to that Vote, they would be at liberty to | them going during July and August; discuss such a question as that which so that, although he recognized the had been raised by the hon. Member for Plymouth (Mr. Macliver)-namely, that of the engine-room artificers, and their pay and pensions. MR. PULESTON said, that, whatever was right or wrong in this matter, many of the Dockyard Representatives were absent to-night, on the understanding reiterated by the Prime Minister, that all these matters would be discussed on Vote 2. He respectfully repeated his question whether, on Vote 2, these questions would be ruled out of Order? Because upon the reply to that question would depend his action now. desire of the Prime Minister to give an early day, what with the Parliamentary Elections (Corrupt and Illegal Practices) Bill and other matters, such an opportunity would not arrive until well on in August. By that time the £2,000,000 would be exhausted, and so would the attention of Members, and the Government would be able to take the rest of the money without discussion. Subjects relating to Votes 15 and 16 could not be discussed now; but he asked the Chairman whether, with reference to other subjects not appertaining to those Votes, the arrangement would still continue? THE CHAIRMAN: There was, no doubt, what I must call an understanding MR. CALLAN asked, whether, as a matter of procedure, it was in Order for the Government or the Front Opposition-but that cannot be considered as of Bench, the Chairman having ruled that the question of pensions could be raised only on Vote 15, to make Rules to suit their own convenience, and discuss any matter but that which was before the Committee? SIR JOHN HAY said, he thought the matter before the Committee showed the great inconvenience of the course the Government had taken. The result of taking Votes 15 and 16 had been to entirely overturn the agreement which the Government had made. He was sure the Chairman's ruling commended itself to everyone present. Votes 15 and 16 had been brought before the Committee, and subjects relevant to them must be discussed upon this Vote. No doubt, upon Votes 1 and 2 the whole Naval arrangements had, as a matter of convenience, been discussed; but if, by arrangements which were excessively inconvenient, two Votes were taken without discussion to enable the Government to obtain £2,000,000, it was evident that none of the subjects appertaining to Votes 15 and 16 could be again discussed on Vote 2, in anticipation of Votes 15 and 16, which had already been discussed. The breaking of the arrangement which had been come to with the House did not rest with the regulations of the Committee, which they must all adhere to. It rested with the Government, who had come down and, in anticipation of the necessities of the Service, had appropriated £2,000,000 to be devoted to paying pensions and shipbuilding which were in arrear. That would keep Captain Price the importance of the Rules of the House-that on Vote 2 a general discussion was to be permitted; but, in the meanwhile, this question has been raised by the hon. Member on the Vote to which it strictly applies; and, therefore, it would not be proper, in my judgment, to relegate it to a Vote to which it has no relevance. I should consider that I was carrying out the Rules of the House, and of the Committee, if I gave a general effect to that understanding, which was accepted. It seems to me to be the general wish that there should be some discussion on Vote 2, somewhat of the nature of the discussion on Vote 1; but, clearly, it would not extend to matters which had been brought forward in their proper order. MR. W. H. SMITH said, he thought there was a little misunderstanding upon this question. The hon. Member for Cardiff (Sir Edward J. Reed) had referred to certain Orders or Circulars with regard to engineers and artificers, and the period at which they would be entitled to pensions. It appeared to him that the conditions under which engineers and artificers and other servants of the Crown might apply for pensions, were conditions which might properly be discussed on a Vote which concerned such distinct employment. This Vote was understood to apply to the payment not by way of food, but by making provision for those public servants; and the conditions under which they would cease to receive payment directly, and become eligible for pensions, clearly entered into the terms of their engage. who were now responsible for the conduct of Her Majesty's Navy. Although he regretted that there should be so large a charge for the Non-Effective Service, he was afraid that was part of the conditions of the engagements into which they had entered with these men; and that if they were to do away with the system of pensions now in operation, they would have enormously to increase their rates of pay. These were provisions which offered very small rewards for zeal, and intelligence, and education, and devotion to the Service; and it was quite certain that if men were exposed to the chance of being dismissed from employment to which they had devoted themselves, at the age of 35 or 40 years, there would be greater difficulty, in the first instance, in finding men, and, next, it would be necessary to very largely increase the pay; and even then he doubted whether the country would be as well served as it was at the present time. With regard to the conditions under which the blue-jackets entered the Service, he was glad to find than an endeavour was to be made to extend the period when they would be entitled to pensions. He believed that the Service would be greatly benefited by that postponement in every way. The bluejackets would acquire a greater respon ment. He, therefore, submitted that it would be proper that the Circulars should be discussed when Vote 2 came on again; and he concurred with his hon. Friend that there was considerable inconvenience in interrupting a discussion of this character by another Vote, such as that presented to-night. He was sure the Secretary to the Admiralty would admit that it was not desirable to have this interposition; and it would be much better that on another occasion they should be allowed to proceed regularly with the Estimates, and go through with a discussion that had been begun, because great loss of time and inconvenience resulted from this interruption. The hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. Illingworth) appeared to think that the Navy was vastly over-officered, and that the effect was to greatly increase the charge on the public purse for the Navy, in excess of what was necessary for the Public Service; but if the hon. Member should some day be called upon to perform some of the duties in relation to the Navy-as he hoped he some day would be-he would form a very different view upon this question. He himself believed there was no excess of officers in the Navy whatever; and he said this after carefully considering the matter with the greatest possible desire to effect eco-sibility, and would thus improve the nomies in the administration of the Public Service. He was convinced there could be no greater inconvenience than that there should be any excess of any expenditure which could be avoided; but with the advance of science, and with the increased demand for engines, there was much greater employment and necessity for younger officers in the Navy. Where in old days three lieutenants were required in a ship, there was now ample work and necessity for four or five. These officers had to be employed in their younger days, and some provision must be made for them afterwards. They could not be turned adrift after 10 or 15 years' service, to make their way in the world as best they could. There was no excess of officers at present; and if, unfortunately, they found themselves bound to go to war, there would be some difficulty in finding a sufficient number of qualified officers for the ships they would have to put into active service; and he was sure his opinion would be confirmed by those Service; it would lessen the charges for the Service, and there might be economy in giving higher pensions after 25 years' service, instead of after 20 years' service, as at present. The effect on the lower deck men would tend greatly to the improvement of the discipline and tone of the ships. He regretted that hon. Members, who had not any personal knowledge of the Service, had spoken, as they sometimes had, of officers who deserved all credit, and the most complete confidence of the country; for he was sure that anyone who had any knowledge of the sacrifices these men made could thoroughly appreciate the extent of the demands of the Service upon these officers in times of emergency and difficulty. MR. ÖNSLOW wished to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty what he meant by saying that he was a convert against the system of pensions? In this Vote there were pensions to officers for good and meritorious services; pensions for conspicuous bravery by engineers and MR. PULESTON said, that was all he wanted to know. MR. CAMPBELL warrant officers; pensions for the widows of naval officers; and gratuities for seamen and marines. Would the hon. Gentleman like to qualify the statement he had made? How far would he go to abolish these pensions? The Secretary of State for War had gone so far as to say that pensions must be increased in the Army. Did the hon. Gentleman intend to do away with pensions in the Navy altogether, or to increase the existing pensions? He thought every officer in the Navy would wish to have some explanation of the statement; and it was due to the Committee that the hon. Gentleman should give some explanation. MR. CAMPBELL - BANNERMAN said, his explanation was that he had not made such a statement. He had explicitly said that nothing that was done with regard to pensions would affect anyone now in the Navy. With respect to the question of the hon. and gallant Member for Devonport (Captain Price) as to petty officers, that matter was now under consideration, and the Admiralty were endeavouring to arrive at a satisfactory conclusion upon it. The samo thing might be said with regard to the question of engine-room artificers. A complete answer had not been received to the Circular which had been issued; but if the proposal was ultimately found insufficient for its purpose, they would be ready to consider further what should be done. MR. PULESTON said, with regard to the hon. Gentleman's statement that he could not give a further answer as to the Circular, under the ruling of the Chairman the matter could not be brought up again; and he, therefore, would move that Progress be reported. Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."(Mr. Puleston.) BANNERMAN said, with regard to the engine-room artificers, their pension was only one point in their case, and, as the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. W. H. Smith) had pointed out, it really turned mainly upon the conditions governing their arrival at a pensionable period. It might probably be discussed on Vote 2, and he hoped the hon. Member would be satisfied with that. THE CHAIRMAN: My duty is to carry out the Rules of the House, and there can be no question of what those Rules are in relation to this matter. The question now raised cannot, in my opinion, be referred to on Vote 2. That would be out of Order, were it not that there was a general understanding on the part of hon. Members that when Vote 2 came on I should not interpose. In the meantime, however, the question now raised by the hon. Member has been raised in its proper place, and has been discussed, and it would, therefore, be improper to remove it from that place in order to discuss it on a Vote to which it has no relevancy. SIR EDWARD J. REED said, that, if he rightly understood the Chairman, he meant to say that, so far as the pen. sions of the engine-room artificers were concerned, that question could not be raised again, but that the question of the pay of these people could be discussed again on Vote 2. Was that what the right hon. Gentleman had said? As to the unfair manner in which his hon. Friend the Member for Bradford (Mr. Illingworth) had been referred to, he wished to say this. It had been suggested that his hon. Friend had said something derogatory to some of the officers of Her Majesty's Navy. MR. R. N. FOWLER rose to Order. He believed the Motion before the Committee was that the Chairman do report Progress. THE CHAIRMAN: Under the New Rules the hon. Gentleman must confine himself to the Question before the Committee MR. A. J. BALFOUR wished the Chairman to give the Committee some assistance in this matter. It was plain, from what had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. W. H. Smith), that he had misunderstood the question. If they passed this Vote, this matter could | the beginning of August. They could not be raised again; therefore, the pass- not call the beginning of August an ing of the Vote finally closed the discus-"early day." sion, and it would appear that the pledge given by the Prime Minister to the Committee would not be fulfillednamely, that the whole question of Naval affairs could be discussed on Vote 2. In consequence of the right hon. Gentleman's pledge many hon. Members who were connected with the Dockyards were not now present to take part in the debate. The Government had, unintentionally, no doubt, got themselves and the Committee into this difficulty, and it would be only fair that they should see themselves and the Committee out of it. He would suggest, therefore, the propriety of postponing the Vote. MR. CAMPBELL - BANNERMAN said, he did not know whether the hon. Gentleman understood it, but only a small part of the case was affected by the consideration about which they had heard so much-namely, the question of the engine-room artificers' pensions. It was only the question of pensions which came under this Vote, and the whole of the rest of the case of the engine-room artificers could be discussed on Vote 2. The Question before the Committee was really whether they should go out of their way, by reporting Progress, to put off the Vote, when really only a small part, even of the case of the engine-room artificers, was involved. SIR JOHN HAY said, that if the Government would agree to a proposal he had to make, probably the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Puleston) would withdraw his Motion for reporting Progress. The Government had already obtained Vote 15, and if they would consent to take only the 1st section of Vote 16 they would have £1,500,000, which would be sufficient money to carry them on until the early part of August, and the Vote would be kept open for the subject which hon. Members interested in Dockyards wished to discuss. MR. W. H. SMITH said, it was never understood that any part of this Vote should be postponed until the early part of August. The Prime Minister had promised that an early day should be given for the discussion of this Vote; and it would not be in accordance with that understanding if these Estimates were postponed at the end of June until MR. GLADSTONE said, the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. W. H. Smith) was perfectly right in what he had said. The intention of the Government had certainly not been that this Vote should be taken so late as August, but that it should come on some day in July. It appeared to him that in a particular instance where a certain point had been discussed, as he understood had been the case with the subject of these pensions, it could hardly be supposed that the granting of an interval between the first and second part of the Vote was a question which fell within the spirit of the undertaking of the Government, any more than he understood from the Chairman it fell within the Rules of the Committee. SIR JOHN HAY said, that certain Members had believed that the general discussion would take place on Vote 2, and they were anxious to discuss, not the general, but a particular question. This particular subject rose on Vote 16. The right hon. Gentleman who presided over the Committee had ruled that this particular question could not be discussed on Vote 2. The Vote in which it occurred happened to be divided into two parts, and the first part of it had been put by the Chairman, and included a large sum for the expenses of the Navy in addition to the amount already granted. The proposal he made, which was to take the first half of the Vote now, and to leave the second upon which hon. Members wished to raise a specific question, was perfectly legitimate. Hon. Members were not present to raise this specific question in consequence of the pledges of the Government. CAPTAIN PRICE said, that the Prime Minister, in the few observations he had delivered, had given them a good reason why Progress should now be reported, and he did not think that anything which had been said had removed that reason. If the Prime Minister were even to give them a day for the discussion of the Navy Estimates they would be estopped from considering this subject of pensions now, or, at any other time this Session. Hon. Members had been in possession of the field the other day in discussing Vote 2. Under that Vote they could discuss the pensions of all Her Majesty's servants connected with | Committee. It had been suggested that the Navy; but now, if they passed this if an adjournment were granted the disVote, or part of it, they would be cussion on a subsequent occasion would estopped from discussing the question not be prolonged. To this no one had which they wish to discuss. objected, and he supposed he might take it that silence gave consent. On this understanding he would accede to the wish of a large number of Members. THE CHAIRMAN: I observe in Section 2 there is a Vote taken for artificers, and if that section is not now put, I presume the discussion could be taken on it. MR. CAMPBELL BANNERMAN said, the engine-room artificers' pensions only appeared in part 1. CAPTAIN PRICE said, there was a large question as to pensions to be gone into. MR. PULESTON thought it was a mistake for any hon. Gentleman to suppose that the question of pensions was a small one. MR. RAIKES could not help asking the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he would not be economizing time by accepting the Motion for reporting Progress? It was clear the question hon. Members wished to discuss could not be raised on Vote 2. Was there, therefore, anything to be gained by endeavouring to divide Vote 2 into two sections? Question put. The Committee divided:-Ayes 47; Noes 74 Majority 27.-(Div. List, No. 154.) Resolutions to be reported To-morrow. Committee also report Progress; to sit again To-morrow. SALE OF LIQUORS ON SUNDAY SECOND READING. BILL 130.] Adjourned Debate on Second Reading [11th June]. That the Debate be adjourned to Motion made, and Question proposed, Monday."-(Mr. Trevelyan.) MR. ONSLOW said, before the Bill was postponed he would like to ask whether it was to be put down as the second Order of the Day or not? It appeared quite unexpectedly as the second Order to-day. He would like to know exactly when it was intended to proceed with the Bill. Was it to be put down pro forma for Monday, or did the Government intend really to proceed with it. then? MR. TREVELYAN said, the Parliamentary Elections (Corrupt and Illegal Practices) Bill would be the first Order of the Day, and this Bill the second. Motion agreed to. Adjourned Debate further adjourned till Monday next. Original Question again proposed. MR. W. H. SMITH said, he would venture to ask the Prime Minister to allow Progress to be reported now. It seemed to him that time would be saved by adopting this course, and that there would only be a small amount of discussion on the matter when it came before the Committee again. Undoubtedly, if the Vote were pressed on now, it would involve a great waste of time. A sufficient sum of money had been granted for the Public Service which would pre- (Mr. vent any inconvenience whatever being experienced during the interval. MR. GLADSTONE said, he could not accede to reporting Progress upon the plea of the right hon. Gentleman, that some hon. Members were not present owing to their not having been aware that the subject was coming on for discussion. However, although the Government could not appreciate the reason given why Progress should be reported, they owed some consideration to the Captain Price FRIENDLY SOCIETIES (NOMINA TIONS) BILL. [BILL 228.] CONSIDERATION. Order for Consideration, as amended, read. That the Bill, as amended, be now conMotion made, and Question proposed, sidered."-(Mr. Stuart-Wortley.) MR. WHITLEY said, he hoped his hon. and learned Friend would not press this Bill now. It was a Bill that contained some details of a serious charac |