that their position was permanent it was doubtful whether they should be entitled to vote at Parliamentary elections. The inconvenience of departing from the constitutional practice was seen in the claims that were every year being most improperly urged upon the House in their behalf. The Chancellor of the Exchequer exhibited a wise firmness in saying the Government would not allow a Committee to investigate the wages paid to the servants of the Go vernment. MR. MOFFATT said, he wished to ask the Secretary of the Admiralty how it was that on the naval station at Hong Kong the salaries were £5,000, and the wages £5,000 a year? There were there thirty five ships, many of them scarcely seaworthy. From the proportion of wages to the total Vote it appeared that a little economy might be applied. He should like to know whether the thirty-five ships in harbour or afloat in the China seas were really seaworthy, or whether they were kept there as a formality, and officers employed to little purpose? LORD CLARENCE PAGET said, in reply to the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ayrton), that the Vote for superintendence was nearly the same as last year, and that it was owing to the new method that had been adopted in arranging the Votes that the charge under that head appeared excessive. For example, the whole of the cost of the superintendence of the dockyards had been transferred from Vote No. 1, with the view of plainly showing what was the real expenditure for such service. The charges of £9,000 for gas and £3,000 for writers had also been transferred for a similar purpose. Next year this charge would bear comparison with the Votes of previous years. Respecting the vessels at Hong Kong, his hon. Friend (Mr. Moffatt) would remember that at the time of the Chinese War a large number of gunboats were sent out; and on its termination, as a considerable expense would have been entailed by the voyage home, it was resolved that a certain number should be retained at Hong Kong, and there used for the suppression of piracy and for whatever purpose they were most suitable. As they became rotten they were broken up. MR. OTWAY said, that in the course of the discussion many statements had been made which were calculated to mislead the Committee. He was not aware that hon. Gentlemen had called themselves dockyard Members," but he remembered the time when the greatest reproach that could be cast upon any one in that House was to say that he was a metropolitan Member, and especially a Member for the Tower Hamlets. He knew that the metropolitan Representatives had done much to retrieve their fame at the late election, but he was not aware that there were any new Members for the Tower Hamlets. A very unfair attack had been made upon the Constructor of the Navy (Mr. Reed), and it had been asked why the Government did not employ private builders ? But the private shipbuilders of the country had been too highly extolled; for it ought to be remembered that the Wyvern and the Scorpion, though built by a gentleman of great reputation, had turned out two of the greatest failures ever known. He desired to be informed what amount of money had been spent by the Admiralty in rendering those vessels fit for service, believing this a subject which should be fully explained to the Committee. With regard to the Government dockyards in the town he represented (Chatham), he held that the Admiralty were guilty of a breach of contract towards the men engaged in them. When they first entered those yards none but wooden vessels were built; but now that the iron ones were being constructed the men had been under the necessity of purchasing new and costly tools, their clothes were more rapidly worn out, while their eyes in many instances were seriously injured by the iron. He knew workmen who had totally lost their eyesight through working on the iron ships. It was said that when so injured they got pensions; but this was no adequate compensation. Another thing was that there was no oculist in Chatham, and the injured men had to incur the expense of going to Maidstone when injured in the eyes for medical assistance. These matters, he contended, required consideration at the hands of the Government. He also thought it an extraordinary circumstance that no surgeon was provided in the dockyards. It ought to be the object of the Government to get the best men to do their work, but they could not expect to do so if they refused to pay the men a fair day's wages for a fair day's work. It had been asked why the workmen, if they were discontented, did not seek employment elsewhere? but such a question was unreasonable. It could not be expected, after they had been in the service of the Government a number of Motion made, and Question, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again,”—(Mr. Otway,)—put, and negatived. years, had made some progress towards, in accordance with the recommendation of the time when they would be superannu- the Audit Commission, had arrived at the ated, and had established themselves in a conclusion that the better plan was to take place with their wives and families, that a Vote in the Estimates for the whole of they would be very anxious to forego their the wages of the labourers employed in the claims upon the Government and travel in dockyards, and to pay the full proceeds of search of employment in the other dock- the sale of old materials into the Excheyards of the country. He might mention quer. that at the meeting of the fleets there was no ship which excited so much attention as the Achilles, and this showed that the men at Chatham who built her were good workmen, whom the Government ought to endeavour to keep in their employ, and to keep them contented by giving them sufficient wages. He thought that it was really a national object to retain the services of the really excellent workmen who were now in the public yards, but who would be attracted from them if the present disparity between the rate of wages that they were receiving and that were paid in private establishments continued. He entirely concurred with the Chancellor of the Exche quer and with the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ayrton)-who had spoken in somewhat a cynical style with regard to the constitutional question at issue that it was not his duty, or that of those who concurred with him in opinion, to fix the amount of wages which the artizans in our dockyards should receive. That, however, was not the proposal for which he contended. He simply said that he thought those men ill-used as things at present stood, leaving it to the Government to say in what mode justice should be dealt out to them. As to any objections raised on the score of economy to his view of the case, he would simply observe that a fund sufficient to satisfy the claims of those on whose behalf he spoke might very easily be realized by the practice of economy in the dockyards in reference to the construction and frequent alteration of ships. MR. FLEMING said, he would repeat his Question, Why the sum of £15,000, which was set down in the Vote for the payment of the wages of artificers and labourers employed in the breaking up of old ships was not defrayed out of the sale of the materials of those vessels? He thought it would be more advisable to sell the ships at once for what they would bring, and thus save the expense of breaking them up. MR. CHILDERS said, that that had formerly been the custom, the balance accruing from the sale being paid into the Exchequer. The Treasury, however, acting Mr. Otway Original Question put, and agreed to. Resolutions to be reported on Monday next; Committee to sit again on Monday next. MUTINY BILL.-COMMITTEE. (Mr. Dodson, The Marquess of Hartington, The Judge Advocate.) Order for Committee read. MR. DARBY GRIFFITH said, be must renew the complaint which he had made in the early part of the evening with respect to the Bill not having been printed before, expressing himself dissatisfied with the official answer which had been given to his question on the subject by the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Hartington). THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER said, that it was not the custom to print annual Bills, such as those relating to Exchequer Bills and to the Militia, of which the skeleton remained the same. The only exceptions were the Appropriation Bill and the Mutiny Bill, which were now printed. It so happened that some alterations had been introduced into the present Bill, principally in the number of the men, and if the hon. Gentleman wished to call the attention of the House to any of these, every facility would be given to him to do so. But the Mutiny Bill was one which the exigencies of the service made it absolutely necessary should be passed by a certain day, and any loss of time might defeat that object. Bill considered in Committee. On Question, "That the Preamble be postponed,' MR. DARBY GRIFFITH said, be must again complain of the non-printing of the Bill. COLONEL PERCY HERBERT said, be hoped that in future the Bill would be printed earlier, to give hon. Members an opportunity of more fully considering the subject. MR. WHALLEY said, he wished to ask for some explanation relative to the existence of Fenianism in the army. He was one of those who considered that Fenianism was connected with a particular creed. Roman Catholic recruits had, he believed, decreased within the last three or four years, but in the superior grades of the service Roman Catholicism had been on the increase. Let them remember that the Duke of Wellington had greatly objected to the admission of Roman Catholics into the higher corps of the army, whereas there had of late years been a steady influx of recruits of that creed into those corps. [Cries of "Question!"] He was speaking to the question, because the preamble stated that the Bill was for the maintenance of the safety of the service. He had before called attention to the fact that the libraries of the soldiers were filled with books of a most seditious character, and he attributed the disasters which the British troops had experienced in New Zealand to the organization of the rebel forces by Roman Catholic priests. There were certain facts which he must characterize as dangerous in connection with the discipline of the army, although he admitted the possibility that it might be a delusion on his part. Preamble postponed. Clauses 1 to 21, inclusive, agreed to. MR. P. A. TAYLOR said, he wished to call attention to the practice of flogging in the army. The clause authorized a system of discipline of a nature so severe that it could not justly be designated anything but torture. During the year 1862, there were eighteen lashes for every turn administered on the back of the British soldier. He contended that it was a libel on the English character to contend that the average class of Englishmen could not be kept in discipline without the lash. Either we enlisted bad men, or we had incapable officers. He moved the omission of the clause. MR. KINNAIRD said, the punishment of flogging was, according to the alteration introduced by the late Lord Herbert, only inflicted on soldiers who had been previously degraded. It was rarely inflicted, and only in extreme cases. He should vote for the retention of the clause, believing it to be necessary for the discipline of the army that such a power should be given, and believing also that it was never at present unnecessarily exercised. MR. LOCKE said, the punishment ought not to be inflicted on any Englishman. We had secured the Sepoys from corporal punishment, and that punishment ought not to be allowed to remain in our own army. The minority in the House against the punishment had been gadually increasing, and he thought the time had come when it should be abolished. Flogging had been abrogated in England till a few years ago, when it was revived in the case of "garrotters." Ought it, then, to be continued in the case of the soldier ? Thieves were not flogged at home. Ought soldiers to be classed with garrotters? SIR JAMES FERGUSSON said, the punishment of flogging was regarded by every officer in the army with aversion; and was not resorted to except in extreme cases of imperious necessity. No soldier of good character dreaded the punishment; but no good soldier objected to it when it was inflicted on soldiers of the most disreputable character. It was their best protection against the evil doers. He hoped the House would not, by striking out the clause, interfere with the discipline of the army. MR. HADFIELD said, that flogging had been abolished in many of our prisons without detriment to discipline. Mr. Sheppard, the Governor of the Wakefield Prison, had expressed his opinion that corporal punishment had been a failure. The punishment was a revolting one. The same arguments used now were used in favour of flogging in prisons, but the severity of the punishment was mitigated without the discipline of the prison being affected. Flogging was inconsistent with their notions of civilization, and was a soldier to be the only man subjected to this mode of punishment? The opinion of military gentlemen was not to be relied on. They were so accustomed to the punishment they could not make up their minds to forego it. MR. ADDERLEY said, that the late hour of half past one was not the time for entering on the question of corporal punishment, but he wished to express an opinion that the term "barbarous punishment" was only applicable to punishments that failed in their object of reforming the criminal; and such was not the case with flogging in the army. He thought that nonsense enough had been spoken on the subject on the preceding night which had been con 1883 Merchant Shipping Act {COMMONS} (1854) Amendment Bill. 1884 demned by two divisions in Committee. I was well founded. The books supplied to Corporal punishment was still inflicted in soldiers were all authorized by the Council prisons and in public schools. MR. OTWAY said, he had ascertained that flogging was still practised in the Indian army. It had been revived by the late Lord Hardinge. Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill." The Committee divided :-Ayes 56; Noes 17: Majority 39. Clauses 23 to 25 agreed to." MR. P. A. TAYLOR said, he moved the rejection of the clause. It was an infamy and a disgrace to the country. THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON said, that the word "branding" which occurred in the Bill must not be interpreted in the ordinary sense of burning. The men were merely tattooed with indelible ink in order that they might be prevented, after being discharged for gross misconduct from a regiment, from re-enlisting over and over again, to the injury of the army. SIR ROBERT CLIFTON said, that branding was a most painful operation. He hoped some means would be found for superseding an operation that marked and degraded a man for the remainder of his life. of Military Education. He had promised the hon. Member that their contents should be inquired into, but he really could not promise to read them himself. In the first place, if the hon. Member's account of them was correct, they might have a very prejudicial effect upon his own mind; but, in any case, he had no time for the purpose, even though one of them might bear the attractive title of The Red, White, and Blue. House resumed. Bill reported, without Amendment; to be read the third time on Monday next. THAMES NAVIGATION BILL. On Motion of Mr. MILNER GIBSON, Bill for vest ing in the Conservators of the River Thames the conservancy of the Thames and Isis from Staines, in the county of Middlesex, to Cricklade, in the county of Wilts, and also that of Colemouth Creek and part of the Waters of the Medway, in the county of Kent, and for other purposes connected therewith, ordered to be brought in by Mr. MILNER GIBSON and Mr. MONSELL. Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 59.】 RAILWAYS CLAUSES BILL. On Motion of Mr. MILNER GIBSON, Bill for consolidating in one Act provisions applicable to Question put, "That the Clause stand Metropolitan and other Railways, ordered to part of the Bill," The Committee divided :-Ayes 53;| Noes 15 Majority 38. Remaining clauses agreed to. MR. WHALLEY said, that no answer had been returned to the Question which he had addressed to the noble Marquess the Secretary for War. THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON said, he had given the Committee all the information which he possessed on the subject of Fenianism the other night upon the Army Estimates. He had nothing either to contradict or to add to that statement. As to the suspicion entertained by the hon. Member that the Church of Rome had anything to do with the Fenian movement, he certainly possessed no information leading him to the belief that this assumption be brought in by Mr. MILNER GIBSON and Mr. MONSELL. Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 60.] Mr. Adderley |