NAVY-ENGINE ROOM ARTIFICERS. QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS. MR. GORST asked the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether it is his intention to take any steps to improve the present unsatisfactory position on board Her Majesty's ships, of the engine room artificers? He expressed a hope that during the Recess the subject would receive the attention of the Government. He felt sure that if attention were directed to the grievance of the men he referred to, full justice would be done to them. What caused their discontent was that they were the only class of men afloat in the Navy who had no hope whatever of promotion or advancement, and that was the grievance which they wished remedied. NAVY-HEAVY GUNS. OBSERVATIONS. 1873, when he held the office of Lord | Mayor, the Volunteers came to him and stated their case. He thought it a strong one, and advised them to go to the Prince of Wales, and an interview was arranged with Lord Colville and the hon. and gallant Member for Berkshire (Colonel Lloyd Lindsay), and it was considered most desirable that the use of the ground should be allowed to the Volunteers for drill and exercise when it was not required by the Company. At the desire of the Prince of Wales a meeting of the Court of the Hon. Artillery Company was summoned, and the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Colonel Lloyd Lindsay) gave notice of a motion that, if the terms of the lease permitted, the Volunteers should be invited to use the ground under proper regulation and upon payment of adequate compensation. He believed this resolution would have passed by general consent but for an unfortunate incident. Without his knowledge, the colonels of the Volunteer regiCAPTAIN PRICE called attention to ments wrote a very foolish letter, saying the system of testing heavy guns for the that they viewed the concession as a matter Navy, and contended that it was advisaof right, instead of courtesy. This, of ble to defer the completion of Her Macourse, raised the ire of every member of jesty's ship Inflexible, or any ship being the Artillery Company, who had not yet specially constructed to carry 81-ton guns recovered their good humour. The land or guns of a weight of 35 tons and upwas not private property. It was granted wards, until those guns had been subat a nominal rent for public purposes.jected to such a trial as they might This being so, he hoped, the Govern- reasonably be expected to undergo in ment would use their influence with the war time. The hon. and gallant MemArtillery Company, or, failing success, ber said, he brought this subject forward would take steps to place the City Volun- now in consequence of what he regarded teers on the same footing as the Militia. as the unsatisfactory Answer he had reSIR ANDREW LUSK said, the Go-ceived to a Question he had put a short vernment had the power to place the Volunteers in the position which was due to them, and might exercise the power by bringing in a Bill. He had a high opinion of the force, as they tended to foster the martial spirit of the nation. They did not fight themselves; but by their example they encouraged others to join the Army. MR. FRESHFIELD thought that if the question were approached in an amicable manner some settlement might readily be arrived at. It seemed to him that the hon. Baronet (Sir John Lubbock) wished to employ the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for War as a sort of Jezebel to get possession of this Naboth's vineyard. time ago. Parliament had been asked to vote very large sums of money for building certain ships specially constructed to carry very heavy guns. Those guns had never been tried because as yet none of them were completed; but the 35-ton and 38-ton guns had been tried, and had, as he ventured to maintain, proved to be excessively deficient in endurance. As he recently stated in a letter printed in The Times, the 35-ton and 38-ton guns required repairs after from 50 to 70 rounds had been fired from them, and he believed the endurance of the 81-ton gun would be still less than this. He desired that our guns should be tested as they would be tested in action. Within a month of the outbreak of a war our large guns might be called upon to fire, in addition to the ordinary practice, 280 or 300 rounds. Had we Sir Sydney Waterlow any proof that they could do so? He maintained that we had not. The vessels of the Inflexible class cost us £500,000, and the trial which he wished to be made as to these large guns would cost only between £200 and £300. The officers of the War Department were prejudiced on this subject. They had staked their reputation on these guns, which were called "Woolwich Infants." If we went on making more of these guns we should incur great expense which might hereafter be found to be a great waste. GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOUR said, that no persons could have given more earnest attention to the improvement of ordnance than the officers of the War Department. The hon. and gallant Gentleman was entirely mistaken in thinking that the officers of that Department were prejudiced or interested on the subject of these large guns. The officers of our Ordnance department were probably the most skilled officers with respect to ordnance in the whole world. He wished the question raised by the hon. and gallant Gentleman to be thoroughly investigated. But it would be impossible outside of the Ordnance department to investigate the minutiae of this subject; and he, therefore, suggested that if information was wanted with regard to it, the Ordnance Department ought to be asked to appoint a Committee of Investigation. tained that the War Office would fail in these matters, however honourable they might be, from the simple fact that it was no part of the duty of a soldier to manufacture guns. MR. GOSCHEN said, he hoped the Government would neither postpone progress with the Inflexible nor defer the making of experiments with the heavy guns referred to in the Question of the hon. and gallant Gentleman. Both matters were of great and pressing importance, and as there seemed to be material difference of opinion with regard to the question of guns, he felt sure that the country would not grudge a sum of money sufficient for the making of such experiments as would set the matter at rest. For his own part, he believed the Government guns would come out well from any ordeal to which they might be submitted. SIR JOHN HAY said, he hoped the Government would not take the advice which had been given them to suspend the building of the Inflexible. Such a course, he thought, would be most unwise. To his mind, the duty of the Government was to push forward the building of the Inflexible, and in the meantime to consider with what kind of ordnance she ought to be armed. The hon. and gallant Member for Devonport (Captain Price) was an officer of great experience in gunnery; but his arguMR. E. J. REED said, he remembered ment that the 81-ton gun was unfit for very well when the War Office were service was hardly an effective one, seegoing to commit the gross absurdity of ing that the gun practically was not yet manufacturing bronze field-guns for made. It was to be hoped that no gun India. They were told in the most would be adopted until the War Office earnest manner that they must incur a had tested it thoroughly and ascertained great failure, but it had no effect on the that it was capable of performing its War Office, and the guns were made work. Why, the 35-ton gun was not as and thus £1,000,000 of money was likely to last as any gun which might be thrown away. He believed the new brought against it he was at a loss to Director of Ordnance was a most valu- imagine. His hon. and gallant Friend able officer; but then he had been con- (Captain Price) called in question the nected with the present system for many present system of rifling; but it was a years past, and to tell them that that matter on which the most competent officer was the only person they could go authorities differed. Under these cirto on this subject was unsatisfactory. cumstances, it was surely the duty of the He recollected when a very high officer House to rely on the Reports of its Comof the War Department went down to mittees, who had investigated the quesinvestigate a new material for the manu- tion most carefully, rather than to adopt facture of guns, and a more absurd and any view brought forward by individual unsatisfactory Report than he made was Members. The present system of rifling probably never penned. He knew it was adopted on the recommendation of was too late in the Session to hope to several Committees; and, therefore, elicit from the Government much infor- however anxious he was for improvemation on the subject; but he main-ments in gunnery, he could not support his hon. and gallant Friend on the present occasion. MR. HUNT assured the House that the Government had not the slightest intention of suspending the construction of the Inflexible. On the contrary, he had asked the House to sanction the employment of an additional number of men at the dockyard in order to facilitate the completion of this ship. As to the durability of the 35-ton guns, he might mention that one of them had stood 600 rounds without re-venting, which he believed was the kind of repair alluded to by the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Captain Price) in the latter part of his speech. [Captain PRICE: The 600 rounds were not fired continuously.] It was quite true they were not fired continuously; but the fact remained that they did no serious damage to the gun. Moreover, it did not by any means follow that a gun was unfit for further use because the re-venting of it might be desirable. He was informed that a gun might have its vent enlarged, and yet be perfectly capable of firing. It was asked whether one of the 81-ton guns could be re-vented in the turret. According to his information that could be done. The hon. and gallant Member seemed to think it would be necessary to re-vent those guns after every 50 rounds; but if they fired 50 rounds in action there would probably be very little left for them to fire at. A charge was made against the professional advisers of the Government that they were prejudiced and interested parties. Well, he did not claim for them infallibility, and was glad to have their opinions considered; but he believed they were the least interested and least prejudiced persons who discussed these matters. Inventors, who were interested and sometimes prejudiced, brought their notions before the professional officers who advised the Government, and if those notions were not approved or were rejected, they persuaded some clever Member of that House to bring forward the case and allege that the professional officers were interested or prejudiced people. MR. E. J. REED rose to Order. The right hon. Gentleman was imputing discreditable motives to Members of the House, which he objected to have imputed to himself. Sir John Hay CAPTAIN PRICE was sure that the First Lord of the Admiralty did not intend that. He himself was not in the slightest degree interested in any person connected with the manufacture of guns; but he had had interviews with Sir Joseph Whitworth, Mr. Krupp, and Colonel Scott, and had derived a great deal of information from them; but he had invariably told them he would not advocate their claims in that House. MR. HUNT said, the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Reed) had completely misunderstood him. He had no intention of suggesting that hon. Members brought forward these questions from interested motives, and he did not impute any motives. He merely pointed out that inventors whose schemes had been rejected sometimes maintained that the professional advisers of the Government were prejudiced, and persuaded Members of that House that the views they held were right. When the professional advisers of the Government were charged with prejudice, he though it was only fair to show how such charges originated. As to the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London (Mr. Goschen) in regard to making experiments, that was a matter on which he was prepared to consult with those who were more especially concerned; but such experiments if made would be rather to satisfy public opinion than to remove any doubts at the War Office or the Admiralty as to the propriety of the course which had been adopted. He had to inform the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst) that the question of engine room artificers had engaged his attention, and although he was not ready to give an answer at present he hoped that the matter would be gone into carefully during the next six months, and that he would be able to make a more definite statement with regard to it next year. MR. E. J. REED wished to say that he took exception to the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman, because after expressing his belief that the professional advisers of the Government were the most disinterested persons who discussed these subjects, he alleged that hon. Gentleman were instigated by inventors to bring cases before the House. MR. HUNT replied, that he did not mean discussions in that House, but alluded to what went on between in ventors and scientific persons doors. Main Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," put, and agreed to. SUPPLY-NAVY ESTIMATES. SUPPLY-considered in Committee. (In the Committee.) (1.) £4,400, Supplementary sum for Wages, &c. to Seamen and Marines. MR. HUNT said, that in moving the Navy Estimates last March he stated that he was anxious to improve the pay of the warrant officers of the Navy. A wish was expressed that he should do this in the present Estimates, and he now proposed to do so to a certain extent. There were now two classes of warrant officers-the first, who received 78. 6d. a-day, and the second 58. 6d. a-day. He proposed to adopt a progressive scale of pay according to the number of years' service. After the first five years' service he proposed to make a difference in the pay of the sea-going and other ships; under five years they would rise by degrees to 58. 6d.; from five to 10 years they would receive 6s. 9d. in sea-going ships, and 68. at home; and for 15 years and upwards 88. 3d. for seagoing and 78. 3d. for other ships, provided that no officer should receive a lower rate of pay than at present. He proposed that that increase should take effect on the 1st of October, and the Vote would only be for the half-year, so that the increase would be £8,800 for the year. His out-of-| tion, which had attracted a great deal of MR. GOSCHEN said, he was glad the right hon. Gentleman had been able to deal with this subject in the present Session. He had no objection to the increase; but presumed that the alterations would be described in an official document which would be laid upon the Table. SIR JOHN HAY said, that this would be a great boon to a deserving class of men. Vote agreed to. (2.) £1,300, Supplementary sum for Half-pay, Reserved and Retired Pay to Officers of the Navy and Marines. MR. HUNT said, that although the amount of this Vote was smaller than the last, it involved a much larger ques by the Order in Council were 50 admirals of all ranks, 150 captains, 200 commanders, and 600 lieutenants. The owing to deaths or retirements, not be necessary to make the additions he had sketched out. Then, as regarded the cap According to the calculation made the number even under the scheme he proposed would not be likely to exceed 216. It would go in this way-204, 206, 208, 211, and 215. There were, of course, in the calculation the elements of uncer right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Goschen) ob-tains' list, there would be, according to the tained an Order in Council to increase computation made, 175 in the year 1882, the number of lieutenants; but the others when they would fall to 173 in the next remained the same. If the scheme of year, to 170 in the next, and to 165 in the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Childers) the next. Next he came to the comhad been successful, no doubt the stag-manders' list, which was now at 200. nation would not have been so great as it was at present; but the fact was that, although the commanders' list had been cut down to 200, the captains' list, instead of being 150, as the right hon. Gentleman had expected, was now 174, while the admirals' list was five in redun-tainty to which he had referred—namely, dance. What he proposed was that the Admiralty should promote 7 captains to flag rank every year-with this limitation, that the admirals' list should not exceed 68, and that if there were more vacancies than 7 those vacancies should not be filled up in that year, but should give promotion in the following year. With regard to promotion from the commanders' to the captains' list, he proposed that there should be, if possible, from 12 to 15 promotions to the captains' list every year. The additions to the flag list would assist that arrangement, and he proposed that the captains' list should not exceed 175. That should be the standard, and promotion should take place up to 15 a-year as long as the number of 175 was not exceeded. He proposed to take 225 as the standard number of commanders, instead of the present number of 200, and he thus hoped to get from 20 to 25 promotions for lieutenants every year. If, however, there were more than 25 vacancies, he did not propose to fill them up. He proposed, therefore, to get 7 promotions for captains, from 12 to 15 for commanders, and from 20 to 25 for lieutenants. He had had a calculation made as to what the effect of the scheme would be if carried on for 10 years, and it showed that, with regard to officers of flag rank, there this year 55, at the end of the year there would be 57, next year 59, the year after 62, the next 59, then 57; then the number would rise to 60, then to 64, and in 1882 to 68, which was the limit he put to the number of flag rank. In 1884 the number would fall to 67, and the next year to 66. According to the calculations made, in no one year would there be more than four additions to the list. It might, however, Mr. Hunt deaths and voluntary retirements; but in making it, the rate of mortality for the same time in the same rank had been ascertained and adopted. Then, as to voluntary retirement, he thought the estimate was a low one. With reference to promotions from the captains' list, he was unable to say positively there would be 12 this year. He was only certain of 10; but it might happen, under ordinary circumstances, that there would be 12, and he took that number as the desired minimum, and 15 as the maximum; while in 10 years the estimated average would be 14. Of course, the number might fluctuate, as the Committee were aware that in the Navy, as in other professions, men who got to the top of their profession lived longer than the general run of the public. As regarded commanders, the calculation was that for 10 years there would be an average promotion of 20 a-year from the rank of lieutenant, the maximum being 25, and the desired minimum 20. For the next two years there would be no great difficulty in maintaining the number of promotions, as he was at liberty during that time to make additions to the list. Of course, however, if vacancies were caused by optional retirements, there would be no necessity to make those additions. As that was the more desirable way, what he proposed was to lower the age of optional retirement for admirals, vice-admirals, rear-admirals, and captains by five years. At present the ages were, for admirals, 60; for vice and rearadmirals, 55; and for captains, 50. He proposed to lower the respective ages to 55, 50, and 45. He would, however, limit the number to three admirals and six captains. This he did on financial grounds, and as an inducement to make |