said, he rose to move certain Amendments of Standing Orders and certain new Standing Orders of which he had given notice. His Motion related to the destruction of the dwellings of the labouring classes consequent on the construction of railways and public works. His object was to provide a remedy for the great evil of overcrowding in the metropolis and other large cities consequent on the destruction of the houses of the poorer classes through the compulsory powers given by certain Acts of Parliament. He would not dwell on the evils of overcrowding and the urgency of the case, because these were facts which were universally admitted. There were now two Bills before the House acknowledging the evil and at tempting to provide a remedy, their object being to enable local authorities to build up as many houses as might be destroyed by the companies. But though good as far as they went, it was quite necessary to supplement them by a compulsory enactment, providing that those companies which did the mischief and destroyed the houses of the poor without giving them compensation should be compelled, as a part of their scheme, to restore the dwellings and to calculate the cost of the restoration as part of the cost of their line, just as they would calculate the cost of making a cut ting or a tunnel, or building a viaduct. He felt bound to say that he had been met in this matter in a very creditable spirit by the companies chiefly affected. He had seen representatives of the chief companies in the metropolis, and they stated that they were ready to accept the obligation, and that it was only putting the saddle on the right horse to make those who were responsible for the overcrowding provide a remedy by erecting fresh dwellings for those whom they displaced. They quite admitted the principle, and were ready to adopt it. The only question was how it could best be carried out. He admitted it would be impossible to impose on the railway companies these compulsory obligations this Session, but they might be very easily carried out in subsequent Sessions. To enable the House to see to what the evil was growing he would quote some information which a friend of his who had access to all the statistics had furnished. The number of persons who by the admission of the companies would be dispossessed in the present year was 17,815. These were actually admitted, and when they added a percentage which were never included in such Returns, he might safely say, and be within the mark, that 20,000 persons would be evicted. He had no idea when he first undertook the question of the difficulties with which it was surrounded; but having consulted persons competent to judge in these matters, he had prepared the Amendments and Standing Orders which were on the paper, and if the House should think fit to adopt them they would, he believed, provide the remedy which they were seeking, and which all believed to be necessary. He first proposed to move an addition to Standing Order 52 as follows:—

"And shall specify by a denoting mark against each name which, if any, of the persons named in such book of reference as owners or reputed owners, lessees or reputed lessees, and occupiers, belong to the labouring classes; and all weekly tenants and lodgers shall be deemed to belong to the labouring classes."

"And whose rent shall not exceed 10s. weekly."

"Including the building of dwellings for members of the labouring classes, as hereinafter provided."

"It shall be competent to a Committee to admit any inhabitant of a parish in which lands and houses are situate which are sought by any Bill to be taken, to be heard on the question whether the book of reference deposited in relation to the Bill specifies correctly which of the persons named in such book of reference as owners or reputed owners, lessees or reputed lessees, and occupiers belong to the labouring classes."

"The company, person, or corporation to whom the power is given shall not exercise the power hereby given to them of taking lands or houses of which any persons belonging to the labouring classes are owners, lessees, or occupiers, until the company, person, or corporation shall have built one or more dwellings sufficient for the accommodation of such persons, and have obtained the certificate of two justices, or a metropolitan police magistrate, that such dwellings have been provided to his satisfaction, and in accordance with the provisions hereinafter contained."

"The proposed site and the said plans of the dwellings so to be built shall in every case be submitted for the approval of Her Majesty's Chief Commissioner of Works, who shall have power to fix the site and to enforce the conditions laid down in the last clause, but not otherwise to alter the proposed plans."

"If the company, person, or corporation shall offer to any owner, lessee, or occupier of any lands or houses to be taken under the provisions hereof, one or more room or rooms in the dwellings to be provided as aforesaid at a specified rent, and for a specified time, the bonâ fides of such offer shall be inquired into by the tribunal, persons, or person who, under the provisions of 'The Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845,' shall fix the compensation to be paid to such person, and the said offer shall be taken into consideration in fixing the amount of such compensation."

"All persons occupying lands and houses to be taken under the provisions hereof, being members of the labouring classes, shall be entitled to compensation under the provisions of 'The Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845,' although the company, person, or corporation may, after having purchased the interests of the owners or lessees thereof, have given notice to such persons to quit, and the term fixed by such notice may have expired."

said, it was unnecessary for the hon. Member to offer any observations as to the merits of the object which he had in view. It bad been an object with that House, but more especially with the other House of Parliament, for many years past to obtain some stricter regulations with respect to dealings with the houses of the labouring classes. There was a Standing Order of the other House much more stringent than any which the House of Commons possessed to enable the Legislature to make any enactments which it might think fit for the accommodation of the labouring classes. He would express his regret that within a short time an endeavour had been made to impress upon the public mind that the interests of the working classes were less attended to by Parliament than those of other classes of the community. Now, he had some experience as Chairman of the Standing Orders Committee, and he believed that a grosser libel had never been uttered in that House. It had been the object of both Houses to prevent any unnecessary interference with the comforts of the labouring classes, and if they had not been successful it was because of the difficulty with which Parliament had to contend. He felt the greatest embarrassment in meeting the proposals of the hon. Member, They involved so many changes and gave rise to so many considerations that it was impossible to deal with them in detail. It might be sufficient to say that in his opinion they could not possibly apply to the legislation of that House, and if he might give an instance to show how unsuited they were he would quote the Resolution marked C, which provided that

"The proposed site and the said plans of the dwellings so to be built should in every case be submitted for the approval of Her Majesty's Chief Commissioner of Works, who should have power to fix the site and to enforce the conditions laid down in the last clause, but not otherwise to alter the proposed plan."

said, it appeared to him that it would by-and-by become a question whether they ought not to put a stop to the construction of railways altogether, rather than encourage them on the one hand and beat them down on the other by such treatment as was now proposed. He opposed the proposition of the hon. Member for Lambeth. If the proposal was adopted it would greatly interfere' with the operations of railway companies in London, while it would confer no corresponding benefit on the labouring classes. There was before the House two Bills for improving the dwelling accommodation of the working classes, but he was afraid that those measures would not provide one half or one quarter as many new dwellings as private Bills before Parliament would destroy.

said, his hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel W. Patten) had referred to a Bill of which he (Mr. Milner Gibson) had given notice, and he thought the clauses proposed by the hon. Member for Lambeth might be inserted therein. Al-though that Bill contained clauses very fit to be inserted in a metropolitan railway Bill, he (Mr. Milner Gibson) should be very sorry to give any countenance to the principles on which the clauses now proposed must rest. It seemed to him that they might proceed in this direction till they made improvement almost impossible, and the execution of valuable public works so difficult that they could not be undertaken. No class in this country had been so much benefited by the great works executed of late years in London as had the labouring classes. He believed their wages had been raised and abundant employment found for them by those works. If it could be shown that injury was done to a certain class by any particular works executed in London he should say compensate them, let no man suffer injury in order that certain works might be executed. But if railway companies were to have fastened on them the obligation of being builders of model lodging-houses, he had great doubts whether that enactment would be for the benefit of the working classes. If these were to be erected in the town, the result would be to create a greater evil than was sought to be removed. Somebody must remove from the site of the new model lodging-houses. Was there to be a site found for the dis- placed persons, and, if not, why not? Were those who were thus removed not entitled to be heard before a Committee of that House if they were dispossessed of the dwelling-houses they occupied? If it was said that these lodging-houses were not to be erected in the town but in the suburbs, he answered, "Leave the supply of these houses to the ordinary operations of enter-prize and trade." He believed there was no business in which people were more likely to over-speculate than the building of houses. He had heard it continually stated, that in the neighbourhood of this great metropolis builders were constantly overbuilding, and no employment of money was so profitable to its owner as to cover land with houses, for which there were so many customers among the labouring classes. He regarded the clause as involving consequences which they would do well to pause before they sanctioned; it raised the question of tenancy. In most of the cases in which houses would be removed, for whose occupiers the clauses proposed to find sites, the persons living in the houses were weekly tenants. At present landlords could eject weekly tenants at a week's notice, and unless a change was made in the law the landlords could in like manner eject them from their holdings in the new buildings. This would be the case unless the House was prepared to give those tenants a kind of fixity of tenure. The houses were to be built which they might not occupy, and which, if they did, there was no security that they would continue to occupy. If the lessee or landlord, who had the power of getting rid of the labouring man, knew that he would get much more for his property by delivering it up unoccupied to the railway company, because an empty house would entail no obligation on the company, the only difference would be that they would evict those tenants, and hand over the property free from incumbrance to the railway company. Were they going by these clauses to give an inducement of this kind to the, proprietors of lodgings occupied by weekly tenants? If a house was to be built for a man dispossessed, how long must a person have been an occupant in order to have a claim on the company? And how long was he to occupy it? He certainly could not give his assent to the proposal, or any countenance to the principles it involved.

said, he hoped that the hon. Member for Lambeth would adopt the suggestion of his hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel Wilson Patten), and not ask the House to come to a decision at present. The question was a most important one. The right hon. Gentleman had laid it down in the roost distinct terms, that whatever the amount of hardship or difficulty might be of sweeping away the houses of these poor men the House of Commons was not to take any steps whatever.

I said distinctly that every person who could show that he had sustained any injury by the execution of railway works was entitled to be compensated.

said, that was true. But the right hon. Gentleman took care to designate pretty clearly who he considered to be capable of receiving an injury. He said, "What is a weekly tenant?" He could be got rid of by the landlord in a week, and he had no legal status to bring him into the magnificent category which, according to the right hon. Gentleman, was to entitle him to compensation. He was not one of those who thought that this difficult subject could be met very easily. He was quite sure, however, that the proposition of the hon. Member for Lambeth would increase the difficulties a thous and fold. Still, he would be very l0th to say that there were not minds in the House which would be brought to bear on the subject, so as, if not to remove the difficulties altogether, at all events to alleviate them to a considerable degree and remove many of the inconveniencies and hardships to which these people must be more or less subjected. He hoped the hon. Member for Lambeth would consent to have the matter referred to a Committee; and although he knew the question was beset with difficulties, he hoped that a Bill would be framed providing residences for the labouring people whose houses were swept away by railway companies. Let them not go into that matter with a foregone conclusion that they could do no good, and must leave these persons to sink or swim as the case might be, when, from the experience of the last few years, it was very plain that they had very little chance of swimming, and that many of them had suffered the greatest possible inconvenience.

said, he thought it was of no use telling a man that he was entitled to compensation for an injury done to him if he had no chance of receiving it. These poor persons had not received any compensation hitherto, and were not likely to do so in future if the House went on in the present groove with respect to that subject. He sincerely sympathized with the objects of the hon. Member for Lambeth, although he thought they could not be attained by the Resolutions exactly as they stood. The Resolutions specified particularly the labouring classes. To that he objected, for before the law all men were equal. He did not like the word "class." The position of the labouring classes in the matter was one of great hardship, but the case of the small shopkeepers, who were just above the labouring classes, and who depended for their living entirely upon the connection they had formed in particular neighbourhoods invaded by railways, was much more hopeless. From the way in which they were displaced they were often irretrievably ruined. The hon. Member for Lambeth would, no doubt, receive in the fairest spirit any suggestions for better carrying out his objects; but the House ought not to be led away by the doctrine that every question of that kind should be left to the Committees to which the Bills were referred. The House itself ought to watch the second reading of Private Bills that were likely to entail great injury on numerous persons, and should not throw the responsibility on the Committees, who generally thought themselves relieved from all responsibility as to matters of principle by the House having given the Bills a second reading. Ninety-nine cases out of 100 were referred to Committee; in many of them the subject was of such paramount importance that the Committee would prefer the House taking upon them the heavy responsibility of giving judgment upon it. Unless such points were to be entertained and dealt with by the House, it would almost be better to give up the form of reading these Bills a second time altogether.

said, he quite sympathized with the feelings which had prompted the hon. Member for Lambeth in bringing forward the question, but thought the Standing Orders which he had proposed were liable to very grave objection, and, whether so intended or not, would create something like a new law of property. Under those Standing Orders, if a new railway company obtained power from Parliament to pull down a particular street, for the buildings Be demolished it must not only give compensation to their owners, but must provide new houses for the inhabitants of that street. But the nest street, which might belong to a private owner who thought he could put his land to a better use, could be pulled down by him if he saw fit without requiring the sanction of Parliament, and the tenants would get no compensation. Where was the difference, as far as the labouring man was concerned, between being ejected by a private owner and being ejected by some company which purchased the property? The necessary and logical consequence of the hon. Member's propositions would be that they should prevent the owner himself from pulling down his own property without giving the tenants compensation. That was a new form of tenant-right, and one which the House should hesitate before it sanctioned. No doubt serious injury was often inflicted on the labouring classes by the pulling down of houses on a large scale. Still, the difficulty which those classes experienced in obtaining convenient dwellings did not arise except in the most infinitesimal degree from the operation of the railway companies, but far more from other causes which Parliamentary legislation did not occasion and which it could not prevent. It arose from the immense increase of business in London, from the enormous cost of land, and from the fact that the owners of many houses and streets formerly occupied by labouring men found it more profitable to turn them into shops, warehouses, offices, and the like. If, therefore, they dealt simply with those cases in which the sanction of Parliament had to be obtained before schemes could be carried out, they would only deal with a small part of the question. He agreed with the hon. Member for Lambeth that the problem how working men were to be lodged in London had become one of national importance; and if any inquiry were to take place into that whole subject, such an inquiry would probably do great public good. But the proposed Standing Orders involved a dangerous principle, and dealt with the question in a one-sided and very imperfect manner. It was to be hoped, therefore, that by pressing the Motion to a division the House would not be placed in the position of seeming to reject a proposal the intention of which they must approve, simply because they did not believe it to be the right or the best mode of accomplishing their common object.

said, he hoped that, in endeavouring to prevent the overcrowding of the people in certain parts of the metropolis, the House would take care by its action not to make matters worse. The adoption of too severe a system of interference with the progress of railway enter prize might increase the evils which it was intended to diminish. So far from its being necessary for men to be very near their work, it would be most desirable that the working classes should be lodged in suburban villages, rather than in the crowded alleys of the metropolis. The people should be removed from these overcrowded localities to the suburbs of London. What the labouring man wanted was to have proper facilities for getting from his home to his place of work.

said, the course of that debate had proved to him quite clearly that many seeming difficulties would present themselves in the matter to hon. Members which did not exist in reality. The noble Lord opposite, for instance, (Lord Stanley) had taken an objection on principle which was capable of being answered. The noble Lord said that these Standing Orders would create a new form of tenant-right, and he illustrated that by the case of the landlord of a whole street next to a street bought up by a railway company, remarking that that private landlord might pull down all his houses and deal with his land as he pleased, evicting the tenants without any compensation. That was quite true; but such a landlord did not come before Parliament asking for any compulsory powers. All that he maintained was that when a company made an application to the House for powers to pull down the dwellings of the people, it was their duty, before acceding to such application, to see that other provision was made for their reception. It was surprising that the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade should refuse to give any countenance to the principle of the proposed Standing Orders; but, happily, his countenance was not required, because countenance that was much more valuable had already been obtained. Consent had been given to the principle embodied in these Resolutions by half-a-dozen of the great railway companies in that metropolis. If, then, the railway companies were ready to take this burden upon themselves, and thus remove the difficulty which every one experienced in dealing with this question, surely the House would not come forward and say that this should not be done. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade had stated that the labouring classes had been most benefited by the construction of railways. The labouring classes fifty years hence might, but in the meantime if the right hon. Gentleman would take the trouble of going into various parts of the metropolis in which railways had been constructed he would find that they had been much injured. It had been stated that the building trade was very active, and that a very large number of houses were being erected, but they were not of a class inhabited by labourers, who were being turned out of their homes by thousands every year. However, on the understanding that certain leading railway companies would come forward and do their best to remove the evils of which he complained, remembering that "while the grass grows the steed starves," he was quite willing to act upon the suggestion thrown out by the hon. and gallant Member for Lancashire (Colonel Wilson Patten) for the appointment of a Committee, and, with the leave of the House, withdraw his Motion.

said, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether, before any scheme for the contemplated arrangement between the Ecclesiastical Commissioners and the Dean and Chapter of Westminster shall be submitted for the approbation of the Queen in Council, Her Majesty's Government will take care that provision shall be made for the additional payment by the Chapter to Westminster School, as recommended by the Public Schools Commission, and for the assignment of separate estates for the maintenance of the school? He also wished to know, whether, if the Government find that such a provision cannot be made by Order in Council, they are prepared to bring in a Bill during the present Session to carry that arrangement into effect?

said, in reply, that the arrangements for the commutation were still under consideration, and that no scheme had as yet been prepared. The Commissioners had no objection to the plan proposed by the School Commission, that out of the revenues of the Dean and Chapter funds should be provided for the additional endowment of the school. Legislation would be requisite, and a Bill would shortly be introduced in that or the other House of Parliament on the subject.

said, he wished to know whether there will be any objection to lay the scheme on the table when it is completed?

replied there would be no objection, and in fact he believed that all such schemes were laid before Parliament.

said, he rose to ask the Secretary of State for War, Whether, in conformity with the reiterated recommendations of the Army Medical Department and Military authorities, the Government have yet determined upon the employment of native troops in China?

replied, that arrangements were now being made with the view of sending some native troops, consisting probably of rifle regiments, to Hong Kong in order to release the troops at present stationed there. A great part of the duties of the troops there were of a police character, and he should shortly have an opportunity of stating what arrangements would be made; but inasmuch as the troops were employed in duties which could be more properly performed by local police or by a native force, steps would be taken to relieve our troops from the performance of such duties.

said, he wished to ask Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, Whether his attention has been called to the case of a drover, who on his return from Cardiff to Cork had three fresh calf-skins tied up in a bundle, which he sought to conceal; and whether instructions will be given to the police in the various Irish ports to institute such scrutiny as would prevent the risk of the cattle disease being introduced into Ireland by similar means?

replied that he would direct an inquiry to be made with the view of ascertaining the facts, and also whether any instructions had been given to the police to watch such cases, in order to prevent the introduction of the cattle disease into Ireland.

said, he wished to know whether any general instruction has been issued to the Constabulary respecting these matters?

said, he was not aware whether any general instructions had been given.

said, he wished to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether it is the fact that the clerks of the Inspector General of Imports and Exports have applied to the Board of Customs for liberty to forward a Petition to the Lords Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury, praying for a re-consideration of a Petition presented in May last, with a view to giving them a more substantial benefit than was afforded by the recent Treasury Minute upon Customs Salaries; and whether such permission has been refused?

said, that in answering the Question of the hon. Member he should make an appeal to him and to the House as to the wisdom of asking questions of this kind. The Treasury was engaged in a very difficult operation. In consequence of petitions from different classes of Customs officers last year, they had inquired very minutely into the whole classification and pay of the service, and they had been discussing a scheme, part of which they had adopted, which would affect directly, he believed, the salaries of 1,000 officers, and indirectly the salaries of several thousands more. Every change in the salaries of the officers of a Department affected not only themselves, but others whose salaries might not be altered. The letter to which the hon. Gentleman alluded had been only issued at one o'clock on Tuesday last, and that letter was made the subject of a Question put on the Notice Paper at four o'clock the same day by an hon. Member. If the subordinate officers of Customs could feel that they could obtain Parliamentary intervention in a few hours at any stage of these proceedings it would be difficult for the Treasury to give that dispassionate attention to questions of this kind which it was their wish to give. It was true that the clerks in the department of the Inspector General of Imports and Exports asked that the scheme for improving their salaries might be re-considered, because they thought they did not get as much advantage as others. It was true that the Commissioners of Customs replied to them, that considering the improvements recently made they were not disposed to forward their petition; but it was true also that the clerks were aide to forward the petition directly to the Treasury, and he was not aware that they had not done so. The whole question was one of great difficulty, and he could assure the hon. Member that the Treasury had given their best attention to it.

I put no Notice on the Paper at four o'clock on Tuesday.

I said an hon. Member had done so. That Member saw good reason to withdraw it, and the hon. Member then took it up.

said, he would beg to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire, When he will lay on the table of the House the Amendments which he announced it to be his intention to propose in Committee on the Parliamentary Oaths Amendment Bill.

Sir, it is my intention to place the terms of the oath which I mean to propose in a complete form on the table of the House at the commencement of public business on Wednesday next.

stated, that it would be quite impossible to discuss the Amendments introduced in the House of Lords into the Cattle Plague Bill that evening, nor could he, under all the circumstances of the case, fix a time for the discussion.

was understood to say that he believed he should be able to lay a Bill for the expurgation of Obsolete Statutes on the table soon after Easter.

stated, that he hoped to be able to bring in a Bill for the consolidation and amendment of the Bankruptcy Law immediately after Easter.

said, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, How it is that the Mutiny Bill, which stands for Committee that evening, is not printed and in the hands of Members?

said, he believed the Bill was now printed, and that the hon. Member might obtain a copy of it if he pleased.

said, that that was not placing the Bill in the hands of Members sufficiently early to enable them to give notice of any Amendment which they might wish to propose in Committee.

said, that the Bill contained only one or two verbal alterations, and he considered that sufficient notice had been given.

said, he wished to ask Mr. Attorney General for Ireland a Question of which he had given notice, but before putting the Question he wished to make a few remarks. The most opposite beliefs on the subject of trawl fishing existed in Ireland, and this was not to be wondered at, seeing that Mr. Commissioner Barry expressed an opinion on the subject differing from that contained in the Report of the Sea Fisheries Commission. With the great facilities the Commission had of obtaining the most reliable information, one could have little hesitation in relying on their Report, even although it was opposed to the opinion of Mr. Commissioner Barry. The condition of the Irish Fisheries was at present anything but prosperous. It appeared that in 1830, through the stimulus of bounties and loans, the number of vessels of all classes engaged in the Irish Fisheries was 13,119, and the number of men and boys employed 64,771. In 1836, when the fisheries were in a state of depression, caused through withdrawal of bounties, the number of boats employed was 10,761, and the number of men and boys 54,119. The fisheries soon recovered from this depressed condition, and in 1845 gave employment to 19,883 vessels and 93,073 men and boys. After the famine in 1848 there were only 15,932 vessels, with 70,011 hands, and in 1865 the number had still further decreased, there then being engaged in the Irish fisheries only 9,300 vessels and 40,946 hands. The Commissioners, in their Report, stated in the following words the reasons which had caused this great falling off in the Irish fisheries:—

"The great decline in the number of fishermen we believe to be wholly due to the effects of the famine of 1848, and the subsequent emigration. It might have been anticipated" that during the famine the fishermen at least would be secure from its ill effects, and would not only have plenty of food themselves, but would be the means of averting starvation from others. But such was not the case; it was found that the people would not live wholly on fish, nor would they out of the small means remaining to them buy fish in preference to meal or potatoes; the fishermen, therefore, suffered not only from the loss of their own crops of potatoes, but from want of "market for their fish. They shared to the full extent in the sufferings of the famine, and as most of them became physically incapable of going to sea, it was frequently found that men were starving while fish were in abundance on the coast. In many parts of Ireland the fishing population has not yet recovered from the depression and ruin caused by the famine; and the subsequent emigration, by taking off the youngest and ablest of the fishermen, and leaving behind the old, the feeble, and the incompetent, has still further operated, not only in reducing the numbers, but in lowering the average condition of those who remain behind."

said, that the Report to which the hon. Member had referred was laid on the table of the House only very recently. The Report was not confined to Ireland, but applied to every part of the United Kingdom. The question was a very large one, and as the recommendations of the Commissioners were of a very important and, as far as his knowledge went, very novel character, they required very serious deliberation. It was hardly to be expected, therefore, that the Irish Government should be prepared to take any measures for giving effect to them. With respect to what the hon. Member had said as to the state of the Irish fisheries, he was not aware of any legal restrictions which prevented Irish capitalists from engaging in the pursuit of fishing. There were facilities for establishing oyster beds in Ireland which did not even yet exist in England. As to there not being so large a proportion of the Irish people employed in fishing as the hon. Member thought there ought to be, that was scarcely a matter which the Government could alter. Many boats went from England to fish on the coast of Ireland; and if the Irish fishermen had boats of the same tonnage and capacity, and furnished with the same implements as were furnished to the English crews, there could be no reason why they should not carry on that branch of industry near their own shores. Much faith was not to be placed in any attempts on the part of the State to stimulate and foster the fisheries of the country by bounties or similar means. They had been already tried without having the desired effect. The matter must be left to the growth of private enterprize; and all that the Government could do was to take care that no legal obstacles, or undue restrictions, should check the development of those pursuits.

said, he wished to draw attention to a Return for which he had moved, and which he held in his hand, observing that he should like to know what excuse was to be made for the inaccuracy of the information which it contained. In consequence of the opinions expressed in the House and out of it, as to the way in which the Admiralty accounts had been kept, he had been induced to look into the matter. For years great complaint was made as to the incorrectness of these accounts, and no one had found greater fault with them than the noble Lord himself. The hon. Member for Halifax (Mr. Stansfeld), when connected with the Admiralty, had gone on a roving commission, and had made some rather severe remarks on the way in which the accounts were kept. They were told that for the future every farthing of the naval expenditure would be accounted for. With respect to allowances in other departments, the requirements of the Treasury were adhered to, but in the Return referred to be found that no less a sum than £643 was allowed to the Lords of the Admiralty, and to the Secretaries to the Board—the noble Lord opposite and Mr. Romaine—for oil. That allowance he believed to be just and proper, but what he complained of was that no mention was made of its having been converted into a money payment, and that the Lords of the Treasury had not been consulted with respect to the change. He also found that seventeen allowances were made to clerks in the Admiralty amounting to £1,150, but the Return did not contain the slightest evidence that those allowances had been sanctioned by the Treasury. He should like to hear from the noble Lord how that happened to be the case. In 1861 the hon. Baronet the Member for Bristol (Sir Morton Peto) had moved for a Return, which was afterwards laid upon the table, of the resignations and salaries of the clerks in the Admiralty at Whitehall, but it was not dealing fairly with the House of Commons to keep back until this very day a Return of these allowances. He held in his hand a Return showing that all the allowances granted in the Treasury and the Civil Service were sanctioned by the Lords of the Treasury, but from the other Return to which he had alluded it did not appear that a single allowance had received the sanction of the Treasury. He admitted that the amount was small, but still there was thus a total sum of £1,793 which was paid in the Admiralty at Whitehall to officers of that Department, and which could not be traced in the Return just laid upon the table. He would ask the noble Lord to state from what source this money was derived, whether its payment was sanctioned by the Treasury, and whether a Minute had been made of such sanction having been given. If it had not, then he submitted that it was the duty of Parliament to take care that next year the accounts of the Lords of the Admiralty should be as clear for hon. Gentlemen to understand as the accounts of the army and the Civil Service. It would be found on reference to the Estimates that instead of all the expenses of the Admiralty being set down on the same page, the expenses of the messengers, &c, in the Secretary's department were given in a different part of the Estimates. Now, he was of opinion that the whole of the expenses of the Admiralty Board at Whitehall should be placed under one head in the Estimates so that the whole might be seen at a glance. In the remarks he had made he wished it to be distinctly understood that he did not for one moment dispute the justice of the allowances to which he had drawn the attention of the Committee. On the contrary, he thought it was a wise thing to grant allowances to faithful public servants for any extra duties which they might perform.

said, that since he had had the honour of a seat in that House the Naval Estimates had never been produced in so clear and straightforward a manner as they had been of late years, and for this change the Board of Admiralty were entitled to great credit. The hon. Member for Devonport (Mr. Ferrand) had, however, noticed some points in regard to which they probably might be made more clear and explicit. The members of the Board of Admiralty occupied a very responsible and laborious position, and in his opinion if their salaries were increased they fully would deserve it. He objected, however, to the allowance of oil, and he hoped for the future it would be commuted into a money payment. As it at present appeared in the Estimates, this allowance subjected these officers to appear in an invidious and somewhat derogatory position, because the sum so apportioned could by no means be expended for the purpose it indicated.

said, it appeared that no less than £7,816 was paid to seventy-eight messengers and porters. He wished to ask the noble Lord what class of men they were chosen from? There was also one lady housekeeper, and he should be glad to know whether that appointment was bestowed as a reward to the widows of deserving officers.

said, that with regard to the oil he was afraid he had himself been instrumental in cutting down the allowance at the Admiralty in 1860. In old times the allowances had been made for oil before gas was introduced, but when that change took place the houses were lit at the public expense with gas, but the allowance for oil continued till 1860. Soon after Lord Palmerston's Government came into office he, and the hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Whitbread), who was then Civil Lord of the Admiralty, ascertained the average expense of the gas for a certain number of years, and assigned a fixed allowance per annum to each of the Lords of the Admiralty and the Secretary. He believed the House would not be disposed to quarrel with that arrangement. With regard to the allowances to clerks it was perfectly true that a certain number of clerks received special allowances for certain exceptional and peculiar business, and that those allowances had not been granted with the sanction of the Treasury. If, however, the hon. Member would look to the dates, he would perceive that the present Government was not responsible for that state of things. For a considerable number of years allowances had been grant- ed for the performance of certain duties which came under the head of "Contingent Allowances," and which were to be found in the Vote for Contingencies. He agreed that it was advisable that all the particulars should be shown in the Estimates; but if every little allowance to everybody were minutely set forth, the Estimates would be swelled to such an extent that hon. Gentlemen would complain of their bulk. He would inquire, however, whether in future years all fixed allowances might not be inserted in the Estimates, for there was not the least desire for concealment with regard to them. His hon. Friend the Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hanbury-Tracy) had asked what class of men the messengers were taken from. It used to be the practice to appoint domestic servants as messengers, but now old sailors and soldiers were almost invariably appointed. The housekeepers both at the Admiralty and Somerset House were formerly widows of meritorious officers, but it was found that though they were most estimable ladies they were very inefficient housekeepers. It was found absolutely necessary, therefore, to appoint a lady who could undertake the duties of the office.

said, he wished to ask some questions with respect to the principles on which the construction of the navy was to be carried out. In what position was Captain Coles to be placed? Was the controversy between him and the Admiralty to continue, or was he to be allowed to construct a vessel according to his own theories? or were Captain Coles and Mr. Reed to be coupled together to the obstruction of each other. This was not merely a money question, but one which affected even the safety of the kingdom. Captain Coles did not hesitate to say that the ship which the Admiralty proposed to build would not carry out his designs, and would not be a fair test of his principle. The country, therefore, ought to know whether Captain Coles could be left unfettered to carry out his own principle, or whether he was to be clogged, as he had been for the last five years, by the Board of Admiralty. It would be very unfair to couple Captain Coles with a gentleman opposed to the turret principle. He thought that he should be able to show that Mr. Reed was opposed to that principle now, though favourable to it in the early part of his career. It was not right to refer to a previous debate of this Session; but it might be taken for granted that the noble Lord (Lord Clarence Paget) held the opinion that Mr. Reed was not opposed to the turret principle of Captain Coles. But he (Mr. Seely) could show that Mr. Reed was opposed to it. In the evidence which he gave before the Committee on the 23rd March, 1865, Mr. Reed said—

"In my opinion no sea-going turret-ship of moderate dimensions and a high speed can be satisfactorily built, if an attempt be made to approach to an all round fire.

"But it is necessary to point out that there are great difficulties in the way, and that this vessel (Captain Coles' one turret-ship) is an embodiment of the strongest objections which have been taken by myself and others to the practicability of constructing satisfactorily sea-going turret-ships."

"I have carefully examined your design for a two-turret vessel, and I am of opinion that it fulfils, under moderate dimensions, all the reasonable requirements of vessels of this description. The protection afforded against an enemy's shot is as great, or even greater, than in any vessel yet built. The fire throughout the entire circle is secured, and the height of the upper deck above water is, I am of opinion, sufficient to render the vessel safe and a comfortable sea-boat.

"Now, I ask the House to consider what took place last year (1864). We (the Admiralty) heard of an eminent shipbuilder, a gentleman who had distinguished himself in drawing the lines of ships, a very scientific man. He was wholly unconnected with the Government service, but believing him to be a person who was thoroughly competent, we brought him from the private trade into the service of the country. That gentleman was Mr. Reed. Hon. Members will recollect to what an outcry his appointment gave rise to. I am very glad that we made that appointment, because Mr. Reed has performed his duties most satisfactorily."—[3 Hansard, clxxx. 384.]

"That the smallest turret-ship, carrying but a single turret, if wholly armour-plated and made seaworthy, must be considerably larger than the Enterprise."

"The Minerva, the first of the iron-clads ordered in Europe for this war, arrived in Rio on the 12th from Liverpool in thirty days."

"The Enterprise, Research, and Favourite, certainly represent my ideas, in so far as I could give scope to them under the peculiar circumstances of their construction, and I am perfectly willing to be judged by a comparison of those vessels with others of like size."

"This vessel, after being completed for sea, left here for Holyhead on the 17th of January, 1806, encountered very severe weather on the passage, but proved herself an excellent sea-boat, very buoyant, and rolled easily, even when placed broadside to a heavy sea in the race off Holyhead. She left Holyhead for Brest on the 20th instant, experiencing severe south-west gales in the Channel, but fully maintained her character as a good sea-going ship, and arrived off Ushanton the 22nd instant, and anchored safely at Brest on the following morning. The Huascar had her guns on board—namely, two 40-pounders (broadside guns), equivalent to a broadside of 680 lb. She had also her full complement of shot and shell, and stores and provisions for some months on board, in addition to about 100 tons more coal than she intended to carry for ordinary service. The trial, therefore, of the Huascar during the late severe weather we have had in the Channel, and when loaded unusually deep, is most satisfactory, and proves that armour-clad ships of even small size can be built on Captain Covyper Coles' turret principle, to combine speed and sea-going qualities of the first order, carrying at the same time a much heavier and more effective armament than vessels of similar tonnage of any other construction."

"I freely stake my reputation, such as it may be, and all my anticipations of every kind, upon the fact that the Bellerophon cannot fail to steam over 14 knots."

"I state with the utmost absolute fearlessness and confidence that the Admiralty are now building a corvette from which neither the Alabama nor Florida could hope to escape."

said, he was anxious that the few observations he had to make should not be regarded as emanating from a factious spirit. He wished to call attention to the present low scale of remunerating the artificers and labourers in the dockyards, which prevented the Government from getting the most efficient men. He thought it unworthy of this great country, spending, as it did, £10,000,000 annually upon our navy, that the Admiralty should hunt the kingdom through in order to obtain cheap labour, and that they should offer far less to their workpeople than was given in private yards. Was it just and was it politic that labourers in the dockyards should be kept down to starvation point by their wages being reduced to 13s. or 14s. per week? It was impossible to expect a fair day's work from men who were so miserably paid. Then, there was the case of the joiners—skilled artizans—men who had to serve a long apprenticeship and to purchase a costly set of tools before they could obtain work, who were also paid far less in Her Majesty's dockyards than were men of the same class in private yards. The caulkers and the shipwrights were also underpaid, and he hoped that Government would take the case of all the people engaged in the dockyards into consideration. He also wished to know why the wages of the artificers and labourers, amounting to £15,000, engaged in breaking up old ships, were not deducted from the proceeds of those ships. He would not, however, trouble the Committee with anything further upon that point, as it was his intention to refer to the matter again on some future occasion.

(Rochester) said, he had brought forward this subject till he was tired. He also could bear testimony that the joiners in the dockyards were paid less than in private yards. Last year he was told that they were paid so much that any discontent that might be reported to him must be the result of an hallucination, and that they could not be tempted into private yards. When he was told this he could answer nothing; he was, in fact, completely floored. But he afterwards made inquiries; and he found that a great strike was going on, and that owing to the influence of the trades' unions no man in the Government yards dared go into private yards for any remuneration that might be offered. He had now the confirmation of the last speaker, who was a large employer of labour, that he could not get joiners for the price paid in Her Majesty's dockyards. The argument used against him last year, though successful, was hardly, as he thought, fair. The Committee should remember that the joiners in Her Majesty's dockyards had practically no redress for their grievances. They could not strike as men engaged in private dockyards could do if they felt aggrieved, and deputations to the Admiralty were productive of no result. He was one of a deputation that went last year to the Admiralty. They were asked point blank, did they understand the business better than the Admiralty? With all due and proper deference he thought they did. When the Admiralty made their periodical visits they asked the men whether they had any grievances. But it was a common remark that the Admiralty knew as much about dockyards as dockyards knew about the Admiralty. Having made numerous inquiries into the matter, he found that the men in the dockyards were paid less than in private yards; in addition to which they had to find their own tools. The consequence was that the Admiralty were not getting the pick of the men among the young hands. It was said that the dockyard men had four holidays in the year; but, if they were paid as in the private yards, they could afford to pay for their own holidays. He had no connection with dockyards. There were not fifty dockyard voters in Rochester; and he had more of their votes under a Conservative Government than under a Liberal Government. It had been said that the dockyard men would not remain if they were paid so much less than what they could earn in private yards; but there was always an objection to men in employment to go elsewhere, and one reason was the expense of removing themselves and families from Chatham and Portsmouth to such places as Newcastle and Sunderland. He reminded the House that when their services were not required labourers and artizans in the dockyards were just as liable to be discharged as men in private yards. He thought the whole matter ought to be referred to a Committee of Inquiry, because, although he knew very well that the noble Lord the Secretary of the Admiralty understood his business, and that when he went to the dockyards the men were called on to state their grievance, yet if they did so the matter was pretty sure to be handed over to some clerk in the office, who reported that everything was as it should be. He would say, let the Committee consist of one Member from each dockyard borough; let there be Admiralty officials, and let there also be a few Members connected with the shipbuilding trade of the country in private dockyards. Above all, and this was absolutely necessary, let the men of the dockyards who were called on to give evidence have a guarantee that no harm should reach them in consequence of their evidence.

said, he had been informed that the joiners in Her Majesty's dockyards received only 3s. 10d. a day, while 5s. and 6s. a day was paid in private yards. Why this difference? [The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER: Superannuation.] He was much obliged to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and would take up the point presently, but he was not to be diverted from his point by the interruption. Was it true that the joiners in Her Majesty's dockyards were paid 3s. 10d. a day? And was that sufficient? Was it right? Was it right that while ship joiners received 5s. a day, in some cases 6s. a day, in private yards, the payment in the Government yards should be only 3s. 10d.? And was the difference made up by superannuation? Was it not true that scarcely one man in ten received the superannuation? And if so, what had superannuation to do with the other nine? If a diminution of expenses was requisite it ought to take place not amongst the mechanics, but amongst those who had much higher payments, and little or nothing to do. A saving should not be attempted in the wages of the artisan and the labouring class, who had to work hard from morning to night in order to gain a livelihood; at least not till it had been attempted in the case of those who with little work could much better afford lower payment. Besides the joiners, the case of the shipwrights ought to be taken into consideration. He should like to know whether it was true that when the iron-clads were first introduced 8s. a day was paid for labour to outsiders, and that a suggestion was made to the common shipwrights in the dockyards—who had worked hard in order to qualify themselves for the labour, and who, after so doing, had succeeded the first arrivals—that after a time they might perform the same labour as the men who received 8s. He had been told that these men now received only 4s. 6d., though they were performing the duty efficiently. The noble Lord might answer the question or not. If he did, the answer would no doubt be what his (Mr. Serjeant Kinglake's) remarks suggested. If no answer was given the public would draw the inference that the noble Lord had no sufficient answer to give.

said, that as the representative of a dockyard borough, he should be failing in his duty towards his constituents if he did not say a few words upon the subject before the Committee. The statement which he made last Session relative to the claims of the dockyard labourers had never been contradicted, and he believed that no more just claims had ever been submitted to the attention of the House. He hoped to be able to convince the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the matter was more serious than he imagined. It had been stated that the artificers and labourers ought to apply to the Admiralty, instead of submitting their claims to the consideration of the House, but they had been repeatedly refused by the Admiralty. During the last Session the claims of the officers of Customs were brought before the House, after having been repeatedly rejected by the Board, and the result was that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had taken the claims into consideration, and that the salaries of those officers had been increased. Unless the claims of the dockyards were taken into consideration before long, his impression was that the most serious injury would be inflicted upon them. The result of the present system was that the best men were leaving the Royal dockyards and entering private yards. The wages in the former were so low that the owners of the latter were able to draw away the best men. Those owners of private yards who denied that the artizans in Her Majesty's establishments had anything to complain of, could scarcely be regarded as impartial judges; because, while the men in the Royal dockyards were underpaid, they could, of course, secure the best workmen for their own services. He trusted the Chancellor of the Exchequer would take into consideration the proposition of the hon. Member for Rochester, and consent to the appointment of a fair and impartial Committee to inquire into the claims of the men, and if those claims should be substantiated, he did not believe that the right hon. Gentleman would throw any impediment in the way of a fair remuneration being afforded. When iron ships were first introduced into the Royal dockyards, men from the country were employed in the work. Those who bent armour-plates received 8s. per day, the plates from 6s. to 8s., the riveters 6s., and the men in other branches 6s. These men struck for wages, and the men in the Royal yards prepared themselves for the work. The old yardsmen soon became equal to the new ones who had been introduced, but they were now receiving no more than 4s. 6d. a day, whilst the average wages in the private yards amounted to 6s. 6d. The wear and tear of clothing had increased from 30 to 40 per cent. The price of provisions had also considerably increased. House rent and taxes were higher. In many parts of England the police had received an increase of wages on account of the increased price of provisions, and the advance that had taken place in the rents and rates of dwelling-houses, and these things were worthy of consideration in dealing with the case of the dockyard workmen. Further, a considerable amount of sickness was produced by the foul air the men encountered while working at these vessels, and many of the clubs which formerly supported them had been broken up in consequence of the number of men thrown upon them. With regard to the superannuation which had been spoken of, not more than one man in ten ever received it, and then the period was so short between its being granted and his death, that not more than three men in 100 derived any great benefit from it. The constant employment agreement had been alluded to, and it was said that the men had four days' holiday. But they were quite willing to give that up, and all they wanted was a fair day's pay for a fair day's labour. With regard to the case of the joiners, the forcible statement of the hon. and learned Member for Rochester (Mr. Serjeant Kinglake) was fully borne out by the facts. In private establishments the average rate of wages was 6s. 2d., whilst in the Royal dockyards it was only 3s. 10d. How, then, could good men be kept under those circumstances, especially as their superiors were so strict that if a man wasted five minutes it would be struck off his wages? In the Royal yards there was the strictest enforcement of labour, and the present superintendent at Devonport Dockyard did his duty so ably that as much labour was now performed in one year as formerly was obtained in two. That circumstance gave additional force to the claims of these men. The Chancellor of the Exchequer could not imagine that hon. Members brought forward this subject year after year unless they believed in the facts which they stated. He firmly believed that if the Committee were appointed it would be found that a good case could be made in support of the proposal to increase the wages of these men. The right hon. Gentleman had lately said that there were Departments of the public service in which the salaries had been raised, and he admitted that there might be others in which the question ought to undergo consideration. Now, he would ask the right hon. Gentleman if the claims of the dockyard workmen were undergoing consideration? They were a loyal body of men, devoted to their respective establishments, and the Government could not make a greater mistake than, year after year, refusing to take into consideration their claims, when they were merely asking for common justice.

said, he laboured under the disadvantage in taking part in the discussion of being the representative of a borough which had two dockyards in it. He thought it a disadvantage, because the grievances of the workmen had been so frequently brought forward on former occasions by Members representing dockyard towns, that he feared they would not be listened to with as much attention as the subject they treated of demanded. He thought that the hon. Member for Devon-port (Mr. Ferrand) had made out a good case. He had been largely concerned in the employ of labour of various kinds, and he knew something of the scale of wages paid in contracts and engineering works outside the dockyards. There could be no doubt there was a great difference between the wages paid in the Royal dockyards and in the private yards, and the men in the Royal dockyards felt that they were unjustly treated. Within the last ten years the wages of the working classes generally had been increased in consequence of the augmentation that had taken place both in house rent and the means of living; but the wages in the Royal dockyards had not been proportionality raised. The reason urged for this was that the men in those yards were entitled to pensions. But these pensions ought to be treated according to their commercial value. The pension was a day's pay for every ten years' service. He would take the case of the joiners, for example, whoso pay in the Royal dockyards was 3s. 10d. a day, whereas in private yards they received 6s. 2d., making a difference of 2s. 4d. day. Supposing a man having entered at twenty years of age had given forty years' service in the Royal dockyards, he would be entitled at sixty to £39 per annum pension. Now, under the recent excellent Act of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, if the man in the private yard invested £3 1s.9d. for forty years, he would obtain the same amount of pension by way of annuity, and the residue of the difference of wages, if laid by for that forty years, would give him a sum of £1,456. But it was said, why did they not seek employment elsewhere? The young men did go elsewhere for employment, but the old men, who had spent many years in the dockyards, did not wish to forego that pension to which they naturally looked forward. He understood that the men were not to be had in the numbers in which they were required, and that the Government were obliged to send them about from yard to yard in steamers to execute the necessary works. He was prepared to admit that he could not suggest any remedy himself, but hoped one would be found if the proposed Select Committee were permitted to take the matter into consideration. There was one point which especially demanded their attention—that was the charge for supervision in the Navy Estimates. At Deptford the charge for supervision was £10,647, whereas the charge for wages was only £47,879. The increase on the entire Estimates for supervision was £26,053, while the increase for wages was only £10,957; therefore, they were paying£26,000 more for superintending the payment of £10,000 more in wages. In the case of five out of the seven dockyards—namely, Deptford, Woolwich, Chatham, Sheerness, and Devonport, the increase of the salaried establishments or cost of supervision, was £17,145, whilst there was absolutely a decrease of wages to the extent of £4,382. This matter required explanation, and he hoped that the Secretary of the Admiralty would be able to afford it. He was told that at Woolwich dockyard there had been engaged upon one job 240 men and boys. To oversee these there were two foremen, four inspectors, twelve leading men, and two writers, who passed on the orders from one to the other, till at last they reached the working men. In any private establishment such a superintending force would be found very extravagant and useless. Some saving might possibly be effected under such heads as this which might be applied to a fair augmentation of the wages of the workmen, who had not had any increase since 1857. It was not a fitting occasion for going fully into the matter, but he hoped that the Admiralty would appoint a Commission to inquire into the rate of wages paid to the different classes of workmen, their superannuations, and position generally in comparison with workmen in private employ.

said, that if these labourers thought themselves as unfairly treated as appeared from the statements to which he had just listened, it was strange that in his own part of the country he had more applications for employment in the dockyard as joiners than for anything else. But for the strong antipathy which he entertained to asking favours from any one, his noble Friend opposite would be in receipt of daily applications from him on that subject. A little while ago he had forwarded an application on behalf of two men, and the reply was, that owing to the number of other applications, it was impossible to comply with the request. He knew that the labourers set great value on the Superannuation Fund. This chronic annual grievance of the dockyard labourers showed itself in so virulent a form that it was worth while remarking the quarters from which it sprung. First of all they heard the two hon. Members from Devonport, where a dockyard existed; and then hon. Members for Rochester, where, though there was not positively a dockyard, yet the boundary line, as an hon. Member had told them, was so delicately marked that he threw up his hat for the dockyard. Greenwich, too, had been ably represented in the debate, and if its representative erred at all, it was rather on the side of elaborateness in his complaints. The hon. Member for Chatham (Mr. Otway) likewise advocated the dockyard view. [Cries of "No!" "Not yet!"] Well, at all events, the voice of Chatham was rarely wanting from these debates. It would be a pity that so much disinterested philantrophy should be wasted. He hoped, therefore, that the utterances of hon. Members would reach the ears of their constituents. The effect created upon his mind by these annual discussions was to strengthen his impression that dockyard labourers ought not to have votes. He was of opinion that both for the men themselves, for their own good, as well as for the interests of all other parties concerned, it would be a much better thing that the men in the dockyards should not have an opportunity of bringing their claims before the House in the way they now had, and of saying to candidates at Parliamentary elections as it was known they did, "We will vote for you if you bring our claims under the notice of the House of Commons."

said, he hoped he would not be intruding on the Committee if he said a few words on this subject. Not being at present at the Admiralty, but having had the honour of being connected with the Admiralty last year, and having taken part in the debate which occurred last Session on the question of wages in the dockyards, he felt it right to state some matters which had come within his own knowledge. In accordance with the promise given by the Government in the course of the debate to which he alluded he had felt it his duty in connection with other members of the Admiralty—and a good deal of the work fell upon him—to very closely investigate the question. Each of the dockyards was visited by the Board; and two or three members of the Board, seated round a table, received, without the presence of any of the dockyard officials, deputations, consisting generally of two or three men at a time, from, the different classes of workmen. The men had received no previous intimation whatever from their officers of the questions which would be put to them; and he was bound to say that they answered the questions put to them on the subject of their wages with great intelligence and fairness. The Board went most narrowly into the question, heard their arguments, and the comparison between their wages and the wages paid in the private yards, and listened to what they had to say on the point of superannuation. In a few days after those examinations were concluded he left the Board of Admiralty, but he was bound to say for himself that he agreed with the decision of the Board. As the Board had to deal with as many as 15,000 men, there might be some inequalities as regarded a few men; but he had arrived at the conclusion that on the whole, considering the permanent nature of the employment, and the system of superannuation, the present rate of wages was sufficient. The rate of wages in the dockyards was now for "established men"£68 a year, and for "hired men" rather more than £45 a year. As to a Committee, he was bound to say that if they followed the recommendation of the hon. Member for Rochester (Mr. Martin), he thought they would not receive a very satisfactory report from such a Committee as he suggested. The hon. Gentleman said that the Members of the Government knew very little about the matter. But he (Mr. Martin) would have the Committee consist of Members of the present and the late Governments, of dockyard Members, and of one or two gentlemen with a special knowledge of the subject. Judging from the observations made by the dockyard Members in the course of the discussion, be did not think that with no one to help them, except the ignorant officials and the one or two specially informed shipbuilders, they would be likely to bring up a very impartial report. Let him go for a moment into the real question. The hon. Member for Devonport (Mr. Ferrand) said, in the first place, that the wages in the dockyards were insufficient, because a number of the men in those yards were leaving the public service. He denied that altogether. He distinctly stated it was not the fact. He asserted that up to the time when he left the Admiralty, which was only a short time ago, that was not a correct representation, and he had ascertained that since then the number of men leaving the dockyards was not even so large as before. Therefore, he believed anything which could be said upon that point would not tell in favour of such an inquiry as was suggested, but quite the other way. The dockyard men were not dissatisfied. At all events, they did not show it by leaving the dockyards. He would further illustrate this by the way in which the question of wages concerned a very large body of dockyard men. There were three classes of men employed in the yards. First, the "established men," who, in addition to their wages, were entitled to superannuation. There were next the "hired men," who, though they were not "established," might be said to be permanently employed in the yards at fixed rates of wages. The third class were the "factory men," who were only engaged from week to week. The wages of this last class were fixed by the engineers who had a discretion up to a certain maximum fixed by the Admiralty. Those factory men might, if they liked, take their discharge to morrow. Their wages fluctuated, if necessary, with the wages of the market; but those wages had not been increased by the engineer, and simply because the engineer had not found it necessary to increase them. This fact was of more significance when taken in connection with the circumstance that in many cases the wages of those "factory men" had not reached the maximum which the engineer might have given them if he had thought it necessary to do so. Their wages had not been in any case increased for five years. The question of superannuation had also been raised in the discussion, and he must say that with respect to it some hon. Members appeared to him to labour under an extraordinary delusion. One hon. Gentleman (Mr. Ferrand) said that the number receiving superannuation was in the proportion of about three to every 100 in the total number of men. He had referred to the Estimates, which he believed to contain perfectly correct information on the point, and in the Estimates he found that the number of "established men" entitled to superannuation was 9,600, and the number of artificers actually in the receipt of superannuation 3,000. There could be no question as to the value of superannuation to a body of men; and it was to be measured by a very much higher standard than that which the hon. Member for Devonport (Mr. Ferrand) had applied to it. And did hon. Members think that the prospect of permanent employment was worth nothing? Hon. Members kept harping on the 6s. paid in the private yards as compared with the 4s. 6d. paid in the dockyards. But did they really think that the 1s. 6d. or 2s. was the real difference between the advantages in the respective employments? He could assure the Committee that in reply to questions put to them the intelligent workmen themselves stated that they put a very considerable value on the prospect of permanent employment. When asked as to the comparative advantages of the dockyards and the private yards in respect of the element of permanency those men did not hesitate to admit that their advantages were enormous, and when asked why if they thought their wages inadequate they did not leave, they at once attributed their remaining to the certainty of permanent employment. Let one inquire from a private builder to what interruptions in their wages his men are liable and he will at once see the force of this. The Committee must allow, therefore, for that very considerable advantage, in addition to the advantages of superannuation, which superannuation was given not only in old age, but in cases of permanent disability when the other requisites of superannuation had been complied with. An hon. Gentleman (Sir Charles Bright) had said, "You never raise the wages in the dockyards." It was perfectly true that they had not been raised recently. But they had been raised twice in the last twenty years, and those increases were, he would undertake to say, quite equal to the rise in wages which had taken place in private yards from the Crimean War up to the present time. Besides that, the agitation which took place on the subject of superannuation should not be forgotten. The superannuation before 1859 was very trifling, and it was thought necessary to increase it and to put the dockyard men on the same footing in that respect as the other servants of the Crown. That was considered at the time a great boon, for it practically doubled their retiring allowance. The facts with regard to pay and superannuation which he had mentioned, the fact that the men were not leaving the service, that there was not the least difficulty in getting hands—as every Member of Parliament must know, for they were overwhelmed with applications to get into the dockyards—and especially the fact that the factory men's wages, which were regulated by the engineer, did not require to be increased—all these things justified the Government in the course they had taken. All these things required the Government not to yield to the requests which hon. Members for the dockyards made—no doubt with perfect honesty, but in reliance on the representations made to them by their constituents—and not to do that which would have the effect of adding £100,000 a year to the Estimates. He hoped, then, he should be pardoned if he said that these debates, year after year, were not founded upon the real facts of the case. They were told every year that men were leaving, and that the attractions of the dockyards had ceased; and yet every year they knew that the men were not leaving, and that the attractions of the dockyards were not only as great, but much greater than before. That being so, the time had come, he thought, when hon. Members might be appealed to fairly to leave these things in the hands of the Government, and not on the one hand to protest against undiminished Estimates, while on the other they cried out for increased and unnecessary expenditure.

said, that the cases of the dockyard men and of those in private yards were totally different. The dockyard men had, first of all, a very great advantage in having permanent employment, and they valued it exceedingly high. In the next place, they had something in the shape of superannuation. Then there was another important circumstance, and that was that whether it was wet or fine the dockyard man received his wages. That was not the case in private yards. When the day was wet the workmen had to stand off the slips, and then they got no wages. Then there was another considerable difference. The general system adopted in the dockyards was to pay by the day, and the men worked in the ordinary way to earn a day's wages. But in private yards the wages which they had heard so much of were given as a general rule for piece work, in which a man made much greater exertion in order to get a greater amount. The general effect of all that was that the men, knowing the advantages on the one side and the other, did not leave the dockyards, and that private builders could not get them. As to the alleged rise in articles of consumption, having been in business thirty years, he believed that his men purchased everything cheaper now than they did then, and he knew that their wages had been increased 25 per cent. Provisions had very little or nothing to do with the question; it was rather a question of whe- ther one man or two men were required. The best friends of the workman were not those who put his case most strongly, for they had probably been misled, but those who put it fairly.

said, it was unnecessary to defend the representatives of the dockyard towns for having taken up the cause of their constituents. It was all very well for the hon. and gallant Member for Truro (Captain Vivian), who had scarcely heard a word of the debate, to rush into the House, let off his speech, and then rush out again, after crying down the claims of the dockyard workmen. If the hon. Member had so many applications for joiners, that only proved that the men were very badly paid in Cornwall. The hon. Gentleman had thrown out a taunt about disfranchising the dockyards, thus adding insult to injury. But he might have waited to see what Monday would bring forth. He could say that he had found the artificers of the dockyards a most independent class of men. The real fact was, that hon. Members for dockyard boroughs, on both sides' of the House, had taken up the case of the workmen because they had evidence that they were not treated as they deserved, and because every class of labourers in the yards had come forward with complaints. It had been said that the men ought to bring their complaints before the Lords of the Admiralty. He considered it absurd to expect poor labouring men to wait on the Lords of the Admiralty with complaints. For his own part, he never looked forward to an interview with the Lords of the Admiralty without fear and trembling. And in addition to that, the Lords of the Admiralty when in Portsmouth were always in such a hurry that it was impossible to obtain an interview with them. The argument against raising the salaries of the men appeared to be that their present pay was sufficient. It was said that these men received wages equivalent to what they would get in private yards, but it was shown by calculations that the superannuation was worth 3½d. a day, and that the holidays were only four. The permanent employment might be worth something, but the Admiralty had the further hold upon the men that they had wives and children and could not therefore leave their homes in search of other employment; but because they had got them tied by the leg, was it fair, was it generous, to take advantage of them? That they got a man for what they could was an argument which would apply to all officers of State, and he saw a great many men who were paid much more than they were worth. The question in this case was whether the men were fairly paid, and the best proof that that was not the case was to be found in the fact that every single class was dissatisfied. They could vote money fast enough for particular persons, but when a claim of justice was brought forward it was met with the cry of economy. In addition to being underpaid, the dockyard labourers suffered from a grievance which, in the case of persons of a similar class in life, had been several times brought before the House that Session—namely, they were being deprived of their houses, which the Government officials were pulling down to make way for increased dockyard accommodation.

said, he must protest against the opinion expressed by the hon. and gallant Member for Truro (Captain Vivian), that the dockyard labourers should be deprived of the electoral franchise. A perfect remedy against intimidation and against Government control or influence in the dockyards was to be found in the ballot, which might be tried in that case, though it might not be adopted for the whole kingdom. At all events, he trusted that they would not hear anything more of disfranchising the dockyard labourers at the very moment when the Government was about to propose an extension of the franchise.

Sir, it does not appear to me that any argument has been used during this debate which might induce Government to accede to the proposal for a Committee of Inquiry. The hon. and learned Member for Portsmouth (Mr. Serjeant Gaselee) who has discharged his duty on this occasion with great ingenuity and ability, and with a good humour worthy of imitation, objects to the remarks of the hon. and gallant Member for Truro (Captain Vivian). Now, the hon. and gallant Member for Truro is not a Member of the Administration, and in making the remarks he has made this evening he could only be influenced by public feeling and spirit. The hon. and learned Gentleman complains that the hon. and gallant Member for Truro did not remain to hear the arguments in answer to his speech. Now, what was the argument of the hon. and learned Gentleman? Why, simply, that the places in the dockyard were filled because the people of the surrounding county were poor. If this be true, and I do not mean to insinuate that it is not true, I ask, why are not the Government, in common with all other employers, to obtain the benefit of it? The hon. and learned Gentleman says, "Let us not bear down the poor, but let us let fly at the rich." I am delighted that the hon. and learned Member has come into the House of Commons with a determination to attend the Committee of Supply through all the Civil Service Estimates, and to propose to cut down the salaries of all who are above the labouring class. The hon. and learned Member has laid claim to being an economist, but says the economy is in the wrong place, that when we come to the salaries of Ministers and official persons he will see what he can do, and no doubt he will be found through the long weeks of Committee doing himself honour in the character of a defender of the people. But we who sit on the Treasury Bench are the most defenceless of creatures, and if the hon. and learned Member is dissatisfied with us he, along with others, has the power to turn us out. But, says the hon. and learned Member, they never get turned out. From certain experience I know that not to be the case, for although I have sat four or five times on this Bench in the course of my life, four or five times I have been driven from it. Falling short of executing capital punishment upon the Government, the hon. and learned Member adopts the milder course of letting fly at the great extravagance of Ministers and other public men. I cannot agree with my hon. and learned Friend when he says, "Let us be generous." I deny that it is the business of this House or of any other body administering funds which belong to others to be generous. Our business is to be just, and not to be generous. We are arbitrators between parties, and we can only indulge our feelings of generosity by a departure from the claims of justice. Generosity to one party in such a case becomes robbery of the other. How does the hon. and learned Gentleman answer the observations made by the Secretary of the Treasury (Mr. Childers)? But it is said it would be impossible for these men to state their case to the Admiralty, because when before the Admiralty they would be subject to intimidation. If that be true as regards the dockyard men and the Board of Admiralty, it would be equally true of the workmen at Woolwich and the War Department; it would be equally true of the men employed in the Post Office and the Post- master General; it would be equally true of the men employed in the Inland Revenue Department and the authorities of Somerset House; in fact, the same thing would hold good of all branches of the public service. Now, I take the statement of the hon. and learned Gentleman, ingenious as it is, and I ask what it comes to? Why, to this: that owing to intimidation, or to what you like to call it, it is not in the power of the executive Government, and they are not the proper persons, to determine what wages should be given to these workmen, but that that duty should be left to Members of the House of Commons and its Committees. That is a very formidable doctrine, I want to know for what function the executive Government is fit if it be not that of regulating the scale of wages which shall be paid to the public servants? The hon. and learned Gentleman, according to that principle, has found a shorter road to economy than he may have thought of, because if it is not fitting that the executive Government should determine what shall be the wages of the men engaged in the dockyard, surely it is not necessary for him to inquire whether the salaries paid to the Board of Admiralty are too high or too low, but whether they ought to be paid any salaries at all, seeing that Members of this House are better qualified to discharge those duties. I say that if there be one function more than another which this House should delegate to the executive Government, it is precisely this. But the hon. and learned Gentleman said that these workmen are unjustly treated in comparison with the persons occupied in private shipbuilding yards, and that, too, after hearing the statement of the hon. Member for Tavistock (Mr. Samuda). The hon. and learned Gentleman did not attempt to answer that hon. Member's statement except by saying that an hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Fleming) who is connected with a private shipbuilding yard is of a different opinion. Now, I have no doubt that both of those two hon. Members are men of equal character and experience. Here, then, we have two authorities connected with private shipbuilding yards who come forward and give different opinions, one of them (Mr. Fleming) being the representative of a dockyard borough (Devonport), and the other (Mr. Samuda) not being the representative of such a borough, and having no conceivable motive that we know of calculated to bias his judgment on this subject. But the hon. and learned Member for Portsmouth rejects the evidence of the witness who is totally unprejudiced. [Mr. FERRAND: No, no; the private yard.] What motive can the fact of a connection with a private shipbuilding yard supply for wishing to keep down the wages in a Government dockyard? But the hon. and learned Member himself also quoted the evidence of a gentleman connected with a private yard. In fact, the rule which we are to have laid down to us appears to be this—that the representation of a dockyard borough is necessary in order to qualify a man to speak as a competent witness on this question. Who are the advocates of this proposal but the Members for a dockyard constituency, and those who bear a kind of cousinship or near relationship towards them? That is the claim which is put forward. But then it is said it is impossible that all classes of workmen in the dockyards should be dissatisfied unless they had real and just cause for being so. It is perhaps difficult to suggest or explain them all, but still there may be other reasons which have led to that dissatisfaction. At any rate I will say this, and I think it will scarcely be questioned by any one, that the servants of the public in general, in common with the servants of every other class of employers, are much better treated now than they were thirty or forty years ago. I believe there is no doubt at all about that fact. And yet if we go back some thirty or forty years ago we shall find, I think, that the servants of private employers then were more discontented than they are now, while the servants of the Government were then contented. At any rate, you will not find any records of their discontent in the debates of this House. And why is that? That question is open to this answer—that when any body of public servants find educated and intelligent men who are ready to tell them that they are ill used, and who are also ready to go before Parliament and argue that they are ill used, in fulfilment of their duty to local constituencies, it is no wonder that the workmen in the dockyards should believe that which is told them by their representatives. I repeat that undoubtedly the servants of the public, like the servants of other employers, are, at any rate, much better treated now than they were thirty or forty years ago, and in conjunction with that I find that there is a machinery annually put in motion to place their case before the House of Commons now which was not the fact then. Be that, however, as it may, at all events it is the duty of the Government on a question of this kind to take its course decisively. On our part, at any rate, there is neither true humanity, generosity, nor mercy in allowing these workmen to be deluded. It would be the greatest of cruelty towards them for us to encourage them in the indulgence of false hopes. It is our duty to listen, and to listen respectfully, to all that falls from Members of this House; and although there may be some occasional inconvenience arising from it, I am glad that the fullest opportunity is given—and I would not wish for a moment to narrow it—for the free discussion of every subject in Committee of Supply. It is in the power of hon. Gentlemen to take precisely what course they may please; but certainly we are not as free as they are. It is our duty to examine carefully, impartially, and with the best knowledge we can obtain, into the case of these men, with a view to the redress of any real grievances, but it is also our bounden duty to say firmly and decisively that we will not, while we continue to enjoy the confidence of this House, intrust to Committees of the House, or to any other tribunal, our function of determining what are the wages which should be paid to the workmen in Her Majesty's dockyards.

said, that his chief object in rising was to move that the Chairman should report Progress, and ask for leave to sit again, although in the absence of the Speaker from the House, he did not know how it would be managed. The hour was too late (a quarter to twelve) for them to take that very important vote that night. The Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Childers) had held out some hope of action on the part of the executive Government in that matter, which was, however, dispelled the moment the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer refused to allow any inquiry to take place. If a Committee were granted the justice of the case of these men could, he believed, be proved with the greatest facility. He begged to move that the Chairman report Progress.

said, he thought it was the duty of a great country like this to secure good labour, and when it obtained it to keep it. It might be true that poor men from Cornwall would be glad to enter Her Majesty's service in the dockyards with the view of getting a little higher wages to save them from destitution; but the question was—Would good workmen care to remain long in that service? They should be so remunerated as to have an, inducement to remain there. He quite agreed that in administering public funds it was their duty not to be generous; but there was a principle to be observed in these matters, which was quite as high as generosity, and that principle was justice. They had labourers in the dockyards who were receiving 13s. and 14s. a week; and he appealed to any employer of labour whether they could expect such men to give the country the proper amount and kind of labour for such remuneration as that. In a private yard a joiner received 6s. a day, and was not entitled to superannuation, but had constant employment, because there was great demand for labour. In the public yards the wages of a joiner were 3s. 10d. a day, with a distant prospect of a superannuation; but the value of that was not equal to the difference between the wages of the public and the private yard. For able-bodied labourers 13s. or 14s. a week was insufficient remuneration, and it would be better to give the labourer wages on which he could live than to drive him to work overtime. Some worked even all night to earn more money—some kept lodgers, and resorted to other means of increasing their income. After working overtime, men did not give that amount of physical labour which the country was entitled to expect from them. He hoped the Committee would see the justice of the demands made on behalf of the dockyard labourers. Who else was to be the judge of the rate at which labour should be paid? If the Board of Admiralty were of a more permanent character, instead of being a fluctuating body, perhaps it might itself deal satisfactorily with these matters.

said, that as one largely concerned in the employment of labour, he deemed the subject under discussion unworthy the attention of the Committee, and the discussion itself out of place and calculated to do serious mischief. If the workmen were so badly paid in the Government dockyards, why did they not go to the private yards? If they considered superannuation and allowances worth so little, why did they remain? No doubt the work in the Government yards was admirably done; the only fault was that enough was not done. When hon. Members associated with Government dockyards advocated an advance of wages, they assumed a position inconsistent with their dignity and independence. The wages in the private yards were nominally higher than they were in the Government yards, but in the latter the men had perpetuity of employment, whether there was little or much to do, and were sure of their places. ["No, no!"] His hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Serjeant Gaselee) said it was not so; but he would tell his hon. and learned Friend that the work done in the Government dockyards was not equivalent to the wages paid. I wish to convey to the Committee the profound impression I have that this kind of discussion affecting wages is calculated to do great injury, and is not worth the attention of the Committee.

said, he would like to ask a question on a matter which had not been adverted to in this chiaroscura debate, and it is why, when the expenditure for labour at the dockyards was decreasing, the total increase for wages amounting only to £4,000, the salaries for superintendents were increasing, the increase this year being £17,000. This increase was remarkable, and required explanation. He had never before heard it seriously proposed to discard the Constitution of the country so far as to refer the administration of the dockyards to a Committee of the House. The proposition was so extraordinary that he wondered any one could have suggested it, and he could only account for its being made by the fact that there were many new Members in the House. The duty of the House was to examine the demands of the Crown for public money, and to see that they were not excessive, but instead of checking they had been proposing to increase the supply, which was exactly what they were not entitled to- do. Curiously enough, hon. Members seemed to glory in being considered representatives of dockyards, although hitherto hon. Members had been so designated only in reproach, but he hoped they would not continue to accept the designation, and that they would represent places and taxpayers rather than dockyards and tax receivers, who, on principle, were disqualified to vote for Members of Parliament. That the dockyard men should be voters was an excrescence which bad crept in upon the constitutional system. They were originally employed from week to week, and thus, not being deemed to be in the public service, were allowed to exercise the franchise, but now that their position was permanent it was doubtful whether they should be entitled to vote at Parliamentary elections. The inconvenience of departing from the constitutional practice was seen in the claims that were every year being most improperly urged upon the House in their behalf. The Chancellor of the Exchequer exhibited a wise firmness in saying the Government would not allow a Committee to investigate the wages paid to the servants of the Government.

said, he wished to ask the Secretary of the Admiralty how it was that on the naval station at Hong Kong the salaries were £5,000, and the wages £5,000 a year? There were there thirty five ships, many of them scarcely seaworthy. From the proportion of wages to the total Vote it appeared that a little economy might be applied. He should like to know whether the thirty-five ships in harbour or afloat in the China seas were really seaworthy, or whether they were kept there as a formality, and officers employed to little purpose?

said, in reply to the hon. Member for the Tower i Hamlets (Mr. Ayrton), that the Vote for superintendence was nearly the same as last year, and that it was owing to the new method that had been adopted in arranging the Votes that the charge under that head appeared excessive. For example, the whole of the cost of the superintendence of the dockyards had been transferred from Vote No. 1, with the view of plainly showing what was the real expenditure for such service. The charges of £9,000 for gas and £3,000 for writers had also been transferred for a similar purpose. Next year this charge would bear comparison with the Votes of previous years. Respecting the vessels at Hong Kong, his hon. Friend (Mr. Moffatt) would remember that at the time of the Chinese War a large number of gunboats were sent out; and on its termination, as a considerable expense would have been entailed by the voyage home, it was resolved that a certain number should be retained at Hong Kong, and there used for the suppression of piracy and for whatever purpose they were most suitable. As they became rotten they were broken up.

said, that in the course of the discussion many statements had been made which were calculated to mislead the Committee. He was not aware that hon. Gentlemen had called themselves "dockyard Members," but he remembered the time when the greatest reproach that could be cast upon any one in that House was to say that he was a metropolitan Member, and especially a Member for the Tower Hamlets. He knew that the metropolitan Representatives had done much to retrieve their fame at the late election, but he was not aware that there were any new Members for the Tower Hamlets. A very unfair attack had been made upon the Constructor of the Navy (Mr. Reed), and it had been asked why the Government did not employ private builders? But the private shipbuilders of the country bad been too highly extolled; for it ought to be remembered that the Wyvern and the Scorpion, though built by a gentleman of great reputation, had turned out two of the greatest failures ever known. He de- sired to be informed what amount of money had been spent by the Admiralty in rendering those vessels fit for service, believing this a subject which should be fully explained to the Committee. With regard to the Government dockyards in the town he represented (Chatham), he held that the Admiralty were guilty of a breach of contract towards the men engaged in them. When they first entered those yards none but wooden vessels were built; but now that the iron ones were being constructed the men had been under the necessity of purchasing new and costly tools, their clothes were more rapidly worn out, while their eyes in many instances were seriously injured by the iron. He knew workmen who had totally lost their eyesight through working on the iron ships. It was said that when so injured they got pensions; but this was no adequate compensation. Another thing was that there was no oculist in Chatham, and the injured men had to incur the expense of going to Maidstone when injured in the eyes for medical assistance. These matters, he contended, required consideration at the hands of the Government. He also thought it an extraordinary circumstance that no surgeon was provided in the dockyards. It ought to be the object of the Government to get the best men to do their work, but they could not expect to do so if they refused to pay the men a fair day's wages for a fair day's work. It had been asked why the workmen, if they were discontented, did not seek employment elsewhere? but such a question was unreasonable. It could not be expected, after they had been in the service of the Government a number of years, had made some progress towards the time when they would be superannuated, and had established themselves in a place with their wives and families, that they would be very anxious to forego their claims upon the Government and travel in search of employment in the other dockyards of the country. He might mention that at the meeting of the fleets there was no ship which excited so much attention as the Achilles, and this showed that the men at Chatham who built her were good workmen, whom the Government ought to endeavour to keep in their employ, and to keep them contented by giving them sufficient wages. He thought that it was really a national object to retain the services of the really excellent workmen who were now in the public yards, but who would be attracted from them if the present disparity between the rate of wages that they were receiving and that were paid in private establishments continued. He entirely concurred with the Chancellor of the Exchequer and with the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ayrton)—who had spoken in somewhat a cynical style with regard to the constitutional question at issue—that it was not his duty, or that of those who concurred with him in opinion, to fix the amount of wages which the artizans in our dockyards should receive. That, however, was not the proposal for which he contended. He simply said that he thought those men ill-used as things at present stood, leaving it to the Government to say in what mode justice should be dealt out to them. As to any objections raised on the score of economy to his view of the case, he would simply observe that a fund sufficient to satisfy the claims of those on whose behalf he spoke might very easily be realized by the practice of economy in the dockyards in reference to the construction and frequent alteration of ships.

said, he would repeat his Question, Why the sum of £15,000, which was set down in the Vote for the payment of the wages of artificers and labourers employed in the breaking up of old ships was not defrayed out of the sale of the materials of those vessels? He thought it would be more advisable to sell the ships at once for what they would bring, and thus save the expense of breaking them up.

said, that that had formerly been the custom, the balance accruing from the sale being paid into the Exchequer. The Treasury, however, acting in accordance with the recommendation of the Audit Commission, had arrived at the conclusion that the better plan was to take a Vote in the Estimates for the whole of the wages of the labourers employed in the dockyards, and to pay the full proceeds of the sale of old materials into the Exchequer.

said, he must renew the complaint which he had made in the early part of the evening with respect to the Bill not having been printed before, expressing himself dissatisfied with the official answer which had been given to his question on the subject by the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Hartington).

said, that it was not the custom to print annual Bills, such as those relating to Exchequer Bills and to the Militia, of which the skeleton remained the same. The only exceptions were the Appropriation Bill and the Mutiny Bill, which were now printed. It so happened that some alterations had been introduced into the present Bill, principally in the number of the men, and if the hon. Gentleman wished to call the attention of the House to any of these, every facility would be given to him to do so. But the Mutiny Bill was one which the exigencies of the service made it absolutely necessary should be passed by a certain day, and any loss of time might defeat that object.

said, he must again complain of the non-printing of the Bill.

said, he hoped that in future the Bill would be printed earlier, to give hon. Members an opportunity of more fully considering the subject.

said, he wished to ask for some explanation relative to the existence of Fenianism in the army. He was one of those who considered that Fenianism was connected with a particular creed. Roman Catholic recruits had, he believed, decreased within the last three or four years, but in the superior grades of the service Roman Catholicism had been on the increase. Let them remember that the Duke of Wellington had greatly objected to the admission of Roman Catholics into the higher corps of the army, whereas there had of late years been a steady influx of recruits of that creed into those corps. [Cries of "Question!"] He was speaking to the question, because the preamble stated that the Bill was for the maintenance of the safety of the service. He had before called attention to the fact that the libraries of the soldiers were filled with books of a most seditious character, and he attributed the disasters which the British troops had experienced in New Zealand to the organization of the rebel forces by Roman Catholic priests. There were certain facts which he must characterize as dangerous in connection with the discipline of the army, although he admitted the possibility that it might be a delusion on his part.

said, he wished to call attention to the practice of flogging in the army. The clause authorized a system of discipline of a nature so severe that it could not justly be designated anything but torture. During the year 1862, there were eighteen lashes for every turn administered on the back of the British soldier. He contended that it was a libel on the English character to contend that the average class of Englishmen could not be kept in discipline without the lash. Either we enlisted bad men, or we had incapable officers. He moved the omission of the clause.

said, the punishment of flogging was, according to the alteration introduced by the late Lord Herbert, only inflicted on soldiers who had been previously degraded. It was rarely inflicted, and only in extreme cases. He should vote for the retention of the clause, believing it to be necessary for the discipline of the army that such a power should be given, and believing also that it was never at present unnecessarily exercised.

said, the punishment ought not to be inflicted on any Englishman. We had secured the Sepoys from corporal punishment, and that punishment ought not to be allowed to remain in our own army. The minority in the House against the punishment had been gadually increasing, and he thought the time had come when it should be abolished. Flogging had been abrogated in England till a few years ago, when it was revived in the case of "garrotters." Ought it, then, to be continued in the case of the soldier? Thieves were not flogged at home. Ought soldiers to be classed with garrotters?

said, the punishment of flogging was regarded by every officer in the army with aversion; and was not resorted to except in extreme cases of imperious necessity. No soldier of good character dreaded the punishment; but no good soldier objected to it when it was inflicted on soldiers of the most disreputable character. It was their best protection against the evil doers. He hoped the House would not, by striking out the clause, interfere with the discipline of the army.

said, that flogging had been abolished in many of our prisons without detriment to discipline. Mr. Sheppard, the Governor of the Wakefield Prison, had expressed his opinion that corporal punishment had been a failure. The punishment was a revolting one. The same arguments used now were used in favour of flogging in prisons, but the severity of the punishment was mitigated without the discipline of the prison being affected. Flogging was inconsistent with their notions of civilization, and was a soldier to be the only man subjected to this mode of punishment? The opinion of military gentlemen was not to be relied on. They were so accustomed to the punishment they could not make up their minds to forego it.

said, that the late hour of half past one was not the time for entering on the question of corporal punishment, but he wished to express an opinion that the term "barbarous punishment" was only applicable to punishments that failed in their object of reforming the criminal; and such was not the case with flogging in the army. He thought that nonsense enough had been spoken on the subject on the preceding night which had been con- detuned by two divisions in Committee. Corporal punishment was still inflicted in prisons and in public schools.

said, he had ascertained that flogging was still practised in the Indian army. It had been revived by the late Lord Hardinge.

said, he moved the rejection of the clause. It was an infamy and a disgrace to the country.

said, that the word "branding" which occurred in the Bill must not be interpreted in the ordinary sense of burning. The men were merely tattooed with indelible ink in order that they might be prevented, after being discharged for gross misconduct from a regiment, from re-enlisting over and over again,, to the injury of the army.

said, that branding was a most painful operation. He hoped some means would be found for superseding an operation that marked and degraded a man for the remainder of his life.

said, that no answer had been returned to the Question which he had addressed to the noble Marquess the Secretary for War.

said, he had given the Committee all the information which he possessed on the subject of Fenianism the other night upon the Army Estimates. He had nothing either to contradict or to add to that statement. As to the suspicion entertained by the hon. Member that the Church of Rome had anything to do with the Fenian movement, he certainly possessed no information leading him to the belief that this assumption was well founded. The books supplied to soldiers were all authorized by the Council of Military Education. He had promised the hon. Member that their contents should be inquired into, but he really could not promise to read them himself. In the first place, if the hon. Member's account of them was correct, they might have a very prejudicial effect upon his own mind; but, in any case, he had no time for the purpose, even though one of them might bear the attractive title of The Bed, White, and Blue.