Sitting of 28 June 1880

MINUTES.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee —NAVY ESTIMATES; Committee R.P. Resolutions [June 25] reported— CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS, £1,842,500, further sum on account.
PUBLIC BILLS—Resolution in Committee —Ordered —First Reading —Parliamentary Oaths and Affirmations* [251].
First Reading —Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (Dublin, &c.)*.
Second Reading —Inclosure Provisional Order (Hendy Bank Common)*[238]; Inclosure
952
and Regulation Provisional Order (Lizard Common)*[237]; Inclosure Provisional Order (Llandegley Rhos Common)*[236]; Inclosure Provisional Order (Steventon Common)*[235]; Public Health (Scotland) Provisional Order (Lanark)*[234]; Taxes Management [242].
Committee —Births and Deaths Registration (Ireland) (re-comm.) [245]—R.P.
Committee —Report —Common Law Procedure and Judicature Acts Amendment [229]; Limitation of Costs (Ireland)*[149–250].
Report —Local Government Provisional Orders (Aberavon, &c.)* [125]; Local Government Provisional Orders (Eastbourne, &c.)*[189].
Third Reading —Local Government Provisional Orders (Abergavenny, &c.)*[127]; Local Government Provisional Orders (Alnwick Union, &c.)*[120]; Local Government Provisional Orders (Amersham Union, &c.)*[126]; Isle of Man (Loans)*[241], and passed.
Withdrawn —Marriage with a Deceased Wife's Sister*[155]; Medical Charities (Ireland)*[167].

CONTROVERTED ELECTIONS.
Mr. SPEAKER informed the House, that he had received from Mr. Baron Pollock and Mr. Justice Hawkins, two of the Judges selected, in pursuance of The Parliamentary Elections Act, 1868, for the Trial of Election Petitions, a Certificate and Report relating to the Election for the City of New Sarum; and from Mr. Justice Lush and Mr. Justice Manisty, two of the Judges selected, in pursuance of the same Act, a Certificate and Report relating to the Election for the Borough of Plymouth.
NEW SARUM ELECTION.
Westminster Hall,
June 28th, 1880.
We, Sir Charles Edward Pollock, knight, one of the Barons of the Court of Exchequer, and Sir Henry Hawkins, knight, one of the Justices of the High Court of Justice, two of the Judges for the time being for the trial of Election Petitions in England, do hereby, in pursuance of The Parliamentary Elections Act, 1868, and The Parliamentary Elections and Corrupt Practices Act, 1880, certify that upon the 21st day of June instant (1880), and the three following days, we duly held a Court at Salisbury, in the County of Wiltshire, for the trial of, and did try, the Election Petition for the City of New Sarum, in the said county of Wiltshire, between Henry Rigden, John Rumbold, Joel William Newton, Augustine Dyer, and Samuel Garland, Petitioners; and John Passmore Edwards and William Henry Grenfell, Respondents.
And, in further pursuance of the said Acts, We certify that at the conclusion of the said trial we determined that the said John Passmore Edwards and William Henry Grenfell, being the Members whose Election and Return were complained of in the said Petition, were duly

953
elected and returned, and we do hereby certify-in writing such our determination to you.
And whereas charges were made in the said Petition of corrupt practices having been committed at the said Election, we, in further pursuance of the said Act, report as follows:—
That no corrupt practice was proved to have been committed at the said Election.
And, in further pursuance of the said Acts, we report that there is no reason to believe that corrupt practices have extensively prevailed at the Election to which the Petition relates.
C. E. POLLOCK.
H. HAWKINS.
To the Eight Honble.
The Speaker of the House of Commons.

PLYMOUTH ELECTION.
The Parliamentary Elections Act, 1868.
The Parliamentary Elections and Corrupt Practices Act, 1879.
The Parliamentary Elections and Corrupt Practices Act, 1880.
To the Right Honourable
The Speaker of the House of Commons.
We, the Eight Honourable Sir Robert Lush, knight, and the Honourable Sir Henry Manisty, knight, Judges of the High Court of Justice, and two of the Judges for the time being for the trial of Election Petitions in England, do hereby, in pursuance of the said Acts, certify that upon the 21st, 22nd, 23rd, 24th, and 25th days of June 1880, we duly held a Court at the Guildhall, in the Borough of Plymouth, in the County of Devon, for the trial of, and did try, the Election Petition for the said Borough between Isaac Latimer and Francis Barratt, Petitioners; and Edward Bates, Respondent.
And, in further pursuance of the said Acts, We certify and report that at the conclusion of the said trial, We determined that the said Edward Bates, being the Member whose Election and Return were complained of in the said Petition, was not duly elected or returned, and that his Election and Return were and are wholly null and void on the ground of bribery by his Agent, and we do hereby certify in writing such our determination to you.
And whereas charges were made of corrupt practices having been committed at the said Election, we, in further pursuance of the said Acts, report as follows:—
That no corrupt practice was proved to have been committed by or with the knowledge or consent of any Candidate at such Election.
That there is no reason to believe that corrupt practices have extensively prevailed at the Election for the Borough of Plymouth to which the said Petition relates.
Dated this 25th day of June 1880.
ROBT. LUSH.
H. MANISTY.
And the said Certificates and Reports were ordered to be entered in the Journals of this House.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
  FILEY HARBOUR BILL (by Order.)

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Beading read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
    GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURsaid, the Bill was one of the most extraordinary measures that had been brought before Parliament during the time he had had a seat in the House. The object of the Bill was to construct a harbour in a well known place on the Yorkshire coast.
    MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. Member object to the Bill?
    GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOUR: Yes.
    MR. SPEAKER: Then it must stand over until to-morrow.
    GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOUR: I wish to call attention to the nature of the Bill.
    MR. SPEAKER: As there is opposition the second reading in accordance with the Rules of the House must stand over.
    Question put, and negatived.
    Bill to be read a second time tomorrow.

QUESTIONS.

  EVICTIONS (IRELAND).
  LORD ELCHOgave Notice that on an early day he would ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether, when he spoke of the increasing number of evictions in Ireland, he meant processes of ejectment or actual evictions from house and home; whether the figures which he gave applied to town or country; and how many of the evictions were for nonpayment of rent?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: I will answer that at once. They were evictions, not notices of ejectment. They were rural evictions. As to the details, I will give them on a future day if the noble Lord puts down Notice.

  POOR LAW (IRELAND)—BELFAST WORKHOUSE.
  MR. A. MOOREasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the attention of the Local Government Board for Ireland has been called to the unsatisfactory state of Belfast workhouse, as evinced by the grave charges against the management and discipline of that house so frequently made, sometimes in the local press, at other times addressed to the Local Government Board itself; and, whether in the interests of the poor on the one hand, and the ratepayers on the other, the Local Government Board are prepared to take such steps, either by the dissolution of the existing board and the substitution in its stead of a board of paid guardians, or by other means, to put a stop to the existing state of things?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: The subject of the management of Belfast Workhouse has been brought before the Local Government Board, and I have been informed of several charges against the management. An inquiry is still continuing; and I have great hopes that the Board of Guardians, aided by the Local Government authorities will come to a satisfactory settlement of the matters in dispute. As regards substituting paid Guardians for the existing Board, I see no reason for such a step, for the present, at least. In fact, I should almost despair of local government in Ireland if such a step became necessary in so large a town as Belfast.
  MR. A. MOORE: I wish to give Notice, in consequence of representations made to me by a large number of ratepayers in the district, that I intend calling attention to the circumstances substantiating the grave charges I am quite aware to have been made.

  POOR LAW—INSANE PERSONS—THE PORTSMOUTH UNION.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFasked the Secretary of State for India, Whether the insane child of a soldier in India, and a soldier's wife, have been brought from India to Portsmouth in Indian troopships and left chargeable on the rates of that borough; in the latter case the soldier having been sent on to his depot, leaving his wife destitute and chargeable; and, whether the
  956
  mere fact of the Indian troopships coming to Portsmouth justifies the authorities in taking the course adopted in these cases?
  MR. CHILDERS: It is the fact that a soldier's insane wife and the insane child of another soldier have been left chargeable—or, rather, I should say partially chargeable—to the rates of the Portsmouth Union; but the highest legal stoppages have in both cases been made from the soldiers' pay in aid of their maintenance. Under the Statute 16 & 17 Vict. c. 97, the Union of Portsmouth is liable for the charge of these persons; and, considering the great advantages which Portsmouth derives from the Government establishments there, it will hardly be deemed unreasonable that the Union should be so chargeable. Perhaps I may add that every information in possession of the Department is given to the Union authorities to enable them to trace the proper place of settlement in such cases.

  EDUCATION—THE NEW CODE OF REGULATIONS, 1880.
  MR. B. SAMUELSONasked the Vice President of the Council, Whether it is not the case that the curriculum of instruction in the more important elementary schools of France, Germany, and Switzerland is at least as extensive as that authorised by the new Code; and, whether, under these circumstances, there is any intention on the part of Her Majesty's Government to curtail the subjects in respect of which payment for results may be earned in England and Wales?
  MR. BROADHURSTasked the Vice President of the Council, Whether it is the intention of the Government to lower the standard of education in the public Elementary Schools of the Country by striking the specific subjects out of the Code?
  MR. MUNDELLA: It is undoubtedly the case that in the more important elementary schools of France, Germany, and Switzerland, to which might be added Denmark, Holland, and some other countries, the curriculum of instruction is fully as extensive as that authorized by the new Code. The second part of the Question of my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury is substantially the same as the Question of my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke, and

  957
  the answer I am about to give will, I hope, suffice for both my hon. Friends. It is not the intention of the Government to strike the specific subjects out of the Code for the school year 1880-81. But I wish it to be distinctly understood that we leave ourselves absolutely free to deal with the entire Code before the time comes to lay a new Code on the Table of the House. I may say, generally, that there is no intention on the part of the Government to lower the standard of elementary education, or to diminish reasonable opportunities for obtaining it. Our aim is to extend to the whole population a thoroughly sound and efficient elementary training.
  MR. B. SAMUELSONsaid, that in consequence of the answer of the right hon. Gentleman, and also of what had occurred elsewhere, he begged to give Notice that, on going into Committee on the Education Vote, he would move—
  "That this House cordially approves of the determination of Her Majesty's Government not to withdraw the payments on results which are now granted to Elementary Schools in respect of the specific subjects in Schedule 4 of the New Code."

  DISTRESS (IRELAND)—THE RELIEF ROAD AT 1NCHIGEELA.
  COLONEL COLTHURSTasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, As to the truth of the statement made at the meeting of the Mac-room Board of Guardians on Saturday last, namely, that a relief road at Inchigeela had been stopped, owing to the insufficiency of the sum voted for it, thereby throwing over eighty persons out of employment; and, whether, if the statement be true, he will give directions for convening a special sessions without delay?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: I find, Sir, that the relief works in question stopped passed through two baronies, and one barony made a presentment and the other did not do so. That created difficulties which stopped the works; but since then a presentment has been made in the barony which did not at first pass one, and the works will now be resumed.

  NAVY—NAVAL ARTIFICERS.
  MR. GORSTasked the Secretary to the Admiralty, Whether his attention
  958
  has been called to the existing anomalies with respect to the rating, pay, and duties of the Naval artificers; and, whether the Admiralty will institute inquiries into the matter with the view of revising the present "non-progressive" system?
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE,in reply, said, that the attention of the Admiralty had not been directed to the subject referred to by the hon. and learned Member. The rates of pay depended on different circumstances, and it was not intended to make any change.

  POST OFFICE (IRELAND)—THE BAL-TINGLASS POST OFFICE.
  MR. W. CORBETasked the Postmaster General, Whether it is true that the late post office keeper at Baltinglass, county Wicklow, has been dismissed, or compelled to resign, in consequence of misappropriation of moneys received by him in his capacity as post-office keeper; whether it is proposed, on the recommendation of certain magistrates, and of the Lord Lieutenant of the county Wicklow, to appoint a near relative of the late post office keeper, who was in fact acting as his assistant when the alleged misappropriation took place, to succeed him; and, whether such appointment has actually taken place; and, if so, whether he will lay the Papers connected therewith upon the Table of the House?
  MR. FAWCETT: In reply to the hon. Member for Wicklow county, I beg to say that it is true that the late post office keeper at Baltinglass was dismissed from his situation in consequence of being the individual who had misappropriated some money. The Treasury appointed to the situation a daughter of the late postmaster; and, following the usual practices in those cases, the character of the daughter and her general fitness for the office have been inquired into by the Post Office authorities. If it is found that her character and fitness are satisfactory, then the nomination will be confirmed; but I need scarcely say if they are otherwise it will not receive confirmation.

  ARMY (INDIA)—COLONELS' ALLOWANCES.
  MR. TREVELYANasked the Secretary of State for India, What is the

  959
  amount of money paid yearly by the Indian Exchequer under the head of Colonels' Allowances, and what is the number of officers at present in receipt of those allowances?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: The amount of money paid in the year 1879–80 by the Indian Exchequer under the head of Colonels' Allowances was £214,980. The number of officers in receipt of such allowances on the 1st of April, 1880, was 348.

  ARMY—THE FIVE YEARS' RULE—THE COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF.
  MAJOR O'BEIRNEasked the Secretary of State for War, If he would explain why the Commander in Chief of the Forces has been exempt from the rule limiting the tenure of Staff Appointments to a period of five years, in view of the fact that his appointment as a General Officer on the Staff of the Army dates from the 15th July 1856?
  MR. CHILDERS: In reply to the hon. and gallant Member, I have to state that when, in 1860, the late Lord Herbert brought the Headquarter Staff under the five years' rule, he exempted the Commander in Chief from its operation. This exception has been continued in all later Regulations, and is now embodied in Article 151 of the Royal Warrant of May, 1878.

  DISTRESS (IRELAND)—SANITARY WORKS AT MOATE.
  MR. A. M. SULLIVAN (for Mr. T. D. SULLIVAN)asked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether it is a fact that the Treasury have declined to sanction an additional loan of £100 to the Board of Guardians of the Athlone Union, to complete certain sanitary works in the town of Moate, on the special terms sanctioned by the Act 43 Vic. c. 4, although said loan has been recommended by the Local Government Board and the Board of Works; and, whether, having regard to the object for which the work was undertaken, namely, to provide employment for the poor in a distressed district, and the special circumstances which caused the application to be made subsequent to the 29th February last, the limit fixed for applications by the Board of Works, namely, that the estimate of the cost
  960
  was insufficient, he will recommend the Treasury to accede to the application of the Board of Guardians and grant the additional loan on the same terms as the £300 already granted for said works?
  LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISH,in reply, said, he had to state, in answer to the Question of the hon. and learned Member, that they had direct information that the loan in question was not referred to or recommended by the Board of Works, but it was recommended on the supposition that, being merely supplementary to a loan applied for and granted previously, it might be regarded as a part of that loan and not as a new application. The question was referred to the Board of Works in Ireland, and they gave an opinion that any supplementary application should have been made before the 29th of February, and that, consequently, a loan could not be sanctioned under the Relief of Distress Act. He had, therefore, no legal power to recommend an additional loan.

  INDIA—PUNISHMENT OF FLOGGING.
  MR. THOMPSONasked the Secretary of State for India, If he will lay upon the Table a Return of the offences for which 72,650 of our Indian fellow-subjects were punished with flogging in the year 1877?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: The hon. Member has, no doubt, obtained his information from the Report on the Moral and Material Progress and Condition of India, from which it appears that the punishment of whipping was awarded, in addition to other punishment in 1877, to 6,203 persons; in lieu of other punishment, to 66,447, of whom 28,127 were sentenced in the Madras Presidency. I am sorry that the Return asked for cannot be given, because the judicial statistics do not classify the punishments under the offences, but merely give separately the totals of the various offences and the totals of the various punishments. The required information is, however, contained in the Act VI. of 1864, which will be found in the Library of the House of Commons. The chief provisions of that law are as follows:—For theft, receiving stolen property, housebreaking, and extortion, the offender may, at the discretion of the Judge or magistrate, be punished with whipping

  961
  in lieu of any punishment to which he may be liable under the Penal Code. On a second conviction for the above offences, the offender may be whipped in lieu of, or in addition to, other punishment. On a second conviction for false evidence, false accusation, criminal assaults on women, indecent offences, robbery, or dacoity, forgery, and habitually dealing in stolen property the offender may be whipped in addition to other punishment. For any offence a juvenile offender maybe whipped in lieu of any punishment except death. No female is to be punished by whipping. First class magistrates only are empowered to sentence to whipping. Whipping is to be inflicted with due regard to the health of the offender, and, if practicable, in the presence of a medical man. I do not know how much importance the House will attach to the distinction; but the punishment is termed by the law whipping, and not flogging. The reason why so many sentences of whipping were passed during the year 1877 was that, owing to distress among the people, petty crimes increased greatly, and the magistrates exercised largely their discretionary power of inflicting whipping instead of fine and imprisonment. If a sentence of fine was passed, it would have been equivalent to imprisonment, as people in distress could not pay, and must have gone to prison in default. I am sorry to be compelled to add that the rate of mortality in the prisons increased so very largely in that year that a sentence of imprisonment necessarily carried with it considerable risk of life. I have inquired into the cause of this increased mortality, and I find that it was due to the low and emaciated condition to which a large number of persons who were convicted of petty crimes were reduced by the distress.
  MR. A. M. SULLIVANasked whether the noble Marquess could inform the House exactly what the distinction was between flogging and whipping; secondly, whether people in an emaciated condition were considered fit subjects for flogging; and, thirdly, whether the Government intended, seeing that in deference to the public opinion of this country flogging in the Public Service was to be abolished, the Government would take steps to abolish the use of the lash among our Indian fellow-subjects?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: Perhaps the hon. and learned Member would give Notice of his Question. I may say, however, that I have inquired, but have not been able to obtain as yet a satisfactory answer as to the precise distinction between whipping and flogging. But the punishment in India is not usually inflicted with the "cat," and is a milder punishment than what is known as flogging in this country.

  MERCHANT SEAMEN—THE CATTLE. MAN, CROSSLEY.
  MR. MACDONALDasked the President of the Board of Trade, If his attention has been called to the report of an investigation which appeared in the "Bristol Mercury and Daily Post," of the 22nd instant, in respect to the death of a cattleman named Crossley, on board the steam ship "Gloucester," on the passage from New York to Bristol, and also to a further charge against the Captain and the Mate for making a fraudulent entry into the log-book of the ship; and, whether it is customary for the Board of Trade to appoint a legal gentleman to watch such proceedings, and will he direct one to attend at any future diet of the inquiry?
  MR. CHAMBERLAIN: My attention has been called to the case referred to, which is that of a cattleman named Crossley, who appears to have died during the voyage from New York from the effects of delirium tremens, and was buried at sea. The master and mate were charged with manslaughter, and, after careful investigation, the magistrates dismissed the case. As regards the entries in the log, the magistrates found that a technical offence had been committed; but they did not inflict any penalty. As regards inquiry, I have to inform the hon. Member that full and special inquiry has been made by the Registrar General of Seamen, whose general duty it is to report upon all cases of death amongst crews at sea.
  In reply to a further Question,
  MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid, that it was alleged in evidence, and not disproved, that Crossley had remained on deck during a great part of the voyage. The medical man who saw him did not think it necessary to make any special provision for him.

  THE EDUCATION CODE, 1879–80—ARTICLE 29 — DAY AND EVENING SCHOOLS.
  MR. J. HOWARDasked the Vice President of the Council, If Article 29, Code 1879-80, applies to day and evening schools alike; if not, what rule provides for the examination of evening schools; if the Article does apply, on what ground the Committee of Council on Education maintain that the exception provided in Article 29 does not apply to evening schools; and, whether an overpayment having been made to a school and such overpayment has been due to an error of the Education Department in estimating the grant due to the school, are the Committee justified in demanding repayment of the sum overpaid when more than a year has elapsed from the time when such overpayment was made?
  MR. MUNDELLA: Article 29 of the Code, which provides, generally, that scholars may not be presented a second time for examination under a lower or under the same Standard, applies to day and evening schools alike; but the exception stated in that Article (29b) is not applicable to evening schools, because in an evening school payment is made for a child who passes only in one of the three subjects of reading, writing, and arithmetic; while in a day school (by Article 19 B 3) no grant is allowed for a child unless he passes in two out of the three subjects. With regard to the second part of the hon. Member's Question, I have to say that under the system by which public accounts are audited over-payments made by the Education Department to managers of schools may be detected by the Audit Office and re-payment required many months after the grants have been made; but, as my hon. Friend knows, the repayments are not enforced upon merely technical grounds, but only when there has been a breach of the spirit of the Code.

  THE ZULU WAR—BATTA OR EXTRA PAY.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether, in pursuance of the precedents of the Abyssinian and Ashantee Wars, Her Majesty's Government intend to grant
  964
  to the troops engaged in the late campaign in Zululand any batta or extra pay as compensation for the expenses and losses incurred while on that service; and, if it is the intention of the Government to give prize money for cattle captured from the enemy during the Zulu War, according to the values assessed by military Boards at the time of capture?
  MR. CHILDERS: In reply to my hon. Friend, I have to say that I have carefully looked into the decisions of my Predecessors on this subject, and I find that the precedents of the Abyssinian and Ashantee Wars were not considered in point. In the case of the Abyssinian War, batta, which is an allowance granted under Indian regulations, was only given to the troops because the expedition was organized in India, and the troops were on Indian pay and under Indian regulations, and it was only given in that instance because no previous notice had been given to the troops that it would not be granted. In Ashantee the prize was inconsiderable, and to avoid the expense and delay in its distribution a gratuity of a month's pay, which could be immediately issued, was given in lieu. I am not aware what the expenses and losses are to which the Question refers. As the troops received free rations of every sort, the only expense would, I presume, be on account of the wear and tear of clothing; but on this point I find that large supplies of clothing, necessaries, and boots were sent out to replace losses, &c, on purpose to obviate claims for compensation. Officers received extraordinary field allowance. Any losses incurred by them have been dealt with under Royal Warrant. I should mention that in 1878 the Treasury approved of a full ration being issued to troops on field service, free of stoppage, the main reason for this concession being that it would obviate the necessity for grants of boon pay. As regards the captured cattle, I find that what took place was this: —Up to a certain date the captured cattle were sold on the spot, and the money realized irregularly distributed among the troops. In May, 1878, my Predecessor instructed Lord Chelmsford to cease distributing the profits of sales of captured cattle, as it was open to grave political and military objections, offering as it did great temptation, especially to Colonial levies,

  965
  to make predatory attacks, and to make the captured cattle their first consideration, instead of devoting their whole energies to inflicting loss on the enemy. He was, therefore, instructed either to slaughter them or hand them over to the Commissariat. There is no record in the War Office of any assessment by Military Boards of the value of cattle so captured. They were, whenever possible, given to the troops as extra meat ration. After the advance of the troops into Zululand the money value of these captures could have been little or nothing in an enemy's country, as there were naturally no purchasers; and the contractor was bound to have his own supply, regardless of any casual augmentation of this nature. Under these circumstances, I cannot hold out any hope of the decision of my Predecessor, either as to extra pay or prize money, being re-considered.

  PARLIAMENTARY OATHS ACT, 1866— AFFIRMATION.
  MR. PERCY WYNDHAMasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether the Government will bring in a Bill to remove all doubts as to the legal right of a Member to claim to make a solemn Affirmation, instead of taking the Parliamentary Oath, on taking his seat?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I do not propose to bring in any Bill of that description. When the Questions are concluded I will give Notice on the subject.

  INLAND REVENUE—THE INCOME TAX.
  MR. R. N. FOWLERasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether his attention has been called to a Letter of the Inland Revenue Department, stating that dividends payable on the 1st of next month should have Income Tax deducted at the rate of sixpence in the pound; and, whether he could state by whose authority such instructions were given?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I have seen the letter to which the hon. Gentleman refers, and on inquiry I find that it is not a Circular intended to give authoritative directions, but that it is intended rather as a recommendation to parties as to the course which it is hoped will be most convenient. I am assured by the Board of Inland Revenue that they have al-
  966
  ways taken upon themselves the responsibility of advising persons who have to make payments subject to deduction for Income Tax—of course, they cannot compel them—to act on the Resolution of the House of Commons, and thereby save trouble to themselves and others. The course now taken is in strict conformity with the practice on former occasions; but I am also informed that it is not practicable to make the rule uniform; and I believe it is certain no deductions will be made on the dividend on the public funds due on the 5th of July in conformity with the practice of the Inland Revenue Department.

  LANDLORD AND TENANT (IRELAND) —EVICTION IN KERRY.
  THE O'DONOGHUEasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If he will cause inquiry to be made into a case of eviction which has, within the last few days, taken place in the barony of Irraghticonnor and townland of Moybella, county of Kerry, in which Patrick Macnamara, wife, and nine children, were evicted and cast upon the roadside; and, if it be not true that since the eviction Patrick Macnamara has died on the road and left his family in a starving and dying state?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: I have received a Report, Sir, from the Constabulary, from which it appears that Patrick Macnamara and his family, consisting of his wife and seven—not nine—of his children were evicted on the 22nd instant. Macnamara, I am told, had several friends in the neighbourhood who would have taken him in. He erected a shelter on the roadside near his late farm, where he keeps his family. I received a telegram this morning to say that there is no truth in the rumour that he is dead; but within the last hour I have received a telegram stating that last night about 10 o'clock he was put back in the tenancy by a large party of men with blackened faces, some of them armed, and the two men in charge of the place were assaulted.

  COMMISSIONERS OF NATIONAL EDUCATION (IRELAND)—REMOVAL OF NATIONAL SCHOOL TEACHERS.
  SIR PATRICK O'BRIENasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether there is any rule of

  967
  the Education Office (Ireland) which makes all Reports of their Inspectors, upon which masters are removed from their schools, &c, considered confidential?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER,in reply, said, he was afraid he must tell his hon. Friend that they could not conduct the inspection satisfactorily if the Reports were not confidential.

  ARMY—MAGAZINE AND REPEATING ARMS.
  LORD EUSTACE CECILasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether he can lay upon the Table any information respecting the experiments which it is understood have been recently carried on in Austria and Germany with magazine and repeating arms; and, if not, if he will call for reports upon the subject, with a view to their publication?
  MR. CHILDERS: In reply to my noble Friend, I have to say that the information respecting these experiments now before the Office is very imperfect. When I receive fuller details I will consider whether they can be laid on the Table.

  INLAND REVENUE—INTOXICANTS.
  SIR CHARLES REEDasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether beverages slightly fermented but made without malt, such as ginger beer, &c, are intended to be included in the list of intoxicants; and, whether instructions have been given to the officers of Excise to compel the manufacturers and sellers of such drinks to take out licences as brewers?
  LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISH: I have been requested by my right hon. and learned Friend to answer this Question. I have little to add to an answer that was given by my right hon. Friend at the head of the Government a week ago. He then stated that it was the rule of the Inland Revenue authorities not to prosecute manufacturers of so-called non-intoxicating beverages which contained less than 3 per cent of alcohol. But it must be remembered that these drinks are generally made of sugar, and that a large quantity of beer is brewed from the same material. Indeed, it has recently been found that a considerable quantity of non-intoxicating drinks were
  968
  just as strong as mild table beer. In the present state of legislation, with respect to Beer and Malt Duties, there has been a suspension of proceedings in the case of these drinks, and no special instructions have been issued to compel manufacturers to take out licences as brewers.

  CONTROVERTED ELECTIONS—BOROUGH OF EVESHAM.
  MR. J. R. YORKEasked Mr. Attorney General, Whether he is able to say how long it will be before the Notes of the Shorthand Writer, taken at the trial of the late Petition on the Election for the Borough of Evesham, will be laid upon the Table of the House?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES),in reply, said, it was intended to lay the evidence, together with the judgments of the learned Judges who had tried the Petition, upon the Table. The judgments had been forwarded to the learned Judges, who were now engaged in discharging other public duties, for their revision, and as soon as they returned them the full proceedings would be printed. Care would be taken that there should be no unnecessary delay.

  RAILWAY (INDIA) BRIDGES.
  MR. ANDERSONasked the Secretary of State for India, Whether the Report on Indian Railways for 1877 correctly states the name of the firm who contracted for the Railway Bridge across the Nerbudda River; whether that firm were not also contractors for the principal iron work of the Tay Bridge; and, whether, under these circumstances, he has considered the desirability of providing that the Indian Government should institute an investigation as to the quality and kind of iron used for the Nerbudda Bridge, and also extend their inquiry to the Indus Bridge and other bridges built or being built on the Guaranteed and State Railways of India?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: In the Report on Indian Railways for 1877 the name of the firm who contracted for the railway bridge across the Nerbudda River is correctly given, and the firm mentioned is the same as that which is stated to have been connected with the supply of the principal iron work of the

  969
  Tay Bridge. The contract for the bridge was made by the Bombay, Baroda, and Central India Railway Company in April 1877. The Tay Bridge disaster occurred towards the close of last year. The plans and specifications of the Nerbudda Bridge were prepared by Sir John Hawkshaw, and the whole process of supplying the iron work has been carefully watched and inspected under his directions. Upon the occurrence of the breakdown of the Tay Bridge, the Directors of the Company gave special directions to Sir John Hawkshaw to be most particular in carrying out the duty of inspection. No complaints have been received from India of the quality of the iron; but a second examination is made there, and severe tests are applied to the piers and the girders when placed in position. There can be no doubt that the engineers employed in designing and constructing bridges in India since the Tay Bridge disaster have been fully alive to the necessity of the most careful specifications being prepared, and of the most conclusive tests being applied to materials before they are accepted. I will take steps for obtaining a special Report on the Nerbudda Bridge before it is opened for traffic.

  SOUTH AFRICA—THE CONFEDERATION.
  SIR WILFRID LAWSONasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether the statement which appeared in The Standard of Saturday, to the effect that the Cape Government had abandoned their proposal for a Conference of the several South African Colonies and States on the subject of Confederation, was correct, as the Previous Question had been carried in the Cape Parliament without a division?
  MR. GRANT DUFF: In reply to the hon. Baronet I have to say that the news which appeared in the morning papers of Saturday is officially confirmed.

  RELIEF OF DISTRESS (IRELAND) (No. 2) BILL.
  MR. PARNELL: I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether he can announce to the House the course which the Government purpose to take with reference to the second reading of the
  970
  Relief of Distress (Ireland) (No. 2) Bill?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: After full consideration the Government have empowered me to state that they must oppose the second reading of the hon. Member's Bill. I need not repeat the reasons which I gave on Thursday night; but I may just say that we believe it would do more harm than good to make the proposed grant of public money to private committees. At the same time, we have very seriously considered the present position of Irish distress in connection with the latest information which we have received. Generally speaking, that information is more hopeful. There is more employment, both on the relief works and from the usual sources, and there is less distress in the scheduled Unions, with a prospect of a good crop and a good harvest, which is in harmony with our anticipations. But there are some Unions — especially in parts of Mayo and neighbouring counties — in which the distress is very severe. We believe, however, that it is within the power of the machinery of the Poor Law Board to meet that distress; and we think that neither the Guardians nor the Government ought to be relieved from their responsibility with regard to it. We sent down an Inspector to see that all the necessary out-door relief was really given. As I have already told the House, we have offered loans to all these Unions in which out-door relief is given. We have had to dissolve three Unions, and, if necessary, we shall dissolve more. In order, however, to insure the Guardians doing their duty where they are still acting, and to make it easier for the relief to be given where we have had to displace them, we have determined to offer these loans on better terms. The terms, according to the Act passed at the beginning of this year, were 3½ per cent for 10 years. I give Notice that I shall place on the Paper to-morrow a clause to be introduced into the Relief Bill now in Committee, to enable these loans to be made out of the Church Surplus at 1 per cent, instead of 3½ and postponing any payment of interest for two years. I am in hopes that this postponement of the payment of interest, in addition to the reduction of interest, will really enable the difficulty, in a great measure, to be met. Perhaps I may take this opportunity of adding,

  971
  on behalf of my noble Friend the Secretary to the Treasury, that upon a consideration of the number of piers which could be advantageously made, and from the great wish we have to obtain the full advantage of the generous grants made from the Dominion of Canada, he has come to the conclusion to give Notice to increase the grant from £30,000 to £45,000. I will put these clauses on the Paper to-morrow; and, under these circumstances, I hope that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Cork will not proceed with the second reading of his Bill to-night. If he does, I shall feel it my duty to oppose it.
  MR. O'CONNOR POWER: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will kindly say whether he has received any additional information in reference to the existence of famine fever in the County Mayo?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: Yes; I have received information. The House can hardly doubt that I receive constant information with regard to it. So far as I can learn, it is not what is generally called famine fever. That is to say, it is not that mesenteric fever which was the great cause of death in the last famine. It is a kind of typhus, and I hear different accounts of it. In one or two cases it appears to be severe, while in others it appears to be passing away. As far as I can make out, it is not caused by want of food, though I think the change to a low class of food may have made it easier to be taken. In some cases persons were attacked who were not in great distress; but in others, no doubt, the persons taking it were in distress. I think it is a very serious matter. We are meeting it to the very best of our power; and I believe we can meet it, as far as human agency is able to do so, by the best medical inspection, by taking them into the hospitals, and by ordering such better food as may seem suitable. I should like to know what course the hon. Member means to adopt with regard to his Bill to-night?
  MR. PARNELL: As it would not be convenient to proceed with the Motion for the second reading of my Bill until the House has had an opportunity of seeing the clauses which the right hon. Gentleman proposes to place on the Paper, I beg to say that I will defer that Motion until these clauses have been circulated amongst hon. Members.

PARLIAMENTARY AFFIRMATION—MR. BRADLAUGH.

  NOTICE OF RESOLUTION.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I may remind the House that on Friday evening I expressed an opinion to the effect that we ought to proceed to consider the case of Mr. Bradlaugh to-morrow. Since that time, however, the Government have framed a Resolution which they intend to submit to the House. As, however, we think it desirable that the House should have rather more time to consider it, and as we cannot interfere with the proceedings of private Members on Wednesday, I propose, at the opening of Business on Thursday, to submit the following Resolution:—
  "That every person returned as a Member of this House, who may claim to be a person for the time being by Law permitted to make a solemn Affirmation or Declaration instead of taking an Oath, shall henceforth (notwithstanding so much of the Resolution adopted by this House on the 22nd day of June last as relates to Affirmation) be permitted, without question, to make and subscribe a solemn Affirmation in the form prescribed by 'The Parliamentary Oaths Act, 1866,' as altered by 'The Promissory Oaths Act, 1868,' subject to any liability by statute; and, secondly, that this Resolution be a Standing Order of this House."
  I may, perhaps, venture to say that in submitting this Resolution I shall endeavour to confine myself to what I think will be a description of the situation, and shall not think it necessary, as far as I am concerned, to revive the general argument on which I and many other hon. Members have had an opportunity of stating our views; and, perhaps, if the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) be in the House, I may venture to express a hope that as the question will be raised, in the view of the Government, in the most convenient manner by this Resolution, he will not think it necessary to proceed with any Motion, or ask leave to proceed with any Motion, to-morrow.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: After the very satisfactory Notice which has just been given by the Prime Minister, I beg to give Notice that I shall withdraw the Resolution of which I have given Notice for to-morrow.
  MR. GORST: I should like to ask whether the Resolution of which the Prime Minister has given Notice will raise a Question of Privilege; and whe-

  973
  ther, therefore, if the debate should be adjourned on Thursday, it would come on before the other Business on Friday, or upon any other day for which it may be fixed.
  MR. SPEAKER: I have already stated in reference to this matter that the question is not one of Privilege.
  MR. O'CONNOR POWER: I think it would be for the convenience of the House if I venture to put a Question to the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, and if he will condescend to answer it. It is, what course he intends to adopt in reference to the Notice of Motion which has just been given by the Prime Minister?
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEdid not make any reply.
  MR. CALLAN: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister will say whether he purposes that the Resolution should have a retrospective effect?
  MR. GLADSTONE: Of course, my intention with regard to that matter would have no effect whatever; but I believe with regard to the force of the words, drawn as the Resolution is with reference to the recent Resolution of the House of Commons, it would have a retrospective effect in the case of Mr. Bradlaugh.
  MR. MACDONALDasked whether, in consequence of the Resolution of which the Prime Minister had given Notice for Thursday, the consideration of the Employers' Liability Bill would not have to be deferred?
  MR. O'CONNOR POWER: I beg to give Notice that on to-morrow I shall put to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Devon the Question which I just now put to him.
  MR. GORST: I should like to know whether the hon. Member would be in Order in putting such a Question?
  MR. GLADSTONE: In answer to the Question put from below the Gangway, I am not aware how far it will be the pleasure of the House to enter into a general discussion; and unless it does so, I see no reason why the question should not be disposed of in a very limited time. At all events, we do not propose to postpone the Employers' Liability Bill.
  MR. GORST: I want to know whether it is in Order for the hon. Member for Mayo to give Notice to ask a Ques-
  974
  tion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Devon, as to what course he intends to pursue with respect to the Resolution of which Notice has been given by the Prime Minister?
  MR. SPEAKER: The terms of the Notice of the hon Member for Mayo did not reach me. At the same time, I may say that unless they relate to some Bill or Motion before the House that Question would not be regular.
  MR. O'CONNOR POWER: To prevent any misunderstanding, and owing to the difficulty of discovering to whom the title of the Leader of the Opposition may be applied, I wish to give Notice that, as the Motion of the Prime Minister will be on the Paper to-morrow, and as it, therefore, comes within the description which you, Sir, have just given, I will ask the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Devon what course he intends to pursue on Thursday with reference to that Resolution?
  MR. CALLAN: I beg also to give Notice that I shall, at the same time, ask the hon. Member for Mayo, what course he and those acting with him intend to pursue in this matter?
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF: I wish to ask whether it is competent for one private Member of this House to ask another private Member what course he intends to pursue in regard to an Order of the Day, or a Motion for which he is not responsible?
  MR. SPEAKER: Such a Question as that indicated by the hon. Member for Mayo would not be in Order. It does not relate to any Bill or Motion before the House for which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Devon is himself responsible.

  TREATY OF WASHINGTON—THE FISHERY QUESTION—THE FORTUNE BAY PAPERS.
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: In reference to the Questions recently addressed to me by the hon. Baronet the Member for Midhurst (Sir Henry Holland) and the hon. and gallant Member for the county of Cork (Colonel Colthurst), I should like to say that communications are passing between Her Majesty's Government and the Government of the United States in regard to the Fortune Bay question, and that communications are also passing with

  975
  the Legal Advisers of the Crown on the subject. Under these circumstances, I think that my hon. Friends would see that it will not be possible to immediately circulate the Papers promised on this subject.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

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

  SUPPLY—NAVY ESTIMATES.
  SUPPLY—considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  (1.) £84,831, to complete the sum for the Scientific Branch.
  MR. GORSTsaid, that when he moved that the Committee do report Progress some weeks ago, two questions were suggested, which, he thought, required examination. The first question was, were the Lords of the Admiralty just in charging themselves with rent at the rate of £100 a-year only for Greenwich Hospital, and the other question was as to the expenses of the Britannia training ship. He proposed, in the few remarks he should now make to the Committee, to confine himself exclusively to the first of those questions, as he did not wish to confuse that matter by mixing up other questions with it. The question was a very short and simple one. The sum placed upon the Estimates — namely, £100—was entirely inadequate, and the Admiralty ought to increase that amount. He was afraid, however, that there was no way now in which the question could be submitted to the test of a division, owing to the Sessional Order which prevented Members making Motions on going into Committee, so that private Members, who wished to raise a question of that sort were now unable to do so. It would be quite different if private Members were in possession of the privileges they formerly possessed. Therefore, it was not his fault if he delayed the Committee by a discussion upon which no division could be taken, but that of the Sessional Order by which private Members were now bound. The simple question was then,
  976
  whether £100 a-year was an adequate sum to pay as rent for Greenwich Hospital? The Civil Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. T. Brassey) had told them that the amount of the assessment upon which a contribution in lieu of rates was paid to the local authorities at Greenwich for the Hospital and School and other buildings was £8,000 a-year; and he thought it would not be an extravagant supposition that the value of Greenwich Hospital alone was, at least, as high as £4,000 a-year. They had thus the fact before them that the Government—that was, the Lords of the Admiralty—were giving a rent of £100 a-year for a building the rent of which ought to be £4,000 a-year; they ought, in fact, to pay a rent 40 times greater than what they now paid. The only answer to this was that an Act of Parliament had conferred on the Board of Admiralty power to dispose of the property in that way. But that was not the question. The real question was, not whether they had the power, but whether they had a right to exercise their power in that particular manner. He had looked into the Acts of Parliament which regulated the powers of the Admiralty with reference to Greenwich Hospital, and throughout those Acts it appeared that the Lords of the Admiralty were trustees of a charitable fund, which charity partly resulted from grants made by the nation, and partly from private benefactors, and consisted both of lands and personal property. It was vested in the hands of the Admiralty, as trustees, for the exclusive use and benefit of Greenwich Hospital. In the Act of Parliament in which the trust of the former Commissioners was vested in the Lords of the Admiralty, he had found over and over again the expression—
  "Vested in the Lords of the Admiralty in trust for Majesty, her heirs, and successors, for the exclusive use and benefit of Greenwich Hospital."
  When, by the Act of 1865, the Lords of the Admiralty became trustees of that charity they were bound to administer the trust in the same way as anyone else, for the exclusive benefit of the aged seamen and marines who were entitled thereto. In 1869 another Act was passed, giving the Lords of the Admiralty additional powers. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State

  977
  For War (Mr. Childers) stated the other day that that Act was a bargain. For his part, he (Mr. Gorst) failed to see that, and he should be glad if the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Admiralty (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) would point out how it was so. There must be two parties to every bargain, and he failed to see in the Act of 1869 anything given or taken upon the other side; therefore, it was not the result of a bargain, but a simple disposal on the part of the Government of the property of Greenwich Hospital. There had been, in fact, no bargain, and the Admiralty could not barter away the rights of the aged seamen and marines, who were entitled to have the charity administered for their use and benefit, unless some equivalent advantage or gain was acquired by them in lieu of the rights taken from them. He thought it was most unreasonable to speak of that Act as a bargain. By that Act, no doubt, the Admiralty were empowered to let the property, either with or without requiring a rent; but he denied their right to exercise those powers in any other way than for the benefit of the persons entitled. He found in the debate which took place when the Bill passed that Mr. Liddell took exception to dealing with the building in an off-hand way, and Sir John Hay objected to so much power being given to the Admiralty. For his own part, he saw no objection to the most absolute power being conferred, because they would always remain bound to exercise it for the exclusive use and benefit of Greenwich Hospital. The question was whether the Admiralty were fulfilling their trust and dealing fairly and equitably with those who were interested in these funds by letting the buildings to themselves as representing the naval authorities of the country at a paltry rent of £100 a-year. That was the whole question. Had they, as trustees, a right to do as they liked with the buildings, or were they not, as trustees, bound to use their powers to the best advantage in letting them for the benefit of those interested in the fund? That being so, were they letting the buildings to the best advantage by letting them to themselves as the naval authority of the country for the paltry rent of £100 a-year? It was idle to say that they were making the best use they could of the Greenwich Hospital buildings. If
  978
  the Naval Service of the country required a College for the instruction of naval officers, the country was rich enough to pay a fair rent for the buildings it required. Was it worthy of a great and wealthy country like this to take buildings belonging to poor and aged seamen at the grossly inadequate rent of £100 a-year, in order to prevent the country paying a proper rent for the accommodation of a Naval College. He must apologize to the Committee for being so pertinacious in asking that Progress might be reported when the Vote was under discussion on the last occasion; but he did so in order that he might fairly state the case on the present occasion. This was a question which could only be decided by bringing public opinion to bear upon it. The hon. Member for Gal way (Mr. Mitchell Henry) was good enough to read them a lecture; he said he (Mr. Gorst) should have raised this question when the Conservative Government was in Office. He might state that he raised the question every year, while the late Government was in power, but could never do so except at 1 o'clock in the morning. Therefore, the ignorance of the hon. Member for Galway of his having raised it before was excusable, because the question was only brought on at a time when the hon. Member was not present. Any hon. Member who had been in the habit of attending while the Navy Estimates were under debate would know that the question had been raised before. He rejoiced, on that occasion, to be able to raise the question when their proceedings could be reported, and the public, by means of the newspapers, could know the truth with regard to this matter. He hoped that the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Admiralty would give an answer to this straightforward demand on the part of aged seamen and marines on the present occasion, when full publicity would be given to the debate.
  SIR MASSEY LOPESsaid, that, as he was in Office at the time that the rent of £100 a-year was first fixed for the Hospital buildings, he should like to make a few observations. He never considered that £100 a-year was an adequate rent for these buildings. He considered that amount only a nominal annual acknowledgment for their temporary use for naval purposes. His

  979
  reason for putting that rent on was this. Not only was the whole of the Hospital taken for naval purposes and used as a Naval College, but a house let at £65 a-year was also taken over for use as an infirmary, and the charity was, therefore, deprived of that amount of rent. Previous also to 1873, when this arrangement was made, the cashier lived in the Hospital, and enjoyed the use of the buildings. When the whole of the buildings were utilized as a College, that man was turned out, and the Hospital had to find him another house. He had to be accommodated with a house rented at £45 a-year. Therefore, as the Hospital directly lost £60 a-year, and had to pay £45 a-year, through having to find accommodation outside for their officer, he thought it only just that the country should pay an additional £100 a-year to Greenwich Hospital funds. In making that arrangement, he never contemplated that the £100 a-year was an adequate rental for the use of the whole of the College buildings. It had been stated that the sum expended by the country for repairs upon the Hospital buildings was equivalent to a rental, and that statement was attributed to him. He certainly did not say so. The annual expenditure upon repairs might be put at £2,000 a-year; but it was spent not only in repairs, but upon internal alterations for the purposes of the College. The rental of £100 a-year was only given as an equivalent for annual rents of which the Hospital had been deprived. He must say, so far as the general question was concerned, that if the Naval College had the use of these buildings, the Hospital was receiving no money from the State in lieu of them. He thought, however, it should not be forgotten that these buildings belonged to the Charity, and not to the State.
  MR. MAGNIACsaid, with regard to the rent which had been paid for the use of the Hospital buildings, or rather the equivalent for rent, the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Mr. Gorst) had informed the Committee that the Trustees had the power to do as they liked with the buildings. But that was not so; the right of the Trustees to deal with the buildings was absolutely and precisely regulated by the original grant of that Charity and by the Act of 1869. It would be found stated in the Report
  980
  of the Committee of 1868 that originally these buildings were a donation to the sailors of this country. They were given on the terms that the buildings were to be used wholly and solely for the reception of sailors unable to follow their calling. There was no right in anyone to let the buildings; they were absolutely and strictly limited to the receiving of disabled seamen. When it was found that the Hospital no longer served its purpose by giving sailors the benefit which in olden times they received from it, it was considered by the Government of the day that a re-arrangement of these buildings might be made. The Government accordingly brought in a Bill laying down the terms on which the buildings were to be used; and, for the first time, the right of leasing them was granted. In the Bill, as originally brought in, power was given to the Government to make any use of the buildings; and it was contemplated that they should be used for public, charitable, or any use connected with the Public Service. When the question was discussed in the House, some hon. Members took considerable interest in the question; and the result of their efforts was that words were inserted in the Act which limited the use of the buildings to the Naval Service of the country or any Department of the Government, or to any person who had been engaged in the Naval Service of the country. That was the outside limit of the power of the Government given by the Act. It had been stated in this debate that the Government were bound to procure the best terms that could be got in the market for these buildings. Everyone knew that trustees were bound by the terms of their trust, and that there was, consequently, no power in the Government to go into the open market and let these buildings to the first-comer. The rent was stated in the House to have been fixed upon that basis. These buildings were of a very extensive character. They were a great architectural ornament to the River; and it was self-evident that if the Government had to provide for a Naval College only, it would not have erected an edifice which cost between £3,000 and £5,000 a-year for rent. The amount spent for repairs alone on Greenwich Hospital was very large. If the buildings had been unoccupied, and had been applied to no other purpose, the cost of the repairs

  981
  would have fallen upon the Charity; and the funds of the Charity would, therefore, have been diminished by the sum of £2,000 to £4,000 a-year. The Act dealing with Greenwich Hospital was debated very strenuously in the House, and great stress was laid by Gentlemen interested in the question upon the necessity of the buildings being always available for the use of the Navy at any moment. It was, therefore, provided by the Act that if the Government chose to call upon the occupants of the Hospital buildings to turn out, they must do so, in order that accommodation might be provided for sailors on the occurrence of an emergency. [Laughter.] The necessity for that provision was felt at the time because, shortly before, owing to a calamity, there was no place for the accommodation of a number of disabled seamen. It might be proved that the rateable value of the Hospital buildings was £8,000 a-year, while the real rent of the premises might not exceed £4,000 a-year. The rateable value was the value of the building well let, and with security of occupation from year to year unfurnished. But the rent of a building well let from year to year, unfurnished, was very diiferent from the rent of buildings the occupants of which might be turned out at a moment's notice. The Government did not occupy these buildings unfurnished from year to year; but their occupation was strictly limited to the terms of the Act, which were that the whole of the buildings of the Hospital and their appurtenances should be available for the reception of sailors, if the Government should consider it necessary. The Act of Parliament was carefully considered, and in a ease of great emergency power was given to re-occupy them at once for the purpose of sailors. The point which he wished particularly to call the attention of the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury was this— that in connection with the arrangements for Greenwich Hospital the sum of £4,000 was given as compensation to merchant seamen for the Greenwich Sixpence. The diversion of the Greenwich Sixpence Fund was the greatest hardship ever inflicted on any body of men. Seamen were made to contribute through their wages to it; and when they wanted relief they were told that they had contributed their money for the purpose of seamen engaged not in the Merchant
  982
  Service, but in the Naval Service of the country. If the hon. Gentleman would increase the amount granted for that purpose, he (Mr. Magniac) should be very glad. If the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst) could manage to get that amount increased, he would be doing a great service to the unfortunate contributors to that fund, many of whom were still living. In regard to the rent paid by Government for the use of the Greenwich Hospital buildings, taking into consideration the terms of the trust and the large expenditure which was paid for repairs, and that they could be turned out at a moment's notice, he did not think that the terms they were at present holding were unfair to the Charity.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFsaid, that the hon. Member who had last spoken (Mr. Magniac) had proved that the Admiralty had, as trustees of the Hospital, let the buildings worth £4,000 for £100 a-year. It was said, when the bargain was examined, it would not be found that such was the case. But here were buildings, which it must be allowed were worth £4,000 a-year, and for them the magnificent sum of £100, and £6 additional a-year was paid, and which were used for the purpose of instruction in fortification. He did not hear from the hon. Member for Bedford one word which militated against the position they had assumed upon this question. He should like to hear from the Government who made this bargain which was spoken of. What were its terms? Did they make it as Trustees, or as First Lords of the Admiralty, or in what position were they when they made it? What right had they to make any bargain? A powerful Government forced this confiscation upon the seamen and marines, and upon the country. He (Sir H. Drummond Wolff), like every other hon. Member representing a Dockyard constituency, felt very strongly upon the subject; for the Naval Service at the present moment considered that it had been defrauded of its rights. If the Act of Parliament prevented the Admiralty from letting the property advantageously, then let the Trustees apply for further powers as other Trustees would do; but so long as it occupied buildings worth £4,000 a-year for a rent of £100, it would be committing a very great iniquity. £4,000

  983
  would form a very large addition to the funds for the benefit of seamen and marines. It was not to be expected that the Government would increase the pensions—which were at present in many cases very inadequate—but he trusted that an end would be put to an arrangement that never ought to have taken place.
  MR. CHILDERSsaid, that what happened in 1864 and 1865 was this— In 1864 Greenwich Hospital was in a most unsatisfactory condition. In that year an adjustment was proposed which was completed in 1865. A certain limited number of men were kept in a great monastery at an enormous expense; and it was thought that, instead of keeping up that unsatisfactory system, it would be better to give them the option of taking certain pensions, and to apply the balance of the funds of the Hospital, which increased from year to year, in age pensions to seamen commencing at the age of 55 and going on to the age of 70. That was the rough outline of the scheme. But after five or six years experience it was found to be so unsatisfactory that a second process was gone through. A large number of the people who were in the Hospital originally, had gone out, except some two or three pensioners who had not taken advantage of the arrangement, because they could not find their families. It was not right to say that the Act was forced through Parliament, for it was unanimously supported by both sides. It was decided to close Greenwich as a Hospital altogether, and some of the pensioners who were subject to disease were transported to the Naval Hospitals at Portsmouth and Devonport, and the rest left the Hospital under arrangements of a liberal character. The question then arose, what could be done with the buildings? In the arrangements with respect to the Hospital the public was put to a very large expense indeed. All the men in the Hospital received pensions from the funds of the country, and when they were turned out of the Hospital they received large pensions from the Hospital funds. As they died off all the funds of the Hospital were entirely applied to the ordinary pensions of seamen. The public had been charged, in consequence of the arrangement which had been made with regard to the Hospital, to the extent of from
  984
  £15,000 to £20,000 a-year. In addition to that a sum was granted to merchant seamen. Those arrangements entailed a very large charge upon the public. The pensions of a large body of seamen who would have been in Greenwich Hospital were charged upon the public, and it was only fair that the arrangements should be in every respect carried out. On the one hand an adjustment was made of the payments by the public, and as a smaller sum was paid by the Charity it was arranged that the Hospital should be available for the purposes of the Government. It was provided by the Act that the Hospital buildings should be available for naval purposes without charge; but that if used for any other Government purpose the Government should pay rent for it. These were the terms that were made. The bargain was that the buildings should be absolutely at the disposal of the Government. There was no reason for saying that the arrangement which was made was unfair to Greenwich Hospital. His hon. Friend had stated that if some fair arrangement were made it would enable pensions and pay to be increased. That was not so, for the charge was entirely upon the funds of the nation. All he would say was this—that the bargain was intended to be a fair one between the public and the Hospital, and he thought he had correctly stated its nature.
  CAPTAIN PRICEsaid, that perhaps hon. Members who were present were rather puzzled to discover why such a noise should be made about £100, the rent paid by Government for the Greenwich Hospital buildings. His hon. Friends were not able to take the advice of the hon. Member for Galway, and raise this question some years ago, because it was only within the last few years that circumstances had made it necessary to re-open the question of the administration of the affairs of Greenwich Hospital. The facts were that a large number of seamen had been deprived of the pension from Greenwich Hospital which they had been in the habit of looking forward to. Two years ago an Order in Council was passed limiting the amount of pension a man might receive to the sum of 2s. 6d. a-day from all sources, so that all seamen in receipt of a naval pension of 2s. 6d. a-day were henceforth not entitled to

  985
  receive anything from the funds of Greenwich Hospital. This was felt to be a great hardship, because seamen considered that Greenwich Hospital was instituted for their benefit, and that the Admiralty were only trustees of its funds for them, and that they ought to do the best they could with it by getting as much money out of it as possible, and by distributing it in an equitable way. And he submitted that it was inequitable to withhold these age pensions from those men who had served the best, and give them to others who had not served so well; because it must be remembered that it was only men who had served extremely well who became entitled to such a large pension from the Navy as 2s. 6d. a-day. Thus the best men were deprived of what they had expected, and what they had been led to suppose they would have; while, on the other hand, a man who had not done so well, and who had earned the pension of, say, 1s. 6d. only, at the age of 55, would reap the full benefit of the Greenwich Hospital pension, and would then get 5d. a-day; and, at 65, the extra 4d., making 9d. altogether. It was true that they were in a difficulty in this matter. The funds were not large enough to provide for all these pensions, and the reason of that was that the number of men had rapidly increased who were entitled to them; but all that ought to have been foreseen many years ago. In 1865 an Act was passed, for which the now Secretary of State for War was made responsible. At that time the right hon. Gentleman said a bargain was made. The hon. Member for Bedford had called it an arrangement; while the right hon. Gentleman had called it an adjustment. But, whether it was a bargain, or arrangement, or an adjustment, it was a very one-sided arrangement, by which only the taxpayers benefited, and one which was made at the expense of the recipients of the Greenwich Hospital pension. His contention was that this arrangement was made by the Government without looking forward to the future. He did not say that the men who, at that time, were allotted pensions, were unjustly treated; but he complained that the Government did not look forward and see that there were a large number coming in to claim those pensions, but who would necessarily be deprived of
  986
  them; and, therefore, the arrangement which they had made was unjust. The Government, finding they had made that mistake, from motives of generosity and justice, should now come forward and help the fund to meet this difficulty. He did not think they were asking too much to expect that. The fact was that the Greenwich Hospital Pension Funds had been made to supplement and assist the Imperial Funds. He could prove that by several instances. In 1865, for instance, the Secretary of State inaugurated what was called the Pensioners' Reserve. That was, to all intents and purposes, a part of our Naval Reserve, and it was raised by offering certain men the Greenwich Hospital pensions at an earlier age—at 50, instead of 55. It was said that this Naval Reserve had not caused a great strain on the funds of Greenwich up to the present time; but when the right hon. Gentleman inaugurated the Reserve, it was contemplated that this should become a Force of 5,000 men; and if that had been raised, it would have imposed upon the funds of Greenwich a strain of £19,000 a-year. That was a sum sufficient to provide pensions for 1,500 men. The right hon. Gentleman might reply that, as a matter of fact, no very great strain had been so imposed, because the Pensioners Reserve had not come up to the numbers contemplated; but he saw that Admiral Phillimore, in his last Report, said that, while in 1867 the number of Pensioners Reserve was 511, in 1879 it numbered 1,166; and the Admiral went on to assert that he thought the present system might be considered a successful experiment. If that was so, they might in a very few years expect that the whole number of men contemplated by the scheme of 1865 would be raised, and they would then be drawing from the funds of Greenwich £19,000 a-year as an inducement for these men to enter this Reserve. He must complain of this, and repeat what he had already said, that by this means the Greenwich Fund had been made to supplement and assist the Imperial Funds, not only in this respect, but in others; and it was, therefore, not too much to ask the Government to come forward and supplement the fund, so as to stave off this difficulty. He would say—"By all means make any legislation prospective, but do not, in any case, make it retrospective. Let

  987
  the boys who are now entering the Service know that in future years they must not expect to get so large a sum from Greenwich as their predecessors, and tell them the reason; hut do not deprive the men who have been expecting this as a right of the sum to which they are justly entitled." His right hon. Friend below him, in answering him on this subject a short time ago—and hon. Members of the present Government, he had no doubt, would make the same excuse— had said that these pensions were given at the discretion of the Admiralty. He did not like that phrase, "the discretion of the Admiralty" at all. Of course, they were given at the discretion of the Admiralty. No man could bring an action against the Government for deprivation of pension or anything of that sort; but, nevertheless, the men had just as much right to look forward to the receipt of the Greenwich pension as to the receipt of the naval pension. It was impossible to make a legal question of this at all. Probably some Members of the House had heard the old Arab story of the rich man, the pauper, and the Cadi. A pauper used to sit at the gate of the city, and every day a rich man, in passing him, dropped a coin into his hand. He did that for many years, until at last it became a regular pension for the beggar; but one fine day the rich man refused to give him the penny any more, and then the beggar went to the Cadi and an action was brought, and the Cadi said that as this sum had been given regularly to the beggar the rich man must continue to give it. He did not hold that there was an actual analogy between the two cases, because Greenwich Hospital was no longer to be looked on as a charity, and also because, as he had said, this could not be made a legal question; but still he did think that the Government should look at it in a spirit of equity. Greenwich Hospital was one of the grandest monuments of our naval greatness, and anything which might be done to tamper with the question and deprive the seamen of what they had justly earned, and always looked forward to, was not only to them a very great grievance, but would, he believed, be found a very great mistake.
  MR. T. BRASSEYsaid, the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst) and his hon. and gallant Friend
  988
  the Member for Devonport (Captain Price) had pleaded the cause of the seamen with great earnestness; but he (Mr. Brassey) yielded to no Member of that Committee in sympathy with the seamen, and he was quite sure that feeling was abundantly shared by every Naval Administration which had had to consider the question of pensions and the administration of the Greenwich Funds. He might remind the hon. and gallant Member who had last spoken that these subjects were under the consideration of his right hon. Friends opposite for more years than the present Government had passed weeks in Office; and the presumption therefore would be that the regulations enforced during that time were regulations which they deemed fair and considerate towards the seamen. His hon. and learned Friend the Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst) challenged the arrangement which had been made with reference to the sum to be paid for the Naval College; but he (Mr. Brassey) might explain that the amount for the maintenance of those buildings when unoccupied was estimated at £2,500 per year, while when they were occupied under the old arrangements as an asylum for aged seamen the cost for maintenance was £6,000. He would further remind the Committee that, in former days, when the seamen were kept at Greenwich, the rates which were at that time paid for Government property were fixed upon a very low scale. If the seamen had remained in occupation of Greenwich Hospital as an asylum, the buildings would not have escaped the present rule as to contribution to the rates by way of bounty, and the Hospital, as distinct from the schools, would have paid £2,000 a-year towards the local rate of Greenwich. Therefore, the gain to the funds by the present arrangement was not less than about £9,000 a-year. His hon. and learned Friend had said that these buildings were worth at least £4,000 a-year. He would remind him that if those buildings were occupied as a private institution, or as a private establishment, there would be a charge for maintenance of at least £2,500, a contribution to the local rates of £2,000, and besides that an expenditure, as he understood, of about £600 a-year for gas. He would venture to say, therefore, that it would have been impossible

  989
  for a private institution to have borne these heavy charges, and have paid a heavy rent in addition. The statement made by his hon. Friend behind him (Mr. Magniac), that the buildings were taken over by the Naval College under an arrangement to surrender them at any time, was received with a smile by the Committee; but it was, nevertheless, a substantial condition. He would venture to say that it would be unwise on the part of the Government to let these buildings under any other condition, for they would certainly be required in the event of a war to provide hospital accommodation. No private institution under such a condition would be prepared to pay a heavy rent for these buildings. He only knew one way in which a private individual could have paid a rent of £4,000 a-year for the property. The only possible way of realizing a rateable value on the very extensive piece of ground now occupied, by these noble national buildings at Greenwich would have been to pull them down and convert the site to some utilitarian or manufacturing purposes. Such a course necessarily was not open to the Government. It had been said it was inconsistent with the purposes of Greenwich that this building should be occupied as a Naval College; but in the original deed of gift he found that, among the various objects for which Greenwich was founded, the improvement of navigation was specifically mentioned. He ventured, therefore, to say that the location of a Naval College in Greenwich was not at all inconsistent with the original objects of the foundation. Perhaps he might be permitted to remind hon. Members who took a deep interest in seamen of the arrangement carried into effect since the year 1868. At that time the building bore a certain monastic character. It was not at all popular with seamen, and there were no less than 1,310 vacancies in the Hospital. New arrangements were then made. Those arrangements had been fully explained with reference to the aged pensioners, and he need not go into it again; but he must remind the Committee, after what had fallen from the hon. and gallant Member for Devonport (Captain Price), that it was originally intended that the number of out-pensions should be 5,000 with, he believed, a provision for the maintenance of 600 aged seamen in the Infirmary;
  990
  but under the arrangements made by the late Administration, which restricted the maximum amount of Greenwich pensions to 2s. 6d. per day, the number of out-pensions had been raised from 5,000 to 7,500. The sum of £20,000 had been especially devoted to an infirmary for helpless men, who were ineligible to Greenwich, and who preferred a special pension to hospital treatment. Again, he would remind the Committee that the age for the extra pension had been reduced from 70 to 65; and, further, that men eligible for Greenwich were accommodated in naval hospitals, Greenwich paying for their maintenance. Among other benefits lately conferred, 200 daughters of seamen and marines were now maintained in schools, and educational grants of £20 per year were made to 50 children of distressed and deceased non-commissioned officers. A year's pay was given to the widows of seamen who were actually killed in action or drowned, in addition, as he believed, to any charge which was borne by the Naval Estimates. The number of children of seamen and marines in the school had been increased from 800 to 1,000; while, with regard to the income, by judicious sales of estates and investments, it had been increased from £146,000 in 1865 to £159,000 in 1880. Practically, the whole expenditure from the funds of Greenwich was spent in favour of the seamen as distinguished from the officers of the Navy. He ventured to say every change which had been made in the administration of the Greenwich funds, and in the application of its income, had been changes entirely for the benefit of the seamen. He could only promise his hon. and learned Friend and those who had urged the subject on the consideration of the Government that attention should be assiduously given to the subject. They had every desire to make this naval monument of the national gratitude to seamen a source of still greater advantage.
  BARON HENRY DE WORMSsaid, he would not detain the Committee by going over the various details of this question; but, as it was one which greatly affected his own constituents, he must be pardoned for saying a few words upon it. He thought the arguments of the hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Magniac) showed conclusively how right his hon. and learned Friend (Mr.

  991
  Gorst) was in going into this matter in Committee. If he (Baron Henry De Worms) understood him aright, Greenwich Hospital was exclusively established for the purpose of maintaining a certain number of sailors, whose services to their country entitled them to similar privileges to those enjoyed by the pensioners in Chelsea Hospital. Admitting that to be a fact, they could not have a stronger argument in favour of all that had been said by his hon. and learned Friend. If this institution had been established, as it undoubtedly was, for the purpose of affording an asylum for those who had served their country well, surely they were the only persons entitled to any benefits derived from it, and adequate provision ought to be made to keep the scale of pensions they would deserve at the full amount to which they were entitled. His hon. Friend the Civil Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. T. Brassey) said that extra pensions had been granted out of the fund to pensioners of the Naval Be-serve and others; but if the fund was inadequate to meet the just claims of those to whom by right pensions were due, all such claims should unquestionably have been satisfied in full before the others were considered at all. It was simply an attempt to make a saving for the benefit of the Imperial Exchequer at the cost of these deserving men. He brought this question some time ago shortly before the House, and the answer the Government gave was that the funds were not sufficient to provide pensions for the whole of the pensioners; but he took it that was simply a matter of right. Either these men who would have lived in the Hospital had a right to live there, or they were clearly entitled to compensation if they did not live there. That was the question, divested of all technicality. When his hon. Friend said there were not sufficient funds, the answer was received with a considerable amount of dissatisfaction on the part of those who were entitled to receive the pensions. On this question it seemed to him that the statement of the hon. and gallant Member for Devonport (Captain Price) was strictly to the point. To withhold these pensions was simply to save money for the Imperial Exchequer.
  MR. T. BRASSEYreminded the hon. Member that the number of pen-
  992
  sioners had been increased from 5,000 to 7,500.
  BARON HENRY DE WORMSsaid, he could not help saying that these buildings were undoubtedly let at a very small and inadequate rental, and much smaller than would be easily obtainable. The fact, therefore, that a large number of pensions had been given fell to the ground; because if this increased rent was obtained there would be enough for increased pensions to the men who were entitled to them. This was really a most important question; because these men had passed their lives in the service of their country. A contract was made with them by which they were morally and legally entitled to live in Greenwich Hospital; or, failing that, they were entitled to a pension in compensation for not living there. He trusted Her Majesty's Government would see fit to introduce some measure by which this injustice and hardship to men who had done so well in the service of their country should be once and for ever put an end to.
  MR. GOURLEYsaid, so far as he had heard anything of the debate, he wished to say a word on behalf of the seamen of the Mercantile Marine. They were deprived of what was known as the "Greenwich Sixpence," which amounted to something like £63,000 per annum. There was something like 40,000 of these seamen who considered they were entitled to receive a larger amount of pension than they were now receiving. What he asked was, that Government would consider the desirability of affording to all seamen the pension which was now awarded. ["Order, order!"]
  THE CHAIRMAN: I must direct the hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact that the Vote under discussion is the Scientific Vote, and the matter to which he is referring comes under a different Vote altogether—namely, that for Greenwich Hospital.
  MR. GOURLEYsaid, he begged pardon; so far as he had heard the debate hon. Members had been discussing the question of pensions.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid, what had been discussed was the question of the rent for Greenwich Hospital, and the diminution caused to pensioners by the low rent paid.
  MR. DICK-PEDDIEthought the Committee had wandered very much from

  993
  the original question. That was simply the sufficiency of the rent which appeared in the Estimates. The explanation given from the Treasury Bench as to the arrangements made with Greenwich Hospital, and the statements made as to the amount paid for rates and maintenance, seemed to him to show that this was a very fair sum; for besides the £100 in the Estimates there was paid in rates and in upholding the building, £4,500; the rates amounted to £2,000, and the expenditure in maintenance of the buildings to £2,500; so that virtually the rent was £4,600 a-year. That was a fairly adequate rental. They could not expect to get such a rent as would be a sufficient return on the capitalized value of these buildings. £20,000 a-year would not be sufficient for that. The question really was, what might it be supposed these buildings would produce in the market if put into it for any such purpose as the nation could offer them for? He could not conceive that if let for any purpose for which the country could allow the buildings to be used they would yield more than £4,600. He therefore thought the objection was untenable.
  MR. GORSTsaid, that the answers of the Members of the Government were not so satisfactory to him as they appeared to be to the hon. Member who had just sat down (Mr. Dick-Peddie). Persons who had experience in Parliament could tell by the mode in which a Minister answered a question whether he himself was satisfied with the answer he was giving. He was sure that many hon. Members would have seen that the Civil Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. T. Brassey) knew he had a bad case, and was trying to make the most of it. He (Mr. Gorst) understood from the remarks of the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Dick-Peddie) that he considered these magnificent buildings were only worth £100 a-year. Was it reasonable to suppose, for one moment, that they were not worth more than that? Because, if they were not, it would be the duty of the Lords of the Admiralty to bring in a Bill to enable the site to be sold, so that some use might be made of it, and that it might bring in more to the funds of the Hospital. He was unable to understand whether the hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Magniac) was pleased with the present arrangement or not. If it
  994
  was the hon. Member's desire to advance the interest of the seamen, he (Mr. Gorst) did not see how he could think the present use of the buildings satisfactory. The hon. Member seemed to be surprised that they, in 1880, were not acquainted with the understandings entered into by the House of Commons which sat in 1869. Of course, he (Mr. Gorst) was aware, in the Act there was a clause requiring that the buildings should be available for the purpose of a naval hospital when required. But the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War (Mr. Childers) really could not seriously suppose that there was the slightest chance of the Government being ever required to turn those buildings into a hospital again.
  MR. CHILDERSsaid, that in the event of a great naval war, the first thing the Board of Admiralty would do would be to move in that matter and take possession of Greenwich Hospital.
  MR. GORSTsaid, he would then ask the Committee, whether the risk of a naval war, or of one or two naval actions, was really a practical consideration which should diminish the value annually of this building? For his part, he could not see how it could affect the value of the occupation of the building. He thought that the clause in the Act did not interfere with the real value of the property. Therefore, he felt sure that the 'Members of the Government considered that in that short discussion it had clearly been made out that the £100 was not an adequate rent, and that a much greater sum ought to be inserted in the Estimates of next year. He hoped that the Civil Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. T. Brassey) would look into the matter, and that he would be able to induce the Treasury to consent to an adequate sum being put down next year for Greenwich Hospital rent. If the Treasury did not consent to do that, he (Mr. Gorst) should next year bring forward the matter in such a form that he should be able to take the sense of the House upon it.
  MR. E. J. REEDsaid, that the present, he thought, was an opportune time for making the few remarks he had to make upon a slightly different subject. Therefore, he begged leave to call the attention of the Board of Admiralty to that subject for a moment. In the last debate on the Navy Estimates in the late

  995
  Parliament, he drew the attention of the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. W. H. Smith), then First Lord of the Admiralty, to the disadvantages they were under in not being furnished periodically with the results of the operations of the several departments of the Admiralty. He would take, for example, the Hydrographic department. As far as that House was concerned it was in utter ignorance of the proceedings of that department. He was glad to receive an assurance last year from the right hon. Gentleman, who was good enough to say, in reply to his appeal, that he would take into consideration the propriety of giving annual Reports of those several departments. He would now take the opportunity of asking whether the present Government intended to carry out the promise made by their Predecessors, and furnish the House with the operations of those departments. He felt sure, if they would do so, more confidence would be placed in those who had the administration of those departments; because, since remarks had been made on that subject in the House, there had been a discussion in the public Press, attacking the proceedings of the steam and hydro-graphic departments; and it was probable that those departments would be brought into disrepute, simply because that House was kept in total ignorance of their operations. An officer lately in the employ of the Government read a Paper not long ago, and in that Paper he pointed out certain deficiencies in our Service. He (Mr. E. J. Reed) would like to ask the Government, instead of giving the results of the operations of the Hydrographic department to officers, representatives of societies, and representatives of periodicals, to enable them to earn money by writing articles out of information required by that House, whether they would not give to the House an annual Report of the Hydro-graphic and other minor departments'? He asked the question, because he believed that would bring such a department as the Hydrographic department into better relations with that House and the country, by exhibiting the valuable work which they did. He did not wish for a debate to be raised upon the point; but he hoped that the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Admiralty would take it into consideration, as he
  996
  was sure that such annual Reports would be of material advantage to that House.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, he did not recollect what passed last year. Perhaps, however, the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. W. H. Smith) would remember. For his own part, he would endeavour to carry out the wishes of his hon. Friend (Mr. E. J. Reed) as far as possible, inasmuch as they were most reasonable. Instructions had been given for those Reports to be laid on the Table in future, and he should be happy to give every facility, so that the fullest information should be afforded.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFsaid, he was sorry the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. E. J. Reed) had referred to the Reports of departments, as he did not think himself that the question of Greenwich Hospital was exhausted. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War (Mr. Childers) really could never wish them, in any way, to rely on the bargain of which he spoke. The right hon. Gentleman asked them to take that speech as a standard to apply to the compromise that had been effected. But the speech to which he (Sir H. Drummond Wolff) referred seemed to have been delivered several years ago, and which nobody, so far as he was aware, recollected, and which did not appear to have been reported. He would call their attention to the fact that since that time the right hon. Gentleman had not only been in Opposition, but had also been in other departments of the Service; and it appeared to him rather unreasonable to refer to that to explain the reasons why seamen and marines were deprived of a fair revenue for that valuable property. The question was, in fact, greater than many hon. Members supposed. They had, in fact, the Lords of the Admiralty acting in two capacities—as trustees for the aged seamen and marines on the one hand, and as Lords of the Admiralty on the other. They took the money of their cestui que trustent and put it into the pockets of the Admiralty. £100 a-year was clearly an inadequate rent: the buildings were assessed at from £4,000 to £5,000 a-year, and they were asked to say they considered £100 sufficient rent. He thought that was unworthy of the Admiralty, acting in their capacity of Lords of the Admiralty, to make a profit out of that property. He sin-

  997
  cerely trusted that the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst) would bring that matter up in a forcible manner next year, and in such time as to have ample opportunity for discussing it, so that it should not be hurried over as it was that night, in order that the rights of seamen and marines might be less curtailed than they were at present with reference to that subject.
  CAPTAIN PRICEsaid, he wished to ask, whether it was intended to bring on the Vote for Greenwich Hospital that night, because he intended to move a reduction of the Vote?
  MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, it was his intention to bring on that Vote. He hoped the House would not think it necessary to prolong that discussion. The matter had been fully discussed, and the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst) had had full opportunity for placing his views upon the subject before them. He begged to observe that the hon. and learned Member could not move to increase the Vote; the only proper way would be for him to raise the question by Motion, and he had understood that the hon. and learned Member intended to do so next Session. He hoped he would be satisfied with the answers that had been given. He would only add, with reference to the remarks of the hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir H. Drummond Wolff), that when the arrangements were made in 1867 there was an understanding, as explained by the right hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. Childers), that if the buildings were required for naval purposes, there should be no rent chargeable to Naval Votes. Again, when the buildings were taken over for the purposes of a Naval College in 1872, the Greenwich Hospital Fund was relieved of the charges for repairing, which amounted to some £2,000 a-year; it was also relieved of rates of about £2,000 a-year, and charges for police of about £750. Therefore, practically, Greenwich Hospital was a gainer by the transaction to the extent of near £5,000 a-year. He would not go more into detail, as the whole question would, no doubt, be raised by the hon. and learned Member for Chatham next Session.
  MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, he thought the whole question might be well considered; but it had been pointed out that that consideration could not take place this year.
  998
  If hon. Gentlemen opposite thought they could get a larger rental for the use of Greenwich Hospital, as a contribution to the funds of that Hospital, he should not object; but he could not help feeling that a large charge was imposed upon the public funds under the present system. He was not satisfied that Greenwich Hospital would have been chosen as the site for a Naval College, had it not been for certain concurrent circumstances which induced the Government of the day to appropriate the building for that institution. For his own part, he was rather inclined to the belief that another site would have been better. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Cardiff (Mr. E. J. Reed) had referred to him (Mr. W. H. Smith) with reference to the engagements entered into last year with regard to Reports of the different departments of the Admiralty. He was glad to say that before he left Office those engagements had been carried out as far as he was able to do so. He fully concurred with the hon. Gentleman that the public should be informed of the operations of those several departments of the Service, and more especially in the case of such a department as the Hydrographic department.
  MR. PULESTONsaid, he hoped the subject would not be discussed with any misunderstanding. Was he to understand that the Board of Admiralty had, at present, no intention whatever of altering the existing systems, and that the remarks which had fallen from the Civil Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. T. Brassey) were not the views of his Colleagues. He thanked the Civil Lord for his satisfactory speech, and still hoped the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Admiralty (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) would be able to fall into the same groove. As far as he (Mr. Puleston) was concerned, he considered that both seamen and marines had been hardly and unjustly dealt with in more ways than one, and other matters relating to various classes in the Dockyards should receive attention. Therefore, he did hope that his hon. Friend the Secretary to the Admiralty would at least give an opportunity for discussing the question to those hon. Members who represented constituencies such as he did. More time should be given too for discussing the questions affecting the Engineers of the

  999
  Royal Navy to which he had already referred.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, that his hon. Friend the Civil Lord of the Admiralty had given assurance that the matter should receive consideration, but that he could not hold out any expectation of a higher rent being given. The whole question would be raised next year, and, no doubt, there would then be ample opportunity for discussion. He could not, of course, say what would ultimately be done in the matter.
  CAPTAIN PRICEsaid, that inasmuch as the question of rent of Greenwich Hospital could not be discussed fully this year, he should defer his remarks on the subject. But he thought the grievances of Greenwich pensioners were such that they ought to be considered immediately. He should, therefore, move to reduce the Vote by £1,500 when it came on.
  MR. GORSTsaid, he understood the hon. Gentleman the Civil Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. T. Brassey) to say that the question, whether or no the rent paid for the use of the Hospital was or was not adequate, would be carefully considered by the Board of Admiralty. Did he rightly understand that the Board of Admiralty would abide by that adequacy which had been the subject of discussion there for the last hour?
  MR. MAGNIACsaid, that the hon. and learned Member who had just spoken had reminded him that he (Mr. Magniac) was a Member for an inland town. He was quite aware of that, and, as a Member for an inland town, he had to consider how much rent should be paid for a Naval College as well as other hon. Gentlemen, and also to consider whether the country might not, perhaps, be paying—although the rent might be inadequate in a given instance—too large a sum for the purpose. There were, no doubt, other Colleges that might be at the disposal of the country for a similar or even a less figure. When the hon. and learned Member said that the rent was only £100 a-year, he (Mr. Magniac) did not quite see how he made that out. If the actual rent paid was £100, the charges connected with the place were so heavy that it brought the sum up to £4,000. ["Oh, oh!"] Hon. Members said "Oh, oh!" but if they examined his statement, they would see that if £2,000 was required for repairs, and
  1000
  £2,000 for rates, and another £100 for rent, the total was over the sum he had named. His conviction was that the public were paying, at least, £6,000 practically for that building—he was certain that it was not a great deal less than that—when for a third of that sum he was sure they might get a more suitable place for the purposes of a Naval College. He thought it was doing no good service to make such statements as he had heard that night, that seamen were defrauded of their rights. Such misrepresentations would, on the other hand, he was convinced, do an infinite disservice to those men. There could be no doubt that whatever had been done by that House had been done to their benefit and advantage. An hon. Member opposite had complained of the withholding of pensions for want of funds; but he must know that pensions to 7,500 men were now given, 2,000 of which had recently been added, principally, he believed, because Greenwich Hospital was closed. It could not be denied that there had been a very considerable increase during the last 18 years. Hon. Gentlemen should remember that, in doing service to their constituents, they ought not to do injustice to other taxpayers of the country. He was fully convinced that the rent paid for the building, taking into consideration the taxes and incidental charges, was excessive; and, setting aside other considerations, he believed that a more suitable place could be obtained for a less expenditure.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFsaid, he should like to explain to the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Magniac) that the question was not one of charges on the property, but of rent. Inasmuch as the Government occupied a large building which belonged to seamen and marines, they surely ought to give a fair value for it. The hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Admiralty (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) had stated that there had been an understanding between the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War and that House with reference to that question; but they were unable to tax their memory with it, and it must be obvious that they could not accept a speech made many years ago' as if it were a legal document. There had been, in fact, no understanding between the Admiralty and the House, but only be-

  1001
  tween the Lords of the Admiralty as trustees and as administrators. Notwithstanding the remarks which had fallen from the hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Magniac), he must say that there had been great hardship in depriving the men entitled of what was their due. He did trust that the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Admiralty would give them an assurance that the most serious consideration would be given to the question. He, unfortunately, was not able to be present when the Civil Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. T. Brassey) had made his speech. It appeared that he had said the whole question would be considered, whereas the Secretary to the Admiralty had stated that the question of rent only would be taken into consideration. He should like to have a clear understanding upon that to place before his constituents, who had been run down by the hon. Member for Bedford, so that they might understand what they had to look to from the Board of Admiralty— that was, whether the whole question would be considered by them or not.
  CAPTAIN PRICEsaid, he should like to make a few remarks in reply to those which fell from the hon. Member for Bedford.
  THE CHAIRMAN: Do they relate to the Scientific Branch of the Navy?
  CAPTAIN PRICEsaid, they would incidentally relate to that branch. The hon. Member had stated that the number of pensioners having been lately increased, the pensioners had little to complain of, and that that number now stood at 7,500. He (Captain Price) did not see how that affected the matter. All the men that received pensions were, of course, entitled to them; and he believed that not one of the seamen who had fulfilled the conditions which entitled them to receive the benefits of Greenwich Hospital had, until now, been debarred from receiving his pension when he reached the age of 55. The number of men having increased, the number of pensions was, of course, proportionately raised to 7,500 from 6,000, the number at which it stood previously. He wished it to be distinctly understood that the pensions had hitherto been invariably given to men who were actually entitled. He did not see, therefore, how that affected the matter they were discussing.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. and gallant Member seems to be referring
  1002
  to Qensions generally. The question before the Committee is for the Scientific Branch, and the question of pensions would properly be considered under the Vote for Greenwich Hospital.
  CAPTAIN PRICEsaid, it appeared to him that the Government, by increasing that rent, would be only doing what was just in that matter.
  LORD RAMSAYsaid, he trusted the Committee would pardon him for rising in order to call attention to the subject of the Britannia training ship.
  MR. GORSTsaid, he should like an answer to the question which had been put to the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Admiralty.
  LORD RAMSAYhaving risen to continue his remarks—
  MR. GORSTsaid, he rose to Order. He wished to know whether the noble Lord was in Order in then addressing the Committee?
  THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. and gallant Member for Devonport (Captain Price) had spoken on one side, and then the noble Lord the Member for Liverpool (Lord Ramsay) rose on the other. I called upon the noble Lord, who is perfectly in Order.
  LORD RAMSAYsaid, that he trusted the Committee would pardon him if he rose before the Vote was taken, in order to call attention to the present system of entering and training officers in the Navy, of which the educational establishment on board H.M.S. Britannia formed only a part. He did so because, although the officers themselves, or, at least, a very large number of them, especially the best officers of the rising generation, were keenly alive to the defects of that system, it was not generally known to the outside world how thoroughly ill-conceived and badly organized that system was. Still less was it generally known how inferior in point of general education, and of professional training, especially as to the practical part of their profession, were the opportunities afforded to our own naval officers as compared with those enjoyed by the officers of the French, of the Russian, and especially of the American Navies. He must say that this was a matter about which he felt very strongly— very strongly indeed—so much so, that, although he did not mean, at least on the present occasion, to move the rejection of the Vote for the Britannia, he could

  1003
  not allow it to pass without troubling the Committee with some remarks on the general subject to which the Britannia belonged. It was because he had had unusal opportunities of informing himself upon the question, which really was one of the very first importance to the Navy, that be felt it his bounden duty to point out the very unsatisfactory state of things which existed at the present moment. He would not detain the Committee by quoting from Blue Books, nor even by going fully into the matter. He might, perhaps, do that at some future time. He would merely speak now from his own knowledge, and confine himself strictly to what he considered to be, or rather to what he knew were the fundamental errors of the present system. These were the system of entering officers by nomination, and the early age of that entry, and the ill-planned, ill-organized, and harassing life which young officers were compelled to lead during their four-and-a-half years' sea service as midshipmen. Though during that time they were compelled to work very hard, most of their work was of a very unimproving kind, and their time was so abominably misapplied that these four-and-a-half years were little better than wasted. First, as to the mode of entry, be must point out that the Navy, unlike the Army, did not get the pick of the intelligence of the country. Candidates for the Army were selected by competitive examination from the widest possible area—in fact, all who could produce certificates of character might compete for Army cadetships. Candidates for the Navy, on the contrary, underwent no competitive test whatever, and they were drawn from the small area of those whose political or professional influence was such as to enable them to procure nominations for cadet-ships. In other words, naval officers were selected by favour from a class, and the patronage was in the hands of the First Lord of the Admiralty. All who obtained nominations became officers, provided they passed the test examinations; thus it might fairly be presumed that the average material out of which the officers of the Navy were manufactured was intellectually of an inferior quality to that which was available for the Army, and which supplied cadets to Sandhurst and Woolwich. Whether that was so in point of fact was a question on which he expressed no opinion whatever.
  1004
  He was well aware that the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. W. H. Smith) fully appreciated the many objections to the nomination system, and that he was most anxious to abolish that system, both because it was difficult to obtain sufficient information about the candidates, and also because he found the distribution of patronage an almost intolerable nuisance. He believed the only, or the chief, reason why the right hon. Gentleman did not abolish nominations was, that he did not approve of competitive examination for boys of the tender age of 12 to 13½, the age at which the cadets now joined the training ship. And, no doubt, there was much to be said in favour of that view. But he thought, and he ventured to hope the Committee would agree with him, that to retain a system of patronage in the Service which, of all others, was the most truly national in every sense of the word, was a thing which ought not to be any longer allowed, no matter what difficulties stood in the way. That brought him to the second point to which he wished to call the attention of the Committee—namely, the age at which young officers began life on board ship. It was usually urged, by way of apology and defence, that unless officers entered very young, it was impossible that they should be reconciled to the hardship and confinement of ship life. To that he replied this was pure assumption, and he did not think there was any good ground for believing it to be true. He acknowledged that it was not uncommon to hear naval officers of experience say that if they had not entered the Service at an age when they knew nothing whatever of themselves, or of the world, they would never have joined the Navy at all; and therefore it was assumed, even by those who ought to know better, that unless officers were entered young, there would be great difficulty in obtaining officers at all. But that argument really told the other way, and he said that so long as they continued to enter boys at the present early age—12 to 13½—so long should they continue to enter a very large number whom nature never intended to become naval officers. What was most needed in selecting officers for the Navy was to secure personal fitness for a naval life. That was the one thing needful; secure that, and they might

  1005
  safely enter cadets very much later than they did at present. Without it, although by entering them young they might reconcile many men to ship life, who would otherwise never be able to endure it, they would never succeed in producing any really first-rate naval officers. Now, he was quite certain that they could not even pretend to secure this personal fitness, unless the age of entry was fixed at such a point as would give time for a boy's character to be more or less formed, so that he might be able to judge for himself whether or not a naval career was likely to suit him. He did not hesitate to assure the House that this early entry was, perhaps, the most mischievous and pernicious feature of the whole system. Why, what were the motives which induced boys at the age of 12 to 13 to join the Navy? During the time—nearly two years—that he was commander of the Britannia —by commander he meant second in command—he made the acquaintance of some 350 cadets; and it was, of course, his business to know the boys individually as well as he could. Many of them were undoubtedly as fine and promising youths as could be wished, and full of enthusiasm for the Service. On the other hand, there were many who only entered the Navy in order to escape from school; whilst others—and these were a very considerable proportion— told him that they joined the Navy merely because their parents wished them to do so, and not from any wish of their own. Some few even went further than that, and told him they did not much like the Britannia, and were doubtful if they would like the Navy. In short, the facts proved exactly what might have been expected, that whilst they entered boys at 12 to 13½, they could have no guarantee of their personal fitness for the Navy. But that early age was mischievous in other ways. Nothing was gained in the long run, and much was lost by taking boys away from school, stopping their general education just as their minds were beginning to open, and setting them down to study narrow professional subjects, which they would learn in half the time if their minds were more fully developed. And that had so far been recognized that a very large portion of the time on board of the Britannia was now given up to general subjects, not only to elemen-
  1006
  tary mathematics, such as Euclid, Algebra, Arithmetic, and Trigonometry, but to still more general subjects than those, such as History, French, and Geography, subjects which belonged to the curriculum of every school in the country. Thus, out of the total 28 hours per week during the first six months the boys were on board the Britannia, only five were given to professional subjects, such as seamanship and navigation, and 23 to the general subjects he had mentioned. During their second term, eight hours were given to professional subjects and 20 to general subjects; third and fourth terms, nine hours to professional and 19 to general subjects. He thought these figures showed very clearly that the Britannia was not merely a training ship in which technical and professional subjects only were taught, but a floating school for purposes of general education. It was a great expense to the country, and one of which he thought the House of Commons might fairly complain. At the same time, he must say that so long as the system of entering young officers almost during their childhood was continued, so long did he hope that that House would continue to sanction whatever was necessary for their general education. The Britannia itself was, no doubt, a very anomalous institution—a ship without masts, a mere hulk, in fact, on board of which nothing was taught that could not be taught both better and more economically on dry land. But although he thought the educational work now done by the Britannia could be better done, and much better done by a College on shore with proper models, and a properly rigged ship attached, he was not discussing that point now. He regarded it as merely one of detail, in comparison with those which he was endeavouring to submit to the Committee; for he thought that, so long as cadets were entered at the present early age, it mattered little whether they were trained in a floating hulk or in a College on shore. The mischief in either case would be about the same; for in both this early naval training would have the effect of destroying much originality of character, and of narrowing the minds of our future officers, by cutting short their general education, and taking them out of the world before they had had time to see anything of it. Forty

  1007
  or fifty years ago, there were reasons for entering officers as young as possible—reasons which no longer existed; first, because the hardships of sea life were in those days so great that it was really necessary for officers to begin young, in order to become inured to them; and, secondly, because practical seamanship was the one great professional necessity in the old days of sailing ships, and that was best acquired by practice and experience commencing from very early years. But now all this was changed; the hardships were now comparatively slight; whilst, as to seamanship, they not only did not expect or require so much of that peculiar skill in handling ships under sail alone, which was the pride of our officers in former days, but they now possessed a vast amount of knowledge of natural phenomena, embodied in the form of laws and rules, which greatly reduced in value the experience of any single life. Besides, sea service in these days of steam and ironclad ships did not necessarily bring with it knowledge of seamanship; but seamanship could be taught like everything else, and it ought to be taught far more than it was. It could not be picked up in large iron-clads, and must be taught, if it was to be learnt. On the other hand, our officers were expected to acquire a very considerable amount of scientific knowledge. He maintained that a ship, especially a man-of-war, was just about the very worst place for study of any kind that could possibly be conceived; and he said that the original reasons for entering officers as young as possible having disappeared, it was purely mischievous to adhere to the practice. The only result was—on the one hand, to cause unnecessary expense to the country; and on the other, intellectual injury to the officers themselves. The third point—and it was the last with which he would trouble the Committee—was the anomalous and most unprofitable life that our young officers led during the four-and-a-half years which they spent as midshipmen on board a sea-going ship, from the time that they left the Britannia until they passed their examination for the rank of lieutenant. They were then in what he might call an embryo state of existence—half officer, half schoolboy. They kept regular watch both at sea and in harbour, and were generally on
  1008
  watch about six hours out of every 24. Most of that time, he was bound to say, was wasted, so far as they themselves were concerned; for their chief work when on watch, in these days of steam, was no longer to assist in working the ship, but to walk up and down, report certain times to the commanding officer, see the decks swept, and the ashes thrown overboard. Then they were attached to a division of guns, and to a company of small-arm men, in connection with which a great deal of work was imposed on them, which in the Army would be done by non-commissioned officers—such as taking clothes lists, slop lists, and hammock lists. That sort of work taught the boys nothing whatever. It only wasted their time, and prevented them doing other things. Lastly, in addition to all this, midshipmen were supposed to study under the Naval Instructor for some two hours every forenoon; but that study was very irregular. It not only had to give way to the routine of drills which were carried on in every man-of-war, but was subject to all the vicissitudes of wind and weather at sea. Besides, under the most favourable circumstances, it was not to be expected that a growing boy could study to much good purpose when he had a four hours' watch on deck during the previous night; and, according to the custom of the Service, he would have such a watch during three nights out of four. A midshipman was sometimes excused from taking his forenoon watch in order to go to school. In that case, he lost some of the experience to gain which was the chief object of his being sent to sea. In short, his official duties interfered sadly with his studies, whilst his schoolboy work took every leisure moment, and greatly reduced the knowledge he might otherwise gain by experience, if only he had leisure and opportunity for observation. A midshipman now-a-days really was a very hard-worked individual— that was to say, he had to spend much time in work; but most of it was of so unprofitable a kind that the gain to himself in professional knowledge was comparatively insignificant. In short, his time and labour were vilely misapplied; he could not combine, with advantage, the double character of officer and schoolboy. And it was vain to expect that he should. A very few able and ambitious

  1009
  boys, gifted with strong constitutions and physical energy, might succeed in doing so; but, generally speaking, the attempt had always failed, and he was quite sure that it always would fail. He felt that it was presumptuous, and certainly not wise, in a new Member to speak at such length in Committee as he had done. He was really ashamed of himself, and only hoped that the Committee would forgive him. The truth was that this question of naval education and naval training had long lain on his conscience. He felt very strongly about it; he knew it to be a matter which vitally affected the efficiency of the Navy, and, therefore, he had ventured to think it of such importance as to warrant his trespassing in some degree on the forbearance of the Committee; and he could only say that he was sincerely grateful for the kindness and indulgence by which he had been enabled to call attention to what certainly was by far the greatest blot in our naval administration, and a distinct source of naval weakness in the future. He had just one thing more to say, and that was that he hoped the present Board of Admiralty would not hesitate to go to the root of the matter. He hoped they would put a stop to the mischievous practice of entering children, and to the equally vicious system of entering them by nomination. He did not see why, in these days, officers of the Navy should be selected by favour from any privileged class; and he hoped that the present Board of Admiralty would get rid of the patronage, and would throw open the Navy, like the Army, to the best ability of the nation. He could assure the hon. Gentleman who represented the Board of Admiralty in that House that by taking up the whole question of naval education, and dealing with it as a whole—not in a fragmentary way, as hitherto, by tinkering first at one part, and then at another— now at the Britannia, and now at the College at Greenwich—he could assure him that by dealing with the question as a whole, and in a large and liberal spirit of common sense, as opposed to the narrow counsels of professional pedantry and prejudice, to which was mainly owing the many absurdities of the present system, he would be doing a new thing; and by doing it he would confer a very great benefit on the Navy of the
  1010
  future, and do more to strengthen it than if by one stroke of the pen he was to build 50 iron-clads.
  MR. GORSTsaid, he must congratulate the noble Lord who had just sat down (Lord Ramsay) on the patriotism and courage he had shown in bringing the subject of training officers for the Navy so fully before the attention of the Committee; and he was sure that the Committee must be glad that they had reported Progress at that stage on a former occasion, because otherwise they would have lost the advantage of the able and valuable speech which the noble Lord had delivered. He now desired to call the attention of the Committee to the cost of that education which had just been described. He was quite aware that no cost would be considered by the country too great to pay for the production of officers of the highest education for our Navy; but the noble Lord, who had had practical experience of the present system of education, had shown how extremely deficient that education was. It was now, therefore, opportune to call attention to its cost. He found from the Estimates that the expenses of the College amounted to £18,961, to which had to be added the charge for the pay of the officers employed in the direction of the College— namely, £18,071; making a total of £37,000 odd as the annual cost of the school-ship Britannia. He had not been able to find in any Return the number of boys on board the Britannia at one time; but he believed it never exceeded 120. He should, therefore, be giving a great advantage to the expenditure in assuming that the £37,000 was expended upon that number of boys. The result of it was that the cost of the education of each boy was £308 a-year, exclusive of clothing and other expenses defrayed by parents, an expense greater than the cost of education at the most expensive public school in the country. It was true that some part of this expense was recouped by the parents, who paid £98 a-year; but the expense to the country was upwards of £210 for each boy. Now, he could not help thinking that if the education was no better than had just been described, this was a very heavy sum for the country and the parents to be charged with. After the account given of the education on board the Britannia by the noble Lord, nothing

  1011
  which he (Mr. Gorst) could add would, perhaps, have very much weight with the Committee. But he had looked into the Report which gave the most recent information upon the subject that was open to the House of Commons, and from that he would give the Committee two extracts as specimens of the results of the system as regarded French and Latin. The Examiner reported, in the case of the former, that the accent, pronunciation, and conversational powers of the cadets was tolerably good, but that their grammar was exceedingly defective. They did not know how to make an agreement. They did not know how to distinguish the perfect from the participle. They did not know how to make use of the dictionary, for they frequently took the words given at random. Such was the result of the French examination. With regard to Latin, the Examiner reported that the translation of passages, both those which had been read during the term and those which the cadets had not previously seen, was very badly done. Hon. Members experienced in school management would be able to understand from these statements how shockingly bad must be the results which the Examiner had thus described. In defence of such a system, which was opposed to the practice of all other nations, nothing could be said. In the United States Navy they took boys at a later age. In the French and Russian Navies boys of 17 were admitted; while in the Turkish Navy, which they had been accustomed to regard as admirable, they were taken at the age of 18, and these young men of 17 or 18, whose education had up to that age cost the naval administration of these countries nothing, turned into officers in whose presence the noble Lord had just said he had been sometimes ashamed. He believed that Englishmen were, beyond all comparison, naturally the most able of naval officers; and if they had a fair chance given to them, and were thoroughly trained, they would beat all the naval officers in the world. It was, therefore, startling to him to hear the noble Lord say that he felt ashamed, in the presence of officers of foreign Navies, of the want of scientific education in his colleagues. He hoped the subject would be taken up by the Government, and thought that the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Admi-
  1012
  ralty, who had himself given great attention to the matter, would do well to call further attention to it. The education of naval officers demanded earnest attention, and it was to be hoped that they would not in future be called upon to vote the extravagant amount of £305 a-year for each of the boys admitted on board the Britannia, and, at the same time, hear from the noble Lord, with all his experience in the matter, that the education given there was wholly defective, and that the results were such as to cause him to blush in the presence of foreign officers.
  MR. E. J. REEDsaid, he rose for the purpose of saying that the views which the noble Lord (Lord Ramsay) had laid before the Committee that evening had been, to his (Mr. Reed's) certain knowledge, entertained for some time past by those concerned in the education of young officers for the Navy; and he believed he should be within the mark in saying that representations had been made in times past indicating the results which the noble Lord had pointed out. But he had felt, having taken great interest in the subject for many years, that it was almost hopeless to expect a change unless and until the subject was taken up by a naval officer who had experience of the system, and who spoke with considerable weight in that House. He had been extremely pleased to hear the statement of the noble Lord, because he was convinced that in that statement had been pronounced the virtual end of the present system. The noble Lord had touched with great force on every one of the points which had weighed on the minds of those concerned in this question. The early age at which youngsters were appointed to the Navy was in such contrast to the practice in this respect of other nations that he was glad to hear the subject so forcibly put forward that evening. He hoped, when the Admiralty had time to deal with the subject, the age of admission would be advanced in accordance with the practice of other nations. The Committee must not be surprised to find that so unsatisfactory a state of things as had been described existed, because that arose out of the change of circumstances which had been brought about within the Royal Navy. As the noble Lord had pointed out, the system which was now unsuitable was necessary in the state of

  1013
  the Navy which had passed away, when it was the chief thing for an officer to know the way to manage a ship under canvas, but when it was not necessary, as it was at present, to train him in a number of scientific subjects. There was another point in the speech of the noble Lord to which he would allude— namely, the unsuitableness of a man-of-war in commission for the continuation of the education of naval officers after leaving the Britannia. He (Mr. E. J. Reed) had recently conversed with a young officer who deplored the fact that while the Naval Service laid upon him the necessity of studying a large number of scientific subjects it furnished him with no opportunity for doing so. He did certainly despair of giving young officers on board ship any great facilities in that respect, and was of opinion that the more they could acquire of scientific knowledge before they embarked on the deck of a man-of-war the better it would be for them. The noble Lord had truly pointed out how necessary it was for naval officers in the present day to acquire a large amount of scientific knowledge. At the most, a few years ago, a fair amount of mathematics, enough to enable them to learn navigation, was all that was expected of them; but, in our days, the youngsters of our Naval Service must study other subjects. Scientific gunnery had become part of the business of every officer in the Navy, and the use of torpedoes required a considerable knowledge of chemistry and electricity. If there had been no other reason for change, the altered condition of the Naval Service, and the increased necessity laid upon naval officers for the acquirement of scientific knowledge, would have imperatively demanded an alteration in the system of naval education. It was not, he believed, necessary to say much for the purpose of urging that the attention of the Admiralty should be given to this subject, because he felt they were fortunate in having a Board perfectly able and willing to take a question of this kind into their serious consideration, and that it would be wisely considered was guaranteed by the presence of the hon. Gentleman below him, the Secretary to the Admiralty, as well as by the character of the First Lord. He ventured to make these observations, for the purpose of enforcing the fact
  1014
  that it was not merely the young officers in the Naval Service who felt the necessity for change, but the educational officers. He felt sure, with the exception of men of mature years, whose experience had been gained in past times, that the Admiralty would have the entire concurrence of the Naval Service.
  CAPTAIN PRICEsaid, he thanked the noble Lord (Lord Ramsay) for the able and lucid speech which he had delivered. The noble Lord had spoken upon the question with a weight which belonged to no other Member, because he had been for a considerable time connected with the system of education on board the Britannia. He (Captain Price) rose, not so much for the purpose of adding his testimony to what fell from the noble Lord, as for the purpose of assuring the Committee that the ideas which had been advocated by him were fully borne out by the experience of many officers in the highest positions in the Navy. The principal question before them was the great cost of the Britannia as a Naval College. The hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst) had told the Committee that the cost of education of each naval cadet on board that vessel was £308 a-year. He (Captain Price) believed the hon. and learned Member was rather under the mark, because a certain number of young officers were removed from the Service from one cause or another, and the money spent with regard to those must be taken into account. But the cost was not the only consideration which must guide them in this matter. He quite agreed with the noble Lord that if the Britannia were done away with, and the young men educated in the public schools, and then sent to sea at the age of 15 or 16, it would be a great improvement on the present system. In that opinion he was fortified by the views of Commodore Goodenough, who held that a distinction should be made between the period of education and that of special training, and that the special training should be in the hands of the Government, while the education should be left to the parents to be provided in the ordinary schools of the country. He thought that the education provided by these schools was sufficient for that purpose. Again, Admiral Sherard Osborne held that the educational advantages which the Colleges and other institutions in the

  1015
  country afforded to the youngsters of the day would fully enable them to come up to any standard required. Admiral Ryder also, who had made the subject a very special one, was also in favour of young men being gathered from the public schools of the country, which he was convinced by experience would supply the best description of raw material for the Navy. And then he added, there was something in the atmosphere of public schools which prepared boys to become good officers. If the Britannia were done away with the question must, of course, be considered as to when it was desirable that special training should be given. Many officers were of opinion that boys should enter training ships before going to sea. But he could not regard that as the best course to be adopted. Boys of the age of 15 or 16 ought, he thought, to go to sea at once, not in ships like the Thunderer, but in small ships, where they would learn to discharge their duties in a practical and satisfactory manner. If boys were entered at the age of 16 they should be sent to sea at once, because they limited the time during which they could learn, practically, the duties of their profession, if they were sent to a training ship until they were 17 or 18. For many reasons, he believed, it would be advisable to send the boys to sea at once. He had entered the Service at the age of 13, having received a good education at a private school, a good deal of which he had always felt he had lost during the next two years. In those two years he had really learned nothing at all of his profession, although he had been under a Naval Instructor. But at 15 or 16 years of age, having been appointed to a small sea-going ship, he began to pick up the duties of his profession. With regard to special training, his view was that this ought to be given at a Naval University after the age of 19, because at that age the young officer was particularly anxious to learn, and everything he did learn of a scientific character at that age he was much more able and likely to retain in his memory. There was another reason in support of this view. The sub-lieutenants spent a certain portion of their time at College, and then went to sea, where they did nothing unless they were fortunate enough to get appointed to small ships. The greater number, however, were drafted
  1016
  into large ships, where they either did duty as midshipmen or nothing at all, because the commanders of those vessels did not like to intrust the charge of their ships at sea to young officers, even though they might have come out of College with flying colours. He thought that the time now spent in that way might, with the greatest possible advantage, be spent at a Naval University, and that the money saved by doing away with the Britannia, and training the boys at public schools at their own expense, might very well be appropriated to extending the course now gone through. If that scheme were adopted, it would result that about half of the lieutenants on the list would be studying at the University, while the other half might be drafted into small ships, where their qualities would at once be put to a practical test. This question was, of course, not a new one. He thought the best course for the Admiralty to follow would be to appoint a Departmental Committee, composed of naval officers, to investigate the whole subject, because there could be no doubt that circumstances had changed a good deal since the House had last received any information with respect to it. The Government, he thought, would act wisely in doing that; and the House would, he believed, be satisfied with the Report of the Committee.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, they had listened with pleasure to the very able and eloquent speech of the noble Lord (Lord Ramsay), and it would be a satisfaction to the Liberal Party to have in their ranks a gallant Officer so competent to take part in naval debates, and of whom it might be said that he represented the views of the more advanced branches of the Service. He (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) had the greatest interest in all the points which had been raised by the noble Lord, to which on many occasions, both in the House and in Committee, he had addressed himself, and should now lose no opportunity of bringing them before his Colleagues at the Admiralty. If, on that occasion, he did not deal fully with the subject, it was because they were under the consideration of the Admiralty, whose views he was not then in a position to state. With reference to the first point alluded to—namely, the mode of election, he had, on frequent occasions, expressed his opinion that the

  1017
  present system of nomination was not satisfactory. The Committee would recollect that, in 1869, a change in this respect had been made, and the Service was, to a certain extent, opened to competition for the first time, applications being allowed for double the nominations than there were vacancies. There had existed a good deal of feeling against open competition in the case of boys of so young an age, and he could not but feel that there was considerable weight in that opinion. For that reason his right hon. Friend had not thought it well to open the Service completely to the competition of all the world. However, that system, under which the young men competed for cadetships, was altered by the late Mr. Ward Hunt in 1874. He had himself most strongly disapproved of that change, which was made undoubtedly in consequence of the Report of the Committee which sat to consider the question, but which Committee he had always considered inadequate, while their Report had not, in his opinion, carried weight in the country. He did not know what the right hon. Gentleman opposite the late First Lord of the Admiralty thought on the subject; but he was inclined to think he was not altogether satisfied with the principle of pure nomination, and that he would be glad to see some change in the direction indicated. All he could then say was, that the subject was engaging the attention of the present Board of Admiralty. He trusted before long to be able to state what decision had been arrived at. If any change were made, it would probably be in the direction of opening the Service, to a certain extent, on the principle of competition. Then, as to the early age at which cadets were nominated, and the length of time which they served on board the Britannia, he should not speak confidently. There was a growing feeling amongst a large class of officers that it would be a good thing to advance somewhat the age at which boys were nominated; but it should be remembered, on the other hand, that there was a very strong feeling amongst many naval officers that it was wise to bring boys into the Naval Service at as early an age as possible. During the first two years on board the Britannia cadets did not receive a strictly naval training—not a professional education purely as naval officers; but they gained a professional training in those
  1018
  educational subjects of importance to naval officers. It was, therefore, a question whether it was desirable to take them away from public schools in order to give them that special educational training which they required in order to fit them to become naval officers. No doubt they could be educated at public schools, yet they might lose that special training in naval subjects which was imparted at the Britannia. He only stated the difficulties of this question without stating his own opinion, or that of the Lords of the Admiralty upon it; but he, however, thought that there was considerable weight of opinion that the cadets might be as well educated in a College on shore as in a ship, provided they had certain accessories, such as boats. Successive Boards of Admiralty had considered the expediency of doing away with the Britannia, and establishing a Naval College on shore, as was propounded by the late Mr. Ward Hunt. That scheme only fell through in consequence of the great difficulty attending the question of site. He was quite ready then to support that proposal; but he did not at the time express any strong opinion as to where the College should be situated. The only opinion he gave was that it was desirable to do away with the Britannia and to have a College on shore. There was no doubt that the education on board the Britannia was a very costly one, though not so costly as had been stated by the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst). The hon. and learned Member had added to the cost of education the wages and victuals of the seamen who had been employed on board the Britannia; but the wages and victuals of the seamen must be found, whether they were employed on the Britannia or somewhere else. If, therefore, they deducted the wages and victuals of the seamen, the cost of education was very much less than that stated. The cost of education for each boy would amount in that case to £186 per annum. He had no doubt that if the College was established in some suitable place a boy could be given a very fair education at much less cost. They might reasonably hope that if it were necessary to take these boys, when leaving the public schools, and before going on board ship, to any College erected upon shore for the purpose of their education, the cost would be very

  1019
  much, more moderate. He would repeat that the whole question was now receiving the attention of the Board of Admiralty; and he hoped to be able to announce their decision at no distant day.
  MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, that he had listened with great pleasure to the speech of the noble Lord (Lord Ramsay), with whom he had the advantage of frequent communication when he was serving in the Britannia. The subject to which he had directed attention was a very important one—the importance of which it was scarcely possible to overrate. The cost was as nothing, for they must have the very best instructed naval officers for the Navy at any cost. This subject had frequently engaged his attention, and he had given as much consideration as it was possible for a person in the position of the First Lord of the Admiralty, while discharging other duties of a very pressing character. He felt that the hon. and right hon. Gentlemen who had succeeded were placed at a great disadvantage, in consequence of the pressure of public work, in endeavouring to work out a question of this kind which required so large an amount of consideration. When he first gave attention to this subject, he was inclined to adopt the view that the Britannia itself was totally unnecessary. That was the first conclusion to which anyone would arrive, if the views of the authorities with regard to the special training of young officers for the Naval Service could be entirely disregarded. But when he made inquiry as to whether it would be possible to provide a supply of boys from public schools with the qualifications now possessed by those who passed out from the Britannia, he found that there were very few, if any, public schools which could provide boys with the amount of special mathematical knowledge which was deemed necessary by the highest authorities. In other words, the standard which they required from the cadets at the age of 15 was much higher than the standard required in the public schools. If the Britannia were abolished, and boys were examined into the Service at the age of 15, supposing the standard remained the same, the boys would be crammed up to that point which was necessary to the special examination. But he was afraid they would not be so well instructed in general
  1020
  knowledge as the boys in the Britannia at the present time. The noble Lord had referred to the possibility of examining into the Service at the age of 15; but, as he (Mr. W. H. Smith) had pointed out, that would involve either less mathematical knowledge on the part of the cadets, or the substitution of the cram system.
  LORD RAMSAYsaid, that he never intended to imply that no special mathematical training was required for naval officers. Far from it. But he had said that a College ought to be substituted for the Britannia, and that boys should join that College later than they now join the Britannia.
  MR. W. H. SMITHrepeated that he had first been of opinion that the Britannia, as a mere school, might be done away with, and that the expense which it cost the country might be saved by boys being educated in public schools up to the age of 15; but he satisfied himself that no public schools furnished the boys with the special mathematical knowledge at the age of 15 which they required; and they would, therefore, have to fall back upon the cram system, with disastrous results to the boys. The noble Lord had gone into the question in a much more serious manner than was implied by the mere continuance or non-continuance of the Britannia. He had entered into the whole history of the education of a cadet from the time when he entered the Britannia to the period when he passed his examination as second lieutenant. He was very glad to hear the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Admiralty state that the whole question would be considered, for, as the noble Lord had said, the question of the Britannia was only a fragmentary part of a very great question. The duties which were required of naval officers in modern times were very different from what was formerly the case, and even in this time a considerable change in the course of education, although in a fragmentary manner, had been made. He, for one, agreed that it was impossible for the boy to get up his duties on board ship and to derive much benefit from the Naval Instructor during the few hours a-week which he was allowed to1 devote to him. He had never been satisfied with the present system in that respect. Either the cadet felt that he could not do his work for the

  1021
  Naval Instructor, or he considered that he was interfering with his duties as officer, and the cadets were thus left to feel that the whole system was a mistake, and an error which failed to carry out the purposes in view—namely, the gradual and complete education of young officers in all the duties expected from them. If that were the case, what was to be substituted for the present system? It was a very grave question, and one that required very serious consideration. The question was entitled to so prolonged and extensive consideration that he feared it was almost beyond the power of the Board of Admiralty to give proper consideration to it. He did not for one moment suggest that the responsibility of the Admiralty should be taken from them; but he doubted very much, judging from his own experience, whether it would be possible for those who had succeeded him at the Admiralty, to give so much consideration to the question as to enable them to produce a result which would satisfy themselves. Commissions had been appointed from time to time to consider the whole question of naval education; and he thought that a time had now arrived when a Royal Commission might be appointed to consider the whole question. He thought that if that Commission were selected with sufficient care and judgment from amongst those acquainted with what was really necessary, a result might be arrived at which would form a satisfactory settlement of this question for a long time to come. He had himself thought that it was desirable, even when they took boys at the early age of 13, to allow anyone under certain restrictions to send boys to a Naval College, and to keep them there until the age of 16, when, by competitive examination, they would determine which of them were to pass into the Service. Of course, that only referred to the first part of the question—that of the entry of cadets which was a most important matter. He was conscious of the fact that from the age of 16, when the boys went to sea, and until they returned and passed through the examination as second lieutenants, much of their time was wasted, and, as a consequence, men who might have been an ornament to the Service were not given an such an education as they ought to receive, He
  1022
  thought that they ought to make the best use of the materials they possessed, and to afford every opportunity for the development of those qualities which existed among the boys who desired to enter the Public Service. He trusted that the noble Lord would forgive him, however, if he referred to his remarks with regard to seamanship. The noble Lord left the impression that now that ships of war mainly consisted of ironclads propelled by steam, seamanship was not required. While the old kind of seamanship was no longer required, he thought that seamanship of an informed intelligent kind was still required.
  LORD RAMSAYsaid, that the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. W. H. Smith) seemed to have misunderstood his observations. When he used the word "steamship" he did so in a strictly professional and technical sense. He had not spoken of the art of handling ships under sail in difficult circumstances. He fully agreed with the right hon. Gentleman that that was as necessary as it formerly was.
  MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, that he was glad to have elicited the explanation from the noble Lord, that he was sure that the noble Lord would not wish that his comrades in the Service should entertain the impression that he made the suggestion that the art of handling a ship under sail under difficult circumstances was not necessary. He would not detain the Committee any longer, but would state, in conclusion, that when at the Board of Admiralty he felt the responsibility of nomination very great, and that if a better system could have been devised he should have been very glad to have adopted it. He did not think, however, that open competition between boys of 13 was likely to secure the best results for the British Navy—although he thought that competition at a later period, perhaps at 15 or 16, after the boys had received a proper training at a school or College, might be found successful. The training necessary for such later competition would, it should be remembered, fit those who had undergone it for many useful occupations in life. They would be fitted for the Army, for Woolwich, or for other professions.
  MR. WHITWELLsaid, that they now found, from what had been said by those who had spoken since the noble Lord

  1023
  (Lord Ramsay), that this after all was no new question, and that there had been almost a consensus of opinion on the fact. Thus the question had not been moved too soon, but had only waited to be properly brought forward in the Committee by some hon. Member who thoroughly understood it. He trusted that the Committee would now urge upon the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Board of Admiralty to treat the question as one which must be immediately dealt with. The hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst) had referred to the expenses of the education on board the Britannia. That education had, undoubtedly, been expensive, and its results, moreover, had not been satisfactory. What they had then to press upon the Admiralty was that this subject should no longer be treated as a mere departmental question. They had heard that the education given to the officers in the Navy was inferior to that given in foreign Navies. The hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Admiralty might feel that the country would not grudge any money for the education of its naval officers, while it was most essential that the Navy should be managed by men of the highest experience and the highest intellectual power attainable. They must not allow this question to drift amongst those too numerous questions which were only to be thought of or considered. The thing must be done; and he was sure he was speaking not only his own opinion, but that of the whole Committee, when he said the subject must be grasped and a satisfactory result brought about.
  MR. BENTINCKsaid, that the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Admiralty (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) had referred to a Naval School at Dartmouth. He (Mr. Bentinck) believed that no greater mistake could be made than that of building a Naval School on shore; putting all questions of cost aside, it was, he thought, impossible to have an efficient school of that kind. Although they did not acquire much of sea-going habits, they learned more on board the Britannia than they could on shore, more particularly with regard to the habits of ship life. He believed that the present system was radically wrong; there was too much cramming of the head and too little exercise of the body, and he should not be surprised if the Naval Service became
  1024
  disorganized in consequence. He was convinced that the boys would turn out better sailors and more useful men if they were kept afloat during the scholastic period. The proper course was to send boys to sea; by that means they would learn more in three months than they would learn on shore in 12. They ought also to be given healthful exercise and not be overcrammed with studies. He did hope that nothing would induce that House to sanction the establishment of a Naval College on shore.
  MR. JENKINSsaid, that the ships of to-day were not like those of 50 years ago. Not only had the steamship been introduced, but with sailing ships there was not the amount of manœuvring that there used to be. In the case of the Merchant Service, what was required was merely long sea service, and that was the only way of obtaining the requisite knowledge. Such knowledge was frequently of immense service in saving a ship from disaster. He thought that, as a rule, the officers of our Navy spent too much time in port—probably two-thirds of their time was so spent, and they were not sufficiently long at sea. For his own part, he believed that the many disasters they had had during the last few years was due to that fact. The noble Lord (Lord Ramsay) had referred to the training of officers, midshipmen, and sub-lieutenants. For his part, he (Mr. Jenkins) could not understand why the ships in which those officers went to sea were not kept under canvas without the use of steam power, so as to enable them to learn sailing tactics, instead of being mainly propelled by steam. For that reason he fully concurred with the system of flying squadrons, which had been introduced by the present Secretary of State for War (Mr. Childers). He hoped that inquiry would be made as to the ships at foreign stations; take, for instance, the China station. He would venture to say that if the Admiralty made inquiries, they would find that the ships at that station spent two-thirds or three-fourths of their time in port. How could any officers, he would ask, be expected to learn their business without continual sea service? He believed that if that matter received the attention of the Board of Admiralty it would be a step in the right direction. He had advocated, last year, that ships should be sent home from the China

  1025
  station to be re-fitted, and not repaired there, and others sent out to relieve them. Officers would thus have the opportunity of gaining experience at sea on the voyage. Instead of that, many of the ships remained abroad, year after year, and officers were sent out as passengers to relieve those whose period of service had expired. He felt sure that the discussion which had taken place that night would tend to remove the blots which at present existed in our system. He was glad that that discussion had taken place.
  SIR ANDREW LUSKsaid, that when he compared the Mercantile Service with the Naval, he was at a loss to understand how it was that so many difficulties arose with regard to the latter Service. He could not discern how it was that, recruited as the Navy was with young men of good education, and with every possible advantage, it cut such a poor figure when anything was required to be done. He thought that thanks were due to the noble Lord the Member for Liverpool (Lord Ramsay) for having given them an insight into how things went on. It appeared that children of 13 years of age were sent to the Britannia. They were not old enough to learn much, and, after a time, it was found that their education was deficient, and that they were dissatisfied with their positions. He would ask the Board of Admiralty and the nation, if that was the right way to introduce young persons into the Navy to manage its affairs? He should say—do not send little boys of 13 years of age into such a Service; they were far too young to acquire any real and valuable knowledge. The fact was, that these boys were sent there to please their mothers and sisters and aunts, and very often, he believed, they had neither education nor brains. They ought to consider the question seriously, and it was the duty of the Board of Admiralty to endeavour to obtain the services of a more advanced class of young men, who had shown some capacity and ability, qualities which could not be expected to be shown by mere children. If they looked at the Naval Service for the last few years, they would find that several ships had been lost; and if they then turned to the Mercantile Service, they could find nothing of the kind in the recent history of the great Companies. Take, for
  1026
  instance, the Cunard line; they had run for over 40 years, and had never lost a single ship; and the Peninsular and Oriental had run for many years to the East Indies, and had never made a blunder, and, in fact, never varied as regarded the time they took in reaching their destination. He asked why they should have those difficulties as regarded the Naval Service? He had no hesitation in saying that naval officers had shown no remarkable skill of late; and he believed the same charge might be brought, with almost equal truth, against their Army. He thought it was high time that those matters were carefully looked into. The Navy was in a most unsatisfactory condition; every naval officer was dissatisfied, and a very large number of those officers were on half-pay. He was sure the present state of things was most undesirable. The noble Lord who had recently addressed them (Lord Ramsay) had brought some very useful information before the Committee, and he had hinted that the education of each child cost, in one way and another, about £300 a-year. That being so, it must be obvious that none but the upper classes could allow their children to go into the Navy. He thought it was a monstrous thing that the education of those children should cost anything like from £200 to £300 a-year. When the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Admiralty (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) said that the subject should receive the most careful consideration, he hoped that he would bear in mind the lectures he had received that night. That hon. Gentleman had referred to the system of open competition which the present Secretary of State for War (Mr. Childers) had endeavoured to initiate when he was at the Admiralty. For his own part, he could see no good in subjecting such children as were now sent to the Service to competition. If they were 17 or 18 years of age it would be very different. He trusted that the Gentlemen who now were in charge of the Admiralty would endeavour to procure a more efficient Navy, as he feared the consequences in case they found themselves suddenly involved in a naval war. He trusted that the best assistance that could be given by those in authority would be given to the subject.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, he should like for a moment to bring the

  1027
  Committee back to the question of the Vote of some tens of thousands for the departments of the Navy. A number of hon. Gentlemen had referred to the cost of training cadets on board the Britannia; but the real cost, he believed, was known to nobody. The Admiralty itself did not know how much it cost to train cadets on that ship. They were asked now to vote a sum of £9,811 on account of the Britannia; but he thought he could show that the Government did not require that money which they then asked them for. They had that amount and more than that already, and were not therefore in any need of further Votes on that account. If hon. Gentlemen would look at the Comptroller and Auditor General's Reports of the Appropriation Account of the Navy Estimates of last year, they would see, from pages 101 to 112, a series of ledger balances to the amount of £13,243, held by the Government on account of the subscriptions received from the parents and guardians of naval cadets on board the Britannia. That fund had been accumulating for years; representations had been made over and over again to the Government with regard to those balances, and over and over again those representations had been evaded; numerous categorical letters had been addressed by the Comptroller and Auditor General, but the balances still remained in their hands to the extent of £9,000 odd. From that source they had not only sufficient to carry them on from September, 1879, to the end of the last financial year, but quite enough besides for all the expenditure in connection with the Britannia training ship during the present financial year also. There were three funds from which money was supplied; there were the Votes in Parliament, the Naval Cadet Fund, and what was called the private fund of the naval cadets. The proportions were somewhat in this way —where £3,700 was spent out of Imperial funds, £3,400 came out of the Naval Cadet Fund, and £700 out of the private fund; therefore, more than half of the money came from the Parliamentary Votes. The Government had a balance in hand more than sufficient to defray the annual charge, and there was, therefore, no necessity for that £9,811, unless the balances were fully returned to the parents or guardians.
  1028
  If there were no promise held out to that effect, he should deem it a necessity to move to reduce the Vote by that sum.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, that the sum to which the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) had referred, consisted of contributions of parents for the education of their children on board the Britannia. A discussion had arisen between the Admiralty and the Treasury as to its disposal. The fund would have to be paid into the Exchequer, and the money spent on the children's education must be voted by that House.
  SIR PATRICK O'BRIENsaid, he wished to call the attention of the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Admiralty (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) with regard to an important matter. There was very great jealousy felt in the Three Kingdoms with reference to the mode of entering the Navy through the Britannia. Naval cadets appeared to be in a totally different position from the young men who entered the Army. No doubt, in some few regiments it was necessary to obtain permission of the General before entering; but that was the case, he believed, only in a few special regiments, such as the Rifle Brigades, the Guards, and an attempt had recently been made to introduce a similar system in the 60th Rifles, but the Army generally must be considered as open. He did not profess to know much about the Navy; but he had been told that there were certain schools which had obtained a certain amount of patronage with regard to admission into the Navy, and, with the exception of the patronage which the First Lord and some distinguished officers possessed, there was no other way of getting into the Navy. Generally speaking, unless a man could procure the interest of the First Lord for the time being, he believed, under the present arrangement, it was very difficult to get a nomination. He wished to ask his hon. Friend the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the statement he had made as to the mode of getting admission to the Navy through that ship was a correct one? If not, he should ask him to set him right upon the matter. If he had been rightly informed, and the facts were as he had stated, it seemed to him that the position was a most anomalous one to say that the British Navy, upon which they had prided them-

  1029
  selves for so many years, was an open Service, when, in fact, it was restricted to a few high personages endowed with extraordinary privileges of patronage. He should like also to know, whether the present Ministers would do anything, however little, towards throwing open that Service, to public competition, as ought to be done? That question of public competition was one that had been thoroughly thrashed out, and he was certain no harm would accrue to that branch of the Public Service if it were introduced. He would take that opportunity of asking his hon. Friend whether the facts were as he had stated; and, if so, whether the First Lord of the Board of Admiralty would take into consideration the desirability of introducing competition as themeans of entering that distinguished Service?
  MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, that, during the greater part of that discussion, the subject had turned on the question of entering cadets for the Navy. No doubt, it was quite true that the present mode of entering for that Service was by pure nomination, which was vested mainly in the First Lord of the Admiralty, and, to a certain extent, in the other naval Lords and certain of the naval officers. It was now under consideration, whether or not the Service should, to some extent, be open to competition, and he hoped, before long, to be able to announce the decision.
  SIR ANDREW LUSKsaid, he wished to ask a Question of the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Admiralty. It was a simple one, and, no doubt, he could answer it at once. On page 25 he saw that a number of almanacks had been sold. In 1875, 18,896 had been sold, and in 1879 the number had fallen to 16,290. He did not like to see that, for those almanacks had always been considered the standard for navigation. He hoped it was no evidence that the Scientific Department was falling off in skill?
  MR. T. BRASSEYsaid, he could answer the Question of the hon. Member. The almanacks were most useful, and were published by the Admiralty in a cheap form for the use of seamen. The reason that the number sold had slightly diminished, was, no doubt, that other almanacks by private persons had managed to obtain a share of patronage.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, he was not altogether satisfied with the answer of the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Admiralty (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) as regarded the balances in their hands. They evidently had no right to the money, and yet he declined to take it in aid of the Vote, and there was probably but little chance of its being returned to the contributors. Under those circumstances, unless he ascertained from the hon. Gentleman that he was prepared to take it in aid of the Vote, or pay it into the Exchequer, he should be compelled to press his Motion.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, the money would be paid into the Exchequer.
  Vote agreed to.
  (2). Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £1,027,689, be granted to Her; Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Expenses of the Dockyards and Naval Yards at Home and Abroad, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1881."
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, the sum was not altogether all that was wanted for the purpose during the year, for it only formed part of £1,363,585, which had been voted under this head, and it was also an increase by £20,000 on the Estimate of the late Government.
  Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; Committee counted, and 40 Members being found present,
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR,resuming, said, the total of the Vote was not the sum which the Chairman had just read, but was £1,363,585, and of this sum £1,202,000 was to be spent at home, and only £138,000 abroad. Of the sum which was to be spent at home, Deptford was to get £808,4; Chatham, £330,000; Sheerness, £137,000; Portsmouth, £391,000; Devonport, £330,000; and Pembroke, £113,000; so that, altogether, this Island of Great Britain was to receive the advantage of an expenditure of upwards of £ 1,750,000, whereas Ireland only got the paltry sum of £1,458. Ireland contributed to the Imperial Exchequer in the proportion of 1 to 8 or 9, as compared with England; while it received out of this £1,330,000, only one 85th part. The wages voted

  1031
  under Vote 1, for the pay of Seamen and Marines, was, for the most part, expended in England, and England got the benefit of it, while little or nothing was spent in Ireland. Under Vote 2, for Victuals and Clothing, Lights, Soap, and Tobacco, all these articles were purchased in England, and England got the benefit of the trade. After the money taken for the Admiralty Office which was spent in this country, almost all the Establishments for which money was taken under Vote 5, were either in this country or abroad, and none of them were in Ireland; so that, up to this Vote, almost all the money taken in the Navy Estimates was spent in one portion of the United Kingdom. Ireland, as he had said, only got one 85th part of what was spent in England, and only 100th part of the Vote. If hon. Members turned to page 83 of the Estimates, they would see there that the item of "Contingencies" alone on this Vote was four times as much as the entire sum which it was proposed to spend in Ireland. Of this £1,458—which was a mere fringe of the Vote—which was spent in Ireland, one-third went under the head of "Labour." This was for the pay of the Constabulary, as might be seen by reference to pages 66 and 67 of those Estimates. If hon. Members would turn to those pages they would see the character of the Vote, which was principally a Wages Vote. The total amount given for wages in the Estimate was £1,051,000, which was more than 1,000 times what Ireland got; and out of that sum of upwards of £1,000,000, Ireland barely got £ 1,000. She did not receive in wages, under this chief Navy Vote, one-thousandth part of what was spent in England. The Government proposed to spend on wages at Gibraltar six times as much as was spent in the whole of Ireland. The Committee would see, also, that by page 67, they proposed to spend in Malta 30 times as much, in Bermuda 25 times as much, and in Jamaica five times as much. In the single harbour of Trin-comalee, the Government proposed to spend £4,131, in contradistinction to £1,458 in the whole of Ireland. That country received scarcely one-third of what was demanded for the single port of Esquimaux, in Rangoon; and he had no hesitation in appealing to fair-minded English and Scotch Members—for he would not appeal to his compatriots—if
  1032
  this was a fair, and just, and honest way of dealing with Ireland? They had to pay their quota to the Imperial Exchequer, and they got back less than 1,000th part of what was spent in wages in England. Why should all the Dockyards be in England? They had in Ireland harbours as convenient and suitable, large land-locked basins admirably adapted by nature for dockyards; they had in Cork Harbour, Dingle Harbour, and Dingle Bay, one of the most natural dockyards to be found in the whole world. North of that they had not only the mouth of the Shannon, but Galway, and 20 other harbours in every part of Ireland. Yet they had not a single Dockyard in the whole of the country. They had a right, on the other hand, to have one there, because it was one of the understood conditions of the Union that a Dockyard should be established. Lord Cornwallis distinctly promised that there should be a Dockyard established in Ireland immediately after the Union; but, from that day to this, Irish Members had been vainly trying to obtain their rights. He was now merely repeating the claim that was made 100 times before, and had never yet been granted. They were told that what the Irish people wanted was employment in order to prevent distress and starvation. Let the Government set the example; they had money. They complained of landlords and sanitary authorities not availing themselves of the facilities offered them, yet here they asked for £1,330,000 to be paid for wages and for labour, and by that means they had an opportunity of spending money in the employment of the people of Ireland. Why did not they do it? How easy it was to get over £1,000,000 for works in England, and how hard it was to obtain even £20,000 or £30,000 on loan even to save the people of Ireland from starving ! One Dockyard in his country would be a godsend. One single Dockyard established at Cork or in Dingle Harbour, if money was spent on it as money was spent in England, would go a very long way of itself to removing all distress in the two counties bordering on it. But the Government did nothing. They did not even spend the sums for which they asked in the Vote. If hon. Members would turn to the Appropriation Account of last year, they would find that a sum

  1033
  of £4,700 was returned to the Exchequer as not expended in connection with Devonport. Portsmouth, and Sheerness. That sum was returned as not wanted, although it had been voted, and that sum even was three times the amount of all the money the Government now proposed to spend in the whole year in Ireland. He could not think that Ministers were prepared altogether to reject or ignore the claim Ireland had to the establishment of a Dockyard at some port or other along her coast. Therefore, in order to give them the opportunity to make an arrangement for the establishment of such a Dockyard, he would beg to move the postponement of the Vote.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Gentleman will not be in Order in moving the postponement of the Vote.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVREsuggested that the discussion would more properly take place upon Vote 11, for works now in progress in Ireland. The hon. Member (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) would recollect that a considerable sum of money had now been taken to complete the Dock which had for some time been in course of erection at Haulbowline. He would, therefore, venture to suggest that this discussion, which he freely admitted was important, should be raised upon Vote 11, and not upon this Vote, because, of course, as this Vote was for Ships and Dockyards, it was quite impossible to take the ships to be repaired where there were no dockyards.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORreplied, that the statement of the Government, that they were proceeding with the works at Haulbowline, would sound very much like satire to his constituents in Ireland. They had always heard too much of the Government's intentions to do something or other in their country. As to the Vote, he begged to call attention to the fact that this was a Dockyard Vote, and his objection to the Vote as it stood was that the money asked for was devoted to dockyards exclusively in England. He claimed a Dockyard for Ireland, and he could not conceive how such a claim could be put forward on any other Vote, or be properly heard except on this. But he might also point out to the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Shaw Lefevre), that a certain sum of money was asked for in this Vote, under sub-head E, for this identical Haul-
  1034
  bowline. The amount was £901, which stood in flagrant contrast to £300,000, £270,000, and £211,000, and so on, asked on account of different places in England. It seemed to him that this was a proper Vote on which to raise his question, and, in order to do so, he would move the reduction of the Vote by £1,000,000.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £27,698, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Expenses of the Dockyards and Naval Yards at Home and Abroad, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1881. —(Mr. Arthur O'Connor.)
  MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, that he could not, of course, deny the right of the hon. Gentleman to raise this question on that Vote, because, as he had pointed out, there was a very small sum for wages taken under that head for Haulbowline; but he still thought that the discussion would more properly come under Vote 11, where £26,000 was taken for these works. If the hon. Gentleman thought that the Government was not advancing quickly enough, and that more money ought to be spent there, that would be a very proper occasion to raise the whole question; but he was sure he would admit that, until the Dock was completed, it was impossible for the Admiralty to spend any considerable sum in repairing ships there. The better mode, perhaps, would be to suggest that a larger sum should be expended in hastening on the works. He had already said that it was intended to spend £25,000 during the current year upon it, which was the sum that had been spent for the last four or five years, and, at that rate, the Dock would be completed in three or four years more. He would venture, also, to remark that if this was an Irish grievance, it was still more a Scotch grievance, because there was not a single Government Dock in the whole of Scotland, and it was not proposed to spend any money upon one.
  MR. E. J. REEDobserved, that the Motion which the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) had made was hardly a fair one, because it would debar many English Members who were anxious to help from voting with him, because his proposal was so much beside the question that they would be obliged to vote against him. It was very desirable to give every

  1035
  English. Member an opportunity of supporting the question of Irish Dockyards, if possible; but he would observe that he knew no Motion which would accomplish that object, as, in Supply, it was only possible for an hon Member to move the reduction of a Vote. Therefore, he thought it would be better to move a Resolution on the subject on going into Committee of Supply. He had noticed that the present First Lord of the Admiralty had stated his intention of sending boys to sea in sailing ships. He thought it would be well if some indication could be elicited from the Admiralty as to the kind of vessel to which they were to be intrusted, in order that hon. Members might have an opportunity of making any suggestions upon that subject which might occur to them. He also referred to the case of mechanical writers in the Dockyards, with the object of inducing his hon. Friend below him to call attention to the matter.
  DR. LYONSsaid, he hoped the hon. Member for Queen's County would withdraw his Motion, and defer the consideration of the subject until they reached Vote 11. The Secretary to the Admiralty would then, no doubt, be in a position to inform the Committee as to the position of the works at Haulbowline. Upon Vote 11 there would be a full opportunity of raising the whole question; but no practical issue could follow further opposition to this Vote on the present occasion. The sooner the remaining Votes were passed the sooner, in his opinion, would the subject be considered.
  CAPTAIN PRICEsaid, he wished to ascertain what were the views of the Government with regard to the Dockyard Establishment—whether they were going to increase the number of established men, or whether they intended to depend more upon the system of hiring? That question was most interesting to the country at large, and particularly to the Dockyard men themselves. Various Committees which had sat to consider the subject had recommended that a larger number of established men should be given to the Dockyards; but, unfortunately, all Governments, whether Conservative or Liberal, had "burked" the question. He remembered it had been remarked that no question was ever asked of the witnesses before the Committees as to whether this or that mea-
  1036
  sure tended to increase the power of the Navy. The subject was always looked at from an economical point of view. It would be in the recollection of the Committee that this question had been dealt with by Admiral Elliot at the time he was a Member of the House of Commons in 1875. The gallant Admiral handled it so well, and used arguments of so unanswerable a character, that the Government was obliged to get rid of him by giving him a good appointment. Since then, although it had been brought forward from time to time, the subject had never been thoroughly or exhaustively dealt with in the House of Commons. For his own part, he could not attempt to deal with it at any length from the fact of there being but few hon. Members disposed to take the matter up. Naval men seemed to be in a minority in that House. Nevertheless, he felt it his duty to say a few words upon the subject of the Dockyard Establishments. As he had stated, it had been recommended over and over again by Committees that they should establish as many men in their Dockyards as possible. The Committee of 1859 made a strong recommendation on that point. They were unanimous in their decision that the men in the Dockyards, and the factories also, should be established, and that at a certain age they should be superannuated. It was true that one Member of the Committee differed as to the exact way in which the system of superannuation should be carried out; but they all agreed that there should be superannuation. That recommendation was made in 1859, and 20 years had elapsed, so far as the factories were concerned, before it was carried out in 1879. This system was established by the late Government, who put a certain number of factory men upon the Superannuation List; and, as a matter of fact, about 1,000 men were so established. But he wished to know whether the Government were going to extend that principle, and gradually establish all the men in the factories; and, more particularly, whether they were going to take into consideration the position of men in the factories who could not now benefit by the establishment? It was all very well to establish men from the present time, and begin counting their times from the date of the order for superannuation by-and-bye; but

  1037
  it was no consolation to those men who had been working in the factories for 30 or 40 years, and could not benefit by that principle. The factories, or steam branch, as they were called, were established as an experiment in 1846, when men of good character were taken from the best private factories in the country. The factories set up by these men had proved a very decided success, and he believed they had effected a saving of 25 per cent in the cost of production of some articles, such as machinery, boilers, and propellers. Many of the men, when taken from private trade, were 25 to 30 years of age. They had been serving continuously ever since the setting up of the factories, and were now looking to the time when they would be obliged to give up work. It might be expected that these men would get some kind of pension; but the fact was they only received a gratuity, which he could assure the Committee was very small indeed. For some years they had received no gratuity at all. Lord Clarence Paget, however, took the first step in that direction, and allowed them £1 for every year's service; and some years afterwards the late Administration, who had found that this plan did not act quite fairly, allowed the men a week's payment for every year's service in the factories. So that a man who had been serving continuously and was incapacitated at 60 years of age, received a gratuity of from £40 to £60, or a sum just sufficient to keep body and soul together for a year. It must, of course, be said that the men who came into the factories received a higher rate of pay than those in the Dockyards who were entitled to superannuation at the age of 60. And it might be urged that out of their higher rate of pay they could save sufficient to buy an annuity commencing on their reaching the age of 60. But it must be remembered that they had no guarantee that their services would be continuous, and that, after having put out money for the purchase of an annuity, by a reduction taking place in the establishment they might, as it were, find themselves on their beam ends. For these reasons, he asked the Secretary to the Admiralty to consider the subject. He believed there were at the Admiralty, or had been until lately, officers who were of opinion that the small gratuity which was given to the men
  1038
  who had worked so many years in the steam branch factories ought to be very much increased, and that, instead of their getting one week's pay for each year's service, they should receive a month's pay. Then, as regarded the Dockyards proper, of course, every man who entered the Dockyards wanted to be put on the Establishment, and wanted to know that he would, by-and-bye, be entitled to superannuation. But he could not get on the List. It was not any fault of his. He might go on serving and serving and not get what he wanted, for the reason that the number of established men was limited. A gang of men might enter the Dockyard to-day, one-third of whom might be put on the Established List at once, because there happened to be vacancies to that extent. One-third of them could not get on this Established List for five years because there were no vacancies, while the remaining third could not be placed on the List for 10 years for the same reason. What was the consequence of this? The third batch, who had to wait 10 years, only began to count their time from the end of that period; they had only a small number of years to count when they arrived at the age of 60, and their superannuation was much less than those who had been put at once on the Established List. He held that every man ought to pass through a probationary course before being entitled to be established; that after, say, five years, he should be put upon the Established List as a matter of right, and that he should commence to count his time not from that date, but that his back time should be given him. A deduction should be made, perhaps, for the amount of extra pay which he had received by reason of his being a hired man during those five years, instead of an established man. This could be done either by reducing his pension for one or two years, when he became entitled to it, or by reducing its equivalent in time—that was to say, that, instead of his counting the whole five years, he should count one year short of that, or whatever the proportion might be equivalent to the extra pay he had been receiving. He assured his hon. Friend who sat upon the opposite Bench as the Representative of the Admiralty that the question was one of the greatest interest at the Dockyards, and

  1039
  he thought it was one which could he legitimately and fairly brought forward. The inequality of the present system could he easily seen in the case of two men who did the same work and were of equally good character, one of whom might at once he placed on the Established List, while the other would have, perhaps, to begin counting his time only after the expiration of 10 years' service. He believed the Admiralty would see the justice of considering this question with a view to placing it on a fair and satisfactory basis.
  MR. BENTINCKsaid, he believed this was the Vote upon which it was customary to go into the whole question as to the condition of the British Navy. He desired to make one or two remarks upon that subject, in consequence of what had fallen from the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Admiralty when it was last under discussion. Those who were present, he thought, would bear him out, and those who had read the remarks of the hon. Gentleman would, no doubt, go with him when he said that the statement referred to was of a very remarkable character. When they were last discussing this question, he had complained of the extreme indifference shown by the House of Commons to everything connected with the condition and welfare of the Navy of this country. In answer to that complaint, the hon. Gentleman argued that there was no indifference on the part of the House of Commons either to the welfare or condition of the Navy; but he said that the reason why there was such an apparent indifference to the question was that no Party spirit was imported into the discussion. He quite agreed with the hon. Gentleman on that point, and wished that fact would account for the very small number of Members who took an interest or part in these discussions. He believed the hon. Gentleman would do him the justice of acquitting him of introducing into the consideration of the question any Party feeling, for he had always endeavoured to point out what, in his opinion, had been the defects or errors in the conduct of the Board of Admiralty of the day without reference, in any way, to Party. The right hon. Gentleman the late First Lord would, he thought, also do him the justice to say that, with all the respect and good-
  1040
  will which he had towards him, he had criticized his measures as frankly as the measures on the other side of the House. But the Secretary to the Admiralty had gone on to say that another reason why the House treated this great question with so much apparent indifference was that they did not share the alarms which he (Mr. Bentinck) entertained, and which he still confessed to entertain, as to the present condition of the British Navy. Moreover, he was bound to add that, after the statement which fell from the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Shaw Lefevre), he saw still further reason for alarm. The two points which he had endeavoured to bring before the House, and to which he had called the attention of the hon. Gentleman, were, in the first place, the want of a sufficient reserve of heavy ships of line-of-battle, of the class now known as ironclads. He complained that no reserve of such ships existed to supply the inevitable casualties which must occur in a great naval action with ships of so fragile a character as ironclads. The substance of the hon. Gentleman's reply was, in the first place, that he had an ample reserve of ironclads; and he went on to say that the Coast Guard formed the Admiralty Reserve for that portion of the Navy. But he would like to hear a statement of facts which would tend to prove that he had a sufficient reserve of fighting ships in their Navy in the event of the inevitable casualties which must occur in a great naval action. He should be much gratified to hear how the hon. Gentleman made out that the ships now classed as amongst their Naval Reserve were ships qualified to take the place of their heavy ironclads in action. Upon that point he would be very glad to have a clear explanation from the Secretary to the Admiralty. The second point to which he had referred was the total absence of cruising ships for the purpose of harassing the commerce of the enemy, of defending their own commerce in the event of war, and of maintaining complete control of the sea. And when he adverted to those points, he had called the attention of the hon. Gentleman to the fact that the question was one which not only related to the harassing of the enemies' commerce; but, under the present condition of things, was of the greatest importance with regard to the supply of food to the people of this country in case

  1041
  of war, and that, therefore, they were bound to have such a preponderance of fast cruising ships as would, at all events, insure their command of the sea. Well, the hon. Gentleman, with the frankness which always characterized him, had admitted that there was full reason for the complaint of the want of cruising ships; and he (Mr. Bentinck) was prepared to hear that admission followed by the announcement that the Government were about to devote their energies to the construction of a number of vessels of that kind. But, to his great disappointment and regret, the hon. Gentleman wound up by saying he hoped that they should, from time to time, add to their number. [Mr. SHAW LEFEVRE: I said we were proposing to commence three cruisers.] He (Mr. Bentinck) thought the hon. Gentleman advanced an argument against himself. Of what use were three cruising ships in maintaining the ascendency of Great Britain on the high seas? Forty or fifty ships of that class would be wanted to place the country both in a position to maintain her naval supremacy, and in a position which she must occupy, unless the people were to be reduced to a state of starvation in case of war. It was incredible to him that the hon. Gentleman, unless he had misunderstood him, should, from his place in Parliament, begin by telling the Committee that he admitted the deficiency in the number of their cruising ships; then, that he should go on to say that he hoped, from time to time, to add to their number; and, finally, that he was about to take measures for the construction of three such ships. He had urged these points on every successive Government for many years past; but that did not deter him from again adverting to questions which he considered to be of vital importance to the very existence of the country. The answer of the hon. Gentleman had filled him with astonishment; and the statement that the Admiralty were only about to construct three cruisers, he thought, fully bore out his assertion, made more than once, and to succeeding Governments, and to the House of Commons, that the people of this country were painfully and blindly indifferent to a question which related to their very existence as a nation. The fact was, Government after Government had dealt with this question, not with reference to their know-
  1042
  ledge of the subject, or with reference to their convictions—they had dealt with it as a matter of political convenience. No Government, for years past, had had the courage to come down to the House and say that the cost of everything connected with the Navy had increased ten-fold in the last 20 years; consequently, that the cost of the Navy must be very largely increased. Unless the country was prepared to incur the necessary expense, its position, as a great nation, was one of the utmost peril.
  MR. RYLANDSsaid, that the speech which the hon. Gentleman opposite had delivered to the Committee was one with which those hon. Members who had been in former Parliaments were perfectly familiar. He would do the hon. Gentleman the credit to say that he had upheld his testimony without reference to political considerations, and had complained alike whether his own Party or his political opponents were in power. The hon. Gentleman said that more money ought to be expended on the Navy, if they wished to avoid the destruction of England as a Naval Power. But he (Mr. Rylands) could not help remembering that they were paying a large sum—he thought a very exorbitant sum—for Navy Estimates. He very much questioned whether the country would be satisfied if they were told that, although they were spending £10,500,000 a-year—-the late Government spent from £11,000,000 to £12,000,000—on the Navy, their naval supremacy was gradually declining. He had no such apprehensions. He believed, if the occasion should arise when they would have to protect the commerce of this country by cruisers, they had in their Mercantile Marine an enormous store of power which could be utilized in a very short period, and in such a way as to protect the commerce of Britain and maintain the naval supremacy of the country. He believed, however, that the enormous expenditure on account of the Navy might be cut down; for he did not believe that so large an expenditure was necessary to maintain the naval supremacy of this country. He did not wish it to be supposed that in any arguments he had used he was desirous of cutting down the naval power of the country; but he did think it was necessary to cut down that wasteful expenditure of the people's money which was going

  1043
  on. The hon. and gallant Member for Devonport (Captain Price) had pressed upon the Committee the necessity of dipping their hands into the public purse in order to give employment to his constituents. He entirely disputed the contention of the hon. and gallant Member. He said that the policy which had been pursued with regard to the Dockyards had been found to be unsatisfactory, and had, in fact, induced the Government to engage in work which it would not have engaged in but from the necessity of finding employment for these establishment men. The hon. and gallant Gentleman could hardly be expected to look at this matter from a perfectly impartial point of view, representing, as he did, a Dockyard constituency; but if he would carefully investigate the amount paid by the country for pensions to these establishment men, he would find that this addition to the wages of these men was a matter for very serious consideration. He had very grave doubt whether the establishment principle was a wise one; but he certainly was of opinion that it was highly undesirable to extend it. They should keep establishments within narrow limits, for if they had a large number of men in the Dockyards they could not keep them in steady employment. He should like to call the attention of the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Admiralty to a matter which he hoped might be attended to in present and subsequent years. He held in his hand an amended programme of ship-building, to be executed during the years 1880–81, and he found in that programme that the total number of men to be employed was 15,772. He had also a statement of the total amount of work which was intended to be completed in the course of that year, which it appeared was 12,353 tons. He wished to ask the hon. Gentleman whether, at the end of the year, he could not lay upon the Table of the House a Return showing the tonnage of the ships which had been completed during the preceding 12 months, and also state the number of men who had been employed in completing that tonnage? He would tell the Committee why such a Return would be desirable. In 1877–8.the estimate of the right hon. Gentleman the late First Lord of the Admiralty was that there would be added to the Navy in that year 14,240
  1044
  tons, and he asked the House for the wages of a certain number of men upon that footing. During the year the actual number of tons added to the Navy was 12,052, or a deduction of 15 per cent upon the estimate. At the same time, the wages paid to artificers stood at as high a sum as if the full amount of tonnage had been completed. He could not but regard that as a very unsatisfactory result. He thought that was a matter which required some explanation. He wished that there should be laid upon the Table of the House, as soon as possible after the close of the financial year, a statement enabling the House to test the Estimates of the Government, and to see whether the proposals of the Government had been carried out, and how far the amount of work completed and the number of men employed corresponded with the Estimates. He was reminded that there was laid upon the House annually a Return of the ship-building of the country. And from that Return, any hon. Member employing an accountant or private secretary might be able to inform himself with regard to the exact state of the case; but not being able to employ either an accountant or private secretary to make these investigations for him, he found it extremely difficult to obtain a satisfactory knowledge of the result of those Returns. However, he was of opinion that the Ship-building Accounts were presented at such a late period that they practically ceased to be of any use. The Return for 1877–8—that was to say, for the year's transactions ending March 31, 1878—was not placed in the hands of hon. Members until the beginning of the present year, or not till 18 months or two years after the period to which it referred, and when its examination was of no use. He had no doubt those Returns took a considerable time to arrange; but he could tell the hon. Gentleman—and he need scarcely inform the right hon. Gentleman the late First Lord of the Admiralty—that any private concern which did not balance up its affairs until two years after they had taken place would soon go into the Bankruptcy Court, or, at all events, would not be able to keep that grasp of its transactions which was necessary to insure economy. He hoped that the Government would look into this matter. He did not wish to press hardly upon a

  1045
  Government which had only recently come into Office; and he had the greatest confidence that the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Admiralty would bring great ability to bear upon this subject. He hoped with regard to the Dockyards that they might find, on a subsequent occasion, that a better system had been adopted; and that while, on the one hand, considerable economy could be secured, on the other, greater results might be obtained by less expenditure.
  MR. GORSTsaid, that he hoped Her Majesty's Government would not overlook this important question. He could assure the hon. Gentleman the Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands), that the question raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Devonport (Captain Price) was not only one of very great importance, but his observations upon it did not deserve to be received with the sneers they had met with. Hon. Members who were disposed to interrupt his hon. and gallant Friend, did not usually take any part in these debates. They only came in for the purpose of making a disturbance. The hon. Member for Burnley had hardly done justice to Gentlemen who represented Dockyard constituencies, when he stated that they could not approach this subject with any but a biassed view. He should have thought that even the interests of a large body of workmen were deserving of some attention on the part of Gentlemen who, as Liberals, professed a special interest in the interests of the working classes; but he desired to discuss this question, not in the interest of the people employed, but in the interest of the country at large. He did not think that hon. Members who interrupted properly understood the state of things in their Dockyards at the present time. They employed a great number of workmen; and it was for the interest of the country that they should employ the best workmen who could be obtained at the ordinary rates of labour. To employ second-rate shipwrights, smiths, and fitters was no wise economy; but they ought to have the pick of shipwrights, smiths, and artificers throughout the country. How were arrangements made in order to produce that effect? The principle of the dockyard was that men were put upon the establishment. They were engaged at something less than ordinary
  1046
  wages of labour in their own trade; but they were insured a regular and constant employment, and they received what the hon. Member for Burnley called pension, but which was really deferred pay, for the purpose of making them steady and industrious in their work, and inducing them to remain in the Dockyard. In the first place, by that system, they obtained the pick of men in the country, and they were sure of their services at any time, whether great activity prevailed in the ship-building trade or not. But for such an arrangement, at a period of great activity in the ship-building trade they might have a difficulty in getting men; and it was necessary for the safety of the country to have a number of men upon whom they could rely in times of emergency. In practice, about half of the number of men employed in the Dockyards were not on the establishment. They were hired by the State like any ordinary employer of labour, and that system produced this bad result. They could not get such good hired men as those who worked on the establishment; and, on the other hand, if the rate of wages rose—if a war broke out, or if there were great activity in the ship-building trade—they would find that they would have to increase the wages of the hired artificers. So that, by having to pay extra wages in times of dearness, they would far more than swallow up the extra cost of the men on the establishment in time of peace. Men not on the establishment always felt themselves in a position of inferiority to those on the establishment. The hired shipwrights worked side by side with the establishment men. It was true that they got slightly higher wages; but they had not the same security of permanent employment, particularly when a Liberal Government was in Office, and they were always in fear of losing their employment by retrenchment. Those men felt uncertainty in their work, which made them dissatisfied with their position. Hon. Members below the Gangway on the other side sneered at these arguments; but those artificers had themselves and their families to support, and were as anxious for security for their small incomes as hon. Members were for the security of their large incomes. The hon. and gallant Member for Devonport had not been ashamed to stand up and state that

  1047
  those men were not treated fairly and properly. Those men knew that they were working side by side with establishment men, who were gradually accumulating deferred pay in the shape of annuity, which would render them comfortable for the rest of their days when they could no longer work; and they felt themselves to be suffering under great injustice in not being allowed to enjoy a similar advantage. When the establishment was first instituted, men were always after a few years of probation placed on the establishment. But, at present, men were kept out of the establishment for 12 and 15 years in order to save their pensions. He did not think that was a wise course for the country to pursue. He was not asking money from the public purse to distribute amongst his constituents; but he thought it would be wise if the Admiralty would look into the whole system, and would treat all the men upon the same principle. If there was one thing workpeople liked more than another, it was equality. They could not see why, if two men were working side by side at the same job year after year, one man should be able to earn a pension which would make him comfortable for the rest of his days, while the other had no such prospects. That was the case. It was a very simple question, and it ought to receive the serious con-consideration of the Admiralty. He thought that the remarks of his hon. and gallant Friend were worthy of attention; and he should not have risen to take any part in the discussion if he had not felt indignant at hon. Gentlemen, who actually took no part in the discussion of Naval Estimates, interrupting his hon. and gallant Friend.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVERsaid, that the hon. Member for West Norfolk (Mr. Bentinck) had again raised the discussion of the question which occupied the House when the first Votes were taken this year, and his reply must, consequently, partake of the character of a recapitulation of the statements he then made. The hon. Member complained of the reserves of ironclads. In reply, he must point out that there was, at the present time, a larger number of ironclads in their first-class Reserves in the Dockyards than at any former period. There were five such vessels—namely, the Dreadnought, the Sultan, the Nelson,
  1048
  the Devastation, and the Swiftsure, and to these would shortly be added the Neptune, the Superb, and the Orion; while in the course of the year the number would be increased by the Inflexible, which would be the strongest vessel afloat. Next year there would also be added to the Navy the Ajax and the Agamemnon. He frankly admitted, on a former occasion, that it would be desirable to hasten on the ironclads building in the Dockyards; and they had, to the best of their ability, acted in this direction. He had pointed out that it was not possible, with due regard to economy, to employ more than a certain number of men upon each individual ship. They had closely approached that limit in the proposals they had made. He would venture to hope that next year they might be able to complete a larger tonnage of ironclads than during the present year. On the last occasion on which he had spoken on the matter before the House, he had pointed out that the Admiralty proposed to build, by contract, three very fast cruisers. He pointed out that there was a greater reason to complain of the want of cruisers than of ironclads. Looking to the fact that during the last two years there had been but a small amount of this class of vessels added to the Navy, he stated that they were going to build three first - class cruisers, and he might also state that they were now completing four corvettes, not, perhaps, first - class cruisers, but powerful and valuable vessels; and, in addition to this, there were seven sloops also in course of construction. He had before him a list of 10 vessels which were of the greatest value. Amongst them were the Inconstant, the Shah, the Boadicea, the Bacchante, and the Eurylaus. Therefore, they already had in the Navy 10 vessels which could steam at a greater speed than 14 knots an hour. In the present year they proposed to add three more such vessels to this list, and he hoped that, from time to time, they would be able to add further to it. He quite agreed with the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands), as regarded the Mercantile Marine, that it would be a great source of strength in the event of a war. The right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. W. H. Smith), when there was a prospect of a war with Russia, made inquiry into the state of the Mercantile Marine. Of first-class

  1049
  vessels that could be available, be had ascertained there was a considerable number—he believed 30 or 40, perhaps more—and all of them were capable of steaming 14 to 15 knots an hour. By a very little alteration they could be turned into war vessels, and would add greatly to the cruising strength of the Navy. All these matters had to be taken into consideration when estimating the real strenth of the Navy. The Mercantile Service must be considered as adding substantial strength to the Navy, on which to rely in time of war; and he was satisfied that no other Power had anything like the same number of vessels and her Mercantile Marine to fall back upon. In addition to those vessels, there were also several ironclads, which had become obsolete as first-class ironclads, and which, by a certain expenditure, could be converted into cruisers. In the case of some of them, at all events, it was contemplated to turn them into cruisers by putting compound engines into them, and so increasing their speed. By that means, they would gain a considerable increase to the cruising strength of the Navy. He thought it would not be a wise policy to build at once 30 or 40 vessels of that kind. The better course would be to add to their number gradually. He could not, therefore, agree with his hon. Friend the Member for West Norfolk (Mr. Bentinck) in that respect. His hon. Friend went on to ask what was the intention of the Government with regard to the training of seamen for the Navy, and he quoted from the speech of the Civil Lord (Mr. Brassey), which was made recently, with reference to sending out seamen in sailing vessels. All that his hon. Friend (Mr. Brassey) had stated was that he considered it necessary for the Admiralty to send young seamen to sea; but he did not say what class of vessels they should be sent out in. The hon. and gallant Member for Devonport (Captain Price), and his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst), had raised the question as to the number of established men in the naval factories. His attention had not been called to that subject during the time he had been in Office; and it was the wish of the Board of Admiralty to postpone the consideration of such questions until the Board of Admiralty visited the
  1050
  Dockyards in the autumn. They would then hear all that could be said on the subject by the various classes of workmen, and decide what was to be done. Such a question, he ventured to think, was scarcely a proper one to be discussed on the floor of that House. When he was at the Admiralty before, he had always advocated treating such questions by direct communication between the Board of Admiralty and the men; and he deprecated, as far as possible, making that question the subject of political discussion in that House. He did not believe that, in the long run, any class of workmen would be the gainers by making such a matter a political question; and he thought hon. Members ought to be satisfied to leave the authorities to deal with it. All such questions, he begged to assure the Committee, would be fairly considered when the Dockyards were visited by the Board of Admiralty. With reference to the general question of establishment, hon. Members would, no doubt, admit that it was one of great difficulty. Dockyard men were, till lately, divided into two classes—dockyardsmen proper, and those who were employed in the factories. The first-named, were entitled to superannuation, but not the latter. But in the year 1879 a change was made. The system of superannuation was introduced into the factories, to a limited extent. For his own part, he had been opposed to this change; but, inasmuch as it had been introduced, it could not be again withdrawn, and, therefore, the only question was to what extent it should be carried. Of course, the Committee must see that if they gave a man a pension they must proportionately reduce his wages. He believed that the hon. Baronet opposite (Sir Massey Lopes) carried out that arrangement, and whenever a pension was granted a proportionate reduction in wages had been made. He did not think it wise to introduce that principle in the factories; but, as it had been introduced, the question to what extent it should be carried out would be the subject of the most careful consideration of the present Board of Admiralty. The hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) had pointed out how important it was that the House should be informed every year, on the Estimates, whether the work promised in the previous Estimates, as regarded

  1051
  ship-building, had been carried out. He had also pointed out that for the last three or four years in succession those promises had not been carried out. He could only say that it had been usual for Ministers, when laying the Estimates before the House, to state what work had been accomplished during the previous year; but he hoped next year to be able to lay upon the Table of that House a Return giving fuller details of that matter. When the arrangements were completed, and that Return was before them, they would be able to see how much of the money expended had been devoted to ship-building or ship-preparing. He thought he had now answered all the Questions which had been asked, and he hoped that the Vote would then be agreed to.
  MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, he wished to ask the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Admiralty a question which, perhaps, he was in a position to answer. A Committee was appointed by the late Board of Admiralty, in conjunction with the then Secretary of State for War, in reference to the guns to be placed in those ships. He had himself considered that some arrangement might be come to by which some sort of composition might be introduced, so that the Naval Service should not rely entirely on the Woolwich Gun Factory. He did not know whether the hon. Gentleman was in a position to give to the Committee any information on the subject. He was sure that he would agree with him that that was the right course to take as regarded the matter of guns for large ships.
  MR. BENTINCKsaid, that his hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) had taken exception to what he had stated with reference to additional expenditure; but he was bound to say that he considered that the greatest economy would be practised by adding largely to the strength of the Navy. He must remind his hon. Friend, with all respect to him, that he seemed to have lost sight in his argument of one important fact. He admitted the necessity of having an efficient Navy, and yet when he talked of economy he seemed to forget the increased cost of everything connected with the Navy. If they were to have an efficient Navy, he would remind him that it must be at a costmuch in excess of that of former years. That
  1052
  was a point that the hon. Gentleman seemed to have forgotten; and he wished to impress upon him the necessity of considering it when talking of the efficiency of the Navy. He should like to say one word with regard to what fell from the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Admiralty with reference to such enormous ironclads as the Inflexible. There could be no doubt, and, in fact, it was well known, that ships such as that were regarded as being of a very doubtful character; and it was for consideration whether they contributed to the real available strength of the Navy of this country. He also said that they relied upon a number of Coast Guard ships of bygone days as line-of-battle ships. He (Mr. Bentinck) considered that such vessels were practically useless; and he thought it was hardly right to treat these in the number of cruisers when there was no intention of increasing that class of vessel by new ones. He could not, therefore, agree with his hon. Friend in that matter. Some hon. Member had alluded to the question of the conversion of merchant-men into naval vessels. For his part, he had great doubts whether they would turn out to be useful or not. There were many objections to them, not the least of which was that it was a work of time before those ships could be converted into efficient cruising vessels. He believed that in the event of an outbreak of war such vessels would come too late; everything would have to be done, and nothing would be ready; and this country would find itself in a position of extreme difficulty, not to say jeopardy. The whole subject, in fact, required very serious attention. The hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Admiralty said that all those things would have to be attended to with due regard to economy; and that was where he differed from him. He fully agreed, however, with his hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) as to the necessity of economizing, as much as possible, in the Navy; but he denied that allowing the Navy of this country to remain in a state of inefficiency was entitled to be classed under the head of economy. He contended that economy must give way, if a too rigid adherence to it would be likely to entail national disaster.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, he was unable to answer fully the question of the

  1053
  righthon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. W. H. Smith). He could, however, say that they agreed with him that it was important that the Admiralty should be in a position to order guns from some other source than Woolwich. Arrangements had already been made with Messrs. Armstrong to manufacture a 43-ton gun, and also 14 6-inch guns. With regard to the former, until it was completed and tried, it was impossible to say whether further orders could be given. It would depend upon the trial; and, if successful, a similar one would be ordered by the War Office.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, he had moved an Amendment to reduce the Vote. He mentioned that for the information of those hon. Members who had been dining. The new Members— of whom he was one—had kept the House, according to the advice received on the first evening. He moved to reduce the Vote as a protest against the system by which the whole of the Navy expenditure was made for the benefit of this country, to the entire exclusion of Ireland. He had already pointed out how the bulk of the money under that Vote, both for wages and labour, was spent in England, and how not one-thousandth part went for the benefit of Ireland. He should propose a similar reduction of the amount which had to be voted for Dockyards in England— namely, £13,000, because that represented the amount which ought properly to be spent in Ireland on that Service. As he understood the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Admiralty, he admitted the force of his complaint, and stated that the Government intended to proceed with the works now in course of completion until the Dockyard in Ireland was finished. If he was mistaken, perhaps the hon. Gentleman would correct him. He (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) proposed to proceed with the works at present in hand at Haulbowline; but if they really intended to build the Dockyard, then he could not see why no sum was asked for for that purpose in the Dockyard Vote they were then discussing. When he proposed his Amendment the hon. Gentleman had said that it should properly have come in the consideration of Vote 11, and stated that the sum proposed to be spent at Haulbowline would be found under that head. He had turned to that Vote, and
  1054
  found a sum of £30,000 on account of those works; but that was nothing like the sum required in order to catch up or overtake the sum which had already been spent in similar work in England. If such a sum as £120,000 or £100,000 were asked for for that purpose, he should be willing to withdraw his Amendment for the reduction of the present Vote. The hon. Gentlemen had given the Irish Members an assurance that that dockyard work in Ireland would be proceeded with immediately and with the greatest possible despatch. The hon. Gentleman had not been connected with the Admiralty so long as he (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) had been with another Department of the Public Service; and he knew that there was no difficulty whatever in transferring an item of the Vote if the Treasury chose to do so, or in allowing the amount to be expended on works in Ireland. If the hon. Gentleman would say that a much more considerable sum would be spent than what appeared then on the Estimates, he would not only withdraw his Amendment, but promise not to oppose Vote 11 when it came on.
  THE CHAIRMAN: I understand that the hon. Member wishes to withdraw his Amendment. Is it your pleasure that the said Amendment be withdrawn?
  MR. A. M. SULLIVANsaid, that the present course of spending the public money for a Dockyard in Ireland was a mistake. If they really wanted a Dockyard at Haulbowline, it ought to be proceeded with. If not, driblets of £10,000 or £20,000 ought not to be thrown away on it. He could tell the Secretary to the Admiralty that the Government had been supposed to be bent on building a Dockyard there for nearly a century. In 1799 the vote of an Irish Member of Parliament, who represented a constituency near Haulbowline, was sought to be purchased by the Minister of that day by undertaking that the Imperial Parliament should build a Dockyard there. In the year 1801 or 1802, Parliament began the driblet system, pretending to keep faith with the man whose vote they had bought over.
  THE CHAIRMAN: I wish to point out to the hon. and learned Member that the Vote for Haulbowline comes under Vote 11.
  MR. A. M. SULLIVANsaid, he was not aware that that Vote was referred to

  1055
  under Vote 11 until then. He should not have attempted to raise that point at all, had it not been that he thought that the question of the prosecution of the Haulbowline works ought to be considered under that head. He took it that the English Dockyards were considered under the present Vote.
  MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, he rose to correct a misunderstanding of the hon. and learned Gentleman who had just sat down. The present Vote was not the one under which the question he had raised could be considered. The wages of the men employed in the Dockyard were provided in Vote 6; but the cost of the works proposed to be carried out was provided for under Vote 11. Therefore, when that Vote came on it would be the right time to discuss the matter referred to by the hon. Member.
  MR. A. M. SULLIVANsaid, he begged to thank the right hon. Gentleman for his suggestion, and he should raise the question under Vote 11.
  MR. BIGGARsaid, that, after the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Westminster (Mr. W. H. Smith) and the explanation of the Secretary to the Admiralty (Mr. Shaw Lefevre), it seemed undesirable at the present moment to raise the question of the Vote for Haulbowline. But, considering the fact that no wages could be charged for shipbuilders until the works there were completed, it appeared to him that the question did enter within the limits of the present discussion. He thought that to move to reduce the Vote was not, however, the way to obtain the object they had in view. The proper way seemed to be to raise a discussion on the subject, and to press it upon the attention of the Committee. To move to reduce the Vote was not, by any means, a direct way of proceeding. Nothing like the sum that ought to be spent had been spent on those works; and he thought, therefore, that his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Meath (Mr. Sullivan) was fully justified in raising a discussion of the question. Certainly, an alteration ought to be made in the present system of voting money for those works, and it was most desirable that they should be finished as soon as possible.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Original Question again proposed.
  MR. JENKINSsaid, that he found, under the head of "Foreign Dockyards and Allowances for Naval Arsenals," Vote 10, a sum of £43,600, and a further sum of £166,500, for expenses in foreign Yards. He wished to obtain some information on that head. The money expended in home Yards was explained; but no information was given as to the expenditure for foreign Yards. A large sum of money seemed to be spent in re-fitting and repairing ships in commission; and it was, he thought, most desirable as regarded that expenditure. He thought that the sum spent was much more than absolutely necessary—for instance, the sum spent at Hong Kong was very large, and they should have some details as to what ships were repaired at that station, and the cost of such repairs. He hoped that the Board of Admiralty would take that matter into their consideration, and would furnish the House with all the information they could upon the subject.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, that the Return they proposed in another year to lay before the House would give all the information desired upon that subject.
  SIR ANDREW LUSKsaid, they had drifted away for some time from the question before the Committee. They had gone into a discussion as regarded wages of artizans and other classes of men, and had heard hon. Gentlemen talking about the "wages of my constituents." He did not find fault with Gentlemen from England or Ireland trying to gain advantages for their constituents, or wanting a share of the money spent in the localities represented; but he begged to remind them that they had met there for the good of the country, and not for the benefit of any particular constituency. He should like to say a few words upon that Vote. They spent an enormous sum in wages; but he thought they saw little for it. Some hon. Member—he had forgotten who it was—said that there had been more expenditure than last year, and less to show for it. He could not understand how that was so. He thought that those works in Her Majesty's Yards compared very unfavourably with those of the Mercantile Marine. In the latter, they could always get a large ship built in six or eight months; whereas, in the Dockyards, they took four or five years.

  1057
  How was it that so little building was done? When he looked at page 66 he could not help asking the question what hon. Gentlemen were doing with the money of the country? He found in one place, where £21,000 was spent last year, £27,000 was spent this. At Sheer-ness, £ 17,000 last year, and £ 19,000 this. At Portsmouth, £28,000 last year, and £17,000 this. They had all advanced in the same proportion, and he wanted to know what became of the money? He did not think that for the amount of money spent there was sufficient shown for it, and he did hope that the Board of Admiralty would be careful to see that the money voted was usefully laid out.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, it was precisely because there were two sides to that question that he felt the necessity of again speaking before the Vote was put. Hon. Gentlemen had very truly remarked, when Representatives of Dockyard boroughs had urged the claims of their constituencies, that other people paid for those Votes. A tenth of the Vote was contributed by Ireland, and that country was totally excluded from any benefit accruing from it; but the whole advantage was derived by England. £130,000 of the sum was contributed by Ireland to the Imperial Revenue, and derived no benefit whatsoever; and it was because he felt that such a distribution, to the country, a constituency of which he represented, was most unfair, that he should move a reduction of that Vote by the sum of £180,000.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £897,689, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Expenses of the Dockyards and Naval Yards at Home and Abroad, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1881."—(Mr. Arthur O'Connor.)
  CAPTAIN PRICEsaid, that as a Representative of a Dockyard borough, he was quite prepared to support the claim advanced by the hon. Member who had just sat down. But he thought it was out of place under that Vote. He hoped, therefore, that he would withdraw his Motion, and bring it forward again when the proper time arrived.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Original Question again proposed.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, he did not understand the way in which the last Amendment was proposed. He had meant to challenge the division whichever way it went, and not to withdraw the Amendment.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Gentleman called "No," and there being no "Ayes," I gave the decision—"The 'Noes' have it." He can still raise the question by moving to reduce by a lower sum. This is not irregular under the circumstances of the mistake, although repeated Motions of this kind, merely changed by reductions in amount, have been usually discouraged by the Committee.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, he begged to move the reduction of the Vote by £125,000.
  Motion made, and Question put,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £902,689, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Expenses of the Dockyards and Naval Yards at Home and Abroad, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1881."—(Mr. Arthur O'Connor.)
  The Committee divided: —Ayes 17; Noes 219: Majority 202.—(Div. List, No. 31.)
  Original Question put, and agreed to.
  (3.) £53,370, to complete the sum for Victualling Yards at Home and Abroad.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, that almost the entire Vote was spent so as to secure the greatest possible benefit for the English people, while in Ireland little or no portion of it was spent. It would be seen on page 82 that the amount spent in Ireland was only £2,300. The Irish people contributed one-tenth of the Imperial Revenue; but they did not get the benefit which one-tenth of the disbursement would secure to Ireland. He should always rise in his place to endeavour to put an end to-such inequality.
  MR. GORSTsaid, he wished to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty, whether there was really any Victualling Yard, Dockyard, or Hospital in the Island of Ascension, or whether those Establishments were not purely imaginative? Some years ago he had obtained from the House of Commons an Order for a Return of the expense in connection with those Establishments; but that

  1059
  Return had never been furnished. Under the circumstances, he could not but believe that all those statements which had been made with reference to the island were purely imaginative, and that there was no Victualling Yard there at all.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, that victualling was provided at the Island of Ascension at a small cost. There was also a Dockyard and a Hospital there.
  MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, this question had been raised and answered during the time he had presided at the Admiralty. He had found the Establishments in the Island to be of great value to the West Coast Service.
  MR. GORSTsaid, he wished to know the total cost of the Establishments at the Island?
  MR. T. BRASSEYsaid, that the cost was £2,400.
  Vote agreed to.
  (4.) £47,584, to complete the sum for Medical Establishments at Home and Abroad.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, if hon. Members would turn to pages 100 and 101 they would see a reproduction of this Vote, and would find that Ireland only got the sum of £1,000 odd. Again, they would observe that not a single penny of the Marine Infirmary Vote was spent in Ireland. He entered his protest against the unjust distribution of these Votes.
  MR. GORSTsaid that the island having been alluded to as a ship now reappeared as a Hospital. He pressed upon the Government to say what the island actually cost, because he could not regard the answer given by the Secretary to the Admiralty as satisfactory. The amount which appeared on page 106 was only the extra pay of the garrison performing the duties of the island, to which had to be added the pay of the seamen and marines. The hon. Gentleman would remember that he had not mentioned the Kroomen. It appeared that the naval officers were assisted by a number of these savages in the performance of their duties in the island.
  MR. T. BRASSEYsaid, the Kroomen were 34 in number, and their pay varied from 6d. a-day upwards.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFsaid, the statements of accounts seemed to be very much confused. They had already, under Vote 5, passed a lump sum for the expense of the Britannia at Dartmouth. On page 90 he found a charge for a hospital for cadets, and that certain salaries were voted twice. In order to obtain an explanation of that, they were referred to page 160 in the Appendix, which really gave no information at all. The Vote for the Britannia was supposed to include all the expenses connected with that ship; but they had now to vote, for the second time, the salaries of the surgeons and sick porters on shore. He asked why the whole of the cost was not included in the Estimate for the Britannia on page 32? It had already been found that certain sums disappeared in some way or other; but they were now asked to vote the same sums twice over.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, he thought the hon. Gentleman was mistaken. Although last year the sum of £934 was charged under Vote 5, it was this year charged under Vote 9.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFsaid, under the present Vote—that which had been just put from the Chair-—there was a charge for Dartmouth Hospital for cadets.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, the hon. Member would see that there were in the Estimates two columns, one showing the Votes for last year and the other for the present year, and that no part of this year's Vote was to be spent on the Establishment at Ascension.
  MR. GORSTsaid, the Committee had been informed a short time ago that the total cost of the Establishment at Ascension was £2,400. He now found that it was raised by other items to the sum of £4,000. Besides this, there must be added the full pay of the officers, seamen, and marines, of unknown number on board the Flora. It was perfectly true there were some receipts; but the Committee were not told what those receipts amounted to.
  THE CHAIRMAN: If the hon. and learned Gentleman will look he will see that the money has been taken under Vote 1, and that there is no money under this Vote taken for the Island of Ascension.
  Vote agreed to,
  (5.) £16,052, to complete the sum for Marine Divisions.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLsaid, the Committee could hardly be expected to pass this Vote, unless the Secretary to the Admiralty was prepared to give some information with regard to the corps of Royal Marines. It was well known that a Committee had been sitting for some time to inquire into the changes which might benefit this corps; but it was absolutely impossible, although several questions had been asked, to get any information on the subject. He believed it had been even proposed to disband the Royal Marines; and it had also been suggested that they should be converted into an Artillery Corps; and, again, into an Infantry Corps. He did not know whether it had been proposed to convert them into a Cavalry Corps. But with regard to the large sum of money now asked for, he must press the Government to give some definite information as to the conclusions at which the Committee had arrived.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, he regretted he was not in a position to state what view would be taken by the Admiralty with regard to the Royal Marine Corps. The subject was of great importance, and as soon as a conclusion was arrived at he should take the earliest opportunity of stating it to the House. The Committee had reported but a short time ago.
  CAPTAIN PRICEsaid, that whenever a Minister replied to questions with reference to the Royal Marine Corps, he always regretted that he could not give information. This question had been asked over and over again in the House; but the answer was invariably the same. Some years ago an hon. Member put a similar question, wishing to know what was going to be done, and the Minister replied that there was a Committee sitting on Army Organization whose Report they must await. The Committee reported, and then inquirers were told that the Admiralty were considering the matter. Again, another Committee was appointed by the late Government specially to consider the subject and to take full evidence. That Committee had also reported, and hon. Members were now told that the Report could not be laid upon the Table. He did not see why it should not be laid upon the Table. The probable reason for this was that the Com-
  1062
  mittee had reported that the Government should give a little more money in the shape of pay, so as to place the Corps on the same footing as the rest of the Army. He hoped the Government would do something in the matter; the Corps of Marines were sick of being told that the question was deferred, and that nothing was done.
  MR. PULESTONsaid, the Secretary to the Admiralty had very properly stated, and with the concurrence of everybody in the House, that the matter was of very great importance, and that its importance was thoroughly understood at the Admiralty. Therefore, in view of its great importance, and the great difficulty of getting information, he thought it would not be going far out of the way to ask that the Vote might be postponed.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, he was unable to state whether the Admiralty would come to a conclusion before the end of the Session. He could not, therefore, agree to the postponement of the Vote. All he could say was that the question was very important, and should be dealt with as soon as possible.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFsaid, the Marine Artillery was one of the finest corps in the Service. It was very hard that they should be in a state of uncertainty as to what was going to be done with them. In the town of Portsmouth he knew well how bitter was the suspense in which they were kept. He trusted the Admiralty would take some means of letting the House know, before the Prorogation of Parliament, what was the future of the corps. Whatever might be the policy of disbanding the corps, no one could deny that it was of very great value to the Service. They were not so much afraid of being disbanded as of being deprived of the uniform of which they were so proud. But their great fear was lest they should be incorporated with some other body. He hoped the Secretary to the Admiralty would give some information on this subject.
  CAPTAIN PRICEsaid, he wished to ask whether the hon. Gentleman would lay the Report of the Committee upon the Table of the House? The delay was really intolerable. What could be the objection to laying the Report on the Table? No doubt the Government had not been able to make up their minds;

  1063
  but the Committee had made up their minds long ago. The Secretary to the Admiralty had told them that he did not intend to do anything before the end of the Session, and. the Committee had no guarantee that the question would be dealt with next Session.
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, it was hardly fair that an hon. Gentleman should propose to pass a Vote of Want of Confidence in the Admiralty, because, as he said, there had been great delay in former years in dealing with this matter, and because, after being but a few weeks in Office, his hon. Friend was unable to comply with a demand involving the reorganization of an important body of men, and, therefore, requiring a great deal of consideration. And then, because the hon. Gentleman had not laid the Report upon the Table of the House, he had proposed to pass by his Department altogether, without allowing the time asked for consideration of the matter, and to proceed at once to the examination of the Report.
  CAPTAIN PRICEsaid, he recognized no distinction whatever between one Government or another, so far as this matter was concerned. He was perfectly consistent in the matter, and repeated that the House had not dealt with the question of the Royal Marines as they ought to have done in a straightforward manner. The last Government had instituted an inquiry; after many years' delay they had appointed a Committee; and he now asked that, as the Committee had reported months ago, its Report should, like other Reports, be laid upon the Table of the House.
  MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, the Committee had only been appointed a few months ago. Their Report, therefore, had only been, as the hon. Gentleman opposite had stated, a few weeks before the Board of Admiralty. There was much difficulty in fully considering a question of this character, and arriving at a fair conclusion. A great deal had been done for the Royal Marines during the last Parliament. His hon. and gallant Friend must remember very well that the retirement of the officers had been raised and placed on the same scale as those in the Army, and the pensions of non-commissioned officers had also been increased. It then became necessary to consider the position of the corps as a whole, and he had thought it
  1064
  right to appoint a Departmental Committee to consider the question. The matter being one of great importance, he should deprecate any hasty decision on the part of the Government. Such a decision would not be fair either to the corps itself or to the interests of the country. However, he thought that as soon as a decision was arrived at it should be announced to the House. He believed the corps was necessary to the strength of the country; and all the Committee had been instructed to consider was how its efficiency might best be forwarded, while the interests of the officers were to be especially considered.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFsaid, the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government had said that his hon. and gallant Friend had passed by the Board of Admiralty. But it was the Secretary to the Admiralty who had, on every occasion, passed by the Board by his referring everything to the decision of Lord Northbrook.
  Vote agreed to.
  (6.) £758,250, to complete the sum for Naval Stores for Building and Repairing the Fleet, &c.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, he wished to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty what progress had been made in ascertaining the amount of naval stores remaining on hand? It was well known that the Admiralty authorities were perfectly in the dark as to the amount of stores they possessed. Again, the system of periodical sales by auction had been pointed to by the Comptroller and Auditor General, as resulting in the inevitable waste of public money. He (Mr. O'Connor) hoped the Secretary to the Admiralty would admit that the question was one which called for immediate attention; and the least the Committee could expect was an assurance that the question would be dealt with before the Estimates of next year were laid upon the Table.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, in consequence of the representations of the Comptroller and Auditor General, arrangements had been made for taking regular accounts of the stores in the Dockyards. It was not a new arrangement; but the audits had fallen somewhat into arrear, and an arrangement had been made by which they would be very much accelerated. Only two days

  1065
  ago the Treasury had sanctioned an extra grant for the purpose. He hoped that the explanation would satisfy the hon. Member.
  MR. GORSTasked whether both sections of this Vote were to be taken together, or whether one section was to be discussed at a time? He believed it was usual to take one section at a time.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid, that he should first put Section 1.
  Vote agreed to.
  (7) £556,750, to complete the sum for Machinery and Ships built by Contract.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, he should like to ask the hon. Gentleman what arrangements had been made with regard to the outstanding claims for deficiencies in the stores of the training ship Gibraltar? He believed that the deficiencies had amounted to several thousand pounds, and he should like to know what steps had been taken.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, he was sorry he could not give the hon. Member an answer on that occasion, inasmuch as the question was new to him. At all events, he could not reply upon this section of the Vote, which was for ships built by contract and not for stores. If the hon. Member would bring forward a question upon Report he would give him an answer.
  Vote agreed to.
  (8.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £419,213, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Expense of New Works, Buildings, Yard Machinery, and Repairs, which will come in course of payment during- the year ending on the 31st day of March 1881."
  MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, he should like to know what course the Admiralty was taking with regard to the Naval Barracks at Portsmouth? That was a question of very serious importance. There could be no doubt that some of the depot vessels at Portsmouth were rapidly decaying, and that it would not be possible to replace them without great outlay. The late Admiralty gave very careful consideration to this matter, and arrived at the decision to commence new barracks. He hoped that their successors had seen fit to adopt their decision to construct buildings sufficient to accommodate 1,000 men. The pre-
  1066
  sent condition of the Duke of Wellington flag ship was very serious, and a large outlay would be required upon her for the next few years, unless these designs were carried out. There was not another ship which could be brought into service without an expenditure approaching that which would be necessary for restoring her.
  MR. T. BRASSEYsaid, that this question had come under the consideration of the present Admiralty, and they had arrived at the conclusion to carry out the designs of the late First Lord. The question of site, as the right hon. Gentleman knew, had given rise to a certain amount of discussion, and it had been thought better to postpone the final decision as to the site until the Government had had further opportunities of considering it. In other respects the Government had approved the policy which recommended itself to the late Board of Admiralty, and had decided to carry out their designs.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, that he hoped before this Vote was taken Her Majesty's Government would give Irish Members some clear undertaking as to what it intended to do with regard to the Dockyard works in Ireland. At the present time they were far from having any clear idea as to the intentions of the Government. The hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Admiralty had stated that it was proposed to take the sum of £30,000 during the present year for the Dockyard works of Haulbowline. The hon. Gentleman must have thought hon. Members were exceedingly ignorant as to the expenses of the Dockyards. He must have been aware that when, 15 years ago, it was proposed to establish Dockyards at Portsmouth and Chatham, the Admiralty authorities applied to Parliament for an Act authorizing an expenditure of £1,500,000 for Portsmouth, and for Chatham of something over £1,000,000. Since that date the Admiralty had entered into contracts £700,000 in excess of the amount they had estimated for. Year after year they had taken tens of thousands and hundreds of thousands of pounds for these Dockyards. By an Act of Parliament they were limited to £1,000,000 and £1,500,000 respectively for the Dockyards; but they had exceeded their authority, without the sanction of Parliament, in the case of Ports-

  1067
  mouth to the extent of £700,000, and in the case of Chatham to £800,000. They had never accounted to Parliament for that excess of expenditure over the authorized Estimates; but they had never hesitated to spend money on the Dockyards of this country. But with regard to Dockyards in Ireland, he would challenge hon. Gentlemen to show him any single case where the amount estimated for had been expended. Frequently the money had been returned to the Treasury as unexpended, although Parliament had voted it for Irish Dockyards. He maintained that it was trifling with Irish Members to announce the intention of the Government to establish Dockyards in Ireland, and only to ask £30,000 on account of them. That sum did not amount to a hundredth part of what had been expended upon Portsmouth and Chatham. At the rate at which they were now building the Irish Dockyard, it would not be completed in 100 years. What use was it to tell the people of Ireland that a Dockyard was being constructed in that country, when it was building at such a rate as this? Moreover, they had no assurance from the Treasury that the sum voted would be actually expended; and he must ask that the Government should give an assurance that the money would be expended. He should also like to know in what time they might expect to see the work completed?
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLsaid, perhaps hon. Members were not aware that the works at Haulbowline were being carried out by convict labour. When he was at Haulbowline, he was informed that there was an excellent stone in the neighbourhood, which could be quarried in the most excellent and perfect manner at one-third of the price it could be contracted to be delivered at Haulbowline. But notwithstanding that, it would have been a very great advantage to the neighbourhood that local stone should have been used; yet the late Admiralty chose, for some reason or other which the officials on the spot did not understand, to make a contract with some large stone merchant to bring stone from England and land it at Haulbowline. Moreover, the quality of that stone was slightly inferior to that which could be quarried on the spot.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, it was intended to spend about £25,000 upon
  1068
  works at Haulbowline, that being the same amount as had been spent during the last few years. He admitted that it was not a large amount; but he had always understood, as convict labour was employed upon the construction of part of the Dock, it was not possible to push the works very rapidly. The state of crime in Ireland had been such that the number of convicts was not considerable; and, therefore, the work had not progressed very much. With regard to the observations of the noble Lord, he could give no explanation; and it was a matter for which his Predecessors were responsible, rather than the present Board of Admiralty.
  MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, he was not aware of any contract of the sort referred to by the noble Lord having been made; but if the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Admiralty would allow him to obtain information at the Admiralty, he would give an explanation to the noble Lord.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLsaid, he would give Notice of the Question.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFsaid, that the employment of convict labour was a matter of great grievance to Portsmouth. It was very hard upon the builders of Portsmouth to have to compete with convict labour; and he wished to know whether convict labour was to be employed at Portsmouth Dockyard?
  MR. T. BRASSEYsaid, it was not intended to employ convict labour upon the barracks in Portsmouth Dockyard. Convicts had been employed in making foundations; but as soon as the plans had been decided on the work would be placed in the hands of contractors.
  MR. GORSTsaid, that he wished to ask Her Majesty's Government one or two questions. The first related to the Naval College at Greenwich. It seemed that a Vote was taken for half the cost of decorating Greenwich Chapel; and he supposed he was not wrong in imagining that the other half of the cost was to be paid out of the Greenwich Hospital Fund. He should wish to ask the hon. Gentleman the Civil Lord of the Admiralty upon what principle the half cost of decorating the chapel was charged upon the Greenwich Hospital Funds? There were no pensioners at present to use the chapel, and it was solely for the benefit of the naval offi-

  1069
  cers at the College. He thought that if the chapel needed decoration the whole charge ought to be defrayed out of the Estimates of the country. The second question he wished to ask was with regard to Ascension Island. As on this occasion a substantial sum was charged in respect of Ascension Island, he thought he should be in Order in raising the question. The sum of £ 1,000 was charged in respect to ordinary repairs and maintenance of buildings; and, no doubt, there was a regular annual charge for repairs of buildings, as well as for wages, at Ascension Island. He wished to know whether the Government, some day or other, would give the House a Return of the whole cost of maintaining Ascension Island? It might be very proper to maintain it, and he did not wish to cast any slur upon either the present or the late Admiralty for treating the island like a ship; but he did think that the House ought to have before it the whole expense of maintaining the island. In almost every Vote there appeared some charge or other for the maintenance of something at Ascension Island; and it was only fair to the House to have before it, in some shape or other, the whole cost of maintaining Ascension Island.
  MR. T. BRASSEYsaid, that with regard to the chapel at Greenwich Hospital, it was used partly by boys at Greenwich School, and that was the reason for half of the cost being paid out of the Greenwich Hospital Fund. As respected Ascension Island, a statement would be prepared and laid before the House which would give the hon. and learned Member the information he required. Personally, he should be very glad of that statement.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Admiralty seemed to be in a very mirthful mood, for he had been good enough to say that the Government restricted their Vote on account of Haulbowline Dockyard to £30,000, because they employed only convict labour, and that as there were few convicts in Ireland it was not possible to push the work. That was the reason given why the just claim of Ireland for a Dockyard was not to be met at present. Some time ago he pressed the Government to tell him the time which the Dockyard would take in construction, and what steps the
  1070
  Government would take to press that completion forward? That question had not been answered, and the hon. Gentleman did not seem to think it necessary to answer it. He wished to point out to the Committee that this £30,000 was one-seventeenth part of the cost of Haulbowline Dockyard. Anyone listening to the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Admiralty would imagine that the Government had determined at last to do something in the way of Dockyards in Ireland; but what they proposed to do did not give any evidence of their intention. If the Government had any intention of giving a Dockyard to Ireland, it would be satisfactory to Irish Members to know that. Irish Members did not propose to let the matter be lost sight of, or to allow the Government to take only £30,000 for Dockyards in Ireland. When they were on Vote 6, they were told that the question of Irish Dockyards ought not to be raised upon it. He raised it on the present Vote, because he found that the Government were spending £8,000 more than they were authorized to spend upon English Dockyards. They were now asking £112,000 for the works at Portsmouth; and in order to test the sense of the Committee he begged to move the reduction of the Vote by that sum.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £307,213, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Expense of New Works, Buildings, Yard Machinery, and Repairs, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1881."—(Mr. Arthur O'Connor.)
  CAPTAIN PRICEsaid, that this Dockyard at Haulbowline was either necessary or it was not. It it were unnecessary, it ought to be removed from the Votes; but if necessary, the Government ought to press it forward. It was perfectly ridiculous to think of completing a Dockyard by spending £20,000 or £30,000 upon it for the last few years. He had been at Haulbowline, and he had seen the way in which the work was carried on there. The harbour was silted up almost as fast as it could be dredged. The hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Admiralty had given as his reason for the work not being1 pushed forward that convict labour was not in excess in Ireland; but he would ask the Government why convicts only

  1071
  should be employed on this work? They all knew what convict labour was. If a little drop of rain came, all the convicts were marched off under cover, and the work was at a standstill. But there were a great many labourers in Ireland who did not care for rain, and who would do the work much better than the convicts did. He should have thought that, looking at the necessity to provide work for the people in Ireland, the Government might have made this a time to push forward this work, and instead of asking for £30,000 they might have asked for £60,000. In a strategic point of view, it was most important to have a Dockyard at Haulbowline. He believed that in that opinion every hon. and gallant Member in that House would bear him out.
  MR. DALYsaid, that the reason alleged for the smallness of the Vote for the Dockyard at Haulbowline was that it was to be entirely executed by convict labour. He could not understand why works should be done in England by contract, and in Ireland by convict labour only. In the immediate neighbourhood of Haulbowline both men and material were ready at hand, and employment was sorely needed by the people. Why were they, who were taking their share of the Imperial Government and of the Imperial taxation, to be told that the work was to be done entirely by convict labour, in spite of the necessity for giving employment in the neighbourhood of Haulbowline?
  MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, that he hoped the hon. Member for Queen's Connty (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) did not understand him as not giving a complete answer to his question. He had informed the hon. Member that he was not possessed of full information upon this subject. He had further told him that the delay in the progress of the work was due, in a great measure, to the employment of convict labour. Seeing the difficulties in the way, he did not understand how it would be possible to employ a greater amount of labour. No further amount of labour had been provided for in the Estimates. The work was carried out almost entirely by convicts, and it was impossible to get other labourers to work on the same spot with convicts. He had been informed that it was simply impracticable to increase the strength of the labour
  1072
  employed either in the area of the basin or that of the dock.
  COLONEL COLTHURSTsaid, that with regard to Haulbowline, he wished to state that that he believed the inhabitants of the district were well satisfied that as much labour was being employed there as could be advantageously employed.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, it was natural to suppose that after the testimony of the hon. and gallant Member who had just sat down he should be disposed to withdraw his Amendment; but he could not reconcile that proceeding with his duty not only to his constituents, but also to the main body of the taxpayers in Ireland. The hon. and gallant Member for Cork (Colonel Colthurst) had said that as much labour as possible was employed at Haulbowline, and he (Mr. O'Connor) quite believed that. They knew perfectly well that a larger number of convicts was employed than of free labourers, and it was a well-known fact that less work was obtained from convict labour than from any other kind. There appeared to be no reason whatever why the works should not be pushed on more rapidly. Haulbowline was a large place, where free labour could easily be employed, as well as convict labour. There could be two separate gangs, so that no possible inconvenience could arise from being employed on the same work. As a matter of fact, the Secretary to the Admiralty had admitted that the two kinds of labour might be employed together, and he believed that that was being done elsewhere. The fact was that there was no real difficulty in the matter; but the present Government was like its Predecessors, and would not move until they saw that the Irish Members were determined. He should consider it his duty to press his Motion to a division.
  SIR PATRICK O'BRIENsaid, he had heard that subject discussed for a very considerable time, as to whether those works should be carried on or no. He was so anxious to make inquiry with regard to that matter of the late First Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. W. H. Smith), and he was sure that he would be doing a kindness to many hon. Members if he would be good enough to answer it. It was with reference to the employment of labour at Haulbowline. Could he say whether the labour em-

  1073
  ployed there when he left Office was to the full extent to which it ought to be carried?
  MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, he had already stated that as much labour was employed when he left Office, and during the whole of the autumn and spring, as it was possible profitably to employ at Haulbowline. The men were employed upon the construction of the great dock, and in the excavation of the basin also. Free labour was employed in the dock and convict labour in the basin, and the two sets were kept distinct. They had done all they could, when they were in Office, to furnish as much profitable employment there as possible.
  MR. DALYsaid, he had received a communication from a Mr. Andrews, a resident engineer at Haulbowline, in which he stated that a causeway of stone that had been excavated might very well be constructed from Ballybritton to the opposite side of the river. The local proprietors had sustained some slight injury from the works, and it would be a boon to them to have the causeway constructed. It would, however, be a good opportunity for employing a number of unskilled labourers.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, he had not heard about such a proposition. He would, however, make inquiry, and reply on the Report of the Committee.
  MR. DALYsaid, he would state, for the information of the hon. Gentleman, that the scheme was suggested by the gentleman he had named, a resident engineer. He believed it would be a great benefit if carried out.
  MR. PARNELLsaid, that the hon. and gallant Member for County Cork (Colonel Colthurst) had stated that although he had not had the opportunity of inspecting the works, he was assured that as many hands were employed as possible. Of course, that might be so; but what they complained of was that the works were such that very few men could be employed upon them. They thought the Government should have more extensive works in hand, so that more of the public money which they were privileged to pay should be spent in Ireland. It must occur to them that it appeared hardly fair that where Iretand paid one-seventh, or perhaps one-eighth, of the contributions under that head to the Imperial Exchequer, she only received back, in the shape of
  1074
  money spent on Dockyards, about one-thousandth part. The benefit derived by that country was, in fact, infinitesimal. He could not help thinking that the time might come when Dockyards in Ireland might be of considerable service. He did not wish to press the Government to move in that matter; but, at the same time, it must be recollected that it had always been urged by the Members for the City of Cork. He remembered that his late Friend, Mr. Ronayne, used to allude to it occasionally. He thought that if the Government would give an assurance that they would look into the matter, and see if a fairer proportion of the public money could be spent in Ireland, they might allow that Vote to pass unchallenged. Otherwise, he should certainly support the Amendment that his hon. Friend the Member for Queen's County (Mr. O'Connor) had proposed.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided: —Ayes 23; Noes 174: Majority 151.—(Div. List, No. 32.)
  Original Question again proposed.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFsaid, that after the Vote was passed he hoped they would consent to report Progress, as they had been then sitting for nearly eight hours. ["No !"] An hon. Member called "No;" but if he had been sitting there all the evening, as they had been, he would be very glad to be relieved. There was a most important question coming presently — namely, pensions to naval officers and widows— and he, therefore, thought that if the present Vote was passed, the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Admiralty might very well report Progress.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, there was no important question for the next two or three Votes. He must ask the Committee to take those, at any rate.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFsaid, the only Vote he objected to being taken was that of the pensions. Of course, he could not speak for anybody else; but, as far as he was concerned, he should be perfectly satisfied if they reported Progress when they reached that Vote.
  MR. ORR EWINGsaid, that of the money spent for Dockyards, and the different Departments, quite as large a sum was, he believed, spent in Ireland

  1075
  as they were entitled to. He trusted that the Government would not yield to the unreasonable request of the Irish Members without taking into consideration the claims of Scotland.
  MAJOR NOLANsaid, he was bound to point out to the Committee that the Dockyards, especially the one at Portsmouth, were not carried on according to the requirements of economy. It appeared to him that, from a strategic point of view, they were making a sacrifice in confining their works to places such as that. He must say that he considered it a public disgrace that they in Ireland were treated in the way they were under those Estimates. Except in the case of a few coast-guard ships, no money was spent in that country. He should be very glad if the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Admiralty would have the courage to deal with that question.
  Original Question put, and agreed to.
  (9.) Motion made, and Question proposed.
  "That a sum, not exceeding £56,363, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Expense of Medicines, Medical Stores, &c, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1881."
  SIR ANDREW LUSKsaid, there was an item in the Vote which he wished to criticize; but he should not make a long speech and detain the Committee. With regard to the expenses for carrying out the terms of the Contagious Diseases Acts, whatever was proposed for that purpose he should vote against, in accordance with what he had done in that matter for the last 10 or 12 years. He saw no reason for altering his conduct in regard to that matter. He begged to move that the Vote be reduced by the sum of £1,000.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £55,363, he granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Expense of Medicines, Medical Stores, &c, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1881."—(Sir Andrew Lush.)
  MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, he thought it was hardly necessary to divide upon that occasion. A Committee had been appointed on that question; and he, therefore, thought that to
  1076
  raise a discussion on that matter then would be inopportune.
  SIR ANDREW LUSKsaid, that inasmuch as his hon. Friend the Secretary to the Admiralty had appealed to him to withdraw his Amendment he should certainly do so.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Original Question put, and agreed to.
  (10.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £6,938, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Expense of Martial Law, &c, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1881."
  MR. FINIGANsaid, he saw that under this Vote a very large sum was allowed to Protestant clergymen, while only the miserable sum of £26 was given to a Catholic priest. He was not an advocate for expending large sums of money on creeds; but as this money came equally out of the pockets of Protestants and Catholics as citizens, it was a very unjust thing that some persons should draw a large sum from the Estimates, while only the miserable pittance of £26 was given to a Catholic priest. Considering how late an hour they had now reached, he should beg to move to report Progress.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Finigan.)
  Mr. SHAW LEFEVREhoped the hon. Gentleman would not press his Motion. He presumed this money was given by a capitation grant in proportion to the number of Catholics in the hospital; and it must, therefore, be very satisfactory to the hon. Member to see that the amount required was small.
  MR. FINIGANsaid, he should prefer if the Government made the capitation grant elsewhere in the same way; but, for his part, he did not see why he should accept that explanation merely when it suited the convenience of the Government. He was asked to withdraw his Motion. If the hon. Gentleman would undertake to pay this Catholic priest fairly and a decent sum, he would be very happy to withdraw his Motion; but he could not accept this

  1077
  simple explanation about the capitation grant.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVREpromised to look into the matter to see that this gentleman was fairly paid in proportion to the work he performed. There was no wish, on the part of the Government, other than that everyone should be paid in proportion to the work performed. Probably the fact was that this gentleman had a very small number of prisoners to look after.
  MR. DALYbegged the hon. Gentleman to remember that the salary was less than that of an ordinary day-labourer. Surely no minister of religion ought to be paid such a pittance as this. The money was scarcely enough to pay him for merely walking to and fro. It was barely 10s. a-week, and that was not enough to pay anybody.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVREthought that it would turn out that the priest was doing duty in the town, and was only called upon occasionally to attend in the prison, and that he was, consequently, only paid for the services he performed.
  MR. FINIGANremarked, that he must, of course, do duty every Sunday in the year, and on 12 holidays in each year. That was barely 6s. each. Upon the understanding that the Secretary to the Admiralty would fairly consider this matter he should be very happy to withdraw his Motion.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Original Question put, and agreed to.
  (11.) £101,820, to complete the sum for Miscellaneous Services.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, before this Vote was put, he should like to ask the hon. Gentleman whether anything was taken into account for the Botany Bay estates? Some time ago a British officer, acting without instructions and without any authority from his superiors, took upon himself to purchase an estate, because the owner of it was accused of murder, or something of that kind. The consequence was that the British authorities had been mixed up in unpleasant transactions from that day to this; and last year there was an item of £224 16s. 11 d. taken in connection with expenses incidental to the working of that estate. He should like to know if there was any charge in the present Estimates on account of that es-
  1078
  tate; and, if not, how the Government connection with it had terminated?
  MR. SHAW LEFEVREregretted that he could not answer the question; but he had heard nothing about the transaction, and he found no allusion to it in the Estimates. He supposed the money was entirely paid last year. He would make inquiry, and he hoped to be able to answer the question on the Report.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORobserved, that if there was no further charge on this behalf in the Vote he presumed the Government had parted with the estate. If it had done so, it must have realized some money, and that money ought to have been brought into the account for the year, or, at any rate, to have been entered as an extra receipt. Now, he looked in vain, in connection with these Estimates, for any indication on the part of the Government that they were in possession of such extra receipt. He could not trace any record of it; and he regretted that he was unable to ask the late First Lord of the Admiralty any question on the subject, because he surely would be able to throw some light upon it. But that was always the case in these Estimates. Whenever any question was put which went below the mere surface, the Government sheltered themselves under the very visible excuse that they had been a very short time in Office, and that they were merely carrying out the plans of their Predecessors. They could, consequently, give no explanation of these proposals. The consequence was that they were able to get no satisfaction out of them on many questions. He should certainly bring up the question again on the Report.
  MR. GORSTwished to point out that here, again, they had the item of Ascension Island in the shape of a contribution for recreation in the island. He supposed there was some sort of football club kept up there for the Kroomen. He rose to call attention to it, so that the Government might take that contribution also in consideration of their Re-turn.
  Vote agreed to.
  Resolutions to be reported.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £617,367, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum

  1079
  necessary to defray the Expense of Half Pay, Reserved, and Retired Pay to Officers of the Navy and Marines, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1881."
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORthought the Government would now hardly object to report Progress. It was 10 minutes past 1; and although some Gentlemen who came in at a late hour in the evening might not find this discussion hard work, those of them who had been at it for eight hours at a stretch, and had taken some trouble in going into the matter, did feel that they had been sufficiently long at it for one evening. He, therefore, begged to propose to report Progress.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Arthur O'Connor.)
  MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, he would agree to withdraw Vote 16, if there were any serious objection on it; but he had had no intimation of any serious objection to be urged, and he asked the Committee to proceed until they came to one that was objected to.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFhoped the course suggested by the hon. Gentleman would be acceded to.
  SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTthought they had really done enough work for one night; and he should, therefore, very cordially support a Motion to report Progress.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, if there were really to be any discussion on the Vote he would at once report Progress; but, up to the present, he had seen no indication that it was objected to by anybody.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, if the hon. Gentleman would look at the Comptroller and Auditor General's Report, he would see, at page 126, a question of such magnitude as would certainly induce him to report Progress, for it raised nothing more or less than the whole question of the audit of stores. It was one, too, which must be thoroughly thrashed out before they left the Committee.
  MR. FINIGANhoped the Motion would be pressed. He had some very awkward questions to ask upon that Vote. He wanted to know something about an unfortunate person called
  1080
  Prince Leiningen, and he should certainly move that his half-pay as Rear Admiral should be discontinued, for he did not find that he did anything for the money; and the way in which his time was occupied ought certainly to be paid for by those who had the advantage of his service. He had also several questions to ask in relation to several other officers.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE,after having heard those explanations, would certainly consent to report Progress.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Resolutions to be reported To-morrow, at Two of the clock.
  Committee also report Progress; to sit again upon Wednesday.

  SUPPLY—REPORT.
  Resolutions [June 25] reported.
  MAJOR NOLANsaid, he had asked a question on these Votes in regard to the convict establishments that were, or rather that ought to be, in County Galway. The Government were kind enough to promise that they would give him an answer on Report. The facts simply were that a Commission of Inquiry into the prisons of Ireland reported that a convict prison ought to be established in Galway where there was already a prison available for the purpose, and where convict labour might also be usefully employed. The late Government promised that they would carry that recommendation into effect, and would establish a convict prison. He would wish to know when the present Government would put the Resolution in force, as he did not suppose for a moment that they intended to throw over the terms of the late Resolution? He brought the matter forward in Committee of Supply, and the Government promised to give him some information on Report as to the time they would commence this transfer of convicts.
  LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHsaid, he had spoken to his right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary for Ireland on this subject, and he knew the right hon. Gentleman fully intended to be present there that night, and to make a statement on the subject. He supposed that the Report of Supply had

  1081
  been taken a little earlier than was expected, and, therefore, he was not in the House; but his right hon. Friend had told him that he thought the question had much better be discussed when it arose on the Votes. And he was inclined to agree with him that that was certainly not the most convenient way of raising the whole question. With respect to a question put to him by the noble Lord opposite (Lord Randolph Churchill), he begged to state that the Endowed Schools Bill (Ireland) would stand over.
  MAJOR NOLANthought he had a right to complain. The Government promised to give him an answer on Report, and, therefore, he did not go into the question in Committee. He knew, of course, that it was an accident that the Chief Secretary for Ireland was not there; but, still, he thought he was entitled to an answer, and if the Government did not keep to arrangements which they made in this way, how could any trust be put in them? It was not at all a fair thing to say that the matter had better be discussed in Committee, when he had been promised an explanation on the Report, and it could scarcely be called fair and straightforward conduct.
  Resolutions agreed to.

TAXES MANAGEMENT BILL.— [BILL 242.]
(Lord Frederick Cavendish, Mr. John Holms.)
TAXES MANAGEMENT BILL.— [BILL 242.]

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISH,in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, it was merely a measure of consolidation, brought in in consequence of the recommendation of the Statute Law Consolidation Commission, and its object was fully described in the Memorandum attached. He could not understand that there could be any objection to it; but, if there were any, it had much better be considered in Committee. There could not possibly be any objection to the principle of the Bill, which was to embody in one measure all the provisions of the law relating to taxes.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Lord Frederick Cavendish.)
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLsaid, they had a Bill of a similar kind before them the other evening, and the noble Lord the Secretary to the Treasury then told them it was merely a measure of consolidation; but, on examination, it was found that if it had been passed some of its clauses would have been directly opposed to the spirit of the Budget of the Prime Minister. Now the noble Lord brought in another Bill containing 120 clauses, which, he ventured to say, 'no single Member in that House had any knowledge of. ["Oh, oh!"] Well, he doubted very much whether the hon. Member who said that had ever seen the Bill before. It consolidated an enormous number of Acts, and he would like to ask whether this was a Bill for which the noble Lord was himself responsible, or whether he found it in the office when he came there? If the Bill had been brought up in the short time during which the present Government had been in Office, he should not like to take the noble Lord's assurance that it was merely a consolidation measure.
  LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHdenied that he in any way misled the House in reference to the Spirits Bill. Certain provisions were inserted into it which were in accordance with the existing law, although they would be modified if a measure since introduced were carried. But it would have deceived the House had not those clauses been produced, because the Malt Tax was in existence at the time, and his measure only professed to be a consolidation of the existing law. He should state most positively that this was simply a consolidation Bill, with the exception of the alterations mentioned.
  MR. GORSTsaid, no answer had been given to the question whether the Bill was prepared by the present Government—[Lord FREDERICK CAVENDISH: Certainly not.]—or whether they found it in the office when they went there? If the Bill was prepared by the late Government, he thought they might have sufficient confidence in the measure to allow it to pass.
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed for Monday next.

BIRTHS AND DEATHS REGISTRATION (IRELAND) (re-committed) BILL.
(Mr. Meldon, Mr. Maurice Brooks, Mr. Errington.)
BIRTHS AND DEATHS REGISTRATION (IRELAND) (re-committed) BILL.

  [BILL 245.] COMMITTEE.
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  MAJOR NOLANsaid, he should like to know whether, by this Bill, any new fees were imposed on the people for births and deaths; and, also, whether under it any new charges were imposed on Poor Law Unions?
  MR. M. BROOKSsaid, that having been in the Committee on the Bill he could answer the question. It was a Bill simply to assimilate the law in Ireland to that in England, and it would not impose any fees in consequence of the change.
  MR. ERRINGTONsaid, he merely proposed to go into the Committee pro forma, and to sit again at a future day.
  MAJOR NOLANwould like to have an answer to his question before the Bill went further, either from the Government or the hon. Member for Longford.
  MR. ERRINGTONsaid, certain changes had been made in the Bill by which certain charges were increased; but other charges were so much diminished that the balance would be in favour of the alteration. He begged to move that the Committee report Progress.
  Motion agreed to.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.

COMMON LAW PROCEDURE AND JUDICATURE ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.
(Mr. Mellor, Mr. Gregory, Mr. Marriott.)
COMMON LAW PROCEDURE AND JUDICATURE ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.

  [BILL 229.] COMMITTEE.
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 1 (Judge may order whole cause to be tried by a referee in certain cases).
  MR. WARTONsaid, he objected to this Bill very much indeed, and he hoped it would not be proceeded with, because very few Members of the Legal Profession were now in the House, and his objection to the Bill was that the gentlemen who filled the position of
  1084
  Official Referees were so thoroughly inefficient for the duties they had to perform that, so long as they were in office, he objected to their having extended powers. He was aware that their powers were very limited, owing to the construction given to certain Statutes, and that it was advisable that Official Referees conjointly should have the same power as Arbitrators; but, on the other hand, his objection was that three, at any rate, out of the four Referees were so inefficient that it was no use giving them anymore power than they now possessed. He did not know whether he could move an Amendment that so long as the Official Referees were alive their powers should not be increased, because they were thoroughly inefficient.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he hoped the objection would not be pressed. The object of the Bill was to give a larger amount of duty to the Official Referees. The objection had been raised that, in consequence of the present rule, the Official Referees had not the power to settle arbitrations. The Bill was intended to remedy that defect, and gave the Referees that power. The Bill provided that the case should be referred to the Referees, and that they should perform certain duties. He protested against the idea that if those increased duties were thrown upon the gentlemen now in office as Official Referees they would not be properly performed; and, although on one occasion he had complained of the appointment of one of these gentlemen, he must say he had not heard any complaint of the manner in which they performed their duties. He did not think it right to indulge in criticism of so sweeping a character, unless it was backed up by some facts upon which they could rely. He believed that the Official Referees fulfilled their duties both to the satisfaction of the public and the suitors themselves. They would have a large amount of duty cast upon them. He trusted the hon. Member would allow the Bill to pass through Committee.
  MR. WARTONsaid, he thought the Attorney General's memory was at fault. He believed these gentlemen had a very small amount of business referred to them long before it was found out that their powers were limited.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 2 (Procedure to be under Judicature Acts, 1873 to 1879).
  Amendment proposed to insert the words,
  "And the Court shall have the same power in regard to such trial entering on judgment as it has under Rule 36."—(Mr. Mellor.)
  Amendment agreed, to.
  Clause agreed to.
  Remaining clauses agreed to.
  Bill reported; as amended, to be considered upon Wednesday.

  PARLIAMENTARY OATHS AND AFFIRMATIONS BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Resolved, That the Chairman he directed to move the House, that leave he given to bring in a Bill to amend the Law relating to Parliamentary Oaths and Affirmations.
  Resolution reported: — Bill ordered to he brought in by Mr. LABOUCHERE, Mr. BURT, Mr. JOSEPH COWEN, Mr. DILLWYN, and Mr. MACDONALD.
  Bili presented, and read the first time. [Bill 251.]
  House adjourned at a quarter before Two o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading— Representation of the People (Scotland) Act (1868) Amendment*(103); Union Assessment Committee (Single Parishes)*(104); Educational Endowments (Scotland) (105); Elementary Education*(106).
Second Reading —Drainage and Improvement of Lands (Ireland) Provisional Order (No. 2)*(93); Local Government Provisional Orders (Abingdon, &c.)*(95); Gas and Water Orders Confirmation*(94); Metropolitan Commons Supplemental* (96).
Second Reading — Committee negatived — Third Reading —Consolidated Fund (No. 1)*, and passed.
Committee —Great Seal* (90); Universities of Oxford and Cambridge (Limited Tenures)*(91); Universities and College Estates Act Amendment* (92).
Committee — Report? — Local Government (Gas) Provisional Order*(87); Local Government (Highways) Provisional Order (Salop)* (88).

ELEMENTARY EDUCATION.

  QUEEN'S ANSWER TO ADDRESS REPORTED.
  The Queen's Answer to the Address of the 18th instant reported as follows:
  "I have received your Address praying that the Fourth Schedule may be omitted from the new Code of Regulations issued by the Committee of the Privy Council on Education and now lying on the Table of the House of Lords:
  "The matter on which you have expressed a wish shall be carefully considered, and if my Committee of Council on Education should be of opinion that in the due discharge of the duty entrusted to them by Parliament any alterations in those Regulations can be made by which they will be better adapted to meet the educational requirements of my people, such alterations will be duly laid before you."

FRIENDLY SOCIETIES' ACT, 1875.

  MOTION FOR A RETURN.
  EARL NELSONsaid, that before he gave Notice of a Motion for Returns in reference to these Societies, he must state that no Registrar General's Return had been laid before the House since 1875, as required by the Act of that year, and he had been obliged to obtain the annual Report for 1878 from the other House of Parliament. Since his Notice, that state of things had been remedied, and the Return for 1878 had been presented to their Lordships' House, and he (Lord Nelson) hoped it would in future be always ordered to be printed. The making of annual Returns by Friendly Societies and their branches was of the greatest importance to the members. It was one of their greatest securities. It would appear from the Report that the annual Returns were not made with regularity; and in his Report for 1878, the Chief Registrar
  950
  stated that for that year those Returns had been slightly fewer than in the previous year, and yet only one prosecution for failure to make Returns appeared to have been instituted. He, therefore, moved for the Returns for the year 1878, which would be sufficient to draw notice to the subject. He wished to ask how soon they might expect an abstract of the quinquennial Returns of sickness and mortality for the period of from 1870 to 1875, with a table of sickness and mortality founded upon those Returns, and referred to in the Report of the Registrar General of Friendly Societies of 1878, and promised in that Report as very nearly ready; also what progress had been made with the tables promised from those Returns, such tables being much wanted, as we now had only two—one made for the years from 18-10 to 1845, and one based upon the Returns for the expenses of the Odd Fellows and Foresters; and, further, to ask whether any means had been taken to secure that the quinquennial valuations required to be made at the end of the present year should be made upon properly attested Schedules? If the Schedules were carelessly or fraudulently made, the valuations founded upon them tended only to mislead, as he had had practical experience. In conclusion, he would move for—
  "A Return for 1878 of the names of the registered Societies which had failed to make the annual Returns of balance sheets as required by the Act, with a statement of the penalties enforced for non-compliance with the requirements of the Act under this particular."
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEsaid, there was no objection to the production of the Returns, with a slight alteration, in the form proposed by his noble Friend, to which alteration he believed his noble Friend had no objection. He was, however, afraid it would be impossible to include the Returns for the year 1879 without causing considerable delay, as they were sent in only on the first day of the present month. The abstract quinquennial Returns of sickness and mortality for the period of 1870–75 were nearly completed. In them would be included Returns for the three previous quinquennial periods, which would make the Papers rather voluminous, as no less than 30,000 Returns had to be examined. A large staff was engaged on that work, which

  951
  would be completed as rapidly as possible. With regard to the valuations, every care had been taken that they were made upon properly attested Schedules. The Schedules were attested by the Secretaries of the Societies as to facts, and by the valuers as to valuation; and when they arrived at the Central Office they were carefully examined and signed by the Secretary.
  Motion amended, and agreed to.
  Return up to the present time of the names of the registered societies and registered branches of societies which have failed to make the annual returns as required by the Act, with a statement of the penalties enforced for noncompliance with the requirements of the Act under this particular.—[The Earl Nelson.)
  Ordered to be laid before the House.
  EDUCATIONAL ENDOWMENTS (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.] (NO. 105.) A Bill to reorganize the Educational Endowments of Scotland: And
  ELEMENTARY EDUCATION BILL [H.L.] (NO. 106.) A Bill to make further provision as to byelaws respecting the attendance of children at school under the Elementary Education Acts:
  Were presented by The LORD PRESIDENT; read 1ª.
  House adjourned at a quarter before Six o'clock, till To-morrow, half past Ten o'clock.