§ (In the Committee.)
§
(1.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £109,194, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Expenses of the several Scientific Departments of the Navy, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1877.
§ MR. RYLANDS, in rising to move the reduction of the Vote by the sum of £2,000, said, that when in 1872 he gave his support to the changes in Greenwich Hospital, he should have felt some 457 hesitation had he foreseen the expenses they were now asked to vote. In alluding to the different items of expenditure he called attention to the office of President. This was held by a gentleman—a vice admiral—who, in addition to his half-pay of £600, received a salary of £1,600 a-year, together with residence, fuel, and gas. That was nearly double the amount paid to the Astronomer Royal. Next to the President came an official—a retired captain of the Royal Navy, who, with his half-pay, received an income of £800. Below these came the Director of Studies with £1,200 a-year: so that these three gentlemen received together £4,200, which seemed to him a large amount for the executive of the administration of a College of that character. Following these, there came a very large Staff, at high salaries, and the general expenditure, which amounted to £13,291,he considered exceptionally large, when it was remembered there were only 231 students at the College. Upon this number there were 110 servants to wait, and the gas bill was £3,000, or more than for Devonport Dockyard, including Keyham, and in various other items there was proof of an extravagant management. If we came to ask what we got in return for all that he was sure the answer would not be satisfactory. We expected an intellectual and scientific education, together with that technical training that would be required in the duties these young gentlemen would afterwards be called upon to perform. So far from that being carried out, he was given to understand—and he believed his information was reliable—that these young students lived in a most extravagant style, and their training was not such as would be likely to fit them for the habits and pursuits that awaited them on shipboard. He found from reports of recent examinations that out of 11 students eight of the number were plucked. Such a result was not very satistactory to the educational Staff, for he found it was not so much owing to want of ability as from want of attention to those branches of study in which they were examined. His attention had been called to a paragraph in The Army and Navy Gazette of April 27th in reference to the College, in which it was mentioned that the students gave a performance in the gymnasium, which was attended by a 458 distinguished audience, and met with much success. The pieces selected were The Ladies' Battle and Raising the Wind, and the performance was stated to have been equal to any that could be witnessed at the metropolitan theatres. It was clear, therefore, among the number there must be some who could give attention to some branches of study. There was one of the pieces selected with great judgment. He thought, considering the training and experience they were going through, "raising the wind" was a performance which might not be unnecessary. His objection to the Vote was not on the ground that a Vote of the kind was not necessary; but his object was to call attention to the subject, for he felt sure that the expenditure required examination, and while he was anxious for efficiency with economy, he objected to inefficiency and extravagance, believing the two often went together. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving the reduction of the Vote.
§
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That the Sub-head, £38,051, Royal Naval College, Greenwich, be reduced by the sum of £2,000."—(Mr. Rylands.)
§ SIR MASSEY LOPESsaid, he had anticipated, when he heard of the Amendment, that the hon. Gentleman was going to bring forward a real grievance; but the hon. Gentleman must know, that to secure the efficient working of such an institution, great expenses were necessary. He must be aware that the expenses of all the officers he had referred to were fixed when the College was first established. The only increase since had been in the wages of servants, and that he was prepared to justify. The late President of the College complained that the allowance of 8d. a-day for boys was not enough to enable him to secure a good class, and so inefficient were they that 58 out of 69 had been discharged. Since then the Admiralty having raised the pay from 8d. to 1s., on the recommendation of the President, the result was, that they were now able to obtain the services of a better class of boys, and the complaints at present did not amount to one-half what they were formerly. When the hon. Member put his Motion on the Paper, he (Sir Massey Lopes) thought he was referring to the sum of £2,000, which was the amount 459 taken for gas. That no doubt was a large sum, but it had been caused by the necessity of keeping gas lighted in the rooms occupied by the sub-lieutenants, which had been found to be so damp, that many of those officers were laid up by rheumatism and other affections. He maintained that the College was not conducted in an extravagant or wasteful manner. The object in establishing it was to give our naval officers a very high scientific education, and to do that they must be provided with the best instructors and all the necessary facilities for acquiring the requisite knowledge.
§ MR. GOSCHENwished to remind hon. Members that they must not look upon this College simply as a training institution. His hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) spoke as if the young men educated in the College were a set of midshipmen who had not been at sea. Now this establishment, though partly designed for the training of young officers, was a great scientific institution for engineers, shipwrights, and scientific men connected with the training of the Navy. They had rendered necessary a considerable expenditure in laboratories and chemical apparatus; in fact, all the appliances were provided which they used to enjoy at South Kensington. The Vote ought not, therefore, to be scrutinized too closely, and he hoped his hon. Friend would not press the Amendment.
§ MR. HANBURY-TRACYtrusted that nothing would be done to limit the resources of the Naval College. On the contrary, he would suggest that the right hon. Gentleman should rather endeavour to increase its efficiency. He regretted that the number of senior officers was so small, but one reason was that when they were married they could not afford to go to the College and keep up an establishment elsewhere. It might be desirable therefore to give increased pay so that officers desiring it might be enabled to go to the College. If the increased pay were given, it should be on condition of their passing in a certain standard at examination. The sum charged for gas at the College—£2,000 a-year—seemed very large, as also did the charge of £1,500 a-year for police.
MR. BRUCEdrew attention to the fact that the College had only to pay 460 £100 for buildings to the Hospital, though they were worth far more than that per year.
§ MR. WHITWELLsuggested there should be a little more detail in the various items. There was an item of £632 for scholarships and competitions, and he should like to know how that amount was appropriated.
§ MR. CHILDERSsaid, that the Greenwich Hospital Act did not require rent being paid; and it was perhaps unfortunate that any nominal payment in in the nature of rent should be made, as it would be followed by a claim for far more. The Greenwich Hospital Fund was not in the nature of an ordinary charity, nine-tenths of it having really been created by public charges. If the fund required additional charges on it in order to give increased inducements to men to enter the Navy, he would be the last to object; but this should be done on public grounds. If the reason was merely technical, of course the Admiralty were the best judges. He was also desirous to ask for explanation as to the heavy charge for police. As to the vote generally he was inclined to think that it would not bear much greater increase, for in time of peace it was necessary to set aside at least £10,000 a-year to augment the capital, and this certainly was not being done at present.
§ MR. HUNTsaid, that the £100 a-year was a mere acknowledgment, in the nature of a peppercorn rent, and that the buildings were not Admiralty property. Although there was an increase for the pay of police in the Vote there was a reduction under that in another.
CAPTAIN PRICEasked how it was that as much as £1,800 a-year was required for clerks at the College?
§ MR. BENTINCKasked for information with reference to the system of examinations at the College, observing that he had heard they were of so abstruse a character that several officers had, after many years' service, been discharged because they could not answer questions on subjects with which it was not deemed necessary to be acquainted when they entered the Profession. It had also been mentioned to him that no fewer than eight young officers had been 461 dismissed within a short time for a similar reason.
§ MR. HUNTrepeated what he had said on a previous occasion—that any officer of ordinary abilities and industry who went to Greenwich College might pass the examinations which he was there required to undergo, and that much good rather than the contrary was done to the service by weeding it of men who showed that they took very little interest in it by not attending to their studies. The only reason why gentlemen did not pass it was because they would not study.
§ MR. GOSCHENalso was of opinion that it was of the utmost advantage to the profession that a proper standard of examination should be maintained at the College, and that those who went there should not regard it as a place at which they might spend a short time pleasantly. He therefore hoped the right hon. Gentleman would not give way in the matter.
§ MR. ANDERSONpointed out that the salaries paid to Professors who taught the abstract and abstruse sciences were as high as £600 or £700 a-year, while those paid to the teachers of naval architecture and marine engineering, two most important and practical subjects, were only £147 or £180 a-year.
§ MR. HUNTsaid, he supposed the only reason why this was the case was that teachers could be got for these salaries. He agreed with his right hon. Friend (Mr. Childers) that the cost of the College should be carefully looked after in detail, and the suggestions of the hon. Member for Glasgow were worth consideration. He thought that probably the appointment of a small Select Committee of practical men would be the best course to take, with the view of pruning down any redundancies, or making good any deficiencies. Such an inquiry would not occupy very long, and he would, he hoped, by next Session, be able to submit a scheme of management free from the objections which had been urged by various hon. Members that night.
§ MR. RYLANDSsaid, he heard that announcement with great satisfaction. The appointment of such a Committee would be most desirable, and he would suggest that a Report should be annually laid on the Table of the House as to the work done in the College. He 462 should be glad to withdraw his Amendment for the reduction of the Vote.
§ Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
§ MR. SHAW LEFEVREasked what was to be done with the Challenger collection? It was reported to have been sent to Edinburgh. He hoped the interests of the British Museum in respect to it would not be overlooked.
§ MR. HUNTsaid, that the head of the scientific staff on board the Challenger was an Edinburgh Professor, and as the collection which had been formed was going to be put into proper shape under that gentleman's direction, it had been sent to Edinburgh in the first instance. How it would be ultimately divided he could not at present say, but he might remark that the interests of the British Museum were in good hands and would probably not be neglected.
§ MR. E. J. REEDsaid, that Sir Wyville Thomson informed him that the collection was going to Edinburgh solely for the convenience of classification and arrangement.
§ Original Question put, and agreed to.
§
(2.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £1,323,750, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Expenses of the Dockyards and Naval Yards at Home and Abroad, which will come in course of payment during the year ending' on the 31st day of March 1877.
§ MR. RYLANDS, in moving to reduce the amount of the Vote by £250,000, said, he was led to move the Amendment by finding that the increase of expenditure upon Dockyards and Stores since 1871 amounted to £2,000,000. Of course, he was prepared to hear repeated what had been said before, that the Stores were so much reduced, and the Dockyard expenditure so cut down by the late Administration, that Her Majesty's Government were compelled to go to an enormous expense to put things upon a satisfactory footing. He thought the right hon. Gentleman who held the office of First Lord of the Admiralty prior to the present Administration ought to meet that charge, and he was glad to give him an opportunity of doing so. During the years 1870 and 1871, the cost of iron and other materials was much higher than it was at 463 present, and there were other circumstances which would tend to reduce the cost of management, yet, notwithstanding that there was an increase since 1871 of nearly £2,000,000. The Vote for the Dockyards alone in 1871 was £817,315, in 1876 it was £1,323,750. He had no doubt in his own mind that under the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Pontefract, and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London, the Admiralty was ably administered, wise economies were made, and reforms were carried out that increased the efficiency of the Service. The change which was introduced by the right hon. Member for Pontefract in the Royal Naval Hospital, by which that institution was put under the management of a surgeon instead of a captain of the Royal Navy, and the change in the control of the Victualling department were instances of this, but some of the reforms suggested by the right hon. Gentleman had not been fully carried out. He recollected that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Montrose (Mr. Baxter) had remarked upon the great number of officials in the Dockyards, and said that it prevented any feeling of responsibility, and the same thing came out at the Megæra inquiry. He was not aware that any change had been made, and he believed that the Dockyards remained in much the same state as they were in five years ago, or if changed at all, for the worse. He contended that Dockyards were manufacturing establishments, and should be treated in the same way as establishments of the kind carried on by hon. Members of the House and others. It seemed to him that the proper person to place at the head of such an establishment would be a man of business habits and great technical knowledge and experience. That we did not do. In fact we placed at the head a man quite unused to anything of the kind—an Admiral Superintendent—withoutscientific knowledge, and with none of the necessary experience. He was allowed to remain in charge of the establishment for five years, and when after that time he began to get an inkling of his duties he was removed and another Admiral Superintendent was appointed who went through the same process. It seemed to him that no course would be less likely to lead to efficiency 464 or economy. There were two branches of the establishment, that of design for construction and of building and management, and he ventured to say that the Admiralty was not exactly competent to carry out either of those two branches. In the management of our Dockyards he believed there was great cause for complaint. He found that while the wages for artizans amounted to £1,072,334 in a year, no less a sum than £382,644 was spent in salaries for superintendence, and in pensions, and for police. It would appear that for every £20 paid in wages, £4 was paid in pensions. He had had great experience of the working classes, having employed thousands, and he did not hesitate to say that if he went into the market to purchase labour, and offered 30s. weekly to a man, without any allowance, and 28s. to a man with the promise of a small pension after a number of years, the man for 30s. would be the better man of the two. The effect of offering pensions was that we got a number of slovenly, worthless people. He objected to the system of giving lower wages with a pension; it was far better to give the full market value, and trust to men's own management and thrift for the future, and to make their own provision for old age. From evidence it appeared that the cost of our iron-clads built in Dockyards was far greater than if built in private yards. The hon. Member for Hastings (Mr. Brassey) a short time ago stated in The Times that if we had had our iron-clad fleet built by private firms, we should have 10 more vessels to show for the money. That as coming from a man of such experience and so well known, was worthy of careful consideration. But not only were they keeping up these large manufacturing establishments, but they were spending money in costly mistakes; building vessels that in a short time become obsolete. From Returns on the Table of the House the number of vessels of that kind would be seen, and hon. Members would be surprised to find them so numerous. At that moment foreign nations were putting their trust in torpedoes and rams, and that was a very serious question affecting the construction of ships of war, and he contended that with all our resources and appliances we should not rush at once into building a vessel because another 465 country had a type of which we did not possess an example, and which, as in the case of the Inconstant, might prove to be a costly blunder. He would refer to a suggestion which had been made by the hon. Member for Hastings as a very valuable one. It was that merchant vessels should protect themselves by torpedoes. That would make ordinary vessels independent of the protection of war vessels; each would be able to carry her own sting, and would render unnecessary the costly plan of keeping our foreign squadrons scattered over the globe. In conclusion, he protested against the heavy expenditure in the direction to which he alluded, as not justified at the present time, and moved the reduction of the Vote.
§
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £1,073,750, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Expenses of the Dockyards and Naval Yards at Home and Abroad, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1877."—(Mr. Rylands.)
§ MR. CHILDERSsaid, that during the time he was at the Admiralty it had been his constant effort to keep down expenditure, and hence it might be assumed that he sympathized with his hon. Friend in his Motion to reduce the Vote by £250,000; but he would remind him that a reduction of that particular Vote by that amount, meant practically a reduction of £250,000 in the Vote for the Wages of Artificers in the Dockyards; and a reduction of that sum upon the Wages Vote meant a reduction of 4,000 men during the whole year—that was to say, between 5,000 and 6,000 men for so much of the year as remained. It would be perfectly impossible for anyone in a responsible position consistently to make such a reduction, or even to dream of making it; and, further, it was a course which it was impossible to sanction in the present state of our relations with foreign powers. Besides, a reduction of that kind required to be carried out with foresight, and spread over as long a period as possible; and, for himself, he had always been of opinion that both increases and reductions should be made with very great caution indeed, not by leaps and bounds. Therefore, in the spirit which actuated the Opposition, and which rendered them disinclined to say or do anything that might 466 hamper the Government in the present state of the Eastern question, he hoped his hon. Friend would not press his Motion to a division, because, if acted upon, it might do considerable mischief. He did not deny that our Dockyard system was capable of great improvement; that it was desirable to strengthen the civil element in its administration, and to deal consistently with the pension question, but the present was not the time for forcing such questions on the attention of Parliament. So, again, there could be no doubt that the annual cost of repairs had risen to an alarming figure. So far as he could collect from the present Estimates, it amounted to from £1,100,000 to £1,200,000 a-year, and that certainly was a most serious question. A searching inquiry ought to be made into this question of repairs, but that was not the time to do so, and he should therefore recommend his hon. Friend to withdraw his Amendment.
§ MR. A. EGERTONsaid, that Vote 6 and Vote 10, Section 1, were governed by the programme of shipbuilding for the year, and that to attack them as the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) had done was to challenge the whole policy of the Admiralty, which had been substantially accepted by the House. The right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty, in introducing the Estimates, stated distinctly what his Programme was, and he thought, therefore, that the hon. Member for Burnley, before proceeding to reduce the Vote, should have given some indication of the mode in which he proposed to deal with that Programme which was, he contended, conceived in a proper spirit, and did no less than the country required of the Admiralty at the present moment. Complaints had been made that the expense of management bore an excess proportion to the wages of the men, and this proportion had been estimated as high as 30 per cent. It appeared, however, that the proportion had been decreasing, and that while in 1869–70 it was 13.63 per cent, in 1876–7 it was only 9.86 per cent. This showed that the charges for management had been of late years steadily diminishing. The civil management of the Dockyards was a large question, which required almost a night to itself, but upon the whole he had come to the conclusion that it was better to have a naval officer 467 at the head of our Dockyards. Having had some previous experience in regard to boat and ship building, when he came to the Admiralty he tried to make some comparison as to the cost of building Her Majesty's ships in the Royal Dockyards and in private yards. It was difficult to come to an exact conclusion on account of the dead weight and establishment charges; but, upon the whole, taking the whole number of ships he had convinced himself that the cost of building in Her Majesty's Dockyards was slightly cheaper than in private yards, while there was much greater certainty of good work in public than in private yards. He should, therefore, be sorry to see the amount of work now done in the Royal Dockyards decreased to any great extent by sending it to private yards. The question of pensions and of "established" and "non-established" men was under the serious serious consideration of the Admiralty. The hon. Member for Burnley, who had had experience as a manufacturer, thought he got better men by paying a little more and not giving pensions. He (Mr. Egerton) had also had considerable experience as an employer of labour in large collieries were the men were pensioned. The result was, that there had been no strikes for a long period, and they were on better terms with their men than other employers. They had, in fact, a greater hold upon the men, and this he attributed to some extent to the system of granting pensions. He believed the same principle held good in Government establishments.
§ MR. SAMUDAopposed the proposed reduction, on the ground that under the Vote only 13,000 tons would be provided for, and if the number of tons to be built under Vote 10 were added the total would not amount to the 20,000 tons which his right hon. Friends below him considered necessary to make up for the annual waste from various causes arising in our Navy. As a private shipbuilder of some experience he believed that no one in the Kingdom got work done so cheaply as the Government; and that arose from there being pensions allowed in old age, and from the dependence that existed upon the continuance of work in the public Dockyards. These things give the Government a command over labour that the private yards had not. The work could not be 468 done better there than it was in the private yards, because the system of inspection there was carried to such an extent. But if the present Dockyard system was to be maintained, regularity of work and regularity as to the number of men employed were absolutely necessary.
MR. GORSTwas sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House would support the Government in any expenditure which might be necessary to maintain the efficiency of the Navy and the honour of the country. The charge of undue extravagance made against the Government must mean either that the Government were spending too much money on shipbuilding, or that the money voted for that purpose was not economically spent. The Committee would not be anxious at present to enter into the discussion of the first alternative, for, as he had said, every one would be inclined to support Ministers in necessary naval expenditure. Then came the question whether the money granted was spent in the most effectual manner. He should like to discuss that point on some future occasion, and much might be said in reference to it, but he thought that was not the moment to discuss in detail the question of Dockyard management, or the grievances that might be urged in connection with those employed in the Government establishments. Whatever the grievances of the Dockyard employês might be, he was authorized to say that they did not wish to press them at the present juncture, when it might be embarrassing to the Government. The men were desirous that the superannuation system should be kept up. It gave the Government a constant supply of steady men, who turned out very good work.
§ MR. E. J. REEDconsidered that his hon. Friend had entirely failed to make out a case. He did not believe that this was the item on which they could best discuss the question of reduction in the Navy. Many of his hon. Friends about him spoke of the waste in Her Majesty's Dockyards, but he could honestly say from a long experience of Dockyard workmen, that it was quite a mistake to suppose that there was great idleness amongst them, or that their work was not performed in a most efficient manner. He hoped the next time his hon. Friend called attention to this 469 subject, he would not look for reductions in these minor matters, but would bring to the test the necessity for some of the vessels we were building. If any reduction was to be made, it should rather be in Vote 10, which referred to ships built by contract.
§ MR. BENTINCKsaid, he had always been ready to support such expenditure as was necessary to keep the Navy in an efficient state. Some hon. Members seemed to be under the impression that when statements were made about the Navy in that House hon. Members were telling secrets out of school, but that was a mistake, for foreign Governments and foreign diplomatists knew a great deal more about our Army and Navy than many people in this country.
§ MR. T. BRASSEYsaid, that payment of labour in accordance with results was a great guarantee of economy in production. He knew that from private experience, and he thought the principle might very well be applied to the Government Dockyards. The work in the Dockyards was of the best character, and it was necessary to maintain the Dockyard establishments, for in a time of war we could not rely on private establishments.
§ MR. GOSCHENasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, if he was prepared to present a Return for the last year showing the distribution of men on various ships, in order that the House might ascertain the manner in which the work was performed, and the probable cost?
§ Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
MR. MOOREcalled attention to the large increase in the expenditure as regarded the chaplains who were members of the Church of England. He complained that the Roman Catholic chaplains were badly paid, their stipend being cut down to less than that of skilled workmen; while at the same time they had no retiring allowance.
§ MR. SHAW LEFEVRE, referring to the two descriptions of work done in the Dockyards, at a fixed rate of pay with superannuation pensions, and at the market rate of wages, asked how many factory men the Government proposed to establish, and on what terms? He also asked for explanations on the intended fitting-out of the Urgent, an old 470 iron vessel, as a hospital ship for Jamaica, at a cost of £23,000?
§ MR. HUNTsaid, the Urgent was intended to serve as receiving ship at Jamaica, for which, being an iron ship, she was very suitable. A wooden vessel was more likely to be unhealthy, if used for such a purpose. Considering the object of the expenditure upon the Urgent, he did not think its amount was excessive. The number of factory men whom it was proposed to establish was 500. As it was a quarter to 11 o'clock and they had only obtained one Vote, he would not then discuss the large question as between hired men and men on the Establishment; but he might state that the Admiralty's plan had been adopted after much consideration. He believed that at present no factory men had been established, but the Admiralty were in communication with the Dockyards on the subject, and there was great expectation that the plan which had been adopted would be highly successful. With regard to the pay of Roman Catholic chaplains, he admitted it was not in a proper condition, and a proposition was now before the Treasury for an increase which he believed would be satisfactory. With regard to the Roman Catholic chaplain at Sheerness, whose salary had been complained of as too low, the answer was, that the £80 he received from the Admiralty was not the whole of his pay, as he also received a stipend from the War Office.
MR. SULLIVANsaid, that the Vote was for £1,323,750 for Dockyards, and out of that million and a-quarter no less a sum than £839 was put down for Dockyards in Ireland, and this, he took it, was little better than a practical joke. Hon. Members might not be aware that in 1799 the then Government promised Irish Members that a Dockyard should be established in Ireland, and from that day to this the Vote of £839 had been taken yearly for the construction of a dock at Haulbowline. It had been calculated that at the present rate of work it would be finished in the year 2975. At any rate, the Union was accomplished, but part of the price to be paid—namely, this Dockyard—was still unaccomplished. The present state of things was, that when the tide was out six or eight dozen convicts went to work, "meandering, melancholy, slow," striving to do as little as they could; and when the tide turned 471 they shouldered their picks and marched to their quarters. In the South of Ireland this dock at Haulbowline was a standing joke. He suggested that it was high time the Vote was swept away altogether.
§ MR. SAMPSON LLOYDthought there was something wrong in the system under which hired men were selected to be put on the Establishment, and that it would be much better to take these men at once, even at their present wages, as fitters and other valuable artificers would be drafted off to the seaports on the outbreak of war, and could not be replaced. There was a grievance on the part of continuous-service men—namely, that with reference to superannuation their sea time was not counted as service.
§ MR. CHILDERSsaid, that as he understood negotiations had been going on for some time between the Admiralty and the Treasury with regard to placing a certain proportion of the factory men in the Dockyards on the Establishment, he wished to ask the Secretary for War, whether in those negotiations any reference had been made to the War Office with respect to the factory men employed under it? The men in these two Departments were about the same in number, and their work was exactly of the same character, so that no scheme of Establishment ought to be entered upon without full consideration of how it would affect both classes of factory men.
MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, that no application had been made to put the factories under the War Office on the same footing as those under the Admiralty.
§ SIR MASSEY LOPES, in reply, remarked that there was great difficulty in getting men for the Dockyards. This was by no means a new matter; it was discussed and inquired into by a Committee under Admiral Spark. He considered that the Establishment men were far cheaper to the Government than the hired men. The difference between Establishment and non-Establishment men was, that men on the Establishment received 30s. a-week, and men not on the Establishment received 32s. a-week, or 2s. more. He considered it most important that they should have an Establishment as a nucleus on which they could rely in case of war or any pressing emergency.
§ Original Question put, and agreed to.
472§ (3.) £76,400, Victualling Yards at Home and Abroad.
§ (4.) £65,830, Medical Establishments at Home and Abroad.
§ (5.) £20,053, Marine Divisions.
§ (6.) £1,261,320, Naval Stores.
§ (7.) £1,353,600, Steam Machinery and Ships built by Contract.
§ MR. HUNT, in moving the Vote, stated that no other ships had been ordered since the matter was previously discussed, with the exception of some corvettes, and he was now awaiting the instructions of the Committee.
§ MR. E. J. REEDthought it was very surprising that they should be asked for £1,250,000 for the building of new ships without being furnished with any information. He would suggest that the Estimates in future should contain a programme of the contract work for the building of ships in private yards.
§ MR. WHITWELLthought the Committee ought to know what the sum of £33,000 for repairs other than in Her Majesty's Dockyards was to be appropriated to, and what were the experimental purposes for which a Vote of £10,000 was asked.
§ MR. HUNTsaid, that though the item was a large one, its details had been very carefully considered before Parliament was asked to vote the amount. Ships could not always be repaired either in Her Majesty's Dockyards or in private yards at home, and it was therefore necessary, among other things, to make provision for the repairing of ships on foreign stations. In consequence of that, the amount of the charge was always uncertain, for it was impossible to say what liabilities would be incurred. The Vote for experimental purposes was principally to defray the cost of experiments which were carried on during the whole year with reference to new designs. As to the details asked for, he did not consider it desirable to give in Committee of Supply the details with which a Council of Naval Construction was concerned; on the contrary, he thought it would be very disadvantageous, by giving such details, practically to publish to the world at large the new designs upon which the Admiralty were proceeding. At the same time, he quite felt that no information that could be safely given to the House should be withheld.
§ MR. E. J. REEDsaid, he did not desire to have details of construction supplied in the Estimates, but certain particulars with reference to the amount of work to be done in private yards, and to the progress which was made with it.
§ MR. GOSCHENsaid, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would consider whether further particulars could not be given in the Estimates, as had been suggested.
§ MR. HUNTsaid, he would consider the suggestion, and if it could be furnished without injury to the public service, he would do so next year.
§ MR. SAMUDAsaid, it was formerly the practice to do so. They were asked to vote one-third of the whole sum required for construction, without having any idea of the nature of the vessels to be built.
§ Vote agreed to.
§ (8.) £569,249, New Works, Buildings, Machinery, and Repairs.
§ (9.) £76,230, Medicines, Medical Stores, &c.
§ (10.) £15,114, Martial Law and Law Charges.
§
(11.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £135,547, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Expense of various Miscellaneous Services, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1877.
§ MR. HANBURY-TRACYmoved to reduce the Vote by £400, the charge for hired interpreters, on the ground that there was a breach of faith with the naval officers who had learned foreign languages with the view of being employed as interpreters on the flag-ships on foreign stations.
§
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £135,147, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Expense of various Miscellaneous Services, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1877."—(Mr. Hanbury-Tracy.)
§ MR. HUNTadmitted that such a promise had been held out to the junior officers; but, in practice, it happened on particular stations that there were none of the officers who spoke the language which was employed there. Such was the case, for instance, on the coast of Zanzibar.
§ MR. GOSCHENinquired in what way the naval officers accompanying Mr. Allen Young in his Arctic Expedition had been appointed for that service? If Mr. Young selected them himself the case presented a bad precedent.
§ MR. ANDERSONwished to put a question with regard to the sum of £8,000 which was to be paid to Mr. Allen Young, as a subsidy to a private gentleman for the use of his yacht for taking letters to and bringing letters from the Arctic Expedition. He wished to be informed how the payment came about—whether the matter was put up to tender for or not. He was informed that any of the Dundee whalers who navigated the northern seas would have performed the same service for £200 or £300, instead of £8,000. He had also been informed that other yachtsmen would have done the thing for nothing, if they had been granted the opportunity. He also asked for explanations respecting the item of £2,000 for damage done by Her Majesty's ships during the year. It was quite notorious that that sum must be utterly insufficient as several accidents had already occurred involving a much larger amount.
§ MR. HUNTdid not think the case was one for tenders. Papers were going to be laid upon the Table respecting Captain Allen Young's expedition. The Admiralty received from Captain Nares a communication stating that he intended if possible to send a sleigh party to receive any communications which might be sent to him this year. That was not part of the original programme, which was, that a relief ship should be sent out next year. In consequence of what Captain Nares said, it was thought that it would be better to send letters out this year, and it being found that Captain Allen Young intended to make a voyage to the Arctic regions in his yacht this year, he (Mr. Hunt) opened communication with him as to whether he would be willing to take the letters, and he consented, and the Admiralty had agreed to subsidize him to the extent of £8,000, because on a former occasion he had brought home letters without any cost to the Government, and at great risk. Peculiar qualifications were required for the post to which Captain Allen Young had been appointed, and there was no person on whom the Admiralty could rely so much 475 as upon him, for his previous experience in the Arctic regions and general abilities as a navigator fully qualified him for this important duty. The Admiralty assented to certain officers accompanying Captain Allen Young, who had selected them; and the case being altogether an exceptional one the Admiralty treated it as such, and agreed to count their time as sea-going time. With regard to the damage done by Her Majesty's ships, it was impossible to say at the commencement of each year what was required under that head. Last year the sum required was exceeded. He was not aware what sum would be required for the present year. The case of the Monarch had been provided for in the last financial year.
§ MR. GOSCHENhoped the permission given to the officers would not be drawn into a precedent.
§ SIR JOHN HAYquite approved the course taken with regard to the Naval officers in the Pandora, and only wished the same course had been taken with regard to Lieutenant Cameron.
§ Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Original Question put, and agreed to.
§ (12.) £888,472, Half Pay, Reserved and Retired Pay to Officers of the Navy and Royal Marines.
§ MR. HANBURY-TRACYsaid, he desired to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty, what conclusion he had come to in reference to a Petition which had been presented to him from a large number of retired commanders, asking for a step in rank after 15 years' seniority? He (Mr. Hanbury-Tracy) thought their case was a very hard one, and deserved a satisfactory settlement. Up to the year 1870, captains and commanders who retired, and who had not completed their qualifying sea-time, were allowed to obtain a step in rank after a certain number of years—captains on rising to the top of the list, and commanders after 15 years' seniority. This privilege was swept away in 1870, in the retirement scheme of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Pontefract. The reason for doing this was, he had always understood, that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Childers) thought there were far too many admirals; in fact, that the name of "admiral" had 476 got into such general use, and was applied to so many officers who had not for so many years been at sea, that it was no longer looked up to with the feelings of respect which those who attained that high rank ought to have it treated. He had always understood that was the principal reason for abolishing the step in rank; but it must be pointed out, that whilst the privilege was taken away from the captains, it was taken away also from the commanders, but only on the general ground that you could not let one rank have the step and not the other. If that state of things had continued, nothing further could have been said. Unfortunately, last year the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Hunt) thought fit to revert to the former order of things as regarded captains, allowing those who retired from the year 1870 to rise to the rank of admiral, but ignored the case of the commanders, who clearly ought to have been dealt with at the same time. He (Mr. Hanbury-Tracy) was very much opposed to tinkering or making alterations in the retirement scheme of 1870;but it was surely just to urge that if privileges of rising in rank were taken from two classes of officers under that scheme, it was most unfair afterwards to give them back to one and not to the other. More especially was this so, when it was remembered that the change was originally made to prevent too great use of the name and rank of admiral, and really only affected the captains. There was no question of pay included; it was simply a question of rank, which might be somewhat sentimental, but was no less a grievance which the commanders had every right to have redressed. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would see his way to granting the desired boon.
§ MR. HUNT, in reply, said, that the Petition had been considered, and he might say was still under consideration. The reason the step was not given to commanders last year, when it was granted to captains, was owing to the fact that as captains rose to the rank of admiral by seniority, and commanders were promoted by selection, the Admiralty did not then see that the same necessity existed of giving the step to commanders as it did to captains. At the same time, he did not mean to say that commanders would not be granted 477 the same privilege. The question was again receiving the consideration of the Admiralty, and he would be glad if it could receive satisfactory settlement.
§ Vote agreed to.
§ (13.) £726,136, Military Pensions and Allowances.
§ (14.) £282,176, Civil Pensions and Allowances.
§ (15.) £197,480, Freight of Ships and Conveyance of Troops.
§ (16.) £145,752, Greenwich Hospital and School.
§ House resumed.
§ Resolutions to be reported To-morrow, at Two of the clock.
§ Committee to sit again To-morrow, at Two of the clock.