classes of the community through com- | in the instruction of our youth, it was petition. He hoped the right hon. Gen- the knowledge that in doing their duty tleman would turn his mind to the ques- towards their pupils they were furnishtion whether, if the system of competition ing them with the means of obtaining were to be given up, he could not devise access into the public service. He was, some more satisfactory mode of admis- at the same time, quite willing to sion to the Service than that he and his admit that the competition of little boys Colleagues should be the only persons required to be carefully watched; and who should make nominations. He there was, in his opinion, much pregnant had, of course, no doubt that the right truth in the saying that the best way to hon. Gentleman would exercise his dis- test their proficiency was not by hard, cretion in making those nominations as but by easy questions. That, however, fairly as possible; but then that portion was a very different thing from abolishof the nominations which would fall to ing competition altogether. He should the lot of naval officers would be one vote in favour of the Motion of his hon. purely of interest, and Sir Cooper Key, Friend. one of the most able and intelligent officers in the Service, had stated that a system of pure nomination was impracticable and hopeless. The right hon. and gallant Member for Stamford (Sir John Hay) quoted evidence to show that we were educating young boys too much; but that was not the opinion of those by whom our public schools were conducted. The Report of the Royal Commission had not proved that the system of competition had done any harm; and he thought the common sense of the country would oppose the system which was about to be introduced of pure narrow patronage by which naval officers would be drawn from a narrower circle than the members of any other branch of the public service. MR. SHAW LEFEVRE explained that when he spoke of dunces in the Navy, he certainly did not intend to designate by that term the present officers of the Navy; he had pointed out that under the process of weeding and with an excessive number of entries, the dunces were soon weeded out of the Service. SIR THOMAS ACLAND declined to enter into any professional discussion upon this subject; but having paid considerable attention to questions of education, he wished to say a few words. He must say that he did not hold any extreme view in favour of competition; but he much regretted that the influence of the Government should be brought to bear against liberalizing the course to be taken in reference to this matter. He was very sorry that they had not found some course which would be short of setting up the old system of patronage. If there was anything which could act as a stimulus to those who were engaged MR. A. F. EGERTON said, the question was not one of patronage, and that under the old system double the number of boys for whom there was room was patronized by their predecessors. Whatever patronage was in the hands of his right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty was, he might add, the House would at once believe, fairly and discreetly bestowed, and he thought he might say the same for the other Members of the Board. As to Latin, it was of the greatest possible use in the acquisition of other languages, and he might also observe that the study of it was begun by the boys before they entered the Britannia. He thought that there was the greatest possible difference between competition for prizes at school and competition for the purpose of entering a profession in which one was to pass his lifetime. Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question." He said he was sorry to trouble the House once more with this question. Though slightly altered in form, it was substantially the same as one which he had brought forward on two previous occasions. The form had been altered because the Volunteers were anxious that the House should feel that they were only asking for what had already been done in the case of the Militia. It could not be pretended that this was a case of interference with private property, because the Volunteers only asked for the rights which would clearly belong to the Trained Bands, if such existed, and which were enjoyed by the Militia under the Militia Act of 1796. The City of London Volunteers were a very important body, about 3,000 in number; the average number attending drill was about 1,000; and at present the nearest open space in which they could drill was Hyde Park. Going there involved great loss of time and great inconvenience. Yet, in the heart of the City, only a quarter of a mile from the Bank of England, there was an open space of no less than eight acres which had from time immemorial been set aside as a drillground for the Volunteer Forces of the City. Unfortunately, this land had been let to the Hon. Artillery Company for the purposes of drill, subject only to the rights of the Trained Bands. The Hon. Artillery Company maintained that technically and legally the Volunteers did not represent the Trained Bands. When the Militia were constituted at the close of the last century, the House interfered and introduced a clause into the Act of 1796, under which the Militia used the Artillery Ground when it was not required by the Hon. Artillery Company. In 1873, when the matter was brought before the House, the hon. and gallant Colonel the Member for Berkshire (Colonel Loyd Lindsay), as Colonel of the Hon. Artillery Company, promised, as was understood, that if all legal claim on the part of the Volunteers was withdrawn the matter would be satisfactorily settled. The Volunteers performed their part, but without any result. The Hon. Artillery Company was, no doubt, a very ancient regiment, but it was very small for its age. From the last Returns it appeared that, though the regiment numbered 620, there were 240 who had never attended a single drill during the year, only 140 who had attended nine drills, and, in fact, less than 150 effectives. It was obvious that a microscopic corps of that character could not require eight acres all to themselves. They drilled twice a week-on Mondays and Thursdays; on Mondays they averaged 12 in number, on Thurdays 50. Let the House consider the value of eight acres close to the Bank of England! The Artillery Company alleged that they paid rent. Yes, they did pay rent, amounting, as he was informed, to £300 a-year, but then they had let off the fringe of the land for £2,400, leaving them a balance of £2,100 a-year; so that each effective actually cost £150 a-year, without counting the value of the land left unoccupied. Land in the City had been sold at the rate of over £1,000,000 an acre. Taking this land, however, at only a quarter of that value, these eight acres would represent £2,000,000, which at 4 per cent involved a loss of interest of £80,000 a-year, to maintain a corps of 150 effectives. It would be difficult to find a case of greater waste of public property. He would remind the House that the Volunteers only asked to be allowed to drill on the ground when the Artillery Company or the Militia were not using it. He would have thought that one Volunteer Corps would have been glad to assist another. Unfortunately, it had proved that this was not the case, and he therefore asked Her Majesty's Government to obtain for the City of London Volunteers the same rights as were enjoyed by the Militia under the Act of 1796. MR. HAYTER said, this was the third time this question had been brought under the notice of the House. When Lord Cardwell was Secretary of State for War, he said he felt sure that an amicable settlement would be arrived at between the hon. Member for Maidstone and the hon. and gallant Member for Berkshire (Colonel Loyd Lindsay), but no such settlement had been come to. There were three regiments of Volunteers in the City, numbering 2,500 effectives, while the Artillery Company had only 150 effectives, and these 150 were able to make use of the ground and to exclude the 2,500. He hoped the Government would support the Volunteers in the matter. They did not wish to interfere in any way with the rights of property, they only desired to use the ground for the purpose of drill at times which would not be inconvenient to the Hon. Artillery Company, and on any terms which the Artillery Company might fix, provided they were not prohibitive. The London Volunteers had the greatest possible difficulty in finding places to drill in; and although his regiment were able to use the Guildhall occasionally, preparations for festivities were often being made there which prevented drill taking place at the best time of the year. The Volunteers asked to be placed on the same footing as the Militia with reference to this ground, and he did not see any reason why they should not be treated in a similar way. MR. GATHORNE HARDY regretted that his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Berkshire (Colonel Loyd Lindsay) was not present, because no one was so thoroughly conversant with the matter. The subject, as had been stated, had been brought on three occasions before the House, and on the first the hon. and gallant Member for Berkshire stated that the City Volunteers had practically claimed a right to enter this ground, that this claim had been advanced in a letter signed by their commanding officers, and that as long as they claimed it as a right he could do nothing to admit them to the use of the ground. Last year, the subject was again brought forward; there was a discussion on it, but no decision was come to. He did not know what the hon. Member for Maidstone expected him to do. Whether the hon. Member wished him to use his power of persuasion, or to pass an Act of Parliament, he could hardly determine. If he desired him to introduce a Bill, he could not undertake to do so, and on the same grounds as had been taken by his Predecessor-namely, that it was not the business of the Government to settle claims with respect to private property. In this instance the Artillery Company not only claimed the ground as private property, but they said they would invalidate their lease by admitting the City Volunteers to the ground. If this were so, he could not interfere with those who were in possession. The Militia were not on the same footing as the Volunteers. They were successors of the Trained Bands, and as such were allowed the privileges of the Trained Bands, one of which was the occupation and use of this ground. The Militia were not admitted by the Artillery Company as a favour, but as entitled to the right of the Trained Bands; and the Volunteers did not hold this position. What might be done by means of the persuasion of the hon. and gallant Member for Berkshire, who was Colonel of the Artillery Company, he did not know; but the War Department had no right to exercise any influence, and he thought there must be some claim on the part of the Volunteers which the Company did not recognize. He could not help thinking that some of the difficulty which existed was due to the letter of the commanding officers. MR. HAYTER said, that letter was written under a misapprehension, and had been withdrawn two years ago. The Artillery Company said that if they admitted Volunteers they would invalidate their lease; but he did not think that such would be the case. MR. GATHORNE HARDY said, that, at all events, he could not interfere to obtain admission for the Volunteers to a piece of land which the Volunteers claimed as their own. If he interfered in this case, he should be asked to do so all over the country in favour of Volunteer corps which might want to gain admittance to drill grounds. The best plan for the Volunteers to adopt was to endeavour to obtain the influence of the hon. and gallant Member for Berkshire in their behalf. With every desire to benefit the City Volunteers, he did not see that he could take any steps in the matter. SIR SYDNEY WATERLOW said, the Hon. Artillery Company held a lease of one half the ground from the Corporation of London, with a right of renewal for ever upon a fixed payment, and he was quite sure that the Corporation would modify or permit any modification of the terms of the lease which would enable the Volunteers to use this ground. The other half was held from the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, and was granted originally for the use of the Trained Bands. Now, the Volunteers were in spirit more nearly the successors of the old Trained Bands of London than any other body of men. The Militia were not at all the same. The legal difficulty with regard to the lease might be got over; but another difficulty arose from pique. In the year 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 Hetained 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. any proof that they could do so? 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 minutia 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. 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 |