asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If his attention has been called to the unfortunate fire which occurred in a cotton mill in Ayr, by which a large number of lives have been lost; and, if he is rendering such assistance as is necessary to enable the inspector and the jury to ascertain the reason why these workpeople were unable to make their escape?

, in reply, said, that immediately after the occurrence of the fire the Procurator Fiscal made a searching inquiry into the origin of the fire, and of the causes which led to so great a loss of life. On account of the great difficulty of approaching the ruins, and of recovering the bodies, the inquiry had not yet been completed. Every assistance was being given by the town authorities, and if it should appear that there had been any neglect of the provisions of the Factory Act by the proprietors of the mill, the Inspector would be at once communicated with; but, so far as the inquiry had gone, there did not appear to be any ground for such a suspicion. The Lord Advocate had put himself in communication with the Procurator Fiscal on the subject, and it would receive the utmost attention.

asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether his attention has been called to the Petition of Michael Moyna, formerly teacher of Three Mile House National School, county Monaghan, presented to this House on the 28th April last; and, whether he will causean inquiry into the whole circumstances connected with his leaving Ireland, with a view to his restoration to his former position as a teacher under the National Board?

Yes, Sir, my attention has been called to the Petition in question. The teacher, Michael Moyna, was dismissed not only for infringing the regulations of the National Board on Education by taking active part in the election of Poor Law Guardians in his district, but also for breaking the law by signing to voting papers the names of voters who were dead, and witnessing them in his own name. After his dismissal he left Ireland for America, of course, at his own option; and under all the circumstances I do not think it would be advisable that he should be restored to his position in the employment of the National Board of Education.

asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether it is true that Sergeant Brown, of the 3rd Battalion of Grenadier Guards, on returning from exercise at Wormwood Scrubs on or about the 12th instant, was suddenly taken ill, and died in hospital; and, whether he will state if an inquest has been held; and, if, not, why not?

, in reply, said, Colour-Sergeant Brown, 3rd Battalion Grenadier Guards, was taken ill on parade immediately after return of the battalion from Wormwood Scrubs; he was admitted to hospital, and died about 4½ hours after admission from apoplexy. As he had been treated in the hospital, and as his death was from natural causes, the surgeon major of the battalion did not consider that there was anything to justify him in applying for a coroner's inquest.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether he has any objection to lay upon the Table of the House the Admiralty instructions to Captain Nares, and also those given to Mr. Allen Young, for whom a sum of £8,000 is to be taken in Vote 14 of the Navy Estimates, under the head of "Communication with the Arctic Expeditions by Mr. Allen Young?"

in reply, said, that the Instructions had already been laid on the Table.

asked the President of the Board of Trade, If his attention has been drawn to the case of Henry Jacobs and John Scott, two seamen, who were reported to have jumped overboard in the Thames from the ship "Cullmon" rather than go to sea when they found to whom the ship belonged, and are now undergoing six months' imprisonment for so doing; and, whether he will direct that the shipping master before whom the men sign articles should make the men acquainted with the names of the owners before they sign articles?

Sir, my attention has been called to the case of Henry Jacobs and John Scott, who jumped into the river at Gravesend to get into a boat to desert from the Callirrhoe, not Cullmon, as the ship is named in the Question. They were pursued and taken before the Mayor and sentenced to six weeks imprisonment—not six months as stated by the hon. Gentleman. They could not have truly pleaded that they had not known the owner of the ship, as, before they signed the articles at Tower Hill, they were, as is always done, fully informed of the owner's and master's name. For the same reason I cannot direct shipping masters to give such information generally, as they are bound to give it always, and in fact always do give it. This case, among many others, involving great loss to the ship and the fraud besides of making off with advance notes, shows the necessity of stringent punishment for desertion. The Mayor of Gravesend, who tried the case, expressed his opinion that these men had joined with the purpose of desertion, to get their advance notes, and repeat the trick.

asked the Secretary of State for War, If it is true that Medical Officers who were appointed by His Royal Highness the Commander in Chief to the medical charge of regiments for five years, prior to the issue of the last new Warrant of April 1876, are to be removed from those regiments and sent on Foreign Service before the completion of said period of five years?

Yes, Sir, they are; as by the recent medical Warrant of the 28th of April, 1876, the Department has become unified, and the paragraph attaching medical officers to regiments for five years, as a rule, under the Warrant of 1873, has been abolished. All medical officers, whether formerly attached to regiments or depÔt brigades, or not, are now placed on one general roster, according to their service at home, sending abroad first those who have served at home longest. I may mention that the first of these has not served out of this country for 15 years.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If his attention has been directed to the alarming reports circulated of the existence of plague in Bagdad, and to state what reports concerning the disease and mortality Her Majesty's Government has received from Her Majesty's Consul General at Bagdad, and the present sanitary condition of that city and the neighbourhood; and, further, to inquire if the stringent quarantine restrictions imposed by the Turkish and Egyptian authorities against ships arriving in the Red Sea from the Persian Gulf have been strictly in accordance with duly notified regulations, and if British shipping and shipping of all other nations have alike been impartially subjected to them?

, in reply, said, that the attention of the Government had some time ago been called to the subject of the hon. Gentleman's Question, and that reports had been received from Her Majesty's Consul at Bagdad with respect to it. The first disease which broke out did not appear to have been the plague, but some other form of epidemic; a report, however, had been lately received which stated that it had turned into that very dreadful disease. The last Report on the subject was received yesterday, and it was dated at Bagdad the day before. According to that, it appeared that the disease might be said to be to a great extent worn out. It was to this effect—"No deaths in Bagdad from plague during last three days. Health generally good." The number of deaths in February, and in March, he might add, was 259, in April 1,717, in May 1,550, while in June they were only 143, making a total of 3,669. According to Dr. Colville, the resident doctor at Bagdad, he said it was the real plague, and that it had been brought into the city from the low country lying between the Tigris and Euphrates, but he did not consider quarantine to be necessary in the case of passengers, although it might be with regard to the sending of wool. As to the restrictions on shipping, complaints had been made by the British Consul at Jeddo to the Turkish and Egyptian authorities, that British, ship- ping was subjected to vexatious quarantine regulations which were not imposed on the vessels of other nations, and a correspondence on the point had for some time been going on with the Turkish Government. He need hardly assure his hon. Friend that the Government would use every exertion to obtain for British shipping the favourable treatment to which it was entitled.

rose to move—

"That, considering the present administration of the Admiralty is practically that introduced and adopted by this House in 1833, on the recommendation of Sir James Graham; and considering the advance made in Naval armaments and the unsatisfactory condition of the personnel and materiel of Her Majesty's Navy, it is desirable that a Royal Commission be appointed to inquire and report whether the present system under which the Navy is administered is the most efficient and most economical, and what improvements or amendments, if any, it would be desirable should be introduced."

The hon. and gallant Member said, that the wretched state of our Navy was every day becoming more notorious, and people began to understand that never before were our ships so indifferent and our officers and men so little cared for, and consequently so discontented. The House voted plenty of money to give the country a splendid Navy and the command of the seas; but under the present system this money was to a great extent wasted. When, in 1833, Sir James Graham, then at the head of the Admiralty, re-organized the administration and civil departments of the Admiralty in a fluctuating Board of Admiralty, personal responsibility as well as every check to extravagance came to an end. The effect of this change was anticipated at the time by every one experienced in the administration of naval affairs. Mr. John Wilson Croker, speaking on an experience at the Admiralty of 22 years, denounced the proposed change in strong terms, and said—

"That if such a system were adopted he knew what must happen—the subordinate or executive chief of the Department must obey without remonstrance, and they could be subject to no responsibility. What with despotic command on the one hand, and servile subordination on the other, all checks would be at an end, and responsibility nowhere exist."

And similar opinions were expressed by such men as Mr. Goulburn, Admiral Sir Byam Martin, Sir George Cockburn, and other eminent persons. Well, what had been the result of the re-organiza- tion of the Admiralty by Sir James Graham? The consequence had been that our naval expenditure had increased from £4,500,000 in 1833, to an expenditure, on an average of 10 years, of £11,000,000 a-year. No doubt, the amount voted was of secondary importance, if only the Navy were kept in really efficient order; but the degree of inefficiency to which we had arrived only too clearly indicated the waste of this money. As to the personnel of the Navy, he deeply regretted to say there was not a single class in the Service without just cause of complaint. He had in his hands statements printed and circulated by nearly every class of executive officers, describing the grievances under which they lay. Such a course had never been known when he was young in the Service. From the cadet to the Admiral there was room for reform. The masters, engineers, surgeons, and Paymasters had all injustice and inequalities to complain of as respected pay, position, and promotion. The case of the masters was a disgrace to the Service; they were the very backbone of the Royal Navy—the best seamen and navigators in the Fleet, and without any substitute for them he could not conceive how they could afford to abolish them. The navigating officers were the most useful men in the Service. The treatment of the Warrant officers was such as to give the idea that it was the object of the Admiralty to get rid of them altogether. The policy adopted towards the Royal Marines was simply suicidal—they were a magnificent body of men, absolutely unequalled under arms—in fact, our men-of-war could not be manned without them. Yet their memorial set forth that the 22 senior lieutenants of the corps were not in the 16th year of their service; and such was the stagnation in the higher ranks that it amounted to an absolute block to promotion; 1,108 captains in the Army and several majors were actually junior in the Service to these lieutenants. With regard to the seamen the case was still more serious. The number of bonâ fide seamen (including pensioners) who had left the Service from all causes during the year 1872–3, the last printed Return, appeared to have been, according to the Return, as follows:—By purchase, 48; invalided, 647; died, 124; deserted, 800; disgraced, 6; pensioned for long ser- vice, 310; objectionable, 42; coastguard on shore, 265; other causes, 165;total, 2,847. Of this number, no less than 800 deserted in 1873. Last year no less than 1,100 men deserted; so that the discontent was steadily increasing. The men would not remain a moment longer on board a man-of-war than they could help. One glance at the youthful appearance of the crews proved that. They no longer saw the weather-beaten, grisly petty officers, prime seamen, the heart and soul of the ship's company, the natural leaders of the men in any emergency, whether of storm or battle. The men would not stop, and the House would be astonished at the number of commitments to prison, and other punishments inflicted, to keep up the very ordinary discipline of the present day in the Fleet. Take the case of the Challenger. That ship, as hon. Members were aware, had returned from an exceptionally pleasant cruise, where the men were well treated, no doubt, and more or less picked men; but out of a crew of 240, some 60 deserted during the cruise of the ship—say 25 per cent of her ship's company. As to the Royal Naval Reserve, it was thoroughly unreliable, not to say useless. This year Parliament had voted a sum of £240,000 to provide for 20,000 men; but he ventured to say that on an emergency not 1,000 men could be obtained even by pressing. In war time they could not take one single man from their Merchant Service; they must have food, and their merchant ships must bring in that food constantly, or they would starve, as the island never had more than two months' provisions in stock at the same time. Their so-called Naval Reserve was useless, and they were worse than wasteful in spending their money upon it. He now came to the matériel of the Navy. Our iron-clad ships were of so heterogeneous a description that it would be impossible to classify them; but he would take a few typical examples, sufficient to show how little they were to be relied on in the hour of need. The hon. and gallant Member proceeded, at great length, to read Reports on the efficiency of various iron-clad ships. The Research, he said, had proved such a bad sea boat that in a coasting voyage, in moderate weather, her captain was nearly washed overboard from the central battery; the Vixen and the Waterwitch rolled and pitched to such a degree that the crews went aft in a body, and protested against being sent to sea in such unseaworthy vessels. The Pallas was built expressly for speed, yet the Pallas and Research were the only two vessels that could not keep company with the squadron. The Bellorophon was to have surpassed every other iron-clad, but what was her practical performance? Admiral Yelverton reported of her that she ranked below the Lord Clyde, and on a par with the Caledonian and the Ocean—these last being wooden line-of-battle ships converted into iron-clads to meet an emergency. The Van guard class was to be weighed by the result of the trial trip of the Invincible, when that ship on her return had the appearance of being on her beam-ends. She was actually heeling over 17 to 18 degrees, and the greatest anxiety prevailed on shore for the safety of the ship. The Audacions, Iron Duke, Triumph, and Swiftsure were equally bad, and on an average 400 tons of ballast had to be placed on board of each of these vessels. Then as to our coast defenders, the Devastation and Thunderer class, Admiral Sir Thomas Symonds said—

"I should be afraid to go at any great speed at sea with, them (the Devastation class); I have seen very heavy seas, and I know no limit to their power. If steaming, you are obliged to go at a certain speed, or you drown yourself. All I know is, that so far as I am myself concerned, I should be very sorry to be in those vessels."

He (Captain Pim) could hardly speak with patience of huge mastless iron-clads as coast defenders. Coast defenders, indeed! Why, putting on one side the unseaworthiness of these vessels altogether, what did they want, he asked, with such coast defenders? The first thing they must do in war was to blockade any enemy's ports—shut them up—fancy one Alabama only amongst their commerce! What they wanted was a vessel capable of keeping the sea under sail in any weather. He should like to ask hon. Members if it was possible for the Devastation to keep the sea off the Elbe in a gale of wind! Why, she would be smothered. What they wanted was a cloud of gunboats able to carry sail in all weathers, and to claw off a lee shore under sail; they should have a crew of above 25 men, one heavy gun, full brig or schooner rig, and steam power for action; with four of these vessels the finest iron-clad ever built in the world could be easily destroyed. In short, every one asserted in unmistakable language that their unwieldy, unmanageable iron-clads—

"were not safe when near land or one another, at sea, at anchor, or in bad weather, without steam power."

The gallant Sir George Sartorius, Admiral of the Fleet, said—

"They are equally unfit for the exigencies of coast or distant warfare; and for the blockading of an enemy's ports, impracticable."

The Report, 1872, of the Scientific Committee appointed by the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty to examine the designs of ships recently built, was to the effect that diligent research throughout the Royal Navy was in vain to discover even one type of ship as desirable to reproduce. He repeated that nothing could be more unsatisfactory than the present state of the Royal Navy. And nothing was more easy than to remedy it. The nation and the Navy united as one man in pointing to the Admiralty as responsible. And how could the country expect anything but mismanagement and misrule from a Department so curiously constituted? In less than 50 years there had been more than 20 changes in the First Lord of the Admiralty, whose tenure of office had, on an average, been about two years. The hon. and gallant Member then quoted from the Report of the Select Committee on Navy, Army, and Ordnance Estimates of 1858 numerous instances of waste and extravagance which had resulted from the bad constitution of the Admiralty—

"In 27 cases investigated, the Admiralty bought back the old copper from the purchaser of a ship at a greater price than that for which they sold the ship itself, including the copper, costly engines, and other valuable stores."

Some instances were stated of fortunate purchasers of a ship receiving back from the Admiralty (for the old copper returned) two, three, four, and even five times over the original price they had paid for the ship, &c.

wanted to know whether the hon. and gallant Gentleman was quoting now from the Report of the Committee, or the Report of the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. Seely), which was rejected by the Committee?

said, the hon. Gentleman would find it in the Library. He had found it there himself. He found that of the ships valued by the Dockyard authorities for breaking up, some were sold at about one-half the estimated value of the old materials. The Report went on to assert—

"If the cost of all the iron-clads built in Her Majesty's Yards between 1858 and I865 bears the same proportion to the cost, as that of Achilles to the Black Prince and Warrior, the excess cost of Admiralty-built iron-clads during these years has been £1,663,000 on an expenditure of £3,500,000."

The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Montrose stated in that House—

"That the country was paying for stores and material at rates 20, 30, 60 per cent above the market value, and that a system of bribery by contractors had been established within the walls of the Admiralty."

The cost of the Admiralty was somewhat startling, as would be seen by the following:—Sir James Graham's scheme of naval re-organization was to effect a saving in salaries under the head of Commissioners, secretaries, superior officials, inferior officers, and clerks, of no less a sum than £49,059 per annum, and—

"He hoped still further to reduce the professional and clerical staff of the Admiralty Office (Vote 3) from 70 in number to 40."

That was in 1832. In 1872 Mr. Corry told that House—

"That the Admiralty staff numbered 432 individuals in 1869, and the personnel has increased since to 537 clerks and writers."

Could any system of administration be good when the Board itself was radically wrong, both in its constitution and in its distribution of duties? Let them look for a moment at the opinions of those most competent to pass judgment on this subject. The Earl of Malmesbury said—

"My impression and conviction are, that if such a change took place—if the administration of the patronage of the army were assimilated to that of the navy, it would become the same hotbed of jobbing and trickery which has been, unfortunately, for many years a reproach to the Admiralty of this country."—[3 Hansard, cxxxvi. 1360.]

[Mr. Hunt: What is the time of that speech.] In 1855. Sir James Graham would not hear of a Board for the War Department. He said—

"Having been six years at the Admiralty, he knew what a Board was. The machinery of a Board is known to be cumbrous and uncertain in its operation. It only works well when the head of the Board acts as if he were alone responsible. A Board, therefore, would be a retrograde measure, which your Committee cannot recommend."

He might be told that in 1869 this state of things was rectified by the alleged reforms inaugurated by the right hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. Childers). He would not trouble the House with the merits or demerits of those reforms, but what were the results—had our naval expenditure been diminished, or did they find the state and condition of the Navy in any respect improved? And as to responsibility, to quote the words of the right hon. Member for Pontefract, "has that been sheeted home?" He need only mention three notorious cases—the capsizing of the Captain, the loss of the Megæra, and the foundering of the Vanguard, to prove that such was not the case. Admiral Sir Spencer Robinson, late Controller of the Navy, in September 1873, said—

"As to the Navy, its management was simply deplorable."

And further thus expressed himself—

"Is it wonderful with such an organization the working of the Dockyards is not satisfactory? If there were not waste, if there were not mismanagement, it would be a miracle."

England at the present moment stood in a very precarious condition, her Navy being quite inadequate to protect either her coasts or her commerce; the personnel of the Navy was in a deplorable condition; the matériel was equally bad; and the Administration was notoriously inefficient. The hon. and gallant Member concluded—Sir, I am no alarmist; I firmly believe that if our seamen and Marines have anything that will float to fight upon they will give a good account of their enemy, but the nation must not expect a miracle in its favour in the hour of need. That the Navy has been, and always must be, the real strength and bulwark of England is acknowledged on all hands, and especially by this House in the Preamble to the Naval Discipline Act, 29 & 30 Vic, cap. 109, which runs thus—

"The Navy.—Whereon, under the good Providence of God, the wealth, safety, and strength of the Kingdom depend."

Sir, it is because I am deeply anxious that the wealth, strength, and safety of this Kingdom should still be maintained that I ask the House for a Royal Commission, and I therefore now beg to move for it.

seconded the Motion.

said, his hon. and gallant Friend had brought a very serious charge against not only the Admiralty of the present day, but against almost every Admiralty in his recollection, and he had attributed the faults he found with their acts and omissions to the constitution of the Board. He (Mr. Hunt), however, hardly thought he had made out his case in that respect. He was quite aware that a difference of opinion prevailed, and he believed always would prevail, as to the constitution of the Admiralty. At one time they had a Board with a Lord High Admiral at its head, and at other times a civilian with a Naval Council; but he did not know that the results had been very different from what they were now. The change would be only one of name, and the work would be found to have been done very much as it was done at present. There might be a difference of opinion on that subject, but he did not think the proof which had been brought forward would support the conclusions his hon. and gallant Friend had arrived at, or that he would induce the House, instead of going into Committee of Supply on the Navy Estimates for the current year, to appoint a Royal Commission on the constitution of the Admiralty. His hon. and gallant Friend had found fault with the personnel and Matériel of the Navy, and urged that it was necessary that the Admiralty should be differently constituted, saying that there was not a single branch of the Service which was not dissatisfied. A great many, however, of the complaints which his hon. and gallant Friend mentioned had already been removed. He asked his hon. and gallant Friend, when referring to the case of the Warrant officers, the date of the pamphlet he quoted, and the answer he received was 1874. His hon. and gallant Friend did not seem to be aware that since then a new Warrant had been issued, improving the position of the Warrant officers, and since then he had heard no complaint. With regard to the executive officers, he had not asked the date of the pamphlet quoted; but last year a new Warrant was issued, improving the flow of promotion as regarded the executive officers. It had effected a great improvement in their position, and gave a reasonable flow of promotion. In this case also he understood the complaint was dated before the issue of the new Warrant. He must protest against grievances which had been met being again brought up as if nothing had been done to remedy them. [Captain Pim: The men are just as discontented now as they were before.] His information was not to the same effect. He knew how difficult it was to satisfy every one in the public Service; a certain number would always be dissatisfied. Within the last few years they had had to deal with the Civil Service, and the other day with the officials of the London Custom House; but he was not aware that, because some of these officers might be dissatisfied, any hon. Member had thought proper to move that a Royal Commission should be appointed to inquire into the constitution of the Treasury. His hon. and gallant Friend had also referred to the medical officers; but either last year or the year before there was a new Warrant improving the condition of the medical officers. Again, he spoke of the engineers. Well, nothing had been done yet as regarded the engineers, but a Committee had been appointed by the Admiralty which had gone into the case of the engineers and how the service could be improved, and that Report was under the consideration of the Admiralty. The complaints of his hon. and gallant Friend had, therefore, to a great extent been already met or were under the consideration of the Admiralty. He spoke of the number of desertions as showing that the Service was unpopular. That subject had been discussed some few weeks ago, and he thought he then showed that the Service was not unpopular, and the places where desertion took place showed, not the unpopularity of the Service, but the great attractions of some foreign ports, where wages were high and land cheap, to which the men, unfortunately, yielded. He alluded specially to the desertions from the Challenger; but the Challenger had been over nearly all the world, and therefore the crew had been exposed to greater temptation than almost any other ship ever sent out from this country, because they had the attraction presented to them of the whole world except the Arctic regions. His hon. and gallant Friend had also referred to the iron-clad Navy. No doubt, after it was determined to turn our wooden Navy into an iron-clad Navy some mistakes were made. That was to be expected; but when mistakes were discovered, they did not continue to build ships on the same design. The Devastation had been referred to, and he was not surprised that great doubts should have been entertained regarding that ship. He himself, when he first spoke on the subject, had great doubts as to her sea-going qualities, but he did not entertain them now; with the experience he now had on the subject he had no hesitation in passing her as a sea-going ship. He had sailed in her company for some hours, and, although the sea was very heavy for the ship he was in, he was very much surprised at the way in which the Devastation behaved. He knew the opinion of naval authorities had very much changed in regard to the Devastation, and he believed she was commanding very great respect where she now lay in Besika Bay. One of the best proofs of the superiority of their designs was this—that whenever a new design of a ship was adopted almost the whole world followed it. All the naval Powers of Europe looked to the English Admiralty for new designs of ships. The other day he was in a German port, and there he found a ship just laid down on the same design the Admiralty had previously adopted. He did not pretend to say that there were no defects of admi- nistration at the Admiralty. Indeed, he was desirous that all shortcomings should be pointed out with a view to being remedied; but he hardly thought that, either as regarded the matériel or the personnel of the Navy, his hon. and gallant Friend had made out a case for a Commission. He therefore trusted they might be permitted to go into Committee to vote the supplies for the year.

said, the House would remember that the hon. and gallant Member for Gravesend (Captain Pim) read some passages strongly condemnatory of the administration of the Admiralty from what the House probably understood to be the Report of a Committee of Inquiry. He (Mr. Reed) asked the hon. and gallant Gentleman at the time whether He was reading from an actual Report, or only from a draft Report which the Committee had distinctly rejected, and the hon. and gallant Gentleman, with all his honour and gallantry, did not give him a candid reply, but referred him to the Library to discover the truth. Well, he (Mr. Reed) had consulted the Library, and he had to inform the House that the hon. and gallant Member's quotations were not from the Committee's actual Report, but from a draft Report which they had decidedly refused to adopt. Some of the other statements of the hon. and gallant Gentleman had been presented to the House with a similar amount of candour. He had read at considerable length Reports or extracts from Reports on ships. But most, if not all of them, were of old date, and referred to the ships in question at a period when they were entirely novel, and when, consequently, it was only natural that they would be exposed to no small amount of misconception and misrepresentation. Adverse opinions with regard to a novel type of ship were always to be looked for, and he might say he should despair of naval architecture altogether, if naval architects had to inspire every admiral with a favourable idea of the qualities of the ships he commanded. He believed that in the progress of naval architecture there would always be found, especially on the part of the senior officers, a tendency to take objection to great novelties, though such objections frequently disappeared as experience was gained. The objections formerly urged against the Devastation were no longer heard—she had lived them down; and so it was with other types of vessel. As for the Devastation, which many persons had suspected of being unfit to go to sea, but which had been to the Mediterranean, and engaged in a variety of service, he ventured to assert there was no ship afloat at the present time worth anything like so much to any country in Europe as she was to England; and he was certain that if the development of European complications should call upon us to vindicate our strength upon the ocean, she would prove herself to be a most important element of our naval strength. The Research had been alluded to by the hon. and gallant Member as if she were some first-class ship. In reality she was only a small vessel which was originally intended to be wood, but had afterwards been converted to an iron-clad; and, therefore, nobody expected that she would be a first-class ship. She, however, had been successful. She carried into the Mediterranean the largest guns that had then ever been taken into that sea in a man-of-war. There were complaints of a certain amount of wetness forward, until a forecastle was built; but that was no ground for condemning the design of the ship. The Holy head and Dublin packets were all built without forecastles, and had to have them added afterwards. If the House were to judge of her from the hon. and gallant Member's statements, they would make a great mistake. Another proof of the failure of the British Navy was drawn by the hon. and gallant Member from the case of the iron-clad gunboats Viper, Vixen, and Water witch. No doubt the Vixen rolled when she went to sea, but these vessels were not built for seagoing service. They were built for special service in a distant country, and for the purpose intended he maintained that they were perfectly fit in every respect. When the Vixen was finished she was thought to be so much better than she was expected to be, that she was put into commission and sent to the coast of Ireland, where the service was of the most trying description. It was true she rolled so heavily that the officer in command admitted to a Court of Inquiry that he was afraid she would capsize, which, he added, would have been a very serious matter; but, under the circumstances, there was nothing in her case or in that of her sister ships to justify a sweeping condemnation of the British Navy. The Research and Pallas might not have kept company with the other vessels when steaming down Channel against a head wind; but the Research was only a 10-knot ship, whilst the others were 13 or 14-knot ships. When he was asked how it was the Pallas, that did so well at the measured mile, did so badly after, the question, he said, should be addressed to her captain, and not to her designer; and when the Admiralty sent for her captain, although the hon. and gallant Member for Gravesend omitted to state it, on her next cruize she steamed away from all the rest of the fleet. He contended that the character of a British man-of-war or that of her designer ought not to be frittered away in consequence of occasional incidents of that kind happening in transacting the business of a great naval service. The hon. and gallant Member said that his (Mr. Reed's) shorter vessels required more horse-power than the majority of large ships to drive them through the water at the same speed. That was perfectly true, and it was what, he contended, that ships should require. The hon. and gallant Member forgot to tell the House that the Bellerophon, which required a little more steam power than the Achilles, had cost £106,000 less than the latter ship. They encountered this little extra cost as to fuel by saving £106,000. With respect to the Bellerophon he would relate a story. When she was ready for a trial trip, the then First Lord of the Admiralty, Sir John Pakington, came down to Portsmouth. The wind for several days had been against making such a trial, but Sir John said to him—"What speed do you expect from her?" He replied 14 knots an hour, and he felt confident he could do it, even if the wind was against them next day, if he was allowed to try. Sir John said—"I am told by several eminent officers that she will not make more than 11 knots, and then she will be one of the best ships in the Navy." He (Mr. Reed) did take the Bellerophon against the face of an unfavourable wind, and she made 14¼ knots, and even when steaming with half her engine power made 12¼ knots. It was true that some officers had said she did not always keep up to that; but of course the capability was there, and this defect must be attributed to the way in which the engines were worked. The blame, if any, could not be attributed either to the House of Commons, who voted the money, or to those who designed the ship. The hon. and gallant Member had been equally unfortunate in his references to the Caledonian, the Ocean, and the Invincible class of vessels. Instead of going for the latest information, he had taken that which he found in the Library, taken years ago. No doubt the Invincible class of ships did require some ballast, but then they were sailing as well as steaming ships. They carried a large amount of sail, and were excellent sea-going ships. It was too long a question to go into the vindication for the necessity of ballast, but he appealed with confidence to those who had served in the Admiralty to show that the value of the Invincible class had been fully ascertained. The ships when on active service were the very opposite of what the hon. and gallant Gentleman would have them believe. He spoke of the vessels having a certain amount of list, but no one could give a guarantee against that arising when first taken out; but it was not right to speak of their performance when in an incomplete condition. They had been tried, and a distinguished officer of the Navy—Admiral Ryder, whose flagship on the China station, he believed, was of the Invincible class—had written a most eulogistic letter upon the ship, pointing out that when in a heavy gale, in company with a ship of another great European Power, he could not help thinking with what ease he could destroy her, because of the superior qualities of his own vessel. Further, the Swiftsure and Triumph had both given proof of their excellent qualities. He thought, therefore, the hon. and gallant Member, in seeking to influence the judgment of the House, ought to be careful, for his own sake, to give the House the latest and most trustworthy information, and not spend his time in the Library in digging out statements which events had shown to be entirely wrong, and unworthy of the present consideration of the House. He (Mr. Reed) had always looked upon Admiral Sartorius as a man of advanced views. He was probably one of the oldest officers in the Navy; but it was necessary to take the opinions of officers of a past period with some care, and not be too ready in times of progress and change to take them as the true standards by which the judgment of the country was to be guided. During the seven years he served the Admiralty, and the interval that had elapsed since, he had not had any fault to find with the manner that officers of the Royal Navy had treated ships of novel design; on the contrary, he had often expressed his astonishment at the readiness with which they fell into the altered conditions of modern warfare, and the freedom of mind and breadth of view with which they were prepared to treat novel designs; and he believed that great credit was due to them for their general conduct in relation to the iron-clad Navy of this country. His object in replying to the hon. and gallant Member for Gravesend was not to influence his judgment in the least degree, because it was a matter of indifference to him (Mr. Reed) what his views were, and always would remain so; but it was necessary to prevent others being unduly influenced by his opinions; and if the British Navy had not been sufficiently vindicated by what he had said, it was due rather to the brevity of the defence than the force of the attack that had been made.

said, that from the discussions that had taken place in reference to our iron-clads he was inclined to believe that more could be said against them than in their favour; and when his right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty informed them that foreign countries were in the habit of copying our ships, he (Mr. Bentinck) ventured to express a hope that they would not fail to copy the blunders as well as the merits of our ships. The Motion was one of such a comprehensive character that he would not presume to follow his hon. and gallant Friend throughout his speech. The abolition of Masters in the Navy was a grievous mistake, which he hoped would be re-considered, for junior officers had not opportunities of acquiring the experience necessary to navigate our ships. He believed that even the scientists of this country knew very little of what an iron-clad ought to be, and still less what would be the class of ship required if this country embarked in war. So long as we did not possess men-of-war which could be navigated at sea under canvas, and which could reserve their coal for emergencies or for going into action, so long should we be unprovided with a Navy which could defend the honour and interests of this country. There had been a great naval demonstration in the Mediterranean recently, but pending that demonstration he contended that our coasts were denuded of ships for defensive purposes. [Mr. Hunt: I say, no.] He quite understood what his right hon. Friend said; still he denied the existence of an efficient fleet at home. There was no use in mincing matters. We had no fleet now fit for home defence. If he was mistaken, the House and the country would be very much obliged to his right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty if he would show that, independent of that naval demonstration in the Mediterranean, we had at home an adequate fleet for the defence of our coasts. He asked the right hon. Gentleman to inform the country where the fleet was to be found that could be depended upon for home defence in case of invasion. He quite agreed with his hon. and gallant Friend that there was an enormous amount of waste going on in the Navy, and that money was thrown away in a manner prejudicial to the financial interests of the country. It was the old story—a Board was responsible. The whole subject of the Motion amounted to a renewal of the Motion which he (Mr. Bentinck) brought forward a few months ago. He admired the abilities of his right hon. Friend the First Lord as much as anybody; all he regretted was that those abilities were entirely misplaced. He entirely and fully endorsed all the hon. and gallant Member for Gravesend had said upon the subject; but he did not suppose that the House would be disposed to grant the Commission asked for, because it was a remarkable feature in that House that to all matters relating to naval questions there was an utter and an entire indifference, and both sides of the House had an interest in suppressing all inquiries into naval affairs. He contended that placing at the head of the Admiralty a gentleman who knew nothing about naval matters was a rank and glaring absurdity. If his hon. and gallant Friend divided the House on his Motion he should gladly go into the Lobby with him.

After the statement of my hon. Friend, I wish to ask the in- dulgence of the House while I say a few words with regard to the question of our security. In the present state of affairs I hope that exceptional allowance will be made, and that I shall be permitted to state that my hon. Friend is not warranted in saying that the naval demonstration in the Mediterranean has denuded us of ships for the protection of our coasts. I beg to tell him that there are at this moment nine iron-clads in commission either at home or in the immediate neighbourhood of home, besides those which have gone to the Mediterranean; that in a month or five weeks I could commission two more, one of them the Thunderer, which would then be the most powerful ship afloat; and that in the course of a very short time, if need be, several more ships could be put in commission, not speaking of all the special defence ships which now are in commission and in Reserve, and the gunboats which are laid up at Haslar awaiting any emergency that may arise. I wish, therefore, without entering into details, to give the most positive contradiction to the statement that this country is denuded of naval defence.

I rose at the same time as the right hon. Gentleman simply to assure him that I felt certain that both this House and the country would accept his simple disclaimer that he had not denuded the shores of this country of the ships necessary to defend them, and that the country would be perfectly satisfied if even, without giving any particulars, the right hon. Gentleman simply stated that the insinuation of the hon. Member for West Norfolk was not based upon fact. The right hon. Gentleman and his Friends know that we on this side of the House have been most anxious throughout all these anxious times to let no single word fall from our lips that would in any way embarrass them, or that would add to those great anxieties which we know must be laid upon them. For my own part, I came down to the House prepared to debate the Estimates without any reference, if it were possible to avoid it, to matters that might embarrass the Government, or might call upon them to make any explanations which in the present state of affairs might have been inconvenient to them. We must, therefore, all the more regret the question, but for the satisfactory declaration which the right hon. Gentleman has been able to make. It was not necessary even for him to have given the numbers in the statement that he made, because the country and the House would be assured that no Board of Admiralty would venture upon such a proceeding as that which the hon. Member for West Norfolk (Mr. Bentinck) seemed to think them capable of—namely, that of sending its forces into the Mediterranean without considering what were its needs at home. The right hon. Gentleman has very properly alluded to the fact that during the last four or five years special means have been taken to secure the coast defence, quite irrespective of sea-going iron-clads, and that when the moment should come, in consequence of this provision, it would be possible to make a demonstration such as had been made by the right hon. Gentleman. The House and the country will remember that there have been most powerful gunboats constructed, carrying each an 18-ton gun; that these have been laid up and are ready at any moment for any duty that they may be called upon to perform; and that there is also a class of vessel like the Hecate and the Cyclops which the right hon. Gentleman did not allude to. [Mr. Hunt: I did allude to them. I spoke of them as special ships.] There are four of these ships, and a ship like the Glatton. These ships are specially designed for the service, and the right hon. Gentleman has now been able to give effect to that policy which it has always been said it would be possible to adopt—namely, that by building these coast-defence ships he would be more free to handle the sea-going iron-clads. It was for that purpose that these coast-defence ships were constructed, and it shows the advance that has been made in the naval power of this country that they have enabled the Admiralty to take a step which otherwise it would have been unable to take.

said, he could assure the House that Her Majesty's Navy was not in the sad state of inefficiency that the hon. and gallant Member for Gravesend (Captain Pim) and the hon. Member for West Norfolk (Mr. Bentinck) imagined. During the last six months he had—in company with His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales—made a voyage to India, in the course of which he had had ample opportunity of seeing two-thirds of the Navy, including the Channel Fleet, the Mediterranean Fleet, the Flying Squadron, and the East India Squadron; he had been on board most of the vessels, and he asserted most distinctly that the Navy was not in the state of inefficiency that had been represented to the House. With the exception of the engineers and the Marines, respecting whose requirements a Commission of Inquiry had been granted, all branches of the Service were, he believed, perfectly contented. The hon. and gallant Member for Gravesend abused the men for being young, that was a thing one very often got abused for; but he (Lord Charles Beresford) thought these young men were better men than some of the grizzled old men who grumbled at them. They were taken in young that they might be the better trained. As to flogging deterring men from joining the Navy, he repeated what he had already said, that the men would like to see more of it. For a fine plucky fellow with lots of "go" in him who would always come out when he was wanted, was very often the man who would give his officer some "cheek" and be insubordinate. Well, under the old system, they could give him two dozen and "whitewash" him, and a week afterwards could make him a petty officer; but now they put his name down at the bottom of the list, and also in a book which went to the Admiralty, the consequence of which was that it might be brought against him for the next seven years as a bar to promotion. He wondered if he would have ever got his commission as a captain if there had been such a record kept of his delinquencies while he was a midshipman. He agreed with the hon. Member for Pembroke as to the Research and the Bellerophon, having served seven months in one and a year in the other of those vessels. The Research was a very bad vessel, but she was never intended to be anything else. The Bellerophon was an exceptionally fine vessel. The contention of the hon. and gallant Member for Gravesend that the Admiralty were to blame for the loss of the Vanguard was a most extraordinary one; the hon. and gallant Gentleman might just as well say that he (Lord Charles Beresford) was to blame because the favourite did not win the Derby. The Navy was not in the dreadful state imputed to it; on the con- trary, it was very far from it, and had considerably improved during the last five or six years.

, who had placed a Notice upon the Paper to move for a Select Committee to examine into the Designs upon which Ships of War had recently been constructed, as well as upon any new type of vessel or torpedo which might be placed before the Committee, said, the confidence of the country as to the state of our Navy had been very greatly shaken by the errors and disasters which had recently occurred. This question was too important to be lightly passed over, and he wished to know what ships we had really at home for home defence, what we had for convoy purposes, what for ocean fighting, and what system the Government meant to adopt for the purpose of protecting the various ports around our coasts, either by torpedoes or monitors? When he examined the concentration of our naval force in the Mediterranean he was unable to ascertain how the vessels were to be disposed of in the work required of them, supposing them to have been sent there for the purpose of maintaining the Treaty of Paris. With regard to the vessels which had been laid up at home, he held that we had not a sufficient force to protect us from the attack which might be made upon us, if Russia chose to accept the challenge which had been thrown down to her more than once by the present Government. Russia had in the Baltic for her protection a larger number of guns than we had at home—she having 1,032 against our 862. He wished to know how far the Admiralty had profited by the experience of those countries which had been the most recently engaged in naval warfare? One of the facts brought out by the Austro-Italian War was that rams and turret ships were of more use and possessed more destructive power that any other class of ships. The American Civil War placed before them the facts that unarmoured ships, such as the Alabama, possessing great speed, were to be preferred for ocean cruising and the destruction or convoy of commercial ships to other classes, and that vessels of the Monitor class were the best adapted for coast defence. During the Franco-German War the French iron-clads, deep down in the water, were unable to do any- thing either offensively or defensively, and even sailing colliers were able to pass them without being molested. The departmental Committee of 1871 unanimously held that the Devastation was the best kind of ship for offensive purposes, yet if she were sent against Sebastopol or some other Russian port the Russians would have it in their power to destroy her by a torpedo. With respect to the Iron Duke and the Vanguard, they reported that any new ships of this class should have the strength of their lower structure increased to prevent such disasters as the Vanguard had since experienced. Had the Admiralty acted upon that Report they would long ago have strengthened the lower structure of that class of ships. Our ocean cruisers of the Inconstant class would be found comparatively useless in real warfare. There was a want of system at the Admiralty with reference to the building of ships, and with one or two exceptions there was not a seaport in this country which had at the present moment any organized defence.

held that, without attempting to depreciate the efficiency of the Navy, it was quite open to hon. Members to declare that the administration of the Admiralty was not on the whole satisfactory. He was well aware that constant complaints were being made by officers in the Navy, and the Admiralty promised to inquire into them, but there the matter usually ended. There was the case of the Engineers. It was brought forward in the last Session, and hopes were held out that it would be inquired into, but nothing more was heard of it. As to the Marines, the right hon. Gentleman came to the conclusion at the beginning of last Session that reform was needed, but threw the blame of delay on the Treasury.[Mr. Hunt said, he threw no blame on the Treasury.] Well, he might be mistaken in that; but his impression was that the statement of the right hon. Gentleman led to the belief that the obstruction was not at the Admiralty, but at the Treasury. The country believed that the administration of the Admiralty was inefficient; but he made no personal attack upon the right hon. Gentleman, because any blame which there might be in the matter was much more attributable to right hon. Gentlemen opposite, who had a great deal more to do with organizing the present system than right hon. Gentlemen now in office. The Constructive department of the Admiralty was also, he thought, not properly controlled or checked; and it was altogether impossible to settle the question of shipbuilding by desultory discussions in Parliament. Great changes were constantly taking place in the science of naval warfare, and the feeling of the public out-of-doors was that the Admiralty was a great deal too opinionated, and that there should be an investigation into the operations of the Constructive department. He thanked the hon. and gallant Member for Gravesend for having originated the present discussion, but hoped the Motion would not be pressed.

said, a departmental Committee on naval construction had been promised, but nothing had yet been done, and, owing to the pressure at the Admiralty to send out the powerful fleet now anchored at Besika Bay, he did not think the time an opportune one to revive the question.

said, there was no intention to evade the appointment of the departmental Committee; but some difficulty had been experienced in constituting it. It had been hoped that the Duke of Somerset would have presided over the Committee; but he had declined to do so. With reference to the suggestion of the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Gourley), that a Select Committee should be appointed, he would only remark that early in the Session it had been shown that a departmental Committee was preferable. There was this advantage in a departmental Committee over a Select Committee, that it neither controlled nor hampered the action of the Admiralty. He could not accept the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst) as a very powerful organ of public opinion, for he did not know what greater right that hon. and learned Gentleman had to speak for the public than he had himself. "The proof of the pudding was in the eating;" and the attitude of the House of Commons was a better indication of public opinion than the views of any single Member, whether he represented a dockyard town or not. He was sorry they had not yet been able to deal with the grievances of the Marines, but he hoped they would shortly arrive at a solution of the question, for it was under consideration both of the Treasury and the Admiralty. His hon. and learned Friend seemed to think that the grievance of the engineers should have been redressed in a minute; but the question was a very important one, and there was none which it was more difficult to handle. The Admiralty had not yet been able to communicate with the Treasury on the case, but the House would not be astonished at that when they considered what the work of the Admiralty had been during the Session, and especially in the latter part of it. If hon. Members saw his right hon. Friend's table, they would be astonished at the amount of work he had done, and would feel no surprise that he had been obliged to put off various questions. The recommendations of the Committee were being carefully weighed, and he trusted that on that point also they would soon be able to arrive at a decision.

said, that he had risen to second the Motion of his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Gravesend (Captain Pim), not for the purpose of encouraging him to proceed to a division, which he hoped he would not do, but in order to render him assistance in eliciting information on a most important branch of the public Service. He was glad to find that most valuable information had been given, and to give his tribute of respect and thanks at the same time to his right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty for the zeal and earnestness of purpose with which he had discharged the very arduous and responsible duties of his office. But he must say he had felt much surprised with one statement in the right hon. Gentleman's speech—namely, that no dissatisfaction existed in any department of the Naval Service. Why, it was notorious, as had already been stated by the noble Lord the Member for Waterford (Lord Charles Beresford) and the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst) that the greatest possible dissatisfaction and discontent had for some time existed, and still existed, in that gallant corps, the Royal Marines, who had during three sessions of Parliament been continually praying for the redress of their grievances, and he must say they complained most justly. On each occasion when their case had been brought before the House, they were told that the good time was coming and they must wait, among other reasons because the Army Pur- chase Commission, with which they had nothing whatever to do, had not reported. But hon. Members would recollect the well-known line—Rusticus expect at, dum defluat amnis, and they were thoroughly worn out with long and vain expectation. Their case proved that the administration of the Admiralty was not exactly what it should be. But he would proceed to another matter, to which the hon. Gentleman the Member for Sunderland (Mr. Gourley) had referred—namely, the rapidly increasing strength of the Russian and German Navies in the Baltic and North Sea. That increase showed the necessity of making better provision for the safety of our North-east Coast and the security of our trade and shipping in those seas, as it was now well known that so far from our sea-coast defences being what they ought to be, there was not a single harbour to which our ships of war could resort, or where they could lie secure in tempestuous weather, from the mouth of the Thames to the Frith of Forth, or any batteries whatever by which they could be protected if overwhelmed by a superior force.

said, the hon. Baronet was out of Order in referring to a subject in reference to which he had a Motion upon the Paper.

said, he would at once bow to the decision of the Chair. He should not have alluded to the subject but for the remarks of the hon. and gallant Member for Sunderland, who had introduced the subject of the immense increase of the Navies of two great Continental powers. He must further observe that he had not felt quite satisfied with the refusal of the Admiralty to grant an inquiry into the accusation made lately against that Department by a private individual, who publicly challenged in every possible way the official conduct of Members of the Naval Administration, and asked that the charges he made might be made the subject of a public investigation. He confessed he had not felt satisfied with the reasons given by the First Lord why such an inquiry should not take place. It had been said in that House that it did not consist of naval architects, and they were not to be called upon to decide between rival claims. But his reply to that was they were English gentlemen, and if one of their body was thus publicly assailed by charges which were without foundation, they should render him every assistance in their power to scatter and overthrow them; indeed, he felt astonished when his hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke—

said, he must again remind the hon. Baronet he was out of Order, as he was not speaking to the Motion before the House, but to the subject of a late debate.

said, he had some knowledge of engineers and engineering, and believed the case of those employed in the Royal Navy to be exceptionally unjust and unfair. Even as regarded their retiring pensions the engineers in the American Navy had a better allowance. He hoped their case would be fully inquired into by the Committee now sitting on Naval Administration. He hoped the Admiralty would not listen to the complaints which were made in that House by Members representing dockyard boroughs. He believed there was no difficulty in securing the services of competent certificated engineers, because he knew that for every vacancy that occurred in the Merchant Service there were 20 applicants.

protested against the House being brought down to attend Morning Sittings, when so much time was wasted in discussions of that kind.

, in rising to move the reduction of the Vote by the sum of £2,000, said, that when in 1872 he gave his support to the changes in Greenwich Hospital, he should have felt some hesitation had he foreseen the expenses they were now asked to vote. In alluding to the different items of expenditure he called attention to the office of President. This was held by a gentleman—a vice admiral—who, in addition to his half-pay of £600, received a salary of £1,600 a-year, together with residence, fuel, and gas. That was nearly double the amount paid to the Astronomer Royal. Next to the President came an official—a retired captain of the Royal Navy, who, with his half-pay, received an income of £800. Below these came the Director of Studies with £1,200 a-year: so that these three gentlemen received together £4,200, which seemed to him a large amount for the executive of the administration of a College of that character. Following these, there came a very large Staff, at high salaries, and the general expenditure, which amounted to £13,291,he considered exceptionally large, when it was remembered there were only 231 students at the College. Upon this number there were 110 servants to wait, and the gas bill was £3,000, or more than for Devonport Dockyard, including Keyham, and in various other items there was proof of an extravagant management. If we came to ask what we got in return for all that he was sure the answer would not be satisfactory. We expected an intellectual and scientific education, together with that technical training that would be required in the duties these young gentlemen would afterwards be called upon to perform. So far from that being carried out, he was given to understand—and he believed his information was reliable—that these young students lived in a most extravagant style, and their training was not such as would be likely to fit them for the habits and pursuits that awaited them on shipboard. He found from reports of recent examinations that out of 11 students eight of the number were plucked. Such a result was not very satistactory to the educational Staff, for he found it was not so much owing to want of ability as from want of attention to those branches of study in which they were examined. His attention had been called to a paragraph in The Army and Navy Gazette of April 27th in reference to the College, in which it was mentioned that the students gave a performance in the gymnasium, which was attended by a distinguished audience, and met with much success. The pieces selected were The Ladies' Battle and Raising the Wind, and the performance was stated to have been equal to any that could be witnessed at the metropolitan theatres. It was clear, therefore, among the number there must be some who could give attention to some branches of study. There was one of the pieces selected with great judgment. He thought, considering the training and experience they were going through, "raising the wind" was a performance which might not be unnecessary. His objection to the Vote was not on the ground that a Vote of the kind was not necessary; but his object was to call attention to the subject, for he felt sure that the expenditure required examination, and while he was anxious for efficiency with economy, he objected to inefficiency and extravagance, believing the two often went together. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving the reduction of the Vote.

said, he had anticipated, when he heard of the Amendment, that the hon. Gentleman was going to bring forward a real grievance; but the hon. Gentleman must know, that to secure the efficient working of such an institution, great expenses were necessary. He must be aware that the expenses of all the officers he had referred to were fixed when the College was first established. The only increase since had been in the wages of servants, and that he was prepared to justify. The late President of the College complained that the allowance of 8d. a-day for boys was not enough to enable him to secure a good class, and so inefficient were they that 58 out of 69 had been discharged. Since then the Admiralty having raised the pay from 8d. to 1s., on the recommendation of the President, the result was, that they were now able to obtain the services of a better class of boys, and the complaints at present did not amount to one-half what they were formerly. When the hon. Member put his Motion on the Paper, he (Sir Massey Lopes) thought he was referring to the sum of £2,000, which was the amount taken for gas. That no doubt was a large sum, but it had been caused by the necessity of keeping gas lighted in the rooms occupied by the sub-lieutenants, which had been found to be so damp, that many of those officers were laid up by rheumatism and other affections. He maintained that the College was not conducted in an extravagant or wasteful manner. The object in establishing it was to give our naval officers a very high scientific education, and to do that they must be provided with the best instructors and all the necessary facilities for acquiring the requisite knowledge.

wished to remind hon. Members that they must not look upon this College simply as a training institution. His hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) spoke as if the young men educated in the College were a set of midshipmen who had not been at sea. Now this establishment, though partly designed for the training of young officers, was a great scientific institution for engineers, shipwrights, and scientific men connected with the training of the Navy. They had rendered necessary a considerable expenditure in laboratories and chemical apparatus; in fact, all the appliances were provided which they used to enjoy at South Kensington. The Vote ought not, therefore, to be scrutinized too closely, and he hoped his hon. Friend would not press the Amendment.

trusted that nothing would be done to limit the resources of the Naval College. On the contrary, he would suggest that the right hon. Gentleman should rather endeavour to increase its efficiency. He regretted that the number of senior officers was so small, but one reason was that when they were married they could not afford to go to the College and keep up an establishment elsewhere. It might be desirable therefore to give increased pay so that officers desiring it might be enabled to go to the College. If the increased pay were given, it should be on condition of their passing in a certain standard at examination. The sum charged for gas at the College—£2,000 a-year—seemed very large, as also did the charge of £1,500 a-year for police.

drew attention to the fact that the College had only to pay £100 for buildings to the Hospital, though they were worth far more than that per year.

suggested there should be a little more detail in the various items. There was an item of £632 for scholarships and competitions, and he should like to know how that amount was appropriated.

thought that, in justice to the Hospital, the College should pay a proper rent.

said, that the Greenwich Hospital Act did not require rent being paid; and it was perhaps unfortunate that any nominal payment in in the nature of rent should be made, as it would be followed by a claim for far more. The Greenwich Hospital Fund was not in the nature of an ordinary charity, nine-tenths of it having really been created by public charges. If the fund required additional charges on it in order to give increased inducements to men to enter the Navy, he would be the last to object; but this should be done on public grounds. If the reason was merely technical, of course the Admiralty were the best judges. He was also desirous to ask for explanation as to the heavy charge for police. As to the vote generally he was inclined to think that it would not bear much greater increase, for in time of peace it was necessary to set aside at least £10,000 a-year to augment the capital, and this certainly was not being done at present.

said, that the £100 a-year was a mere acknowledgment, in the nature of a peppercorn rent, and that the buildings were not Admiralty property. Although there was an increase for the pay of police in the Vote there was a reduction under that in another.

asked how it was that as much as £1,800 a-year was required for clerks at the College?

asked for information with reference to the system of examinations at the College, observing that he had heard they were of so abstruse a character that several officers had, after many years' service, been discharged because they could not answer questions on subjects with which it was not deemed necessary to be acquainted when they entered the Profession. It had also been mentioned to him that no fewer than eight young officers had been dismissed within a short time for a similar reason.

repeated what he had said on a previous occasion—that any officer of ordinary abilities and industry who went to Greenwich College might pass the examinations which he was there required to undergo, and that much good rather than the contrary was done to the service by weeding it of men who showed that they took very little interest in it by not attending to their studies. The only reason why gentlemen did not pass it was because they would not study.

also was of opinion that it was of the utmost advantage to the profession that a proper standard of examination should be maintained at the College, and that those who went there should not regard it as a place at which they might spend a short time pleasantly. He therefore hoped the right hon. Gentleman would not give way in the matter.

pointed out that the salaries paid to Professors who taught the abstract and abstruse sciences were as high as £600 or £700 a-year, while those paid to the teachers of naval architecture and marine engineering, two most important and practical subjects, were only £147 or £180 a-year.

said, he supposed the only reason why this was the case was that teachers could be got for these salaries. He agreed with his right hon. Friend (Mr. Childers) that the cost of the College should be carefully looked after in detail, and the suggestions of the hon. Member for Glasgow were worth consideration. He thought that probably the appointment of a small Select Committee of practical men would be the best course to take, with the view of pruning down any redundancies, or making good any deficiencies. Such an inquiry would not occupy very long, and he would, he hoped, by next Session, be able to submit a scheme of management free from the objections which had been urged by various hon. Members that night.

said, he heard that announcement with great satisfaction. The appointment of such a Committee would be most desirable, and he would suggest that a Report should be annually laid on the Table of the House as to the work done in the College. He should be glad to withdraw his Amendment for the reduction of the Vote.

asked what was to be done with the Challenger collection? It was reported to have been sent to Edinburgh. He hoped the interests of the British Museum in respect to it would not be overlooked.

said, that the head of the scientific staff on board the Challenger was an Edinburgh Professor, and as the collection which had been formed was going to be put into proper shape under that gentleman's direction, it had been sent to Edinburgh in the first instance. How it would be ultimately divided he could not at present say, but he might remark that the interests of the British Museum were in good hands and would probably not be neglected.

said, that Sir Wyville Thomson informed him that the collection was going to Edinburgh solely for the convenience of classification and arrangement.

, in moving to reduce the amount of the Vote by £250,000, said, he was led to move the Amendment by finding that the increase of expenditure upon Dockyards and Stores since 1871 amounted to £2,000,000. Of course, he was prepared to hear repeated what had been said before, that the Stores were so much reduced, and the Dockyard expenditure so cut down by the late Administration, that Her Majesty's Government were compelled to go to an enormous expense to put things upon a satisfactory footing. He thought the right hon. Gentleman who held the office of First Lord of the Admiralty prior to the present Administration ought to meet that charge, and he was glad to give him an opportunity of doing so. During the years 1870 and 1871, the cost of iron and other materials was much higher than it was at present, and there were other circumstances which would tend to reduce the cost of management, yet, notwithstanding that there was an increase since 1871 of nearly £2,000,000. The Vote for the Dockyards alone in 1871 was £817,315, in 1876 it was £1,323,750. He had no doubt in his own mind that under the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Pontefract, and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London, the Admiralty was ably administered, wise economies were made, and reforms were carried out that increased the efficiency of the Service. The change which was introduced by the right hon. Member for Pontefract in the Royal Naval Hospital, by which that institution was put under the management of a surgeon instead of a captain of the Royal Navy, and the change in the control of the Victualling department were instances of this, but some of the reforms suggested by the right hon. Gentleman had not been fully carried out. He recollected that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Montrose (Mr. Baxter) had remarked upon the great number of officials in the Dockyards, and said that it prevented any feeling of responsibility, and the same thing came out at the Megæra inquiry. He was not aware that any change had been made, and he believed that the Dockyards remained in much the same state as they were in five years ago, or if changed at all, for the worse. He contended that Dockyards were manufacturing establishments, and should be treated in the same way as establishments of the kind carried on by hon. Members of the House and others. It seemed to him that the proper person to place at the head of such an establishment would be a man of business habits and great technical knowledge and experience. That we did not do. In fact we placed at the head a man quite unused to anything of the kind—an Admiral Superintendent—withoutscientific knowledge, and with none of the necessary experience. He was allowed to remain in charge of the establishment for five years, and when after that time he began to get an inkling of his duties he was removed and another Admiral Superintendent was appointed who went through the same process. It seemed to him that no course would be less likely to lead to efficiency or economy. There were two branches of the establishment, that of design for construction and of building and management, and he ventured to say that the Admiralty was not exactly competent to carry out either of those two branches. In the management of our Dockyards he believed there was great cause for complaint. He found that while the wages for artizans amounted to £1,072,334 in a year, no less a sum than £382,644 was spent in salaries for superintendence, and in pensions, and for police. It would appear that for every £20 paid in wages, £4 was paid in pensions. He had had great experience of the working classes, having employed thousands, and he did not hesitate to say that if he went into the market to purchase labour, and offered 30s. weekly to a man, without any allowance, and 28s. to a man with the promise of a small pension after a number of years, the man for 30s. would be the better man of the two. The effect of offering pensions was that we got a number of slovenly, worthless people. He objected to the system of giving lower wages with a pension; it was far better to give the full market value, and trust to men's own management and thrift for the future, and to make their own provision for old age. From evidence it appeared that the cost of our iron-clads built in Dockyards was far greater than if built in private yards. The hon. Member for Hastings (Mr. Brassey) a short time ago stated in The Times that if we had had our iron-clad fleet built by private firms, we should have 10 more vessels to show for the money. That as coming from a man of such experience and so well known, was worthy of careful consideration. But not only were they keeping up these large manufacturing establishments, but they were spending money in costly mistakes; building vessels that in a short time become obsolete. From Returns on the Table of the House the number of vessels of that kind would be seen, and hon. Members would be surprised to find them so numerous. At that moment foreign nations were putting their trust in torpedoes and rams, and that was a very serious question affecting the construction of ships of war, and he contended that with all our resources and appliances we should not rush at once into building a vessel because another country had a type of which we did not possess an example, and which, as in the case of the Inconstant, might prove to be a costly blunder. He would refer to a suggestion which had been made by the hon. Member for Hastings as a very valuable one. It was that merchant vessels should protect themselves by torpedoes. That would make ordinary vessels independent of the protection of war vessels; each would be able to carry her own sting, and would render unnecessary the costly plan of keeping our foreign squadrons scattered over the globe. In conclusion, he protested against the heavy expenditure in the direction to which he alluded, as not justified at the present time, and moved the reduction of the Vote.

said, that during the time he was at the Admiralty it had been his constant effort to keep down expenditure, and hence it might be assumed that he sympathized with his hon. Friend in his Motion to reduce the Vote by £250,000; but he would remind him that a reduction of that particular Vote by that amount, meant practically a reduction of £250,000 in the Vote for the Wages of Artificers in the Dockyards; and a reduction of that sum upon the Wages Vote meant a reduction of 4,000 men during the whole year—that was to say, between 5,000 and 6,000 men for so much of the year as remained. It would be perfectly impossible for anyone in a responsible position consistently to make such a reduction, or even to dream of making it; and, further, it was a course which it was impossible to sanction in the present state of our relations with foreign powers. Besides, a reduction of that kind required to be carried out with foresight, and spread over as long a period as possible; and, for himself, he had always been of opinion that both increases and reductions should be made with very great caution indeed, not by leaps and bounds. Therefore, in the spirit which actuated the Opposition, and which rendered them disinclined to say or do anything that might hamper the Government in the present state of the Eastern question, he hoped his hon. Friend would not press his Motion to a division, because, if acted upon, it might do considerable mischief. He did not deny that our Dockyard system was capable of great improvement; that it was desirable to strengthen the civil element in its administration, and to deal consistently with the pension question, but the present was not the time for forcing such questions on the attention of Parliament. So, again, there could be no doubt that the annual cost of repairs had risen to an alarming figure. So far as he could collect from the present Estimates, it amounted to from £1,100,000 to £1,200,000 a-year, and that certainly was a most serious question. A searching inquiry ought to be made into this question of repairs, but that was not the time to do so, and he should therefore recommend his hon. Friend to withdraw his Amendment.

said, that Vote 6 and Vote 10, Section 1, were governed by the programme of shipbuilding for the year, and that to attack them as the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) had done was to challenge the whole policy of the Admiralty, which had been substantially accepted by the House. The right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty, in introducing the Estimates, stated distinctly what his Programme was, and he thought, therefore, that the hon. Member for Burnley, before proceeding to reduce the Vote, should have given some indication of the mode in which he proposed to deal with that Programme which was, he contended, conceived in a proper spirit, and did no less than the country required of the Admiralty at the present moment. Complaints had been made that the expense of management bore an excess proportion to the wages of the men, and this proportion had been estimated as high as 30 per cent. It appeared, however, that the proportion had been decreasing, and that while in 1869–70 it was 13·63 per cent, in 1876–7 it was only 9·86 per cent. This showed that the charges for management had been of late years steadily diminishing. The civil management of the Dockyards was a large question, which required almost a night to itself, but upon the whole he had come to the conclusion that it was better to have a naval officer at the head of our Dockyards. Having had some previous experience in regard to boat and ship building, when he came to the Admiralty he tried to make some comparison as to the cost of building Her Majesty's ships in the Royal Dockyards and in private yards. It was difficult to come to an exact conclusion on account of the dead weight and establishment charges; but, upon the whole, taking the whole number of ships he had convinced himself that the cost of building in Her Majesty's Dockyards was slightly cheaper than in private yards, while there was much greater certainty of good work in public than in private yards. He should, therefore, be sorry to see the amount of work now done in the Royal Dockyards decreased to any great extent by sending it to private yards. The question of pensions and of "established" and "non-established" men was under the serious serious consideration of the Admiralty. The hon. Member for Burnley, who had had experience as a manufacturer, thought he got better men by paying a little more and not giving pensions. He (Mr. Egerton) had also had considerable experience as an employer of labour in large collieries were the men were pensioned. The result was, that there had been no strikes for a long period, and they were on better terms with their men than other employers. They had, in fact, a greater hold upon the men, and this he attributed to some extent to the system of granting pensions. He believed the same principle held good in Government establishments.

opposed the proposed reduction, on the ground that under the Vote only 13,000 tons would be provided for, and if the number of tons to be built under Vote 10 were added the total would not amount to the 20,000 tons which his right hon. Friends below him considered necessary to make up for the annual waste from various causes arising in our Navy. As a private shipbuilder of some experience he believed that no one in the Kingdom got work done so cheaply as the Government; and that arose from there being pensions allowed in old age, and from the dependence that existed upon the continuance of work in the public Dockyards. These things give the Government a command over labour that the private yards had not. The work could not be done better there than it was in the private yards, because the system of inspection there was carried to such an extent. But if the present Dockyard system was to be maintained, regularity of work and regularity as to the number of men employed were absolutely necessary.

was sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House would support the Government in any expenditure which might be necessary to maintain the efficiency of the Navy and the honour of the country. The charge of undue extravagance made against the Government must mean either that the Government were spending too much money on shipbuilding, or that the money voted for that purpose was not economically spent. The Committee would not be anxious at present to enter into the discussion of the first alternative, for, as he had said, every one would be inclined to support Ministers in necessary naval expenditure. Then came the question whether the money granted was spent in the most effectual manner. He should like to discuss that point on some future occasion, and much might be said in reference to it, but he thought that was not the moment to discuss in detail the question of Dockyard management, or the grievances that might be urged in connection with those employed in the Government establishments. Whatever the grievances of the Dockyard employês might be, he was authorized to say that they did not wish to press them at the present juncture, when it might be embarrassing to the Government. The men were desirous that the superannuation system should be kept up. It gave the Government a constant supply of steady men, who turned out very good work.

considered that his hon. Friend had entirely failed to make out a case. He did not believe that this was the item on which they could best discuss the question of reduction in the Navy. Many of his hon. Friends about him spoke of the waste in Her Majesty's Dockyards, but he could honestly say from a long experience of Dockyard workmen, that it was quite a mistake to suppose that there was great idleness amongst them, or that their work was not performed in a most efficient manner. He hoped the next time his hon. Friend called attention to this subject, he would not look for reductions in these minor matters, but would bring to the test the necessity for some of the vessels we were building. If any reduction was to be made, it should rather be in Vote 10, which referred to ships built by contract.

said, he had always been ready to support such expenditure as was necessary to keep the Navy in an efficient state. Some hon. Members seemed to be under the impression that when statements were made about the Navy in that House hon. Members were telling secrets out of school, but that was a mistake, for foreign Governments and foreign diplomatists knew a great deal more about our Army and Navy than many people in this country.

said, that payment of labour in accordance with results was a great guarantee of economy in production. He knew that from private experience, and he thought the principle might very well be applied to the Government Dockyards. The work in the Dockyards was of the best character, and it was necessary to maintain the Dockyard establishments, for in a time of war we could not rely on private establishments.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty, if he was prepared to present a Return for the last year showing the distribution of men on various ships, in order that the House might ascertain the manner in which the work was performed, and the probable cost?

said, he would endeavour to supply the information required.

called attention to the large increase in the expenditure as regarded the chaplains who were members of the Church of England. He complained that the Roman Catholic chaplains were badly paid, their stipend being cut down to less than that of skilled workmen; while at the same time they had no retiring allowance.

, referring to the two descriptions of work done in the Dockyards, at a fixed rate of pay with superannuation pensions, and at the market rate of wages, asked how many factory men the Government proposed to establish, and on what terms? He also asked for explanations on the intended fitting-out of the Urgent, an old iron vessel, as a hospital ship for Jamaica, at a cost of £23,000?

said, the Urgent was intended to serve as receiving ship at Jamaica, for which, being an iron ship, she was very suitable. A wooden vessel was more likely to be unhealthy, if used for such a purpose. Considering the object of the expenditure upon the Urgent, he did not think its amount was excessive. The number of factory men whom it was proposed to establish was 500. As it was a quarter to 11 o'clock and they had only obtained one Vote, he would not then discuss the large question as between hired men and men on the Establishment; but he might state that the Admiralty's plan had been adopted after much consideration. He believed that at present no factory men had been established, but the Admiralty were in communication with the Dockyards on the subject, and there was great expectation that the plan which had been adopted would be highly successful. With regard to the pay of Roman Catholic chaplains, he admitted it was not in a proper condition, and a proposition was now before the Treasury for an increase which he believed would be satisfactory. With regard to the Roman Catholic chaplain at Sheerness, whose salary had been complained of as too low, the answer was, that the £80 he received from the Admiralty was not the whole of his pay, as he also received a stipend from the War Office.

said, that the Vote was for £1,323,750 for Dockyards, and out of that million and a-quarter no less a sum than £839 was put down for Dockyards in Ireland, and this, he took it, was little better than a practical joke. Hon. Members might not be aware that in 1799 the then Government promised Irish Members that a Dockyard should be established in Ireland, and from that day to this the Vote of £839 had been taken yearly for the construction of a dock at Haulbowline. It had been calculated that at the present rate of work it would be finished in the year 2975. At any rate, the Union was accomplished, but part of the price to be paid—namely, this Dockyard—was still unaccomplished. The present state of things was, that when the tide was out six or eight dozen convicts went to work, "meandering, melancholy, slow," striving to do as little as they could; and when the tide turned they shouldered their picks and marched to their quarters. In the South of Ireland this dock at Haulbowline was a standing joke. He suggested that it was high time the Vote was swept away altogether.

thought there was something wrong in the system under which hired men were selected to be put on the Establishment, and that it would be much better to take these men at once, even at their present wages, as fitters and other valuable artificers would be drafted off to the seaports on the outbreak of war, and could not be replaced. There was a grievance on the part of continuous-service men—namely, that with reference to superannuation their sea time was not counted as service.

said, that as he understood negotiations had been going on for some time between the Admiralty and the Treasury with regard to placing a certain proportion of the factory men in the Dockyards on the Establishment, he wished to ask the Secretary for War, whether in those negotiations any reference had been made to the War Office with respect to the factory men employed under it? The men in these two Departments were about the same in number, and their work was exactly of the same character, so that no scheme of Establishment ought to be entered upon without full consideration of how it would affect both classes of factory men.

said, that no application had been made to put the factories under the War Office on the same footing as those under the Admiralty.

, in reply, remarked that there was great difficulty in getting men for the Dockyards. This was by no means a new matter; it was discussed and inquired into by a Committee under Admiral Spark. He considered that the Establishment men were far cheaper to the Government than the hired men. The difference between Establishment and non-Establishment men was, that men on the Establishment received 30s. a-week, and men not on the Establishment received 32s. a-week, or 2s. more. He considered it most important that they should have an Establishment as a nucleus on which they could rely in case of war or any pressing emergency.

, in moving the Vote, stated that no other ships had been ordered since the matter was previously discussed, with the exception of some corvettes, and he was now awaiting the instructions of the Committee.

thought it was very surprising that they should be asked for £1,250,000 for the building of new ships without being furnished with any information. He would suggest that the Estimates in future should contain a programme of the contract work for the building of ships in private yards.

thought the Committee ought to know what the sum of £33,000 for repairs other than in Her Majesty's Dockyards was to be appropriated to, and what were the experimental purposes for which a Vote of £10,000 was asked.

said, that though the item was a large one, its details had been very carefully considered before Parliament was asked to vote the amount. Ships could not always be repaired either in Her Majesty's Dockyards or in private yards at home, and it was therefore necessary, among other things, to make provision for the repairing of ships on foreign stations. In consequence of that, the amount of the charge was always uncertain, for it was impossible to say what liabilities would be incurred. The Vote for experimental purposes was principally to defray the cost of experiments which were carried on during the whole year with reference to new designs. As to the details asked for, he did not consider it desirable to give in Committee of Supply the details with which a Council of Naval Construction was concerned; on the contrary, he thought it would be very disadvantageous, by giving such details, practically to publish to the world at large the new designs upon which the Admiralty were proceeding. At the same time, he quite felt that no information that could be safely given to the House should be withheld.

said, he did not desire to have details of construction supplied in the Estimates, but certain particulars with reference to the amount of work to be done in private yards, and to the progress which was made with it.

said, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would consider whether further particulars could not be given in the Estimates, as had been suggested.

said, he would consider the suggestion, and if it could be furnished without injury to the public service, he would do so next year.

said, it was formerly the practice to do so. They were asked to vote one-third of the whole sum required for construction, without having any idea of the nature of the vessels to be built.

moved to reduce the Vote by £400, the charge for hired interpreters, on the ground that there was a breach of faith with the naval officers who had learned foreign languages with the view of being employed as interpreters on the flag-ships on foreign stations.

admitted that such a promise had been held out to the junior officers; but, in practice, it happened on particular stations that there were none of the officers who spoke the language which was employed there. Such was the case, for instance, on the coast of Zanzibar.

inquired in what way the naval officers accompanying Mr. Allen Young in his Arctic Expedition had been appointed for that service? If Mr. Young selected them himself the case presented a bad precedent.

wished to put a question with regard to the sum of £8,000 which was to be paid to Mr. Allen Young, as a subsidy to a private gentleman for the use of his yacht for taking letters to and bringing letters from the Arctic Expedition. He wished to be informed how the payment came about—whether the matter was put up to tender for or not. He was informed that any of the Dundee whalers who navigated the northern seas would have performed the same service for £200 or £300, instead of £8,000. He had also been informed that other yachtsmen would have done the thing for nothing, if they had been granted the opportunity. He also asked for explanations respecting the item of £2,000 for damage done by Her Majesty's ships during the year. It was quite notorious that that sum must be utterly insufficient as several accidents had already occurred involving a much larger amount.

did not think the case was one for tenders. Papers were going to be laid upon the Table respecting Captain Allen Young's expedition. The Admiralty received from Captain Nares a communication stating that he intended if possible to send a sleigh party to receive any communications which might be sent to him this year. That was not part of the original programme, which was, that a relief ship should be sent out next year. In consequence of what Captain Nares said, it was thought that it would be better to send letters out this year, and it being found that Captain Allen Young intended to make a voyage to the Arctic regions in his yacht this year, he (Mr. Hunt) opened communication with him as to whether he would be willing to take the letters, and he consented, and the Admiralty had agreed to subsidize him to the extent of £8,000, because on a former occasion he had brought home letters without any cost to the Government, and at great risk. Peculiar qualifications were required for the post to which Captain Allen Young had been appointed, and there was no person on whom the Admiralty could rely so much as upon him, for his previous experience in the Arctic regions and general abilities as a navigator fully qualified him for this important duty. The Admiralty assented to certain officers accompanying Captain Allen Young, who had selected them; and the case being altogether an exceptional one the Admiralty treated it as such, and agreed to count their time as sea-going time. With regard to the damage done by Her Majesty's ships, it was impossible to say at the commencement of each year what was required under that head. Last year the sum required was exceeded. He was not aware what sum would be required for the present year. The case of the Monarch had been provided for in the last financial year.

hoped the permission given to the officers would not be drawn into a precedent.

quite approved the course taken with regard to the Naval officers in the Pandora, and only wished the same course had been taken with regard to Lieutenant Cameron.

said, he desired to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty, what conclusion he had come to in reference to a Petition which had been presented to him from a large number of retired commanders, asking for a step in rank after 15 years' seniority? He (Mr. Hanbury-Tracy) thought their case was a very hard one, and deserved a satisfactory settlement. Up to the year 1870, captains and commanders who retired, and who had not completed their qualifying sea-time, were allowed to obtain a step in rank after a certain number of years—captains on rising to the top of the list, and commanders after 15 years' seniority. This privilege was swept away in 1870, in the retirement scheme of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Pontefract. The reason for doing this was, he had always understood, that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Childers) thought there were far too many admirals; in fact, that the name of "admiral" had got into such general use, and was applied to so many officers who had not for so many years been at sea, that it was no longer looked up to with the feelings of respect which those who attained that high rank ought to have it treated. He had always understood that was the principal reason for abolishing the step in rank; but it must be pointed out, that whilst the privilege was taken away from the captains, it was taken away also from the commanders, but only on the general ground that you could not let one rank have the step and not the other. If that state of things had continued, nothing further could have been said. Unfortunately, last year the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Hunt) thought fit to revert to the former order of things as regarded captains, allowing those who retired from the year 1870 to rise to the rank of admiral, but ignored the case of the commanders, who clearly ought to have been dealt with at the same time. He (Mr. Hanbury-Tracy) was very much opposed to tinkering or making alterations in the retirement scheme of 1870;but it was surely just to urge that if privileges of rising in rank were taken from two classes of officers under that scheme, it was most unfair afterwards to give them back to one and not to the other. More especially was this so, when it was remembered that the change was originally made to prevent too great use of the name and rank of admiral, and really only affected the captains. There was no question of pay included; it was simply a question of rank, which might be somewhat sentimental, but was no less a grievance which the commanders had every right to have redressed. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would see his way to granting the desired boon.

, in reply, said, that the Petition had been considered, and he might say was still under consideration. The reason the step was not given to commanders last year, when it was granted to captains, was owing to the fact that as captains rose to the rank of admiral by seniority, and commanders were promoted by selection, the Admiralty did not then see that the same necessity existed of giving the step to commanders as it did to captains. At the same time, he did not mean to say that commanders would not be granted the same privilege. The question was again receiving the consideration of the Admiralty, and he would be glad if it could receive satisfactory settlement.

moved the insertion of a new clause providing that husband and wife in the workhouse, if either should be infirm, sick, or disabled, or above the age of 60, might be permitted, at the discretion of the Guardians, to live together, and every such case should be reported to the Local Government Board. Clause—

(Husbands and wives in workhouses.)

("When any two persons being husband and wife shall be admitted into any workhouse, and either of them shall be infirm, sick, or disabled by any injury, or above the age of sixty years, it shall be lawful for the guardians of any union or parish to permit in their discretion such man and wife to live together, and every such case shall be reported forthwith to the Local Government Board,")—(Mr. Hamond,)

—brought up, and read the first and second time.

proposed an Amendment to the clause, to the effect that if am an and wife were both above 55 years of age they should not be compelled to live separate and apart in workhouses. This would simply carry out the principle of the present law, which fixed the limit at 60 years of age. Further than that he contended there would be no increase of population occuring in the workhouse through the operation of the clause, for at the age mentioned, if not impossible, it would be very improbable. Beyond that, why should they separate a married couple at such an age?

said, he had great pleasure in supporting the Amendment of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dewsbury. Since the subject was last under the consideration of the House he had looked into it a little, and had specially referred to the debate on the occasion when the rule was established which prescribed 60 years as the age at which married people should be allowed to live together in a workhouse. This rule formed no part of the original Poor Law, but was introduced almost exactly 29 years age. The alteration was effected by Mr. Borthwick in 1847, when the Poor Law was undergoing revision. He introduced the Amendment, which was a relaxation of the original rigour of the Poor Law. It was opposed by Sir George Grey; it was accepted, with some qualifications, by Lord Russell; and he was strongly supported by his right hon. Friend the Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley) and by the late Mr. Ellice. They were high authorities, and they supported it, not on the ground that it would prevent outdoor relief, but that it would tend to increase it. Earl Russell wished to make it discretionary with the Guardians, and not compulsory upon them; but the House rejected that modification, and carried the Amendment by a majority of 70 to 55. It became the law of the land, and he should like to know what harm had ensued from the operation of the law. The hon. and learned Member stated there had been no increase in pauperism ascribable to it. He did not suppose that any increase would be ascribable if they adopted 55 instead of 60. But the point he wished to contend for was that, failing the condition that increase of the population was not to be allowed, they had no right to make the natural and best feelings of the poor a reason for oppressing them. There could not be a more odious principle than to employ the best feelings of the poor as a means of working upon them to their loss and discomfort. As a matter of fact, he believed poor people of the age of 60 seldom applied to live together in the workhouse. He, therefore, contended that no danger was to be apprehended from this relaxation of the law. He had visited the workhouses of two Unions—the workhouse in his own neighbourhood and the Chelsea Workhouse—and the excellent officials at these institutions stated that, not only had they never experienced an application from old people to live together, but they had received expressions of satisfaction from unfortunate married couples that they were able to live separate. The master of the Chelsea Workhouse told him that there was no wish to bring old married couples into the workhouse, as there was no accommodation for them, in fact; and outdoor relief was always given them. He had no objection to that; he thought it was the right principle; but if they compelled them to go in, they would work upon the natural feelings of the better class of the aged poor. Where such a class of persons were compelled to go into the house, they ought not to be separated, a proceeding which was a real hardship to them, but which was none at all to another class who were often driven there by the intemperance or bad conduct of one or the other, and who gladly accepted it as the best arrangement for them. Those were the grounds on which he supported the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Dewsbury. He would not now express any opinion as to the second clause, but with regard to the first he should give his cordial support to the proposal before the House.

said, that as the matter had been discussed the other night very fully, he would not go over the arguments again. He did not wish to fix the limit at 55 or 60, but rather to go back on the principle of allowing the Guardians to exercise that discretion which the Poor Law gave them. Everybody was aware that in a large number of Unions where provision had been made for separate quarters for married couples that such provision had never been availed of. The Guardians might safely be left to exercise the discretion proposed to be left them by his hon. Friend. He hoped, however, the House would negative the Amendment of the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite.

moved, after Clause 11, the insertion of the following clause—

"The Local Government Board may by their order, upon the application of the ratepayers of any union or parish made in pursuance of one or more resolutions passed at a vestry or vestries duly convened for that purpose, authorize and direct such ratepayers to elect guardians, who shall hold office for a period of three years. The said Board may also, upon the application of such ratepayers, made in pursuance of one or more such resolutions as aforesaid, rescind such order: Provided, however, that the rescision of such order shall not invalidate or affect any election which may have already taken place under it."

opposed the clause. He was aware that many Boards were in favour of such a change, but the question of triennial elections of Guardians might well stand over. It should, however, receive his attention. He could not assent to the Motion of the hon. and learned Gentleman at present; but he hoped to be able to do so on some future occasion, when dealing with the general state of the law.

, satisfied with the assurance that the question should receive the consideration of the Government, said, he would withdraw the clause.

moved, after Clause 14, to insert the following clause—

"It shall not be lawful for guardians of the poor to pay out of the poor rates any church rates, notwithstanding anything contained in the seventh section of the Act thirty-first and thirty-second Victoria, chapter one hundred and nine; Provided, That, nothing herein contained shall alter or affect any other provision of the said Act."

The clause was rendered necessary by the construction placed upon the 7th section of the Church Rates Abolition Act by the Local Government Board, who had held that its provisions enabled Poor Law Guardians to pay a voluntary church rate out of the poor rates. He believed that interpretation was wrong, but even if it were right it was not in accordance with the intention of the framers of that Act. As a proof of this he would refer to a letter written by the right hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Gladstone), in which it was distinctly stated that the clause was never intended to authorize any such payment by Poor Law Guardians.

said, he could not pretend to argue a point of law with the hon. and learned Gentleman, but certainly that was the first time he had ever heard such an interpretation of voluntary payment of church rates as that which the hon. and learned Gentleman had now given of them in connection with the poor rates. He could not accept the declared intention of the authors of a Bill as against the legal construction of it by professional advisers, which was that the payments objected to were legal, and he objected to amending so important a measure as the Church Rates Abolition Act by a clause in the Bill of this character. If it was intended to modify the Act referred to it ought to be done by a separate Motion, and not introduced at the end of a Bill having a different object in view. For that reason he objected to the insertion of the clause.

hoped the right hon. Gentleman would re-consider his opinion, and give the House an opportunity to modify the clause.

moved the insertion of the following clause:—

"It shall be lawful for the guardians of any poor law union to make such arrangements as they may see fit for the religious instruction or worship of the inmates of any workhouse under their control, any existing provision contained in any statute, rule, or regulation to the contrary notwithstanding."

His object was to enable other ministers besides clergymen of the Church of England to be appointed as chaplains of workhouses. At present they could only appoint chaplains of the Established Church, although the majority of paupers might be Nonconformists.

opposed the clause on the ground that it would not provide the remedy desired, and said that the Local Government Board never insisted on the appointment of a Church of England chaplain, if satisfied that other arrangements were properly made. The Guardians under the existing law had very great power in the matter, and the clause as it was proposed might lead to great inconvenience, if not abuse. There was really no necessity whatever for the clause.

said, the whole question was a money question. The only paid chaplain who could by the law be appointed must belong to the Established Church. If any Board of Guardians chose to appoint and pay another person to give religious instruction or conduct worship, it must be at their own cost; and if the latter part of the clause were omitted he thought the clause might be adopted.

said, on the third reading of the clause he would be ready to admit the Amendment of the hon. Member for the County of Kildare, or some other verbal Amendment, which would secure the main object—freedom of religious instruction and worship.

hoped the measure would be proceeded with, as it could be finished in 10 minutes.