§ SUPPLY—considered in Committee.
§ (In the Committee.)
§ (1.) £1,038,202, Victuals and Clothing (Seamen and Marines).
MR. CORRYsaid, that, as he was unavoidably absent when the First Lord of the Admiralty made his very clear Statement on the first night of the Naval Estimates, he was anxious to avail himself of the present opportunity to make a few remarks on the subject of the number of seamen at present borne on the books of the Navy. The right hon. Gentleman had admitted the deficiency in the number of our seamen, and had spoken of it as "deplorable." In that the right hon. Gentleman was quite right, for our seamen were the backbone of our Navy. It was the command of seamen which determined the position which any country could hold as a naval Power. Money might build ships, and purchase steam engines and stores, but it could not make seamen, and as the mercantile marine no longer furnished any considerable supply to the Royal Navy, it was of the greatest importance that an adequate number of pure seamen should be maintained in the service. But the First Lord of the Admiralty appeared to be unaware that the present Government had been burning the candle at both ends, and it was not surprising it should be wasting away. There had been a large reduction both of men and of boys since 1868, as, during the last two years, the Vote for men, exclusive of marines, had been reduced by upwards of 5,000, but he was himself responsible for nearly 1,000 of that number. In 1868, just before he left office, he had re-organized the reserve of ships in the ports, whereby he had reduced about 1,000 men, but these men had not in the least contributed to the power of the Navy, because they were old pensioned men, shipkeepers, and others unfit to go to sea. By that reform a considerable economy had been effected, as it had reduced the cost of the annual maintenance of each of the larger ships in the Reserve from £1,000 to £200. The late First Lord had also reduced a considerable number of unserviceable men. The actual number reduced by him by the Estimates for 1869–70, and 1870–1, was 4,070, but of these, according 1836 to his own Statement, 685 were blue-jackets, in the former year, and, in the latter, 500—showing a total reduction of 1,185 pure seamen in the two years, which was a very serious diminution. It might be interesting to the Committee to know how materially the number of pure seamen had been diminished of late years. In 1858 the number of pure seamen borne on the books of the Fleet was 23,161; in 1860, in consequence of the Italian War, they were increased to 32,700. In 1861, when the Civil War was raging in America, the number was 31,138, and there was then a gradual reduction to a normal state until 1864, when the number was again 23,039. In 1866 they were reduced to 20,805; in 1868, as stated by the late First Lord, to 20,085; and now, in 1871, they were about 18,000. The axiom amongst naval men was, that it was not safe to reduce the number of seamen below 20,000 men; and if it was important in former times that that number should be maintained, it was much more so at the present time, when the supply of men from the merchant navy might be said to have almost ceased. The cessation of the supply of seamen from the merchant navy was the necessary consequence of the establishment of the naval Reserve, since which the supply had been going down till it had almost reached zero. In the year 1860–1, when the Royal Naval Reserve was established, 2,788 men from the merchant service entered the Royal Navy, nearly making up for the waste of the year; in 1864–5 the number fell to 795; in 1866–7 it was 409; and the First Lord of the Admiralty said that in 1870–1 only 50 men entered the Royal Navy from the merchant service. As the Government could get no men from the merchant service it followed, of course, that the Royal Navy must be made self-supporting—that was to say, they must train up boys in sufficient numbers to maintain the required number of seamen. But the present Government had reduced the number of boys as well as of seamen. In the year 1868, the number of boys in the Navy was 7,765; in 1870–1, the number was 7,005 only. He had strongly objected to that reduction in the discussions on the Navy Estimates in 1869 and 1870, when he had stated that he had ascertained from a Return he had called for in 1868 that the number then borne was no more than adequate to supply the 1837 waste of men. Assuming that the proper number of seamen to be kept up was 20,000—below which he hoped the number would not be allowed permanently to fall—the number of boys in training required to supply the waste of men was 3,500. The waste of boys in 2½ years was 18 per cent; and in round numbers 3,500 boys in training provided 3,000 to reach the rating of ordinary seamen, which was just equal to the waste on 20,000 men. He had heard a rumour that the First Lord of the Admiralty intended to increase the number of boys by 500, and he should be glad to be assured that the rumour was true. If it was, he hailed it as an auspicious commencement of the naval administration of the First Lord, in which he wished him every success.
§ MR. GOSCHENsaid, he mentioned, in introducing the Estimates, that there was considerable difficulty in filling up the gap that had occurred by the unfortunate loss of the Captain and another ship, which was the main cause why the number of blue-jackets had fallen below the number on the Estimates. The problem of the Navy was not that more men were wanted beyond the number in the Estimates, but in keeping up that number. If the right hon. Gentleman simply wished that the blue-jackets in the Fleet should be increased by 1,000, that was a proposition to which Her Majesty's Government could not accede. It was true that he had ordered 500 extra boys to be entered; but they were included in the Estimates of this year, in place of the blue-jackets who at present were not entering from the merchant service. There would be so many more boys; but so many fewer blue-jackets, because at present blue-jackets could not be got. Why could not they be got? He could not assent entirely to the views of the right hon. Gentleman in that respect. The fact was, the whole system of recruiting for the Navy had been changed, and instead of going into the market for recruits, the Admiralty recruited the Navy by entering boys, and there had been no difficulty in procuring as many boys as the Admiralty thought necessary. If you did not go permanently into the market for seamen, it was difficult to secure seamen at any moment when you wanted them. There was great unanimity of opinion upon this point—that the material which 1838 the Admiralty got from entering boys was infinitely superior to that which could be got from entering men from on shore. The right hon. Gentleman contrasted the number of seamen in 1858—namely, 23,000—with the present number, which was over 18,000. Well, he (Mr. Goschen) maintained that 18,000 with the present class of ships, was a force far superior to that of 23,000 with the ships of the year 1858. Two or three of the ships that were now being built would be equal to a whole squadron of former times. Surely, then, it could not be contended that we were bound to have as many seamen now as we had in former times. There was another and a very serious point which would be appreciated by the right hon. Gentleman, and that was that when the Admiralty had got a large number of men it was exceedingly difficult to employ them with the present ships. An iron-clad fleet was not like a squadron of the old style of ships, which could cruise under sail for long periods. Iron-clads constantly required to be coaled, if they were to be kept at sea; and that difficulty increased in proportion to the substitution of iron-clads for other ships. The best course that could be adopted was to have a large Reserve Force, the men in which were engaged in seafaring pursuits during the greater part of the year, who were trained to work guns, and whose services could be had at any moment on an emergency. If a regular force of 30,000 men was kept up under the present system of armour-clad vessels, the men would be in harbour more than half the year, to the great detriment not only of the service, but of themselves. He was quite alive to the necessity of keeping up the number of boys in the service, as urged by the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Corry), and he had already shown it by his proposal to increase their number. He believed that the number of men in the service at the present moment was 18,000; but, as the right hon. Gentleman opposite disputed that fact, he supposed that he had been in communication with one of the clerks of the office, who had given him information on the subject. [Mr. CORRY: I never go near the Admiralty.] The right hon. Gentleman had made that statement upon what he termed good authority; but it was evident that there could be no good 1839 authority upon the exact figures, except those who were in the Admiralty.
MR. CORRYremarked that it was only due to the clerks in the Admiralty Office that he should state that he had not obtained his information from any of them upon this subject. He protested against the right hon. Gentleman assuming that nobody out of the Admiralty Office could have any knowledge as to the number of men in the Navy. Did the right hon. Gentleman suppose that officers in the Navy, who paid attention to to such subjects, could not form an estimate, or that he (Mr. Corry) himself could not do so? He had not asked the First Lord of the Admiralty to increase the number of blue-jackets, for the best of reasons; because that would have been a request to perform an impossibility. The blue-jackets could not be got. The Admiralty seemed to him to content themselves in this, and every other branch of the service, with making humdrum provision for a peace establishment, without ever providing for the possibility of a war; but, in the opinion of the highest authorities, the number of seamen should never be reduced below 20,000, and that number could easily be gained by entering a sufficient number of boys. This might be effected in two and a-half or three years, when boys now entered would obtain ratings as ordinary seamen.
§ SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONEsaid, he had had the honour of serving upon the Naval Commission, which recommended that the Reserve Force in the ports should never be reduced below 5,000 men. In not carrying out that recommendation, he considered that the Admiralty were not fulfilling their duty to the country. It was impossible rapidly to increase the naval force from the mercantile service; and even when the men were obtained they were generally not worth having. That circumstance, combined with the present small number of blue-jackets in the service, would have rendered it impossible to commission 12 sail of the line, had circumstances made such a course necessary during the past 12 months. He must say, that having been for 50 years in the service, he was just as capable of judging of what was going on in the Navy as the right hon. Gentleman himself, or any of the Admiralty clerks. He had been to look at the ships for himself, 1840 and he could tell the right hon. Gentleman that there was not a well-manned ship in the Navy; and he would mention, as a fact, that he had seen a sloop of 600 tons go to sea with only 20 able-seamen on board—a number utterly inadequate to manage her. It was well known that Her Majesty's ships could not go to windward, and therefore the masts and yards of the ships ought to be reduced to a manageable size. During the last 12 months 1,000 men had been lost to the service, including the 500 lost in the unfortunate affair of the Captain, and he considered that, if this country were dragged into war, we should not have an able-seaman to fall back upon, which was a disgraceful position for us to occupy. He trusted that the right hon. Gentleman, who was not answerable for existing shortcomings in the Admiralty, would look into the matter for himself, and would refrain from coming down to that House to defend a system which every man with the slightest acquaintance with naval affairs knew was utterly indefensible. He should move to report Progress.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Sir James Elphinstone.)
§ MR. BOWRING, observing that the discussion had mainly reference to a Vote which had already passed the Committee, asked for an explanation of the large increase in the Vote for Seamen's Clothing in the class now under consideration.
SIR JOHN HAYsaid, the hon. Member was mistaken, and that it was always competent to discuss the numbers of men on Vote 2, which provided the victuals to feed the men. Before making a few observations on the subject of the entry of boys for the Navy, he wished to express his deep regret at the loss of Mr. Reddie, a distinguished public servant, to whom the country was much indebted for many years of useful service. His calculations respecting the supply of boys assisted the late Board in deciding the numbers of boys to be entered annually for training, and the result of which had been to fix the number at 7,400 as required to compensate the waste of 18,000 men. The First Lord of the Admiralty proposed that there should be 7,500 Boys for the Navy; but that would be 1841 only 100 over the number required to supply the ordinary waste of 18,000 men, and would hardly replace the 500 men lost by the extraordinary calamity to the Captain, or the 300 who deserted from the Flying Squadron. It would be advantageous to increase the number of boys under training, while shortening the time of service for the men; making it eight years instead of ten, and then discharging them into the Royal Naval Reserve. It seemed to him that by some such process as that the Naval Reserve would be receiving well-trained men, who would be available for service in the event of an emergency. The expenditure for training a larger number of boys as seamen at all the various ports, with advantage to themselves and also to the country, should be borne not only by the naval Votes, but to some extent also by the Board of Trade, and even by the Educational Department.
§ MR. ALDERMAN LUSKanimadverted on the increase of nearly £70,000 on the Victualling and Clothing Vote this year, and asked for an explanation regarding it? The Government often did very silly things, and one of them was continuing to go into the metropolitan market, the dearest in the world, to buy fresh meat for the purpose of salting it at Deptford for the use of their ships, instead of buying it ready cured in Ireland, on the Continent, or in America, where it could be had as good and much cheaper.
§ MR. GOSCHEN, in reply to the hon. Baronet the Member for Portsmouth, said they had an excellent Reserve of 4,300 Coastguardsmen; a most valuable force, itself only 700 men short of the 5,000 which the hon. Baronet was anxious to get; in addition to which there was never a time when we had more seamen in our ports ready for immediate service than at present. As he had explained in introducing his Estimates, the present system of having fewer squadrons abroad, and concentrating our force at home, had materially strengthened our position, and the diminution of our seamen had occurred in our fleets abroad, not in those available for home defence. The hon. Baronet had spoken of the First Lord of the Amiralty and his clerks as being unequal to deal with those naval matters on which his own naval experience entitled him speak with authority. As far as he was personally concerned 1842 that might be true; but he demurred to the tone of the hon. Baronet's remarks in reference to the many gallant admirals and captains of great experience, great acquirements, and high position in the service who were engaged at the Admiralty, and who were quite as competent as the hon. Baronet to judge whether our fleets were well-manned or not; and, in connection with that subject, he admitted the whole question of the supply of boys to be one of the most important connected with Naval administration. With regard to the increase of the sum required for stores, the explanation was that last year there were large stocks on hand, and therefore it was necessary to spend less money than in the present year. He entirely agreed with the hon. Alderman (Mr. Alderman Lusk) with respect to the supply of preserved meat; but there was an old contract for 11 years in existence which somewhat tied the hands of the Admiralty.
MR. CORRYobserved that the Coastguard was in existence when the Royal Commission sat; and that Commission recommended that the Reserve should be greatly increased. With regard to the oil supplied to the Navy, he understood that it was of a very bad description.
§ MR. CANDLISHcomplained that no reference had been made to the fact that we were paying more and receiving less this year than last, and no explanation had been given of the fact.
§ SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONEsaid, that in his observations he had not alluded to the gallant officers at the Admiralty, but to others, who in giving advice to the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord had no responsibility whatever. He altogether repudiated the notion that he and his friends who ventured to criticize the Estimates, derived their information in a stealthy manner from the subordinate officers employed there.
LORD HENRY LENNOXsaid, that when he was at the Admiralty a large contract for the supply of preserved meat from Australia was entered into, and the late First Lord declared that that proceeding was successful. He wished to know whether the accounts received from the ships and depôts were confirmatory of the good quality of the meat?
§ MR. SHAW-LEFEVREsaid, the reports on the Australian meats had been 1843 very satisfactory. There was danger in obtaining preserved meats without taking precautions as to quality; but he was bound to say that the meat of this kind supplied to the Flying Squadron was very good.
SIR JOHN HAYconfirmed the statement that the arrangement for Australian preserved meats had given great satisfaction, and he was glad to hear that it was to be continued. It was due to the Admiralty to state that the provisions supplied to the Flying Squadron were of very good quality.
§ Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Vote agreed to.
§ (2.) £67,103, Scientific Departments.
SIR JOHN HAYinquired, Why there had been a reduction in the amount of rewards under this Vote; also, why there had been a reduction in the surveys; and, whether the interesting deep-sea dredging experiments undertaken by Dr. Carpenter were to be continued this year?
§ MR. GOSCHENsaid, the amount taken for rewards was reduced in consequence of the experience of past years, and in doing so there was no change of policy. No more than £500 had been expended in previous years, and therefore only that amount was now asked for. As to the surveys, the reduction was made in consequence of part of the survey having closed. He must ask the forbearance of the hon. Baronet in reference to his third question, not being able at present to answer it.
§ SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONEsaid, that in 1861 the Government undertook the whole of the Indian Surveys, and yet since then nothing had been done. The survey papers, as to the Red Sea, he understood had been lost at the Admiralty; and it was very desirable, with the increasing commerce, that there should be a fresh survey there. The mouths of several Indian rivers also required fresh surveys, because there were constant changes going on there. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would give them the assurance that this matter would not linger any longer.
§ MR. GOSCHENsaid, that the Indian Surveys were under consideration by the Indian Department.
§ MR. RYLANDSsaid, there was always an increase going on in the salaries of the officials of the different Departments, 1844 and he would be glad to hear that the First Lord's attention was directed to this.
§ MR. GOSCHENsaid, it required a continual check to keep salaries down; but he could assure the Committee that a careful cheek was to be found in the Treasury. There was scarcely one of these salaries which had been increased, which had not been fought very hard in the Treasury; and it was only when a very strong case was made out that an advance of salary was made. As to the case of the Royal Observatory, considering the arduous nature of the duties, the officers there were not at all highly paid.
§ MR. MUNTZsaid, he had noticed not only this year, but every year, that there had been a small increase on almost every salary. Two years ago, he had examined the accounts from 1835 downwards, to ascertain why the Estimates were doubled; and he had found £20 in one place, £30 in another place, and £50 in a third: the result of the combined increases being that the Votes presented an increase of between £4,000,000 and £5,000,000 to what they were a few years ago. He was very glad to hear that the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Admiralty would keep his eye upon this.
§ MR. GOSCHENsaid, he believed a similar state of things would be found to have occurred in every house of business in the country.
§ Vote agreed to.
§ On Motion to report Progress,
§ Resolutions to be reported To-morrow;
§ Committee to sit again To-morrow.