Sitting of 19 March 1877

MINUTES.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee—NAVY ESTIMATES.
WAYS AND MEANS—considered in Committee—Consolidated Fund (£8,428,458) *.
PUBLIC BILLS—Second Reading—Consolidated Fund (£1,213,502 6s. 9d.)
Considered as amended—Supreme Court of Judicature * [103]; High Court of Justice (Costs) * [99].
Third Reading—Exchequer Bills and Bonds (£700,000) * [114], and passed.

QUESTIONS.
  THE CATTLE PLAGUE—RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE ROYAL AGRICULTURAL SOCIETY.

    QUESTION.
    MR. ELLIOTasked the Vice President of the Council, If the attention of the Government has been called to the Resolution passed by the Council of the Royal Agricultural Society, on the 7th of March, which reads as follows:—
    "That, seeing the precautions hitherto adopted for the prevention of outbreaks of rinderpest and other contagious diseases of animals in Great Britain have not been successful, it is the opinion of this Council that nothing short of the total prohibition of the importation of live stock from European ports will meet the exigencies of the case;"
    and also, seeing that another serious outbreak of cattle plague has been found out, Whether the Government is prepared to adopt the precautions suggested by the Resolution mentioned?
    VISCOUNT SANDON: Sir, I need hardly say that the attention of the Government has been called to the resolution referred to; and I may add that many other Memorials from various quarters have reached the Government on the same subject. The Lord President has been taking most stringent measures, as the House is aware, to prevent the spread of this terrible disorder, and as no fresh outbreaks have occurred in Hull since March 7, in Lincolnshire since March 9, and in London since March 12, there appears to be good grounds for hoping that the disease is being satisfactorily grappled with. The accounts from abroad on the same subject, I may also say, are favourable.
    106
    The proposal to stop the importation of all stock, fat and store, from all parts of Europe is a very grave one, and considering its possible effect upon the food supply of the country, is one which requires the greatest consideration. Before coming to a decision upon the course which is desirable, the Government is of opinion that it would be necessary to hear more fully the views of those interested in the matter, both in town and country, and they will therefore propose forthwith a Parliamentary inquiry into the question.
    Afterwards, in reply to Sir GEORGE JENKINSON,
    VISCOUNT SANDONsaid, it was the intention of the Government to move for a Committee of the House on the subject, and he should give due Notice of the Motion.

ARMY—SOLDIERS IN HOSPITAL, 1875-1876.—QUESTION.
DR. LUSHasked the Secretary of State for War, If he will inform the House what was the average number of soldiers in hospital during the years 1875 and 1876 respectively?
MR. GATHORNE HARDY: Sir, in 1875, exclusive of the Malta Royal Fencible Artillery and of black troops in the West Indies, the Coast of Africa, Ceylon, and China, in a strength of 169,235 non-commissioned officers and men, 7,680—being at the rate of 45·38 per 1,000 of the strength—were constantly in hospital. If the Colonial troops above mentioned are added—strength, 2,212; daily sick, 113—the proportion of those constantly in hospital will be 45·45 per 1,000. For 1876, as the annual Returns from commands abroad have not yet been received, the statistics can only be given approximately, but probably very closely. Those constantly in hospital in 165,905 noncommissioned officers and men were 7,528—being at the rate of 45·37 per 1,000 men. Adding Colonial troops—strength, 2,037; daily sick, 96—the proportion of those constantly sick in hospital for the year will be 45·39 per 1,000. The distribution of those constantly sick in hospital in 1875 in the various commands may be seen in the Army Medical Department Report for that year, page 1.

IRELAND—BANKRUPTCY COURTS IN CORK AND BELFAST.—QUESTION.
MR. MURPHYasked Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, Whether it is the intention of the Government to make provision in the present Session for conferring Bankruptcy jurisdiction upon the Courts of the Recorders of Cork and Belfast when constituted under the County Officers and Courts (Ireland) Bill, now before the House; and, if not, whether, having regard to the declaration of the Lord Chancellor of England (when introducing the Judicature (Ireland) Bill on the 16th day of March last year) as to the claims of Cork and Belfast for Local Bankruptcy Courts, he is prepared to state if the subject is under the consideration of the Government, with the view to legislation?
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. GIBSON): I beg to inform the hon. Gentleman that some provisions for conferring bankruptcy jurisdiction upon the local Courts in Belfast and Cork are contemplated this Session by the County Officers and Courts Bill, one section of which will enact that no additional salary should be paid to the officers of the Courts of Belfast and Cork by reason of any Bankruptcy jurisdiction being afterwards conferred upon them. As to the second part of the Question, the Government is fully impressed with the importance of the topic and the deep interest felt in it in Cork and Belfast. The matter could not be satisfactorily dealt with in either of the Irish Law Bills now before the House; but it will receive the early attention of the Government; and I intend, during the Easter Recess, to confer with the Lord Chancellor of Ireland on the subject.

TURKEY—ALLEGED OUTRAGES—BULGARIA.—QUESTION.
MR. JAMESasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he can give the House any information concerning an attack which is alleged to have been made last month upon the village of Karatzova, in the Sandjak of Salonica, by a force of Bashi Bazouks from Salonica; whether it is true that the male population were severely beaten, the women outraged, and the community plundered of its entire moveable property; if any communication
108
has been addressed and answer received from Her Majesty's Consul at Salonica on the subject; whether any other reports have been recently received from official or other sources on the internal condition of Bulgaria; whether, if such reports have not been received, Her Majesty's Government have taken steps to obtain accurate and immediate information from that province; and, whether he will lay upon the Table any Despatches which Her Majesty's Consuls may have written with reference to the local measures of relief now being carried out in that district either by the Turkish Government or by private individuals?
MR. BOURKE: In reply, Sir, I have to say that no Reports have been received at the Foreign Office with regard to any outrages at the place mentioned in the Question of the hon. Member. But a Report has been received from the Consul at Salonica with regard to outrages of a very similar character to those described in the Question of the hon. Member which he alleged to have been perpetrated at a village called Kopsotzka, not in Bulgaria, but in Macedonia. Probably that is the occurrence to which the Question of the hon. Member substantially alludes. It appears from the Report, that soldiers were sent in February last to this place, and then outrages very similar to those described are alleged to have taken place. When these outrages came to the knowledge of the Consul at Salonica he made strong representations on the subject, and a Commission was issued, composed of one Mussulman and one Christian, appointed by the Consul. In the meantime, the Governor of Salonica has ordered the arrest of the officer in command of the troops; he has also ordered his trial upon the spot. The strongest possible representations have been made through Mr. Jocelyn and the Consul at Salonica both to the Pashas and to the Porte, and they have said that they will cause justice to be done in the matter. I may state generally that it is the duty of all Consuls and Vice Consuls to report upon the condition of their districts without any special instructions. Reports of this kind are from time to time received by the Embassy, and would naturally be reported in due time to the Foreign Office. I may mention that Her Majesty's Government have made arrange-

109
ments for strengthening the Consular Staff in Bulgaria, and obtaining more direct Reports from that province. As I said the other day, further Papers on the affairs of Turkey are being prepared, and they will contain Reports of the character desired in the Question.

THE CATTLE PLAGUE—IRISH CATTLE.

  QUESTION.
  COLONEL KINGSCOTEasked the Vice President of the Council, seeing that a cargo of Irish Cattle were landed at the new docks at Sharpness, between Gloucester and Bristol, on the 26th February, and driven thence, without any inspection, through the country to Bristol, a distance of twenty miles, Whether there are other ports in the United Kingdom at which Irish or other Cattle can be similarly landed without inspection; and, whether any local authority has power to prevent this; and, if not, whether the Privy Council will at once exercise their power of inspection to put a stop to this state of things?
  VISCOUNT SANDON: Sir, cattle coming from Ireland or from Scotland or from any port in England can be landed at any place in England and be moved inland, subject to such regulations of the local authorities and other regulations affecting English animals as are for the time being in force. In short, as soon as landed they are considered and treated as English animals. In 1874 10 Inspectors were appointed to the principal ports at which Irish cattle are usually landed, for the purpose of informing the Privy Council and the local authorities of the existence of foot-and-mouth disease among Irish animals, but the Privy Council have never attempted, and will never attempt, to treat Irish cattle like foreign cattle. The local authorities have power, under the Animals Order of 1875, to prohibit or regulate the movement of cattle that have been herded or in contact with animals affected with foot-and-mouth disease. Under these circumstances, the Privy Council are not disposed to interfere with the action of the local authority.

RAILWAY TIME TABLES.—QUESTION.
MR. DALRYMPLE (for Mr. STEWART HARDY)asked the President of the Board
110
of Trade, Whether the Board of Trade can take steps to induce the various Railway Companies to publish the alterations in their time-tables at least seven days before they take effect?
SIR CHARLES ADDERLEY: Sir, I had an opportunity this morning, in a conference with the Railway Association, to ask them if so desirable an arrangement as suggested could be made. They quite agreed that it was as desirable for the Companies as for the public; there were, however, considerable difficulties in making such an arrangement general, but they promised to take the suggestion into careful consideration, and with the hope of being able to carry it into effect.

POST OFFICE—MAILS TO AMERICA—TENDERS.—QUESTION.
MR. BAXTERasked the Postmaster General, If the Cunard Company are now carrying Her Majesty's Mails between this Country and North America on precisely the same terms as those which have been refused by the White Star Line?
LORD JOHN MANNERS,in reply, said, that in September last the Post Office communicated to the various steamship companies plying from British ports to New York, terms which it was proposed to offer after the close of last year for the conveyance of the United States Mails, and invited them to tender ships month by month upon such terms. The Cunard Company, the Guion Company, the Anchor Company, and the North German Lloyds had carried mails on the proposed terms for the last three months, and had agreed to do so for next month, and within the last day or two he had received a similar offer from the Inman Company, which proposed to commence the service on the 29th of this month. From the White Star Line no tender on those terms had been received.

TURKEY—THE CONFERENCE AT CONSTANTINOPLE.—QUESTION.
SIR CHARLES W. DILKEasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, with reference to Despatch No. 126 (Turkey, No. 2), indexed as "Conference, possible failure of. Measures to be adopted by Her Majesty's Government," and with reference to Sir Henry Elliot's Despatch of January 24th, men-

111
tioned in No. 238 (Turkey, No. 2), Whether the reasons which caused the withholding from Parliament of portions of the former and of the whole of the latter Despatch still hold good, or whether they could now be communicated to Parliament without detriment to the public service?
MR. BOURNE: Sir, the passages in the despatch alluded to by the hon. Baronet opposite are passages which are contained in a despatch to Lord Lyons containing a confidential conversation which took place between Lord Derby and the French Ambassador in England. Under these circumstances, it would not be convenient for the public service to produce them. The second paper referred to by the hon. Baronet is merely a formal despatch, of which the substance is recited in the answer. It would not be worth while to publish it separately; but if the hon. Baronet would like to see a copy of it I shall be happy to show it to him.

INTEMPERANCE—GROCERS' LICENCES.

  QUESTION.
  SIR EARDLEY WILMOTasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he can hold out any hope of Her Majesty's Government introducing a measure during the present Session, having for its object the mitigation of the serious and growing evils arising from intemperance; and, whether, if they consider the evidence on this question at present too incomplete and unsatisfactory to warrant them in the introduction of any measure, they will take steps, either by the appointment of a Royal Commission, or other mode they may deem most expedient, for the purpose of inquiring if the evils alleged to exist, are ascribable to defects or abuses in the liquor traffic; and, if so, with the further object of ascertaining how far they can be removed or lessened by wise and practical legislation?
  MR. ASSHETON CROSS,in reply, said, he had to inform his hon. Friend that inquiry was already taking place into the subject. A Committee of the House of Lords was appointed last year to inquire into the subject, and he believed that that Committee had been reappointed and was still sitting. With regard to the question which was before the House the other day—namely, the
  112
  operation of grocers' licences, so much difference of opinion appeared to exist as to what was the actual state of the facts, that the two hon. Members for the City of Edinburgh when on deputations really gave different versions of the state of things. He thought that as far as that went it might be necessary that a small Commission should issue to inquire. Otherwise, it was not the intention of the Government to take any measure in relation to the subject.

  SPAIN—CUSTOM HOUSE OFFICIALS.

    QUESTION.
    MR. BELLasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he is aware that the Custom House officials in Spain are permitted to retain for their own use one half of certain enormous fines levied upon shipping in Spanish ports; and, what steps have been taken to prevent a repetition of such conduct on the part of the Spanish authorities as that of the case of the "Spray," of West Hartlepool, which vessel was detained in the port of Palma, threatened with the imposition of double duty, and a fine amounting to about 1,333, for a mere clerical error in her manifest?
    MR. BOURKE: Sir, Her Majesty's Government understand that it is the practice for Spanish Custom House officials to retain for their own use one-half of the fines levied upon shipping in Spanish ports. Instructions were sent by telegraph to Her Majesty's Charge d'Affaires at Madrid to endeavour to obtain the release of the Spray, and he reported, in reply, on the 10th of August, that orders had been telegraphed from Madrid to Palma for the ship's release. Her Majesty's Government have repeatedly and strongly remonstrated with that of Spain in every instance which has come to their knowledge of fines being improperly levied in Spanish ports upon British shipping, and the return of the fine in such cases has been demanded. He need hardly say that they should continue to do so in future.

  MERCANTILE MARINE — THE STEAMSHIP "PRINCE."—QUESTION.
  MR. BURTasked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether he intends to prosecute the owners of the steamship

  113
  "Prince," lost with all hands in December last, for over-loading, seeing that she had a cargo of pig-iron greatly in excess of 600 tons, the latter quantity being that to which she was compelled to unload, in October last, by order of the Board of Trade?
  SIR CHARLES ADDERLEY: Sir, until the formal inquiry has been concluded it is impossible for me to say whether there is any ground for prosecuting the owners of the Prince. The Prince on her former voyage, in October, was compelled to unload down to 634 tons. Whether she was loaded above that amount on her last voyage, I have no means as yet of certainly knowing.

  JEWS IN SERVIA AND ROUMANIA.

    QUESTION.
    MR. SERJEANT SIMONasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he will state what information, if any, has been received at the Foreign Office respecting the recent expulsions of the Jews from the interior of Servia and Roumania; and, whether he will lay the Papers before the House in order that they might be printed with the other Papers relating to the Jews of those countries as already ordered by the House?
    MR. BOURKE: Sir, many representations have been received at the Foreign Office, and it appears that the last occurrence that has taken place in reference to this subject was with regard to a certain number of Jewish families who were removed from their homes in Moldavia by the order of the Prefect. On inquiries being made, Colonel Mansfield reported on the 19th of January that the Austrian Vice Consul had been to Moldavia to investigate, and had found that from 90 to 120 families, from 60 communes, had been expelled. Colonel Mansfield and the Austrian Vice Consul there made a representation on the subject, and the Prefect was ordered by the central authority to restore these unhappy people to their homes, and that was, to a certain extent, carried out; but, unfortunately, in the meantime, their houses had been let or assigned to other persons, and their effects and furniture pillaged. Colonel Mansfield was instructed by telegraph on the 19th of January to inquire into the alleged outrages on the Jews, and
    114
    to take such measures as he properly could for their protection, and he at once telegraphed to Mr. St. John to make inquiry. I am happy to say that Colonel Mansfield has since been able to report that the Prefect who gave orders for the expulsion of the Jews has been superseded, and the authorities at Bucharest have promised that such occurrences shall not take place again. Colonel Mansfield states that he has no doubt that the representations of the British and Austrian Governments are producing the proper effect on the condition of the Jews in Moldavia. Papers relating to the treatment of the Jews are being prepared, and the recent despatches will be included.
    MR. SERJEANT SIMON: May I call attention to the question with regard to expulsions from Servia?
    MR. BOURKE: I am very sorry to say that I have omitted to see that part of the Question, but I shall be prepared to answer it if the hon. and learned Gentleman will repeat it to-morrow.

  TURKEY—RETURN OF SIR HENRY ELLIOT TO CONSTANTINOPLE.

    QUESTIONS.
    MR. W. E. FORSTERasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether it is true, as stated in the "Standard" of March 16, that Her Majesty's Government have come to the conclusion to instruct Sir Henry Elliot to return very shortly as Ambassador to Constantinople?
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Sir, I asked my noble Friend Lord Derby to let me know what had passed on this subject, and he informs me that he has been in communication with Sir Henry Elliot on the subject of his return to Constantinople. Lord Derby expressed his wish that Sir Henry Elliot should go back at once to resume his diplomatic duties, if his state of health allowed. Sir Henry Elliot stated his readiness to place himself at the disposal of Her Majesty's Government, if his services were required; but he did not conceal the fact that he had returned to England in the hope of being able to enjoy a little rest, of which he stood much in need, after the unusually arduous and exhausting labours of the last few months. Lord Derby informs me that in these circum-

    115
    stances it would not be fair for the Government to avail themselves of his offer. Therefore, Sir Henry Elliot will remain in England on leave, and temporary arrangements are being made to supply his place at the Embassy during his absence.
    MR. W. E. FORSTER: I wish to ask, Whether the Government can afford the House information as to what are the temporary arrangements referred to? Of course, I do not mean to ask who is the person to be sent out; but I wish to know whether it is intended that the person sent out shall take the place of Sir Henry Elliot as British Ambassador at Constantinople?
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: If the right hon. Gentleman will give Notice of that Question I will answer it to-morrow.

  ARMY—OFFICERS' FORAGE.

    QUESTION.
    MR. O'BEIRNEasked the Secretary of State for War, If it is the intention of the Treasury to continue the stoppages from officers' pay for the foraging of horses they are compelled to keep for the public service, taking into consideration the abolition of purchase in the Army, as also the Correspondence on this subject that passed between the Treasury and War Office, dated 24th December 1859, and 23rd January 1860, wherein it is stated that the sole reason that could be alleged to justify their continuance was that it might increase the marketable value of commissions?
    MR. GATHORNE HARDY,in reply, said, it was not his intention in the present Session to make any proposal to the Treasury upon the subject.

  TURKEY—ALLEGED OUTRAGES IN BULGARIA.—QUESTIONS.
  MR. H. B. SAMUELSONasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether his attention has been drawn to a statement in the "Times" of Friday, March 16th, dated Pera, March 6, to the effect that outrages are daily being perpetrated by the inhabitants of Turkish villages near Adrianople against the people, and especially the women, of the Bulgarian villages of Gul-Bounar, of Souroute, and of Koumkeui, in the same neighbourhood; whether the British
  116
  Consul at Adrianople has been instructed to communicate by telegraph to the Foreign Office all flagrant cases of Turkish oppression that come to his knowledge; and, whether he does so; on what date, if at all, and from whom, tidings arrived at the Foreign Office of the above - mentioned outrages; and, whether Her Majesty's Government have made any fresh remonstrances to the Ottoman Porte in consequence of them?
  MR. BOURKE: Sir, with regard to the first part of the Question, we have received no intelligence whatever of the outrages described by the hon. Member, but as Reports have appeared in the public prints we have telegraphed to Constantinople instructing Mr. Jocelyn to find out whether the reports have any foundation, and directing him if has heard nothing of them to communicate with the Vice Consul at Adrianople. As to the second part, I have already answered it. It is the duty of all Consuls, without any special instruction whatever, to report anything of this kind to the Ambassador at Constantinople, and we have no reason to believe that that has not been done in this matter. The third part I have already answered, and the fourth does not arise.
  MR. O'REILLYasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If he will state what Consular or other agents the Government have at present in the European provinces of Turkey; and whether those agents have orders to report on the present condition of those provinces as regards safety of life, property, and honour of the inhabitants; the administration of justice; the collection of the taxes; and the prevalence or absence of brigandage and outrages; also how far the different measures of reform announced by the Turkish Government within the last two years have been carried into effect; and, whether any such Reports have lately been received?
  MR. BOURNE,in reply, said, that the names of our Consular Agents in the Provinces of European Turkey were to be found in the Foreign Office List. He would read them if it were the wish of the House to hear them, or he would put the names into the hands of the hon. Member. Our Consuls had general instructions to send reports as regarded the safety of the lives, property, and honour of the inhabitants of these Provinces, and

  117
  many Reports on this subject and also some respecting the administration of justice and collection of taxes appeared in the Blue Book. With regard to the carrying out of measures of reform, he did not think there were any special Reports on the subject; but the Papers were being prepared.
  MR. FAWCETTwished to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs a Question arising out of his Answer to the Question of the hon. Member for Frome (Mr. H. B. Samuelson), and if the hon. Gentleman would prefer to answer to-morrow, he would put the Question to-morrow. The account of the outrages alleged to have been committed near Adrianople had been given in a letter dated the 6th of March. He understood I the Under Secretary to say that, in case of emergency, the Consuls were instructed to telegraph to the Foreign Office. As these outrages were described in a letter dated Pera, March 6, he wanted to know whether the Foreign Office had received any information from Pera with respect to the statements contained in that letter; whether that information made any reference to those outrages; and if no information had been received, what was the cause of the delay?
  MR. BOURKE,in reply, said, they had received telegrams from Pera since March 6, and he certainly would have mentioned the fact if any of the telegrams related to the alleged outrages. What he stated was that they had received at the Foreign Office no communication whatever with respect to the accounts referred to. In consequence of these accounts his noble Friend the Earl of Derby had telegraphed to Mr. Jocelyn to know whether he had heard anything on the subject, and, if he had not, he was instructed to send to Adrianople to make inquiries.
  MR. FAWCETTasked, Whether, as the Foreign Office had communicated with Mr. Jocelyn by telegraph, they had directed him to reply by telegraph if he had any information to give about the outrages; and when such answer might be expected to arrive?
  MR. BOURKE,in reply, said, he might state as a general rule that when Mr. Jocelyn, or any other of Her Majesty's servants, received a message of that kind by telegraph, his own common sense would be sufficient to show him what he ought to do.
  MR. FAWCETTgave Notice that on Thursday next he would ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he would communicate to the House the result of the telegrams?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONgave Notice that he would to-morrow ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether it was probable that any further Papers relating to Turkey would be laid on the Table in time to be considered by the House before Easter?
  MR. HARDCASTLEgave Notice that he would to-morrow ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he has reason to believe that the Turkish Consuls in this country transmitted to Constantinople news of all brutal outrages committed in England; and that such outrages were chronicled in the journals of Constantinople to prove the lawless state of England and as a fair specimen of the social manners of this country?

  IMMIGRATION OF CHINESE COOLIES TO QUEENSLAND.—QUESTION.
  MR. MARK STEWARTasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, If it is the case that there is an Act now waiting for the Royal Assent, passed by the Government of Queensland, for the purpose of restricting the immigration of Chinese Coolies into that colony; and, if so, whether Her Majesty's Government would consent to the same?
  MR. J. LOWTHER: Sir, a Bill subjecting Asiatic and African immigrants to special payments and obligations, but not purporting to be enacted for the purpose of restricting Chinese immigration, has been passed by the Parliament of Queensland and reserved by the Governor for the signification of the Queen's pleasure. Her Majesty will not be advised to assent to it in its present shape, as some of its provisions appear objectionable.

  METROPOLIS—THE NEW GOVERNMENT OFFICES.—QUESTION.
  MR. FLETCHERasked the First Commissioner of Works, Whether the eastern façade of the new Government Offices is completed, or if it is intended to build the cupolas shown on the designs exhibited in the Library some time ago?
  MR. GERARD NOEL,in reply, said, Sir Gilbert Scott intended that the elevation of the New Government Offices should be terminated by cupolas or towers. This was objected to by the late Government, chiefly on the ground of expense. Another design was presented to the noble Lord (Lord Henry Lennox), but was not approved. As no conclusion had been come to respecting the design, no Vote would be proposed during the present Session to complete the buildings.

  CUSTODY OF INFANTS (SCOTLAND).

    QUESTION.
    MR. J. W. BARCLAYasked the Lord Advocate, Whether his attention has recently been directed to the operation of the Law of Scotland relating to the custody of infants in cases where the parents are separated without either being personally disqualified; and, whether he is prepared to recommend an amendment of the Law so as to give the mothers in such cases the preference to the custody of the child up to the age of seven, as in the Law of England?
    THE LORD ADVOCATE: In answer to the hon. Member for Forfarshire, I have to say that, by the law of Scotland, whenever the parents are living apart, it is entirely left to the discretion of one of the Divisions of the Supreme Court to determine, according to the circumstances of each case, which parent shall have the custody of the child up to seven years of age. I have had my attention not only recently, but for many years, called to this point. I will only say that I am unable to suggest any better mode of dealing with this delicate and important question. I am not prepared to recommend any amendment of the law for this reason—that, so far as I am able to ascertain, the law of Scotland in its principles and in its administration differs in no substantial respect from the law of England on the same subject.

  ORDERS OF THE DAY.
    SUPPLY—NAVY ESTIMATES.

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

    THE ESTIMATES.—RESOLUTION.
    MR. BUTT,in rising to move—
    "That, in the opinion of this House, it is essential to the due discharge of the duties of this House in controlling and revising the Estimates of the public expenditure, that the Estimates for the year for the Service of the Army and Navy, and more especially the Civil Service Estimates, should be taken into consideration at a period of the Session such as to afford ample time and opportunity, for discussing them—That any practice that tends to deprive this House of such opportunity, either by taking votes on account or by deferring the Estimates to a late period of the Session, is calculated to impair the efficiency of the control of this House over the public expenditure, and to interfere with the due exercise of the rights and privileges of this House,"
    said, that he thought no apology was needed in calling the attention of hon. Members to the subject. The importance of it was apparent. He wished to show that in practice the House did not exercise the same amount of supervision as was exorcised some years ago, when by discussion and consideration of items a great saving in expenditure had been made. Another marked change in practice for the last few years was the late period of the Session at which the Estimates were introduced. If hon. Members would look back to past Journals of the proceedings in that House they would find that invariably the House of Commons had the Estimates before them at an early period of the year. He would take one or two recent instances to show how desirable and even necessary it was that some such Resolution as that which he had put down on the Paper should be moved. In saying so he did not wish to impute any blame to the present Government; on the contrary, he admitted they had shown every disposition to bring on the Estimates as early in the Session as they could. He would also direct the attention of the House to the custom of taking Votes on Account. In effect the taking of Votes on Account was to withdraw the Estimates from supervision, because that one Vote being passed, it was assumed that the House had assented to the Estimates. He would refer to the Estimates for the two years 1875 and 1871. In 1875 the House was prorogued on the 13th August; on the 4th of that month, the day before the Appropriation Bill was introduced, 4,500,000 were voted on the Navy Estimates, and that included all the Dockyard charges, and,

    121
    indeed, almost all the items upon which the supervision of the House would have been necessary; in that year on the 9th of April £3,000,000 were voted on account, and the Vote on Account enabled the Government to postpone the remainder until the last of the Session. On the 2nd of August £1,500,000 was voted for the Civil Service and £500,000 for the Army. On August 4th, 38 Votes were taken, amounting in all to no less a sum than £6,500,000, so that during the last 10 days before the rising of Parliament for the autumn Recess the House had voted something like £12,500,000. He need not remind the House how little disposition there was on the part of hon. Members to enter into discussions upon the Estimates at that time of the Session. Any hon. Members who endeavoured to do so would be met with the rebuke—"But you will prevent the passing of the Appropriation Bill—you will prolong the Session over another day," and hon. Members knew that it was regarded almost as an awful crime to raise a discussion and prolong the Session for one more day. Well, there was the fact that in 1875 a sum of £12,500,000 was actually voted within two or three days of the passing of the Appropriation Bill. Then, again, in 1871, when the House was prorogued on the 21st of August, a Vote on Account was taken early in the year. On the 14th of August £4,000,000 was voted for the Army, on the 9th and up to the 15th, £6,000,000 for the Navy, and on those two days £1,500,000 for the Civil Service; and the Appropriation Bill was passed on the 19th August. In that year, nearly £16,000,000 was voted in the two or three days preceding the passing of the Appropriation Bill. Under circumstances such as those it was impossible the House could exercise any real, effectual control whatever, and he hoped it might not be necessary to press his Resolution to a division, but that they should have a declaration from the right hon. Gentleman opposite (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) that the Government had resolutely set their face against the practice of deferring such important Votes to August. It was, in his opinion, a most serious thing for the House, by voting in such a manner, to give up their control over public expenditure. He could not agree with what he had heard remarked in relation to
    122
    this subject — that it was not for the House to consider items, but only to discuss and decide upon principles. Surely it was by a discussion of the items that any alteration in the Estimates, which were made up of items, could be brought about. The different items were based upon the estimate of Departmental authorities, and the criticism and discussion of the House were checks, and had their influence on subordinate officers. If there was any item which to an hon. Member appeared exaggerated in amount, it was right that before he gave his vote he should ask for some explanation in regard to the exaggerated item. Very useful this influence was over the Civil Service Estimates and the Miscellaneous Estimates. There had been a considerable increase in the amount of the Miscellaneous Estimates, and a great deal of this increase was caused by this application of the surplus public money to good purposes; for instance, there was the Institution of Science and Art—a great institution of this character had grown up at South Kensington, which was now extending its power over the whole of the United Kingdom. This might or might not be the best object to apply money to; but it was most important to observe that this charge and many other charges of a similar character had been really introduced into the Estimates without their opinion being directly or indirectly taken upon it. He thought, therefore, that some principle should be laid down which would give the House a fair opportunity for discussion upon these matters. The House would find that a great many of these questionable things were at first called on at a late period of the Session, at which time full discussion was impossible; and having been once passed, they became precedents for the next and following years, and ultimately remained as fixtures. He therefore maintained that any Vote for public money to be applied to any public interest ought to receive first of all the assent or dissent of the House; and this could never be obtained by fair discussion if the Government allowed the Estimates to be postponed. Control over the administration of the funds of the country tended greatly to direct their attention closely to the Estimates. Under existing circumstances control was taken from them with reference to minute matters of administration, and consequently

    123
    brought about every day a Vote which might otherwise have been discussed had a proper opportunity been afforded for doing so. The short statement which had been made he thought was sufficient to justify him in asking the assent of the House to the Resolution he had placed upon the Paper. He thought it his duty, having turned his attention to this point, to call the attention of the House to what he considered to be a very evil practice, which with the exception of last Session, was steadily on the increase. The hon. and learned Gentleman concluded by moving the Resolution.
    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, it is essential to the due discharge of the duties of this House in controlling and revising the Estimates of the public expenditure, that the Estimates for the year for the Service of the Army and Navy, and more especially the Civil Service Estimates, should be taken into consideration at a period of the Session such as to afford ample time and opportunity for discussing them:—That any practice which tends to deprive this House of such opportunity, either by taking votes on account or by deferring the Estimates to a late period of the Session, is calculated to impair the efficiency of the control of this House over the public expenditure, and to interfere with the due exercise of the rights and privileges of this House,"—(Mr. Butt,)
    —instead thereof.
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he had no fault to find with the Motion of the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Mr. Butt); on the contrary, he so far approved of the doctrines laid down by him, that if he were to force them to a division, he was not at all sure whether he should not vote for it himself. The objection he really felt to the course the hon. and learned Gentleman had taken was something like that which a man might be imagined to have if, when starting in a great hurry to catch a railway train, one of his friends stopped him and delivered to him a lecture on punctuality. He was very sensible of the importance of getting into Supply, and he hoped to get into Committee as early as possible that evening; therefore, although the few words uttered by the
    124
    hon. and learned Gentleman were very much to the point, and the Government received them with gratitude and sympathy, he hoped the House would allow him to appeal to them not to raise a general discussion now upon the course of Public Business, or upon the control which the House ought to exercise over the expenditure of the country. It was much better that they should go to work and do it than to talk about it. The hon. and learned Member had very handsomely and truly stated that, at all events, for both the last and the present year the Government had done what they could to enable the House to get the Estimates early before them and have time for fair discussion. He (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) might say that this was only the tenth Government night of the Session since they had set up the Committee of Supply, and the fifth on which they had taken the Estimates. He thought in the face of these facts the Government could not be charged with slackness. They had also laid down the Rule that they would always endeavour to have Supply on Mondays, and they had induced the House to come to a Resolution which would prevent an undue waste of time, in getting to Business on that day, in restricting the subjects on which discussion should be raised to those immediately relevant to the Estimates which were to come on. Discussions on such subjects might be very conveniently and profitably taken as Amendments to the Motion that the Speaker leave the Chair, but general discussions interfered very much with their getting to Business. Of course, they would not desire to interfere with the traditional privilege of discussing grievances before Supply; but it was necessary to fix some limit, and the House had come to the Resolution that when Estimates were taken, the discussion must be relevant to Supply. He wished to make one remark on a particular point to which the hon. and learned Gentleman and some others had adverted—he meant taking Votes on account. It sounded very plausible—indeed, there was nothing more so—to say they ought not to take Votes on Account; but if the hon. and learned Gentleman really wished to put an end to the practice, he must alter what ought to,be considered a very beneficial and economical arrangement—the practice

    125
    of surrendering at the end of the year the unexpended balances. This made Votes on Account essentially necessary, to a certain extent, unless they could get all the Estimates passed at an unusually early period. The Government desired to have as little to do as possible with Votes on Account; but the practice did so far relieve the Government from the necessity of pressing forward the Business, and when Votes on Account were taken, the Estimates were thrown somewhat later in the Session than they would otherwise be. He could assure the House that, so far as he had anything to do with the conduct of the matter, he should use every exertion in his power, and he thought he could say the same for his hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury, to bring the Estimates as early as possible before the House, and to get on with them as quickly as possible; but one thing which threw them back was the Resolution which had been come to, on the suggestion of an hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Goldsmid)—that before the Civil Service Estimates were taken, a general Statement respecting them should be made by a Member of the Government. That was undoubtedly an improvement, but it was one which cost the Government time, as did also the improvements that had been made in the preparation of the Estimates and the embodiment of details that had not been given previously. All these considerations must be taken into account. The Government were as anxious to get on with the Business as was the hon. and learned Gentleman, who touched on an evil without suggesting a remedy, which indeed it was difficult to do; and what must be relied on was reasonable moderation and good sense on the part of hon. Members themselves, who could do much if they cordially desired to assist the Government in getting their Estimates fairly before the House, which they were anxious to do, not for their own sakes merely, but to enable the House to criticize and discuss them. Hon. Members would do good service if they would sometimes remember that Motions in which they were interested might interfere with important Business, and, indeed, the primary Business of Parliament. The greatest disappointment was often occasioned to private Members who made themselves masters of facts relating to a Vote in Supply
    126
    when it was the First Order, and when it was reached at too late an hour to justify the House going into Committee. It was in this way that Motions sometimes prevented discussions that might be of great public advantage. He thought after what he had said he might appeal to the hon. and learned Gentleman now to allow them to go into Committee, and to use his influence with those over whom he had so much influence to assist them on all occasions in going on with the practical Business of Parliament.
    MR. THOMSON HANKEY,while concurring generally in what the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had said, feared that, if they were to be asked on all occasions not to discuss certain questions which were not pertinent to the Estimates till a convenient time arrived, he did not know when that convenient time would come. He, for one, was extremely obliged to the hon. and learned Member for Limerick (Mr. Butt) for the manner in which he had brought the subject under discussion, and he would appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to give them an opportunity on some future occasion to discuss this important question. Public Business was much protracted by placing on the Notice Paper more Business than could be got through. There were 17 Orders on the Paper for that evening, and it was impossible that all of them could be reached. By pursuing that course, it was likely that the same block of Business would occur as last year.
    MR. RYLANDSsaid, the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had met the Motion in the spirit he anticipated, and he believed the right hon. Gentleman was as anxious as any of them that the Estimates should be discussed in the House. What he (Mr. Rylands) complained of against the Government was, as on last Friday, they sometimes took Votes in Supply on Fridays. Fridays ought to be private Members' nights, to discuss Motions on going into Supply, and the Government ought not to take advantage of the conclusion of those Motions to snatch Votes in Supply. He thought that if the Government put down Estimates for Monday evenings only, lion. Members would respond to an appeal not to press Motions unduly on those evenings, if it were understood that Votes would not be put

    127
    down for Friday evenings, except in cases of urgency, and that the Motion for Supply would be rehabilitated as often as necessary.
    GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURthought that greater progress would be made with the Estimates if they were accompanied by a printed memorandum giving fuller explanations. It was impossible to compare the Estimates of one year with those of another; and he suggested that the Secretary to the Treasury should renew the comparative statement which was issued at his instance when he was in Opposition.
    MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, that the variations between the last and present year's Estimates were shown in a Memorandum which had been sent round to hon. Members. This Memorandum pointed out every change that had been made. There was every desire on the part of the Government to make the Estimates as complete as possible, and he had taken care in one Paper to show the grants made in aid of local taxation. So long as he had the honour to be Secretary to the Treasury he should do everything in his power to give the House the fullest information on the subject.
    MR. BUTTsaid, he was quite satisfied with what had fallen from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and he would either withdraw his Amendment, or allow it to be negatived. It was true that he had not brought this subject forward on a former occasion, when he gave Notice of his intention to do so, because that was the evening appointed by the First Lord of the Admiralty to make his Statement in explanation of the Naval Estimates. Knowing as he did, that the House was anxious to hear the right hon. Gentleman; and thinking, moreover, that it was not desirable that he should be prevented from making his Statement at an early hour in the evening, he (Mr. Butt) had given way. He only regretted that on that occasion some hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House were not so forbearing, but had pressed Motions of which they had given Notice, and the consequence was that the right hon. Gentleman could not make his statement till a late hour.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERbegged the hon. and learned Member to believe that he had not meant to make the slightest reference to
    128
    him in the remarks to which he had alluded.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    NAVY — TORPEDOES.— OBSERVATIONS.
    LORD CHARLES BERESFORD, in rising to speak to a Notice on the Paper calling attention to the increasing power of torpedoes, especially the "Whitehead," and to move—
    "That no economical consideration should tie the hands of the First Lord of the Admiralty and so prevent exhaustive experiments being carried out as to the best means of applying or resisting these terrible weapons; also, that it is expedient that a large number of torpedo vessels and boats be added to the Navy without delay,"
    said, that he had no intention of passing any criticism on the conduct of the Admiralty, but the subject was one of so much importance in naval warfare that it deserved to be thoroughly ventilated. They had all heard of, and no doubt most hon. Members had read, the pamphlet called The Battle of Dorking, the writer of which began by assuming that the whole or a great part of our Fleet had in the first place been disabled and diminished by infernal machines or torpedoes. He was not himself an alarmist; but he thought such an event, although not very probable, was at all events possible, and it could not be denied that the invention of torpedoes had entirely changed the system of naval warfare. There were four torpedoes at present in use in Her Majesty's Navy. First, there was the "Hervey's," or "towing" torpedo, which was towed from a derrick-end, or the yard-arm, over or against the enemy, and which exploded on striking. Then there was the "Ground torpedo," which was a mine torpedo, intended for the defence of harbours or to close the mouth of a canal, or to protect our ships. It exploded by electricity, communicated either from the shore or a ship, or by an enemy striking a floating and partly buoyant body connected with the torpedo. Next there was the "Spar torpedo," which was carried in a boat, no matter how small, and which exploded either on touching the side of a vessel, or by electricity used by wire from the beat. But by far the most formidable—he might even call it the most awful—weapon of maritime war was the "Whitehead torpedo;" and it was this

    129
    which threatened to change the character of naval warfare. It was made in three pieces—the head, which contained a bursting charge of 360lb. of gun-cotton; the balance chamber, which contained a contrivance for setting it so as to remain at any depth it was wished to travel under the water-line; and, lastly, the air chamber which contained the engines and the compressed air to drive them. Their length was 19ft., the diameter 18in., the appearance being exactly that of a cigar pointed at both ends. The head or foremost end contained the pistol or detonator which exploded the charge. The after-end supported the screws—a right and a left-handed screw — which propelled the torpedo and were made of the finest steel. The air chamber was tested up to 1,200lb. on the square inch, although for service it was only loaded to 800lb. The "Whitehead torpedo" could be made to go at the rate of 20 knots for 1,000 yards, and at any depth that was wished from 1ft. to 30ft. It could be set to explode either on striking an object or at any particular distance under 1,000 yards. It could also be set so that if it missed the object aimed at, it would go to the bottom and explode on half-cock, or come to the top on half-cock so as to be recovered, as it had buoyancy enough just to float on the surface of the water when not in motion. It was fired by what was called an "impulse tube," which, out of a frame fitted to a port, discharged the torpedo into the water. It could be fired above the water, but would at once go to the depth it was set for, and then go straight to the object, no matter how fast the ship from which it was discharged was going, or how fast the object aimed at might be sailing or steaming. In fact, it could do anything but speak. It was calculated to make a hole on bursting upon any vessel of 75ft. area, and there was no doubt that if one of them hit a ship of any sort or description at present on the water she must at once proceed to the bottom. He would now state what he believed to be the only way of resisting the attack from these infernal machines. He did not think that with ordinary vigilance a ship was likely to be hit with the outrigger, or by the "Hervey torpedo," as in the one case the Gatling gun would destroy the boat, and in the other, in these days
    130
    of accuracy of artillery fire, the torpedo itself could be destroyed, or the yard or derrick from which it was towed could be accounted for. A "Whitehead torpedo" was, however, a totally different weapon, and the first intimation you would get of it was by going to the bottom. The torpedo vessel or boat need not be nearer than 1,000 yards, and, premising that the first three shots did not take effect, she could still deliver more, as at night time the vessel's position at that distance was absolutely safe, and the vessel fired against would be positively unaware of the attack until she was blown up. The newly-invented electric light from the tops was a great help to the party attacked, but it was his firm belief that if three or four beats of great speed attacked a vessel from different points of the compass, and if they were commanded by smart officers, nothing that she could do would save her from being hit by one or more of them. He had, therefore, in his Motion asserted the expediency of adding torpedo boats and vessels to the Fleet without delay. In his opinion—and he was confirmed in it by a number of Naval officers whom he had consulted—the only manner in which the "Whitehead torpedo" was to be combated was by having attached, not only to the Fleet, but to each line-of-battle ship or heavy iron-clad two or three satellites—namely, very fast schooner-rigged steam vessels, like the steam yachts or launches of the present day, to be fitted as torpedo vessels, and also armed with light guns capable of destroying any vessel of their own description which they might approach, besides being able to destroy any big vessel, if they could come near enough to discharge their own Whitehead. torpedo. In build they should be as near a yacht as possible, doing not less that 12 knots an hour, but with a lower freeboard, capable of remaining at sea and using sail power. The low freeboard was desirable as there was less likelihood of a shot hitting the boat. The idea of protecting a large iron-clad with wire nets he did not think at all possible for many reasons. It would reduce the speed of ships of the Devastation class by five or six knots an hour, and the Whitehead torpedo was fitted with sharp "guides" which would go clean through a half-inch wire netting. A spar torpedo,

    131
    moreover, could reach over the nets and have full effect upon the vessel. The next point to which he wished to draw attention was equally important—namely, the want of an organized system in connection with our defensive coast torpedoes. The defensive operations were in the hands of about four companies of Royal Engineers. Now, what he would like to see was not only a large body of seamen instructed in the matter, but also all our boatmen, Coastguard men, and pilots. Of course, the actual firing of the torpedoes must always be done by trained electricians, but the laying down and taking up of them was essentially a seaman's work. It required a knowledge of the way of handling boats, of tides, soundings, position by bearings, coiling clear, paying out cables, and making bends, &c. For all these things the Navy was particularly qualified, but they must have the practice also. He thought all our squadrons ought to be exercised in this matter, as in the event of a war, what would now take weeks to accomplish could be done in a few days if the Fleet had practice. He would give an instance that was suggested to him the other day. Supposing, that while our Fleet had been anchored in Besika Bay, circumstances had led to a combination of other European Nations against us, and that we had found it necessary to hold the entrance of the Dardanelles, and also to protect our own shores from invasion—if the Fleet had been trained in torpedo work, a few ship-loads of ground torpedoes would, by being laid down in a few days, have rendered the passage perfectly impassable, two or three ships would have been left to fire them as occasion offered by electricity, or keep off vessels or boats which would have tried to countermine them, and the rest of the large Fleet would have been free to act elsewhere. The Germans, the French, and, he believed, the Americans, had begun this work with a system of divided responsibility, but had found it did not answer at all; and now they had all got a regular naval torpedo corps worked by blue-jackets and naval officers. He thought it was most important that we should not only have a regular naval coast defence, but also that our squadrons should be drilled in the work of laying down and taking up torpedoes. If we went to war the Navy must be
    132
    called in for this duty, and there were places we should have to defend abroad by means of torpedoes, particularly our coaling stations, so that it was necessary to familiarize the men and officers to the use of these weapons, so as to get rid of that sort of dread, of an undefined nature, which must occur to any one, with the knowledge of an unseen danger. The First Lord of the Admiralty had thoroughly recognized the importance of this new warfare, as was apparent from the increased expenditure he was going to propose for torpedoes and experiments—namely, £80, 000 for torpedoes and £4,000 for experiments. Nothing he had said would, he hoped, be construed into criticism in any way whatever; but he had thought it right to bring the matter into public notice, as it had so completely changed maritime war. They might manufacture guns and build enormously powerful ships, but ramming and torpedoes must be the warfare of the day, and they might depend upon it that in the next naval war, the nation that had the best torpedo management must win. The Navy felt very strongly on the subject, because the invention of this terrible engine of destruction which he had described had, as he had said, entirely changed and revolutionized naval warfare within the last 12 months. He had, therefore, thought it his duty to bring the question forward, and he should be pleased if, by calling attention to it, he strengthened the hands of the First Lord of the Admiralty.
    MR. E. J. REEDwished to say a word or two because he thought it would be a poor compliment to allow the important speech of the noble and gallant Lord opposite (Lord Charles Beresford) to pass without notice. At the same time he did not propose to anticipate what he would have to say on this subject in Committee. There were good reasons, no doubt, why the initiation of a system of torpedo defence should be left to the Royal Engineers; but once the principles and the methods were settled, it became of the utmost importance that the conduct of the operations should pass into the hands of the Royal Navy. In illustrating the importance of the torpedo by a reference to Besika Bay, the noble and gallant Lord had only shown what might happen at any part of the world. If the Navy were

    133
    uninstructed in the use of torpedoes—ground torpedoes in particular — they certainly would be at a great disadvantage in a time of war, and he therefore hoped the Admiralty would seriously consider whether the time had not come for giving that instruction. The use of torpedoes from the decks of vessels was a most important stride in naval warfare. It was in the highest degree creditable to the Admiralty that they had favoured the introduction of the torpedo and its use from the deck, and he was much surprised at the extent the system had been carried out in the case of the Alexandra, because they had now given to ships the power of launching the torpedo, not by means of a complicated underwater arrangement, but from the upper parts of the vessel. The House owed a debt of gratitude to the noble and gallant Lord for bringing the matter forward, which he had done in a very proper manner. There could be no doubt that whilst they had been devoting so much care to the armour plating of their ships, they had too much neglected under-water fire.

    CONDITION OF THE NAVY.

      RESOLUTION.
      CAPTAIN PIM,in rising pursuant to Notice, to call attention to the state and condition of the Navy, and to move—
      "That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire fully into the present Admiralty organization and its system of departmental and general administration of the affairs of the Navy, as well as into the actual condition of the naval and maritime resources of the country, to ascertain how far they meet the requirements of the Empire, and also into the administrative arrangements made by the First Lord of the Admiralty to insure the efficiency of the naval Service, upon which depends the welfare and and safety of the Kingdom,"
      said, it was of the utmost importance that the House should know the exact state and condition of the Fleet, and what the nation had really to rely upon in the hour of need. He had had more than a quarter of a century's experience of the Navy, and naturally felt the greatest interest in its efficiency; but he regretted to say that never before had he known the Service in so inefficient a state and so unsatisfactory a condition as at the present moment; and knowing also, as he well did, that our exact force to a man, to a ton, to a gun,
      134
      had been accurately ascertained by our warlike neighbours, Russia and Germany, he felt it his duty to point out, before it was too late, the danger we were in from possessing a Fleet only on paper. By a Return moved for by Sir Charles Wood, and laid on the Table of the House on the 16th February, 1859, he found that the steam fighting Navy of England amounted to 369 vessels—after deducting yachts, tenders, and all other non-combatant craft—and that there were 32 screw war ships building or converting. From the best information he could obtain he found that the total number of fighting vessels we now possessed was 204, of which at least 50 were fit only for harbour or coast defence; and that there were only 22 building, six of which were for harbour or coast defence. So that at that moment, when the maritime requirements of the nation were greater than ever, we actually did not possess, even in point of numbers, half the sea-going fighting ships we had 18 years ago. And when, in addition, we came to look at the quality of the ships we had now, the state of the Navy was perfectly appalling. But what he complained of most was the apparent deception practised by the Admiralty on the public on that all-important subject of the strength of the Navy. He held in his hand a Navy List of last year, and what did he find? A list purporting to give 546 ships when there were only 290. Even The Standard, which every one would admit was well informed on this subject, was taken in, for he found in that paper, under date 21st January, 1876, an article headed "Our Power by Sea," this sentence—
      "As an introductory remark it may be stated that the total number of vessels of every class and description entitled to be termed 'Her Majesty's ships' amounts to no less than 560, with an armament of 3,600 guns, and of this number 240, mounting nearly 1,700 guns, are in commission, the remainder (that is 320) being in reserve or employed on harbour service?"
      Now, what was the fact? He had carefully dissected the Navy List of that date, and he found that it officially purported to give a list of effective ships, the last of which was numbered 546; on examination, however, he found a number of blanks—neither numbers nor ships—which amounted to 256—leaving really only 290, instead of the official number 546 which appeared on the face

      135
      of the Navy List published by authority. So that instead of 546 ships and 166 gun-beats—a gross total of 712 on paper—the force of fighting ships was reduced to 228; but of these 22 were building, leaving 206, out of which more than 50 were unseaworthy or not designed to keep the sea. So that the nation only possessed 150 vessels, more or less inefficient, out of which to maintain a Fleet in the Channel and Mediterranean, and to keep open its communication with all parts of the world. Why, in point of numbers alone it was ridiculous to suppose they could do the work; and were it not so serious a matter, the Admiralty would become a laughing-stock. Admiralty folly could scarcely go further. He would give the House an idea of our responsibilities. The last Imperial Census gave us the population of our Colonies. We had in the Dominion of Canada, 3,789,670 inhabitants, occupying an area of 3,376,925 square miles. The West India Islands, with an area of 13,109 square miles, had a population of little more than 1,000,000. In the African Continent and the adjacent islands we were masters of 236,860 square miles of territory, peopled by 1,813,450 inhabitants. In the Indian Seas, before reaching our Indian Empire, we had the Mauritius, with an area of 708 miles, and a population of 330,460 inhabitants. In our Australian Settlements we had West Australia, with 978,000 square miles, and 24,785 inhabitants. South Australia, with 760,000 square miles, had a population of 185,626 white, and 3,369 aboriginal inhabitants. Victoria, with an area of 88,000 square miles, had 731,528 inhabitants (including 17,935 Chinese). New South Wales had on its 320,437 square miles 503,981 inhabitants. Queensland and Tasmania had a population of 219,432; Norfolk Island, 401; and New Zealand, "the England of the southern hemisphere," and one of the youngest born of the Colonies, had a white population in 1871 of 256,393; whilst the aborigines were estimated at 37,500. Then we had India with her countless millions; Ceylon, with a population of 2,405,287; Singapore, 197,000; Penang, 67,000; Province Wellesley, 71,000; Malacca, 77,000; Hong Kong and the Peninsula of Kowloon, 120,000. This world-wide and enormous popula-
      136
      tion all owed allegiance to England—without which she would cease to be a paramount Power. We exported in 1873 to our British Possessions goods to the value of £66,000,000, whilst our imports from those Possessions exceeded £79,000,000. These were our responsibitities. He would now call the attention of the House to the ocean roads and stations we must keep open and defend: 1. The line to Canada, with its main station, Halifax. 2. To the West Indies, with Bermuda, the Bahamas, Jamaica and Antigua to defend. 3. To India, the East, and Australia, by the Mediterranean, with Gibraltar, Malta, Aden, Bombay, Galle, and King George's Sound on the main line, and Trincomalee, Singapore, and Hong Kong on its northern branch. 4th line. To India and the East, and Australia, round the Cape, with Sierra Leone, Ascension, St. Helena, Simon's Bay, the Mauritius, and King George's Sound. 5th line. From Australia and Vancouver's Island, round Cape Horn. Here we had Sierra Leone, Ascension, the Falkland Islands, Sydney, Fiji and Vancouver. Our Royal Navy had to protect all this traffic, and, besides, had to defend our coaling stations. This latter was a most important duty, as owing to our constructors not knowing their business, a large proportion of our ships could not keep the sea without steam power; a fact rendered painfully obvious by the disaster of the Thetis, whose steam power broke down near a port, which could not, however, be gained until after 17 days of drifting helplessly short of provisions. To take only the last line, he challenged his right hon. Friend to deny the fact that the English men-of-war in the Pacific were not a match for speed and guns for even the six Russian war vessels lying in the harbour of San Francisco at this moment, while at the same time Vancouver, with all our stores and coals, was absolutely without defence. One gunboat could destroy all our stores there. It was fearful to contemplate the the fatal results that might arise from maladministration at the Admiralty. Let the House reflect what one Alabama did, and then imagine the mischief the six Russian war vessels now lying at San Francisco might do. From the time the Alabama first began her career until her defeat she captured no less than 66 ships, representing a tonnage of

      137
      46,100; while—what was of still greater importance—she concentrated upon herself alone the whole attention of no less than 17 steam war vessels; so that she not only inflicted immense damage upon the enemy's merchant fleet, but also shielded her own people's trade by distracting the available force of the enemy. Captain Semmes never for a moment attributed his success to his own personal merit, but entirely to the ignorance and stupidity which characterized the plans of his opponents. He (Captain Pim) did not wish to say anything un-Parliamentary, but he could not resist mentioning what his gallant friend, Captain Semmes, told him himself—namely, that he owed much of his success to "the ignorant folly of that darned old fool, Mr. Gideon Wells, Secretary of the Navy." Captain Colomb, R.M.A., one of the ablest officers in the Service, but now unfortunately retired in the prime of life, said—
      "It is impossible that any one carefully studying the cruise of the Sumter and Alabama, can avoid the conclusion that we have had to pay many millions sterling, not so much for letting the Alabama escape, but as compensation to the United States for damage directly resulting from the vague notion the head of their naval Department had respecting the 'command of the sea,' and his utter incapacity as a sea strategist. All the naval force of the United States was powerless to arrest a single ship in her progress, simply because it was applied without reference to general principles which guide the distribution of force for the protection of communications."
      But he did not complain only of the want of "sea strategy" at the Admiralty; he complained that even the 150 fighting ships of which he had shown the Navy to consist were not fit for their work; they were mere boxes of guns and machinery, and nothing else. Nearly two years ago, on 11th May, 1875, he had placed on the Paper the following Notice of Motion, which he could not bring on because the hon. Member for Forfarshire, who was before him, was counted out:—
      "Captain Pim,—Navy (Construction of Vessels)—Select Committee to inquire into the particulars of the design, construction, cost, seaworthy, and other qualities, as well as the present state and condition of the following ships and vessels designed by the late Chief Constructor of the Navy, Mr. E. J. Reed, C.B., M.P.:"—
      and there was appended a list of 32 un-
      138
      armoured vessels, 31 armoured vessels, and 5 transports. In respect to these vessels, not one was worthy to be called a real man-of-war—one and all were a disgrace to the intelligence of the age. He would not go through the list of these 63 ships—but the first of them—the Amazon, foundered by collision with an Irish pig boat—and the last, the Vanguard, was so weak below the water line that she was certain to go down with the first blow—and down she did go. Public attention had been at last aroused to the true nature and value of our rubbishing iron-dads; the fact was that our so-called men-of-war were not ships—they were simply boxes of machinery and guns, quite unable to do justice to the requirements of the nation. What did some of our ablest and best officers say. It was enough, in condemnation of our iron-dads, to refer to the recorded statement of a late senior Sea Lord of the Admiralty, Sir Sidney Dacres, who also had command of the Channel Fleet—"that he did not think they (the iron-clads) could cruise in company with safety." Also that of Admiral Sir Thomas Symonds, one of our most distinguished and experienced officers, lately in command of an ironclad Fleet, "that they (the iron-dads) are unable to save themselves under the commonest circumstances." And that of Admiral of the Fleet Sir George Sartorius—
      "That our iron-clad ships of war are equally unfit for the exigencies of coast or distant warfare, and for the blockading of an enemy's ports impracticable."
      In fact, these large iron-dads were not safe when near the land or one another, or in bad weather without steam power. Our ships of war could not be in a worse case. The iron-dads, of which we possessed 49, could hardly be dignified by the name of ships. Our most distinguished officers united in saying that to blockade an enemy's port—the very object for which they were most wanted—they were useless; and then as to their startling variety, even the Gentleman who was responsible for most of them had quite come round to the opinions he had just cited, for on 19th January the hon. Gentleman wrote in The Times—
      "Yet another source of aggravated expenditure, and of something very much worse besides, is to be found in the endless variety of our ships

      139
      of war, growing directly out of defective Admiralty administration … and in the event of war it would probably transform a well-planned engagement into a miserable melée, and might inflict a terrible defeat and disaster upon us."
      As to our unarmoured ships, they were not only unseaworthy, but of such bad design and construction, that he defied the best sailor in the world to make them efficient men-of-war. [The hon. and gallant Member then described seriatim the construction and defects of the Shah, the Volage, Supply, Turquoise, Wild Swan, and Boxer, and proceeded.] With regard to the gunboats, he need only mention the Goshawk, to give the House an idea of their inutility as vessels of war. The Goshawk was a composite gunboat of' 295 tons, and 60-horse-power, and nearly met the fate of the unfortunate Captain. The papers gave this account of the vessel—
      "EXTRAORDINARY HOAX.—About a month ago a telegram, purporting to come from the Admiralty, London, was received at the Admiralty Office, Queenstown, ordering the Goshawk gunboat to proceed immediately to Gibraltar. It was directed that the full crew should proceed, and that as much coal and stores as could be stowed should be taken. There was a little delay in departure owing to the absence of some of the crew, who were on leave; but they were all mustered with despatch, and in less than 24 hours after the receipt of orders the Goshawk was on its way to Gibraltar, with 63 souls on board. The weather at the time was very bad, and, as these gunboats are not designed for seagoing there was much misgiving as to her safety. Very soon after she sailed another telegram was received from the same source, asking to be advised if the Goshawk had proceeded to Galway. A reply was at once sent back from the Admiral's Office, Queenstown, stating that, in accordance with the first telegram, she had gone to Gibraltar. It was then ascertained for the first time that the telegrams were a hoax, and that the lives of the 63 persons on board were placed in jeopardy by the heartless conduct of some practical jokers."
      Yet this vessel was of 295 tons. In 1857, just 20 years ago, he took out to China the gunboat Banterer, 237 tons, and 60-horse power, a smaller vessel than the Goshawk, and with half the number of men; but, as the log would show, although they met with all sorts of weather, there was no difficulty in keeping her above water; and he ventured to think, no sailor would deny that the late gunboat Banterer would have been more than a match in action for any of the Goshawk class; and yet the Banterer cost £9,567, while the Goshawk cost £13,884,
      140
      to say nothing of the constant repairs that she would need. The question was, whether the money proposed to be expended on coast defenders of the Devastation class, or unwieldy iron-dads such as the Alexandra with her 35 engines, which a single torpedo could send to the bottom of the sea, would not be better spent in building numerous gun vessels such as those lately ordered by China—namely, the Alpha and Beta, both at the present moment in Chinese waters, and the Gamma and Delta now on their way; but with this difference—that they should be real sea-going vessels like the Algerine class? He had himself seen the Algerine in the Indian Ocean, not steam, but sail round an Indiaman, and afterwards he had known her go through a typhoon in the China Seas literally without the smallest damage, although other ships foundered, were dismasted, or came to grief in some way or other. This vessel cost £12,500. He repeated that what the nation really wanted was a number of gun vessels of some 500 tons, carrying a heavy gun with the longest range, capable of keeping the sea in all weather under sail, either in blockading an enemy's ports, chasing an enemy, or protecting a convoy, with a powerful engine on beard; but to be used only on an emergency. Now he asked the noble Lord who had just sat down (Lord Charles Beresford) whether, with a couple of such gunboats as he had described, he would hesitate one moment to attack coast defenders, or even the Alexandra? He firmly believed that two such gunboats would make the unwieldy iron-clad very uncomfortable, hanging on her quarter, and either disable or sink her. Why, then, should this House be asked to vote vast sums of money to build such costly rubbish, when, for less than the sum wanted this year, some 40 or 50 first-class gun-vessels could be built, and all comers defied; besides having ships capable of doing good service abroad? He thought he had shown clearly enough that the materiél of the Navy was in a most unsatisfactory, not to say dangerous, condition; and he deeply regretted to say that the personnel was no better—but he would not go into that part of the subject now. This was entirely the result of maladministration and ignorance at the Admiralty, where the most astounding blunders, if not something worse, were almost of daily

      141
      occurrence. Subsequently to 1868, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Montrose (Mr. Baxter) stated in this House—
      "That the country was paying for stores and material at rates 20, 30, 60 per cent above the market value, and that a system of bribery by contractors had been established within the walls of the Admiralty."
      He was aware it had been alleged that by the reforms introduced by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Pontefract (Mr. Childers) and the right hon. Member for Montrose, such a state of things could no longer take place. But as a matter of fact, one of the grossest pieces of jobbery ever perpetrated took place under the Administration of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Pontefract, and the right hon. Member for Montrose—he meant the sale of Deptford Dockyard, the value of which, as it stood in the books of the Department, was about £400,000, but which was privately sold to a friend of a high Admiralty official for about £75,000, but for which no money was paid until the purchaser had managed during the course of some 12 months to induce the Corporation of London to buy it of him for about £105,000—thus clearing by this transaction some £30,000. He was quite aware how distasteful any debate on Naval matters was to that House, and he was quite sure that ex-Ministers would join with those in power to prevent the inquiry he asked. He could assure the House that the task had not been a pleasant one, but he should have been a coward if he had shrunk from its performance, believing, as he did, that the Nation had arrived at such a crisis in her history as she had never known before. He had had more than 30 years' experience of naval affairs, and he could safely say that never before had the Service been so miserably mismanaged, the ships so ignorantly constructed, the officers so desponding, and the men so discontented, as during the last 10 years. In conclusion, he begged to move the Resolution of which he had given Notice.
      MR. D. JENKINSseconded the Amendment.
      Amendment proposed,
      To leave out from the word "That," to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "a Select Committee be appointed to inquire fully into the present Admiralty organization
      142
      and its system of departmental and general administration of the affairs of the Navy, as well as into the actual condition of the Naval and Maritime resources of the Country, to ascertain how far they meet the requirements of the Empire; and also into the administrative arrangements made by the First Lord of the Admiralty to insure the efficiency of the Naval Service, upon which depends the welfare and safety of the Kingdom,"—(Captain Pim,)
      —instead thereof.
      MR. GOURLEYhoped the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty would inform the House what were the relations of the future of the commercial harbours in connection with the torpedo system. For himself, he would like to see the responsibility for the torpedo arrangements for their defence transferred from the Engineers to the men of the second class of the Naval Reserve.
      MR. D. JENKINStrusted the hon. and gallant Member for Gravesend (Captain Pim) would not divide the House, as he thought little good would be derived from proposing abstract Resolutions. He regretted to hear that the condition of the iron-clad fleet was not so satisfactory as it ought to be. He could not understand why, in a time of peace, so many ships were kept in commission as was the custom of the Admiralty, and thought that the turret-ships and the broadside iron-clads should be treated as mere floating batteries, to be laid up in time of peace, and only put into commission for coast defence in time of war.
      MR. GORSTalso hoped the hon. and gallant Member for Gravesend (Captain Pim) would not press his Motion to a division, but would allow the House to go at once into Committee. The most convenient time to discuss the question of the construction of our ships would be when Vote 10 came under the consideration of the Committee. Last year that Vote was postponed to such a late period of the Session that there was not sufficient time left them for the discussion of the subject. He hoped, however, that this Session Government would contrive so as to have the Vote brought on at a time when every hon. Gentleman would have the opportunity of stating what might be his opinions in respect to it.
      MR. CHILDERSsaid, it was not usual to revive personal questions which had once been considered and settled by

      143
      the House, especially when the person affected was no longer living. A charge had been made against a former Member of that House, which amounted, in fact, to a charge of fraud and peculation. That charge was brought under the consideration of the House six years ago, and was completely disproved. The person against whom the imputation was made was Mr. Bristow, the then Solicitor to the Admiralty, and it was not decent six years after for an hon. Member to throw at his memory a charge which had been completely disproved. The accusation was that his brother-in-law through his influence had purchased Deptford Dockyard and afterwards sold it again at a profit before even paying for it. It was proved that the person referred to was not Mr. Bristow's brother-in-law, that Mr. Bristow had nothing to do with the purchase, and that the delays in receiving the purchase-money arose from differences between the Department of Woods and Forests and the Admiralty. The House declined to proceed with the matter further, and he regretted that it had been revived on the present occasion. He trusted the House would show the hon. and gallant Member opposite (Captain Pim) that this method of reviving without Notice an exploded accusation against a dead man was not to the taste of Parliament.
      Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question," put, and agreed to.
      MR. HUNTsaid, that before the Speaker left the Chair he desired to say a few words on the interesting matter brought before the House by his noble and gallant Friend behind him (Lord Charles Beresford). When introducing the Navy Estimates a few nights back he (Mr. Hunt) stated what had been done in reference to the use of torpedoes. He informed the House on that occasion that he had instituted a separate school for torpedo instruction for officers, and he was now happy to state that his noble and gallant Friend had been one of his first pupils, and he hoped that the House would be of opinion that he had profited by his instructions, and that many of his Profession would take the same warm interest in the subject which he had done. He was certain that he should have the support of his
      144
      noble and gallant Friend for the Votes he would have to move for the development of the torpedo system, such as the Vote to purchase a large number of torpedoes from Mr. Whitehead, and also the large Vote for the purchase of steamers required to moor the torpoes for the defence of the commercial harbours of the country. His noble and gallant Friend was right in saying that the introduction of torpedoes had revolutionized the system of naval warfare. That was a question which was constantly and anxiously considered by the Admiralty, and they had not only to consider what was the best kind of torpedo, but what would be the best means to defend ships against these new weapons, and he could only say that he should be always ready to consider suggestions that might be made for improvements of any kind in connection with the torpedo system, whether those improvements arose out of the offensive or defensive powers of the weapons in question. His noble and gallant Friend seemed to think that, in the first place, a single blow from a torpedo would sink a ship like the Inflexible. He (Mr. Hunt) did not go so far as that. He ventured to think that she would survive more than one blow, because she was divided into many water-tight compartments, and that was to a certain extent a defence. With regard to the defence of ships, he admitted that torpedoes would go through any nets that had yet been provided, but he would not go so far as to say that no kind of net would be any protection. He was also quite aware that great doubts were entertained whether nets could be supplied as a means of defence when ships were in motion; that could only be determined by experiments, and these were going to be made. He admitted that the defence of ships from torpedoes was a most serious question, and any inventor who would devise means of protection would find him (Mr. Hunt) ready to listen to his claims. The inventions of mankind for the purpose of destruction were yet ahead of these inventions for protection; and he hoped that inventors would turn their powers to a more profitable and philanthropic use than that of constructing machines for killing mankind. As the War Department was charged with the organization of the land defence of the coun-

      145
      try, it was thought proper to place the torpedoes under the control of the Royal Engineers, the Admiralty undertaking to find the Votes for supplying the gunboats and mooring vessels required in laying them down.
      MR. GOSCHENsaid, he understood the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Hunt) to say that he had formed the torpedo school, whereas it was his impression that the torpedo school was formed when he (Mr. Goschen) was a Member of the Administration. The other day the right hon. Gentleman made use of a similar expression.
      MR. HUNTexplained that the other day he said that the torpedo school was dependent upon the Excellent, but the importance of the question had so considerably increased that it was found necessary to found a separate school in connection with the Vernon, of which, as he had said, his noble and gallant Friend was one of the first pupils. He had no desire to deprive his right hon. Friend of any credit which was fairly his due.
      GOSCHENpointed out that the right hon. Gentleman did not use the word "separate."
      Main Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," put, and agreed to.

    SUPPLY—NAVY ESTIMATES.
    SUPPLY—considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    (1.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £2,684,048, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Expense of Wages, &c. to Seamen and Marines, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1878."
    MR. E. J. REEDsaid, that while there were in the Service certain classes capable of taking care of themselves, there were others who had not that ability, and who were therefore neglected, and it must have been with pain the House heard the statement made the other night by the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty—that there was a difficulty in getting men to serve as petty officers. Some of the important classes who had to do with the boilers and machinery had also been neglected. In the few remarks
    146
    that he should address to the House, he should look at the manner in which the programme of the Government had been fulfilled, then at that which was set down for the coming year, and finally make some remarks upon the Engineers, and upon the Government proposals brought forward to meet the absolute necessities of that great branch of the Service. Taking the first point, the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty stated the other night that the shipbuilding programme of last year had been fulfilled, and, indeed, a little more than fulfilled. If, said the right hon. Gentleman, the tonnage was calculated according to the old plan, they had built 13,966 tons as against 13,407 tons promised to be built; and there was a sense in which that statement might be almost justified, although it could not be said to be altogether correct. In point of fact, however, they were 510 tons short of the promise as regarded the iron-clad programme, and 551 tons short as regarded the unarmoured programme. No doubt, if they took the money voted for new ships and the tonnage to which it had been devoted, and compared the result with the expenditure, they would get at a tonnage that very nearly corresponded with the statement of the right hon. Gentleman. Nothing, however, could be more fallacious than was that mode of dealing with the question. First of all, the Agamemnon was 176 tons short of what had been promised, the inflexible 322 tons, and the Ajax 269 tons, making in all, after deducting certain excesses on other ships, 5l 0 tons. Then, in the case of unarmoured vessels—as to which he would not mention the individual instances—the deficiency amounted to 551 tons, making a total of 1,061 tons. The deficiency in money was £5,603 upon iron-clads, and about a similar sum upon unarmoured ships, altogether £13,756. With respect to last year's programme, he would mention two ships only—the Inflexible and the Dreadnought. The proposal made last year, as to the Inflexible, was to add 2,000 tons to the 4,049 which had been built and the expenditure mentioned was £36,164. Instead, however, of 2,000 tons having been built, the ship had been advanced by 854 tons only, bringing her to 4,903 tons, and that although a larger amount of money than had been asked for—namely, £37,915—had been expended. They would doubt-

    147
    less be told that the reason for this was the Admiralty had discovered that the original estimate of what the Inflexible would cost was insufficient, but, however that might be, how, he asked, could it be said that the programme of last year had been fulfilled? Then, again, as to the Dreadnought. When they looked at the figures of last year they were asked for £6,973 for work at Pembroke, for 387 tons; and £13,619, for 270 tons; and it was a curious thing that they were asked double the amount of money for what was to be done at Portsmouth as compared with the amount of tonnage at Pembroke. Further, hon. Members were told last year that at the end of the present month that ship would have 6,667 tons built; but they were now informed that she had only had 6,217 tons finished, and instead of there being, as they had been lead to believe, only some 26 tons remaining to complete her at a cost of £468, there were actually remaining 1,133 tons which required to be built, at a cost of £25,486. The programme of last year would lead them to believe that they would be asked this year for a trifling sum to complete the Inflexible and the Dreadnought, but in fact the completion of those ships would involve an expenditure of £80,000. If that constituted the fulfilment of a programme it was a very astonishing fulfilment. Turning to the contract work, the right hon. Gentleman had also stated the other evening that in respect to that work the Admiralty had likewise practically fulfilled their programme. The Committee were told last year that the Government required certain sums which would leave standing over on ships already ordered £75,900, and that they were going to order other ships, which would leave standing over £238,000. The total of those two sums was £313,900. But they were told this year that they had to find £431,302 for ships already ordered; and for some which were standing over. In other words they were in debt on account of those ships to the extra amount of £117,402. But that was not the whole story. When they turned to the figures regarding engines a similar result appeared. They were told last year that there would be standing over at the end of this year on new engines already ordered £38,800, and on others then to be ordered £280,245, giving a total of £319,045. What, however, was the sum now actu-
    148
    ally asked for? The amount was no less than £441,483. Here again they were in debt, to the amount of £122,438. On the whole, therefore, they were asked for something like a quarter-of-a-million of money more than they had any reason to look forward to. Two explanations presented themselves to his mind to account for this state of things. Either that the contractors had only earned part of the money voted, or that, which was a much more serious matter, the Government had on their own responsibility been ordering work without the consent of the Committee. Now, if they looked to the rate of advance that should have been made they found a very curious state of things. The method adopted for arriving at the state of advance was to say so much money had been spent, and the tonnage which that represented was so much. Figures were then set down which were to be the basis upon which the House was to be guided. But this was evidently a delusive way of putting the case, for some ships cost £22 a-ton, while others cost £33 a-ton. If he turned to the programme he found that the two steel ships were to be advanced 1,110 tons at a cost of £36,850, and that the Inflexible was to have been advanced 2,079 tons at a cost of £47,000. Now, what did he find? Why, as he had said, that the Inflexible, instead of having advanced 2,079, had only advanced 854 tons, and the Dreadnought which on the 31st of March of this year was to have reached a weight of 6,667, whereas by this year's estimates he found that she was only to be 6,217 tons on the same date, or 450 tons less than they were promised last year. All that he could deduce from these figures was that the figures he had quoted were put down so as to hopelessly bewilder hon. Members. The programme of the present year was to advance these three ships by 3,189 tons, but he was satisfied that when they came next year to review what had actually been done, it would prove to be just as delusive as last year's programme. In short the method of "advancing" ships adopted by the Admiralty was a very fallacious one, although he entirely exonerated the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty from having invented it. The only proof vouchsafed as to the advancement was that the Committee voted certain money and the Department spent

    149
    it; but as to any inference respecting the number of tons completed, not only did the figures supply no trustworthy information, but they were the means of involving the Committee in positive mystification. Such figures simply debarred the House from making proper inquiry and were most objectionable. The right hon. Gentleman must admit that whatever was the actual progress made this year, the programme of the Admiralty had been on paper a miserable failure. He now came to the programme of next year, and here he would congratulate the Admiralty for increasing the number of men to be employed on construction. During the last two years there had been a marked improvement in that respect, and in the coming year it was proposed to employ a still larger proportion of men than before on the construction of iron-dads, and here viewing the question in the light which had been thrown upon it by the noble and gallant Lord the Member for Waterford (Lord Charles Beresford) he would like the Committee to look at the Admiralty programme from three points of view. First, it should be observed that there was only one iron-clad of importance that we were going to lay down for three years. The next point he would wish the Committee to consider was this—that whatever we might think about iron-clads, and however easily we might suppose they would be disposed of by torpedoes, it was a very grave question whether this country should allow itself to be outstripped by any lesser European Power in a first-class ship. He had heard lately, from what he considered to be on good authority, that the Italian Government was about to build a ship to be plated with 3 ft. of armour, to carry 150-ton guns, and to be of the enormous speed of 18 knots. He admitted, however, that that was a very critical ship, and that her construction must necessarily be a matter of difficulty on account of her monstrous dimensions. In the next place, we were bound to consider our policy with regard to the torpedo question, with respect to which the noble and gallant Lord opposite (Lord Charles Beresford) had given some significant and important information amounting to this—that, provided only you could get near enough to a large iron-clad, very small means would be sufficient to destroy her. Therefore, our policy ought to be framed so as to have reference to
    150
    the two facts that some States were going on increasing the power of the ship, and that there were apparently insignificant means which might be effectual for the ship's destruction. What, then, was the proper way to meet this state of things? It was proposed to build a new Agamemnon, and the First Lord of the Admiralty, in the very brief account he had given of her, stated that the design of the ship had been very carefully attended to. Now, he was not at all convinced that a new Agamemnon was the proper response to the present state of things. He looked upon a new Agamemnon as an Admiralty compromise under very difficult circumstances, one authority being for one thing and one for another, the only result being a decision that a new Agamemnon should be built. [Mr. HUNT: No, no!] The right hon. Gentleman's denial was conclusive on the point; but the Committee, notwithstanding that, ought to be informed of the reason why such vessels were to be built. By building these vessels the right hon. Gentleman was not adding to the variety of ships under construction, provided that the words "New Agamemnon" did not imply any new changes in the details of the vessel. He (Mr. Reed) had been charged with inconsistency, because, in some remarks he had made, he spoke of the advantage of variety and in others of the disadvantage. In both cases he was correct. When he spoke of the advantage of variety, he had in view the fact that a dozen ships of different types, speed, and tonnage would prove a great embarrassment to an enemy. But if we carried variety into the details of ships, we should in each ship create a new problem of management. He cared very little about variety in size, but a great deal about uniformity in details, so that ships could be more easily managed. He considered that the solution of the problem was to be found in building smaller ironclad ships than we had at present, but it was certainly possible to produce a ship of the Inflexible type that would reach a great speed, have very powerful armour, and which would become a formidable vessel in attacking with torpedoes. He should like to have heard from the First Lord of the Admiralty a few more particulars about the Torpedo Ram proposed by that distinguished officer Sir George Sartorius, because he thought the Committee were at a disadvantage in considering it. He would

    151
    like to know whether it was to be a large or a small one, and as to her tonnage, whether she was be 1,200 or 1,500 tons, or more, because he should object to any large vessel being added to the Navy without guns, for, however efficient as rams or torpedoes, they would be of very little advantage in attacking forts. The British Navy had to be prepared for that, though its work would often be of a different kind. The secrecy spoken of might very fairly be maintained, but if they knew something of her tonnage they would be able to form an opinion of her cost. Then as to the last point with which he would trouble the Committee, he had been in hopes that when the Government scheme for Naval engineers was propounded, he should have heard that they were to be put into a different position. The altered circumstances of the times rendered it necessary that they should receive full recognition by the Admiralty. He was grievously disappointed with the Admiralty scheme, though there were elements in the proposals which were admirable, and deserved consideration. They gave engineers some substantial, though not a large increase of pay, and some improvement in rank, and also enlarged the source from which the supply of engineer officers were drawn. It was a wise proposal to improve their position, and open up a career of advancement for the officers of the engine-room; but they must look at the position of these men now in connection with the altered circumstances of the Navy to what it was some years ago. All their ships were now steam ships, and, wisely or unwisely, they were constructing great vessels full of machinery, and engineer officers must in future play the most important and responsible part in their control and management. He felt it to be a great misfortune that he had sometimes to say things more or less distasteful to Naval officers. He did so with a considerable amount of pain. He spoke only from a sense of strong necessity, and he was very glad to take this opportunity of saying that he found some of the most liberal evidence given before the Committee had emanated from Naval officers of the executive class. He would read an extract from the evidence given by an eminent officer known to many of them, whose opinion was of considerable value. He referred to Admiral Fellowes, the Admiral Super-
    152
    intendent of Chatham Dockyard. That evidence covered the whole of his case, and it suggested that the engineers should be placed on a totally different footing from that which they now occupied, and that chief engineers to ships should be considered executive officers. How far did the Admiralty plan touch this question? He could not better illustrate this than by referring to Appendix No. 1 of the Navy Estimates for the present year. Page 148 gave a list of the salaries paid to Naval officers of all ranks; that list amounted to £68,723; but not one farthing of this sum went to engineers. On the next page there was another list of salaries, amounting to £243,993, of which only £4,000 was assigned to Naval engineers. Of the aggregate salaries, exceeding £1,000,000, only £170,000 went to all the Naval engineers of the Service. The necessity of the times required that the class of officers who were coming into increased demand should have a fair remuneration; and, while coinciding in the idea that any great and satisfactory change in the class of Naval engineers could only be done by a gradual process, yet he should have been better pleased with the right hon. Gentleman's proposal by some recognition of the necessity of a great change in the direction of increased pay and promotion. On the contrary, all that was proposed was to add £1,000 to the full pay of all the engineers for this year. He, however, thought that the question must be dealt with in a larger manner than it had been by the Admiralty, and he did not believe that if it were placed before the people of this country they would be satisfied with the proposal. They appeared to be only playing with a great subject, and he was of opinion that the scheme of the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty would not by any means prove satisfactory, or a final solution of the subject. He had noticed, he might add, that in several quarters no small amount of adverse criticism, and even censure, had been passed on the First Lord of the Admiralty for some remarks which he had let fall a few nights ago with respect to the grade from which most of the men serving as engineers in the Navy were drawn. He (Mr. Reed) had received several letters complaining, with more or less bitterness, of words which fell from the right hon. Gentleman. He

    153
    should be sorry to say anything which would be at all likely to hurt anybody's feelings, and he did not believe the right hon. Gentleman intended to hurt anybody's feelings. He believed the right hon. Gentleman intended to advert to a fact which had been pressing upon the minds of Naval Administrators for a long time—that was that the whole profession of Royal Marine engineers and Naval architects in this country was exclusively drawn from what were called "poor lads." That certainly was a remarkable thing and open to amendment. The scheme now pro posed by the right hon. Gentleman was based upon the Report of the Committee, and he was sorry to say that he did not think the scheme would work. He should be very sorry to close any door by which a young man in our dockyards might rise to position; but he at the same time thought some steps should be taken which would prevent the exclusion of gentlemen's sons from training for the Naval service. The solution of the difficulties by which the question was surrounded was, he believed, to be found in the American system. If we would secure young men of gentlemanly manners and education as Naval engineers, they should, in his opinion, be placed in a Cadet College, and pains should be taken to see that they were as well instructed in their business as other young officers. It was no uncommon thing for the sons of gentlemen to become marine engineers, and he had known instances where distinguished Naval officers—for instance, the late Controller of the Navy, Sir Spencer Robinson—had gone into the workshops, put on a canvas jacket, and worked at a lathe, in order to learn the practical details of the Profession; and there ought to be no difficulty in inducing young gentlemen of a higher social status to enter into the engineering branch of the Royal Navy. He should like also to know, seeing that the Admiralty experienced the same difficulty in having the hull of a ship properly looked after as the engines, why the young men who took charge of the hull should not also be trained in the Naval Cadet College. If that were done, an assimilation would be effected which would be calculated to be productive of a great deal of good. He was sorry to have detained the Committee so long, but would conclude
    154
    by saying that in a recent interview with Lord Clarence Paget—among other Naval officers whom he had consulted on the subject—that distinguished officer had told him that he looked upon the introduction of the cadet system into the various engineering branches of the Navy as the ultimate and best solution of the question.
    MR. GORSTdesired to make a few observations on the proposals in regard to the Marine and Engineer officers. He congratulated the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty on what was on the whole a very satisfactory statement the other night in regard to this matter, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would not think his remarks were directed against him, or the office he so worthily held. He hoped he might not be considered ungracious if he took the liberty of saying how extremely dangerous and inconvenient were those delays in redressing what were admitted to be grievances. He spoke the more openly upon this subject, because he was not blaming the right hon. Gentleman; but he would say that it was very unfortunate that when the Government had recognized the existence of grievances among any important class of naval subjects, the Treasury should step in between the recognition and redress of those grievances. The case of the Marine and Engineer officers had been recognized two years ago, and yet by the action of the Treasury, the redress of this grievance had been left till now, and during the whole of that time the supply of those classes had been most deplorably deficient. He was quite certain in the remarks which the right hon. Gentleman made the other night he never intended any slight on the existing members of that Service, but he could quite concur in what the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. E. J. Reed) had said, that they did feel aggrieved at the observations which then fell from the right hon. Gentleman. They maintained that they were entitled to be considered as high a class as the Medical and Paymaster branches of the Service, and they appealed to the records of naval courts martial to show how singularly free their branch had been from charges of breach of discipline. No doubt the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman had offended the Engineers, for it was, in their opinion,

    155
    hard that the world should be told by the right hon. Gentleman that their branch of the service was not so satisfactory as it ought to be.
    MR. HUNT: I never said anything of the kind.
    MR. GORSTdid not wish to impute the desire to the right hon. Gentleman to say what was at all likely to hurt the feelings of anyone; but a feeling was abroad that what he had said was a reflection on their branch of the Profession.
    MR. HUNTsaid, the words he made use of were the words of the Report of the Committee on this branch of the subject and not his own words.
    MR. GORSTsaid, he was quite sure, as he had said before, that the right hon. Gentleman did not mean to cast a reflection upon anyone. He was only stating what was understood out-of-doors by a large number of officers in regard to his remarks. With reference to the selection of Engineer officers from higher social position that was a very delicate subject, and one which the House ought carefully to consider. It was much more important to consider what a young man was in himself than what position in society his father or mother might happen to have held. He should be very sorry if this idea of introducing the sons of noblemen and gentlemen into the engineering branches of the Navy should close that branch of the Profession to the sons of the humblest and poorest members of society, who had qualified themselves to occupy such positions. It was a great happiness that we lived in times when a man was valued for his own qualities, and not by such matters as the humbleness of his origin. The proposal of the Committee was that these positions should be offered to free competition among those approved by the Admiralty, and they were told that in another class of naval appointments there was free competition among those selected by the First Lord. He did not call this free competition at all, but limited competition, and the result would be that the appointments would be given to friends and connections of the First Lord for the time being. He could not think it right that a young man of ability and industry, who might have been Senior Wrangler at a University, should be liable to be rejected if he wished to
    156
    enter the Naval Service. In these days they required all naval officers to be of the highest attainments. If his right hon. Friend had proposed to raise the educational test, it might have deserved encouragement, but the Admiralty ought to get the best men out of the whole country; and if any young man of ability and good conduct were to be excluded from the Navy because his parents fell below a certain social standard, he protested against such an oligarchical doctrine being propagated in these days in the House of Commons. The actual proposals made were a step in the right direction; but only a step. Even with the proposed increase of pay, the salaries of the chief engineers and inspectors of machinery were far below the pay and rank of other departments, and it would be found that they would not be long contented with it. In regard to the engine-room artificers, the proposal of the Committee to pay at the rate of 5s. 3d. a-day for the first few years of service would simply have the effect of securing the bad men instead of the good. Good men could be obtained for 5s. 6d., and for the sake of saving 3d. a-day per man, which altogether would amount to only £1,600 a-year, they were going to employ the worst, instead of the best men. The Committee should further recollect that their work was of the greatest importance, and that a single accident to the engines of a man-of-war at Gibraltar, say the Alexandra, would cause a greater outlay than the Admiralty would save during the whole year. The uniform imposed upon the engine-room artificers was another just cause of complaint. Elderly men who were a little stout did not like to be compelled to wear a short round jacket, and they had petitioned to be allowed to wear a pea-jacket to cover their loins. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would say something on the subject when addressing the Committee.
    MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, that he highly approved of the intention of the Admiralty to increase by 2d. a-day the pay of the seamen of the Fleet who had completed 10 years of service, and who were prepared to enter upon a second 10 years' service; and regretted that the Government had not also given that increase to those who had served five years. This would have effected only 5,000 men, and would not have involved an outlay

    157
    of more than £15,000 a-year. That course would have had a great effect in stopping desertions. It had, moreover, an important significance from an economic point of view. It was calculated that the cost of each seaman in training amounted to about £200 a-head for every able seamen; and therefore the loss of 800 or 900 men a-year by desertion occasioned a great pecuniary loss to the country. The desertions occurred almost wholly among men in their first term of service, and they could reduce the number of desertions by one-third, as he believed was quite possible, the arrangement would be an economical one. The subject was well worthy the attention of the Government. The right hon. Gentleman opposite hoped by means of the extra 2d. a-day to induce a large number of the men who had served 10 years to re-engage themselves, but he doubted whether that small increase of pay would have much effect in that direction, inasmuch as that class of men had shown themselves ready to sacrifice at the end of 10 years so much of their pension as they had already earned. At the same he thought those who had served 10 years were entitled to a higher rate of pay than those who had served a shorter period. The next subject he would notice was that of the Marine officers. The proposal in that respect was not, however, before the Committee. The right hon. Gentleman intimated that there was some difference of opinion between the Admiralty and the Treasury on the subject, and that the matter had been referred to a Committee of the Cabinet. On that, he would remark that, in his experience, it had not been the practice, nor was it wise, on an important subject like that, to ventilate the differences between separate Departments when the Government was responsible as a whole for the decisions of any and every single Department. Still more unusual was it to ask for a lump sum of money in respect to a scheme which had not yet been carried out. The right hon. Gentleman ought to withdraw the part of the Vote which related to that scheme and submit it later in the form of a Supplementary Estimate, when a practical decision had been come to as to the nature of the scheme to be laid before the House. Adverting next to the proposal concerning Engineer officers, it appeared to him generally to go in the
    158
    right direction. An improvement in the status of those officers was almost of more importance than an increase of their pay; but he thought it would be impossible to put them in a better position all at once. The right hon. Gentleman said that the number ought to be somewhat reduced, and that on the other hand the number of artificers should be somewhat increased. He further said that great pains would be taken in regard to the vouchers of respectability of young men entering that branch of the Service. If by that it was meant that the principle of competition was to be limited, it would be rather a retrogade measure, and one which would hardly meet with the approval of the House. In his opinion, the question of status was more important than that of pay, and all that was needful was to take care that the status and pay of the Engineers should be such as to attract good men, and then he believed that young men of good ability would be forthcoming. If some of their number should happen to be of humble rank, so much the better, provided they had the requisite competence for their duties. He now came to the question of the programme of ship-building in the dockyards, and by contract for the ensuing year, which, as he understood it, was a very simple one. There was to be some reduction in the amount of tonnage to be built as compared with the past year. In the coming year, the tonnage proposed to be built was 20,000 tons, or the normal amount laid down by his right hon. Friend (Mr. Childers) in 1869. During the five years from 1869 to 1874 there were built by contract and in the dockyards under the late Administration exactly 98,000 tons, making as nearly as possible 20,000 tons each year. During the first three years of the present Government 66,000 tons, as he gathered from the statement of the First Lord, had been built, being at the rate of 22,000 each year, or an aggregate of 6,000 tons more during the whole three years than the average normal amount which, he presnmed, they now thought to be necessary—namely, 20,000 tons per annum. In his reply the other night to the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. Seely) the First Lord of the Admiralty pointed out, at great length, the number of vessels he had built in three years, and appeared to think that no previous Administration had built any ships at

    159
    all. The real gist of the matter was, what amount of tonnage had been built in excess of the normal amount, and also what amount had been built in proportion to the increased outlay voted by Parliament. Now, as to the amount which had been expended. During the last three years the present Government had obtained an average sum of £1,000,000 sterling more for the Navy than the average sum voted by the House during the previous five years when the late Government was in office, and that additional £1,000,000 had gone almost entirely for the building and repairing of ships. That that was so was proved by the fact that during those five years the amount expended in shipbuilding and repairing in dockyards and by contract was £2,600,000; while during the last three years the amount had been £3,700,000. The present Government, therefore, had taken something over £3,000,000 during the last three years in excess of the normal expenditure of the five previous years. And what had we got for that? From the statement of the First Lord of the Admiralty it was clear that we had only got an addition of about 6,000 tons of iron-dads. That appeared to him to be a very small amount, and a question necessarily arose as to what had really been done with all that money. During the last three years in which there had been this excess of expenditure we had lost the Vanguard, which about equalled in tonnage the excess built during that period. The First Lord of the Admiralty said new boilers had been put into eight iron-dads during the last three years. That did not appear to be a very large number and would not in any way account for the increase, for he (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) presumed the repair of each of those vessels could not have cost more than £50,000 or £60,000. It appeared to him that the increased expenditure in the Dockyards was in great measure due to the repair of a number of vessels of doubtful utility. During the past year several vessels of that kind were repaired at the Dockyards. First among them was the Lord Warden, a wooden vessel plated with armour, which no doubt had been in her day a powerful and very useful vessel, but which had long passed into the class of vessel of very doubtful value. Between £50,000 and £60,000 had been expended upon
    160
    her, although he believed she was a vessel that never could be used for warlike purposes in future. Although this enormous sum had been spent on her, he understood that the rotten timbers of her hull had not been replaced, and he was informed there was a broad belt of rotten timbers at her water-line which were not removed. Although new boilers were placed in her, new cylinders were not provided, and her old cylinders had been bored so thin that her speed was reduced to eight knots. He thought, under these circumstances, the money was thrown away. Last year the Urgent also, which was an old hulk, was repaired at a cost of £20,000, for the purpose of being sent out as a depôt or hospital ship at Jamaica. He was astonished that such an expenditure should have been incurred for such a purpose. Many of the vessels which it was proposed last year to repair apparently had not been repaired, and appeared again in the programme of the present year, and he ventured to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it was wise to undertake the repair of some of those vessels, seeing that the money spent for repairs in the Dockyard had not been spent judiciously. Among them was, in the first place, the Liffey, which was an old hulk, and which, he believed, was intended to be sent out as a depôt ship. He believed it was intended to spend £23,000 on this vessel. Then he gathered from the programme that it was proposed to repair the Enchantress at an expense of £24,000. [Mr. HUNT said, the cost of improvements was included.] A shipbuilder some days ago stated that an iron vessel of that kind could be built for £30,000, and if that sum at all approached the amount for which such a vessel could now be built by contract on the Tyne, he (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) thought it would be very unwise to spend so much as £24,000 in repairing the Enchantress. As she stood she would sell for a number of thousand pounds for the purpose of being broken up. The next case was the proposal to repair the Lord Clyde. [Mr. HUNT said the Lord Clyde was only to be repaired as a gunnery ship.] But it was proposed to expend £26,000 to fit out the Lord Clyde to take her post, as he understood, at Portsmouth, as a gunnery ship in addition to the Excellent. Was it wise for the pur-

    161
    pose of naval drill to fit out at great expense such vessels as the Lord Clyde and the Excellent, which were of no use for naval purposes, when we had always at command the Thunderer and Devastation? In the experience of his right hon. Friend who sat near him and himself nothing was so expensive as maintaining and repairing these hulks, and it would be much better, instead of maintaining such ships as these, to build barracks on shore for the training of the men. The ships to which he had alluded were not suitable for the employment of the largest guns now coming into fashion, whereas in barracks on shore the men could be trained thoroughly in the use of large ordnance. He thought expenditure in the Dockyards ought to be confined to real fighting ships. He would not enter in detail into the programme of the coming year. It was a very simple one, and the chief novelty involved the building of a great torpedo vessel at Portsmouth. As the right hon. Gentleman, however, had not entered in detail into the character of that vessel, it would be rather difficult for him (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) to discuss the matter. The discussion upon that point had better be postponed until Vote 6 came under the consideration of the Committee. With regard to the Dockyard Vote, he wished to know whether he had correctly understood the right hon. Gentleman, in reply to a remark he made the other evening, to state that it was his intention to increase the responsibility of the Naval Superintendents.
    MR. HUNThad said that he intended to make a change not in the responsibility of the Naval Superintendents, but in the form of the communications to them which were to be brought more into accordance with their instructions.
    MR. SHAW LEFEVREwas anxious to know whether that alteration in the form of the communications would increase the responsibility of those officials or not. The old form had been—"You are requested to do so and so," or—"You are to instruct the officer below you to do so and so;" whereas the new form was to be—"You are to do so and so." In his opinion that alteration in the form of the communications would increase their responsibility. This was an extremely important matter, and ought not to have been made without careful consideration, nor with-
    162
    out submitting the whole question to a Committee. He deprecated fresh responsibility being thrown upon these Naval Superintendents, and his opinion upon the point was supported by that of Sir Spencer Robinson, and he suggested that the wiser plan would have been to have built up a substantial civilian management of the Dockyards under those officials. For his own part he should have liked a Committee to have been appointed in order to decide how far it was wise to compel Naval Superintendents to have the charge of mere civil work, such as the building of ships and the control of the workmen. He wished also to know how it was that the shipbuilding programme for the year showed so large a sum as nearly £250,000 in excess of the amount required last year. In conclusion, he observed that he had only dealt on that occasion with some of the more important branches of the subjects which were relevant to the general discussion upon the Navy Estimates, and that he should take another opportunity of referring to the other points of minor importance.
    MR. A. F. EGERTONsaid, he did not intend to follow the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) at any length through the various subjects he had touched upon. The hon. Member had begun his remarks by comparing the work done by the present Naval Administration with that which had been done by that which had preceded it. He would not enter on that occasion into the question whether the present Naval Administration had not done as much as they ought to have done, or whether they had done quite as much as could be expected of them; but he would quote a few figures which would show that, at all events, they had done something. Taking the number of tons built in the dockyards in the year 1873–4 there were built of armoured ships 4,050 tons, and of unarmoured ships 8,374 tons, while the average of tons built in the three succeeding financial years under the present Administration was of armoured ships 4,531 tons, and of unarmoured ships 9,518 tons. The number of men employed in constructing ships in the dockyards was in 1873–4 4,599, against an average in the three following financial years of 5,443, the numbers engaged in repairs being respectively 4,399 and

    163
    5,175. The number of tons built in private yards were in 1873–4 of unarmoured ships 4,976 tons, and of armoured ships none, while the average in the three following years was of unarmoured ships 5,100 tons, and of armoured 2,820 tons. Again, the horsepower of new machinery constructed was in 1873–4 26,680 tons, against an average in the three following years of 30,780. These figures showed that the present Administration, if they had not done so much as they should have done, had at all events done something more than had been done in the previous year. He did not think that in selecting the year 1873–4 for comparison with the three following years he was dealing unfairly with those responsible for the former Administration, but if the hon. Member opposite thought that there was anything exceptional in that year he could point it out to the Committee. The hon. Gentleman had charged the present Administration with extravagance in deciding to repair the Lord Warden and the Royal Alfred. The hon. Member had evidently obtained his information on the subject from the newspapers, which in this instance were incorrect. The question of repairing the Royal Alfred had certainly been under the consideration of the Administration, but finding that the ship on being opened was not worth repairing, they had decided not to repair her. The same course was taken with the Lord Warden, which was a stronger ship than the hon. Gentleman seemed to suppose. Along with the Controller of the Navy, he had gone over the Lord Warden, and they both thought she was worth keeping afloat, especially as she could be repaired at no very great cost. He was also of opinion that the Enchantress was worth repair, and that it was necessary to repair her. As to the Naval Superintendents, the hon. Gentleman had asked in solemn tones whether the Order lately issued by the First Lord had not increased their responsibilities. Now the fact was that there was no increase of responsibility. Moreover he (Mr. Egerton) maintained, in spite of Sir Spencer Robinson's opinion, that their responsibility was complete over their yards. Of course, you could not place them entirely in the position of managers of private yards, because those managers were almost invariably responsible for the purchases, while in a Government
    164
    yard the Contract department at the Admiralty provided the stocks. The Naval Superintendents, however, were really responsible for the whole management of the yard. They had the control of all the subordinates, and it was their duty to see that the work was done well and done economically, there being a concurrent jurisdiction in this matter with the Controller at the Admiralty. The change made by the First Lord in no respect altered the position of the Naval Superintendents. He would pass now to the remarks of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Pembroke (Mr. E. J. Reed), who seemed to have formed a false idea of what the Admiralty were doing in the past year. The hon. Gentleman complained that the Admiralty had not been doing the work which in their programme of last year they proposed to do.
    MR. E. J. REEDexplained that his complaint was that the Admiralty had not been doing the work which in the programme of last year they undertook.
    MR. A. F. EGERTONreplied that what the Admiralty undertook to do was to carry out a certain amount of work upon certain ships. They had not been able to adhere exactly to their programme and carry out the same character of work which they promised, but what they had done had been to spend the money, doing quite as much work with it as they had promised, though they had not always done such work as was expected. It was quite true that the amount of tonnage promised had not been added to the Inflexible; but a large amount of work had been done, and if there were any changes in the character of the work this was owing to alterations of fittings, which in almost every ship it was impossible to avoid. The same remark applied to the Dreadnought, and it was true, therefore, that the programme as regarded those two ships had not been entirely completed. The hon. Gentleman had also adverted to the regulation of the progress of the ships; but it was exceedingly difficult to calculate the tonnage which was said to be added to a ship. He (Mr. Egerton) did not know what was the method adopted by the hon. Gentleman when at the Admiralty, but he understood that it was arrived at by guesswork. The method of calculation adopted in the Estimates was adopted after considerable discussion,

    165
    and seemed to be the only way in which it was possible to estimate the amount of progress made. If, however, the hon. Gentleman could recommend a better method, no doubt if it were put before the Constructor's department it would be adopted. Then the hon. Gentleman said the Admiralty, in the contract work, had committed itself to larger sums than they estimated at the time of their programme. This was true, and arose chiefly from alterations made in the type of ships of the Comus class; but the First Lord stated that he did not commit himself precisely to details with regard to these ships, and that it might be necessary to alter them materially. This had proved to be the case to a considerable extent, and accounted for a large portion of the discrepancy mentioned by the hon. Gentleman. Viewing the work as a whole, he contended, as his right hon. the First Lord of the Admiralty would show when he rose to speak, that the programme of last year had been practically completed, that as much work had been done as the Admiralty expected, and that the variations in the character of the work, which accounted for the difference between the programme and the actual performance, were only such as were absolutely necessary in every year's work at the Admiralty.
    MR. SEELYsaid, the Committee appointed to report on the supply of Naval Engineers observed in their Report that, notwithstanding the high education to be given and the position in which the Engineer officers would be placed as commissioned officers, a large portion of the students were the sons of artificers of various grades, of seamen or Marines, and of others belonging to the same class of society; and the Committee recommended that some attempt should be made to procure the entry of students who would be in all respects fitted to take their places with naval officers in the ward-room and gun-room messes. The First Lord had said that, though the matter was a delicate and difficult one, he proposed to try the experiment suggested by the Committee. He proposed to make the young men who were accepted as candidates pay £25 a-year for three years for their instruction. That proposal was not put forward to save the public money, but in order to exclude the comparatively poor from all chance of competition with the compa-
    166
    ratively rich. Three or four witnesses were examined to whom a list was shown indicating the classes of life from which the boys were drawn. It appeared that they were, to a considerable extent, the sons of dockyard artificers and seamen, and an opinion was expressed that they were not the class with whom the sons of naval officers would like to associate. He wished to know how it happened that this list was not printed with the Report, and he would ask whether there was any objection on the part of the Admiralty to furnish a copy of it? It appeared that one of the engineers was the son of a washerwoman, and he believed that this sealed the fate of the present system. He marvelled that in the year 1877 such a Report should have been presented to the Admiralty, and that the Admiralty should have sent it to that House. He ventured to say that if the present Opposition had been sitting on the Ministerial benches that Report would never have been presented to the House of Commons. What was the education required from successful candidates in this department? It included English, French, arithmetic, geography, algebra as far as quadratic equations, and the first six books of Euclid; and yet young men who passed by the sons of naval officers in an examination higher than the preliminary examination for solicitors, and more exacting in mathematics than the matriculation examination of the London University, were to be set aside as ill-mannered dogs, who could not be admitted into the gun-room and the ward-room. These young men must be, however, the best of their class, and before the First Lord carried this part of the Report of the Committee into effect it was desirable that the House of Commons should have something to say upon it. The evidence of various naval instructors went to prove that the Service would sustain no injury by admitting to the gun and ward-rooms sons of working-men and artificers—even sons of washerwomen, who by their ability were able to pass a competitive examination. If there was a little roughness at first on the part of these young fellows, that roughness would soon be got rid of when they found themselves mixing with gentlemen of a little higher grade. At present the chasm between different classes of society was quite wide and deep enough, and he thought they

    167
    ought to do nothing to render it wider. The real question, however, was not as to their manners and whether they were fit for the gun-room and ward-room, but whether the country was likely, by the system recommended by the Committee, to get the best engineers for the Royal Navy. Most people would say that the wider the area the greater would be the chance of getting better men. This was, in fact, an attempt to restore that principle of patronage which had been for so many years the curse of our public Departments, and the system of nominations by the Admiralty was nothing but throwing overboard the principle of free and healthy competition. With regard to the efficiency of the Navy now as compared with its state at the time when the present Administration began, the hon. Member stated that only two of the line-of-battle ships launched under the present Administration — namely, the Nelson and the Northampton—had been designed and built under the directions of the existing Board of Admiralty. All the others which had been added to the Fleet had been laid down and in progress under the preceding Administration. Replying to a request which the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Hunt) made on a former occasion for further information respecting the Assistance and the Invincible, which he (Mr. Seely) had spoken of as having broken down, he now quoted the authority of several newspapers in support of his original statements, the effect of the extracts being that the Assistance had gone to sea with a leak the existence of which was unknown, and had afterwards been helpless for 24 hours off Jersey, other vessels having to be sent to help her, and an Admiralty inquiry afterwards leading to the removal of two of her engineers; and that the Invincible's machinery had been found hopelessly defective when she was about to be re-commissioned. Of the 14 cases of the kind that he had referred to, the right hon. Gentleman had admitted eight, and the rest he (Mr. Seely) had substantiated. Alluding again to the case of the Thunderer, he expressed the opinion that the boilers of the Navy were not constructed with a view to strength so well as they might be, and he would conclude by pointing out that, at one and the same time, no less than five of our iron-dads—a very large proportion of our fighting power—
    168
    had from some cause or other been disabled. He ventured to differ from the view of the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty that these accidents were unavoidable, and were not due in any degree to negligence or ignorance at the Admiralty; on the contrary, he thought that a little knowledge and a little care would save this country from the recurrence of such serious disasters in the future.
    MR. SAMPSON LLOYDthought the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty in introducing the Navy Estimates, while generally satisfactory both to the House and to the country, was in some particulars open to adverse comment, and upon those he would make a few remarks. The Royal Marines, who were one-third of the whole number of men on the books of the Royal Navy, had been called the step-children of the Service, but they might be more accurately described as the hapless orphans or foundlings, for they seemed to be without any caretaker, and their case was an extremely hard one. A hope had been already held out this Session that something might be done for them; and while he accepted the expression of that hope he could not forget that a similar statement had been made two or three times before, and that men were now losing what they might otherwise gain if the plan of the Government could be matured more quickly. In this corps promotion was utterly stagnant. Generals of Marines only retired at 70 years of age, while major generals in the Army did so at 60. Again, there were 60 subaltern officers who had served an average of 16 years, and one of whom had been 18 years a lieutenant, on pay of £130 a-year. Those unfortunate officers had been induced to enter the Service, trusting to the good faith and feeling of successive Governments, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would do something to relieve the stagnation of promotion, seeing that many of them were too old to change their occupations. Pending the elaboration of a scheme he suggested two or throe palliatives which would do some justice at a little cost. There were now three captains who were not on the rota for foreign service, having accepted other appointments, these might be placed on the list of supernumeraries; the colonels

    169
    second commandant might have their pay raised from £1 per day to £1 6s. 3d., the amount received by officers of a similar rank in the Royal Marine Artillery; and some other things might be done to stimulate promotion. What was proposed for the Royal Naval Engineers was satisfactory as an instalment of what they expected. The continuous-service men in the dockyards—many of whom had served in the Crimea and the Baltic—ought to be allowed to count their sea-service in qualifying for pensions, and something ought to be attempted to remove the disadvantages under which the mechanic-writers and the leading men of shipwrights laboured.
    MR. GOSCHENsaid, that many questions had been asked and had not been answered on the part of the Government, and it was exceedingly desirable that the Committee should be in possession of the desired information—particularly with regard to the scheme of the Engineers—before the debate proceeded. That information had not been supplied by the speech of the hon. Gentleman the Financial Secretary.
    MR. HUNTsaid, it was usual for the First Lord of the Admiralty to listen to all the observations hon. Members desired to make upon his statement before he spoke in reply, and that was the course he proposed to adopt on the present occasion. Of course the Financial Secretary could not supply information as to the policy of the Admiralty, because he was not in the same position as the Secretary to the Admiralty of former days who sat in the Board room to record the decisions of the Board. Beyond that, inasmuch as he had been made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Pontefract (Mr. Childers) only the Financial Secretary, therefore he could not well reply upon questions of relative rank. The rule that the First Lord should reserve his remarks for the close of the debate was more convenient than the suggestion that he should reply piecemeal to every question that might be put, although it might be agreeable to right hon. Gentlemen opposite to have some chance of the last word. The right hon. Gentleman's criticisms, no doubt, would be able and worthy of attention, but he (Mr. Hunt) should like to have the last word. He was willing to make a
    170
    general statement of his policy and arrangements at once, if that was the wish of the Committee; but if he were to be subjected afterwards to further criticisms, he would rather sit down and let the right hon. Gentleman make whatever remarks he had to address to the Committee.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, that nobody desired that the First Lord should have the first word. What his right hon. Friend near him (Mr. Goschen) meant was this—That when questions were asked by hon. Members someone connected with the Admiralty ought to answer them, and then their whole policy could be discussed. If, however, the Committee were to wait until the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord made his statement no opportunity would then be afforded to answer him, and the only alternative would be to adjourn the debate to another evening, when, on going into Committee on the Navy Estimates, all the questions might again be raised. That, however, would not be a saving of public time. The Admiralty ought to have some one on the front bench who was acquainted with their policy, besides the First Lord. He gave this reason for the Financial Secretary not answering. [Mr. HUNT: I said as to this particular question of relative rank.] Well, all he could say was that he ought to be, and that it was a great practical inconvenience to the Committee to find he could not answer the questions put to him. It was surely desirable that some official of the Admiralty should be in a position to do it, and not have all the necessary information confined to the First Lord himself.
    MR. HUNTsaid, that his hon. and learned Friend opposite (Sir William Harcourt) had misunderstood him. A question had been put in regard to the future relative rank of Engineer officers, and the other evening he made a statement that there would be an improvement in their relative rank, and to-night a question had put as to the exact change proposed to be made. This, he thought, was a question which did not require to be answered offhand, but might well wait until the close of the debate; and the reason he gave why the Financial Secretary did not answer it was that it did not come within his province. He could only answer as to the general naval policy.
    MR. SAMUDAsaid, that the present was the only opportunity given to the Committee to discuss the general policy of the Admiralty. Both sides appeared to agree that they had practically been building about 20,000 tons of shipping a-year for several years. Both sides had taken great credit for improvements effected in particular years during their respective Administrations of the Admiralty, but the truth was that there was nothing to be proud of on either side. If hon. Members would refer to the debates which occurred when his right hon. Friend (Mr. Goschen) was First Lord, they would see that 20,000 tons only represented the annual waste in the Navy. Therefore, they were not making progress, but had only just been maintaining their own for the last 10 years. In his opinion, a slight amount of increase would be very acceptable to the nation. Though he had carefully studied these Estimates during the whole time he had been in that House, now many years, he had never been able to understand them; and his hon. Friend (Mr. E. J. Reed) had only been able to do so, because his official career made him one of the initiated. As a practical shipbuilder and accountant, he asked why, in the name of common sense, have these elaborate Estimates, which mystify everybody? Why not have a simple statement of the work to which the Admiralty proposed to commit themselves in the course of the year and the amount they proposed to spend? Such a statement might be comprised in a single page. How was it possible to represent a certain amount of progress in tonnage by a certain amount of labour? Some ships cost £100 a ton, others only £25, and during the period of finishing no progress was made in tonnage, and yet the greatest amount of labour then took place. These accounts were therefore eminently misleading. During the time he had been in the House three or four changes had been made in the form of these accounts, and each time they had become more difficult to understand. Why were not the Admiralty content to do what ordinary mortals did in this matter? He hoped that if the present debate had no other result it would, at any rate, induce the right hon. Gentleman opposite to take into consideration the necessity of getting rid of the absurd system which had been growing up for
    172
    many years in this matter of the Navy Estimates. He did not agree with all the remarks of his hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke; but with regard to the Italian ships, he agreed with him so far as to think that we had gone quite far enough at present both in the matter of armour and guns until we saw what would be the result of actual warfare. Our Navy was still superior to all others in number and quality; but, looking to the new means of attack which might be adopted against large vessels by torpedoes, he thought it was desirable to decrease instead of increasing the size of their vessels, as far as was consistent with their carrying thick armour and heavy guns, and preserving a high rate of speed. The torpedo question was the first naval question of the day, which ought to be dealt with to the fullest extent, and he would point to the Thornycroft type of torpedo ship as a triumph of engineering. If an engineer had been told a few years ago that it would be possible to get a speed of 18 knots out of such a ship 80 ft. long he would have said—"The thing is impossible." Such, however, was the result now attained. The Thornycroft was the type of boat they would have to make use of in torpedo warfare, and every large ship would probably have to carry torpedo beats which might in case of necessity act as sharpshooters and circle round her, keeping off other wasps of the same kind. If his right hon. Friend would order half-a-dozen or 10 of these vessels, so as to test their value, he would do a service to the country. With reference to the ram about to be built on the suggestion of Admiral Sartorius, he had no objection to it, but he thought if we got an ordinary little beat and stuck a torpedo at the end of it, we should be able to do more with it than with the ram. Had his right hon. Friend considered the conditions on which a ram could act successfully against another vessel? He (Mr. Samuda) had found that unless the ram had at least 50 per cent more speed than the other vessel, it would not have a chance to get into a position to strike her. With regard to the remark of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Reading (Mr. Shaw Lefevre), he wished to point out that the estimate for a sister ship to the Enchantress was not, as the hon. Gen-

    173
    tleman stated, £24,000, but would cost at least £42,000.
    MR. MACGREGORsaid, the boilers of the Royal Navy were strong enough generally for the strength of the engines; but he thought it would be better if those who had charge of that department would pay a little more attention to the strength of the engines, for they were not so strong as they might be made, or as they would be required to be if intended for merchant steamers. The engineers of the Navy were underpaid, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty would before long greatly benefit their position both in rank and pay. The chief engineers of the Navy were only paid, after five years' service, £15 4s. 2d. per month; but he (Mr. Macgregor) did not know where to go for engineers for the merchant service at such a sum. It was true they were frequently unemployed, when they were paid £8 10 s. a-month; but with all that the Service was not popular. He had been asked to obtain employment for a naval engineer, but on the understanding that it was not to be in the Royal Navy. He must repeat that he sincerely hoped that the engineers' condition would be improved, so as to induce the best men that could be got in the country to accept service in the Navy.
    MR. W. WHITWORTHsaid, he was very glad to learn that something was to be done to raise the position and the pay of Naval Engineers. They were a most useful class of officers, and were becoming more so every day. He only hoped that fair play might be allowed to every class, and if officers' sons in the competition took the prize, they would be entitled to it. But this he would say—if engineers in the Navy were not polished gentlemen, at all events they were well-conducted and gave no offence to others, while he believed those who conversed with them might derive improvement from their conversation. Upon the main question involved in these Estimates he could not help saying a few words. He thought the Estimates too large. They might fairly be reduced. He believed that the Navy was at present far larger than was necessary for the defence of the country. It might be very well to talk of the Navies of other countries; but he had known ships belonging to those Navies which had been
    174
    the bugbear of Europe when they could not move a mile out of harbour. They had the Russian Fleet, which was a gross humbug. Its sailors were no use as an offensive power against one of our ships manned with our officers and men. We spent too much money on our Navy. He would only spend so much upon the Navy as would secure the safety of the Empire, and he would repeat that he believed the present Estimates might be largely reduced and still leave it in a position to do that. He would not say that any particular Vote might be reduced, but he thought the gross amount of £10,000,000 might be brought down. The American system of doing away with the Fleet when they did not want it was far the best, for they were gaining the experience for which we were now paying. He would not take the responsibility of moving the reduction of the Vote himself; but if any hon. Member would do so, he would support him.
    MR. GOSCHENsaid, he thought the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Hunt) would admit that while they had had a very interesting discussion, those who sat on the front Opposition bench had not attempted to trench unduly upon the time of the Committee. His right hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract (Mr. Childers) had preferred not to address the Committee on that occasion, because he was anxious that every hon. Gentleman on both sides of the House who desired to speak upon the question should have an ample opportunity of doing so. It had been complained, at all events by those who sat on the Opposition side, that hitherto the discussions on Naval affairs had been conducted too much by those who sat on the two front benches, but no complaint of that kind could be made on the present occasion. He trusted, however, notwithstanding the hour, that the Committee would allow him to make a few observations. First, in regard to the attitude taken up by the Government with respect to the Naval Engineers. He made an observation a few minutes ago as to that attitude; but he felt himself in this position—that he had to address the Committee on a policy with which they were scarcely acquainted, about a ship which had not been described to them, and about arrangements for Marines which had not as yet been

    175
    decided by the Government. They had only the shreds of a policy before them. The Financial Secretary, as they learned from the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty, proposed only to address the Committee upon the financial questions. He (Mr. Goschen) ventured to say that was an entire novelty in these debates.
    MR. HUNT: I never said so.
    MR. GOSCHEN: The right hon. Gentleman said he did not say so. He (Mr. Goschen) was certainly under the impression that the right hon. Gentleman had told them that the Financial Secretary, in addressing the Committee, would only speak upon the financial question in regard to the Engineers.
    MR. HUNT: That he would only speak on the relative rank of the Engineers.
    MR. GOSCHENasked, did the right hon. Gentleman mean to imply that the Financial Secretary would answer other questions with regard to the Engineers?
    MR. HUNT: There is no other question.
    MR. GOSCHENsaid, the Government seemed to be totally blind to this question of Engineers. A most able speech had been made by the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. E. J. Reed) upon the subject, and yet the right hon. Gentleman said across the Table that there was no other question for criticism but that of relative rank, and that it was a very small matter. He (Mr. Goschen) ventured to think, on the contrary, it was a very large matter, that the question of the position which was to be occupied by Engineers on beard Her Majesty's ships was one of very great importance. It was not a question of pay, and no small increase of pay would settle this great question as to whether this branch of the Service would be put in that position on beard Her Majesty's vessels which had become necessary by the exigencies of our Navy? He wished to know whether the Engineers were to be placed upon the same footing with the military branch of the Service, as was recommended by the Committee? [Mr. HUNT dissented.] The right hon. Gentleman shook his head. Then he understood, with regard to that point, that the Government did not accept the recommendations of the Committee. [Mr. HUNT: No.] The right hon. Gentleman shook his head again. He
    176
    gathered, then, that the recommendation of the Committee on this branch was not accepted by Her Majesty's Government. What, then, was to be the position of the Engineers on board Her Majesty's ships? He understood from the right hon. Gentleman that they were to receive a higher rank than at present. He must speak in the dark, however, because the right hon. Gentleman neither nodded nor shook his head in regard to that matter. All they learned was, that the Engineers were to receive higher rank; but whether that would be satisfactory or not they were unable to say at the present moment. It was a matter of supreme importance with regard to the safety of Her Majesty's ships that this question of the Engineers should be dealt with in a comprehensive manner. If the Engineers were to have equal pay with the other branches of the Service, but inferior rank, that branch would not attract equally able and equally good men. The hon. Member for Pembroke had put a very bold view before the Committee, in suggesting that Engineers should become cadets like other officers of Her Majesty's Service, and be educated as a scientific branch of officers in that Service. That was thrown out as a counter-suggestion to one from the First Lord, that persons of higher social position than those who entered the Engineer Service should be attracted to the performance of these important engineering duties. From all the evidence we had on the subject, it appeared that it was not money, but position, on the part of the Engineer on beard ship that was looked to; but they had to think of the safety of their ships and to consider whether the authority of the engineer was so great and so well defined as it ought to be; and whether it was sufficient to enable him to prevent a recurrence of such accidents as had happened lately. It was to be hoped that the Government would look at the question, not as an Engineer's grievance, or as a matter of a few hundreds or thousands of pounds, more or less, but in that broad light in which the importance of the subject demanded that it should be viewed. He should rejoice with the First Lord if it should be found possible to attract a higher class of men to the Service; but the problem which the Government had to solve was to keep the Engineers as a practical working

    177
    class, up to their duties, and at the same time to secure their proper position on beard; and, in order to do that, they must either give them higher pay or superior rank. The Report showed that the Engineers had great difficulty in getting cabin accommodation and other little comforts, and that social recognition which must contribute to the authority of officers on board, and lie trusted the Committee might be re-assured that the Government would look upon this, not as a small matter, but as demanding so much attention that every Member of the Board would be acquainted with their policy. He had next to call attention to the education of the Naval Cadets of the Britannia. No portion of our naval arrangements was more important than the education of our naval officers. He wished to know whether the supervision of the officers and of the very large staff on board the Britannia was thoroughly and adequately carried out, and whether the transactions that took place could not have been stopped, if the officers had been more vigilant and the supervision better. Or had there been a different class of boys introduced since the class of competitive examination was abolished which formerly governed the admission to the Britannia? Bullying, at least, there had been; but the right hon. Gentleman said that there was bullying at all the public schools; but then in the case of public schools, the parent had the choice of the school to which he would send his child, while, with respect to the Britannia, that vessel was, so to say, the only avenue through which a parent could send his son into the Navy. To turn to another part of this important subject, he had to point out that there were only two turret ships in commission—the Monarch and the Devastation. [Mr. HUNT: The Hotspur and the Rupert.] Yes, but they had been commissioned only for a particular duty with reference to the complications in the East. It was of much importance in his (Mr. Goschen's) view, that the Monarch and the Devastation had been some time in commission as ordinary sea-going ships, because if our seamen had not been sent to sea in such vessels, they could not possibly, in time of necessity, feel at home in them. They could not be expected to do the duty required of them in time of war, if they had not
    178
    become somewhat accustomed to it in time of peace. It used to be said at Portsmouth that the man who would send a sailor to sea in the Devastation, would be guilty of manslaughter, but now that she had been tested on active service and the Thetis rescued, that theory could not be sustained. With regard to the Admiralty programme of last year, the hon. Member for Pembroke had subjected the Government to a very searching criticism, and the questions he had raised had not been satisfactorily answered. It had been stated by the Secretary to the Admiralty that it had been found necessary to change some of the details of the programme; but the difference in the amounts was £250,000, and no satisfactory explanation of the expenditure of such a largely increased sum had been given. He thought the right hon. Gentleman opposite ought to give full explanation upon the point, for Parliamentary control became almost a delusion when not a single word of explanation was given respecting that increase. Then, as to the comparative amount of shipbuilding done by the two Governments, he would merely enter his protest against the system of taking one year of the late Administration and comparing it with the average of the work accomplished by the present Administration. He did not think that the Government could complain that the Estimates had been criticized in a carping spirit. It was a matter of supreme importance, and he would like to know what was to be the policy of Her Majesty's Government with reference to the Engineers and the Marine officers; and he trusted that the Government would not call upon the Committee to vote any additional money, until it was known how the increased liabilities had been incurred, what was to be the cost of the new ship, and what were the arrangements on board the Britannia. The mere fact of how much the vessel was to cost could not, he was sure, communicate to foreign Governments any information as to her type or her class.
    MR. HUNTsaid he agreed with the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Goschen) that the Government had no reason to complain of the way in which the Estimates and their naval policy had been discussed. He was always exceedingly glad to hear the views of hon. Members

    179
    on whatever side they sat, and he felt that he might pick up many hints from the discussion on these occasions. That debate had ranged over very wide ground, embracing the kind of ships they ought to build and the kind they ought to put in commission; also the question of torpedoes, and again the question of the treatment and the behaviour of the cadets on board the Britannia. He would endeavour to deal with the different points which had been raised. With regard to the Britannia, the right hon. Gentleman opposite seemed to think that the alteration which had been made in the mode of admission to that training ship might have caused bullying to increase there. He could, however, re-assure the right hon. Gentleman on that head. Almost immediately after he (Mr. Hunt) went to the Admiralty, he found that there were great complaints of the bullying on board of that ship; and he adopted what some thought very severe measures, for which, indeed, he had been taken to task by an hon. Member below the Gangway. Mainly, however, he believed, in consequence of the severity of those measures, the bullying had very much diminished on beard the Britannia, and for the last two years he had been troubled with very few complaints on the subject. As he stated the other day, he did not regard bullying as wholly eradicated from the Britannia; but at the present moment, as far as he was able to judge according to the Report which he had lately received, it had been reduced to a very small compass. He did not venture to say that there were now no cases of bullying, and he certainly did not treat the matter lightly, but looked upon it very seriously, and was anxious to put an end to the practice. Certain boys, however, would be bullies whatever school they might go to; and he believed that from the nature of boys it was almost impossible entirely to prevent that. It was now the custom in the Britannia to trust to the honour of the boys more than was done formerly. There used to be ships' corporals appointed to act as spies on the boys during playhours; but that system had since been superseded by putting the boys more upon their honour, and he believed that the change had answered exceedingly well, and that there was much less of that disagreeable
    180
    practice than there was previously. Passing to a very different subject raised by the right hon. Gentleman opposite, he might mention that when he (Mr. Hunt) made his proposals last year with regard to shipbuilding, he informed the Committee that they intended to build six ships of the Opal class, and also that the type of the ship was open to some modification. The engines of 200 indicated horse-power were larger than those which were at first contemplated. That circumstance made a considerable difference in the expense previously estimated, and he believed that that and other alterations caused a difference of £20,000 upon each ship. The right hon. Gentleman had said that liabilities were incurred without Parliamentary sanction. He believed that last year he had incurred some liabilities because of the interests of the public service. In regard to the engines of the Mercury, however, he could hardly be said to have been without Parliamentary sanction; because in the Estimates, they had the sanction of the House for the construction of the Mercury, and it was only a question of time as to the putting in of her engines, because nobody could suppose that Parliament intended to sanction her hull only and not her engines also. It had been thought desirable to order the engines for the Mercury earlier than was at first deemed necessary. £93,000 was put down for the engines of the Mercury. That sum was not put down last year. His right hon. Friend was astonished at the sum, but he must remember that these two ships were intended to go 18 knots an hour, and therefore they were to be engined with very great power indeed. Well, there were some other smaller matters. He believed some change was made in the engines of the Pelican, and that there were some small differences in the contract prices of some others. The hon. Member for I Pembroke (Mr. E. J. Reed) criticized. his (Mr. Hunt's) statement with regard to the programme, and had said its proposals were not fulfilled; but he believed he was quite correct in his statement. He had figures prepared for him by the proper department, and be believed that, taking the same basis for estimated work and fulfilled work, as between different Governments, he stated with perfect accuracy what had been done. The

    181
    hon. Member criticized the basis on which his (Mr. Hunt's) statements were made, and no doubt they were open to some of the observations of the hon. Gentleman. As was stated in the Estimates, the tonnage was reckoned, not according to the number of men employed, but according to the actual amount of money spent on a ship. That was a mode of calculation adopted, he thought, in the time of the right hon. Gentleman opposite, who was dissatisfied with the calculations previously made with regard to tonnage. He (Mr. Hunt) believed it was very difficult to state tonnage accurately, and that the present mode gave the fairest notion of the amount of work that was done. What used to occur was this—a certain number of men were put down in the Estimates to be employed in building and a certain number to be employed in repairing. But when it was left optional, on account of the exigencies of the Service, to the Superintendents of Dockyards to take men off building, and put them on some ship in process of repair, it was constantly done; and the consequence was that the new ships did not make the same progress that had been estimated. He found that was in practice the first year he entered the Admiralty, and he set his face against it, and had endeavoured to put a stop to it. His rule, which he had rigidly laid down, was that no transfers of workmen should take place without special sanction, and that the men who had been told off for building should continue at that work. Talking of Superintendents reminded him of observations of the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. Shaw Lefevre), who wanted to know whether the Government had made any alteration with regard to the responsibility of Superintendents. He could only repeat what he stated the other night—that their responsibility was complete. The hon. Gentleman went at some length into the policy of repairing ships. Well, that was sure to be a vexed question, for there was nothing on which there was likely to be more difference of opinion than on the policy of repairing a particular ship. Whatever might be done would be open to criticism. If you put by a ship you would be told that you were going to build a new ship when you had an old ship that, if repaired, would last many years. If you repaired
    182
    that ship, then it would be said that you were "going to spend all that money on an old ship." That was an observation anybody could make. Nobody, he believed, was more opposed than himself to the repair of old ships, and nobody, he believed, who had been at the Admiralty had ordered so many old ships to be broken up as himself. He had repaired the Lord Warden at a cost of £40,000, although it was said she ought not to have been repaired; and she was now far more powerful than any ship in the Russian Fleet in the Mediterranean last year. With regard to the Royal Alfred, she was one of the ships which in his first speech he had sot down as "dummies;" in other words, had regarded as existing only on paper; and next year he adhered to what he had previously said about those ships, but made an exception of one which might possibly be worth repairing, and that was the Royal Alfred. Before she underwent repairs she was, in accordance with his strict instructions, very thoroughly examined, and it being found that the cost would be £100,000, the idea was abandoned. [Mr. GOSCHEN: What became of the money that was voted for her repair, then?] The money was spent on other ships. The repair also of the Enchantress had been a subject of careful consideration before it was begun. It was almost impossible for anyone outside the Admiralty, and unacquainted with all the data, to form a just opinion as to the expediency of these repairs. He had been told, during the debate, that he ought not to have had her repaired, and it was even stated in some of the newspapers that an entirely new vessel could be built for £30,000. That was all well enough, but he wished to know how much would have to be spent in the dockyards afterwards in order to prepare her for sea? Moreover, the question of time was to be taken into consideration. Two years would be required to build a new despatch vessel—and they were scarce—whereas the Enchantress could be repaired within a comparatively short period. The hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. Seely) had returned to the subject of the Assistance and the Invincible. As to the Invincible, she had not broken down at all, but having served her commission had come home in the ordinary course. It was true she was undergoing repairs

    183
    and having new boilers put in, but this did not alter the fact that she had not broken down. As to the Assistance, he was informed she had damaged a gangway by scraping against a pier. That was all that could be said against her, and he made the hon. Member a present of it. The hon. Member had further said we were no better as regarded ironclad ships than we were three years ago, and that the present Board had only added so many iron-dads to the Fleet; but he did not state the whole case with regard to the amount of work done, for it was necessary also to take into account the progress which had been made with those which had been under construction. The hon. Member also was quite wrong about the number of ships launched in different years. In 1876 four iron-dads were launched, and in 1875 three were launched. In the present year five iron-dads would be launched; and when he (Mr. Hunt) went out of office, he trusted to leave to the right hon. Gentleman or his Successor some work of the same kind to complete. The next question raised was that of the rank of the Engineers; and as he (Mr. Hunt) had already stated that their rank was to be raised, it appeared to him that the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Mr. Gorst) had made a great deal too much of the matter. The hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. E. J. Reed) thought they had not gone far enough, but the Engineers themselves were tolerably well satisfied with what it was proposed to do for them. As to the remarks of the hon. Member and of the hon. and learned Member for Chatham with respect to his (Mr. Hunt's) speaking disparagingly of the Engineers, he might state that he had never done so, but he had merely quoted an extract from the Report of the Committee, and that was the only way in which he had alluded to their social status. The Committee alluded to that as a serious fact which had to be considered in reference to the raising of the position of the Engineers. It was impossible to raise their position without considering their social status. They were the superior men of their class, and he had great pleasure in seeing them at his own table, and he was always glad to see them. At the same time, there was no use in disguising the fact that there was a difficulty in placing men of such different
    184
    social status in the same mess. It was found practically that it did not produce harmony in a ship, but discord. The question, therefore, was really a serious one, for it must be remembered that when they first entered the Service, not having had to associate with the same class as the administrative officers, they had those social disadvantages which prevented the latter from treating them on an equality. The Select Committee also recommended that we should endeavour to attract to the Engineering Profession for the Navy persons belonging to a higher social stratum. Moreover, the Committee proposed that they should belong to the military branch of the profession, but that they should never have command. This certainly would not be placing them on a par with the executive officers, and it went to the length of the suggestion of Admiral Fellowes, who said that they should be reckoned in the military branch, but never have the command of the ship. That seemed to him (Mr. Hunt) to give with one hand and take back with the other. He thought it would be quite proper, at some future day, to place the Engineers amongst the military officers. Without going that length, the Admiralty proposed to raise the pay of Engineer officers and artificers, and to make better arrangements for their comfort. The Government proposed that Chief Engineers of more than 10 years' standing should rank with Commanders according to seniority; that Chief Engineers of less than 10 years' standing with lieutenants of eight years' standing; that Chief Engineers of less than eight should rank with sub-lieutenants according to date of commission. He was glad to find that the Engineers received what was done for them as more than they expected, both in pay and position, and he trusted the improvements proposed would give satisfaction, and make the officers contented with the Service in which they were engaged. He did not say that this was to be a final settlement of the question, and it was possible that in a few years something more might be conceded. The hon. Member for Falmouth (Mr. D. Jenkins) suggested that we should leave our iron-dads and other expensive ships in harbour, and exercise our seamen in ships of less value. He (Mr. Hunt) had anticipated that suggestion

    185
    by promoting the employment of sailing vessels for exercise; but remembering the remark of a warrior of ancient days, when he declined to wear armour of the best construction because he had not proved it, he (Mr. Hunt) thought that our officers and men would not go with confidence into action on board an ironclad if they had not had some previous experience in handling one. The great object should be to give officers and men experience of all the different parts of a ship in use in the Navy, and particular pains to select as officers of the great iron-dads those who had shown great ability in managing ships of less value. As to the Devastation, he had himself expressed the greatest doubt as to whether she should be considered a sea-going ship—at all events, without a trial. Orders were given for that trial, and the Devastation was sent round the coast with the Channel Squadron, and having thereby gained confidence in her, the Admiralty had determined to send her to the Mediterranean, when her behaviour in crossing the Bay of Biscay fully justified their taking that course, her commander stating that she might be trusted to go anywhere and to do anything. Had she been kept all the time in harbour, he confessed that he should not have felt altogether justified, in the event of a naval war, in sending her to sea. From the experience gained by her behaviour he had now the same confidence in the Thunderer and in other similar ships, and this was certainly a considerable advance. The hon. Member for Pembroke had asked him questions as to the size and the cost of the torpedo ram. Her size was about 2,000 tons, but he could not state exactly what her cost would be, although it might be calculated approximately from her tonnage. The Admiralty had been challenged to-night to state whether they were going to permit the Italian Government to surpass them in heavy armour and in guns of large calibre without attempting to produce anything to match them. The matter had certainly engaged his serious attention, and he would admit that we were not, for this reason—when the Italians had settled what the form of these monstrous ships was to be, then he thought it would be easy for us, with our enormous resources, having given them that start in point of time, at any time to
    186
    overtake them. Unless he could not help it, he was not desirous of building ships of this enormous size, and he was rather disposed to take the view that small ships would be more effective in most cases than large ones. He had approved of the Inflexible, and two smaller ships were to be built on the same principle. He could assure the right hon. Gentleman that the Admiralty were unanimous as to the desirability of building another Agamemnon. With respect to torpedo ships, he agreed with what the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Samuda) had said in reference to them, and he had had the pleasure of receiving the President of that Assembly—Mr. Speaker—on board a torpedo ship that day. It was quite true that while she could not go far to sea, and was too large to be conveyed on board an ironclad, she could be employed with great advantage within certain limits in many of our harbours, and that she would be a valuable addition to our Navy. Then as to the Marine Service, it could not be denied that it was very desirable to do away with the stagnation of promotion which had too long prevailed in that valuable corps, and as that was the object of the scheme, he hoped the Committee would not do anything to interfere with it.
    MR. GOSCHENsaid, he was not against the Vote, but he would like to know how the money would be employed?
    MR. HUNTunderstood that the right hon. Gentleman objected to pay before he knew the plan; but he (Mr. Hunt) did not know it himself. He hoped the Committee would now proceed to vote the wages for the men.
    MR. GOSCHENasked, whether the decision of the Committee was expected before the end of the Session?
    MR. HUNTreplied in the affirmative.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Gourley.)
    MR. HUNThoped the hon. Member would withdraw the Motion.
    MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, that the Vote should be reduced by £1,000 for the changes for the Marines, which should be laid on the Table in the form of a Supplemental Vote.
    MR. HUNTsaid, that there was a precedent, with regard to the Admiralty Offices, last year, for the course taken.
    MR. GOSCHENsaid, that the Committtee had not yet reported. The money could not be spent until they had reported.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
    Original Question again proposed.
    MR. D. JENKINSmoved to reduce the Vote by £5,600, alleging that the Engineer officers were as well paid as the Executive officers, and by their want of experience many mishaps occurred to Her Majesty's ships, notably the Thunderer. Neither was there responsibility so great as was supposed.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £2,678,448, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Expense of Wages, &c. to Seamen and Marines, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1878."
    After a short reply, in opposition to the Motion, from Mr. HUNT,
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
    Original Question put, and agreed to.
    (2.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £1,178,610, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Expense of Victuals and Clothing for Seamen and Marines, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1878."
    MR. PARNELL,in moving that Progress be reported, said, he thought the Government were rather unreasonable in endeavouring to take that Vote after the discussion on the last Motion, which, so far as he could understand, simply seemed to have been introduced to take up the time of the House. He hoped the Government did not propose to detain the Committee to divide upon the Motion, he (Mr. Parnell) was about to move. It was no intention of his to obstruct the Business of the House. ["Oh! oh!"] He had never done so, nor should he do so, unless it became necessary. But there was a considerable distinction between obstruction and proceeding with Business in a slipshod manner.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Parnell.)
    Mr. GOSCHENsaid there was no opposition to the Vote, and he therefore thought it might be agreed to.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
    Original Question put, and agreed to.
    House resumed.
    Resolutions to be reported To-morrow, Committee to sit again upon Wednesday.

    METROPOLIS TOLL BRIDGES BILL.

      INSTRUCTION TO SELECT COMMITTEE.
      Motion made, and Question proposed,
      "That it be an Instruction to the Select Committee on the Metropolis Toll Bridges Bill that the Metropolitan Board have power to provide that any Bridges which may hereafter be constructed in the Metropolis shall be toll-free, and to inquire from what source the funds for that purpose can be derived."—(Mr. Samuda.)
      SIR JAMES HOGGopposed the Motion, on the ground that if carried it would tend to defeat the object of the Bill entirely.
      MR. E. J. REEDsupported the Motion.
      THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERadvised the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Samuda) not to press his Motion, or he would certainly extend very largely the scope of inquiry referred to the Committee, though the matters included in the Notice of Motion might be very proper subjects of inquiry.
      MR. RAIKESthought the Bill of the Metropolitan Board of Works did something like an injustice to the constituents of the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Samuda), who could only avail themselves at present of London Bridge; while the Bill would tax them for others they did not use. He would, however, advise the withdrawal of the Motion, in order to see whether some arrangements could not be come to.
      MR. ALDERMAN W. M'ARTHURhoped the Motion would not be passed, as he believed it would hamper the working of the Bill,
      MR. RITCHIEsaid, he should be glad to support the Motion, if the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Samuda) pressed it to a division.
      MR. SAMUDAsaid, he should not be doing justice to his constituents if he did not take the opinion of the House upon his Motion.
      Question put.
      The House divided:—Ayes 25; Noes 38: Majority 13.—(Div. List, No. 40.)

    WAYS AND MEANS.
    Considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Resolved, That, towards making good the Supply granted to Her Majesty for the Service of the year ending on the 31st day of March 1878, the sum of £8,428,458 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom.
    Resolution to be reported To-morrow.
    Committee to sit again upon Wednesday.
    House adjourned at half after One o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Justices Clerks *(28); Inns of Court (30); General School of Law * (31).
Committee—Report—Exoneration of Charges * (16-29); Contingent Remainders (17–29) Beer Licences (Ireland) * (23).
Third Reading—Irish Peerage (15), and passed.

PARLIAMENT—THE EASTER RECESS.

  QUESTION.
  EARL GRANVILLEasked the Lord President, What arrangements the Government intend to propose with respect to the Easter Recess?
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDONreplied that they proposed to ask the House to adjourn for the Easter Recess on Friday next, unless there should be any necessity for their Lordships to meet on a subsequent day to pass any Bill which might come up from the other House; and they proposed that, in accordance with what had been done for the last two years, their Lordships should re-assemble on Thursday, the 12th of April.

THE EASTERN QUESTION—THE NEGOTIATIONS.—QUESTIONS.
EARL GRANVILLEasked the noble Earl the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he is in a position to give the House any further information regarding the negotiations on the Eastern Question?
THE EARL OF DERBY: My Lords, I think it best, in answer to the noble Earl, to state exactly the course which the present negotiations have taken so far as they have hitherto gone. On Sunday, the 11th instant, after some previous communications had taken place on the subject, I received from the Russian Ambassador a draft Protocol proposed by the Russian Government, and intended to be signed by the Representatives of all the Powers, as embodying their views of the situation in the East. That draft Protocol was considered by the Cabinet, and certain modifications were proposed by us. Some negotiations ensued between Count Schouvaloff and myself; and in the end a modified Protocol was agreed on between us—agreed on to this extent, that we were prepared to adopt it, and he accepted it ad referendum. Count Schouvaloff accordingly referred that modified Protocol to his own Court; and if my noble Friend had put his Question three hours ago my answer would have stopped here; but shortly

91
before I came down to the House, I received a visit from Count Schouvaloff, and he informed me of a proposal of some alterations in the Protocol agreed upon between us which his Government considers desirable. Those proposed alterations I have not yet had time to consider. As I have only received them within the last few hours, they have not yet been seen by my Colleagues, and, therefore, I am not in a position to give any further information with regard to them.
LORD CAMPBELLasked the noble Earl whether it was correct that Sir Henry Elliot was about to return immediately to Constantinople, or was to enjoy that period of rest to which his multifarious and anxious labours so well entitled him?
THE EARL OF DERBY: I am glad my noble Friend has put the Question to me. In answer to it I beg to say that it was my wish and intention that Sir Henry Elliot should, if possible, return without delay to Constantinople, where his experience and judgment would render him eminently useful. I had a communication on the subject with Sir Henry Elliot, and, with that public spirit which he has always manifested, he expressed himself ready to return at once if the public service required that he should do so; but he did not conceal from me that he had come home in much need of rest after his arduous and anxious labours during the last 12 months, and he believed that if he returned to Constantinople without a further interval of repose, the probable result would be that in a very short time he would become again unfit for work and be compelled to ask for further leave. Under these circumstances I felt that, even putting personal considerations out of the way—and no man is more entitled to personal consideration than Sir Henry Elliot—it would not be for the benefit of the public service to press for his immediate return to the Embassy. I am, therefore, making other temporary arrangements for carrying on the work at Constantinople, and Sir Henry Elliot will remain some time longer in England, retaining his present position, but being here on leave.
EARL. GRANVILLE: I will put another Question to the noble Earl, leaving him to answer it only if he thinks fit—What are those other temporary arrangements?
THE EARL OF DERBY: As they are not yet made, I am unable to state them.

IRISH PEERAGE BILL.—(No. 15.)
(The Lord Inchiquin.)
IRISH PEERAGE BILL.—(No. 15.)

  THIRD READING.
  Order of the Day for the Third Reading, read.
  Moved,"That the Bill be now read 3a.—(The Lord Inchiquin.)
  LORD CARLINGFORDsaid, before the Bill passed, he was anxious to call the attention of the House to its position. This was the fourth year they had attempted in one way or another to deal with the question, and therefore they had not proceeded without very considerable deliberation. Four years ago a Select Committee of that House was appointed on the Motion of his noble Friend opposite (the Earl of Rose-beryl to inquire into the whole question; and that Committee was unanimous on the single question of closing—if he might so call it—the Irish Peerage, though there was a difference of opinion upon other points. The next year, 1875, an Address was moved to the Crown by a distinguished Member of the House, Earl Stanhope — which, after being altered to the form suggested by the Government, was unanimously agreed to. To that Address an Answer was brought from the Crown to the effect that Her Majesty desired that Her rights under the Act of Union—the right of creating Irish Peers—should not stand in the way of any consideration of the subject by Parliament. Last year his noble Friend (Lord Inchiquin) brought in a Bill dealing with the subject; and their Lordships would no doubt remember the fate of that measure. That Bill contained other matters easily separable from the single question of closing the Irish Peerage, which were not included in the Bill now before them—for it proposed to deal with the question of representation, on which point a considerable discussion arose. He remembered that the noble and learned Lord upon the Woolsack, whilst severely criticizing the other portions of the measure of last year, expressed the opinion that the arguments in favour of closing the Irish Peerage were unanswerable

  93
  and that Her Majesty's Government had no desire or opinion contrary to it. The essential part of the measure—that which was contained in the present Bill—received the unqualified approval and commendation of the noble and learned Lord. The Bill left their Lordship's House in May; but its fate in the other House was very different. It was introduced by a distinguished Member of the Irish Bar, who had since become a Member of the Government as Attorney General for Ireland; but, in spite of the good hands which it was in, Mr. Gibson was unable to obtain time for a full discussion; and on the 12th of August, when the Bill was in Committee, the House was counted out, and the measure came to an end. His anxiety was that the present Bill should not share the same fate. He believed there was a better prospect for the measure this year, not only because it left that House earlier in the Session, but much more on account of its simplicity, and because it did not deal with the much-disputed question of the reform of the Irish Peerage. He could not, however, help feeling that the Bill still ran considerable risk, and all the more if it left their Lordships' House without a single word said by the Government—as they said in Ireland, "good, bad, or indifferent." He thought the House would admit that a constitutional question of this kind ought not to be left in this way, and he thought the Government ought to do one thing or the other. The Government were perfectly entitled to oppose it; but not only had they not done so, but, on the contrary, had assented to it. Under these circumstances, it seemed to him that the Government had a duty to perform with respect to the measure; and if they did not take it into their own hands—which he very much desired to see them do—he thought the House might expect them to assume a certain amount of responsibility for it in the other House of Parliament.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDONsaid, he had listened with some attention to the noble Lord's speech, because he was not quite certain that he had caught the purport of it. The noble Lord, as he proceeded, seemed rather to find fault with the Government for not having opposed the Bill on the second reading. That was a course which the Government would, no doubt,
  94
  have adopted had they thought the Bill was one which ought not to pass; but that was not their opinion, and on the noble Lord's own showing, the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack spoke in favour of the principle of the Bill last year. The remarks made by his noble and learned Friend on that occasion showed what were the views of Her Majesty's Government; but as to the duty of the Government with regard to the position which they should assume in the other House as to taking charge of the Bill, the, noble Lord would forgive him for saying that the Government must be the best judges of that. He could give no assurance as to the Government undertaking any responsibility in, the matter.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, he did not think that the explanation of the noble Duke was satisfactory, because it left the House in ignorance of what course the Government proposed to take.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDONsaid, that the House had heard when the Bill was on for second reading what was the opinion of the Government with respect to it; but, having regard to the state of Business in the other House he could not, on the part of the Government, enter into any undertaking with respect to this Bill.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERYsaid, that what the Government had given the Bill was what a noble Earl opposite, the late Privy Seal, had described as "negative support" — a sort of support that must be very discouraging to the noble Lord who had charge of the Bill in that House. The Bill was overhung by the shadow of the cumulative vote 'proposed in the former measure; but he hoped the Government would disregard that shadow and assist to carry the Bill through the other House.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, that up to this the Government nights in the other House had been fully taken up with Government measures, and there were other Government measures which Ministers were awaiting an opportunity to introduce. In these circumstances, to ask Her Majesty's Government to take upon themselves the conduct of a Bill which they had not introduced would be to ask them to give up to it Government nights which were already appropriated to other measures.

  95
  He did not see how they could give the Bill any peculiar facilities without doing that; and at this period of the Session and in the present state of Business they were not prepared to promise to do it.
  THE EARL OF LIMERICKconsidered that when a practically unanimous assent had been expressed on the principle of the Bill for four years running the measure ought to receive an amount of support from the Government in "another place." Although the Bill itself was a small one, it involved a matter of considerable constitutional importance, and it did not seem right to him that a question of this importance should be kept pending year after year.
  THE EARL OF REDESDALEalso thought it of great importance that the Bill should pass, but the chances of its passage must depend on its Friends. Let them refrain from mixing up with the question in the Bill other questions which would be sure to lead to difference of opinion and lengthened debates.
  LORD INCHIQUINhoped that the view taken by the noble Earl the Chairman of Committees would be followed in "another place"; but there was no certainty, and it was more than probable that other alterations would be proposed. All who had interested themselves in the Bill in their Lordships' House were very anxious that it should pass, but they could not control their Friends in the other House. He had hoped to get an assurance from Her Majesty's Government that they would give the Bill all the assistance in their power.
  LORD SELBORNEagreed with his noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack, that the Government must first consider the measures which they themselves had in hand; but when the Government permitted a measure of such constitutional importance as one affecting the Irish Peerage to pass in one House unanimously, they ought scarcely to allow that measure to take its chance in the category of Bills promoted by private Members.
  LORD DUNSANYcould conceive some advantages in not making the Bill a Government measure, but saw no reason why the Government should not wish" God speed" to the Bill before it left their Lordships' House.
  LORD DENMANsaid, he was opposed to the principle of the Bill alto-
  96
  gether, and thought that a measure of so much importance to the Empire ought not to pass until the Irish Peers and the country had pronounced some opinion on it.
  THE EARL OF COURTOWNbelieved that the Irish Peers in their Lordships' House were unanimous, with, perhaps, one exception, in favour of the Bill, and were most anxious that it should pass.
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 3a accordingly, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

CATTLE PLAGUE — CONTAGIOUS DISEASES (ANIMALS) ACT, 1869.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  EARL FORTESCUErose to ask the Lord President of the Council whether the Cattle Plague had spread any further; and to call attention to the Resolution of the Royal Agricultural Society against the importation of any live stock from abroad. A very critical state of things, he observed, was created by the fact of cattle plague having now existed in the country for more than a month. He admitted that the measures taken by the Lord President since the appearance of the cattle plague had been characterized by vigour and excellent judgment, with a readiness to take upon himself the responsibility of any attempt to stamp out the disease before it could spread. But he found, on the high authority of Mr. Fleming, that the noble Duke was misinformed in stating, as he had done on a former occasion, that it never had appeared in Norway, Denmark, Sweden, Spain, or Portugal. In the last century its ravages had been terrible in the four first-named countries; and in Portugal, also, it had done extensive damage. In 1809 cattle, sheep, and meat were in the list of imported articles which were prohibited; and again by an Act passed in 1825 (6 Geo. IV., c. 107) they were prohibited, excepting 600 head which were allowed to come to this country from the Isle of Man. On a former occasion the noble Duke had expressed an opinion that to stop the importation of live cattle would be an interference with vested interests. Now, as to vested interests which might have grown up in regard to the non-slaughtering of beasts imported from

  97
  abroad, they were of recent origin, and therefore entitled to less respect than if they had been long in existence and a large capital invested in the trade. There had been a discussion at the Council Board of the Royal Agricultural Society, and a resolution was proposed that animals should be slaughtered at the ports of debarkation; but an Amendment was carried that as the precautions theretofore adopted for the prevention of rinderpest into this country had not been successful, nothing short of total prevention of all importation of live cattle from European ports would meet the exigencies of the case. The same views had been expressed in Leicestershire and at other places where meetings had been held. This, at any rate, showed that agriculturalists entertained a feeling of alarm which could not be called unreasonable looking at the large amount of loss which they sustained on the last occasion of the rinderpest visiting this country. He knew that the noble Duke would view this Resolution as a reactionary measure, and opposed to the principles of free trade; but they protested not against the importation of all stock, but only against the importation of fat stock—a kind of stock which was unable to endure a sea voyage and a long quarantine without great loss to the importer, through deterioration; so much so, indeed, as to prevent importation at a profit. In demanding the exclusion of fat stock he knew there were more advantages in bringing it over alive than dead; but he was not seeking protection from competition, but protection from the introduction and spread of cattle disease. He contended that if the Government established a quarantine of sufficient duration, so as to insure immunity against the spread of any contagion by animals having disease latent in them, the evil would cure itself. Lean stock would very easily submit to the detention, but fat stock would suffer deterioration and consequently expense to the owner. Moreover, it was to be remembered that a large amount of suffering was endured by these animals during their transit, and that many died before leaving the port of debarkation. He hoped that the noble Duke would be able to give their Lordships a favourable account of the present state of the country in regard to cattle plague.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDONsaid, he could assure the noble Earl and their Lordships that the Government were fully alive to the importance of this subject. The magnitude of the interests involved in the question—to the producers on the one hand, and to the consumers on the other—it was not possible to over estimate. He might add that, being largely engaged in agricultural pursuits both in the North of Scotland and the South of England, he had himself a considerable personal interest in the matter. He could therefore assure the noble Earl that this subject was one which had occupied the attention of the Government before the noble Earl brought it before their Lordships on a former occasion, and that it had not ceased to occupy their earnest attention since the first outbreak occurred. The noble Earl's Question might be divided into two parts—First, whether the cattle disease had spread any further than it had reached when the last statement was made in this House; and, secondly, whether the importation of live stock from abroad ought not to be prohibited. It being convenient to divide the Question into those two heads, he (the Duke of Richmond) would address himself to each—because the one contained a proposition quite distinct from the other. First, in regard to the cattle plague and its present complexion. Their Lordships would remember that the disease broke out at Deptford in a cargo of cattle brought from Hamburgh on January 15. It made its appearance at Limehouse shortly after that date; and had broken out in that immediate neighbourhood in one place or another on several occasions; he included Stratford as part of that limited area in the metropolis. All these outbreaks occurred before the 12th of March. Since that date no further report had been received from that area. At Hull the disease made its appearance on the 15th of February; about that time there were three or four outbreaks, but none had been reported to the Department since the 6th March. The only other outbreak had taken place in a mysterious way at a place in Lincolnshire, some nine miles from Hull. It made its appearance there on the 9th March, on a farm at Ulceby. All the animals on that farm were immediately destroyed, and the farm had been com-

  99
  pletely isolated—nothing was allowed to go upon it. The house was not occupied by the gentleman who farmed the lands, as he had a large business elsewhere; but a bailiff and one or two other persons were employed there. However, it had been isolated by not allowing any animals to go upon it, and he hoped that they would not hear of any further outbreaks in that locality or anywhere else. As he had stated, they had had no outbreak in London since the 12th of March, nor at Hull since the 6th. With regard to the measures which had been adopted to meet any outbreak, he might state again that Orders in Council were issued on the 16th and 18th January placing Germany, Belgium, and France in a Schedule, the effect of which was that sheep and goats from those countries must be slaughtered at the port of debarkation, and on the 27th January an Order was passed prohibiting the importation of cattle from Germany or Belgium, and from those countries since that date neither live animals nor meat in carcase could be brought over. These measures, it was to be observed, were adopted before the cattle plague had spread over the country. When the disease broke out at Limehouse the holding of fairs and markets in the district was prohibited; and it was ordered that beasts coming from the Netherlands must be slaughtered at the port of debarkation. An Order in Council was also issued on the 13th February authorizing all local authorities to stop fairs and markets in their respective districts and to prohibit the movement of cattle if they should see fit to do so, and several of those bodies had availed themselves of those powers. On two occasions he had, to save time, taken upon himself to advise that an Order in Council should be issued to stop fairs and markets in the East Riding of Yorkshire and in Lincolnshire. This was previous to the outbreak of the disease in that county, and, therefore, when the outbreak did occur, no fairs or markets could be held and, as elsewhere, the authorities had power to prohibit the movement of cattle. Thus far, then, he thought it not unfair to assume that the stringent measures which had been adopted to stop the spread of this most terrible and insidious disease had been successful. He had so far given the
  100
  noble Earl all the information in his power as to the present state of the cattle plague in this country. He had now to offer to the noble Earl an apology for having on the previous occasion challenged certain statements he then made without being perfectly accurate himself. But the fact was he had at the moment lost sight of something which had been done by Order in Council, and in reference to the existence of cattle plague in Sweden and Norway he felt now that he was wrong in saying it was not known there; but when he said that he was not alluding to outbreaks in those and adjoining countries more than 100 years ago—he was speaking as to what had happened within the present century—and he was not sure, nor did he think the noble Earl could himself say, that the cattle disease which broke out in parts of Europe at that period was the same as that with which we had now to deal. No doubt the disease of that time made much havoc amongst the herds, but not such as the cattle plague had done. He now came to that part of the noble Earl's Question that related to the Resolution of the Royal Agricultural Society of the 7th March, and the amendments moved by Mr. Jacob Wilson, in favour of stopping the importation of foreign cattle altogether. He (the Duke of Richmond) supposed that in referring to that Resolution, his noble Friend intended not so much to express approval or disapproval of it, as to call attention to the subject generally. If that recommendation were carried into effect, the consequence would be the withdrawal from the supply of food for the people of this country of between 200,000 and 300,000 of cattle, 1,000,000 sheep, and 50,000 swine—in all, about 1,500,600 of animals a-year. Before doing that it must be a matter for serious consideration. Perhaps the noble Earl did not go the length of such a Resolution; but he wished to prevent the importation of all fat stock except in carcase; and yet he would allow the introduction of, and trade in, store cattle after they had undergone a quarantine of sufficient duration and strictness to insure other cattle immunity from the disease. As he had just stated, it was a matter for deep consideration whether there should be a total withdrawal of 1,500,000 animals from the supply to

  101
  this country; and a question would then arise whether that withdrawal would be compensated by the importation of dead meat from abroad. If it could be proved that that 1,500,000 which came in alive for the purposes of food would be represented by a like quantity of dead meat in carcase, there might be something said for the proposition; but his noble Friend would agree that there was a great difference between the trade in live animals and the trade in carcases. If they brought over to this country a quantity of fat stock, and the market was not good when the animals came in, they could be kept over for the next; but when meat was brought over in carcase it was liable to all the changes of weather, and it must be sold at some price or another within a certain time; if not it would become unfit for human food, and would be condemned. Therefore it was a consideration whether persons carrying on a business in live animals would be able and willing to send over meat in the carcase. These were matters which must enter into the consideration of those persons who had to deal with the food required for the daily consumption of the people. He would pass by—though it was a point that would have to be taken into account—the question of the great amount of food that was provided for the poorer class in towns from the offal of the animals which came over alive, and which would not be available if the meat was imported in carcase. He could give an illustration of the effect of putting a check on the importation of animals into this country. During the six years ending 1869 the country imported from France 112,618 cattle; but in 1870 France was placed in the scheduled countries—which meant that all animals coming from France had to be slaughtered at the port of debarkation, or undergo a quarantine; and those restrictions were so stringent that in the seven years following 1869 the number imported was only 24,095—showing a very great distinction between the two periods. All that showed how cautious they ought to be in carrying out the Resolution to which the noble Earl had referred. He did not admit that he was so great a convert as the noble Earl seemed to intimate. The noble Earl said that the Resolution ought to be enforced for the purpose of preventing the
  102
  introduction of cattle disease; but he seemed to have forgotten that foot-and-mouth disease and pleuro-pneumonia were cattle diseases, and were known in this country before foreign animals were permitted to come in. Therefore foot-and-mouth disease and pleuro-pneumonia were not dependent on the introduction of foreign stock. Cattle plague was another matter; but he understood the noble Earl's argument to apply to all— diseases.
  EARL FORTESCUEsaid, that was not so.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDON: Was he then to understand the noble Earl to say that he would only seek to prevent the introduction of fat stock into the country to keep out the cattle plague, or would he equally exclude foot-and-mouth disease and pleuro-pneumonia? He apprehended that the Resolution was intended to exclude those two other other diseases as well; but they both existed in this country before foreign animals were admitted. He hoped that he had shown that as regarded all fat stock it would be necessary to proceed with the greatest possible caution before issuing an order for the purpose of keeping them out of this country. But the noble Earl said he would allow store stock to come in. He wanted to know why they were to make that distinction? If fat stock should not come in because of the fear of introducing cattle plague, why should store stock come in?—it would equally introduce the disease. If the argument was good in the one case it was equally good in the other. Once they granted that for the purpose of excluding cattle plague they ought to keep out fat stock, it was impossible to avoid the logical conclusion that they must also keep out store stock. A lean animal would just as easily introduce cattle plague as a fat animal would do. The noble Earl said it would be very easy to meet the difficulty by having quarantine in all cases, and to make it of sufficient strictness to secure immunity. He had often heard it said that we ought to have quarantine, but he had never met with any person who could state how it could be carried out. It sounded very well to the ear, but it would be one of the most difficult things in the world to carry into operation.

  103
  What was meant by a quarantine of sufficient time to ensure immunity from the spread of disease? A cargo of animals arrived at a port, and were placed in quarantine — disease broke out among them. If it were foot-and-mouth disease they might be cured; but if rinderpest they would be destroyed. Before the cattle were quite well, or the place disinfected, another lot of cattle arrived, quite free from the disease; that lot would have to be put into quarantine in the same place, and might catch the disease. It would be very hard on the owner of those cattle to put them in a place where they were sure to catch the disease, and keep them there until they were quite well, because they were not going to kill them, as they were store cattle. The result would therefore be that they would bring animals to a place which must become a hotbed of disease; and if they were there, and if they took the disease, and it was working among them, they would have to be kept for the period which might be fixed upon, and then they might go out to the country, and carry the plague to whatever part of the kingdom they might be sent. As far, therefore, as he could see, there was no mode in which they could practically carry out such a quarantine. First of all, they would have to establish very large quarantine grounds in various parts of the country. Could they do that at the ports at which the animals arrived? They would have to provide for them ground, and also pasture land for those animals which were grass-fed. They would have to set apart such an enormous space that it would be very difficult to carry out the plan. An experiment had been made at Harwich in respect to quarantine. Some cows and calves were landed from the Netherlands, and they were ordered to be slaughtered, as foot-and-mouth disease appeared among them; but the owners were rather rebellious, thinking that a very strong operation; and they asked that the animals might be allowed to be kept in quarantine. They were accordingly kept six weeks, until the animals affected got well. In the meantime, the shed was thoroughly infected, and at the expiration of that time the expense to the owners of the animals had been of so costly a character that the experiment was not one to
  104
  be repeated. There was the great question, also, to be considered, of what necessity there was for having store stock introduced into this country. On that they had not evidence now before them to show how far we were dependent on foreign countries for our store stock. There were some parts of the country where we did not require to import store animals, while in other parts they were rather necessary for carrying out agricultural operations. Some persons, he knew, had a great preference for cows coming from Holland for dairy purposes, over Shorthorns and Alderneys. All those, however, though they were of great importance, were matters about which they were not at that moment able to speak with anything like certainty. And considering that the attention of the public had been turned to the subject of cattle disease in consequence of the outbreak of that disease—which outbreak, he was happy to say, had been, as far as they knew, arrested—the Government thought that that was a time at which it would be well that further information should be obtained before the very serious step was taken of acceding to the proposition made by the noble Earl and by the Royal Agricultural Society. It was, therefore, the intention of Her Majesty's Government to have a Parliamentary inquiry forthwith into the whole subject of cattle disease, and into other matters connected with the proposal made by the noble Earl.

  INNS OF COURT BILL [H.L.] (NO. 30.)
  A Bill to make provision for the better regulation and government of the Inns of Court: And also,

  GENERAL SCHOOL OF LAW BILL [H.L.]
  (No. 31.) A Bill to establish a General School of Law in England:
  Were severally presented by The Lord SELBORNE; read 1a.
  House adjourned at a quarter before Seven o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter before Two o'clock.