rudder, or it may be a defect in construction; but, whatever the cause, if other vessels of that class were built the defect ought to be remedied. MR. CHILDERS said, that as to the result of the introduction of compound engines he could not speak positively; but he must point out that there was a difference between merchant ships and vessels of war, and that difference led to a difficulty which the skill of constructors would probably overcome. Last year the Admiralty entered into contracts for two pairs of engines on that plan, and at no distant date he should be able to say to what extent they were satisfactory. His own impression was in favour of the system, which he knew had been very successful in merchant ships. As to the three vessels which the hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. Graves) had mentioned, it was true that the Vanguard had shown qualities superior to the other two; but the trials of those ships were still proceeding, and he, therefore, would not prejudge the official Report which should be presented to the House. As to the balance rudder, considerable difficulty had been experienced in steering with it, especially when under canvas; but he could not call it a failure, as it was in some respects a decided success, and as far as his experience had gone he did not feel at all disappointed. The hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Samuda) had set him a problem which, he confessed, he despaired of solving. He was to save more money, and to reduce the building in the dockyards; but he had been wrong in closing Deptford and Woolwich, and he ought not to have discharged so many men. For his part, he utterly despaired of reconciling these objections. With respect to the proportion of shipbuilding to be done in the dockyards and that to be given to private contractors, he thought he had last year laid down a fair plan of adjustment, not off-hand, but after much consideration. He proposed to expend £184,000 this year on ships built by contract, and £200,000 next year, and he would abide by the decision arrived at last year until he was convinced to the contrary. SIR JOHN HAY said, that he desired some information as to the course the Admiralty intended to pursue with regard to further experiments in the use of VOL. CCI. [THIRD SERIES.] hydraulic propulsion. He thought that all the experiments had shown it to be very satisfactory, and he thought that that invention would certainly be extensively adopted in future. It was free from many of the objections which might be urged against screw propulsion. It was under the eye of those in command, and had not the liability to fouling to which the screw was liable. It left the action of the rudder unimpeded when the ship was not under steam, and gave facilities for stopping, turning, and steering, which no other propeller possessed. The only doubt seemed whether it could give the highest velocities; yet the experiments in the Nautilus seemed to show that it could, and the Waterwitch was quite as successful as the Vixen and Viper with the single and twin screw respectively. He thought it a pity that the Admiralty had not caused one of their new ships to be fitted with it, and thus lead the way and show the great advantage of this system, both to the Navy and the Commercial Marine. SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONE read a passage from the letters of The Times' correspondent, who accompanied the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty last year upon his cruise, stating that upon one occasion, in wearing round, the Hercules for more than half-an-hour refused to answer her helm, while the Monarch, in like manner, refused to stay; and said that this occurrence in the case of the two ships was to be explained by the fact of their having adopted that greatest absurdity in naval art, the balance rudder. This description of rudder was acted upon in two different fashions by the water, the result being to "put the ship in irons." And the only way in which the defects thus arising could be cured was by cutting off the upper or balance portion of the rudder, and turning it back again into one of the original pattern. warmly approved the class of engines referred to by the hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. Graves), and gave to the House his personal experience of a recent voyage from India on board a vessel fitted with these engines. If the Admiralty would only make patent coal for themselves, instead of squabbling with Members representing the different coal ports, they would save a great deal both of time and money. Good stokers, however, were indispensable to the suc 3 L He cess of such a scheme, and the right hon. Gentleman had discharged all the trained stokers and taken men from the shore, who nominally received less wages, but cost the country vastly more through waste of material. It was deeply to be regretted that the Admiralty had not taken up the hydraulic propeller and given it a fair trial. That appliance, originally invented by a Scotch mechanic in Ayrshire, was adopted and supported by Lord John Scott with, the hope of facilitating the towing of fishing boats, and thus of saving life among those engaged in the Scotch fisheries. After his death, however, the invention languished until taken up by Admiral Elliot, who, by persevering effort and considerable expenditure out of his own pocket, at length induced the Admiralty to give it a trial. But, as the invention was not one to which the Department could lay any claim, it was tried on a vessel not sea-going and essentially unseaworthy, and then apparently thrown aside. He was perfectly convinced that the hydraulic principle would supersede every other. MR. CHILDERS said, if anyone was to blame for not carrying the hydraulic principle further it was not the present Board of Admiralty. He was not, however, disposed to throw cold water upon experiments which, if successful, would be of considerable advantage; but he could not at that time give any distinct pledge upon the subject. &c. Vote agreed to. Chatham Dockyard was a very serious one, it would be more satisfactory that nothing should be at present undertaken beyond the completion of the docks and the two basins which it was proposed to construct. CAPTAIN STANLEY concurred in the remarks of the hon. Member, and said he was glad to hear the First Lord of the Admiralty intended to lay the correspondence on the Table. He desired some further information with respect to the employment of convict labour provided for in the Vote. MR. CHILDERS said, he would lay upon the Table of the House everything that he could which could furnish information upon the subject of this Vote. He trusted to be able to restrict the works in the manner suggested by his hon. Friend the Member for Kendal; but he could not at that moment give any more distinct pledge upon that subject. MR. SAMUDA trusted that if it was proposed to spend more money than was now contemplated, his right hon. Friend would first obtain the sanction of Parliament to such expenditure. SIR JOHN HAY referred to the Act of Parliament for the purpose of showing that his hon. Friend (Captain Stanley) was perfectly correct in his description of it. The sum stated was £1,190,000 for the completion of the works specified. One dock had been taken off the hands of the contractors, and all the money was spent, while the House was pledged to £490,000 more. MR. CHILDERS said, that the Act (3.) £744,232, New Works, Buildings, did not prescribe the total expense, but MR. CHILDERS observed that as he was desirous to reciprocate the confidence displayed by the House in the Vote recorded before dinner that day, it was his intention to lay upon the Table the whole of the correspondence between the Admiralty and the Director of Works and the contractors with reference to the contracts for the Chatham and Portsmouth Extensions since these contracts were made. He would, therefore, take care to put the House in possession of all the documents and Papers relating to the subject. MR. WHITWELL said, he was quite prepared to place confidence in the right hon. Gentleman, and had exhibited that disposition by his vote that day; but as the question of the extension of the Sir James Elphinstone only limited the amount for which Parliament would be liable under a contract spread over a series of years. If this was exceeded, the contractor would have to take his chance of the approval of Parliament. In the original Papers laid before Parliament, the chances of the large sums now likely to be required being incurred were distinctly stated. He (Mr. Childers), however, would take care that the Vote for Chatham Extension was not exceeded this year. MR. SAMUDA said, there was one other subject to which he wished to direct attention. The sum stated did not include machinery. Now, he found on his table a catalogue of an enormous quantity of machinery, of recent construction, which was about to be sold at Woolwich, probably for little more than MR. CHILDERS said, the greatest possible pains had been taken, with reference to that machinery, to see whether any portion of it could not be used at Chatham, or elsewhere. the price of old iron. Now, what he contemplated by Act of Parliament, and wished to know was whether that ma- it was very desirable to add to the revechinery might not be made available nue of Greenwich Hospital a sum of elsewhere? £7,000 a year, which was the result of the change of security. The second question put by his hon. Friend was whether he had communicated with the Chancellor of the Exchequer. In answer to that he had to say he was aware of the arrangement made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and he must at once admit, that it might have been better if the purchases had been made a few days sooner; but the market was, in fact, not in the least affected. Vote agreed to. MR. CHILDERS said, he would pass over Votes 12 and 17, in order to take the Greenwich Vote, on which his hon. Friend opposite (Mr. T. Baring) wished to make some observations. (4.) £133,996, Greenwich Hospital and School. SIR JOHN HAY said, he had listened with some attention to the reply of the right hon. Gentleman to his hon. Friend MR. T. BARING said, he wished to the Member for Huntingdon. He conknow under what authority a sum of fessed he did not think that he replied £500,000 stock had been sold in De- in a satisfactory manner to his hon. cember last, and invested in Indian Friend. He was for some time a memsecurities? Was there any distinct au- ber of the Royal Commission, and therethority given by any Act of Parliament fore saw with some surprise the financial to enable the First Lord of the Admi- arrangement now under discussion. The ralty for the time being to make a revenues of Greenwich Hospital were change in the security; and if the change derived principally from land and from was made to Indian securities, were they about £2,000,000 invested in the ordiconsidered of equal responsibility with nary public debt of the country. The the British funds? There was another Act to which the right hon. Gentleman question-whether, in making that sale alluded, no doubt, authorized him to inof £500,000, thus transferred into these vest the accumulations in the securities Indian securities, the right hon. Gentle- of Indian Railways or other stocks guaman had communicated with the Chan-ranteed by England; but he could not becellor of the Exchequer, who, on the same day, had £7,000,000 of stock to dispose of? Certainly no intimation had been given to the public of this financial operation. He put these questions without at all intending to call in question the conduct of the right hon. Gentleman; but he thought it desirable to know the principles on which he had acted. MR. CHILDERS said, he had much pleasure in answering the questions of his hon. Friend, and he did not hesitate to say there was no Member of the House who was more entitled to ask them. The Admiralty was distinctly empowered by the Act of 1865 to invest in or transfer to the special securities mentioned in the Act-that is, stocks, funds, and securities payable by way of guarantee or out of the Revenues of the United Kingdom or India. Part of the Greenwich funds were vested in mortgage, partly in the Three per Cents, and partly in the Guaranteed Five per Cent Fund payable out of the Revenue of India. The change of security was distinctly lieve it was ever contemplated that large quantities of stock were to be sold at the pleasure of the Minister, and transfers effected such as those shown by the Return he held in his hand. It appeared from that Return that nearly £600,000 Three per Cents and other cognate securities the exact sum was £591,568— was sold at a price a little over 92, producing £544,484, and this, again, was invested in £500,000 Indian Railway Stocks, thus diminishing the capital by a sixth or £91,000. It was true that the revenue has been increased by above £7,000 a year; but that, of course, represented diminished security, and he could not believe that it was statesmanlike to raise the revenues of Greenwich Hospital by such a process. If Greenwich required £7,000 extra, he was sure it would have been wiser to have obtained it by a Vote of that House rather than by a transaction which was, in his opinion, questionable and unprecedented. Vote agreed to. Resolutions to be reported upon Thurs- | Whether any, and if any, what steps day 9th June; have been taken to carry out the provisions of Section 16 of the Charitable Trusts Act, 1869 ? Committee to sit again upon Thursday 9th June. House adjourned at a quarter after HOUSE OF COMMONS, Thursday, 9th June, 1870. MINUTES.]-NEW MEMBER SWORN-Viscount MATES. Resolutions-NAVY ESTIMATES [May 31] reported. PUBLIC BILLS-Ordered-First Reading-Protection of Inventions* [157]. Second Reading-Jewish United Synagogues MR. STANSFELD replied, that under the section referred to by the hon. Member, the Charity Commissioners were to frame a scale of fees to be submitted to the Treasury for approval. That had been done, and the scheme was now under the consideration of the Treasury. CONSTITUTION OF GREECE. QUESTION. MR. MONK said, he wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether there is any objection to lay upon the Table of the House, Copies of any Despatches which have been received at the Foreign Office since the year 1861, from Her Majesty's Representatives at the Court of Athens, and from the Courts of France and Committee Report Customs and Inland Re-Russia, pointing out how ill-suited the venue [133-156]. WASTES OF MANOR IN WALES. QUESTION. existing Constitution is to the Greek Nation? MR. OTWAY said, in reply, that some communications of the nature referred to by his hon. Friend had reached the Foreign Office; but they were, however, of a confidential character, and the Government thought that they ought not to be laid before Parliament. MR. WALSH said, he wished to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether it is the practice of the Commissioners of Woods and Forests to permit encroachments to be made in those wastes of manor in Wales of which the Crown is Lord, on condition that the encroachers pay either the estimated value at once or an annual rent calculated at 5 per cent on the estimated value; and, whe-wished to ask the Under Secretary of ther, if this is the case, he will take any steps to put a stop to a practice so unfair to the rest of the commoners? MR. STANSFELD replied, that encroachments not unfrequently occurred upon those wastes of manor in Wales of which the Crown was Lord, and when they took place it was the practice of the Commissioners of Woods and Forests to require the encroachers to recognize the title of the Crown either by paying a rent or purchasing its rights; but in the case of purchase the conveyance of the rights of the Crown reserved the rights of the commoners. CHARITABLE TRUSTS ACT (1869). MR. A. JOHNSTON said, he wished to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, Sir John Hay INDIA-EAST INDIA COMPANY. MR. HAVILAND-BURKE said, he State for India, Whether there is any objection to lay upon the Table of the House a Copy of a Letter from the Court of Directors of the East India Company, dated the 17th May, 1766, and referring to the duties of the Dewanny, of the Provinces of Bengal, Behar, and Orissa; and also a Copy of the Letter from the Governor of Calcutta to the Court of Directors to which the above Letter was a reply? MR. GRANT DUFF replied, that there was no objection to lay the Papers on the Table. APPOINTMENT OF MR. LOWRY. QUESTION. MR. WEST said, he wished to ask, Whether the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster or Her Majesty's Govern MR. BRUCE said, in reply, that he had no information of any such memorial. CUSTOMS AND INLAND REVENUE BILL. [BILL 133.] COMMITTEE. Order for Committee read. ment are parties to any arrangement by tion Inquiry, and whether the matter is which the object of the Amendment of still under consideration? the hon. Member for Salford (Mr. Charley), respecting the appointment of Mr. Lowry, would be amicably attained? THE SOLICITOR GENERAL said, in reply, that his noble Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster had placed in his hands the Papers relating to the appointment of Mr. Lowry; and on the evening when the Amendment of the hon. Member for Salford (Mr. Charley) was to have come on, he had been in his place to give an explanation; but when the House was about to divide on the Banda and Kirwee Prize Money question, he went out, not wishing to take any part in that Division, because he had given an opinion on the question. The next day he was surprised to find it reported that in withdrawing his Motion the hon. Member for Salford stated he did so in consequence of his having reason to believe that the object he had in view would be amicably attained. Only half-an-hour before the hon. Gentleman withdrew his Amendment, he (the Solicitor General) told him that the Government had a complete answer to the case he proposed to put forward, that he was ready to meet the Motion, and that the hon. Gentleman might take his own He believed that between Gentlemen such a communication was generally understood as an intimation that there would be no compromise. He was much surprised, therefore, when he read what the hon. Member was reported to have said about an amicable arrange course. ment. MR. CHARLEY said, that when announcing his intention not to press his Amendment, he gave as a reason for not pressing it the hope he entertained that an amicable arrangement would be arrived at. That hope had not arisen from anything which had passed between the hon. and learned Solicitor General and himself, but from a conversation which he had had with other Members of that House. BRIDGWATER ELECTION COMMIS SIONERS.-QUESTION. MR. J. LOWTHER said, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether any Memorial has been presented to the Home Office relating to the case of Mr. Fenelly, in connection with the Bridgwater Elec Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."-(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.) MR. CRAWFORD said, he rose to bring forward the Motion of which he had given Notice. He must confess to a feeling of disappointment, which was shared in by other Gentlemen, that a discussion on this somewhat dry subject had not been obviated by some concession on the part of the Government. He regretted that the Government had not proposed a more liberal course of procedure than that which had been indicated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and he might add, that in making this Motion he had no other desire than that justice should be done to a considerable body of persons who were largely interested in the commerce of the country. The question between his right hon. Friend and those on whose behalf he was now speaking could not be put more succinctly than it had been in one of the public journals. The article to which he alluded put it that the price of sugar having been artificially enhanced by the imposition of certain duties in the interest of the public, it was now proposed to reduce those duties in the same interest; but the burden of the loss was to fall not on the public for whose benefit the reduction was to be made, but on the merchants who held sugar at a particular date. It would be his duty to endeavour to show that the course which he asked the House to take was in strict accordance with precedent, and that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer was now claiming an exemption on behalf of the State which was opposed to the policy he had himself enunciated on many former occasions. In 1845 there was a considerable reduction in the duty on glass, and an allowance was made to the manufacturers and dealers in respect of their stocks. In 1860 the duty on wine was reduced from 58. 6d. to 28. 9d., and dealers were allowed a drawback of 2s. 9d. a gallon |