Sitting of 18 June 1877

MINUTES.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee—NAVY ESTIMATES.
PUBLIC BILLS — First Reading — Provisional Orders (Ireland) Confirmation (Artizans and. Labourers Dwellings) [201]; Provisional Orders (Ireland) Confirmation (Ennis, &c.) [202].
Second Reading—Marriages Legalisation, Saint Peter's, Almondsbury [197].
Committee — Legal Practitioners [43]—R.P.; Solicitors Examination, &c. [190]—R.P.
Third Reading—Universities of Oxford and Cambridge [183], and passed.
Withdrawn—Medical Act (1858) Amendment (No. 2) [172].

QUESTIONS.
  PARLIAMENT—ORDER—SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY (IRELAND) BILL.—QUESTION.

    OBSERVATIONS.
    THE O'DONOGHUEsaid, he wished to ask a Question upon a point of Order in relation to a Question on the Paper that day in the name of the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. R. Smyth). He wished to know, If that Question did not violate the Rule of the House that no Question should contain any debatable matter? The Rule was enforced so that hon. Members might not, under the cover of Questions, make statements which would appear to command general assent owing to the silence which at Question time was imposed by the Rules of the House. If their debates were not

    1935
    reported, this would not be of any consequence; but as they were reported, and the public generally were not acquainted with their Rules, a very erroneous impression might be produced and injurious consequences might follow from statements in regard to which there was a difference of opinion out-of-doors being received without any articulate dissent. The question raised by his hon. Friend did not appear to him to command anything approaching general acquiescence in Ireland, and he begged to ask, whether upon the Rule of the House, to which he had referred, it would be allowable for the hon. Member to put it?
    MR. SPEAKER: In answer to the Question of the hon. Member, I have to observe that the Notice standing on the Paper in the name of the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. R. Smyth) is in these terms—''To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether he will, on an early day, afford an opportunity for the moving of a Resolution?" That seems to me a perfectly simple Question.
    THE O'DONOGHUEremarked that the Question did not stop there.
    Afterwards,
    MR. RICHARD SMYTHasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether he will, on an early day, afford an opportunity for the moving of the following Resolution:—
    "That, having regard to the action taken by Her Majesty's Government, and to the decision of the Select Committee on the Sale of Intoxicating Liquors on Sunday (Ireland) Bill, in the present Session of Parliament, this House is of opinion that it will be highly detrimental to the public interest should Her Majesty's Government allow the question involved to remain unsettled for another year"
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: It appears to me, Sir, that the discussion of such a Resolution as the hon. Gentleman proposes would involve a considerable consumption of time, and would after all not lead to any practical result. I am therefore afraid I cannot offer to give any assistance by setting apart a day for the discussion of such a Resolution. But, on the other hand, I may say this—the Government are ready to co-operate as far as they can properly do so in enabling the House to discuss this measure. As I suggested the other
    1936
    day, I think the convenient course would he, if an arrangement could be made with other hon. Members who have Notices upon the Paper, by which Wednesday, the 27th instant, could be taken for that discussion; the Government would be quite prepared, in that case, if the hon. Gentleman puts down his Bill for that day, to move that the Orders of the Day be postponed in its favour. If the discussion were held in that way, and it appeared that the one day was not sufficient, Government would be prepared to give another day—a Morning Sitting—for the purpose.
    MR. RICHARD SMYTHthanked the right hon. Gentleman for his suggestion, and would do everything in his power to ensure its being carried out.

  COOLIE IMMIGRATION TO QUEENSLAND.—QUESTION.
  MR. E. JENKINSasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether there exists in Queensland any systematic registration of the number and names of the Pacific Islanders, or Coolies, who are imported for servile labour in that Colony; whether any registration is maintained of the births and deaths which take place among them; and, whether, if such registration does not exist, Her Majesty's Government are taking any steps to establish it?
  MR. J. LOWTHER: Sir, I find that under the regulations in force in Queensland in accordance with the Act of 1868, that all imported Coolies arriving at Brisbane are registered at the Immigration Office at that port, and in the case of arrivals at other ports in the Colony the registration is effected at the Custom House, and a copy of the register forwarded to the Immigration Office at Brisbane by the next mail. As regards births and deaths, no special provision is made respecting births, the registration of which is conducted in a similar manner to that adopted in the case of the population generally. With respect to deaths, however, an immediate report must be made to the nearest bench of magistrates and also to the Immigration agent. The reason why no special provision is in force with reference to births is that, as the hon. Gentleman is no doubt aware, the Polynesians do not immigrate in families.

  INDIA—COMMERCIAL TREATY WITH PORTUGAL.—QUESTION.
  MR. GRANT DUFFasked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether a Treaty is in course of negotiation between the Governments of India and Portugal under which the concession to a private company of power to make a Railway in British India under the guarantee of the Portuguese Government is provided for; if so, what securities are to be taken for economical and efficient construction and management; and, whether before a final decision is come to, the draft of any such Treaty and a copy of the Concession will be laid before Parliament?
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: Sir, articles ad referendum for a Commercial Treaty between the Governments of India and Portugal are now under discussion in India between delegates of the two Governments. When agreed upon between the delegates, they will be referred home for consideration by the Home Governments, and any Treaty based upon them will be negotiated here, or at Lisbon, and submitted to Parliament. The Portuguese Government is anxious to place its port of Murmagom in connection with the British Indian Trunk Line of Railway, at or near Bellary, by a line to be constructed by a private company. The Indian Government is willing to grant facilities for the construction of that part of the line which passes through British territory, but will have no responsibility in the matter. I am not aware whether any guarantee is proposed to be given to the company by the Portuguese Government.

  PRESTON COUNTY COURT.

    QUESTION.
    MR. HERMONasked the First Commissioner of Works, Whether the arrangements contemplated by the First Commissioner of Works, as stated to the House of Commons on the 17th June 1875, for providing adequate accommodation in the County Court Office at Preston, and for obviating the great inconvenience arising to suitors and others in consequence of the Offices and Court being nearly a mile distant from each other, are likely to be now carried out; and, what steps are proposed to be
    1938
    taken in consequence of the lease of the present offices having expired?
    MR. GERARD NOEL: The Board of Works tenancy of the present offices of the County Court of Preston, Sir, will not expire until the 1st of May next, and measures are being taken with a view to offices being provided from that date in closer proximity to the building in which the sittings of the Court are held.

  SOUTH AFRICA—DELAGOA BAY.

    QUESTION.
    MR. A. M'ARTHURasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether, before the South African Confederation Bill is brought on for Second Reading in this House, he will lay upon the Table any Correspondence which has passed between the Colonial or Foreign Office and the Portuguese Government, or the Governor of the Cape Colony, with reference to Delagoa Bay?
    MR. J. LOWTHER: Sir, there has been no correspondence between the British and Portuguese Governments which it would be of advantage to publish subsequent to that presented in 1875 with reference to Delagoa Bay. A few informal communications have, however, passed between the respective Governments, from which there is every reason to believe that the Government of Portugal will continue to be desirous to co-operate in a friendly manner as heretofore with ourselves in securing the welfare and advancement of the adjacent districts of South Africa.

  POLYNESIAN LABOURERS — NEW CALEDONIA.—QUESTION.
  MR. ERRINGTONasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether any reports have been received from Mr. Layard, British Consul in New Caledonia, as to irregularities in the importation or treatment of Polynesian labourers in that French Colony; and, if so, whether there would be any objection to lay these reports, or abstracts of them, upon the Table of the House?
  MR. BOURKE,in reply, said, that two Reports had been received at the Foreign Office on the subject from Mr. Layard, the British Consul. He had read the Reports, and they did not appear to bear out the allegation as to irregularities and ill-treatment which

  1939
  had been made. It was not worth while to print the Reports; but if the hon. Member would call at the Foreign Office he might see them.

  METROPOLIS—RICHMOND PARK.

    QUESTION.
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLasked the First Commissioner of Works, Whether, now that Richmond is brought within the direct service of the Metropolitan Railways, he will consider the expediency of abolishing the rabbits, which make the Park utterly unsafe for riders, and of opening some footpaths through the copses, like those in the Bois de Boulogne?
    MR. GERARD NOEL: Sir, I should be extremely sorry to see the rabbits in Richmond Park abolished. I think they afford much amusement and enjoyment to the public who go for what is called an "outing" to the Park, and who have not the same opportunity as the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy has for seeing game. I cannot agree with the hon. Gentleman that the Park is unsafe to ride in. Great care is taken by the keepers to ferret out the rabbits and stop up the holes in the open spaces, so that there may be no danger to persons on horseback. With regard to opening footpaths in the copses, I fear that would be impossible. They are planted to beautify the Park and to replace trees which in the course of time perish. If paths were cut through the plantations great expense would be incurred from the amount of fencing which would be required to keep out the deer, and after the lessons on economy I have this year experienced from hon. Gentlemen opposite I hardly like to embark in fresh expenditure on the Parks.

    ARMY (INDIA)—SHORT SERVICE.

      QUESTION.
      SIR HENRY HAVELOCKasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether any arrangement has yet been arrived at with the India Office by which the system of short service, necessary for forming a reserve, has been made compatible with the demands of Indian military service; and, if so, whether he will lay the papers on this subject upon the Table of the House before the Army Estimates are taken?
      MR. GATHORNE HARDY,in reply, said, that last year he had made a proposition to the authorities of the India Office with a view of bringing the short-service system into harmonious action with the requirements of the Indian Military Service. The proposition had been submitted to the authorities in India, and they had subsequently made another proposition on that subject. This would, he believed, in no long time lead to a solution of the question.

    METROPOLIS—HYDE PARK.

      QUESTION.
      SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFasked the First Commissioner of Works, Whether he intends to place gravel for equestrians on the road from Hyde Park Corner to the Marble Arch?
      MR. GERARD NOEL: Sir, the answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch is a very simple one. I stopped the gravel being put down between the Marble Arch and Hyde Park Corner because I had received numerous and earnest complaints from ladies who do not ride, but walk between the Marble Arch and Rotten Row, that they had been bespattered with dirt from head to foot by persons galloping backwards and forwards. Sir, this is hardly fair. The persons who walk in the Park must be considered as well as those who ride. The equestrians are well provided for, for they have the whole of Rotten Row, also the ride opposite the Knightsbridge Barracks, and from the Magazine along the north side of the Park, where they can gallop as much as they please. I hope, therefore, now my hon. Friends have my reasons for not putting down the gravel, they will cheerfully submit to ride at a reduced pace and allow the ladies to enjoy their shady walk without suffering inconvenience from the dirty gravel being splashed over their dresses. As I have been asked why the gravel was put down as far as Stanhope Gate and not continued to the Marble Arch, I may perhaps be permitted to say that this was done without my knowledge, and, once put down, I thought it hardly worth the expense of removing it; but it has not been renewed. I have only one object in view, and that is to make the Parks as agreeable and enjoyable as possible to everyone.

    ARMY (AUXILIARY FORCES)—ADJUTANTS OF MILITIA AND VOLUNTEERS.—QUESTION.
    SIR HENRY HAVELOCKasked the Secretary of State for War, Why Brevet Majors are deprived of their brevet pay of two shillings a-day while serving as Adjutants of Militia and Volunteers, that brevet rank and pay being granted either for long service or for service in the field?
    MR. GATHORNE HARDY,in reply, said, the pay in question had doubtless been taken away, but since then, he had had time to re-consider the matter, and he had recently decided that Adjutants of the class described, who had been appointed since February 2, 1871, should receive the pay, dating from April 1 this year.

    PERU—ACTION WITH THE "HUAS CAR."

      QUESTION.
      SIR JOHN HAYasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether the Admiralty has received any information as to the reported attack by Her Majesty's Ships "Shah" and "Amethyst" on the Rebel Peruvian Ironclad "Huascar;" and, whether, in consequence of this occurrence, it is the intention to revert to the practice of stationing an ironclad ship in the Pacific?
      MR. HUNT,in reply, said, the only information he had received on the subject was that which had been sent to the newspapers over a fortnight ago. That information had been received by telegraph, and was, therefore, very brief. It was to the effect that the rebel Peruvian ship Huascar had been successfully engaged by the Shah and the Amethyst, and, after being totally disabled, had fallen into the hands of the Peruvian Government ships. There was no British casualty. He hoped to receive further information before long, which he would at once communicate. It was not at present the intention of the Government to send an iron-clad ship to the Pacific.

    TURKEY—MR. LAYARD.—QUESTION.
    MR. RYLANDSasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether his attention has been directed to a letter published in the " Times" of June 15, and alleged to be written by a
    1942
    person of rank in the Turkish capital, dated "Constantinople, May 29, 1877," in which, after detailing the representations made to the Sultan by his brother Nourredeen Effendi, as to the negligence of the Sultan's ministers in conducting the war, the writer asserts that
    "the next day your Ambassador, Mr. Layard, went to the Sultan and spoke much in the same sense, mentioning, too, the fleet remaining at anchor, and Hobart Pasha being here. His Majesty appeared astonished at learning that the Admiral was still here, and said he thought he was gone long since. He immediately called his Aide-de-Camp, Mehemet Pasha, and sent him with orders that the Admiral should take the fleet at once to sea:"
    and, whether there is any foundation for this statement as to the course pursued by Her Majesty's Ambassador at Constantinople?
    MR. BOURKE: Mr. Speaker, we have received no information upon this subject.
    MR. RYLANDSsubsequently asked whether the Government would take means to ascertain whether there was any foundation for the statement referred to?
    MR. BOURKEsaid, if the hon. Member would give Notice of his Question he would answer it.

    ARMY (AUXILIARY FORCES)— ADJUTANTS OF ENGINEER VOLUNTEERS.—QUESTI ON.
    MR. PALMERasked the Secretary of State for War, If he would explain to the House why the Adjutants of Engineer Volunteer Corps are not placed in the same position as regards pay as the Adjutants of Rifle Corps, and why the allowance for forage is altered under the Army and Reserve Forces Circular of 1877; and, why they are debarred from the privilege of recruiting?
    MR. GATHORNE HARDY: Sir, the course pursued in Engineer Volunteer Corps is the same as that pursued in the Volunteer Force generally—namely, to fill the post of adjutant as vacancies occur from captains on full pay of the Regular Army. The pay and allowances of adjutants of Volunteers have been assimilated to those of captains in the Army; but, owing to the fact that the present adjutants of Engineer Volunteers are either late officers of Infantry of the Line or non-commissioned officers of Royal Engineers, they are precluded

    1943
    from receiving either the rank or pay of captains in the Royal Engineers. It is, however, proposed to offer such of them as are eligible adjutancies of Infantry Volunteers, when they will draw the increased rates of pay. As to forage, an adjutant of Volunteers is a mounted officer, and until July, 1876, he was granted 2s. a-day to cover forage, &c. Some did not keep horses, and therefore the amount was all gain. Adjutants who keep horses now get 2s. 4d. a-day (a gain of 4d.), and those who do not are allowed horse hire not exceeding 1s. 10 d. a-day. With regard to recruiting, when recruiting duties were first imposed on adjutants of Militia, some of the old adjutants, who were not receiving an increased rate of pay, complained of the additional duty thus thrust on them; accordingly, when it was decided that the pay of adjutants of Engineer Volunteers was to remain at the old rates, it was considered desirable to exempt them from any additional duty in the way of recruiting, in order to remove any possible complaints on that ground.

    H.M. STATIONERY OFFICE—APPOINTMENT OF CONTROLLER—QUESTION.
    MR. J. HOLMSasked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether, in making the recent appointment to fill the office of Controller of the Stationery Department, Her Majesty's Government had in view the recommendation made by the Select Committee of this House in 1874, to the effect that
    "This officer should be charged with the duty, subject to the control of the Treasury, of making all the necessary contracts and arrangements for the supply of the stationery and printing required by Parliament and the public Departments, and with the management of the London, Edinburgh, and Dublin Gazettes" and, further, that " when a vacancy occurred in this office, provision should be made for uniting the control of the Stationery Office and the management of the Gazettes under one officer possessing the requisite technical knowledge of stationery and printing;"
    and, whether he can inform the House if there was no officer in the Stationery Department capable of fulfilling the duties of Controller, what efforts were made by the Government to obtain a practical man of business possessing technical knowledge of stationery and printing, and if the Government can give an assurance that Mr. T. D. Pigott, who, it is said, has received the appoint-
    1944
    ment, does possess such technical knowledge of stationery and printing, and is a practical man of business?
    MR. W. H. SMITH,in reply, said, that before the recent appointment to the office of Controller of Stationery was made a careful consideration was given to the recommendations of the Select Committee of 1874, and the Prime Minister came to the conclusion that it was not desirable to add to the office of Superintendent of the "Gazettes" that of Controller of the Stationery Department. It might be desirable to add the office of Superintendent of "Gazettes" to that of Controller of Stationery, but not the larger office to the smaller. The gentleman selected for the post had done good service to the State in the War Department, and had proved himself to be a most able and practical man of business. Although he did not possess a technical knowledge of stationery and printing, the Treasury had perfect confidence that he would discharge the duties of the post with efficiency. In making this appointment there was no reflection cast on the officers of the Stationery Department, more than one of whom were very able. It ought to be added that Mr. Pigott would hold the office on the understanding that when the post of Superintendent of "Gazettes" became vacant, he might be called upon to undertake its duties without additional salary.
    MR. J. HOLMSgave Notice that on the earliest opportunity he would draw the attention of the House to this subject and move a Resolution.

    ARMY PROMOTION AND RETIREMENT —ROYAL WARRANT.—QUESTION.
    MAJOR O'GORMANasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether the Royal Warrant on Army Promotion and Retirement will be issued before the Parliamentary Session of 1877 concludes?
    MR. GATHORNE HARDY,in reply, said, he must repeat what he had said on a former occasion—that every means had been taken to urge the parties concerned in it to get through their business as soon as possible, for his sincere desire was, having in view the interests of the officers, to bring the Government scheme on the subject before the House without any unnecessary delay.

    ARMY (AUXILIARY FORCES) — RIFLE RANGE—MILTON-NEXT-GRAVESEND.

      QUESTION.
      CAPTAIN PIMasked the Secretary of State for War, If he would explain the cause of closing the rifle range at Denton, Milton next Gravesend, which occasions great inconvenience to the local volunteers and loss to the borough; and whether he can hold out any hope that the range will shortly be re-opened for practice?
      MR. GATHORNE HARDY,in reply, said, the reason why the range in question had been closed was that the owners and occupiers of land in the locality found that the bullets occasionally fell in their fields, to the danger of themselves and their families. Under the circumstances, there was no option left but to close the range, and it would not be opened until some arrangement was made with the local occupiers. That would be effected as soon as possible.

    NAVY—H.M.S. "THETIS."—QUESTION.
    CAPTAIN PIMasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether he has any and, if so, what objection to lay upon the Table of the House a Copy of the Log of H.M.S. "Thetis" from the period of her leaving the Suez Canal up to the time of her arrival at Malta, and Copy of any Report of the Officer in command explaining how it was that, notwithstanding the breakdown of her machinery, he was unable to navigate his vessel under her sails into Malta harbour?
    MR. HUNT,in reply, said, he had no objection to lay the document in question upon the Table of the House, if the hon. and gallant Gentleman would move for it. It was not, he might add, a fact that the officer in command was unable to navigate the ship under sail into Malta. She was under sail, and would, no doubt, in the ordinary course have reached Malta had she not been picked up by the Devastation, which had been sent out to meet her.

  CATTLE TRAFFIC (IRELAND).

    QUESTION.
    MR. PEELasked the Vice President of the Council, Whether his attention has been directed to the transit of cattle
    1946
    from Ireland to the ports of this Country, and to alleged cruelties and ill-usage practised on such cattle on board the vessels; and, whether, if he has no special information on the subject, he will direct the inspectors to make inquiries and to report on the condition of the trade in regard to the feeding, watering, and general treatment of the animals so carried?
    VISCOUNT SANDON,in reply, said, the attention of the Veterinary department had been called to the alleged cruelties, and they had received orders to make inquiries and to report from time to time as regarded the general treatment of the animals. Several prosecutions had been instituted against shipping companies for neglecting to comply with the provisions of the Order in Council which regulated this trade. The department would take every possible care in future that the provisions of the Order were strictly carried out, so that all needless suffering might be avoided.

  CRIMINAL LAW—PRISON LABOUR—PRISONERS.—QUESTION.
  SIR GEORGE JENKINSONasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, with reference to a statement made by Mr. George Potter at a Deputation to Mr. Secretary Cross, on Tuesday 15th May, from Chatham and Rochester Trades' Council (as reported in the " Times " of 16th May, and repeated in a leading article of the " Times " of 17th May):—
  "That, in the United Kingdom, we had nearly a million of prisoners, who are set to work to manufacture articles, the sale of which entered into competition with honest labour:"
  What foundation is there in fact for the above statement; and, if correct, where are these million prisoners confined and at work; whether it is not the fact that the total number of prisoners in the United Kingdom, including convicts, scarcely exceeds 35,000 instead of a million:—thus: Gaols (English), 18,487; Convict Prisons, 9,857; Gaols (Irish), 2,790; Prisons (Irish), 1,151; Total Scotch, 2,966; Total United Kingdom, 35,251; and, whether he will grant a Return, showing in detail and in totals all the prisoners of all kinds confined in all gaols and prisons in the United Kingdom, and employed at labour?
  MR. ASSHETON CROSS,in reply, said, the statement in question was untrue, for the fact was that the number of prisoners, including convicts in the United Kingdom, scarcely exceeded 35,000. He did not think it necessary to grant any Returns of the number of prisons employed in the prisons of the country in manufacturing articles which competed with honest labour. The Prisons Bill, which would deal with the matter, would he hoped be law in a short time, and there was therefore no necessity to comply with the hon. Baronet's request.

SOUTH AFRICAN CONFEDERATION—THE TRANSVAAL REPUBLIC.

  QUESTION.
  MR. COURTNEYasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether any protest against the annexation of the South African Republic has been received at the Foreign Office; and, if so, whether he will lay it upon the Table of the House?
  MR. J. LOWTHER: Sir, if the hon. Gentleman will allow me, I will reply to his Question, instead of my hon. Friend the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs, as all matters relating to the States of South Africa have been as a matter of general practice referred from the Foreign to the Colonial Office. I mention this, as the practice to which I refer had been in force previous to recent events. I find that two protests have been received at the Foreign Office against this annexation—one from ex-President Burgers, and the other from the late Executive Council of the South African Republic. They are identical with those which appear in the Papers already presented to the House. I ought to add, and the hon. Gentleman will be glad to receive the information, that subsequent information has made it clear that these protests are not in accordance with the general feeling of the population, who appear to have cordially accepted the appointment of Sir Theo-philus Shepstone.
  In reply to a further Question from Mr. COURTNEY,
  MR. J. LOWTHERsaid: I hoped I had made myself clear, but if I failed to do so I must apologize to the hon. Gentleman. What I intended to convey was
  1948
  that the only protests which had been received by Her Majesty's Government at any office, Foreign or Colonial, were the two I named, and Copies of which are upon the Table of the House.

SOUTH AFRICA—NATAL.—QUESTION.
SIR JOSEPH M'KENNAasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether, having reference to the report in the " Times " of Friday the 15th inst. of an interview granted by Lord Carnarvon, Her Majesty's Secretary of State for the Colonies, to a deputation which waited upon him on Thursday, his Lordship's observations are to be taken as indicating any apprehension regarding the present financial position and the general prosperity of the Colony of Natal?
MR. J. LOWTHER: Sir, the remarks of Lord Carnarvon to which reference is made were addressed to a deputation representing a Natal land company, and were applied almost entirely to the question of the occupation of waste lands and to financial considerations arising there from, and they must not be taken as indicating the slightest doubt of the financial prosperity of the Colony of Natal. The satisfactory solution of these difficulties would, no doubt, still further advance the existing prosperity of the country; but, so far from considering the present time to be one of depression, nor from anticipating any decrease in the revenue or trade of Natal, there is every reason to believe that the happy settlement of the difficulties in the Transvaal has already given a decided impetus to business, and that a period of increased activity and progress has been entered upon.

NAVY—HOBART PASHA.—QUESTION.
MR. MUNDELLAasked the Secretary to the Admiralty, Whether Hobart Pasha, who is engaged in active warfare against a friendly Power, retains his rank and pay as a British officer?
MR. A. F. EGERTON,in reply, said, no answer had been received from Captain Hobart to the intimation which had been sent him that he must elect between remaining in the Turkish or the British Service. As the time which had since elapsed was sufficiently long to admit of an answer having been re-

1949
ceived to that intimation, and no such answer had reached the Admiralty, Captain Hobart's name had been struck off the list of the British Navy.
MR. MUNDELLAsaid, that in consequence of the information he had now received, he would not proceed with the Motion on this subject.

PARLIAMENT — PUBLIC BUSINESS —SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY (IRELAND) (re-committed) BILL.

  RE-COMMITMENT.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS - BEACHsaid, that as Chairman of the Select Committee to which this Bill had been referred, he felt it to be his duty to make a proposal in regard to the further proceedings with respect to it, which had been rendered necessary by the fact that the Select Committee had exceeded their powers in introducing into the Bill two clauses which were held not be covered by the Preamble. In addition to other Amendments in the Bill, they had inserted Clauses 4 and 5, the first of which gave power to the police to supervise refreshment-houses; and the second of which imposed increased penalties for keeping houses open for the sale of intoxicating liquors without a licence. Those provisions seemed to the Committee to be necessary, in order that the Bill, if it were passed into law, might be properly carried into effect. It was, however, obviously difficult to make such alterations as affecting Sunday without extending their operation to the other days of the week, and it appeared to him as Chairman of the Committee that this extension might be made. He had, however, been informed by the highest authority that the Committee had no power to do so, and he wished, therefore, to move formally that the Order for the Consideration of the Bill in Committee of the Whole House on Wednesday next should be discharged, and that it be re-committed to the former Committee upstairs. He was glad to say that the hon. Members for Derry and Dublin, as well as other Irish Members whom he had consulted, were not disposed to offer any objection to the Motion.
  Motion agreed to.
  1950
  Order for a Committee of the whole House on the Sale of Intoxicating Liquors on Sunday (Ireland) (re-committed) Bill, upon Wednesday next, read, and discharged.
  Ordered, That the Bill be re-committed to the former Committee, in respect of Clauses 4 and 5 of the said Bill, as amended in Committee.
  SIR WILFRID LAWSONsaid, he could not agree to the proposal made a few days ago by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that the 27th, the day he (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) had secured for the Permissive Bill, should be handed over to the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Smyth) for his Irish Sunday Closing Bill. Since that proposal was made, the situation had materially changed, the Chief Secretary for Ireland having stated that the Sunday Closing Bill was to go again before a Select Committee. It was impossible for anyone to know when the Bill would come back to the House from the Select Committee, and therefore the situation was totally different from what it was when the Leader of the House spoke on Friday. ["Order, order!"] The House wanted to know the position in which the Bill at present stood, and he thought the best thing to do in the circumstances was to move the Adjournment of the House. It was rather a strong thing, he thought, to be asked, in the circumstances in which the matter stood, to give up his Wednesday. The subject of his Bill, like the Irish Sunday Closing Bill, was one which excited a great deal of interest out-of-doors; and he objected to the arrangement in the interests of a large number of hon. Members who had arranged to come down to support, of a large number who were coming to oppose him, and of hon. Gentlemen from the country who were coming up to hear the eloquence of the hon. and learned Member for Leeds (Mr. Wheelhouse). Besides, an Amendment involving important questions had been moved to his Bill, and if he gave up his Wednesday there would be no chance of that Amendment being brought forward. He did not see, therefore, that he was called upon in the circumstances to act on the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman. Originally, he offered to give up his day, if the Government would take up the Sunday Closing Bill, and make efforts to pass it into law this year. He still

  1951
  stuck to his offer, and would make no other. The Chief Secretary for Ireland was in favour of the Bill, and so was the Chairman of Committees, he believed. It was practically a Government Bill, and supported by Ireland. ["No, no!"] Certainly a majority of six to one of the Irish Members supported it. ["No, no!"] The Government had better make a free breast of it, and say that they did support the Bill, and put an end to all these disputes. There never was such a strong case for a Government to support. The interest taken in the question was shown by the fact that the noble Lord the Member for Enniskillen (Viscount Crichton), when he went down to be re-elected, on taking office under the Government, was told that one great reason for his taking a position in the Government was that he should be able to carry the Irish Sunday Closing Bill. ["Oh, oh!"]
  MR. SPEAKERsuggested that the hon. Baronet was going beyond the limits of discussion on the question before the House in dealing with matters connected with the merits of the Bill.
  SIR WILFRID LAWSON,while bowing to the decision of the Chair, observed that he thought he was discussing, not the merits of the Bill, but the merits of the noble Viscount. However, all he wished to say was, that he could not accept the proposal of the Government, and give up his Wednesday. [Cries of "Order!"] To put himself in Order, he would move the Adjournment of the House.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—(Sir Wilfrid Lawson.)
  MR. M. BROOKSdesired to correct a statement of the hon. Baronet which was calculated to mislead the House—namely, that there was a majority of six to one of the Irish Members in favour of the Sunday Closing Bill. He denied that there was anything like that proportion in favour of the Bill. He also wished to point out that the Bill had been referred to a Select Committee for the purpose of considering the claims of several large towns; but when the Bill got into Committee the exemptions claimed never received any consideration.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERremarked that while the House
  1952
  always listened with pleasure to the observations of the hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle, the speech which he had just made on the Motion for Adjournment seemed rather an abuse of the Forms of the House. The position in which the matter stood was this. He (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) was asked the other night by the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. R. Smyth) whether the Government would afford any facilities for proceeding with the Bill. He then stated that in consequence of the difficulties which the Government experienced in transacting their Business they were unable to make any offer on the subject. But he suggested that if, as he believed, the hon. Gentleman had the support and sympathy of a large proportion of the House, he might find it possible to get a day on which he would be able to make some progress with the Bill. Therefore he suggested at the moment, not seriously, but rather throwing it out as a suggestion to be taken for what it was worth, that perhaps the hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle might give up his own Wednesday to the hon. Member for Londonderry. Since then the position had so far altered that considerable progress had been made with the Government Business—as in the case of the Universities Bill and the Prisons Bill—the Government consequently finding themselves in a better position than they were before. The Government, therefore, considered what would be a fair and reasonable proposal to make, and the proposal was, that if a day could be found for the discussion of the measure, and the discussion was not finished, they would give another day at a Morning Sitting. They did not think they were called upon, and they were not inclined, to go further. The referring of the Bill back to the Select Committee would not alter the possibility of proceeding with the Bill. All the proceedings of the Select Committee were somewhat beyond the powers which the Committee had had entrusted to them by the House, and it was necessary therefore, if the alterations in the Bill were to be maintained, that the Committee should receive fresh instructions. The arrangement which the Government proposed was one which they thought fair, and they adhered to it in spirit; and, no doubt, if the hon. Member for Londonderry could not make an arrangement

  1953
  with the hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle, he would be able to make an arrangement with somebody else.
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONagreed to a certain extent with his hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Sir Wilfrid Lawson). He did not altogether understand the position of the Government with respect to the Bill—whether they meant to support it, oppose it, or take up a neutral position; but the action of the Government in the matter would probably be more conveniently discussed when the House came to deal with the Bill itself. He had only risen to appeal to his hon. Friend not at once to press his point, but to give a little more time for consideration. He quite admitted that the hon. Baronet was not subject to any contract whatever to give up his Wednesday, but still he hoped that he would not persist in his Motion and refuse to give way.
  MR. RICHARD SMYTHsaid, he had understood the arrangement to be that if he failed to make a private Member's day effective for the purpose of his Bill the Government undertook to find him a day for that purpose; but a Morning Sitting, for obvious reasons, was not equivalent to a Government day. He trusted that while he should exert himself to get the hon. Baronet to give way, the Government would supplement their statement by saying that they would endeavour to find a Government day for proceeding with the Bill.
  MR. O'SULLIVANprotested against the statement of the hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle that a large majority of the Irish Members were in favour of the Bill, and maintained that three-fourths of the people of Ireland opposed it. He did not see any use in the Government giving a day for the Bill, because he alone had 10 Amendments on the Paper, which would occupy at least a day; and then there were six or seven other Irish Members whose Amendments would take up another day.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

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

  NAVY—NOMINATION OF CADETS.

    RESOLUTION.
    MR. SHAW LEFEVRE,in rising to call attention to the results of the changes made in 1875 in the nomination of Cadets to the Naval Service; and to move—
    "That, in the opinion of this House, the abolition of limited competition for the appointments of Cadets to the Navy has been injurious to the interests of the Public Service,"
    referred to the Motion which he had made in the House on this subject in 1875, which although defeated by the usual Government majority had created a very strong feeling in the country. Every newspaper in the country had denounced the change. His object in taking the step he had, was based upon the fact—which he was ready to prove—that the system of the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Hunt) was an absolute failure, and the official Reports showed the fact. It was identical with the system in force until the year 1869, when competition had been cautiously introduced. About that time, too, the number of officers was slightly reduced, so that the quality of the juniors was a matter of the highest importance. This limited competition worked very well, and improved the character of the young men who obtained appointments; but, unfortunately, in an evil hour, the right hon. Gentleman opposite had appointed a Committee to inquire into the state of things on beard the Britannia, where it was said that the cadets were overworked, and that Committee had reported on the whole subject of Naval Education. The Committee was, in his opinion, a weak one, and not properly competent to deal with so important a subject; and he ventured to say that the evidence taken before it in no way supported its conclusions. The Committee had found that limited competition was hurtful to the Service. With respect to the evidence on which this decision was based, he would notice that of the four surgeons on beard the Britannia, three had pronounced strongly in favour of the physique of the boys, whose height and weight was well up to the average. Captain Foley and Dr. Woolley gave it as their opinion that the health of the boys had not been affected by hard work, or by competition. However, the Committee condemned competition, and on the strength of their Report the system of pure nomination was restored, limited only by a

    1955
    test examination. The result had been that of 48 cadets appointed in July, as many as 30 obtained at the following half-yearly examination less than 30 per cent of the possible total of marks, whereas under the previous system only about 10 per cent acquitted themselves so ill. This was quite unprecedented, and it was recommended that those who had not gained a certain percentage of marks should be made to stay half-a-year longer in the training ship. Unfortunately, that advice was not acted upon, the right hon. Gentleman opposite probably not wishing to admit the total failure of his system. Of the following half-yearly examination Dr. Hirst said—
    "The marked inferiority displayed by the cadets who entered the Britannia in July, 1875, in all the mathematical subjects is as striking, as in December last. It would appear that the attempt to push on those whose case is hopeless has retarded the progress of those whose advancement might otherwise have been satisfactory, and I fear many have proceeded to the more advanced parts of mathematics without ever having been properly grounded in the elementary parts."
    Another half-year elapsed, and another examination of those boys who had begun their third term on beard the Britannia was held, while two of the batches of boys had been nominated. Meantime Mr. Goodwin had temporarily replaced Dr. Hirst, as Director of Studies, and this was his Report, dated January 6, 1877, on the third-term cadets—
    "It will be seen from these tables that the cadets of the third term continue to show signs of the same inferiority which was commented upon at the examination of their first and second terms. The averages obtained are low almost beyond precedent, and it is hardly too much to say that a considerable proportion of the cadets of this term are quite unfit to proceed to the study of the fourth-term subjects."
    Therefore we had direct comparison of the boys appointed under the new system with those appointed under the old, and we had conclusive testimony that the boys appointed under the now system were by no means comparable with the boys appointed under the old. From a table showing the result of the examinations for two years, it appeared that of 195 cadets appointed under the system of competition, 14 only, or one in 14, obtained less than 40 per cent of the marks; while of 252 appointed under the new system 128, or just one-half, obtained less than 40 per cent of the
    1956
    marks. There could not, however, be a more conclusive condemnation of the new system than what was contained in the Report of the gallant Admiral in charge of Greenwich Hospital itself. In forwarding the Report of the Director of Naval Studies to the Admiralty, Admiral Fanshawe said—
    "These results appear to me to call for very serious consideration, particularly as regards the third term, at this examination. Should these cadets pass out of the Britannia they will, according to the existing system, enter the College as acting sub-lieutenants about five years afterwards. It appears inconceivable that, even should they get through the Britannia, they can have the solid foundation of elementary knowledge that will enable them after five years at sea to come to the College with any reasonable prospect of passing the sub-lieutenant's examination. Though this failure appears more distinctly probable in the case of the class referred to, I would submit that the knowledge acquired by the classes junior to this class, as compared with that obtained by previous cadets, affords no good hope that they will be prepared for the sub-lieutenant's examination. I offer these remarks for their Lordships' consideration, as the matter seems to me of very serious importance in its relation to the future supply of moderately well-educated officers."
    He would be glad if hon. Gentlemen would turn back to the debate which occurred two years ago, and compare the results which he had read with the speech of the right hon. Gentleman opposite. That right hon. Gentleman told the House that the cadets under the old system had been injured, not only physically, but mentally, and that they had acquired a superficial habit of study from which they found it difficult afterwards to escape. But it appeared that the cadets under the new system never acquired any habit of study at all. Well, if that were so, it was incumbent on them to inquire what was the cause of this deterioration in the quality of the cadets who entered themselves for naval service; why was it that so very inferior a batch of cadets had been appointed under the nomination as compared with the competitive system? There were two causes for it. In the first place, under the system of competition, it was never worth while for parents to obtain a nomination for a stupid boy, as they know he would fail in competition with others. On the other hand, they could always hope that a stupid boy might be crammed sufficiently for a mere test examination. On the one side, therefore, there was a natural selection of clever

    1957
    boys; on the other, a natural selection of stupid boys. That was no new theory of his, for in 1875 he made this prediction—
    "Looking to the extent to which competition barred the entry to so many other professions, he feared they might expect that in those families fortunate enough to obtain a nomination for the Navy, the stupid boy of the family would be reserved for the Navy."—[3 Hansard, ccxxi. 455.]
    The result of two years' experience showed the prediction was justified. The other cause was that under a system of this kind it was totally impossible to maintain a high standard of examination. Lord Macaulay in 1853, in reporting in favour of competition for the Indian Civil Service, clearly explained how a system of competitive examination by an infallible and self-acting process, maintained and even raised the standard of excellence, and how a system of pass examination tended surely and constantly to lower it. Lord Macaulay's argument ran thus—
    "Under a system of competition every boy struggles to do his best, and the consequence is that, without any effort on the part of the examiners, the standard keeps itself up. But the moment you say to the examiners, not Shall A or B have the nomination?' but 'Here is A, is he fit for the nomination?' the question becomes altogether a different one. The examiner's corn-passion, his good nature, his unwillingness to blast the prospects of a boy, lead him to strain a point in order to let a candidate in if he possibly can."
    He quite admitted that the First Lord had endeavoured somewhat to raise the standard of examination; but the testimony of the Chief Instructor of the Britannia itself went to prove that this was a failure. One of the chief objections constantly urged against competition was that it led to cramming. There might be some foundation for that statement. But in spite of that, he (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) insisted that if competition were properly carried on, it must inevitably lead to the selection of the best boy. All that was wanted was to reform the system of examination itself. These whose duty it was to examine would not have any real difficulty in detecting and deciding between cases of cram and the cases of honest study. But let it not be supposed that they got rid of "cramming" by substituting the nomination for the competition system. He was informed that "cramming" had not only gone on, but
    1958
    was flourishing still more since the introduction of the new system by the right hon. Gentleman. There was another matter to which he wished to allude, and that was the suitability of competition for boys of the age of 13. There was considerable difference of opinion on that subject among many competent persons. It might possibly be desirable to extend the age one year, and not allow boys to compete with those of the Britannia, till the age of 14. But they had the experience of the effects of competition on boys of 12 and 13 in the public schools to guide them. At Eton, Winchester, Rugby, harrow, and other public schools, he thought it would be impossible to obtain the condemnation of that system. He believed it would be found on a comparison of the boys at the public schools that, in almost all eases, the boys who were at the head of the classes, and who obtained scholarships by competition, were slightly superior in physique, both as regarded and weight, to the average boys of the same age. It was a delusion to suppose that boys were injured by hard work only; he believed that a far greater number of boys were injured by indolence and sloth, and even in over addiction to cricket and foot-ball, than were injured by over work. But even leaving all these considerations out of sight, it was sufficient for him to base his case upon the right of the public to, and the desirability of the Naval authorities having, a wider area of choice of boys than was at all possible under a mere system of nomination. Under the system which the right hon. Gentleman opposite had restored, the only entry to the Navy was by either personal or political favour. The public interest required that the area of selection should not be so limited. In his speech delivered two years ago the right hon. Gentleman opposite hardly expressed his own opinion at all, but relied mainly on the Report of the Committee. He would suggest that the right hon. Gentleman should forego the advantage he might gain by dividing against the Motion, and frankly admit that he had been misled by the Committee, and that the present system had been a failure. It was impossible to exaggerate the importance to the Navy of that question. If an iron-clad was lost, they could replace her by a Vote in that House; but if a mistake was made in the ap-

    1959
    pointment of a Naval officer, it might not show itself for years afterwards. The boys they now admitted would not practically come into responsible positions till some 15 years hence; if a mistake were now made, its effects might then prove irremediable. It was, therefore, especially in these days, a matter of the most vital importance to the country that the system of entering naval cadets should be one which would secure for our Navy officers of the very best abilities and intelligence. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving the Resolution of which he had given Notice.
    MR. GORST,in seconding the Motion, besides admitting its importance, insisted that it was not a Party question in any sense whatever. The efficiency of the Navy was a matter involving the interests of the country, and that could not be secured, unless we saw that our officers were men not only of courage and character, but of high intellectual ability; and that not merely because the ships they had to manage and the system of modern warfare required them to possess more scientific knowledge than were formerly demanded, but also because officers who had scientific men under them could not command proper respect from those whose inferiors they were in intellectual ability and attainments. Moreover, he contended that our Naval Service was so popular that it could easily secure the pick of the intellect of the country to officer it. He agreed with what had been said that the area of selection ought not to be limited, as was the tendency where nomination was substituted for competition. He did not blame the First Lord of the Admiralty for his administration of patronage; but the area of selection ought not to be confined to those who happened to be the personal or political Friends of the Minister, and they could not without an examination judge of the intellectual qualification of boys of 12 or 14. Again, that patronage was not administered under any check of public criticism. The only fault in the Resolution of the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) was that it proposed to revert to the system of "limited" competition, a system often used to perpetrate very gross jobs. In his opinion, the right course to pursue was to resort to open competition, because he thought that a system of limited competition
    1960
    would be only a shade better than the system of patronage. Was there any real objection to the system of open competition? The boys who entered the public schools in that way headed the classes, and distinguished themselves at the University. Again he believed that if they asked the opinion of the elder officers upon the subject, they would find that, in general, the presence of young officers on beard was a great nuisance, and that they destroyed the discipline and efficiency of the crew. He, therefore, did not see why they should take boys for the Navy at so early an age as 12 or 13; and if the Admiralty would lay down the kind of mathematical and other knowledge which they required to qualify for a commission in the Navy, he believed that the public schools could easily undertake to teach it to lads who wished to prepare themselves for the Navy. What was taught them on beard the Britannia could not be easily learned by youths of 16 or 17 when they joined. In Germany the cadet joined at 17, and in no country did they join at so early an age as in England. In view of' all these considerations, they should select them from the best possible classes and from the whole of the country.
    Amendment proposed,
    To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words " in the opinion of this House, the abolition of limited competition for the appointments of Cadets to the Navy has been injurious to the interests of the Public Service,"—(Mr. Shaw Lefevre,)
    —instead thereof.
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
    MR. A. F. EGERTON,before going into the merits of the question, which he admitted to be an important one, begged to say, on behalf both of his right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty and himself, that they were not opposed to the principle of competition. His right hon. Friend had shown this in various ways, more especially in reference to the admission of Marine officers. The real question, however, was, whether that principle was rightly applied to the admission of boys of 11 or 12 years of age. But the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr.

    1961
    Gorst) had raised even a larger question than that, for he had raised the question what ought to be the age at which officers should enter the Service. It was true that in foreign Navies officers were admitted from the ages of 15 to 17, while in our Service they were admitted up to 13½ or 14. In this case, however, they must be judged by results. He thought we might, with justice, plume ourselves on the fact that we had the best officers of any Power in the world; and surely that said something in favour of the age at which they were admitted. The hon. Member for Reading (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) began his remarks by referring to the causes which had led his right hon. Friend to make this change, and he said it all depended on an error made by a clerk on beard the Britannia. That, he (Mr. Egerton) would admit, had something to do with it, but there was something else. His right hon. Friend went down to the Britannia, and he was struck by the want of physical power in the cadets; they looked rather puny and weak, and he therefore instituted a Committee to consider the subject. That Committee the hon. Member for Reading had attacked. He said they were all against competition; but from their Report, he (Mr. Egerton) would say they were anything but opposed to competition. They referred to the number of hours daily which the boys studied before entering the Britannia, and they considered the principle as applied to young boys mischievous. The new system was established consequent on the Report of the Committee; but their Report was corroborated by much older evidence. On this point he would quote the evidence of Sir James Graham in 1861, who said, "that naval cadets were rightly extremely young, and he was afraid if naval cadetships were thrown open to unlimited competition, there would be a system of cramming, injurious to the health of the individuals and not calculated to produce efficient officers." What was the practice of foreign States? The United States Navy was well officered; did they admit by competition? No; but by a test examination. The age of admission, however, was between 14 and 18. So in the French Navy, they were admitted after examination; and the age, which was higher than with us, was between 14 and 17. In the
    1962
    Russian Navy the age was between 16 and 18, and a system prevailed by which all candidates were sent to sea on a trial cruise; and if they liked the sea, they were admitted to the Naval College on a test examination. It would be seen, therefore, that the system of unlimited competition did not exist in any foreign Navy. With regard to patronage, under the old system, two candidates were entered for every vacancy, so that if there were 40 vacancies in the year 80 candidates would be entered, and from these the First Lord selected just as he selected now. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Pontefract, and others who had filled the office of First Lord, must have selected in the same manner when the names were submitted to them without previous examination. Examination in that case took place after nomination. In fact, there must be some system of selection for the Navy as for the Army, and for the Navy still more than for the Army, because the nominations were fewer. The question of patronage entered very little into the question now before the House. He had stated that under the old system, 80 candidates were named for 40 vacancies, and under the new system 60 were nominated, so that patronage had been rather restricted than otherwise. Now, as to the results, the hon. Member for Reading said the system had been extremely injurious to the Service. He thought that conclusion was erroneous. It was quite true that a certain number of cadets had turned out badly; but that was not the case with the greater number of cadets. The fact was that when the old system was changed, a certain number of cadets was entered under a test examination, which was not properly conducted. It did not include mathematics. The first batch admitted under that examination was inferior to those admitted subsequently. His right hon. Friend took the proper steps to improve the test examination; it had been improved; and the effect of that improvement was only just becoming apparent. The boys could not enter under an improved test examination without notice, and the Report of the Chief Instructor stated, with respect to those admitted last year, the first batch after the full notification of the change were lads of much stronger mental power than their predecessors. The list was more satis-

    1963
    factory. Ten were of first-class ability, 15 of second-class ability, ten were inferior—["Hear, hear!"]—and three were quite weak. ["Hear, hear!"] Did hon. Gentlemen who cried "Hear hear," think that it would be possible in any group to secure an equality of either mental or physical strength, or that the cadets entered the Naval College in the same relative position as that in which they were admitted on beard the Britannia? A certain number of boys were bound to fail, and it could not be contended that because a boy passed a certain competitive examination, he should be equally successful in everything he undertook. Bearing this in mind, he looked upon the letter as very satisfactory. His right hon. Friend was not wedded to the present system; but it should not be forgotten that it had not yet been fairly tried. The new test examination had not been long enough in operation to furnish any conclusive data as to its efficacy. It only came into operation in November, and a year or so would show that the officers who came in under the new system were not at all inferior to those who came in under the old test. Under these circumstances, he trusted the House would support him in opposing the Resolution of the hon. Member for Reading.
    MR. CHILDERSsaid, that when he had succeeded Mr. Corry in the Admiralty, that right hon. Gentleman had impressed upon him the great anxiety he felt as to the future of the officers of the Navy, in consequence of the unsatisfactory condition of the young men who had left the Britannia, and had also begged and entreated him to introduce some reform which would have the effect of turning out a better class of young officers than had been previously obtained. Accordingly, in 1869, he appointed a Committee of six most able and experienced men to inquire into the subject, and they arrived at the conclusion that some limited competition ought to be introduced in the selection of boys for the Britannia. The result was, that since the beginning of 1870 to the beginning of 1875, the whole of the boys in the Britannia had been admitted after a moderate, indeed almost an insignificant, amount of competition, and had passed through the Britannia under the system of education prescribed by that valuable Committee, and which
    1964
    the present First Lord had abolished. Stating the results of the experience of those five years, he said, that of 345 young men who had been admitted under the system of this very diminished competition, and who had passed out of the Britannia, only 8, or 2 per cent, had failed to pass at the end of their term; only 20, or 6 per cent, had either died, or been dismissed for misconduct, or from ill-health, or for some other reason; and 317, or 92 out of 100, had passed satisfactorily, and were now officers of the Navy. There was this further interesting fact to be stated—that of the number who passed, no fewer than 159 went out at the end of their time within five places of the place at which they were admitted. Everybody knew how valuable that result was, as showing the excellence of the system of admission to the Britannia. In view of these facts, the history of the five years of limited competition might be regarded as highly satisfactory. The health of the cadets during the same period, according to the Report of the Committee, had improved remarkably. Inquiry showed that there was nothing unfavourable to health in residence on beard the Britannia, and, moreover, a Return of the heights and weights of midshipmen now serving in the Channel Squadron showed that their health was thoroughly satisfactory, and their physical development better than the health and development of boys at our best public schools. Still there was a grievance. The right of nomination had been looked upon as a valuable piece of patronage; and every officer who had enjoyed it, thought himself injured if his patronage was interfered with, no matter how great a dunce the youth nominated might be. In consequence of this feeling, the system of competition had been distasteful to the body of naval officers. Except, however, in so far as it had been distasteful to many officers, that system had worked well. When his right hon. Friend (Mr. Hunt) came into office, he arrived at a very curious opinion with regard to the cadets on the Britannia—namely, that their education had been very much overstrained, and that, in consequence, their health had deteriorated—and on this account he appointed the Committee of 1874, which entirely negatived that opinion. The system, however, was changed, although

    1965
    10 of the officers who gave evidence were in favour of the principle of competition, and only three were opposed to it. One of these had since changed his mind, and the other two had given the most extraordinary reasons for the resolution to which they had come. One suggested that in order to secure satisfactory nominations, a solemn declaration should be obtained from whoever asked for a nomination, that the boy was likely to make a good naval officer, as if every parent in the country would not be ready to make that solemn declaration. Another of those who objected to competition, said that somebody might work out a scheme giving the House of Commons so many nominations, and that would satisfy everybody. On the Committee of 1869, there were persons of the greatest experience in the education of boys and young men; but on the Committee of 1874, although there were two gentlemen from Oxford and Cambridge well versed in University systems that particular experience was altogether wanting. To compare the two Committees was to compare men who had to grope their way in learning the subject, with men who were eminently qualified to report on a question of this kind. Yet it was upon the decision of these gentlemen that the First Lord of the Admiralty had upset the resolution that had been come to on the recommendation of gentlemen who had passed their whole lives in the study of the education of young men for the Navy. Had the change been successful? His hon. Friend had already given some figures, but he would ask hon. Members to read carefully the two Reports on the Table, in which the results of the four last examinations were given in detail. He would only quote one, which stated that out of 41 boys altogether who had had passed three terms on beard the Britannia, the examination of 23 was unsatisfactory, and that 3 more were sick during a portion of the examination, showing that in a year and a-half 26 out of 41 had failed as candidates for the Navy. Now, could there be, he would ask, a worse state of things? But what was proposed as a remedy? The Admiralty being in great distress as to how they should deal with this state of things held a sort of Committee, the result of' which was disclosed in the papers. One member suggested that there should be no outside exami-
    1966
    nation at all until the cadets passed out, and that, meanwhile, the boys should be examined by their own tutors. This had been wisely rejected. Another suggestion was that there should be no examination till the end of each year. But against this it was said that a large proportion of the boys were so unfit, under the present system, to remain in the Navy, that it was undesirable they should stay even for a half year to prevent others coming in, in place of those rejected! And this after, under the old system, only 2 per cent failed in the whole of their two years. This was not a question of patronage. His right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty was anxious, he (Mr. Childers) knew, to distribute his patronage with the strictest impartiality; but from the desire of naval officers to retain their patronage, pressure had first been put on the Committee, and next on the Admiralty, and the system which had been established in 1870, and which had been entirely successful, had in consequence been overthrown. As to the American Navy, it afforded an example of the working of patronage in its worst form, and nothing would be gained by a reference to the Navies of other foreign countries. All he could say was that, in his opinion, it was most unwise to go back to the system which the present Government had again set up.
    MR. HUNTsaid, he was in hopes that it might not be necessary for him to address the House that evening, inasmuch as the state of his foot was such as to render standing upon it painful, but he felt bound, after the speech of his right hon. Friend, to say a few words on the subject under consideration. The gentlemen he had selected to inquire into the state of the Britannia were, he thought, highly competent to perform that duty. Three of them were naval officers of reputation, and there were two other gentlemen, one from Oxford and one from Cambridge, of the greatest experience, one of them having been for years employed by the Government in competitive examinations in other branches of the Service. Now, the Committee which had been appointed by his right hon. Friend who had just sat down (Mr. Childers) went into the question of general education and made a Report. The Committee which the present Admiralty appointed saw the result of the

    1967
    changes which his right hon. Friend effected, and it was with that experience they had made the recommendation which he had adopted. As had been stated by his hon. Friend the Secretary to the Admiralty, the principle of general competition was not at all at stake in the present instance. He had maintained the principle of competition with regard to the Civil clerkships as before, and had introduced the system of competition, which did not exist with respect to the Marine officers. The question was whether the late Government did a wise thing in introducing competition amongst boys of tender years, not because competition in itself was injurious, but because the preparation for the competition was such as to throw a great strain on the brains of the children. It was dealt with by the late Sir James Graham, who gave it as his opinion before a Committee that such competition ought not to be applied to such young children.
    THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: It is quite evident the right hon. Gentleman is suffering a great deal, and I dare say I shall not be out of Order, if I move that he be heard from his place sitting. [Hear, hear!"]
    MR. HUNTsaid, he was much obliged for the kind consideration of the House, but he would continue for the present to address the House standing. If he found it necessary he would address them sitting. The evidence before the Committee went to show that the boys nominated to compete had to study 9 and 10 hours a-day for six months before the day of examination; and the evidence of some of the successful boys was, that they did not recover the strain upon their strength for two or three months after they returned on ship - beard. These were serious facts, and upon them the Committee recommended that the competition examinations should be done away with. He had been very much struck a few months ago, when visiting Oxford, by a remark which had been made by a most able and very experienced tutor, who told him that he had noticed that many more young men came up to the University than formerly wearing spectacles. That, he said, was on account of the great pressure put upon them by competitive examinations, and the members of the Committee had taken the same view in thinking that so severe a strain was injurious to the boys
    1968
    in this case. He had adopted their suggestion in consequence of the reason they gave, and all that he wanted was to obtain the best possible boys for the Service. As for the results of the change, he thought it ought to be made clear to the House that the tests had been altered, and that the preliminary examination now was not as weak as it had been. At one time, however, some boys had been admitted by passing the weak-test examination only, but they were then much wanted in the Service. Naturally, each Report was much against those boys, and he granted that their admission had been a mistake. But the present system was quite different. He had asked the class-masters of the Britannia their opinion of the boys who came in under the new system, and they had replied that the boys themselves were as promising as ever, though not so well prepared. The time of study had not been sufficient for them to acquire the proper amount of mathematics, and the masters recommended that mathematics should be added to the subjects of the test examination. That had been done, and the present test was a very stringent one, as the Report of the Chief Naval Instructor showed. The system, however, had not been really tried as yet, inasmuch as it was only established last November. One batch of cadets had been admitted without the preliminary test; two under the new test before mathematics was added, and one batch afterwards. He felt sure that the existing test would not lose its stringency; and the question really was, whether one-half of the boys, or one-third, were to be rejected. A good deal had been said about the appointment of boys to the Navy being governed by political considerations. Now he quite agreed with those who thought that ought not to be the case. Precisely the same applications were made to him as to his Predecessor; Liberal and Consertive Ministers nominated from the same list; in the one case at the request of the Liberal friends, and in the other of the Conservative friends of the candidates. That would always be the case with respect to every Government, for whatever Government might be in power made not the slightest difference. The same number of applications came in on behalf of boys who "had a passion for a sea life," or from parents who wished

    1969
    their sons to enter the Naval Service. On this subject he spoke for himself, and he was sure his Predecessor in the office would agree with him, that the patronage attached to it was one of their greatest pests. As a matter of fact, he had generally bestowed it on the sons of officers of the Navy, of the Army, or of the Civil Service, who, from what their fathers had done in the service of the State, might be supposed to become good officers. He quite agreed with the hon. Member for Reading that competition at a later period might be desirable; but the period of training in a ship was necessarily short, and he had long been anxious for an entire change in the plan of education, and for the establishment of a College on shore, in which cadets could devote three years instead of two to their studies; and he believed that such a change would be very beneficial to the Naval Service. But so long as training ships were used, he did not see how the time for education could be extended. They might, however, at any rate, look forward to a scheme which would include a three years' education and competition. He was not in the least wedded to the present system, and if he found that it did not produce boys of superior ability, he should be perfectly willing to constitute another. In conclusion, he had only to thank the House for the attention they had given to him.
    MR. GOSCHENsaid, he felt it his duty briefly to call attention to the observations made by the right lion. Gentleman (Mr. Hunt), who had, he was glad to see, made his appearance again in the House. He was sure that they were all sorry that he was still suffering from indisposition. He was glad, however, that the right hon. Gentleman had been able to state his case with that clearness which always distinguished him. He could not entirely accept the arguments of the right hon. Gentleman; and he wished to call attention to the fact that of the four batches of boys entered since the new system came into operation, one batch was admitted after a weak test. Eighty had been admitted who were found to be totally incapable. On the whole 128 were admitted, 30 per cent of whom were incapable of passing in a competitive examination. That was confessedly a mistake, and he would say no more about it. It would
    1970
    have been better even to have postponed the entries altogether until these boys had qualified themselves, rather than admit cadets on a test which the right hon. Gentleman and his Colleagues admitted to be insufficient. He did not think that the recent test would be sufficient, and he hoped, therefore that the House would support the Motion of the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. Shaw Lefevre), and would enable the right hon. Gentleman to overcome any difficulty which might exist at the Admiralty in opposition to open competition. The present system was so unsatisfactory that he thought the attention of the House ought to be called to it, and, whatever might be the fate of the Motion now before the House, he trusted the right hon. Gentleman would give the House an opportunity, on some future occasion, of discussing and deciding the whole question of the admission of officers to the Service.
    CAPTAIN PRICEsaid, he should vote against the Resolution, because he was opposed to admitting children of 12 or 13 years of age to the Service by competition. At the same time, he was in favour of limited competition.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 171; Noes 130: Majority 41.—(Div. List, No. 182.)

  NAVY—THE ROYAL MARINES—PROMOTION AND RETIREMENT.

    OBSERVATIONS. QUESTION.
    ADMIRAL EGERTONrose to call attention to the want of information relating to the promotion and retirement of the Royal Marines. The hon. and gallant Gentleman said, the present system was highly unsatisfactory. The Force in question had been pushed about from pillar to post, and, in fact, they had been treated as if they did not entirely belong to one Service or the other. He must, therefore, urge that both justice and economy required that some remedy should be found for the present state of things. He wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Hunt), if there was any scheme ripened or in contemplation with regard to promotion and retirement; and, if so, whether it would be laid on the Table before it was finally presented to the House?

    1971
    The Admiralty admitted that what had been done was not satisfactory, for a sum of £5,000 had been taken in the Votes this year to improve matters. It would be much better that, in respect of promotion and retirement, the Royal Marines should be separated from the Army and attached to the Navy, to which they naturally belonged. No high command had ever been given to Marine officers beyond the rank of colonel, no Staff appointment had been ever given to them, and they were entirely shut out from the pecuniary advantages of Service in India. He felt perfectly sure that the First Lord of the Admiralty was extremely anxious that every advantage should be given to the Royal Marines, and it was for the purpose of encouraging the right hon. Gentleman that he had put on the Paper the Resolution which, by the Rules of, the House, he was now prevented from moving.
    GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURsaid, with regard to the Retirement Scheme for the Army, we had entered into a great experiment involving great expenditure and many changes of a novel and totally untested character, and no one knew what the result would be; but the question with respect to the Marines was very simple. It was simply one involving a few promotions in the seniors of each grade. It needed no actuarial calculations, for the obvious remedy was so clearly shown by the Marine List that the most ordinary mind could at once dictate the remedy. All we had to do was to allow the senior officers of the Marines to retire upon increased pensions, and by that way to make room for the captains and subaltern officers below them, many of whom had been in the service 30 years, of those in the captain grades and in that of subaltern 20 years without having a chance of promotion. That retirement would involve none of that heartbreaking system which the Army system contemplated of making officers go on half-pay, long before their physical powers were impaired, and whilst this simple mode of retiring senior officers of Marines on improved pensions would give general satisfaction, and secure for captains and subalterns their promotion in the manner and in the exact course to which the Marines had been accustomed, the country would be spared from the vast outlay which the unknown and
    1972
    doubtful plan for the Army would entail.
    SIR JOHN HAYwished to say a few words in favour of the Royal Marines. The mode in which they had been treated during the last two years had been unfortunate even for the Government. The idea of basing the consideration of what was to be done for the promotion of the Royal Marines upon the Report of the Army Commission was entirely a mistake. The Royal Marines were a seniority corps, the same as the Royal Artillery and the Royal Engineers. A Committee, presided over by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ponte-fract, had inquired into the position of these three corps, and while their recommendations had been acted upon in the case of the Royal Artillery and Royal Engineers, the Royal Marines never received any of the benefits which had been received by the other two corps.
    MR. ANDERSONsaid, he had never been able to understand why the claims of the Marines should be postponed till the Royal Commission had presented their Report. He should like now very much to know what was to be done for the Marines. He knew there was considerable difficulty in dealing with the Marines; it was far from easy to cause a flow of promotion in so small a force with so few high appointments, but still he hoped the attempt would be made.
    SIR MASSEY LOPES,on the part of the Government said, he was very glad to inform the hon. Gentleman that for some weeks past a Committee of three Gentlemen, one representing the Admiralty, a second the Marines, and a third the Treasury, had been sitting four days in the week at the Admiralty, and giving their time and attention to this subject. Whenever their Report was made, his right hon. Friend would be most anxious to give effect to it, and he hoped the result would be satisfactory to the House. To show that the Admiralty were really anxious to carry out this arrangement, he might state that a Vote of £5,000 had been taken in the Estimates with that view.
    MR. SAMPSON LLOYDgave credit to the Admiralty for its intentions, but was dismayed to hear of another Committee on this subject. That meant obstruction and delay, whereas the

    1973
    whole matter was simple and easy. He should have thought there was sufficient actuarial skill in the City of London to have framed a satisfactory scheme of promotion and retirement for the Royal Marines without delay. In the meantime, a feeling of despair, if not disgust, had been produced in the minds of many of the officers. How could it be otherwise when men had been lieutenants in the Service for 18 years without promotion? He protested against making the interests of the Marines with respect to promotion and retirement subservient to those of the Army, and hoped the Session would not be allowed to pass without substantial justice being done to them.
    CAPTAIN PIMsaid, the question was a very simple one, and he much regretted the Admiralty had not shown as much zeal in dealing with the claims of the Marines as they had exhibited in forwarding the promotion of the Arctic explorers. They really ought out of gratitude, because the Marines were a very valuable body of men. If it had not been for the Marines there would have been a fearful mutiny on beard the Alexandra the other day—[Murmurs]—the mutiny would have become really bad.
    MR. HUNTsaid, he must repudiate any such statement as that made by the hon. and gallant Member. There was no mutiny, and the information on the subject received at the Admiralty in no way confirmed the statement he had made.
    CAPTAIN PIMsaid, the information which reached him was that the Marines had saved the ship from a mutiny.
    MR. WHITWORTH,as a matter of common sense, supported the claims of the Marines.

  NAVY—CLAIMS OF MR. JOHN CLARE.

    OBSERVATIONS.
    MR. BIGGAR,in calling attention to the claims of Mr. John Clare on the Government for compensation for inventions and designs, alleged to have been supplied to the Admiralty in connection with metal shipbuilding and the construction of ships of war, observed that the claims being disputed by the Admiralty, the case was referred to a Court of Law in 1865 and 1866. The Court decided that the Admiralty were
    1974
    not bound to give compensation. The evidence as to whether the inventions were or were not new was contradictory. He hoped that if the Government thought Mr. Clare was entitled to compensation they would give him compensation.

  NAVY—REPORT OF THE ARCTIC COMMITTEE.—OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. LYON PLAYFAIR,in rising to call attention to the Report of the Admiralty Arctic Committee, said: My object is to point out that the lessons to be derived from that Expedition are vastly important to the welfare, not only of our naval, but also of our laid Forces, in many conditions when limited food is accompanied with heavy labour. I thought these lessons were so obvious that the Admiralty would have at once proceeded to act upon them; but when I asked the Question in this House, the Secretary of the Admiralty calmly informed us that no other Arctic Expedition was in contemplation, but if another were thought of, then would be the time for a consideration of what produced the breakdown of the late Expedition from scurvy. This want of power of generalization from an important experience is my justification for now asking the attention of the House. The experience of this Arctic Expedition may, however, produce great benefits to the future of our combatant Services, as well as to those civil employments in which labour has to be performed under conditions of imperfect food. Scurvy is not confined to ships; armies in the field suffer from it severely. Our own troops in the Crimea were attacked by it, and the French troops especially felt this terrible scourge. Now, if our Admiralty are to go to sleep upon this important subject until a prospective Arctic Expedition wakens them, much human suffering and unavoidable misery will result, which might have been avoided by accepting the lessons of the late Arctic Expedition. Let me state the case very shortly. Two vessels, the Alert and the Discovery, were sent out in 1875 to make discoveries in the Polar regions. Their officers and crews were selected with scrupulous care, and were men of experience and vigour. The ship dietaries were sufficient in quantity and varied in quality, except that the ordinary supply

  1975
  of one oz. of lime juice daily was scarcely sufficient for such a service. The hygienic condition of the ship and its ventilation are much praised by Sir George Nares, the commander, though I think the evidence proves the ventilation to have been deplorably bad. At night the state of the air in the sleeping deck was much worse than it has been found in any of the lowest class of theatres in London at 11 o'clock, for it generally contained from five to eight times as much carbonic acid as good air does. No means were provided for warming the outer air necessary to ventilate the lower decks, and without such means efficient ventilation was, impracticable. In our barracks 600 cubic feet of clear space is the regulation allowance for each man, but the Alert had only 107, and the Discovery 140 cubic feet. In consequence of the want of circulating air, the moisture condensed along with the organic effluvia, and often flowed back on the bedclothes. When the spring came, the men were examined for sledging, and pronounced to be strong and well. But all the witnesses, both medical and nautical, agree that this long confinement probably predisposed the men to the attacks of disease. We now come to the spring sledging. The men were pronounced fit for sledging about the beginning of April, 1876. The subject of sledge dietary had been discussed by the Arctic Committee in England. On no subject has more knowledge been obtained in recent years than in regard to the science of food. Science has taught us how to supply food in direct proportion to the labour to be performed, for the co-efficient of food with respect to labour can now be calculated. But no chemist or hygienist of eminence was called into council on the subject of dietaries in this Arctic Committee. A scheme of sledge dietary was prepared and furnished to Captain Nares. It was altogether different from the ship dietary. Its main substance was pemmican, a very nutritious compound made of dried flesh and fat. Of this, 1 lb. was the ration for each man. Besides this he had 14 oz. of biscuits, 4 oz. of bacon, and 2 oz. of preserved potato, and some other accessaries. The characteristic of this sledge dietary, as compared with the ship's dietary, is the small quantity of vegetables, amounting to only 2 oz. of
  1976
  potatoes. Nothing is more elementary in dietetics than that a deficiency of vegetables promotes scurvy. Where vegetables cannot be procured, lime juice is used, and since its introduction into our Navy scurvy has almost ceased to exist. Of course, the Admiralty authorities could not forget this fact. The Medical Director General of the Admiralty pointed it out in a strongly-worded Memorandum which the Lords of the Admiralty enclosed to Captain Nares in his sailing directions. On the force of this act I am not qualified to speak; but as I observe various distinguished officers of the Navy apparently in readiness to follow me, I leave it to them to say whether the sailing directions in referring to the medical Memorandum gave an order or merely a recommendation. However, there is no doubt that the importance of lime juice to sledging parties was brought before the Commanders of the Expedition. When they were About to start without it, the doctors, both of the Alert and Discovery, drew the attention of the captain to the omission. They were told that the inconveniences of carrying it were greater than its advantages. Do not let me underrate the inconveniences. Each man ought to have had as a minimum one oz. of lime juice per day. Indeed, two oz. would not have been too much. But the lime juice was frozen into a solid, and besides its own weight, it would have required extra fuel to melt it. This might have been done at the mid-day halt, but it involved additional expenditure of time. Well, these difficulties appeared to Captain Nares so formidable, that he preferred to act on his own responsibility, and rejected the advice of the medical authorities. He was encouraged in this by the remembrance that there had been frequent sledging parties of other Expeditions which had gone without lime juice, and returned either with no scurvy, or with little scurvy. But Captain Nares need not have had to contend with these difficulties at all, if a little foresight and science had been brought into council before the Expedition started. His chief difficulty was the increased weight of the lime juice. As 90 parts out of 100 of lime juice consist mainly of water, why was it not sent out in a concentrated form for the sledging expedition when its importance had been urged? If this

  1977
  had never been thought of before, surely this idea of concentration would have suggested itself to any man of science had he been consulted in regard to it. But more than a century ago, Dr. Lind showed how lime juice may be concentrated by evaporating its water, and that it can be carried in about a twentieth part of its bulk and weight. Since then, many improvements have been made in concentrating vegetable juices at moderate temperatures by evaporating them in vacuo. Carrying out Dr. Lind's idea, lime juice could have been so concentrated that three lozenges a-day sucked by each man would have given him the contents of one oz. of lime juice. But it was not Captain Nares' duty to know about this. That was an actual fault in fitting out the Expedition. I ought to state that Captain Nares had given the men a double amount of lime juice for some time before they started. His intentions were good, for he seems to have thought it possible to saturate the men with lime juice as one can do with calomel. But lime juice is a food, and not a medicine. One might as well try to saturate navvies with beefsteaks and then set them to heavy work upon gruel, as to send men on a long and arduous Expedition without lime juice to complete an imperfect diet. We are now at the point when the sledging expedition started in April, with only two ounces of preserved potatoes to represent vegetable diet, and no lime juice. The sledge crews were put upon the new diet without preparing them for the change. The labour is at once arduous and the cold is intense. But the stomachs of the men rebel against the new food, and they are unable to take their full rations. The dietetic value of their food, independently of its want of vegetables, or its equivalent of lime juice, was sufficient for ordinary labour, but was not sufficient for the extraordinary labour which these brave men then had to undergo. But even if it had been sufficient, the men could not for some time accustom their stomachs to consume the whole rations. Under any circumstances their health must have suffered, but that most depressing of all sufferings, scurvy, need not have appeared if the vegetable had been there in due proportion to the animal diet. On ship-board, under such circumstances of defective food, scurvy appears in about six weeks; but in these
  1978
  sledging parties it attacked the men much earlier. The northern sledging party, which experienced the greatest difficulty, got it in About 10 days; the eastern party, which had similar but somewhat fewer difficulties, in 17 days; and the western party, with a better line of march, in 27 days. Had it not been for the gallant and judicious exertions of Captain Nares and his officers and men in the rescuing parties, far more than three deaths would have represented the mortality resulting from these Expeditions. Out of 60 cases of scurvy, 58 occurred among the men in the sledging parties. Upon this point it is sufficient to quote Captain Nares—
  "Had there been no sledging work, I believe that the disease would not have betrayed its presence among us, and had the officers been called upon from the first to perform as severe labour as the men, I think they would have been equally attacked."
  At this time Sir George Nares believed that the men started with the seeds of disease in them, and that these seeds fructified under labour. It had not then struck him that the absence of lime juice from the diet might be the cause of the scurvy. But he thinks otherwise on reviewing the evidence before the Committee of Inquiry, because he says in answer to Question 170—"I consider now lime juice to be an essential article of sledging diet; " and he repeats that opinion in other words at Question 496. I mention this, because Captain Markham denies its value, and scouts at the evidence. The Admiralty, in their letter to Sir George Nares, printed a few days ago, regret that he did not follow the medical counsels on the subject, but admit that he had serious difficulties to contend with. With my strong views of the dietetic error committed, I would not have expressed myself in any stronger terms as to the error in judgment. There has been too severe public condemnation of an error of judgment which many of us might and probably would have committed under like circumstances. As to censuring the Government for conferring honours on these brave Arctic explorers on account of their gallantry in an Expedition never exceeded in its dangers and hardships, I should feel ashamed of myself if it could be believed that my object in drawing attention to this subject was to

  1979
  challenge the propriety of these honours, or to lessen the lustre of their achievements. My sole purpose is to entreat both the Departments which have charge of the Army and Navy of this country to lay to heart the teachings of this Expedition. I do not wish them to wait another 100 years, as they have done since the time of Dr. Lind, before they try on a large and sufficient scale, whether concentrated lime juice will not answer the purposes of ordinary lime juice. We need not in future expose our armies to attacks of scurvy, if two or three lozenges containing a day's supply can be carried in each man's pocket. We may also profit by the experience of the Expedition in the knowledge that protracted marches and heavy labour cannot be undertaken by men who have long been kept under the bad hygienic conditions of a vitiated atmosphere due to bad ventilation. Our knowledge both as to hygiene and food has greatly improved in late years by the discoveries of science, and it will not do for our public Departments, or for the officers whom they employ, to ignore the teachings of science, and to be satisfied by the more empirical experiences gathered in past Expeditions, for it was that reliance which proved the sunken rock that wrecked the Arctic Expedition in spite of the gallant and intelligent officers who commanded and served in it.
  DR. CAMERONshared to the fullest extent the admiration of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Lyon Playfair) on the conduct of these Arctic explorers. But he must say that in this case the Admiralty was scarcely entitled to so much credit as he was inclined to give to them. Looking at the Report of the Committee, there appeared to have been a terrible want of foresight. A Committee was appointed before the Arctic Expedition went out; but it would seem from the evidence of Captain Stevenson that this Committee did not fully impress upon Sir George Nares the necessity for lime juice. The Medical Director General of the Navy, Sir Alexander Armstrong, was entitled to be heard on the subject; but his advice had been neglected in the matter of diet and exercise. He recommended that the men should have 2 lbs. of meat per day, but it was only given them for dinner. They were not exercised, as he advised, five or six hours a-day, and whilst he recommended that
  1980
  meat preserved other than by salt should have been supplied to the Expedition, it was proved in evidence that the meat supplied was exceptionally salt and hard. He also recommended that the men should be practised to eat pemmican beforehand. This was not done. The want of lime juice was positively inexplicable. Sir Alexander Armstrong had specially mentioned that it should be taken on sledging parties, but it was not taken, even as a medicine. Captain Markham, however, took several bottles with him, and was able to melt it, and by administering it to men who had scurvy, to alleviate their sufferings. Another remarkable fact was that the surgeons of the Expedition gave instructions to the officers in command of the sledge parties only for the various small accidents that might occur. They did not appear to have thought of the danger of scurvy. The consequence was that the officers did not even recognize the signs of the disease. It was stated that the reason why they did not carry lime juice was because of its weight; but it should be remembered that there were other articles carried which were of equal or greater weight. Rum, for instance, was carried, and some of it used for fuel, although spirits of wine would have answered the purpose better. It was stated that lime juice could not be carried in bottles, because they would burst. As a matter of fact, the bottles taken by Captain Markham did not burst; and, in any case, it could have been carried in skins. The fact appeared to be that an outbreak of scurvy was not anticipated during the first year. Then, again, the ventilation of the ships was defective, but that was a matter which should not have been left to the surgeons when they neared the North Pole, but should have been arranged beforehand. It would have been perfectly easy to introduce heated air. As it was the means adopted, though defective, were very creditable to Captain Nares and his surgeon. Another point was the comparative immunity of the officers. The officers had a much more varied diet than the men, and a much smaller proportion, if any, of them were attacked with scurvy. Very little fresh meat was carried in the Expedition, and there were no eggs, though, by a well-known process, eggs could be kept fresh for several months. Neither was there any con-

  1981
  densed milk taken out. In fact, the rations of the men appeared to be much on a par with what occurred 25 years ago. The right hon. Gentleman had done good service in showing what was to be done, and what to be avoided in the future, and had proved that, if ever we were to have another Arctic Expedition, we should test the efficiency of such things as condensed lime juice and other anti-scorbutics without loss of time. He had also proved that the failure of the Expedition did not establish the fact that all further investigation was hopeless and ought not to be entered upon.
  MR. GOURLEYsaid, he was of opinion that Sir George Nares was not entirely free from blame. He was, however, justified in not sending lime juice with the sledge parties. No doubt, in not doing so, he went against the opinion expressed by medical men at home and that of his own medical officers. There were, however, two opinions on the subject, and it should be remembered that he had had experience of hot as well as cold countries, and in the latter men were very rarely attacked by scurvy, being more subject to frostbite. Sir Garnet Wolseley departed from established customs in the Red River Expedition by abstaining from the usual use of alcoholic stimulants—substituting tea, coffee, and milk, and to that he attributed the fact that he had scarcely a single case of sickness from the time he left Montreal to that of his return. There was, however, in all changes nothing like success. He thought they had been too hasty in conferring rewards on Sir George Nares and the Expedition. He thought, however, that there should have been a thorough investigation into the subject at the earliest possible moment, and had that been done the honour which had been conferred on Captain Nares might perhaps have been deferred. He trusted that the experience now gained would be remembered, in order that the use of lime juice might be more carefully attended to on future occasions.
  MR. GOSCHENthought the Admiralty had rather put themselves into a difficulty by the method they had employed of dealing with this matter. The hon. Member who had last spoken (Mr. Gourley) had hinted at the probability of the honour conferred on Sir George
  1982
  Nares having been withheld if the inquiry had taken place sooner. He (Mr. Goschen) must confess he could see nothing in the letter that had been addressed by the Admiralty to Sir George Nares, or in the result of the investigation by the Committee, which could justify the belief that Sir George Nares would have been deprived of the honours justly given to him, even if the inquiry had occurred at an earlier date. The purport of the letter—which had not been circulated amongst hon. Members—was, no doubt, that the Admiralty accepted the conclusions arrived at by the Committee, and while they thought there had been an error in judgment in not issuing lime juice, they felt the force of the reasoning that had guided Sir George Nares, and did not wish to censure him, or to destroy the satisfaction he had derived from the honours he had received from his Sovereign. Some soreness had been expressed either by Sir George Nares or his friends as to the Order of Reference of the Committee which was appointed to consider, amongst other things, "whether the orders issued by the Commander of the Expedition were proper orders," and it was contended that that was really placing Sir George Nares on his trial, and that he ought to have had notice of the charges that were to be brought against him, whereas he was not informed, until he was under examination, that the orders issued by him were called in question. It was further represented that if his conduct was to be inquired into, it should be by officers on active service and in the mode in which such charges were generally dealt with. That might be owing to the inquiry having been so long postponed by the Admiralty, and he could not even now understand, why it had not been instituted at a much earlier date. He trusted, however, that Sir George Nares would not attach too much importance to this question of procedure, though the two questions with which the Committee were appointed to deal—namely, the scientific matter and the administration of an officer on active service—were seldom mixed up together and referred to a Committee, as in the present case. He hoped, too, it to be pointed out by the Government that the error of judgment in the case was committed under very difficult circumstances, and did not detract from the general

  1983
  character of the commander of the Expedition. The House knew how sensitive naval officers were to everything like a reflection upon their professional action; but, on the other hand, the Admiralty were quite justified in calling attention to this error in judgment, although it was one which, in the circumstances, any officer might have made.
  DR. LUSHsaid, it appeared to him that everyone was to be whitewashed connected with the Expedition. Some one, however, had been to blame. No one had expected the Expedition to return within one year without having accomplished its object. The House ought to go somewhat deeper into the matter, and the question for them to decide was whether it should be in the power of any officer to be allowed to run counter to the express directions that he carried with him. If a naval officer were allowed to run counter to the lessons of scientific investigation which experience had conclusively proved to be true, there would be no security against similar failures in future, and he hoped that not one farthing of the public money would ever be voted for an Arctic Expedition again without taking some guarantees that the rules laid down should be strictly observed. The country had expected that the Expedition would be a success; and, in his opinion, it was owing to a dereliction of duty on the part of the managers of the Expedition that it was not a success.
  MR. HUNTsaid, the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Lyon Playfair) began by complaining that a Question he had put did not receive the answer he had expected; but he (Mr. Hunt) did not regret that there had been some misapprehension as to its purport; for if there had not, they would probably not have heard the interesting statement he had just made, which would be very valuable on account of his scientific treatment of the subject, and also for the generous expressions he had used with reference to the commander of the Expedition. He was very glad, also, the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Goschen) had expressed himself in the same sense with regard to Sir George Nares. It had been said there was some feeling on the part of the friends of Sir George Nares as to the nature of the tribunal to which this matter had been referred. That was the first time
  1984
  he had heard of the existence of such a feeling. There was no charge made in the terms of the Reference against Sir George Nares. In settling its terms, he (Mr. Hunt) considered, not that there was any charge of disobeying orders to be inquired into, but that the question was whether Sir George Nares had properly exercised the discretion vested in him in framing the dietary of the sledge parties. He did not consider that in the letter the Admiralty addressed to him there was any serious reflection upon him, although it was stated that he ought to have given more weight to the recommendations of the Medical Director General—a view which he believed was generally entertained. He considered Sir George Nares was placed in a difficult position; but if he had disobeyed orders a very different tribunal would have tried the case. Sir George Nares did not disobey orders. [Captain Pim: Sir George Nares did most decidedly disobey orders.] He was not ordered by the Admiralty to follow the recommendations of the Medical Director General; perhaps the Admiralty was to blame for not giving that order, but it was not given, and all that was done was to give him the recommendations of the Medical Director General, expecting, of course, that he would give due weight to them. [Dr. LUSH desired to explain that he had spoken on the understanding that the order had been given.] It might be said the Admiralty ought to have given the order, but they left a large discretion to the commander of the Expedition. They furnished him with instructions prepared by the most experienced Arctic officers, and with the recommendations of the Medical Director General; and, although these might have been carried out to a certain extent, he could not say that it was possible to carry them out fully. As to the statement of the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Gourley) that they were too hasty in awarding honours, the officers who had received promotion and honours were well entitled to them, and he should be sorry if that were not the opinion of the House and of the public. The question given to Captain Nares to solve was a most difficult one—as difficult a one as could be given to a man. The amount of weight to which he was obliged to limit the sledge burdens was such that it was impossible

  1985
  for them to carry the quantity of lime juice that otherwise would have been supplied to them. No doubt, he was influenced in his decision by the experience of other sledging expeditions, which took no lime juice, and escaped the outbreak of scurvy; that fact, coupled with the great difficulties that would arise from increasing the burden of the sledges, no doubt induced him to start without the lime juice. All these considerations, in his mind, overbore the recommendations of the Medical Director General, particularly when he remembered that the condition and endurance of the men had been more severely tested than had those of men who had dispensed with lime juice without incurring risk. No man could be put in a more difficult position, and, though it was to be regretted that he did not give more weight to the recommendations, every allowance must be made for him in the circumstances; and he should be sorry that anything like censure should be pronounced upon him, when all credit was due to him for the successful way in which he had conducted the arduous undertaking with regard to every other matter. Those who had read the narrative of the Expedition must admire the great readiness of resource displayed by Sir George Nares and by the second in command, and the ability with which the ships were extricated from great dangers and brought home almost in as sound a condition as they were in at starting. To say that the Expedition failed in its primary object on account of the outbreak of scurvy was to misrepresent the facts, for if there had been no outbreak the Expedition could not have reached the Pole. The Pole was impracticable; therefore, it was wrong to say the Expedition failed in its main object by reason of the outbreak of scurvy. It was quite possible that more of the coast of Greenland might have been charted if the outbreak of scurvy had not occurred; but the Expedition never could have reached the Pole. The appearance of delay in issuing the order for the Committee only needed an explanation of the cause. The matter was first referred to the Medical Director General, who called for a great deal of information, and made a report which was referred to Sir George Nares, who wrote a brief letter, in which he expressed a desire to make a further communication,
  1986
  and the second letter raised the issue whether it was possible for the sledge parties to have carried the lime juice; it was not merely a medical question, but it was whether the limo juice could have been carried. He thought that was a matter that might fairly be inquired into, and he was anxious to have a Committee on which reliance could be placed, and which would command the confidence of the public. It was important to have medical men on the Committee; but it was not easy to find gentlemen not in practice who would command public confidence. There was, therefore, some trouble in constituting the Committee, and, though its Report was short, what was substantially a part of it—the paper written by the medical Members of the Committee—was an elaborate and valuable document, which it was a great advantage to the country to possess. The Committee was fairly constituted; it was presided over by an Admiral of great distinction; there were upon it two other Admirals of Arctic experience; and there were also medical gentlemen connected with the Naval Service. He believed the tribunal was as fair a one as could have been constituted, and that it was practically judicial in character. He was sorry if, in accepting its conclusions, they should be thought to detract from the very great merits of Sir George Nares as commander of the Expedition. It was certainly unfortunate that he did not give proper attention to the recommendations of the Medical Director General as to the lime juice, but he believed that very few men placed in Sir George Nares's position would have made fewer mistakes than he had. With regard to the claims of Mr. John Clare, ever since he had been in that House Mr. Clare had persistently made claims on the Admiralty. They had been examined by successive Lords of the Admiralty and by a Court of Law, and had not been sustained, and he was afraid that those who took them up now would find that they were only beating the air. He was not in a position, at all events, to reverse the decision which had already been pronounced in regard to them.
  Main Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," put, and agreed to.

  SUPPLY—NAVY ESTIMATES—H.M.S. "INFLEXIBLE."

    SUPPLE—considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    MR. HUNT,in proposing Vote No. 6, said, it was his duty to make a short explanation with regard to certain changes which had been made in the Programme submitted to the House on a former occasion, which the Committee would probably like to hear of. If those changes had not been of a very simple character, he should not have proposed to take that Vote to-night, but the alterations related more to the time to be taken up by certain works than to anything else. Under the original Programme it had been intended to commence by contract certain unarmoured ships. They would not have been completed in this year, with few exceptions. They had also proposed in the Dockyards to undertake the repair of the boilers and the machinery of certain iron-dads. In the ordinary course of things the repairs for those iron-dads, being spread over a longer time, would not have interfered with the requirements of the Service; but, at the present time, they had a larger number of ships than usual afloat, and he thought it desirable, in the present posture of affairs, that they should have more iron-clads ready sooner than might have sufficed if no European disturbance had existed. It was now proposed to get the boilers put in, in the case of five ships, by contract, and thus save a certain charge. If they had proposed to accelerate that operation in the Dockyards it would have involved taking on more men. Such a step was always followed by the discharge of the men, and the usual consequence of that was bad feeling and other evils, which it was well, so far as they could, to avoid. Therefore, the unarmoured ships in the original contract Programme would be postponed for the sake of what was more desirable—the having the repairs of their iron-clad ships accelerated. It had been proposed to construct and complete in the year certain torpedo lighters intended to be used by the War Office in connection with the protection of harbours. Such vessels might be wanted; but they were not of special construction, and they could, if needed, be hired. He therefore wished to post-
    1988
    pone their construction for the present, and to substitute for them what could not be hired—namely, some fast vessels for torpedo purposes. Accordingly, he had taken out of the contract Programme those torpedo vessels of a minor description which could be obtained if there was an emergency, and inserted those which they must have specially constructed. Again, they were at present in want of a despatch vessel, and therefore it was desirable to hasten the repairs of the Lively. Those changes would make some difference with regard to the tonnage. The work in the Dockyards was left the same as before, and the iron-clad work by contract remained unaltered; but there was a loss of 1,840 tons on the unarmoured ships to be built by contract. The original proposal was to build altogether 20,488 tons, while the amended arrangement showed only 18,648 tons to be built; but then, on the other hand, they would secure the earlier readiness for sea of the iron-dads. That would cause some re-adjustment of the figures of Vote 10, Section 2, partly in consequence of their not having to order the machinery for the unarmoured ships which they did not intend to commence. The right hon. Gentleman concluded by moving the Vote for Dockyards and Naval Yards at Home and Abroad.
    (1.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £1,341,680, he granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Expenses of the Dockyards and Naval Yards at Homo and Abroad, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1878."
    MR. GOSCHENsaid, he did not propose to go into the question of the original Programme at great length; but he should prefer to give special prominence to one or two questions which he desired to put to the right hon. Gentleman, and which he should be sorry to see lost sight of in the wider range which the discussion might take hereafter. With respect to the amended Programme just described, he thought there might be very good reasons for hastening on the iron-clads, instead of proceeding with the building of unarmoured ships. He understood that about 1,800 fewer tons than were at first contemplated, or 18,000 odd tons, instead of 20,400, were to be built in the course of the present year,

    1989
    with the view of accelerating the repair of the machinery of the iron-dads. He commended the decision of the Admiralty to the special attention of the Committee, and trusted that both the Committee and the country would see in the altered proposals of the right hon. Gentleman some cause for satisfaction. If in the present state of affairs the First Lord of the Admiralty was able to propose, on his responsibility, and without detriment to the Service, the reduction of the tonnage he had originally intended to build by nearly 2,000 tons, they might reasonably infer that the Navy, so far as shipbuilding was concerned, was in a tolerably fair position, and that there was no necessity for the increased Estimates which had been thought requisite in some quarters, where considerable apprehension had apparently existed. The two questions, however, to which he desired to draw the attention of the right hon. Gentleman, and that very specially, were, in the first place, as to the stability of the Inflexible, and other ships designed after her model; and, in the next place, the question of torpedoes. With regard to the question of torpedoes, he thought the Committee would decide that it might be wise to increase the number of fast torpedo vessels by two, as the right hon. Gentleman now proposed to do. Recent events had called the attention of the public and the Press very prominently to the subject of torpedoes. He had seen comments in the newspapers which implied that what had lately occurred on the Danube had taken the Admiralty by surprise—that events had occurred they had never thought of, or which, at all events, might not have come within the range of their past experiments. It had been suggested that they must bestir themselves about resisting the attack of torpedoes which were now in use, and so forth. Now, if he (Mr. Goschen) was not mistaken, the right hon. Gentleman opposite would be able to inform the Committee that all those matters had been already considered by the Admiralty for years past—that experiments had been conducted with the view of testing the efficiency of all the various modes of using torpedoes in warfare; and that, therefore, the country need be under no apprehension that those contingencies had not been foreseen. The School for Torpedoes, which was estab-
    1990
    lished before the First Lord came into office, had been already doing good work for years, and it had devoted much of its attention to destroying torpedoes in rivers and in forts by various ingenious contrivances, and in protecting ships, whether in motion or at anchor. He was quite sure the Committee would not expect any details which it would not be proper for the right hon. Gentleman to give; but if the right hon. Gentleman was able to state, as he (Mr. Goschen) should have been able to state some years back, that this question of defending ships against torpedoes had been for many years under the thorough and careful consideration of the Admiralty and its officers, he would be saying something which would be most satisfactory to the public. With respect to the other subject, a statement had appeared in the leading journal of that morning with regard to the Inflexible which was calculated to alarm the public as much as those had done which had been made respecting that most efficient ship the Devastation. No vessel had passed through so severe a criticism as the latter; but it was now generally admitted that she and the Thunderer were most efficient ships, and he believed the Devastation had shown herself to be a thoroughly sea-going ship during the time she had been in service in the Mediterranean. He believed the right hon. Gentleman himself had retracted the doubt which he expressed when he came into office as to the sea-going qualities of the Devastation. [Mr. HITNT: Hear, hear !] The Inflexible carried four 80-ton guns, and was defended by 2 feet of armour in certain parts; she was a ship of great power, and with the Agamemnon and Ajax following, was so important to the country that it was most essential that any doubt with regard to her should be cleared up at once in the frankest and clearest manner possible. The statement which had appeared in The Times of that morning was to the effect that if her unarmoured ends should be penetrated by shell she would not have sufficient reserve of buoyancy to preserve her from sinking. He trusted his hon. Friend behind him (Mr. E. J. Reed) would not accept that statement as correct, and that the right hon. Gentleman would be able to hold clear language with regard to it. The Inflexible was a ship which

    1991
    was designed during his (Mr. Goschen's) tenure of office at the Admiralty, and the principle on which she was constructed was that the whole of her armour was concentrated in the centre, She carried her guns in a sort of central tower, which was defended by enormously thick armour, and to enable her to carry that weight, and also to give her the necessary reserve of buoyancy, notwithstanding the penetration of her unarmoured ends, she had been made with a beam of 75 feet. His scientific advisers at the time the ship was under consideration, advised him as follows:—
    "We hope, by sub-division and cellular sides, to prevent any appreciable increase of immersion or decrease of stability, but we should not be satisfied with the ship if we could not say, as we now can, that with any possible amount of damage to the unarmoured ends by shot or shell, the ship will continue to float in perfect safety before any damages are made good.—[Parl. P. 293, p. 3.]
    They further said that—
    "It was possible that both cork and canvas would be used to some extent outside the battery or citadel; but that the security of the ship would not be dependent on them."
    And that—
    "Should the parts of the ship before and abaft the armour become wholly water-logged, the ship would sink one foot deeper than her normal fighting draft."—[Ibid. p. 7.]
    He would now ask whether the scientific Constructors were able to express with satisfaction that they had carried out that which was the original Programme of the ship. Looking at what he said in that House on the 24th July, 1873, upon the authority of his scientific advisers, he would be glad to know how far the promises made to him had been carried out?
    MR. HUNTsaid, he should not under the circumstances have risen at that period of the discussion; but the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Goschen) had put to him questions of such grave importance that he thought it desirable that the Committee should be re-assured as soon as possible in regard to the matters at issue. In common with the right hon. Gentleman opposite, he had read the statement to which he referred, and also the leading article founded upon it in The Times of that morning. He could only say that when a statement of such a grave character was put forward with regard to the most powerful ship
    1992
    which was afloat, it should be signed by the person making it, so that it might be seen whence the writer obtained his information. The right hon. Gentleman said that it was on the faith of a statement furnished by officers of the Admiralty that he gave orders that the ship should be laid down, and the right hon. Gentleman wished to know whether the opinions of the present Board of Admiralty confirmed the propriety of the orders he gave. He (Mr. Hunt) could assure the right hon. Gentleman that the opinion of the present Board unhesitatingly confirmed the decision that he gave. The design that was adopted for the Inflexible had the sanction, in addition to scientific gentlemen concerned in making designs, of the eminent naval gentlemen who advised the right hon. Gentleman at the Board of Admiralty. The ship was now far advanced towards completion, and there had been every opportunity, by means of a model, of testing the ship, not only theoretically but practically. It had been said that if the unarmoured ends of the ship were seriously damaged in action, and if she merely depended upon her centre armour, she must capsize. Now, that was a very serious accusation to make against a ship. The matter had been duly examined by his naval Colleagues. They were satisfied that it was impossible, if the ship were in action, a destruction of her unarmoured ends could take place. They were also satisfied that if the unarmoured ends were blown out, she would not capsize. Therefore, he hoped the Committee and the public would be reassured on this subject. The present Board of Admiralty entirely accepted responsibility for the ship. With the sanction of the Committee, he had laid down the Ajax and the Agamemnon on the same principle as the Inflexible, though they were smaller than the Inflexible; and if the Inflexible ought to be condemned or distrusted, then, of course, the Ajax and the Agamemnon ought to be distrusted too. He was asking the Committee that evening to sanction the construction of a third ship of the same character, and he had no hesitation in recommending the Committee to sanction the laying down of another ship. The right hon. Gentleman had asked him a question with regard to torpedoes, and some writers had thought that the ex-

    1993
    perience of the war now going on ought to make a difference in our views as regarded shipbuilding in connection with their use. He must say he thought we had learnt very little by the war now going on as to torpedoes. If we had learnt anything, he thought we must have learnt that they were not so formidable as we thought. A Turkish monitor had been blown up by a torpedo. Well, several accounts had been given as to how that was done, and they did not agree; but he thought they all came to this—it was done by stratagem. The most circumstantial account was that the ship was approached by a beat manned by men in a certain uniform and commanded by an officer; that they approached as friends, and that while conversation was going on an explosive substance was attached to the cable of the ship. Another account was that they stole by night, under the cover of darkness, and attached this infernal machine to the ship. He ventured to say that if the ship had been a British ship such vigilance would have been exhibited that this could not have taken place. We had had in the last few days an account of an attempt on the part of the Russians to destroy certain iron-dads, and we found that, an Englishman being in command, such vigilance was displayed that the attack of the torpedo boat was entirely frustrated. He thought this was rather re-assuring, and that it showed that the time was not comp for dispensing with iron-dads. His own surprise had been that torpedoes had played so little a part in engagements. We were told that torpedoes had been laid down at all the ports and fortified places in the Black Sea. Then we had heard, on the other hand, that Turkish divers had been fishing up torpedoes or cutting the wires which conveyed the electric fluid. In his opinion, torpedoes up to the present had played a very unimportant part in the present war. We had for years been carrying on experiments with regard to torpedoes. One unfortunate ship had been repaired over and over again for the purpose of being knocked to pieces by torpedoes, in order that we might know at what distance a certain charge would take effect on that ship, and he believed we had obtained precise knowledge on that subject. A vast number of officers were acquiring skill in the torpedo practice
    1994
    which was instituted by the right hon. Gentleman. He believed that great perfection had been attained by our officers in the practice of mining and counter-mining. It was said the torpedo was so formidable a weapon that the building of iron-clad vessels ought to be abandoned. He could not bring himself to that conclusion. No doubt, the weapon was one of a very destructive character, but of the use of it in actual warfare we had no experience whatever. Certainly its employment required great judgment and very careful manipulation. We had come to be very perfect in its use in the canal at Woolwich, and in certain basins at the dockyards and in similar places; but we had yet to learn whether it would be efficient in the sea-way. It would be a bold thing to depend on its efficient use as a certainty in circumstances of which we had had no experience. Then the right hon. Gentleman asked him whether any steps had been taken to protect the ships from this machine. This was one of the most anxious questions he had had to consider during the time he had been at the Admiralty, and experiments had been going on continually in connection with it. One of the means of protection was the electric light, which could be so used on beard ship as to illumine an immense expanse of water, and in that way reveal the approach of torpedo beats. Another question, and one which had not been lost sight of, was that of producing special ordnance for the destruction of those beats when approaching. There was also the question of wire-netting for the same purpose. Experiments in connection with these matters were still going on, for it was a matter that we could not afford to lose sight of. It was said that one blow from a torpedo properly charged would sink any of our iron-dads. He was informed, however, by his scientific advisers that that was not the case, because the number of compartments into which our modern iron-dads were divided would be a protection, to a certain extent, against that result. Of course, in these matters one ought not to be too positive; but he was told that the Inflexible might receive three successful blows from the Whitehead torpedo, and still retain its fighting power. If that was the case, he thought it might go far to re-assure them as to the propriety of continuing to build

    1995
    iron-clads. Much had been said about the desirableness of building a great many fast vessels for the discharge of torpedoes. No doubt these would be valuable vessels, and in his Estimates he had provided for some; but it must be remembered that they would have but a limited use, inasmuch as they could not serve as general sea-going vessels. The Admiralty was taunted sometimes with not ordering as many as other countries. Perhaps those countries required such vessels to protect their estuaries and harbours; but the Admiralty had ascertained that the fish torpedo could be fired from any of our men-of-war; and so far as the Whitehead torpedo was concerned, he did not think there was any Navy more completely equipped than that of England was at this moment. He had been anxious to show to the right hon. Gentleman and the Committee that the question of torpedoes had received due consideration from the Admiralty, and that it had been gone into with regard both to the offensive and defensive part of it. He hoped the statement he had made would be deemed satisfactory.
    MR. E. J. REEDsaid, that in reference to what the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty had noticed About certain articles which had appeared in The Times on the subject of the Inflexible, and in particular to the remark, that the author of the statements they contained ought to have put his name to them, he (Mr. Reed) thought it right, as it was he who had been the first to point out the real state of the Inflexible, to inform the Committee that the articles had not been written by him; and he must add that the right hon. Gentleman could not fail to know, if he had used his memory, that he (Mr. Reed) was not in the habit of shrinking from putting his name to what he wrote. If the First Lord of the Admiralty had been as fully informed on the subject as he ought to have been, he must have known, indeed, that he had been doing his best for some weeks to keep the discussion in question out of the newspapers. He wished to tell the Committee what he knew of the matter. The discussion had been brought to the narrowest point by the extracts which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London (Mr. Goschen) had read to the House from papers which
    1996
    had been submitted to him. If the promises made in those extracts had been carried out, then his (Mr. Reed's) view of the Inflexible was wrong; but he was equally entitled to say that if his calculations were correct, then those promises had not been fulfilled. It had been the rule, to which there had been only one or two exceptions, that the iron-clad ships had been so constructed that while the armour remained intact the ship was safe from destruction by shot or shell fire; but this rule had been departed from in the case of the Inflexible, which might be destroyed without touching the armour at all. When this vessel was described at the Institution of Naval Architects, the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Stamford (Sir John Hay) and another gallant officer questioned the officer of the Admiralty, and asked this very question. The answer given was not of the most explicit kind; but it amounted, substantially, to what the First Lord had stated to-night—namely, that with the citadel alone, the ship would have the necessary buoyancy and stability, however much injury might be done to the unarmoured ends. On visiting the Inflexible from time to time, he (Mr. Reed) found that the unarmoured ends were so very large in proportion to the citadel, as to raise in his mind a doubt as to this important condition being fulfilled. Observing this, and also the introduction of the corked. chambers, he designed an Inflexible in his own office, and had the whole of the calculations made, the result showing that when these corked chambers were destroyed the vessel would have little or no stability, but would be in a condition to capsize. He had intended to read a paper on the subject before a professional institution; but he thought the matter was so serious that he withdrew that paper and. entered into a private correspondence with the present Constructor of the Navy, who was a close connection of his own. That correspondence with the Admiralty was very unsatisfactory in spirit and in substance. In the course of it he was allowed the privilege of seeing the document which would be sent to the Board of Admiralty, in reply to the doubts he had expressed. That document, he thought, was wrong in almost every paragraph, and was of a nature to mislead the minds of civilians and naval officers. This

    1997
    being so, he was placed in a difficulty, and he determined that when this Vote came on, and when the Committee was asked to sanction the laying down of a fourth ship with these features in it, he would not formally oppose the Vote, because that would be a very delicate thing for him to do in the circumstances, but would state his objections to the Committee. At that time it came to his knowledge, in an indirect manner, that it was the intention of an important journal to publish an article on the subject. He had no connection whatever with the journal in question; but he did what he could to prevent the matter from being made public until the Admiralty had had an opportunity of thoroughly considering it. They had now taken it into consideration, and he never gathered, until the First Lord made his statement to-night, that his position was questioned as to the "capsizeability" of the ship when the unarmoured ends were destroyed. He must assure the First Lord that if he desired to get to the bottom of this matter he must not be content with the statements which he had sustained to-night, as those statements were in distinct discordance with facts and figures which attached to the Inflexible. Until to-night he understood that the only difference between the Admiralty and himself was as to whether the corked chambers were incapable of destruction by modern shells. The naval advisers of the Admiralty believed that they were, and it was not his intention to ask the Committee to take any action in the matter. He would suggest that the Admiralty might have adopted the following course for their own satisfaction. They might have had a target of a similar kind made, and have called on the gunners at Shoeburyness to say whether they could not readily destroy it. Or, again, they might have instituted some inquiry in which the evidence of persons outside the Admiralty could be taken. They had not, however, adopted either of those courses, and he did not go so far as to blame them for not doing so. But he deeply regretted that the ship being what she undoubtedly was, that fact had never been stated to the House. All the documentary evidence which had been brought forward had tended to give hon. Members great confidence in the ship. He had acted in this matter because he believed the
    1998
    plan of constructing this ship was entirely wrong; and that being so, it was a consideration for the Committee whether some further inquiry was not necessary.
    MR. GOSCHENthought his hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke (Mr. Reed) was scarcely justified in expressing regret that the question should arise now, because it was of the greatest importance that it should arise at the present time and not later.
    MR. E. J. REEDexplained that he had distinctly stated that it was his intention to raise the question to-night. He did not wish, however, to raise it before the Admiralty had had a proper opportunity of considering the matter.
    MR. GOSCHENmeant to say that his hon. Friend, instead of being to blame for raising the discussion, had only done his duty in expressing his doubts to the Committee. The matter could scarcely be allowed to rest in its present position. His hon. Friend had said that no public statement had been made in regard to this ship; but hero he thought his hon. Friend was slightly in error, because he (Mr. Goschen) had himself stated, when the ship was first sanctioned by the House, that the requisite of buoyancy would be secured after the unarmoured ends had been shot away. The naval advisers of the Board of Admiralty had asserted that the stability of the citadel was sufficient, and that the suggestion of his hon. Friend was wrong. He trusted that there was no misunderstanding with respect to the words stability and buoyancy; but it had been suggested that as the unarmoured ends were honeycombed into compartments they would be safe from shot or shell. He never know that his hon. Friend was investigating the matter, and he imagined that they were dealing only with anonymous criticism; but the Committee would think it very satisfactory if, at a later stage, documents could be laid on the Table of the House by the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord which would re-assure them beyond all doubt that the necessary amount of stability and buoyancy was secured. The matter was one which was capable of being settled with mathematical accuracy; and their alarm would not be allayed unless these assurances were given.
    SIR JOHN HAYsaid, that when the Inflexible was designed, the right hon.

    1999
    Gentleman had very wisely permitted a discussion on its merits at the United Service Institution. On that occasion he (Sir John Hay) took part in the discussion. There were two questions raised—first, whether a ship of this kind, if her forecastle and stern, unarmoured, were attacked and destroyed, would she topple over; and, secondly, if her centre, being properly armour-plated, and in good condition to resist shot or shell, would continue to float when the unarmoured ends were destroyed; whether, in fact, she had buoyancy and stability. In both those respects the vessel was pronounced satisfactory. Now, this ship Inflexible cost half a million of money. She was the strongest ship the world ever saw, and before further steps were taken with respect to her, and after what the hon. Member for Pembroke had said, it might, perhaps, be desirable that the House should hear these assurances from some other independent Body or Commission. He could only trust, for the sake of alleviating the anxiety of the country, and of its shipbuilding credit, that the hon. Member might be wrong; but until that was proved there would always be some suspicion as to her seaworthiness in the minds both of the country and the vessel's officers and men.
    MR. T. BRASSEYwished briefly to refer to the opinions of eminent foreign authorities. A careful review of the arguments advanced by the most competent naval officers abroad showed clearly that it was desirable that our armour-clad ships should be for the most part of smaller dimensions than those already built. For many years past there had been so great a difference of professional opinion on the subject, that it might be very profitable to compare the varieties of foreign opinion with a view to forming our own. He would refer, in the first place, to the opinion of the French Constructors, who were second to none. So long ago as 1873, M. Dislere, an able Member of the staff of Constructors in the French service, had expressed an opinion that armour-plating was obsolete for seagoing cruisers. M. Dislere thought that enough attention was not paid to the new weapons, the ram and the torpedo, against which the iron-clad Colossus lest all its advantages. The difficulties produced by torpedoes were, in his opinion,
    2000
    not yet overcome, and it was on that account the more desirable to reduce the dimensions and displacements of fighting ships. Another great French authority laid down the axiom that in future ships would fight with the ram alone. Admiral Jurien de la Gravière said that naval battles between iron-clads would resemble the ancient tournaments, inasmuch as they would consist of a series of charges. After two fleets had thus advanced upon and passed through each other, it would be necessary for them to turn again to renew the attack, in the execution of which manœuvre the slowest vessels would offer their broadsides to their assailants, and would thereby expose themselves to the risk of being destroyed by ramming. At the close of the War of Secession in America, the most distinguished officers were invited to report the result of their recent experiences to the Naval Department. He would more particularly refer to the Report of Admiral Goldsborough. That gallant officer stated that, in his opinion, the ram was the most effective of all methods of attacks, but that its value depended entirely upon the "handiness" of the attacking vessel. Now, to attain this essential quality, it was necessary to avoid the construction of vessels of overwhelming size. The Austrian officers engaged in the naval battle of Lissa, where the ram was used with triumphant effect, were unanimously of opinion that, with skill and pluck, this weapon of attack would always prove invincible. The Chief of the Austrian Constructor's Department had called it "the bayonet of naval warfare." Turning from the foreign services to our own professional advisers, we found that the Chief Constructor of the Navy, Mr. Barnaby, at the Institution of Naval Architects, had read a paper showing that auxiliary squadrons of rams and torpedo vessels afforded the best means of defending our large iron-dads against attack from similar weapons. This paper was received with the highest favour. Sit Spencer Robinson said that no more valuable suggestion had ever been made in his experience. He regretted that the First Lord had not framed his Programme of shipbuilding in accordance with these views. He could not see in it a proposal to increase the number of such vessels in our Navy. He (Mr. Brassey) also advocated the building of ships carrying

    2001
    a larger number of guns. Our large iron-dads were lamentably deficient in the number of the guns with which they were armed. In addition to the very heavy guns which had been proposed, an armament of non-armour-piercing guns should be provided. There was a wide difference of opinion as to the efficiency of armour protection. In his opinion, a large proportion of the money voted should in future be given to the weapons of attack, of the efficiency of which there could be no doubt, and a smaller proportion to the means of defence, the success of which was doubtful.
    MR. BENTINCKsaid, he was sorry he could not feel the satisfaction which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London (Mr. Goschen) had told him he ought to feel with the present state of things as regarded the Navy. When this subject was last discussed, he had some reason to think that the tone of that right hon. Gentleman was anything but courteous towards himself in remarking on some observations that fell from him. But courtesy was like poetry—it must be innate; and therefore he need not further descant upon that topic. The right hon. Gentleman had entirely misquoted his remarks and argued on his misquotation. But he was quite sure the right hon. Gentleman had misquoted inadvertently. He (Mr. Bentinck) admitted that we had a large number of full-rigged ships; but they were quite unmanageable under canvas, and their masts and yards were in consequence a mere encumbrance. One of the great problems of the future was, to devise how best to construct a ship with high steam power, whose really vulnerable parts would be safe, and which ship would yet be thoroughly manageable under canvas, and would, by means of that agency, be able to go to any part of the world. He contended that a ship which could not be handled under canvas, looking to the requirements of the British Navy, ought not to be sent to foreign stations. He objected to the comparison of our Navy with the Navies of other countries, because some of these countries would gain financially if their Navies were sunk, while we depended upon ours for the defence of our coast and Colonies and our supply of food; and it might be that we ought to be able to contend against the Navies of the world. Was
    2002
    the Navy in a condition to do these things? If not, let the Navy be placed in that condition. He was sure that the country would give its cordial support to any Minister who would, at any expense, carry out those great objects. We were not in the condition we ought to be—not that we could not meet any probable contingency, but we ought not to expose ourselves to the necessity of making the efforts and the sacrifices involved in insufficient preparation.
    MR. SAMUDAsaid, that even if the worst were to be realized that was predicted by such hon. Gentlemen as the Member for Pembroke (Mr. Reed), the catastrophe would not be so great as was imagined. With respect to the Inflexible, the errors could be corrected; but he thought it was disgraceful that a newspaper should have published such an article as that published this morning without attaching a name to it. No man's professional reputation ought to be attacked without some justification. He hoped the First Lord of the Admiralty would, by a Committee or some other way, satisfy the public mind that there was no occasion for anxiety. He agreed with the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Hunt) in thinking that there was nothing really alarming in the effects of the torpedo as shown in the present war, the Americans, in their Civil War, having accomplished quite as much with that weapon as the Russians had done. At the same time, he thought the events which had occurred on the Danube ought to suggest to the Admiralty the expediency of adding a number of small vessels to our Navy—vessels which would be less liable to torpedo attacks than gigantic iron-dads. It would be unwise, however, to build vessels of the Alpha Beta class, recommended by the hon. Member for Hastings (Mr. Brassey), because having a speed of only 7½ knots an hour, it was impossible that they could cope with larger vessels capable of making 13 or 14 knots an hour. As for the ram, it was a mistake. It was only useful for attacking ships which were riding at anchor or incapable of defending themselves. An officer could not make an attack with a ram upon a vessel which meant to elude him, unless he had at least 50 per cent more speed, and was capable of going 15 knots to his enemy's 10. Then, even when a ram could come to close quarters with her adversary, the

    2003
    danger of a fatal entanglement was very great. But although a perfect ship had not yet been designed, the right hon. Gentleman ought not to cease building, for the experience of the Austro-Italian, the Franco-German, and the Russo-Turkish wars had shown that, irrespective of the merits of particular vessels, the larger and more powerful fleet kept the sea, and that the smaller and inferior one did not venture out at all.
    SIR JOHN HAYcould not agree with the hon. Member who had just spoken (Mr. Samuda), that the "ram" was not a formidable mode of attack upon an enemy's ships. In the war between Austria and Italy the Austrian Fleet—a small fleet—beat the Italian Fleet—which was a large one—by means of the "ram." In other words, the smaller fleet, by the use of the ram, beat the larger fleet.
    MR. SAMUDAexplained that his information on the subject was from the very highest authority—namely, Admiral Tegethoff, who was in command of the Austrian Fleet. That gallant officer gave directions to his men to approach the Italian Fleet in a line, and on a certain signal to turn and endeavour each to ram the ship opposite to itself. The orders were obeyed, but the only ship that rammed any of the Italian vessels was the Admiral's own, and he said the effect upon him was so terrible, that nothing would induce him ever again to ram a vessel though he should live 100 years.
    MR. SEELYsaid, that all our interest ought to be centred in the ships about to be built. The hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. E. J. Reed) having pledged his reputation, which was European, that the Inflexible was not seaworthy, he (Mr. Seely) contended that in a question involving so much the value of our Navy, and the lives of so many men, some means ought to be taken to ascertain the correctness of his statements, especially as it was intended to build another ship on the same principle, besides the two already in progress. Such a procedure was the more necessary, seeing that in opposition to the opinion of the hon. Member they had the unanimous opinion of Mr. Barnaby, the First Lord of the Admiralty, and certain Naval Lords. It was a difficult problem to be solved, but it was one that must be solved. He thought he might add that the remarks of his hon. Friend the Member for the
    2004
    Tower Hamlets (Mr. Samuda) with reference to the article which had appeared in the leading journal were most uncalled-for and most unjust; for had it not been for the light which had been thrown on the subject of naval construction by the Press, he doubted whether our Navy would be as efficient as it was at present. As matters stood, he felt disposed to object to the passing of the Vote, unless some assurance was given by the Admiralty that the question at issue would be inquired into. There were several ways in which that might be done. It might be done by means of a Royal Commission, which would have many advantages; but which, however, was open to the objection that, being appointed by the Admiralty, it might be suspected of not being altogether an impartial tribunal. Again, a Committee might be appointed, such as that which sat upon the designs of ships; but that, too, might be supposed to be influenced by professional prejudices. Perhaps, therefore, the best tribunal would be a Committee of that House; and he trusted such a Committee would be appointed. It might be urged against such a Committee that its Members would know nothing About ships, and he admitted that; but then they would bring common sense to bear on the subject, they might take any evidence they deemed necessary, and they would bring to the inquiry unprejudiced minds. Entertaining these views, he should move that Progress be reported, in order that the Vote might be postponed; so convinced was he of the necessity of inquiry.
    THE CHAIRMANsaid, it was not competent for the hon. Gentleman to move the postponement of the Vote.
    LORD ESLINGTONpointed out that, with the exception of the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. E. J. Reed) and the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Samuda), there was scarcely a single Member of the House competent to guide a Committee on so important a subject as the construction of ships, and that the inquiry could, therefore, scarcely be committed to a more unsatisfactory tribunal than that suggested by the hon. Member for Lincoln. The construction of ships was so involved a matter that it ought to be left to the responsibility of the Government of the day. It was a question as to which men of science differed, and they should,

    2005
    therefore, trust with respect to it to the Executive Government. If the Executive failed, let them be turned out; but while they were in power, to them and to their responsibility the matter of construction ought to be left. Unless the House gave them that power, Parliament would sacrifice the right they now had of controlling the expenditure with regard to the construction of ships of war.
    MR. RYLANDScalled attention to the importance of the Vote after the statements made by the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. E. J. Reed). The Committee were asked to vote a sum on account of an expenditure of over £500,000 for a new iron-clad, in the face of a statement that that type of vessel was utterly objectionable. But the Committee were invited by the noble Lord opposite (Lord Eslington) to submit their consciences and their judgment to the judgment of the Admiralty. Hon. Members were to be shut out from all criticism, because they knew nothing compared with the Admiralty, to whom all was known. But what proof was there that the Admiralty had that amount of knowledge? Had the noble Lord looked back at the history of the Admiralty for the past 25 years? If he had looked back, he would find over the course of that quarter of a century a succession of the most monstrous blunders and dangerous mistakes. Looking back over that period it would be found that when everybody with judgment had come to the conclusion that our old system of three-deckers was obsolete, when as was said by naval officers in 1853, after the destruction of the Turkish Fleet by Russian shells, "there was an end to wooden ships, for they would be blown to lucifer matches," and that they were nothing better than slaughterhouses—in the teeth of the judgments of the greatest authorities in Europe—our Board of Admiralty after the French Administration had begun to construct iron vessels, our Board of Admiralty from both Parties—for the course was adopted by Sir John Pakington as well as the Duke of Somerset—after the idea of three-deckers had been exploded, spent millions of money on wooden line-of-battle ships that were now rotting at Portsmouth, if they had not long since been broken up for firewood. [" No, no!"] These were facts in history. Perhaps some hon. Members were not
    2006
    aware that after the period he had named, we actually, in 1860, spent £13,331,000 on our wooden Navy. And now what had become of those ships? Had they been of any service to the nation who paid for them, or had they done any good to the country? Not a single ship had been of real service, out of those built by the wasteful expenditure of many millions by the Duke of Somerset and Sir John Pakington. The next step taken by this infallible Admiralty Board was to rush at once into the building of iron ships of the Warrior and Black Prince type. In 1861 they proceeded to build 11 of that class with iron armour 4½ inches thick! 1861 was not so very long since, and then the Admiralty made that great mistake and found their ships with 4½ inch armour were unserviceable. Why, they might as well have covered the vessels with brown paper. No doubt in former days, when Sir John Faking-ton made the great blunder of re-constructing the British Navy on the "wooden-walls" principle, when wooden-walls were obsolete, no doubt if any criticism had been offered the reply would have been similar to that just made by the First Lord to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London (Mr. Goschen)—"We entirely accept the responsibility of the course we are prepared to take in the same direction followed by yourselves." We are prepared to go in this direction, said the First Lord, because we have the sanction of the eminent naval officers of the Board. Now, a short time ago he saw in The Times an interpretation of the expression " Board of Admiralty." The Board was described as a body of naval men who by no means adopted the science of administration as a profession, but tried their prentice hands at it for two or three years during their intervals of service afloat. [Admiral Sir WILLIAM EDMONSTONE: No.] Was it not a fact? ["No!"] Surely the hon. and gallant Admiral was not able to say that they were placed on the Board because of their previous knowledge of dockyards and shipbuilding, and, having been found competent, remained permanently in that position? He did not think that. Did he not know they were shifted every few years? [Admiral Sir WILLIAM EDMONSTONE: No, he does not.] They were continually changed, and the appoint-

    2007
    ment of naval men to such important offices as that of the management of dockyards was made for a term of only five years, or three years as suggested by an hon. Member. In three years they were expected to learn the entire business and acquire all the technical knowledge of this difficult question, and the House was told to bow down its intellect to their superior ability. The First Lord thought himself justified in making a complaint of the article in The Times of that morning, but he (Mr. Rylands) thought The Times had done a great public service; and the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. E. J. Reed) had added to the many good services he had rendered the country and the House in having brought the matter before their attention. However right hon. Gentlemen might give themselves mutual support by quoting one another's opinion, and however they might rely on the Board of Admiralty, that reliance was not shared by the country. He thought at the present time there was no doubt whatever that no branch of the Administration of this country stood so low in the opinion of the country as the Naval Service. [" No, no "] He was stating what he believed was a fact, and anyone who had watched the course of public opinion which found expression in the Press must be aware that there was great dissatisfaction in this respect. If his hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr. Seely) took the course he proposed, he should support him; for he did not think the Committee should allow themselves to support expenditure for vessels of this new type without insisting that the Government should take some satisfactory means to assure themselves that it was wise to adopt a proposal of the kind. Without such an assurance the Motion to report Progress would have his support.
    MR. HUNTsaid, that in the speech they had just heard they had an instance that naval subjects were not discussed in that House with that knowledge of the subject which hon. Members should possess. He should like to know the names of the wooden three-deckers laid down by Sir John Pakington and the Duke of Somerset. Lord Hampton, when at the Admiralty, distinguished himself by laying down a new class of ship which was quite in advance of the age, and which, in fact, had been fol-
    2008
    lowed as a model for subsequent ships. The hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) had talked of brown paper armour defences, but he could not have recollected the nature of the ordnance then brought against ships. As soon as armour of a certain thickness was adopted guns were made to pierce it, and the battle between iron plates and guns had been going on ever since. The hon. Member ought not to throw a slur over the able men who had formerly presided over the Admiralty, merely because they did not provide armour-plating of double the thickness required at that particular time. The hon. Member had certainly not contributed much to the information of the House. The hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. Seely) said the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. E. J. Reed) had staked his professional reputation upon the Inflexible being an unsafe ship. He (Mr. Hunt) had not heard the hon. Member say that; and he should be very much surprised to hear him make such an assertion. If the hon. Member for Pembroke did not do it for himself, he did not see why anyone should do it for him. He complained, not that the article in The Times was, but that the statement of fact was, not signed by some authority. The doubts suggested in The Times had previously been conveyed to the Admiralty, and the Admiralty, having gone into the question of the capabilities of the ship with reference to the points there mentioned, had fully made up their minds that there was no ground for such apprehensions. With regard to the suggestion that the matter should be referred to a Committee or Commission, he might point out that the public would not be likely to have more confidence in the decision of a Committee or Commission than it had in the decision of the Board of Admiralty. Whatever body the subject was referred to, the Admiralty must be eventually responsible. His noble Friend below the Gangway hit the right nail on the head when he said—"You must either trust the Board of Admiralty, or else get rid of them." That was what he himself said. Whatever fell from the hon. Member for Pembroke on such a subject was of course well worthy of consideration. As he had told the Committee, the hon. Gentleman had corresponded with the Admiralty on this matter. They had considered what the

    2009
    hon. Gentleman had to say, and had come to the conclusion that his apprehensions were groundless. No doubt the hon. Member was an authority on these matters, but he was not at the present time responsible to the public. The Admiralty, however, had responsible advisers, and they could not accept the hon. Member's doubts. The Admiralty stood upon their own responsibility, and it was impossible that a Committee of Supply could be a Committee to inquire into the kind of ships or a Council of Construction. The question was one of technicalities, of science, and of experiments, and the Executive must be trusted in this matter. If hon. Members did not trust the Executive, they should frankly say so and change it; but as long as they had an Executive they must trust it on a question of this sort, and he could not consent to trust it to a Committee or a Commission. The Admiralty had taken the greatest pains to ascertain the truth, and had come to an unanimous decision. As Head of the Department, he fully accepted the responsibility in this matter, and asked the Committee to give them their confidence.
    MR. E. J. REEDhoped nothing had fallen from him that was inconsistent with the doctrines laid down by the noble Lord opposite (Lord Eslington) and by the First Lord of the Admiralty. He entirely agreed, that it would be a great mistake for that House to attempt to override the well-considered decision of the Admiralty on a question of the kind. But he was sure the Committee would feel it was very desirable to have an assurance that the true question had been considered by the Admiralty. In the beginning of the discussion he thought it was a question of opinion, and was anxious to hear the decision of the Government; but he was placed in a difficulty, because the figures produced to-night by the late First Lord, and on which he now based his responsibility, were distinctly at variance with the figures which were at this moment recognized within the Admiralty, and which were handed to him as the figures relating to the ship. The two sets of figures were entirely inconsistent with each other. The right hon. Gentleman had read statements to-night in which it was distinctly laid down when the ship was designed that if her unarmoured
    2010
    ends were destroyed she would be submerged I foot extra. He had seen statements to the effect that the ship with 800 tons less of coal was submerged, not I foot, but more than 2 feet. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to assume that the statements read to the House by the late First Lord were unquestioned; whereas he maintained that they were utterly inconsistent with the paper which he had himself seen at the Admiralty. He concluded by expressing his firm conviction that the First Lord of the Admiralty had committed his responsibility to a decision without knowing the actual facts at issue.
    MR. HUNTexplained that he had said nothing About figures; but that the conclusion come to was, that if the ends of the ship were completely riddled by shells there would be enough of her left to ensure her stability.
    MR. SEELY,after what had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty, thought they ought to have a clear and distinct answer from his hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke to this question—"Do you think the Inflexible is a safe ship?"
    MR. E. J. REEDsaid, that what he had distinctly stated was that he believed the Inflexible might go to sea with perfect safety for any length of time, provided she did not enter on a naval engagement; but that if she did enter on a naval engagement and was attacked by a shell fire and her unarmoured ends were destroyed, she would be left without stability, and would then capsize.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 231 Noes 14: Majority 217.—(Div. List, No. 183.)
    (2.) Motion made, and Question put,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £1,207,300, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Expense of Naval Stores for Building, Repairing, and Outfitting the Fleet and Coast Guard, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1878."
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 220; Noes 5: Majority 224. — (Div. List, No. 184.)
    (3.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £1,042,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Expense of Steam Machinery and Ships built by Contract, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1878."
    MR. PARNELL,in moving that the Chairman report Progress, said, that he was glad the hon. and gallant Member for Waterford (Major O'Gorman) had shown, by challenging the decision of the House on the two last divisions, what obstruction really meant if carried out with determination.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."— (Mr. Parnell.)
    MR. HUNThoped that the hon. Member would not persevere in the Motion, as the Vote now before the Committee was one cognate to that which immediately preceded it.
    MAJOR O'GORMANsaid, he desired to make a few remarks, though he thoroughly believed he should be called to Order. It was often difficult to know when one was in Order in the House and when one was not. His reason for the proceeding he had adopted on that occasion was that on Friday night last, when the proposition was made that Ireland was entitled to the same borough franchise as England—[Cries of "Question!" and "Order!"] Oh, he did not want to speak all, if hon. Members did not wish to listen to him.
    MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, that having been offended by the conduct of the House on a former evening, when the subject under discussion was quite distinct from that now before the Committee, the hon. and gallant Member opposite (Major O'Gorman) had by acting as he had done that evening, being in a minority at one time of 15, and another of 5, taken a course which practically amounted to refusing Supply, thus abusing the forms of the House in a way which almost amounted to contempt of the House and its proceedings.
    MR. O'SHAUGHNESSYsaid, he had voted for the Government, and not with the hon. and gallant Member for Waterford, in the two divisions which had just been taken; but he must protest against the views of the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Newdegate). It must not be supposed that Irish Members were not entitled to refuse Supply under such circumstances as they might deem proper. Whenever Irish Members thought it necessary to take a particular line of action, they would not be precluded from doing so by any smallness of numbers.
    MR. BIGGARhoped the Committee would agree to report Progress.
    MR. O'CONNOR POWERalso protested against the doctrine of the hon. Member for North Warwickshire. Any two hon. Members had a right to divide the House.
    MR. E. J. REEDappealed to the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Parnell) to withdraw the Motion, as the Vote was one of urgent importance, and as the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord had evidently come down in great pain to further the Public Business.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
    Original Question put, and agreed to.
    Resolutions to be reported To-morrow, at Two of the clock.
    Committee to sit again upon Wednesday.

  SOLDIERS, SAILORS, AND MARINES (CIVIL EMPLOYMENT).

    INSTRUCTION TO SELECT COMMITTEE.
    MR. CHILDERS,in moving pro formâ the following Resolution:—
    "That it be an Instruction to the Select Committee on Soldiers, Sailors, and Marines (Civil Employment), That they have power to inquire into the expediency of employing Naval and Military Officers in Civil Departments,"
    said that, as Chairman of the Committee, he moved the Resolution in obedience to their instructions; but if pressed to to a division he should vote against it, as he personally disagreed with it.
    GATHORNE HARDYsaid, that if the Committee did the work referred to it, they would perform a good work; while if they extended their inquiry, there would be no chance of reporting this Session. He hoped, therefore, the Motion would not be pressed. Any inquiry as to the employment of officers in the Civil Service ought to be conducted by a separate Committee.
    Motion made, and Question,
    "That it be an Instruction to the Select Committee on Soldiers, Sailors, and Marines (Civil Employment), That they have power to inquire into the expediency of employing Naval and Military Officers in Civil Departments,"—(Mr. Childers,)
    —put, and negatived.
    House adjourned at half after One o'clock.

MINUTES.
— SAT FIRST—The Lord Bishop of Saint Albans—Took the Oath.
PUBLIC BILLS — First Reading—Metropolitan Commons Provisional Order (111), and referred to the Examiners; Pier and Harbour Orders Confirmation (Nos. 1 and 2) (112 and 113), and referred to the Examiners;
Second Reading—Local Government Board's Provisional Orders Confirmation (Belper Union, &c.) (87).
Committee—Oyster and Mussel Fisheries Order Confirmation (73); Tramways Orders Confirmation (Barton, &c.) (61).
Committee—Report—Pier and Harbour Orders Confirmation (No. 3) (100).
Report—Burial Acts Consolidation (80).
Third Reading—City of London Improvement Provisional Order Confirmation (Golden Lane, &c.) (82); Metropolis Improvement Provisional Orders Confirmation (72); Greenock Improvement Provisional Order Confirmation (83); General Police and Improvement (Scotland) Provisional Order Confirmation (Dumbarton) (68), and passed.
SAT FIRST.
The Lord Bishop of Saint Albans—Took the Oath.

BURIAL ACTS CONSOLIDATION BILL.
(The Lord President.)
(NO. 80.) REPORT OF AMENDMENTS.
Amendments reported (according to Order).
THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, that when a Bill came before their Lordships

1919
at this stage, the practice was that Amendments should be taken in the order in which they stood upon the Notice Paper; but if there were any new clauses or Amendments to be proposed which interfered with the principle of the measure, the usual course was to consider such new clauses first. The reason for that course was obvious. The introduction of a new clause or clauses into the Bill might affect such an alteration in its character as to require Amendments in its other provisions.
THE MARQUESS OF BRISTOLsaid, that in deference to what had just been stated by the Lord Chancellor, he would postpone, for the present, a Motion of which he had given Notice, to the effect that until such time as existing churchyards or consecrated burial grounds should be closed by the action of Parliament or otherwise, they should be available for the interment of those who should not, during life, have belonged to the Church of England as by law established, with such Christian and religious services conducted by authorized ministers as might be approved of by Parliament.
THE ARCHBISHOP OF YORKproposed, after Clause 4, to insert Clauses—
(Power to convey a portion of burial ground for widening of roads.)
(Power to convey a portion of burial ground for a mortuary.)
THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDONsaid, he saw no objection to the proposal of the most reverend Prelate.
Clauses, with verbal Amendments, agreed to, and inserted in the Bill.
THE ARCHBISHOP OF YORKrose to propose the insertion of the clause of which he had given Notice, and which he thought no more than a reasonable concession to the consciences of the clergy.
Moved, after Clause 73, to insert the following clause:—
"No incumbent or curate of the Church of England shall, after the passing of this Act, be liable to any penalty for refusing or omitting to perform the burial service of the Church at the funeral of any deceased person, if it can be shown to the satisfaction of the court that in such refusal or omission he acted under a reasonable belief that grave scandal and offence would be occasioned to the parishioners by the use of the
1920
said service: Provided that in every such case it shall be the duty of the minister declining to perform such service, if he would otherwise be required in law to perform it, to give notice of his refusal to the relatives or persons taking upon them the duty of providing for the burial of such deceased person, in such manner and within such time as to enable proper provision to be made for such burial: Provided, further, that the incumbent or curate so refusing shall at the time transmit a statement of such refusal, and of the grounds thereof, to the Bishop of the diocese."—(The Lord Archbishop of York.)
THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDONsaid, the most rev. Prelate who had just spoken advocated the clause he had now proposed on the ground that it was the wish of the Lower House of Convocation that the clause, or some provision of a similar nature, should be allowed to form part of the Bill. He trusted that when they came to consider another clause which was to he proposed by the noble Earl (the Earl of Harrowby), the most rev. Prelate would be found among those who regarded the wishes of the parochial clergy. On a former stage of the Bill this clause was submitted in very bad English; on this occasion its English was somewhat improved; but he thought that when its effect came to be understood out-of-doors it would not receive very general support. The clause gave power to a clergyman to decline to perform the burial service over a deceased person if he had reasonable belief that grave scandal and offence would be occasioned to the parishioners by the use of such service. If, however, the clergyman had power to decline to bury the body, some other person must have power to inter it. He asked their Lordships to consider what might be the effect of this provision in the agricultural districts. If, for example, the clergyman declined to perform the service over the relative of an agricultural labourer, it was not probable that any neighbouring clergyman would perform that service, and the labourer would have to get a lawyer to apply to a Bishop's Court. A more unhappy state of things he could not conceive, and he hoped, therefore, that their Lordships would reject the clause.
THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURYsaid, he could not agree with the noble Duke the Lord President. He hoped their Lordships would have some regard to those 4,000 clerical petitioners who some years ago urged upon their Lordships substantially the same proposal

1921
as that which was now made by his most rev. Brother; and the Ritual Commission, after four years of labour and intense attention, suggested the adoption of a provision very similar to this. The noble Duke seemed to fear that if a clergyman declined to read the service over a person who had died in the commission of a scandalous offence, no proper provision could be made for his interment. When this Bill was last before their Lordships, it contained a provision for the silent interment of those who dissented from the Church of England; and if that was sufficient for the most religious and best-conducted Dissenters, it would surely be enough for those who died in the commission of notorious crime. The matter was not by this clause left to the discretion of the incumbent or the Bishop—the clergyman must be able to prove to the satisfaction of the Court that he was justified in refusing to read the service. The cases which this clause was meant to meet were not unfrequent. In one case a man reeled out of a public-house in a state of absolute intoxication, and died in a ditch. The clergyman was required by law, in the presence of those who knew the whole transaction, to declare that it was good that this man had been taken out of the world, and to express over him those words of hope which were contained in the Burial Service. He did not believe that any difficulties would arise; and in those cases where the clergyman used the power given by this clause, the relatives of the deceased might avail themselves of the previous clause introduced into this Bill. He hoped, therefore, that their Lordships would accept this clause.
THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, that he was sensible of the excellence of the motives which had led the most rev. Prelates to propose and advocate this clause, and of those extreme cases in which it must be most painful to a clergyman to read the Burial Service of the Church over a deceased person. He did not say that a remedy was not well worthy of the attention of their Lordships, and hoped that at some future stage a proposal might be made to meet the difficulties of the case. But he asked their Lordships to pause before they accepted a clause which might have consequences more serious than the evils which it was intended to remedy. This
1922
clause gave power to the clergyman to refuse to read the Burial Service in cases which he reasonably believed would occasion grave scandal. There would no doubt arise more than isolated cases in which the opinion of the clergyman would be challenged, and in which some of the relatives of the deceased would call upon the clergyman to justify the step which he had taken. Clergymen were but men, and they often took an exaggerated and overstrained view with regard to the character of their own parishioners. Could their Lordships conceive anything more undesirable, more likely to occasion scandal, than that when a man was in his grave there should be opened over his body a fresh litigation—not as to whether some definite charge was proved or not, but a general, roving, vague, and undefined inquiry—not as to whether his character was bad but as to whether the clergyman acted under the reasonable belief that scandal would be occasioned to the parishioners by reading the Burial Service over him? Suppose the Court was of opinion that the clergyman was wrong, and that there was no reasonable ground for the conduct which be pursued, was the man to lie there with the stigma that he had been buried without the Burial Service, or was the service to be read over him long after he had been in his grave? There had never yet been a public investigation which could be compared to such an one as this. Again, was it contemplated that if one clergyman sought the reading the Burial Service in this particular case would occasion grave scandal, another clergyman was to be sought who would be less scrupulous? He appealed to their Lordships not to put in the power of the clergy so dangerous an authority, and not to shock the morals of the community by opening such a flood of indignation as would be occasioned by a clause of this kind.
EARL GRANVILLEsaid, that no doubt there was much to be said on both sides. The noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack had admitted that there was a grievance, and suggested that they should consider whether it should be remedied at another stage of the Bill. But the noble and learned Lord did not give any intimation whether the Government had really taken into consideration how the grievance was to be

1923
remedied, or explain what was the general character of the remedy which they proposed to adopt. He hoped that some noble Lord opposite would give them some intimation upon that point.
THE BISHOP OF LICHFIELDsaid, that the only Church in this country that had no power to determine who had and who had not belonged to her communion was the Church of England. The difficulty in this case arose chiefly because the Church had not sufficient powers of discipline over her members.
THE BISHOP OF OXFORDput it to their Lordships whether it was really a spectacle which could be regarded by any body of Christian people as desirable that a minister should be compelled at the grave side to say strong Christian words while believing them to be utterly untrue in the particular case to which he was applying them? As the law at present stood, the clergyman at the grave side was compelled to utter words which he and everyone who heard him knew to be a lie. It was nothing more nor less than that. Nor was it right to treat this difficulty as a merely clerical grievance; it was full of danger to the Church. The Nonconformist literature of the last 40 or 50 years showed that no topic had been urged so much against the Church of England as that she buried indiscriminately the greatest saint and the greatest sinner, with a service not intended for the one or for the other.
VISCOUNT CARDWELLsaid, that the grievance had been admitted by his noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack, and therefore it would be a waste of time to be urging it on their Lordships. The sole question was as to a remedy, and their Lordships ought to have some declaration on that head from Her Majesty's Government before they were called on to go to a division on the clause of the most rev. Prelate.
THE EARL OF HARROWBYapproved of the principle of the clause, but feared practical difficulties would present themselves. He hoped that the ability of the noble Duke, strengthened by the legal knowledge of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, would find a remedy that could be carried out.
THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELDthought their Lordships ought to dovote their attention to the clause immediately before them, and not to a question
1924
which involved considerations of the very gravest character. The noble Earl opposite (Earl Granville) had imputed to his noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack expressions of a much more precise nature than his noble and learned Friend had used. Certainly he thought it was not the intention of his noble and learned Friend to intimate to the House that the Government were going to deal with the question in the present Bill. Whether they would be able to deal with it at any time and under any circumstances was very doubtful. It involved the whole question of Church discipline; and he was quite certain that, when the principles involved in a system of Church discipline became the subject of discussion in their Lordships' House, noble Lords would be unanimous in at least one opinion—that the matter could not be treated by a casual clause in a Bill of this kind. With regard to the proposal of the most rev. Prelate he was entirely opposed to it. He believed it would, if adopted, lead to great dissensions and heartburnings in the country amongst laymen, and be a blew at the legitimate respect and influence of the clergy.
LORD SELBORNEexpressed his regret that the Government were not likely to give any assistance with regard to this part of the question. He believed the effect of the clause, coupled with that already introduced into the Bill, would be that the clergyman would know he could not safely refuse to read the Burial Service except in very gross and extreme cases, which he should be able to justify to a Court if afterwards prosecuted for his refusal. On the other hand, in such cases, the relatives and friends would be much too wise to institute proceedings. If the most rev. Prelate went to a division, he would support the clause.
THE ARCHBISHOP OF YORKsaid, that Her Majesty's Government seemed to have greatly changed their minds with regard to silent burial. They now objected to it in cases in which to read the Burial Service of the Church was a scandal; but when the Bill was introduced they thought it sufficiently good for Dissenters, who objected to the Church service. The question of the Burial Service of the Church could not be touched without some reference to points of Church discipline. He did

1925
not apprehend that such inconvenience would be caused to the friends of the deceased as the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack and the noble Duke seemed to anticipate in a case in which the clergyman of the parish might decline to read the Church service, because the clergyman would have to give them timely notice, and they could make other arrangements. If a clergyman should be brought into Court and be proved to have acted unjustly in refusing to read the Burial Service, a penalty might be inflicted on him for the neglect of that duty, and the decision of the Court would re-establish the character that had been assailed. This clause applied to a particular class of cases—namely, to cases where a whole parish had been scandalized. Their Lordships had heard a good deal about the Nonconformists and about the Clergy. The Clergy in the most legitimate way—namely, by a vote, which was unanimous, of the Lower House of Convocation of Canterbury—had asked their Lordships to remedy their grievance on this subject. Would their Lordships send back to the Church this answer—"We are about to modify the law of Christian burial and change it from what it has been for centuries? The only persons to whom we will give no relief, the only persons whom we cannot trust, are the Clergy of the Church of England." This was a matter on which he felt bound to ask their Lordships to divide.
On Question? Their Lordships divided:—Contents 89; Not-Contents 146: Majority 57.

CONTENTS.

Canterbury, Archp.

Lichfield, E.

York, Archp.

Lovelace, E.

Selkirk, E.

Saint Albans, D.

Shaftesbury, E.

Westminster, D.

Strafford, E.

Sydney, E.

Northampton, M.

Verulam, E.

Abingdon, E.

Cardwell, V.

Airlie, E.

Falmouth, V.

Belmore, E.

Halifax, V.

Clarendon, E.

Leinster, V. (D. Leinster.)

Dartrey, E.

Ducie, E.

Lifford, V.

Effingham, E.

Portman, V.

Essex, E.

Granville, E.

Bangor, L. Bp.

Harrowby, E.

Carlisle, L. Bp.

Ilchester, E.

Ely, L. Bp.

1926

Exeter, L. Bp.

Grinstead, L. (E. Ennis Killen.)

Gloucester and Bristol, L. Bp.

Gwydir, L.

Hereford, L. Bp.

Hawke, L.

Llandaff, L. Bp.

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

London, L. Bp.

Oxford, L. Bp.

St. Asaph, L. Bp.

Lawrence, L.

Winchester, L. Bp.

Leigh, L.

Lyveden, L.

Annaly, L.

Meldrum, L. (M. Huntly.)

Barrogill, L. (E. Caithness.)

Monson, L.

Beaumont, L.

Mont Eagle, L. (M. Sligo.)

Blantyre, L.

Mostyn, L.

Boyle, L. (E. Cork & Orrery.)

Penzance, L.

Romilly, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Rosebery, L. (E. Rosebery.)

Calthorpe, L.

Camoys, L.

Sandhurst, L.

Carew, L.

Sandys, L.

Carysfort, L. (E. Cart's-fort.)

Seaton, L.

Sefton, L. (E. Sefton.)

Castlemaine, L.

Selbornc, L.

Churchill, L.

Strafford, L. (V. Enfield.)

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Clonbrock, L.

Truro, L.

Colchester, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Coleridge, L. [Teller.]

Vernon, L.

Congleton, L.

Willoughby do Broke, L.

Crewe, L.

Crofton, L.

Wolverton, L. [Teller.]

Dacre, L.

Worlingham, L. (E. Gasford.)

Delamere, L.

Fitzhardinge, L.

Wrottesley, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Cairns, L. (L. Chancaller.)

Haddington, E.

Hardwicke, E.

Harewood, E.

Beaufort, D.

Jersey, E.

Bedford, D.

Kimberley, E.

Grafton, D.

Lanesborough, E.

Leeds, D.

Lindsey, E.

Manchester, D.

Lucan, E.

Marlborough, D.

Macclesfield, E.

Northumberland, D.

Malmesbury, E.

Richmond, D.

Manvers, E.

Somerset, D.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Minto, E.

Abergavenny, M.

Morley, E.

Bristol, M.

Morton, E.

Hertford, M.

Nelson, E.

Lansdowne, M.

Northbrook, E.

Salisbury, M.

Onslow, E.

Portarlington, E.

Amherst, E.

Portsmouth, E.

Beaconsfield, E.

Powis, E.

Beauchamp, E.

Radnor, E.

Bradford, E.

Redesdale, E.

Cadogan, E.

Romney, E.

Camperdown, E.

Stanhope, E.

Carnarvon, E.

Stradbroke, E.

Cathcart, E.

Suffolk and Berkshire, E.

Clonmell, E.

Coventry, E.

Tankerville, E.

De La Warr, E.

Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)

Derby, E.

Durham, E.

Waldegrave, E.

Eldon, E.

Westmorland, E.

Feversham, E.

Wharncliffe, E.

1927

Wicklow, E.

Grey de Radcliffe, L. (V. Grey de Wilton.)

Wilton, E.

Hammond, L.

Bangor, V.

Hampton, L.

Bridport, V.

Hanmer, L.

Clancarty, V. (E. Clantarty.)

Harlech, L.

Hardinge, V.

Hartismere, L. (L. Henniker.)

Hawarden, V. [Teller.]

Heytesbury, L.

Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.)

Houghton, L.

Inchiquin, L.

Powerscourt, V.

Kenlis, L. (M.Headfort.)

Sidmouth, V.

Lovel and Holland, L. (E. Egmont.)

Templetown, V.

Manners, L.

Chichester, L. Bp.

Moncreiff, L.

Lichfield, L. Bp.

Moore, L. (M. Drogheda.)

St. Albans, L. Bp.

Penrhyn, L.

Abercromby, L.

Raglan, L.

Airey, L.

Ramsay, L. (E. Dalhousie.)

Ashford, L. (V. Bury.)

Aveland, L.

Rivers, L.

Bagot, L.

Robartes, L.

Blackburn, L.

Sackville, L,

Bolton, L.

Saltersford, L. (E. Courtown.)

Braybrooke, L.

Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton.)

Scarsdale, L.

Sherborne, L.

Carlingford, L.

Silchester, L. (E. Long-ford)

Clanbrassill, L. (E. Roden.)

Sinclair, L.

Clermont, L.

Skelmersdale, L. [Teller.]

Clinton, L.

Cloncurry, L.

Sondes, L.

Colville of Culross, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Stewart of Garlies, L. (E. Galloway.)

de Ros, L.

De Saumarez, L.

Strathspey, L. (E. Sea-field.)

Digby, L.

Dinevor, L.

Talbot de Malahide, L.

Dorchester, L.

Templemore, L.

Dunmore, L. (E. Dunmore.)

Tredegar, L.

Tyrone, L. (M. Waterford.)

Dunsandle and Clanconal, L.

Ventry, L.

Eliot, L.

Vivian, L

Ellenborough, L.

Walsingham, L.

Elphinstone, L.

Waveney, L.

Forbes, L.

Winmarleigh, L.

Gage, L. (V. Gage.)

Wynford, L.

Gormanston, L. (V. Gormanston.)

Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

Resolved in the Negative.
THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDONproposed the insertion of a new clause after Clause 74 to obviate certain legal difficulties which might arise in cases where persons seized or entitled in fee, in tail, or for life, or having the beneficial interest in any land or manor, wished to give lands for the making of burial grounds. The clause enabled such persons by way of gift to grant and convey in fee-simple any quantity not exceeding one acre for , such purpose, without the consent of the
1928
person next in remainder where the grantor had a limited interest.
Clause agreed to.
THE EARL OF HARROWBYbegged to assure their Lordships that he would not have troubled them with the repetition of a discussion upon an Amendment, which he would not say the they had rejected, but that they had not accepted in a former stage of the Bill, which was before them, if he had not received expressions of their regret that they had not been able to attend on a former occasion, and were very desirous of having an opportunity of recording their opinions. For himself, he could only say that reflection had only confirmed him in the conviction that it was desirable, in the interest of the Church itself, to close this controversy as soon as possible, and that in the manner which he had ventured to suggest. He did not rest and he never had rested, this opinion on the admission of a right on the part Nonconformists to burial within the precincts of the parish churchyard, with other rites than those of the Church of England. He could never see the trace of such a right in law or history. To interment they, in common with other in the like predicament, had a right, but with no other rites than those of the National Church. He rested his plea, in the first place, upon the desirableness of welcoming to our parochial burying-ground the remains of our Non-conforming brethren with the religious rites, which would have been most agreeable to their own feelings when living, unless it could be proved that such licence would be dangerous to the religious character of the place; and in this, he believed, a great number of those who objected to the proposed change would concur. But they imagined to themselves dangers of disorder and irreligion, which he could not but conceive arose from not having read the proposed clause, which made greater provision for the character of the proceedings at the grave than any which now existed; provision which he had borrowed, with the permission of the noble Lord opposite, from his proposed Amendment. If any stronger could be found, he was ready to adopt them; but he was satisfied of their efficiency for their purpose. But further, he would press upon his Church the expediency of making this concession

1929
at once, and at the present moment. The Church of England was never politically stronger than at present—both Houses of Parliament being strongly devoted to her interests. But it might not be always so. If advantage were not taken of the opportunity now presented, what would be the result? The grievances of the Dissenters were now fully admitted by the proposal of the Government. The remedy had been withdrawn. What must ensue? Agitation continued, and bitter on one side; resistance, equally bitter and exasperated, on the other side; but would any noble Lord have the courage to come forward and say that concession must not be the ultimate result? No longer, however, concession, in character with all its healing influences, but the result of defeat, when concession could no longer be withheld. He recollected an expression of the late Dr. Chalmers, in regard to the abolition of the Corn Laws. After enumerating the economical effect of abolition, he said that he expected something from it still more valuable—that it would sweeten the breath of civil society—and so it had. Grant this concession for the feelings of Nonconformists, and he (the Earl of Harrow by) was satisfied that it would sweeten the breath of ecclesiastical society and breathe peace, when it ought never to be disturbed. He would now move the Amendment of which he had given Notice:
Moved, to insert, after Clause 75, the following clause:—
"When the relative or friend, having charge of the funeral of a person dying in any parish, or having had a right of interment in any parish, shall signify in writing to the incumbent of such parish, or to the curate in charge of the same, that it is his desire that the burial of the said person shall take place without the burial service of the Church of England, the said relative or person shall thereupon be at liberty to inter the deceased with such Christian and orderly religious services at the grave as he may think fit, or without any religious service; provided, that all regulations as to the position and making of the grave which would be in force in the case of a person interred with the service of the Church of England shall be in force as to such interment: Provided further, that notice of the time when it is the wish of the relatives or other persons as aforesaid to conduct the said interment shall be given to the incumbent or curate in charge at latest some time the day before: Provided further, that the said interment shall not take place at the time of or within half au hour before or after any service
1930
in the church, or of any funeral already appointed in the churchyard:
"If any person shall in any churchyard use any observance or ceremony or deliver any address not permitted by this Act or otherwise by any lawful authority, or be guilty of any disorderly conduct, or conduct calculated to provoke a breach of the peace, or shall under colour of any religious observance or otherwise in any churchyard wilfully endeavour to bring into contempt or obloquy the Christian religion, or the belief or worship of any church or denomination of Christians, or the ministers or any minister of any such church or denomination, he shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.—(The Earl of Harrowby.)
THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDONsaid, he had no objection to make to the course which the noble Earl had adopted;—he thought that, from what had taken place on a former occasion, the noble Earl was fully justified in asking their Lordships to give their opinion again on this question. He did not think it necessary to repeat the arguments which he had used before, further than to say that the grievance was a very small one, and only applied to a very limited section of the community, and that it was constantly diminishing. he desired, however, to point out that if this Amendment was carried the Church of England would be the only body in the country which could not set apart a portion of ground for exclusive interment of persons of their communion. Were the Nonconformists the only body of men who were to have liberty of conscience? Was the Church of England not entitled to the same freedom of conscience? The proposal of the noble Earl entirely ignored the conscience of the Church of England, and the religious equality which ought to prevail as regarded that body. The Amendment of the noble Earl, taken by itself, could not possibly work. In the first place, since the abolition of the church rates, the Nonconformists, not having equal rights in the churchyards so far as the burial of their dead was concerned, had not been called upon to contribute to the maintenance and upholding of the churchyards; yet the noble Earl proposed to give them an equal right with the members of the Church of England for the interment of the dead in the churchyards. One of the defects in the proposed clause was that no provision was made in the event of a Nonconformist minister refusing to read the burial service over one of his congrega-

1931
tion. Was it proposed that in such case the clergyman attached to the church should be compelled to perform the Church Service? These were difficulties which the noble Earl should have provided against, if he wished his clause to pass.
EARL GRANVILLEreminded the noble Duke that the maintenance of the churchyards by Dissenters was entirely voluntary. If, however, the clause were adopted, and if the noble Duke proposed an additional rate for the imposition of a common rate upon all for the maintenance of the churchyard, such a clause should have his support. With regard to the other objection of the noble Duke, it should be remembered that a clergyman was now under an obligation to bury a Dissenter if called upon by his relatives to do so.
EARL NELSONobserved that the opinion of the Clergy on the subject of the clause had been taken, and it appeared that no fewer than 11,500 had signed a declaration against it. There was, it was true, a proviso at the end of the clause to prevent scandals; but as there was no prosecutor, he feared the proviso would have very little effect. For his part, he believed that if the Bill passed the landed proprietors of England, being enabled to do so, would by making grants of land remove whatever grievance now existed.
THE MARQUESS OF BRISTOLwas understood to support the clause.
LORD DINEVOR, in supporting the clause, said, he had received a letter from a clergyman of the Church, in which he said that but for Dissenters Wales would be a heathen country. He had himself had much intercourse with the Nonconformists of Wales, and had learned to regard them as brethren; and he held that they had a just right to have a funeral service performed by their own ministers over their relatives and friends in the parish churchyards. He hoped their Lordships would agree to the clause.
On Question? Their Lordships divided:·—Contents 127; Not-Contents 111: Majority 16.

CONTENTS.

Canterbury, L. Archp.

Cleveland, D.

Devonshire, D.

Bedford, D.

Grafton, D.

1932

Saint Albans, D.

Camoys, L.

Somerset, D.

Carlingford, L.

Westminster, D.

Carrington, L.

Castlemaine, L.

Ailesbury, M.

Churchill, L.

Lansdowne, M.

Clermont, L.

Northampton, M.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Ripon, M.

Clonbrock, L.

Coleridge, L.

Abingdon, E.

Congleton, L.

Airlie, E.

Cottesloe, L.

Camperdown, E.

Crewe, L.

Cathcart, E.

Crofton, L.

Chichester, E.

Delamere, L.

Clarendon, E.

D'L'Isleand Dudley, L.

Cowper, E.

De Mauley, L.

Daltrey, E.

Dinevor, L.

Ducie, E.

Dorchester, L.

Durham, E.

Dormer, L.

Effingham, E.

Elgin, L. (E. Elgin and Kincardine.)

Essex, E.

Granville, E.

Emly, L.

Harrowby, E.

Fitzhardinge, L.

Ilchester, E.

Grinstead, L. (E.Ennis-killen.)

Jersey, E.

Kimberley, E.

Gwydir, L.

Lichfield, E.

Hammond, L.

Lucan, E.

Hanmer, L.

Minto, E.

Hare, L. (E. Listowel.)

Morley, E.

Hatherley, L.

Northbrook, E.

Houghton, L.

Portsmouth, E.

Kenmare, L. (E. Kenmare.)

Selkirk, E.

Shaftesbury, E.

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

Stradbroke, E.

Strafford, E.

Lawrence, L.

Suffolk and Berkshire, E.

Leigh, L.

Lyttelton, L.

Sydney, E.

Lyveden, L.

Verulam, E.

Moncreiff, L.

Monson, L. [Teller.]

Bangor, V.

Mont Eagle, L. (M. Sligo.)

Cardwell, V.

Eversley, V.

Mostyn, L.

Falmouth, V.

O'Hagan, L.

Halifax, V.

Oxenfoord, L. (E. Stair.)

Leinster, V. (D. Leinster.)

Penzance, L.

Ribblesdale, L.

Lifford, V.

Robartes, L.

Powerscourt, V.

Romilly, L.

Rosebery, L. (E. Boseberg.)

Exeter, L. Bp.

Oxford, L. Bp.

Sandhurst, L.

St. Asaph, L. Bp.

Seaton, L.

Selborne, L.

Abercromby, L.

Sherborne, L.

Aberdare, L.

Somerton, L. (E. Nor-manton.)

Balfour of Burley, L.

Barrogill, L (E. Caith-ness.)

Stafford, L.

Strafford, L. (V. En-field.)

Bateman, L.

Beaumont, L.

Strathspey, L. (E. Sea-field.)

Blackburn, L.

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

Suffield, L.

Talbot de Malahide, L.

Breadalbane, L. (E. Breadalbane.)

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Ventry, L.

Brodrick, L. (V. Midle-ton.)

Vernon, L.

Waveney, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Wolverton, L.

Wrottesley, L.

Calthorpe, L.

1933

NOT-CONTENTS.

Cairns, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Ashford, L. (V. Bury.)

Bagot, L.

Brancepeth, L. (V. Boyne.)

Manchester, D.

Marlborough, D.

Braybrooke, L.

Northumberland, D.

Clanbrassill, L. (E. Roden.)

Richmond, D.

Clinton, L.

Abergavenny, M.

Cloncurry, L.

Bath, M.

Colchester, L.

Bristol M.

Colville of Culross, L.

Hertford, M.

do Ros, L.

Salisbury, M.

Do Saumarez, L.

Dunmore, L. (E. Dun-more.)

Amherst, E.

Beaconsfield, E.

Dunsandle and Clanconal, L.

Beauchamp, E.

Bradford, E.

Ellenborough, L.

Cadogan, E.

Elphinstone, L.

Carnarvon, E.

Forbes, L.

Clonmell, E.

Forester, L.

Coventry, E.

Gage, L. (V. Gage.)

De La Warr, E.

Grey de Radcliffe, L.

Derby, E.

(V. Grey de Wilton.)

Feversham, E.

Hampton, L.

Graham, E. (D. Mont-rose.)

Harlech, L.

Hartismere, L. (L. Henniker.)

Haddington, E.

Hardwicke, E.

Hawke, L.

Harewood, E.

Heytesbury, L.

Harrington, E.

Howard de Walden, L.

Lanesborough, E.

Kenlis, L. (M. Head-fort.)

Lindsey, E.

Manvers, E.

Ker, L. (M. Lothian.)

Mar and Kellie, E

Level and Holland, L. (E. Agmont.)

Morton, E.

Nelson, E.

Manners, L.

Onslow, E.

Moore, L. (M. Drogheda.)

Portarlington, E.

Powis, E.

O'Neill, L.

Redesdale, E.

Oriel, L. (V. Masse-reene.)

Romney, E.

Stanhope, E.

Ormonde, L. (M. Or-monde.)

Tankerville, E.

Vane, E. (M. London-decry.)

Penrhyn, L.

Raglan, L.

Waldegrave, E.

Ramsay, L. (E. Dalhousie.)

Wicklow, E.

Bridport, V.

Sackville, L.

Clancarty , (E. V. Clan-carty.)

Saltorsford, L. (E. Cour-town.)

Doneraile, V.

Scarsdale, L.

Silchester, L. (E. Long-ford.)

Hardinge, V.

Hawarden, V. [Teller.]

Sinclair, L.

Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.)

Skelmersdale, L. [Teller.]

Sidmouth, V.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Strathallan, V.

Stewart of Garlies, L. (E. Galloway.)

Templetown, V.

Bangor, L. Bp.

Tredegar, L.

Carlisle, L. Bp.

Tyrone, L. (M. Water-ford.)

Chichester, L. Bp.

Ely, L. Bp.

Walsingham, L.

Hereford, L. Bp.

Willoughby de Broke, L.

Lichfield, L. Bp.

Llandaff, L. Bp.

Winmarleigh, L.

St. Albans, L. Bp.

Wynford, L.

Airey, L.

Zouche of Haryng-worth, L.

Amendment agreed to.
THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDON: After the division which has now been taken upon the clause moved by the noble Earl, I shall ask your Lordships to adjourn the further consideration of this Bill until this day week, in order that I may consult my Colleagues as to the course we shall take.
Further consideration of the Report put off to Monday next.
House adjourned at half past Seven o'clock, 'till To-morrow, Eleven o'clock.