asked the Postmaster General, Whether, since the number of subscribers for Post Office annuities appears from the last Report to be only 2,000, steps are taken to make the especial advantages of such an investment generally known and understood, especially with regard to the system of deferred annuities, by which the premiums paid are "returnable" at the option or death of the investor before the annuity becomes active; and, whether immediate and deferred annuities can be purchased at all Post Offices where Savings Banks are open?

Since the publication of the last Report the number of purchasers of Post Office annuities has been increased by 50 per cent. Steps have been taken by the circulation of some millions of handbills to make known the advantages of this mode of investment. Immediate and deferred annuities can be purchased through any Post Office savings bank. The whole question, however, is at present under the consideration of the Government, with a view to the grant of additional facilities for provident investments.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If any and what steps have been taken to restore the kidnapped natives of the Fiji Islands who survived the massacre of their companions on board the "Karl" to their own country; and, if nothing has been done hitherto, whether the Government is prepared to insist on such restoration, that the planters may not have the benefit of the stolen labour, which there is too much reason to fear had been obtained at their instigation?

Mr. March reported on the 10th of last September that 10 of the natives rescued from the ship Karl had been sent by him to their homes by the British ship Rifle. The remainder were waiting in Fiji for an opportunity to return home, and Her Majesty's Government are taking steps to carry out this object, if practicable.

asked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, If it is true that a sentence of death passed on the 20th of November last, in the Criminal Court of New South Wales, on the master and mate of the British brig "Karl," for murders described by the Judge on passing sentence, as "of so terrible a nature as to be hitherto almost unknown to civilized men," has been commuted for a milder punishment; and, if so, if he can state the reasons for such commutation; and, if Her Majesty's Government are aware that the "Karl," together with the kidnapped Polynesians who survived the massacre for which the master and mate were tried, was given up to one of the Ministers of the now acknowledged Government of Fiji, in part payment of his account as agent for the vessel, and is supposed to be again engaged in the so called "labour traffic?"

The capital sentences passed upon Dowden and Armstrong, the two men convicted of murdering a large number of Polynesians on board the ship Karl, have been commuted to penal servitude for life—the first three years in irons. It was thought by the authorities at Sydney that it would have been improper to execute these men, seeing that they were in the service and acting under the orders of Dr. Murray, the owner of the brig, and that he, the instigator and most active perpetrator of the murders, had escaped all punishment by being accepted as Queen's evidence against his own employés. Perhaps it is right I should add that but for the information given by Dr. Murray these atrocities would probably never have been discovered, and that when he was accepted as Queen's evidence it was not suspected that he himself was the worst criminal. With regard to the second part of the Question, my noble Friend has already answered as to the kidnapped Polyne- sians. As to the brig Karl, we have no official information of her disposal; but from a correspondence in The Sydney Morning Herald of the 30th of December last I gather that she had been seized and condemned to be sold for the benefit mainly of the agents, and that the British Consul had protested against the sale because no cognizance had been taken of the claims of British mortgagees.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether it is his intention to introduce, during the present Session, a Bill to consolidate the Factory Acts, with a view to the simplification, and in certain cases amendment in substance, of those now complicated Statutes; and, if so, whether the Workshop Acts will be dealt with at the same time?

in reply, said, that undoubtedly it would be a great satisfaction to the manufacturing districts if the Acts were consolidated. His hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield (Mr. Mundella) had given notice of a Bill for an amendment of the Factory Act, and it dealt with the question of the age at which children should be employed, the duration of their employment, and it also proposed to do away with special exemptions. He could not hold out any prospect of bringing in a consolidating measure during the present Session.

asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether the last Report of the Moncreiff Gun Carriages Committee so far differs from previous Reports that it specially refers to the general question of the expediency of introducing the Moncreiff system in place of the existing one; and, whether in that Report the Committee have strongly recommended that the designs of new work should be reconsidered with the view of applying the Moncreiff system to them on account of its greater efficiency and economy?

I have on a previous occasion stated, in reply to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for South Durham (Major Beaumont), that the Report in question is one of a series which is at present incomplete. There is, however, no objection to my replying in general terms to the noble Lord's questions. With regard to the first, I must premise that in assuming that there are only two modes of mounting guns and of constructing batteries for their reception the noble Lord conveys an incorrect idea. There are several modes of mounting guns and of protecting them. They may be placed in casemates with or without iron shields, in open batteries with shields, or in open batteries without shields, with ordinary embrasures. They may also be mounted in the manner known technically as "en barbette," or on the protected barbette plan of Major Moncreiff. The choice of the mode of mounting and of protection to be adopted must be made according to the particular circumstances of each case. Subject to these observations, I may inform the noble Lord that the last Report of the Committee does differ from previous Reports, and does remark on the general question of adopting the Moncreiff gun carriage in certain cases in future works. In reply to the second question I may state that the Committee recommended that in case of new works or additions to existing works the designs should be specially considered with a view to the employment of the Moncreiff carriage. I need scarcely add that the applicability of the Moncreiff carriage to the particular circumstances of each case will be fully considered in the preparation of new projects.

asked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether the Digest of Sanitary Statutes which he has prepared in two Codes, Urban and Rural, is so complete as to render any legislation during the present Session in the way of collecting and consolidating the existing Statutes unnecessary and inexpedient whatever may be advisable in the way of amending them?

in reply, said that since the right hon. Baronet had done him the honour of asking his opinion as to the completeness of the Digest of Sanitary Statutes he would give it for what it was worth. He did not think it expedient or necessary to attempt to consolidate what were termed the Sanitary Acts during the present Session of Parliament. He did not think it would be expedient to attempt such a work, because he believed that it was a task that might be attempted, but not practically accomplished. He did not think it would be necessary at present to go beyond the digest which had been prepared in two codes, urban and rural. In preparing that digest the various sanitary Acts had been taken to pieces and re-arranged under practical headings, so that any man without a knowledge of law could refer to this digest and ascertain what was the law upon the subject, all redundant phraseology having been got rid of.

asked when the digest would be published?

replied that it was now in the hands of the Queen's Printer.

asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, If he will state to the House the cause of the delay which took place in the production before the coroner of one of the persons accused of the recent Holywood murders, and explain the reason why the coroner was compelled to adjourn for a week the inquest on the bodies of Isabella Ker and Jane Toner, and make application to the Court of Queen's Bench for a writ of habeas corpus to compel the attendance of certain witnesses from the county Antrim?

Charlotte Raw, the accused person referred to in the Question, was arrested upon the 4th of January last. The inquest had been commenced on the 31st of December, and adjourned from the 1st to the 8th of January. When the inquest was resumed upon the 8th, Charlotte Raw was in custody under a warrant of remand issued by Mr. O'Donnell, R.M. While this warrant remained in force the gaoler could not legally act upon any order of the coroner for the production of the prisoner. Mr. O'Donnell signed a discharge of Charlotte Raw from custody under his warrant on the 8th or 9th of January, and she was then produced before the coroner. As to the second part of the Question, the wit- nesses referred to were prisoners who were in custody in the gaol of the county Antrim under magistrates' warrants upon a charge of being accessory to the murder. There was no legal mode of bringing these persons before the coroner, save under a writ of habeas corpus. Upon the adjournment of the inquest, Mr. Murland, the Crown Solicitor—who had been pressed to direct the discharge from custody of these persons in order that they might be produced as witnesses before the coroner, and who had most properly declined to do so—moved for and obtained a writ of habeas corpus from the Queen's Bench, under which they were produced and examined before the coroner. As Charlotte Raw and her sister are at present in Downpatrick Gaol, awaiting their trial on the charge of murder, it is inexpedient to state anything further in relation to the inquest, save that the action of Mr. Murland, the Crown Solicitor, has the entire approval of the Attorney General for Ireland, under whose direction he attended at the, inquest.

asked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, If the satisfactory intelligence from the Gambia to which he referred in his answer given last Thursday, is not of a later date than that communicated to the public through the press on the day previous; and, if so, of what date?

in reply, said, on the 15th of February Messrs. Quin and Chown, Gambia merchants, stated that they had learnt by the French mail that the Mahomedans of Combo, having beaten the Pagans, meditated an attack on the Gambia settlement, in which many of the latter had taken refuge. Those gentlemen had also heard that a French gunboat had been sent from Goree to protect French interests. On the 19th Mr. Pope Hennessy's despatch arrived from which he quoted on Thursday last, giving a fuller and apparently a later account of the transaction. But Mr. Hennessy added, what Messrs. Quin and Chown did not know, that he was just starting for the Gambia, that Her Majesty's ship Rattlesnake was on her way there, and that Her Majesty's ship Decoy was actually at Bathurst. Captain Vallière, Governor of Senegal, had also, unsolicited, placed the French man-of-war Curieuse at the disposal of the Administrator of the Gambia, Captain Cooper. That officer had utilized the police and volunteers at Bathurst, and Mr. Hennessy did not deem it necessary to send troops for Sierra Leone, although they were in readiness if required.

asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, What course the Government proposes to take in reference to the remaining prosecutions consequent on the Galway Election Inquiry?

said, that in consequence of the failure of the recent prosecutions with reference to the Galway Election Inquiry, the Attorney General for Ireland, after consulting with all the counsel who had been engaged by the Crown, had come to the conclusion that there was no reasonable hope of obtaining convictions in any of the remaining cases. The Attorney General announced at once that it was not his intention to continue the prosecution. Under these circumstances the Government, after consulting with the English as well as the Irish Law Officers of the Crown, had determined to abandon any further proceedings in the matter.

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, previously to presenting yesterday the Petition from the institution called by the name of the Magee College, he had ascertained the number of students in course of education there; and, if so, whether there is any objection to communicate it to the House?

I do not see any connection between the number of students in Magee College and the presentation of this Petition. Before I introduced the measure on Irish University Education to the House I informed myself as to Magee College; but the source from which I obtained information is quite open to the noble Lord. For his convenience and that of other Members, I have requested that a calendar of the College may be sent to the Library of this and to the Library of the other House. I am afraid that under the disadvantageous circumstances in which the College is placed the numbers have considerably diminished in late years. Two years ago I think the number was 68; during the last two years the numbers were only 46 and 44.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether the acknowledgment by Her Majesty's Government of the Government established by a section of the white settlers in the Fiji Islands as a de facto Government places those Islands in the position of an independent state, and consequently exempts vessels sailing under the Fijian flag from search by Her Majesty's ships of war, and from compliance with the provisions of the Pacific Islanders Protection Act?

It is not considered that the recognition of the de facto Government of Fiji debars Her Majesty's Government from interfering with the acts of British subjects within that territory when circumstances require it. Occasion of searching vessels sailing under the Fijian flag does not appear to have arisen; but the hon. Member may possibly like to know that an Act for the regulation of native and foreign labour, based on our "Pacific Islanders Protection Act," has been passed by the Fiji Legislative Assembly, which permits ships of all nations to deal with Fijian vessels contravening its provisions.

I wish to put a Question or two to the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government bearing on the University Education (Ireland) Bill, and of which I have given him private Notice. My first Question refers to a Memorial that appeared in the papers shortly before the meeting of Parliament from the Catholic Union in Ireland, and to a series of resolutions of the Roman Catholic Archbishops and Bishops transmitted with it by Lord Granard, as President of the Union, to the First Minister. I beg to ask whether there is any objection to lay upon the Table that Memorial, together with any answer returned to it. My second Question requires two or three words of explanation. On former occasions, when Governments have attempted to deal with this question of Irish University Education, they proceeded on the assumption that no scheme could be considered a settlement of the question unless it was acceptable to the Irish Roman Catholic Prelates. Consequently, in 1866 and 1868 the then Cabinets were in communication with the Roman Catholic hierarchy, and finding a settlement hopeless, the attempt failed. The Question I wish to ask is, whether the Government can inform us, before we proceed with the discussion of this Bill, that if it pass into law it will be accepted by the Roman Catholic Prelates as a removal of the grievance and a settlement of the Question.

I did not receive from my right hon. Friend, until a few minutes after 4 o'clock, Notice of the first Question which he has put to me, and therefore I have not had a very full opportunity of referring to the document in question. It is intituled "Declaration of the Catholic Union with respect to Education." It is signed on behalf of the Catholic Union of Ireland by Lord Granard, and was sent to me on the 15th of January by Lord Granard. I have no objection to lay it on the Table if my right hon. Friend will move for it. With regard to the resolutions of the Roman Catholic Bishops they have never, I believe, been transmitted to me. There are some resolutions of the Roman Catholic Bishops referred to in this document, but they are as old as August, 1869, and not at all communications, as I understand it, from the Roman Catholic Bishops to myself.

Were they transmitted by Lord Granard in January?

I believe not—I am not sure; but if they were they were transmitted as illustrative documents, and not by the parties signing them. Yes; on reference to this paper I see that they were transmitted by Lord Granard, but, as I say, not at all from the Roman Catholic Bishops themselves, or in any other way than as mere information. I do not think that it would be desirable that I should lay them on the Table as if they had been transmitted to me by the Bishops. With respect to the second Question, I stated on introducing the Bill that we had had no communication from or with any of the bodies who had a special interest in the University Education question; and since that time the only change that has taken place is that I received from Magee College the Petition which I presented yesterday, and I have received a communication from the authorities of Trinity College, Dublin, in which they take exception to my estimate of the amount of revenue belonging to that institution, and contend that in certain cases it ought to be reviewed. Of course, they have the best means of getting at accurate information; but we shall endeavour to get the best information we can, and should any further information be obtained when the Bill comes on, it will be at the service of the right hon. Gentleman.

I understand that Lord Granard transmitted the declaration with the resolutions of the Bishops and a statement that the Bishops still adhered to them.

I do not understand the Bishops to be parties to the transaction at all.

moved, "That this House do meet To-morrow at Two of the clock."

said, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would not press his Motion. It seemed to him not a reasonable thing that the convenience of the House and the business of the country should be, to some extent, damaged in order to meet the view or desire of any section of the House, whether that desire be entertained by a section of the House who wish to go to Church on Ash-Wednesday and on the Derby Day to go to Epsom Downs. He begged to remind the right hon. Gentleman that all tests and religious conditions in regard to admission to that House having been done away with, they were not an assembly of Church of England men, but an assembly of Anglicans, Catholics, Dissenters, Jews, and men of many other opinions too numerous to enumerate. He ventured to suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that it was not reasonable, therefore, that the convenience of the House and the business of the country should be made subservient to the desires of a section of the House, and if the right hon. Gentleman persisted in his Motion, he should certainly divide upon it.

I am very sorry I cannot accede to the appeal of my hon. Friend. It appears to me that the unreasonableness on this occasion is rather upon the other side. The state of the case is this—It is between 30 and 40 years since the House adopted the practice of meeting at 12 o'clock on Wednesdays, and ever since it had uniformly adopted the practice, also, of meeting at 2 o'clock on Ash-Wednesday. That being so, I think that if my hon. Friend is desirous of raising the question it would be more fairly done by a separate Resolution, because most hon. Members have no doubt expected that this would be an unopposed Motion.

moved—

"That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that She will be graciously pleased to take into consideration the expediency of summoning Parliament not later than the last week of November, in accordance with the Fifth Resolution of the Committee on Public Business, 1871."

The hon. Member said that, whatever might be the opinion of the House as to the expediency of a November Session, yet the authority of the Select Committee ought not to be dismissed without discussion. This question carried him back to the early days of his Parliamentary life, because he brought forward a similar Motion to this in the Session of 1859. Although on that occasion Lord Palmerston succeeded in inducing the House to reject it by a considerable majority, yet he (Mr. Forster) had always felt that there was a complete answer made to every objection which had been urged against it. But the question did not stand in the same position now that it did then. It was no longer the mere opinion—or the crotchet, if they would—of an individual hon. Member; it came before the House clothed with the authority and recommendation of the Select Committee specially appointed to consider how the procedure of Public Business might be improved. No doubt he would be told that the Resolution was only carried by a majority of one vote in the Committee; but he wished to say that, though upon that Committee they had not a single party division, yet so various were the opinions entertained that most of their decisions were arrived at by narrow majorities:—indeed, the question as to the new rule in reference to Supply was carried only by the casting vote of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Chairman of the Committee. When, however, they considered the character of those who composed the majority upon the Resolution now in question, it would be seen that that Resolution carried with it the greatest weight. The majority comprised within it the hon. Members for those great commercial centres, Hull, Liverpool, and Glasgow, and the Resolution was moved by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire (Mr. Disraeli), who had passed the larger portion of his life in the House, who had served in the highest offices under the Crown, and who must be in a position to form a most competent judgment upon the working of our Parliamentary system. He (Mr. Forster) never could understand by what perverse combination of circumstances the House of Commons, departing from its ancient usage, and in direct contradiction to the custom of every other representative Assembly, lost that portion of the year which seemed best suited to the transaction of Public Business, and was condemned to sit during the whole of July and a part of August in all the heat and discomfort of this over-crowded capital. He had always imagined that the practice came in a few years before the passing of the Reform Bill, and that, having got into a bad groove, they had found it difficult to retrace their steps; but they had been told by the highest authority upon the customs and usages of Parliament that the change was made at the time of the Union, for the convenience of the Irish Members. Whatever necessity of the kind there then was, it no longer existed. The hon. Member for Armagh (Mr. Vance) himself voted for the Resolution. There was one objection to the change which, if well grounded, would be fatal to it, and that was, that however early they might meet, they would not prorogue a day earlier—it was in vain for them to expect to be released from their labours before the inevitable 12th of August. If he shared that opinion, he should not make the Motion now on the Paper. He could assure the House that no one looked forward to the vacation with a keener relish than he himself did, and there was no one who would more strongly resent any attempt to curtail its duration. It was true that in the years 1852, 1855, 1857, and 1867, Parliament was called together in the autumn; but on those occasions they were summoned for special objects—to decide the fate of a Ministry, to pass an Indemnity Bill, or to make provision for a Crimean or an Abyssinian War; and when these special objects were attained they immediately adjourned. But if the Crown should be advised, as a rule, to call Parliament together in November, the Government might prepare its business accordingly. They might arrange for Private Bills in the first instance; then proceed with the Estimates and the organisation of Committees, so that they might be in full working order before the Christmas adjournment. They might resume business in February and prorogue about the 24th of June—the Queen's Birthday. He was told this change would cause a total reversion of the habits of society; but he never could admit that their social engagements should be placed in competition with their legislative duties, and that, yielding to the former, they should assent to sit in that House all through the dog days. He questioned, however, whether society would be a loser by the change he proposed, since London was an exception to every capital in Europe in respect of the time at which the Legislature assembled. He was also told that the Motion had excited the deep indignation of their sporting friends in the House, who considered it an unjustifiable interference with their legitimate pleasures. These pleasures were certainly not his pleasures; perhaps it was his loss that they were not. But they would believe him when he said that he would be the last to seek unduly to interfere with the pleasures of others. He must, however, remind hon. Members who made the objection that Mr. Wyndham sat in the November Parliaments, with whom sport was not only a passion but a conviction, and who in- variably defended the pursuits of the field on the ground of their beneficial influence on the national character. And yet, in retracing the history of those times, neither from Mr. Wyndham nor from any Members of the country party in those days did they find any complaint on that score. No doubt they often heard how, with the strong energy which marked that period, they managed to unite the two. It was recorded in the memoirs of an hon. Gentleman, for many years a Member of that House, and whose memory was still dear to sportsmen —the late Mr. Assheton Smith—that he was accustomed to hunt at Tedworth in the morning, and to post in his chariot and four to Westminster, and that after voting in the division, he never failed to keep his appointment at the cover side on the following day. Such, however, were the additional facilities afforded by the railway system in these days that hon. Members might now breakfast in London, hunt in the shires, and yet appear in the Division List the same night. Apart, however, from that, he would ask those hon. Members to consider how small a portion of the hunting season would be interfered with. Since meeting at the end of November, and adjourning for the Recess at Christmas, a month at the utmost would be all that would be taken from them. For this, what a rich compensation would they receive in being enabled to exchange the vitiated atmosphere of Westminster for the bracing air of the seaside or the mountain, and to indulge in all the varied enjoyments of country life during that portion of the year when the country was most enjoyable. He made the Motion under some disadvantage, since the House was now fresh from the leisure of the Recess; but it would be easy for hon. Members to recall the prostration and languor visible in the faces of those who remained at their posts until the last days of the Session. The only thought at such a time in the mind of the almost expiring Member was by what means he could gain his favourite country retreat. He sinks—

"Et moriens dulces reminiscitur Argos."

It was clear that under the present system the business of Parliament was but imperfectly done. Nor could it be a matter of surprise that the Prime Minister, in company with an innumerable tribe of unofficial Members, was called upon at that fated period to administer the happy despatch to many of those measures which had a place in the opening programme, and some of which had been read a second time. He would give, for example, a summary of the business done and left undone in two Sessions—namely, those of 1869 and 1870. In 1869, 120 Bills were introduced, 67 of which were not passed. Of the latter 19 were Government Bills, and 48 Bills of private Members, 22 of which had been read a second time. In 1870, 126 Bills were introduced; 74 of them were not passed, of which 20 were Government Bills, and 54 Bills of private Members. The principles of 24 Bills were sanctioned by the House, but not passed. It frequently happened that the legislation of one Session was necessary to correct the errors of the previous one. He now submitted his proposal to the House under the conviction that it would prove most advantageous to the public interests, as well as to the health and convenience of the hon. Members generally. The hon. Member concluded by moving the Address.

in seconding the Motion, said, that having voted for the change now proposed in the Select Committee, he felt bound to support it now it was before the House. Four of the Committee's propositions had already been disposed of, and until the remainder had been dealt with, it would not be proper to appoint a new Committee, as the hon. Member for Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate) proposed, either in justice to the old or fairness to the new. Sir Erskine May stated before the Select Committee that, previous to the present century, the House had almost always met in the autumn. In the year 1801, the first Parliament after the Union, the House met on the 20th of January. In succeeding years it resumed the custom of meeting in the autumn, and, adjourning on the 20th of December to an early day in February, it closed its sitting at the latest in the beginning of July. In 1820, on the accession of George IV., Parliament began to meet at the end of January and continued down to the present time to meet then or at the commencement of February, except when some special business required it to meet before. No doubt those who were opposed to the Motion had precedent and usage in their favour. Something might be said for the inconvenience to which Irish Members in being called over, and Members living in the country in sacrificing some of their enjoyments, might be put. But although it might be a temporary inconvenience to some of the Irish Members and the lovers of field sports, to meet in the autumn, he thought on the whole hon. Members generally would derive great advantage by an arrangement under which the House could prorogue in June. His position, however, was this—that by the forms of the House a great deal of the early part of the Session could not be fully applied to the public business, Yet, nevertheless, Private Bill legislation lagged greatly behind. With respect to Private Bills, there would be one great advantage from the House meeting in November. This year there were 260 Private Bills, all of which had to be dealt with in some way or other. The House met this year on the 6th of February. It met at the same time last year. The 12th of March arrived before a single one of the Private Bills went into Committee, and the Committees on those Bills continued sitting until the 31st of July. But if the House met in November the Committees might be arranged, the whole of the Private Bills dealt with in good time, and Parliament might rise early in June. Then, with regard to public measures, at present a very large portion of the eloquence of hon. Members was expended before their respective constituents in the autumn without any reference to the forthcoming measures of Government. In fact, they knew nothing about them. If, however, there was an Autumn Sitting the chief business of the Government could be laid on the Table in November; and hon. Members, instead of dealing with phantom proposals, could go home and discuss real business with their constituents during the Christmas Recess, and then could come back to this House fully prepared to support or oppose the measures of the Government. His conviction was that if we had the month of November to go through the preliminary stages of legislation public business would be considerably facilitated, and not only the Members of the House, but the country would be benefited: therefore, he was desirous of seeing some plan adopted that would enable the House to rise earlier than they had been accustomed to in recent years. He had great pleasure in seconding the Motion.

said, the proposal which he would substitute for the Motion of the hon. Member for Walsall was much more modest. The hon. Member proposed that the three Estates of the Realm—the Queen, the Lords, and Commons—should be convened for Parliamentary business in November, though he admitted that the present time of meeting was consistent with the habits of the country. The hon. Member wished, indeed, that London should conform to the usages of other capitals. It might be prejudice; but, for his own part, he had a vast preference for English habits, and therefore when the right hon. Member for Buckinghamshire (Mr. Disraeli) brought forward this Motion in the Select Committee he voted against it. The right hon. Gentleman carried his Motion in a full Committee by a majority of 1; he supposed the right hon. Gentleman, as the successor of the great Hampden in the representation of Buckinghamshire, had a preference for long Parliaments. It might be convenient for some Members that Parliament should meet in November; but there was one thing which would render it highly inconvenient to most. When the hon. Member for Walsall brought this question before the House on a former occasion, and recommended it by saying that Parliament could break up early in June, the question rose whether this promise of an early rising would be fulfilled. Lord Palmerston, who was then Prime Minister, convened a meeting of those nameless officers of either party in the House, familiarly called the whippers-in, of those who had served their time, and of those who retained their functions. He was one of them, and they were unanimous in the opinion, that if Parliament were to meet in November, it would rise no earlier than under the present arrangement. That was his deliberate opinion then, and it was his deliberate opinion still. If the House was to sit longer in consequence of the change, what would it gain? In the first place, such a result would have a deleterious effect on the House itself. He was convinced from what he had seen during no short experience, and especially in recent Sessions, that the House sat quite as long and as closely as was consistent with the convenience of those who really conducted the business of the country, out of as well as in the House. He was satisfied that if they were to alter the period of meeting, and extend the duration of the Session, the result would be that they would lose the most valuable Members of the House, and among these their senior Members, whose health failed already under the severity and prolonged duration of the Sessions. He did not look upon the proposed change in the light way in which it had been put before the House by the hon. Member for Walsall. If the change suggested would really be for the advantage of the country, and for the better representation of the nation, the House would long since have adopted it; but it was because the House had always been convinced that the change would be fraught with the danger of lengthening the Session that it had uniformly rejected the proposal that Parliament should meet regularly in November. If any extraordinary occasion should arise, He trusted that the Government of the day would be ever prompt to call Parliament together. And on such occasions Parliament had ever been, and he trusted they would ever be ready to attend. If they were to lengthen the Session, the difficulty of securing an adequate attendance during the latter part of it would increase, and he held there was nothing more injurious to the interests of the country than that this House should seem to sit when in reality it was not sitting. Nothing could be more mischievous than that the doors of this House should be open—that the light should be displayed from the tower, representing to the nation that the Commons were assembled—when in reality it was only a self-elected committee of the House that was sitting. The result would be to diminish, if not to destroy, Ministerial responsibility. The Minister would be able to cite a quasi-Parliamentary authority for everything he did. If the Sessions were to become more protracted, the House would be far more seldom really full—such a state of things, if habitual, would become a dangerous delusion practised on the country. The hon. Member for Walsall (Mr. C. Forster) said, that the House should not consult the convenience of hunting Members. He (Mr. Newdegate) was a sportsman, and could assure the hon. Member that he need not trouble himself on that score, for February, not November, was the month hunting men coveted for their sport. And if the House met before Christmas, and the Session was to be shortened, the House must meet later in the Spring; for when the House had once met business would always be found for it. The state of the Order Book proved this. On reference to the Order Book, he found that the Wednesdays had each one or more Order up to the middle of July. What was their difficulty at present? It was the encumbrance of the Order Book with more than they could undertake; and every change that had been made having a tendency to a more democratic representation had increased the difficulty. The longer the House was kept sitting the greater would be the pressure for the introduction of new matter. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Chippenham (Mr. Goldney) referred to the advantage, which he said would be derived from the introduction of Bills before Christmas, because they would then have a hundred small Parliaments discussing them during the Recess, and transmitting their views to Members. That was a rather democratic view to be taken by a Conservative Member. But with the facilities of communication which now existed, there was surely no lack of the transmission of opinion to the representatives of the nation in that House; while the practice suggested would keep up an agitation tending to supersede Parliament altogether. If Parliament sat for eight instead of seven months some of their most useful men of business would cease to be Members of the House. Wealthy men would still seek a voice in Parliament, and they would be represented by deputies; but he hoped never to see the House of Commons a House of Deputies. The House would then lose that quality, which the Americans called practicality; and the question of special compensation to the deputies would no doubt speedily arise. His Amendment was not intended as a mere negative to the Motion of the hon. Member for Walsall; he ventured to suggest the appointment of a Committee, not for the general and vague consideration of matters connected with the Business of the House, but to consider the time of day at which the House should assemble, the hours during which the House could most conveniently sit for the transaction of Public Business, when the business introduced by Her Majesty's Ministers should have precedence; what notice should be given of any proposal to alter the time at which the House would assemble; what arrangements should be made for the better distribution of business. He had endeavoured to embody those points, which appeared to need the immediate consideration of the House, with a view of economising the time they had for the consideration of Public Business. At the close of last Session there was an occasion on which the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government did not inform them till Friday night that the House would assemble on Saturday; and to his certain knowledge that short notice excluded many Members from the possibility of being present. He thought that such an irregularity ought to be provided against. It had been said there was a feeling in the House against a Committee, and that the House disregarded the recommendations of Select Committees. Yet he submitted the House had adopted no new rule that had not received the approval of a Committee. Therefore, he thought the points he had indicated in his Amendment should be considered by a Committee. Notice had been given of the proposed renewal of the rule adopted last Session, that opposed Business should not be taken after half-past 12. This was an admirable rule, but its effect for more than a month before the close of last Session, in conjunction with the arrangement for Morning Sittings on Tuesday and Friday, when the House met at 2 p.m. for Government Business, sat till 7 p.m., resumed at 9 p.m., was to reduce the period allowed to non-official Members, though they had more than 100 Bills on the Paper, to nine and a-half hours a-week—namely, three and a-half on Tuesday, after the resumption of the Sitting at 9 p.m. till 12.30, and scarcely six hours on Wednesday. As for Fridays, a Standing Order gave precedence to Supply, and Motions on Supply probably lasted till 12.30. This amounted to an actual exclusion of unofficial business, and a Com- mittee ought to be appointed to consider how so absurd a position might be remedied. As for the precedence enjoyed by the Government at every Morning Sitting but those on Wednesdays, that precedence rested upon no Resolution ever formally adopted by the House. It rested only on the ruling of Lord Eversley in 1851, when the House met at noon, suspended Business at 4, and resumed at 6, an arrangement which, supposing the rule as to half-past 12 to apply, gave unofficial Members six and a-half hours, instead of, as last Session, only three and a-half on Tuesdays, and some prospect of a share of Friday evenings for the conduct of the Bills of which they were in charge. In the interests of the House itself, he would move, as a substitute for the hon. Member's larger proposal, the Amendment of which he had given Notice.

seconded the Amendment.

I confess it appears to me that there is no practice less conducive to the convenience of the House than the attempt to discuss two subjects at once. That attempt has just been made by the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Newdegate), and he has completely succeeded; for he has made two speeches upon subjects entirely distinct, delivered not one after the other, but on the same occasion while in the possession of the House, and by a most ingenious use of the privilege which he was undoubtedly entitled to claim. As to his proposal for a Committee, I intend to pass it by altogether; for this, if for no other reason—that it is perfectly distinct from a proposition of considerable interest which has already received the countenance of gen- tlemen of high authority, and that it is not possible advantageously to combine the discussion of it with the question of the appointment of a Select Committee. The hon. Gentleman, moreover, proposes a Committee, not to consider the Business of the House, but certain points of its business which have been selected at the hon. Gentleman's pleasure; so that he asks us to appoint a Committee, not for the purpose which is generally intrusted to such a body, but to consider the question only in the particular form which happens to approve itself to his mind. If the House should think fit to appoint a Committee, it will, as before, give it a much larger discretion than that which he proposes. As to the original Motion, I venture to make a criticism on its terms—namely, that it is rather an unusual proceeding for the House to address the Crown praying it to take proceedings in accordance with the 5th Resolution of the Committee on Public Business of 1871. I do not think the Crown is entitled to be so entirely cognizant of the proceedings of our Committees; but that is a point on which my hon. Friend (Mr. C. Forster) would, no doubt, be willing to meet our wishes if we thought his Motion had better be disembarrassed of those words. I confess there is another objection. I much doubt, with great respect to all who took part in the discussion, whether a subject of this kind, involving the use of the constitutional power of the Crown, was quite within the real scope of the reference to that Committee, which was appointed merely to consider details of business entirely within the power of the House itself. Of course, however, I do not question that, whether in that or any other form, it is quite legitimate to raise the matter for discussion by an Address, and in that sense I will say a few words upon it. Now, the question has thus far been discussed solely with reference to the views and convenience of the hon. Members of this House. The hon. Gentleman who last spoke (Mr. Newdegate) was most successful in that portion of his elaborate argument which was directed against any lengthening of the sittings of this House; but he was really tilting with an imaginary foe, for I am quite sure my hon. Friend is not the man to propose any lengthening of our sittings, and for my own part, if any hon. Gentleman proposed such a step, I, for one, should begin to have very serious doubts as to his sanity. I am aware that the Motion is not distinctly expressed; but there can be no doubt its meaning is, not that our sittings should be lengthened, but that the time of year during which the sittings are held should be altered. The hon. Gentleman who last spoke says the health of the House is better promoted by the present than by other arrangements. I confess that is not my experience. My experience is that the severity of the work of the House in years when we are so blessed as to have hot weather is at least doubled when that weather arrives for those who have to go through long hours. That is the really exhausting period of the Session. Then there is a very natural conflict, which has been sufficiently prosecuted on both sides, between the lovers of nature and the lovers of sport. I do not intend to enter into that conflict; but I wish to make an appeal on behalf of those who have not been mentioned. I had better, however, first say, dealing with the question as one of individual opinion, that I have long been in principle in favour of my hon. Friend's proposal; but I will show very good reasons why he ought not to press it, at all events for the present. I wish to put in a plea for the people of London. The sittings of the House regulate the movements of what is called the higher society of London. The close of the season depends upon, and somewhat precedes, the close of the Session, and the movements of thousands—perhaps of hundreds of thousands—of the people of London depend—not all of them directly—partly on the sittings of Parliament, and partly on the presence of fashionable society in town. Now, undoubtedly the effect of the present system, whatever its other merits may be, is this—to keep the largest portion of the population of London who are able to have a holiday in the country, in the metropolis through the hottest weather, and to send them away only at the time when the beauty and glory of the country are beginning to pass away. That is, in my opinion, a very serious defect in the present arrangement. The month of June is, perhaps, I may say, the most beautiful month of the year—the month in which most is to be seen and learnt of the beautiful operations of nature—and yet it is the month in which, with the exception of clerks in the City who have special arrangements as to their holidays, the population of London generally—the middle classes of London—never see the country at all— as they do in July very partially. But, Sir, although I am entirely of my hon. Friend's opinion, I own I think we ought not to come to a too hasty conclusion upon the subject of his Motion. I should be sorry to see my own opinion on the question carried out, and the measure necessary to give it effect passed through Parliament by only a small majority. If a change is to be made it ought, I think, to be made in compliance with the decided opinion of the House. It may be said, and with perfect truth, that the opinion of the other House ought also to be consulted. But, I think, when we take into account the very limited number of hours during which the other House sits, in comparison with the labours of this House, it will be generally and fairly admitted that the judgment of the House of Commons is that which ought to be sufficient to regulate the matter; still, I should be sorry to see a change made, except after a decided expression of the opinion of this House. Well, but then it is a very serious matter to consider what change we should make, if the House thinks it desirable to make one. If we make a change we should do so with our eyes open, and it appears to me that to meet at the end of November and sit for three weeks before Christmas would be of very little use. In practice, little progress would be made with the Public Business. It would, in fact, be just like the first two or three weeks of our sitting under the present system, and the real Business of the House would have to be encountered in January. Then, again, there is the very legitimate apprehension in the minds even of some who are favourable to the Motion of my hon. Friend, that even if something of the kind which he proposes were adopted we should still sit until August. That is a practical question and an important one; and if it could be proved that the apprehension was well-founded, then, like my hon. Friend, I should be ready to give the matter up, and promise never to say a word more about it. But on that point I wish to make two remarks. In the first place, it appears essential to the common sense of the thing that if an experiment of this kind is to be made it should be made, not as proposed by my hon. Friend, but that the first step should be, not that we should meet in November, but that there should be a prorogation in June. We should then have something in hand, and should not be such patient sufferers as we must be if we commit ourselves hastily to the words of my hon. Friend's Motion. But I will venture to give my opinion upon the question whether a meeting in November would or would not leave us certainly liable to sit until the usual time of the breaking up of the House. According to my observation the real regulator of the length of our sittings is the state of our financial arrangements, and not so much of what is commonly called finance—namely, the annual proposals of the Chancellor of the Exchequer—as of the proceedings with respect to the Estimates. It is the progress and winding-up of the Estimates, and the introduction and passing of the Appropriation Bill which govern entirely, as I believe, with the rarest and slightest exceptions, the length of the Session of Parliament. There is, therefore, if I am right in that view, one way—and one way only—of securing an early termination of the Session, and that is by the early bringing forward of operations connected with the Estimates. If, therefore, the plan of my hon. Friend is to be adopted, the modus operandi should, in my opinion, be this:—The House must meet, not at the end, but at the beginning of November, and it would then have a sitting of something like six weeks before the Christmas holidays. During those six weeks it would be perfectly possible—the greater measures of legislation might, it is true, not have been prepared by the Government so early, but there is no reason in the world why—upon an alteration in the financial year, which is a condition precedent—the greater Estimates should not be ready, and why you should not get most of these greater Estimates out of the way before the Christmas holidays. The effect of that would be that, when you met after the Christmas holidays, you could at once face the legislation proposed by the Government, and there would not be the almost insuperable difficulty in regulating the claims of Estimates and the claims of the other important Business which we now have to encounter, because the Army and Navy Estimates would have been practically disposed of. But that, as I have said, would involve a change in the financial year in order to make the transition complete, and that could only be effected by Act of Parliament, and it would involve serious alterations in the social arrangements of London. The details of the question, very well worthy as they are of discussion, require serious consideration. I hope, therefore, my hon. Friend will not press his Motion to a division with the possibility of its being carried by a majority which would, after all, scarcely express the full opinion of the House. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman opposite will consent to withdraw his Amendment—with respect to which I may say that, if it is to have fair play, it ought to be the subject of a substantive Motion, and not brought forward as an Amendment to a matter from which it is essentially distinct—but I hope the hon. Gentleman may be disposed to withdraw his Amendment now. I hope, also, if the forms of the House will permit, that my hon. Friend (Mr. C. Forster) will allow his Motion to be withdrawn, inasmuch as the question is one of so much importance, involving such considerable consequences, and one upon which it is not desirable the House should commit itself to any opinion, except after a very full discussion of all the details and arrangements, and all the changes in those arrangements which undoubtedly it would require to give it effect. I hope, therefore, he will accept the suggestion I have made, and not press it to a division.

said, he was of opinion that some change in the time of the meeting of Parliament was required, and that upon two grounds. The first was that a very general wish prevailed that the Recess should commence when the hot weather comes on; and the second, that under the present system there was as a rule during the hot weather a very thin attendance of hon. Members, even when most important business was being transacted. For his part, he did not know of anything more serious than to see measures pushed through the House by the whole strength of the Government, with no independent opposition to criticize or check them. That was one of the great defects of the present arrangement, and it was one they ought all to desire to see done away with as soon as possible. He did not place much value upon the argument which had been used as to social arrangements in London, for he very much doubted whether, if Parliament closed a month earlier than it did now, it would make the least difference; because, practically, the London season terminated about three weeks before the prorogation of Parliament. Formerly the sittings of Parliament regulated the duration of the London season; but that was not the case now, for the season was at an end some weeks before the termination of the Session. But, desirable as he thought a change to be, that proposed by his hon. Friend he regarded as involving the maximum of inconvenience with the minimum of advantage. He much preferred the change which had been suggested to the Committee by the right hon. Baronet the Member for Droitwich (Sir John Pakington)—namely, that the sittings of the House should commence in January, and believing it would be practicable, he gave it his support. If the House met in November they could hardly expect many hon. Members to come from Ireland and Scotland and distant parts of this country, and, after remaining in London three or four weeks, to go home again for another holiday of four or five weeks, before they returned to the House again. The probability was that not one half of the House would be in attendance, and they would see the very state of things at the beginning of the Session which they so much deprecate at the end. The hon. Gentleman who seconded the Motion said that during the four weeks the Estimates could be brought in and the Bills advanced a stage. But they could not limit Parliament merely to first readings, and, in fact, they might have very important Motions proposed and a very indifferent House to vote upon them. There was this further objection to the Motion—that it would involve an undue curtailment of the holiday of Her Majesty's Ministers, and materially affect their health. In modern times, from the number of questions on all possible subjects which were asked and brought under consideration, Ministers were entirely engaged with Parliament during the Session, and almost the only opportunity they had of becoming practically acquainted with the busi- ness of their Departments was during the months which preceded the meeting of Parliament. They would not have time to prepare their measures before November. Even now Bills were often hastily drawn just before Parliament assembled, and if the proposed change were made the great legislative measures of the Session would have to be considered by the Government during the Christmas Recess. No difficulty of that kind ought to arise if Parliament met in January instead of November. With respect to the objection that if the House met earlier in the year they would not be likely to separate earlier, they should remember that the same body which met would have it in their power to regulate the time when their labours should be brought to a close. He did not doubt that if the House would meet one month earlier they could carry out the bargain they had made with themselves and rise one month earlier.

said, that in deference to the request of his right hon. Friend, he would consent to withdraw his Motion.

desired to state, in answer to what had fallen from the Prime Minister, that he had adopted the particular form for his Amendment which he had selected because he had been informed that a Motion to appoint a Committee on the general subject of Public Business would be out of order, that question having been already decided. He would also withdraw his Amendment on the understanding that he should not be precluded from bringing the subject of it before the House on a future day.

in rising to move—

"That this House, in order to remedy certain defects in the administration of the Admiralty, recommends the Government to take into consideration the propriety of administering that department by means of a Secretary of State; and further, of appointing to the offices of Controller and of Superintendent of Her Majesty's Dockyards persons who possess practical knowledge of the duties they have to discharge, and also of altering the rule which limits their tenure of office to a fixed term of years,"

said: The subject, Sir, of Admiralty administration is one which has excited a great deal of discussion, for there are some who think that the changes made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract (Mr. Childers) were highly objectionable, as tending to weaken the action of the Board. I take a different view of this subject. I think that the action recently pursued by my right hon. Friend at the head of the Admiralty is very bad, and I trust that the House will give me its attention while I advance a few reasons in favour of my view. The system established by my right hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract may briefly be described thus. By an Order in Council of the 14th of January, 1869, it was decreed that the First Lord was responsible for all the business of the Admiralty. The first Naval Lord was responsible to the First Lord for the personnel; the Controller, who was made a member of the Board, was responsible for the material; the Parliamentary Secretary was made responsible for the finance; and the Permanent Secretary was reponsible for the secretariat. Fixed meetings of the Board wore discontinued, and the Board was only called to meet on special occasions. By an Order in Council of the 19th April, 1872, the Order in Council of the 14th January, 1869, was revoked. Certain alterations were made, and they were briefly these:—Instead of one Lord being responsible for the personnel, there are now three Naval Lords, to whom the First Lord assigns any business that he thinks fit from time to time. The Controller is no longer a member of the Board. There are now three Secretaries instead of one—[Mr. GOSCHEN: Two]—and the Board, instead of being called together on special occasions, now meets daily as it did before 1869. Now, it appears to me, that the changes made by the First Lord are injudicious, more particularly in one respect, and that is, that the personal responsibility is greatly weakened. But I object to a Board altogether, and it was in this respect I think my right hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract erred. He had great opportunities. He was a member of a powerful Government with a large majority, and he might have swept away the Board so completely that it could never have been revived. He missed that opportunity. The Board is now nearly what it was before. Though, however, it may be said that all Boards are bad generally, yet there may be special reasons why this particular Board of Admiralty may be good. But, in my opinion, there are special objections to this Board of Admiralty. The Patent by which the Lords of the Admiralty are created, and the Order in Council which defines the particular business allotted to each Lord, are inconsistent with each other. The Patent says that what is necessary is to be done by the five Lords, or by two or more of them. The Order in Council says that the First Lord is supreme, and that every other Lord is merely subordinate to him, just as much as any ordinary secretary is subordinate to his chief. The objection I make to this system is that orders are issued in the name of the five Lords of the Board, while in effect, according to the Order in Council, the order is that of the First Lord. I am aware that this is not a very strong objection, but still it is an objection. The whole thing is a sham, and I think in the present day we ought to get rid of such shams. And I may add, it is scarcely courteous to ask Her Majesty to put her name to a document one clay which says that five Lords, or any two or more of them, shall have power to do what is necessary, and then, a few days afterwards, to ask her to put her name to a document which says the First Lord should do entirely as he likes. But my main objection is that the business of the Admiralty is divided amongst those several Lords, with the exception of the First Lord. The business is a very important and complicated one. It is a business which requires great energy and experience, and I fear those Lords are generally selected for political considerations. The First Lord shakes his head; but I think I have tolerably strong arguments in support of my assertion that, as a rule, members of the Board of Admiralty are selected for political reasons. I will quote the opinion of a Gentleman who has had as much experience in this matter as the present First Lord—I mean his immediate predecessor. My right hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract, speaking in this House on the 18th March, 1872—I quote from Hansard—said—

"I know there are official and constitutional reasons that make it convenient that, when a change of Government takes place, the new Mi- nister should have the power of reappointing the Board."—[3 Hansard, ccx. 184.]

But my right hon. Friend, as reported in The Times of the following day, was much more clear, for there he is reported to have said—

"I am quite with those who think it would be better if the heads of departments were appointed permanently instead of being, as they are in many cases, at present political appointments. Of course I except from this the Financial Secretary, who should be a Parliamentary officer."

Upon this subject I would refer to a paragraph in The Army and Navy Gazette of the 27th April, 1872. This is one of the Service newspapers, which are supposed to be well-informed on what is going on, and it said—

"Captain the Hon. F. Egerton would probably have been offered a seat at the Board, but for a question as to his re-election."

The Broad Arrow, another Service paper, said on the 11th May, 1872—

"The Tall Mall Gazette is informed that it was proposed to Admiral Seymour, when first offered a seat at the Board, that he should contest the county of Antrim against his own cousin. He refused. The office was then given to him without any stipulation."

I will quote one other opinion, and it is that of the late Chief Constructor, Mr. Reed, who, in a letter to The Times on the 21st of October, 1872, said—

"The Controller and I wished to make progress in spite, at times, of the opposition of the little conclaves of party politicians and naval men called Boards, who one after another were set in authority over us."

If this be the case, and if these members of the Board have to manage the business of the Admiralty, as a matter of course the interests of the Navy must be sacrificed. My objection is not only that the members of the Board of Admiralty are appointed from political considerations, and that consequently the best men are not sought out, but that there are constant changes in the composition of the Board. By a Return issued in 1871 (No. 405) I find that from 1832 to 1871 there have been 51 patents of the Admiralty, 75 fresh Lords, 14 different Parliamentary Secretaries, and 10 changes of Government, In five of these changes, all the Board of Admiralty were changed. In three, all were changed save one. In two, all were changed save two. Now, if the members of the Board of Admiralty are selected from political considerations, and without reference to special knowledge of the duties they have to perform, and if they only remain in office on an average about three years, I will ask the House how it is possible that all these different businesses—for there are many of them —can be carried on with success? It is impossible to overrate the evils of these constant changes. I thought at one time I should have the First Lord of the Admiralty with me on this subject, for on the 7th of August, 1871, he said—

"The presence of the Controller on the Board might involve his always leaving office with the Ministry."—[3 Hansard, ccvii. 1050.]

Again, the right hon. Gentleman said on the 18th March, 1872, that he

"thought the Controller ought to be a permanent officer, so that he might acquire that knowledge and experience indispensable to an officer like the Controller of the Navy."—[3 Hansard, ccx. 207.]

He further went on to say that it had become a question whether the Controller ought to become a member of the Board and be a permanent officer; but he considered there would be an anomaly in having "one permanent Lord of the Admiralty, and others who would go out with the Government." Now, Sir, I ask, if it is necessary that the Controller shall be a permanent officer, in order that he may acquire the knowledge and experience necessary for the discharge of his duties, whether there are not other positions at the Admiralty which likewise require great knowledge and experience? Surely, the First Naval Lord requires knowledge and experience which can only be acquired by a tolerably lengthened tenure of office. And here again I thought I might count upon the support of the present First Lord of the Admiralty. Theoretically he agrees with me; because, on the 7th August, 1871, in answer to the right hon. Member for Tyrone (Mr. Corry), he said that the question whether there should be another naval member of the Board was well worthy of consideration. Why? Because he "should be glad to do anything to secure continuity and permanence," so as to "be able to carry out the same policy when any change of office took place." [Mr. GOSCHEN: Hear, hear!] The right hon. Gentleman cries "Hear, hear!" but I ask him to explain that statement made on August 7, 1871, with what he stated on March 18, 1872, because there is something like inconsistency between the two. I should like to know what the right hon. Gentleman has done to carry out his views. He has added another Naval Lord to the Board, but he has not made him a permanent officer. Has he done anything to secure the continuity and permanence, or that the same policy should be carried out? I may mention, in reference to the subject of the constant changes at the Admiralty, that there have been in the 39 years between 1832 and 1871, 22 Civil Lords, making an average of one year and nine months for each of them. These young gentlemen came into office to be educated for the performance of their duties; but that is not the way to manage the Navy. Bearing on this question of the frequent change of office, I beg to quote a remark made by President Grant just previous to his re-election to the Presidential office. It is in The Standard of June 11, 1872.

"President Grant hopes his political life, as shown by past experience, may guide him in avoiding the mistakes which are inevitable with novices in all occupations."

If it had not been for the permanent officers of the Admiralty, this Board of Admiralty would have broken down again and again. And here I must once more quote the First Lord, who, on March 18, 1872, said—

"Some who have got the best brains and are working the hardest at the Admiralty are receiving the same salaries as men who are practically carrying out their Minutes."—[3 Hansard, ccx. 209.]

These, then, are some of the reasons why I ask the House to agree to this Motion. I have not gone generally into the question of administration by Boards. I do not wish to weary the House by giving reasons with which hon. Members are already sufficiently familiar, and which I have urged before. But for those special reasons which I have mentioned, and for those general reasons which apply to all Boards, I think it would be far better that the Admiralty Department should be carried on by a Secretary of State with the assistance of permanent heads of departments, selected for their special knowledge of the duties they are called upon to discharge in lieu of having what Mr. Reed terms "little conclaves of party politicians, called Boards," coming and going nearly as quickly as summer and winter. I do not know what course the right hon. Gentleman will take to-night; but I will now refer to some of the objections which were taken to a similar Motion which I brought forward two years ago. My right hon. Friend at the head of the Admiralty, on the 11th of July, 1871, said—

"The Peninsular and Oriental Steam Ship Company and the North Western Railway Company were managed by Boards, just as the Admiralty was managed by a Board and he therefore did not see the force of the argument of his hon. Friend."—[3 Hansard, ccvii. 1471.]

Now, Sir, there is no similarity, except in name, between the management of the Peninsular and Oriental Company and that of the Board of Admiralty. The members of the Board of Admiralty are selected by the Government of the day, and remain in office, on an average, for three years. The Directors of the Peninsular and Oriental Company, on the other hand, are 11 in number. Two re tire by rotation every two years; but unless they retire voluntarily, they are invariably re-elected. They meet once a week, not to transact any of the ordinary business of the Board, but to decide any-special questions submitted to them—such as what new ships are wanted, and the like. The ordinary business of the Company is managed by three of the Directors, who attend daily at the office, and those Directors have never been changed since the establishment of the Company, except when a vacancy has occurred by death. Three such vacancies have occurred, and one was supplied by appointing the Secretary, and the other two by appointing gentlemen who had filled the post of manager. Thus at the Board of the Peninsular and Oriental Company you have both permanence and knowledge. At the Admiralty there is the absence of both. Another objection to the Motion was taken by my right hon. Friend. He asked whether it would

"be possible to get distinguished admirals to join the Admiralty in the position of permanent officers in the subordinate posts which the hon. Member proposed to assign to them "—[3 Hansard, ccvii. 1472.]

Here is an assumption totally unwarranted by anything I said. The right hon. Gentleman assumes that I wish distinguished admirals to join the Admiralty in subordinate posts. But where is the proof of it? He takes three Naval Lords, and by an Order in Council he may assign to each of them from time to time any portion of the business relating to the personnel of the Navy which he may think fit. He may say to one, "do this," and to another, "do that," and to a third, "do the other." [Mr. GOSCITEN: Do you doubt it?] That is the Order in Council. What I propose is that one distinguished officer should be responsible for the personnel of the Navy and the movements of the Fleet; and is there anything subordinate in the position which I would thus assign to him? The First Lord further says that the tenure of office by these gentlemen must depend on the stability of the Ministry. I, on the other hand, would make them independent of a change of Ministry. Then, again, my right hon. Friend says the Admiralty require responsible advice to be given to them by men who are responsible for it. But is my right hon. Friend more likely to get such advice from men who change office every two or three years than from men who devote their whole lives to the service? Which of these two classes of men is likely to advise the Admiralty best? Is Sir Spencer Robinson most likely to give good advice at the close of his 10 years of service or at the beginning? With regard to Councils, I may further observe that there is nothing, in my opinion, to prevent a Council from being held at the Admiralty if the permanent heads of departments were chosen solely on account of their fitness, and held office irrespective of a change of Ministry. At the War Office, I believe, Councils are frequently held. The Secretary of State for War will sometimes summon a Council for his own information, and is occasionally requested to summon a Council by the head of a department. There is another point which I wish to bring under the notice of the House—namely, the arrangements which the First Lord has made for carrying on the business of the Admiralty in his absence. I believe it has been arranged that when he is absent the first Naval Lord should give all orders respecting the personnel and movements of the Fleet; and that on all other questions the First Sea Lord should be the head of the Admiralty, in conjunction with the Parliamentary Secretary. Now, I have two objections to urge against that arrangement. One is, that the First Naval Lord and the Parliamentary Secretary may be both new to office when they have to act for the first Lord; and the next is, in case they differ, who is to decide? It is obvious that a difference of opinion must sometimes arise between them. It appears to me that the best way of getting over this difficulty, as well as many other difficulties connected with the Admiralty, is by the appointment of a Deputy First Lord who should hold office permanently and act in the absence of the First Lord, with all the power of the First Lord. When the First Lord comes into office, new to his business, the Deputy First Lord will be able to advise him. All the Secretaries and Heads of departments would have to report to the Deputy, and to obey his orders. In short, if I may so express myself, the Deputy First Lord would hold in his hands the threads of all the various departments, just as the manager of a railway company holds in his hands the threads of the management of the different departments of the railway. I see that my right hon. Friend looks astonished at this proposal of mine; but, nevertheless, I may remark that I have thought somewhat on the subject, and that I am therefore bound to express my opinion to the House. Of course, the First Lord will be supreme; but I think it is very desirable to have some one permanently at the Admiralty who knows what is going on, and this I believe is the course taken in many great companies. I remember a conversation I had with my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mr. Price), who is Chairman of the Midland Railway Company. We were talking about this subject of Railway and Admiralty administration, when my hon. Friend assured me he conceived that one of his main duties was "to educate his successor." I have little more to say upon this branch of my subject, except to notice the Amendment which has been placed on the Paper by my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings (Mr. Brassey). I am sorry I shall not, on this occasion, have my hon. Friend's support in regard to the abolition of government by a Board. On a former occasion he said—

"The reform of the Admiralty Department would have been more complete if the plan of government by a Board had been abandoned, and a competent Naval Staff had been created in order to carry on the business and to afford the necessary advice to the First Lord."—[3 Hansard, ccvii. 1466.]

Such were the words used by my hon. Friend on the 11th of July, 1871; but I suppose that since then he has seen some reason to alter his opinion, as he has now put an Amendment on the Paper to leave out the words "Secretary of State," in order to insert "A Board of Admiralty, with such modifications of constitution and procedure as experience has shown to be desirable." My objection to the Board of Admiralty is that its members are selected for political considerations, and that they go out of office with the Ministry. But though I shall lose the formal support of my hon. Friend on this branch of the subject, yet I am happy to say I shall have his hearty support in reference to the other portions of my Resolution. One portion of that Resolution declares that the Controller should have a practical knowledge of the duties he has to discharge. My right hon. Friend (Mr. Goschen) himself, speaking on the 11th of July, 1871, said—"He had no objection to say that the Controller should always have special fitness for the office." Now, what are the duties attached to the office of Controller of the Navy? He is intrusted with the building and repairing of ships, the settling of the designs for ships, the superintendence of four dockyards, in which 13,000 men are employed. He has also to see that the workmanship and the materials are good. Again, the Constructor of the Navy is constantly to consult the Controller. My right hon. Friend thinks that these important duties ought always to be intrusted to a naval officer, and that all civilians ought to be excluded. Now, I hold that naval officers know little, as a rule, of naval architecture. Of course, I am aware that my opinion may be wrong on a matter of this kind, and I will therefore cite an opinion promulgated by a very high authority—namely, the Committee which was appointed by the Admiralty in July, 1870, to inquire into the Higher Education of Naval Officers. Admiral Shadwell was the Chairman of that Committee. And what was its Report? That neither naval architecture nor shipbuilding forms part of the education of English naval officers, but that in the United States and France naval architecture is taught, and that in Russia officers are instructed both in the theory of shipbuilding and in naval architecture. The Committee go on to recommend that naval architecture and shipbuilding should be taught to our officers. The Times newspaper, commenting on this Report on the 13th of September, 1871, remarks that—

"Such an education was supplied between the years 1806 and 1821, but since the latter year it has been altogether ignored and discouraged."

Again, Mr. Reed, in giving his evidence before the Committee on the Education of Naval Officers, was asked this question (1,579)—

"If naval officers possessed an elementary knowledge of the principles of naval architecture, do you think they would be in a better position to critically estimate and report on the sea-going capabilities of the ships of the Fleet?"

Mr. Reed's reply was—"I have no doubt they would be." I think, therefore, I am justified in assuming that our naval officers possess no knowledge of naval architecture. I also think that the Controllers of the Navy since 1860 have not possessed this qualification. When Sir Baldwin Walker, who was Controller of the Navy in 1860, was examined before the Royal Commission, the following question (571) was put to him—

"The Controller of the Navy cannot inspect these various works in the different dockyards himself?"

Sir Baldwin Walker replied—

"He is supposed to inspect them, but as he is not a professional officer he is not competent to give an opinion with reference to shipwrights' work."

The subjoined question (608) was also put to him—

"You are responsible as to whether a ship is properly adapted in all its parts."

To which Sir Baldwin Walker replied—

"Yes; I am supposed to be responsible, but am guided by my officers."

Indeed, when Sir Baldwin Walker was appointed Controller of the Navy, it was commonly reported that, in reply to congratulations on his being selected for so important a position, he said he knew nothing about shipbuilding, and presumed that it was on that account he had been selected. And what did Sir Spencer Robinson say after he had been for 10 years, or nearly so, Controller of the Navy? Being asked a question (589) with reference to the Glatton, he said—

"It would be referred to the naval architects. I can give no opinion upon it."

And to another question (14,873) put to him by the Megæra Commission, he replied—

"I being a naval officer, with limited knowledge as to the construction of ships, consulted the constructors, &c."

Captain Hall was appointed Controller of the Navy two years ago, when I put a Question to my right hon. Friend as to his ability in this respect. What did my right hon. Friend (Mr. Goschen) say of Captain Hall? Speaking on the 11th of July, 1871, he said—

"Captain Hall had for years occupied the post of Dockyard Superintendent, and had superintended the building of many of our large ships. He had given eminent proof of his qualifications for years past, and it was exactly for the possession of this special knowledge that Captain Hall had been selected."—[3 Hansard, ccvii. 1468.]

Why is he not Controller now? He held the office only 15 months. If he had such special knowledge of the duties he had to discharge, why did not the right hon. Gentleman keep him? I do not wish to impute motives; but I cannot help suspecting that some circumstances connected with the building of the Royal yacht Osborne had to do with his ceasing to be Controller of the Navy. The subject has been referred to before; but I must again recall the circumstances. The yacht was built at Pembroke, and she was sent to Portsmouth. On arriving there it was found that she leaked "nearly all over her bottom," owing "to the general bad workmanship," and to the using of "fir plank when teak or other hard wood should have been used." I am informed that this negligence entailed on the country a very large cost—something like £9,000—and that anything like moderate efficiency of management, and the expenditure of £400 for hard wood and better work, would have saved all this. The matter was alluded to on the 27th of May, 1872, by my right hon. Friend the Member for Tyrone (Mr. Corry), who said of the yacht that she was "thoroughly unseaworthy." It was also mentioned on the same day by the right hon. Member for Droitwich (Sir John Pakington), and my right hon. Friend (Mr. Goschen), in alluding to the subject, said—"This case was the one he most regretted as regarded the management of a dockyard." Further, in reply to a Question put by the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Scourfield), the right hon. Gentleman said that the suggestion for using fir instead of teak "was made to the Admiralty by the dockyard officials and adopted." The office of Controller was next filled by Admiral Stewart—an estimable and courteous man, but no better qualified for the post than any of his predecessors. I think, then, I may fairly say that since 1860 it is clear that no Controller has had a knowledge of naval architecture, and that each Controller must have rested entirely upon the Constructor's department. In reference to this department, I must say I think the changes made by the present First Lord have not increased its utility. We had formerly a Chief Constructor, who was responsible for that particular department. I do not know how many Constructors we have now; I think we have seven. [Mr. GOSCHEN: No, we have not. There are a chief and two assistants at present.] And also a Council. [Mr. GOSCHEN: There is a Council of seven, including the engineers and others.] There is a Council of Construction of about seven members; and Mr. Henry Morgan, secretarial member of the Council, in his evidence before the Megæra Commission, question 13,391, said—"We are put in a sort of Commission;" while Mr. N. Barnaby, President of the Council of Construction, in answer to question 13,390, said—"The other members of that Council now take more independent action than when there was a Chief Constructor." The Controller not only has to settle designs for ships, but he has also to manage the dockyards; and on the 18th of March, 1872, according to The Times, the right hon. Gentleman said—

"We propose to appoint a Deputy Controller who shall have the title of Director of Dockyards, and whose special business it shall be to attend to the official working of the dockyards, and to deal, without reference to the Controller, with most of those questions which merely touch the administration of the dockyards."

This would, to some extent, make the Deputy Controller an independent officer; and my right hon. Friend added that he thought "the Deputy Controller ought to be a civilian." I do not know what induced my right hon. Friend to alter his opinion as to the title; but at a Court held at Osborne on the 9th of August, 1872, an Order in Council was agreed to, which, among other passages, contains the following:—

"And whereas, after a careful consideration of the whole subject, we are humbly of opinion that it would be advisable to alter the title of Deputy Controller and Director of Dockyards to that of Surveyor of Dockyards."

I must ask my right hon. Friend if the only change which, "after a careful consideration of the whole subject," the Queen was called upon to make by Order in Council was that the gentleman who was to manage the dockyards on behalf of the Controller was to be called Surveyor of Dockyards instead of Deputy Controller? It seems to be a foolish arrangement that the head of the State should be required to put her hand to a solemn document, declaring that, after a full consideration of the whole subject, it was advisable to call the officer a Surveyor instead of a Deputy Controller.

My hon. Friend is entirely in error. It was not the change of title from Deputy Controller and Director to Surveyor of Dockyards which alone was made by the Order in Council. That dealt with a number of other matters.

I accept the explanation; but there is the passage which I have quoted from the Order in Council, and that passage speaks for itself. I have now to put it to my right hon. Friend, if the Controller has no knowledge of naval architecture, and if he does not know anything about the management of dockyards, what is the reason that he should be paid a larger salary, to use the words of the First Lord, than men of the "best brains," who are "working hardest;" or, as the right hon. Gentleman asked, why should men of the "best brains, and working hardest, receive the same salaries as those who are practically carrying out their minutes?" It is time that we ceased to act upon the principle of paying high salaries to men without knowledge and experience. With regard to Superintendents, I ask the House to affirm that they should have a practical knowledge of the duties they have to discharge. In other cases, the Admiralty do their best, on making appointments, to secure something like a special knowledge of the duties men have to perform. Naval officers are called upon to undergo a strict examination, and so are seamen gunners, carpenters, engineers, and others. My right hon. Friend (Mr. Goschen) seemed to agree with me on a former occasion, for on the 11th of July, 1871, he said it was a "truism to say that only persons having special knowledge should be appointed." He "denied that men without special knowledge had been appointed." He said—

"They took one officer, and gave him the command of a ship because he seemed to have the qualities of a good commander, and they took another for the management of a dockyard because he possessed administrative capacity, and understood shipbuilding and the management of stores." —[3 Hansard, ccvii. 1475.]

My contention is that my right hon. Friend does not put his theory into practice, and I ask the House to decide whether he does, or does not, when he confines these offices to naval officers who enter the service at 13 or 14 years of ago. It is most unpleasant to have to refer to particular persons; and I will take only one case—the last appointment to Pembroke Dockyard. I quote from the Active List of Flag Officers, by Captain W. Arthur, which states that Captain Courtenay entered the service at 13 or 14, and that his services have been as follows:—Sea time as captain in ships of war at sea, 6 years, 2 months sea time as captain in coastguard ships, 3 months; sea time as commissioned officer, 23 years, 4 months; harbour time as commissioned officer, 3 months; and half-pay time, 8 years; so that at the age of 51 he has been 38 years in the service; and I ask what opportunities can he have had of obtaining a knowledge of the diversity of business carried on in a dockyard? I may mention, likewise, the case of Captain Hall, so eulogised by my right hon. Friend, who spoke of him as having been for years a Superintendent, as having superintended the building of many of our large ships, and as having given eminent proof of his qualifications, so that it was exactly for the possession of this special knowledge that he had been appointed. I may be allowed to quote a few lines from a pamphlet, written by a gentleman who has, perhaps, a better knowledge of the working of our dockyards than the First Lord, or any hon. Member of this House. The writer says—

"Practically, the Admiral Superintendent does not give any orders in professional subjects; he merely repeats orders sent him from the Admiralty. He never initiates reports on any professional subject, such reports always being made by the professional officers of the yard. It is now nearly 40 years that naval officers flying their flags afloat have been on their trial as Superintendents of Dockyards; and, during this period, the country has paid untold sums in consequence of not having properly qualified managers to carry on the business and extensive works of these large public establishments. Everyone must see the absurdity of a man parading about a dockyard as its manager, in an admiral's or captain's uniform, with a sword by his side, when these form, in too many cases, the only certificate of competency he possesses. An energetic naval man generally occupies much of the professional officers time in obtaining information from them on points he is unable to fully grasp on account of having had no previous scientific or technical training, and of being unacquainted with book-keeping and accounts as connected with work, &c."

In consequence of this absence of knowledge, the Superintendent is reduced to occupying the position of being nothing more than a medium of communication between the Admiralty and those who do the work. May I be allowed to strengthen my case by quoting the opinions on this subject of several high authorities both in this House and out of it? And I would begin with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Pontefract (Mr. Childers), who, on the 19th of February, 1867, when speaking in this House on a Motion which I then brought forward in regard to the Superintendents of the dockyards, said—

"He concurred with the hon. Member for Lincoln as to the inexpediency of the present arrangement, under which no civilian could be the Superintendent of a dockyard, and no Superintendent could hold office for more than five years; and, if he were promoted, the time was less."—[3 Hansard, clxxxv. 641.]

Again, in addressing his constituents on the 29th of December, 1871, the same right hon. Gentleman was reported in The Times to have said—

"In relation to the dockyards, the more fully the public employer of labour, stalled or otherwise, follows the practice of private employers, the better both for the men and for the country."

Again, the hon. Member for Montrose (Mr. Baxter), in addressing his constituents on the 12th of October, 1871, was reported to have said that—

"The defects in Admiralty administration were to be found principally in the control and in the superintendence of our dockyards."

And, in giving his evidence before the Megæra Commission, the hon. Member for Montrose, in answer to questions from 15,570 to 15,576, stated that it was essential to the safety of Her Majesty's ships that each yard should have a Superintendent thoroughly conversant with iron shipbuilding. Mr. Reed, the late Chief Constructor, in his examination before the same Commission, gave evidence to this purport. I will not trouble the House with the answers to each question; but Mr. Reed stated that—

"Responsibility was so divided and sub-divided amongst the departments that there was great difficulty in fixing the blame when anything went wrong."

Next I come to the hon. Member for Sandwich (Mr. Knatchbull-Hugessen) who, in addressing his constituents, was reported by The Daily News, on the 18th of November, 1871, as having said—"That the Government were not to blame for the loss of the Megæra;" and that "what they had to find fault with was the system." Well; but why do not they alter it? Then, Sir Spencer Robinson, in answer to question 14,907, told the Megæra;" Commission this—

"Until you get under one head the whole management of a dockyard, you will never succeed in being perfectly certain that some one has not omitted something because it was not in his department according to his judgment."

But the opinion which will, perhaps, carry the most weight with the House is that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham (Mr. Bright), who, speaking in this House on the 16th of June, 1865, upon a proposal similar to my present one, said—

"It is not that you shall not have as Superintendents of dockyards naval officers, but that you shall not have them of necessity. It is that when you appoint a naval officer, he shall be a man who has a technical knowledge of the duties he is expected to superintend. Was anything more rational ever proposed to Parliament? I shall not say, was anything so rational ever refused by Parliament."—[3 Hansard, clxxx. 391.]

There was a division taken on that occasion, and, owing to the powerful advocacy of my right hon. Friend, 36 voted for the Motion and 34 against it; but, in a subsequent division, there voted 33 for, and 60 against the proposal. There is still a further authority in favour of my view which I would quote—namely, that of the Megæra;" Commission, who, in their Report, paragraph 108, say—

"We feel compelled to add that we have formed, however unwillingly, an unfavourable opinion as to the mode in which the administration of Her Majesty's dockyards is generally conducted."

Well, then, what have we to set against such weighty evidence and opinions as I have adduced? First of all we have the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Tyrone (Mr. Corry), whose absence I deeply regret, more particularly on account of its cause, and whom I hope soon to see again in his place, taking his usual part in naval discussions. Speaking on July 11, 1871, in this House, that right hon. Gentleman said that—

"A Superintendent has not only to superintend the repairing and building of ships, but to see to their rigging, fitting, arming, &c."[3 Hansard, ccvii. 1478.]

Here, observe, he gives up the question of the Superintendent of a dockyard knowing anything of the building and repairing of ships. His opinion might have done pretty well if he had not unfortunately given his reason for it; for I am informed, upon the most unquestionable authority, that the Superintendent in no case gives an order or superintends the rigging of a ship; that a Superintendent has nothing to do with the general fittings of a ship; and also that in no case does he interfere in any matter connected with the arming of the ships. Another authority in opposition to those by whom I am supported is that of the First Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. Goschen). And here I would ask, in passing, upon what ground does a gentleman who once took an active part in managing a large and prosperous private concern set himself against what I venture to call a common-sense and business-like mode of managing a large public department? But I got a little light on the subject by reading a speech of his—for I did not hear it—delivered on the 7th of August, 1871, when, in answering the right hon. Member for Tyrone, who had objected to civilians being appointed as Superintendents of naval hospitals and victualling yards, the First Lord reminded the right hon. Gentleman that the hon. Member for Lincoln wished actually to have civilians at the head of the dockyards, and then went on to say—

"For his own part, he wished to keep a due mean, and not to rush to extremes by excluding entirely either the civilian or the naval element." —[3 Hansard, ccviii. 1052.]

Now, I altogether object to this "due mean" principle. If naval officers are better qualified—nay, if they are as well qualified—as any civilian for an office at the Admiralty, let them have it; but do not put them in an office simply on what my right hon. Friend calls the "due mean" principle. If he had chosen to defend the changes made by his immediate predecessor on the ground that they had been beneficial, he could have clone so with great effect, more particularly with regard to the naval hospitals. I came across a paragraph in The Army and Navy Gazette of the 4th of January last, in which it was stated, on the authority of officers and correspondents who had themselves seen and experienced the working of the naval hospitals, that those institutions "were never in such a thoroughly efficient state as they are at present." I should have thought that was a strong argument in favour of applying the same principle to the management of our dockyards; but the First Lord actually uses it as an argument against the change, and he wishes to keep to the "due mean," and therefore, as civilians are employed in the naval hospitals and victualling yards, he must have naval officers as Superintendents of the dockyards. My impression is that the Admiralty themselves know that their managers of the dockyards are inefficient, or they would not have encumbered their books with such a mass of written instructions. They know that they are not efficient, and in order to lessen the evil of that inefficiency, they send forth an enormous number of written instructions—so enormous that Admiral Sir Sydney Dacre, when he was examined before the Megæra Commission, in answer to question 15,997, said—

"I know that orders are multiplied to such a degree that people do not know actually where they are."

Admiral Sir Frederick Gray, in answer to question 13,850, before the Megæra Commissioners, said—

"I cannot say what the instructions to the dockyard officers are, for though begun to be revised in 1862 and 1863, they are not yet completed or issued."

Perhaps the House will allow me to give an extract from the appendix to the Report of the Megæra Commission, showing the minuteness with which the Board of Admiralty attempt to manage this business. On the 16th of August, 1870, the carpenter of the Megæra reported that the mizen cross-tree of that vessel was broken. The staff commander approved of the Report, and. sent it to the Commander-in-Chief; the Commander-in-Chief approved it, and referred it to the Superintendent at Sherness; the Superintendent at Sheerness referred it to the dockyard officers; the dockyard officers reported that the cost of the repairs would be The Superintendent then reported to the Controller; and on the 29th of August, or 13 days afterwards, the Controller ordered the work to be done, costing £6. This system of written instructions of course necessarily multiplies correspondence inordinately. The First Lord of the Admiralty, in speaking of the correspondence of his Department, in connection, I think, with a question that was raised in this House with reference to the loss of the Megæra, said, "It was a matter of extreme difficulty in so vast a Department." Now, Sir, I do not think there is any difficulty in dealing with the correspondence of a large department. I think that a large business, if the system is good and the managers are efficient, is generally better managed than a small business. But I deny that this correspondence— 100,000 letters per annum—is so excessive. As soon as I had read the report of my right hon. Friend's speech, I asked my own bankers—the London and County Bank—to give me the number of letters they received in the course of the year, and they were kind enough to let their letters be counted for one week at the head office; and I find that they received 498 letters and 25 postal cards per day, or 523 communications altogether, being an average of 163,176 a-year. And this they told me was a fair average of the number they received week by week, except upon special occasions, when the number was largely increased. I have reason to believe that at the General Post Office 160,000 letters a-year pass through the Secretary's office, and that there are about one and a-half or two unregistered papers to each letter; making the whole number between 400,000 and 500,000 in the year. And I venture to assert that this mode of attempting to manage business by written instructions, instead of by having efficient managers in the different dockyards, has failed, and ever must fail as long as the world stands. Then, in addition to this want of experienced managers, you have the tenure of a dockyard Superintendent's appointment limited to five years, and practically to only three years. I really do not think that folly could go much further than that. This, then, briefly summed up, is the way in which the Admiralty manage their business. The Controller, who superintends the designs for shipbuilding, is ignorant of naval architecture; while the Superintendents who manage your great shipbuilding yards know nothing whatever of shipbuilding. No wonder there is much extravagance, and that many grievous mishaps occur. We have lately introduced something like common sense into the mode in which the Admiralty purchase their stores, and I have no doubt a considerable sum of money has thereby been saved; but I believe that saving is small compared with that which would be effected by having efficient Superintendents of dockyards. But the saving of money would not be the only advantage gained by altering the system. There would be many other advantages. I believe the costly establishments at Whitehall might be materially reduced. They would not then have to take into consideration whether a mizen cross-tree should be repaired at a cost of £6, but would be able to devote their attention to questions of far greater moment. A further advantage would be that we should, in all probability, be spared those serious blunders such as led to the loss of the Megæra. Here was a vessel sent on a long voyage, dashed to pieces on a desert island, and 300 or 400 lives put in great peril; and what are the facts which are ascertained? Why, that year after year, for many years, her bottom had been crumbling to pieces, and that she had been during this time in more than one dockyard for repairs. I cannot conceive that under an efficient administration this would happen. But the greatest advantage which I think would accrue from an alteration of the system would be, that we should have a better chance of securing the best type of ship in future; and when we bear in mind the many costly reconstructions of our Navy, the millions of money that have been spent—some of them unnecessarily spent, in consequence of want of skill and foresight—I say we ought to summon to our aid the highest skill that the country can afford. I further say—and I say this deliberately—that the man who neglects to summons to his aid the best talent that the country can furnish is guilty of an act of great folly, and of a gross breach of duty. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving his Resolution.

said, he begged to thank his hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr. Seely), for again calling attention to a subject which, despite the scanty attendance, was one of great importance, involving the maintenance of that maritime superiority which the country was resolved to secure at whatever cost. It was to secure this and the efficient conduct of the Department that his hon. Friend had, with laudable pertinacity, year after year brought the question before the House, having already achieved much good, and being likely he trusted to achieve much more. The object of the Resolution which he wished to second was, the practical enforcement of the doctrine of direct personal responsibility in naval administration. Could it be surprising that much distrust was felt by the public as to the condition of the Navy, and its management, seeing that our iron-clads, according to the late Commander of the Mediterranean Squadron (Lord Clarence Paget), "were not safe when near land or one another, at sea, at anchor, or in bad weather, without steam power?" According to Admiral Sartorius, "they were equally unfit for the exigencies of coast or distant warfare, and for blockading an enemy's ports impracticable." Another Admiral, Lord Dunsany, stated eight months ago, in the other House, that a "flag officer might now attain his flag without ever having taken his own ship out of harbour." This distrust was not unreasonable when Her Majesty's ship Achilles had four captains appointed to her—before she left Sheerness—in a little over three months, in order, it was alleged, to evade the regulation now in force, that a captain must have been afloat and in command of a ship within seven years of his promotion to flag rank. This insidious and expensive process must unduly swell the number of flag officers, already out of all proportion to the requirements of the service. We had now 295 admirals on the retired, reserved, and active lists. Mr. Cobden 20 years ago complained of their being almost one admiral for each ship in commission; but, deducting coastguard ships for the Naval Reserve, and ships under repair or stationary, we had, by the latest return, 211 ships in commission, showing nearly an admiral and a half for every ship now in commission. The inefficiency of the present system might be shown by the collisions and catastrophes which had befallen the Navy, but they were so recent, and had so strongly affected the public mind, that he need only express his dissatisfaction at the advancement of the officials who were or ought to have been made responsible for the loss of the Megæra. So far from dereliction of duty—he might say culpable neglect or delinquency—being a bar to promotion, it apparently operated as a stimulus or plea for advancement on the official mind. Hence it was disheartening to be driven to the conclusion that the new system was not much, if at all, better than the old. As to official responsibility, no word was more profaned, for a First Lord might build a fleet of useless vessels, as had indeed happened, the country bearing the cost. Impeachment was obsolete, and the block at Tower Hill was no longer a national institution. If a dockyard was wastefully managed, would the First Lord be compelled to make good the waste? For 19 years the Admiralty had been undergoing constant reorganization, and the views of successive Boards constantly changing; the consequence was confusion, which would have become absolute chaos but for the permanency of the subordinate officials. The Board changing with the Government, a political feeling was imported into the service, orders not being cheerfully obeyed, and a spirit almost of mutiny being encouraged. Officers and men often held on for a change of Government, hoping for it if dissatisfied, as was their normal condition. Duties were perfunctorily performed, and too often the subordinates, from political feeling, opposed and strove to thwart, if not to betray, their chiefs. How often had First Lords justly complained of information being furnished to Opposition Members before they had themselves been made acquainted with it. Now, with a Secretary of State and permanent professional advisers this state of things would be wholly or to a great extent avoided. Under the existing system Parliamentary novices and young political aspirants became Civil Lords and Secretaries to the Admiralty, and when holding those offices they not merely advised but they actually controlled largo Departments conducted by men who had devoted their lifetime to their management. Consequently, the policy of those Departments was never uniform, and the waste of public money arising from changes of design was very great. But the worst effect of the present system was, that the heads of Departments were thus deprived of their personal responsibility. Hence it was not surprising that in the fleet at the present time there were almost as many types of ships as there were ships. But the fact was that a system which. changed the First Lord, the Civil Lord, the Secretary, and the other Lords every two or three years, and the Superintendents of the dockyards every five years, was so absurd that its absurdity would need no exposure were it not for the obstinate inaptitude of those Chinese of Europe, the ordinary English officials. The Superintendents of our dockyards were merely the month-pieces of officers who disclaimed all responsibility. In our dockyards there was really no one who superintended, in the true sense of the term. The most important functionary whose duty should be to blend the several offices under him into one harmonious whole—to use the language of the Secretary of State for War—was an official who was entirely ornamental and absolutely useless, when not mischievous. He might ask whether the Government had not given up the point insisted upon by his hon. Friend by having recently abolished the Naval Superintendents at the victualling yards and naval hospitals? As to the office of the Controller of the Navy, he wished to know why it should be given to an admiral who had no professional knowledge of shipbuilding, and who could only act as a mere buffer between the First Lord and the Chief Constructor of the Navy. It was chimerical to suppose that we could ever see a perfect administration under a Parliamentary régime, but a Minister would most nearly attain that result by courageously discarding all antiquated practices and superannuated procedure in the conduct of his Department. Therefore, while he was aware that with regard to the public service we should never discover a perfect substitute—to use the language of the Prime Minister—"for the vigilant, the ever-living sense of self interest which applies to private concerns," still the question was, how near we could get to the solution of the problem of an efficient substitute? He believed the adoption of the Admiralty of such an admistrative policy as had been recommended by his hon. Friend would greatly assist in the solution of this difficult and vital problem. In conclusion, he would ask, what could be said of a system which affixed no clear and indisputable authority anywhere—a system which laid on the First Lord duties before he could have any knowledge how to perform them? It established confusion in the inferior departments, where there ought to be a clear definition of functions, and prevented the possibility of the enforcement of a steady and consistent line of policy with permanent official and individual responsibility.

The Motion of the hon. Member for Lincoln refers to two separate departments of naval administration—namely, the organization of the office of the Admiralty, and the management of the dockyards. The Amendment which he (Mr. Brassey) had placed on the Paper referred to the former subject only; but, inasmuch as the management of the dockyards was by far the more important and difficult problem of the two, he proposed to apply himself mainly to that branch of the subject. Good administration in dockyards could never be secured except by appointing competent men to manage them on the spot, with plenary powers to carry out, according to their own judgment, the instructions received from the Admiralty. The managers of dockyards would be held individually responsible for failure in the performance of their duties, and should receive a liberal recognition for faithful service. Having seen how vain the attempt has been to manage the dockyards from Whitehall, he could not but turn for guidance to his father's experience, which showed that a business, almost as large and complicated as that of the Admiralty itself, could be managed with success, by the delegation of the responsibility of local administration to well selected agents. Since he had the privilege of addressing the House on this subject, the loss of the Megæra had furnished another convincing proof of the entire dependence of the central office on the local officers in the dockyards. Mr. Reed, in his evidence before the Megæra Commission, disavowed any intention to undertake the supervision of 750 ships from Whitehall. He said that—

"He did not consider that it had been any part of the Chief Constructor's duty to be responsible, or to see even that the master-shipwrights did their work thoroughly. A master-shipwright was the highest ship-building and repairing officer belonging to the Admiralty, and the office of the Chief Constructor and his staff was only that of adviser to the Admiralty on professional questions relating to that work. His own opinion was that, if any action were taken, which tended to weaken the responsibility of the dockyard officers, and to place the care of the ships in the Admiralty office, for every mishap that we now had in the Navy, we should have a hundred afterwards."

Mr. Barnaby expressed a similar opinion. Sir Spencer Robinson took the same view—

"When," he said, "you put a man at the top of his profession, as a master-shipwright; you put the greatest possible confidence in him; you take such steps as you can to remind him of the importance of the work he has to perform, and any further interference would be disastrous to the best interests of the public service."

From what class, then, are the managers to be selected? A naval officer of the highest rank must be at the head of the dockyard, but for good workmanship and economy we must look to the professional officers of the yards. Whenever Admiral Superintendents have been before Commissions on dockyard management, they have universally declined to accept any responsibility either as to expenditure or workmanship, alleging that the professional officers were solely responsible. But if this be the case, the nominal responsibility of the Admiral for the internal economy of the dockyards, and the practice of requiring him to affix his signature to every document relating to ship-building, must be prejudicial to the public service. The great changes recently carried out in naval administration, seem to have left this serious evil untouched. In his evidence before the Megæra Commission, Mr. Andrew Murray said that—

"While the Admiral or Captain-Superintendent was necessary in a dockyard as a head, he should not be concerned in its details, or in the management of the men. But, unfortunately," he said, "it is the case with the rules now—and they seem to be attempting to go further in that direction—that they take the power out of the hands of the principal departmental officers."

Mr. Reed urged very strongly a similar criticism—

"The shipbuilding officers in the Admiralty have not," he said, "any power of controlling a dockyard, and if the result of this inquiry should be to establish an arrangement by which they should be authorized and enabled to look after the ships, I would consider it to be a very happy result."

But there has been no such position given to the professional staff of the Admiralty, and I believe, under the latest improvements, there have been no changes in that respect. There ought to be an organization by which there should be a professional officer in each dockyard, and a professional officer at the Admiralty, who should be looked to for the exercise of that responsibility, and who should have the means of' exercising it. Mr. Reed further expressed an opinion that—

"The naval officer should be consulted on all parts of the ship which relate to his professional work, but the want of a definition of the shipbuilder's duties, and of the naval officer's duties, worked very great mischief, and a great change in that respect was necessary."

In a dockyard, the Superintendent must always be required, as the local representative of the Admiralty; and his experience afloat—the more recent that experience the better—would enable him to exercise a most beneficial supervision over the equipment of the ships. But these duties were entirely distinct from those involved in the internal management of the yard. Having showed that we want the best shipbuilders in the country as managers of dockyards, we had now to consider what steps should be taken to induce the most qualified men to enter the public service. The pay should be gradually raised. The present salaries were entirely inadequate, when compared with the importance of the duties, or the corresponding salaries in the employ of private firms. Owing to the insufficiency of the salaries, we were continually losing some of the most valuable subordinate shipbuilding officers in the dockyards. The surveyors at Lloyds were almost all obtained from the dockyards. But large salaries were not the only means of making the employment attractive. The relative rank of the professional officer should be considered. The civil manager of each dockyard should have adequate relative rank. He could not see why he should not rank with, but after, a rear-admiral, or, at any rate, with, but after, a post-captain. Again, honorary distinctions had never of late been bestowed, though it was clear that meritorious services in the dockyards gave as good claim to the Order of the Bath, as the work in any department of the Civil Service of the Crown. The same neglect of our great naval shipbuilders was not manifested in former days, when Sir William Sepping and Sir William Rule were distinguished—and very properly so—by some mark of the favour of their Sovereign. That men of so much ability as some of the present master shipwrights should be induced to remain where they are, only shows how easily the Government might make such employment attractive. The professional officers should not be promoted workmen. Men promoted from the ranks often show that melancholy dread of responsibility which was so painfully exhibited in the Megæra inquiry. Sir Spencer Robinson gave a strong opinion on this subject when he said that—

"Knowing the timidity, and the sort of want of straightforwardness which belong to the class from which many of those officials were sprung, he considered that, being aware that they had committed an oversight, the whole of their evidence was untrustworthy."

Sometimes the most suitable officer might be appointed from a private establishment, but as a general rule he would be found among the subordinates trained in the service. Occasionally a naval officer might have had an opportunity of showing a special fitnesss for the post. Having made a happy choice of a fit person, it remained to consider what modifications might be desirable in the duties of the appointment. The correspondence should be materially reduced. Sir W. Edmondstone told the Megæra Commissioners that the master-shipwright was more occupied in office work than in the practical part of his duty; and that he was completely dependent on the assistant master-shipwright and the foremen. The most elaborate returns, do what you will, afford no security for economy. Immediate skilful personal supervision over the labour employed and the conversion of materials can alone secure economical administration. Every master-shipwright should be relieved of the duty of appending his signature to documents which he signs as a mere matter of form. A highly qualified confidential secretary should be assigned to every master-shipwright, who should be authorized to deal with all matters of office routine. When a ship was to be built or repaired in the dockyard, the master-shipwright should be required to make a careful examination of the work, and prepare his own estimate. If this estimate were approved, and the work ordered, his name should be inserted in the Naval Estimates, in a separate column, opposite the figures for which he was responsible. This practice would tend materially to create a sense of individual responsibility, which would never be felt by officials who were allowed to screen themselves from criticism behind the nominal authority of the Controller or Admiral Superintendent. The various suggestions which had been proposed could not be adopted, unless the Admiralty felt justified in placing implicit reliance on their staff. Personal confidence between principal and agent could only be established after many years of careful training and thorough trial in subordinate positions. The head of a private business had the means of putting his agents to such a test; but in the public service, under a Parliamentary system, where political and personal considerations caused frequent changes, the same opportunity of long continued observation of the conduct of subordinates was rarely given to a Minister at the head of a Department. At the same time he was convinced that the more we decentralized, the more vigorous and economical our dockyard administration would be. Among the illustrations which might be adduced to show the evil effects of excessive concentration of authority at the Admiralty, none could be more striking than the present arrangements for the promotion of workmen. The events which were daily occurring around us, showed the difficulty of managing large bands of workmen. The professional officers were responsible for workmanship and economy in dockyards, and yet the artizans employed under their directions were placed under the Admiralty Superintendent for the regulation of discipline, while their promotion depended on the will, or at least, on the approval of the Controller in London. The Controller could have no knowledge of the individual merits of the workmen, but his nominal intervention deprived the local officers of their legitimate authority over the men. It was because the central authority had no other means of testing the capabilities of the workmen that recourse had been had to the plan of applying a literary test to artizans who were candidates for promotion. The qualifications required were manual skill and diligence; but inasmuch as the central authority would not trust the local officers, the aspirant workman was tested by examination papers, although it must often happen that the most skilful artizan with the pen was the least skilled in the use of the adze and the saw. With regard to the tenure of office of the Superintendent, who was a temporary, and of the master-shipwright, who was a permanent officer, if the latter were raised to the position of manager of the yard, there seemed no reason why the present rules as to the appointment of Admiral Superintendent should be changed. Before finally quitting the subject of dockyard economy, he would urge the importance of avoiding spasmodic and violent alterations in the shipbuilding programme. The right hon. Member for Pontefract had very wisely laid down a scheme for the production of a given quantity of armoured and unarmoured ships each year. The number of workmen, the supply of materials, the arrangement of the machinery, must be regulated with reference to the amount of work proposed. As regards the armoured ships, our policy must mainly depend on the preparations of other Powers. The condition of foreign navies was accurately known, and no important changes could be effected suddenly, or without our knowledge. The unarmoured ships could be rapidly produced whenever required, both in public and private yards. A large staff of workmen would not therefore appear to be necessary for the solo purpose of building vessels of that class, though enough must always be retained to undertake repairs of the fleet. Encouragement was much wanted, both for workmen and sub-officers—such as foremen. A percentage on profits, where there were none, could not be offered; neither could a percentage on savings be proposed without the risk of important work being scamped. But a distribution of gratuities to deserving workmen, on the satisfactory completion of any difficult work, might be a valuable stimulus to exertion. He would now say a few words on the government of the Navy by a Board. He had on a former occasion supported without reserve a Motion very similar to that now introduced. Further consideration had induced him to withdraw from his former position. The inquiry held before the Duke of Somerset's Commission, and the strongly expressed opinions of Sir John Hay, Sir Frederick Gray, Sir Alexander Milne, and Sir Sydney Dacres, had convinced him that he was ill-advised in advocating the dissolution of the Board. When the First Lord was—as it usually happens—a civilian, it must be right that he should have an opportunity of hearing more than one opinion on a controverted naval question. It must also be well that all the members of the Board should have a general knowledge of the proceedings of the Admiralty. Again, in matters of patronage it must be undesirable that a. Minister should be entirely dependent on a single adviser. The Navy was a scattered service. Only a certain number of officers could ever have served under the personal observation of one individual, and it must be impossible for an Admiral to place the same confidence in officers he has never seen in service, which he feels in those who have been under his own command. Hence an inevitable tendency to a select band of followers. The presence of other officers at the council table of the First Lord would secure fair consideration for the claims of those who were not personally known to the First Sea Lord. It did not follow that the advice of the Board should impair the authority of the First Lord. In commercial life many boards wore governed by the chairman with autocratic power. How much more easy must it be to secure a similar supremacy at the Admiralty, where the authority of the First Lord was effectually protected, both by usage and by the influence due to those personal qualifications, without which he would not have been selected to fill such an important post. The charms, too, of antiquity are universally recognized in an ancient country; and if by wisdom in practice all that is objectionable in point of form could be effectually remedied, it would not be wise to make a change on theoretical grounds. At the Admiralty—as in other departments of the Government—

"That which was best administered was best."

The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving the Amendment of which he had given Notice.

in seconding the Amendment, said, he thought the discussion premature, as upon the Navy Estimates the House would hear more distinctly what the policy of the Government was to be. The tenor of the argument of the hon. Member for Lincoln seemed to be that seamen knew nothing of ships and nothing of navigation. He agreed almost entirely with what the hon. Member for Hastings (Mr. Brassey) had said. Some years ago he (Sir James Elphinstone) had moved Resolutions for the purpose of strengthening the Board of Admiralty, and he still adhered to the opinion that the great defect at the Admiralty was the want of power and the placing of an enormous amount of work upon the officials there. The same might be said of every Department of the State. The Judges were dying of hard work; it was the tendency of the Administration to heap more work upon public servants than they could possibly perform with justice to themselves and to the State. There was one office which he was sorry to see abolished, and which he cordially welcomed when established by the right hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. Childers); he meant that of Chief of the Staff. The position of Chief of the Staff was, in his opinion, a most im- portant office, because the person filling it was one with whom inferior officers could communicate with much more confidence than with the First Lord of the Admiralty. Take the Coast Guard, the divisions of which were commanded by some of the most distinguished officers of the service—these could communicate with the Chief of the Staff, and discharge their business much better in that way than by directing their communications to the First Lord of the Admiralty, who had various functions to discharge. The Resolutions which he proposed on the occasion to which he had referred wore not his Resolutions; they were drawn up by some of the most experienced officers of the Navy, who contemplated and forecast almost everything that had since happened. They foresaw that an emergency was about to arise in which it would be absolutely necessary to have our Navy reconstructed in a form and on a scale quite unknown in this country before. They saw the old ships, built for £120,000 vanishing from the face of the earth, and their place supplied by vessels which would cost £500,000. In view of that change the object of the Resolutions was to strengthen the professional arm of the Admiralty, and to give the First Lord the very best professional advice. And hero he must differ from his hon. Friend in holding that sailors knew more about ships than engineers. The consequence of the Admiralty being starved was that they had fallen into one mistake after another. We were now gradually getting into something like a policy. We had a considerable number of seaworthy ships, though he thought they were all overmasted, and in other respects not quite what they should be. But it was absolutely impracticable to have all things combined in a sea-going iron-clad. She must be a compromise in any case, and as to our last iron-clad, the Devastation, he must implore that she should not be sent to sea until after the Equinox. He had had a good deal of experience, and he must say that he would not go to sea in her unless there was the gravest necessity. She was perfectly suited for harbour defence, she had the most powerful engines of destruction, but he did not think a ship of her construction could perform the services for which she had been built. Then as to the changes in our dockyards. We never heard of any Member in the House getting up and calling on the Government of the day to reduce the corps of Royal Engineers; and yet there was hardly a Gentleman who came into Parliament with any small mechanical knowledge who did not endeavour to break up establishments which were of the greatest importance to the public. Before the establishment-men of the dockyards were broken up they were not only a body of the best behaved and most perfect mechanics, but they were also a half military corps, being trained to the use of artillery, and quite ready to defend the dockyards should the force to which that duty was intrusted be called away. The best policy which the Government could possibly adopt would be to re-establish a highly qualified and educated corps—he did not mean men having mechanical knowledge merely—for the purpose of construction, reconstruction, and repairs of ships, and to make them as stable a body as the Royal Engineers. The change to which he alluded had operated in the most unfavourable manner. The continual terror in which the men were kept lest there might be some alteration to their prejudice made it an absolute duty in those who represented the arsenals to endeavour to reassure them. And here he must bear his testimony to the excellent conduct of these men during the strikes which were so prevalent throughout the country. They had behaved in the most temperate and orderly manner, and that under very trying circumstances. If we looked at the price of provisions, of coals, and of all the necessaries of life, these men were nearly 60 per cent worse off than they were 10 years ago, and their pay was very much less than what they would get in private yards. They had behaved, as he had said, with the most perfect propriety during the whole of this most trying season; they now looked to the Government to take their just claims into consideration, and he hoped they would not be deceived. The great use of our Navy in times of peace appeared to him to be to maintain a body of well-trained officers and well-trained and contented men, and the great facilities there were for service in quelling the slave trade on the coast of Africa, in taking charge of our colonies on the coast of China and other parts of the world, and in discharging the duty we had imposed upon ourselves of maintaining the police of the seas, made it easy for us to keep up small squadrons of ships in various quarters in a state of perfect efficiency.

said, there was one class of men who had been rather hardly used in the course of the debate, and that was the naval officers. The hon. Member for Brighton (Mr. White) went out of his way to compare the number of Admirals with the number of ships; but it did not appear to have entered into the calculations of the hon. Member that in proportion as we increased the strength of our ships we must increase the number of officers on half-pay. One iron-clad was probably equal to six vessels that used to be afloat when the majority of our Admirals entered the service. Whatever might be said of naval officers, they were very sensitive of their reputation, and he should be sorry it should go abroad uncontradicted that these men were a mere burden to their country. Most of them had served their country well, and their patriotism would bear comparison, at least, with that of the hon. Member for Brighton. It should be further borne in mind that the half-pay these officers were receiving was miserably small, being in many instances less than what the colliers in Lanarkshire had struck work on. The hon. Member also talked of the influence at work at the Admiralty. No doubt there was a time when political jobbery existed at the Admiralty, but he believed that time had gone by. Notwithstanding all that had fallen from him, the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. Seely) would not, he believed, deny that, in spite of all the shortcomings of the Admiralty, we had got a more efficient Navy than any other country in the world.

considered a change in the constitution of the Board of Admiralty perhaps the most important administrative change which the House could be called upon to make, and the question he naturally put to himself was whether they were really sincere in asking for it. Certainly the numbers in the House, and its general attitude during this discussion, did not enable him to answer that question in the affirmative. There always had been one great de- feet in the constitution of the Admiralty —namely, its want of continuity of action and permanence of policy, and that defect remained unremedied to this hour. But why was there this absence of continuity of action and permanence of policy? Because they insisted on having a political chief at the Admiralty, and he believed that so long as this was the case they would have to regret the absence of these two elements. He had never been able to get any answer to the question why they had a permanent chief in the sister arm of the service—the Army—and had nothing of the sort in the Navy. The hon. Member for Brighton talked about Ministerial responsibility; but he ventured to think the responsibility of the First Lord of the Admiralty was a great deal more ideal than real. There had been occurrences which had roused the heart of the country and filled England with sorrow, alarm, and dissatisfaction; but he had never seen them satisfactorily accounted for or responsibility brought home. Theoretically, the First Lord was responsible, but not really. The civilian who was selected to fill that office found himself suddenly seated at a table with three or four naval men of the highest standing, the longest experience, and a minute knowledge of every detail of the Navy. How could he be responsible in the face of his advisers for the discipline of the Navy, the allocation of the fleet, and the construction of ships? The First Lord must, in such a position, be entirely in the hands of his advisers. When he had served his apprenticeship and acquired some knowledge of the situation, he was either transferred to another position or was obliged to leave office altogether in consequence of some Ministerial change, and the whole thing had to be done over again. That was a defect in the constitution of the Board which would not bear argument. Responsibility had a double action—the man who bore responsibility should feel it, and those who imposed responsibility must, when the occasion arose, be in a positon to enforce it. Within two or three days after the right hon. Gentleman entered the Admiralty, the Megæra left Sheerness; she was proved to be unseaworthy before leaving the Channel. There was an Admiralty order then in existence that any ship so found to be unseaworthy should return to her port to be repaired; but that order was not obeyed; she left Queenstown in violation of that order, and they all knew what had occurred. Was there any Vote of Censure on the First Lord? Certainly not. He had only been at the Admiralty two or three days, and might not have known of the existence of the order; but if there had been a trained and permanent head of the Admiralty, Parliament would not have hesitated to enforce responsibility, and the country would have supported Parliament in doing so. That could not be done so long as they had a shifting head. Allusion had been made to a letter written by Lord Clarence Paget, who was well qualified to write on the subject, for he had just then returned from a five years' command of an ironclad fleet; he had been at the Admiralty himself; and he said that those iron-clads were not safe either at sea or at anchor unless they were under the full power of their steam. Civilians could not help coupling such statements with the grounding of the Lord Clyde and the stranding of the Agincourt. People asked how such things happened, and could never get an answer to the question—Who was responsible? He wished Lord Clarence Paget would write again now, for many things had happened since his last letter. There had been a collision between the Bellerophon and the Minotaur. They had heard of the Sultan touching ground somewhere, and of the Northumberland hanging upon the prow of the Hercules in the roads of Funchal, and yet nobody was responsible. A naval officer had stated that out of six iron-clads composing the Channel Fleet, three were shaky at the bottom. He wished Lord Clarence Paget would ask, with the authority duo to his position in the Navy, whether the Northumberland and the Hercules were provided with anchors and chains corresponding with their weight. He very much doubted whether that could be shown. The House was entitled to ask for explanations on all these points. Of course, there were Courts-Martial to adjudicate on facts; but he was referring to matters of naval administration, and the responsibility for naval administration seemed to be more nominal than real. As to stores, he was glad a Committee had been appointed upon this subject, and thought that good might come of the inquiry, especially with reference to the working of the new purchase system at the Admiralty. Another point worth notice was that inventors seemed to find great difficulty in getting heard at the Admiralty, and in testing even good inventions. Was the best anchor in use in the Navy? He very much doubted it. His hon. Friend (Mr. Seely) wished to put our great naval yards upon the footing of private undertakings. But it must always be remembered that in public establishments the feeling of self-interest was wanting. It was like requiring a vast workshop, all the machinery in which was driven by one steam-engine, to work without steam. You could not in a public yard have the stimulus which was afforded in a private under - taking, where capital, character, and livelihood depended upon a man's success. He gave the utmost credit to the officials in our dockyards for their devotion to duty, but this one feeling must always be lacking; and, further, what was wanting was a permanent head at the Board of Admiralty, whether a civilian or a naval man. He could not agree with his hon. Friend (Mr. Seely) that Naval Lords were appointed from political reasons. One of our most eminent sailors was Admiral Milne, who had served in the Admiralty under a Conservative Administration, and was still a member of the Board. But what was wanted was permanence given to the action and policy of the Board by the appointment of a Naval Commander-in-Chief.

The natural result of a Motion such as this, and a debate such as this, is that it must afford the opportunity of bringing into prominent notice almost every disaster which has happened of late years in the Navy, and every act of maladministration; that it must attack the character of many administrators at various periods; and that these attacks and charges are so various that it is almost impossible, in replying, to notice them all. The speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr. Seely) was directed mainly to two points —the constitution of the Board of Admiralty and the substitution of civilian for naval officers in the Department of Controller and as Superintendents of the naval yards. It is easy for me to state my opinion upon those two points. But the hon. Member, in substantiating his case, alluded to a great deal of historical matter, and was followed in that by other hon. Members, so that if I were really to give an exhaustive reply to the speeches made, I should have to deal fully with the whole case of the Megæra; I should have to explain the history of the collision between the Minotaur and the Bellerophon; I should have to enter upon the question of anchors and cables; to revive the debate upon the circulars respecting coals; to explain the mishap to the Lord Clyde and the Agincourt, and the construction of the Devastation; in fact, there would be no end to the speech which it would be my duty to make. On the other hand, let me say with great earnestness that it is painful to me to leave these things unanswered. It is, however, impossible, in a speech in reply to a Motion like this, to give a full explanation; and, whilst this is so, I must be in this position—that I see statements go forth that must remain partially uncontroverted until the proper opportunity comes. I shall be most happy to answer any question that may be put in the usual way; but to deal with all these matters in a single debate is beyond my powers. If, however, I have felt some pain at the revival of all the recent mishaps in our naval annals, I feel still more pain at some observations from the hon. Member (Mr. Seely), the effect of which, I think, he scarcely anticipated. The practical effect of a portion of his Motion is to convey the impression that the officers now performing the duty of Controller and Superintendents of the yards are not competent. It will have been observed, however, that first of all he assigns to them certain duties, and then states that they are incompetent to perform not their actual duties, but the theoretical duties which he himself assigns to them. The hon. Gentleman said in respect of the naval officers of whom he spoke that he did not understand what they were doing; that they got large salaries, and that he objected to their receiving those salaries until he knew what they got them for. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that those officers perform great and laborious duties, and in a manner which would excite his admiration were he acquainted with them. It is but just to the officers in question that I should bear this testimony to their most valuable services. I must ask the House and the public to assume that in respect of many of the cases of alleged maladministration, there is a complete defence, although it is impossible for me to enter into those matters of detail to-night; and, on the other hand, I ask, is there a single establishment of the enormous size of the Navy—is there a single company with so large a number of ships—is there one undertaking managed privately or by a Board that has not had its disasters, and very much in the same proportion as the Navy? And yet every disaster that happens in the Navy is assumed to be the consequence of Admiralty maladministration. You cannot have an enormous fleet at sea without occasional disasters occurring. And while I deeply regret the events which have occurred, I congratulate myself—I congratulate the Admiralty—far more, I congratulate the gallant officers in command of our ships on the fact that we have had—owing to their skill—so few disasters at a time when storms were unexampled in severity. The House will forgive me if I do not go further into this part of the question, inasmuch as the hon. Member has not attacked the present Admiralty. But he has attacked the Admiralty in the way that so many hon. Members in the House, and so many other persons out of the House, have been accustomed to do—namely, by magnifying every accident which happens, and exhibiting it as a sign of the decline of the Navy, forgetting that accidents are as numerous in foreign navies, if not more numerous than in our own. I venture to make these preliminary observations with a view to lessen the effect which statements such as we have heard are calculated to have on the country if they remained uncontradicted. I assure the House that we are fully conscious of our responsibility and of the administrative shortcomings to which we are liable; but I am anxious that there should be no exaggeration as to the facts. I must say I regretted to hear the statement made by the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Portsmouth (Sir James Elphinstone) with regard to the Devastation. I can only say that the able officers at the Admiralty—the Naval Architect and the Constructors—are fully alive to their duty and responsibility, and that nothing will be left undone which is calcu- lated to secure the safety of the ship referred to, and every precaution and means will be taken to sift everything connected with that ship to the very bottom; but we do not entertain the opinions of the hon. and gallant Gentleman. I now, Sir, address myself to the Motion before the House. My hon. Friend recommends the substitution of a Minister of State for the First Lord of the Admiralty, and the abolition of the Board. He has been partly answered by other hon. Members who have spoken; but I wish to point out that while objecting to my illustration of the word Board in connection with railways, my hon. Friend wished to assign a particular meaning to the word Board in the case of the Admiralty, and then dealt with the special meaning thus assigned. The fact is, the Board is now a Council, and a most efficient Council it is—one with which I should be very unwilling to dispense. But let it be called a Council or Board—or give it no name at all—always provided its members give their advice under a sense of responsibility. It is not the name, it is the thing that is of importance; and I have stated before as strongly as did my right hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract, that the action of the Board is never to be a cloak to cover the responsibility of any of the members of the Board in their separate departments. They meet in Council; but that fact does not relieve them of doing the work specially assigned to them, or of responsibility for that work. My hon. Friend says that the Board meet every day. What is done is this—The members of the Board and the Controller and Secretaries meet for a short period every morning to see what the main points of interest are arising out of the correspondence of the day. They meet to exchange views, and to become thoroughly acquainted with what is going on, and I attach great importance to those daily meetings. Then, there are generally two meetings a-week of the Council—if I may so call them—to discuss the higher and more important questions affecting shipbuilding, naval discipline, and other matters as to which it is desirable that the views of the naval members of the Board should be ascertained. My hon. Friend says it would be better to have a permanent Council than a shifting Board; and he suggests that at present the members of the Board are chosen from political considerations. That statement has been replied to by the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Liddell), who said that, at all events, the present Government has shown an example to the contrary. I assure my hon. Friend that I am actually unacquainted with the political opinions of two out of the three naval officers at the Board. They are eminent sailors, and as such they advise the First Lord, and assist in the conduct of the public business. I can tell my hon. Friend that there is no truth in the assertion to which he referred, that a suggestion was made to a gallant Admiral that he should fight the county of Antrim if he wished to sit on the Board. I am only astonished that my hon. Friend takes such statements in the Service newspapers as gospel. But it is perfectly true that I should be glad if Admiral Seymour were in the House, as it would be an advantage to the Service and to the House if he were here; and, in corroboration of that view, I need only refer to the great advantage it is to my right hon. Friend at the head of the War Office to have the able assistance in this House of my right hon. Friend the Surveyor General of Ordnance. I regret, for the sake of the House and the Service, that there is not some naval officer on this side as well as on the other. Political considerations ought, as little as possible, to influence the choice of naval members of the Board; and, in fact, they have not influenced the present or the late Government. Sir Sydney Dacres sat under different Administrations, and so also did Sir Alexander Milne. But my hon. Friend says that, at all events, it is desirable that the members of the Board should be permanent, and not shifting, and he quoted words of mine in favour of continuity at Whitehall. Well, I have, as far as possible, endeavoured to establish continuity of administration. I have made the Controller a permanent officer, and I have appointed a permanent Naval Secretary. With respect to the permanency of the other members of the Board, I am quite aware that an argument might be urged in its favour; but, on the other hand, the naval service might say that there is considerable advantage in having a flow of naval officers through the Admiralty—officers who would bring to the discharge of their duties the fullest and the latest knowledge as to the state of the Fleet and as to the different requirements and feelings of the service from day to day. You thus secure the modern as well as the older opinion, and that both as regards the Navy and the dockyards, and that I consider a matter of no little importance. What I particularly should wish to realize is that naval officers should be instructed in the working of all the departments of the service, and that they should be imbued with the idea that they have to perform administrative duties as well as to command ships. In foreign countries, the same rule is observed. In France, they pass as many of their officers through the Admiralty as they can. I have a very strong feeling upon that subject, because I have seen that, whenever there is an antagonistic feeling between the civilian and the naval element at the Admiralty, confusion and disadvantage to the country have followed. And now with regard to the administrative powers which naval men possess, it should be remembered that admirals and captains do not simply command ships, but have also to undertake a system of administration upon a great scale. A Commander-in-Chief in the Mediterranean may have to administer the affairs of 4,000 men under his command, and officers are thrown so much upon their own resources in all parts of the world that, in addition to an intimate and minute acquaintance with their ships, they may be said to receive a special training in affairs of administration. The hon. Gentleman asks me why the Controller should be permanent and the Naval Lords not. I answer that the former has got more difficult and complicated matters to deal with than have the Naval Lords; and, therefore, there is a great reason for the distinction. The permanent staff are, no doubt, invaluable, and I do not lose sight for a moment of the assistance they render to the Department; but so far from thinking that it is a disadvantage that an officer fresh from service should take office at the Admiralty, I look upon it as an advantage. With reference to the present state of affairs at the Admiralty, the new system, as far as I am aware, is working entirely satisfactorily. A question has been asked about the conduct of business at the Admiralty during the absence of the First Lord, and my hon. Friend suggested the appointment of a deputy First Lord. My hon. Friend did not, however, say whether the deputy First Lord should be a civilian or a naval officer. It is a question of considerable importance whether such an officer should be a civilian or a sailor. If the latter, in what position would he stand with relation to our first naval adviser? It is possible, owing to the nature of our constitutional arrangements, that the First Lord may be either a civilian or a sailor; and this being so, it is clear that the next in authority should be a naval man. If the deputy First Lord suggested by my hon. Friend were a sailor of high rank, the difficulty I have alluded to presents itself; if he is of lower rank, how will you get officers of superior rank to act as his subordinates? And then what is to become of the question of money in case of the absence of the First Lord? My hon. Friend would say that you must be so careful in your choice as to be able to place full confidence in him. Well, if he were a permanent officer the First Lord of the Admiralty would have no choice in the matter; and if he were not a permanent officer, I doubt whether Parliament would confide the expenditure to any officer who was not responsible. That is a great difficulty in the matter. Parliament insists upon keeping so strict a financial control, that the Admiralty cannot even give a gratuity above a certain sum without first referring to the Treasury. I come now to the question of the Controller, and here let me say that I was very sorry to hear what fell from my hon. Friend with reference to Captain Hall. The suggestion made by my hon. Friend was one of those suggestions which unfortunately are not only not warranted, but are calculated to cause considerable pain. In respect to Captain Hall, he was considered to possess excellent qualifications when he was appointed to the post of Superintendent and afterwards Controller; but it is now alleged that he had been removed from his office in consequence of the building of the Osborne. It was true that he had left his post, and been appointed permanent Secretary to the Admiralty; but there was no connection between this change and the building of the Osborne. When a case of mismanagement or inefficiency occurs, we continue to hear of it for three or four Sessions, until it is thoroughly worked to death. The very iteration of the disasters that are alluded to Session after Session, really seems to show how few cases of the kind occur. My hon. Friend has been hammering away at the Admiralty, with more or less success, from 1865 to 1873, and a few cases have served him from year to year. The Megæra will last for three or four Sessions, and the Osborne has already lasted two Sessions; but I would ask hon. Gentlemen whether as a rule—though it is no doubt questioned whether work is performed as economically in public as in private dockyards—there is any doubt at all as to the quality? It is not right to pick out an isolated case of bad workmanship, and instance that as a specimen of the work performed in the Government dockyards. Do the private shipbuilders of this country manage their affairs so well as to turn out all their work perfect? Is there a shipbuilder in the world who has succeeded in escaping criticism in respect to some part of his work? Indeed, I cannot help thinking that the few charges which are brought against the Department is one of the best proofs of its efficiency. My hon. Friend has made a great and cardinal mistake in supposing that it is the duty of the Controller to be a naval architect. The naval architect is a most important officer of the Admiralty, but he is not the Controller; and when Sir Spencer Robinson said of certain matters that he referred them to the naval architects, it did not prove that he was a bad Controller, but that the question was not within the particular sphere of his duties. The duty of the Controller is not to make calculations about the building of ships; that is a matter for the naval architect. Nor is it to give directions about engines; that is a question for the engineer. My hon. Friend only did justice to the great public services of Sir Spencer Robinson; but his general argument was that, because he was not a naval architect, he ought not to have been Controller. That was a great mistake. That he was a most efficient Controller is recognized by the country at large; but I understand my hon. Friend to argue that a professional naval architect ought to be Controller. [Mr. SEELY dissented.] My hon. Friend does not deny that the main defect he found in the Controller was that he was ignorant of naval architecture, and that he was not a professed naval architect. If he had formed a proper conception of the duties of the Controller he would see that this part of his case was not well-founded. It was the duty of the Controller to look at the condition of the Navy; to inform himself as to the state of every ship; to decide whether particular ships were worth repair or not; to advise the Board of Admiralty from a naval point of view, and to state whether the designs of the naval architect can be depended on. The naval architect brings you designs of the class of ships you require to be built; but the Controller advises the Admiralty as to the various qualities which the ships ought to possess. He is expected to know something about every point of a ship—the system of masting, of rigging, and an infinite number of details which only a sailor can understand. A ship might be sent to sea that was efficient so far as the naval architect was concerned, but which, but for the supervision of the Controller, would not satisfy the wants of the service. The case of the Admiral Superintendent of Dockyards is analogous to that of the Controller. My hon. Friend asks what man of sense would over wish that the post of a Superintendent of Dockyards should be held by a naval officer? I will tell him: Every man who goes to sea in the ships that are being built in the dockyards. My hon. Friend has quoted the opinions of civilians of eminence and of men of science; but the opinion of the great service which intrusts its lives to these ships ought to be considered. My hon. Friend spoke favourably personally of Admiral Stewart; but expressed his doubts whether he was competent to perform the duties of Controller. What have been the antecedents of Admiral Stewart? He has been flag captain of the North American station, and afterwards flag captain of the Mediterranean station, and as such had under his eye a vast amount of business. It was his duty to become acquainted with every ship. He had the opportunity of seeing the correspondence relating to most of them. That was his first training as a man of business, and as something more than a mere sailor. He was then three years flag captain at Devonport, in which capacity he saw a portion of the working of the dockyard, although he was not responsible for it. Then Captain Stewart was for five years Superintendent of Chatham Dockyard, where he superintended the building of modern ships of the greatest importance. During that period he became fully acquainted with the ins and outs of the dockyard. He was afterwards Admiral Superintendent of Devonport, and subsequently of Portsmouth, Dockyard. The consequence is that the present Controller of the Navy, who is responsible for the shipbuilding and administration of dockyards, has had all the experience necessary for such a post. He has not only been at sea, but has been in and out of every shop in these dockyards, and seen every ship that was in course of being built there. Admiral Stewart knows all the principal employés at the dockyards, and, indeed, I know of no man who knows them so well. My hon. Friend points to things, but Admiral Stewart knows the men, and the government of the men constitutes one of the greatest difficulties of the changes which the hon. Member for Lincoln proposes. I have dwelt upon the experience of Admiral Stewart, because the post of Controller is a most important one, and it would be wrong to place in it any one in whom the Admiralty had not confidence. Looking, however, at his previous experience as a manager of three dockyards and as acquainted with every detail that he has had to superintend, I contend that we could not have found a better man for the post of Controller than Admiral Stewart. I admit, in answer to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Hastings, that shipbuilding is a most important portion of the work done in dockyards; but it is not the only work done there. It does not constitute one-half of the work done in the dockyards—not, perhaps, more than one-third. There are captains coming in and out, ships being put in commission and going out to sea, and the Admiral, Superintendent is the connecting link between the service afloat and ashore. Much of the duty which the Superintendent of a dockyard has to discharge could be ably done by a civilian—possibly, indeed, better than by a naval officer; but there is also a great deal that he could not do so well. A captain, for instance, comes in and makes a demand for a certain number of stores. Or perhaps he points out defects in his ship. If the captain were overruled by a civilian, and went to sea, and if it were found that he had not sufficient stores, an opinion might prevail that the naval view had not been sufficiently considered, and the captain might take such measures as would defeat your civilian Superintendent and cause a conflict between the civilian and naval element which I should greatly deprecate, as disadvantageous to the service. My hon. Friend the Member for Hastings still retains the opinion that the Superintendents of dockyards ought to be civilians. [Mr. BRASSEY dissented.] I thought he said that naval officers were not competent to perform the duties of Dockyard Superintendents. But whom would he select to fill those posts? He said he would not take dockyard officers who have risen from the ranks. But most of our ablest dockyard officers and naval architects have risen from the ranks. What better class of men could my hon. Friend obtain for the purpose, from his point of view? Would he take a shipbuilder who had never been to sea, and who would have to deal with the captains, who would come to him day after day to consult him as to the defects which had occurred to their ships? And, indeed, generally speaking, shipbuilders are not naval architects. It is not every shipbuilder who can himself design a ship. There is a technical side to a dockyard, and there is an administrative side; and it would be an error to say that the man who is the most capable to build a ship is therefore the best administrator to place over large bodies of men. I doubt whether even my hon. Friend would say lie would take for the administration of the dockyards men who are without experience in nautical affairs. At the same time, I admit there is some force in the objections raised to the present tenure of office. It may be right that the officers should retain their posts for a longer period. Indeed, I freely admit that there are many matters connected with the suggestions of my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings which are well worthy of attention; but they do not go to the point of the Motion. I have dwelt upon this point longer than I should otherwise have done, partly because my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr. Seely) made so able a speech that it necessitated a full reply. In conclusion, I wish simply to insist on the point which I have already put before the House more than once. It is that we should endeavour to interest our naval men, as far as possible, in our ad- ministration, rather than separate them from it altogether. Do not exclude them entirely from the administration. Great improvements may possibly be introduced into the dockyards; and I can assure the House that everybody connected with the Admiralty is perfectly alive to the great difficulties we have to encounter in the dockyards, and that they are occupied in devising remedies for existing evils. I do not think, however, that the adoption of the Resolution of my hon. Friend would lead to a satisfactory solution of the question.

in replying, said: In answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Northumberland (Mr. Liddell), who said that the members of the Board of Admiralty are not selected for political considerations, and who gave as an instance the appointment of Admiral Milne, I would only say, that the fact remains unquestionable that the average tenure of a Lordship of the Admiralty during the last 30 or 40 years has been about three years. With regard to the Board being now a Council, I have no objection to a Council, but only to the mode in which the present Board, or Council—call it what you will—is appointed; composed as it is of men without any special fitness for their office, and who are frequently changed—for these facts are undeniable. As to the argument of the First Lord, that because naval officers have to sail their ships and fight them, they must necessarily build them, I would only observe that the Cunard and other great steamship companies manage to get their magnificent fleets of ships built in yards which have no naval officers as their managers. With regard to naval officers generally, I must say I have a very high opinion of them. I admit their bravery, frankness, manliness, and other good qualities; but, at the same time, I do not think their education is at all likely to fit them to manage and superintend large bodies of intelligent artizans. I am not aware that there is any other particular point to which I need advert.

said, he knew the owners of the Cunard line and all the private shipowners in Liverpool sent their vessels to be fitted out and rigged in yards which were superintended by sailors who did all that was required without reference to the owner or any other party. He must, therefore, endorse the state- ment of the First Lord of the Admiralty that sailors, and sailors alone, ought to superintend the fitting out and rigging of the ships belonging to the Royal Navy.

in moving for leave to bring in a Bill to amend the provisions of "The Record of Title (Ireland) Act, 1865," quoted the Lord Chancellor of Ireland, the Master of the Rolls in Ireland, and Lord Cairns in support of the desirability of introducing registration in Ireland, which was prepared for it by the completeness of its Ordnance survey and its subdivision into townlands. But above all by operation of the Landed Estates Court, which placed titles to all intents for the purpose of being dealt with under the system of registration of titles in the same position as newly-issued Crown Grants in the Colonies. The system of registering titles that had been adopted in the Australian Colonies had proved very beneficial—and many attempts had been made for adopting it in England. These, however, from various causes, had proved unsuccessful; but he thought the time was now come when it had become necessary to introduce land registration at least in Ireland, where the Land Act had introduced such a variety of complications.

in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, it was similar to the one on the same subject that had been before the House last year. He stated that its object, as its title indicated, was to afford facilities for public worship, and that it consisted of three parts. The first proposed to provide services where the incumbent was willing that they should be held, and to protect the person so placed in the parish from arbitrary interference by any succeeding incumbent. The next part of the measure provided that where the incumbent objected to the plan it should be possible to introduce a minister on an application from a certain number of parishioners; and there were provisions to protect the minister from undue interference. The third part of the Bill contained provisions for giving facilities for public worship in chapels attached to private houses. He would leave these points to be discussed in Committee; but he might state that the objection raised last year by the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. Beresford Hope), that the measure would interfere with the parochial system, had not been strengthened by the information he had been able to gather in the interval. There were cases in which men having charge of large populations refused to have any external aid in their parishes, and in such cases he thought a remedy ought to be provided. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving the second reading of the Bill.

said, that last year he took a division on the second reading of the Bill, but was willing now to let it be read a second time, and afterwards to move its being referred to a Select Committee. He took this course because he freely acknowledged that the Bill was an improvement upon that of last year, for it gave the incumbent the nomination of two out of the five Commissioners who were to judge each case—and it also contained a faint recognition of the principle for which he contended, that the incumbent would have the option of providing the additional facilities of worship before he was subjected to the penal intrusion of another clergyman; still, he did not think it a safe measure as it stood. The main danger of the Bill was that which arose from divisions of opinion amongst parties in the Church. He did not think the Bill provided a sufficient safeguard against any set of men in the Church trying, not so much to take hold of the waste places in the land, where the worship of God was practically unknown, as to invade the territory of an active clergyman, whose forms of worship might be suited to the feelings of the parishioners, while these were not to the taste of the propagandist organization, in whose hands every parish might become the battle-field of polemic strifes. The true method, in his opinion, to avoid this danger would be to make the measure one which would deal with the quantity and not the quality of the worship to be supplied. For this purpose, the Bill ought to contain a provision by which a clergyman should have ample time to provide such special and additional means of grace as the parishioners might desire—supposing the demand to be judged reasonable—in his own way and on his own responsibility, before any stranger was intruded into his parish. Such a limitation would restrict the Bill to cases of proved incapacity or neglect, and tend to eliminate the competition of rival forms of worship. There was, however, one clause of the Bill which stood by itself, and to which he had a special objection—namely, the 5th—which allowed free-trade in private chapels in country houses. This would, he conceived, be making a very invidious distinction between the religion of the rich and that of the poor.

stated, that he entertained the same strong objections to the Bill which he had expressed last year.

moved that the Bill be referred to a Select Committee.

seconded the Motion.