since, he had not had any fault to find with the manner that officers of the Royal Navy had treated ships of novel design; on the contrary, he had often expressed his astonishment at the readiness with which they fell into the altered conditions of modern warfare, and the freedom of mind and breadth of view with which they were prepared to treat novel designs; and he believed that great credit was due to them for their general conduct in relation to the iron-clad Navy of this country. His object in replying to the hon. and gallant Member for Gravesend was not to influence his judgment in the least degree, because it was a matter of indifference to him (Mr. Reed) what his views were, and always would remain so; but it was necessary to prevent others being unduly influenced by his opinions; and if the British Navy had not been sufficiently vindicated by what he had said, it was due rather to the brevity of the defence than the force of the attack that had been made.
  MR. BENTINCKsaid, that from the discussions that had taken place in reference to our iron-clads he was inclined to believe that more could be said against them than in their favour; and when his right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty informed them that foreign countries were in the habit of copying our ships, he (Mr. Bentinck) ventured to express a hope that they would not fail to copy the blunders as well as the merits of our ships. The Motion was one of such a comprehensive character that he would not presume to follow his hon. and gallant Friend throughout his speech. The abolition of Masters in the Navy was a grievous mistake, which he hoped would be re-considered, for junior officers had not opportunities of acquiring the experience necessary to navigate our ships. He believed that even the scientists of this country knew very little of what an iron-clad ought to be, and still less what would be the class of ship required if this country embarked in war. So long as we did not possess men-of-war which could be navigated at sea under canvas, and which could reserve their coal for

  447
  emergencies or for going into action, so long should we be unprovided with a Navy which could defend the honour and interests of this country. There had been a great naval demonstration in the Mediterranean recently, but pending that demonstration he contended that our coasts were denuded of ships for defensive purposes. [Mr. Hunt: I say, no.] He quite understood what his right hon. Friend said; still he denied the existence of an efficient fleet at home. There was no use in mincing matters. We had no fleet now fit for home defence. If he was mistaken, the House and the country would be very much obliged to his right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty if he would show that, independent of that naval demonstration in the Mediterranean, we had at home an adequate fleet for the defence of our coasts. He asked the right hon. Gentleman to inform the country where the fleet was to be found that could be depended upon for home defence in case of invasion. He quite agreed with his hon. and gallant Friend that there was an enormous amount of waste going on in the Navy, and that money was thrown away in a manner prejudicial to the financial interests of the country. It was the old story—a Board was responsible. The whole subject of the Motion amounted to a renewal of the Motion which he (Mr. Bentinck) brought forward a few months ago. He admired the abilities of his right hon. Friend the First Lord as much as anybody; all he regretted was that those abilities were entirely misplaced. He entirely and fully endorsed all the hon. and gallant Member for Gravesend had said upon the subject; but he did not suppose that the House would be disposed to grant the Commission asked for, because it was a remarkable feature in that House that to all matters relating to naval questions there was an utter and an entire indifference, and both sides of the House had an interest in suppressing all inquiries into naval affairs. He contended that placing at the head of the Admiralty a gentleman who knew nothing about naval matters was a rank and glaring absurdity. If his hon. and gallant Friend divided the House on his Motion he should gladly go into the Lobby with him.
  MR. HUNT: After the statement of my hon. Friend, I wish to ask the in-
  448
  dulgence of the House while I say a few words with regard to the question of our security. In the present state of affairs I hope that exceptional allowance will be made, and that I shall be permitted to state that my hon. Friend is not warranted in saying that the naval demonstration in the Mediterranean has denuded us of ships for the protection of our coasts. I beg to tell him that there are at this moment nine iron-clads in commission either at home or in the immediate neighbourhood of home, besides those which have gone to the Mediterranean; that in a month or five weeks I could commission two more, one of them the Thunderer, which would then be the most powerful ship afloat; and that in the course of a very short time, if need be, several more ships could be put in commission, not speaking of all the special defence ships which now are in commission and in Reserve, and the gunboats which are laid up at Haslar awaiting any emergency that may arise. I wish, therefore, without entering into details, to give the most positive contradiction to the statement that this country is denuded of naval defence.
  MR. GOSCHEN: I rose at the same time as the right hon. Gentleman simply to assure him that I felt certain that both this House and the country would accept his simple disclaimer that he had not denuded the shores of this country of the ships necessary to defend them, and that the country would be perfectly satisfied if even, without giving any particulars, the right hon. Gentleman simply stated that the insinuation of the hon. Member for West Norfolk was not based upon fact. The right hon. Gentleman and his Friends know that we on this side of the House have been most anxious throughout all these anxious times to let no single word fall from our lips that would in any way embarrass them, or that would add to those great anxieties which we know must be laid upon them. For my own part, I came down to the House prepared to debate the Estimates without any reference, if it were possible to avoid it, to matters that might embarrass the Government, or might call upon them to make any explanations which in the present state of affairs might have been inconvenient to them. We must, therefore, all the more regret the question, but for the satisfactory declaration which the right hon.

  449
  Gentleman has been able to make. It was not necessary even for him to have given the numbers in the statement that he made, because the country and the House would be assured that no Board of Admiralty would venture upon such a proceeding as that which the hon. Member for West Norfolk (Mr. Bentinck) seemed to think them capable of—namely, that of sending its forces into the Mediterranean without considering what were its needs at home. The right hon. Gentleman has very properly alluded to the fact that during the last four or five years special means have been taken to secure the coast defence, quite irrespective of sea-going iron-clads, and that when the moment should come, in consequence of this provision, it would be possible to make a demonstration such as had been made by the right hon. Gentleman. The House and the country will remember that there have been most powerful gunboats constructed, carrying each an 18-ton gun; that these have been laid up and are ready at any moment for any duty that they may be called upon to perform; and that there is also a class of vessel like the Hecate and the Cyclops which the right hon. Gentleman did not allude to. [Mr. Hunt: I did allude to them. I spoke of them as special ships.] There are four of these ships, and a ship like the Glatton. These ships are specially designed for the service, and the right hon. Gentleman has now been able to give effect to that policy which it has always been said it would be possible to adopt—namely, that by building these coast-defence ships he would be more free to handle the sea-going iron-clads. It was for that purpose that these coast-defence ships were constructed, and it shows the advance that has been made in the naval power of this country that they have enabled the Admiralty to take a step which otherwise it would have been unable to take.
  LORD CHARLES BERESFORDsaid, he could assure the House that Her Majesty's Navy was not in the sad state of inefficiency that the hon. and gallant Member for Gravesend (Captain Pim) and the hon. Member for West Norfolk (Mr. Bentinck) imagined. During the last six months he had—in company with His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales—made a voyage to India, in the course of which he had had ample opportunity
  450
  of seeing two-thirds of the Navy, including the Channel Fleet, the Mediterranean Fleet, the Flying Squadron, and the East India Squadron; he had been on board most of the vessels, and he asserted most distinctly that the Navy was not in the state of inefficiency that had been represented to the House. With the exception of the engineers and the Marines, respecting whose requirements a Commission of Inquiry had been granted, all branches of the Service were, he believed, perfectly contented. The hon. and gallant Member for Gravesend abused the men for being young, that was a thing one very often got abused for; but he (Lord Charles Beresford) thought these young men were better men than some of the grizzled old men who grumbled at them. They were taken in young that they might be the better trained. As to flogging deterring men from joining the Navy, he repeated what he had already said, that the men would like to see more of it. For a fine plucky fellow with lots of "go" in him who would always come out when he was wanted, was very often the man who would give his officer some "cheek" and be insubordinate. Well, under the old system, they could give him two dozen and "whitewash" him, and a week afterwards could make him a petty officer; but now they put his name down at the bottom of the list, and also in a book which went to the Admiralty, the consequence of which was that it might be brought against him for the next seven years as a bar to promotion. He wondered if he would have ever got his commission as a captain if there had been such a record kept of his delinquencies while he was a midshipman. He agreed with the hon. Member for Pembroke as to the Research and the Bellerophon, having served seven months in one and a year in the other of those vessels. The Research was a very bad vessel, but she was never intended to be anything else. The Bellerophon was an exceptionally fine vessel. The contention of the hon. and gallant Member for Gravesend that the Admiralty were to blame for the loss of the Vanguard was a most extraordinary one; the hon. and gallant Gentleman might just as well say that he (Lord Charles Beresford) was to blame because the favourite did not win the Derby. The Navy was not in the dreadful state imputed to it; on the con-

  451
  trary, it was very far from it, and had considerably improved during the last five or six years.
  MR. GOURLEY, who had placed a Notice upon the Paper to move for a Select Committee to examine into the Designs upon which Ships of War had recently been constructed, as well as upon any new type of vessel or torpedo which might be placed before the Committee, said, the confidence of the country as to the state of our Navy had been very greatly shaken by the errors and disasters which had recently occurred. This question was too important to be lightly passed over, and he wished to know what ships we had really at home for home defence, what we had for convoy purposes, what for ocean fighting, and what system the Government meant to adopt for the purpose of protecting the various ports around our coasts, either by torpedoes or monitors? When he examined the concentration of our naval force in the Mediterranean he was unable to ascertain how the vessels were to be disposed of in the work required of them, supposing them to have been sent there for the purpose of maintaining the Treaty of Paris. With regard to the vessels which had been laid up at home, he held that we had not a sufficient force to protect us from the attack which might be made upon us, if Russia chose to accept the challenge which had been thrown down to her more than once by the present Government. Russia had in the Baltic for her protection a larger number of guns than we had at home—she having 1,032 against our 862. He wished to know how far the Admiralty had profited by the experience of those countries which had been the most recently engaged in naval warfare? One of the facts brought out by the Austro-Italian War was that rams and turret ships were of more use and possessed more destructive power that any other class of ships. The American Civil War placed before them the facts that unarmoured ships, such as the Alabama, possessing great speed, were to be preferred for ocean cruising and the destruction or convoy of commercial ships to other classes, and that vessels of the Monitor class were the best adapted for coast defence. During the Franco-German War the French iron-clads, deep down in the water, were unable to do any-
  452
  thing either offensively or defensively, and even sailing colliers were able to pass them without being molested. The departmental Committee of 1871 unanimously held that the Devastation was the best kind of ship for offensive purposes, yet if she were sent against Sebastopol or some other Russian port the Russians would have it in their power to destroy her by a torpedo. With respect to the Iron Duke and the Vanguard, they reported that any new ships of this class should have the strength of their lower structure increased to prevent such disasters as the Vanguard had since experienced. Had the Admiralty acted upon that Report they would long ago have strengthened the lower structure of that class of ships. Our ocean cruisers of the Inconstant class would be found comparatively useless in real warfare. There was a want of system at the Admiralty with reference to the building of ships, and with one or two exceptions there was not a seaport in this country which had at the present moment any organized defence.
  MR. GORSTheld that, without attempting to depreciate the efficiency of the Navy, it was quite open to hon. Members to declare that the administration of the Admiralty was not on the whole satisfactory. He was well aware that constant complaints were being made by officers in the Navy, and the Admiralty promised to inquire into them, but there the matter usually ended. There was the case of the Engineers. It was brought forward in the last Session, and hopes were held out that it would be inquired into, but nothing more was heard of it. As to the Marines, the right hon. Gentleman came to the conclusion at the beginning of last Session that reform was needed, but threw the blame of delay on the Treasury.[Mr. Hunt said, he threw no blame on the Treasury.] Well, he might be mistaken in that; but his impression was that the statement of the right hon. Gentleman led to the belief that the obstruction was not at the Admiralty, but at the Treasury. The country believed that the administration of the Admiralty was inefficient; but he made no personal attack upon the right hon. Gentleman, because any blame which there might be in the matter was much more attributable to right hon. Gentlemen opposite, who had a great deal more to do with organizing the present system than right hon.

  453
  Gentlemen now in office. The Constructive department of the Admiralty was also, he thought, not properly controlled or checked; and it was altogether impossible to settle the question of shipbuilding by desultory discussions in Parliament. Great changes were constantly taking place in the science of naval warfare, and the feeling of the public out-of-doors was that the Admiralty was a great deal too opinionated, and that there should be an investigation into the operations of the Constructive department. He thanked the hon. and gallant Member for Gravesend for having originated the present discussion, but hoped the Motion would not be pressed.
  MR. T. BRASSEYsaid, a departmental Committee on naval construction had been promised, but nothing had yet been done, and, owing to the pressure at the Admiralty to send out the powerful fleet now anchored at Besika Bay, he did not think the time an opportune one to revive the question.
  MR. A. EGERTONsaid, there was no intention to evade the appointment of the departmental Committee; but some difficulty had been experienced in constituting it. It had been hoped that the Duke of Somerset would have presided over the Committee; but he had declined to do so. With reference to the suggestion of the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Gourley), that a Select Committee should be appointed, he would only remark that early in the Session it had been shown that a departmental Committee was preferable. There was this advantage in a departmental Committee over a Select Committee, that it neither controlled nor hampered the action of the Admiralty. He could not accept the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst) as a very powerful organ of public opinion, for he did not know what greater right that hon. and learned Gentleman had to speak for the public than he had himself. "The proof of the pudding was in the eating;" and the attitude of the House of Commons was a better indication of public opinion than the views of any single Member, whether he represented a dockyard town or not. He was sorry they had not yet been able to deal with the grievances of the Marines, but he hoped they would shortly arrive at a solution of the question, for it was under consideration both of the Treasury and the Admiralty. His hon. and learned
  454
  Friend seemed to think that the grievance of the engineers should have been redressed in a minute; but the question was a very important one, and there was none which it was more difficult to handle. The Admiralty had not yet been able to communicate with the Treasury on the case, but the House would not be astonished at that when they considered what the work of the Admiralty had been during the Session, and especially in the latter part of it. If hon. Members saw his right hon. Friend's table, they would be astonished at the amount of work he had done, and would feel no surprise that he had been obliged to put off various questions. The recommendations of the Committee were being carefully weighed, and he trusted that on that point also they would soon be able to arrive at a decision.
  SIR EARDLEY WILMOTsaid, that he had risen to second the Motion of his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Gravesend (Captain Pim), not for the purpose of encouraging him to proceed to a division, which he hoped he would not do, but in order to render him assistance in eliciting information on a most important branch of the public Service. He was glad to find that most valuable information had been given, and to give his tribute of respect and thanks at the same time to his right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty for the zeal and earnestness of purpose with which he had discharged the very arduous and responsible duties of his office. But he must say he had felt much surprised with one statement in the right hon. Gentleman's speech—namely, that no dissatisfaction existed in any department of the Naval Service. Why, it was notorious, as had already been stated by the noble Lord the Member for Waterford (Lord Charles Beresford) and the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst) that the greatest possible dissatisfaction and discontent had for some time existed, and still existed, in that gallant corps, the Royal Marines, who had during three sessions of Parliament been continually praying for the redress of their grievances, and he must say they complained most justly. On each occasion when their case had been brought before the House, they were told that the good time was coming and they must wait, among other reasons because the Army Pur-

  455
  chase Commission, with which they had nothing whatever to do, had not reported. But hon. Members would recollect the well-known line—Rusticus expect at, dum defluat amnis, and they were thoroughly worn out with long and vain expectation. Their case proved that the administration of the Admiralty was not exactly what it should be. But he would proceed to another matter, to which the hon. Gentleman the Member for Sunderland (Mr. Gourley) had referred—namely, the rapidly increasing strength of the Russian and German Navies in the Baltic and North Sea. That increase showed the necessity of making better provision for the safety of our North-east Coast and the security of our trade and shipping in those seas, as it was now well known that so far from our sea-coast defences being what they ought to be, there was not a single harbour to which our ships of war could resort, or where they could lie secure in tempestuous weather, from the mouth of the Thames to the Frith of Forth, or any batteries whatever by which they could be protected if overwhelmed by a superior force.
  MR. SPEAKERsaid, the hon. Baronet was out of Order in referring to a subject in reference to which he had a Motion upon the Paper.
  SIR EARDLEY WILMOTsaid, he would at once bow to the decision of the Chair. He should not have alluded to the subject but for the remarks of the hon. and gallant Member for Sunderland, who had introduced the subject of the immense increase of the Navies of two great Continental powers. He must further observe that he had not felt quite satisfied with the refusal of the Admiralty to grant an inquiry into the accusation made lately against that Department by a private individual, who publicly challenged in every possible way the official conduct of Members of the Naval Administration, and asked that the charges he made might be made the subject of a public investigation. He confessed he had not felt satisfied with the reasons given by the First Lord why such an inquiry should not take place. It had been said in that House that it did not consist of naval architects, and they were not to be called upon to decide between rival claims. But his reply to that was they were English gentlemen, and if one of their body was thus
  456
  publicly assailed by charges which were without foundation, they should render him every assistance in their power to scatter and overthrow them; indeed, he felt astonished when his hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke—
  MR. SPEAKERsaid, he must again remind the hon. Baronet he was out of Order, as he was not speaking to the Motion before the House, but to the subject of a late debate.
  MR. D. JENKINSsaid, he had some knowledge of engineers and engineering, and believed the case of those employed in the Royal Navy to be exceptionally unjust and unfair. Even as regarded their retiring pensions the engineers in the American Navy had a better allowance. He hoped their case would be fully inquired into by the Committee now sitting on Naval Administration. He hoped the Admiralty would not listen to the complaints which were made in that House by Members representing dockyard boroughs. He believed there was no difficulty in securing the services of competent certificated engineers, because he knew that for every vacancy that occurred in the Merchant Service there were 20 applicants.
  MR. DILLWYNprotested against the House being brought down to attend Morning Sittings, when so much time was wasted in discussions of that kind.
  Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question," put, and agreed to.
  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.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £109,194, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Expenses of the several Scientific Departments of the Navy, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1877."
  MR. RYLANDS, in rising to move the reduction of the Vote by the sum of £2,000, said, that when in 1872 he gave his support to the changes in Greenwich Hospital, he should have felt some

  457
  hesitation had he foreseen the expenses they were now asked to vote. In alluding to the different items of expenditure he called attention to the office of President. This was held by a gentleman—a vice admiral—who, in addition to his half-pay of £600, received a salary of £1,600 a-year, together with residence, fuel, and gas. That was nearly double the amount paid to the Astronomer Royal. Next to the President came an official—a retired captain of the Royal Navy, who, with his half-pay, received an income of £800. Below these came the Director of Studies with £1,200 a-year: so that these three gentlemen received together £4,200, which seemed to him a large amount for the executive of the administration of a College of that character. Following these, there came a very large Staff, at high salaries, and the general expenditure, which amounted to £13,291,he considered exceptionally large, when it was remembered there were only 231 students at the College. Upon this number there were 110 servants to wait, and the gas bill was £3,000, or more than for Devonport Dockyard, including Keyham, and in various other items there was proof of an extravagant management. If we came to ask what we got in return for all that he was sure the answer would not be satisfactory. We expected an intellectual and scientific education, together with that technical training that would be required in the duties these young gentlemen would afterwards be called upon to perform. So far from that being carried out, he was given to understand—and he believed his information was reliable—that these young students lived in a most extravagant style, and their training was not such as would be likely to fit them for the habits and pursuits that awaited them on shipboard. He found from reports of recent examinations that out of 11 students eight of the number were plucked. Such a result was not very satistactory to the educational Staff, for he found it was not so much owing to want of ability as from want of attention to those branches of study in which they were examined. His attention had been called to a paragraph in The Army and Navy Gazette of April 27th in reference to the College, in which it was mentioned that the students gave a performance in the gymnasium, which was attended by a
  458
  distinguished audience, and met with much success. The pieces selected were The Ladies' Battle and Raising the Wind, and the performance was stated to have been equal to any that could be witnessed at the metropolitan theatres. It was clear, therefore, among the number there must be some who could give attention to some branches of study. There was one of the pieces selected with great judgment. He thought, considering the training and experience they were going through, "raising the wind" was a performance which might not be unnecessary. His objection to the Vote was not on the ground that a Vote of the kind was not necessary; but his object was to call attention to the subject, for he felt sure that the expenditure required examination, and while he was anxious for efficiency with economy, he objected to inefficiency and extravagance, believing the two often went together. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving the reduction of the Vote.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That the Sub-head, £38,051, Royal Naval College, Greenwich, be reduced by the sum of £2,000."—(Mr. Rylands.)
  SIR MASSEY LOPESsaid, he had anticipated, when he heard of the Amendment, that the hon. Gentleman was going to bring forward a real grievance; but the hon. Gentleman must know, that to secure the efficient working of such an institution, great expenses were necessary. He must be aware that the expenses of all the officers he had referred to were fixed when the College was first established. The only increase since had been in the wages of servants, and that he was prepared to justify. The late President of the College complained that the allowance of 8d. a-day for boys was not enough to enable him to secure a good class, and so inefficient were they that 58 out of 69 had been discharged. Since then the Admiralty having raised the pay from 8d. to 1s., on the recommendation of the President, the result was, that they were now able to obtain the services of a better class of boys, and the complaints at present did not amount to one-half what they were formerly. When the hon. Member put his Motion on the Paper, he (Sir Massey Lopes) thought he was referring to the sum of £2,000, which was the amount

  459
  taken for gas. That no doubt was a large sum, but it had been caused by the necessity of keeping gas lighted in the rooms occupied by the sub-lieutenants, which had been found to be so damp, that many of those officers were laid up by rheumatism and other affections. He maintained that the College was not conducted in an extravagant or wasteful manner. The object in establishing it was to give our naval officers a very high scientific education, and to do that they must be provided with the best instructors and all the necessary facilities for acquiring the requisite knowledge.
  MR. GOSCHENwished to remind hon. Members that they must not look upon this College simply as a training institution. His hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) spoke as if the young men educated in the College were a set of midshipmen who had not been at sea. Now this establishment, though partly designed for the training of young officers, was a great scientific institution for engineers, shipwrights, and scientific men connected with the training of the Navy. They had rendered necessary a considerable expenditure in laboratories and chemical apparatus; in fact, all the appliances were provided which they used to enjoy at South Kensington. The Vote ought not, therefore, to be scrutinized too closely, and he hoped his hon. Friend would not press the Amendment.
  MR. HANBURY-TRACYtrusted that nothing would be done to limit the resources of the Naval College. On the contrary, he would suggest that the right hon. Gentleman should rather endeavour to increase its efficiency. He regretted that the number of senior officers was so small, but one reason was that when they were married they could not afford to go to the College and keep up an establishment elsewhere. It might be desirable therefore to give increased pay so that officers desiring it might be enabled to go to the College. If the increased pay were given, it should be on condition of their passing in a certain standard at examination. The sum charged for gas at the College—£2,000 a-year—seemed very large, as also did the charge of £1,500 a-year for police.
  MR. BRUCEdrew attention to the fact that the College had only to pay
  460
  £100 for buildings to the Hospital, though they were worth far more than that per year.
  MR. WHITWELLsuggested there should be a little more detail in the various items. There was an item of £632 for scholarships and competitions, and he should like to know how that amount was appropriated.
  MR. GORSTthought that, in justice to the Hospital, the College should pay a proper rent.
  MR. CHILDERSsaid, that the Greenwich Hospital Act did not require rent being paid; and it was perhaps unfortunate that any nominal payment in in the nature of rent should be made, as it would be followed by a claim for far more. The Greenwich Hospital Fund was not in the nature of an ordinary charity, nine-tenths of it having really been created by public charges. If the fund required additional charges on it in order to give increased inducements to men to enter the Navy, he would be the last to object; but this should be done on public grounds. If the reason was merely technical, of course the Admiralty were the best judges. He was also desirous to ask for explanation as to the heavy charge for police. As to the vote generally he was inclined to think that it would not bear much greater increase, for in time of peace it was necessary to set aside at least £10,000 a-year to augment the capital, and this certainly was not being done at present.
  MR. HUNTsaid, that the £100 a-year was a mere acknowledgment, in the nature of a peppercorn rent, and that the buildings were not Admiralty property. Although there was an increase for the pay of police in the Vote there was a reduction under that in another.
  CAPTAIN PRICEasked how it was that as much as £1,800 a-year was required for clerks at the College?
  MR. BENTINCKasked for information with reference to the system of examinations at the College, observing that he had heard they were of so abstruse a character that several officers had, after many years' service, been discharged because they could not answer questions on subjects with which it was not deemed necessary to be acquainted when they entered the Profession. It had also been mentioned to him that no fewer than eight young officers had been

  461
  dismissed within a short time for a similar reason.
  MR. HUNTrepeated what he had said on a previous occasion—that any officer of ordinary abilities and industry who went to Greenwich College might pass the examinations which he was there required to undergo, and that much good rather than the contrary was done to the service by weeding it of men who showed that they took very little interest in it by not attending to their studies. The only reason why gentlemen did not pass it was because they would not study.
  MR. GOSCHENalso was of opinion that it was of the utmost advantage to the profession that a proper standard of examination should be maintained at the College, and that those who went there should not regard it as a place at which they might spend a short time pleasantly. He therefore hoped the right hon. Gentleman would not give way in the matter.
  MR. ANDERSONpointed out that the salaries paid to Professors who taught the abstract and abstruse sciences were as high as £600 or £700 a-year, while those paid to the teachers of naval architecture and marine engineering, two most important and practical subjects, were only £147 or £180 a-year.
  MR. HUNTsaid, he supposed the only reason why this was the case was that teachers could be got for these salaries. He agreed with his right hon. Friend (Mr. Childers) that the cost of the College should be carefully looked after in detail, and the suggestions of the hon. Member for Glasgow were worth consideration. He thought that probably the appointment of a small Select Committee of practical men would be the best course to take, with the view of pruning down any redundancies, or making good any deficiencies. Such an inquiry would not occupy very long, and he would, he hoped, by next Session, be able to submit a scheme of management free from the objections which had been urged by various hon. Members that night.
  MR. RYLANDSsaid, he heard that announcement with great satisfaction. The appointment of such a Committee would be most desirable, and he would suggest that a Report should be annually laid on the Table of the House as to the work done in the College. He
  462
  should be glad to withdraw his Amendment for the reduction of the Vote.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVREasked what was to be done with the Challenger collection? It was reported to have been sent to Edinburgh. He hoped the interests of the British Museum in respect to it would not be overlooked.
  MR. HUNTsaid, that the head of the scientific staff on board the Challenger was an Edinburgh Professor, and as the collection which had been formed was going to be put into proper shape under that gentleman's direction, it had been sent to Edinburgh in the first instance. How it would be ultimately divided he could not at present say, but he might remark that the interests of the British Museum were in good hands and would probably not be neglected.
  MR. E. J. REEDsaid, that Sir Wyville Thomson informed him that the collection was going to Edinburgh solely for the convenience of classification and arrangement.
  Original Question put, and agreed to.
  (2.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £1,323,750, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Expenses of the Dockyards and Naval Yards at Home and Abroad, which will come in course of payment during the year ending' on the 31st day of March 1877."
  MR. RYLANDS, in moving to reduce the amount of the Vote by £250,000, said, he was led to move the Amendment by finding that the increase of expenditure upon Dockyards and Stores since 1871 amounted to £2,000,000. Of course, he was prepared to hear repeated what had been said before, that the Stores were so much reduced, and the Dockyard expenditure so cut down by the late Administration, that Her Majesty's Government were compelled to go to an enormous expense to put things upon a satisfactory footing. He thought the right hon. Gentleman who held the office of First Lord of the Admiralty prior to the present Administration ought to meet that charge, and he was glad to give him an opportunity of doing so. During the years 1870 and 1871, the cost of iron and other materials was much higher than it was at

  463
  present, and there were other circumstances which would tend to reduce the cost of management, yet, notwithstanding that there was an increase since 1871 of nearly £2,000,000. The Vote for the Dockyards alone in 1871 was £817,315, in 1876 it was £1,323,750. He had no doubt in his own mind that under the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Pontefract, and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London, the Admiralty was ably administered, wise economies were made, and reforms were carried out that increased the efficiency of the Service. The change which was introduced by the right hon. Member for Pontefract in the Royal Naval Hospital, by which that institution was put under the management of a surgeon instead of a captain of the Royal Navy, and the change in the control of the Victualling department were instances of this, but some of the reforms suggested by the right hon. Gentleman had not been fully carried out. He recollected that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Montrose (Mr. Baxter) had remarked upon the great number of officials in the Dockyards, and said that it prevented any feeling of responsibility, and the same thing came out at the Megæra inquiry. He was not aware that any change had been made, and he believed that the Dockyards remained in much the same state as they were in five years ago, or if changed at all, for the worse. He contended that Dockyards were manufacturing establishments, and should be treated in the same way as establishments of the kind carried on by hon. Members of the House and others. It seemed to him that the proper person to place at the head of such an establishment would be a man of business habits and great technical knowledge and experience. That we did not do. In fact we placed at the head a man quite unused to anything of the kind—an Admiral Superintendent—withoutscientific knowledge, and with none of the necessary experience. He was allowed to remain in charge of the establishment for five years, and when after that time he began to get an inkling of his duties he was removed and another Admiral Superintendent was appointed who went through the same process. It seemed to him that no course would be less likely to lead to efficiency
  464
  or economy. There were two branches of the establishment, that of design for construction and of building and management, and he ventured to say that the Admiralty was not exactly competent to carry out either of those two branches. In the management of our Dockyards he believed there was great cause for complaint. He found that while the wages for artizans amounted to £1,072,334 in a year, no less a sum than £382,644 was spent in salaries for superintendence, and in pensions, and for police. It would appear that for every £20 paid in wages, £4 was paid in pensions. He had had great experience of the working classes, having employed thousands, and he did not hesitate to say that if he went into the market to purchase labour, and offered 30 s. weekly to a man, without any allowance, and 28 s. to a man with the promise of a small pension after a number of years, the man for 30 s. would be the better man of the two. The effect of offering pensions was that we got a number of slovenly, worthless people. He objected to the system of giving lower wages with a pension; it was far better to give the full market value, and trust to men's own management and thrift for the future, and to make their own provision for old age. From evidence it appeared that the cost of our iron-clads built in Dockyards was far greater than if built in private yards. The hon. Member for Hastings (Mr. Brassey) a short time ago stated in The Times that if we had had our iron-clad fleet built by private firms, we should have 10 more vessels to show for the money. That as coming from a man of such experience and so well known, was worthy of careful consideration. But not only were they keeping up these large manufacturing establishments, but they were spending money in costly mistakes; building vessels that in a short time become obsolete. From Returns on the Table of the House the number of vessels of that kind would be seen, and hon. Members would be surprised to find them so numerous. At that moment foreign nations were putting their trust in torpedoes and rams, and that was a very serious question affecting the construction of ships of war, and he contended that with all our resources and appliances we should not rush at once into building a vessel because another

  465
  country had a type of which we did not possess an example, and which, as in the case of the Inconstant, might prove to be a costly blunder. He would refer to a suggestion which had been made by the hon. Member for Hastings as a very valuable one. It was that merchant vessels should protect themselves by torpedoes. That would make ordinary vessels independent of the protection of war vessels; each would be able to carry her own sting, and would render unnecessary the costly plan of keeping our foreign squadrons scattered over the globe. In conclusion, he protested against the heavy expenditure in the direction to which he alluded, as not justified at the present time, and moved the reduction of the Vote.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £1,073,750, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Expenses of the Dockyards and Naval Yards at Home and Abroad, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1877."—(Mr. Rylands.)
  MR. CHILDERSsaid, that during the time he was at the Admiralty it had been his constant effort to keep down expenditure, and hence it might be assumed that he sympathized with his hon. Friend in his Motion to reduce the Vote by £250,000; but he would remind him that a reduction of that particular Vote by that amount, meant practically a reduction of £250,000 in the Vote for the Wages of Artificers in the Dockyards; and a reduction of that sum upon the Wages Vote meant a reduction of 4,000 men during the whole year—that was to say, between 5,000 and 6,000 men for so much of the year as remained. It would be perfectly impossible for anyone in a responsible position consistently to make such a reduction, or even to dream of making it; and, further, it was a course which it was impossible to sanction in the present state of our relations with foreign powers. Besides, a reduction of that kind required to be carried out with foresight, and spread over as long a period as possible; and, for himself, he had always been of opinion that both increases and reductions should be made with very great caution indeed, not by leaps and bounds. Therefore, in the spirit which actuated the Opposition, and which rendered them disinclined to say or do anything that might
  466
  hamper the Government in the present state of the Eastern question, he hoped his hon. Friend would not press his Motion to a division, because, if acted upon, it might do considerable mischief. He did not deny that our Dockyard system was capable of great improvement; that it was desirable to strengthen the civil element in its administration, and to deal consistently with the pension question, but the present was not the time for forcing such questions on the attention of Parliament. So, again, there could be no doubt that the annual cost of repairs had risen to an alarming figure. So far as he could collect from the present Estimates, it amounted to from £1,100,000 to £1,200,000 a-year, and that certainly was a most serious question. A searching inquiry ought to be made into this question of repairs, but that was not the time to do so, and he should therefore recommend his hon. Friend to withdraw his Amendment.
  MR. A. EGERTONsaid, that Vote 6 and Vote 10, Section 1, were governed by the programme of shipbuilding for the year, and that to attack them as the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) had done was to challenge the whole policy of the Admiralty, which had been substantially accepted by the House. The right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty, in introducing the Estimates, stated distinctly what his Programme was, and he thought, therefore, that the hon. Member for Burnley, before proceeding to reduce the Vote, should have given some indication of the mode in which he proposed to deal with that Programme which was, he contended, conceived in a proper spirit, and did no less than the country required of the Admiralty at the present moment. Complaints had been made that the expense of management bore an excess proportion to the wages of the men, and this proportion had been estimated as high as 30 per cent. It appeared, however, that the proportion had been decreasing, and that while in 1869–70 it was 13·63 per cent, in 1876–7 it was only 9·86 per cent. This showed that the charges for management had been of late years steadily diminishing. The civil management of the Dockyards was a large question, which required almost a night to itself, but upon the whole he had come to the conclusion that it was better to have a naval officer

  467
  at the head of our Dockyards. Having had some previous experience in regard to boat and ship building, when he came to the Admiralty he tried to make some comparison as to the cost of building Her Majesty's ships in the Royal Dockyards and in private yards. It was difficult to come to an exact conclusion on account of the dead weight and establishment charges; but, upon the whole, taking the whole number of ships he had convinced himself that the cost of building in Her Majesty's Dockyards was slightly cheaper than in private yards, while there was much greater certainty of good work in public than in private yards. He should, therefore, be sorry to see the amount of work now done in the Royal Dockyards decreased to any great extent by sending it to private yards. The question of pensions and of "established" and "non-established" men was under the serious serious consideration of the Admiralty. The hon. Member for Burnley, who had had experience as a manufacturer, thought he got better men by paying a little more and not giving pensions. He (Mr. Egerton) had also had considerable experience as an employer of labour in large collieries were the men were pensioned. The result was, that there had been no strikes for a long period, and they were on better terms with their men than other employers. They had, in fact, a greater hold upon the men, and this he attributed to some extent to the system of granting pensions. He believed the same principle held good in Government establishments.
  MR. SAMUDAopposed the proposed reduction, on the ground that under the Vote only 13,000 tons would be provided for, and if the number of tons to be built under Vote 10 were added the total would not amount to the 20,000 tons which his right hon. Friends below him considered necessary to make up for the annual waste from various causes arising in our Navy. As a private shipbuilder of some experience he believed that no one in the Kingdom got work done so cheaply as the Government; and that arose from there being pensions allowed in old age, and from the dependence that existed upon the continuance of work in the public Dockyards. These things give the Government a command over labour that the private yards had not. The work could not be
  468
  done better there than it was in the private yards, because the system of inspection there was carried to such an extent. But if the present Dockyard system was to be maintained, regularity of work and regularity as to the number of men employed were absolutely necessary.
  MR. GORSTwas sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House would support the Government in any expenditure which might be necessary to maintain the efficiency of the Navy and the honour of the country. The charge of undue extravagance made against the Government must mean either that the Government were spending too much money on shipbuilding, or that the money voted for that purpose was not economically spent. The Committee would not be anxious at present to enter into the discussion of the first alternative, for, as he had said, every one would be inclined to support Ministers in necessary naval expenditure. Then came the question whether the money granted was spent in the most effectual manner. He should like to discuss that point on some future occasion, and much might be said in reference to it, but he thought that was not the moment to discuss in detail the question of Dockyard management, or the grievances that might be urged in connection with those employed in the Government establishments. Whatever the grievances of the Dockyard employês might be, he was authorized to say that they did not wish to press them at the present juncture, when it might be embarrassing to the Government. The men were desirous that the superannuation system should be kept up. It gave the Government a constant supply of steady men, who turned out very good work.
  MR. E. J. REEDconsidered that his hon. Friend had entirely failed to make out a case. He did not believe that this was the item on which they could best discuss the question of reduction in the Navy. Many of his hon. Friends about him spoke of the waste in Her Majesty's Dockyards, but he could honestly say from a long experience of Dockyard workmen, that it was quite a mistake to suppose that there was great idleness amongst them, or that their work was not performed in a most efficient manner. He hoped the next time his hon. Friend called attention to this

  469
  subject, he would not look for reductions in these minor matters, but would bring to the test the necessity for some of the vessels we were building. If any reduction was to be made, it should rather be in Vote 10, which referred to ships built by contract.
  MR. BENTINCKsaid, he had always been ready to support such expenditure as was necessary to keep the Navy in an efficient state. Some hon. Members seemed to be under the impression that when statements were made about the Navy in that House hon. Members were telling secrets out of school, but that was a mistake, for foreign Governments and foreign diplomatists knew a great deal more about our Army and Navy than many people in this country.
  MR. T. BRASSEYsaid, that payment of labour in accordance with results was a great guarantee of economy in production. He knew that from private experience, and he thought the principle might very well be applied to the Government Dockyards. The work in the Dockyards was of the best character, and it was necessary to maintain the Dockyard establishments, for in a time of war we could not rely on private establishments.
  MR. GOSCHENasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, if he was prepared to present a Return for the last year showing the distribution of men on various ships, in order that the House might ascertain the manner in which the work was performed, and the probable cost?
  MR. HUNTsaid, he would endeavour to supply the information required.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. MOOREcalled attention to the large increase in the expenditure as regarded the chaplains who were members of the Church of England. He complained that the Roman Catholic chaplains were badly paid, their stipend being cut down to less than that of skilled workmen; while at the same time they had no retiring allowance.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE, referring to the two descriptions of work done in the Dockyards, at a fixed rate of pay with superannuation pensions, and at the market rate of wages, asked how many factory men the Government proposed to establish, and on what terms? He also asked for explanations on the intended fitting-out of the Urgent, an old
  470
  iron vessel, as a hospital ship for Jamaica, at a cost of £23,000?
  MR. HUNTsaid, the Urgent was intended to serve as receiving ship at Jamaica, for which, being an iron ship, she was very suitable. A wooden vessel was more likely to be unhealthy, if used for such a purpose. Considering the object of the expenditure upon the Urgent, he did not think its amount was excessive. The number of factory men whom it was proposed to establish was 500. As it was a quarter to 11 o'clock and they had only obtained one Vote, he would not then discuss the large question as between hired men and men on the Establishment; but he might state that the Admiralty's plan had been adopted after much consideration. He believed that at present no factory men had been established, but the Admiralty were in communication with the Dockyards on the subject, and there was great expectation that the plan which had been adopted would be highly successful. With regard to the pay of Roman Catholic chaplains, he admitted it was not in a proper condition, and a proposition was now before the Treasury for an increase which he believed would be satisfactory. With regard to the Roman Catholic chaplain at Sheerness, whose salary had been complained of as too low, the answer was, that the £80 he received from the Admiralty was not the whole of his pay, as he also received a stipend from the War Office.
  MR. SULLIVANsaid, that the Vote was for £1,323,750 for Dockyards, and out of that million and a-quarter no less a sum than £839 was put down for Dockyards in Ireland, and this, he took it, was little better than a practical joke. Hon. Members might not be aware that in 1799 the then Government promised Irish Members that a Dockyard should be established in Ireland, and from that day to this the Vote of £839 had been taken yearly for the construction of a dock at Haulbowline. It had been calculated that at the present rate of work it would be finished in the year 2975. At any rate, the Union was accomplished, but part of the price to be paid—namely, this Dockyard—was still unaccomplished. The present state of things was, that when the tide was out six or eight dozen convicts went to work, "meandering, melancholy, slow," striving to do as little as they could; and when the tide turned

  471
  they shouldered their picks and marched to their quarters. In the South of Ireland this dock at Haulbowline was a standing joke. He suggested that it was high time the Vote was swept away altogether.
  MR. SAMPSON LLOYDthought there was something wrong in the system under which hired men were selected to be put on the Establishment, and that it would be much better to take these men at once, even at their present wages, as fitters and other valuable artificers would be drafted off to the seaports on the outbreak of war, and could not be replaced. There was a grievance on the part of continuous-service men—namely, that with reference to superannuation their sea time was not counted as service.
  MR. CHILDERSsaid, that as he understood negotiations had been going on for some time between the Admiralty and the Treasury with regard to placing a certain proportion of the factory men in the Dockyards on the Establishment, he wished to ask the Secretary for War, whether in those negotiations any reference had been made to the War Office with respect to the factory men employed under it? The men in these two Departments were about the same in number, and their work was exactly of the same character, so that no scheme of Establishment ought to be entered upon without full consideration of how it would affect both classes of factory men.
  MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, that no application had been made to put the factories under the War Office on the same footing as those under the Admiralty.
  SIR MASSEY LOPES, in reply, remarked that there was great difficulty in getting men for the Dockyards. This was by no means a new matter; it was discussed and inquired into by a Committee under Admiral Spark. He considered that the Establishment men were far cheaper to the Government than the hired men. The difference between Establishment and non-Establishment men was, that men on the Establishment received 30 s. a-week, and men not on the Establishment received 32 s. a-week, or 2s. more. He considered it most important that they should have an Establishment as a nucleus on which they could rely in case of war or any pressing emergency.
  Original Question put, and agreed to.
  (3.) £76,400, Victualling Yards at Home and Abroad.
  (4.) £65,830, Medical Establishments at Home and Abroad.
  (5.) £20,053, Marine Divisions.
  (6.) £1,261,320, Naval Stores.
  (7.) £1,353,600, Steam Machinery and Ships built by Contract.
  MR. HUNT, in moving the Vote, stated that no other ships had been ordered since the matter was previously discussed, with the exception of some corvettes, and he was now awaiting the instructions of the Committee.
  MR. E. J. REEDthought it was very surprising that they should be asked for £1,250,000 for the building of new ships without being furnished with any information. He would suggest that the Estimates in future should contain a programme of the contract work for the building of ships in private yards.
  MR. WHITWELLthought the Committee ought to know what the sum of £33,000 for repairs other than in Her Majesty's Dockyards was to be appropriated to, and what were the experimental purposes for which a Vote of £10,000 was asked.
  MR. HUNTsaid, that though the item was a large one, its details had been very carefully considered before Parliament was asked to vote the amount. Ships could not always be repaired either in Her Majesty's Dockyards or in private yards at home, and it was therefore necessary, among other things, to make provision for the repairing of ships on foreign stations. In consequence of that, the amount of the charge was always uncertain, for it was impossible to say what liabilities would be incurred. The Vote for experimental purposes was principally to defray the cost of experiments which were carried on during the whole year with reference to new designs. As to the details asked for, he did not consider it desirable to give in Committee of Supply the details with which a Council of Naval Construction was concerned; on the contrary, he thought it would be very disadvantageous, by giving such details, practically to publish to the world at large the new designs upon which the Admiralty were proceeding. At the same time, he quite felt that no information that could be safely given to the House should be withheld.
  MR. E. J. REEDsaid, he did not desire to have details of construction supplied in the Estimates, but certain particulars with reference to the amount of work to be done in private yards, and to the progress which was made with it.
  MR. GOSCHENsaid, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would consider whether further particulars could not be given in the Estimates, as had been suggested.
  MR. HUNTsaid, he would consider the suggestion, and if it could be furnished without injury to the public service, he would do so next year.
  MR. SAMUDAsaid, it was formerly the practice to do so. They were asked to vote one-third of the whole sum required for construction, without having any idea of the nature of the vessels to be built.
  Vote agreed to.
  (8.) £569,249, New Works, Buildings, Machinery, and Repairs.
  (9.) £76,230, Medicines, Medical Stores, &c.
  (10.) £15,114, Martial Law and Law Charges.
  (11.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £135,547, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Expense of various Miscellaneous Services, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1877."
  MR. HANBURY-TRACYmoved to reduce the Vote by £400, the charge for hired interpreters, on the ground that there was a breach of faith with the naval officers who had learned foreign languages with the view of being employed as interpreters on the flag-ships on foreign stations.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £135,147, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Expense of various Miscellaneous Services, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1877."—(Mr. Hanbury-Tracy.)
  MR. HUNTadmitted that such a promise had been held out to the junior officers; but, in practice, it happened on particular stations that there were none of the officers who spoke the language which was employed there. Such was the case, for instance, on the coast of Zanzibar.
  MR. GOSCHENinquired in what way the naval officers accompanying Mr. Allen Young in his Arctic Expedition had been appointed for that service? If Mr. Young selected them himself the case presented a bad precedent.
  MR. ANDERSONwished to put a question with regard to the sum of £8,000 which was to be paid to Mr. Allen Young, as a subsidy to a private gentleman for the use of his yacht for taking letters to and bringing letters from the Arctic Expedition. He wished to be informed how the payment came about—whether the matter was put up to tender for or not. He was informed that any of the Dundee whalers who navigated the northern seas would have performed the same service for £200 or £300, instead of £8,000. He had also been informed that other yachtsmen would have done the thing for nothing, if they had been granted the opportunity. He also asked for explanations respecting the item of £2,000 for damage done by Her Majesty's ships during the year. It was quite notorious that that sum must be utterly insufficient as several accidents had already occurred involving a much larger amount.
  MR. HUNTdid not think the case was one for tenders. Papers were going to be laid upon the Table respecting Captain Allen Young's expedition. The Admiralty received from Captain Nares a communication stating that he intended if possible to send a sleigh party to receive any communications which might be sent to him this year. That was not part of the original programme, which was, that a relief ship should be sent out next year. In consequence of what Captain Nares said, it was thought that it would be better to send letters out this year, and it being found that Captain Allen Young intended to make a voyage to the Arctic regions in his yacht this year, he (Mr. Hunt) opened communication with him as to whether he would be willing to take the letters, and he consented, and the Admiralty had agreed to subsidize him to the extent of £8,000, because on a former occasion he had brought home letters without any cost to the Government, and at great risk. Peculiar qualifications were required for the post to which Captain Allen Young had been appointed, and there was no person on whom the Admiralty could rely so much

  475
  as upon him, for his previous experience in the Arctic regions and general abilities as a navigator fully qualified him for this important duty. The Admiralty assented to certain officers accompanying Captain Allen Young, who had selected them; and the case being altogether an exceptional one the Admiralty treated it as such, and agreed to count their time as sea-going time. With regard to the damage done by Her Majesty's ships, it was impossible to say at the commencement of each year what was required under that head. Last year the sum required was exceeded. He was not aware what sum would be required for the present year. The case of the Monarch had been provided for in the last financial year.
  MR. GOSCHENhoped the permission given to the officers would not be drawn into a precedent.
  SIR JOHN HAYquite approved the course taken with regard to the Naval officers in the Pandora, and only wished the same course had been taken with regard to Lieutenant Cameron.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Original Question put, and agreed to.
  (12.) £888,472, Half Pay, Reserved and Retired Pay to Officers of the Navy and Royal Marines.
  MR. HANBURY-TRACYsaid, he desired to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty, what conclusion he had come to in reference to a Petition which had been presented to him from a large number of retired commanders, asking for a step in rank after 15 years' seniority? He (Mr. Hanbury-Tracy) thought their case was a very hard one, and deserved a satisfactory settlement. Up to the year 1870, captains and commanders who retired, and who had not completed their qualifying sea-time, were allowed to obtain a step in rank after a certain number of years—captains on rising to the top of the list, and commanders after 15 years' seniority. This privilege was swept away in 1870, in the retirement scheme of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Pontefract. The reason for doing this was, he had always understood, that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Childers) thought there were far too many admirals; in fact, that the name of "admiral" had
  476
  got into such general use, and was applied to so many officers who had not for so many years been at sea, that it was no longer looked up to with the feelings of respect which those who attained that high rank ought to have it treated. He had always understood that was the principal reason for abolishing the step in rank; but it must be pointed out, that whilst the privilege was taken away from the captains, it was taken away also from the commanders, but only on the general ground that you could not let one rank have the step and not the other. If that state of things had continued, nothing further could have been said. Unfortunately, last year the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Hunt) thought fit to revert to the former order of things as regarded captains, allowing those who retired from the year 1870 to rise to the rank of admiral, but ignored the case of the commanders, who clearly ought to have been dealt with at the same time. He (Mr. Hanbury-Tracy) was very much opposed to tinkering or making alterations in the retirement scheme of 1870;but it was surely just to urge that if privileges of rising in rank were taken from two classes of officers under that scheme, it was most unfair afterwards to give them back to one and not to the other. More especially was this so, when it was remembered that the change was originally made to prevent too great use of the name and rank of admiral, and really only affected the captains. There was no question of pay included; it was simply a question of rank, which might be somewhat sentimental, but was no less a grievance which the commanders had every right to have redressed. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would see his way to granting the desired boon.
  MR. HUNT, in reply, said, that the Petition had been considered, and he might say was still under consideration. The reason the step was not given to commanders last year, when it was granted to captains, was owing to the fact that as captains rose to the rank of admiral by seniority, and commanders were promoted by selection, the Admiralty did not then see that the same necessity existed of giving the step to commanders as it did to captains. At the same time, he did not mean to say that commanders would not be granted

  477
  the same privilege. The question was again receiving the consideration of the Admiralty, and he would be glad if it could receive satisfactory settlement.
  Vote agreed to.
  (13.) £726,136, Military Pensions and Allowances.
  (14.) £282,176, Civil Pensions and Allowances.
  (15.) £197,480, Freight of Ships and Conveyance of Troops.
  (16.) £145,752, Greenwich Hospital and School.
  House resumed.
  Resolutions to be reported To-morrow, at Two of the clock.
  Committee to sit again To-morrow, at Two of the clock.

POOR LAW AMENDMENT BILL.
(Mr. Sclater-Booth, Mr. Salt.)
POOR LAW AMENDMENT BILL.

  [BILL 190.] CONSIDERATION.
  Bill, as amended, considered.
  MR. HAMONDmoved the insertion of a new clause providing that husband and wife in the workhouse, if either should be infirm, sick, or disabled, or above the age of 60, might be permitted, at the discretion of the Guardians, to live together, and every such case should be reported to the Local Government Board.
  Clause—
  (Husbands and wives in workhouses.)
  ("When any two persons being husband and wife shall be admitted into any workhouse, and either of them shall be infirm, sick, or disabled by any injury, or above the age of sixty years, it shall be lawful for the guardians of any union or parish to permit in their discretion such man and wife to live together, and every such case shall be reported forthwith to the Local Government Board,")—(Mr. Hamond,)
  —brought up, and read the first and second time.
  MR. SERJEANT SIMONproposed an Amendment to the clause, to the effect that if am an and wife were both above 55 years of age they should not be compelled to live separate and apart in workhouses. This would simply carry out the principle of the present law, which fixed the limit at 60 years of age. Further than that he contended there
  478
  would be no increase of population occuring in the workhouse through the operation of the clause, for at the age mentioned, if not impossible, it would be very improbable. Beyond that, why should they separate a married couple at such an age?
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the word "wife," in line 1, to the end of the Clause, in order to add the words "both of whom shall be above the age of fifty-five years, shall be received into any workhouse, such two persons shall not be compelled to live separate and apart from each other in such workhouse; and any rule, order, or regulation, and any provision of any Act to the contrary is and are hereby respectively rescinded and repealed."—(Mr. Serjeant Simon.)
  MR. WALTERsaid, he had great pleasure in supporting the Amendment of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dewsbury. Since the subject was last under the consideration of the House he had looked into it a little, and had specially referred to the debate on the occasion when the rule was established which prescribed 60 years as the age at which married people should be allowed to live together in a workhouse. This rule formed no part of the original Poor Law, but was introduced almost exactly 29 years age. The alteration was effected by Mr. Borthwick in 1847, when the Poor Law was undergoing revision. He introduced the Amendment, which was a relaxation of the original rigour of the Poor Law. It was opposed by Sir George Grey; it was accepted, with some qualifications, by Lord Russell; and he was strongly supported by his right hon. Friend the Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley) and by the late Mr. Ellice. They were high authorities, and they supported it, not on the ground that it would prevent outdoor relief, but that it would tend to increase it. Earl Russell wished to make it discretionary with the Guardians, and not compulsory upon them; but the House rejected that modification, and carried the Amendment by a majority of 70 to 55. It became the law of the land, and he should like to know what harm had ensued from the operation of the law. The hon. and learned Member stated there had been no increase in pauperism ascribable to it. He did not suppose that any increase would be ascribable if they adopted 55 instead of 60. But the point he wished to contend for

  479
  was that, failing the condition that increase of the population was not to be allowed, they had no right to make the natural and best feelings of the poor a reason for oppressing them. There could not be a more odious principle than to employ the best feelings of the poor as a means of working upon them to their loss and discomfort. As a matter of fact, he believed poor people of the age of 60 seldom applied to live together in the workhouse. He, therefore, contended that no danger was to be apprehended from this relaxation of the law. He had visited the workhouses of two Unions—the workhouse in his own neighbourhood and the Chelsea Workhouse—and the excellent officials at these institutions stated that, not only had they never experienced an application from old people to live together, but they had received expressions of satisfaction from unfortunate married couples that they were able to live separate. The master of the Chelsea Workhouse told him that there was no wish to bring old married couples into the workhouse, as there was no accommodation for them, in fact; and outdoor relief was always given them. He had no objection to that; he thought it was the right principle; but if they compelled them to go in, they would work upon the natural feelings of the better class of the aged poor. Where such a class of persons were compelled to go into the house, they ought not to be separated, a proceeding which was a real hardship to them, but which was none at all to another class who were often driven there by the intemperance or bad conduct of one or the other, and who gladly accepted it as the best arrangement for them. Those were the grounds on which he supported the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Dewsbury. He would not now express any opinion as to the second clause, but with regard to the first he should give his cordial support to the proposal before the House.
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, that as the matter had been discussed the other night very fully, he would not go over the arguments again. He did not wish to fix the limit at 55 or 60, but rather to go back on the principle of allowing the Guardians to exercise that discretion which the Poor Law gave them. Everybody was aware that in a large number of Unions where provision had been
  480
  made for separate quarters for married couples that such provision had never been availed of. The Guardians might safely be left to exercise the discretion proposed to be left them by his hon. Friend. He hoped, however, the House would negative the Amendment of the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite.
  Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  The House divided:—Ayes 144; Noes 72: Majority 72.
  Clause added.
  MR. MORGAN LLOYDmoved, after Clause 11, the insertion of the following clause—
  "The Local Government Board may by their order, upon the application of the ratepayers of any union or parish made in pursuance of one or more resolutions passed at a vestry or vestries duly convened for that purpose, authorize and direct such ratepayers to elect guardians, who shall hold office for a period of three years. The said Board may also, upon the application of such ratepayers, made in pursuance of one or more such resolutions as aforesaid, rescind such order: Provided, however, that the rescision of such order shall not invalidate or affect any election which may have already taken place under it."
  Clause (Local Government Board may authorise election of guardians to hold office for three years,)—(Mr. Morgan Lloyd,)—borought up, and read the first time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the said Clause be now read a second time."
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTHopposed the clause. He was aware that many Boards were in favour of such a change, but the question of triennial elections of Guardians might well stand over. It should, however, receive his attention. He could not assent to the Motion of the hon. and learned Gentleman at present; but he hoped to be able to do so on some future occasion, when dealing with the general state of the law.
  MR. MORGAN LLOYD, satisfied with the assurance that the question should receive the consideration of the Government, said, he would withdraw the clause.
  Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. MORGAN LLOYDmoved, after Clause 14, to insert the following clause—
  "It shall not be lawful for guardians of the poor to pay out of the poor rates any church rates, notwithstanding anything contained in the seventh section of the Act thirty-first and thirty-second Victoria, chapter one hundred and nine; Provided, That, nothing herein contained shall alter or affect any other provision of the said Act."
  The clause was rendered necessary by the construction placed upon the 7th section of the Church Rates Abolition Act by the Local Government Board, who had held that its provisions enabled Poor Law Guardians to pay a voluntary church rate out of the poor rates. He believed that interpretation was wrong, but even if it were right it was not in accordance with the intention of the framers of that Act. As a proof of this he would refer to a letter written by the right hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Gladstone), in which it was distinctly stated that the clause was never intended to authorize any such payment by Poor Law Guardians.
  Clause (Payment of church rates by poor law guardians,)—(Mr. Morgan Lloyd,)—brought up, and read the first time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the said Clause be now read a second time."
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, he could not pretend to argue a point of law with the hon. and learned Gentleman, but certainly that was the first time he had ever heard such an interpretation of voluntary payment of church rates as that which the hon. and learned Gentleman had now given of them in connection with the poor rates. He could not accept the declared intention of the authors of a Bill as against the legal construction of it by professional advisers, which was that the payments objected to were legal, and he objected to amending so important a measure as the Church Rates Abolition Act by a clause in the Bill of this character. If it was intended to modify the Act referred to it ought to be done by a separate Motion, and not introduced at the end of a Bill having a different object in view. For that reason he objected to the insertion of the clause.
  MR. STANSFELDhoped the right hon. Gentleman would re-consider his opinion, and give the House an opportunity to modify the clause.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 80; Noes 112: Majority 32.
  MR. RICHARDmoved the insertion of the following clause:—
  "It shall be lawful for the guardians of any poor law union to make such arrangements as they may see fit for the religious instruction or worship of the inmates of any workhouse under their control, any existing provision contained in any statute, rule, or regulation to the contrary notwithstanding."
  His object was to enable other ministers besides clergymen of the Church of England to be appointed as chaplains of workhouses. At present they could only appoint chaplains of the Established Church, although the majority of paupers might be Nonconformists.
  Clause (Religious instruction of inmates of workhouses,)—(Mr. Richard,)—brought up, and read the first time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the said Clause be now read a second time."
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTHopposed the clause on the ground that it would not provide the remedy desired, and said that the Local Government Board never insisted on the appointment of a Church of England chaplain, if satisfied that other arrangements were properly made. The Guardians under the existing law had very great power in the matter, and the clause as it was proposed might lead to great inconvenience, if not abuse. There was really no necessity whatever for the clause.
  MR. STANSFELDsaid, the whole question was a money question. The only paid chaplain who could by the law be appointed must belong to the Established Church. If any Board of Guardians chose to appoint and pay another person to give religious instruction or conduct worship, it must be at their own cost; and if the latter part of the clause were omitted he thought the clause might be adopted.
  MR. RICHARDsaid, on the third reading of the clause he would be ready to admit the Amendment of the hon. Member for the County of Kildare, or

  483
  some other verbal Amendment, which would secure the main object—freedom of religious instruction and worship.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 81; Noes 107: Majority 26.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the further Consideration of the Bill be now adjourned."—(Mr. Biggar.)
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTHhoped the measure would be proceeded with, as it could be finished in 10 minutes.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 45; Noes 119: Majority 74.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 5, line 3, after the word "away," to insert at the end the words "The justices to hear the complaint against a husband, under the thirty-third section of the Act of the thirty-first and thirty-second years of Her Majesty, chapter one hundred and twenty-two, may be other than those who summoned him to appear before them, but acting for the same petty sessional division."—(Mr. Sclater-Booth.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—(Mr. O'Sullivan.)
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Question again proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  Debate adjourned till To-morrow, at Two of the clock.

SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE (IRELAND) BILL—(Lords)— [Bill 161.]

  COMMITTEE. ADJOURNED DEBATE.
  Proceeding on going into Committee [23rd June] resumed.
  Main Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," put, and agreed to.
  Bill considered in Committee.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Thursday 6th July.

  TURNPIKE ACTS CONTINUANCE, &c. BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. Salt, Bill to continue certain Turnpike Acts in Great Britain, and to
  484
  repeal certain other Turnpike Acts; and for other purposes connected therewith, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Salt and Mr. Sclater-Booth.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 209.]

  LIMITED OWNERS RESIDENCE (IRELAND) BILL.
  On Motion of Sir Patrick O'Brien, Bill further to amend "The Limited Owners Residences Act (1870) Amendment Act, 1871," ordered to be brought in by Sir Patrick O'Brien, Sir Arthur Guinness, Mr. Herbert, and Mr. Gibson.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 210.]
  House adjourned at a quarter after Two o'clock.

MINUTES.
Public Bills—Second Reading—Local Government Board's Provisional Orders Confirmation (Bath, &c.)* (126)—(Artizans and Labourers Dwellings)* (127)—Bristol, &c. (No. 6)* (129)—(Bingley, &c.)* (136)—(Bilbrough, &c.)* (137); Jurors Qualication (Ireland)* (140).
Committee—Admiralty Jurisdiction (Ireland)* (95–145); Public Health (Scotland) Provisional Order (Wemyss)* (109); Elementary Education Provisional Orders Confirmation (Hailsham, &c)* (101).
Committee—Report—Local Government Provisional Orders, Aberavon, &c. (No. 7)* (108);Elementary Education Provisional Order Confirmation (London)* (100).
Report—Publicans Certificates (Scotland)* (130–143); Cruelty to Animals* (131–144); Provisional Orders (Ireland) Confirmation* (67); Coroners (Dublin)* (102).
Third Reading—Army Corps Training* (128);Burghs (Division into Wards) (Scotland) Amendment* (116); Smithfield Prison (Dublin)* (117); Kingstown Harbour* (103), and passed.

TURKEY—THE INSURRECTIONARY PROVINCES.

  QUESTIONS. OBSERVATIONS.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLL: My Lords, I rise to ask a Question, of which I have given private Notice, to the noble Earl the Secretary for Foreign Affairs. Had I known earlier of the circumstances to which my Question refers I should have given my noble Friend public Notice of it. It may be known to some, though possibly not to all, the Members of your Lordships' House that three days ago there appeared in one of the morning papers—The Daily News—a letter from Constantinople, giving in detail, and apparently in a very circumstantial form, an account of some alleged barbarities, massacres, and outrages upon Christian subjects of the Porte, committed partly by Bashi-Bazouks and partly by regular troops of the Turkish Government. If this communication of the Correspondent had been made in the form of vague rumours or something of that kind, I should not have called the attention of my noble Friend to them; but there is this peculiarity about the communication—that in respect of some of the towns and villages the names are given, the number of the persons massacred is given, and the name of the Turkish officer who commanded the troops is also given. I shall not, however, harrow the feelings of the House by relating the whole of the details of the correspondence. I shall simply summarize its statements; which are, first of all, that there had been an indiscriminate slaughter of old men, women, and children, in something like 100 villages in Central Bulgaria—a province in which, as far as I know, there is not now, and never has been, a state of insurrection. The names of 37 of these villages are actually given; and in the case of one town, the name of which also is given, it is stated that 1,500 persons—mostly women and children—were massacred. This town was a place of some 400 houses, all the inhabitants being Bulgarians.
  "No charge of disloyalty, still less any charge of open rebellion, had been brought
  386
  against it. Its one offence was that it was Christian, and in consequence, as compared with a Turkish village, rich. For this reason alone the armed Moslem rabble were let loose against it and its unoffending inhabitants. The village was surrounded and the inhabitants fired upon. Of course, the latter, surprised though they were, defended themselves, remaining, however, in their houses. A portion of the Christians even now consented to give up their arms, on being assured that they would not be injured, and a body of them unarmed, with women and children, and headed by two priests, went out to make submission. The two priests advanced to kiss the hem of the Turkish chief's robe, and was killed on the spot for his submission; the other was wounded in the head, but managed to escape. The unarmed inhabitants were attacked. Some of them fled; others took refuge in the two churches of the village. On the 11th of May Raschid Pacha arrived with a body of troops. He ordered the Christians to surrender their arms. They naturally requested to be allowed to retain them until the Bashi-Bazouks had withdrawn, fearing the fate of those who, having disarmed themselves, had submitted, and had found how utterly untrustworthy are the promises of a Turk. Raschid at once took the part of the Turks, and ordered the villagers to give up their arms. He thereupon made an attack upon the church, and old men, women, and children were indiscriminately slaughtered. Every house in the village was burnt, and on the 14th of May not a house existed. A certain number of the women and children escaped, and are now refugees in Philippopoli, but a number of women were carried off as legitimate prizes by the Bashi-Bazouks."
  In calling attention to this matter I have no wish to break through what has been called the "patriotic reserve" which we have all maintained with regard to the Eastern Question and the general policy of Her Majesty's Government in respect to it. I simply wish to know whether my noble Friend has received from our Minister at Constantinople any kind of allusion to those alleged horrible massacres in Bulgaria; and, if he has not, whether he has addressed or will address any inquiries to him on this subject?
  THE EARL OF DERBY: My Lords, I saw the other day in the correspondence of The Daily News that very startling series of statements as to the alleged massacres and other acts of violence said to have been committed in Bulgaria by the Turkish troops to which my noble Friend has called attention. I need not tell your Lordships of the reputation of the paper from which the noble Duke has quoted, and I am bound to say, also, that those statements are given in great detail, and in a manner which would seem to establish some foundation for them; but your Lordships can readily

  387
  understand that, however desirous they may be to do so, journalists at home cannot possibly verify the statements which reach them from Correspondents at such a distance and writing under such circumstances. My Lords, though, from the nature of the case, it is impossible for me to prove a negative, I can state that the reports which I have received certainly do not bear out in any degree the statements which the noble Duke has quoted, and, in the absence of any such official confirmation, I think we should be slow to believe those statements. We have heard, no doubt, of acts of cruelty committed on both sides, but upon nothing like the scale spoken of by the Correspondent in question. It is quite true that Bashi-Bazouks have been employed in the suppression of the Bulgarian Insurrection; that the Regular troops have been supplemented by irregular troops; and that, in consequence of reports as to the conduct of these troops, a representation was made to the Porte by Sir Henry Elliot on the subject. The answer to that representation was that the employment of those Circassian troops had been discontinued. That is all the information which, as at present advised, I am able to give in the matter. There have been excesses committed on both sides—in some cases by the insurgents and in other cases by the Turkish troops; but I have not received official information of anything that will come up to the atrocity of the acts referred to in the statement quoted by the noble Duke. I do not ask your Lordships to prejudge the case; but I think we are bound to reserve our judgment, and not assume too hastily that statements of the kind are true. I have a lively recollection of the extraordinary and sensational circumstances which reached us day by day and week by week nine years ago, during the insurrection in Crete; I ventured then to express some doubts at their accuracy; and I make bold to say that nine-tenths of those reports turned out to be untrue. As the noble Duke has thought the evidence in this matter sufficient to justify him in bringing the subject before the House, I will not fail to make further inquiry from our Minister at Constantinople.
  EARL DE LA WARR: I beg to ask my noble Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether he is able to
  388
  give the House any information of the reports of the critical position of affairs in Servia?
  THE EARL OF DERBY: The Question of my noble Friend is vague, and one which it is not altogether easy to answer. The state of affairs in servia is critical in one sense, inasmuch as we all know that great military preparations have been made in that country; the Militia and, as I understand, the Reserves, have been called out, and every preparation has been made which could be made for immediate entrance upon a campaign. No doubt in that way affairs in servia may justly be described as in a critical state; but if my noble Friend asks me whether I think it is the intention of the Servian Government to make war, that is a question which it is beyond my power to answer. It is open for that Government, in answer to any inquiries as to those preparations, to reply that in the unsettled condition of affairs around them they do not consider those preparations more than are necessary for the maintenance of peace.

ENDOWED SCHOOLS COMMISSIONERS.

  MOTION FOR RETURNS.
  EARL FORTESCUE, on rising to move for Returns respecting the Endowed Schools, read extracts from the Report of the Royal Commission appointed some years ago to inquire into the Endowed Schools. He regarded the legislation which had been based on that Report as miserably incomplete, and falling, in essential particulars, far short of the recommendations of those Commissioners. They spoke of dealing with schools in groups as a necessity, and said that that necessity seemed plainly to imply the corresponding necessity of local provincial boards to deal with them. Indeed, in the words of the Endowed Schools Commission upon their establishment the system proposed in that Report "mainly rested." But in spite of his remonstrances in that House, provincial boards for dealing with endowed schools were omitted from the Bill of 1869. And as that Report had warned them, the result had shown that under the centralizing system neither the late Endowed Schools Commissioners nor the present Charity Commissioners could deal in a satisfactory manner with those foundations. He was far from saying this was

  389
  the fault of either set of Commissioners. They entertained an enlightened view of their duties. And here he must be permitted to pay, on public and private grounds, a passing tribute to the memory of the lamented Lord Lyttelton. But by their own avowal in their Report of 1872, they were unable to deal systematically and satisfactorily with the endowments placed under their control for want of proper legislation. One of their great difficulties was to keep down the number of first grade schools. For all masters and very many trustees were anxious that their school should enjoy the dignity of being of the first grade, while there was a far greater need for schools of the third grade—schools for the children of persons just above the wage-class. The Commission of Inquiry stated in its Report that the schools of the third grade would require to be as numerous as those of the first and second grades taken together; but what was the fact? He found that while under the schemes hitherto sanctioned there were 27 first grade and 55 second grade, there were only 56 third grade schools. Owing, however, to the fact that the Commissioners had been unable to deal with the schools in groups, there was reason to hope that there were few districts which had not still endowments available. Indeed, about three fifths still remained untouched. There was, therefore, time if the matter was taken in hand at once to prevent very much harm; though as much good could not be done as might have been effected if the admirable scheme of the Schools Inquiry Commission had been taken up and acted upon in all its integrity. But if the Government left not "well" but "ill" alone, no benefit would result to the country from the valuable labours of that statesmanlike Commission, from its comprehensive and practical recommendations, founded upon full, protracted and exhaustive inquiry. Indeed, in some respects the previous condition of those endowments then of an aggregate value of some £20,000,000 sterling, their scandalous disuse, misuse, and abuse, was less to be deprecated, because much less hopeless of improvement, than would be the permanent respectable misapplication of them unavoidably carried on by successive Commissioners under the centralizing legislation of which he complained.
  Moved, That there be laid before the House,
  Return made out county by county, with in each case a proximate estimate of the annual value of the endowments, of (1) the number of schemes finally approved and in force in England and Wales under the Endowed Schools Act of 1869; of (2) the number of schemes published by the Endowed Schools Commissioners and the Charity Commissioners but not yet finally approved; and (3) educational endowments not included in Nos. 1 and 2 but within the provisions of the said Act, distinguishing those to which section 3 of the Endowed Schools Act, 1873, applies, in continuation of the Return ordered the 22nd of June 1875.—(The Earl Fortescue.)
  THE BISHOP OF EXETERconcurred with the noble Earl (Earl Fortescue) in thinking that if the present system was pursued there was great danger that the educational resources of the country would not be made available to the extent that was desirable. He hoped efficient steps would be taken to extend the operations of the Commissioners over the Endowed Schools of the Kingdom. The Endowed Schools Inquiry Commission came to the conclusion that a large number of these schools were not doing good, but, on the contrary, were doing harm. There were two causes for that state of things. One was, that the trustees were so hampered by obsolete provisions, intended to have a different effect from that which in reality they had in these days, that it was impossible for them to make improvement—and that without legislation it was hopeless to expect that the Endowed Schools of the country could be put on a satisfactory footing. The second cause was that the schools were in no sort of relation with each other, but in mischievous competition; there being in some districts schools much in excess of the educational wants of those districts. It appeared to the Commission of Inquiry, of which he was a member, that it was necessary, first, to provide for a complete review of legislation as regarded individual schools; and, secondly, that the schools should be put in healthier and more harmonious order as regarded relation to each other. In reference to the latter of these purposes, the legislation following on the Report of the Commission was very unsatisfactory. He was not prepared to contend that the machinery devised by the Commission for the carrying out of

  391
  the second object was the best that could possibly be devised; but he did not think that the object could be accomplished without local machinery. If they could only persuade the people on the spot to look to the school more for the education it would afford than for any material advantage it might be to the neighbourhood, what they would ask for would be good for themselves and good for the country at large. But they did not look at it as a matter of education—they regarded it as more dignified to have a school of the first grade. They wished to make it a school for the education of other youths besides those of the locality, thinking that by so doing they would bring more of the wealthy classes to reside in the neighbourhood. The latter was a very legitimate object in itself, but it was quite inconsistent with the object for which the school ought to be maintained. The result was, that a large number of schools were in some cases to be found within the same area; and ultimately localities, which by means of Endowed Schools competed for boarders from a distance and for attracting wealth, would find that they had made a great mistake. A case was brought under his notice a short time ago, in which a school failed because it was not successful in attracting persons from a distance, and because it did not provide an education suited to the wants of the locality in which it was placed. He hoped it was not yet too late to adopt the recommendations of the Commission, so as to prevent the waste of a larger part of these endowments through the want of the necessary organization; for he concurred with the noble Earl (Earl Fortescue) in thinking that if there were delay in the matter there would have to be another Commission of Inquiry or something of that kind in another 20 years. He thought it was quite possible to adapt what remained of these endowments to the arrangements already made; and a great advantage which would follow from an efficient mode of dealing with the Endowed Schools was this—that when by such a system the wants of secondary education were provided for as far as possible by means of existing endowments, the gaps would then be perceived, and would be filled up by public effort.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDONhoped the noble Earl who had brought forward the subject (Earl
  392
  Fortescue) would not hold him guilty of disrespect if he did not follow him through his interesting statement on the Endowed Schools, and he hoped he might claim the same indulgence from the right rev. Prelate if he did not follow him through the various points he had raised. He had known before that evening that the noble Earl had on all occasions when the subject was discussed advocated a system under which there should be local committees in every county to manage the Endowed Schools in their localities, which committees should communicate their views to the Commissioners. That appeared to be the view taken by the right rev. Prelate also. He (the Duke of Richmond) thought there were objections to such a course; and he ventured to assert that some of those objections had been stated by the right rev. Prelate himself. According to the showing of the right rev. Prelate, there would be the danger that the locality itself, taking too high a view of its educational necessities and requirements, would be unwilling that any school other than one of the first grade should be set up in its midst. He believed that no injury was done to localities by the present system. It was his opinion that the Commissioners endeavoured to make themselves acquainted with all the wants of the district of the particular school with which they were dealing; and that they were more capable of taking a fairer and more impartial view of what was required than persons who from local considerations would be anxious to have a school of the highest grade. At the same time, he thought the noble Earl was right in calling the attention of the Commissioners to the views which he entertained, and there was no objection to the Return the noble Earl had moved for.
  Motion agreed to.

NATIONAL EDUCATION (IRELAND).

  MOTION FOR RETURNS.
  VISCOUNT GOUGHrose to move for Copies of all Correspondence between the Lords of Her Majesty's Treasury and the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland with the Commissioners of National Education on the subject of the withdrawal of the commission allowed to teachers of National Schools in Ireland on the purchase of books and requisites in the years 1874

  393
  and 1875; also for a Return of the amount of commission allowed in each of the years 1873–4, 1874–5, and 1875–6. The noble Lord said, that in the course of the last Session of Parliament Her Majesty's Government had carried through Parliament a measure—the National School Teachers (Ireland) Act—withthe purpose of improving the position of the National School teachers in that country. Unfortunately it was left optional by the Act for the Unions to contribute or not, with the result that a very large proportion of the Unions had refused to carry out the measure. He was sorry that the Government had not brought in a Bill this Session making it imperative on the Unions to contribute; but he hoped they would find it in their power to do so next year, as the National School teachers now suffered very great hardships. In Ireland they had a most admirable system by which the National Board provided a large quantity of most useful books and other school requisites, which were supplied to the teachers at the lowest possible price, on condition that they should sell them again at a restricted price, and that they should also send a Post Office order along with their requisitions. A commission of 10 per cent had from the beginning of the system been allowed to the teachers on the sale of those books, &c.; but now that small perquisite had been withdrawn; and therefore the teachers, who were exceedingly poor, were bound to pay in advance on the stock of books they required, and were not permitted to charge any more for them than they used to do. It might be said that no such commission was given in England; but he understood that the English teachers were supplied from the booksellers, from whom they received a certain percentage. He thought it was a pity that that small advantage should be denied to the Irish teachers for the sake of a paltry saving of £3,000 or £4,000. It was believed in Ireland that the Commissioners of National Education had written to the Government, very strongly urging them not to withdraw that boon from the teachers—which, besides benefiting them, also tended to promote the diffusion of useful knowledge in Ireland; and he trusted that the Correspondence which had passed on the subject would be produced if the
  394
  interests of the public service would permit, as it would be well that the teachers should feel that the Board under which they acted was anxious for their welfare.
  Moved, That there be laid before the House—
  "Copies of all Correspondence between the Lords of Her Majesty's Treasury and the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland with the Commissioners of National Education on the subject of the withdrawal of the commission allowed to teachers of National Schools in Ireland on the purchase of books and requisites in the years 1874 and 1875; also for a Return of the amount of commission allowed in each of the years 1873–4, 1874–5, and 1875–6."—(The Viscount Gough.)
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDONsaid, he was by no means desirous of differing from some of the propositions which his noble Friend (Viscount Gough) had laid down—namely, that the salaries of the teachers were small, and that it was very desirable that those salaries should be, if possible, increased. His noble Friend was right in supposing that it would be inconvenient to comply with the first part of the Motion; but with regard to the second part, which related to the amount of the commission, there could be no objection whatever to such a Return being furnished. But, if he was correctly informed, that Return would show that the amount of commission received in this way had been very small. He thought his noble Friend had called it a "paltry sum;" but he would ask his noble Friend and their Lordships to consider whether such a system was desirable or ought to be continued. He could not conceive anything more undesirable than that the teacher of a school should have a commission upon the number of books which he sold to the scholars. He could not conceive anything more likely to make the teacher shut his eyes to the fact of books being destroyed, for he knew that if they were destroyed it would be to his advantage, because the scholars would be compelled to purchase more books from him. He did not say that teachers would do so on all occasions; but he thought the tendency of such a system would certainly be to make them somewhat careless. That was his reason for thinking that it would not be advisable to go back to the state of things which had prevailed heretofore. He thought that lately the salaries of the teachers had been to a

  395
  small extent increased. He was far from saying that their salaries should not, if it was feasible, be further increased; but, in his opinion, to allow them a commission on school books was not the most satisfactory mode of doing that.
  Motion withdrawn:—Then
  Return of the amount of commission allowed to teachers of national schools in Ireland on the purchase of books and requisites in each of the years 1873–74, 1874–75, and 1875–76.—(The Viscount Gough,) agreed to.

TURKEY—THE BERLIN MEMORANDUM.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  LORD CAMPBELL: My Lords, I came into the House, like every one else, unprepared for the question which a noble Duke upon the front bench beneath has brought on as to Bulgaria. But having received to-day some information through a British correspondent at Rustchuk, as the subject is entirely connected with my Notice, it may be well, perhaps, to mention at the outset that it does not at all confirm, to their full extent, the statements of which the noble Duke desires to test the authenticity. The fact is that the Sublime Porte assailed by insurrections from without, at very different points in an extended territory, is reduced to the employment of those auxiliary forces in which discipline can hardly be maintained. My Lords, as the Notice is in some degree to call attention to a volume of despatches, I wish to say a few words on its contents. The most interesting documents which meet us are the the letters of Consul Holmes, whose post at Bosna Serai brought him into contact with the insurrection at its origin. Nothing can be more clear or valuable than the light he throws upon it. From him we learn that the undue liberality of the Porte was the immediate cause of the explosion. Some inhabitants of Herzegovina had of their accord transferred themselves to Montenegro. They unhappily obtained permission to return, which the Governor General of the Vilayet counselled the refusal of. They very soon diffused the incendiary lessons they had lately been acquiring. In none of his expressions does Consul Holmes admit the insurrection to be genuine. His language naturally merits a great deal
  396
  more attention than I can now devote to it. The next interesting document is a long pamphlet, which professes to give the view of the insurgents as to maladministration and abuses. It certainly is able, vivid, and minute—it might make an impression on anyone who read it. But it is traced to no authority whatever. Consul Holmes himself transmitted it to the noble Earl the Secretary of State, without any clue to the workshop it proceeds from. Soon afterwards we travel on to the well-known Circular of Count Andrassy. The House may judge its scope by one recommendation—it is that all the revenue derivable from general taxation in a Province should be spent exclusively upon it, and never find its way into the Exchequer of the Porte; as if it were suggested that the produce of the income tax in Yorkshire or any other county were by an Act of Parliament devoted to its prisons and its roads. No wonder that grave men like the Due Decazes and the noble Earl the Secretary of State accepted with some reserve a proposition so astounding. They might indeed have asked themselves what strange interpretation of the 9th Article in the Treaty of March 30th, 1856, had possibly suggested it, that Article which stipulates against all interference on the part of foreign Powers between the Sultan and his people. Soon after we arrive at an elaborate despatch from the noble Earl the Secretary of State, in which, with manifest reluctance, he conforms as far as he is able to the line of Count Andrassy. But as it has long ago been stated that his concurrence was only granted at the suggestion of the Porte, who viewed the Austrian Note with horror, but thought that such participation would make it less oppressive, I need not dwell on that stage of the transaction—here the Blue Book ends. It is only about 100 pages, but it is not unimportant as it enables Consul Holmes to give that interpretation of an event which in its consequences agitates the world, for which every Capital in Europe ought to be indebted to him. My Lords, as to the Correspondence which I move for, I am anxious as far as possible to spare the Government embarrassment. It is not my aim to draw from them prematurely what has been termed the Berlin Memorandum, or any answer they have made to it: nor is it with a

  397
  view to those documents that I employ the term of recent Correspondence. I allude to any Correspondence with Berlin which has taken place during the current year; and there is an obvious reason for demanding it at present. It was generally felt at the beginning of the Session, by those who had the nearest opportunities of watching the position at Constantinople or elsewhere, that the line of safety would be found in bringing the influence of Berlin to bear on those Powers which more or less upheld the insurrection. Having endeavoured to maintain that view at the beginning of the Session, for whole months I never troubled the noble Earl with any proposition or inquiry, but waited to see how far, and if at all with what results, it had been acted on. At last, during the course of May, the public learnt, with little satisfaction, that the authorities of Berlin had sanctioned a proposal which the noble Earl declined to approve. In order to gain a just impression of how we stand with Germany at present, in order to decide how far the Government have done their utmust to avert a situation much to be regretted, at least some portion of the Correspondence is essential. It is open, no doubt, for the noble Earl to say that none has taken place in the sense I have referred to; but he will hardly make such an admission. In every other case I venture to maintain the Motion ought to be acceded to, giving as it does a perfect latitude as to what shall be produced and as to the moment of producing it. My Lords, I have now said all that is strictly indispensable as connected with the Notice: and as no man can possibly predict whether the subject will again come before the House before the Session closes, any further observations I may hazard ought to be brief and hurried over. It is useless to dilate on a series of grandiose and tragical occurrences which the journalists of the day have had so many opportunities of painting. It is useless to point out at length the immense advantage which our policy derives from a revolution which at once propitiates and staggers the insurgents, checks superfluous expenditure, limits arbitrary power, secures to the best minds at Constantinople the ascendancy they wanted. Nor do I think it altogether necessary—a few days ago it seemed to be so—to contend that danger is very far from
  398
  being exhausted and that until the Bosnian insurrection closes altogether, we cannot see what obligations our country might be called on to fulfil. The disposition to rather premature repose has been in some degree corrected by the attitude of Servia, of which we heard something from the other side to-night. On that point I wish to make an observation to your Lordships. Not long ago a Question was put to the Government as to the Treaty of April 15th, 1856, to which I have more than once directed the attention of the House. The noble Earl the Secretary of State did a considerable service in re-affirming its validity, which the Conference of 1871 had certainly obscured, although it did not actually impair it. The noble Earl went on to add that it was not framed in order to defend the Porte against its Vassal Principalities. I think with him that such was not the object primarily contemplated by it. But if through the medium of a Vassal Principality a foreign Power should endanger the integrity of the Porte; if a Vassal Principality invades the Porte with foreign gold to aid and foreign officers to lead it, then I should contend that the Treaty of April 15th entitles you to an influence upon the Vassal Principality you could not otherwise have aimed at. But setting aside completely the Treaty of April 15th, there is a special ground of interference as to Servia, which at a time so critical as this ought not to be forgotten. Certain Governments, not many years ago, induced the Sultan to evacuate the fortress of Belgrade, which he was at liberty to hold by the Conventions which existed. They thus became responsible to him for any future risks the measure might occasion. In 1863, when the question was much canvassed, Lord Palmerston declined to sanction that evacuation; and I am not sure whether he ever gave a greater proof of his sagacity. It took place, however, a few years after his death, with the concurrence of the Foreign Office. It involved Great Britain in an obligation to counteract as far as possible the evils which are flowing from it. It is not to be supposed that we intended to place a weapon in the hands of servia to be employed against the Ottoman integrity we are bound by Treaty to defend, to be employed, in other words, against our objects and ourselves, without a title to

  399
  control or remonstrate. It is fortunate we have at Belgrade now, in Mr. White, a Representative whom long experience at Warsaw has familiarized with great events together with their passions and vicissitudes. Supported by the noble Earl, I have no doubt he will not be found unequal to the crisis he is traversing. My Lords, with a view to salutary influence, whether at Belgrade or Bucharest, or in the regions which are more disturbed, or even in Constantinople and St. Petersburg, the measure which I venture to suggest for more consideration is that both Houses of Parliament before the Session finishes should, by a well-considered Resolution, indicate their general adherence to the Treaties of 1856. The recent language of the Government, perhaps their recent conduct, on their part has proclaimed such fidelity. But so many voices in such various directions, either by violence or ambiguity or discord, have led the European world to doubt whether Parliament is more inclined to guard or to abandon the whole position the Crimean War attained, that re-assurance seems to be essential. Had Parliament been less reserved, or better understood in 1853—it is very easy to demonstrate now that such a war would not have been imposed upon us. My Lords, one cannot leave this topic without adverting for a moment to the kind of re-establishment which the public mind has lately undergone upon it. It is now seen more clearly than it was, that the interests of Great Britain on the Bosphorus continue, whether the administration of the Porte is good or bad among its subjects. Menobserve, at the same time, that the fall of the late Sultan has removed the cause of many evils which were formerly deplored and paves the way for many changes to which the throne was formerly an obstacle. They know that a force sometimes aggressive, sometimes undermining, always vigilant and subtle, has been near a final triumph on the Bosphorus. They have resolved that, come what may, that triumph shall not be effected. Among the classes of society who influence events, the spirit which existed 20 years ago appears to have revived. Its revival may be deemed among the best securities for peace, because it is among the firmest barriers against attempts by which that peace would be endangered.
  Moved, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty for extracts of any recent correspondence which has taken place between Her Majesty's Government and that of Berlin on the subject of the insurrection in European Turkey.—(The Lord Stratheden and Campbell.)
  LORD HAMMOND: My Lords, I certainly do not rise to press Her Majesty's Government to accede to the Motion of the noble Lord, for I think nothing could be more inconvenient and embarrassing than that your Lordships should have before you a fragment of correspondence with one Power in regard to a matter in which several other Powers are engaged. But with your Lordships' permission I would wish to make some observations in regard to Turkish affairs generally. Whatever exception may be taken to the course adopted by Her Majesty's Government, and I think if they had adopted a different course, the complications in which we are involved might have been in a great measure averted, the course which Her Majesty's Government have since adopted entitles them, I would submit, to your Lordships' approval and that of the country at large; and it is satisfactory to observe that such would also seem to be the view taken of it by the Press of foreign countries in general, although a soreness, it is to be hoped only transitory, has been shown in a certain quarter. When I say that I think Her Majesty's Government would have done better by adopting a different course in the outset, I allude to the forbearance which they showed in allowing the Three Powers to assume to themselves a right to interfere in Turkish affairs to the exclusion of those countries which equally with themselves were parties to the Treaty of 1856. If this country had been admitted to their deliberations, the duration of them would have been shortened, time would not have been given for the spread of the insurrection, and an impression would not have been produced that England had become indifferent to the fate of Turkey. I have no other objection to offer to the course taken by Her Majesty's Government, so far as we are authentically informed of it. They could not have ignored the Andrassy Note when it came before them, however irregularly, for that would have been to show temper; they could not have identified themselves with it, for they had no share in drawing it up; but they rested on the

  401
  Hatti Hamaioum of 1856, and on the more recent Declarations of the Porte in regard to improvement in its internal administration, which had, indeed, been promulgated before the Note which purported to recommend it was finally settled. Her Majesty's Government, judging from what we gather from ordinary sources of information, have acted wisely in declining to take part in the further proposals of the Powers, whether distinct or merely shadowed forth for the future; and also in reinforcing the British Fleet in the waters of the Archipelago, proving thereby that England was not, as had been alleged, indifferent to the maintenance of the independence and integrity of Turkey as an essential element of the balance of power in Europe. It has been the fashion to assume that the dissolution of the Turkish Empire was at hand; and in confirmation of this assumption reference has been made to the insurrection which has broken out in two remote Provinces of European Turkey, to the recent outbreak of fanaticism at Salonica, and to the pecuniary difficulties of Turkey. Much might be said in regard to the last; but it is sufficient for my present purpose to observe that those who have suffered by them would look in vain for indemnification to the dissolution of the Turkish Empire. It is not to be supposed that whether the insurgents or any foreign Powers were to be substituted for it, they would adopt its pecuniary liabilities. The outbreak at Salonica was nothing more than one of Mussulman fanaticism, and however much to be deplored is the fate of the victims of it, they brought it upon themselves by their own imprudence. Such outbreaks have frequently occurred, but no one ever saw in them signs of the approaching dissolution of the Empire. My Lords there is more vitality in Turkey than she is usually credited with. In the course of a long official life I have seen her involved in difficulties which seemed to portend her immediate destruction; but she overcame them all by her own unaided means, as she would have long since overcome the present insurrection, if she had only been left unfettered by the interference of foreign Powers. But when the dissolution of the Turkish Empire is talked of, it is as well to consider what would be the effect of an attempt to substitute Christian for Mus-
  402
  sulman rule in the provinces of European Turkey. In servia and Roumania there is, so to say, no Mussulman population, with the exception perhaps of about 5,000 in the former. I fear there is too much reason to suppose that servia has been encouraged from other quarters to assume her present aggressive attitude; but servia and Roumania both find in their connection with the Porte security for the autonomy which they enjoy, as included in the general guarantee of the independence and integrity of the Turkish Empire contained in the Treaty of 1856. Once deprived of this security, they would be open to occupation by foreign Powers, they would lose the autonomy which they possess, would become subject to laws which they knew not of, liable to fiscal burdens from which they are now exempt, to military service beyond their own frontier, and to the rule of foreign Governors, instead of that of their native Princes and of their present cherished Constitutional administration. With regard to the other Provinces of European Turkey, where the Mussulmans constitute about two-fifths of the whole population, it is not to be supposed that with all the material strength which they possess, they would submit without a struggle to be expelled from their homes and their possessions and give place to others whom they have hitherto considered subject to them; and we cannot but look with dismay on the desolation, ruin, and bloodshed which would be involved in such a struggle, in which fanaticism on either side would form a prominent feature. A solitude would be made, though it might be called peace. Of the conduct of the insurgents Mr. Consul Holmes, than whom no public servant that I know is more deserving of consideration for his calm and deliberate judgment, thus speaks in his despatch of the 28th of September—
  "The revolt was assuredly arranged by Servian agitators and accomplished by force. The mass of the inhabitants, unarmed, had no choice. Their homes were devastated, and their lives threatened, and they were ordered to follow their leaders. And now the ruin is such that those who wish to submit cannot. They have no homes to go to, and the armed bands threaten all those who breathe or whisper of submission. These bands are all formed of a mixture of people from different parts of the country, and all mutually watch each other, to prevent any combination to submit. The ruin and devastation in the plain of Nevassine and

  403
  all along the Dalmatian frontier, and wherever the insurgents have passed, is piteous to behold."
  But even supposing the Turks should be expelled, there would be but little chance of a well-ordered Administration of the country being set up by the successful insurgents, or that a better state of things would be brought about than might be expected from an improved system of Turkish Administration. But Mr. Holmes says in his Report, speaking, I believe, of the Herzegovinians—
  "They do not, and never have desired independence or annexation to Montenegro, but they wish to remain Turkish subjects under very extensive administrative reforms, the execution of which to be guaranteed by Europe. Whatever your Excellency may hear to the contrary, I can assure you that in the Herzegovina the only part of the people wishing for annexation to Montenegro are the districts adjoining the frontier from Sutorina to Poloskine. These districts are mere rocks, the scanty population herdsmen; and they are a burden rather than a profit to Turkey. In Bosnia, almost to a man, the population would refuse to be annexed to servia or Austria, and they have never dreamed of independence, which from the nature of circumstances and the state of education, is impracticable. They only wish to be Turkish subjects, but to be governed with justice, and placed on an equality in law with their Mussulman compatriots."
  To obtain for them, and, indeed, for all classes of the Sultan's subjects, justice in administration, equality in law, exemption from wrong, however inflicted, equality of civil rights, and freedom from petty oppression and vexation, may well be the object of all Powers that desire the well-being of Turkey. There needs no undue interference in the internal affairs of Turkey—no assumption of a Protectorate over any classes of Turkish subjects; but kindly sympathy with their wants, and friendly encouragement to the Government to observe its engagements as regards the good government of all the Sultan's subjects; and such encouragement may be of infinite value as support to the Sultan, who has inaugurated his accession to the Throne with the most solemn assurances of his determination to rule with justice and impartiality. Such encouragement, acting in a common spirit with other Powers friendly to the Turkish Empire, Her Majesty's Government may well give; but I would caution them against acting collectively. Advice collectively given is too apt to degenerate into collective
  404
  interference. Equally would I caution them against taking part in any Conference which it might be proposed to convene for the settlement of Turkish affairs. There is so much disturbance in the political state of Europe, that in any such Conference questions would infallibly be raised, and projects of compensation agitated, foreign to the avowed object of the Conference, but which might prove very embarrassing to Her Majesty's Government to deal with; in which Great Britain would have no direct interest, but which might involve consequences fatal to the general peace of Europe. In the interest of the Turkish Empire, no less than in that of the general peace of Europe, Her Majesty's Government might well adopt, as the ruling principle of their policy in Eastern affairs, the spirit of the Declaration of 1826, when Portugal was threatened by a Spanish invasion—Mr. Secretary Canning then holding the Seals of the Foreign Department—
  "That His Majesty disclaims the wish and abjures the intention of interfering in the internal concerns of any foreign State; but His Majesty will not endure that foreign force or foreign intrigue shall produce confusion and civil war in a country with which His Majesty has long been connected by ties of the strictest amity and alliance, and whose Government, as at present constituted, has not given just cause of offence either to Spain or to any other Power."
  LORD NAPIER AND ETTRICKsaid, that in the transactions which had been brought before the House by his noble Friend (Lord Campbell) and of which the noble Lord who had just sat down had spoken in so judicious a manner, the first feature which struck him in a conspicuous light was the evil effect attaching to the Letter agreed to on the part of the three Northern Powers to act separately and apart from the other Powers on a question of such grave importance. It appeared to him almost to amount to a revival of the Holy Alliance in the interests of Russia. The evil effect of such partial and conclusive action was, first—that it excited a certain amount of resentment on the part of the Governments of those nations which were excluded from the deliberation of the Conference upon those affairs, and a feeling of uneasiness and jealousy in the minds of the communities and nations of which those Governments were the representatives. It

  405
  tended further to place the Great Powers of Europe before the world in a position of antagonism upon a class of subjects upon which general unanimity and assent was more than ever necessary. Further, when such partial action was applied to Turkish affairs it naturally created a feeling of agitation and distrust at the Porte; for the Turkish Government could not with indifference see its affairs brought under separate and partial consideration by those Powers which it perhaps regarded as its enemies or adversaries, while the Powers which it regarded as its friends and allies were excluded. This course, too, involved a dangerous and pernicious loss of time, for after resolutions had been agreed to they had to be submitted to the other Powers, and ultimately to the Turkish Government itself. But how was it possible that the Governments which had not participated in the discussion of those resolutions could be in a favourable position to consider them? It was not too much to suppose that the policy in question was, in the first instance, inspired and prompted by Russia'—availing herself of the connivance or goodwill of the German Government, the weakness of Austria, and the inability at that moment of the other Powers to co-operate with each other. It could not be doubted that in embracing this policy the object of the Russian Government had been to cancel the moral and material results of the Crimean War, and next to stimulate and expand those interests within the dominions of the Sultan among the Sclavonian races on which the Russian Government formed its basis of action. They could not, he feared, expect to see any change of policy in those respects. The Russian Government, he did not doubt, would avail itself of every opportunity and means to attain those results, unless it found itself in the presence of a most serious difficulty and complication. He hoped for very little from the action of the Russian Government in this matter, and he saw little ground for hoping for much assistance from the Government of Germany. That Government up to the present time—whether as the Government of Prussia or as the Imperial Government—had never taken any active or decided position in respect of the affairs of the East, and he should expect, unless their policy was very
  406
  much altered, that they would be rather inclined to assist and connive at the expansion of Russian interests than otherwise. He certainly hoped for nothing from the the moderation or weakness of the Russian people; because he believed there never was a moment in which Russia was more powerful, more independent, more ambitious, or more patriotic in all her enterprizes than she now was. If he entertained any hope that the counsels of Russia would be guided by moderation and wisdom, he derived it almost exclusively from the character of the Sovereign, who was the master and ultimate authority in the direction of the policy of the nation. It could not be said, of course, that the conduct of the Emperor of Russia, or of the Government acting under his control, had always been such as to command the sympathy or approval of Her Majesty's Government or the British people. The resolutions of the Emperor of Russia had unavoidably in several instances been antagonistic to our interests. If the Emperor of Russia could be induced to feel that he would experience on the part of Her Majesty's Government a positive and determined resistance to an aggressive and ambitious policy, which could only be persevered in at the risk of inflicting upon Europe and Russia the dreadful evils of a European war, he believed that the pacific motives which had actuated the Emperor through his career would gain the upper hand, and that, swayed by the wisdom and moderation of his natural character, he would retire from the position he had occupied, and spare the world the calamities to which allusion had been made. It had been contended that if Her Majesty's Government had protested against the separate action of the Three Powers at an earlier period they would not have persevered in the policy they had pursued. He was rather doubtful of this. He could not see that Her Majesty's Government could have protested with any prospect of success against the action of the three Cabinets without making themselves parties to some general action of the European Cabinets, at which France, Italy, and England must have assisted. That, however, would have been an inconsistent course of action; because Her Majesty's Government were prepared to represent that the Turkish Govern-

  407
  ment should be allowed to settle their own affairs without intervention on the part of the European Powers. If, moreover, Her Majesty's Government had protested against the separate action of the Three Powers at an earlier period, they might have exposed themselves to a rebuff on the part of those Powers, and it was not desirable that a Great Power should frequently tender advice that was not accepted, or offer protests which were disregarded. He preferred to look at the policy of Her Majesty's Government from a more general point of view, and he would ask whether the Government generally, during later years, had not taken such steps and enforced such resolutions as tended to re-establish the ascendancy of England in the councils of Europe, and enabled the Government to exercise a paramount influence in the solution of great questions? He thought the policy of Her Majesty's Government in relation to Russia and the East had been of a firm, honourable, and dignified character. He might first refer to the refusal of the Government to go to St. Petersburg for the proposed discussion of the rights of belligerents—a discussion which would have been conducted under influences and upon a scene decidedly favourable to the great military States of Europe, and unfavourable to the rights and claims of the secondary Powers, and especially to those of the maritime nations. That refusal of the Government to discuss the question of belligerent rights in Russia had redounded more to the honour and credit of this country with foreign nations than had been generally acknowledged. He would next point out as honourable to the Government that great act,—the purchase of shares in the Suez Canal. No step taken by the British Government had reflected greater honour upon this country abroad and in the minds of foreign Cabinets and nations than that act. The resolution and the address that had been exhibited in the conduct of the transaction and the confidence shown in the Ministers of this country by the subjects of the Queen when they undertook this great responsibility without the knowledge of Parliament and without consulting the Legislature, were attended with excellent results in foreign countries. It was regarded as a great proof of that community of patriotic
  408
  action which animated all classes and parties of our countrymen when the interests of England were at stake. By purchasing an interest in the Suez Canal the Government had given a signal and conspicuous proof that in no circumstances would they hesitate to maintain the paramount influence and interests of this country in the East. Moreover, the favourable impression which this policy had created abroad had been confirmed by the refusal of the Government to assent to the Berlin Memorandum. The Government by that act showed that they regarded their obligations to Turkey as serious, and that they were determined to respect the rights and independence of the Turkish Government. This favourable impression had been further confirmed by the despatch of the British naval force to the Mediterranean. It might be contended that this measure was not necessary, because the contingencies which might call the forces of England into action had not actually occurred, and that there was no probability that those contingencies would arise. It was true that no overt attack on the independence and integrity of the Ottoman Empire had been made, and he did not think that any had been intended. On the other hand, the action of England was not required in the case of mere internal disturbances in the Ottoman Empire. It was possible to imagine a rising in Roumania, or Turkestan, or Mesopotamia, in which no European interests were involved, and which might be left to be dealt with by the parties concerned. There might even be insurrections nearer Europe, or the revolt of a Greek island, with which it would not be the duty of the English Government to interfere; and there might be a revolt of Turkish provinces which might not bring our guarantees into action at all. Between, however, the overt attacks of a foreign Power and the simple insurrection of a Turkish province there might be another description of agitation of a very obvious and mixed character which might evoke a serious discussion as to whether our responsibilities and guarantees were involved, and whether our intervention might not be necessary on the ground of national policy. This was not the first time that questions of intervention by European Powers in the affairs of Turkey had arisen. When an insurrec-

  409
  tion broke out in the Turkish dominions that seemed to Russia to be prejudicial and hostile to her interests, she made no difficulty in interfering by force of arms. When Syria was seriously invaded by the Egyptian army, and Turkey itself was threatened, the Russian Government sent an Ambassador to Constantinople, and signed the Treaty of Unkius Skelessi. The same thing occurred in 1840, when an invasion of Turkey was threatened by the Ruler of Egypt, and when the British Government made no difficulty in securing, by an alliance of the Three Powers, the restoration of tranquility and peace in the Turkish dominions. We could not say there might not be such an insurrection in the dominions of the Sultan, stimulated and aided by foreign sympathy and foreign support, that it might not be the policy of this country, as it had already been, to interfere even by force of arms, in combination with its allies, for the authority of the Sultan. And it was not only on the score of feeling that such a necessity might arise. The Levant had always been the scene of unexpected and unforeseen catastrophes and surprises. He need only ask their Lordships to remember Navarino, the great defection of the Turkish fleet in 1839, the massacre of Sinope, and the rupture of the Black Sea Treaty by Russia in 1870. Might not unforeseen occurrences and emergencies again arise? In the prospect of such emergencies he did not think they ought to withhold their meed of approval from the Government for rapidly concentrating our naval forces in the waters of the Levant—for we could not see at what moment aid might not be required either for the assistance of our allies, or the defence of national interests which were to us of the highest importance. No doubt some might say the conduct of the Government was justifiable with reference to our engagements while they lasted, but that it would be desirable, so far as it was consistent with national engagements and honour, to withdraw from our position with reference to Turkey, lest it should be found not only an impossible, but also an unjust one. If he believed the interests of religious toleration, the cause of general human progress and improvement, the cause of political and commercial freedom were identical with the action of the Christian insurgents
  410
  in Turkey, and of the Christian races generally in Turkey; and if he believed that the Turkish Government was hopelessly antagonistic to those interests, he should be the last to argue in favour of the maintenance of our present policy. But he thought exactly the contrary was the case at the present moment. He entirely agreed with what had been said by his noble Friend near him (Lord Hammond); and as one of the few survivors of the period of diplomatic intervention, through the Embassyat Constantinople, he would remind their Lordships that at no period had our Government or our Embassy been really indifferent to the cause of Christian improvement. As one who had served at the Embassy he was conversant with the course pursued by it and the Embassies of other Powers, and our Government had always taken the lead in aid of Christian interests and in the rights of religious toleration and equality, and had sometimes been the only advocate of them. In illustration of this the noble Lord quoted a passage from an interesting letter written by an eminent Russian diplomatist, in which he sketched the policies of different Ambassadors and described the leading feature of English policy as solicitude for the interests and improvement of the Turkish people. He could not admit that the principle of religious toleration was to be sought for on the side of the Christian population. On the contrary, he believed if they were prematurely admitted to exclusive power, it would be exercised in the most intolerant and oppressive manner. An indication of this probability had been furnished by the treatment of the Turkish population in Greece; and he feared that if the Christians became dominant in Roumania, Bulgaria, and other European States their ascendancy would be marked by persecution exceeding any that had accompanied Turkish rule. Whereas every step taken by the Turkish Government under the influence of European Powers would be a step towards toleration and respect for the rights of others, Christian ascendancy would probably produce government of a different character and tendency. Nor did he think that free trade or general improvement would be promoted more by Oriental Christians than under Mussulman rule. The trade of England with Persia and Central Asia, the mainte-

  411
  nance of our communication with India, and the British capital invested in public works in India, were considerations which testified to our great interest in the maintenance of the independence and integrity of the Turkish Empire, coupled with the adoption of those improvements which he believed the Turkish Government was able and willing to make in its administration. Therefore he trusted the Government would not commit themselves too positively to the affirmation of the principle that under no circumstances could it become the policy of England to interfere for the restoration of tranquillity within the dominions of the Sultan; and he trusted they would continue to recognize, as the true policy of England, perseverance in that course which was so energetically and ably laid down in times past by Lord Palmerston as the course that ought to be pursued by England in the East.
  THE EARL OF DERBY: My Lords, I certainly cannot find any fault with my noble Friend who has raised this discussion, for having, in the exercise of his discretion brought before your Lordships the general state of Eastern Affairs. There is no doubt that they are exciting deep and general interest not only in England, but throughout Europe; and while, on the part of the Government, I acknowledge—as I am bound to do—with gratitude "the prudent and patriotic reticence and reserve," to quote a phrase used by the Prime Minister, which Parliament has observed, I have no right to object, and I do not object, when any noble Lord chooses to take the opportunity of expressing his views as to what the Government ought to do or to leave undone in the present position of affairs. I should be extremely ungrateful if I made any objection of the kind on the present occasion, because, almost without exception, every remark which has fallen from the three noble Lords who have spoken has been in a sense friendly and complimentary to the policy of Her Majesty's Government. On the other hand, I hope I shall not be charged with disrespect to this House or discourtesy to any Member of it, if I do not, in my turn, take the opportunity of explaining and justifying in detail the policy which we have pursued. Everyone who has watched the course of foreign affairs
  412
  must have observed how very much more is made of the words of persons in official position than those words really implied; and how often it happens that a word casually dropped in debate—perhaps elicited by something which has passed in the course of discussion—has some significance attached to it, some construction put upon it, which was never intended by the speaker; and how often a phrase, used with a very simple and innocent meaning, is construed as implying something which it is not at all convenient to have imputed to the Representative of any Government. There is another reason why a full discussion is not at present possible—it would require as a preliminary that the Papers relating to what has passed should be before your Lordships, and that your Lordships should have had time to consider them. The production of these Papers, which has often been promised, has been unavoidably delayed; but they shall be laid before Parliament during the present Session, and in time for a full discussion of them, if such a discussion be thought desirable. But to lay them at the present moment on the Table would be premature and inconvenient; and, moreover, they could only be produced in a very fragmentary form. I cannot, therefore, assent to the Motion of my noble Friend (Lord Campbell). That Motion, I think, was only made for the purpose of exciting a discussion, and it is the less necessary that I should follow my noble Friend through his review of the past state of affairs, because I think that generally what he said was in favour of the course which has been pursued. My noble Friend adverted to three points—he spoke of the movement in the Herzegovina having been to a great extent directed from outside the Turkish Empire. That is a matter on which I do not care to differ with him. Next he said that the Austrian intervention was not to be justified according to the terms of the Treaty of 1856. Well, that intervention has come and gone, and the question whether it was or was not strictly within the limits of the Treaty of 1856 is now mainly an historical one. As to the third point—namely, the course which ought to be adopted towards the Government of Turkey in certain contingencies which my noble Friend defined

  413
  beforehand, that may be an interesting question for him to raise, but he would hardly expect that either I or any person holding my office should enter upon a discussion of what ought to be done in the hypothetical case which he put. But there was one suggestion of a practical character that he threw out. If I rightly understood him, he recommended that a Resolution should be passed by both Houses of Parliament asserting the maintenance of the policy of the Crimean War. I am quite aware that in making that recommendation my noble Friend intends only to strengthen and support Her Majesty's Government, and I am grateful to him for that intention; but I think that, upon reflection, he will see that the course which he proposes is one that would be open to considerable inconvenience of a practical kind. In the first place, I do not think that the course he suggested could be adopted by the Government without raising considerable discussion and great difference of opinion; and I am afraid it would follow that the difference of opinion that would be so manifested would create an appearance of even greater division than actually exists. Further, the state of things in1856 was not the same as it is in 1876. An abstract Resolution, founded on an historical question, is not a convenient mode of dealing with events as they really occur; and if a Resolution such as he proposed were not couched in language so vague and general as to be almost unmeaning, it would tie the hands of the Government in an inconvenient degree. I am not called upon to comment on the speech of my noble Friend who spoke second in the debate (Lord Hammond), to whom I listened with the greatest possible interest, remembering as I do that he was my earliest instructor in matters of foreign policy, of which I have grateful recollections. He, as far as I could follow him, threw out some suggestions as to our conduct which I heard with attention and respect. As regards the past, I do not think my noble Friend found any fault with what we had done except that he thought that instead of allowing the Three Powers in a recent transaction to formulate their ideas and place them before us, and then expressing our dissent, it would have been better if we had insisted on having a voice in
  414
  the deliberations in the first instance. I do not, however, think that if we had done that it would have practically altered the course of events. Let it not be supposed that the influence of this country in European affairs was not felt. No one could think that really was the case who witnessed the extreme anxiety shown by all parties when the Austrian proposition of January was still in doubt. The noble Lord (Lord Napier and Ettrick) who succeeded my noble Friend has left me nothing to reply to. But I do not think I should be acting with courtesy to your Lordships if I sat down without making a very brief statement of the present position of Eastern matters as far as Her Majesty's Government are concerned. I need not go back to the time of the Austrian Note, to which we gave our assent, although not very sanguine as to its producing the effect expected from it; nor is it necessary to do more than allude to that Memorandum or Minute agreed upon at Berlin between Austria, Russia, and Germany, and which subsequently received the assent of France and Italy. We thought the propositions which it embodied open to objection, we stated our objections, and we declined to take part in it. For a time, therefore, we were in a position of isolation from the rest of Europe. The events which followed have in a great measure altered our position in that respect. When, by a bloodless revolution, the late Sultan had been deposed and his successor placed on the Throne, every one felt that in the case of a country where so much depends on the personal character and will of the Sovereign, it was a matter of course that time should be allowed to the new Sultan and his advisers to consider their position, and to take the initiative in passing such reforms and concessions as they might think likely to bring about a pacification. That was the view taken by all the Powers; and the Note which had been drawn up, founded on the Berlin agreement, was accordingly not presented. I do not know that it has been formally abandoned, but its presentation has been indefinitely adjourned—which is much the same thing. The cause of disunion between England and the other Powers is therefore removed, and we are all free, if we think fit, to enter into fresh attempts at mediation, either collectively

  415
  or separately. We are not yet informed what the propositions of the Porte for a reform of the internal administration of Turkey are likely to be, and considering the enormous difficulty of the work, I do not think we ought to be impatient. It is too early to say what we have to expect from a new reign, but I will not hesitate to state my conviction that the transfer of power from the late to the present Sultan, though an act not in any way in the slightest degree due to foreign advice or influence, was an act justified by the presence of a great public danger, and by the proved impossibility of hoping for any real reform in administration under the late reign. It has been put about that the revolution which has been accomplished is a triumph of the fanatical or anti-Christian party. Such, in my belief, is the very reverse of the truth. The late Sultan caused universal discontent, not by concessions to the Christian population, but by bankruptcy, by maladministration, and by the abuses of every kind which were allowed to grow up; and, according to my information, the change has been as popular among the Christian as among the Turkish populations of the Empire. The situation, then, is this. The Porte has been encouraged to negotiate directly with the Insurgents. The result of those negotiations is not and cannot yet be known. They may succeed, or they may fail. If they succeed, there is nothing more to be said or done by the Powers. If they fail, and hostilities begin again, we are free to interpose our mediation if, or when, we think it likely to be useful, or to abstain for the time altogether if we see no reasonable prospect of success. That any advice which we give will be disinterested it is hardly necessary to say. I cannot, of course, affirm that it will be taken—but I think it will be listened to by the Porte as the advice of a friendly Power, and by Europe as the opinion of a Power which wants nothing except the maintenance of peace. My Lords, I do not know whether any words of mine are likely to have weight, but I would deprecate if I might all hasty and hostile criticism of the conduct of foreign Powers. The situation is very complicated. Even in countries not possessing Parliamentary Government, public opinion is a force which must be taken into account; and, for my part, I see no reason to doubt
  416
  that all the great Powers, without exception, would be glad to bring about the end of a quarrel which has in it so many elements of danger, not to Turkey alone, but to other States. For us, our general line of action is clear. We would gladly reconcile, if we could, the Porte and its insurgent provinces; but we have, as I conceive, no right and no wish to take part with one against the other in a purely internal quarrel. That is the rule on which we have acted, in times not remote and in the case of civil wars far more extensive and more sanguinary. I do not wish to lay down that rule as absolutely and universally binding. Human affairs are too complex and too changeable to be regulated by any formula, but it is our general principle of action, and, I think, a sound one. We feel bound, as I have said, to leave to the Porte the initiative in its own affairs; but we have been and are in communication both with the Porte and with other Powers with a view to offer such counsels as seem to us likely to be useful. I have heard it suggested that we are supposed to be thinking too much of the interest of the Turks, and too little of that of the non-Mahomedan races. I am utterly unaware of any foundation for that charge. No one supposes that the maintenance of the Ottoman Empire in any form within Europe is possible if there is to be permanent disaffection and discontent among the Christian races. They are in European Turkey a majority too numerous and too powerful by intelligence and wealth to be kept down by mere force. That is as well understood by every person who has any claim to be called a statesman at Constantinople as it is here. The problem to be solved is how to reconcile their reasonable wishes and claims with the maintenance of that general system to which all Europe is pledged, and which cannot be overthrown without a general convulsion extending far beyond European limits, and leading to many complications which we can hardly foresee. It is one thing to say at any given moment—"We will not try to mediate, because our interposition would probably do no good," and it is quite another to lay down as a general rule that we have nothing to do with the matter, and will let events take their course. The former course may be one dictated by reason and prudence

  417
  the latter is the language, as it seems to me, not of statesmanship, but of mere indolence and despair.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, that the noble Earl (the Earl of Derby) must be perfectly aware that there was great anxiety on this question in the public mind, and that it was therefore very desirable that information should be given on the subject; but after the statement of the noble Earl that, in the opinion of Her Majesty's Government, it was not desirable to give further information than they had given, and after the promise made in that and the other House of Parliament that information would be given at no very distant period, he had not the slightest wish to press Her Majesty's Government on that point. With regard to their policy, even if he wished to refrain from blaming Her Majesty's Government he had this difficulty—he did not know exactly what they were doing or what their policy was. A noble Lord (Lord Napier) had referred to a matter which was only indirectly connected with the subject of the insurrection in the Turkish Provinces—namely, the purchase by Her Majesty's Government of Suez Canal shares. He (Earl Granville) was not a great admirer of that transaction, and up to the present moment he had not seen the great political results which might have been expected from it. With regard to the question of the Berlin Memorandum, he thought Her Majesty's Government were right in not adhering to that Memorandum. He was, indeed, in ignorance at that moment what that Memorandum was, and he must reserve his opinion upon it till he had further information. With regard to the sending of a Fleet to Besika Bay, we did not know whether that course was adopted at the suggestion of any other Power, or what was the motive which influenced Her Majesty's Government in taking that course; and therefore, until he was aware of all the circumstances of the case, he thought their Lordships would agree that he was right in reserving his opinion on that subject. Those who sat on that side of the House were not in the slightest degree negligent of the important interests which Great Britain had in the settlement of the question. On the other hand, it should be understood that they would not refuse to co-operate in any course which might clearly lead to the most
  418
  efficacious means of maintaining peace, and of arriving at a satisfactory settlement of this question. But above all it should be understood that those on that side of the House were not unmindful of the obligations which Turkey took upon itself by the Treaty of 1856 with regard to its Christian subjects. He was very glad to hear the assurance given by the noble Earl that Her Majesty's Government would use their influence derived from that Treaty in seeing that justice was administered by the Turkish Government with regard to the Christian population.
  LORD CAMPBELLsaid, that after the statement of the noble Earl the Secretary of State he would withdraw his Motion.
  Motion, by leave of the House, withdrawn.
  House adjourned at a quarter to Nine o'clock, till to-morrow, half past Ten o'clock,