Sitting of 16 July 1883

MINUTES.
NEW MEMBER SWORN—John Francis Small, esquire, for the County of Wexford.
The Earl of Mount Edgcumbe
1500
SUPPLY—considered in Committee—NAVY ESTIMATES, Votes 1, 3 to 10, Sec. II., 11, 14, 16.
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—First Reading—Post Office (Protection) * [266].
Committee—Report—Mersey River (Gunpowder) * [262]; Metropolitan Board of Works (Money) * [254]; Sea Fisheries * [257]; Irish Reproductive Loan Fund Act (1874) Amendment (re-comm.) * [39]; Companies (Colonial Registers) * [260].
Considered as amended—Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 2) * [217]; Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 3) * [218].
Considered as amended—Third Reading—Sea Fisheries (Ireland) * [31].
Withdrawn—Partnerships * [40].

QUESTIONS.

  AFGHANISTAN—SUBSIDY TO THE AMEER.
  MR. ONSLOWasked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether there is any truth in the report that the Government of India intend to grant an annual subsidy to the Ameer of Afghanistan; and, if so, under what conditions?
  MR. J. K. CROSS: I am afraid, Sir, I can add nothing at present to the information which I gave the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Salt) on Thursday last. The India Office has not yet received the details of any arrangements which may have been arrived at between the Government of India and the Ameer.
  MR. ONSLOWasked whether the Under Secretary had telegraphed for information; whether any ammunition was to be given to the Ameer; and whether there was any truth in the report that the grant was conditional on the Ameen's acting in the interests of the Indian Government, and in a spirit of general friendliness; and, if that was the case, could he inform the House what was the exact meaning of the words—
  "Acting in conformity with the interests of the Indian Government, and in a spirit of general friendliness?"
  MR. J. K. CROSS: I am somewhat astonished at that Question, especially when I have just said that the India Office have not received the details of any arrangement which may have been arrived at between the Government of India and the Government of the Ameer.
  MR. ONSLOW: The hon. Gentleman has not said whether any telegram has been sent.
  MR. J. K. CROSS: No, Sir; no telegram has been sent. When any arrangement has been arrived at, I have not the slightest doubt that the Indian Government will at once inform the India Office of it.

  STATE OF IRELAND—POLICE PROTECTION.
  MR. BIGGARasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether, at Kilnaleek, county Cavan, a bailiff named Charles M'Cann was under police protection, and, whilst so protected, he shot one of the police in the eye; and, whether he is still prepared to continue special protection to a person of M'C'ann's character?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, there is reason to believe that the bailiff referred to still requires protection, which is afforded to him by means of occasional patrols in the neighbourhood of his house. On the night of the 10th of June two policemen, while on this duty, went into a shed at the rear of M'Cann's house, and while there one of them struck a light. This, together with the barking of a dog, aroused M'Cann; and, fearing that some person was there with the intention of committing an outrage, he fired in the direction of the shed, unfortunately wounding one of the constables in the eye. It is not intended to withdraw the protection from M'Cann, as it is considered that he still requires it.

  METROPOLIS (NORTH AND SOUTH)— COMMUNICATION ACROSS THE THAMES.
  MR. RITCHIEasked the Chairman of the Metropolitan Board of Works, Whether his attention has been called to the Report of the Engineer of the Metropolitan Board of Works in August 1882, on the subject of communications between the North and South of the Thames below London Bridge; and to the statement that the district for four miles East of London Bridge represents the trade and commerce of London, that it is inhabited by two-fifths of the entire population of London, a greater number than the combined population of Liverpool, Manchester, Salford, and Birmingham, and that while for the accommodation of the three-fifths of the population of London living West of London
  1502
  Bridge there are twelve road bridges and one foot bridge, in the district which represents the trade and commerce of London, and contains two-fifths of the population of London, all vehicular and pedestrian traffic between the North and South is completely severed by the river for a distance of four miles East of London Bridge; and to his recommendation of the formation of three crossings; and, what steps the Metropolitan Board of Works have taken, or propose to take, to carry out the recommendation of their engineer, and provide the communications to which he declares the East end of London to be entitled?
  SIR JAMES M'GAREL-HOGG: Sir, it has been part of my duty to make myself acquainted with the Report referred to by my hon. Friend; and, as regards the latter part of the Question, I beg to state that the Board, on Friday last, decided conditionally to proceed to obtain powers in the next Session to form communications across the Thames East of London Bridge; and the precise nature of the communications is under consideration by a committee.
  MR. RITCHIE: When the hon. and gallant Gentleman says that the Board has "decided conditionally," are we to understand that the proposal which it is intended to present to Parliament is conditional upon any particular mode of raising the money necessary for carrying out the works?
  SIR JAMES M'GAREL-HOGGsaid, he would like the hon. Member to give Notice of that Question.
  MR. RITCHIEsaid, he would do so, and would also call attention to this subject on the third reading of the Metropolitan Board of Works (Money) Bill.

  METROPOLITAN IMPROVEMENTS— NEW STREETS EAST OF LONDON BRIDGE.
  MR. W. H. JAMESasked the Chairman of the Metropolitan Board of Works, If he can state the cost to the ratepayers of the Metropolis of making new streets east of London Bridge, and the amount of the contributions of districts east of London Bridge for the general purposes of the Metropolis; and, whether the Report of the engineers of the Metropolitan Board of Works of August 1882 has ever been confirmed by the Board?
  SIR JAMES M'GAREL-HOGG: I am afraid, Sir, that, owing to the overlapping of districts, it would take a considerable time to prepare, with any degree of accuracy, the information asked by the hon. Member. The Report of the engineer has not been formally approved by the Board; but, as I have already informed the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ritchie), the Board has decided to proceed to Parliament for power to establish fresh communications, and the precise nature of the communications is under consideration by a committee.

  POOR LAW (METROPOLIS)—CASE OF ANNE KANE.
  MR. BIGGARasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether he has inquired, or will inquire, of the Police authorities whether the old woman Anne Kane was seen by them outside the gate of the Poland Street Workhouse on the night of the 9th, and the morning of the 10th, of June; and, if so seen, how often and during how many hours?
  MR. GEORGE RUSSELL: Sir, the Board have communicated with the Chief Commissioner of Police, and have been furnished by him with a Report of Superintendent Dunlop, from which it appears that Anne Kane was first seen by the police-constable on duty at 11 P.M., when she was knocking at the workhouse door. After refusing an order for the casual ward she went away. She did not return until 4.30 A.M., on the 10th, and left almost immediately. The police-constable is positive that the woman was not at the workhouse door between the hours of 11 P.M. and 6 A.M., except when she returned at 4.30. The day duty constable also states that she was not there when he relieved the night duty man at 6 A.M. The Report further states that the woman, at 11 P.M. on the 12th, was found drunk and incapable in Greek Street, Soho, and was charged at Marlborough Mews Station.

  LICENSING—MAGISTRATES OF ROTHERHAM.
  MR. J. R. YORKEasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he has received a memorial from the Licensed Victuallers of Rotherham representing the conduct of the Mayor of that town in declaring at a public
  1504
  meeting that he intended, together with other borough magistrates, to reduce the number of licenses in the borough; and, whether borough magistrates are entitled to express beforehand their opinions as to the course they intend to pursue on matters on which they have to decide in their magisterial capacity, and on the respective merits of the cases brought before them?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: Sir, I took some trouble the other day to explain that a person who occupies the position of Mayor is entirely outside the authority of the Executive Government. I do not think it is very wise in administration to take people to task over whom you have no authority; and, therefore, I must decline to criticize or interfere with the action of the Mayor of Rotherham.

  LAW AND POLICE—ALLEGED EJECTION OF IRISH AT TURTON.
  MR. O'BRIENasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether there is any, and, if so, what, foundation for the following paragraph published in the "Manchester Evening News" of June 29th, headed "Banishing the Irish:"—
  "The last of the Irish families have left Turton, near Darwen, as requested by the English section of the inhabitants. There was no demonstration made, though large crowds assembled, the Irish taking the expulsion quietly. Some thirty families have been ejected. At one house twenty-eight persons were turned out, but these included lodgers. There is not a single Irish man or woman now in the town? "
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT, in reply, said, the origin of this statement seemed to have been a trade dispute between certain English and Irish labourers at Bolton Waterworks. In consequence of the dispute eight or nine of the Irish labourers left. He had written to the Clerk of Works, and the Clerk of Works informed him that the statement in The Manchester Evening News was not correct. He added that he was in the district daily, and he could say there was no disturbance of the Irish residents, the persons who left being comparatively strangers to the locality who came there to work. At present there were a large number of Irish haymakers in the district, and he had not heard that they had been in any way interfered with.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD FOR SCOTLAND, THE STAFF, &c.
  SIR ALEXANDER GORDONasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, If he will lay upon the Table of the House an estimate of the probable expense of providing a staff of officials and clerks, with the necessary offices, which will be required for carrying on the business to be transacted by the proposed Local Government Board for Scotland.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT, in reply, said, it was not possible to make any accurate estimate of the probable expense before the Bill had been discussed; but it would not be a large amount. It was not contemplated that this Office would require a considerable staff.

  ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY—SUB-CONSTABLES O'NEILL AND M'KAY.
  MR. BIGGARasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is a fact that Sub-Constables O'Neill and M'Kay have been transferred from Newry to inferior stations in consequence of a complaint made, the truth of which they denied, and without any inquiries or investigation; and, whether, when one of the said sub-constables requested the county inspector to make inquiries, the county inspector ordered him to proceed to his new station at once, and at the same time directed the head constable to make inquiries, thereby securing that the man should be absent from Newry whilst inquiries were made in reference to the complaint, for the assumed truth of which he had been already punished?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, the constables named were removed from Newry, but not to inferior stations, and not until after the circumstances which led to their removal had been fully considered. A charge of neglect of duty was preferred against them by a Mr. M'Blain, a merchant, of Newry. He, however, subsequently refused to prosecute, and the County Inspector disposed of the case on the written statements of the men themselves. He considered that he dealt very leniently with them, in simply removing them to another station, and not at their own expense, as, even on their own showing, their conduct was greatly wanting in courtesy and discretion. The County Inspector's action in
  1506
  the matter is fully approved of by the Inspector General. There is no ground for the allegations contained in the second paragraph of the Question.

  BOARD OF NATIONAL EDUCATION (IRELAND)—THE SCHOOL—HOUSE AT MUNGRET, COUNTY LIMERICK.
  MR. SYNANasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he is aware that the Mungret Agricultural School and Model Farm, in the county of Limerick, erected and established by the moneys of the Irish Reproductive Loan Fund belonging to the said county, contained, from its erection, a Male National Schoolhouse for the parish of Mungret; whether, since and under the local Act of the 42 and 43 Vic. c. 220, said buildings and model farm have been let at an annual rent under said Act, and the said Male National Schoolhouse has been shut up, and the parish left without a male school house; and, whether said schoolhouse has been so shut up by and with the order of the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, and consent of the Lords of Her Majesty's Treasury; and, if so, whether the Government will order the Commissioners of National Education in Ireland, or the trustees under said Act, to apply some portion of the rents and profits of said buildings and model farm to the erection of a male school house for said parish?
  MR. TREVELYAN: I am aware, Sir, of the circumstances referred to in the first paragraph of the Question. The hon. Member is, however, not correct in referring to the cost as having been exclusively borne by the Irish Reproductive Loan Fund. It was aided by a Parliamentary Vote. Since the passing of the Local Act referred to, the Male National School has been transferred from the premises where it formerly was held to a separate building on the farm, where it is now in operation, and receives the usual aid from the Board of National Education. More than a year ago the Commissioners made to the manager a grant of £212, being two-thirds of the estimated cost of providing a new school-house; but advantage has not yet been taken of the grant. I am making further inquiry as to whether any letting of the farm or buildings has taken place under the provisions of the Local Act.

  STATE OF IRELAND—COUNTY CAVAN.
  MR. BIGGARasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether a man named Whiteside, caretaker to Lord Annesley, in county Cavan, has been under special police protection; whether the district is perfectly peaceable; and, whether the police protection might now be withdrawn?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, the caretaker referred to has been under the protection of the police for the last two or three years. During the past few weeks the district has been peaceable; but it is not considered advisable, at present, to withdraw the protection from Whiteside.

  CRIME AND OUTRAGE (IRELAND)— EXPLOSION AT DERRY.
  MR. LEAMYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the police authorities have received any information in connection with an outrage committed some time ago in the city of Derry, when a cart axle-box filled with powder was flung into a room thronged with people, and a partial explosion followed, wounding several persons, one, a girl, being so severely wounded that her leg had to be amputated; and, if so, whether any action has been taken in the matter?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, the outrage to which this Question refers took place more than four years ago. Every effort, including the offer of a substantial reward for information, was made by the police to detect the offenders, but without success. The injury to the girl was not so serious as stated in the Question. Her leg was not amputated; but she suffered a slight permanent lameness, on account of which the Grand Jury, at the Summer Assizes of 1879, awarded her £250 compensation.

  ARMY (INDIA)—THE INDIAN MEDICAL SERVICE—RE-ORGANIZATION.
  SIR TREVOR LAWRENCEasked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether the result of the re-organisation of the Indian Medical Service, to the medical officers senior to the Sanitary Commissioners, was a loss of at least two administrative appointments in Bengal alone; whether the block of promotion in the Bengal Medical Service
  1508
  is largely due to the deferred promotion of the senior officers, consequent on this reduction in the number of administrative appointments available; whether the promotion of sanitary officers to administrative rank, after a fixed period of 26 years' service, has affected a considerable number of officers senior to the sanitary officers, by retarding their promotion to administrative rank to 29 years' service and upwards; whether section 56 of 21 and 22 Vic. c. 106, does not secure to all branches of Her Majesty's Indian Army all advantages as to promotion, and otherwise, to which they were severally entitled at the time it was passed; and, whether each Presidency has its own separate medical list, wherein and whereby promotions are regulated.
  MR. J. K. CROSS: Sir, a similar Question was asked, on the 2nd of July, by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson). In addition to the answer I then gave, I have to inform the hon. Baronet that each Presidency has its own separate medical list, and that the result of the re-organization of the Indian Medical Service, to the medical officers senior to the Sanitary Commissioners, is an immediate loss of two administrative appointments in Bengal. But to the Bengal Department, taken as a whole, there is a gain of one administrative appointment by the substitution for 11 Deputy Surgeons General of nine Deputy Surgeons General, and three Sanitary Commissioners, who rank as Deputy Surgeons General after 26 years' service. The fact that, when the change was carried out, two of the Sanitary Commissioners were comparatively junior men has, undoubtedly, retarded the possible selection of a few officers senior to them for the post of Sanitary Commissioner; but there is no block of promotion. The Act of Parliament referred to by the hon. Baronet did not provide against a change in the number of Deputy Surgeons General; and no alteration has been made in the system of selection for that grade.

  TREATY OF BERLIN—ARTICLE XXIII.—THE ISLAND OF CHIOS.
  MR. RALLIasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether the attention of Her Majesty's Government has been directed to the recent

  1509
  acts of the Ottoman Government in the Island of Chios (Scio), such as the imposition of double taxation since the earthquake of 1881, instead of a remission thereof as promised at the time; the substitution of the Turkish for the Greek language in the Law Courts; and the suppression of all the printing presses in the Island; and, whether Her Majesty's Government will impress on the Porte the necessity of restoring the autonomous Government of Scio as existing until 1866, and still in force in the neighbouring Island of Samos, or at least the advisability of appointing a Christian as Governor of the Island, which is computed to contain 50,000 Christian and about 1,500 Turkish inhabitants?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: Sir, the attention of Her Majesty's Government has been drawn to the condition of affairs in the Island of Scio, and they have been in communication with Lord Dufferin and Mr. Wyndham on the subject. The European Commission of Reforms, by the Collective Declaration of August 22, 1880, resolved that all the Islands of the Archipelago were entitled to the benefit of the scheme of reforms drawn up by them under Article XXIII. of the Treaty of Berlin.

  POST OFFICE (IRELAND)—EAST BARS, COUNTY LEITRIM.
  COLONEL O'BEIRNEasked the Postmaster General, If, in conformity with a statement recently made, the Post Office authorities have as yet taken any steps to remedy the great inconvenience the inhabitants of East Bars, county Leitrim, and the surrounding district, are daily subject to, in consequence of the irregularity and delay in the Postal delivery, the morning mail being daily one hour and forty minutes late?
  MR. FAWCETT, in reply, said, he had made inquiry into the subject referred to by his hon. Friend, and he found that it was the case that during the last three years the times of the morning trains from Enniskillen to Sligo had been so altered that they now arrived an hour and forty minutes later than formerly. The consequence was that the post arrived in East Bars and the district so much later. He had no power to control times of trains; but he was making inquiries into the subject, and hoped that some arrangement would be concluded
  1510
  whereby the trains would arrive as early as they formerly did.

  STATE OF IRELAND—DISTRESS IN GWEEDORE.
  MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether, considering the emphatic denials given by the Reverend James M'Fadden, P.P. of Gweedore, and by Mr. and Mrs. Ernest Hart, to the official representations as to the condition of distress in Gweedore and the surrounding districts, he will direct that an inquiry should be made by impartial investigators with a view to ascertain the truth; and, whether he has heard that the Reverend Mr. M'Fadden demands a house-to-house inquiry on the subject? In justification of his Question, he would read a telegram which he had received from the Rev. Mr. M'Fadden—
  "Deny the statement of the Chief Secretary on Monday night as to the state of Gweedore. I repeat that the distress in it is general and intense, and I challenge inquiry."
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, the Government has every confidence in the impartiality and ability of the two Inspectors of the Local Government Board. They are Mr. M'Farlane, the permanent Inspector, and Dr. Wodehouse, temporary officer, and their Reports are relied on. The Government see no necessity for ordering an inquiry to be held by any other person. I have said over and over again, and I repeat it now, that I have received Reports and other information, verbal sometimes, from individuals who have equal means of informing themselves with Mr. Ernest Hart, and who take a very different view from him, and the same view as the Government. With regard to the suggested house-to-house inquiry, I may observe that it is the duty of the relieving officer to visit the houses of all applicants for relief, and to examine into their circumstances, and report to the Guardians.
  MR. CALLANsaid, that, in consequence of the answer just given, he should, on Thursday, ask the Chief Secretary whether his attention had been called to the evidence given on oath by Rev. Father Gallagher (who accompanied the Chief Secretary on his tour through Donegal) before the Land Sub-Commissioners at Carrick showing the reality of the distress, when the rev.

  1511
  gentleman declared on oath that many persons had died during the last year in the parishes around from the effects of hunger, and that many more would have died but for his relief, and that early in this year the hungry had to choose between eating the worst kind of seaweed or starvation? He would also ask if the Local Government Board were prepared to give an inquiry, or whether they were still of opinion that Father Gallagher's evidence was false, or, admitting it to be true, were they still determined to refuse outdoor relief, and to insist upon the "pinch of hunger" test?
  MR. O'KELLY: In connection with this matter of Government Inspectors, I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that a Report was made by a Government Inspector in relation to the district of Lough Glynn, in the county Roscommon, in which the Government Inspector denied the existence of extreme poverty; and whether, since then, he has received a very largely signed appeal from that district, signed by, amongst others, the parish priest, in which it is distinctly stated that this Government Inspector never appeared in the district, and never inquired from anyone in that district in reference to the existence of distress?
  MR. TREVELYAN: I had the whole case before me this morning, and examined it very carefully. If the hon. Member desires to put a further Question, and will give me Notice, I will answer it.
  MR. O'BRIEN: In reference to the right hon. Gentleman's reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Longford (Mr. Justin M'Carthy), I would like to ask whether, now that there are distinct charges made upon one side that the people have been allowed to die of starvation, and upon the other side, by the right hon. Gentleman himself, that the priests have been guilty of deliberate and wilful misrepresentation [Cries of "Order!"]
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is now introducing matters of controversy.
  MR. O'BRIEN: I merely propose to ask, Sir, whether, in view of the facts to which I have referred, the right hon. Gentleman will give the public no sort of opportunity for determining the truth of what is a very terrible scandal?
  MR. TREVELYAN: As Chief Secretary for Ireland, I must protest against the statement that I have charged these reverend gentlemen with misrepresentation. What I said was that I had received information which led me to a different conclusion.

  PASSENGER ACTS—OVERCROWDING OF A RIVER STEAMER AT BROUGHTY FERRY, RIVER TAY, SCOTLAND.
  MR. HENDERSONasked the President of the Board of Trade, If his attention has been called to an alleged case of overcrowding on board the steam tug "Renown," at Broughty Ferry on Tay, on Sunday 8th instant, whereby, the newspaper reports state, several hundred passengers were for a considerable time in most imminent danger, and that large numbers of them jumped overboard, when, on leaving the pier, the steamer appeared about to capsize; and, if he will state what means are taken to prevent river steamers taking on board passengers largely in excess of the number which their Board of Trade certificate permits; and also on whom rests the responsibility of investigating such cases as the one in question, and of prosecuting, if the facts are as stated?
  MR. CHAMBERLAIN: Sir, I have received communications from the Dundee Magistrates of Police, the Procurator Fiscal, and the owner of the steam tug Renown, with reference to the overcrowding of that vessel on Sunday, the 8th instant. From the information which I have obtained, it would appear that the statement in the newspapers that a large number of passengers jumped overboard is calculated to mislead. The accounts furnished to the Board of Trade state that when the steamer gave a lurch many of the passengers jumped from the bridge of the vessel on to the quay. I have little doubt that the tug was taking on board passengers considerably in excess of the number which the Board of Trade certificate authorizes it to carry. This is, however, a matter for investigation, and, if necessary, for prosecution by the local police authorities, and not by the Board of Trade; and the owner or master in charge would, on conviction, be liable to a penalty of £20, and 5s. for every passenger over the specified number.

  SUEZ (SECOND) CANAL—PROVISIONAL AGREEMENT WITH M. DE LESSEPS.
  MR. LABOUCHEREasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether he has before him any Report as to the feasibility of a Ship Canal by way of the Red Sea, and any estimate of the cost of such a Canal; whether M. de Lesseps makes it a sine quâ non of his assent to any concessions that a maximum sum of £8,000,000 should be lent by this Country to the Suez Canal Company; and, whether, in his negotiations with M. de Lesseps, he will take care to insert stipulations securing the Egyptian fellahs against all direct or indirect forced labour in the event of a second Canal being made across the Isthmus of Suez, and providing for the well-being and the adequate remumeration of those who may be employed in the manual labour of making the said canal?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS): In reply to my hon. Friend's first Question, I have to say that I have heard of a scheme for a Ship Canal, not to the Gulf of Suez at all, but passing through Palestine and by the Dead Sea to the Gulf of Akaba, in the Red Sea; but the scheme has not been brought before me, at any rate, in any tangible form. As to the second Question, I do not think it would be convenient to state the relative importance which either we or M. de Lesseps attach to any particular branch of the Agreement, at any rate in answer to a Question. In debate, of course, these matters could be brought up. As to the third Question, M. de Lesseps has no longer any right to employ forced labour, nor have we any reason to believe that any attempt will be made to resort to it. The Representatives of the Government on the Board will be instructed to secure this.
  MR. LABOUCHEREasked Mr. Attorney General, Whether it is to be understood that M. de Lesseps has himself the exclusive right to make a Canal or Canals across the Isthmus of Suez, or that this right is possessed by the Suez Canal Company?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES): My hon. Friend has asked me a Question which appears to assume that the rights he refers to must necessarily be vested solely either in M. de Lesseps or the Canal Company.
  1514
  The interests of M. de Lesseps and the Company appear to be so intimately connected that I cannot accept this view without much qualification; and I could not safely answer my hon. Friend without entering upon explanations which cannot be given within the limits of an answer to a Question. I feel that it may be injurious to public interests to give any insufficient or limited explanation which may be open to misconstruction. I would take this opportunity of saying that the legal advice the Government have received on the subject has been not only that of the Law Officers, but also of the Lord Chancellor.
  MR. BOURKE: Can the hon. and learned Gentleman give the House any reference to any public document in which M. de Lesseps has claimed the exclusive right to make a Canal or Canals across the Isthmus of Suez, either by himself or by a Company?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir. HENRY JAMES): Every Paper in connection with this subject is, I believe, before the House, and the right hon. Gentleman can look at them. If the right hon. Gentleman will refer to them, he will be able to answer the Question himself better than I can.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF: In reference to the reply which the hon. and learned Attorney General has just given, may I ask him whether the Lord Chancellor has given his opinion as Lord Chancellor, or as a Member of the Government, or as a Law Officer of the Government. [The ATTORNEY GENERAL made no reply.] If the hon. and learned Gentleman cannot answer the Question now, I will repeat it on a future occasion.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS): Perhaps it would be convenient for me to state, in reference to the suggestion that was made to me on Friday as to the re-printing of certain Papers, that I have directed that those Papers shall be reprinted.
  MR. BOURKE: I should like to know whether the Paper "Egypt No, 6, 1876," is to be re-printed? It contains the Firmans and the concessions with regard to the Suez Canal made to the late Government.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS): The Paper "Egypt, No. 6, 1876," was laid upon

  1515
  the Table in 1876; and, as I have stated, the Papers and the concessions to which the hon. Member refers will be re-printed in extenso.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: How soon will that be done?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS): I have ordered that the printing shall be proceeded with as speedily as possible.
  MR. BOURKE: I am quite sure it would be for the convenience of the House if "Egypt, No. 6, 1876" were to be distributed immediately to hon. Members. It practically contains all the information that is necessary upon this subject.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS): I have not the least objection, if there are copies enough to distribute. But that Paper contains a great deal that does not bear upon this question at all.
  MR. BOURKE: Very little.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS): A great deal, I think. I stated on Friday the Papers which did bear upon the subject.
  MR. GIBSON: Will these documents show whether M. de Lesseps, on behalf of the Company, has made this exclusive claim?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS): The Papers will speak for themselves.
  MR. A. ELLIOT (for Mr. FRANCIS BUXTON)asked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, with reference to the "agreement" as to the new Suez Canal, Whether it is intended by Clause 6 that one of the English Directors shall be appointed Vice President of the Company as soon as a vacancy occurs on the Board of Directors, or only when a vacancy occurs in the Vice Presidency itself; who is the present Vice President, and is there any likelihood of his speedy retirement; whether the English officer who, according to Clause 9, is to be appointed "Inspecteur de la Navigation," is to have the inspection of the present Canal at once, or only of the proposed Canal when made; what will be his official head-quarters; and, what powers is he to have?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS): In reply to my hon. Friend, I have to say that the appointment will take place when a vacancy occurs among the Vice Presidents. There
  1516
  are three Vice Presidents by the Statutes, and they vacate their Office every year. The "Inspecteur de la Navigation" will be appointed immediately on the completion of the Agreement, and his duties will have reference to the present Canal. Those duties will be at once defined in agreement with the English Directors, and expressed in the Resolution of the Conseil d'Administration, which will be the extension of the Provisional Agreement. His official head-quarters will be on the Canal, and he will probably reside at Port said; but upon that I can give no undertaking.
  MR. M'COANasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether the proposed arrangement with the Suez Canal Company for the construction of a second Canal is based on the recognition by Her Majesty's Government of the right of monopoly claimed by M. do Lesseps under his concession from said Pacha; whether the concession for a second Canal will, to be valid, require to be ratified by the Sultan, as was necessary in the case of that under which the existing channel was constructed; whether the new Canal will, like the old one, be subject to Egyptian law, and to the ultimate sovereignty of the Porte; whether any, and what, security or guarantee will be given by the Canal Company for the repayment of the proposed loan of £8,000,000; and, whether such security will be subject to the same conditions of jurisdiction and sovereignty as attach to the existing Canal?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: The first of these Questions, Sir, was answered by the Prime Minister on Monday last. In reply to the second Question, the answer must depend as to how far the second Canal is held to be a separate undertaking, requiring a second concession, or only to involve the sale of additional land for the extension of the first and existing Canal. The new Canal will have the same legal status as the first. The loan of £8,000,000 will rank pari passu with the other loans of the Company before the share capital. The conditions of Sovereignty and jurisdiction will be the same as attach to the existing Canal.
  MR. M'COAN: Is it not a fact that the concession of 1854 gives M. de Lesseps the right to construct only one Canal?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: That is a Question which I must ask the hon. Member to place upon the Paper.
  MR. BROADHURSTasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If it is a fact that the Government of Mr. Disraeli in 1875 consented to Great Britain being represented by three British Directors on the Board of twenty-four Directors which manages the Suez Canal Company?
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: Before the noble Lord answers that Question, I should like to ask him whether it is not a fact that the amount of English capital under the proposed arrangement will be £12,000,000 instead of £4,000,000; whether the £4,000,000 invested by Lord Beaconsfield is not now worth more than double its original value; and whether the purchase by Lord Beaconsfield of £4,000,000 of Stock in 1876 did not save the Egyptian Government from bankruptcy?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: I cannot answer the Question of the hon. Member for Eye (Mr. Ashmead-Bartlett) without Notice. The Question upon the Paper in the name of the hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. Broadhurst) I have to answer in the affirmative. The right hon. Baronet the Member for North Devon (Sir Stafford Northcote) stated the fact to the House in February, 1876; and in reply to a Question as to the influence thereby acquired in the administration of the Canal endorsed the words of the Foreign Secretary, that—
  "If anybody doubts that the possessor of two-fifths of the Shares in this Canal obtains no influence, it is as difficult to argue with him as with a man who says that two and two do not make four."
  The right hon. Baronet then added—
  "It is not merely the number of votes our representatives may possess which will give them influence, but the fact that they will be present as the representatives of England, and, as has been well said, votes in such cases are not only counted but weighed."—(3 Hansard, [227], 283–4.)
  MR. BOURKE,who had the following Question on the Paper:—namely—
  "To ask the First Lord of the Treasury, If he can now state whether Her Majesty's Government has come to any arrangement with the Suez Company, and what is the nature of that arrangement? "
  said, that be had put that Question on
  1518
  the Paper 10 days ago, and, perhaps, the time had passed for answering it; but if the Prime Minister had any further information to give they would be glad to hear it.
  MR. GLADSTONE: The right hon. Gentleman himself has said that the time is past for the Question; and I must say I think it would be very convenient if hon. Members, especially those who have held Office, having given Notice of a Question to a Member of the Government, would be kind enough, when they deem that it is unnecessary to put it, to intimate that it has been withdrawn.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: The Question which my right hon. Friend placed upon the Paper before the statement had been made by the Government was one of importance, but one which is rendered obsolete by the state of the case. What my right hon. Friend substituted was the Question whether Her Majesty's Government have any further information, or whether they are prepared now to proceed upon the lines upon which they have invited the House to proceed?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I beg pardon. The right hon. Gentleman has added words of great importance to the words of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for King's Lynn (Mr. Bourke) which that right hon. Gentleman did not use. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for King's Lynn did not ask whether the Government were prepared to proceed upon the lines which they proposed. Those are the important words added by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Devon. Of course, that is a Question which it is perfectly legitimate to put; but it is for the Government to consider at what time they should think it consistent with the public interest to answer that Question. The right hon. Gentleman will, however, see that it is a Question which had better have been put with Notice than without Notice. I suppose I had better answer the Question which follows.
  MR. BOURKE: I put down this Question some days ago, after a conference with Members of Her Majesty's Government; and, considering that it was only on Friday last that we received the information which makes this Question now obsolete, I think that the observations of the right hon. Gentleman

  1519
  are entirely uncalled for and undeserved. I now, Sir, beg to ask the next Question—namely, What Courts of Law will have jurisdiction over the proposed new Suez Canal which is to be made with British capital; and what security will there he for the completion of the proposed new Canal?
  MR. GLADSTONE: The right hon. Gentleman appears to say that it is his opinion, when a Gentleman has put down a Question to a Minister which has become obsolete, it is not his duty to make any intimation to that Minister. Sir, I differ from that opinion. With reference to the Question, the jurisdiction over the proposed new Suez Canal would, according to the Agreement as it stands, be exactly the same as that over the existing Canal. With respect to the second part of the Question—what security there will be for the completion of the proposed new Canal—I apprehend that the security, as it stands, will be upon the whole estate and effects of the Company prior to the division of any profits of the Company. But, of course, it is in the power of Parliament to require any further specification, or to attach any conditions that they please to that arrangement.
  MR. BOURKE: That is no answer to my Question. In consequence of the reply I have received, I will ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is not aware that it has been a disputed point what Courts have jurisdiction over the Suez Canal? It was with a view to obtain some opinion from the Government on the question that I put down this Question; and it is no answer for this House to receive from the right hon. Gentleman—[Cries of "Order!"] Then I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman does not know that these disputes have existed for some time, and that M. de Lesseps himself has disputed, not only the rights of the Courts in Paris, but of those in Egypt and of the Consular Courts?
  MR. GLADSTONE: These are Questions which, as to my knowledge on the subject, have nothing whatever to do with the issue now before us. What I have desired to convey is that the question of jurisdiction is entirely untouched by the Agreement with M. de Lesseps.
  MR. BOURKE: That is not an answer to my Question. ["Order."]

  SUPPLY—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES —THE QUEEN'S COLLEGES (IRELAND).
  MR. GRAYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, When he intends to submit the Vote for the Irish Queen's Colleges; and, whether he will give full notice of his intention to do so, in order that Members so desiring may have an opportunity of discussing it?
  MR. TREVELYAN: The Vote for the Irish Queen's Colleges will be taken in the usual course of the Estimates. There is no intention of bringing it forward prematurely, or of postponing it.

  CONTAGIOUS DISEASES (ANIMALS) ACTS—FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE— RESOLUTION OF THE HOUSE OF 10TH JULY LAST.
  MR. CHAPLINasked the First Lord of the Treasury, What steps Her Majesty's Government intend to take in order to give effect to the Resolution adopted by the House of Commons on Tuesday the 10th July, with regard to the continued importation of Foreign Live Animals from Countries infected with Foot and Mouth Disease?
  MR. GLADSTONE: With reference to this Question, Sir, the hon. Member is certainly aware of the ground taken by the Government with respect to the state of the law. From that ground it is, of course, not possible for them to depart. Their duty has been to consider what they will do in deference to the Vote of the House, without going beyond the powers which the law places in their hands, and what they will do is this—they will carefully go over the cases of the different foreign countries, and consider with care the evidence that is before them upon the points raised by the Motion of the hon. Member. In each of these cases they will examine whether the action which they have adopted is behind what the evidence demands which is in their possession; and, if it is, they will make it their duty to bring it up to the point which that evidence justifies.
  MR. CHAPLIN: Are we to understand that if the evidence leads them to the conclusion that there is foot-and-mouth disease in those countries they will take steps to prohibit the landing of animals from those countries?
  MR. GLADSTONE: It would be difficult for me to accept at a moment's notice a Question put extempore by the hon. Gentleman. If he will kindly place it upon the Paper, I will take care to put myself into a condition to reply.
  MR. CHAPLINgave Notice that he would ask a further Question on the subject on Friday.

  PARLIAMENT—BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE—CONTAGIOUS DISEASES ACTS.
  CAPTAIN PRICEasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, after the statement made by the Secretary of State for War, as to the alarming increase in the number of cases of contagious disease in Her Majesty's forces since the abolition of compulsory examination, he still adheres to his intention of endeavouring to pass this Session a Bill for the repeal of the Contagious Diseases Acts?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I think the hon. and gallant Gentleman has not borne in mind the statement which I made on a previous day that the Government must take some further time to consider, with respect to the three Bills of importance, whether they would ask the House to proceed with them or not; and that I could not give any further intimation of the intentions of the Government with respect to these three Bills until we had got through the Committee on the Corrupt Practices Bill and made great progress with the Tenants' Compensation Bill. As soon as we are in that condition, we shall be prepared to answer this Question.
  MR. PULESTONasked whether, in view of the alarming character of the information which had been given to the House, the Prime Minister intended to proceed with such a Bill?
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, it did not lead him to vary the answer he had already given.

  THE CIVIL SERVICE—PRIVATE SECRETARIES TO MINISTERS.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether Her Majesty's Government will present to the House a Return of the names of all persons who have been serving or temporarily acting as private secretaries to any of Her Majesty's Ministers since
  1522
  May 1880, specifying whether they are in receipt of a salary, or not; and, if so, the date at which such salary began, and the amount of it; and, with respect to each such person, whether he was previously a member of the Civil Service, or had passed an examination before the Civil Service Commissioners?
  MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, with respect to this Question, my answer to the hon. Member would be that, taking it as it stands, we should not agree to the production of such a Return; and we should not agree to it precisely on the ground that it illustrates nothing as to the general question, which is, no doubt, a question of interest. What has been the traditional or frequent practice as to these appointments is a question of interest; and if the hon. Member thinks fit to move for a Return bearing upon that question over a sufficient period—for instance, since the Reform Act—we should put it in without opposition. But this is a question of what has been done since 1880, which primâ facie seems to involve a charge against me or my Colleagues. I am not prepared to deal with such a charge as far as my Colleagues are concerned. But as the hon. Member evidently feels some curiosity about me in this matter, I will give him some information. I will not give names, but will state the facts, in which he will see some significance. I have at present four Private Secretaries. I have had before these four gentlemen 12 Private Secretaries. Out of these, nine have been appointed out of the regular course of promotion, or, not being members of the Civil Service when they were Private Secretaries, have been introduced into it. Of these nine, four only have been appointed by me. These four have likewise received other and further appointments in the Civil Service, quite independently of me. The other five have been appointed by persons wholly independent of me.

  EGYPT—THE CHOLERA.
  LORD EUSTACE CECIL: I wish to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs a Question of which I have given him private Notice—Whether it is true, as stated in the newspapers, that there has been an outbreak of cholera in the suburbs of Cairo; and, if so, what steps Her Majesty's Government intend to take with regard to this,

  1523
  and for the protection of the British troops at Cairo?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: The best answer I can give to the Question asked by the noble Lord is to read the telegram on the subject received today from Sir Edward Malet—
  "Cairo, July 16.—Five cases of cholera at Ghizeh, three miles from Cairo; three or four suspicious cases at Cairo; troops at Cairo very healthy; every precaution taken; ready to move into camp when necessary."
  I may add that Sir Edward Malet states in another telegram that seven European doctors have been sent to the infected places. He states further that six Egyptian doctors, possessing European diplomas, have also been sent to these localities.

  SPAIN—QUARANTINE ON ENGLISH SHIPPING.
  MR. PRESTON BRUCE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether it is true that the Spanish Government have imposed quarantine on all British ships entering Spanish ports; and whether he has any information as to the extent and conditions of that measure?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: Sir, the Spanish Government have imposed a quarantine of three days' observation on vessels arriving from England. On the receipt, last Saturday, of this intelligence, Sir Robert Morier was at once instructed by telegraph to remonstrate against this measure, and to point out that it is uncalled for on sanitary grounds, and that it will cause much inconvenience to shipping and trade. I may mention now that copies of the precautionary Regulations adopted by the Local Government Board were sent to Her Majesty's Representatives abroad last Saturday for their information and use, and for communication to the Governments to which they are accredited.

  PARLIAMENT—BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE-SUNDAY CLOSING (IRELAND) BILL.
  MR. J. N. RICHARDSONsaid, he wished to ask the Prime Minister a Question of which he had given him private Notice—Whether, in view of the deputation to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland on Thursday last upon the subject of the Sunday Closing (Ireland) Bill,
  1524
  he would state to the House the course which Her Majesty's Government had decided to take in reference to that measure?
  MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, the course which the Government have felt it their duty to adopt has been described by me in a communication to the House. We have not felt that we should be justified, in the present state of Business, in asking the House to proceed with this Bill. But I do not hesitate to say that we arrived at that decision with great regret, in view of the circumstances which, in our estimation, were of overpowering necessity; and it certainly would be a still greater disappointment to us if that decision involved the sacrifice of the measure. If we are responsible at the opening of next Session for the conduct of Business, we shall take an early opportunity of asking the decision of the House on the question.

PARLIAMENT—BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE—SUEZ (SECOND) CANAL— PROVISIONAL AGREEMENT WITH M. DE LESSEPS.

  MINISTERIAL STATEMENT.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: I wish to ask the Prime Minister a Question with regard to the course of Public Business. Since the time when the right hon. Gentleman made his statement last week a very important incident has occurred, which must, to a certain extent, interfere with the course of Business which he then sketched to the House. I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to bring the subject of the Suez Canal Agreement before the notice of the House? I also wish to be informed what is to be the course of Business this evening, because I see the Local Government (Scotland) Bill stands as the second Order for Second Reading immediately after Supply; and I believe it is the intention of the Government to suspend Supply in order to bring on the Local Government (Scotland) Bill. It is desirable to know if that is the intention of the Government, and at what hour they propose to do so?
  MR. RATHBONEasked the right hon. Gentleman whether, before he brought the question of the Suez Canal before the House, sufficient time would

  1525
  be given to those who were seriously interested in the results really to understand the question? [Laughter.] What was fun to hon. Gentlemen opposite was not fun to others. When there were such large interests in question, it was not unreasonable to ask whether Her Majesty's Government would give them sufficient time to receive those explanations, which had been promised from the negotiators of the Treaty as to the grounds for it, and what it meant before they were called upon to decide upon it?
  MR. GLADSTONE: With regard to the Questions that have been put to me, I may say that they are in part answered by the declaration which I have previously made to the House, and by which, at any rate, Her Majesty's Government conceive themselves bound; that we think it necessary to proceed, as I have said, in the redemption of our pledges with the Committee on the Tenants' Compensation Bill, and that we do not think there is any case of urgency which would justify us, as at present advised, and in view of the undertaking we have given, were we to intercept the progress of Committee on these important Bills, except for the necessary purposes of Supply. I believe that was the undertaking, and to that we wish to adhere. With regard to the Scotch Bill to-night, we shall be certainly glad if the House should dispose, as I believe it is quite possible that the House may dispose in Committee, of the remaining Navy Estimates which will be brought before them, in time to enable us to proceed with the Scotch Local Government Bill. We cherish some hope of that, and shall be very glad to go on with the Bill should that happen. But it would not be consistent with the understanding we have given to intercept the Committee on the Tenants' Compensation Bill, except for the necessary purpose of Supply. As to the Question with regard to the Suez Canal, I thank my hon. Friend for what he has said, and in answer to that I have to state that I believe the Report of the English Directors of the Suez Canal has been laid on the Table, and will be circulated to-morrow morning; and that likewise the Papers asked for by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson) will, I hope, be circulated as soon as possible, probably
  1526
  within the next few days. When we approach the close of the Committee on the Tenants' Compensation Bills, I hope to be in a position to say something of a definite character with regard to the date when we may ask the House to take the discussion on the Suez Canal Agreement. The House is quite aware that the Agreement cannot in any sense go forward, or acquire any validity whatever, without our taking proceedings in the House. In truth, it would fall to the ground without the assent of the House; and I need not say that any idea of smuggling such an Agreement, either at this or any other period of the Session, into vitality or efficacy without its full judgment, would be entirely futile.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: I may remind the right hon. Gentleman that the Session is far advanced, and that it will be impossible for the House to be satisfied with the undertaking to bring the Question on at a time when the House will be empty.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I think the passing of an Agreement of that kind in an empty House, in the present lively state of a considerable portion of public opinion, is an event entirely removed from the "range of practical politics," if I may use that phrase.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF: I wish to ask the Prime Minister whether, as the Lord Chancellor is not a Law Officer of the Crown, the Rule which holds good with respect to the Law Officers of the Crown will hold good with regard to him; and, whether the Opinion he has given the Government with regard to the cession of the Suez Canal will be laid on the Table?
  MR. GLADSTONE: It would be rash for me to give only a personal answer to the Question; but my belief is that the Lord Chancellor is a Law Officer of the Crown, and, indeed, the Chief Law Officer of the Crown. I hope it is not disparagement to my hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General to say so, although it is true that the occasions given to the Lord Chancellor to act in that capacity are so rare that the term "Law Officers" is usually applied only to the Attorney General and the Solicitor General. I remember myself distinct occasions on which I have made reference to the Lord Chancellor in his capacity as Chief Law Officer of the

  1527
  Crown. But, whether that be so or not, I think it is quite impossible for the lord Chancellor so to sever any one of his capacities from the rest of those capacities as to allow for a moment the, supposition that he can give an opinion in one of those characters which would not be binding in all of them.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFasked whether the Opinion would be laid on the Table?
  MR. GLADSTONEwas understood to reply in the negative.
  MR. ONSLOWasked whether, considering the great interest that India had in the proposed arrangement with, M. de Lesseps, the Prime Minister would agree to telegraph to the different Chambers of Commerce in India the terms of that Agreement, in order to ascertain whether the Viceroy and the Chambers of Commerce of India would agree to the conditions proposed?
  MR. GLADSTONE: No, Sir; I should not think it expedient to do so.

  MADAGASCAR—THE FRENCH AT TAMATAVE—DEATH OF CONSUL PAKENHAM.
  MR. BOURKE: I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government, Whether he can communicate to the House any further information with respect to the events which have taken place in Madagascar in connection with the death of Consul Pakenham?
  MR. GLADSTONE: No, Sir; we have no further information, unless it be information which is negative—namely, that vessels appear to have called at Madagascar, and not to have heard of any of the incidents excepting the funeral. But we have no further information whatever of a substantive kind.

  PARLIAMENT—BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE—AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) BILLS.
  MR. DALRYMPLEasked the Prime Minister, Whether, when he spoke about the Tenants' Compensation Bill, he referred also to the measure for Scotland of the same title; and after what hour to-night the Local Government (Scotland) Bill would not be taken?
  MR. GLADSTONE: The second Question of the hon. Member is answered by the Rule of the House. We feel it our duty to bring on the Local Government (Scotland) Bill at any time before half-past 12, should the progress in Supply enable us to do so. With regard to the Tenants' Compensation Bills, for the purpose of progress through Committee, the two Bills will be taken and considered as one.

  EAST INDIA (FINANCE, &c.)
  MR. ONSLOWasked, Whether the Government would carry out its undertaking for a further discussion on the question of East Indian Expenditure?
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he had twice referred to this subject already. What appeared to be the opinion of the House was, that, although the middle of July might mean the 15th or 16th of the month, they could not look so strictly at the matter, especially having regard to the approaching termination of the Committee on the Tenants' Compensation Bill.

ORDER OF THE DAY.
  SUPPLY—NAVY ESTIMATES.

    SUPPLY—considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    (1.) £937,400, Victuals and Clothing for Seamen and Marines.
    CAPTAIN PRICEsaid, that when the Committee were last engaged in discussing the Navy Estimates it was upon the Vote for Pensions, and Progress was reported at a late hour of the night. They had now to go back to the second Vote—the Vote for Provisions—on which Business the Committee were engaged some time earlier in the Session. On this Vote it was perfectly regular to go into a review of the personnel of the Navy. He thought that, on the whole, and with certain qualifications, they had every reason to be very much pleased with the personnel of the Navy. No doubt, there were certain grievances in the Service; but, with these qualifications, it was not too much to say that, in the main, our Naval Service was a contented and happy, as well as an efficient, one; and the recent campaign in Egypt had shown that our seamen had by no means deteriorated, in any way, from what they

    1529
    used to be, many years ago, in the time of the old naval wars. But he was sorry to say that in one particular there was some little reason for dissatisfaction; and that was in regard to the discipline of the Service. Anyone who heard, or read, Lord Northbrook's speech in "another place," a short time ago, must have been struck with the noble Lord's statement that the discipline of the Service had not been maintained at such a satisfactory point as he could have wished; and Lord Northbrook specially alluded to the great increase that had taken place in the number of cases of mutiny and of offences against discipline, such as cases of striking a superior officer, &c. Two years ago, he (Captain Price) asked for information from the Admiralty upon this point, and the information he obtained showed him that these particular offences in the Service had been of late years rapidly increasing. Some years ago, this Parliament, in its infinite wisdom, abolished the punishment of flogging in the Navy. He had no wish to see that punishment introduced again, if it could possibly be avoided. His idea had always been that we should, at all events, try to do without it, and that if such a punishment was retained in the Service, it should only be used in time of war, or in very exceptional cases. But they had now to look at what had been the results of the alteration in the punishment. He had called for a Return on this subject a short time ago; and that Return, which was now before the House, showed a rather remarkable state of things. It was a Return of the offences tried by court martial since the year 1870, and of the number of cases of corporal punishment inflicted during that period. From that Return it appeared that the number of cases of offences against discipline tried by court martial in 1870 was 153; whereas the number so tried last year was 402; and in 1881 the number rose to so high a point as 454; but that seemed to have been a very exceptional year, for there were a great number of crimes of all classes committed in that particular year. The number of corporal punishments during that period of 10 years decreased from 57 in 1870, to 4 in 1880; and there had been none since; so that while there was a rapid decrease in the number of cases of corporal punishment since 1870,
    1530
    there had been an increase in just the same proportion in the number of offences against discipline during the same period. The cases of striking, or attempting to strike, a superior officer increased from 28 in 1870, to no less than 96 in 1881, and 83 in 1882. The whole number of cases of striking a superior officer during the 11 years had been no less than 695; and the same held good of other offences, such as using threatening language to a superior officer, which increased from 3 in 1870, to 28 in 1882. The crime of wilful disobedience increased from 30 in 1870, to 103 in 1881. The crime of behaving with contempt to a superior officer rose from 27 in 1870, to 66 in 1881; and the cases of what was termed prejudice of good order and naval discipline increased from 11 in 1870, to 70 in 1881. This was, he thought, sufficient to show that there had been a very remarkable increase in this particular class of cases in Her Majesty's Navy. The punishment which, to some extent, had been substituted for corporal punishment was penal servitude; and the Return showed that out of the 695 cases of striking a superior officer, during the 11 years from 1870 to 1881, 78 had been punished by penal servitude. Out of the 78 men so punished, 30 were of good, or very good, character before their sentence, and their average age was only 23 years. What they had to learn from this was, that a large number of young men, many of them having previously borne good, or very good characters, and of only the average age of 23 years, were lost to the Service for a period, in some cases, of seven years, but generally of five years, for some act done by them, in most cases hastily, and without any forethought. These young men were very useful men in the Service, and their services were lost for a period of five years. His right hon. and gallant Friend (Sir John Hay) intended, he believed, to call attention to this matter in detail; but he (Captain Price) had felt it his duty to make some reference to it, as he moved for the Return now before the House, which Return showed that the mischievous agitation which had been produced throughout the country had had the effect not only of spreading disease, but of spreading crime throughout the Forces of Her Majesty. Her Majesty's Navy contained, no doubt, a good body

    1531
    of men and officers; but there were some points on which, he felt it his duty to express the dissatisfaction and discontent which reigned in certain classes, and more especially in one branch of the Service, which was a growing and important one—he referred to the steam branch—the officers of engineers, and their subordinate engine-room artificers. He knew that the case of this branch had been brought before the House several times; and the reason why it was brought up again was because little or nothing had been done to remove their grievances. The Committee were aware that in the year 1875 an important Committee was appointed by the Admiralty to sit upon this particular question. That Committee was presided over by Sir Cooper Key, an officer of vast experience, and it was a well-appointed one. It attended to its labours with a great knowledge of the question, with a determination to be perfectly fair, and with a due regard to the wishes and feelings of the Treasury. That Committee reported in 1875, and in their Report they, speaking of the engineer officers, that the age and length of service at which a chief engineer attained promotion was increasing every year, and that whereas in 1866 the period of service spent in attaining that rank was about 12 years, it was then—in 1875–19 years and a-half. It was because matters had not been mending since the date of that Report—now eight years ago—that he (Captain Price) felt bound to say a few words upon the subject to-night. That was the Report which the Committee made as to the slowness of promotion. About that time, or, perhaps, a few years before—in 1870—a certain clause was inserted in the Queen's Regulations, which stipulated that no engineer officer—and officers of other grades too—should count his whole service for pay and retirement until he had served 11 years. That clause operated very unfairly upon engineers, for it almost effectually debarred them from ever reaching the higher scale of pay or retirement. To prove the correctness of this view he would just call attention to these figures. In 1877 there were 180 chief engineers in the Service, and of these 180 chief engineers 55, or about one-third—he would not pledge himself to the exact figures; but these were sufficiently near
    1532
    for the purpose—were receiving the higher rates of pay—17 s. per day and upwards. At the present time the number of chief engineers was about 218, and of those only 17, or about l–13th of the whole number, were receiving the higher rates of pay. He thought that was the exact state of the case, and if it was anything like true, there was some reason for saying that the engineers were in a much worse position than they were in in 1877. That "Eleven Years' Clause," as it was called, did not operate unfairly when it was introduced in 1877—he willingly admitted that—but, of course, at that time there were a much larger number of engineers who were receiving the higher rates and who could receive them, and the circumstances now were wholly altered. He would not say anything more on this point, which was thoroughly understood by the Secretary to the Admiralty; and he hoped that hon. Gentleman would announce tonight the determination of the Admiralty to make some modification in that clause which would enable these officers to serve their time as they hoped to do, and, after a certain amount of half-pay for two or three years, to obtain the full scale of retirement. There was only one other point with regard to the engineers, and that was as to their messing. It had been the policy of the Admiralty to introduce these officers by degrees into the ward-room, so as to mess with the ward-room officers, and that had been pretty fairly carried out. But at the Naval College at Greenwich there were a very large number of engineers, and they were not allowed to mess with the other officers. He thought this was a great mistake, because it was just there, at the Naval College, where the experiment—for it was an experiment—of allowing the engineers to mess with the ward-room officers could best be carried out. It was a very large mess, and questions of social difficulty were swamped in a large mess of that kind; and as these young officers studying at the Naval College by-and-bye expected to take their places in the ward-rooms of Her Majesty's ships, it would be a good thing if they were to commence in the mess at the College. Another very important section of the steam branch of Her Majesty's Navy was that of the engine-room artificers. A Circular had recently been sent out from

    1533
    the Admiralty which was supposed to give certain benefits to this class; but there were also certain points in the Circular which were not looked upon as at all satisfactory in any degree. One part of the Circular dealt with the time for which these men might be called upon to serve for their pensions. Formerly they were called upon to serve for 20 years; but now they were called upon to serve for 22 years. Of course, that provision had not been made retrospective; but the Circular was sent round to these engine-room artificers asking them whether they would consent to the terms. When they came to look at the Circular, they found that not only was the term to be extended for two years, but they were not to receive any increase of pay, or an increase so slight that it could hardly be seen; and there was inserted in the Circular a clause rendering them liable to disrating. That was a thing they had never been liable to before. He would not advance any opinion as to whether they should or should not be liable to disrating; but the fact was that hitherto they had not been, and they were asked now to submit to this condition for a small amount of extra pay. He wished now to draw the attention of the Committee to the results of this distribution of the Circular. A Question had once or twice been asked of the Secretary to the Admiralty as to how the Circular had been received by the class to whom it was addressed, and they had not been able to get any definite answer to those Questions, because his hon. Friend had merely said that all the Returns were not yet sent in. But he (Captain Price) wished to ask to-night whether the hon. Gentleman had not received very nearly the whole of the answers—he might say nine-tenths of them, because his information was to this effect, that 600 answers had been received. He was told some weeks ago that 600 answers had been received from the engine-room artificers, and that positively only 11 of those men consented to the new Rules, and even those 11 were men holding official positions—"comfortable billets" as they were termed—which they were unwilling to give up on any terms, even on the terms of the new Circular. He thought they ought to hear to-night whether it was the case or not, because, if it were, it showed that the class were thoroughly dissatisfied with
    1534
    the proposal, and that something must be done towards withdrawing the Circular. He had said something about the small increase of pay that was offered to these men, and it was so very small that he must ask the Committee to consider what it really amounted to. There were some very clever men at the Admiralty—clever mathematicians—and when they drew up a scale of this kind, it looked very agreeable and pretty at first sight; but when it was examined, they would find that it did not really cost the Treasury anything. There were some modifications made in the scale of pay, and the first one was to offer the men 3d. a-day more on first entry. But, unfortunately, when they got their first rise in pay, it was postponed for two years later than it used to be, so that the whole benefit amounted to this—that when a man had served for 20 years the whole increase of pay which he received was £3 6s. 8d. That was what it all amounted to during a man's full service of 20 years. Then there was the clause inserted in the Circular which rendered a man liable to disrating, so that, if an officer wanted to curry favour at the Admiralty, or the Treasury—he did not say that there was any such officer in the Service—all he had to do was to allow an engine-room artificer to commit some small crime, and then disrate him, when all the sum that he had been working for for 20 years would entirely disappear. This punishment of disrating, if carried out, would have this effect—that no extra money would be required for this class. That was the case of the engine-room artificers, and it completed the case of the steam branch of the Service. He would only say this in conclusion—that the late Mr. Ward Hunt, in discussing these matters, distinctly stated, when giving some slight improvement in pay, that this was only an instalment of what was recommended by the Committee of 1875; and he (Captain Price) thought they were entitled to ask whether any, and what, further instalments were to be given, considering that this matter now was eight years old. As to the Vote immediately before the Committee, he only wished to say one word. It was the Vote for Provisions, and he felt bound to call attention again to the large amount of difference which existed between the value of the ration to the British seaman

    1535
    and the small sum of money that was paid him by way of savings. He put a Question to the Secretary to the Admiralty the other day, and was told in reply that the Government saved between £60,000 and £70,000 by not giving the men the full value of their rations. Now, a man's ration was really part and parcel of his pay. He agreed to serve for so much pay—so much in money, and so much in provisions. The value of these provisions amounted to him to 11½d., and if he did not take up the ration, he was paid about 6d., or little more than half the value. They were told that this was done for the advantage of the seaman—that, with the small saving which he got, he was able to buy certain luxuries at the sea-port towns, such as soft bread, vegetables, fruit, and so on. But he asked them to compare that advantage with what the Government got. It was not only the £70,000 which went back into the Exchequer, but, if the Admiralty were obliged to serve out the whole ration to the seamen, it would cost them a great deal more, because they would have to pay the freightage and storage, and they could not keep their ships so long at sea. It was, therefore, very difficult to estimate the exact advantage which the Government obtained; but if hon. Members would look at the Report on the question, which was issued some few years ago, they would see that all he had stated was borne out by that document. He wished to ask the Admiralty again whether it would not be fair and ordinary justice that Her Majesty's seamen should get something like the full value of their ration? They asked, some few years ago, that the large sum of money which the Government obtained by this transaction should be thrown into a fund to provide pensions for their widows. There seemed, however, to be some difficulty about that; but, if that could not be done, the money might be returned to them in the form of pay, and then the men might reconsider the matter of providing pensions for their widows out of their own pay. As the question would come again before the House in another form, he would say no more upon it at the present time.
    SIR JOHN HAYsaid, that, having listened to the remarks of his hon. and gallant Friend who had just spoken, he
    1536
    would not trespass upon the subject to which the hon. and gallant Gentleman had addressed himself in his closing observations. But the Return to which he had called the attention of the Committee was one of extreme importance. The discipline of the Navy was a matter which must be interesting to the House, and the opinions of those who had served as naval officers must be more valuable on such a point than the opinions of the Civil Members of the House. The hon. and gallant Member for East Derbyshire (Admiral Egerton), whom he saw opposite, would, he trusted, give them his opinion. He (Sir John Hay) had served in 17 ships, and commanded five, and he had some experience on the subject. This Return was a matter of the greatest interest both to the Admiralty and to the country. In it they found that a proportion—a small proportion—of the men of the Navy were in the worst possible state of discipline; that the crime of striking a superior officer was increasing so rapidly, that something must be done with the view of putting a stop to it. From a Bill which had been introduced into the other House, but which, as the Order for it had now been discharged, he might refer to, they had some knowledge of this, for they found that that Bill provided that three officers—three young-officers of a ship—might form a court, and might sentence to death any man who struck an officer, and their finding, with the approval of the captain of that ship, was sufficient to cause the death of the person who had so offended. The Committee must see that when a Bill of that severity was introduced and passed through the other House, and withdrawn only in consequence of the lateness of the Session, the Admiralty must be aware that the discipline in the Navy was not what was desired, for they had had recourse to a measure of singular stringency in order to restore the discipline. Communications which he had received from gallant officers, some of them holding the highest commands, led' him to believe that they felt alarm at the condition of discipline in the Navy. The Return to which his hon. and gallant Friend had alluded showed that in the past year 13 men were sentenced to penal servitude for five years for striking superior officers; but that in 1870 there were only two such

    1537
    offences followed by penal servitude; in 1871 only two; in 1872 only three; in 1874 only one; in 1875, four; in 1876, four; in 1877, seven; in 1878, 15; in 1879, four; and in 1880 seven. After the suspension of flogging in the Navy the number increased to 17 in 1881; and last year there were 13. His hon. and gallant Friend had stated that corporal punishment had been abolished; but that was not the case. The House had not abolished corporal punishment, and he hoped the House was too wise to do so. The House had accepted a statement by the Admiralty that they were able to govern the Navy without that punishment; but they did so at their own risk and on their own responsibility; and, even in the cases of aggravated crime, they did not sanction that form of punishment. The Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant, when he was Secretary to the Admiralty, stated, in 1881, that in view of that statement by the Admiralty the Bill for the abolition of corporal punishment would not be proceeded with, but that a Circular would be at once issued to commanders and senior officers, informing them that the Regulations authorizing the use of the lash were to be considered cancelled; but, as the powers of a court martial to award a sentence could only be removed by legislation, they were to take care that those powers were not carried out without reference to the Admiralty in each case. That was the authority under which corporal punishment was at present suspended. He wished to call attention to the result of that suspension. In the first place, he wished to ask how any hon. Members would like their sons at Eton or Harrow, or elsewhere, to be sentenced to penal servitude for five years for striking a Master? Would they not prefer that the boys should be birched? In the Navy now, instead of being birched, boys of 17 and 18 were sentenced to five years' penal servitude. The lad Louis Price, whose case had been referred to, had been of an exemplary character. He was 18 years of age; and it appeared that after having had his grog he lay down to sleep in the sun, and, being roused by the gunner's mate to attend drill, he struck that officer twice. He was tried by court martial, and sentenced to five years' penal servitude. The Admiralty had reduced that by two years; but still that boy was sent
    1538
    to penal servitude for three years. But that was not the only case, for of those cases given in the Return 13 were the cases of boys of 18 years of age. The country thus lost their services; and many of those youths had, previous to the particular offence, had good characters. Surely this system must be bad for the Service and for the men themselves. It could not be of advantage to the country that after these men had been carefully trained for the Service of the State, they should be sentenced to punishments which degraded them to the position of felons, and made them wretched members of society ever afterwards. When he first belonged to the Navy, about 50 years ago, the discipline was severe, and, no doubt, the lash was more frequently used than would accord with modern ideas; but in such a case as a boy striking a gunner's mate, he would get a good rope's-ending and licking from the mate, and nothing more would be heard of the matter. But the House had taken the control of the methods of discipline and punishment in the Navy; and this boy Price, instead of being punished there and then on the spot, in such a way as he would never forget, and which would do him good for ever, was placed in irons, made a felon of, and while he was deprived of his character the country lost his services. In a ship in which he served 48 years ago there were on board a boatswain's mate who had served on the Shannon, and a petty officer who had been on the Chesapeake, and there were factions on the lower deck. The commander took two of these men who had been fighting, and, ordering their left hands to be tied together, with a reef-point tied to their right hands, told them to lick each other, and threatened that the first man who stopped should lose his grog. There was no more fighting after that. Discipline in those days was maintained by severe but excellent means; but all that was now stopped. A gunner's mate might be struck, but he must not return the blow. Striking a superior officer was an offence which must be punished; but there was no punishment that would stop violence of that sort so readily as a good whipping. Many hon. Members could remember what occurred 20 years ago. An hon. Member of that House, when returning home one night, was garotted, and a Bill was brought in in hot haste,

    1539
    by which Members protected themselves, and under which any person garotting anyone else would receive 150 lashes. The result was that none of them had been garotted; but he ventured to say that the protection of an officer of the watch, or a petty officer in the Service of the State, was more necessary than the protection of Members of that House. It was most unwise that the House should insist on the Admiralty not using the power they possessed; and, speaking with all respect of those holding high rank, he thought they ought to have the courage of their opinions, and to authorize corporal punishment for crimes of violence. If they would do that, he would undertake to say that the offences would drop down to a very low number, and no more would be heard of the loss of valuable men, who were now sent like criminals and felons to endure penal servitude. It was absurd that a seaman might garotte an officer of one of Her Majesty's ships and not be flogged; while if he himself were to garotte the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands), for instance, who was expressing dissent, he would get 150 lashes. He was only kept back by the knowledge of that penalty. He was sorry there was no naval officer present representing the Admiralty; for although the Civil Lord of the Admiralty (Sir Thomas Brassey) was as competent as any naval officer in regard to navigating, he had not had the same experience of seamen as the hon. and gallant Member for East Derbyshire (Admiral Egerton). He felt it right and just to the country and to the Committee to say that, having this power, the Admiralty failed in their duty if they did not give authority to courts martial to inflict corporal punishment for crimes which were disgracing the Navy; that being the only punishment that would restore seamen to their right senses, and, at the same time, preserve these valuable men for the service of the country. The proposal made in the Naval Discipline and. Enlistment Act Amendment Bill was entirely contrary to all safeguards for good discipline and fair trial which had hitherto prevailed in the Navy. Prior to 1866, a court martial consisted of 13 officers of high rank, each drawn from a different ship, and all drawn, if possible, from ships in which the offence was not
    1540
    committed. The officers of the ship in which the crime was committed were the prosecutors; and an independent court of 13 officers, all independent of each other, were brought together to try the criminal. No doubt, the sentences were sometimes severe; but the court was as independent and fair and honourable as anyone could desire to be tried by. But the proposal in this now Bill was to compose the court from the ship in which the offence was committed. The captain, who was the prosecutor, was to select three officers of the ship as a court; if they were unanimous they could condemn a man to death, and the captain would sanction their decision. The great naval officers who were First Lords of the Admiralty from 1703 to 1806 would have been astonished beyond measure at such a proposal. They would have scouted it with the scorn which it deserved. He regretted that the Admiralty had introduced this hanging Bill; but if they had not the courage of their opinions, and would not extend the Garotting Act to the Navy, he would wash his hands of the business and allow them to pass their Bill next year. He hoped, however, that the country would be saved from that disgrace. In no country in Europe, nor in the United States, was there such a savage measure as this; and it was rendered necessary because the Admiralty would not tell Parliament and the country that the condition of the Navy, and the practice of striking officers, was going from bad to worse. The offences were increasing in number and in character, and the punishment of penal servitude was doing nothing to stop the offences. The hon. Member for Scarborough (Mr. Caine) and others would, no doubt, attribute Price's offence to grog. The country must decide whether seamen should have grog or not; but, so long as grog was part of a seaman's rations, the authorities must take care to protect officers and the men themselves from the violence of a few men such as those whose conduct was now under consideration. He could not ask the Secretary to the Admiralty, or the Civil Lord, whether they approved or disapproved of grog being served out, because hon. Members of the Committee were not themselves aware how naval discipline should be conducted. It was the positive duty of naval officers who knew the condition

    1541
    of the Navy not to be afraid of stating their opinions, and urging the Committee to insist upon the Admiralty using the means they possessed for maintaining discipline in the Navy.
    MR. CAINEsaid, that, noticing the comments made in "another place" on the case of Louis Price, he took steps to obtain accurate information as to the circumstances which led to that offence. From a high authority he had received the following statement:—
    "The truth is as follows:—Louis Price was a boy of very good character on hoard H.M.S. Triumph, who reached the age of 18 in March, 1882, was rated an ordinary seaman, placed in the first class for conduct, and with a 'good' character. The captain considered him the most promising young seaman in the ship. At once they began to serve rum to him, half-a-gill a-day. One day in April he was 'cook of the mess,' and it was the custom of the rest of the mess to let the cook have a very large share of the rum allowance. He gave some to his friends; but thoughtlessly drank much more than he ever did before. He then went on the forecastle, and fell into a heavy sleep under a burning sun. He was suddenly roused to drill when the offence was committed (striking a gunner's mate); but he remembers nothing until he came to himself when he was in irons. The offence was solely due to the Admiralty Regulation of serving out rum to such young lads, and to allowing boys of 18 to be cooks of messes, with this rum privilege. He was sentenced to penal servitude, involving dismissal with disgrace," &c.
    Now, he wished to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if he could explain how this lad of 18 got the rum ration at all, because the last Secretary to the Admiralty (Mr. Trevelyan) had told him, in the debate in 1881, that in future they would withdraw that ration from all boys and men below 20 years of age. If this lad had been so treated, he would not have committed this offence and incurred five years' penal servitude. The hon. and gallant Member had discussed the question whether or not such offences should be punished by flogging. He was of opinion that prevention was better than cure, and had it not been for this rum ration Louis Price would not have been in this disgraceful position. Had the promised Regulation ever been in force? Had it been discontinued, if it had been enforced? If that pledge had not been carried out, he should move to reduce this Vote by £5,000.
    SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFwished to call attention to the case of some classes of men employed in the Navy, which had been brought before the Admiralty and
    1542
    the House on more than one previous occasion. The Secretary to the Admiralty had done much to remedy the grievances under which these classes laboured; but he wished to say another word or two in the hope that, before a final decision was come to on the different Memorials presented, the Admiralty would give some further consideration to these classes. In the first place, there was the question of warrant officers. Some time ago they sent out a pamphlet, stating that they had grievances which the Admiralty ought to repair. There were nine grievances mentioned; but he would not go into them all. In the changes he had made, the Secretary to the Admiralty had gone upon too limited a scale; and he was told that all the warrant officers detained in harbour did not obtain the benefit of the relaxation given by the Admiralty. Sea-going pay was not given to warrant officers in harbour, except to those holding Admiralty appointments. Then, the warrant officers thought they were entitled to a certain distinctive mark with regard to their uniform. Everyone knew how distinctive marks were valued, and he hoped the Admiralty would grant this desire, for it would not put the country to any great expense. A third point was the question of Greenwich pensioners. He did not like to go into a comparison of the number of Greenwich pensions they had relatively to other branches of the Service, because that would be invidious; but there were 51 retired warrant officers, and only 50 of them had pensions of £5 each. They suggested that they should have a certain number of pensioners on retirement; and he trusted that this claim, which seemed to him very natural and not unfair, would receive favourable consideration from the Admiralty. Another class whom he wished to mention were the naval engineers, whose principal grievance was the 11 years' rule. Alterations had recently been made by the Admiralty to meet the case of these men; but he fancied that the amelioration granted had not been given to men who had joined the Service after 35, and that the men who had joined under 25 had not been allowed the improved position accorded to those who had joined the Service after that age. The artificers and petty officers also had certain grievances

    1543
    which they had represented in a Memorial to the Admiralty, which had not yet received a reply. He trusted that in consideration of the different Memorials sent up the Admiralty would pay some attention to the grievances of these various classes.
    MR. STEWART MACLIVERsaid, he would not go into the question of pensions to officers in the Dockyards on that occasion; he rose simply to express his cordial approval of the proposed increase in the pay of engineers which was included in this Vote. He had, on a former occasion, called attention to the position of engineers and artificers in the Dockyards; and the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Admiralty then said he would take the matter into consideration; while, at the same time, he expressed his admiration of the skill and ability of the men, as well as his appreciation of their services. He trusted that steps had been taken to place these men in a satisfactory position. He would also be glad to know from the hon. Gentleman and the Civil Lord, who had visited the Dockyards, if they were in a position to state what it was proposed to do in the case of the shipwrights, engineers, and riggers? He believed the subject had boon under the consideration of the Board; and he trusted that the result of their deliberations would be favourable to the men in question. He would, at another opportunity, refer to the pensions of the naval engineers.
    MR. RYLANDSsaid, he did not intend to go into the interesting question which had been raised by the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite, although he considered it one of the most important that could claim the attention of the Committee. Had the Bill referred to by the hon. and gallant Gentleman been proceeded with, there was no doubt that a discussion might have arisen on it which would have been fruitful of results. But he thought, after the expression of the opinion of Parliament on a former occasion with regard to flogging in the Army and Navy, that the Government was bound not to take any further action whatever, unless they had reason to believe that the opinion of the House had changed. The one great point which they ought to secure was the raising of the character of the personnel of the Army and Navy; and
    1544
    he held that, as far as possible, that result could be secured, not by the effect of the deterrent of punishment—although he was willing to admit that punishment must exist—but by moral means—by the withdrawal of temptation to excess, and in other ways tending to raise the moral standard of those engaged in the Service. By those means he believed it would be unnecessary for the country to resort to the punishment in question. At the same time, he agreed that this was a matter which must be considered at an early date, because he presumed that the present state of things would not be allowed to continue without some measures being taken to improve it. Turning to the Vote immediately before the Committee, he pointed out that it made provision to a very large amount for the victualling and clothing of Seamen and Marines, and that the Vote had, through a series of years, gone on increasing, although, in the particular Vote before them, there seemed to be a small decrease. But, notwithstanding, that there was a decrease on the whole amount of the Vote, there was an increase on one or two significant items. Under Sub-head B there was an increase of £1,800 on a total charge of £154,000 for provisions not taken up; there was also an increase in the charge for fuel, seamen's clothing, soap, and tobacco, amounting to £3,928. All these increments seemed to require some explanation; but he rose principally to call the attention of the Committee to the first item he had alluded to. His reason for doing so was that recently circumstances had come to light which proved that the system of victualling, as now carried on, was defective, and one that had led to considerable fraud and peculation. He had no doubt that some of the increases he referred to were due to the irregularities committed under the present system of victualling ships. On a former occasion he had asked the Secretary to the Admiralty a Question in regard to a court martial held on board Her Majesty's ship Cambridge, in June, 1882, upon the paymaster, ship's steward, and assistant ship's steward of that vessel. At this inquiry a number of facts transpired which proved that a system of very serious irregularity and gross dishonesty had been practised in the victualling department of the Cambridge. At that time he asked his hon.

    1545
    Friend if he would lay upon the Table of the House Papers relating to this court martial; but his hon. Friend replied that the documents in question were confidential, and that it was impossible to lay them upon the Table. He (Mr. Rylands) said that, where irregularities occurred in connection with Her Majesty's Naval and Military Services, the House of Commons should be the first to be made acquainted with the facts; but, instead of that, the circumstances attending this particular case had been carefully kept from the knowledge of the House of Commons. The Admiralty had appointed Mr. Martin and Mr. Laycock, two gentlemen of ability, to ascertain whether the system of frauds and defalcations which came to light had been going on for some time previously. Their instructions were to ascertain whether the accounts of the Cambridge for the previous three months had been regularly kept; and, as that was a matter of great importance, they were instructed to recommend any change which they thought necessary with regard to those accounts, and to produce a Report. That Report he had asked for; and, as he had already stated, his hon. Friend declined to lay it on the Table of the House. But he held in his hand the Report that Messrs. Martin and Laycock had made to the Admiralty, which he found had been published in The Army and Navy Gazette. Now, he said that the Committee of the House of Commons ought not to be compelled to trust to surreptitious documents given to The Army and Navy Gazette, in order to judge whether the administration of the Naval and Military Services of the country were carried on with a due regard to economy. But, supposing the account which he held in his hand to be true, it was clear that the system of victualling Her Majesty's ships was open to grave objections, inasmuch as under it serious frauds and peculations were committed. Well, the gentlemen he had named examined the account of the rations issued in the case of the Cambridge during the three months previous to the court martial. Hon. Gentlemen would be aware that when sailors were away on leave their rations were not issued. As a matter of fact, then, if no proper account was taken of the men away on leave, the rations would be issued in excess of the quantity actually required.
    1546
    Messrs. Martin and Laycock found that no proper account of the men away on leave was kept. He believed that during the three months referred to the rations issued were 4,863, against which there were 488 rations allowed for, leaving a net quantity of 3,385 rations in excess. It seemed impossible that such a state of things could have occurred on one of Her Majesty's ships. The fact was that in July the whole of the quantity of fresh meat was actually paid for as savings—that was to say, the men were paid for not using their rations; and, in addition to that, there was absolutely twice as much fresh meat paid for as the total amount of rations which the ship had a right to receive. The Report of the Examiners said it was scarcely possible to conceive that such clear frauds should not have been discovered before the commander left the ship. The result of their further inquiries was to find that no regular system existed of giving notice of leave—that was to say, the men could go out of the ship without their leave being properly checked. Hon. Members might ask this question—" If all this meat was provided for rations, what became of it? "But he understood there was no difficulty in that matter; on the contrary, there were great facilities for the disposal of ships' stores. In this case, the meat was taken off the vessel, and sold to the butchers on shore. There seemed to be no check whatever on the taking of rations out of the vessels. Now, he ventured to suggest that the system under which Her Majesty's ships were victualled was altogether wrong. He observed in the Report that Messrs. Laycock and Martin said there was reason to believe that the crews of men-of-war were the only class of persons known who were paid the value of provisions which they did not consume, owing to their being on leave. That was one objection to the system. He said that no man ought to be allowed to leave a vessel without a careful account being taken of his absence, and without the steward's mess being checked, so that he had not an opportunity of charging for provisions which were not consumed. The absence of such accounts and checks, was another objection to the system; but he would go farther, and say that the victualling account of ships ought to be periodically investigated. His

    1547
    hon. Friend would, perhaps, say—"Of course they are investigated." He agreed that when they reached the next Vote they would find a charge for auditing accounts; there was an Accountant General, and the country paid a number of clerks in his office, on the supposition that they were employed in auditing the accounts. But that Department had not only audited, but had passed the accounts of the Cambridge; and, under those circumstances, he said that the audit was a perfect farce. They paid for an audit, it was true; but they did not give the Department the materials necessary for a proper audit; they had certain accounts sent to them, which they examined; but the accounts in the case of the Cambridge were utterly fallacious; and, on such conditions, the accounts could only be passed in the most perfunctory manner. Messrs. Laycock and Martin pointed out that, even on the face of the accounts of the Cambridge, there was such an extraordinary discrepancy that they could not imagine how it was possible they could pass the audit. Now, those gentlemen suggested that there should be some means taken for checking the victualling of ships on the spot. He entirely agreed with that suggestion; but it seemed to him that, in order to check irregularities of the kind which had occurred in the case of the Cambridge, there ought to be a better system of arrangement with regard to rations. He thought there should be an official on the spot to see that the books were properly kept. It was suggested that the paymasters-in-chief, now retired officers, might be attached to ships of the several squadrons at home and abroad, and that it should be their duty from time to time to go through the Meet and see, as inspectors, that the victualling accounts were properly kept, and that the books necessary to check those accounts were properly entered up. He thought there ought to be some means taken by which an officer of some experience and judgment could, from time to time, be sent on board vessels for the purpose of thoroughly overhauling the books. At all events, this state of things could not be allowed to continue, because, although they had had the curtain lifted a little by the surreptitious publication of the Report, they were able to see under that curtain that there was a great deal in this Department of
    1548
    the Admiralty of the most unsatisfactory character. When he reminded the Committee that these charges for victualling had gone on increasing during the last 10 years, while other portions of the Vote had been kept down, he thought it would be seen that there was a grave reason for suspicion that the increased expenditure had arisen in a variety of ways from the irregularities and peculations which were possible under the present system. He felt sure that the Board of Admiralty would take this matter into their careful consideration, and he had no doubt that they were now taking steps which would prevent the recurrence of such abuses. But he would remark that, had it not been for a mere accident, the House of Commons would have known nothing of the circumstances he had described—a fact which made one afraid that, perhaps, in other Departments, with regard to which they were quite in the dark, there might be mismanagement, leading to the misapplication of public money. Therefore, he was of opinion that while it was quite right that such matters should be brought before the Admiralty—first of all in the shape of a confidential Report—it was, at the same time, also right to insist that a subsequent Report, containing full particulars, should be laid on the Table of the House, so that Parliament might be kept thoroughly advised as to what was occurring in the Department, and of the steps the Admiralty were taking to prevent the recurrence of abuses, and to secure economy. He would ask his hon. Friend in what way the abuses in question came to the knowledge of the Admiralty in the first instance, and what were the sentences awarded by the court martial?
    MR. PULESTONsaid, he believed that all they heard of the grievances of the different classes of men in the Dockyards largely arose from the piecemeal attempts at reform which were constantly made in matters relating to these Dockyards. It was assumed that wherever a grievance was claimed to be redressed it always meant an outlay of money. However true that might be sometimes, it was not always the case. The complaints of the Dockyard shipwrights and other artificers related to the great difference which existed between their pay, and the number of hours which they had to work, as compared

    1549
    with the pay and hours of work of others, whether on the Establishment or not, doing similar work, and, perhaps, giving less time. Their desire was that they should be placed more on an equality. The hired men, after a service of 20 years, received a bonus of £20; whereas the men on the Establishment received as much as £30 a-year, which was equivalent to a bonus of £500. The hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Admiralty had once said that anyone who could show a decrease in the pension list hereafter would do a great service to the State, by removing what he termed this dead weight. That was quite true; but these pensions must not be regarded as altogether dead weight, because, while the men appeared as pensioners on the roll, it must be remembered that they were paid less wages than they would have received in private yards, because they were entitled to pensions. With regard to the naval engineers, he pointed out that in 1876 a Committee, presided over by the present First Sea Lord, sat to consider their case, and made certain recommendations. Now all that the engineers had asked from that time to the present was that the recommendations of that Committee should be carried out. That was the general position occupied by the naval engineers, and he could not see that in making that demand they were asking too much, especially now, in view of the greatly-increased and increasing importance of their duties. The Committee referred to consisted of men who thoroughly understood their work; and he recollected that the late Mr. Ward Hunt expressed regret that he could not give more than an instalment of what they recommended, although, as he said, the rest would come in the course of time. An improvement had been effected in the position of the engine-room artificers; but it had been done in that jerking way of which he complained—that was to say, that in endeavouring to produce contentment in one quarter they had given rise to discontent in another, by the way the alterations had been effected; and now the cause—and the just cause—of discontent was greater than ever, by reason of the terms of the recent Circular. The subject of this class, and of that of naval engineers, had been referred to over and over again; it had been spoken about and written about; and letters
    1550
    had been addressed to the Admiralty on the subject, so that he ventured to say there remained nothing new which he could bring forward with regard to it. These questions, although difficult in themselves, were easy of solution, if taken into consideration as a whole and thoroughly threshed out; and he believed that if the Lords of the Admiralty and his hon. Friend opposite would carry out that practical and feasible suggestion, they would hear less and less on the floor of that House of those grievances which were constantly being dinned into their ears. They had the benefit of an easy approach to the Civil Lord and Secretary to the Admiralty; but still the First Lord sometimes wielded the authority, and when he occupied a seat in the House of Commons they had been in the habit of approaching him. They had not now that privilege, and they were obliged to say in Committee that which they would not need to say had they the privilege of approaching the First Lord, which they considered they ought to have. When grievances were brought forward by those who represented the Dockyard interest, people were too apt to say that they did so because they were the Representatives of Dockyard men. As a matter of fact, he (Mr. Puleston) had hardly ever brought before the Admiralty that which he had not thoroughly digested himself; and he had often received their approval and concurrence when he introduced a grievance, though they might have said that it was difficult, for various reasons, for them to meet the grievance brought before them. The question of engine-room artificers particularly was a grievance. There had been some change made now to increase the time a seaman might serve; but that did not affect those already enlisted. In the case of engine-room artificers the Admiralty said—" We will improve their position in our own way," and the engine-room artificers argued—"You are improving us backward." Those men were required to work in a heated atmosphere, and 20 years' service for them was a very much longer service, comparatively speaking, than 25 or 30 years in any other branch of the Navy. He, therefore, thought that if some hon. Members wanted to bring forward such matters as that, it was quite right they should do so, and have the credit of

    1551
    doing so from an entirely right motive. When he spoke upon a former occasion, he referred to a Report made by the Committee of which his hon. Friend the Civil Lord (Sir Thomas Brassey) was Chairman. That Committee made inquiries as to the constructors; and he (Mr. Puleston) would like to know whether it was intended to lay on the Table a Report as to the Constructor's Department of the Navy? He also hoped some information would be given to the Committee as to the pensions of seamen's widows. He desired also to bring under the notice of the Committee the position of the warrant officers and naval schoolmasters. What the warrant officers really wanted was a step in rank on retirement, and to be put in the same position as those in a relative position in the Army. It was certainly not asking too much that warrant officers should be put on the same footing as corresponding men in the Army. The case of the naval schoolmasters was a very small one, yet a very important one. The position of the naval schoolmaster was not nearly so good as that of the marine schoolmaster; for instance, while the naval schoolmaster only got £91 a-year, the marine schoolmaster received £120. There was also some difference between the two men with regard to pension. Why should there be that difference? Surely there were no more efficient men in the whole Service than the naval schoolmasters; and, therefore, why the difference he had referred to should exist he did not know. But as long as it did exist, as long as there was that great discrepancy between class and class in the Dockyards, and between men like warrant officers and others, and those in a relative position in the Army, between the naval schoolmasters and marine schoolmasters—just as long would they have the men complaining, and complaining, as he thought, justly, and requiring that their grievance should, at least, be considered. Once more he would say that he believed much good would be done for the interests of the men, as well as of economy, from the administrative point of view, by having a Committee to go exhaustively into the subjects to which he had referred.
    MR. D. JENKINSsaid, he was glad that flogging had, once for all, been abolished in the Navy. He did not
    1552
    think, as was contended in some quarters, that corporal punishment—degrading punishment like flogging—was of a reforming character. He hardly thought it was fair for hon. Gentlemen opposite to compare flogging with the cat-o'-nine tails with flogging with the birch rod. Anyhow, the days of flogging had gone by, and some other means of punishment must be adopted. He could not help thinking that the acts of insubordination which had been referred to had in many cases been caused from want of experience, or want of tact and management on the part of officers, rather than from any fault of the seamen.
    MR. T. C. BRUCEsaid, he agreed with the hon. Member for Devonport (Mr. Puleston) that the position of the engineers and warrant officers required serious consideration. It was found, by a Commission which inquired into the subject, that the engineers were entitled to certain privileges. The Commission, however, was appointed nearly eight or ten years ago; and certainly the position of engineers, not only in the Naval Service, but in the Mercantile Service, had not diminished in importance, but had rather increased in importance, since that time. Now, there was no reason to be surprised that under the circumstances the engineers should feel themselves, to a certain extent, aggrieved that the privileges which the Commission considered ought to be accorded to them had never, so far, been granted by the Admiralty. They were granted in part by Mr. Ward Hunt; but then that part was only given in instalments. He (Mr. T. C. Bruce) could not think his hon. Friend opposite (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman) would ever have the engineers with him unless the privileges recommended by the Commission were fully conceded. His hon. Friend the Member for Devonport (Mr. Puleston) had made a kind of an apology for speaking on these subjects, because he was a Member for a Dockyard borough. Now, he (Mr. T. C. Bruce), as a Member for a Dockyard borough, thought he was perfectly entitled to speak of matters which came directly under the observation of his own constituents, and which so peculiarly affected his constituency. He did not intend to speak of the different classes in the Dockyards, because if he had any observations to

    1553
    make he presumed they would be more in Order on the Dockyard Vote. Neither need he refer to the classes whom his hon. Friend (Mr. Puleston) had mentioned. There was only one matter he wished to say a word about, and that was the position of the warrant officers. What these men asked would not cause any great expenditure, and he could not help expressing his opinion that everything ought to be done to maintain a contented spirit amongst the warrant officers, for in the Navy there were no more valuable officers than those men. If we had, as we should have, in case of war, to make a sudden increase in the number of men, the maintenance of discipline in all minor matters would really depend upon the warrant officers, and the petty officers under them; and he could not help thinking that it would be an unwise economy, if economy there would be in it, to do anything which would render that service less acceptable to the men, and which would render the warrant officers less contented than they deserved to be.
    MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, before the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman) replied to the various questions which had been put, he (Mr. W. H. Smith) wished to say a few words on the Vote itself, and upon the discussion which had taken place on a subject of the greatest importance for the discipline and well-being of the Navy—he referred to the remarks which fell from his right hon. and gallant Friend (Sir John Hay), and to the observations of the hon. and gallant Member for Devonport (Captain Price). There was no more grave question for the Committee or the country at large—and certainly for the Admiralty—to consider than the maintenance of discipline, and the mode by which discipline should be maintained in the British Navy. The Returns which had been presented were certainly Returns of a very grave character. If hon. Gentlemen would look through the list they would see that, in the great majority of cases of those who had been sent into penal servitude, the character beforehand had been "good," "very good," "fair," "very good," "good "—in other words, that the general character of the men who had been, for breaches of discipline, sentenced to various terms of penal servitude, averaging from five to ten years, had been
    1554
    "good"—that was to say, there had been no marks against them. Their conduct had been good on board ship; indeed, had been such as would entitle them to be considered good members of society. There was another very sad circumstance connected with the Return, and that was that in almost every case—no; he noticed there were cases in which men of 25 years, and 37 years, and 31 years, had been sentenced to penal servitude—but, in the majority of cases, the men who had been so sentenced had only just emerged from boyhood—were, in fact, 20 and 22 years of age, and, in some cases, only 17 and 18 years of age. He thought it was a most unfortunate circumstance that, in order to maintain discipline in the British Navy, for acts which certainly would not involve punishment for anything more than a few days' detention under any other case, and in any other employment, it had been necessary to inflict penal servitude upon the men, and to attach to them for life the character of felons. That was a very grave fact indeed. He was one of those who could not undertake the responsibility of abolishing corporal punishment, and he could not do that because he felt that it was necessary there should be some powerful deterrent against the crime of insubordination. Everybody knew that corporal punishment was inflicted with the greatest possible care on board ship; the average of cases, he believed, was less than one a-year. [Sir JOHN HAY: Two in the last year.] But the result undoubtedly was to deter men from the commission of those naval crimes—Service crimes—which would not be called crimes in the ordinary acceptation of the term. Now, they were told that they were compelled to class the men who were guilty of offences against discipline, and of no other crimes, with criminals—to compel them to herd with criminals in the case of imprisonment with hard labour, for unless they were sent to Lewes Gaol they must herd with prisoners, and they must associate with them in a common gaol. He believed he was right in saying that, and in asserting that if the Bill which was presented to Parliament had become law, and powers were obtained to send the men to ordinary gaols, their condition would be still worse, for they would be consigned to gaols where there were no powers of

    1555
    separation, no power of distinguishing one description of criminals from another. He only referred to this to impress upon the present Board of Admiralty the great responsibility they incurred if they did not find some mode of inflicting summary punishment for offences against discipline. He was as conscious as any naval officer, or as any person who had anything to do with the sea could be, that discipline and obedience to orders, and good conduct on board ship, were of the very first necessity. But he did hope and trust that if, as the hon. Gentleman the Member for Falmouth (Mr. D. Jenkins) said, it was quite unnecessary to inflict corporal punishment for offences of this kind, those in authority would find some method of deterring men from the commission of crimes against discipline and good order in the Naval Service without making the men criminals, without attaching to thorn for life the brand of criminals, and without completely ruining their prospects as British sailors and British subjects. He concurred with the observations which fell from his hon. Friend opposite who spoke as to the desirability of aiming at a higher standard of men. That, no doubt, had been the object of succeeding Boards of Admiralty, for the system by which boys were now trained was a system which was, in the best sense of the word, paternal, and produced the best possible effects. He believed those who had studied the present condition and the past condition of the British Navy would fully admit that there had been, and there was now, a growing improvement in the character of the men; but, if that was the case, it would be a monstrous thing that a boy who, overcome by temptation, lost his temper, should, in order to be properly punished for an offence he might have committed, be made a criminal for life. Reference had been made to the case of the Cambridge court martial, and he was inclined to second and support the suggestion which had been made in the course of the debate. He thought that if anything had gone wrong in the Service after the Admiralty had fully and fairly considered the confidential information which they had received, and after they had dealt with the matter upon their own responsibility, it was well that information should be given to
    1556
    the House of Commons, and to the country. He had no doubt his hon. Friend (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman) would fully admit that that was the principle which would strengthen the hands of the Department and his Colleagues in dealing with a question such as that arising in the case of the Cambridge, and would have a very useful effect throughout the Service generally. He (Mr. W. H. Smith) did not think it was at all desirable at any time to endeavour to hush up, or hide, any serious troubles that might arise. It was a great misfortune that irregularities should occur; but it was impossible, taking human nature as a whole, that here and there trust should not be betrayed, and that some screw would not be found to be loose in the system under which business was conducted. It was, however, always better that a clean breast should be made by the parties concerned, because they all knew it was absolutely impossible for any Department of Government, or any set of men, to devise a system of management which would at all times be proof against failure, or against the dishonesty of persons who had to carry it out. He (Mr. W. H. Smith) would be the last to find fault with the Department who found it possessed dishonest servants. He knew that irregularities and misconduct would occur; but when they did it was well to see as much as they could of the cases which had led to unfortunate results, so that they might do their best to rectify them in future. He thought the House of Commons would always be inclined to strengthen the hands of a Department of Government which sought to give full information. There were one or two points in this Vote on which he would like to have information. In the first place, he wished to know whether the blue-jackets and marines under this Vote were now up to the strength which had been voted? It was most necessary that the Committee should be assured, at least, that the reduced numbers were fully maintained. He wished also to know whether there was a sufficient reserve of stokers and engine-room artificers in the event of its becoming necessary to commission one or two ships in a hurry, as was sometimes the case? He knew that at one time there was a deficiency in the supply of stokers, and he was inclined to lay some stress on

    1557
    the matter, because everyone knew that trained and experinced stokers were as necessary for the economy and successful navigation of our ships of war as our blue-jackets; perhaps they were, on the whole, rather more necessary than blue-jackets. He would like also to know whether the present Board of Admiralty were satisfied with the conditions under which they obtained officers for the Marines? The question had been frequently discussed, and he confessed that he had great doubt as to whether the system which he left in existence was a satisfactory one. Without saying anything in the slightest degree offensive to the officers who joined the Marine Service, it might be said that the Marines obtained the leavings of the Army to a very considerable extent, and that that had an injurious effect upon the self-respect and the self-esteem of the officers of the Corps. If some means could be found of separate examination, separate competition, and separate nomination, so that gentlemen could enter the Corps without having first of all striven to enter the Army and failed, there would be a greater sense of self-respect and independence, and there would be all the advantages which belonged to the condition of a great Service which had rendered most valuable assistance to the country in the past. The Marine Service was a Service which ought to be considered of higher importance to the Navy than as a Service to the Army. It had been frequently looked to as a reserve to fight our battles when difficulties had occurred, and when the Army had not been strong enough to do its proper work. The first duty of a Marine was to be on board ship, and be efficient there; and therefore he (Mr. W. H. Smith) was anxious to know whether the Regulations laid down with regard to prizes for shooting; whether the gunnery pay suggested some time ago had been earned and issued; whether, in point of fact, the present Board of Admiralty were seeking to make the Marine rank and file thoroughly efficient as artillerymen on board ship, and as a constituent part of the British Navy? Parliament had discussed at different times the treatment which the Marines received in connection with the Egyptian Expedition, and he would not now refer to that further, for it was past and gone; but anything that could be done to
    1558
    maintain the Marine Force in complete and thorough efficiency ought to be done. The Marines were a valuable addition to the strength of the British Navy; and if we were compelled suddenly to commission a number of ships, the Marines ought to be, and would be, of the highest value and of the highest importance to the country, and he should regard any decrease in the efficiency of that body as a great misfortune to the country. There was another point to which he desired to draw the attention of his hon. Friend—namely, the credit sub-head was larger by £19,000 than it was last year. He did not wish to suggest the reason of this; but it looked as if the expenditure had been estimated at the least, and the receipts at the highest, possible amount, which was sometimes the case. Perhaps his hon. Friend would give him some information on that point. But the subject on which he was most anxious to obtain information was as to whether the seamen and Marines were now up to their strength, and whether there was a sufficient supply of stores to meet any demand which might arise?
    MR. GORSTsaid, he entirely supported what had been said by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Westminster (Mr. W. H. Smith) with reference to the Corps of Royal Marines. It was always valuable to hear the opinion expressed on subjects of this kind by Gentlemen who had filled the Office of First Lord, because, while they were in Office they were so much under the influence of the permanent officials at the Admiralty that they were unable to express their genuine opinions in the House; when, however, they sat upon the Opposition Bench, they were, so to speak, unmuzzled, and able to state the views which they entertained. Therefore it was with pleasure that he heard the opinions of the right hon. Gentleman with regard to the Corps of Royal Marines, for he was sure that those opinions were the result of the experience he had gained when he was First Lord, and which, as First Lord, he would hardly have ventured to express to that Committee. He believed nothing could be more unsatisfactory and more mistaken than the present position of the Royal Marines; that Corps was admittedly one of the finest in the Service; everyone praised them, the public

    1559
    Press lavished upon them every description of laudation, and yet they were never treated as they should be in actual fact. They had the disadvantages of both Services and the advantages of neither. He could not help recollecting how they were treated in the Egyptian Campaign, when a large Force of Royal Marines were employed, and when the services which that Force rendered became even the subject of Royal eulogy; yet, notwithstanding this, the large Force of Royal Marines on shore in Egypt was not allowed to have a General of its own, but was officered by a General of the Army. The officers who commanded the Force were not even able to discipline their own men; and, in many cases, superior officers had to be landed to go through the defaulters' list and inflict the necessary punishments on the men. So remarkable was the treatment of this Corps that in the first account which came to this country of the Battle of Tel-el-Kebir they were not even mentioned; those who read the telegrams did not think that the Corps had taken any part in the engagement; and it was only when the list of the killed and wounded arrived that the engagement of that Force was known to the country. It was of no use for the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Admiralty to express his opinion with reference to the Royal Marines, because he was under the influence of the Board of Admiralty; but through him he asked the First Lord to take the position of this Corps into the most serious consideration, because if they were to be maintained as a valuable Force they must cease to be officered by the leavings of the Army. He believed it was the custom to send round people to the young gentlemen at their military examinations to tell them they could join the Royal Marines if they failed to pass. Such a practice as that was quite enough to undermine the reputation the Corps at present enjoyed, and to lower it in the estimation of the public, although it ought to be regarded as one of the crack Corps in the service of the country. He did not know what course the Admiralty might think of taking; but he knew it was becoming the opinion of a great many of the most experienced officers in the Royal Marines that it would be far better, if the Admiralty would not do them justice, to become amalgamated
    1560
    with, and form part of, the Regular Army of the country. He knew that his hon. and gallant Friend behind him was strongly opposed to that idea; but it was one which was as strongly engrafted in the minds of officers of Marines, in consequence of the injustice done them by the Admiralty. They thought that if they were made part of the Army destined for service, in case of need, on board ship, they would get the benefits of the Service; their pensions being regulated on the Army scale and having an addition to their emoluments when they were ordered on service at sea. He offered this to the Committee as the idea which was working its way among the officers of Marines, to show the necessity of making the rewards of this Corps commensurate with the work they had to do and the praises they received.
    LORD HENRY LENNOXsaid, that he would go a step further than the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Gorst), and say that the Admiralty should make themselves certain of this—that the widest and deepest feeling of dissatisfaction existed in the Marine Corps as to the way in which they had been treated. He thought that, seeing they were praised by the Admiralty and by every newspaper correspondent for their gallant deeds, some more substantial recognition than had been afforded to them, up to the present time, should be given of their position in the Service. He would not trouble the Committee at any length on this subject, but would simply impress upon the Civil Lord, and upon the Secretary to the Admiralty, that, until there was some more direct means of communication with the Board of Admiralty than now existed, the dissatisfaction in the Marine Force would increase, and end in destroying, as the hon. and learned Member for Chatham had said, the very existence of the Force, whose praises they had heard so loudly sounded.
    MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid, the Committee would remember that in the early part of the Session they had had a considerable discussion on this matter, upon the Motion brought forward by his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Stockport (Mr. Hopwood), and on that occasion he had done his best to explain what it was that had been done for the Royal Marines, and

    1561
    what the Admiralty were prepared to do for them in the future. Some of the points which were most complained of had been, he believed, fully met. In the first place, they had given that amount of brevet-promotion among the officers which was called for, in order to put them on an equality with their brethren, in the scientific corps in the Army. In the second place, as to the point of discipline of which the hon. and learned Member for Chatham complained—namely, that the officer in charge of a detachment of the Force could not administer discipline without the assistance of superior naval officers coming to supersede him, and placing him thereby in an invidious position in the eyes of his comrades of the Line, that was effectively met in the Naval Discipline Bill which the Government had been reluctantly compelled to withdraw, owing to the opposition of the right hon. and gallant Baronet (Sir John Hay). The fault, therefore, did not lie with the Admiralty. He would mention this fact also—that a Committee had been sitting for some time at the War Office, of which Sir Francis Festing was a Member, who would be regarded by all as a competent representative of the Force, for the purpose of considering such arrangements as should seem proper for a larger employment of Marine officers on the Staff of the Army, and in connection with the Auxiliary Forces. Now, he thought there was enough in these two facts to prove that the Admiralty were not slow to remedy any grievance complained of, and that they were anxious to do justice to a distinguished Corps, in whose praises he need hardly say he entirely concurred. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Westminster (MT. W. H. Smith) had alluded to the manner in which officers were admitted to commissions and were entered for the Royal Marines. Of course, there would be a great deal to be said in favour of a change in this respect, if it were proved in any sense that the young officers whom they obtained were, as the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst) had said—of course, without meaning offence—the leavings of the Army. But he had in his hand a few facts with regard to the recent appointments of officers to the Marines. He found that in 1881, at the July examination, when only three commissions
    1562
    were given, they were taken up by candidates who had been successful for Sandhurst—Nos. 48, 89, and 94, out of 105 Army appointments, so that they stood well with reference to the Army in this matter. In July, 1882, there were 73 appointments to Sandhurst, and 12 commissions in the Marines; three of which were taken by Nos. 1, 9, and 78 of the successful candidates for Sandhurst, and the other nine were given to unsuccessful candidates for Sandhurst, the gentleman who stood lowest being No. 94; there were 530 competitors. In December, 1882, there were 75 appointments to Sandhurst, and Nos. 6, 8, and 53 of the successful candidates applied for commissions in the Royal Marines. He thought these facts would show that the Admiralty did not obtain for Marine commissions the refuse of Sandhurst as had been suggested. As to the Vote more immediately before them, his hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) had asked him a question as to one or two items. The reason of the increase in Sub-head I., for seamen's clothing, soap, and tobacco, was that no surplus stock was available, and provision had also to be made for boys' clothing and the cost of making it up, which was formerly charged direct against the boys' pay. A corresponding increase was made in the credit subhead. With regard to the clothing of the Royal Marines, in which item there was an increase of £7,473, that was due to the introduction of the new Army valise equipment for the Corps, and to the large number of blue helmets required. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Westminster (Mr. W. H. Smith) had asked why the credit subhead had considerably increased? This item was, of course, very much a matter of estimate, depending upon the experience of the past year. Under Subhead A there was less required for provisions, mainly on the ground that the extra stocks purchased for the Egyptian Expedition were not all consumed; and there was an anticipated increase in the charges against the wages of seamen. Now, with regard to the very important question of the irregularities or frauds, as they deserved to be named, on board the Cambridge, he was not surprised that the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) had brought that matter before the Committee; but he altogether took

    1563
    exception to some of the phrases which the hon. Member used, and he wished at once to set himself and the Committee right on the subject. He had declined to lay a certain document on the Table of the House, because it was confidential, whereupon the hon. Member for Burnley said he was hoodwinking the House; and his right hon. Friend opposite (Mr. W. H. Smith), if he did not actually charge him, in so many words, had at least intimated, in a significant way, that he was attempting to hush up the matter. No doubt, that was not the right hon. Member's intention; but his words implied that there was a disposition on the part of the Admiralty to smuggle away from the cognizance of Parliament transactions of this kind. Now, the Paper which the hon. Member for Burnley asked him to lay on the Table of the House was a Report made by an officer of the Admiralty, and a gentleman who acted in a legal capacity, under the authority of the Admiralty, who were asked to inquire into the matter after the trial had taken place. The first thing which happened was the publication of the trial, and there was no concealment of the facts, because full reports appeared in the public newspapers. At the trial which took place, the steward was sentenced to a certain term of imprisonment, the assistant steward being acquitted on the ground of his being under the instructions of his superior, while the paymaster was severely reprimanded and dismissed his ship, because he had not taken proper pains to discover the irregularities that were being committed. The two gentlemen he had referred to furnished their Report; and that Report, he regretted to say, had appeared, to its full extent in a newspaper. How that newspaper obtained possession of a document of a confidential character he could not say, and of this he would leave others to judge. The only objection the Admiralty had to producing a document of that sort was, in the first place, that the gentlemen who drew it might have been much more reticent had they known that their Report was to be made public; and, in the second place, it was very undesirable that it should have been made public until the Admiralty had come to a conclusion upon it.
    MR. RYLANDSsaid, his hon. Friend had attributed to him a charge which
    1564
    he had no intention of making. He had said that the fact of the non-production of the Report would be to hoodwink the House of Commons.
    MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid, he was quite sure his hon. Friend did not mean to be personally offensive; but he must not suppose there was any desire to keep the Report from the House for any longer period than was necessary for the Admiralty to take action upon it. Having received a Report of the complicated circumstances of the case, the first thing the Admiralty had done was to request the Accountant General of the Navy to go down to the several ports, and inform them of what changes of system, either as to audit or book-keeping, he would recommend. The Report of the Accountant General had only been received within the last three days; it was of a voluminous and important character, and was now under consideration. But he was quite agreed that the present state of things was one which called for some effectual measures to prevent the recurrence of the irregularities that were possible under the existing system. He thought that a stricter and better check should be kept on men coming into, and leaving the ships, in order that it might be known at once who were on leave, and who were not. His hon. Friend was not quite right in saying that men were paid for provisions when they were absent; the men, in the strict sense of the term, were not paid, because the saving went to the mess to which they belonged, and not to them personally, until the accounts of the mess were settled, as they were periodically, when there might be something over for them. In the next place, there was no alteration in the number of rations issued, on account of the men who were not absent for more than 48 hours—that was to say, if a man went away on Saturday, and returned on Monday, his absence was not supposed to make such a material difference in the arrangements of the mess as to justify the stoppage of rations on his account. He wished, in justice to the Department, to state that in this particular case the officers employed at the Admiralty in auditing the accounts were not remiss, inasmuch as the accounts of the Cambridge did not come under audit at the Office before the inquiry was made, and the facts of the case had

    1565
    come out. He agreed that there should be a system of inspection established, and that this would probably be the most efficient check upon these irregularities. He believed that Banking Companies which had branches throughout the country managed their affairs by sending down inspectors who dropped in at irregular times at the branches, and examined the accounts, and that this system was found to be efficient in preventing the occurrence of malpractices. He had said enough to show hon. Members that this matter was not escaping the careful attention of Her Majesty's Government; and he need hardly say that they were fully aware of its importance. He now came to the question raised by the right hon. and gallant Member opposite (Sir John Hay), and partly touched on by other Members of the Committee, as to the state of crime and punishment in the Navy. He was glad to hear the hon. and gallant Member for Devonport (Captain Price) say that the Navy was a contented Service, as well as an efficient one; and he thought there were many facts from which they might conclude that the class of men who were now being brought into the Navy was, at all events, not inferior to those who preceded them. He was very much struck the other day by a page or two of the Report on the Education of the Navy. Now, any improvement in the education of the Navy might be due to the general advance of education throughout the country, and it was none the less satisfactory on that account; but he believed it showed that they were really getting a better class of men. Of petty officers, in 1866, 75·6 per cent could read well, and 4·3 per cent not at all; in 1880, 87 per cent could read well, and 0·9 not at all. In 1866, 62·5 per cent could write well, and 6·1 per cent not at all; in 1880, 78·8 per cent could write well, and only 0·5 per cent not at all. Of seamen in 1866, 61·8 per cent could read well; in 1880, 74·1 per cent; in 1866, 9·2 could not write at all; and in 1880, only 2·9 per cent. In 1866, 50 per cent could write well; in 1830, 65·5; in 1866, 11·5 per cent could not write at all; and in 1880, only 3·4 per cent. In reference to the boys also, there had been great improvements in the same direction. In 1866, 72·5 could read well, and 61·8 could write well, as against 76·2 per cent. and
    1566
    75·1 per cent in 1880. He thought that was enough to show that there was a great improvement in the education of the men, a fact which was, after all, one of the greatest tests of the improvement of the condition of the Navy. But allusion had been made to the Return regarding crime and punishment in the Navy; and the first observation he had to make as to that was that, although they had every reason to believe that unfortunately there was an increase in the offence of striking a superior officer, and other offences against discipline, yet the Return did not give an accurate test of the increase of that offence, because it was a Return only of the offences tried by courts martial. The courts martial had apparently increased, and the summary punishments had diminished, and they did not know what the offences were which were treated by summary punishment. It would be a very large and intricate matter to get that out; but, until they knew the result both of courts martial and summary punishments, he could not give an absolutely certain opinion on the subject; but, undoubtedly, it was the case that, so far as the courts martial were concerned, these offences had increased, especially within the last two years. The right hon. and gallant Admiral opposite (Sir John Hay) said the increase was entirely due to the cessation of corporal punishment; but he (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman) was not quite sure that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman had made out a complete case. Corporal punishment for these offences might be said to have been last administered in any number of cases in 1878, when there were seven cases.
    SIR JOHN HAY: There was a fear of it—there was a threat as to the power of its application.
    MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid, the right hon. and gallant Gentleman seemed to think that, though the cases were not numerous, there was a fear of the punishment which had its effect upon the men. Well, under the influence of that fear, what was the course taken? He would state the number of cases which had occurred between 1870 and 1880, when the last case of corporal punishment occurred. The numbers between these years, while seamen were still under the influence of that

    1567
    fear which the right hon. and gallant Gentleman referred to, were 28, 31, 37, 40, 33, 51, 43, 57, 75, 55, and 66; so that the number of cases had increased from 28 to 66 under the operation of that corporal punishment and the fear of it, which the right hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite believed to be a cure.
    CAPTAIN PRICE: The practice was dying out, consequently the fear became much less.
    MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid, that not only, then, would hon. and gallant Gentlemen like to have the power of flogging, but they would like to see much more flogging than there used to be. He simply quoted these figures to show how difficult it was to say that it was in consequence of the abolition of corporal punishment that this crime had increased. In 1880 the number was 66, in 1881 96, and in 1882 83. It was true that these were very largo figures; but it had shown a tendency to increase, and had readied a formidable level, under the state of things to which hon. and gallant Gentlemen would have the Government to revert to. But upon this question of corporal punishment he did not think there was much to be said to any good purpose. It could not be seriously contended that they should go back to it. He spoke pretty freely on this matter, as he had supported it so long as he found that the Government, who were responsible for the discipline of the Army and Navy, said it was absolutely necessary; and it was only when it was given up in the Army, in regard to those offences for which it was most suited, that he came to the conclusion that it was undesirable to continue the obvious discredit and stigma on the Navy—as it would have been if it were retained in this Service after being abolished in the Army. There was no doubt whatever of the deterrent influence of this punishment; but, at the same time, he would ask the right hon. and gallant Gentleman (Sir John Hay) whether, after it had been abolished in the Army, and did not exist in any foreign Service, it was right that the discredit and stigma of its continuance should be put upon the British Navy? No; and he, therefore, hardly thought this was a serious discussion. He could quite understand the feelings of naval officers who had seen, as they imagined, the good effect of this punishment; and, no doubt, in the sense
    1568
    of its being a deterrent of crime, its immediate good effect in the maintenance of discipline. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman had devoted a considerable part of his speech to a description of the enormities of the Bill which had been brought into the House, but which had since been withdrawn. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman described that measure, which was a measure to amend the Naval Discipline Act, as one of singular stringency; in fact, he had called it "a hanging Bill." Since the right hon. and gallant Gentleman had introduced the subject, he (Mr. Camp-bell-Bannerman) would tell him something about it. As a matter of fact, there was only one clause which contained the powers to which the right hon. and gallant Gentleman took exception. That clause conferred upon the officers of the Navy the same power of maintaining discipline in this Service which, two years ago, the House of Commons conferred upon the officers of the Army, with this difference—that it was considerably modified on the side of leniency. In the Army the summary court could be called together, and had the I power of death under similar conditions to those proposed for the Navy, only the court did not require to be unanimous; but in regard to the Navy it was required that the court should be unanimous. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman spoke of having a court martial brought together, consisting of 13 officers from various ships. What would they do in the case of a small vessel hundreds of miles away from any other ship? Where were they to get their 13 officers to form a court martial, if there were some serious attempt at mutiny, some serious outbreak and breach of discipline—what would they do if the right hon. and gallant Gentleman's suggestion were adopted? It was clear they should have some sort of substitute for the power of flogging, and the substitute which was considered preferable was that which had been adopted in the case of the Army. It was only right and proper that the system adopted in the Army should be extended to the Navy. What he wanted specially to point out was that, unfortunately, the right hon. and gallant Gentleman having taken such a strong view as to that one clause, the Government were effectually stopped from proceeding

    1569
    with the Bill, which contained, altogether, 22 clauses, many of which went altogether in another direction, and mitigated instead of strengthening the provisions of the existing law. For instance, it conferred the benefit he had already alluded to upon the Marines; it enabled courts martial in many instances to give an intermediate sentence instead of inflicting the extreme sentence; and it largely extended the power of officers to try offences summarily, in order to save courts martial. But the measure containing all these things had been sent to the limbo of dropped Bills, because the right hon. and gallant Gentleman and his Friends objected to one clause.
    SIR JOHN HAY: It was the principal clause in the Bill.
    MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid, he doubted if it was the principal clause in the Bill. The subject of that clause was a fit matter for discussion in Committee; but, at any rate, there was no use in discussing it now, as the Bill had gone for this year. As to the case of the man Price, he (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman) altogether disputed the idea of the House of Commons being the proper place for going into the particulars of individual courts martial. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman very properly said that he did not wish to go into the question of the wisdom or propriety of the court martial in this case. He (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman) was bound to say that the offence was a grave one, the culprit being by no means what they would call a boy—being, in fact, 18 years of age. The young fellow was asked to fall in for drill, and he deliberately laid down his rifle on the deck and knocked down his superior officer, and when his superior officer tried to rise he attempted to knock him down again. The offence was a heinous one; therefore, it was necessary to inflict upon the offender a heavy penalty, possibly not so much by way of punishment—Heaven forbid that should be their object in giving severe sentences—as with the object of deterring others from doing anything of the same kind. The fact of the offender being under the influence of liquor was not brought out at the trial; there was no evidence of anything of the kind. He sympathized with what was said by the hon. Member for Scarborough (Mr. Caine) on the point,
    1570
    and he wished the hon. Member was present at this moment in order that he might tell him that the Admiralty had issued a Circular of the kind which the hon. Member said they had proposed to issue—a Circular to the effect that after the date of that document, which was November, 1881, no one was to receive a ration of rum until he was 20 years of age; but that would only apply to boys who joined after the issue of the Circular. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman seemed to think that the gunner's mate should have knocked Price down.
    SIR JOHN HAYsaid, that probably the hon. Member would allow him to disabuse his mind on that point. What he had said was, that the officer was debarred by his position from acting upon a natural impulse of retaliation.
    MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid, he had understood the right hon. and gallant Gentleman to say that officers in these cases should have some power of retaliation in order to prevent these outbursts against discipline. But to come to the different classes of men whose case had been brought before the Committee. First of all, they had the engineers and the engine-room artificers. As to the engineers, he was not able to give a promise that any change would be made in their condition. The rule as to engineers was that their full junior time was not to be counted until they had served a certain number of years in the higher ranks, and that worked hardly on those who had obtained their promotion at a later period. It was introduced with the view of promotion being given much earlier, and that remark applied to the other classes of officers who came under the same rule. The system was one he was not much enamoured of as it stood; but he was told it was a very desirable thing that there should be some scale of the kind, and he could only promise to keep his attention fixed on the matter, and if it was found to cause any serious injury to the men affected, he would be ready to see what could be done, but he was not prepared to make any proposition on the subject at present. As to the engine-room artificers, it was quite true that the Department had not received all the answers they had expected to the Circular they had issued. They had received a great many replies; and, undoubtedly, the vast majority declined to

    1571
    accept the new terms. There, again, he thought they must wait to see if the state of things complained of continued. They ought not to be asked hastily to alter what had been adopted after long deliberation. In matters of this kind, when pressure was put upon them to make changes, they were always met by the awkward fact that they could really get as many men as they required, and men as good as those now in the Service. It was natural, therefore, that there should be reluctance on the part of the Admiralty and the Treasury to grant any fresh boons to a class of whom that might be said. He made these remarks, not with the view of speaking hardly against these classes, but simply for the purpose of expressing his belief that there was no great prospect of any change being made in this matter for the present, at any rate. He was quite aware that a Committee had sat some time ago, and had made wide recommendations. The hon. and gallant Member for Devonport (Captain Price) thought that the whole matter should be referred to a Committee—the hon. and gallant Member had said that he would hand over, not only these classes, but the whole question of the men of the Dockyards, to the consideration of a Committee. Well, what did that mean? According to his (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman's) view, it simply meant that the Admiralty should hand over its own proper functions and responsibility to a Committee. A Committee was not directly responsible to the country, to the taxpayers, and to this House, as was the Board of Admiralty; and then it was very easy for a Committee to recommend a very generous extension of pay and pensions, because a Committee would not afterwards have to face the difficulty of obtaining the money with which to carry out such alterations. With regard to what had been said by the Dockyard Members, he did not wish to question their motives—in fact, it would not be proper for him to do so. The Dockyard Members called attention to the grievances of their constituents, as they had a perfect right to do, and he had no doubt they were perfectly satisfied that there was ample foundation for the claims they made. What, however, might be said was that these hon. Gentlemen would be less likely to take into account the general
    1572
    question of the public interest than the individual merits of the cases brought forward; but the Admiralty were bound to look at the matter from both points of view. An hon. Member had asked when the Committee on the Constructors' Department would publish their Report. Well, that Committee, which had been presided over by his hon. Friend near him, had made a very long inquiry, and had come to a conclusion, and had presented a most interesting and valuable Report. It had only just, within the last two or three days, come back from the Treasury, and it would be laid shortly on the Table of the House, so that hon. Members would have an opportunity of seeing what it contained. He (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman) thought he had now dealt with all the points that had been raised which required an answer. Many things had been said which he had not answered; but those he would look into. The general question as to petty officers and warrant officers was being inquired into by the Admiralty at this moment, and if they found that the points which had been made in their favour were good, and could be maintained, of course they should be ready to meet them. The hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite (Captain Price) had made a statement, on a former occasion, which he (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman) found afterwards was inconsistent with the experience of the Admiralty. He had said that there was a difficulty in getting men to take the position of chief petty officers in the Navy. [Captain PRICE: No, no.] Well, he understood from the hon. and gallant Gentleman that was not so; at any rate, it was not the fact that there was any difficulty in getting chief petty officers to accept that position.
    MR. A. F. EGERTONsaid, with regard to corporal punishment, he must say he did not think what had fallen from the Secretary to the Admiralty could be considered very satisfactory. It had been pointed out by his right hon. and gallant Friend behind him (Sir John Hay) that it became the duty of the Admiralty to establish some alternative punishment when corporal punishment was abolished. He (Mr. A. F. Egerton) ventured to say, without the least committing himself to the idea that it was possible to go back to corporal punishment, that the result of its abolition had

    1573
    been very far from satisfactory. Why, the Returns from which the hon. Member (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman) quoted showed at once that the particular crime that was most dangerous to the discipline of the Service—namely, that of striking superior officers, had been materially on the increase since the deterrent punishment had been abolished. When he (Mr. A. F. Egerton) held the Office now held by the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman), he had been obliged to defend corporal punishment to the best of his ability for several reasons, and a very unpleasant duty he had found it. The ground upon which they had gone at that time was simply that it was almost impossible to devise a punishment that could take the place of flogging. They had never been able to devise an alternative punishment; and the present Admiralty had had to try its hand, and, he was sorry to say, without much success. However, it was quite plain that they could not return to the punishment which had been abolished by the House of Commons. They must make the best of the existing state of things, and he certainly hoped the Admiralty would endeavour to do so. There was one question on which the hon. Gentleman opposite had said nothing, and it was one which it appeared to him (Mr. A. F. Egerton) had caused a very considerable amount of dissatisfaction in the Service—he meant the question of the admission of officers of the Royal Marine Artillery. He did not know whether the hon. Gentleman or his Colleagues wished to make any change in the condition of the officers of the Royal Marine Artillery; but, perhaps, he would give the Committee a little information on that point. As to what the hon. Gentleman had told them—and very interesting information it was—with regard to the numbers in which officers had been recently appointed to the Royal Marine Light Infantry, and the numbers who had passed out of their examinations, he thought the state of things was, to a certain extent, satisfactory; but still, though some of the gentlemen who had passed out with high honours had selected the Marines, it was the fact that there was this year some 12 or 13 rejected at Sandhurst, who had, since their rejection, been appointed to the Marines. So long as such a practice as that existed, it
    1574
    could not be considered to be satisfactory; and it seemed to him that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Westminster (Mr. W. H. Smith) was quite right in drawing the attention of the Committee to the manner in which these officers were at present admitted. There was one other point to which he should like to refer before sitting down. He should like to ask whether, at this moment, the recruiting for the Navy was well kept up? Did the numbers recruited tally with the numbers voted? By the last Returns, which were now upwards of three months old, the condition of things appeared satisfactory enough; and if the Admiralty could give any newer Return as to the mode in which the Navy and Marines were being maintained, it would be of advantage.
    MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANwas understood to say that, at the present moment, the number of men in the Navy was 410 under the number voted, and the Marines 200 under the Establishment. The Engine-Room staff was five over the Establishment; and, speaking generally, he thought he might say there was no great falling away. With regard to the Marine Artillery officers, he had no figures in his hands to begin with; but he would look into this matter, and also other matters the hon. and gallant Member had referred to.
    MR. GOURLEYsaid, he was very glad to hear that there was no fear of a recurrence to corporal punishment in the Navy. To his mind, nothing more degrading than flogging could be applied to the class of men the Navy was now becoming composed of. In the old days he had witnessed flogging himself, and he had no hesitation in saying that there was nothing more objectionable, and nothing more detrimental to the character of the man who was punished and his fellows, or anything more detrimental to his conduct and to the maintenance of discipline on board a ship. With the increased amount of education with which the men were now furnished, any return to flogging would be the means of introducing a far lower kind of discipline than that which had been mentioned by the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite. His opinion was that a great deal of the insubordination and bad discipline which they saw in the Navy arose from the over-severity of many Commanders.

    1575
    The time had come when Commanders in the Navy should give more personal attention to the wants of the men on board their ships. He had not the slightest doubt that those officers who exercised the highest discipline were sure to have the most insubordination; but, on the other hand, if the officers would pay more attention to the susceptibilities of the men, and give more consideration to their personal wants and the comfort of their lives on board ship, and their recreation, he was sure that everything in the shape of insubordination would very soon disappear from the Service. He would make a suggestion to the Admiralty with regard to their treatment of the men on shore. They found, as a rule, that the seamen when paid off had placed before them as their only recreation the lowest class of public-houses. He was quite sure that hon. Gentlemen, who had been to Portsmouth and to Devon-port, would bear him out when he said that the quays of the Dockyards were literally crammed with public-houses of the worst description; and he was satisfied that the first thing they ought to do, if they thought drinking habits were a cause of insubordination, should be to root out a great number of these drinking shops, and, in the place of them, provide some buildings for rational recreation—there was no reason in the world why that should not be done. Why could not the Admiralty set up reading rooms in these places? There were places where accommodation could be made for providing recreation for 300, 400, or 500 men. Let the Admiralty provide these places; let them supply the men with all the daily papers and with some light literature. [Laughter.] Hon. Members seemed to despise that suggestion; but they forgot that they had just heard that the men were now better educated than they used to be. The more they developed the intelligence of the men in the Navy the better it would be, and the way to do that was for the Admiralty to provide them with good reading matter and the means of rational education. Let the Admiralty provide them, not only with literature, but with music and the means of physical recreation. They found themselves one of the best means of recreation was lawn tennis—why not let their sailors have that amusement? It was exceedingly inexpensive, and it would
    1576
    be the means of preventing the sailors from frequenting the public-houses, which was a great cause of mischief. He would not detain the Committee; but he wished to say one word as to the Naval Discipline Bill. He was exceedingly glad that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite (Sir John Hay) had succeeded in preventing the Secretary to the Admiralty proceeding with that Bill. Of all the measures ever introduced into this House as a substitute for flogging, he had never heard of one so severe in its form and character as that of the Secretary to the Admiralty. It simply amounted to this, that the lives of the seamen on board our ships in the Navy would have been placed in the hands of young men—young, inexperienced officers of only 20 or 25 years of age—and he felt convinced of this, that, if it had passed, it would have been attended with the most serious evils; but he did not believe that it ever would have passed the House of Commons. If the Bill had been brought before the House, the objectionable clause to which attention had been called would never have passed. He believed that it would be much better even to revert to flogging once more than to pass such a clause as that.
    CAPTAIN PRICEsaid, he had already addressed the Committee once; but he hoped he should be allowed indulgence to make a few observations, as a naval officer, upon something that had fallen from the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down. He hoped the hon. Member did not mean what he had said with regard to the increase of crime in the Navy; but what he did say was, that all this increase was due to the fact that the officers in command of Her Majesty's ships did not pay any attention to the requirements of the men under their charge—that they were not in the habit of showing a conciliatory spirit, and that a great deal of the crime in the Navy was due to that fact.
    MR. GOURLEYsaid, he had been anxious to convey this, that the men in the Navy, in consequence of improved education, required to be treated in a more conciliatory spirit, and that it had become necessary for Commanders to pay more attention to their personal wants. He had maintained that by doing that they would secure better discipline. He had not for a moment intended to say

    1577
    that the officers on board Her Majesty's ships exceeded in anyway their duty in administering punishment; he must not be taken as having accused the officers of undue severity.
    CAPTAIN PRICEsaid, he was glad the hon. Gentleman had modified his statement; but he had certainly understood him to say that the increase of crime in the Navy was due to the severity of the commanders. He (Captain Price) was sure there were no men in the country more humane than the officers on board Her Majesty's ships. They were in the habit of doing all they could for the comfort of their men; they encouraged every kind of amusement, and were constantly anxious for the well-being of the men under their charge. He was sure it was not at all due to any want of attention to the requirements of the men that this particular class of crime was increasing. He should like to ask the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Gourley) upon what ships he had obtained his experience?
    MR. GOURLEYsaid, he had not had the honour to serve upon one of Her Majesty's ships; but the statements, he had made had been the result of reading and of observation.
    Vote agreed to.
    (2.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £182,300, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Expenses of the Admiralty Office, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1884."
    MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTsaid, that before the Committee passed this Vote he felt it his duty to move a reduction of the salary of the First Lord. He would propose that the salary of the First Lord should be reduced by £1,000. He took it to be the duty of the First Lord of the Admiralty, in conjunction with Her Majesty's Ministers, to see that efficient arrangements were made for the protection of British interests in various quarters of the globe—especially to afford protection to the shipping of this country. Questions had lately been addressed to the Representatives of the Admiralty in this and the other House, with a view of ascertaining what further steps had been taken for the protection of the British interests on the Coast of Madagascar. There could be
    1578
    no doubt that British interests were seriously threatened at the time when these Questions were asked, and that our Naval Force on that station was altogether inadequate to the demands of the Public Service. He was speaking to the Question in considering whether the First Lord of the Admiralty and the Government had discharged their duty on this particular matter—and he did not intend to go into details on the questions connected with Madagascar which were now agitating the public mind. It would be necessary to wait for fuller information than they had at present; but he wished to bring before the Committee and the Admiralty the importance of strengthening, and materially strengthening, our Naval Force on that particular station. The Naval Force at present on the Coast of Madagascar—that was to say, at Tamatave—consisted only of two ships; indeed, it was doubtful whether there were two. Probably there was only one small vessel there, one having been sent to Zanzibar with despatches. At the outside, these two ships were the Dryad steamship of nine guns, and the Dragon, a composite ship of six guns only. These were the only men-of-war in that part of the world to defend the interests of British commerce and to defend British subjects. On the other hand, we knew that France had a large and important Squadron, numbering seven or eight vessels, some of them very powerful. What was done when we were involved in a difficulty with what might be called a semi-civilized nation—when we were in dispute, for instance, with Egypt or Turkey, or Powers of that kind? Why, the Navy was immediately strengthened with overwhelming force directly the interests of England were threatened, as had been done at Alexandria.
    MR. D. JENKINSwished to know whether the hon. Gentleman was in Order in going into these matters on the Vote before the Committee?
    THE CHAIRMAN: I must say I hardly think the state of the French Fleet at the Island of Madagascar has anything to do with the Vote for the Admiralty.
    MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTsaid, that before he had taken this course he had consulted Members of experience, and had been told that he would be perfectly in Order, on the Vote including

    1579
    the sum for the First Lord's salary, to raise the question of Naval Policy; and he would ask the Chairman whether he was not in Order, in supporting a Motion for the reduction of this Vote, by demonstrating that the First Lord had not performed his duty, but had neglected to despatch a sufficiently powerful Squadron to Madagascar?
    THE CHAIRMAN: I would remind the hon. Member that we have already devoted three or four nights to the discussion of the Naval Policy of the Government. It was only by means of an understanding arrived at in the Committee—to my mind a very irregular understanding—that the same privileges should be granted upon this Vote as were allowed upon Vote I. We have had a full discussion upon the Naval Policy of the Government; and now the hon. Member, on Vote II., for the Admiralty Office, proposes to raise another discussion upon it—upon the policy of the First Lord of the Admiralty in not having sent a larger Force to the Island of Madagascar. It seems to me that to go into that subject would be to exceed the limits allowed on the Vote. Of course, I must judge as to whether or not the hon. Gentleman is in Order according to the observations he makes.
    MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTsaid, he had not made these observations on Vote I., because it had seemed to him it would be more convenient that he should make them upon the present occasion. He would remind the Chairman that the question he was discussing did not arise whilst the Votes the right hon. Gentleman had referred to had been under discussion. He (Mr. Ashmead-Bartlett) would now confine himself, however, to merely moving that reduction on the grounds he had stated—namely, that the existing Force at the Island of Madagascar, consisting of two small ships only, was altogether inadequate to defend the honour of the British Flag, which had been grievously affronted, and to defend British commerce against the injury which had been inflicted upon it.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £181,300, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Expenses of the Admiralty Office, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1884."—(Mr. Ashmead-Bartlett.)
    MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid, he was prevented from making any reply, as this subject was obviously out of place on the present Vote. The question of the particular strength of a Squadron was settled by the Government, and not by the First Lord of the Admiralty himself—it was rather a question of Foreign Policy than of Naval Policy. As he (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman) apprehended, what the hon. Gentleman said was not this or that, but that he had not received sufficient information. Her Majesty's Government were perfectly alive to the necessities of the case, and knew the means which should be taken to meet them much better than the hon. Gentleman.
    MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, he hoped that the Committee would not be put to the trouble of a Division on this question. The grave occurrences to which the hon. Member had called attention were of such import, that the House was hardly in a position to discuss them on the present occasion. He, for one, would not like to take the responsibility of doing so, and therefore he would appeal to the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his Amendment.
    MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTsaid, that, of course, he should not think of dividing the Committee in the face of an expression of opinion from such a quarter; but he must protest against the idea that he desired to go into any political question which might be at issue between themselves and the French Government. He had merely wished to discuss the question of our Naval Force at Madagascar, and, before attempting to do so, he had taken the best advice he could get on the subject. [Laughter.] He saw the Judge Advocate General (Mr. Osborne Morgan) laughing, and he was at a loss to know why the right hon. and learned Gentleman should receive his remarks in that fashion; he certainly had not sought the advice of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, but he had taken that of other and higher authorities.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
    Original Question put, and agreed to.
    (3.) £195,800, Coast Guard Service and Royal Naval Reserves, &c.
    CAPTAIN PRICEsaid, he wished to ask a question upon this Vote. Under

    1581
    Sub-head 3, he saw the Reserve of Seamen and Marines was increasing, and doing fairly well; and provision was now made for 1,750 for this year. Had the Admiralty considered the matter, to which he had alluded on one or two previous occasions, as to the means of inducing men to join the Pensioners' Reserve? One means of inducement, which he disapproved of entirely, was by paying pensions at the age of 50, instead of 55, out of the Greenwich Hospital Fund. He was not quite sure whether the question ought to be discussed on this Vote or on the Greenwich Hospital Vote; but, as the item occurred in Vote III., he thought it would not be out of Order to put the question.
    MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid, the question which the hon. Member put was, whether they had considered the point of there being a sum to induce the men to join the Reserve, which should be charged upon the Navy Estimates rather than upon the Greenwich Hospital Fund? He (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman) had looked into the matter very carefully, and, besides that, it had been fully considered some years ago, when the late Government were in Office. There had been a large amount of correspondence upon it, and the final decision arrived at was that the charges should be left as they were, there not seeming to be any sufficient reason for making an alteration. That was how the present Government found it, and he did not know that they were disposed to alter the position of the matter.
    LORD HENRY LENNOXsaid, that, in accordance with a Notice he had put upon the Paper of the House, he wished to call attention to the present condition of the training of the Royal Naval Re-serves; and it must be understood that in whatever he said he was not in any way actuated by a desire to be unduly critical. He had no remark to make against anyone in regard to the Force under discussion; but he thought that when they had a Service which cost so much money it was necessary for them to consider whether its means of utility might not be greatly increased in the event of its becoming necessary in time of war. They all knew, or most of them knew, that the First Class Naval Reserve was established in 1858, and that the Commission which led to its establishment distinctly pointed out
    1582
    that the men who composed the Force should be those who did not live a long way from the port from which they hailed. He had no doubt that his hon. Friend the Lord of the Admiralty who had sat opposite to him (Sir Thomas Brassey) would entirely agree with him when he said that instead of being taken from the class who were coming away from the port from which they hailed, they were virtually selected from those men who were scattered all around. If he had had any doubt upon that point—which he had not—that doubt would have been removed by the very able Report which had been made by His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh, on the close of his command of the Reserve Squadron. At the close of his Report, His Royal Highness said he thought it was a question whether the practice of rating seamen from ships of the Mercantile Marine on the outbreak of war might not prove disastrous to the trade of the country, and it might be a matter to which consideration should be given, in that distinct connection, whether it would not be well to reduce and restrict the enrolment of the First Class to a select number of good seamen. In that he (Lord Henry Lennox) entirely agreed with His Royal Highness. First of all, let them consider what was the expense of this Force. They got an annual retainer of £6, and the cost of their uniform, and so on, amounted to £10 4s. The men of the First Class Reserve had to go through 26 days' drill, and, therefore, the country paid 8s. 2d. per day for that drill—and a very large amount he considered it to be for any defensive Force whatever. As he had already stated, the great object of this Force was to provide the means of defence in the event of sudden war; but it was entirely drawn from the Merchant Service, and was, therefore, at all times scattered all over the world. In the case of a sudden emergency, it was a matter of extreme doubt as to how many of the men they could collect together. His Royal Highness, in his Report, made it appear that the number would be infinitesimally small. The next point he (Lord Henry Lennox) had to refer to was that the men in the First Classs numbered 11,100, whilst the Second Class was only to be 5,500; so that they were keeping up a large Force which would, on an emergency,

    1583
    be away from the country, and, at the same time, keeping up the Force which would be always at home at a very much smaller figure. He ought to remind the Committee that the Commission which sat in 1858–9 declared that there were some 100,000 merchant seamen from whom Her Majesty's Government could select 30,000 men. But experience showed that, instead of having 100,000 men to choose from, they had not more than 30,000, and that instead of getting 30,000 men they could not get more than 12,000 out of the 30,000, and that out of that 12,000 they could not count on more than 5,000 being available in case of sudden war. The Lord of the Admiralty opposite (Sir Thomas Brassey) entirely agreed with him in his opinion that it would be entirely upon the Second Class Reserve that they would mainly have to depend, and that that Class should, therefore, be largely increased in number. His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh, referring to this Class, had declared it to be the finest body of men he had ever seen. He had stated that they were brought up to hab its of sea-fishing and sailing, and to the management of sea-going boats, and he said that if these men were properly trained and disciplined they would counteract any feelings of anxiety with regard to the defences of the country. How was it that they were not more efficient than they might be if they were properly disciplined? The Duke of Edinburgh's Report was well worthy of attention on this matter. It was said that the reason of the great disorganization was that there was not some place to which the men could be attached. His Royal Highness considered it very important that large bodies of men should be drilled together in one place, and contended that such training was better and far less expensive than the training of small detachments; and he was further of opinion that in this way the men would be more easily got ready and would be found to be more useful when their services were required on an emergency. He would suggest to the Government whether they could not establish in connection with these Reserves some large depôt where large bodies could be drilled together; and he would also suggest that a better opportunity should be given to the officers for rendering the men efficient.
    1584
    Lastly, he would press upon his hon. Friend opposite (Sir Thomas Brassey) whether he did not think that the time had come when some definite scheme should be prepared to show how these men were to be made use of in the event of a sudden war, particularly of a great war. At present, there was no scheme whatever. The men were going about here and there, and there was no plan by which they could be utilized in the event of danger to the country. There was another remark he desired to make, and that was with regard to the Flying Squadron. Was it well that young seamen should be sent off in the slow ships which composed the Flying Squadron, and should be flying about the ocean for three years? He maintained that they ought not to be away so long, and that we ought to have small squadrons of fast ships. If the Committee could only persuade the Secretary to the Admiralty (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman) to bring forward for Commission the Shah and the Inconstant, and other really fast frigates, and send them out as a Flying Squadron for three months, a great deal would be done to improve the efficiency of our Second Class Naval Reserve; and he was sure we should have a much more valuable system for our money than we got at the present time. He felt that this matter was quite safe in the hands of the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman), for he was quite aware of the interest the hon. Gentleman took in the subject, having had the privilege of a private conversation with him appertaining to it. He knew how much the hon. Gentleman had at heart the rendering of this Service efficient. He (Lord Henry Lennox) did not wish to do any more on this occasion than to draw the attention of his hon. Friend (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman) to this matter, and to ask him whether he would kindly give the Committee and the country some assurance that he was taking this matter in hand, and that in the course of the next year we should have this Force more eligible for the service of the country?
    SIR THOMAS BRASSEYsaid, the noble Lord the Member for Chichester (Lord Henry Lennox) was fully justified in the confidence which he expressed in the First Lord of the Admiralty and his Colleagues. He could assure the

    1585
    noble Lord that nothing on their part would be wanting to increase the efficiency of the Force. The noble Lord expressed some doubt as to the numbers of the Naval Reserve which would be available for service if they were required. He (Sir Thomas Brassey) was sorry he had not in his possession the exact figures which would be necessary to supply the Committee with the information which was asked for by the noble Lord; but he had had a very recent opportunity of going over the Returns, which were in the possession of Sir Anthony Hoskins, who was now absent with the First Reserve Fleet; and he (Sir Thomas Brassey) was able to state that a very large proportion of seamen in the First Class Reserve were engaged in the home trade, in the trade with the Baltic, in the Mediterranean, and in the great Steam Service in the North Atlantic. In point of fact, the introduction of steam, while it had, to a certain extent, diminished the opportunity of training large bodies of men in the art of seamenship, had given some compensation in the facility which we now possessed of bringing the Naval Reserve together if their services were required. With regard to the immediate wants of the Navy for the equipment even of a large Fleet in operations of war, there were ample numbers in the Regular Service of the Navy; and the conviction of those who were directly responsible for the efficiency of the Navy was that men would undoubtedly come in from the Naval Reserve as fast as ships could be prepared in which they could be embarked for service. Although the noble Lord expressed some doubt as to how far we should be able to lay our hands on the men of the First Class Naval Reserve when we wanted them, he did not go so far as to say we could afford to dispense with the First Class Naval Reserve; and His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh, in his Report, while pointing to the difficulty which might be experienced in bringing the First Class Reserve men together in large numbers at the moment they were wanted, did not propose to dispense with the First Class Reserve. What he (Lord Henry Lennox) did recommend was an increase in the Second Class Reserve. That was, in point of fact, the main suggestion in the very valuable Report prepared by His Royal Highness
    1586
    on resigning his command as Admiral Superintendent of the Reserve; and he (Sir Thomas Brassey) had, in a previous statement in the House, informed hon. Members that the Admiralty had sanctioned an increase in the Second Class Reserve, as proposed by His Royal Highness, and that they intended to raise the strength of that Reserve to 10,000 men. They were confident that this number could readily be raised, and they were certain that such a Reserve would prove most valuable. The noble Lord pointed out the great advantage of drilling the Naval Reserve men in large bodies. Wherever the Admiralty had an opportunity of doing so, they were anxious to carry out the instruction in the manner recommended by the Duke of Edinburgh; and he believed that, in those parts where the largest number of the Second Class Naval Reserve were enrolled, they would be able, especially in the winter months, to secure the attendance of a large number of men for drill. At Stornaway, at Kirkwall, and at Lerwick it would be found by the noble Lord that the training of the Naval Reserve, especially in the winter months, would be highly satisfactory. The noble Lord stated that no scheme had ever been matured for availing ourselves of the services of the Naval Reserve. He (Sir Thomas Brassey) was not called upon to enter into details; but he believed that a scheme was prepared by his Predecessor in Office for embarking the Naval Reserve, in case the relations of this country with Foreign Powers, during the anxieties of the Eastern Question, had rendered it necessary to equip a large War Fleet. With regard to numbers, when the Admiralty had completed the Second Class Reserve, the total strength of the Reserve would not be less than 20,000 men. That represented an increase of 3,000 men over the maximum strength which had hitherto been enrolled; but, as it fell short of the numbers which were considered necessary by the last Royal Commission, to whom the question of the manning of the Navy was referred, it might be a question how far the Force, as now proposed, would really be sufficient to meet the requirements of the Navy. The subject was at this moment receiving the most attentive consideration of a Departmental Committee, under the guidance of Captain Tryon. The

    1587
    labours of that Committee were still incomplete; but he was able to put the Committee in possession of the general results. For the ships now in commission we required a Force of 27,000 men and 4,800 Marines; for the ships which could be commissioned in three months we should require an additional Force of 16,000 seamen and 2,600 Marines; for the ships which could be commissioned in 12 months an additional Force of 10,000 seamen and 1,500 Marines would be required; and these figures provided for an ample Supplementary Force for gunboats, torpedo boats, and a considerable number of Mercantile Auxiliaries. The total requirements, therefore, for an immediate emergency would be, as he had stated, some 63,000 men. To meet these requirements we had now serving in the Fleet of the seamen class, 31,000; Coastguard, 4,000; in the Naval Reserve, 17,000, to be increased, as he had said, to 20,000; Seamen Pensioners' Reserve, 17,000; Naval Volunteers, who would be valuable for harbour service, 1,400; and Marines, 12,000. In addition, we had in the Pensioners' Reserve, under 50 years' of age, a force of 4,000. These figures showed a total force of 72,000 men, or 10,000 in excess of the extreme requirements on the outbreak of war. In regard to ships, a considerable number now in commission could scarcely be regarded as fighting ships; and, for the Mercantile Auxiliaries, it would not be necessary that the crew should have received the high training which was given to men on a man-of-war. For ships of this class we might with confidence look to the Mercantile Marine to supply both the officers and the crews which were required. The noble Lord (Lord Henry Lennox) referred to the training of our seamen. He could assure hon. Gentlemen that the question received the most anxious attention of the Board of Admiralty. It was admitted that there was a certain lapse of time between the completion of the training and the appointment of young seamen to a sea-going vessel. He did not hesitate to say that such a Flying Squadron as the noble Lord recommended would be an admirable school of seamanship, and that it would be of the greatest service to the Navy if the voyages were loss extended, and if the squadrons returned at more frequent intervals. He hoped the information he had given
    1588
    would be satisfactory to the Committee.
    SIR JOHN HAYsaid, at the bottom of page 26 he found the following note:—
    "20,000 has been for some years the recognized number of men to be raised to the Royal Naval Reserve; the number now enrolled is 17,183, and it is probable that the total number borne during the year will not exceed 18,000."
    If he turned to page 5 of the Duke of Edinburgh's Report on the Royal Naval Reserve, he understood it was intended to increase the Second Class Naval Reserve to 10,000 men. It would be seen, however, that the First Class Reserve was not to be increased this year so largely as was recommended, namely—up to 20,000. As he understood, the reason why the whole number of men were not to be enrolled was the necessity for further preparations in the Isle of Man and the Orkneys. He desired to say that from personal knowledge of the matter, and from inquiries he had made, he was aware there was no difficulty whatever in enrolling men in the Isle of Man. He did not know what the result of the inquiries was as to the Orkneys. He would, however, like to be informed whether the preparations necessary had been made; whether arrangements were being made for drill sheds at Kirkwall; and whether, when the sheds were completed, the additional enrolments in the Second Class Reserve would take place immediately? He would, also, like to know whether next year the Committee could calculate on the First Class Naval Reserve being raised to 20,000 men, at which number it was recommended the Force should be maintained in future?
    MR. A. F. EGERTONsaid, there was no more valuable station for the Naval Reserve than Stornoway. He understood from the remarks of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman) that a battery was being made there. He (Mr. A. F. Egerton) would like to know how soon the battery would be completed, so that the actual organization of the Reserve might be completed also?
    MR. STEWART MACLIVERsaid, that various applications had been made for enrolment in the Naval Artillery Volunteer Force, and, hitherto, those applications had met with a direct negative from the Admiralty. He was

    1589
    anxious to know in what position the Naval Artillery Volunteers stood; and whether the Admiralty were now prepared to receive applications for enrolment?
    SIR JOHN J. JENKINSsaid, that the matter raised by his hon. Friend (Mr. Macliver) demanded serious attention. There was no doubt that the Naval Artillery Volunteers had distinguished themselves in the short time they had been in training; and if the Government would give them the same encouragement as was given to other Volunteers, he had no doubt that the Naval Artillery Volunteers would become a most valuable Corps for the protection of harbours and coast defences in the Kingdom.
    SIR THOMAS BRASSEYsaid, he was glad to be able to inform his right hon. and gallant Friend (Sir John Hay) and the hon. Gentleman the Member for Wigan (Mr. A. F. Egerton) that the batteries to which they referred were in progress, and that everything would be prepared for the drills of the Reserve next year. As soon as the preparations were completed the numbers which were proposed would be enrolled. That statement extended to the Isle of Man. The Naval Artillery Volunteers was a Force in which he had taken a lively interest, and he regretted that some disappointment should be felt at the refusal of the Board of Admiralty to make the capitation grant. Before any change could be made in the constitution of an extremely patriotic, and, he hoped, a useful Force, it was necessary to receive the final decision of the Committee, who had long been engaged in considering the whole question of the defences of the commercial harbours. He hoped his hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth (Mr. Macliver) and his hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen (Sir John Jenkins) would hot be disappointed when he said that the Admiralty could not entertain the idea of a capitation grant, which on the first constitution of the Force was distinctly refused by the Volunteers, unless the necessity of making a grant was confirmed by the opinion of those high authorities to whom the question of the defences of the commercial harbours of the country had been referred. He should like to say that one concession had been made to the Naval Volunteers this year, which, he
    1590
    was sure, was very highly appreciated by the members of the Force. His hon. Friends would be aware that last year, and the year before, the Admiralty were not able to place at the disposal of the Naval Volunteers the gun-boats which they had previously provided during the summer months. They had, however, been able to make that provision this year; and he believed it was appreciated by the great majority of the Naval Volunteers to a far greater extent than the capitation grant would be.
    MR. D. JENKINSsaid, he hoped it was not the intention of the Admiralty to reduce the First Class Reserve. For the Reserve, they ought to secure the best men who could be got out of the Merchant Navy; and, from an economical point of view, he questioned the advisability of increasing the number of the Second Class Naval Reserve.
    Vote agreed to.
    (4.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £113,100, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Expenses of the several Scientific Departments of the Navy, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1884."
    SIR JOHN HAYsaid, he was sorry to see that the cost of the Coast Survey had this year been reduced by £391. In his opinion, the expenditure on the Coast Survey was the most legitimate expenditure of public money that could be authorized by the Committee. At present, the Crofters' Commission were investigating certain subjects in the Orkney and Shetland Islands, and in the Shetland Islands alone there were 14 dangerous rocks, none of which had been buoyed, marked, or duly guarded. We had lost one ship already on that coast; and, under all the circumstances of the case, he could not consider that the saving of £391 for Coast Survey was an economical arrangement. Perhaps his hon. Friend (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman) would say something as to the reason of the saving?
    MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid, he understood that the officers employed in the survey of the Coast had recently been changed, and he imagined that the reduction of £391 was merely accidental, and did not in any way affect the efficiency or completeness or extent of the Survey.
    SIR JOHN HAYsaid, he meant to cast no reflection upon anyone, and no one deserved more respect than the Hydrographer; but he regretted to see economy in a direction in which he thought some increased expenditure would have been wise.
    GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURsaid, he should greatly regret any diminution in this item, for we could not too carefully attend to our coasts, and to the bed of the ocean. But this year the sum of £18,000 was deducted on account of appropriations in aid; and, unless this was watched, great confusion would arise through there being an apparent reduction, whereas there had simply been a sale of stores in aid of expenditure. And if this sale-money failed to be realized, then the balance available would not be spent on the Surveys. He would take the opportunity of saying that a promise had been given that Members should have a statistical book connected with the Navy similar to that in the Army, and he thought that was very necessary, as without it Members could not speak on the subjects which were brought forward with that minute accuracy so necessary for efficient control. He hoped that book would be produced this year; and, seeing the great importance of the financial part of the question, he hoped the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Admiralty would also supply financial information, so that every Member might have the details of past years' transactions at his command.
    MR. A. F. EGERTONwished to ask a question with respect to the Australian service. In 1878 or 1879 there was some dispute between the Colony of Queensland and the Admiralty as to the expenses to be shared with respect to the Surveys of the Torres Straits, and the coral reefs on the coast of New Guinea. He wished to know whether those Surveys were in progress, and whether the matter had been settled?
    MR. GOURLEYsaid, he objected to the system of training engineer students, and he believed that quite as good engineers could be obtained at less expense.
    SIR JOHN HAYasked for information as to Lighthouses, and as to the Surveys in the Red Sea, which the Secretary to the Admiralty had had under consideration?
    MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid, he should be very glad to co-operate with his hon. and gallant Friend (General Sir George Balfour), for he knew the value of the Statistical Abstract issued with regard to the Army, giving at the beginning of every Session the latest information as far as possible. He had made an attempt to ascertain how much of this information could be got together with reference to the Navy, and he had made some way in the matter. He was not without hope of being able to go a little further another year; but he did not wish to make any definite promise, because the hon. and gallant Member was so strict in holding him to promises. He understood that the Australian Surveys were proceeding, and that the arrangement was that the Colony should pay half the cost. With regard to engineering students, the whole system was no doubt very elaborate, and in some sense expensive, but as far as the Admiralty could judge it was very successful. They were anxious to get the best scientific engineers into the Service, and for the last examination there were 218 candidates for 25 vacancies. That showed that the position was a good deal sought after, and the class of candidates was considered quite satisfactory by professional officers. As to the Lighthouses, he could give no information, as they were not under the Admiralty. [Sir JOHN HAY: They apply to the safety of Her Majesty's ships.] The Admiralty were not responsible for them; and with respect to the Red Sea, all he could say was that a ship was being expressly fitted out for the Surveys in the Red Sea.
    MR. GOURLEYasked what was the cost per head of the engineer students?
    MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANreplied, that he could not at the moment state the exact cost.
    GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURsaid, he was as far off as ever. He wished to know how it was that in 1881–2 there were no appropriations in aid, and now there was this large sum of £18,000 taken?
    MR. D. JENKINSsaid, he thought the item for engineer students was very large. He could not see why the country should be put to such expense.
    MR. JAMES STEWARTasked what arrangements were made for the distribution

    1593
    of marine charts to the public?
    MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid, the agent who had been employed for many years (Mr. Potter) to manage that work had recently died. The question of what was the best way of supplying charts to the public was the subject of a correspondence going on now between the Board of Trade and the Admiralty, and he had no doubt some conclusion would shortly be arrived at. Mr. Potter's son was continued in the post provisionally.
    MR. GORSTsaid, he should move the reduction of this Vote by the item for the maintenance of the Britannia, as that was the only way by which he could call attention to the unsatisfactory condition of that school for boys, which the Admiralty persisted in maintaining at such great cost to the country. This was the most expensive school in the country. The net cost was £280 for each boy, and that was far in excess of the most expensive public school, and of the £280 only £70 were paid by the parents; so that the country had to pay £210 for every little boy before he was of any practical value. Not only was this a very expensive school, but there was good reason to believe that it was an exceedingly bad school in regard to education. No doubt the old-fashioned usher, who used to grind a great deal of knowledge into boys, was a thing of the past; and the modern assistant-master was a very different person, his chief object being to teach boys to instruct themselves, and to save himself as much trouble as possible. He had no hesitation in saying that if any boy picked from any English public or private school was compared with a boy from a German gymnasium he would be found extremely deficient in education. He did not suppose that one out of 20 English boys was educated according to the examination which every German boy was required to pass before he could become a member of any intellectual profession. But, bad as our schools were, the Britannia was worse than any of them. The last official information available on this school was contained in a Report made by an Examiner five or six years ago, in which he said the boys could not construe French or Latin, and could not use their dictionaries. In 1880, the first year of the
    1594
    present Government, Lord Dalhousie, then a Member of this House (as Lord Ramsay), having been Commander of the Britannia, told the Committee of Supply of that Session that the whole education and management of that ship was exceedingly bad. He said our officers were worse educated and trained than the officers of any other nation; and he generally gave such an account of this ship that it attracted the attention of the Admiralty and of the House. The reason why he now persisted, as some Members might say, in referring to this question, was that it was an example of the contempt with which the Admiralty regarded the House of Commons. It showed how completely helpless the Committee of Supply was; what very little effect they could produce on the Admiralty, and how they regarded the Committee with the most consummate contempt, and would not permit their designs and plans to be in any way influenced by the judgment of the House. In 1880 there was a discussion on the subject, as he had said, in which this remarkable speech was made by Lord Ramsay; and the First Commissioner of Works, who was then Secretary to the Admiralty, promised an inquiry, with a view to a reform, and stated that the training of naval cadets was a matter to which the Admiralty were most keenly alive. In 1881 nothing had been done, and the then Secretary to the Admiralty (Mr. Trevelyan), who was himself distinguished for his knowledge of, and interest in, educational matters, really took the matter so much to heart that some Members were, at the time, deceived, and thought some steps would be taken. Among other matters then discussed was the question of examinations. The very unsatisfactory nature of the examinations which had been passed by boys on the Britannia was pointed out, and the attention of the right hon. Gentleman was called to the fact that all the public schools submitted the boys to examination by Examiners appointed by an officer of the Cambridge Syndicate, and that a Report of the results was laid before the school authorities and the boys' parents, and that the public also had access to it. In that way what the boys were doing could be seen. In 1882 the present Secretary to the Admiralty was now in his Office, and he

    1595
    could not be pressed too severely on the subject. There was very little discussion last year, but strong hopes were entertained that the hon. Gentleman would signalize his advent to Office by some vigorous measure of reform. Certainly, he thought most hon. Members were willing to believe that something was likely to be done; but their hopes were greatly dashed at the beginning of this Session by an answer given by the hon. Gentleman to a Question respecting Examiners. He was asked whether examinations had taken place according to the pledge of his Predecessor, and whether the results could be laid upon the Table. His answer was that examinations had taken place, but that the Admiralty did not consider it advisable, in the interests of the Public Service, that Members of this House should have access to the results. He really thought that that was, on the part of the Admiralty, one of the coolest and most impudent attempts to hoodwink the House of Commons ever committed. He should like to know who had a right to see the state of education on the Britannia so much as the people who paid for it? Did the Admiralty think they were keeping up this ship with their own funds, and that it was impudence on the part of Members to ask for information? The school was kept up by the taxes of the people whom hon. Members represented. This sum of £20 per boy was taken from the earnings of working men and tradesmen; and it was the duty of Members to see that the money was properly spent, and that the school was efficient. For the Admiralty to send a message to this House saying that they had had the examinations made, but that the Report was not to be made public, was one of the coolest proceedings he had ever heard of. He had, therefore, no other course open to him but to move for the reduction of the whole amount asked for, in order to raise a question which ought to be answered, to show whether this school was more efficient than it was two years ago when Lord Ramsay made his speech. If the Admiralty would not lay the Report on the Table, as they ought to do, at all events they might tell the House whether the Report was favourable or not, and whether the boys were still unable to construe French and Latin, or to use their dictionaries. There was
    1596
    another matter connected with this subject. At the same time, when the condition of this school was brought under the notice of the House of Commons, a question was raised as to whether we were right in being the only nation in the world to appoint boys to be naval officers at the extremely tender age of 10 and 12 years. There was not another Naval Power in the whole world which appointed boys as officers until they had attained the age of 16 or 18 years. We never thought of appointing a boy to be a Marine officer until he was 18 years of age, or to be an Artillery or Engineer officer until he had attained the ripe age of 17 or 18 years. The question was asked whether it was possible to appoint our naval officers at an age more like that adopted by other nations, when they could go to sea and learn their profession. It was the greatest mistake to suppose that there was anything taught on the Britannia that could not be taught in any other school. There was some navigation taught, and the boys learned the names of a few ropes; but he had no doubt the education given in the Greenwich School was quite as nautical. No answer was given to this question, and the matter had been allowed to drop. This was no fancy of non-naval men; the matter was started by men of great weight; but it was treated by the Admiralty, like other matters, with the most sovereign contempt, and he supposed no notice had yet been taken of the subject. In order to enable the Secretary to the Admiralty to answer this question, he begged to move the reduction of this Vote by £9,181, the cost of training cadets on board the Britannia.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £103,919, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Expenses of the several Scientific Departments of the Navy, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1884."'—(Mr. Gorst.)
    MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid, he hardly knew what answer to give the hon. and learned Gentleman, because whatever he might say would probably be taken as a fresh instance of the sovereign contempt with which the hon. and learned Gentleman said the Admiralty was in the habit of treating the House.
    MR. GORST: I did not say the hon. Gentleman; I said the Board of Admiralty.
    MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid, the hon. and learned Gentleman had raised two points, the main point being whether the Admiralty were right in taking boys into the Service and training them at an early age. He had spoken of this as an easy question to solve, and as if it had been settled all on one side by the opinions of naval officers. But, unfortunately, as far as they could make out, the balance of opinions amongst naval officers was all the other way—that was to say, it was in favour of this early entrance of cadets in the Navy. No doubt, foreign nations followed a different system; but he was always very suspicious of contrasts with foreign nations in matters of this kind, and he did not think they should necessarily follow the example of foreign nations in this ease, which had been so clearly and forcibly stated by the hon. and learned Gentleman. The hon. and learned Gentleman found fault with the Admiralty, because they had not submitted the cadets to the examination of the University Syndicate. If he were not afraid of being considered disrespectful to the hon. and learned Gentleman, and, at some future time, as having broken a promise, he would say that his personal feeling was in favour of that course. But he would take care that what the hon. and learned Member had put so forcibly should be brought before his Colleagues. He did not see any objection to an independent examination of the kind indicated; but, as a matter of fact, there was an independent examination conducted by gentlemen who had taken honours at the Universities. Those gentlemen were quite independent; they held their position for two years, and their papers were not subject in any way to supervision by the Admiralty Education Department. Although the present system had prevailed for a good many years, he thought, perhaps, they might go a little further, and that the School at Dartmouth should be subject to a similar examination to those of other schools in the country. Those were his personal views; but, after what the hon. and learned Gentleman had said, he thought the ground too dangerous to travel over any further on that occasion.
    CAPTAIN PRICEsaid, this matter had been fully considered in that House only two years ago, and the opinions then expressed would doubtless be in the recollection of the Committee. He fully endorsed what had fallen from the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst), as well as what had fallen from Lord Ramsay in that House on the subject of educating naval cadets two years ago. He had, last year, moved for a Return, showing the expense incurred in the education of naval cadets on board the Britannia, and that Return showed that the total cost for each cadet was £245, irrespective of the amount paid by the parents of the youths. He thought that this great cost to the country ought to be entirely saved by the boys who entered the Service as cadets being educated at the cost of their parents, instead of at the cost of the State. He thought the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Admiralty was hardly correct in saying that the balance of opinion was in favour of boys entering at an early age. If the hon. Gentleman would look at the report of an interesting lecture given at the United Service Institute a few years ago, he believed he would find that the balance of opinion amongst naval officers was rather in the opposite direction. He remembered that Admirals Ryder and Good-enough, two officers who had made this question their study, gave opinions that were opposed to the entering of naval cadets at the early age sanctioned by the present system, and recommended that they should commence their education in a public school, and enter the Navy at a much later date. He had himself entered at the age of 13; and although he did not want to present himself as a specimen of inefficiency, he was bound to say that for the first two or three years he learnt nothing, while he had unlearnt a good deal that he had learnt at school. He had always been sorry that he had not remained at a public school until the age of 17, and he was frequently informed of officers in the Service who also regretted that they did not remain at a public school for a longer period. He thought it would be well that the cadets should be kept at school until they were 16 years of age, and then sent to sea, mostly in small ships, so as to get a thorough grounding in seamanship, after which

    1599
    they might be sent at 19 years of age to a Naval College, where they would receive that amount of scientific instruction necessary to fit them for the Service.
    SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFsaid, he could not conceive why the Government did not lay the Report upon the Table of the House unless it was that they were ashamed to do so. The Committee wanted to know how far the expenditure bestowed upon the Britannia was justified or not by its results, and to ascertain how far the system was suitable for the Public Service. He thought the Admiralty should have no hesitation in producing the Education Reports, because if they were bad, the House of Commons would endeavour to introduce a system which would produce better results. The House of Commons, which voted a large sum of money every year for the education of cadets, ought to know how far that money was beneficially bestowed.
    MR. A. F. EGERTONsaid, if the system on board the Britannia was so bad, he was at a loss to understand why the Mercantile Marine should have imitated it. They had instituted as training schools the ships Conway and Worcester, on board which, however, the age of entry was 14 years, as against the earlier age in the case of the Britannia. So far from the results being unsatisfactory with respect to these ships, he understood that the Liverpool shipmasters were delighted if they could get the boys who had served on board thorn into their ships. He thought that if the Merchant Service found it advisable to enter boys for the Conway and Worcester at the age of 14, it was one reason why the Admiralty should do the same. For his own part, he was not in favour of entering boys for the Navy at too early an age. He thought the age should be 14, instead of 12 or 13, because he believed that the boys suffered very materially in health from the cramming they had to undergo in the preliminary schools. He thought that a system which was found good enough for the Merchant Service, would be equally good fur the Royal Navy.
    MR. ILLINGWORTHsaid, the Board of Admiralty worked in the dark in matters of this kind; but hon. Members had fortunately been enlightened by the discussions which had taken
    1600
    place in that House. With regard to the differences of opinion alleged to exist amongst naval officers on this subject, he pointed out that it would be for the Committee to throw its weight either into one scale or the other. He did not see the desirability of paying £250 a-year for the education of a naval cadet, because he believed that the extravagance of the proceeding rather unfitted the boys for the discharge of their duties afterwards. The more economical and the more severe their education, the better officers they would eventually make, and, therefore, he said that nothing was more desirable than the abolition of the present system of extravagance. He concurred in the opinion expressed by the hon. Member for Portsmouth (Sir H. Drummond Wolff), that the Report was one which the Admiralty were not pleased with, otherwise they would have laid it on the Table of the House. He hoped the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst) would go to a Division, to show that the House of Commons were, above all other Bodies in the State, entitled to know the actual facts.
    MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid, he thought he had gone as far as he could in saying that the suggestion of an independent examination was a good one, and that he would see whether it could be brought about. With regard to the presentation of the Reports he did not suppose there would be any objection to their being laid on the Table of the House, except that those who prepared them did not expect that they would be so dealt with. If he were to say, on the part of the Admiralty, that they would take into consideration formally the sense of what had been urged upon him that evening, and that they would see that there was an independent and extraneous examination of cadets, he hoped that would satisfy the hon. and learned Member for Chatham. With regard to what had been said about the cramming of the cadets and the evil effects of it upon their health, whatever might be the case with regard to the age of the boys, all the evidence which he possessed was against their being injured by their studies. The Report which he held in his hand stated that since the establishment of the Britannia the health of the boys had been most satisfactory. The hon. and

    1601
    gallant Gentleman opposite had referred to the general cost of the Britannia; but he pointed out that part of this was attributable to the wages of persons necessarily employed on board ship, which would form a charge upon the public whether she was used for school purposes or not.
    MR. GORSTsaid, he hoped he should not be unreasonable in not accepting the offer of the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Admiralty, because it left those who desired reform in this matter in precisely the same position as they were two years ago; indeed, the reply of the hon. Gentleman was almost in the same terms as the answer on this subject, which he then received from the present Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland. If the hon. Gentleman would pledge himself to the independent examination of the cadets and the production of the Report, he should not have to trouble the Committee to divide; but in the absence of that pledge he should be compelled to take a Division as a protest against the non-production of the Report. He would venture to say two things with reference to the Conway and the Worcester; first, the expense of educating a boy on board those ships was nothing like £280 a-year; and, in the next place, the reports of the examinations were open to the parents, who paid the cost of the education, and to the public.
    SIR JOHN HAYsaid, he thought the Committee ought to remember that when the Britannia was established in place of the Naval College at Portsmouth, it was understood to be a temporary arrangement. There had been hardly a year elapse since then in which the extravagant expenditure in connection with the ship had not been raised. He would not go into the question as to whether the original arrangement was a good one; but the Britannia was eventually established, because it was imagined that by sending the youths on board a hulk they would learn their duty at sea. But now that everything was done by steam in the Navy there was absolutely nothing which a lad could learn on board a hulk, that he could not learn better at a Naval College on shore. He had had the honour of being consulted by the Admiralty on this subject, and had made a Minute which the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Admiralty would,
    1602
    no doubt, find in the Office. In that Minute he had ventured to point out, even at the time he referred to, how great would be the advantage if a more general education were given to the lads before they went to sea, and if they were sent in sailing vessels to learn seamanship after being on shore a certain time. The best naval officer he had ever had the honour of knowing—Lord Dundonald—did not go to sea until he was 18 years of age. He repeated that there was now no training to be given at sea to boys of 13 or 14 which they could not get ashore; and there was this objection, among others, to the present system, that on board ship the studies of the boys were constantly interrupted; they were taken away from the schoolmaster and put on other work at the very moment, perhaps, when they were getting interested in his instruction, and vice versâ. Therefore, he said, it was better that the youth of the country should receive a thorough education before they went into the Navy. He did not think the argument held good that boys were not so likely to get disgusted with the Service if they were caught early, because his experience was that if they liked the sea they would take to it just as well at 18 as at 14 years of age. Under the system he suggested, the youths would get valuable information and knowledge where it could be most properly obtained, and which would make them better men for the Service they had chosen. He entirely agreed with what had fallen from his hon. and gallant Friend (Captain Price), and he was not by any means sure that he was not then advocating the wishes of many officers in the Navy, who were competent to express an opinion on the subject. Those two officers, Admirals Ryder and Goodenough, were distinctly in favour of this view, and the Committee would know that there were no higher authorities on questions such as this. He regretted very much that during the last 18 or 20 years nothing had been done to establish a College suitable for the education of these young men. In conclusion, he would recommend that a later age should be insisted on for going to sea, and that a College should be established on a proper foundation on shore where the education of cadets would be carried out at their own expense.
    MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, whenever he came down to consider these Estimates, be asked himself why on earth Gentlemen on those Benches had turned out the last Government and put the present Government in Office? It seemed to him that there was exceedingly little difference between the two Governments. They had Gentlemen from the Admiralty coming down and asking them to give £280 for each boy on board the Britannia, when everyone knew that the education in schools of this kind could be done for £70 or £80 per head. Notwithstanding this, the education given on board the ship was so bad that the Admiralty were ashamed to present the Reports of their own Commissioners concerning it. He said they ought not to give one shilling for the Britannia until they had the Reports, and until they were assured that the cost of the education in future would not be more than one-third what it was at present.
    MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, he would venture to ask the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Admiralty to undertake, on behalf of the Department, to give the Reports asked for. He believed the noble Lord would readily concur in their being laid on the Table of the House. He thought the observations of the hon. and learned Gentleman were such as to render it absolutely necessary that the House should be satisfied as to the character of the education given to the naval cadets.
    MR. ILLINGWORTHasked the Secretary to the Admiralty if he would inform the Committee how the nominations for admission to the school were made?
    MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid, the nominations were given by the First Lord of the Admiralty on each occasion. He usually nominated three candidates for each vacancy, and the principal object of that was to limit the number of candidates, so that the strain upon them might be diminished. Another object was that nominations might be given to sons of deceased officers, and persons who had claims on the Service. The present system of competitive examination was introduced when the obsolete system of pure nomination was put an end to. With regard to the appeal of the right hon. Gentleman opposite, he could not go so far in the
    1604
    direction of giving a distinct pledge as the right hon. Gentleman indicated. He could only repeat that he would have an inquiry into the school, and lay the Report on the Table.
    MR. GORSTsaid, that, on the distinct pledge given in the presence of the Prime Minister that the Reports on the education of the cadets should in future be laid on the Table, he would withdraw his Amendment.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
    Original Question put, and agreed to.
    (5.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £1,556,400, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Expenses of the Dockyards and Naval Yards at Home and Abroad, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1884."
    CAPTAIN PRICEsaid, that, although this Vote usually occupied a good deal of time and discussion, the Committee might congratulate itself to-night on the probability that the usual crop of Dockyard grievances would be very little touched upon, that being due to an act of policy on the part of the Admiralty last year. After the visit of the Lords of the Admiralty to the various Dockyards last year, the Secretary to the Admiralty went round to the Dockyards and received deputations of all the different classes of men in the Yards, and heard everything they had to say. Whether that act of policy was due to what had been considered the rash pledge given by the present Chief Commissioner of Works a few years ago, or whether it was really a new policy on the part of the Admiralty, he was unable to say; but the action of the Secretary to the Admiralty had given great satisfaction in the Dockyards, not only through the courteous way in which the hon. Gentleman heard all that the men had to say, but because he heard everything most thoroughly and exhaustively, and showed that he quite understood the various matters laid before him. He said this much, because it encouraged him, and he thought, also, other Dockyard Members, to hope that this policy would be continued. How far it was to be continued he hoped the Committee would learn to-night. The Chief Commissioner of Works, when he was Secretary to the Admiralty, deprecated the

    1605
    discussion of Dockyard grievances in that House, because, he said, it was the invariable custom of the Lords of the Admiralty to themselves go round and hear from the men what they had to say upon the various matters. He believed that at the Admiralty it was considered somewhat rash of the right hon. Gentleman to make that speech; but they determined, at all events, to look upon it as to some extent a pledge, and last year they fulfilled that pledge. That was a policy which ought to be carried out in the future. He did not say that every man in a Dockyard, or every man representing a class, should be allowed to come before the Lords of the Admiralty and make a long statement of grievances; but he did think that on special occasions such as last year, when some of the most important classes of men in the Dockyards had not been able to state their grievances in any way for many years, subject to certain restrictions, and to the advice of the Admiralty Superintendents in the Yards, they should at certain times be allowed to do what they did last year. Another consideration was, that that course had disposed of a great deal of discussion in the House, which was, perhaps, a very good thing; and so it happened to-night that instead of the Committee having at great length to discuss these various grievances, they were hoping to hear from the Secretary to the Admiralty what was the result of his labours of last year. With regard to one particular question—that of the Constructive Departments—they were told that a Committee had been sitting, and that their Report was about to be issued. He should like to know whether that Report was to be considered of a confidential nature or not? [Mr. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: It will be laid on the Table.] It would be laid on the Table at a time when it could not be discussed; but he did not wish to discuss it this Session. What he wanted to know was, what would be the result of these Reports, because very often Reports which were presented were followed by no results. There were many other matters outside the Reports, and what they particularly wanted to know was, what the hon. Gentleman had to say upon them. For instance, the case of the shipwrights, a most important class in the Dockyard, he supposed, would be
    1606
    dealt with by the Reports. The hired men and the factory men were on a different scale altogether from that of the Establishment labourers, and they had considerable grievances, as they were obliged to retire at the age of 60 years with no pension and only a small gratuity. These questions were thoroughly gone into by the Secretary to the Admiralty, and the Committee were hoping to hear what he had to say on the matter. The grievances having been all discussed at the Admiralty, he thought this was a good opportunity for the Secretary to the Admiralty to give some idea of the conclusions arrived at.
    MR. BROADHURSTwished to call attention to the unsatisfactory outcome of the Motion he made 18 months ago in reference to the employment of shipwrights in fitting engines into war vessels. On that occasion the Secretary to the Admiralty held out some hope that some better conditions would be arranged with regard to these men; and one of the promises then made was that an eminent engineer was to be engaged and made a member of the Board of Admiralty in London, in order, as he understood, that the engineering interest should have more representation at the Board than hitherto. It was true that a gentleman had been added to the Board of Admiralty of great engineering eminence; but he very much feared that, as usual, the Admiralty had absorbed that engineer, and he had done nothing in the way of reform. The remarks of the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst), as to the power of the Admiralty over the House of Commons with reference to the training ship Britannia, were perfectly true, as far as he could gather, in regard to every other matter under the Admiralty. The Admiralty governed the House of Commons, as well as the whole Admiralty administrative system, and the House ceased to have its due weight in the Admiralty policy. On the occasion to which he was referring, he thought he had satisfactorily proved that it was next to impossible for shipwrights or workers in wood to engage in the fitting of delicate and complicated machinery; but the Admiralty had answered his Motion by increasing the number of shipwrights engaged in the various Dockyards; and, in order to justify the assertions made on their behalf in the House

    1607
    of Commons, there had recently been issued from the Admiralty an Order that shipwrights and apprentices should, in future, devote part of their time to the work of engine fittings and the fixing of machinery. This Order was issued early in the year, and had become part of the Dockyard system. A more extraordinary proposal than this had seldom been made; and what he wanted to know was, whether the Government could conceive anything more inconsistent than that a skilled workman, who had devoted four years to shipwright work, should be suddenly required to become also a proficient fitter of machinery and an engineer? The thing was so utterly absurd, that it would not be listened to for a moment in any private shipbuilding yard. He feared there might be some slight suspicion in some quarters that in drawing attention to this subject he was taking an interest in some branch or other of Trades' Unionism. That was not exactly the fact, and, even if it were the fact, it was, notwithstanding that, quite impossible to have men jacks-of-all-trades in the highly skilled profession which was now required in the construction of our wonderful pieces of mechanism called men-of-war. The fact was that the Admiralty were so possessed of the idea that ships must be constructed and finished by shipwrights, that no amount of modern facts—such as the fact that our ships were no longer of wood, but were floating palaces of machinery—could drive it out of their heads. If all the statements that reached him from time to time as to the waste of time and money in the Dockyards were true, this Vote of £1,500,000 ought certainly to be reduced by more than one-half; and then, under proper management, we could obtain greater results than we now did with this enormous expenditure. Early in the year he sent a copy of a Memorial to the Secretary to the Admiralty, which had reference to pattern making in Chatham Dockyard. In that Dockyard there was a large pattern-making shop, which was mainly carried on by properly-trained pattern makers. Although they had their own staff of men, who had devoted their lives to pattern making, quite recently they had set up another pattern-making shop, with all its costly machinery, not to supply any additional demand for patterns, but in order to
    1608
    have a shop in which they could teach the shipwrights—grown men as well as boys—the art of pattern making, if that was possible. What he wanted to ask the Committee was, whether they, as custodians of the public money, should wilfully, and with their eyes open, vote away money year after year in order to minister to the "fads" and fancies of the Admiralty, over whom they had absolutely no control whatever? The Admiralty was one of the last strongholds of the worst form of old Toryism which modern ideas had been unable to storm; and there would never be a satisfactory administration of that Department of the State until the whole system had been overhauled, not by a Committee of that House, but by a Royal Commission, composed of the most capable men in the country, whether Members of that House or not, who should have full and complete power to examine the whole of the arrangements, and report upon them to the House. He was certain that such an examination would disclose a state of things which the country would not permit to continue in existence one year longer. His firm conviction was that this Vote might very well be reduced by £500,000, and that greater results would be obtained if this Department were administered as private works of the same character in this country were. He wished to ask whether, unless the present system was altered, the Admiralty could expect to produce in one person a proficient knowledge of two or three distinct trades and professions, when every other set of employers and trainers of labour had utterly failed to do anything of the kind. He hoped the Secretary to the Admiralty would give some assurance that he would insist on a more thorough inquiry, and that in future he would see that men should be appointed to their respective trades, and should not be allowed to encroach upon, and interfere with, other departments for which they had no training and no capacity, and were by no means fitted to undertake.
    MR. GORSTsaid, he was not at all surprised at the hon. Member for Stoke being stirred by the arrangements of the Admiralty; but if the hon. Member had had as much experience as he had had of Dockyard management, he would know that it was the peculiar pleasure of the Admiralty to put men into departments

    1609
    to which they did not belong. It was the peculiar idiosyncracy of the Admiralty to employ every man in some capacity other than that for which he had been trained. He understood that this had been the subject of personal inquiry by the Secretary to the Admiralty and the Civil Lord of the Admiralty, and that they had listened to all the representations of the different classes, and were now engaged in framing a scale of wages and regulations which might give satisfaction to the different classes of men; but what he particularly wished to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty to-night was, whether the Admiralty could make some arrangement in the Dockyards by which the pensions which the Establishment workmen earned, after long periods of service, could be given them in a shape which would be more satisfactory than the present form? The Committee must remember that what was called a pension was not, in the proper sense of the word, a pension at all. It was simply deferred pay; and it was not for the interest of the men themselves, but for the interest of the nation, that there was this deferred pay. Of course, so far as the men themselves were concerned, if they were paid the same wages in the Dockyards as they would get in private yards—the Admiralty dismissing and hiring men as they pleased—they would have nothing to complain of; but as it was the interest of the country to keep permanently a number of workmen who could not discharge themselves, and upon whom the country could depend in the event of war, or in any other sudden emergency requiring great pressure of work in the Dockyards, the Government, instead of paying the ordinary rates of wages, paid something less, and gave the men the difference in the shape of a pension after serving a certain number of years. Until recently, the Establishment class of skilled labourers in the Dockyards—the class established only about six or seven years ago—only received 19 s. 6d. a-week per man; whereas the hired class of men, doing the same kind of work, but earning no pension, received an average of 24 s, a -week; so that the Establishment skilled labourer received 4s. 6d. a-week less than the fair commercial value of his work. For that difference, after a certain length of service, he got a
    1610
    superannuation allowance, which was called a pension. The fault found with this system was that, in the first instance, a great number of people never got any pension at all. A man might have served up to the last year which would entitle him to superannuation; but if he died during that year not a single penny was given to his family. A man might serve many years; but if he found other and more profitable labour he would lose the money he had foregone. Again, a man might have bad health; he might have injured himself in the Service; but if he retired he could only take the superannuation allowance for his own life. Could not the whole matter be put on a footing at once more just to the public and more satisfactory to the men? Why not cease to call it pension and call it what it really was—deferred pay? They might easily keep an account against all the men employed in the Service, an account of the amount of deferred pay they had earned. Of course, if they left the Service before the end of the period for which they were engaged, they would forfeit their deferred pay; but if, instead of leaving the Service, they were obliged to be discharged on account of accident, or for some other just reason, why not give them, upon their so leaving the Service, that deferred pay which they had earned, and to which they were justly entitled. When a man had completed his service, why make him take his deferred pay in the shape of superannuation for his own life? Why not give a workman who had served his time his deferred pay in the form he liked, and in the form which would be most advantageous to his own interest. He (Mr. Gorst) believed that if the present system of pensions were entirely put an end to, and if every man serving in the Dockyard understood he was serving on deferred pay, and if a regular account of that pay were kept so that the sum could be easily ascertained; if a man was aware that in case of death or discharge from the Service that pay would be honestly paid to his family or to himself as the case might be, or that he would be able when he had served his time to take the money in the form he desired, there would be less discontent in the Dockyards than existed at the present moment. He (Mr. Gorst) hoped he had said enough to make his meaning clear

    1611
    to the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Admiralty (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman); and he trusted that the subject might be taken into consideration, with the view of ascertaining whether some such plan as the one he had suggested could not be matured.
    MR. GOURLEY, in moving the reduction of the Vote by £20,000, said, he would state at the outset that he took this course for the purpose of raising a question of the expenditure incurred in upholding the dignity of the Royal Family. He asked Parliament to agree to the reduction of the Vote he proposed, because he held that the amount which was now being spent in the maintenance of the Royal Yachts was far beyond what was necessary, seeing that, by the Return which they had had placed before them, the Royal Yachts were very rarely used, either by Her Majesty or by any Member of the Royal Family. In addition to the enormous sums which these yachts cost the ratepayers of the country annually for their maintenance, it was now proposed to expend a very large sum in repairing the Victoria and Albert. Indeed, it was proposed to spend £50,000 or £60,000 upon this wooden vessel. He maintained that when the money had been expended upon her she would still be an old vessel, fitted only with machinery of a very old type. He contended that the money proposed to be spent on this vessel would be absolutely wasted. They had it on the authority of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Cardiff (Sir Edward Reed), who had been engaged 12 years ago in making a survey of the Victoria and Albert, that the vessel was totally unfit for repairs. If she was then unfit for a large expenditure, what must she be now? The experience of all practical men with regard to Estimates as regarded the repairing of old wooden vessels amounted to this—that the eventual cost always exceeded very largely the Estimates. That he believed to be the experience of all shipowners who had old ships; therefore, he maintained that the Estimates placed before Parliament with respect to the Victoria and Albert would be greatly exceeded before the repairs were completed. He thought it right to tell the Committee that this vessel in maintenance cost the country, in round figures, something like £28,000 a-year.
    1612
    Before, however, going into details with regard to the annual cost of the vessel, he would like to call the attention of the Committee to the original cost of the vessel. The original cost of the vessel, in accordance with a Return he moved for some time ago, was £136,441. Information as to the gross registered tonnage was not furnished in the Return; but there was only given what was called the builders' tonnage. By comparing, however, the builders' tonnage with the new tonnage of a similar vessel, he had arrived at the conclusion that the gross registered tonnage of the Victoria and Albert was something like 1,700 tons, so that the cost of the vessel to this country was something like £80 per ton. Now, £80 per ton was a much larger sum per ton than was paid by, perhaps, one of the most extravagant Monarchs of the world—namely, the late Viceroy of Egypt, upon his yachts, which were furnished with work of the most extravagant design. The Committee would be able to arrive at a correct opinion as to how the Admiralty spent its money, when he stated that the original cost of the masts, spars, and rigging of the Victoria and Albert was £19,530. Now, in order to ascertain what extravagant sums were paid in sparring this ship, he thought it right to call attention to what it would cost for a vessel of similar size. The masts and spars of an East Indiaman of 1,700 tons—the whole masts and spars complete, and with a set of sails—would cost something like £8,500. The best outfit which could be put on board of an East, Indiaman of 1,700 tons would not cost, at the present moment, more than £5 per ton; whereas the cost of the outfit of the Victoria and Albert was no less than £12 per ton. By these figures hon. Members would see how the money of the taxpayers had been thrown away by those who had had the management of the Admiralty. Having said this much with regard to the original cost of the vessel, he would now call the attention of the Committee to the details of the annual expenditure connected with the Victoria and Albert. He found, by the Return to which he had previously referred, that for repairs to cabins, machinery, masts, and spars, the annual cost for the past 10 years had been £7,734, pilotage £5 per year, coals £440. He desired the Committee to pay

    1613
    particular attention to the item of £440, because he should have to allude to it subsequently, as proving how seldom the vessel had been used by Her Majesty, or by the Royal Family. The wages of the officers and crew of the vessel amounted annually to £13,106. the victuals to £5,271, and 75 riggers £2,160. Thus it would be correct to say that the cost of the maintenance of the vessel was £28,766 per year. Hon. Members must understand that the sum of £28,766 was the direct cost; but it did not represent the real cost to the country, because the vessel every now and then was placed in a Government dry dock, and retarded other and more necessary work. Now, they found also, by a Return before them, that on one occasion the Victoria and Albert was docked for repairs for no less a period than six and a-half months. As a matter of fact, he knew that the Royal Yachts were very often placed in dock to have repairs done to them of the most trivial character, and that men were removed from other and more important work to do the work required on the Royal Yachts. He thought hon. Members would see that the annual sum spent on the Victoria and Albert was a sum altogether beyond what was necessary for the purpose of maintaining a vessel of her class. Now, he had no doubt it would be contended that the Royal Yachts were necessary for the private use of Her Majesty; but he, on the other hand, contended that four yachts, which Her Majesty now had at her disposal, were not necessary, either for her private use or for State purposes. Take, for instance, the Victoria and Albert. He asked, some time ago, for a Return of the number of times the Victoria and Albert had been used by Her Majesty during the last 10 years, and the Secretary to the Admiralty (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman) told him he could not give such information. The only way in which they could arrive at an idea of the number of times the vessel had been used was, by taking into consideration the amount of fuel consumed annually. Now, the annual cost of coal for that vessel was £440. The Victoria and Albert was fitted with very old machinery and boilers of very large power, and the conclusion he had arrived at was this—that when under weigh, and in full speed, she would consume from 80 to
    1614
    100 tons of coal per day. Thus, estimating the cost of coal at £1 per ton, it would be seen that the Victoria and Albert had only been used four times per year, and that for the conveyance of Her Majesty or some Member of the Royal Family on four days per year the taxpayers of this country were charged annually over £28,000. He was confident hon. Members would agree with him that this was a sum far in excess of what was necessary, and that it ought to be abolished. It was said that for State purposes Her Majesty ought to have the use of these yachts; but it so happened that for State purposes these vessels were very rarely used. Indeed, they found fixed charges in the Naval Estimates for conveying the Royal Family from time to time across the Channel. In other words, sums were constantly being paid to the London, Chatham, and Dover and other Companies to have vessels placed at the disposal of the Royal Family. Again, he found in another part of the Naval Estimates, Vote 14, page 227, Class I., Sub-head 2, Miscellaneous Expenses, that there was every year an annual charge for the expenses connected with the conveyance of Members of the Royal Household. Now, he contended that if these yachts were to be maintained at this enormous expense to the country, they ought, at least, to be engaged in some practical work. On the contrary, it was found that there was always a special expenditure connected with the movements across Channel of the Members of the Royal Family, or the Members of the Royal Household. As a matter of fact, he found that the sum this year charged for the conveyance of the Members of the Royal Household across Channel was £1,746 19 s. 10 d. Every year there was a similar charge, which he maintained ought no longer to be allowed. Then, again, he found in the Naval Estimates a charge for entertainments on board the Osborne and Bacchante, and other charges and allowances to the warrant officers on the different Royal Yachts. Hon. Gentlemen would see that, in addition to the direct charges returned with regard to the maintenance of the Royal Yachts, there were other charges in other parts of the Estimates which Parliament was called upon to vote every year in connection with the movements of the Royal Family. He felt assured of this—

    1615
    that this enormous expenditure was an expenditure which was not made with the consent or the countenance of the Queen. On the contrary, he believed that it only remained for the Members of the Government, especially those connected with the Admiralty, to bring this enormous and unnecessary expenditure under the notice of Her Majesty, to cause Her Majesty to command that such expenditure should he at once abolished. Well, it was now proposed to spend upon the Victoria and Albert, as he had said previously, between £50,000 and £60,000. If it were necessary that this money should be spent—if the Queen asked for another yacht, what he would in the name of common sense ask the Admiralty to do would be, not to go tinkering and patching up this old vessel, which, when patched up, would still be an old ship fitted with obsolete machinery, but in lieu of this vessel build a new one of modern type. He contended that a new vessel could be built for the money which the Committee were now asked to vote for the repair of the Victoria and Albert. In his opinion, first-class builders in this country would undertake to provide the Admiralty with a steam yacht, furnished with steel boilers, and furnished with every modern improvement, and with much better ventilation than that which Her. Majesty had on board the Victoria and Albert, for something like £25 per ton, or, in other words, a ship of 1,500 or 1,600 tons could be obtained from eminent builders for the sum now proposed to be spent in the repairing of the Victoria and Albert. And, moreover, a ship having all the modern appliances for the purpose of its working would, for maintenance, not cost more than £2,000 or £3,000 per year, instead of the £28,000 which the maintenance of the Victoria and Albert cost. Hon. Members would not fail to see that the policy, which it was now proposed by the Admiralty to adopt, with respect to the Victoria and Albert, was nothing more or less than suicidal. Having said so much with regard to the Victoria and Albert, he would like to detain the Committee a moment or two by making a few observations with regard to the Osborne. The Osborne was only eight years old; but its annual cost in repairs was £10,885, and the cost of its annual maintenance was no less than £26,955. Now, the Osborne, like the
    1616
    Victoria and Albert, and the other Royal Yachts, seemed, according to the Return which had been placed upon the Table, to be always in dock. Besides being in dock for a considerable time every year, she had, for 10 months, on board 36 riggers at a very great cost. What on earth 36 riggers could find to do he could not possibly tell; but, in his opinion, 36 riggers would be sufficient to send out to sea, at least, 30 or 40 ships. Therefore, the only conclusion he could arrive at with regard to these riggers was, that they were employed merely for the purpose of looking at each other, or, possibly, to play hide-and-seek on the vessel. He begged to move the reduction of the Vote by £20,000.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £1,536,400, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Expenses of the Dockyards and Naval Yards at Home and Abroad, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1884."—(Mr. Gourley.)
    MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid, he was not surprised that his hon. Friend (Mr. Gourley) had raised this question; or that, on the occasion of the Victoria and Albert requiring repairs, there should be the feeling expressed, which had been expressed by some of his hon. Friends, that instead of her being repaired a new yacht should be provided. No doubt there was some surprise in many quarters that advantage had not been taken of this opportunity to provide the Queen with a yacht which should be representative of the height which the shipbuilding art had reached in this country, and which should be worthy, in every respect, of the mercantile position of the country. He need hardly say that this view of the question was fully present to the mind of the Members of the Board of Admiralty when they came to the conclusion to repair the old yacht. It would have been a satisfaction to those who professionally advised the Admiralty to have had the opportunity of designing a new yacht for the Queen; but the Admiralty came to the conclusion that they ought to repair the old yacht, after the most thorough examination of the Victoria and Albert with her engines and boilers out, and on the deliberate advice of their professional advisers. Although she was an old ship, her defects were found

    1617
    to be so small, and the state of her hull was pronounced to be such, as to make it most desirable to repair her, instead of building a new yacht. It must be remembered by hon. Members of the Committee that the Victoria and Albert was an exceptionally fine vessel, and most suitable in every respect for the purpose to which she was devoted. Indeed, she was almost without a rival. She had a high speed and light draught; she was extremely easy at sea, and contained the spacious accommodation which was necessary for the Queen and her suite. In all these respects she was a perfectly suitable vessel for Her Majesty's Service; and it had been calculated that, after the repairs which were proposed to be made, she would be a good ship for 12 or 14 years to come. On the other hand, a new yacht of iron and steel, although more modern in its construction, might not combine all those advantages to such perfection. For one thing, the degree of sub-division which would be necessary to make a steel yacht safe would be incompatible with the large and spacious apartments which ought to be provided for Her Majesty. He was sure if the two conditions—namely, sub-division and large accommodation—were combined, the size and the cost of a new vessel would be extremely great. These were the considerations which had led the Admiralty, on the merits of the case, apart from the expense of a new yacht, to conclude it was desirable that the present yacht should be repaired. As to the question of expense, however, they were advised that a steel yacht, fulfilling the conditions necessary, would cost about £120,000 or £130,000, without the fittings and upholstery, which existed in the present yacht, and which, to a large extent, would be sacrificed, if any attempt were made to transfer them to a new ship. The repairs, which included a complete refit with new boilers, steam cylinders, and the addition of steam starting gear and general repair of engines, would cost £50,000. So much as to the cost of the repairs. They now came to the general question of the maintenance of the yacht. His hon. Friend (Mr. Gourley)—and, no doubt, other hon. Members—were of opinion that the present number of yachts, which had been maintained without any change for 20 or 30 years, was excessive—namely, two principal
    1618
    yachts and two tenders. As to the number, he had to say that, although the Admiralty did not share that view, it appeared to them that, when this yacht was completed, the second yacht, the Osborne, when not actually required by Her Majesty for her own use or that of Her Family, should be at the disposal of the Board of Admiralty. An arrangement of that kind had existed before, and he was authorized to say that Her Majesty concurred in its being now again adopted. Another matter which had been the subject of some criticism was the cost incurred annually in the maintenance of these yachts. His hon. Friend had gone over several points in connection with the Victoria and Albert. Undoubtedly, vessels of this kind were of a costly description, their boats and appurtenances, as well as the yachts themselves, being finished in a way which put them out of comparison with any other vessel. The hon. Gentleman had said something regarding the expenses in connection with the Royal Household; but the items to which he referred, as shown on page 236 of the Estimates, were the particulars of the expenditure incurred in 1881–2, and had nothing to do with the current year. They included some charges in connection with the entertainment of the young Princes on board the Bacchante, which necessitated extra expense to the officers of that ship. Then there were expenses in regard to the transit of the Royal carriages and horses to and from the Isle of Wight on their way to Scotland and back. These were not services that could be performed by these costly and elaborately-fitted yachts. Another item was that of allowances of wardroom officers of the Osborne. That allowance was a customary one, which was made whenever the officers were in attendance on the Queen or the Royal Family, on such occasions representative duties being east upon them. The amount was only £1 9s. 7d. He was anxious not to detain the Committee; but with regard to this matter of the annual cost of the maintenance of these vessels, he had to say that he was sure that every Member of the Committee would wish that the yachts should be always maintained in such a condition as to be worthy of the use of Her Majesty, although it was possible that the work might be done at a less expenditure.

    1619
    The existing practice had gone on for many years under successive Boards of Admiralty, and the present Board were of opinion that the charges should be reviewed, in order to ascertain whether or not they could be reduced. It was a question, for instance, whether the expenditure could not be reduced in the matter of docking the vessels. At present they were docked every year; and it was a question, while retaining the perfect seaworthiness of the vessels, whether they could not, to some extent, reduce the expense of the repairs. He was in a position to assure the Committee that the Queen was most desirous that no unnecessary expenditure should be allowed to take place in regard to these matters. That was the statement that he had to make to the Committee on this subject. He had given reasons why they preferred, on the whole, after much hesitation and deliberation, to continue the present yacht for 12 or 14 years, rather than to build a new one; and he had stated that when the Osborne was not absolutely required for the Royal use it would be at the disposal of the Admiralty. Further than that, he had stated they were about to institute an inquiry into the whole question of the expenditure on the yachts, in order to see if some substantial reduction was not possible. He did not know whether the statement he had made was satisfactory to his hon. Friend; but, at any rate, he could assure him that the course they had taken was the one they thought most consistent at once with the dignity of the Crown and the interests of the country.
    MR. CROPPERasked how many times the Victoria and Albert had been used in recent years? Was it not the fact that it had only been employed, on an average, four days a-year during the past 10 years?
    MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid, that the vessel was maintained for the use of the Queen, and he did not think it would either be seemly or desirable to inquire how many times it might have been the pleasure of Her Majesty to use it. He had no information on the subject.
    MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, he hoped, after the explanation given by the Secretary to the Admiralty, the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Gourley) would not think it necessary to divide
    1620
    the Committee. For his own part, he wished to express the satisfaction with which he had heard the hon. Member's statement. It appeared to him that the Admiralty had very fully considered all the bearings of the case. Speaking from his own knowledge, he could say that the question of a steel yacht had been under the consideration of the Staff of the Admiralty for years, and they did not think it an economical experiment to make to place a steel yacht at the service of Her Majesty in place of the Victoria and Albert. If they had taken an opposite view, a plan would have been prepared, and, no doubt, carried out. The cost would have been much greater than that which was now to be incurred by the Admiralty; and, after all, it was doubtful whether the accommodation would have been so great as that furnished by the Victoria and Albert, and whether the results would have been equally satisfactory. He was glad an assurance had been given that the present Board of Admiralty had determined to review the expenditure that had occurred during the last few years for the maintenance of these yachts. He was sure some substantial economy could be effected without, in the slightest degree, diminishing the accommodation which was made for Her Majesty. There had been a system of frequent docking, which was not useful or necessary, with regard to yachts maintained in the most perfect condition; and he had no doubt that a most substantial reduction could be effected. As to the Osborne being of public service generally whilst not in use by the Queen, the fact that the Board of Admiralty would make use of it would be of great advantage, as it would amount to this—that Her Majesty would have but one yacht, which would be maintained exclusively for her service, with the two tenders; whilst the Osborne would be retained for any service that the country might require.
    MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, he hoped that his hon. Friend would divide the Committee, for by so doing he would encourage the Admiralty to persevere in the good intentions which they would like so much to see carried out. He did not know that it had ever entered into their wishes that either this yacht should be preferred, or that a steel yacht should be built. He had been under the impression

    1621
    that Her Majesty possessed sufficient yachts without the Victoria and Albert. The hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Admiralty (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman) had said that it was unseemly and not desirable to ask how many times a yacht which was set apart for the service of the Queen had been used. Well, he (Mr. Labouchere) could not at all see that such an inquiry was unseemly. An hon. Member had asked how often the Victoria and Albert had been out during the past 10 years; and surely he, or any other hon. Member of the Committee, was at perfect liberty to put that question, to find out, if possible, whether the yacht had been required or not, for the only way of arriving at a settlement of the question of the utility of the vessel was to get at the number of times she had been out. Let them take a few figures from him upon this subject. During the past 10 years the Victoria and Albert had actually cost the country, including the £54,000 which it was now proposed to expend in repairs, £418,000, or nearly half a million of money. It had been ascertained that, during the past 10 years, the Victoria and Albert had been out 40 days. They knew that, practically, the Victoria and Albert had not been used during the whole of that time, as Her Majesty and the Government had been perfectly satisfied with the Osborne and its two tenders, and had not required that yacht. If he was not misinformed, the time of the officers serving on these Royal Yachts was reckoned as war service, and their scale of pay was better than that of the other officers of the Service. Well, these officers, it appeared to him, were just those who should not have that increased scale of pay. They did absolutely nothing, remaining the entire time in port. Only for four days in the year were they expected to go out—they hung about Southampton, having a good time of it; and because they had that enviable position, they were absolutely paid and promoted above the heads of the other officers of the Service. Such a thing was absolutely monstrous. The hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Admiralty had said that if Her Majesty did not use the yacht it would be at the disposal of the Board of Admiralty. But what did the Admiralty want with another yacht? Surely they could move about on much cheaper
    1622
    terms than these? His hon. Friend might say it was not seemly to inquire as to how many times the Admiralty might use the yacht, or to inquire what the Admiralty might do. The Admiralty had the Enchantress—what were they going to do with that? Were they going to have two yachts? There had been a strong feeling displayed in the Press upon this subject. It was really felt, without any disrespect to Her Majesty, that these sums were excessive and wasteful. It was not considered at all necessary that the Osborne, which, by the way, had cost £344,000 during eight years, should have any other large sum spent upon her. It was felt that these enormous payments were not required for the dignity or comfort of Her Majesty. He did not believe that Her Majesty really required them; he believed they were relics of the past—relics of a bad system, and were merely maintained because there had always been this number of yachts. The Secretary to the Admiralty said the Osborne was one of the most perfect vessels in naval architecture, and seemingly it was to be kept up simply as a model of what yachts should be; but he could only say that gentlemen who knew a great deal about this yacht were of opinion that it was absolutely unseaworthy. Surely, hon. Members did not wish Her Majesty sent to sea in a vessel which, in a heavy sea, would stand a great chance of going down? He was sorry they were not able, on this Vote, not only to record a protest against the expenditure of this £50,000, but also to record a protest against the spending of £25,000 every year.
    MR. D. JENKINSsaid, the First Lord of the Admiralty had experience in this matter, and he knew it was impossible to estimate the amount of these repairs. During the last Administration three times the amount of the Estimate had been spent. The hon. Member had referred to the yacht not being as risky as a steel yacht, on account of the divisions; but bulk-heads or divisions were not carried on right up to the main deck—therefore, they would not take away room from the cabins. He was of opinion that if they spent £50,000 on this yacht, even then they would not have a seaworthy vessel; and he questioned whether a ship, 25 years old, would be able to make a trip during

    1623
    the winter over the Bay of Biscay to the Straits of Gibraltar without going to the bottom. By all means, if they wanted a good yacht for Her Majesty let them build a new steel one, so that they would have good value for their money.
    MR. RYLANDSsaid he wished to call attention to a point which he thought was well worthy of the consideration of Her Majesty's Government. It was quite clear, from the Return, that the Victoria and Albert had hardly been used at all for Her Majesty during the last 10 years. It should he borne in mind, as an important fact, that the Osborne had been used on many more occasions than the Victoria and Albert. The Osborne had not been very frequently used; but it had been substantially used, evidently for the convenience of Her Majesty. The Victoria and Albert had practically not been used; and, that being so, why should it be repaired? They professed to have the interests of economy at heart. Why, then, should they spend £50,000 in repairing a yacht which was not used? Could there be any pretence why they should have this yacht for Her Majesty? The hon. Gentleman said that, when not in use by Her Majesty, the Admiralty would be able to avail themselves of it. But there had been no necessity shown for it so far as the Admiralty were concerned; and it seemed to him, therefore, that the case of the hon. Gentleman had entirely broken down. The Osborne, which was apparently now in good condition, was maintained for Her Majesty's use, and was being used by Her Majesty whenever she had occasion for its use, and, no doubt, would continue to be used. But the Victoria and Albert, during the last 10 years, had only been used, on an average, four days a-year. That being the ease, why should they spend upon it such a large sum as was now proposed? If a Division were taken on this point he should certainly vote for the reduction of £20,000, as a protest against the country being called on, in a year when the expenditure was exceptionally high, to spend so much upon a vessel which was useless. It was not necessary to spend this money, and they ought not to be asked to charge the taxpayers so much for that which really had no practical value.
    MR. BROADHURSTsaid, he hoped the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Gourley) would go to a Division upon
    1624
    this question. He had no doubt that the Secretary to the Admiralty had made as good a defence as it was possible to make out of the materials at his hand. But, to his mind, it was no defence for this wanton extravagance and waste of public money, the like of which was never heard in that House. It was perfectly amusing to Members below the Gangway on the Ministerial side to hear the ready manner in which hon. Gentlemen on the Front Opposition Bench had echoed and re-echoed every excuse which had been put forth by hon. Gentlemen now sitting on the Ministerial Bench. One could quite understand that those who supported the Government in their expenditure on these yachts were mainly those who had themselves been on the Treasury Bench, and still would go. They had a lively regard for future difficulties in which they might be placed if they did not take a proper course upon this question. He had been very anxious to hear a word or two in support of the hon. Member for Sunderland's proposal from the Democratic Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst), and also from the Radical Member for Portsmouth (Sir H. Drummond Wolff), who had been very attentive during this debate. He (Mr. Broadhurst) had been anxiously waiting for these financial reformers to give some assistance to those who opposed this Vote. He hoped a Division would be taken upon this question, and that the Motion would receive a large amount of support; so that, at any rate, if they could not stop the present waste of money in this direction, it might act as a warning in future years that this thing could not be trifled with, as it had been in the past. Before he sat down, he would remind the Secretary to the Admiralty that just before this interesting debate had commenced he had taken the liberty of saying something about fitters in the Dockyards, but had received no response.
    MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid, he had thought it desirable to confine himself to the one part of the Vote on which the Motion was made. He should have another opportunity of speaking upon the subject to which the hon. Member alluded.
    MR. ILLINGWORTHsaid, he thought that the offer of the Admiralty to use the Royal yacht Osborne, when not employed in the service of the Queen, really aggravated the matter. Surely the Committee

    1625
    had a right to object, if the Admiralty were going to house themselves in a floating palace. He objected to the view of the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Admiralty that it was too much to ask whether this yacht had been used by Her Majesty more than, on an average, four times a-year during the past 10 years. It would have been, to his mind, much wiser and much more satisfactory if this information had been given in the Return. It would be a most extraordinary thing, if they were told there was no record of the number of days this vessel had been at sea. His hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland (Mr. Gourley) had made a calculation that the Victoria and Albert had had steam up about four times a-year; but they had no assurance, even then, that Her Majesty was on board. When it transpired that the yacht, upon which so much had been expended, and upon which they were asked to spend so much more, was only used on an average four or five days in the year, surely the House of Commons was entitled to come to the conclusion that the maintenance of this yacht was unnecessary and extravagant, and should be put a stop to. He felt confident that, by maintaining the Osborne in an efficient state of repair, everything that the Royal Family would require would be met. There was no justification for the maintenance of two yachts, when one would be quite sufficient for the Royal Family; and, as he had said, the statement that the yacht could be used by the Admiralty, when not required by the Queen, only aggravated the evil.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 40; Noes 113: Majority 73.—(Div. List, No. 204.)
    Original Question again proposed.
    SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFasked for information as to the distinction made between the classes of men in the Dockyards in the matter of holidays?
    MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid, that the difference in question arose from the fact that some of the men originally worked in the yards under private employers of labour, and contractors' men did not receive pay for holidays. When these men ceased to work under contractors, and were employed under the Works Department, they continued under the same conditions;
    1626
    and thus arose the inequality between them and the regular Dockyard workmen. He had every disposition to meet that grievance, because he thought the claim for holidays was a very fair one. The hon. and gallant Member for Devonport (Captain Price) had asked him for information as to the result of his visit to the Dockyards. He (Mr. Campbell-Banner man) had gone to Devonport and Chatham, and his hon. Colleague near him (Sir Thomas Brassey) had gone to Portsmouth, where they had interviews with the men. They heard a statement of their case, and he was very much struck with the intelligence and fairness with which their case was stated. An elaborate account was taken of all that was said; and although he could not say they had been engaged in looking over it ever since, he assured the hon. and gallant Member that he had not been idle with respect to it during the seven months which had elapsed, and he hoped soon to announce the decision of the Department. With regard to the point raised by his hon. Friend the Member for Stoke (Mr. Broadhurst), he understood and believed that the work of the shipwright, so-called, was no longer the pure carpentering work that it used to be; it was so mixed up and identified with that of the fitter that it would require a person with the skill of his hon. Friend to tell the Committee which was the shipwright and which was the fitter. At any rate, he apprehended that their work was very much alike, and that the two kinds of work greatly overlapped each other. They had arranged that the fitter apprentice should go for a period to work under a shipwright, and the shipwright apprentice under a fitter; and in that, he believed, they had pursued a judicious course. There was no privilege enjoyed by either over the other, the great desire being to put an end to a distinction which, in practice, no longer existed. He was not sure that this statement would be satisfactory to his hon. Friend; but it was the best he was able to make on this technical subject. He came now to the interesting statement of the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst), proposing a new scheme for the pay of Dockyard labourers. With regard to pensions being simply deferred pay, there was a fallacy in the statement of the hon. and learned Member for Chatham. He himself was no great friend

    1627
    of the pension system; but the system existed in this country, and it must be worked. The hon. and learned Member said the pension was nothing but deferred pay, and that men were paid less wages because they had pensions to look forward to; and, therefore, he urged that what was called a pension should be given, not only to those who survived a certain number of years' service, but to everybody in proportion as he had earned it—to the man who retired before the end of his time, and to the representative of the man who died while in the Service. If that was to be given strictly as deferred pay, he should have no objection to it. This was what was called deferred pay in the Army; that if a man was paid at the rate of 20 s. he should get only 18 s., and 2s. would be put to his credit with the Government, and the accumulation would be at his disposal. That was the Army system; but did the hon. and learned Member propose that every man should get, in the shape of deferred pay, as large an S allowance as he now got in the shape of pension? That would be a proposal for a sort of tontine in which all members should get something. The principle upon which pensions were arranged was the supposition, not that every man was to reach a pensionable ago, but that only a certain proportion would do so; and the hon. and. learned Member's proposal would either enormously increase the charge upon this Vote for deferred pay—because everybody would share in the pensions, instead of only those who happened to survive; or if only the amount of the present Vote were divided among the men in the way he proposed, the result would be so small to each that it would not be very acceptable to them. If they were starting with a tabula rasa to erect a new scheme, he should be very much inclined to consider favourably some such plan as that suggested by the hon. Member; but to set it before the Committee in substitution for the pension system without any alteration either in the amount of money to be voted on the one hand, or, on the other hand, in the amount of money the individual men were to receive, impracticable both from the point of view of the House and of the workmen. Therefore, he was afraid he could not hold out any hope that the Government would adopt that system. Pension was not deferred pay; it was deferred pay treated in a certain
    1628
    way, and based on the chance of a man surviving. The hon. and learned Member seemed to wish that it should be a tontine, in which all the men were to get prizes; but he did not think that it would be feasible, although he agreed with the hon. and learned Member, in the main, that the present state of things was not satisfactory.
    MR. RYLANDSsaid, this Vote had continually increased during the last 12 years, until it was now nearly double what it was in 1870–1. In that year the Vote was £878,352; but now it was £1,556,858; and he had a very strong conviction that the country did not get anything like proportionate results for this enormously-increased expenditure. Did we get now, as the results of this expenditure, 50 or 100 per cent more than we got in 1870–1? The noble Lord the Member for Chichester (Lord Henry Lennox) bad recently called attention to the unsatisfactory state of the Navy; and although he did not agree with the noble Lord's conclusions, still he would quote the noble Lord to this extent—that, notwithstanding that we were spending twice as much now upon our Dockyards as we spent 10 or 12 years ago, we were not getting results in the proper proportion. But were we getting anything like proportionately-increased results, considering the increased expenditure? He challenged the Secretary to the Admiralty upon that, and believed the hon. Gentleman would have great difficulty in proving that we were. So far as the tonnage of vessels was concerned, he found, by the Returns laid before Parliament, that it was very little more than it was in 1870–1, when the expenditure was very much less. His impression was that it was in the nature of the old system of Dockyards, which were, of course, great manufacturing establishments, and were, or ought to be, carried on as private dockyards were, that there should be extravagant expenditure, and the employment of many more men than would be employed in private yards for the production of an equal amount of work. He should have been glad to support the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst) if he had urged the Government not to make some change in the pension system, but to get rid of pensions altogether. For every 20 s. paid as wages we paid 5s. as pension. That might be satisfactory to the men, but it

    1629
    was certainly not satisfactory to the taxpayers, and if he was correctly informed the Establishment men were not as good workmen as hired men were; and he did not believe we got as good work, or as much work, from the Establishment men as would satisfy a private shipbuilder. He observed that there was a comparison between the average cost per ton in the Dockyards and the average cost per ton by contract; and he found that while the cost in the former case for unarmoured vessels ran from £73 to £78, the cost for purchased vessels by contract was from £65 to £73. So that, in fact, there was a considerably lower charge per ton for vessels by contract than for vessels manufactured in our own Dockyards. It was only the old story, that Governments were the worst manufacturers in the world; they could not manufacture inexpensively. They were subject to influences to which private yards were not exposed. How would it be possible for a private manufactory to carry on business economically if exposed to constant pressure by Gentlemen in that House for the increase of wages? In every direction Governments were embarrassed by pressure put upon them from various motives to increase the expenditure in connection with their manufacturing operations. Yet there was no mystery in Dockyards. Their operations were spoken of as though they were different from the ordinary operations of shipyards; but they were not different, except that we put at the head of a Dockyard a gentleman who did not understand the business he was conducting. We kept him there three years, and just when he was becoming a little acquainted with the work we removed him. Speaking of dockyards as large manufacturing establishments, it was not necessary to have naval knowledge, and it was utterly impossible to carry on any business economically under the conditions under which our Dockyards were conducted. So it was with regard to a number of small articles of manufacture in the Dockyards. In the case of a great Vote of this kind, it would be a desirable thing if it could be referred to some body of men, either a Royal Commission or a Committee, for investigation. He believed that if means were taken to ascertain what were the facts connected with our manufacturing operations, the result would be the realization of considerable
    1630
    economy. At present the expenses of the Dockyards amounted to £1,500,000, and it was quite possible that there was absolutely wasted £300,000 or £400,000 a-year. His hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent (Mr. Broadhurst) had estimated the waste at £500,000 sterling a-year. It must be borne in mind that year after year there were 1,000 or 2,000 tons of shipbuilding estimated for, but not completed; and yet we spent as much money as if they had been completed. The noble Lord the Member for Chichester (Lord Henry Lennox) had alluded to the fact that during the last 10 years there had been 20,000 tons estimated for in the different annual Estimates of the Government, but not completed; and he (Mr. Rylands) saw that some absurd statements had been made in certain newspapers to the effect that the Admiralty, by some nefarious proceeding, had taken possession of the money. The truth was that the Estimates had been wrong. The Admiralty had expected that the appliances they had arranged would produce a certain amount of tonnage, whereas less tonnage had been produced. He only complained that while we produced less tonnage we did not spend less money. Now, if a great manufacturing concern produced less than it estimated, and if its expenses remained exactly the same, it was very likely indeed that bankruptcy would ensue. Although they might not at this moment be able to carry on the discussion in an exhaustive manner, he hoped the Committee and the Admiralty would take the affair into serious consideration, because when they talked about great economy in the management of the country, the greatest economy might be effected without lessening the efficiency of the defences of the country.
    MR. W. H. SMITH: I am sure we all desire to effect economy in the public expenditure, and I join heartily with the hon. Gentleman the Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) in a desire to effect any economy in the Dockyards that may be possible. But I am afraid that the true reason for the increase of this Vote is to be found in the enormously-increased cost of the instruments which are now admitted to be necessary for naval warfare; the ship itself, the armour, guns, fittings, and everything about a ship is very different from the

    1631
    ship of 12 years ago; indeed, there is very little by which we can compare one with the other. Now-a-days a ship of war is a vast piece of costly machinery, and even the form of a ship for the purposes of war is changed. Other countries and other Powers have furnished themselves with these tremendous engines; and it would be absolutely suicidal on the part of this country if we were not as well equipped, and even better equipped, than other Powers. If the House of Commons is not prepared to meet the absolute necessity of the case in providing the best material that can be provided for a ship of war, then I say the proper course to take is at once to abolish our Navy, and give out to the world that we are not prepared to hold the position of the greatest Maritime Power which we have hitherto held. That, of course, is out of the question. What we have to see is that the funds of Parliament are properly and economically applied, in order to produce the best possible results according to the light, and intelligence, skill which we possess at the present time. I regret we have come to discuss, at 10 minutes to 1 o'clock, the most important Vote which, I think, has to be submitted to Parliament during the whole course of the year. It is deplorable that no time could be found for the proper investigation of matters of this high importance, excepting in the small hours of the morning, when very few Members are present. Now, Sir, we have had already some discussion upon the policy of the Government and the policy of the Admiralty as to the amount of provision which should be made, and as to the way in which the funds are appropriated. I am, however, bound to repeat a Question which I put to my hon. Friend opposite (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman) on a recent occasion. I wish to know what the policy of the Government is with regard to the ships which are intended to be used, and on which the country must rely in case of war, and which are awaiting repair in the Dockyards? I have insisted on more than one occasion that if a ship were not intended to be used the sooner she is struck off the list the better. We ought not to rely upon that which is a mere phantom, or, at least, a mere "paper ship;" and I say that that is a mere "paper ship" which is incapable
    1632
    of moving out of a Dockyard and taking her place in our line-of-battle Fleet. There are many such ships in the Dockyards at the present moment. Of the ironclads there are the Black Prince, the Iron Duke, the Resistance, and the Triumph. Then there are other ships which, though not yet out of commission, are in a very bad state, and will require considerable repair. For instance, there is the Warrior, and there is a large number of unarmoured ships in the same condition. I have no doubt I shall be told by my hon. Friend the Secretary to the Admiralty that if those ships were taken in and repaired it would interfere with the shipbuilding programme which the Admiralty have laid down. I maintain that it would lead to economy, and that it would be no more than the discharge of their duty on the part of the Admiralty, if they intend to repair these ships, to do so at once. No one charged with the responsibility of maintaining the Fleet, no one charged with the serious responsibility of attending to the defence of this country, ought to allow those ships to remain a single week in the Dockyards unrepaired if they have the means of taking them in hand and of causing them to be repaired. I maintain, Sir, that the responsibility of the Admiralty and the responsibility of Her Majesty's Government in maintaining a force which ought to be available in case of sudden emergency is a very grave and serious responsibility; and it must be remembered that the ships now unarmoured could not be made available for many months after they might be taken in hand. Of unarmoured ships there are many awaiting repair. We are told that they are too large to place in line-of-battle; that they are not now battle ships, but are only cruisers; that they carry a very large number of men; and that, therefore, it is not desirable to expose them to the risk which would be involved in an engagement. They are, however, exceedingly fine ships, and it is intended to repair them at some time or other. It must, however, be remembered that they are deteriorating every day because they are not repaired. I believe they could be made most serviceable as training ships, and most valuable ships would they be for a Fleet to possess in time of peace. The policy I would

    1633
    recommend is that ships of this kind should be used in times of peace, and that ships of the fighting class, which are exceedingly costly, should be used as little as possible, but should be held in reserve in case of war whenever it should unfortunately arise. The Inconstant, the Raleigh, and vessels of that class cannot be excelled as training and cruising ships. They offer every facility for qualifying both officers and blue-jackets for the discharge of their duties. But ships like the Inflexible and the Thunderer have cost enormous sums of money; and so long as they are kept in commission they are deteriorating every day, and when they require repair the country will be put to very great expense, and will have to submit to very great delay. I would strongly advise the Admiralty to take the best possible care they can of our powerful fighting ships, and to use in times of peace all the unarmoured ships that are available. Then there comes a question which is of still greater moment—namely, the strength really required for Her Majesty's Fleet. In "another place" the First Lord of the Admiralty expressed a view which I am sure is shared by all his Colleagues, and which Her Majesty's Government, as a Government, must maintain; and that is, that the English Fleet must be superior to any other Fleet, and be ready to discharge any duty it may be called on to discharge. I take it for granted that that is the view which the House of Commons will not only accept, but will insist upon. What are the duties which the English Fleet is called upon to discharge? The English Fleet is, I would first say, dispersed all over the world. We must have a squadron in the North American Seas, another in the Pacific, another in China, a third in the East Indies, a fourth on the East and West Coast of Africa, a fifth at the Cape of Good Hope, and a sixth in the Australian Seas. Now, Sir, in considering the strength that is required in time of war, you have first of all to consider what will be required on these stations. After that, you have to consider what strength you will require for the Fleet in the Mediterranean, the Channel Fleet, the Reserve Fleet, and to supply the casualties that war would be certain to bring about, and for coast defence, and you have to consider what strength you require in the way of cruisers for the
    1634
    defence of our commerce. After carefully considering these matters, desirous of leaving full responsibility upon Her Majesty's Government, and with every wish to give every support and assistance to Her Majesty's Government in the course they have felt themselves bound to adopt, I say I am obliged, looking at the progress made during the last few years by Foreign Navies, and at the strength at which they have arrived, to state that our strength at the present moment is not adequate to the duties which may be required of it. I say this with the greatest possible reluctance, and I say it with regret; but I say it because I feel I have a responsibility in this House, sharing that responsibility with right hon. Gentlemen opposite, and that silence on my part would be a great neglect of public duty. It is in discharge of a public duty that I now express the belief and the strong feeling that the force which we possess is not adequate to the responsibilities which attach to this country, and not adequate to the safety of the country, having regard to the great development of the force which has occurred within the last three or four years on the Continent of Europe. I will say no more on this point. The responsibility for the course which will be taken must rest with Her Majesty's Government alone; but I do feel this—that that responsibility is a very great and a very serious one. Hon. Gentlemen opposite will, perhaps, complain that if our Naval Force is to be developed the Estimates will have to be increased, and in answer to that I would say that the Estimates certainly must increase, unless some other means can be found for providing the materials and the ships for the defence of the country and the assertion of its position and rights, and for the protection of the vast commerce of this country on the high seas. Decidedly increased Estimates will be necessary unless other means can be found to supply ships for this purpose. I do not see how it is possible to reduce the charges in regard to the Navy in order to increase this Shipbuilding Vote. The hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) suggested that more contract work should be undertaken, and I cordially agree with him. I think great advantage would in every respect be derived by the Public Service if a larger amount of this

    1635
    work were given out than has been given out during the last few years. It is not merely on the ground of economy that I recommend this; but it is because I believe that good work could be done in private yards, and because I believe we have great resources that ought to be availed of in this country. In a matter of emergency, no doubt, the experience obtained in building war ships in private yards would be of great service to the public interest. I have no doubt I shall be told that in the event of our being engaged in war we have great resources in the Merchant Navy. Well, if it were not so, our position would, indeed, be very serious. We have a very great Merchant Navy; but we cannot rely wholly upon that resource. It is one upon which I and my Colleagues in the previous Administration counted, and for which provision had been made. It would take, however, some months to equip the merchant ships that would be required for the protection of the commerce of the country, if war overtook us and should come suddenly upon us without much notice. These merchant ships would be available for the protection of the commerce as against other ships of a like character; but they would not be of the slightest value against armoured ships or protected cruisers, or against any of the war ships that might be brought against us by Foreign Powers. I, therefore, feel most strongly that further provision than that which has been made is necessary under the present circumstances of defence and the increased armaments of Europe, and I trust Her Majesty's Government will see their way to make that provision. Probably the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman) will be able to answer the question that I have addressed to him with regard to the supply of armoured and unarmoured ships, and I will reserve until another opportunity any further observations that I might wish to make upon this Vote.
    MR. PULESTONsaid, the argument of the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) practically came to this—that they should close the Dockyards altogether. The hon. Member would surely not venture to suggest that they should maintain all the property and material they had in the Dockyards, keeping them and the workmen idle whilst they
    1636
    got their naval work done by contract. In addition to the cause already stated to the Committee for that addition, it might be mentioned that 12 years ago there had been very little work, comparatively speaking, in the Dockyards, and that a great deal had been done in the private yards. It had since, he was glad to say, been found to be to the interest of the Public Service that the Dockyards should be employed instead of lying idle, and from that time to this they had had nearly their full complement of work. In order to explain the figures which were put down for the large increase, they must put against them the lesser amount paid to private yards, and then they would see that the Dockyard Vote, as now presented, did entail an increase on the general expenditure. Did the hon. Member for Burnley know the amount of capital and stock-in-trade they had in the Dockyards? Would he not allow that it was better that the Dockyards should be fully occupied than that they should be idle, just as it was better that the hon. Member's manufactory should be working instead of standing still?
    MR. RYLANDSsaid, if he could buy cheaper than he could make he should be content to keep his place standing.
    MR. PULESTONsaid, the Government had come to the conclusion that they could not buy cheaper than they could make. Reference had been made to the pensions which were granted to the Dockyard servants, and they were referred to as a dead weight when the Government put their naval work out to contract. He had argued that the words "dead weight" were hardly such as could be applied to pensions. His argument had been that these pensions were really not a burden, because the amount they cost was practically saved in the decrease which they brought about in wages. The Government paid so much less to the men, because they subsequently gave them pensions, than was paid to men in the private yards of private contractors. The pensions paid by the Government were not, therefore, a dead weight in the aggregate, because we paid no more than the private shipbuilders paid for having our work well done. One reason why they should give the Dockyard labourer full work was because in time of emergency we could not always depend upon private yards,

    1637
    and it was necessary, in order to depend upon their services, that they should be fully employed. There was one other remark of the hon. Member for Burnley he should like to refer to, and that was that the serious charge with regard to men on the Establishment should be reduced, because they did their work less efficiently than they should do. If the hon. Member would allow him to say so—and the Secretary to the Admiralty would bear him out fully—no class of men had worked more efficiently than the men on the Establishment in the Dockyard. The experience of every Lord and Secretary to the Admiralty, and every Member who had had experience of Dockyard constituencies and of shipbuilding in private yards, was that the established men of the Royal Dockyards turned out work second to none in the country. No doubt, the hon. Member would admit that he had made rather too sweeping a charge against a body of men who deserved well of their country.
    SIR MASSEY LOPESsaid, he obtained a Return some time ago, showing the Naval Expenditure year by year for the last 20 years; and from that Return he found that less was being spent on the Effective Service of the Navy than was the case 20 years ago, notwithstanding the great and costly improvements that had taken place in the mean-time. When the Secretary to the Admiralty introduced the Estimates, he told the Committee the Government were going to expend £2,750,000 on the direct Effective Force of the Navy; but he (Sir Massey Lopes) confessed that that seemed to him but a trivial sum. Though comparisons were odious, and it was not politic to be always comparing ourselves with other nations, it was unwise to live in a fool's paradise, not attempting to see our position clearly. He admitted that gun for gun our Navy was quite as strong, and perhaps stronger, than that of many other countries; but it should be borne in mind the duties and responsibilities of our Navy were vastly greater than any other Navy; and, therefore, a comparison of figures merely was no comparison at all. The Secretary to the Admiralty said he deprecated international naval rivalries, and there might be truth in that; but, bearing in mind that France had set the example, it would be most dangerous, when France
    1638
    or any other country was making an unusually large Naval Expenditure, if we did not do our best to bring ourselves into competition with them. The Secretary to the Admiralty, when he introduced the Estimates, told the Committee that this year would give an actual increase of £130,000, and he thought it necessary to express regret that this application had been made to Parliament; and he said it was only after careful deliberation it had been resolved upon; but such a small increase needed no such apology. The House and the country would willingly give a much larger sum if the Admiralty gave its opinion that such was absolutely necessary. The comparative strength of our Navy was not to be estimated by the number of ships, but by the duties and responsibilities those ships had to undertake. If we compared our merchant shipping with that of other countries, it would be found that Great Britain owned 22,500,000 tons of shipping; France, with a Navy equal to ours, 3,650,000 tons; Italy, 4,500,000; Germany, 3,400,000; and Russia, 2,000,000 tons. Great Britain carried more than half of the commerce of the whole world; 'and last year, out of 7,000,000 tons which formed the sea trade of the world—4,000,000 tons sailed under the British flag. That showed how absolutely necessary was our naval strength for the security of our commerce; and though the cost of our Navy was considerable, we must bear in mind the vast interests we had at stake, that the amount of the premium was comparatively small, and that the increase in our Navy had not at all gone on in proportion to the increase in our wealth and population.
    MR. ILLINGWORTHsaid, right hon. Gentlemen had put forward their views with great gravity and circumstance; but he hoped they would not be guilty of the inconsistency of denouncing the Government out-of-doors for the increase of expenditure, while indoors they were engaged in forcing expenditure upon the Government.
    SIR JOHN HAYsaid, the hon. Member must have paid but slight attention to what had been said by his right hon. Friends out-of-doors if he had not heard them for the last two years urging—cautiously, perhaps—but still urging on the Government, the necessity for increasing

    1639
    our Naval expenditure, more cautiously, perhaps, than he (Sir John Hay) had, as befitting their greater responsibility. But they had both urged upon the Government the necessity of watching carefully the increase in the naval strength of Foreign Powers, ever taking care that that strength did not exceed ours. At the present moment, the expenditure on the Effective Service of the Navy was lower than it had been for many years. The Return the hon. Gentleman had placed on the Table showed that the cost of the Effective Service just now was £8,549,300; in 1861, it was £10,735,000; in 1877, it was £10,433,000; in 1878, £9,000,000; in 1879, it was £8,098,000; and last year it was £8,725,000; while this year it was £8,549,000. When it was known that the expenditure in a neighbouring country, which he trusted would continue our friend, was double in shipbuilding items, according to the French Estimates, surely it was time we should awaken from our lethargy and increase the number of our ships to our requirements. Our Dockyards were' sufficient, no doubt, to maintain the repair of our Fleet, but not, at the same time, to complete the building of the Fleet. The Secretary to the Admiralty would, no doubt, reply as to details which had been raised; but, before he did so, he (Sir John Hay) would like to ask whether the Defence was one of the ships he considered efficient, for public service, and in what state were the Bellerophon, Black Prince, Resistance, and other ships named by the hon. Gentleman? At the time when our iron-clad Fleet was first established, it was considered by the House desirable to encourage private trade in the building of iron-clad ships, and down to 1869–70 a largo proportion of the iron-clad ships of this country were built by private trade. On the Clyde, on the Mersey, the Tyne, the Thames, at Hull, at Belfast, we could build 12 iron-clads, if we desired to do so, and only one was being built by contract. It would be no such great expenditure to lay down 12, and if the contract was to build a certain number at a certain rate of progress, they would be approaching completion, and in the event of necessity they could be hurried on to completion. Until something of this kind was done, the country would be in the defenceless condition described by his right hon.
    1640
    Friend the late First Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. W. H. Smith). This country was not spending sufficient in shipbuilding; and he believed that until some arrangement was made with our Colonies—which they were themselves ready to enter into—for assisting in the construction or manning of ships under certain regulations, it would be perfectly impossible to protect our enormous trade alluded to by his hon. Friend (Sir Massey Lopes). He would not detain the Committee at such a late hour; but this was a matter of serious importance to the country. The Chairman very properly would not allow the Committee to travel into affairs in Madagascar; and he would only say that there were events occurring in various parts of the world which behoved us to keep our eyes open, and not to live in a state of false security.
    MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, before the hon. Gentleman replied, he would like to ask what guns would be supplied to the Benbow?
    MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid, it had been decided to supply the Benbow with two 100-ton guns of the same pattern as those tried by the Elswick firm—not the identical guns, but guns of that principle and typo. He was somewhat surprised at the discussion which had taken place, because there was a full discussion, or at least a very long one, on the 7th May, on the general question of the shipbuilding' policy of the Government and the state of the Navy, in which the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. W. H. Smith) took part, and yet he then expressed nothing of that alarm he had now expressed. He was never more surprised than to hear the right hon. Gentleman come forward as the advocate of a largely-increased Naval Expenditure. He was not there to object to encouragement to spend more money in building ships, for the Admiralty could not object to the opportunity of such expenditure. The right hon. Gentleman said, not what was said by the gallant Admiral, that we should be in a woeful plight in 1885, when the French had completed their programme. As to our position in that year, they had on a previous occasion stated their opinion, and his hon. Friend (Sir Thomas Brassey) had given facts and figures to combat the view taken. But the right hon. Gentleman

    1641
    now went further and said, not in reference to what it would be in 1885, but at the present moment, our Meet was inadequate. If it was not adequate, where was the responsibility? By the vessels which the present Admiralty had laid down, they could not have added a single ship to the Navy during the time the present Government had been in Office; and if there was any deficiency in the iron-clads of to-day it was not duo to any neglect of the present Government, but because the right hon.' Gentleman and his Friends did not make sufficient provision five years ago. There was nothing he disliked more than recriminations between two Administrations, and he tried to avoid the profitless tu quoque argument; but, as a matter of fact, while they were told they were not building enough, he had showed, when he introduced the Estimates, that the Admiralty were gradually, tentatively, and prudently increasing the amount of iron-clad tonnage they proposed to construct, not suddenly increasing expenditure, but gradually and substantially adding to their strength. Last year the figures were 11,466 tons; this year the amount was 12,281 tons; in 1881 it was 9,235 tons, and, coming to the last year the right hon. Gentleman was in Office—1880—it was only 7,387 tons. He was, therefore, greatly surprised that the right hon. Gentleman should come forward, not to say, as he might have said, that 1885 would find this country in a bad plight because shipbuilding had been neglected, but that our Navy was not adequate at the present moment. He was not finding fault with what the right hon. Gentleman had done in the past; but when the statement was made that such a state of things existed, and that the present Government were responsible for it, when the right hon. Gentleman gave the weight of his authority and experience to such a statement, and his Colleague agreed with him, then he (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman) was compelled to give some sort of statement in reply to re-assure the Committee, and to show that the country was not in such an altogether bad position. Without going into the question of classes of ships, or of the time when those in construction would be built, and without going into the merits of ships included in the Navies of other countries—all of which may be matters of controversy—
    1642
    he would say that we had 25 iron-clad ships in commission, and eight in the First Reserve—a total of 33; and, taking four of the Great Powers of Europe together, the total was 34, so that we were within one of the total number of iron-clad ships that could be put on the sea by the four Great Powers—France, Russia, Italy, and Germany; and this would show there was no ground for the sudden alarm exhibited by his right hon. Friend. He was especially astonished at the remarks about the strength of the French Navy. His right hon. Friend was not so much alarmed a few weeks ago, when the noble Lord (Lord Henry Lennox) made his statement, and he seemed then to take a calmer view of the case; but something must have happened since to occasion his unusual alarmist mood. It was necessary, at all events, to point out that, if the Navy was in so inefficient a condition at the present time, it was not from any remissness of Her Majesty's present Government. The right hon. and gallant Admiral (Sir John Hay) proposed that the building of 12 iron-clads should be at once commenced by contract in as many shipbuilding yards; it was no great affair, he said, for much need not be done to them in the current year. Now, that was a plan which, when adopted by Foreign Governments, had a most imposing effect in speeches in the House; and if he wished to make a great impression in the French, Italian, or German Assembly, he should make contracts for 20 such ships, with very little progress to be made on them in each year, for they would all probably be quoted as effective ships of a most formidable kind. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman said—"Let them be laid down, but do very little to them." Now, he confessed he was a mere tyro in such matters; but he had already learned that the maxim to follow was—" When you begin, finish as fast as you can." And again and again had he been called upon to defend delay in the finishing of ships, and sometimes he found difficulty in justifying it. But why should the Admiralty, with their eyes open, rush into the very mistake which was said to be the most fatal that could be made in shipbuilding? One thing which the hon. Baronet (Sir Massey Lopes) said he wished to correct; the Return he quoted from was not the corrected

    1643
    Return, and was not quite accurate; the correction had been laid on the Table, but, perhaps, had not yet been distributed. The last two years were not completed years, only estimated sums, and did not include extra receipts. Of course, the whole sum, including the amount of the extra receipts, was spent on the Effective Service; so that the Return as originally presented was misleading. It had now been put right. Then his hon. Friend said last year less tonnage by 1,500 tons was built; he quoted the figures, and said the money was spent otherwise. But the reason, as had been fully explained, was that the "tons" cost a great deal more than was expected; the money was all honestly spent upon the ships; but the result was not so great as was expected. As to what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Westminster (Mr. W. H. Smith) said about repairing ships, in theory it was right enough; he quite admitted that ships ought to be repaired as soon as possible, and that in times of peace certain classes of ships should be used to save the wear and tear of expensive iron-clads; but it was not always possible to carry out the theory. With regard to the Black Prince and the Resistance, the Admiralty had not yet determined what should be done with them; if the decision had been arrived at, it would have been provided for in this year's Estimates. There was an opportunity, if it was thought worth while, of converting them into useful efficient ships at a probable expenditure of over £100,000; but there were other ships the Naval Advisers of the Admiralty put before them, and the question was for a time in abeyance. In the preparation of next year's Estimates, it would be the duty of the Admiralty to consider whether these ships should be taken in hand. The repairs to the Iron Duke were in hand, and would be well advanced this year. This was a case in which, contrary to the usual experience, the cost would fall below the Estimate. The Thunderer repairs were nearly, if not entirely, completed at Malta. The Triumph would be repaired at Portsmouth. The masts of the Warrior had proved faulty, and, for the moment, she would not be taken in hand; the Raleigh would be completed. With regard to the Defence, the scientific opinion was that her boilers could be worked at a
    1644
    pressure of 15 instead of 30, and the diminution in speed did not correspond to the diminution in power. The Bacchante would be completed this year.
    MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, of course, when he spoke of shipbuilding, he was quite aware that it took five years to build an iron-clad, and he referred especially to progress which was being made elsewhere. He did not wish to do so in any invidious form; but it would have been a great neglect of duty on his part, if he did not seek to convey to the Government that progress in Foreign Navies was so considerable that it became the duty of the Government to take further steps in regard to the Fleet. He made no charge or complaint against the Government, so far as our Fleet was concerned. Anyone with experience knew that it took five or six years to build an effective iron-clad; and, that being so, the responsibility was the greater, and the more important was it that stops should be taken in sufficient time to meet any emergency that might arise. The Secretary to the Admiralty had referred to the tonnage under the late Administration; but had said that there would be no advantage in entering into recriminations. He might answer that by further references; but all he wished to say was that he made no complaint whatever, but simply wished to impress upon the Government, as he did in May last, the responsibility that remained with them, and to express the opinion which had been growing in his mind that it was essential for the security of the country that further additions to the Fleet should be made.
    MR. BIGGARsaid, before the Vote passed, he would once more draw the attention of the Admiralty to the claims of his friend John Clare. He would not go into the merits of the case, but would merely point out this. By the decision of the Grand Committee on the question of Patents, it was provided that where a patent was used by the Crown, the Crown should investigate the claims of the patentee, and give the compensation which was thought right; and all he asked was that that principle, to which the Government assented, should be applied to the case of Mr. Clare. No doubt, the Government had had that gentleman's plans and drawings. Then let him bring forward proofs of his claim, and let the claim be investigated

    1645
    and decided on its merits by an impartial tribunal, not an outside tribunal. His former contention was for a Select Committee; but all he asked now was that the Government should decide upon the principle laid down by themselves for all patents generally.
    MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid, he thought the case of Mr. John Clare was practically dead. He was not at all sure that the proposal of the hon. Member for Cavan would be feasible, that legislation now proposed in regard to patents should be made retrospective; and that all parties who might think that their rights had been infringed, or their patents adopted by the Crown for many years back, should be entitled to all the benefits of the Act on the opinion of an outside tribunal.
    MR. BIGGARsaid, no; not an outside tribunal; he only asked that the Admiralty should investigate the claim.
    MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid, the case had been so often investigated by successive Boards of Admiralty, and so often the subject of discussion in the House, that further investigation would add nothing to it. A Judge in a Court of Law, too, had made some strong observations upon the subject—in words which he could not at the moment quote—and he was in hopes, as he said last year, that Mr. Clare was satisfied, because that gentleman had sent no more letters. The hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar) said then that, if that was his way of thinking, probably more letters would be sent; but he had been spared that hitherto, and as Mr. Clare had allowed the matter to sleep so long, he really thought he might be excused for declining to re-open it.
    MR. BIGGARsaid, he had saved the hon. Gentleman from any more of Mr. Clare's letters. He had brought the case before the House so repeatedly in former times that he would not trouble the Committee with details. But he had never heard the Representative of the Admiralty declare that he personally had investigated the merits of the case; it was always said someone else, on a former occasion, had done so, and that he believed Mr. John Clare had no case. All he asked now was, that the hon. Gentleman should himself investigate the case. Mr. Clare would probably be satisfied with that, and investigation on the merits of the case, not by an outside
    1646
    tribunal, but by officials of the Admiralty.
    MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid, he did not think he went through the whole of the case himself, and, therefore, would express no opinion; but throughout the voluminous Papers he had seen pencil annotations in the handwriting of his Predecessor, and he could, therefore, safely say that it had been investigated. He would promise to look through the Papers again; but he must ask the hon. Member to ask Mr. Clare not to send any more of them.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    (6.) £71,000, Victualling Yards at Home and Abroad.
    (7.) £64,900, Medical Establishments at Home and Abroad.
    MR. BIGGARthought it was desirable the Chairman should now report Progress.
    CAPTAIN PRICEsaid, the remaining Votes were not of a contentious character, and more might well be taken. If not, then it was probable Navy Estimates would not again be heard of until the end of the Session approached.
    Vote agreed to.
    (8.) £22,300, Marine Divisions.
    (9.) £1,062,500, Sec. 1, Naval Stores for Building and Repairing the Fleet, &c.
    MR. W. H. SMITHasked whether the hon. Gentleman really wished to take that Vote that night?
    MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid, it was desirable to take as many as possible for the reasons he had stated. Probably if Votes were postponed they would, under the pressure of Business, be put off to a late period of the Session.
    MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, the items under Sub-head "B" required a little explanation. There would seem to be a decrease in metals of £63,500.
    MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid, the decrease referred to was only apparent, as, on reference to page 115 of the Navy Estimates, it would be seen that a sum of £21,700 for electric light apparatus had been transferred from Sub-head "B" to a new Sub-head, "F." A saving in prices was expected to the extent of £29,000 under Metals; and, in addition, they had commenced

    1647
    the year with, a better stock of the articles provided for in this sub-head. He might say this Vote, generally, was carefully gone into, and all the items were thoroughly examined.
    MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, he trusted the armour for the ships would be ready, whether paid for this year or not. He could understand that the time for payment might not have arrived; but the programme could not be fulfilled unless the supply of armour was kept up.
    MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid, it had been very carefully considered.
    SIR JOHN HAYsaid, if this £63,500 were carried over to next year, and if more rapid progress were to be made with the ships, there would be a swelling of next year's Estimates under this; head.
    MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid, there was always an overlapping of one year on to another.
    MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, there had been some delay in the mounting of the 6-inch guns. Had the pattern for the carriages of these guns been decided?
    MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid, that it had not been finally decided.
    MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, he would make this the subject of a Question later on.
    SIR JOHN HAYsaid, he should like to know when the Benbow would be completed?
    MR. A. F. EGERTONsaid, nothing had been set down for torpedo boats, either first or second-class. Were the Admiralty satisfied that past Estimates under this head were sufficient as compared with Foreign Powers?
    MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid, the contract for the Benbow was that she should be delivered in October, 1885, and launched in January of that year. It was found a few days ago that the contractors were a little behind time; but it was not supposed this would seriously delay her completion. She would be fitted at the Dockyard in the year following her contract date of delivery.
    SIR THOMAS BRASSEYsaid, there were no Estimates for new torpedo boats. Those estimated for last year were being completed.
    Vote agreed to.
    (10.) Sec. 2. Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £1,052,600, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Expense of Machinery and Ships built by Contract, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1884."
    MR. WARTONsaid, the Chairman really ought now to report Progress. Votes were being passed without consideration at the rate of £1,000,000 every two minutes.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Warton.)
    MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid, most of the Votes had already been the subject of discussion, and there was nothing debatable left. Members interested were present, and if the Votes were not taken now they would probably have to be relegated to a late period of the Session.
    SIR JOHN HAYsaid, a long discussion was likely to arise on the next Vote but one (Martial Law, &c); and after hon. and gallant Members had waited so long it would be hardly fair to enter on a discussion that must take up a considerable time.
    MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, probably there would be no discussion upon the next Vote (New Works, &c). It might be sufficient to take the Votes up to that, and then report Progress.
    MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid, it had been agreed to postpone the Vote which had relation to the working of the Contagious Diseases Acts, in order that any discussion on that subject might be taken upon the analogous Army Vote. He would suggest that they should also postpone the following Vote (Martial Law, &c), and take the others.
    CAPTAIN MAXWELL-HERONsaid, this would be convenient. It would be his duty to call the attention of the Committee to a question affecting the character of a relative of his, and it was desirable that he should do so at a time when his remarks could be made public.
    MR. PULESTONasked why should discussion in reference to the Contagious Diseases Acts be now avoided?
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, an undertaking had been given by the Prime Minister to that effect.
    Question put, and negatived.
    Original Question put, and agreed to.
    (11.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £462,400, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Expense of Now Works, Buildings, Yard Machinery, and Repairs, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1884."
    MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, he would like to have some information as to the completion of the works at Chatham, and also what steps the Admiralty were taking as to the extensions at Portsmouth. There was a great deal of work to be done yet, and a Vote was before the Committee for barracks for the convicts to be engaged there. Was it proposed to finish that work before the convicts were removed?
    MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid, it was so intended, and the work would be carried forward with all possible despatch. He agreed it was most undesirable to keep such work hanging on.
    MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, he also desired to know if the works at Keyham would be proceeded with vigorously? With regard to works at Malta also, he desired to put a similar question. There was some question as to the particular site, and he understood the Admiralty had sent out an officer to determine where it should be. There was no work more important to the Public Service than the Docks there; and he would urge on the Admiralty the importance of coming to a determination, and proceeding with the work vigorously.
    CAPTAIN PRICEsaid, his right hon. Friend had anticipated him with a question in reference to Keyham Yard. Would it not be possible to push forward that work a little more rapidly? The works had now got to such a point in the building that with a little augmentation of the grant the work might be finished in a few months. Then, he would like to ask about the extensions at Haulbowline. The House was given to understand they would be completed by this time; but there was a Vote for £30,000 this year, and a note indicated that a further Estimate for completing
    1650
    the work was under revision. What was the meaning of that? Were the works to be still further extended? There was certainly an impression two or three years ago that the works by this time would be completed.
    SIR THOMAS BRASSEYsaid, no doubt there had been delay in the completion of the barracks at Keyham, the principal cause of which was the death of the contractor. There was no probability of their being completed until next year. With regard to the Dock at Malta, the Admiralty had had the question seriously before them, and he had accompanied the Director of Works and his Colleague last winter, when a site was selected. But since that time representations had been made by the officer of the Royal Engineers with reference to the exposure of the site to the fire of an enemy outside, and it had been thought prudent to examine another site adjacent to the Somerset Dock. The matter was now ripe for decision, and the work would be proceeded with vigorously. The delay in the works at Haulbowline arose out of the difficulty of employing convict labour. Reliance was placed upon obtaining a larger number of convicts than were actually obtained. Quite recently it had been decided to remove the convicts altogether from Haulbowline. The Admiralty were anxious to expedite the works. The removal of the convicts would necessitate a supplementary appropriation of about £4,000, in addition to the £30,000 provided in the Estimates, in order to supply free labour, in lieu of the convict labour withdrawn. He anticipated the work would occupy two years more before the Dock would be fit for use. Certain engineering difficulties had been encountered, which were not anticipated when the work was undertaken.
    MR. TOMLINSONsaid, the time had now arrived when, after a long Sitting, the Chairman should report Progress.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Tomlinson.)
    MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid, he thought that it was understood that, with the exception of the Votes mentioned earlier, the remaining Votes should be taken. The "Half Pay"

    1651
    Vote had been taken, and those left would give rise to no discussion.
    MR. TOMLINSONsaid, if there was to be no discussion, the Votes might as well be taken with the other postponed Votes.
    MR. R. N. FOWLERsaid, there was Notice of an Amendment to this Vote.
    MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid, the substance of that Amendment had been brought before the Committee up on Vote 6, when he answered the points raised by the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Gourley), so that Amendment might be considered as disposed of.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 11; Noes 48: Majority 37.—(Div. List, No. 205.)
    Original Question put, and agreed to.
    (12.) £119,600, Miscellaneous Services.
    (13.) £876,900, Military Pensions and Allowances.
    (14.) £329,700, Civil Pensions and Allowances.
    CAPTAIN PRICEsaid, he did not know that strictly it had any bearing on the Vote; but he would like to ask when it was expected the Greenwich Hospital Estimates would be laid on the Table? They were usually presented with the Naval Estimates, and it was important to have them before the Greenwich Hospital Bill was discussed.
    SIR THOMAS BRASSEYsaid, they would be presented very shortly.
    Vote agreed to.
    (15.) £136,300, Extra Estimate for Services not Naval.—Freight, &c. on Account of the Army Department.
    Resolutions to be reported To-morrow.
    Committee to sit again upon Wednesday.

POST OFFICE (PROTECTION) BILL.
On Motion of Mr. FAWCETT, Bill to amend the Law with respect to the protection of the Post Office, and to offences committed in relation to the Post Office, ordered to he brought in by Mr. FAWCETT and Mr. COURTNEY.
Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 266.]
House adjourned at Three o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Prison Service (Ireland) * (145).
Second Reading—Factories and Workshops Amendment (113); Turnpike Acts Continu-

1465
ance * (132); Sale of Intoxicating Liquors on Sunday (Cornwall) (142).
Third Beading—Local Government (Gas) Provisional Order * (72); Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 4) * (74); Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 5) * (100); Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 7) * (102), and passed.
Royal Assent—Medical Act (1858) Amendment [46 & 47 Vict. c. 19]; Registry of Deeds (Ireland) [46 & 47 Vict. c. 20]; Local Government Provisional Orders (Poor Law) [46 & 47 Vict. c. cxxxviii.]; Local Government Provisional Orders (Poor Law) (No. 3) [46 & 47 Vict. c. lxxxi.]; Local Government Provisional Order (Highways) [46 & 47 Vict. c. lxxxii.]; Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 2) [46 & 47 Vict. c. lxxxiii.]; Inclosure Provisional Order (Hildersham) [46 & 47 Vict. c. lxxxiv.]; Land Drainage Provisional Order (No. 2) [46 & 47 Vict. c. lxxxv.]; New Forest Highways[46&47 Vict. c. Ixxxvi.]; Forest of Dean (Highways) [46 & 47 Vict. c. lxxxvii.]; Drainage (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 2) [46&47 Vict. c. lxxxviii.]; Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 3) [46 & 47 Vict. c. lxxxix.]; Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 6) [46 & 47 Vict. c. xc]; Local Government Provisional Order (No. 10) [46 & 47 Vict. c. xci.]; Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Order (Limerick Waterworks) [46 & 47 Vict. c. xcii.; Tramways Provisional Orders (No. 4) [46] & 47 Vict. c. xciii.]; Metropolis Improvement Provisional Order [46 & 47 Vict. c. xciv.]; Metropolis Improvement Provisional Order (No. 2) [46 & 47 Vict. c. xcv.]; Metropolis Improvement Provisional Order (No. 3) [46 & 47 Vict. c. xcvi.]; Metropolis Improvement Provisional Order (No. 4) [46 & 47 Vict. c. xcvii.]; Public Health (Scotland) Provisional Order (Fraserburgh Waterworks) [46 & 47 Vict. c. xcviii.]; Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 8) [46 & 47 Vict. c. xcix].

EDUCATION DEPARTMENT—INSANITY INDUCED BY OVERWORK IN ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY, in rising to call the attention of the House to the increase of insanity; and to ask the Lord President, If the Education Office has inquired into the effects of overwork in elementary schools, alleged to have occurred by various letters in the daily press; and to ask him, if be will reconsider the letter of the Education Office of the 19th January 1882, sanctioning compulsion by Board schools in the matter of home lessons? said, that for some time those who watched over lunacy had endeavoured to cherish the hope that its increase was only apparent, and due to the removal of lunatics from workhouses to the asylums; but now, at last, the Lunacy Commissioners admitted that lunacy had increased,
  1466
  and this same admission was made last Thursday by Mr. Hibbert, when speaking on behalf of the Government on the Vote for the Lunacy Commission. The recent increase of lunacy must be principally attributed to intemperance; but it was nothing as compared with the increase of brain disease, which might shortly be expected, unless the warnings given by some of the highest authorities in the Medical Profession were to be disregarded. Those warnings pointed to overwork at schools as producing fatal effects. Dr. Hack Tuke said, in his address at the Annual Meeting of the British Medical Association in August, 1879—
  "It is in schools and colleges that we must sometimes seek for the causes of mental disturbance. Brain-fag and epilepsy often proceed from educational strain, and Dr. Andrew Clarke writes to me in these words—'I am witness to the irreparable mischief sometimes done at school.' At a certain high school in a large town, I know of two of the same family who died of brain fever, the physicians certifying that it was caused by educational over-pressure."
  Dr. Crichton Browne, Visitor of Chancery lunatics, said, at the Annual Medical Meeting, in August, 1880—
  "Of the many conditions tending to the increase of mental disease I would specially direct your attention to education.…. Injudicious haste or ill-considered zeal may work serious mischief among fragile or badly nourished children, by inducing exhaustion of the brain. It is a curious fact that, since the recent spread of education, the increase of deaths from hydro-cephalous has not been among infants, but among children over five years of age."
  Much other testimony might be produced of the bad effects on children of overwork; but it could not be necessary to multiply instances, after all the correspondence which had been so recently published in the daily Press. There could be no doubt that this overwork, and the complaints against it that had arisen on all sides, were due to the increased severity of the Revised Code, and the difficulty of satisfying the School Inspectors so as to obtain the grant. In one of the schools, in which some children had died of brain fever, and where several of the teachers had broken down from overwork and anxiety, the hours of work all the year round had been seven and three-quarters, and for three months before the examinations, the dunces, or less forward children, had an additional hour, from 8.15 to 9.15, making eight and three-quarter

  1467
  hours. Those hours of overwork did not appear in the time table of the school. The teachers worked exactly by the time table as far as it went, and then worked overtime. This overtime work was not peculiar to one district, for, lately, an address was delivered in the South of England to schoolmasters against this very thing. This overtime was also ex-acted from children in Board schools. An ex-Chairman of the Wolverhampton School Board wrote—
  "I was Chairman of the Wolverhampton School Board. We were obliged to issue a circular to the masters and mistresses of our Board schools forbidding this being done, as we found that for some weeks previous to the examination it was the common practice to keep the whole children at work overtime with a view to preparing them for the examination, and we found their play hours unduly curtailed, and too great a strain put upon some of them by this practice."
  The Education Department would, of course, say that the school boards and managers of elementary schools ought not to allow this overtime work. That was true; but the teachers said it was the only way in which they could get "excellent" for their schools, and earn the grant. Why should the Education Department dangle "excellent" before every master and mistress, and, having, with every new edition of the Revised Code, raised the standard of learning, make it really wrong for those teachers to attempt to get "excellent" and to secure the grant? One of the set of schools from which complaints had arisen had received "excellent" for all the schools, yet the Department had deducted £57 from those schools, under Article 114 of the New Code. Some years ago, the Standard for examination in Arithmetic used to be lower in girls' than in boys' schools, because the girls had to spend a considerable time in learning sewing and knitting. This was altered now, and boys and girls had to pass the same examination. With regard to the letter of the Education Office of January 19, 1882, intimating that the School Board would be justified in refusing admission of a boy into the Board school—
  "Until his parent undertook that he should do home lessons, and otherwise conform to the rules and discipline of the school."
  This letter arose out of the objections of a father at Todmorden, in Lancashire, who considered five or six hours a-day
  1468
  as much work as his children were physically well able to bear. The schoolmaster claimed that parents were bound to see that their children performed all the tasks that he ordered them out of school hours, and this was enforced by flogging and otherwise punishing the children on their return to school, if the schoomaster's requirements were not complied with. As to flogging and other punishments, when a father selected a school for his son, it was but natural that the schoolmaster should be in loco parentis, and exercise discretion as to the school children; but in these cases of compulsory education, where the father could exercise no selection, it seemed to follow that the discretion of the schoolmaster as to flogging ought to be limited. Now, apart from the bad effects mental and physical of this overwork, this action of the Todmorden School Board and the support given to it by the Education Office appeared to be illegal, and ultra vires, and contrary to the Education Act of 1870, Section 74, Sub-section 2, according to which the compulsory powers under which the bye-laws were framed were not intended to go further than to "determine the time during which children were to attend 'school.'" If that was so, until the Act of 1870 was amended, the Education Office would be bound to withdraw the sanction which it had given to overwork and home lessons. The noble Lord concluded by asking the Question of which he had given Notice.
  LORD CARLINGFORD (LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL), in reply, said, that, with regard to the alleged fact as to the increase of insanity, he was unable to give any information, and must leave that question to be dealt with by others, for it was not part of the duty of the Education Department to deal with the subject of insanity. He regretted his noble Friend (Lord Stanley of Alderley) had mixed up that matter with the other Question addressed to him, because it only had the effect of imparting an air of gross exaggeration to the statement relative to the effect of overwork in elementary schools. That question was a very reasonable one to raise as regarded some schools; and he should be happy to give the best answer he could to it. His noble Friend had asked him whether the Education Department had inquired into the truth of

  1469
  the statements that had appeared in letters in the newspapers, and so on. He could assure his noble Friend that the Education Department were making very careful inquiries into the matter. The Education Department had also consulted the most experienced of their Inspectors upon the subject—gentlemen not only of the greatest experience, but who had the greatest sympathy with the children, and who would, therefore, not be likely to sanction any regulation from the Education Department which might result in causing overwork. The result of the inquiries made showed that while there were here and there cases of such a thing as overwork on the part of children, and more so on the part of ardent pupil teachers, who were anxious to distinguish themselves, and attain the object of their ambition, upon the whole, there was very little ground for the wide and highly-coloured statements that had appeared in some of the newspapers. His noble Friend had given a very positive opinion as to the cause of the overwork, saying that it arose entirely from the increased requirements of the Code. That, however, could not be the source of the overwork, if there were any. Whatever overwork there might be, he was confident it in no way proceeded from the requirements of the Code, which, so far from having been increased, had been relaxed. The Code of this year, just come into operation, was distinctly more easy in its requirements than before. The truth was, that overwork did not take place in consequence of the requirements of the Code, which was anything but a cast-iron rule, applicable to all schools alike, but arose from mistakes—very often made with the best intentions—and from over-zeal on the part of the managers of schools. His noble Friend had mentioned a case in which the children had been kept under instruction for seven or eight hours a-day. But that was entirely beyond the requirements of the Code, which required a school time of 25 hours a-week, or an average of five hours a-day—four hours for secular instruction, and one hour for religious instruction and other matters, which filled up the time. That was the maximum required by the Education Department; and any instruction to the children beyond those hours was entirely the doing of the local managers, and
  1470
  not under the authority of the Code. He had recently read an able and interesting discussion that took place at a meeting of the Society of Clerks of School Boards; and it was evident, from that discussion, that the real cause of overwork was to be found in the requirements of local educational authorities. The main cause of the excessive pressure from which children and pupil teachers sometimes suffered arose, he thought, from the want of regularity of attendance, from the want of regular instruction from the beginning of the school year to the end, and from too great and ambitious an endeavour as regarded the teaching of subjects which were not compulsory, and which were often beyond the strength of the school staff to teach properly. To attend to this, however, was the work of the school managers; but there was no reason why they should go beyond their powers. Any school might earn a very fair grant by confining itself to the ordinary subjects of instruction; and it was, undoubtedly, a mistake for the managers of a school to attempt more than their staff enabled them to accomplish. His noble Friend, who had referred to a correspondence on the subject of home lessons, was mistaken in thinking that the Education Department intended to lay down any compulsory rule with regard to home lessons; neither had it done anything to stimulate the practice of enforcing such lessons. It was the opinion of the Inspectors, and of the best of the teachers, that while, in many cases, these lessons were extremely useful and desirable, they were by no means desirable in all cases. In the case at Todmorden, to which the noble Lord had specially drawn attention, the reasons for the refusal of the Department to interfere with the discretion of the School Board were to be found in the particular circumstances of that case, and were in no way connected with a desire to lay down any general rule of a compulsory kind. The father of the boy gave no reasons for refusing to allow his son to learn home lessons. He simply refused to allow his boy to learn them, without alleging one single excuse. In the correspondence which had taken place on the subject the Department had done no more than decline to interfere with the discretion of the school managers. He would assure his noble Friend that the Education Department

  1471
  generally would impress on the managers of schools the absolute necessity of guarding against overwork on the part of pupil teachers and children.
  THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURYsaid, that if the noble Lord (Lord Stanley of Alderley), in calling the attention of the House to the increase of insanity, meant to assert that insanity in general was on the increase, he was much in error. He (the Earl of Shaftesbury) questioned very much whether recent cases of insanity were out of proportion to the normal increase of the population. If the figures appeared larger than formerly, he should suspect that it was owing to the searching out of numbers of old chronic cases who were now brought into asylums and workhouses throughout the country, and which had hitherto been left out of the reckoning. In his opinion, there was considerable ground for entertaining the belief that insanity would rather diminish than increase. The Temperance movement and Bands of Hope were beginning to produce great effect, and the Blue Ribbon movement would, perhaps, produce the greatest of all. But if the noble Lord alluded to a special kind of insanity, arising from nervous disorders and brain disease, produced by overstraining of the intellectual powers, especially among those just rising into adult life, he would be right; but the number of persons so afflicted was not large enough to affect the statistical Table of Insanity in general. The noble Lord, however, had done well in bringing this subject before the House, for the matter was really serious. In 1871 there were, according to the Census of that year, 32,901 males, and 94,239 females employed in this country as teachers, schoolmasters, schoolmistresses, governesses, professors, and lecturers. In 1882, there were admitted into the asylums of England and Wales 183 persons belonging to the teaching class, 38 males, and 145 females. They had not as yet the aggregate number of that class existing in 1882; but, supposing that it had risen to 200,000. the proportion of lunatics would be very large; and it should be remembered that there were much larger numbers who were more or less affected, but who fell short of actual insanity. The same might be observed of the children who might be intellectually weakened for life, but
  1472
  who, perhaps, might never actually enter the doors of an asylum. Many people had begun to see that the forcing system in schools, and the burning competition for place and position among teachers, were producing much mental injury. He considered that the state of things which existed was well worthy of the consideration of Her Majesty's Government.
  LORD NORTONsaid, that nobody asserted that there was anything in the Code itself which necessitated overstraining. The insanity referred to by his noble Friend (Lord Stanley of Alderley) was owing to the fact that the pupils' brains were overtaxed, not so much by the requirements of the Code, as by the manner in which effect was given to the demands of our present system. The letters of the Inspectors which he (Lord Norton) had seen stated that what was stipulated for in the Code was not real, but merely nominal—the whole thing was a sham. In a town like Birmingham, there was hardly a child in any elementary school over 13 years old, and it was a mere farce to attempt to teach science to children of that age; yet there were attached to the School Board of Birmingham two officers called "Demonstrators of Science," who lectured on science experimentally, asked questions of the children, and answered them themselves. It was abundantly proved that overwork, with all its attendant evils, resulted from the system now in force of giving grants for a show of such instruction under the Code, the tendency of which was to make the children the slaves of the teachers, who were, to a great extent, paid by such results, and had, therefore, the strongest motives for preparing exceptionally clever children to exhibit feats of learning, a process which necessarily did the children far more harm than good. The Treasury had to lavish public money for results not merely useless, but actually injurious to body and mind. That being notoriously the case, the Lord President might, perhaps, have regarded in a more serious light the facts that had been adduced. The Code, of course, ought to be reduced to the actual practice of the schools; there should be no parade and empty show of knowledge, and no stimulus should be given to the teachers in the shape of prizes for extra work. Let them give children of all kinds a solid

  1473
  elementary education they could after wards take advantage of, and not make only a show of education to obtain an income for themselves out of Treasury grants.
  After a few words from Lord ELLEN-BOROUGH,
  [Subject dropped.]

EDUCATION (IRELAND)—EXTENSION OF THE ENGLISH SYSTEM OF STATE- SUPPORTED TRAINING COLLEGES.

  RESOLUTION.
  EARL FORTESCUE: I entreat your Lordships' kindest indulgence to the remarks which I am about to make, because I am most painfully sensible of my inability to address you as you have a right to expect to be addressed. I can only assure you in all sincerity that I never intrude upon you without the greatest reluctance from a sense of duty alone, when I believe that the views and arguments which commend themselves to my judgment will not be presented to you by any other of your Lordships. I must begin by explaining why I have changed the form of the Notice which I had originally given. The fact is, my own strong and long-cherished opinions had been so much strengthened and revived by my renewed study of the question with a view to address you to-day, that I became anxious to put them formally on record. Hence my present Resolution—somewhat tardily, I allow—placed on the Notice Paper, and drawn up without concert with any of your Lordships, to embody, at least, my own protest against the proposal of the Irish Government. As to that, I feel bound to say—though I confess I was at first inclined to suspect otherwise—fuller inquiry and investigation have satisfied me that it is the result of their honest conviction, which I share with them, of the existence of a very real lack of properly trained or even competent teachers in Ireland; and further—but here I differ with them both as to their plan and, if that were good, as to the extravagance of the terms offered—that this was the best way of supplying that unquestionably real want. The Chief Secretary for Ireland writes last March to the Commissioners of National Education—
  "In His Excellency's view the importance of instruction in the art of teaching cannot be over-rated.
  1474
  It is not sufficient that teachers should possess certain scholastic attainments. They should be trained in the best methods of imparting instruction and of school organization, so that on the one hand there may be no waste of teaching power, and on the other the children may be most readily and effectively taught the rudiments of an elementary course of instruction. This can only be accomplished by a careful system of training, and His Excellency, therefore, entirely approves of the proposal to extend the opportunities of training in Normal Colleges to young persons about to become teachers. With this view the Government are now prepared to encourage and facilitate the establishment of Training Colleges under local management in Ireland by authorizing the Commissioners to make grants towards their maintenance; and as the English scheme of Training Colleges is the outcome of a vast official experience, the Government are of opinion that it might with advantage he adopted, pure and simple, by the Commissioners of National Education. As the expenditure upon the support of the proposed Training Colleges may in the course of some years become a charge of great magnitude, the Heads of Her Majesty's Government have impressed upon His Excellency the importance of insisting upon a strong and effective administration of the inspection and control of these institutions."
  This system consists in taking a number of young persons of either sex, as the ease may be, and educating them apart at the expense of the State, chiefly in the same branches of learning that are commonly given in places of general secondary education: superadding only a certain amount of special instruction in the art of teaching, with regular opportunities for observing the exercise of that art by experts; and, further, a certain amount of actual practice in it under skilled superintendence in schools conveniently provided for the purpose, and hence called practising schools. I am quite aware that this system, during its short existence of some 20 to 30 years, has attracted more and more of official confidence and approbation: but I believe those of the non-official and non-clerical public, who have bestowed any thought upon the matter, are becoming more and more doubtful of its soundness in principle, and of the value of some, at least, of its results in practice.
  It was natural that the first Training College should have been established as a separate institution. The fact was only recognized in England at all since my own school days—and nowhere very much earlier—that teaching really was an art capable of being studied and learnt; and, in the words of Mr. Trevelyan's letter, that—

  1475
  "It is not sufficient that teachers should possess certain scholastic attainments. They should he trained in the best methods of imparting instruction and of school organization, so that on the one hand there may be no waste of teaching power, and on the other the children may he most readily and effectively taught the rudiments of an elementary course of instruction."
  If instruction in the art of teaching had not been, in the first instance, given separately in special Training Colleges, it would have been difficult to show the distinct results of that training, and, by that crucial test, to convince the public of its great advantages. The whole idea was new to the civilized world. It is not surprising, therefore, that many highly educated Englishmen, including some actually eminent teachers, should be even now sceptical about the value of the system. For myself, however, I may say that, after some reading on the subject, and personal visits to the earliest Training School in England, I early become a convert to the utility of such special preparation for the profession of teaching; and was, indeed, an early contributor towards that school—I mean, of course, the one at Battersea, which my Friends Sir James Shuttle worth and Mr. E. Tufnell, the pioneers of the system in England, with such enlightened and patriotic generosity, established there at their own risk. Its value soon became known from its results; and by degrees, as the want of competent teachers came to be more recognized in England, more Training Colleges were established by the different Christian Churches and the larger educational societies of the country. But with these Colleges the State had for some time nothing to do. The students either defrayed the largo part of the cost of their board and training not provided by subscription, or had it defrayed for them individually by friends who took a personal interest in them. By-and-bye the State came forward and gave more and more aid, both towards building such Colleges and in the shape of Queen's Scholarships to students, till far the greater part of the cost of the students' maintenance and instruction came to be paid by the Treasury, with, I must add, the usual consequence of State manufacture, excessive direct cost of the article produced, and heavy indirect expense for inspection, verification, and examination. Concurrently with these successive changes in the system,
  1476
  the character of the students also gradually changed. The late Principal of the Exeter Diocesan Training College—which I had with some difficulty persuaded some Devonshire Liberals to join me in supporting in its infancy under Bishop Phillpotts—told me, as I stated to the Schools Inquiry Committee, that the proportion of independent and State-supported students there had just about been reversed in his time. He spoke highly of both lots, but said they were marked by different characteristics; and he thought that the independent ones, though, perhaps, rather less intellectual, were, on the whole, rather the more satisfactory. Since that, what had been a very large majority has become the rule almost without exception, and the Government grants have become more than large enough, in my opinion, to defray all reasonable working expenses. When this had been so a certain time, I felt it my duty, along with a certain number of others, to discontinue my subscription to that College.
  One early and unhappy result of the payment by the State of the bulk of the expenses of students at Training Colleges was to lower the profession of an elementary schoolmaster in the eyes of the middle class, so that they have long declined adopting it for their sons; though it is—thanks to the Treasury—far less costly to prepare for, and, on the average, better remunerated at starting, than many other employments under Government or in private business, which they eagerly seek for their sons after preparing for them at their own expense and often paying a premium besides. Of this I have personally seen some striking instances. There were, according to the Education Report of 1881, indications of the profession being to a certain degree glutted at last by the increased annual supply of teachers from these Training Colleges so unwisely multiplied, and their standard for the time so unduly relaxed, to meet the obviously temporary demand caused by the Elementary Education Act of 1870, and other spasmodic attempts since, in the shape of Statutes and Codes, to remedy at once, per saltum, the lamentable neglect of more than two centuries. I find, in the last Report on that of 1882, anxious mention of the number of places found for them with the average amount of salary, indicating the continued operation

  1477
  in England of that law of supply and demand so scornfully ignored by the Government both in their grand and petty legislation. I am speaking especially of the male teachers; for the female teachers were from the first being constantly withdrawn by marriage; and though I have the facts about both sexes with me, I shall continue to speak of male teachers only to save time. The annual outcome of male teachers from those Colleges to be provided annually with situations amounts to between 600 and 700, and more than 100 besides from Scotland, even after the contemplated reductions in number there. I cannot help suspecting that some of the recent requirements of additional teaching power in schools, which have been so heavily felt by voluntary school managers, not having, like the school boards, the unlimited purse of the ratepayers to draw upon, have been partly occasioned by the desire to find places for this large annual outcome of teachers, as well as to improve the teaching in the schools, if not also to give a quiet lift to board schools against voluntary schools. There are well-founded complaints enough of the slowness of promotion in the Army and Navy: but the officers of those two Professions, besides the danger of occasional war—and it is seldom that we have not a little fighting to do somewhere in our extended Empire—have always the perils of the sea and of tropical climates to encounter, with proportionate risks, causing corresponding vacancies.
  But the congestion in the safe and uneventful teaching profession, especially among the males, will soon be much greater. That able and widely-circulating paper, The Standard, in a remarkable article on the whole system of pupil teachers and Training Colleges, says—
  "The number of adult teachers is already far beyond the wants of the community."
  After describing, as a consequence of the system, the rejection, by competitive examination, of two pupil teachers for every one who succeeds in winning a place in a Training College, the writer goes on to ask—
  "What is to become of the thousands of young people who work as teachers till they are 19, and are then compelled to drop out of the profession? "
  Adding, further on—
  "The consequences are very serious."
  1478
  He then proceeds to describe the pupil teacher under the English and Scotch Government system—
  "If he has the assistance of a painstaking master he usually develops into a thoroughly useful teaching machine by the time he attains the age of 18. But he is nothing more than a machine."
  He also says—
  "If we consider the course of training which a pupil teacher undergoes, it is plain that the whole plan tends to produce a kind of narrow specialist, who is useless when taken off his own ground."
  I must not stop to trouble your Lordships with passages on the same subject in The Farmer, or Chamber of Agriculture Journal. But from the pupil teacher I must revert to the student after quitting his Training College, and say that very shortly, if not now, this training, so costly to the State, and so useless to the recipients of it for any other profession, will only lead to their further swelling the already over-crowded list of candidates for clerkships, which it has been long the tendency of successive Governments, by their educational policy, to augment. For it should be remembered that almost every student in the Training Colleges has for years been drawn from the wage class; that the sympathies of this powerful, well-organized, and increasing body are, therefore, wholly with the employed against the employer; and, moreover, that their idea of the dignity of labour is too often confined to labouring with a pen in the hand or behind the ear. The influence of these separate Training Colleges upon their students, and of these students, when become teachers, upon their pupils, especially in what Bishop Temple, strongly deprecating them, calls, not "advanced," but "non-elementary" elementary schools, tends uniformly to divert more and more hands from the work of production, whether in agriculture, manufactures, or mining, into the work of clerks and shopmen, and such like; or, in the language of political economy, into the work of verification or distribution—multiplying these just when, in consequence, there are fewer transactions to verify and less produce to distribute. Of course, being exclusive and separate establishments set apart for one profession alone, every class feeling and professional prejudice must inevitably become intensified in them, from the nature of things, and not from the fault of their inmates, as is so forcibly

  1479
  remarked by the Schools Inquiry Commissioners—
  "Every Training School has, in some degree, the fault that attends all strictly professional places of instruction. It tends to narrow the mind a little, to give too distinctly professional a cast to the character. It is complained that the trained masters in this country often show that they would have been better, had they been educated in company with those who were preparing for other employments."
  I can understand and respect the sentiment which leads the Roman Church to insist on educating her future priests after a certain age in separate seminaries kept exclusively for them without the admixture of any lay students, though I cannot sympathize with it, for I have always agreed with the many clergymen who declare it to be a great advantage both to themselves and the Church of England, that all her clergy are educated along with their lay comrades at school and College. But what I have never been able to comprehend is, why young persons being trained to be teachers should be brought up on a totally opposite system, in what I have heard called Protestant Maynooths. The want of more friendships and wider acquaintance with their contemporaries of other callings, and a certain "priggishness" observable in too many of them, which may be distinctly traced to this cause, can alone, in my opinion, account for the notorious lack of general popularity of that, with very rare exceptions, highly estimable and well-conducted body of men, the elementary schoolmasters of England. The very able and instructive Report of the Schools Inquiry Commission (understood to have been drawn up by Bishop Temple, no mean educational authority) deals with this as well as with most other educational questions. And here I must be allowed to read to your Lordships the names appended to that Report, presented in December, 1867, which was the result of an exhaustive inquiry at home and abroad, carried on not only by themselves, but by a number of highly qualified Assistant Commissioners during several years—Taunton, Lyttelton, W. E. Hook (afterwards Dean), E. Temple (now Bishop of Exeter), Anthony Thorold (now Bishop of Rochester), T. D. Acland, E. Baines, (of Leeds), W. E. Forster (since Chief Secretary), P. Erle, and John Storrar. The present Lord Derby and Sir Stafford Northcote, who became Cabinet Ministers while Members
  1480
  of the Commission, stated that they did not sign, partly because they had latterly been unable to attend the meetings or study the evidence, and partly because they thought it better not to do so as Members of the Executive Government.
  The Commissioners give their reasons for declining to recommend the establishment of any Training College for masters of endowed schools, though they say of England—
  "It is to the Training Schools that the great improvements in elementary teachers is really due;"
  and they say of France—
  "The Normal School at Paris supplies the French schools with teachers not to be surpassed in the world."
  But they go on further to say—
  "The Prussians have no such Training Schools, and yet their teachers are admirably qualified, and in many respects better fitted to succeed in English schools than the French would be. The French teachers are teachers and nothing else. They are not educators; they do not undertake to form the character: they do not undertake to govern as well instruct."
  And the Report continues in a remarkable passage, which your Lordships must permit me to trouble you with—
  "But the main objection to the establishment of a Training School for masters for the endowed schools by the State is that it would almost inevitably give the Government an undue control over all the superior education of the country."
  I shall point out how this has already began to make itself felt in England. I had long before that repeatedly protested that this work of training teachers might be much better and very much cheaper done in connection with general secondary education; and, indeed, years ago suggested using these Training Colleges as excellent nuclei for new institutions on a large scale to supply the admitted deficiency in secondary education—the students carrying on together the studies which they had all in common to pursue, and those who had different specialties to follow pursuing these separately under separate instructors, as is the case at our Universities, and, in a lesser degree, at our public schools with Modern Sides. They would thus grow up together, and form, as the class above them do at school and College, life-long friendships and acquaintances before diverging into different professions and occupations; and would unconsciously learn besides each to regard

  1481
  his own and other callings with a broader and less prejudiced view.
  In England, however, there would have been, in any case, great difficulties to contend with in the adoption of any such scheme; inasmuch as the work of secondary education, though very deficient both as regards quality and amount when the Training Colleges were being established, had been carried on for centuries; and, therefore, its general character had been determined. And then in England the formidable religious difficulty was wholly absent. I have repeatedly, during the last 40 years, stood with dignitaries of the Church of England and eminent Nonconformist ministers on the platform of the Training School of the British and Foreign Society, which has so long supplied that Society's schools, many Dissenting schools, many Board schools, and some Church of England schools with teachers; and which began long ago to number several of our Prelates among its patrons, besides earnest lay Churchmen.
  In Ireland the case is very different. The National Education system established by the late Lord Derby continued truly undenominational, while those two genuinely-liberal Prelates—Archbishop Whately and Archbishop Murray—sat together at the Irish Board of Education. But it has long, I fear, practically ceased to be so, and throughout the greater part of Ireland has become virtually Roman Catholic. Those who call to mind how signally Mr. Pitt's intention in founding Maynooth to supply Ireland with a loyal priesthood, educated at home instead of abroad, failed of accomplishment, and how the directly opposite effect was produced, may well hesitate about approving the present scheme. That no Maynooth-trained priests were imprisoned during the recent suspension of habeas corpus in Ireland was, I believe, much more owing to the timidity—to use no harsher word—of the Irish Government, than to any lack of disloyalty and encouragement to lawlessness in the speeches of several reverend agitators. We may, I maintain, without bigotry or intolerance, think it a grave objection to these contemplated Training Colleges that they will surely all be denominational in a country, where difference of race has engendered internal discord terribly intensified by difference of religion,
  1482
  and that most of them will be as surely Roman Catholic; because they will be Roman Catholic, not in the sense that lay Universities were in Roman Catholic countries before any other religion was tolerated, but will be, in fact, absolutely and exclusively under the management and control of the priests—in short, semi-clerical schools, or—if I may venture to coin the word-practically "semi-seminaries." As a consistent Liberal, I more than once risked my seat for Plymouth by my votes for the grant to Maynooth, and especially by my vote for Sir Robert Peel's permanent endowment of Maynooth, which so unaccountably led Mr. Gladstone to retire from a Government, with whose Conservative and Protectionist policy he then professed cordially to agree. But, Liberal as I am and always have been, I confess I do not like encouraging by large subsidies the establishment of exclusive places of education under such exclusive priestly influence. I have always been for religious as well as civil and commercial freedom; and I am opposed to priestly domination, Roman Catholic, Anglican, or, I may add, Presbyterian, for Milton long ago wrote—
  "New Presbyter is but old Priest writ large."
  The Protestants of Ireland seem to be getting alarmed. No wonder. I find the United Presbyterian Synod has unanimously resolved to petition against the scheme. I hold in my hand the able speech of the Rev. Dr. Bryce, ex-Principal of the Belfast Presbyterian Academy, and Senior Minister of the United Presbyterian Congregation—a veteran Liberal—from which I would, with your permission, read two or three sentences—
  "In early manhood I warmly advocated Catholic Emancipation, though in those days that was deemed little short of high treason; but it seems as if we may soon have to agitate for Protestant Emancipation, at least in Ireland, since Conservative and Liberal Governments seem to vie with one another in disregarding the great Liberal principle of religious equality, by granting exclusive privileges to the Roman Catholic Church in Ireland…… I come … to the latest step that has been taken towards the establishment of a Catholic ascendancy in place of that Protestant ascendancy which the chivalrous generosity of the Whigs in the first half of the 19th century, with so much difficulty and at so great sacrifices, at last overthrew … Now, all the discord and crime that have brought so much misery and shame on Ireland, have arisen from

  1483
  the too great success of the execrable policy of England, relentlessly pursued through 20 gene rations, in artificially and violently preventing the amalgamation of the races.…. Yet this is the policy which a 'Liberal' Government have agreed to accept at the dictation of a small knot of ecclesiastics.…. The Roman Catholic laity do not want it, I know well; and I have reason to believe that many of the priests are of the same mind."
  In Ireland, I quite agree with the Government in thinking that some aid from public money is required—though very much less than they propose—towards getting teachers trained, as well as for getting secondary education supplied, in away acceptable to the people; and the more because Ireland has been much impoverished under their rule. On the other hand, in Ireland, where the scheme involves such religious difficulty, the supply of intermediate or secondary education had been utterly inadequate—indeed, till the late Government's Act, hardly more than nominal. Though that Act, however, is apparently working extremely well, nearly double the number of students having been examined under it in 1881 that had been in 1879—indeed, the Commissioners say the numbers are increasing so fast that they will have to reduce the result fees unless their grant is increased—yet that Act has only very recently come into operation. There could, therefore, hardly be any insuperable difficulty in modifying it, so as to allow of the many additional teachers wanted in Ireland being trained in connection with other students preparing for other callings, instead of being all trained separately within the walls of the sort of Protestant and Roman Catholic lay seminaries proposed. Why should not the teachers required for the Irish elementary schools be dealt with as the able and experienced Schools Inquiry Commissioners deliberately recommended teachers should be for the endowed schools? After giving their reasons against establishing a Training College, they say—
  "But many of the advantages which a Training School would give might, perhaps, be obtained with none of these disadvantages, and at much less cost, by a well-devised system of certificates."
  The Schools Inquiry Commissioners say such a system would be much less costly. The Chief Secretary's letter says—
  "The expenditure upon the support of the proposed Training Colleges may in the course
  1484
  of some years become a charge of great magnitude."
  Judging from the experience of Training Colleges in England it will, indeed, be so, especially if carried out in Ireland on the extravagant terms proposed. And this brings me to the financial objections to the English system, and à fortiori to its proposed extension on the same expensive scale to the cheaper country of Ireland, with its corresponding lower salaries to the generality of teachers. I have many figures with me; but after troubling your Lordships at such length already, I will mention only very few of them.
  I see by the last Report of the Education Department in England that the average cost of each of the 1,380 male students in a Training College has risen from a little over £56, which it was three years before, to £59 8s. 7d., nearly £1 more than in 1881, while in the highest it was over £70. The payments of the students vary in the different Colleges, but rarely exceed £10 each for the two years, as is shown by the aggregate of fees received from the 3,121 male and female students in 1882, which was a little under £17,000, or little more than £5 a-piece. This, with their payments for books of under £4,500, makes their contribution little more than £21,000 towards the total expense of these Colleges of over £154,000, of which the Education and Science and Art Departments together pay nearly £113,000. I see that the board and establishment charges together, apart from tuition, which averages near £21, average almost £39, of which nearly £29 is for board proper; while in the accounts of the Devon and Norfolk County Schools and Cavendish College, with which I am acquainted, these two are united, and the tuition is taken separately, amounting to about half what it is in the Training Colleges, or about £10 10 s. The Inspector has a long paragraph in his Report about the dietaries in these Training Colleges, suggesting their being more varied with fish, fruit, and jam, and complaining that some are not appetizing enough for young men engaged in brain-work. On an average of years the board at the Devon County School has been under £20, and in the Norfolk County School under £21. The average payments by parents at the Devon County School have been under

  1485
  £37, including Latin and other extras; the inclusive cost per boy at the Norfolk County School is 40 guineas. The average dividend at the Devon County School for the last 15 years has been over 2 per cent, which represents some interest on the cost of building; and during its shorter existence that of the Norfolk County School has been much the same; which interest on buildings does not appear as part of the annual cost of the students in Training Colleges. For a long while all the students at the Training Colleges, except a very small fraction, have been drawn from the wage class. Why should their requirements for board and lodging so much exceed those of so many middle-class schools, which are doing good brain work too? Why they get so much more may be partly explained by what happened at the Exeter Training College. I was complaining at the Diocesan Conference of the great and increasing" cost of the students, then averaging I forget how many pounds a head above £50, and was comparing it with the terms of the Devon and Norfolk County Schools, when the Chairman of the College Committee explained that the Inspector had ordered the young men beer. And this in the Diocese of Exeter, where our hard-working Bishop, a noted pedestrian as well as scholar, has long been a total abstainer, and more and more of the clergy and laity are yearly becoming so! I have heard that many of the old and recent Middle Class Schools, with moderate charges, are doing good work. I find that at the last Cambridge Local Examination, when more than 600 seniors, and 3,800 juniors, or over, in all, 4,400 were examined, four county schools, or schools akin to them in character, were among the eight, and seven county schools among the fourteen, which passed the greatest number, and this with quite their fair proportion of honours. Therefore, here, at least, there is no deficiency of brain work—but brain work elicited, directed, and maintained at far less cost, than it is at the State-supported Training Colleges.
  And now, my Lords, with most grateful thanks for your kind indulgence, on which I have trespassed so long, I will only say, in conclusion, that I have tried to show, and I venture to hope have shown, that the English Training College
  1486
  system is not to be recommended either for permanence in England or for extension to Ireland, where it will have the additional disadvantage of raising a religious difficulty; that, according to the opinion of the Schools Inquiry Commissioners, it is by no means either the only, or the best, system for us to adopt; and that there is an alternative system, which is quite practicable and much less costly—viz., one that would depend partly on local and commercial interests—these being encouraged, not cramped, by a wise combination with endowments and Government aid. I object, on principle, to the interference of the State with the practical machinery, by which a free and intelligent community provides for its own wants as it feels their pressure. The sense of want in education is comparatively recent, and perhaps, for a time, it needed stimulus and anticipation. But now that want is indisputably generally felt, there is great reason to think that the State will best promote the final object, a well-educated people, by gradually withdrawing its own official interference, and trusting mainly to guidance and encouragement.
  Moved to resolve—
  "That it is inexpedient to extend to Ireland on an equally expensive scale the costly English system of State-supported training colleges for the teachers of elementary schools."—(The Earl Fortescue.)
  LORD O'HAGANsaid, he should not attempt to follow the discursive speech of the noble Earl (Earl Fortescue), which was partly educational, partly autobiographical, partly historical, and partly financial; but had very little to do with the Motion before their Lordships. He found it impossible to ascertain, from the statement of the noble Earl, whether he was opposed to all Training Colleges; and whether he would extinguish all such Colleges in England at this moment?
  EARL FORTESCUE: Not suddenly.
  LORD O'HAGAN: The noble Earl, then, at some time or other, would be in favour of abolishing these Colleges, which had the approval of all who were most experienced in the conduct of education, and were largely a reproduction of institutions which existed throughout Europe. He thought their Lordships would hesitate before concurring with the view of the noble Earl, that

  1487
  these Training Colleges should either suddenly or slowly be abolished, to the exceeding detriment of real education. He was much surprised that the noble Earl should have taken the course he had adopted. That was neither the time nor the place in which anyone could have expected that the enormous importance of Training Colleges should have been doubted; for all those who had earned the gratitude and respect of their fellow-men as great instructors had always spoken of such Colleges as institutions of the last necessity to the advancement of the country. Let extravagant, or inefficient, or badly-situated Colleges, if there were any, be reformed, or abolished; but to lay down, as a general proposition, that Training Colleges were not desirable or necessary for the purposes of the education of a civilized people seemed to him (Lord O'Hagan) to be absurd. Teaching was an art—a delicate and difficult art—which, like other arts, had to be learnt, and required to be studied and taught with the greatest possible care, and under the most favourable conditions. The organization and teaching of a school, the utilization of the means of instruction, the comparative merits of various systems with a view to the substitution for obsolete methods of others newer and better—all this must be necessarily taught in an institution devoted to the purpose; and, if that were not done, it appeared to him they must have imperfect teaching, and not such as a country like this ought for a moment to tolerate, or to grudge the expense of procuring. When those who were not taught themselves were permitted to teach, it was the case of the blind leading the blind. It was impossible that the education of the people could be properly conducted unless teachers were properly trained. So far as Ireland was concerned, it seemed to him that that absolute necessity was unsupplied. In that regard, its position was extremely unsatisfactory, and circumstances to which he need not further allude had produced the most lamentable results. In Ireland, there were 7,365 untrained, and only 3,809 trained, teachers, and it was hardly possible to conceive anything more eloquent than those figures were in demonstrating that change was absolutely necessary. There was in Ireland only one Training Establishment subsidized
  1488
  by the State, and there were three Training Establishments unassisted by the State. One of these was Protestant, and two were Catholic. In 1881, the number of teachers trained in the subsidized school was 161, and of these only 59 were Roman Catholics. The inequality was due to the opposition of the Roman Catholic Church; but it was an opposition on grounds that had been over and over again countenanced by the Imperial Government. The main fact of the situation in Ireland was that of the Catholic teachers 27 per cent only were trained, and of the Protestant teachers 52 per cent were trained; while 66 per cent of the total number of the teachers were altogether untrained. In England, the State afforded a subsidy of £110,500, to support 42 Colleges with 3,150 students, and even with that machinery, there was not a sufficiently large number of properly instructed teachers. The noble Earl had complained that the amount of the subsidy was excessive; but he (Lord O'Hagan) did not think the House would be of that opinion. In Scotland, £27,000 was paid for seven Colleges, with 851 students; while, in Ireland, the whole sum given to the one subsidized College with 220 students was £7,755. That was the state of the case after 20 years' work. The matter had been again and again pressed upon the attention of Parliament, and the result was, as he had said, that now there were in England 42 Colleges with 3,150 students, in Scotland 7 Colleges and 851 students, and in Ireland one College and 220 students. Again, he asked, was it necessary to do more than state these eloquent figures? Was it desirable or proper that the country which, for many reasons, required assistance for its education more than the richer Island, should be in this position—that her children should be taught by untrained teachers at home; whilst, if they came to this country, they obtained the benefit of being instructed by trained teachers? It was a shame that, in this United Empire, there should be such a monstrous inequality between one portion and another. Nothing had been done to rectify the manifest and flagrant wrong. And, moreover, the evil which he had thus conclusively proved to exist was increasing from year to year. In 1866, there were 4,369 untrained Irish teachers; in 1874, the number was

  1489
  6,284; and, at present, it was 7,067. The Commissioners had always been at one in this matter. They had, in 1866, made to the Government a proposal substantially the same as that which was now submitted; but nothing was done till the year 1868, when a Commission was appointed which drew up a Memorial to the then Chief Secretary, pointing out the inadequacy of Training Colleges in Ireland, and the necessity of taking a course like that which was now to be adopted. In 1870 another Commission was appointed, which also reported in favour of Training Colleges. Sir Michael Hicks-Beach declared that it would be a source of deep gratification, if a reasonable scheme could be devised to remedy a state of things which was a serious obstacle to the maintenance of a fit standard of education in Ireland; and he did his best to bring about that which it was now hoped would be accomplished. Under the succeeding Ministry, the heads of the Irish Government were now agreed that the importance of the subject could not be overlooked, and they announced that they were prepared to encourage the establishment of Training Colleges under local management, by authorizing the Commissioners to make grants for their maintenance; and, as the English system was the outcome of large financial experience, they declared their opinion that it might be adopted with advantage. With regard to the question of expense, it was impossible, for anyone who knew the value of popular instruction, to say that a certain provision was suitable for England, and that a proportional amount was too much for Ireland. Indeed, it might be fairly urged that Ireland was entitled to more, so as to make up for the time that had been lost. The expenditure would be guarded in the most careful way, because a part of the scheme, acting on the precedent of the English system, arranged that, before a grant could be obtained, there must be a local payment of one-fourth of the outlay to be incurred. Let them remember how poor the people of Ireland were, and how difficult it was to get local contributions for ordinary schools which, being local, were more interesting to the people than any Normal College could be; and let them ask themselves whether it was possible to imagine the danger of extravagance in
  1490
  such a case? If the majority of the schools were Roman Catholic, that was only because of the larger number of Roman Catholic people. He would not say more, except to express an earnest hope that the proposition to continue and extend the establishment of Training Colleges under local management would be cordially accepted, and that their Lordships would not interpose any objection to the carrying out of a scheme which was so urgently demanded, and so essential to the highest interests of the community.
  THE EARL OF POWISsaid, the question was, whether it would be wise to allow denominational Training Colleges, which had acted so well in England, to be extended to Ireland?—because the Roman Catholic doctrine was that, in all establishments for boarders where the principal stood in loco parentis, all religious instruction should be under the control of the Church. That the majority of teachers should be of the same religion as the majority of the children was reasonable, from both a Roman Catholic and an Anglican point of view. There was no reason why the development of Training Colleges which had taken place in England, being guarded by the Conscience Clause, should not, with the necessary modifications, also take place in Ireland. He was glad that this scheme was favourably considered by the Government, for he believed, among other things, it would do good to all classes in Ireland, and give the people of that country more inducement to take an interest in education; but there was one recommendation he would make, and that was that these Training Colleges should be examined by the Inspectors of the English Training Colleges. He believed that that could be done without interfering with the management and discipline of the schools, which might be vested in the Irish National Board. If that could be done, and Inspectors could be appointed, on the same footing as in England, the public, both in England and Ireland, would have a sufficient assurance that the Irish Training Schools would be kept up to the standard of English Training Schools, and that some endeavour would be made to get the Irish teachers as efficient as the English, which would pave the way for a stricter examination in the National Schools, thus bringing them more

  1491
  nearly up to the same standard. Subject to that improvement, he thought the scheme which had been propounded by the Commissioners of Education was one very likely to benefit the teachers of Ireland.
  LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNEsaid, the question of education, as regarded Ireland, was one of great importance; indeed, he did not know a more important one, and the action taken in the future with regard to it would have great influence on the people. What they bad to consider was this—they had undenominational education and denominational education in Ireland; and what the noble Earl (the Earl of Powis) really asked them to do was, to change from the undenominational to the denominational system. The National system in Ireland was established by the late Lord Derby, on the principle of united secular and separate religious education. That had been a system which bad worked admirably in Ireland, and had kept some degree of union between the different religions, and had prevented that total separation which must have resulted from the adoption of another system. But he asked the noble Lord the Lord President of the Council to answer him this—whether these Training Colleges would not be under the management and control of clergymen? The words were—" The manager shall be a clergyman, or other person of position in society." That meant that the Roman Catholic clergy of Ireland were to have the training in their own hands; and the result of that system would be, as the noble and learned Lord (Lord O'Hagan) knew very well, that these Training Establishments would nearly all be in the hands of the Monastic and Conventual Institutions of the country, so that out of the funds provided by the taxpayers of Great Britain they would be establishing institutions on these principles through the length and breadth of Ireland. A great wrong would be inflicted by the denominational system on the minorities in country districts, whore these must receive denominational education, or none at all. He hoped no change would be made, for he contended that Parliament ought to hesitate long before it threw over the system of mixed education, which had succeeded so admirably in Ireland. This system had
  1492
  long been upheld by the Liberal Party, and he well remembered an able speech made, some years back, in support of it by the noble and learned Lord (Lord O'Hagan), who now threw it over. If they did throw it over, the deplorable effect would be to encourage religious antipathy in a country where that feeling was already too strong.
  LORD CARLINGFORD (LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL)said, the questions of the noble Lord (Lord Oranmore and Browne) appeared to him to be rather in the nature of positive assertions than anything else. One of them, upon which he had said a good deal, related to the primary education given in the ordinary National Schools, and not to the special Training Colleges, which was the subject with which their Lordships were dealing. No doubt, there were very many small minorities or handfuls of Protestant children scattered over a great portion of Ireland, and attending National Schools, in which the education given was practically Roman Catholic, and naturally so, the country being Catholic. Those minorities were fully protected, however, by the rules of the National Board at that moment, and they would continue to be. He knew of no reason why the noble Lord should think that in future those children would be in greater danger than they were at the present moment. The noble Lord evidently thought that, in one respect, a great revolution would be produced by this addition to the Irish National system now in force; and, apparently, that those Roman Catholic teachers who might hereafter, for the first time, receive technical training in properly-conducted Colleges would otherwise have received their education in schools of which he himself would approve. Did the noble Lord really suppose that these young Roman Catholic teachers, at that moment, who were preparing themselves as best they could, and without any proper training, for the profession of schoolmaster, were being brought up in institutions of which he seemed to approve? A very small number—indeed, so small that for national purposes it was not worth while to take them into account—were so brought up; but the great bulk of the Roman Catholic teachers, who were carrying on the work of education in Ireland, had been

  1493
  brought up under the auspices of their own Church, and under influences quite as denominational as could obtain under the system now sought to be set up. In almost every case these young men, preparing for the business of a schoolmaster, had been brought up in large schools under Roman Catholic—he might say clerical Roman Catholic—management; and the proposed Training Colleges could, in no degree, be more denominational than those schools in which these young men were being brought up. The only difference would be that, instead of being untrained, they would be trained; instead of being unskilled, they would be skilled; and, instead of being comparatively bad teachers, they would be comparatively good ones. He was very glad to hear his noble Friend opposite (the Earl of Powis) giving his valuable support to the proposal made by the National Board and by the Government—a proposal which was substantially the same that the noble Earl and his Commission recommended some years ago. He (Lord Carlingford) must say, however, that he was not prepared off-hand to accept his noble Friend's suggestion that English Inspectors should be imported into Ireland to look into and report upon the mode in which these Training Colleges were conducted. He could assure his noble Friend and their Lordships that the National Commissioners would take the most rigid care to see that in all matters of building and management, and of secular education, these Colleges came up to their requirements. He need hardly say that the school teaching of the Colleges should be in all respects upon the ordinary terms of the National Schools; and the teachers in training would, in every case, be practised in schools attached to the Colleges, which would be, as nearly as possible, identical with the other schools of the National Board. They would be expected to give full and proper Returns, in the same manner as the National Schools, and would be subjected to the same rigid rules, and to the same time table. He would remind the noble Earl (Earl Fortescue) of the Kildare Street Training School, which was the first Training College ever established in Ireland. The noble Earl would be shocked to hear that, as long ago as 1815, that School was established at the expense of the State,
  1494
  and it would be a candidate for the proposed grant. It was not necessary that he should trouble their Lordships at any length, especially after the speech of the noble and learned Lord behind him (Lord O'Hagan), who had spoken on behalf of the Irish National Board, with whom the Government were at one in this matter. It was proposed to adapt to Ireland the system which had long been established and insisted upon in England. These Colleges were incapable of obtaining aid themselves. The state of things that existed in Ireland seemed almost incredible to an English educationalist; and he must say that he was sorry his noble Friend (Earl Fortescue) had not given these proposals a welcome, instead of meeting them with the Motion he had made. At the same time, he was glad to have the opportunity—he was going to say of expressing to the House how utterly he disagreed with the noble Earl; but he would not say that, because he did not wish to differ with him if he could help it, but of welcoming these proposals, upon a subject in which he happened in former days to have taken a warm interest. He begged to recommend the proposal earnestly to their Lordships as the only means he knew or had ever heard of for meeting this formidable deficiency of training in the Irish National system, which was growing year by year, and was undermining the whole system of education in the country. No one had suggested any other course that could be taken, except the noble Earl who had brought forward the Motion (Earl Fortescue), and who had suggested that teachers should train themselves; but they had no means of training themselves. Of the starvation of the Irish training system there was no doubt; and if that condition of starvation in which Ireland had been kept so long were allowed to continue, the result would be a still greater deficiency of teachers. The noble Earl was alarmed lest they should over-feed the patient who was at present suffering from inanition. He (Lord Carlingford) thought that there was no fear that such over-feeding would take place, or that there would he any extravagance in this matter. The noble Earl seemed to think that the English training system was extravagant. ["Hear, hear!"] He (Lord Carlingford) was not prepared to admit it was

  1495
  extravagant, on the part of a country like England, to spend £110,000 a-year upon the training of school teachers—upon that part of the school system which was absolutely essential to the vitality of the whole, and which it would be the most fallacious economy to starve. But let him remind them that Training Colleges, in this matter of State aid on the one hand, and of voluntary support on the other, were in a totally different position from the ordinary schools of the country. Those schools enlisted and maintained a vast amount of local personal interest and support; but Training Colleges had very little support of that kind. They drew their students from an area so wide that it was impossible for them to command that local and personal interest which was the cause of the subscriptions which flowed in for the support of Elementary Schools. He believed, therefore, that such aid as the State had given in this country was by no means in excess of that which was required to maintain the Colleges in efficiency after they had been established, as they had been, mainly by very great and noble voluntary efforts. He saw no reason whatever why the English scale should not be applied to Ireland. The noble Earl had condemned the whole system of State-aided training. He (Lord Carlingford) said, better give it up in this country first before they refused to extend it to Ireland; but they did not mean to give it up in this country. This country, having long made up its mind to insist upon this training under these conditions for the benefit of its own people, might fairly be expected now—and it was very late in the day—to extend the same system to the Sister Country. He, therefore, heartily recommended this proposal to the favourable reception of the House. He need hardly say that if the late Duke of Marlborough had been alive, and in the House that night, he would unquestionably have lent his support to this proposal. Not long before his death he expressed himself in the strongest manner in favour of the view of the National Board, and expressed great pleasure that that which he himself had desired to accomplish, when he ruled in Ireland, now seemed on the eve of being fulfilled. He (Lord Carlingford) was convinced that not only would the proposal remedy defects which were undermining the
  1496
  Irish system of education at its very foundation, but that it would put an end to a state of things which constituted to the people of Ireland a great and positive injustice.
  EARL FORTESCUE, in reply, said, he would not trespass upon the patience of the House again for more than one minute. It had been stated by the noble and learned Lord (Lord O'Hagan) that all civilized nations had Training Colleges. Now, Prussia was not only most successful in the arts of war, but also in those of peace. It was a most highly educated nation; Prussian teachers were, the Schools Inquiry Report said, admirably prepared and qualified; and yet Prussia had no Training Schools. He had not pressed the Government to begin immediately discontinuing—he only protested against their thus confirming and extending—a certainly very costly, and utterly artificial, system.
  On Question? Resolved in the negative.

FACTORIES AND WORKSHOPS AMENDMENT BILL.—(No. 113.)
(The Earl of Dalhousie.)
FACTORIES AND WORKSHOPS AMENDMENT BILL.—(No. 113.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  EARL GRANVILLE, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, it would affect, in some degree, the conditions of labour of men and women, who worked in occupations where they were liable to lead poisoning, and it also contained some new regulations for effecting improvements in the construction and sanitary arrangements of bake-houses. He begged to move the second reading of the Bill.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a"—(The Earl Granville.)
  THE EARL OF WEMYSSsaid, he should not oppose the second reading of the Bill at so late an hour; but he wished to point out that it extended the principle of the Factories Act to full-grown men for the first time. He, therefore, hoped that the Committee stage would be brought on early in the day on which it would be taken, so that time would be given in order that its provisions might be fully discussed.
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday next.

SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY (CORNWALL) BILL.
(The Earl of Mount Edgcumbe.)
SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY (CORNWALL) BILL.

  (NO. 142.) SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Heading read.
  THE EARL OF MOUNT EDGCUMBE, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, it was the same in principle as similar Bills which had been passed for other parts of the country. The noble Earl on the Cross Benches (the Earl of Wemyss), who had spoken against the Bill "elsewhere," had since become a Member of their Lordships' House; and as he (the Earl of Mount Edgcumbe) had seen a Notice in the papers, to the effect that the noble Earl intended opposing the second reading of the Bill, he was bound to do what he could to anticipate his objections. He did not know on what grounds the noble Earl meant to base his opposition; but he was evidently one of those who thought that if one person out of 100, or out of 1,000, had a desire to do something that was not criminal, the remaining 99, or 999, had no right to prevent his having an opportunity of doing it. He (the Earl of Mount Edgcumbe) was not going to enter into the question of the abstract right of majorities; but, if the noble Earl's principle was to be carried to its legitimate length, it must necessarily apply to a great deal of legislation which many of their Lordships would be sorry to see altered. Such an objection would, in fact, be inconsistent with all closing; and the noble Earl, to be logical, would have to join hands with the anti-vaccinators, and to oppose all acts of a repressive character. A very strong opinion was entertained in favour of the measure by those who would be affected by it. The population of Cornwall, at the last Census, numbered 330,000; and he believed that it was almost an unprecedented thing, out of such a population as that, that from 120,000 to 130,000 had signed Petitions in favour of the measure. He might say, also, that all the Mayors of boroughs, legitimate officers, speaking in a sense of responsibility, had supported the Petitions;
  1498
  that two Town Councils, acting in their corporate capacity, had also signed Petitions, and so had three Boards of Guardians, men who knew the feelings and wants of their neighbours; whilst 46 public meetings were held wholly with favourable issues as regarded the measure. He knew, of course, it might be said that Petitions were not worth much, and that people were indolent, and signed it under the influence of others; but he would ask what other means had the bulk of the people of making their wishes known to Parliament? There were only two means open to them. One was to make a particular question a test question at the Election, which was most unsatisfactory, because an Election only occurred occasionally, and the question was subordinated by other matters of far greater national importance, and far greater than the particular object which might be had in view. And the other was by Petition. Political agitators might induce people to sign Petitions, perhaps ignorantly or thoughtlessly, on many subjects. They might offer the hope of some advantage, such as increased political power, or they might excite their passions on some real or sentimental grievance, or some class jealousy. But this was a very different question from that. The most ignorant country bumpkin knew better than the noble Earl what would be the effect of closing public-houses in his village on Sundays; and he, in the nature of a self-denying ordinance, petitioned against their being opened, thus setting the example of a sacrifice. This made the Petitions worthy of consideration. And this feeling was shown by gentlemen who had the most clear and accurate instinct of the wishes of the people in their own neighbourhood. There were 13 Representatives of Cornwall in Parliament, and all but two had given their unconditional support to the measure. There was, he admitted, a feeling that gentlemen who had their own clubs and cellars had no right to impose restrictive measures upon others. That was a very natural sentiment; and, when he was first asked to associate himself with the promotion of this measure, he entirely refused, simply on the ground that it was not the business of a person who would not be affected by the Bill to attempt to carry it into law. But having been shown that

  1499
  the genuine feeling of the county was in favour of it, he felt that it was his duty to support it in Parliament. They knew that the Licensed Victuallers' Association was strong, and that its strength depended simply upon its union; and it could not be made matter of complaint if a small publican should feel himself bound to throw in his lot with the others, and seek the assistance of the London Society. He knew very well that the wise men did not come from the West. Sunday Closing had succeeded in Wales. The only two objections which he had seen to it there were—first, that it had lessened the rents of some public-houses; and next, that it was harassing to the magistrates on the Border line, where men went across to drink in counties where the law was not in force, and returned before they had recovered from the effects of their expedition. The second of these objections would not apply in the case of Cornwall, as the boundary was one which could be easily maintained. The noble Earl concluded by moving the second reading of the Bill.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Earl of Mount Edgcumbe.)
  THE EARL OF WEMYSSsaid, he would not divide the House upon the Motion; but, at the same time, he must be allowed to say that he could not support the principle of Local Option which was to some extent, he thought, contained in the Bill and other similar Bills, relating to other counties; and he trusted that principle would never be adopted by Parliament. He should oppose the Bill in Committee.
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday next.
  House adjourned at a quarter before Eight o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Ten o'clock.