subject, he would not look for reductions | iron vessel, as a hospital ship for Jain these minor matters, but would bring maica, at a cost of £23,000? 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.

MR. BENTINCK 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.

MR. HUNT 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 MR. GOSCHEN asked the First Lord Catholic chaplain at Sheerness, whose of the Admiralty, if he was prepared to salary had been complained of as too present a Return for the last year show-low, the answer was, that the £80 he ing 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? MR. HUNT said, he would endeavour to supply the information required.

MR. T. BRASSEY 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.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. MOORE 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.

MR. SHAW LEFEVRE, 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

received from the Admiralty was not the whole of his pay, as he also received a stipend from the War Office.

MR. SULLIVAN 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.

MR. SAMPSON LLOYD 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.

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

(3.) £76,400, Victualling Yards at Home and Abroad.

(4.) £65,830, Medical Establishments at Home and Abroad.

(5.) £20,053, Marine Divisions.
(6.) £1,261,320, Naval Stores.

(7.) £1,353,600, Steam Machinery and Ships built by Contract.

MR. HUNT, 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.

MR. E. J. REED 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.

MR. WHITWELL 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.

MR. HUNT 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 SIR MASSEY LOPES, in reply, re- always uncertain, for it was impossible marked that there was great difficulty to say what liabilities would be incurred. in getting men for the Dockyards. This The Vote for experimental purposes was by no means a new matter; it was was principally to defray the cost of discussed and inquired into by a Com-experiments which were carried on during mittee 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 328. a-week, or 28. 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.

Original Question put, and agreed to.
Mr. Sullivan

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.

MR. E. J. REED said, he did not MR. GOSCHEN inquired in what way desire to have details of construction the naval officers accompanying Mr. supplied in the Estimates, but certain Allen Young in his Arctic Expedition particulars with reference to the amount had been appointed for that service? of work to be done in private yards, and If Mr. Young selected them himself the to the progress which was made with it. case presented a bad precedent. MR. GÖSCHEN said, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would consider whether further particulars could not be given in the Estimates, as had been suggested.

MR. ANDERSON 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 Build-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.

as upon him, for his previous experience | got into such general use, and was apin the Arctic regions and general abili- plied to so many officers who had not ties as a navigator fully qualified him for so many years been at sea, that it for this important duty. The Admiralty was no longer looked up to with the assented to certain officers accompanying feelings of respect which those who Captain Allen Young, who had selected attained that high rank ought to have them; and the case being altogether an it treated. He had always understood exceptional one the Admiralty treated it that was the principal reason for abolishas such, and agreed to count their time ing the step in rank; but it must be as sea-going time. With regard to the pointed out, that whilst the privilege damage done by Her Majesty's ships, it was taken away from the captains, it was impossible to say at the commence- was taken away also from the comment of each year what was required manders, but only on the general ground under that head. Last year the sum that you could not let one rank have the required was exceeded. He was not step and not the other. If that state of aware what sum would be required for things had continued, nothing further the present year. The case of the could have been said. Unfortunately, Monarch had been provided for in the last year the right hon. Gentleman oppolast financial year. site (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

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

SIR JOHN HAY 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.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Original Question put, and agreed to.

(12.) £888,472, Half Pay, Reserved and Retired Pay to Officers of the Navy and Royal Marines.

MR. HANBURY-TRACY 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

Mr. Hunt

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.

MR. HUNT, 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