SUPPLY—NAVY ESTIMATES.

HC Deb 15 July 1884 vol 290 cc1137-239

SUPPLY—considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

(1.) £1,573,600, Dockyards and Naval Yards at Home and Abroad.

MR. A. F. EGERTON

said, he desired upon this Vote to draw the attention of the Committee to the case of the second class assistant constructors; and perhaps it would be right in regard to them to explain to those hon. Members who were not acquainted with the personnel of the Dockyards that they formed an exceedingly important class of men, that they were entrusted with the building of ships, and that to a very great extent they were entrusted with the expenditure of many hundreds and thousands of pounds. They had to pass a very strict examination, and they formed a class of men who ought not to be allowed to labour under the impression that they had a grievance. If they had a real grievance it ought to be removed as soon as possible. The grievance under which they at present suffered was this. Up to a recent date they were the only persons eligible for promotion to the rank of constructor; but under the re-organization scheme introduced by the Admiralty, although it was true that they had received a certain amount of promotion, they complained that really they were only promoted from foremen of Dockyards to that of second-class constructors. There were three classes of constructors—the second class, the first class, and, finally, the constructors them selves. What these men complained of was that while, before they were eligible for promotion to the rank of constructors, they had now to pass from the grade of second class assistant constructors to the grade of first class assistant constructors before they were eligible for an appointment to the grade of constructor. They contrasted their position with that of the Admiralty draftsmen who designed ships, and who were also a valuable class of men. He had nothing whatever to say against them; but, without any explanation being afforded, he failed to see why they should be placed in a better position than the foremen of yards. The Admiralty had now placed them in a position which gave them a priority over the foremen of yards for appointment to the rank of constructor; and the system, he was given to understand, was working to the detriment of the Public Service. These gentlemen knew a great deal about the designing of ships, and they had been employed during the greater part of their lives at the Admiralty; but they had naturally no experience of the management of men, whereas the foremen of yards were brought into contact with the men of the Dockyards from the moment they became foremen of yards. The latter were, he believed, better competent to undertake the management of men than these highly-educated Admiralty draftsmen who went straight from Whitehall to the Dockyards. There was another grievance they complained of, and it was this—that when the Admiralty proceeded to inquire into the question of re-organization they had before them representatives of the Admiralty draftsmen; but they did not examine any foremen of yards, who, therefore, had no opportunity of putting their case before the Admiralty. Their complaint was that the Admiralty draftsmen had been given practically a priority over them, and that when promotion was made to the rank of constructor they had to pass through an intermediate class before they became constructors, however competent they might be. What they asked was that they should be at once promoted to vacancies which occurred in the list of first class assistant constructors, so that they might be put on a level with the Admiralty draftsmen. If the Civil Lord of the Admiralty would kindly take into consi deration the case of the foremen of yards, or give some explanation from an Admiralty point of view, with respect to the position of Admiralty draftsmen and the rank of constructor, he thought it would give satisfaction to the very valuable class of men whose claims he was advocating.

SIR THOMAS BRASSEY

said, that as this was the first naval debate in Parliament since the publication of the Report of the Committee on Constructors he was greatly indebted to the hon. Gentleman opposite for giving him the opportunity of making a short explanation of the scheme recommended by the Committee. The changes which had been introduced, and which affected the foremen of the yards, formed part of a plan which he believed was originally brought before the Admiralty by Sir Houston Stewart. That officer had been Controller of the Navy for a period of 10 years, and by his great experience both in the Admiralty and as a Superintendent of Dockyards he had exceptional opportunity of becoming acquainted with the shipbuilding staff of the Navy. It was understood that the recommendations of Sir Houston Stewart were viewed with favour by the late Board; but farther inquiry was considered necessary, and in 1882 the present Board appointed a Departmental Committee. That Committee included Sir Geoffrey Horn by, Mr. Rendel, Mr. Barnaby, and himself (Sir Thomas Brassey), and it was clearly shown to the Committee that the educational results of the training which had been given to the students of naval architecture at the Royal Naval College had not been altogether satisfactory, and the failure was attributed to the insufficient prospects of promotion held out to successful students. On returning to the Dockyards, after a three years' course at the College, the only appointments for which the students were eligible were those of established draftsmen with pay of 6s. a-day. The necessity of doing something to meet the reasonable demands of scientific men was clearly shown to the Committee on Constructors. Of the 28 students who had obtained professional certificates at College, no fewer than 12 had left the Public Service for private employment, and among these 12 who had left the Public Service after an elaborate training at the public expense were included a large propor tion of our ablest men. Of the six students who had obtained first class certificates, four had left. With a view to remedy this state of things, which he had endeavoured to present very briefly to the Committee, the Committee on Constructors recommended that a Corps should be created with the honourable title of Royal Corps of Constructors, which should comprise the shipbuilding officers of every grade above the rank of foremen, and with substantial additions of pay, especially in the junior ranks. It was further recommended that salaries in London and the Dockyards should be on the same scale, thus facilitating the interchange of duties and appointments, and the combination of practical experience with scientific and theoretical knowledge among the members of the Corps of Constructors. The regulations affecting the appointment of that valuable class of public servants, the foremen of the yards, to whose case the hon. Gentleman opposite had directed special attention, were left unchanged by the Committee. But all foremen under 50 years of age who could pass a qualifying examination in the rudiments of ship design, and who were recommended for promotion by their superior officers, were considered eligible for admission into the Corps. Once admitted, promotion would be by merit alone, by selection, and not by competitive examination. He ventured to submit that these changes which had been recommended by the Committee on Construction, and had been approved by the Admiralty, were distinctly designed in the interests of the practical shipbuilding officers in the Dockyards. The Controller's Department specially directed the attention of the Committee to the position of the leading men of the Dockyards. The leading men had important duties to discharge, more especially in the supervision of the workmen. To those not acquainted with the details of Dockyard administration the title of leading man would convey quite an imperfect notion of the responsibilities of these men. With a view to increase their authority, it was recommended that the leading men should be styled Inspectors, a revival of a former rating, and that they should receive increased remuneration, but that it should take the form of salary instead of daily wages. He was glad to be able to an nounce to the Committee that these various recommendations had been approved by the Treasury, and were now in the course of adoption. And now, having briefly given an outline of the scheme for the creation of a Corps of Constructors, he would proceed to deal with the objections which had been urged, more especially on behalf of the senior foremen. The Admiralty fully recognized the valuable services rendered by the foremen, whether trained at the College or in the Dockyards; and they sincerely regretted that none of the five foremen who had been lately recommended for admission were able to pass in the recent qualifying examination for the Corps of Constructors. But it was intended that the members of the Corps of Constructors should combine considerable professional and scientific attainments with practical ability in construction. And they were assured by the Controller and the professional officers that the qualifying examination which had lately been held was of a simpler character than that held under the former system of competition. He ventured to point out that, representing the controlling authority of the House of Commons in relation to finances, they could not take upon themselves the responsibility which belonged to their professional advisers of conducting examinations and selecting competent men for technical duties. He was glad to know that all those who failed to pass would have another chance; and it was confidently expected that the result on the next occasion would most likely be of a more satisfactory character. With regard to the position of those foremen who had lately been appointed as second class assistant constructors, it was true that they were nominally one step further from the rank of constructor than they were under the old system. But they were eligible for promotion by selection, without again being called on to submit themselves to the ordeal of an examination. He might also point out that the number of superior appointments in the Dockyards had not been diminished by the recent changes in the Home Yards; while, on the other hand, two superior appointments—one at Hong Kong and the other in Bermuda—had been created. On the whole, he ventured confidently to say that the prospects opened to men of ability were distinctly improved by the recent changes; and promotions from the grade of second class assistant constructor would, he trusted, be given to the Dockyard officers at an early date. He could not pass from this subject without expressing, on behalf of the Admiralty, their sense of the zeal and eminent ability which the constructors of the Navy, the foremen, and the leading men had brought to the discharge of their difficult duties. He hoped this explanation would not be unsatisfactory to the Committee.

SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF

said, that after the very interesting statement made by his hon. Friend, he would like to ask one or two questions upon matters relating to the constructors, which were of much importance to the foremen in the different Dockyards. He understood that those foremen who were selected as qualified to be admitted to the rank of constructor of the Royal Navy had really been placed in a grade further removed from that of constructor; while, at the same time, the whole of the Admiralty draftsmen had been made eligible for that rank, and had been placed one grade in advance by being ranked with the first class assistant constructors. He would like to ask whether the Admiralty draftsmen who had been placed in this advantageous position had passed competitive examinations; because he was informed that they had not invariably done so, and that there had only been one competitive examination in which these draftsmen had taken part. He would next ask his hon. Friend whether it was not possible, now that the foremen of yards had to a certain extent been placed in an unfavourable position, to allow them to retire with the pensions generally given for abolition of office? In that way these foremen, who were thus set aside and very much injured by the recent arrangements, would properly be provided for. He also wished to know whether the foremen of yards had received any reply to their application for increase of salary and improvement of their position, which had now been under the consideration of the Admiralty for the last three years, especially as the Dockyard officers had repeatedly strongly recommended that this increase should take place? He knew that his hon. Friend took the greatest interest in the Service, and he ventured to submit these suggestions to him with a view of remedying, as much as possible, the discontent which had been created.

MR. STEWART MACLIVER

I desire, in discussing this Vote for the Dockyards, to call attention to the various classes of men for whom it provides, in order that the condition of the Navy, as viewed from the Dockyards, may be fully understood. Discontent should be avoided as far as possible in the Public Service; yet I must say that discontent has been for years the normal condition of those connected with our Dockyards. The Admiralty know it by the numerous Memorials they are constantly receiving; and especially since they undertook to visit the yards and hear from the men themselves the extent and nature of their grievances. I am aware that it is the old question of money. The Admiralty may be willing, but the Treasury is always economical, and the result is a state of things in the Dockyards which is not creditable to our rulers. I do not forget that a Committee has been sitting to devise remedies and apply them. I hope to hear something to-night of its labours. The shipwrights have long complained; so have the joiners and riggers. The hired men are seeking to know when the proposed new rule for giving a fixed sum, according to service after 10 years, is to take effect. All of them, of course, are anxious on the subject of promotion, seeking to regulate it according to the years they have served. There are anomalies of pay which should be adjusted. Why should a chaplain, for instance, receive nearly as much as a chief constructor at a leading Dockyard? And why should Dockyard men be compulsorily retired at 60, instead of 65, which was, I believe, the provision made by the Civil Service Pension Act of 1859? Then, as to the case of the hired joiners. There is the improbability of their ever getting established under the present circumstances, it being the rule for apprentices to be first on the list, and the annual number of them exceeds the annual number of vacancies. There should be an increase of the Establishment, so that these men may be included after a reasonable time, or receive some compensation equivalent to it. I may add, that the engineers are looking for the modification of the 11 years' clause, which they are entitled to. Engine-room artificers, now 800 in number, seek to rank as warrant officers. They require separate mess and bath rooms, and that the pensions should be regulated by the pay, as is the case with the other classes in the Navy. I have made these remarks because I think it should be an object above all else to make the Navy a willing Service; so that, in time of danger and difficulty, our men may be found full of ardour and energy, as they have always been found full of loyalty and patriotism.

MR. GORST

said, he agreed with the hon. Gentleman that the great object of Dockyard management should be to produce contentment among every class in the Dockyards; but he was not quite sure how far the scheme, which had been so admirably explained to the Committee by the Civil Lord of the Admiralty, would produce that effect. He granted that a great boon was given to the foremen of yards by admitting them to the Royal Corps of Ship Constructors; but that boon was only one in name, because, if he had caught the observations of the hon. Gentleman aright, of the five foremen who were recommended to form a portion of the Royal Corps of Constructors, not one was able to pass a qualifying examination. Now, if the Committee supposed that these men were, therefore, not competent shipwrights and competent constructors, he would venture to say that the Committee were very much mistaken. He did not think that the Civil Lord of the Admiralty would say anything of the kind. The fact was that when they invited men of the mature ago of 40 or 50 years to pass an examination at all, it was found very often that they were utterly unable to do so. He confessed that he would be extremely sorry to have his future position determined by his ability to answer successfully questions which might be put to him in a competitive examination, and which he might readily have answered 12 or 15 years ago. If they had qualifying examinations for Bishops or Judges, or even Members of Her Majesty's Government, he thought very few would come out of them with very great credit. As to the system of examinations which had now been carried on for some years, it was downright cruelty to ask a man, who had been employed for years in practical work, to come into a room and subject himself to an examination, when he had no experience of answering any questions of the kind. Sheer nervousness, or even timidity, would often render him unable to do so. He remembered very well, some years ago, the case of a man who was a foreman in Chatham Dockyard. He was reported by all the officers of the yard as being a man of extraordinary ability in his craft. He was so good that persons came to Chatham from other yards in order to see and inspect his workmanship. Yet that man was unable to pass an examination, and actually had persons whom he had himself instructed and taught the trade put over his head as his superior officers. He had forgotten the name, but he remembered the circumstances of the case; and probably the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. A. Egerton), who was at the Admiralty at the time, would remember that he (Mr. Gorst) had brought this particular case under his notice. What he wanted to know from the Civil Lord or the Secretary to the Admiralty was, whether they or their advisers intended to persist in compelling the foremen of yards, who were competent and fit to be members of the Royal Corps of Constructors, to pass an examination as a condition of their appointment? Even the Admiralty themselves, to some extent, seemed to condemn the value of such a test, because when a man was once in the Corps further promotion was to take place without any examination at all. By taking that course they appeared to admit that examination was not a fair test for men in that position; and he would like them to consider that if examination was not necessary as a test of fitness for promotion in the Corps, they really thought that examination was necessary as a test for admission. He wished to know whether the establishment of the new Corps of Constructors would stop promotion and the prospects of promotion which the shipwrights and leading men had hitherto enjoyed? It was all very well to make leading men Inspectors, and to give them a salary instead of daily pay, and, probably, a better position; but formerly a leading man might become a foreman, and, being a foreman, he could become a constructor. In Her Majesty's Service many men had risen right up through all the grades to the high and eminent positions they now enjoyed. He thought it was most important for the Public Service that they should not put a bar against any man's promotion, but that everybody should have the hope and opportunity of rising to the highest positions. In fact, it should be, as it was in the Army of the Great Napoleon—where every drummer-boy felt that he might carry a Marshal's baton in his knapsack. He hoped the Secretary to the Admiralty would say something about the Petition, which had now been under the consideration of the Admiralty for years, from the whole body of shipwrights, asking for an amelioration of their present position. No doubt, it was satisfactory that the élite of the Service should have their position improved; but it had often been urged in Committee of Supply on the Admiralty Votes that the whole body, rank and file, of shipwrights had a strong claim for consideration at the hands of the Admiralty. Their Petition was presented two years ago, at a time when shipbuilding in private yards was very active, and the wages of the established shipwrights in the Dockyards were very much lower than the wages of ordinary shipwrights on the Clyde. Probably the Secretary to the Admiralty would say now that there was a depression in the shipbuilding trade, and that the established men were well off, because they enjoyed constant work at fair prices, and that they were better off than the shipwrights in private yards. That might be so at this moment; but it was not the case at the time the Petition was presented, and it was a little hard on men who had presented a Petition, at a time they were entitled by the circumstances of the trade to high consideration, to be told that because their case had been so long delayed the time had now come when the Admiralty could turn round on them and say—"You are better off than persons in private yards, and, therefore, you have no claim to consideration." The officials of the Admiralty knew very well that they were greatly indebted to the shipwrights in the Dockyards, who had converted themselves into workmen of iron and steel. They were asked to do it at a time when there was a strike in the trade; and these men, in the most patriotic manner, learned a new trade, and were now competent workers in iron and steel. No doubt there was a strong feeling against them on the part of some of the Trades Unions, and that feeling had been given utterance to by the hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. Broadhurst), who had asserted that the shipwrights in the Navy were trespassing on the province of other branches of the trade. But even the hon. Member for Stoke would admit that the men who did the work ought to be entitled to the pay; and the hon. Member would not desire that men who were employed to do work in iron and steel should only get the same wages as if they were employed in the construction of wooden ships. He had no doubt that the case of these men had long deserved the consideration of the Board of Admiralty. That consideration the Admiralty were slow to give, not from a desire, perhaps, to undervalue the services of the men, but because they were under the control of the Treasury, who resisted, in a most decided manner, any proposal to make an addition to the Estimates. Another question he would like to say a word upon was the question of superannuation. Last year he had said something about superannuation being treated as deferred pay, and he had pointed out that the men were entitled to have the pay so deferred in the form most acceptable to them. The Admiralty said that pensions were calculated upon the principle only that a certain number of men were to receive them. He did not think the pension given to a superannuated shipwright at all accurately represented the amount of deferred pay he had foregone. If, instead of receiving a pension from the Government, a shipwright was paid so much a week, and an amount, representing the difference between the pay of their class and the pay they received, were put into an insurance office upon the understanding that when they arrived at the age of 60 or 65 they would receive an annuity for the rest of their lives, they would be entitled to a much larger sum than that which they actually received at present. They would get more from an insurance office than they did from the Government in the way of deferred pay. The commercial value of the deferred pay received by men employed in the Dockyards amounted to a very much larger sum than the value of all the annuities the Government gave; and he was sure that if a proper calculation were made, and a fair amount were given by the Government to persons who, on attaining the age of 60 or 65, were superannuated—if a fair calculation were made, he was quite sure the men would receive a very great deal more than they received at present. The Admiralty, in fact, stinted immensely the amount of deferred pay the men were really entitled to receive. He knew, of course, that this was a very large subject, and that it was impossible to get the Admiralty to take it up all at once. The matter would have to be ventilated for a long time before the Admiralty would be induced to see that there was anything in it; but he knew there was, on the part of the workmen in the Dockyards, a strong desire that there should be no appearance of charity on the part of the Government. They did not want more than they were entitled to; but what they did want was to have the difference between the pay they received as established men and the pay they would receive if they were only hired men and able to leave at any moment they desired — they wanted to have that difference taken into account and reckoned up, so that when they left the Service they would receive what they were really entitled to—no more and no less. He thought they ought to be on-titled to receive this in the form of an annuity, because a commutation upon a few years' purchase would be of very little value to them, or in the shape of a sum of money applied to the benefit of their widows and children, and those dependent upon them. He was quite certain that if the Admiralty were induced to take up the organization of the work of the yards upon a fair and equitable principle they would find no difficulty in establishing a system which would give universal satisfaction. He knew the Secretary to the Admiralty had been struck with the reasonableness of the Dockyard workmen, with whom he had himself been brought into contact. All they wanted was a fair day's wage for a fair day's work. They wanted what they were fairly entitled to, and they had no desire to take less. He hoped the Admiralty would persevere in the work they had so well begun in the case of the leading men and the foremen of yards, and that they would endeavour to put the whole body of shipwrights, on whom the strength of the Navy so much depended, in a satisfactory condition.

MR. PULESTON

said, he had always contended that the re-organization of the Dockyards was a very much easier matter than it appeared to be, provided that it was not done piecemeal. Hitherto it had been the practice to do a little now and again; and in the case of constructors and leading men the misfortune was, that, however good things done were in themselves, whenever they acted on that principle, either in regard to the men or the officers, and placed anyone in a better position, exception was at once taken on the part of others, because the difference between the various classes was made still greater than it was before. If they removed the grievance of one class only the effect was very often to make that of another class appear harder. He had often pointed this out, and had tried to make it clear. He did not agree with the hon. Member for Plymouth (Mr. Macliver) that discontent was the normal condition of the Dockyards, although, no doubt, there had been many questions raised. He had shown pretty clearly some time ago, having gone fairly into the subject in connection with his own Dockyard at Devonport, that to complete the organization of the Dockyards, and to give satisfaction in a general way to all the people in them—officers and men of all classes—it would not be necessary to trench very materially upon the Treasury in the shape of increased expenditure. To say that a normal condition of discontent prevailed was taking a somewhat exaggerated view of the matter. Personally, he did not think that such discontent was at all general; and he had gone into the matter, class by class, constituting himself in a small way a Committee of one, and devoting a great deal of time to a careful examination. He, therefore, did not at all concur with his hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth (Mr. Macliver); but he hardly thought his hon. Friend intended to convey an erroneous impression when he attributed discontent as the normal condition of the Dockyards. There was not a similar body of men engaged in any other work, either in any other Dockyard or upon the railways or other public works, among whom there would not at times be found a far greater spirit of discontent than in Her Majesty's Dockyards. He had certainly listened with some surprise to the remarks of his hon. Friend, and he regarded it as an unfortunate slur on the character of the men employed in the Dockyards. He agreed with the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst) that the Secretary to the Admiralty, when he was good enough to listen to the grievances of the men related to him in their own way, had found that they were not unreasonable. He thought the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman) would be willing to repeat what he had said before—that he had found the men very approachable and perfectly ready to listen to reason; that they had no desire to promote agitation or to use political influence more than anybody else. They were only like other people; they wanted as much as they thought they ought to get; and it was quite natural that they should go to their Representatives with their grievances. It was quite natural that the engineers, for instance, should wish to have their complaints attended to, because they had now been talked about for a good many years. Their grievance had been, and still was, that the Board of Admiralty—not only the present Board, but every Board of Admiralty—insisted on forgetting that these were days of iron and steam and not of wooden ships. The facts had been constantly brought before the Admiralty; but in their dealings with the men they acted by piecemeal, and in the end they would find they had done more in some respects than the engineers had originally asked for, whilst omitting the most important. When a Committee was first appointed to examine the question of the engineers, he believed that a matter of £14,000 was all that was needed to meet the requirements of the Royal Naval Engineers at that time; but the Treasury and the Admiralty together—for one Department invariably put the blame on the other—refused to advance so large a sum as £14,000a-year, and appointed another Committee to inquire into the matter. When that Committee was appointed, with the present Sea Lord at its head, they made recommendations which involved an expenditure of £40,000 or £50,000 a-year. The engineers asked the Admiralty to ameliorate their posi tion, as they thought, in a moderate and modest way; but the Admiralty declined to do so, and preferred a Committee. The engineers Availed patiently for the Report of the Committee, and when it was published the Admiralty refused to do anything. Efforts had been made from that time to the present to induce the Admiralty to act up to the spirit of that Report; but it had not as yet been done. He knew that many difficult questions had been raised in connection with the engineers, and the artificers, and the arrangements on board ship, and other questions. No doubt, a good deal had been done; but he mentioned these facts now to show, in answer to the remarks of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst), that it would be very easy for the Government to deal with the whole question finally; and it would save a great deal of trouble if they were to take it up at once, and deal with it as a whole rather than by bits, and in that way they would satisfy everybody, and smooth everything over, instead of raising a new difficulty, as soon as they had settled an old one. Many of the difficulties in connection with the Dockyards arose, not wholly from questions of extra pay, but because one man did so many hours extra work; and he found that another man who did less work got the same pay, although the duties were of a similar character, or probably even less onerous and important. These were some of the amomalies which existed, and the Dockyards had never been re-organized since the old days of wooden ships. He know that the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands), when the Navy Estimates were under discussion last year, had urged the propriety of doing away with the Dockyards altogether, and of getting all the work done in private yards. Now, that was an intelligible policy; and if the Government desired to advocate such a policy as that, they were at liberty to do so, although he should regret it very much; because, in his opinion, it was a most dangerous policy, and fraught with great danger to the State, seeing that we should then have nothing to rely upon in a time of emergency, but would be at the mercy of the private yards for all our shipbuilding work. Nevertheless, it was a perfectly intelligible policy; but as long as the Government did not adopt that policy, and did not advocate it, and the Dockyards existed, and so large an amount of capital was invested in them, they ought not to get their work done in private yards which they could do much better at home. On the contrary, he should like to see even more work done in the Royal Dockyards; and when they had the means and appliances for doing it cheaper and better, the work ought to be done in the Dockyards. If the men serving in the Dockyards were only kept half employed, the same outlay was going on so far as the established charges were concerned; and, of course, what they then did in the Dockyards cost relatively more than if a full complement of work was done in the Dockyards. They required the same Managing Superintendent, the same General Admiralty Superintendent, the same Naval Constructors, the same workmen, and the cost in those respects was the same. It therefore stood to reason that, instead of giving, as the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) strongly advocated when the subject was last before the House, the bulk of the work to private yards, they should get as much as possible done in the Royal Dockyards. As he had said before, they had the plant and capital and the men ready, and they ought to be able to do the work cheaper than in the private yards. The hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. Broadhurst), on the same occasion, strongly emphasized the character of the work done in the Royal Dockyards, asserting that it was of a very inferior quality. He altogether denied that; and the Report of a Committee of Inquiry, appointed by the Admiralty upon the shipbuilding and repairs done in the Dockyards, showed very conclusively that the work done had been excellent in every way. The Inspectors who passed the ships were supposed to understand what they were about, and would certainly not pass work that was not deserving of approval. There had been a Committee appointed, and he hoped the Secretary to the Admiralty, when he rose to address the Committee, would tell them something about it. He believed the Committee had reported, or, at any rate, had closed their Sitting's. He had taken exception at the time to the appointment of this Committee. No doubt, most excellent men were appointed upon it—hon. Gentlemen who were Members of that House, and thoroughly up to the work of shipbuilding; Lord Ravensworth, who was at the head of it, was certainly a very competent man, and so were the other Members of the Committee; but he (Mr. Puleston) maintained that the terms of Reference ought to have been enlarged. The terms of Reference were so narrow that he did not expect to derive much satisfaction or advantage from the Report; and he was sorry that in this case also the Admiralty had acted in their usual spirit. When they had an opportunity of making full inquiry into all the important questions which affected the yards, the Admiralty, instead of appointing a Committee composed as this one was, ought to have enlarged the terms of Reference so as to make the inquiry sufficiently wide to include the case of the shipwrights, and every other class of workmen, in order that in investigating the expenditure upon the building and repairs of ships they might have shown to the country, not only the way in which the expenditure was arrived at, but the way in which the work was done, the cost of doing it, and the actual material employed. A few meetings of an Admiralty Committee, called together for the purpose of examining receipts, and so forth, was a very small way of inquiring into so large a subject; and he thought it would have saved the friends of the Admiralty a great deal of trouble if the Committee had been instructed to take up other questions—such as the position of the shipwrights, the carpenters, and other questions, which might arise collaterally, but which did not come within the terms of the Reference. The Civil Lord of the Admiralty had given the Committee an interesting statement in regard to the work of the Committee on construction. He (Mr. Puleston) had urged very strongly, two years ago, and last year again, that an independent inquiry should, be made, once for all, and that it should cover the whole subject, instead of taking portions of it only. He was glad, however, that something had been done. The Secretary to the Admiralty and the Civil Lord had gone, to a certain extent, into the subject of inquiry, and, probably, with some satisfactory results, although, perhaps, they were more sentimental than real. A great many things had been left undone which ought to be done; and there were a good many little cases—for example, the grievances of the naval schoolmasters—which needed inquiry. Why should not the position of the schoolmasters, who must necessarily be persons of considerable attainments, be improved? Why should they be placed in an inferior position to persons of the same Profession everywhere else? He understood that something was being done in the direction of increasing the bonus to hired men. [Sir THOMAS BRASSEY: No!] He was sorry to hear that that was not the case. He had been under the impression that something was to be done in that respect. He hoped his hon. Friends would give him credit for not mentioning these things for the mere sake of "bullyragging;" but for more than a dozen years his attention had been directed to these questions, and he could assure the Committee that there was no harder case than the case of these hired men. Suppose a hired man worked for 20 years in the Dockyard. He had to do precisely the same work as the men on the Establishment, and at the end of 20 years he was told he might go; and he got a bonus of £30, or £35, or £36, as against a bonus received by an established man equivalent to £400 or £500. It was all very well to say that these hired men could go at any moment. That was perfectly true, and they did not expect to be put upon the same footing as established men; but they were a large body of men upon whom the Admiralty were compelled to rely, and they ought to be treated^ in a more liberal spirit. Then, again, there was the case of the clerks, which was discussed the other day. They had nothing to do with the Dockyard work; but they were writers in the Public Service. There was a very largo number of them who got 10d. per hour as copyists; but only 200 of them actually did that work, the rest doing the same work as the clerks who got a much higher rate of pay. They were very much in the same position as the hired men; and he hoped, in making an appeal to the Government in their behalf, it would not be necessary to mention the subject again. He was satisfied that it was to the interests of the Service that the question of these hired men and copyists, whose demands were very modest and moderate, should be complied with. For his own part, he would like to see the number of men on the Establishment increased very largely all round. He believed the efficiency of the Dockyards would be largely promoted by putting everybody in the Dockyards on the Establishment. It was said that this would involve a heavy extra charge upon the Treasury Chest; but he thought that that was a great mistake. They would be able to get men for loss money, provided the men could look forward to pensions. He knew, however, that it was quite hopeless to expect to receive a concession of that kind from the Government; and, therefore, it was not worth while to go into it. He knew that hon. Members who represented Dockyard constituencies always got credit for wanting to spend more money. The Civil Lord of the Admiralty smiled at that remark; but it was so. When Gentlemen went down to oppose him (Mr. Puleston) at Devonport, they invariably declared that they were altogether in favour of economy, except in naval matters. This was because they saw its importance to the country. He trusted a day would come when the Admiralty would cease to display a niggardly feeling in putting the Navy in the position it ought to be in, and when a little more interest would be manifested by the House in the discussion of naval questions.

SIR THOMAS BRASSEY

said, it was necessary he should rise at this stage, in order to answer one or two questions which had been addressed to him in regard to the constructive staff of the Navy. Put, before he did so, he wished first to express his satisfaction at the manner in which the scheme for the amelioration of the condition of the constructive officers of the Navy had been received. With reference to the question put to him by the hon. Member for Portsmouth (Sir H. Drummond Wolff) as to how many gentlemen had been admitted on the staff without examination, he had to say that two gentlemen had been so admitted; but they were admitted on the Establishment of the Admiralty in 1864, several years before the test of examination was imposed. The hon. Member for Portsmouth asked for the abolition of office terms of retirement. He was unable to admit that they had been in any way affected by the changes which had been introduced; and, therefore, they could not have altered the terms of admission. He had also been asked why an answer had not been given on the part of the Admiralty to the application of foremen for an increase of pay. This question must depend upon a general adjustment of the entire constructive staff for the Admiralty and Dockyards, and hence the delay that had occurred in making a reply; but in answer to a Question he had lately stated that, while appreciating the services of the foremen of the Dockyards, the Government did not feel themselves justified in sanctioning an increase of their pay. The hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst) spoke critically on the subject of examinations. No doubt the test was not an altogether satisfactory one; but having been at the Admiralty, and not being without experience of private administration in connection with large industrial works, he found it very difficult to suggest a better. He would only remind the Committee that the conditions under which they had to deal with any branch of public administration, and the conditions under which they dealt with the administration of private affairs, were very different; in the former case the numbers concerned were so vast. Then, again, political events involved frequent changes in the heads of the administration, and hence it was that they were driven to have recourse to some fixed rules of promotion, and some fixed means of testing a man's ability, which would in some degree compensate for want of knowledge of the personal fitness of the individual. For these reasons he was bound to admit that he did not see how they could abolish the system of a test examination. Some questions might be raised as to the character of the examination they imposed. He had already pointed out to the Committee that they felt bound on such a matter to defer to the opinion of their professional advisers; and he would point out that in desiring that the constructive staff should possess high professional and scientific qualifications, in combination with practical ability as constructors, they were taking a step towards the decentralization of Dockyard administration. They wished that the work of designing should in future be carried on at the Dockyards to a larger degree than it was at present; and for that purpose it was necessary that they should have those scientific qualifications not only at the Admiralty, but also on the Dockyard staff. The hon. Member for Plymouth (Mr. Macliver) had spoken of the pay of the workmen in the Dockyards. He would remind him that in fulfilment of a promise given to the Committee last year, an inquiry was instituted by the Secretary to the Admiralty and himself at the Dockyards; and he was glad to be able to say that their interviews with the deputations, whom they had the privilege of receiving, entirely confirmed the observations which had fallen from his hon. Friend opposite. Nothing like a general feeling of discontent was expressed, and the interviews with the Dockyard workmen were of a satisfactory character, and reflected the greatest credit on the men themselves. But while speaking highly of the way in which the case was put before them by the Dockyard workmen, and while acknowledging most fully the skill and the reasonable degree of diligence they displayed, the Admiralty did not feel justified in proposing a rise of wages on a wholesale scale. His hon. Friend had himself referred to one circumstance in favour of the Dockyard workmen as compared with the men employed in private industries. The permanency of the employment afforded by the Government to the Dockyard men was a most important consideration in comparing their position with that of men employed in private establishments; and in cheapness of living, and in certain other practical respects, the former were placed in more favourable circumstances than those employed in some of the great seats of private industry in the country. Moreover, no difficulty was experienced in obtaining any number of competent men to fill up vacancies in the Dockyard. But while they could not promise any advance of wages on a wholesale scale, there were several isolated cases which had been favourably considered. For example, those of the masters and mates of Dockyard tugs, and those of the men engaged in the arduous labour of diving, and the advance of wages which had been recommended to the Treasury, he was glad to say had been approved. The rules which now existed had been long in force. With regard to superannuation, the rules applicable to the Dockyard workmen were the same as those which applied to the highest class of Civil servants of the Crown. The Government wished to deal liberally with those who were employed in the Dockyards, who, he believed, deserved well of the country. But they were also bound to look at these matters in a commercial spirit, and to make the best terms they could for the taxpayers of the Kingdom.

MR. RYLANDS

said, the right hon. Member for Westminster (Mr. W. H. Smith), in the very important speech he had delivered on a former occasion, when the Navy Estimates were under discussion, stated a fact of which he thought the Committee had received full confirmation—namely, his belief that the Dockyard work was more expensive, although the right hon. Gentleman had qualified his remarks by saying that it was not necessarily so, than the work done in private yards—the shipbuilding yards of the country. He (Mr. Rylands) had no doubt whatever as to the fact, and it was one of those facts which he thought the Committee should seriously consider. His hon. Friend the Member for Devonport (Mr. Puleston) seemed to think, as a business man, that if iron vessels cost 15 or 25 per cent more than they could be bought at, it would relieve the loss if they bought fewer, and made more, of these costly vessels. Why was it that the Dockyard work was more expensive than the work done in the shipbuilding yards? They had had an illustration of it that night. His hon. and learned Friend the Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst), his hon. Friend the Member for Devonport (Mr. Puleston), and his hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth (Mr. Macliver) were Gentlemen of influence, all representing important bodies of Dockyard labourers and shipwrights engaged in the respective Dockyards. He had had a great deal to do with large manufacturing concerns, such as iron works, where an enormous number of men were employed, and he had been engaged in large transactions; but he did not hesitate to say that if it were possible that questions as to what he should pay his workmen could be discussed in the House of Commons, and if it were possible also that certain Representatives of the workmen could get up, and constantly press upon him that the workmen wanted one advantage or another, he might just as well close his works at once; because if he were to carry on any manufacture under such conditions, he would inevitably find himself in The Gazette, and all his shares, and the capital which he had engaged in business, would be thrown away. In regard to superannuation, all of his hon. Friends seemed to think that the question of superannuation was one which might be more liberally dealt with. [Mr. GORST: I said more justly dealt with.] At all events, his hon. Friends were not satisfied with the amount of superannuation now paid. Nevertheless, the actual pensions and allowances the Committee would be called upon to vote in the course of that evening amounted this year to £330,000, and they had gradually gone on in-creasing year by year. In connection with the Military Services, they amounted to £868,000. The Civil allowances were, to a great extent, allowances that were paid to established men. He had made a calculation, and he found that for every 20s. paid in wages to established artificers in the Dockyard, they paid superannuation allowances to retired artificers which amounted to from 22½ to 25 per cent on the gross wages paid. There again, he contended, it would be impossible for any large manufacturing establishment to carry on a business, if the wages paid had to be supplemented by an annual charge, amounting to 25 per cent upon such wages, for superannuation allowances. It would take a very great deal of argument to induce the manufacturer, under such circumstances, to believe that he was not paying for labour a great deal more than he ought. He knew that it would be said that the Government got from these men labour at a price that was very advantageous to the Government, although it was accompanied by deferred pay. Now, in regard to the amount of wages they paid, he entirely disputed the contention of hon. Gentlemen opposite, and he asserted that they did not get a return equivalent to the amount they were paying for pensions upon the wages paid. He did not believe it for a moment, and he had had the very highest opinion on the subject from shipbuilders who knew perfectly well what the Dockyards did, and what was done in their own yards. A Gentleman who used to be a Member of that House, and who invariably supported the Government when he (Mr. Rylands) criticized their action in regard to the Dockyards — that eminent shipbuilder, who used to come to the assistance of the Government when they were attacked in reference to the Dockyard system, always privately acknowledged to him that if he did not got more work out of his men for the wages he paid than the Government got out of their men he would be absolutely ruined. And he (Mr. Rylands) knew that it was so. Of course, he did not pretend to be an authority upon naval matters, and when he intervened in the discussion he intervened only upon a subject on which, he ventured to say, he knew as much as many Members of that House—that was to say, that he, as a Member of that House, criticized the operations of the Government where, in a great many instances, they were of a similar character to those establishments with which he was not unfamiliar, where a large number of workpeople were employed under conditions requiring them to turn out a large amount of work. His hon. Friend the Member for Devonport (Mr. Puleston) said that if they were to close two or three of these Dockyards they would gain nothing, nor would they reduce the cost of manufacture of ships. He said they would gain nothing, because they would still have their staff, and their Admiral Superintendent. Now, he trusted the first man they would get rid of would be the Admiral Superintendent. Did the Admiral Superintendent know anything about the construction of ships? Had he had any training in regard to the administration of Government manufacturing establishments? Nothing of the kind. He knew no more about it than any man they could pick up in the streets. He was sent down to the Dockyard quite ignorant of the nature of the work; but, by fussing around, he gradually picked up some information, and, in the end, made it appear that he was managing the establishment. But in three years he was sent away, and some other gentleman went down who was required to go through the same process again. Thus, in that way, a very nice picking was got out of the position of Admiral Superintendent of a Dockyard. He was glad to see that the Prime Minister was present. He thought it was very good of the right hon. Gentleman to come in when they were discussing the Estimates. They could not expect him to attend Committee of Supply; but he wished to say, in the presence of the right hon. Gentleman, that he thought a strong Committee of investigation should be appointed in regard to the expenditure upon the Dockyards, and in regard to the way in which the operations there were carried on, with a view of ascertaining how it was that the cost of our vessels was admittedly higher than the cost of vessels built in the shipbuilding yards of the country. An exhaustive inquiry, conducted by the right class of men, would bring out facts in regard to those establishments which might possibly lead to considerable improvement and very great economy. He wished it to be borne in mind that, while he did not wish entirely to close the Dockyards, his argument had always been that if they went into the market and bought ships of the kind they decided upon as being of the best construction, they would have them delivered in a very much shorter time than they could make them themselves, and there would be no necessity for going on for five, six, or seven years dilly-dallying over the same ship until they got it ready to be launched, when they found that they had spent £750,000 over a vessel, which, when she was ready for sea, was admittedly behind the requirements of the times. He went entirely on the principle of buying as many of the vessels as they required, and not doing the work themselves in a slow Dockyard, but going into the market when they wanted these vessels, and getting them delivered within a comparatively short period, when they would find they really got their money's worth for their money. In that way a good many of the objections which were now made against the administration of the Navy would be removed. He had no wish to detain the Committee longer; but he strongly protested against the present system of Dockyard management; and he regretted extremely that the country was placed under the great disadvantage of finding the Admiralty, while they were themselves struggling to carry on the business of the Navy in an economical manner, driven into constantly-increasing expenditure by the House of Commons.

CAPTAIN PRICE

said, he desired to say a few words on one or two practical questions connected with the Vote. In regard to the case of foremen of yards, it had been so ably dealt with by his hon. Friend the late Secretary to the Admiralty (Mr. A. Egerton) that he would only say that he cordially concurred with what had fallen from his hon. Friend. He thought the secret of the case, as between the foremen of yards and the draftsmen of the Admiralty, who had stepped into their places and cut the ground from under their feet, was this—that at the Admiralty there existed what might be called a nice little Admiralty party, of which the unfortunate foremen, who had borne the heat of the day, were not members, and, consequently, they were loft out in the cold. That was the whole secret of the matter as regarded the foremen. He was glad to hear from his hon. Friend the Civil Lord to the Admiralty that some advantage was to be given to the leading men — a very important branch of the Dockyard Service—but, as far as he had been able to gather, that advantage, in the shape of extra pay, was confined to the leading men of the shipwrights. He thought he was correct, or nearly correct, in saying that. At all events, he understood that the leading men among the artificers did not participate in that advantage. He hoped he might be wrong in his impression; but he fancied that was the state of the case. There were also other trades connected with the Dockyards which had equally important duties to perform, but which would not share in the proposed advantages. That was all he had to say that night on personal questions connected with the Vote. He was sorry that the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) had just left the House, because he wished to comment upon the long dissertation the Committee had been listening to from the hon. Member, although, no doubt, it was one they had heard before in that House, upon the economy of building ships in private yards. The hon. Gentleman commenced his argument with the hypothesis, or, rather, he laid down the dogma, that iron-clad ships or men-of-war built in the Royal Dockyards were 15 or 20 per cent dearer than vessels built in private yards. Where did the hon. Member get his information from? He (Captain Price) denied it altogether, and, at all events, the hon. Member might have waited until the Report of the Committee, now sitting on this very question, had been presented. As regarded that Committee, he thought it was a great pity that no Gentleman had been put upon it who directly represented the Dockyard interest, and that there was no Gentleman upon it who had any direct knowledge of the building of ships in the Royal Dockyards. It was true that there was upon the Committee one of the best officers in the Service; but he had no special knowledge of the building of ships in the Royal Dockyards. Several Members of the Committee had considerable knowledge of shipbuilding in private yards; but none whatever of shipbuilding in the Royal Dockyards. The fact was that when they compared the cost of building in the Royal Dockyards with the cost in private yards they were too apt to take the cost as the money spent on a ships in material and wages. They were the only items which came into the calculation in regard to private yards, due allowance being made for the interest of capital laid out in the construction of Dockyards, plant, and so on. But when they came to a ship built in the Royal Dockyards they had to consider something beyond the cost of the material which was needed, and which could not be more than the cost of material in regard to a ship built in a private dockyard. The wages were not greater, but absolutely less than those paid in private yards; but it was necessary to add to those items the expenses which were called Establishment charges. What were those Establishment charges? The Royal Dockyards existed for entirely different purposes, and were put to a different use, from private yards. As soon as an iron-clad was built in a private yard it sailed away, and the place of its birth knew it no more; whereas a ship built in a Royal Dockyard was constantly coming back for repairs and to be refitted. There were thousands of items which went down as the cost of shipbuilding in the Royal Dockyards, which might be divided among ships which had been built, and which were accounted for as Establishment charges. That was what swelled the cost in the Dockyards, not the actual cost of building a ship, but the inciden tal charges connected with the Dockyards, and for which the Dockyards must exist, even if no ship was ever built in them. The hon. Member for Burnley had spoken about the gentlemen at the head of the Naval Establishments, and said he was desirous of doing away with those objectionable Admirals. He (Captain Price) wanted to show why they were put there. He was sorry that the hon. Member for Cardiff (Sir Edward J. Reed) was not present, because he had sometimes a word to say on that subject. Who were they to put in charge of a Royal Dockyard? Was it to be an engineer? If so, he would know nothing about shipbuilding. Was it to be a constructor? If so, he knew nothing about engineering. Both of these matters had to be provided for, because duties connected with both were constantly being discharged in a Royal Dockyard. They were now on the great Shipbuilding Vote of the Navy Estimates, and he asked the leave of the Committee for a few moments while he made one or two allusions to the shipbuilding programme. The subject had been brought forward in "another place," and two remarkable speeches had been made upon it by the First Lord of the Admiralty. The First Lord had gone down to the House of Lords, and had made what he (Captain Price) could not help characterizing as a violent Party speech. Indeed, he might almost say that it was an electioneering speech. It was a speech entirely uncalled for and gratuitously given. The noble Lord had proceeded, without any challenge whatever, to tell the country that the Liberal Government were building ships at a far greater rate than their Predecessors—the Conservative Government—and he said the way in which it could be proved was this—that they had expended so much more upon iron shipbuilding than the Conservative Government had. And what would the Committee suppose the noble Lord did? He took the smallest sum spent in any year by the Conservative Government—the year immediately following that in which they had bought four iron-clads, and then he took the largest sum spent in any one year by the Liberal Government, telling the country that, as a matter of fact, the Liberal Government had spent twice as much as the Conservative Government in building iron-clad ships. Now, he (Captain Price) had some statistics which he thought would throw another light upon that matter, and he thought the country ought to know the whole circumstances of the case. It was not merely the money actually spent in building iron-clad ships; but there was something more to do than build ships—namely, to repair and maintain them. He had taken from Parliamentary Papers presented to the House a comparison of the actual expenditure upon the Navy. It was divided into Effective Service and Non-Effective Service, and he found that the Conservative Government had spent in their six years of Office £54,293,800 in Effective Services, or £9,049,000 per annum. The Liberal Government during their four years of Office—from 1880 to 1884—had spent £33,694,000, or an average per year of £8,423,500, so that according to these Parliamentary Papers the Conservative Government had spent considerably more upon the Effective Service of the Navy per annum than the Liberal Government had. But that, perhaps, was not the only test they should go by. That was lumping the whole of the Effective Services of the Navy into one sum. Let them take the totals of the great Shipbuilding Votes they were considering—namely, Vote 6 and Vote 10. They were the Votes which gave the actual money they were expending in building the Fleet, and in repairing the Fleet; and, of course, they included all the stores and material by which the Fleet was maintained. He proposed to give the details of Votes 6 and 10. The average sum spent in each year of the three years referred to by the Conservative Party on repairs to the Fleet was £3,949,000, and the average sum spent on the same Votes during each year by the Liberal Government was £3,350,000; so that from whichever point of view hon. Members looked at the question they would find, taking Lord North-brook's test of expenditure, that the Conservative Government had spent annually upon building, repairing, and maintaining the Fleet a larger sum than the Liberal Government had expended, which excess was very well accounted for. The fact was that the Committee must, as he had said before, bear in mind that it was not alone the shipbuilding that had to be considered—there were the repairs to be provided for. When the Conservative Government came into Office—that was to say, in the year 1874, Mr. Ward Hunt, then First Lord of the Admiralty, informed the House that there were at that time no more than 14 sea-going iron-clads fit for the service of the year. Mr. Ward Hunt made that statement deliberately and after complete investigation, and it had never been contradicted. Mr. Ward Hunt accordingly set about the work of repairing, which was carried out so effectively that when in 1880 the present Government came into Office the position of the Navy was this—there were more than double the number of iron-clads fit for the service of the year than were found when the Conservative Government took Office. The money spent by the Conservative Government, therefore, was represented by the repairs which had been effected. How, then, was it possible, if the former Liberal Government handed over the Navy to its Successors in such a state that they were obliged to spend money upon it year after year in repairs, that their Successors could, spend more money than they had spent on shipbuilding? Now, in the course of his preceding observations, he had made some Party allusions, a thing which he might say he had never done before in discussing the Navy Estimates, or, indeed, any question relating to the Navy; but, as a matter of fact, the Conservative Party had been directly challenged to do so in self-defence by the course which Lord Northbrook had thought fit to take in "another place." The noble Lord had gone down to the House of Lords and made a Party attack upon the Predecessors of the present Government without any previous Notice being given—indeed, without anyone knowing anything about it, under circumstances, and at a time, when he knew that no answer to the attack could be made. In his humble way, he (Captain Price) had endeavoured, as far as he was able, to counteract the statement which the noble Lord made; and he was quite certain that his noble Friend on the Bench below him (Lord Henry Lennox) would be able to do more in the same direction. The speech of the First Lord of the Admiralty was certainly of a misleading character. The noble Lord, in the speech to which he was referring, had instituted a comparison between the Fleets of England and France. He (Captain Price) had listened to so many comparisons of the kind that he did not intend to make any himself upon that occasion. He wished, however, to notice, and to ask the attention of the Committee to one remark made by the First Lord of the Admiralty in answer to Lord Sidmouth. That noble Lord had been making a comparison between the two Fleets of England and France, especially with regard to the iron-clads that were in process of construction and those actually built; and the First Lord of the Admiralty stated, in reply, that he could assure the noble Viscount that, so far from the two Fleets being on an equality in respect of first class iron-clads, England had 10 ships of the first class as against three vessels of the French. That appeared to many to be a startling announcement, and he should be glad if the Secretary to the Admiralty would state to the Committee what were the ships to which the noble Lord referred.

THE CHAIRMAN

said, he must point out to the hon. and gallant Member for Devonport that for some time past his observations had been entirely out of Order, so far as the discussion of this Vote was concerned. The hon. and gallant Member was perfectly in Order in discussing the Shipbuilding Vote; but not in replying to the speech of Lord Northbrook in "another place."

CAPTAIN PRICE

said, he was referring to the noble Lord's speech in illustration of his argument, and had no wish otherwise to allude to what had occurred in "another place."

THE CHAIRMAN

said, he hoped the hon. and gallant Member would not continue these observations. The hon. and gallant Member was replying in his own words to a speech of the First Lord of the Admiralty in the other House of Parliament, a proceeding which was against the Rules of the House.

CAPTAIN PRICE

said, he should bow to the ruling of the Chair in abstaining from further comment upon the speech of Lord Northbrook, and would proceed to illustrate his argument that the shipbuilding operations of the Government ought to be considerably extended. He thought it might be said with perfect truth that England had 10 first class iron-clads. He himself had no difficulty in believing that statement, which appeared to him perfectly accurate, and, moreover, exactly in accordance with the list he himself had alluded to, and which was submitted to the House last year. But when he turned to France, and considered the Navy of that country, he asked himself how many first class iron-clads she had either built or building. It was stated that France had only three first class iron-clads; but he found, after careful inquiry and observation, that France had built or was building 15 first class iron-clads. It was, of course, a very difficult thing to say what constituted a first class ship. [Mr. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Hear, hear!] The hon. Gentleman cheered that remark; but he was taking for the purpose of his argument French ships of exactly the same kind as those to which, in England, the term first class was applied, and, in doing so, he had regard to their armour and the guns with which they were furnished. He had regard also to their speed and size. It was also desirable to take ships of the same date, having all modern improvements, and to have regard also to the thickness of the armour. On that principle, he said there were 15 ships built or building for the French Navy of the same class as the 10 best ships of the English Navy. That was the point. He had the names, which he would read to the Committee if necessary. The 10 first class English iron-clads were these—Inflexible, Rodney, Howe, Edinburgh, Colossus, Conqueror, Collingwood, Benbow, Anson, and Camper-down. As against these there were 15 vessels of the French, as he had pointed out, either built or in process of construction; and he had no doubt the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Admiralty would be able to tell the Committee whether any of the ships which he was about to refer to ought not to be classed for the purpose of comparison with the 10 English ships he had just mentioned. Their names were—Formidable, Amiral Baudin, Terrible, Caïman, Requin, Indomptable, Magenta, Amiral Duperré, Neptune, Marceau, Hoche, Tonnant, Vengeur, Foudroyant, and Dévastation. Having given the names of the first class vessels of both Fleets, he should not detain the Committee further than to express a hope that the Admiralty would be guided in their action not only by the consideration of what the actual number and size of the ships of the British Navy were as compared with those of the Navies of France and other Powers, but that they would also take into consideration the very much more extended and important duties which the ships of that Navy had to perform.

MR. ILLINGWORTH

said, he could imagine nothing more melancholy and pernicious than the ordeal gone through by that House annually on the discussion of these Estimates. It seemed to him that instead of proceeding in a businesslike manner they were of necessity always to have before them the consideration of what the French nation were doing in the matter of their Fleet, and that they were always to be ready at a moment's notice to follow in their wake. That appeared to him to be a most objectionable state of things, and he would ask in what a policy of that kind could end? Supposing that the case was established that the French nation had at one period or another a few more ships than we possessed, and that they showed a little more activity in their Dockyards, what followed? They were immediately called upon either to overtake the French or go beyond them; what passed in that House very soon became known all the world over. The jealousy of the French people was easily moved, and the French Government were at once obliged to endeavour to approach us in the strength of our naval resources. He confessed that he could see no end to a policy of this kind, except that at some day or other it would end in some act of folly and disaster. But he wished to say a few words in confirmation of the remarks of his hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) with reference to the administration of the Dockyards. It had often struck him that the result would be most inconvenient if half-a-dozen Members of that House were to take upon themselves to speak on behalf of the employés of one of the great Railway Companies of the country in order to be on good terms with the staff. The result could be no other than that the whole staff would be in a state of fermentation owing to the course pursued by hon. Members in that House. The case was precisely the same with the Dockyards. The hon. Member for Devonport (Mr. Puleston) said, with regard to Members representing Dockyard constituencies, that they stood in a peculiar position, inasmuch as they advocated the Dockyard interests from a not altogether disinterested point of view. The hon. Member went further, and said that in case of an election at any one of those Dockyard constituencies, no matter what party went down they were always ready to depart from their previously expressed views of economy on matters relating to the Dockyards. Every year when these Estimates came forward they had hon. Gentlemen representing Dockyard constituencies producing grievances, real or imaginary, of every class of employés in the several departments. No doubt it might be said that there was no other means by which the artizans in the Dockyards could approach the Admiralty and lay their grievances before them except through the medium of Members of that House; but, on the other hand, he believed it would be to the interest of the nation, and to the comfort of the employés of the Dockyards themselves, if a rule were established forbidding any Members representing Dockyard constituencies to come down to that House and dwell upon these matters unless it was manifest that they were specially qualified for representing such grievances to the House. Injury to the Public Service in every direction could but result from this continual agitation about the pay of Dockyard servants. He held it to be a duty of the Government, both in this and every Department of the State in which large numbers of persons were employed, to proceed as nearly as possible on the lines followed by other large employers of labour throughout the country. They were told that there were applications almost innumerable for employment in the Dockyards, and evidence was given that the rates of pay and pension were ample in order to induce a sufficient supply of labour. This, however, in the case of a public Department, was held to be no reason for dealing with the question of increasing the pay of the employés, according to the laws of supply and demand, as would be the case in every private business. He held there was no need to pay more money than was being paid at the present time for labour in our Dockyards; and he would go further, and say that, when the trade of the country was oppressed, when large sums of money were being spent on the Army and Navy, and when, from both sides of the House, there were innumerable complaints of the burden of taxation, it was no time to put forward these demands. It was barely decent, when labour in every other direction had been reduced materially in value, that it should be urged on the Admiralty by half-a-dozen Dockyard Representatives that they should increase, in one form or another, the pay of the employés in the Dockyards. Like the hon. Member for Burnley, he admitted that he was not an expert in shipbuilding; but there were a few general principles which governed undertakings of this kind, of the truth of which those engaged in large mercantile operations were perfectly satisfied. Now, many Members of that House connected with largo industrial establishments had found out that the safest and wisest plan was to do as much by contract, and as little by private labour, as possible. There was a widespread conviction in the country in connection with the Navy that the public money was not worth more than 10s. in the pound. It was impossible for the Dockyard officials or the Board of Admiralty so to supervise the work done in the Dockyards as to be in any degree able to place themselves in competition with the private dockyards; and his opinion was that the proper course would be to keep up the Dockyards for the purpose only of carrying out repairs to the Fleet, and not for building new ships. In these days contracts could be entered into with private firms, and the business could be carried out under Inspectors appointed by the Admiralty; in short, nothing was easier than to enter into contracts for the construction of ships for the Navy with the greatest security. It seemed to him that the Dockyards should be maintained only for the purpose of effecting repairs, and where it was difficult to enter into contracts with private dockyards. He would not detain the Committee further than to say that in view of the discussions to which they were every year subject in that House with regard to the pay of Dockyard employés, he thought they had the strongest possible evidence of the necessity of appointing a financial Committee to undertake this work upstairs in a businesslike manner, which would prevent those whining appeals, put forward by interested and special Representatives, getting into the public Press, and would, at the same time, prevent their infliction upon the House of Commons.

SIR JOHN HAY

said, the hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. Illingworth) seemed to forget that the reason why we had fortified our Dockyards was in order to protect our Fleet in time of war. Where would ships go to when they retired from a naval engagement for repairs? If the Dockyards were to be unprotected, and maintained only for the purpose of refitting the Fleet after it came from action, we should lose our naval supremacy, because we should require more ships than could be built in private yards.

MR. ILLINGWORTH

said, he had expressly advocated that the Dockyards should be maintained, in so far as they were necessary, for the purpose of repairing the ships of the Navy.

SIR JOHN HAY

said, he was coming to that very point. The case was that we must maintain a certain staff in our Docks and Yards, ready for effecting repairs on extraordinary occasions, so that when an emergency arose we might have our Docks and a sufficient number of trained men available, as well as all the necessary stores ready, for the purpose of shipbuilding. He agreed that the extra ships required by the Navy should be built by private contract. It was that we might have a sufficient number of trained and skilled men to refit a disabled Fleet that the Docks were maintained at all; and he would point out that the men necessary for this purpose must be kept together by the work of shipbuilding. With regard to the Superintendents of the Dockyards, it must be remembered that they had not only to look after the detail work of the shipbuilding, but also to maintain discipline among the men who were employed in the rigging and refitting of ships: and that it had been considered over and over again by Committees appointed by that House that naval officers were the persons most suitable to be at the head of our Dockyards and to be responsible for them. He believed it had been ascertained by the responsible heads of the Admiralty Department of both political Parties—the question having been discussed for the last 30 years—that the duties to be discharged in our Dockyards were best performed when there was a naval officer presiding there. With regard to what had been said by his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Devonport (Captain Price), he was not going to follow him in that very clear and forcible statement, with which he entirely agreed; but he was bound to say that he had read with some astonishment language which he could hardly believe would have been uttered by the First Lord of the Admiralty—namely, that one of the reasons why the number of our ships was not so great as had been thought necessary—the number of iron-clad ships under construction—was that there existed some doubt as to whether the character of naval warfare in the future would not be such as to require a less number of iron-clads, and that torpedoes and other less offensive means of warfare would take the place of the iron-clads and ships hitherto considered to be necessary. What was the reason we had iron-clads at all? It must be borne in mind that during the Crimean War experience showed that shell fire made it impossible to carry on war in wooden ships. The Albion, in attacking the batteries at Sebastopol, was on fire in three places; the crew were panic-stricken; and it was only by the gallant conduct of the captain of the fire brigade, who led his crew back to extinguish the fire, that the panic was stayed and the ship saved. Further, on one occasion an experiment was made which resulted in the destruction of a frigate after 12 shells had been fired. But protection from fire was not the only advantage derived from building iron-clad ships; by that system not only had they vessels which could not be penetrated by shot or shell, but they obtained a steady and permanent platform for the guns, which could continue to be worked with greater effect. Where would be the base of naval warfare unless there were ships which could not be destroyed suddenly, and in which could be mounted the heaviest ordnance necessary for naval warfare? It was for these reasons that it was absolutely necessary we should still continue to build iron-clads. The base of operations must always be an iron-clad Fleet, protected against the missiles of modern warfare. The hon. Member who had just addressed the Committee spoke of the propriety of contrasting the number of ships possessed by different Powers. Now, the hon. Member was mistaken in thinking that the great increase of the French Navy was due merely to an attempt to build two ships for our one. The French Navy, after the disasters of the German War, had been reduced to a low standard; but, a Commission having laid down the number of ships considered to be necessary for the Fleet, they had been working with great determination and at great expense to bring up their Fleet to the number laid down, which he had no reason to suppose would be exceeded. They had before them the decision of that Commission. There was no rivalry between the two nations. It was simply that France, extending her power at sea, was working out her programme, and that when she had completed it she would have more and larger iron-clads, and much more powerful guns, than we now possessed. He said it was the duty of every Member of that House to study the subject, and to urge upon the Government the necessity of maintaining that naval supremacy, without which our commerce would be entirely overthrown.

MR. W. H. SMITH

We have had an illustration this evening of the inconvenience I have more than once referred to, of the absence from this House of the First Lord of the Admiralty. Although the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman) discharges the duties of Secretary to the Admiralty as well as it is possible to discharge them, yet there is undoubtedly an inconvenience in the fact that the exposition of the policy of the Government is made in "another place," and cannot be referred to in this House. I regret that the hon. and gallant Member for Devonport (Captain Price) has not been allowed to proceed with his statement, which I believe would have been of great service to the Committee. I shall not follow the hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. Illingworth), or the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands), in their observations with reference to the cost of labour in the Government Dockyards. I hold the opinion that under a strong Government and with a strong Administration the cost of shipbuilding in our Dockyards might be made as economical in all respects, and the work most certainly superior to the work done in private yards. Although I honestly believe that the supervision given in Her Majesty's Dockyards is of a character which insures excellence of work, and that it ought to be accom panied with corresponding economy, I am far from saying that the amount of work done is as large as it ought to be. But a good deal of work is done twice over owing to the changes made by those who give the officers their orders. The hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. Illingworth) has complained that Members bring forward the claims of their constituents. I recognize to the full the inconvenience of the practice; but it must be remembered that if there are 10,000 or 12,000 labourers employed in the Dockyards, most of whom have votes, there are 150,000 or 200,000 Civil servants who find expression for their grievances and their wants in the mouths and by the speeches of Members on both sides of this House. It is a matter of undoubtedly great importance to the country at large. It is a matter which a strong Government alone can deal with, and it is one which certainly will recur sooner or later to be very carefully considered by those who are responsible for the economical and efficient administration of the great Services of this country. It would be a great mistake and a great wrong to attribute to the Representatives of the Dockyards charges which extend to almost every Member of this House, with regard to the Civil servants and other servants of the Crown, on whose behalf they not unfrequently urge claims for the recognition of services which are undoubtedly valuable, and which I hold should be paid for at their true value, but not in excess of their value. I wish now to refer to the programme of the Admiralty, for, after all, that is the most important question we have to consider this evening. In doing so I think I may be permitted also to refer to some observations made outside this House. I will not say where and I will not say when, but observations have been made with regard to our force of iron-clad ships; and it has been stated that it depends not on the Admiralty of the day, but on the foresight of their Predecessors, for an armour-plated ship is hardly ever completed in less than five years. I wish an armour-plated ship was completed in five years. I think it would be very much to the advantage of the Service if an armour-plated ship was completed in less than five years, and we have the high authority of the present Board of Admiralty for saying that even that might be accomplished. But we have also the assurance that the present Board of Admiralty have very considerably increased the rate of construction of these ships. I think I have given evidence to my hon. Friends opposite that, at all events, I seek by all means in my power to avoid importing anything like Party feeling or charges into observations upon this most important subject. If it were possible to do so, I should like to remove all considerations affecting the Army and the Navy out of the arena of Party politics, for nothing is more injurious to the interests of the nation than that we should endeavour to get Kudos on one side or the other for one Party or the other. Therefore, in the observations I am about to make, I shall direct my efforts entirely to the matter, as it seems to me, of the principles upon which the administration and construction of the Navy are pursued. I find fault with that which has been done, not with any desire to complain of individuals in the present Board of Admiralty, or to contrast their conduct unfavourably with that of their Predecessors; but I must refer to some of the principles which were laid down by the Representatives of the present Board in this House; and, as I am speaking of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen who have sat in this House, and who sit here now, I shall be in Order in my references. In the first place, my right hon. Friend the Chief Commissioner of Works (Mr. Shaw Lefevre), speaking on June 7, 1880, said— Looking to the state of the iron-clads which were likely to come into the Dockyards for repairs in the course of the next two or three years, and looking also to the large amount of work which, he freely acknowledged, had "been done by the late Board in the way of repairing iron-clads and other vessels, he hoped that there would not be so much pressure on the Dockyards for repairs during the next two or three years as there had been in the past; and he trusted, therefore, that they would be able to devote a larger portion of labour to the completion of such vessels as were in hand."—(3 Hansard, ["252] 1389.) That is what I always expect to find from hon. or right hon. Gentlemen on that side of the House, and who have the responsibility of Government. That is a full, and fair, and frank acknowledgment of the actual condition of the ships and the Service when he became responsible for them. He said, looking at the large amount of work which he freely acknowledged had been done by the late Board, he hoped there would not be so much pressure on the Dockyards for repairs during the next two or three years as there had been in the past; and he trusted, therefore, that they would be able to devote a larger portion of labour to the completion of such vessels as were in hand, that, therefore, their hands would be set free to go on more rapidly, and to complete more rapidly, the vessels in hand. On the same day the right hon. Gentleman said— The object which they had in view would be to complete the vesssels already in hand as soon as they possibly could …. It was impossible to apply to a large iron-clad such as the Colossus more than a certain amount of labour, having regard to economy, and the very shortest time in which a vessel of that class could be completed would be four years from the date of its commencement."—(Ibid. 1387.) So that we have an indication of the policy of the present Board—of its resolve; and an explanation of why it would carry out that policy, because repairs had been effectually maintained and ships were in good order; and then we have the declaration that a large ship like the Colossus could not be completed in less than four years from its commencement. That was followed up by a statement by the right hon. Gentleman the present Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant next year. He said— The present Board may have notions of their own as to the man-of-war of the future; but they find plenty of work left them by their Predecessors, in the shape of carefully and ably-designed iron-clads, which only want to be completed in order to render them fit then to dispute the seas against any comer. The best way of getting to a new design is to finish the old one out of hand; whereas, if ships are laid down freely, and finished off slowly, the nation had never the advantage of a new design at all."—(3 Hansard, [259] 1388.) I think that is an admirable principle. It is a principle to which I attach the highest importance, and which I support most cordially. He goes on to say— But, besides the building of new ships, there is another service which can just as little be neglected—the maintenance of our existing Meet in a condition of efficiency. Now, here we owe much to our Predecessors. The attention which, of late years, has been paid to the repair of our iron-clads has enabled the present Board to throw a greater strength into shipbuilding."—(Ibid. 1392.) So the right hon. Gentleman removed from his Predecessor, from himself, and from his Board any reason or excuse for not throwing that greater strength into shipbuilding, and throwing their energies into shipbuilding, which he declared to be necessary, in order that the nation should have large and newly-designed and quickly-built ships. We are told that after all the great thing to be done is to lay down ships, and that is a departure, as it seems to me, from the principle which my right hon. Friends insist upon so strongly. Laying down ships is one thing; building ships is a very different thing; and that is the point upon which I am most anxious to offer some observations. First, we have it laid down here that large iron-clads cannot be completed in less than four years; and that it is the wisest policy in the interests of the country that ironclads should be completed rapidly. Now, I should like to ask whether that has been done? I will give the Committee the dates of the ships now building. It is hardly necessary for me to say that during the late Administration there were 12 ships taken in hand and advanced very considerably, nine of which are now complete and afloat—namely, the Inflexible, the Nelson, the Northampton, the Superb, the Orion, the Belle Isle, the Neptune, the Ajax, and the Agamemnon. And there are three ships which were laid down—namely, the Edinburgh, on March 29, 1879; the Conqueror, on April 28, 1879; and the Colossus, on Juno 6, 1879. They were laid down by the late Government. Then there follow the Collingwood. July 12, 1880; the Impérieuse, August 10, 1881; the Warspite, October 25, 1881; the Rodney, February 6, 1882; the Howe, June 7, 1882; the Benbow, November 1, 1882; the Camperdown, December 18, 1882; the Anson, April 24, 1883; and subsequently, I think, the Hero has been laid down. I should like to ask if that is so?

MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN

Yes; at Chatham.

MR. W. H. SMITH

To give an idea of the extent to which work has been done on these ships I may mention that the first—the Edinburgh—has been five years and four months in building—say five years, because I am only giving the figures returned in the Estimates laid on the Table, and which show the amount of progress made up to April, 1884. Assuming those figures to be correct—of which, however, I confess I entertain considerable doubt, looking at the variation which takes place in them from time to time—of 6,150 tons weight of hull in the Edinburgh 4,225 are shown to have been built into her by the Returns up to April 1, 1884; so that there remains one-third of the whole amount of work to be done in the Edinburgh after a period of five years. As to the Conqueror, she is returned as complete; and I venture to call the attention of my hon. Friend the Secretary to the Admiralty to the fact that she is not complete, and could not go to sea, in all probability, for some months, as the breech-pieces for her guns are not yet decided upon, and it is admitted that she requires hydraulic gear for loading, the designs for which are not even approved, and alterations of magazines will have to be made—those unfortunate alterations to which must be attributed not only delay, but a very large portion of the excessive cost of our ships. Then we come to the Colossus, which is promised in the course of the present year. She is shown to have had built into her 5,692 tons, out of a gross total of 6,150. I shall be exceedingly glad to hear from my hon. Friend that the Colossus will be completed in the course of the present year. I will only remark about the Edinburgh that she was returned last year as having had 4,600 tons built into her, and it is stated 504 tons have been built into her last year; but she comes out of the ordeal worse than she was at the commencement; in point of fact, the gross tonnage built into her is 4,225 tons, as against 4,600 that were returned last year. I only mention these figures to give the Committee and the country an idea of the extraordinary delay and difficulties which seem to impede the completion of Her Majesty's ships, with the best intentions and resolutions on the part of the Admiralty. Now I come to the Collingwood, which has been four years in completing. 4,557 tons have been built into her, as against a total of 6,005 tons; and the Impérieuse 3,617, as against 4,900. I should weary the Committee by going through these figures; but in the eight ships laid down by the present Board between July, 1880, and April, 1884, representing a gross weight in tons of hull to be built into the ships of 47,620 tons, only 19,000 tons were completed by the 1st of April, 1884; and the result is that only one-third to two-fifths is the average of what has been done in the ships; and if you say they have, on the whole, taken from two to three years in building, there appears to be a probability not of completion in four years, but in seven or eight years. Now, I wish again to say this—if you had laid down half the number of ships and completed them off-hand you would have added greatly to the strength of the Navy. If, instead of 11 or 12 ships, you had laid down and completed six, and then laid down another three, five, or six, as you had opportunity, you would have had that which the Chief Secretary said it was so desirable—you would have had shipping laid down freely, finished off quickly, and the advantage of new designs. Now, I dare say we shall be told that I am asking for that which is almost an impossibility. I know the difficulties, and I know the effort that is required from any Board and from any First Lord who insists on the policy I so strongly advocate. I know it is almost beyond the strength of any human being to do so; but still the effort is worth making, and some of us had an opportunity of seeing a ship the other day built under circumstances of this kind. She was built on a design furnished to the Constructor. She is named the Riachuelo; she was laid down in September, 1881, and we saw her ready to go to sea a month ago, so that she was built and completed for sea in two years and six months. I will road to the Committee, if I may, a paper with regard to this ship by one of the highest and most experienced authorities, Mr. White, late Constructor at the Admiralty, which was read before the Institute of Naval Architects on the 21st of April last. He said— I think she deserves all the praise that has been bestowed upon her. No doubt she will be one of the most powerful, swift, best armoured second-class armour-clads afloat—perhaps the best. She is a triumph, it seems to me—a combination of many qualities difficult of attainment; and how that has been brought about it is easy to see, in face of these figures. Mr. White says more; but I will only trouble the Committee with the remarks which seem to me to be of importance. He says further— The ship is, in fact, up to date in every particular. There is not a single feature in the ship in which she can be said, so far as my knowledge goes, to be behind the present time; and that, if I may be allowed to add the remark, is largely due to her rapid construction. …. I can only say that the fact of this ship being up to date is due to her rapid construction, and her rapid construction is largely due to the fact that she has been built as she was designed, and not made the subject of extensive and repeated alterations during her construction. Now, this is the account given by an able officer of the Admiralty, whom some of us, I think, would be glad to see back again at the Admiralty, if an opportunity were afforded to him. Here is a statement of the simple facts of the case, not intended as matter of controversy, but coming from the bottom of his heart, as a simple statement of facts, not as an excuse for the delay which he is conscious occurred within the walls of the Admiralty and the Dockyards, but as an explanation of the fact, which none of us doubt, that the Admiralty Constructors and the Dockyards can produce a ship as rapidly, and turn out work as good, and make the ship as altogether efficient an instrument of warfare as any Constructor in any part of Her Majesty's Dominions. But why is this not done? Is it the policy of the Admiralty not to do that? I am sure it is not. Their policy is to construct a ship as perfectly and completely as possible. But what is it that causes the delay? What is it that enables them to claim that they have 11 or 12 ships laid down, not one of which, in all probability, will be available for the defence of the country this year; not more than one of them available during next year; and others of them delayed for three, four, or five, and, possibly, even six years from the present time? To quote these ships as additions to the strength of the Navy is simply a delusion. They can no more be made use of than a little cockle-shell in the River Thames could be called a man-of-war. They are utterly useless at the present time, and they must be so for two, or three, or four years to come, unless there is a distinct and complete alteration in the policy of those who have to direct the operations of the Constructors for the Admiralty. There was a statement made the other day—I will not say where—by a great authority— Supposing a naval war to break out between two countries, in all probability the first-class ships would soon be placed hors de combat, and the nation that had the greatest number of vessels would be able to sweep the seas. I believe that statement to be correct. I believe our ships would, many of them, be placed hors de combat, and we should find ourselves, if unfortunately engaged in war, in this position—that we had 12 ships, in different stages of advancement, in the Dockyards, none of which would be available while the war lasted; 12 iron-clads; half-a-dozen or more cruisers in a like condition, and a number of other vessels not taken in hand, because of the difficulty in deciding what should be done—in other words, we should have a strength capable of turning the issue of a great struggle lying idle and incapable of being used; while a policy which insisted upon completing every ship we could, and maintaining them in a state of efficiency for war, would probably save the country. Now, I should like to know what is the cause of this? Is it that you cannot obtain guns? Is it that you have not settled what guns you are going to have? Is it that you do not know precisely how to mount these guns? What is the cause of delay? Is it that you cannot make up your minds whether you will have heavy guns or light guns? or whether you will have torpedoes or not? What is the cause of this unfortunate system of alteration and delay which prevails at the Admiralty? Now, I will ask my hon. Friend as to certain statements made in this House. I have no doubt they are accurate; but if he says that they are, he will, at all events, remove one of the elements of doubt which have prevailed, and will set at rest assertions which have been not unfrequently repeated as to the causes of delay. The noble Marquess the Secretary of State for War is credited with having stated that the War Department has supplied, or in a few days will have supplied, to the Navy 10 guns of 43 tons and 12-inch bore; 18 of 18-tons and 10-inch bore; 18 of 18-tons and 9-inch bore, and 170 of 4 tons and 6-inch bore. In addition, he says there are in hand in course of construction for the Navy 3 of 110-tons, four of 63-tons, and 3 of 43-tons. I should like to know whether these guns have been actually delivered to the Navy, or whether they are incomplete, or in some degree of incompleteness like the Conqueror gun or the Colossus gun, which for all practical purposes is a mere tube, and incapable of being used on board a ship. Upon that I do not wish to bring any charge against Woolwich, for I believe it has done its work as well as any Department; but it needs direction; and it needs distinct and positive orders as to completion, and it also needs money. Whether these orders had been given or the money has been found, it remains for my hon. Friend to say. Then we are told that there are in hand three guns of 110-tons, four of 63-tons, and three of 43-tons. I understood that the Anson, the Collingwood, the Howe, the Rodney, and the Benbow, were all to have 63-ton guns. All we hear of at present is that four are in course of completion. Now, Sir, there must be delays, there must be expense, when the Admiralty have determined that a ship shall be built, and have ordered her to be built, that requires a particular gun. The guns are not begun until long after the ship is commenced. Then a delay occurs which suggests an alteration in the fitting and magazines; the whole thing is pulled to pieces again, and six, or 12, or 18months' delay occurs. I want to know if the 63-ton guns that are required for the ships will be ready when the ships are ready, looking at the energy which my hon. Friend opposite and the Secretary to the Admiralty said would be used to push the ships forward. I want to know, in other words, whether the ship will be kept waiting for the gun, or the gun will be kept waiting for the ship? I hold that the gun ought always to be waiting for the ship—that it ought always to be ready for the ship. The present Surveyor General of Ordnance (Mr. Brand) said that never had the War Department kept a ship waiting for a gun, but that the gun was always waiting for the ship. I have no doubt that my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant (Mr. Trevelyan) will entirely confirm that view; but if it be so it only adds mystery to the difficulty. If the guns are ready or ordered before the ship is ready, I want to know whether the hydraulic fittings will be ready likewise? I have reason to believe that it takes two years from the date of order, or probably will take two years, to complete the hydraulic fittings of the 43-ton gun. It may take no more to complete the fittings of the 63-ton gun; but it certainly will take no less. Has the order been given, has the contract been taken up? Is it decided that one of these ships shall be ready in due course of time to receive these guns and gun-carriages? Then I want to know whether there really is or is not any delay with regard to the mountings for the small guns? I have heard—I do not know whether it is true—that there is some difficulty in furnishing the mountings for the 6-inch and the 8 and 9-inch guns which have been delivered, and which are required for the Service. Why is that delay occurring? What is the cause of it? Is it due to any difficulty in the supply of these mountings at Woolwich? I understand that the Admiralty take the whole of the mountings into their own hands. They can go where they please, either to Woolwich or to Elswick, to get what they want, or, if they do not get it there, they can go to any other gun-carriage shop or mechanical shop in the country. They have the whole resources of the country at their disposal, and, having settled the pattern, it does not seem to me that it would be a very difficult thing for them to acquire within a reasonable time such mountings as are required for these ships. I am afraid I am occupying the time of the Committee unduly with these matters; but my excuse must be that they are of a very serious and grave character. We may say what we like about foreign Navies and the English Navy; but there is one thing which we ought to insist on, and that is that the English Navy should be equal to any duty which may be required of it. We are at one on that point. Our resources should be so handled, and our mechanical appliances so used, our existing machinery should be so applied, that at any moment the whole strength which the country possesses should be capable of being brought into use for the defence of the country. No doubt, my hon. Friend will agree with me in that; and my complaint is that the system under which we are proceeding, and under which we have proceeded for many years, fails to give that assurance to the country. Speaking of new ships, there is one thing I would remark on as to the policy of the Admiralty. I refer to the steel steam cruisers of the Leander class. In one part of the Return they are spoken of as complete so far as the contractor is concerned. In the abstract of ships building and completing in Her Majesty's Dockyards, we are told that the Amphion is to advance to 1,443 tons after her arrival at Devonport, and the Arethusa is to be completed. These, with the Leander, are, no doubt, valuable ships, and I think they could all be completed in three months, if the Admiralty gave the order for it. If they are left incomplete they will infallibly be attended with expense, because there will be a disposition to alter them, and make changes in them—probably to re-arrange their armaments in some way. It has been decided what the ships shall be by giving the orders to build them, and it is simply a waste of money to delay and make alterations after they are complete so far as their hulls, or gun-ports, or fittings generally are concerned. These ships, I venture to say, ought to be completed and made ready for that service to which the authority I have already quoted referred when he said that the nation which had the greatest number of vessels would, in the time of war, be able to sweep the seas. We should be able to sweep the seas, no doubt, if we made use of the resources which ought to be at our command. With regard to the repairs, I wish to ask a question or two of my hon. Friend. There are two or three important ships in the Dockyard. There are the Black Prince, the Warrior, and the Resistance awaiting repairs, without any decision whatever having been come to by the Admiralty with regard to what those repairs shall be. Then there are the Agincourt, the Achilles, and the Minotaur, and there is a fourth ship of the same class of which I have forgotten the name. These ships are ships of a certain type, with regard to which it is absolutely necessary that the Admiralty should come to some decision. Are they going to repair them, or are they going to deprive the country of the strength which, in time of emergency, these ships would supply? I readily acknowledge that they are no longer first-class fighting ships; but then their hulls are indestructible. They are very fast ships, capable of being used as cruisers in time of emergency; and I conceive that they could be made most efficient cruisers at half the cost of the Mersey or the Severn—at half the cost of a ship that is altogether unprotected so far as her sides are concerned. It is not my duty to indicate the policy that the Admiralty should pursue; but it is my duty to insist on the value of these ships in time of emergency if they were only placed in a position to do good work for the country. Sir, I will not go at greater length into this question, which appears to me to be so important that it is to be regretted that so few hon. Members feel it to be to their interest, or their duty to their country, to take part in the discussion. I maybe forgiven, perhaps, if I say that I believe there is no subject which can be discussed in this House which is of more importance, and there is no subject on which the Government would more welcome increased support. Nor is there any subject on which they would be more glad, so to speak, to be assisted by the House of Commons in the course they pursue. I give them full credit for the desire to do their best under the circumstances in which they are placed; but it is unfortunate that they should have to contend with what appears to be an indifference on the part of the House of Commons to the welfare of the Service which, in time of emergency, would prove the safeguard and protection of the country. I am most anxious that we should have answers to the questions which I have ventured to address to the Secretary to the Admiralty. I think I have shown that laying down ships is a different thing to completing them, and that we may have a great many vessels in the Dockyards without having anything to rely on in time of emergency. It is that time of emergency from which I cannot avert my eyes. If we are not to contemplate war as possible, we have no excuse whatever for maintaining a costly Navy and a costly Army. If we are to contemplate the possibility of war, everyone who, being in a position of command and responsibility, fails to develop to the full the resources under his control, is, I think, a traitor to his country.

MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN

This is not the first time that, on rising, to reply on behalf of the Government to observations made in the course of the discussion on the Navy Estimates, it has been my duty, as well as my pleasure, to recognize the most candid and cordial support, and the generally satisfactory tone of the observations that have been made, and the freedom from anything like a Party spirit which has characterized the discussion. My right hon. Friend opposite, the late First Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. W. H. Smith), has made a speech to which I shall probably best reply if I say that I agree with the greater part of it. He impressed upon us the necessity of avoiding those delays which every one of us must admit are not only costly, but also, to a large extent, injurious to efficiency; and he quoted several instances in which ships had been commenced and considerable promises had been made with regard to their completion without being fulfilled. He said that, in spite of these promises, the ships were still in an incomplete condition. Well, the first remark I would make upon that line of argument of my right hon. Friend is, that it is a condition of things which has always existed. I believe that even when my right hon. Friend himself was First Lord of the Admiralty the same state of things existed; and there are one or two instances—notably that of the Inflexible—which occurred during that period, and which are often quoted as exemplifying the evils of delay in the construction of the Navy. But, as I said in introducing the Estimates this year, the alternative for delay in manufacture, in order that modern improvements may be taken advantage of as they arise, is to shut our eyes to all improvements that are suggested during the construction of great ships. I am not here to plead in favour of delay. I have nothing to say in contradiction of the line of argument which my right hon. Friend adopted; but what I do say is, that there is, to some extent at least, another side to the picture, and that it is most undesirable that we should consider ourselves absolutely required, the moment we have laid down a ship, to adhere with pedantic accuracy to the original design. More especially is this true in regard to the years through which we have just passed. Since 1880, and until this year, we have been engaged in one of the most important duties which it ever became the task of a Government in reference to naval matters to perform—I mean the total transformation of the armament of the Navy — an alteration not only from muzzle-loading to breech-loading guns, but from guns that were suited to one kind of powder to guns suited to another kind; in fact, from one theory of guns and gunnery to another. It is said that there has been great delay on that ground, and I admit it; but if it is alleged that we are to blame for this delay, then I say that we should have been much more to blame if, instead of proceeding cautiously and deliberately, we had rushed to the conclusion that a certain type of gun was the best, and had provided the Navy with a large and costly armament, which a very few years would have proved to be obsolete, and inferior to that possessed by other Navies, The truth is, that up to 1880 nothing whatever had been clone, or very little, in this country in the direction of altering our armament; whereas other countries have been going ahead in the matter. When the present Government came into Office, they found that little or nothing had been done; and therefore it became their duty to undertake, almost from the beginning, this gigantic task. What they did was to appoint an Ordnance Committee, not trusting to their own opinion, or to the counsel of their immediate Advisers. They appointed this Special Committee, and it was intrusted with the responsibility of laying down the principles upon which this great change in our armaments should take place. Well, this was a subject which could not be lightly treated—the alteration was a thing which could not be decided upon or carried out in a day; and, of course, the Ordnance Committee, like all such Bodies, was not very rapid in coming to its decision. It has not, however, been so dilatory as one might have feared; and we are now in this position—that with regard to the greater questions involved in the problem, particularly the general design of the guns, they have settled the type which is to be adopted. I was glad and very much interested to hear—as I know several hon. and gallant Members who were present on that occasion also were—the lecture given by Colonel Maitland, the officer at the head of the Gun Factory, the other day, at the Royal United Service Institution. I was glad to hear that, in his opinion, the gun which is now being adopted in our Service is really the most modern in Europe—ahead of that adopted in the Service of any other country. The Committee will observe that the question of guns directly affects the construction of ships. It is not only the size and weight of the gun that you have to consider, but you must also have in your mind the weight of the projectile, and the magazine accommodation which would be required. The power of the gun, also, is an element to be considered in the construction of a ship; and, therefore, so long as the data upon which to proceed in these respects are absent, it is quite necessary that the building should be retarded. Sometimes, of course, delays occur which were not expected when the building of the ship was first commenced; and if any explanation is required as to unusual delays which have occurred in particular of late years, it is to be found in that—that is the real secret of the matter. I do not admit, however, that the general delay has been excessive compared with that of other years. My right hon. Friend (Mr. W. H. Smith) asked me whether I could say, or confirm the statement made the other night by my noble Friend the Secretary of State for War, that no ship had been kept waiting for its guns.

MR. W. H. SMITH

The Surveyor General of the Ordnance.

MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN

Well, the Surveyor General of the Ordnance, who is more directly responsible than the noble Lord. I understand, from the best inquiries I have been able to make, that that can be said to be strictly true—that is to say, that the process of manufacture of the gun has never been prolonged to such an extent as to keep the ship waiting. That ships have been kept waiting until the design of the gun was settled, or until some alteration was finally adopted with regard to its charge and other particulars, there can be no doubt; but as to manufacture, what has been said from this place on the subject is, I believe, exactly true. The statement made also by my hon. Friend with regard to the number of guns which are ready is, as far as I can follow the figures quoted by the right hon. Gentleman opposite, in correspondence with the facts as known to us. The right hon. Gentleman asked whether these guns had been actually delivered. They have not all been actually delivered; but we know that they are lying ready for delivery; and I think, when they are in that condition, it is better for them to remain at Woolwich than for them to be handed over to us, because we have not the same facility for keeping them in good condition, probably, as exists at Woolwich. But the guns, according to the statement made the other day and quoted by my right hon. Friend opposite are, I believe, actually at the disposal of the Admiralty, and available for naval service. Perhaps it would satisfy my right hon. Friend if I went over some of the points affecting the guns in succession, in order that I may tell him precisely how the matter stands. I will begin with the 6-inch gun. As to this gun, there has been no change of pattern causing the delay, and there has been no retarding of any ship in consequence of its manufacture; but I am sorry to say that in respect of the mounting there is at present a hitch. Patterns showing the precise form and details, so as to allow of preparations being made for putting the mountings down, have never been wanting; but when the carriage came to be actually constructed, it was found that there was great difficulty in getting the steel castings necessary for the particular form of carriage adopted.

SIR JOHN HAY

Provided from Elswick?

MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN

Yes; from Elswick. The difficulty was one which had not been anticipated. It came upon us suddenly. I am glad to say, however, that it is in a fair way to be remedied. The delay was owing to the peculiar form of the mountings—to the difficulty of getting steel cast in the necessary form. As to the 7-inch gun, it is only an experimental gun at this moment, and it is somewhat doubtful whether it will be used, even for the Mersey and Severn class of ship, for which it was intended. Of the 8-inch and 9-inch guns, a considerable supply is now ready at Woolwich, waiting for the mountings. Experimental mountings are not yet supplied by the makers; and, of course, until they have been tested in one or two instances, the other guns must wait. This circumstance, I may say, affects the Bellerophon, and the re-armament of the Hercules and the Sultan, and possibly of some other ships. It was intended to fit out the Bellerophon as a sea-going gunnery ship; but that proposal has been abandoned.

SIR JOHN HAY

Will the change in the case of the 7-inch gun cause any alteration of the Mersey and Severn?

MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN

Not at all. The 7-inch gun is not a naval gun at all, but is merely manufactured for land service. Going up to the 12-inch, or 43-ton, gun, that is the gun which is on board the Conqueror, and, as my right hon. Friend opposite knows, a difficulty has, unfortunately, arisen with regard to the hydraulic loading apparatus. The gun is ready, the breech-piece is all right, and there is no reason to suppose that any alteration in it will be required; but it is found that in the turret there is not room enough to develop sufficient force in the apparatus which moves the breech-piece after the gun has been fired a few times. It is not a very large question, but it is one of some intricacy; and experiments are being made on board the Handy, which it is fully expected will soon succeed, and lead to the difficulty being overcome. But the Committee will observe that that is not a matter strictly affecting the gun itself. We cannot say that the Conqueror is not ready on account of the delay of the gun by the War Department, because it is the hydraulic mode of closing the gun which is at fault rather than the gun itself.

MR. W. H. SMITH

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will allow me to ask a question as to whether the pattern for the breech-piece itself is finally settled? I may say that I have myself seen it, and have noticed that the obturator is not approved. It is in connection with that that the difficulty has arisen, I believe. The difficulty had not been overcome a few days ago.

MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN

I will not go into details just now upon this matter. No doubt, the obturator has something to do with the delay; but my advisers say that it is not necessary to alter the present obturator. The difficulty will be got over in some other way. As to the 63-ton gun, as I stated some time ago in answer to the right hon. Gentleman, there are four of these guns ordered and in process of construction, and one of them is so far advanced that it will probably be finished for trial in four or five months. We do not anticipate any delay, therefore, on account of that gun; and as to its affecting the construction of the ship, its actual weight and dimensions have been known for some time, and the maximum, or the largest, charge and the projectile have been stated, so that on that account there will be no necessity for retarding the ships which are to carry it.

MR. W. H. SMITH

The hon. Gentleman has not alluded to the other guns.

MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN

I have gone over all of them.

MR. W. H. SMITH

Have four of the 63-ton guns been ordered?

MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN

Yes, Sir; four.

MR. W. H. SMITH

That is the armament of one ship?

MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN

Yes; I find there are eight ordered. Money is provided in the Estimate for completing four, and commencing four more.

MR. W. H. SMITH

The Committee will feel that information obtained in this way is, perhaps, more complete. Is there any fact which can be stated as to the time within which the 63-ton guns will be completed from the date of the order? How long does it take to make a 63-ton gun; because, if only four are in course of construction, and four more are to be ordered this year, and there are four ships building which require to have them, two ships would be left without guns until next year. I think my hon. Friend will see that there is some uncertainty as to whether the guns will be ready for the ships.

MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN

I do not know exactly how long it will take to manufacture the guns. My hon. Friend (Mr. Brand) says it will take 18 months or two years. The right hon. Gentleman put a question to me as to the Leander. The Leander herself, we expect, will be completed in December in the Dockyards; but the others of her class will not be completed until she has been tried. Directly we are satisfied with her capabilities the others will be completed. They can be completed in about three months. Then the right hon. Gentleman asked me an important question as to the repair of certain vessels of the older type. He referred to the Black Prince, the Warrior, the Defence, the Resistance, the Hector, &c. There is a class to be separated from that class — namely, the Minotaur, the Agincourt, the Northumberland, and the Achilles. In the case of the first class, they are single-screw ships, with their steering gear unprotected. That is an important point. With regard to the others, they have their steering gear protected. The Warrior, Black Prince, and Resistance have been for some time awaiting repairs. The Black Prince was, I believe, put in hand for repair in 1878, and, in fact, a considerable advance was made in the work of repairing her; but when it was found that she would cost a great deal more than had been expected, the Admiralty, not unreasonably, stopped the work upon her, because in her present condition she was, for one thing, a somewhat extravagant ship. That was one reason, and I have no doubt there were many others, to account for the postponement of her repair. She has remained in her present condition ever since. The other class, the Minotaur, Agincourt, and Achilles, have not yet come to want repair; but they will very soon be out of order—the Minotaur, probably, within about nine months. It has, therefore, become urgent, seeing that these are valuable and important vessels, that the Admiralty should consider what should be done with them. I cannot say that any final and positive decision has been arrived at on the subject; but I believe that the impression on the minds of the Board of Admiralty is that it would be well worth while to spend the requisite money upon the Minotaur when she comes out of commission—that is to say, to put her into thorough repair, and to place in her compound engines, with a slightly improved, armament. I understand my right hon. Friend to say, and I must correct him in this, that this ship could be repaired and made a most useful vessel, both as a cruiser, and as, above all, an exercise ship, for half the cost of a vessel of the Mersey class. Well, a vessel of the Mersey class costs £154,000—namely, £100,000 for the hull, and £54,000 for the machinery. The cost of doing what I have indicated to the Minotaur—that is to say, giving her compound engines, and slightly improving her armament, and repairing her in other respects — would be, according to the best estimate we can make, somewhere between £140,000 and £200,000. If the old-fashioned engines were left in her the cost would be £100,000. But in the case of this vessel, important and useful as she would be, my impression is — and I think my Colleagues share the opinion, though the course has not been definitely adopted—that she is well worth being supplied with compound engines. Then, as to the other class, it is not at all unlikely—though in this matter also no decision has been arrived at—that the Black Prince may be repaired in such a way as to be able to take the place of the Minotaur without putting new boilers in her. Her boilers are good for two years, so that they will not be replaced for that period by new ones; and by that time we shall see how we succeed with the Minotaur, and be able to tell the best course to adopt. It is a matter to be considered whether these ships are worth the expenditure of the money which would be necessary in order to put them into good condition. Some of them, undoubtedly, are. The armour of most of them is only 4½ inches; but it is quite enough to make them perfectly secure against shell fire and machine-gun fire. They are, indeed, extremely good and useful ships for a variety of purposes. They can accommodate large crews, and will be most useful for Channel service, and for the purpose of exercising seamen; so that the right hon. Gentleman will understand that we perfectly appreciate the importance, in fact the necessity, of dealing with these ships; but the indication I have given him of the views and plans recommended to us at this moment is all that I can say at present. Now, I have already alluded to the question of delay in the construction of ships, and I have said what I have to say on that subject; but, perhaps, it may be desirable at this stage, and in connection with that point, to mention that we have found it possible to go on somewhat more rapidly both with the Collingwood and the Edinburgh than was expected when I had the pleasure of introducing the Estimates. It was supposed that the Collingwood would have to be delayed somewhat, in consequence of her trials; but I am glad to say that they have been exceedingly successful, and altogether it is found consistent with the arrangements at the Dockyards to push her on a little more rapidly. The hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite (Captain Price) appeared to assume that someone on the part of the Admiralty propounded it as a principle that our naval strength, is to be measured by the number of ships we lay down. I am not aware that anyone connected with the Admiralty has said anything even encouraging that idea. The First Lord of the Admiralty (Lord North-brook), upon an occasion which has been alluded to, spoke of the ships that had been laid down; but the way in which he introduced that point was this. He said that if you are making a comparison of the progress of two nations with regard to ships, there is a great difference of opinion as to how you are to class them—which are first-class, and which are second-class — besides which it often happens that you have very uncertain information regarding their progress, so that the only tangible fact which cannot be disputed by anyone is the number laid down. I must say I do not think we in this country have fallen into the error, or laid ourselves open to the accusation, of laying down too many ships without any prospect of proceeding with them. If that accusation were made by a Member of the French Assembly with reference to his own country, I could understand it better, because, if I were to make any observations at all upon the recent policy of that nation, I should say they would probably have done better had they devoted a little more of the labour and money they have spent on their Navy to completing their ships, rather than in laying now ships down. But it is a relief to me to find that the view taken by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. W. H. Smith) is shared by other hon. Members near him, for we have had constantly thrown at our heads ships which were nominally laid down in the French Estimates, but which we knew had not been brought into existence at all, or, at all events, advanced to so small a degree that they were out of the reckoning. I have always avoided making comparisons, and I am not going to make them now; but there are two French ships—namely, the Brennus and Charles Martel—which are constantly quoted, but which are not yet laid down, and I should not be very much surprised if they were never laid down at all, although they have been on the Estimates for years.

CAPTAIN PRICE

I did not quote them.

MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN

I was not alluding to the hon. and gal lant Gentleman. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. W. H. Smith) asked me about the Colossus. We expect that ship will be finished at the end of this year. It is quite true that the old question of tons enters into the discussion, and that in very many instances, although the Admiralty claim to have built a good many tons, certain ships are, at the end of the year, quoted as being more backward than they were at the beginning of the year. We are all agreed upon the subject. The circumstance is solely due to the fact being discovered that in previous years less real progress towards the completion of ships had been made than was thought at the time. Now, Sir, some observations have been made with regard to a speech by the First Lord of the Admiralty to which I cannot but allude. While my right hon. Friend (Mr. W. H. Smith) was out of the House, I said a few words with respect to the absence of Party spirit from our debates, and I expressed my satisfaction that there had not been any trace of it in the House to-night. I entirely reciprocate what my right hon. Friend (Mr. W. H. Smith) said on that subject, and I think I may without conceit say that I have been now for 10 years or more connected with one or other of the two great fighting Departments of the State, and I am not aware that either in this House or out of it I have ever said anything of a Party nature in relation to that Department. I deprecate, in the strongest way, the infusion of any Party spirit into the consideration of either the Army or the Navy Estimates. But I am bound to say that when the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Devonport (Captain Price) accused the First Lord of the Admiralty of making a violent Party speech—I think he also called it an electioneering speech—I think he must have forgotten what occurred at the luncheon or banquet at which he himself was present at Devonport some time ago. The reason why my noble Friend, who was the very last man to infuse, of his own accord, Party spirit into a matter of this kind, made the speech in question, was that certain observations were made at Devonport by the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Salisbury) at the head of the Conservative Party when he was down there on a mission, the object of which was nothing that I know of, if it were not electioneering. The observations of the noble Marquess were to the effect that the Government had shown themselves indifferent to the naval supremacy of the country, and he founded those observations upon the terrible account that my hon. and gallant Friend (Captain Price), the Conservative Member for the borough, had given in a previous speech, of which I have not seen a report, in replying to the toast of the Navy. If we are to look about for electioneering speeches, and for the introduction of Party spirit, I should be disposed to look for it at Devonport. I certainly do not think my noble Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty is open to the charge which has been made against him. But the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Captain Price) did not quite accurately quote what my noble Friend said. All that he did was to point out that we were not neglecting the interests of the nation, and to quote figures, which were perfectly accurate, to show that the present Government were spending twice as much upon ironclad ships as was spent the year before we came into Office. My hon. and gallant Friend says the noble Lord selected a small year under the late Government, and compared it with a great year. Why, he selected the most natural year—namely, the year before we came into Office.

THE CHAIRMAN

I must call the hon. Gentleman's attention to the Rules and Orders of the House. To review a discussion in "another place" is out of Order.

MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN

I know that is so; but I was under the impression that I had not made it clear where the speech had been delivered. I can only say that the conception which the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Captain Price) formed of the speech, both as regards tone and intention, was altogether erroneous. It has also been said that somewhere or other the First Lord of the Admiralty expressed doubts as to the future of naval warfare; that, in fact, he contended that iron-clads are now obsolete and unnecessary. It would be very unfortunate if that interpretation were put on what my noble Friend said. My noble Friend said that if, by the extraordinary liberality of the British taxpayer, and owing to the good-will of the Treasury, a large sum of money—someone has suggested £3,000,000 or £4,000,000—were placed at the disposal of the Admiralty, he would, at this moment, have some difficulty in knowing how most advantageously to spend it, because of the changes which are going on in naval warfare. He never said that iron-clads would be unnecessary in the future; all he meant to imply was that it would be ridiculous, and I think it would be, to expend such a large sum on iron-clads alone, when there are so many other partly developed or undeveloped modes of attack and defence to which a great portion of the money might be applied; and, in the face of the difficulty, he expressed the hope that he would not be placed in so embarrassing a position as to have to expend the money. Generally speaking, I am not disposed to take up any challenge that is thrown down to us on the ground of comparison with other countries. I have always deprecated such a line of argument. It is our belief, based on the fullest information we possess, that the proposals we make in the way of shipbuilding, if we are able to carry them out, are sufficient for our purposes. We, in this country, are sometimes alarmed by statements of what is done in other countries; but we do not find that the actual facts come up to the expectations which those statements convey. I believe I am right in saying that, at the present time, there is not the same activity across the Channel in the construction of new vessels as there was formerly; while we, on the other hand, without any unpleasant rivalry or any desire to create a bitter feeling between ourselves and our neighbours, are quietly adding to our power such increases as we believe to be sufficient for the duties the Navy has to perform. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. W. H. Smith) said, and I entirely share the sentiments he expressed, that the power of our Navy must be beyond dispute, and that, moreover, it was a matter with regard to which the country was determined, and with regard to which there would be no opposition from any patriotic Englishman. I entirely agree with him. The Government are responsible for their policy; they are responsible to the House for the strength and efficiency of the Navy; and I can assure the right hon. Gentle man that it is not from any niggardly spirit, or any fear of opposition in this House or out of it, that we have contented ourselves with the proposals we have made. Well, I think I have alluded to every point which it is necessary for me to speak of. [Mr. W. H. SMITH: Gun mounting.] I think, in what I said about guns, I spoke of gun mountings. No doubt, that is part of the general system. A great length of time is occupied in completing a gun and its mounting; but I can assure the right hon. Gentleman of one thing, and that is, that now we have got the supply of gun mountings practically in our own hands, we are disposed—at least, I am personally—to make more allowance than we have sometimes done for the War Department, and not to put so much pressure upon them, because I find, even when we have the matter entirely in our own hands, how difficult it is to secure that the work shall be ready in time. I can only repeat that we are aware of the waste attending delay, and that we will do our best to prevent it. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst) and my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Devonport (Captain Price) made some remarks early in the evening with regard to the Dockyard workmen, and I have had no opportunity until now of noticing what they said. The hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Gorst) asked what conclusion we had come to with respect to shipwrights? Now, I have said more than once, in answer to questions on this subject, that we have come to the conclusion that there is no case for a general increase of wages of any large class of employés in the Dockyards, but that there are several smaller cases to which we have turned our attention, and in which we have seen our way to do something. We have not taken advantage, as the hon. and learned Gentleman implied, of the present slackness of trade in the shipbuilding world; but, before that occurred, we satisfied ourselves, by going into the figures, that there was no case; and, of course, the existing condition of things made it more impossible than it was before to give any substantial increase. With regard to the question of superannuation, the hon. and learned Gentleman speaks of it as a matter which was very much in the hands of the Admiralty; but superannuation of Dockyard employé's is based on the general principles which apply to the Civil Service. I have said in this House that I am not very enamoured of the present system of superannuation, but I am not in a position to promise any change. The Committee that we appointed on the subject of the building and repairing of ships is on the point of concluding its labours; but I am unable to say anything as to the evidence it has taken or the Report it is going to make. I anticipate, however, the greatest benefit from its investigation of the matters submitted to it. I do not think it would have been an advantage, as one hon. Gentleman said he thought it would have been, to have submitted to it the whole question of Dockyard Administration, and the distribution of work and wages amongst the different men employed. To have done that would have delayed the issue of the Report for a considerable time. We expect, as I have said, great advantage from the advice which will be given to us by this Committee, which is entirely separate and distinct from the Admiralty. The Committee includes not only one or two eminent shipbuilders, but one or two eminent shipowners, who have no interest in private shipbuilding; and, from all I have heard, I feel satisfied the Committee will make suggestions not only with regard to the distribution of work between contract and the Dockyards, but also with regard to those delays which we have been speaking of, and which we all deplore. My hon. and learned Friend said a good deal about Dockyard labour; but, after what has been said, I will not further refer to it. I believe that, as a matter of fact, we must build in our Dockyards to a certain extent, in order to keep them efficient. As my right hon. Friend (Mr. W. H. Smith) suggested, Dockyards ought to be maintained primarily for repairs, but a certain amount of shipbuilding is necessary for the purpose of keeping judiciously and economically a certain number of men employed. The principle I have indicated requires, of course, to be applied in a way which experience shows to be most effective. I hope that, on the one hand, we shall be able to take full advantage of the enormous resources of the private trade of the country; and that, on the other hand, we shall do nothing to diminish the well-known excellence and efficiency of the work which is turned out of our Dockyards. I do not think I ought to sit down without saying that, with regard to the Constructors' Department, the public is greatly indebted to my hon. Friend and Colleague (Sir Thomas Brassey) for the pains he has taken in the reconstruction of this great Service. I am almost an outsider in the matter; but it appears to me that there are connected with it two main features from the point of view of the public. I am not speaking of the interest of the workmen engaged in the Service—that is another matter altogether, although I hope there is no real reason for discontent amongst the workmen. The first point is that in future, instead of obliging everyone who wishes to serve the Crown as a constructor to serve first of all as a shipwright apprentice, boys from all classes of the community, with a mechanical turn of mind, and whose parents are willing to enter them in the Service, will have now an opportunity of entering the Service. Cadet-ships, practically, are established, the cost of education being defrayed by the parents. In future, the constructors will not be necessarily recruited from the shipwright class, though every precaution has been taken not to injure the chances of those now in the Service. The second great advantage of the new system will be a gradual process of do-centralization, so that we shall spread gradually throughout the Dockyards the constructive talent at our disposal as distinguished from the shipbuilding knowledge and skill which exists there to so large a degree. These two points are very fully secured by the new scheme; and I hope that when these advantages are obtained by the country it will involve no sacrifice on the part of the individuals affected.

LORD HENRY LENNOX

said, that when he came done to the House tonight he had no intention of addressing any observations to the Committee; but, owing to certain remarks which had been made by the Secretary to the Admiralty (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman) and other hon. Gentlemen, he felt compelled to put himself for a few minutes between the Committee and the disposal of this Vote. His right hon. Friend the Member for Westminster (Mr. W. H. Smith) spoke of the extreme indifference which the House of Commons showed towards the Army and Navy Estimates, and he (Lord Henry Lennox) could bear his testimony to that fact, because the last time the Navy Estimates were under consideration he rose to make a speech, and there were only five Members in the House. To-night, when the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman) rose to make one of the most clear and lucid and useful speeches that had ever been delivered in the House of Commons, there were only eight Members on the Government side and only three on the Opposition Benches to listen to the hon. Gentleman. The fact was that those who knew the intricacies of Party life, knew that when the Army and Navy Estimates were coming on, hon. Members received what was familiarly termed a Whip, informing them that the Army or the Navy Estimates would be considered. There was no lines, however, under the Whip, so that it really amounted to a hint to hon. Members to stay away if they chose to do so. But if there was some wretched squabble as to how or under what conditions people were to be buried, hon. Members received four or five line Whips, and the House of Commons was crowded, even in the daytime, to listen to this wretched Party or personal squabble. He hoped that now his right hon. Friend (Mr. W. H. Smith) had drawn attention to the fact that the Representatives of the country did not give their attendance to see after the welfare of the Army or the strength of the Navy, a different state of things would be found to prevail in future Sessions of Parliament. The hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Admiralty (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman) said there were people outside the House who were alarmed as to the state of the Navy compared with that of other Navies, and he added that there was not the same activity in respect to shipbuilding on the other side of the Channel as there had been for the last few years. Now, when he (Lord Henry Lennox) first drew attention to that activity on the other side of the Channel, he was pooh-poohed by every one of three successive Secretaries to the Admiralty as being a mere dreamer and an alarmist. French ships were said to be paper ships. The right hon. Gentleman who had since distinguished himself as Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland told him in 1880—the very year that the present Secretary to the Admiralty (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman) had told them to-night that they found nothing done with the guns—the then Secretary to the Admiralty (Mr. Trevelyan) told him and the country that our ships were armed with better guns than were to be found in the ships of any other nation in the world. He only pointed these things out to show that, however satisfactory it was to hear the optimist and rose-coloured speeches which were made on occasions of this kind, they were bound to look back and see what had become of the promises and prophecies of previous Secretaries to the Admiralty. His right hon. Friend (Mr. W. H. Smith) had spoken—he (Lord Henry Lennox) had dwelt on the same subject frequently for many years past—of the absolute necessity of a rapid completion of the ships we had in hand. His efforts had been of no avail; but he hoped that, inasmuch as his right hon. Friend had taken the matter up, they would see, in the near future, some change of policy. The Inflexible, which was being built during the administration of his right hon. Friend (Mr. W. H. Smith), was eight or nine years in completion, and he (Lord Henry Lennox) felt it his duty to originate a discussion on the subject which lasted two nights. On that occasion he pointed out the fabulous amount of money that ship cost, owing to her being dawdled over, and by the constant changes which were made in her construction. He agreed with the right hon. Gentleman's dictum about laying down ships, and he must say this. It was about only three years ago that they had an iron-clad pressed into the list, in order to compare with a French iron-clad building, and they had been told that she had been laid down as part of the British Iron-clad Fleet. He was speaking of the Benbow. That vessel disappeared altogether for a time, but afterwards the same Benbow was reintroduced and furbished up as part of the Fleet of the country by the Secretary to the Admiralty of the day. Now, with regard to the ship proposed to be laid down in the Estimates of this year the sum asked for her was so small as scarcely to be sufficient to cover the cost of the drawings and the necessary preliminaries to laying down. Therefore, he agreed with his hon. Friend that there was no greater mistake, and nothing more calculated to mislead, the public as to the strength of the British Navy, than the laying down of ships on which it was not intended to spend any money at all that would advance them in any way towards completion. He felt that the eyes of the Chairman were upon him, and that he must not allude to what had taken place in the House of Lords; but he might say that he had been surprised by reading the speech of a very distinguished man, in which he claimed that an immense amount had been spent by the Government of the day on the construction of ships as compared with what had been expended by the late Government. That distinguished individual, however, had altogether forgotten to state what were the circumstances of the case. The circumstances were these. When the late Government came into Office they found that a large majority of the ships of the Navy required repairs—they found that they were worth repairing, that they required repairing, and, accordingly, they set to work to repair them; and, besides that, the late Government found that the condition of the armour plates which were being served out was such that exhaustive inquiries were necessary into the whole subject. Those inquiries—and he was sure his hon. Friend opposite would endorse what he said—were of a most exhaustive nature, and it would have been worse than madness to have gone on ordering iron plates for the Navy and to continue to build ships with those iron plates, until the Admiralty had satisfied themselves what was the best and most useful armour that could be produced. After the inquiries were completed, the Admiralty of the day came to the conclusion that composite iron and steel plates were the best, a verdict which had been concurred in by Foreign Governments, after similar inquiries of an equally exhaustive nature. The documents at the Admiralty would show how the money was expended, and what was the nature of the repairs effected. When the late Government was charged with not spending so much on shipbuilding as was spent by the present Government, it should have been stated at the same time that the late Government had spent the money in repairs and refits, which had enabled many ships to appear in that Return of our Fleet which his hon. Friend opposite laid on the Table of the House at the commencement of the Session. Had the money not been spent on those repairs and refits, the Return which the Admiralty laid on the Table of the House at the commencement of the Session would have been greatly attenuated and diminished in respect of the strength of the Navy. He agreed with the hon. Gentleman opposite that a comparison of the Navies of England and France was one of those subjects which could not be dealt with superficially, for everyone acquainted with the gravity of the position knew that it was too serious and intricate a subject to be dealt with in that way. But the reason why he alluded to it now was because the Secretary to the Admiralty said there was less activity across the Channel at the present moment than there was two years ago. When, however, at that time, he (Lord Henry Lennox) called attention to this subject, he was told that there was no activity at all, that he was a dreamer and an alarmist. But now the Secretary to the Admiralty admitted that activity did then exist, because he said there was less activity now. Would the Secretary to the Admiralty have the kindness to tell the Committee, or the House, or the country, whether he knew that the sum of money annually voted by the French Chambers had been the same for years or not, and whether the sum of money which had been voted this year was not the same as in previous years, or, at all events, within a few pounds? What activity they were showing in other Departments he knew not, but he knew of the eight vessels in their programme, some were completed, and some could be rapidly completed. He said that money was the test as to whether a country was anxious to strengthen its defences. It was a curious thing that, in the speech to which he had referred, allusion was only made to one Power across the water. The days were gone by when we could presume to call ourselves the only, or one of the few, great Naval Powers of the world. As a matter of fact, they never had—and that was his grave objection—any sound system for adding to the strength of the Navy. They had to arrange according to circumstances, and he was prepared to give credit to the present Board of Admiralty for doing their best with the wretched pittance which they received from the Treasury for the purposes of the Navy. His contention was that in Franco, Italy, and other countries, they first laid down their naval programme—they determined what was necessary for the naval strength of the country, and the money was then forthcoming from the Treasury. Now, he could not help fearing that, in our case, it was a question of what money the Treasury would give; and if that were true, as he believed it to be, it was altogether a fallacious foundation on which to maintain the greatness of the country and its supremacy at sea. But while we were going on in our little humdrum way with regard to our Navy, other countries were by no means acting in the same way. Italy had a well-recognized programme, by which she has established herself already as the third Naval Power in the world; and it was only the other day that he read in the Press that Russia, the Black Sea Treaty having been torn up, was laying down five iron-clads, two of which were being built in the Baltic, and three in the Black Sea. Before he resumed his seat, he desired to call the attention of the Committee to another point on which he very much wished to have some information from the Government. He referred to the subject of torpedoes. If he were not misinformed, we were a long way behind France and even Germany in the number of our torpedoes. He had been told, and he asked his hon. Friend the Civil Lord of the Admiralty whether or not it was true, that the French Government had at that moment ten times the number of torpedoes which we possessed? If his hon. Friend could tell him that that was not the case, he should be very glad. His hon. Friend the Secretary to the Admiralty, he admitted, had made out the best case he could with regard to the guns; but he said that the guns were delayed for the want of mountings. He (Lord Henry Lennox) could not conceive what distinction there was between a gun being delayed by the slowness of manufacture at Woolwich, which was the last thing he wished to impute, and its being delayed by hitches in connection with mountings, and other similar matters. So far as the ships not getting the guns was concerned, it amounted to precisely the same thing. He did not wish to detain the Committee further than to say, with regard to this question of guns, that it was one which ought to be cleared up before the public. The Government said that the guns which were lying at Woolwich were not ready to be mounted in the ships for which they were designed, which was equivalent to saying that the ships were delayed for the guns. He did not intend when he came down to the House that evening to say one word on that subject; but the statement of the Secretary to the Admiralty, which showed that owing to the want of mountings the ships were really delayed, compelled him to address a few words of warning to the Admiralty, and to appeal to them to do all that lay in their power to press these things forward, so that our large ships might not be delayed owing to the slowness of the manufacture of the guns, or, what was practically its equivalent, the want of the necessary mountings.

MR. BIRKBECK

said, he rose to ask whether any portion of this Vote would be devoted to increasing the number of cruisers, for the purpose of protecting our sea fisheries? His reason for making this inquiry was because every year he was obliged to communicate with the Admiralty in the months of September, October, and November, asking for cruisers to be sent to the North Sea fisheries, to put a stop to the depredations which foreign fishermen committed on those stations. There was always a considerable difficulty with the Admiralty in connection with this subject. As a rule, the answer received was that no vessels were available; and it was only after frequent communications had taken place that one vessel was sent. At the present time, our fisheries in the North Sea were of the greatest possible importance, although, as a matter of fact, they were the worst looked after by cruisers than any other foreign Maritime Power. He trusted that a satisfactory answer would be given on this important question, and that an increased number of cruisers would, for the future, be stationed for the protection of our fisheries.

CAPTAIN PRICE

asked whether the Secretary to the Admiralty would give the names of the three French ships which they were told, on high authority, were the only first class ships that the French had under construction?

MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN

said, the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite asked him to tread upon delicate ground. He did not think that anyone, on the part of the Admiralty, had said that the French Government had only three first class ships under construction. The statement was that there were only three such ships completed. He was not in a position to give the names of those vessels. The Committee would be aware that everyone formed his own impression as to what constituted a first class ship; and that was a matter of so much difficulty, that, after every sort of contrivance which the ingenuity and technical skill of their Advisers could suggest for framing a standard of class for an iron-clad ship had been tried, the tendency at the Admiralty at last was to give up any idea of framing a test of that sort, except in one way—namely, by basing it upon the number of tons of displacement of ships of the same period. If they contrasted ships of different periods and of different amounts of displacement, no reliable test was furnished; but if they took ships of the same period, the result would generally be a just idea of the class in which a ship should be placed. With regard to the question put by the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Mr. Birkbeck) on the subject of the protection of the North Sea fisheries, he was rather surprised that he had received the reply which he had stated. There was no intention, he believed, to build any special class of vessels for the service referred to by the hon. Member; but he was bound to say there were vessels suitable for the service; and he repeated that he was surprised that the hon. Member should have received a reply of the kind indicated. But as the hon. Member stated that he had been refused a ship, he would make inquiries, and communicate to him the result. There was one point which he had neglected to mention, and which he thought it right now to refer to. According to the programme as stated by him when introducing the Navy Estimates, the Committee would remember that it was proposed to build in all five vessels of the Mersey class, one of which was to be built at Devonport. Since that time the Admiralty had resolved not to build more than four vessels of that type, and in place of the fifth it had been decided to build at Devonport two protected torpedo vessels. The Committee would also remember that he described at the time referred to vessels of the Scout class. The vessels to which he had just referred to would be small ships of that type, and he thought that in proposing to construct them the Admiralty had made a judicious alteration of their programme, and one which it was desirable that he should mention.

SIR JOHN HAY

asked for an explanation of what he understood to be a fact—namely, that certain vessels, not named, but which it was announced would be built, had not been proceeded with?

MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN

admitted that no progress had been made with the new iron-clad. As long as a ship remained un-named in the Estimate, there was always a certain amount of doubt in the matter; but it might be taken that when a vessel was named, there was a positive intention of going on with it.

MR. STEWART MACLIVER

said, he desired, in discussing this Vote, to call attention to various classes of men for whom it provided, in order that the condition of the Navy, as viewed from the Dockyards, might be fully understood. Discontent, he thought, should be avoided as far as possible in the Public Service, yet discontent had for years been the normal condition of those connected with our Dockyards. The Admiralty knew it by the numerous Memorials they were constantly receiving, and especially since they undertook to visit the Yards, and hear from the men the extent and nature of their grievances. He was aware that it was the old question of money; that the Admiralty might be willing, but that the Treasury were always economical, the result being a state of things in the Dockyards which was not creditable to our Rulers. He did not forget that a Committee had been sitting to devise remedies and apply them, and to-night he hoped to hear something of its labours. He knew that the shipwrights had long complained, as, also, had the joiners and riggers; and the hired men were seeking to know when the proposed new rule for giving a fixed sum according to service after 10 years was to take effect. All of them were anxious on the subject of promotion, seeking to regulate it according to the years they had served. There were anomalies of pay which, he thought, should be adjusted. Why, he asked, should a chaplain receive nearly as much as a Chief Constructor at a leading Dockyard; and why should Dockyardmen be compulsorily retired at 60 years of age, instead of 65, which was, he believed, the provision made by the Civil Service Pensions Act of 1854? The engineers, again, were looking for the modification of the Eleven Years' Clause to which they were entitled; and the engine-room artificers, now 800 in number, were seeking, in the first place, to rank as warrant officers; secondly, to obtain a separate mess and bath-room; and, thirdly, that pensions should be regulated by their pay, as was the case with other classes in the Navy. He would not detain the Committee further than to say that he made these remarks, as he made those which preceded them on another Vote, because he thought it should be an object, above all else, to make the Navy a willing Service, so that in danger and difficulty, our men might be found full of ardour and energy, as they had always been found full of loyalty and patriotism.

SIR THOMAS BRASSEY

said, in reply to the hon. Member for Plymouth (Mr. Stewart Macliver), there was no intention on the part of the Admiralty to make any change in regard to the regulations which now existed with reference to the men employed in the Dockyards, nor had any change been decided upon with reference to the leading men in the factories. With reference to the retirement of Dockyard servants at the age of 60, he pointed out that, although that was the general rule, and one which was considered best to insure efficiency in the Service and to admit of due promotion amongst the staff, yet there were exceptional cases in which, on account of the especial fitness for duties which they discharged, and in which there were no objections on the ground of health and capacity, the rule was not enforced.

MR. JENKINS

remarked, that there was a slight increase in the Estimates of this year of £10,000 in connection with works at Malta. He regarded Malta as one of the most valuable Dockyards we possessed, and he would be glad to know whether the works there were being extended?

MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN

said, the item referred to was for wages and matters unconnected with the proposed works. The Government were quite alive to the importance of Malta. It was a Dockyard which it was the policy of the Admiralty to develop considerably. In the first place, labour was very cheap, and in consequence work could be economically done there; moreover, the work was well done. Malta also afforded the great advantage of enabling ships to be repaired there, instead of their being sent home. He was bound to say, speaking generally, that the Admiralty found it every year more feasible to re-commission slaps at Malta, instead of bringing them home, which was a very great advantage to the Service. As a Mediterrannean station, Malta was of very great importance.

MR. W. H. SMITH

said, he entirely concurred with the view with regard to Malta taken by the hon. Gentleman opposite. He believed Malta to be the most valuable Dockyard we had out of England, and he fully confirmed the statement of the Secretary to the Admiralty, that the work done there was both good and cheap. He had no doubt that economy as well as the efficiency of the Service would be greatly promoted by making the Docks at Malta in every way suitable for the work to be done there. They had been enabled to repair ships at Malta, which must have come home and gone out again a distance of 4,000 miles, were it not that they were able to do the work at Malta. He believed, also, now that the ships' boilers lasted longer, there was no doubt that ships could be re-commissioned and refitted at Malta at a less cost than would be incurred in this country. Still, he hoped that nothing would be allowed to interfere with the efficiency of the ships in any way.

SIR THOMAS BRASSEY

remarked, that they had laid down a composite gun vessel at Malta, the object of which new feature in the programme was to remedy an inconvenience experienced there in the summer. During the winter special stress was thrown upon the resources of the Dockyard for the repair of ships brought together in that season; but it would seem that in the summer there was a difficulty of keeping together a nucleus of skilled workmen in the Dockyard. This difficulty, the building of the vessel he had referred to, was intended to remedy.

LORD HENRY LENNOX

asked if the Secretary to the Admiralty could give any information to the Committee with regard to Her Majesty's ship Orion, which vessel, after being only six months in commission, had been taken into Malta, where, as far as he knew, she still remained, without being brought forward, as he understood, for survey? He wanted to know, seeing that the vessel had only been six months in commission, what had been done to her, and whether she was there still?

MR. C. H. WILSON

said, that everyone connected with the shipping interest of the country would know that, at the present time, there were hundreds and thousands of our own workmen out of employment. In view of that fact, and considering the distress that would arise during the coming winter owing to the want of employment for these workmen, he could not understand the policy of Her Majesty's Government in employing what, to a great extent, was foreign, and he should imagine inferior, labour for the building of ships out of this country. He thought it would be infinitely cheaper to bring ships from Malta, which was only a run of seven or eight days, pay off the crews, and have the ships repaired here, instead of having a large and increasing Dockyard at Malta, to repair Her Majesty's ships there. It was self evident that the efficiency of the Navy must depend as much as possible upon iron ships; and he could not but think it was an ill-judged act on the part of the Admiralty to commence building a man-of-war at Malta, or any other place out of the United Kingdom. He protested against this mistaken policy.

SIR THOMAS BRASSEY

said, the amount spent at Malta was only £2,000, and that would be scarcely an appreciable amount to be relieved of.

MR. PULESTON

asked when the Report of the Committe on Expenditure on Repairs would be presented? He complained that there was no Dockyard Representative on that Committee, and that there was no access for persons concerned in all these matters to the presence of the First Lord of the Admiralty.

MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN

said, he did not think his noble Friend was difficult of access, or that there would be any difficulty in the hon. Member seeing his Lordship, if he desired. They had put upon this Committee Gentlemen who had some experience, and he could not discern any reason for putting Representatives of Dockyard constituencies upon it.

MR. PULESTON

said, he did not mean necessarily Dockyard Representatives in this House, but someone who was connected with and concerned in shipbuilding in the Dockyards.

MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN

replied, that the object was to have an independent inquiry and independent advice offered to the Admiralty. The Report of the Committee might be made public, but it would depend on what was decided by the Admiralty. He had no doubt the interests of the Navy would be fully represented by the Members of the Committee; especially by the Captain Superintendent of Sheerness Dockyard, who was not put on the Committee because he was Captain Superintendent of that Yard, but because he was an officer of great experience, and was eminently suited to keep the Committee right upon all naval matters.

MR. GOURLEY

could not see what use the Committee would be unless their Report was given to this House and to the country; and he hoped the Admiralty would see that it was made public.

MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN

explained that the Committee was not appointed to advise the House at all, but to assist and advise the Admiralty; and in the case of Departmental Committees of that sort there was no obligation or necessity in the nature of the case for the publication of their Report. They confidentially advised the Admiralty, and gave full information to the Admiralty. If the Admiralty thought it would be for the public interest that their Report should be published, it would be published; and he did not say that the presumption was against its being published, but he did not mean to commit himself upon that point.

MR. RYLANDS

said, he viewed with some jealousy the increasing disposition of the Government to appoint what they called Departmental Committees. The tendency of those Committees was always, more or less, to give in to the servants of the Crown, and to enable their influence to be exercised in a way which did not secure full investigation of the questions referred to the Committee, or that full information which he thought was very desirable. The custom, formerly, was that Committees of this House dealt with these questions; and he should very much regret it if the result of this inquiry was not made public for the information of the country. The Secretary to the Admiralty seemed to suggest that it was quite sufficient if the Admiralty were informed, because they could then exercise their discretion as to how far they would act on the recommendations of the Committee; but he thought there was great advantage in the Members of this House being informed on these matters; for it might happen that the conclusions of the Members of the House differed from the opinion of the Admiralty, and it might well be that some considerable administrative reform recommended by the Committee would commend itself to in-pendent Members of the House. At all events, a better opportunity of understanding the way in which the business of the Dockyards was conducted would be given than was now given. He therefore hoped the Admiralty would consider the advisability of laying the results of this investigation before the House.

MR. GORST

said, that among the Dockyards there appeared the Island of Ascension. Some years ago, that Island was kept up as an English possession; but now he found that it appeared as a Dockyard, and also as a victualling station. It would be seen from the Estimate that the expenses of this Island were increasing. They were £400 more this year than last, and they included not only officers and seamen and marines, but a number of civilians—farm bailiffs, storekeepers, and matrons employed on the Island. They were all provided for under a Vote which was for the Pay and Allowances of Officers and Seamen of the Navy.

MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN

said, there was a considerable reduction of the Establishment on this Island a year or two ago; but it was found in one or two respects to go too far, and there had, in consequence, been a slight increase in the Vote.

SIR JOHN HAY

said, he thought the hospital on the Island of Ascension was of the greatest possible value to ships in that latitude, and he hoped it would not be given up. He had been there often, and he knew the value of the hospital. If the Island were deserted by us, it would be occupied by someone else; but it was in a position of great value to ships serving on the Coast of Africa or coming from Brazil. It seemed to him that the items in this Vote were very necessary, and he hoped they would not be reduced.

MR. RYLANDS

wished to point out that in this Vote there were allowances for stationery under various heads for officers. These allowances amounted to £6,000 a-year, or something like that. Such allowances used to be made for the Army, but they had been done away with, and, instead of officers having allowances for stationery, the stationery was provided by the Department. He had heard of cases in which officers had been able to get as much as £15 or £20, and even £40, as allowances for stationery, when, in point of fact, they were unable to use stationery to that amount. He wished to call the attention of the Civil Lord of the Admiralty to this matter, because he thought an economy of some thousands a-year might be effected by the stationery being provided by the Department.

MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN

said, his opinion was rather in favour of the hon. Gentleman's suggestion, and he would see if it could be carried out.

Vote agreed to.

(2.) £70,900, Victualling Yards at Home and Abroad.

(3.) £66,400, Medical Establishments at Home and Abroad.

CAPTAIN PRICE

inquired whether the Secretary to the Admiralty had looked into a matter he had called attention to some time ago—namely, the question whether deductions were made from the pay of men while they were in hospital?

MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN

said, he had inquired into this matter, and he would bear it in mind and see what alterations could be made.

Vote agreed to.

(4.) £21,700, Marine Divisions.

SIR JOHN HAY

said, he had the best authority for saying that the condensing apparatus of the men serving in Suakin was defective, and that there was great difficulty in obtaining fresh water for the men. He wished to know whether the hon. Gentleman had any information upon that point?

MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN

replied, that he had not heard anything on the subject.

Vote agreed to.

(5.) Motion made, and Question proposed, That a sum, not exceeding £1,124,500, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Expense of Naval Stores for Building, Repairing, and Outfitting the Fleet and Coast Guard, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1885.

SIR JOHN HAY

said, he wished to ask a question with reference to the Benbow, which he thought came under this Vote. He wished to know what progress was being made with that ship, and when she was likely to be ready for sea? She was a contract ship under this Vote; but no information was given showing the amount of expenditure upon her, or as to when she would be fit for service. The Benbow was laid down in 1881 or 1882; but he was informed that she was not likely to be of service even under the contract until 1888. He could not understand why, while a vessel like the Riachuelo, contracted for by the Brazilian Government, could be completed in three years, a vessel contracted for by the British Government required seven or eight years for completion. As he understood, there were no changes being made in her; but she was being built under contract as originally designed. Surely, when a contract ship could be built for a Foreign Government in throe years, a contract ship for the British Government ought to be completed in three or four years. At this moment we were very short of ships; that was recognized by everyone; and he thought money would be well spent in laying down armour-clads in the Yards which were created in Lord Palmerston's time on the ground that they would be kept well employed—namely, on the Tyne, the Medway, the Humber, and the Thames. They were entirely silent, and yet a contract ship for the British Government required six years to build. The information in this Vote was very imperfect, and there was no information as to the progress being made with the Benbow.

MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN

said, there was some information on that subject on page 213 of the Estimates. There was considerable delay in regard to the Benbow last year, partly because of the question of the armament she was to receive, and partly through the failure of the contractors to supply the armour-plates; but that was now at an end, and he understood that she would be finished in two years.

SIR JOHN HAY

hoped the hon. Gentleman would give more explicit information next year.

LORD HENRY LENNOX

asked whether the hon. Gentleman said the delay was due to the question of armament?

MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN

replied that it was mainly owing to certain armour-plates not being received.

MR. GOURLEY

said, he quite concurred in the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. W. H. Smith), as to the necessity of completing our ships with greater rapidity. They were all aware of the enormous cost of the building of the Inflexible. It all arose from the much larger time occupied in the completion of ships in the Dockyards than that occupied in private yards. At this moment, as was admitted on both sides of the House, we were very short of ships. There was, to his mind, very good reason why they should not allow themselves to be altogether dependent on the Admiralty for the construction of ships. Seeing that it took six or seven years to construct a first class iron-clad in the Royal Dockyards, he thought this was a favourable time for employing the private yards in the development of our Navy. It seemed to him to be very opportune just now, when vessels could be built comparatively cheaply, for employing the private yards in the work. The time was additionally opportune also from the circumstance that shipbuilders were short of employment. The Admiralty ought to turn their attention to the advantages to be gained at the present moment of building ships at a much cheaper rate than they could be built in the Dockyards. It was said that we were about to build four vessels of the Mersey class. Well, he did not object to these vessels being built, although, to his mind, one would be quite sufficient. It seemed to him that it would be much better, and much more business-like, to refrain from building a number of vessels of a certain type until they had some experience of one. As far as he could make out, these ships would be of about 6,000 tons each; they would steam at 17 knots, and carry 700 tons of coal, which was only sufficient to enable them to steam something like four days. To his mind, to speak of such vessels as fit to be employed as cruisers to protect our shipping in time of war was about as absurd a thing as the Department could have been guilty of. The idea of sending out a ship to protect our mercantile commerce which could only steam four days was one of the most ridiculous things he had ever heard. How could one of these vessels leave the Channel in search of a vessel belonging to an enemy which was supposed to be cruising about preying on our ships? Why, at the end of a few days' cruise she would become hors de combat, and would be entirely useless. He would press upon the Admiralty the desirability of laying down only one of these vessels. If the Admiralty would assure him that they did not intend to build more of them until they had had experience of the type he should be content; but if they did not he should be under the necessity of moving the reduction of the Dockyard Vote.

MR. GOURLEY

asked whether it was not possible to move a reduction as to the building of a vessel on this Vote, seeing that it included many items of stores required for ships of all

THE CHAIRMAN

It would be difficult to say that the hon. Member is not in Order in referring to shipbuilding under this Vote, inasmuch as there are items in it applying to these ships; but I must say it would be very inconvenient to make a Motion of the kind suggested when the Committee has been a whole evening discussing Vote 6, to which the observations and Motion of the hon. Member would more properly have applied. This is a Vote for naval stores, for the building, repair, and outfit of the Fleet and the Coastguards, machinery, and ships built by contract.

MR. GOURLEY

maintained that the present Vote involved the materials without which it would be impossible to send ships to sea.

THE CHAIRMAN

What I say is this. I do not think the hon. Gentleman should be precluded from proceeding with the Motion for reduction; but I must point out we have been discussing the building of ships on Vote 6, and the Vote we are upon now has reference to naval stores, machinery, and shipbuilding by contract. The hon. Member seeks to raise a question involving the policy of the Government as to the building of a certain class of ships.

MR. C. H. WILSON

said, there were items for fuel and machinery; and the hon. Member who had just sat down (Mr. Gourley) had referred to the matter as to the consumption of fuel as a question of great importance in regard to the efficiency of a vessel of war. The hon. Member contended that a vessel of a large consumption of fuel, which could not carry more coal than sufficient to last for three or four days, could not be looked upon as an efficient vessel. He (Mr. Wilson) wished to inquire of the Secretary to the Admiralty whether Her Majesty's Government were making any improvement in machinery? Perhaps it might not be unknown to Her Majesty's Government that great improvements had been taking place of late. He (Mr. Wilson) was able to speak from his own knowledge on this point, because he was thoroughly acquainted with the advance which had been made in the development of steam machinery in the Merchant Navy. If these improvements were important in the Merchant Navy, it was, if possible, more important that they should be developed in a fighting Navy. He was referring specially to a new type of engine which, within the last year or two, had been introduced, and which, within a year or two, would be almost universally used in the Merchant Navy. This engine expanded the steam in more cylinders than two, using the steam at a considerably higher pressure, and by that means securing a very considerable economy in fuel. From his own practical knowledge, having lately built several of these engines, he know the effect was to bring about a saving of 20 per cent of fuel. Seeing that the annual Vote was £150,000 for coal, a saving of 20 per cent, by the adoption of that type of engine he was referring to, would effect a saving of £30,000 a-year. It was of the greatest possible importance that our vessels, particularly cruisers, should be built for speed, and capable of keeping at sea for a long period; it was, therefore, highly necessary that the consumption of coal should be as much as possible reduced consistently with the maintenance of speed. That vessel which in the future would be the most valuable would be the one that could keep the sea for the longest period, and steam at the most rapid rate. So far as he was aware, he did not know that this question had been gone into by the naval authorities; but if not, he thought it was not very creditable to the engineering staff of the Admiralty. He wished to call the attention of the Admiralty to what appeared to him to be an especially important point and one deserving their immediate attention. The fact was that these vessels were too long building; that by the time they were built they were almost obsolete; and if that occurred in the case of the ships, of course it occurred still more so in the case of the machinery. During the seven or eight years it took to build a line-of-battle ship, between the commencement and the completion of the vessel, engineering made enormous strides. From his own knowledge he was able to give an instance of that. Within the past four or five years the engineering world, which had been naturally very timid of making these enormous strides, and had been somewhat tentative in their operations, had got over a great deal of their timidity, and were using steel for boilers, and hydraulic machinery which enabled them to make boilers work at a pressure which four or five years ago they dared not contemplate. His own experience extended over a considerable period of time, and he remembered when ships' boilers did not work beyond 10 lbs. or 12 lbs. pressure. From that they went up to 20 lbs.; from that they got up to 50 lbs. or 60 lbs., which at one time was believed to be an enormous pressure; then they made another forward advance and got to 80 lbs., and now they had made another tremendous step forward and got up to 150 lbs. and 180 lbs. pressure. He believed Her Majesty's Government were doing nothing of this kind, but were building machinery of an antiquated character which took them some years to complete, and which then would be altogether obsolete and worthless and only fit to be taken out of the ship and replaced by modern machinery. With regard to the length of time that was occupied in building ships of the Navy, it seemed to him altogether absurd for the Admiralty to occupy eight or nine years in doing that which could be very well performed in two, or, at the outside, three years. That appeared to him to be an important point, and he begged to call the attention of the Committee to it.

MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN

said, he did not know whether the hon. Gentleman had any definite information as to the condition of the machinery of Her Majesty's ships, and as to improvements having lately taken place.

MR. C. H. WILSON

I did not mean to say that Her Majesty's Government were neglecting to adopt modern improvements—I simply asked whether they were adopting them.

MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN

said, that without technical knowledge on the subject he could, at any rate, assure the hon. Gentleman that there were officers at the Admiralty who were perfectly well aware of every known improvement in machinery which could be introduced into a ship. They satisfied themselves that the machinery provided was made of the best materials and on the best principle. All boilers now manufactured were made of steel, and altogether he did not find that the boilers provided for Her Majesty's ships were in that state that the hon. Member suggested. With regard to the ships of the Mersey class, it had been intended to build five of them; but one of that number had been abandoned in favour of another project. Now, therefore, it was only proposed to build four of them; and, looking at the prospects there were of their being useful, he felt sure they would justify the Government in going on with them. The extreme speed of these vessels, their endurance so far as capacity for carrying fuel was concerned, would be much greater than the hon. Gentleman supposed—they would be able to steam 2,000 knots at a speed of 17 knots an hour, or 8,000 knots at a speed of 10 knots an hour, and that was considered very satisfactory.

MR. RYLANDS

said, the Government could go into the market and get machinery from the best makers with all the latest modern improvements, and no doubt they had done that from time to time. No doubt the question that had been raised by the hon. and gallant Member with regard to the construction of ships in private yards as well as our Dockyards was a very important subject; and though that observation applied to this Vote, it applied much more strongly to the Vote for building the ships in our own Dockyards. One point he could not too strongly impress on the Admiralty was that, if they were a long time building these vessels, they necessarily had a large sum of money lying idle which they might spend on the Navy, which in the event of an emergency would be absolutely futile; they spent millions of money on unfinished ships, which clearly could be of no advantage to us in the event of an emergency taking place. The object and policy they should have in view, it would seem to him, should be this—namely, whether they built themselves, or whether, as he should much prefer, they went into the open market and got them built by contract, it ought to be essential, both with reference to their own shipbuilding and to the contract shipbuilding, that, having decided on the character of the vessel they required, they should insist upon the ship being finished within a certain period. It might happen that during the next year or two there might be some considerable improvements adopted in the construction of similar vessels. They could then go into the market for new ships of the newer pattern, and they would have the advantage of having had the old ship in use ready for any emergency. He did not agree with this dallying policy, with their waiting to take advantage of improvements which were invented, and which, as he understood, too often led to a total alteration of their plans, and to enormous delay. The result of the existing system was that if a war were to break out to-morrow we should find we had some millions of money absolutely sunk, and which, so far as purposes of defence were con cerned, might just as well be at the bottom of the sea. He could not understand what justification there could be for this policy. He trusted an entirely new system would be adopted by the Government—that there would be a certain programme prepared for a limited period, and that the Admiralty would seek to make not an absolutely perfect type, but the most perfect type they could get at the time, trusting that when they went into the market again for further vessels from year to year they would take advantage of such improvements as had arisen in the meantime. He was sorry to find that this Vote for building by contract was very much less than it used to be. He should be very glad to see the Admiralty go back to the old policy of buying more and making less. He wished to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty one or two questions in regard to a matter of much importance in the Vote. On page 115 there was an account for extra receipts which was brought to the credit of this Vote, and that included proceeds of the sale of ships (£80,000), and proceeds of the sale of stores (£60,000). He should like to ask under what plan were ships condemned and stores disposed of? He believed, at the commencement of the financial year, the Admiralty decided that they would take to the credit of the Vote a certain sum of money, say £80,000; and he should like to ask whether it had come to be a rule of thumb, or whether the Admiralty had the whole of the unserviceable ships carefully surveyed and valued, and determined how many should be broken up and how many turned into money? It must happen that now these accounts were placed at the disposal of the Admiralty they might manipulate the arrangement of breaking up ships by one year breaking up more, and another less than they calculated would be necessary to break up without reference to any preconceived plan, but having reference more to the amount of money which was to be got out of it. He should very much like to know what were the conditions on which the Admiralty decided which were the vessels to be broken up and the stores which were to be sold? He should like to know if there was a system under which sufficient care was taken that stores were not sold before they were unserviceable, because he was afraid they were sometimes sold in a manner that involved unnecessary loss to the public?

MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN

said, there had been a great many worn-out hulks which had been causing constant expense to the Admiralty by requiring someone to look after them. Though not a large expense, they were a constant source of expenditure, and were absolutely useless for any purposes the Navy could require them for. It had become necessary to realize money by the sale of these ships rather than incur this unnecessary loss. A large number of these old vessels had been sold last year; they were incumbrances to the Dockyard, and of no earthly use to the Public Service. As to the stores, he was afraid he could not tell his hon. Friend exactly what system was pursued.

MR. RYLANDS

said, of course it could not be expected the hon. Gentleman should be able to give information upon every small matter of detail; but he had no doubt he would give attention to the point. He (Mr. Rylands) had been supplied with information which led him to think that a little more attention might be taken, not only as to worthless stores which were ordered to be sold, but also as to the mode in which the sales should take place. He did not, for a moment, doubt as to the ships that the Admiralty were right in selling them; but the point he wished to put was, whether they would make such arrangements as to sell all the unserviceable ships at once?

MR PULESTON

said, he did not wish this discussion to close leaving in the minds of any hon. Members the idea that ships could not be built as readily in the Dockyards as they could in private yards. It was not the fact that ships could be built in private yards in two or three years, whereas it took the Royal Dockyards seven or eight to build a first class iron-clad. There were as many facilities—indeed more facilities—in some of the Royal Dockyards for the building of ships than there were in the private yards. It was not a question of impossibility, but expediency—of policy. That idea of building ships by contract on the assumption that they could be built better than in the Dockyards, if it were founded on fact, would give cause for great complaint against the Admiralty. It would be in the highest degree discreditable to the Dockyards if they could not do their work as efficiently as the private yards.

MR. GOURLEY

said, he was of opinion that vessels could be built for at least 25 or 30 per cent less in private yards than in the Royal Dockyards. He had no less an authority than the statement of Mr. Samuda.

MR. PULESTON

Mr. Samuda speaks of his own private yard.

MR. GOURLEY

said, that, as he had already stated, he thought that now, when there was a lack of work in connection with private shipbuilding yards, it would be a wise policy of the Admiralty to give the private shipbuilders more work than they did at present. He should like to ask, with regard to the description of machinery which it was proposed to use for vessels of the Mersey class, whether the triple cylinders were being used for the old form of machinery?

MR. GORST

said, he must decline to accept the observations of Mr. Samuda, who was the owner of a private shipbuilding yard, as authoritative on this question of ship building in Her Majesty's Dockyards. No doubt Mr. Samuda knew the cost of shipbuilding in private yards, and probably the process of shipbuilding might be more economically carried on in some respects; but generally he did not see why they should not build ships in the Dockyards quite as well as they did in the private yards; materials cost no more, and labour cost less. Men in the Dockyards did not receive such high wages as did the men in private yards in busy times. But hon. Members who were zealous for building in the private yards should remember that after all Dockyards must be maintained, if it were only for the having the means of fitting up and keeping in repair our fighting vessels; they would be essential in time of war. Suppose a war were to take place and we were to have some naval engagements, where did hon. Members think vessels could be sent to if they wanted repairing? They could not go into open port to be repaired; it was necessary they should go into a place like Chatham. [Laughter.] It was perfectly ridiculous that hon. Gentlemen could not hear a case stated, without the idea that it was brought forward to advance the interest of a certain place. Take the case of probable engagements in the North Sea. There was no place other than Chatham on that side of England where ships could go to be repaired. They could not repair ships in time of war except in fortified Dockyards. As it was absolutely necessary to have Government Dockyards in case of war, it was surely good policy to keep the yards employed in building a certain number of ships in time of peace—in building such a number of ships as could be built without increasing the Establishment charges. That was the policy the Admiralty had hitherto pursued; and he hoped that all the talk of hon. Members about being able to build ships in private yards 20 per cent cheaper and quicker would not induce the Admiralty to depart from what was unquestionably a sound and economical policy.

MR. A. F. EGERTON

said, that when the Conservatives were in Office he went very carefully into the comparative cost of building ships in private yards and in Dockyards, and he came to the conclusion that there was very little difference indeed. He believed there was a margin in favour of the private yards; but it was very small. They were, however, perfectly certain of getting the best possible work in the Dockyards, besides which it must be remembered that it was always necessary to employ a large establishment for the purpose of repairing ships. He hoped the Admiralty would continue to employ both public and private yards.

MR. RAMSAY

said, he did not conceive it possible that a system under which seven years were occupied in the construction of a ship could be a profitable one. The Admiralty ought to secure the building of a ship they required in the least possible time, consistent, of course, with the consideration that it was such as was suitable for the purposes for which it was intended. If a ship of a particular construction was required it surely was not necessary that she should be seven years on the blocks.

Vote agreed to.

(6.) £1,040,000, Machinery and Ships built by Contract, &c.

MR. W. H. SMITH

suggested to the Secretary to the Admiralty (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman) that it would be very useful if there was an Appendix giving a statement of the progress made in gun mounting in regard to particular ships—gun mounting of a particular class. He spoke of the costly hydraulic mounting which we now had for particular guns. At page 210 there was a statement of the propelling machinery works to be executed; and, looking to the very large sums which were being taken every year for gun mounting, and to the importance of gun mounting, an Appendix such as he suggested would give valuable information to the Committee, and would re-assure them as to the provision which was being made for the costly and necessary articles of machinery in connection with guns.

MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN

said, he would see whether such an Appendix could be given.

MR. W. H. SMITH

said, that what he was rather anxious to obtain was information which should be complete and satisfactory to the Committee as to the provision made beforehand for costly work which took a long time in their execution. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman) knew perfectly well that the gun mounting took to complete at least two years from the date the order was given. It would be interesting to know, from a record in the Estimates, what orders had been given and the period within which the mountings had to be delivered.

Vote agreed to.

(7.) £481,700, New Works, Buildings, Yard Machinery, and Repairs.

SIR MASSEY LOPES

asked what progress had been made with the erection of the seamen's barracks at Key-ham? The barracks had now been building four years; it was surely high time they were approaching completion. In all works which occupied a considerable time to execute the country lost not only the interest on the money expended; but besides doing that in this case we were delaying the opportunity of experimenting whether the barracks were desirable or not.

SIR THOMAS BRASSEY

said, that £130,000 was the total Estimate for the erection of the barracks. Two blocks for 1,000 men with officers' quarters and necessary outhouses were almost completed under a contract amounting to £54,510. The sum of £25,000 was taken in the present Estimates. With that sum they could provide fittings of an elaborate and complete character for the blocks which would shortly be finished and for the canteen and store rooms. The sum, too, would also cover the cost of water service and drainage. It was expected that barrack room for 1,000 would be completed and ready for occupation in the present financial year.

MR. PULESTON

asked if it was intended to stop at accommodation for 1,000 men? He understood the plans involved accommodation for 4,000 men.

SIR THOMAS BRASSEY

said, there was ample space on the site selected to provide barrack room for 4,000 men; but he was sure that, after what they had heard of the shipbuilding requirements of the Navy, the Admiralty would not be pressed to undertake the erection of any more barracks than were actually required at present. No decision had yet been arrived at as to the time when the additional blocks would be commenced. The decision of that question must depend upon the estimate formed of the durability of the receiving ships at Plymouth. It was, of course, intended that the barracks should be occupied in succession to the receiving ships.

MR. PULESTON

said, he went over the barracks the last time he was in Plymouth, and he could assure the Committee they were well worth an inspection. Two blocks, as the Civil Lord (Sir Thomas Brassey) had said, were very nearly completed; and it occurred to him (Mr. Puleston) that if, sooner or later, the barracks were to be extended more land would be needed. It seemed to him unwise policy not to secure the adjoining land, which he understood could be got now at a very reasonable price, though he confessed he did not know to whom it belonged. He could not press too strongly upon his hon. Friend (Sir Thomas Brassey) the necessity of looking into the matter, because it was patent if the barracks were extended as originally proposed that the additional land would be required if only for a recreation ground.

SIR THOMAS BRASSEY

said, the authorities were aware of the importance of the matter, and they would look into it.

MR. W. H. SMITH

said, there was one question with respect to Chatham he desired to ask. The new works there were supposed to be completed last year; but he believed the basin was not yet opened. He would like to know whether there was any difficulty with regard to the shoal at the entrance to the new works, or whether the delay merely arose from an indisposition on the part of the Admiralty to make use of works which were not pressingly needed for the service of the Navy? It would certainly be satisfactory to the Committee to be assured there was no difficulty so far as the entrance to the new works was concerned.

SIR THOMAS BRASSEY

assured the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. W. H. Smith) there was no difficulty on that head.

MR. W. H. SMITH

inquired if all the appliances were ready in the event of the basin being required?

SIR THOMAS BRASSEY

Yes.

MR. W. H. SMITH

said, great value was attached to the Dockyard at Malta, and some time ago it was decided to construct a new dock there. He did not see, however, that any provision was made for a new dock. There was provision made for an extension of yard and for an iron ship-repairing shop near Somerset Dock. There was also a slight provision for drainage, but there was no provision for a dock itself; and seeing that the construction of a dock was a work which would occupy a great many years, and that it would be of the utmost importance and of the greatest possible value to the Navy in the event of difficulties in the Mediterranean, he hoped the Admiralty still intended to proceed with the work and carry it through as rapidly as possible.

SIR THOMAS BRASSEY

said, the amount provided towards the commencement of a new dock at Malta was £10,000—a sum which would suffice to clear the site and provide for commencing the larger operations in a future year. £15,000 was taken for the iron ship-repairing shop; but next year that amount of money would be devoted to the construction of the dock. He might also point out to the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. W. H. Smith) that the completion of the two blocks of barracks at Keyham would also set free a certain sum of money. The Admiralty hoped to be able next year to concentrate their attention upon the works at Malta.

MR. GORST

said, he also had a question to ask about the Chatham extension works, which had cost a very large sum of money. Chatham was originally intended to be a great refitting and repairing establishment. The basins were finished; but there were no very extensive factories as yet on the banks. He could not help thinking that the Admiralty were proceeding very slowly in providing the necessary machinery and factories for making the great basins available for the purposes for which they were intended. In answer to a question put to him the other day the Secretary to the Admiralty (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman) said the intention of the Government now was to make Chatham a shipbuilding yard, and not so much a repairing or refitting place as Portsmouth or Devonport. He (Mr. Gorst) should like to know whether the policy of the Government was now changed with reference to the Chatham extension works; whether they intended that the whole of the money expended on the great basins there was to be wasted; and whether the original plans were to be abandoned in order that Chatham might be simply a shipbuilding yard? If so, he could not help deprecating that so much money should have been thrown away by the Government. Certainly, in the present Estimates, there was no provision for any additional machinery or additional buildings in connection with the extension works, for the purpose of carrying out repairs if repairs were necessary.

SIR THOMAS BRASSEY

said, he did not understand that there was any change of policy with regard to the administration of the Chatham Dockyard. He believed that under the administration of the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. W. H. Smith) Chatham Dockyard was mainly used for shipbuilding, although it was extremely valuable in carrying out the repair of a certain number of ships. The same policy was pursued now. No doubt the magnificent water space was not fully utilized, or could not be fully utilized, unless the Admiralty provided the necessary shipbuilding shops and large mechanical appliances; but to provide them would involve a very large expenditure.

SIR JOHN HAY

said, there was a large increase, proportionately speaking, in the expenditure on Marine Bar racks and Infirmaries, in regard to which no information had as yet been given to the Committee. Last year the expenditure under this head was £14,910, and this year the estimated expenditure was £21,750. In the case of the Marine Barracks and Infirmaries at Chatham, Eastney, Plymouth, and Walmer, there was an increase, and he hoped the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Admiralty would give some information to the Committee on the subject. He did not see any information given on page 221 in respect of the increase.

SIR EDWARD J. REED

said, that a few days ago he noticed from the newspapers that the Hydraulic Dock Company at Malta was going into liquidation. He would like to know whether the possibility of acquiring the dock on moderate terms had been considered by the Government?

MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN

said, the point had been considered.

MR. RYLANDS

said, that every year Parliament voted very large sums of money, not only for new works, buildings, and machinery, but for the maintenance of largo establishments. He observed that under Sub-head A the estimate for "new works and buildings—above £10,000 each—at home" was £82,000; while last year it was £70,500, an increase of £11,500. He should like to know who were the persons who superintended the new works, and under what conditions these charges were made? With regard to military establishments abroad, there must be some requisition made by the heads of the Departments for what they considered to be necessary for the improvement or for the maintenance of their establishments. Hon. Gentlemen knew perfectly well that there was a great disposition to spend money in this way, unless a careful check was kept upon the expenditure; and he was bound to say, looking at this Vote, that the items which were set down for repairs and maintenance were very considerable. Perhaps the Secretary to the Admiralty would tell them what were the conditions under which the Admiralty sanctioned expenditure either for additional works or for maintenance or repairs, and what arrangements they make in order to secure that the requisitions which they sanctioned were carried out in an economical manner?

MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN

said, the whole of this Vote was under the administration of one of the most admirable and able officers in Her Majesty's Service—Colonel Smith, of the Royal Engineers. That officer had able assistants, and he (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman) could assure the hon. Gentleman the Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) that the work was admirably done. With regard to the point raised by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman (Sir John Hay), he (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman) believed that the increases in the Estimates for Marine barracks and infirmaries were due to sanitary requirements.

SIR HENRY HOLLAND

asked when they might expect the works at Hawlbowline to be completed? When he was there convicts were largely employed on the works; but now the convicts had been removed from Spike Island. He should like to know whether the convicts had been superseded by free labour, and whether this change would increase the expenditure?

SIR THOMAS BRASSEY

said, there had been some delay in the completion of the works at Hawlbowline in consequence of the withdrawal of the convicts. The case had been met by the employment of 450 free labourers. Last year the expenditure was increased from £30,000 to £36,000, and he was informed to-day by Colonel Smith that they might expect the completion of the work in 1888.

MR. GORST

said, he desired to call attention to the item of £500 for the ordinary maintenance and repair of the Dutch House at Port Said. If he remembered rightly that house was bought under rather peculiar, he might say strange circumstances, in the time of the Egyptian War, when it was thought that it would be of use to the country for naval purposes; but although the conditions which then existed had ceased, the Dutch House still appeared upon the Estimates as requiring this year for repairs and maintenance an expenditure of £500. He wanted to hear from the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury whether this house, for which apparently there was no further need, was to constitute a permanent charge of £500 a-year on the Naval Estimates; and, if so, for what reason the house was retained?

MR. PARNELL

said, he presumed the house was no longer wanted for naval purposes, and, therefore, asked why the sum of £500 appeared on the Estimates for ordinary maintenance and repairs in connection with it?

MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN

said, the house was bought when there was a force of Marines stationed at Port Said, and it was thought necessary to retain possession of it.

MR. GORST

said, that the force of Marines alluded to by the hon. Gentleman had been withdrawn from Port Said for more than a year. There was no such force at Port Said now; and if the country was to submit to a chronic expenditure of £500 in respect of it, the Committee ought to be informed why this Dutch House was retained. Under other circumstances, he should have divided the Committee on the Vote; but at that late hour he would not put the Committee to the trouble, although he should expect a more satisfactory reply to his inquiry on a future occasion.

SIR EDWARD J. REED

said, he did not know whether it had struck the Committee as strange that a Colonel of Engineers would be the person selected by the Government for the purpose of presiding over that department of the Admiralty which had charge of the construction of docks and buildings in Her Majesty's Dockyards. He did not want to say one word about the employment of military men in the Dockyards, but desired to illustrate the importance of the point raised by his hon. Friend, because the system in question was sometimes productive of anomalous results which he should mention for the purpose of inviting the attention of the hon. Gentleman below him (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman) to the desirability of keeping a careful control in this matter. The following incident once occurred. Large docks were about to be constructed some years ago at Chatham and Portsmouth; he found that the then Colonel of Engineers at the head of the Department of the Admiralty which had charge of such works was proceeding to carry out docks for the accommodation of Her Majesty's ships in Her Majesty's Dockyards without the least reference to himself, who was then the Chief Constructor of the Navy and of Her Majesty's ships. He was surprised, but so it was, and it occurred to him that it might be worth while to consider whether the shipbuilding department of the Admiralty should not be consulted in the construction of docks for Her Majesty's Navy. Accordingly, he suggested to the Board of Admiralty that it might be well to allow the shipbuilding department to see the designs of the docks; and surprise was expressed when it was stated that the Colonel of Engineers had not thought it desirable or necessary to consult with the Constructor of the Navy on the subject. Under these circumstances, he (Sir Edward J. Reed) pointed out what might happen in consequence. Speaking from experience, he was bound to express his opinion that nothing contributed more to the limitation of the development of the naval power of the country than the expenditure of money on Docks in Her Majesty's Dockyards under the superintendence of military officers. It was a fact that the greatest hindrance standing in the path of naval designers within and without the Admiralty, and the one thing which prevented this and other countries from receiving the full benefits of iron and steel in shipbuilding, was the construction of a number of long and narrow docks which impeded the development of ships in the matter of breadth. He believed that if the department in question had been under the influence of the constructive branch of the Admiralty they would have had a very different state of things from that which now existed. It was well known that in the case of some of the principal ships of the Royal Navy there was only a dock here and there capable of containing them, and those who were in the secret knew that the development of ships in respect of beam, where heavy armour had to be carried, would have been much greater than it had been, but for the narrowness of the docks which made further development in that direction impossible. From this he drew the conclusion to which he asked the attention of his hon. Friend below him, that the construction of docks for the Fleet ought not to be left too much in the hands of military engineers, but should be carried out with due regard to the proper development of Her Majesty's Navy—that was to say, in such a manner that the ships should determine the docks, and not the docks determine the ships, as had been the case for many years past.

SIR THOMAS BRASSEY

said, he could assure the Committee and his hon. Friend who had just spoken that, at the present time, there were no views entertained on the part of those who were responsible for the expenditure upon works in the Dockyards that were antagonistic to those held by those who had charge of the Shipbuilding Department of the Admiralty. There had, he might say, always been the most anxious desire on the part of the Works Department to consult the Naval Authorities with regard to the details of the works to be carried out. It was, no doubt, the case that to some it appeared an anomaly that a military officer should be at the head of that Department; but, having watched the matter from the beginning, he ventured to say that the appointment of military officers to the position had been attended with great advantage; it had been impossible to obtain the services of more prompt and competent advisers with regard to this branch of business. The hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) had criticized the amount of the Estimate; but he would point out to his hon. Friend that a great amount of work had to be undertaken in connection with the buildings which came under the Vote. The buildings carried out under the Buildings and Maintenance Vote represented a capital expenditure of no less a sum than £16,000,000 sterling; and the expense in connection with the cost of superintendence had been brought down to 1 per cent upon the capital. Therefore, he thought that the Committee would agree with him in thinking that the superintendence, on the whole, was of a satisfactory character. With regard to the Vote itself, he would point out to the hon. Member for Burnley that it had been somewhat rapidly reduced within the last three or four years. The amount, which in 1881–2 was £558,000, had been brought down to the moderate sum of £490,000 for the present financial year, which he thought his hon. Friend would admit to be a considerable reduction in a short space of time. With regard to what had fallen from an hon. Member as to certain buildings, he would remark that the buildings in question, as the hon. Gentleman probably knew, were acquired under emergency; their maintenance, which did not involve a very serious expenditure, would be fully covered by their utility; and if it were considered hereafter that they were no longer necessary for the occupation of Her Majesty's Forces, there would be no difficulty in letting them for commercial purposes.

MR. O'SHEA

called the attention of the Committee to an item of £4,000 in the Appendix to the Vote, page 221, for Repairs and Maintenance of the Breakwater at Alderney. It might be said that £1,500,000 sterling had been literally thrown into the sea at that place in the construction and repair of the Breakwater, which everyone knew to be nothing more than a ruin.

SIR THOMAS BRASSEY

said, the amount asked for was for the purpose of maintaining so much of the Breakwater at Alderney as would give a certain amount of smooth water for the shelter of ships. It would, no doubt, be necessary, in a case of emergency, to make special provision on its account; but the sum now asked for was sufficient for the purpose described, and he considered that a wise decision had been arrived at by the Board of Admiralty in deciding to maintain the work at that moderate cost. Looking at the past history of the works, he thought the present policy with regard to them was judicious.

MR. O'SHEA

said, he should like to know the amount of shipping which took shelter at Alderney?

MR. W. H. SMITH

pointed out that it was an error to describe the Breakwater at Alderney as a ruin; because, although a large portion of the works had been washed away, there still remained some 200 yards of the Breakwater which afforded complete shelter to first-class ships of Her Majesty's Navy.

SIR THOMAS BRASSEY

said, that the Breakwater at Alderney, in case of emergency, might be made of very great usefulness.

SIR JOHN HAY

said, he hoped that the Government would take the same view of Portpatrick, which was going to ruin for want of a small expenditure upon it.

MR. O'SHEA

said, he cordially supported the view expressed by the right hon. and gallant Admiral as to the advisability of spending the money usefully at other places instead of wasting it at Alderney. A very much larger amount of shipping took shelter, for instance, in the mouth of the Shannon than ever went to Alderney.

Vote agreed to.

Resolutions to be reported.

MR. PULESTON

said, he did not know whether the Government intended to go any further, on the present occasion, with the Navy Votes. For his own part, he thought it was time to report Progress.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That a sum, not exceeding £62,500, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Expense of Medicines, Medical Stores, &c, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1885.

LORD HENRY LENNOX

said, that the Vote which had just been put from the Chair contained a provision of the greatest possible importance; and he felt it his duty to ask some explanation from Her Majesty's Government, and especially from the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for War, as to what the country were to expect the policy of the Government would be in regard to what was commonly known as the C. D. Act. He observed that the amount in the present Estimate for the expenses of carrying out the Act in question was less than that asked for last year by the sum of £1,400. He should be glad to learn, and he was quite sure the information would be most gratefully received at Portsmouth, Plymouth, Devonport, and other places in which the provisions of the Act had hitherto been carried out, that Her Majesty's Government had reconsidered the hasty decision arrrived at by them last year on this subject, and that it was really intended to protect our soldiers and sailors from a horrible disease. Was the alteration in the Estimate due to the carrying out of that reckless Resolution by which the Act of Parliament was superseded? He repeated that an intimation would be gratefully received from the noble Marquess that the Government had reconsidered their ill-advised decision of last year, and that they intended to carry out this Act, which had been proved to be most valuable by all the Returns on the subject which had been presented to the House.

MR. PULESTON

remarked that a few nights ago, on the discussion of the Army Estimates, when 12 o'clock was reached, the noble Marquess consented to report Progress, and, indeed, suggested it himself, and gave, as his reason for so doing, that a large number of hon. Members wished to take part in the discussion of the Vote before the Committee. He assumed that the noble Lord would act on the same principle on the present occasion, and agree to the Motion which he now begged to make, that the Chairman report Progress.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Puleston.)

CAPTAIN MAXWELL-HERON

said, the discussion on the next Vote would occupy some time; and he, therefore, hoped the Committee would agree to the Motion of the hon. Member for Devonport.

THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON

said, it was quite true that when Progress was moved the other night on the Army Estimates, he had agreed to the Motion. It was evident that there would be a long discussion on the next Vote, and he thought it reasonable to report Progress at 12 o'clock, because whatever discussion there might have been could not have been reported. He did not know, however, that having regard to the period of the Session now reached, it was likely that they would obtain a more favourable opportunity than the present for discussing the question raised by the noble Lord opposite (Lord Henry Lennox). So far as he was concerned, however, and not knowing the exact amount of progress that had been made with the Navy Estimates that evening, he should be disposed to take the same course as on the previous occasion referred to.

MR. W. H. SMITH

said, that looking at the time of night, and at the fact that the Committee had been engaged on the Navy Estimates for seven hours, he thought it right that they should report Progress. The questions remaining for discussion in connection with the Estimates were of some importance, and judging from the number of hon. Members who desired to speak on them, they could not be disposed of without they had much more time at their disposal than they could devote to them that night.

SIR JOHN HAY

said, he should support the Motion to report Progress. He knew that his hon. and gallant Friend opposite (Captain Maxwell-Heron) had a subject to bring forward on Vote 13, the discussion of which would occupy a considerable time.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolution to be reported To-morrow.

Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.