SUPPLY—NAVY ESTIMATES. (Hansard, 19 April 1872)

§ SIR JOHN HAY
wished to asked the First Lord of the Admiralty, If he could furnish the names of Contractors to whom repayments had been made, with the amount paid to each, under the head "Less penalties and fines debit balance arising from repayments to Contractors, &c., of amounts abated from them on account of fines," as stated in gross in Navy Estimates, 1871–2 and 1872–3; with a nominal list of the Contractors on whom penalties and fines had been imposed but not recovered on the 1st day of January 1869, with the amounts? The House would see, by turning to the Navy Estimates, that on the last sheet there was a statement, which was always two years in arrear, of certain Estimates of the year. In 1866–7 the penalties and fines for non-completion of contracts amounted to £3,055 15s.; in 1867–8 the amount was £4,461 14s. 10d.; and in the last year, when his right hon. Friend the Member for Tyrone (Mr. Corry) was First Lord of the Admiralty, the amount was £5,319 1s. 4d. In 1869–70, however, instead of penalties being recoverd, 1605 sums were paid over to the contractors. He understood, however, that the contracts now entered into were free from penalties, the system being to give a premium to the contractor if he fulfilled his contract, and fix a fine if he did not.

§ MR. GOSCHEN
said, it was true that penalties were imposed and recovered to the amount of about £4,000 a-year from 1865 to 1869; but the hon. and gallant Baronet was in error in supposing that they were not collected until the year after they were imposed, the fact being that they were deducted the same year from the sums paid to the contractors, except in a case which led to correspondence, when some delay must inevitably occur. In 1868–9, the last year in which that system was in operation, there was a credit to the Exchequer of £5,392; but though the penalties were recovered in the year in which they were imposed, abatements when made were not made till the next year, and in 1869–70, £1,100 of the £5,392 was remitted. A different system was now in force by which, when a contractor did not deliver his goods in time, the Government bought against him, making him responsible for any loss, and the effect had been that goods had been delivered much more promptly than they used to be. He should have great pleasure in showing the hon. and gallant Baronet or any other hon. Member the names of the firms whose fines had been remitted; but it would be against the public interest to publish the names in a Parliamentary Return.

§ SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONE
said, he had always taken objection to this peculiar system of purchasing as pursued by the present Admiralty. What they should do was to go straight into the open market for their goods, obtaining them by tender; from respectable persons, and fining those persons if they failed to deliver the goods. He did not think the explanation of the First Lord was satisfactory on the subject.

§ MR. CHILDERS
said, he would reply to the hon. and gallant Gentleman, as the Rules of the House would not allow his right hon. Friend to do so. He appealed to every business man to say what was the best system—that antiquated one of accepting in all cases the lowest tenderer, whoever he might be, and relying upon the power of fining as 1606 the security; or the much better system, in his opinion, of contracting with those persons who were, from their position in the trade, fully able to comply with the terms of their contracts, and if they were not able to do so, buying elsewhere and charging the contractors the difference? The latter system succeeded in obtaining better goods, and more satisfactory contracts during the two years he was in office.

§ MR. ALDERMAN LUSK
observed that it was impossible for hon. Members to understand these Admiralty accounts, when First Lords interpreted them differently, and he should like to know why the Admiralty could not make out their accounts and publish them, so that any business man could understand them.

SIR JOHN HAT
asked an explanation of the item—"Savings—payments for provisions not taken up"—£121,380. There was an increase of £2,167 upon this item as compared with the previous year, although the number of men had not increased.

§ MR. GOSCHEN
said, the explanation was, that there was a growing disposition among the men in certain cases to take money instead of provisions, and an actual saving was effected in this way.

§ SIR JOHN HAY
said, he should like to know why the men preferred the money, for it was generally held to be more advantageous to the service that the men should consume their full allowance of provisions, so long as they were of a good character, than that the provisions should be left behind, and the men should receive money which was not always well spent.

§ MR. SHAW LEFEVRE
said, there had been an extension of the system of supplying fresh meat in port; but the increase in the item was attributable, as had been stated, to the growing disposition among the men to take their savings in provisions in money.

§ MR. WHITWELL
cordially approved the new system of contracting for supplies. It was a great improvement on the old mode of doing business at the Admiralty.

LORD HENRY LENNOX
asked the First Lord to give an explanation of a circumstance which had created some excitement during the Recess. He knew that an explanation could be given of it, which would be perfectly satisfactory to the Committee and to the country. He referred to the startling announcement that there had been a condemnation of many tons of biscuit at Gibraltar because they were, in fact, alive with maggots. The statement had produced a very painful effect among members of the naval service, and he knew he was only doing a friendly act to the Admiralty by giving the First Lord an opportunity of explanation.

§ MR. GOSCHEN
said, he was very much obliged to the noble Lord for giving him the opportunity. It was perfectly correct, as stated, that there was a report of a condemnation of biscuit to the extent of 126,000 lbs. at Gibraltar, and such general credence did this report receive, that it was not only commented on in naval circles, but it was also discussed as a fact in a very serious quarterly publication. He was happy to say that, after the most thorough investigation, it was discovered that of this 126,000 lbs. of biscuit, 123,000 lbs. were good, serviceable, sweet biscuit, not only fit to be consumed, but which had been eaten. This was one of those damaging statements of Admiralty mismanagement made by the newspapers during the autumn, when there were no means of reply; but when the kindly feeling of the noble Lord gave the opportunity of contradiction, they were at once exploded. Another rumour was current at Gibraltar, that biscuit was being made of inferior flour. A Commission of Inquiry was sent out, of which Professor Huxley was a member. The matter was probed to the bottom, and it was found that the flour was as good as had ever been used. But they were not content to make any statement about this biscuit till they had satisfactory proof that it had been actually eaten. It had been stated that the quantity of biscuit condemned recently at Gibraltar was unprecedented; but so far from that being so, there had been, about three years ago, an actual condemnation of 97,000 lbs. The only difference was, that in that case the condemnation held good, and no inquiry was made into the circumstances, whereas last autumn, an 1608 examination was made, and a great scandal was avoided. He trusted it would be seen in naval circles that great attention was given to the proper manufacture of biscuit.

§ SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONE
, who had eaten his share of biscuits, said, he could not conceive any more erroneous mode of solving the problem as to the quality of the biscuits than by having them eaten. He would rather trust the officers who condemned them than Professor Huxley or any other philosopher, who would better understand an animal in the fossil state than a weevil in a biscuit.

§ MR. GOSCHEN
said, that samples of the biscuits were sent here, and had been examined by independent Committees of Naval officers, appointed not by the Admiralty, but by the Commander-in-Chief at Sheerness and at Portsmouth, and these officers, who had probably eaten as much biscuit as the hon. and gallant Baronet opposite, had pronounced the biscuits to be good.

§ MR. RYLANDS
said, there seemed to be some suspicion that the condemnation was not just, and it would, therefore, be satisfactory to know by whom the condemnation had been pronounced, and what steps had been taken in consequence of the mistake which was avowedly made, and which might have resulted in the destruction of so large a quantity of biscuit.

§ MR. GOSCHEN
said, the biscuits were condemned by two paymasters and an officer selected by the superintendent at Gibraltar; but it was a very delicate matter to visit with censure men who acted according to the best of their judgment. In consequence of this mistake, peremptory orders, however, had been given that no biscuits that were condemned should be sold or disposed of until samples had been sent to England, or an opportunity had been afforded for re-surveying the biscuits. To punish officers for an error committed in acting to the best of their judgment would be detrimental in the long run to the public service.

§ SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONE
suggested that the biscuits would probably appear to be in a better condition in England than at Gibraltar, because of the difference of the climate, which would induce fermentation there, but not here. There could be no earthly doubt 1609 that when the biscuits were condemned they were abominably bad. He would recommend that the minutes of the surveys should be laid on the Table.

§ MR. GOSCHEN
said, he did not think the hon. and gallant Baronet would gain anything by the publication of the minutes, because the biscuits were re-surveyed by the officer of another ship which went to Gibraltar, who did not agree in the condemnation, and therefore fermentation was not the cause of it.

§ MR. ALDERMAN LUSK
suggested that the change in the condition of the biscuits might be due to bad packing. He expressed a hope that the Admiralty would, in future, buy provisions in a better market than the metropolitan, and that they would go to Scotland, Ireland, or America for salt meat, instead of competing with the consumers of London in its markets, which was one of those extraordinary things that only an Admiralty would do.

§ MR. GRAVES
said, he happened to be in the neighbourhood of Gibraltar at the time this biscuit was talked about, and it was one of the most common subjects of conversation in every quarter. He had been under the impression that a very large quantity of biscuit was totally unfit for human food. He had also been told that some of the biscuit had been landed from several of Her Majesty's ships and suitable biscuit taken on board. The stock of biscuit in store at Gibraltar was so small that it would not have lasted for any great time. He had been informed that not only at Gibraltar, but at Haulbowline the same character of biscuit was in store, and he had heard these reports from reliable and experienced officers. He was sure no officer on board Her Majesty's ships would go on board and report that the biscuit was fit for human food. He could not help thinking there was something special in the case, either in connection with the manufacture or in connection with the packing. As the matter was of some importance, and there seemed to be something special about it, it would be desirable to have the Reports produced.

§ MR. GOSCHEN
said, he was not surprised the hon. Member heard a good deal about it, because, as he had said, the quantity condemned was 126,000lbs, and reports were circulated that it was made of inferior flour; but when other 1610 officers tasted the condemned biscuit, they said it was better than what they were using on board their own ships. The hon. Member was, however, confounding the biscuit under notice with some that had been condemned on board some of Her Majesty's ships, for it was no new thing for biscuits to go bad on board Her Majesty's ships, and that might be owing in part to the character of the bread rooms in the iron-clads. In 1867–8, 409,000lbs were condemned on board ships; in 1868–9, 267,000lbs, and 139,000lbs out of the stores. Of these quantities the Lord Clyde furnished 28,000lbs; the Caledonia, 14,000lbs; the Pallas, 16,000lbs; and the Gibraltar, 97,000lbs. The question had been more thoroughly examined during the last three months than it ever was before, and efforts had been made to obtain the best advice as to keeping biscuits in good condition.

LORD HENRY LENNOX
asked for an explanation of what was meant by an item of £25,000 for excess of clothing?

§ MR. SHAW LEFEVRE
said, that large stocks of clothing having been formerly kept, they had been drawn upon for two or three years to reduce them, and that having been done, the average supply for a year had to be purchased.

§ SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONE
said, the flour of which the biscuits were made might have been good enough; but it might have turned sour, or they might have been baked badly; but there was no earthly doubt about the biscuits being bad at Gibraltar.

§ MR. LIDDELL
complained that due Notice of the intention of the Government to take the Navy Estimates that evening had not been given until the close of yesterday's Sitting. That was rather summary Notice, and he thought the Government ought to have informed the House at the commencement of that day's Sitting what Votes they intended to take. Many hon. Members had suffered considerable inconvenience from that not being done, as they had come down to the House in the full expectation that Vote 3 would be discussed. He thought the Government ought in 1611 future to give Notice of what Votes they intended to postpone.

§ MR. GOSCHEN
said, the Government were under an engagement not to take Vote 3, except on a day when it stood first for discussion. With regard to the other Votes, he would remark that it was not usual to announce beforehand what Votes would be taken in the Navy Estimates. The presumption was, that whenever the Navy Estimates were taken hon. Members would come down fully prepared to discuss any Votes, as they were thoroughly acquainted with all the subjects they had reference to.

§ MR. SAMUDA
remarked that under Vote 3 it was intended to make considerable changes in the Admiralty, involving several new appointments. Rumour said that several of these appointments had been already made, before the House had had an opportunity of discussing the Vote, and perhaps, therefore, the right hon. Gentleman would give some explanation on this point.

LORD HENRY LENNOX
also hoped to hear from the right hon. Gentleman whether the rumours concerning these appointments were well founded.

§ MR. G. BENTINCK
said, he had come down to the House fully under the impression that Vote 3 would be discussed that evening.

§ MR. BOWRING
wished to know whether the proposed removal of the School of Naval Architecture from South Kensington to Greenwich would lead to any considerable increase of expenditure; and why there had been a falling off in the sale of The Nautical Almanack, as compared with the numbers sold four years ago?

§ SIR JOHN HAY
said, he also should be glad to obtain from the right hon. Gentleman some information respecting any proposed change in the method of imparting a higher education to naval officers. The right hon. Gentleman had, in his judgment, acted wisely in proposing that gentlemen should join the Navy at a more advanced age than was the custom at present. If, as was reported, the College at Portsmouth was about to be removed to Greenwich Hospital, he did not think the transfer would be advantageous, because Portsmouth offered greater facilities to naval officers to perfect their knowledge of the details of ships.

§ DR. BREWER
also requested further particulars as to the improvement of the education of young medical men for the naval service.

§ MR. STONE
hoped an opportunity would be given for discussing fully the proposed removal of the Portsmouth College.

§ SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONE
said, he would point out that only £500 was proposed to be taken for rewards for experiments for scientific purposes. He thought such a small sum as that was not sufficient if they wished to institute those scientific inquiries which were absolutely necessary for the progression of the naval service. When the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Pontefract (Mr. Childers) came into office there was a charge of £7,000 or £8,000 a-year for scientific experiments. A series of experiments which was being made at Woolwich at that time was for the purpose of overcoming the great difficulty of producing steam from rock oil. Those experiments had so far advanced at the time of which he was speaking, that it was the general opinion of the officers in charge that they were very nearly approaching a point at which steam could be produced by means of oil lamps, whereby an enormous consumption of coal could be saved, and it would be possible to adopt a better model for ships of war. Notwithstanding that favourable state of the case, the experiments were abandoned, and he wanted to know the reason why. Then there was the question of the best mode of consuming smoke, which under the late administration of the Admiralty, reached a volume never before vomited out of any funnel on the face of the earth. Then there was the question of the application of hydraulic power to the propelling of steamships which he regarded as being a matter of the utmost importance.

§ MR. CHILDERS
pointed out, as a matter of Order, that the Vote for Experiments had not yet been reached, that being Vote 11.

§ SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONE
said, that being so, he would proceed to make a few remarks on the Surveying department of the Admiralty. In the year 1860, the Admiralty undertook the survey of the Indian Seas, a work which had been conducted by a staff of most talented officers in the service of the East India Company. One of the principal 1613 officers connected with that service was Captain Jones, an officer whose charts could be recognized as easily as could the pictures of Rubens or Raffaelle. The charts drawn by the officers who conducted the survey were perfect as far as the Red Sea, the Persian Gulf, the Malacca, and Java Seas were concerned; but after being allowed for a long time to lie in the office at Bombay, they were reduced to pulp and sold for £103 by the Vandals who succeeded the East India Company. On the whole, he contended, therefore, that the Survey department at the Admiralty was in a most disgraceful condition, though it was presided over by officers of the greatest ability. [Laughter.] Hon. Members might laugh; but, perhaps, on reflection they would be able to see that a service might be in a bad state though efficiently officered. If any hon. Member would go to Admiral Richards' room, he would find the whole charts of the world stowed away in a room into which an engineer in the City of London would not put his clerks. In St. Petersburg, the Survey department was housed in a building as large as Somerset House; and in France, the department was vastly superior to their own not only in the execution of the charts, but in reference to the price at which they were sold to persons requiring them. Another complaint against the department was the insufficient manner in which surveying expeditions were equipped, Admiral Fitzroy was sent to survey the Coast of South America in a brig of not more than 230 tons; and Captain Owens' expedition to survey the African Coast only consisted of two small ships of similar size, therefore he was justified in calling attention to the disgraceful state of the Survey department.

§ MR. GRAVES
said, he agreed with the criticisms the Committee had just heard, and hoped they would be taken to heart by the Admiralty officials. The only objection he had to the Vote for the Survey department was that it was not sufficiently large. A very able survey had been made of the Straits of Magellan; but the survey had been stopped short at the Straits, instead of being ex- 1614 tended to a channel, 350 miles long, which extended on the western shore of the Straits, and was protected by a natural island barrier; and which would, if properly surveyed, prove of vast importance to the commercial interests of this country, as far as the trade with South America was concerned. He did not ask for full information on the question at that moment, as the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty had received no Notice of his intention to bring the matter forward; but he would like to have information concerning it at a future time.

§ MR. GOSCHEN
said, the cost of the wages and victuals of men, and also the cost of ships and various other charges scattered through other Votes, must be added to the cost of the Admiralty surveys. He was not prepared to answer without Notice the special point to which the hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. Graves) had alluded; but he could assure the Committee that if there was one department which was ably conducted and gave the greatest satisfaction to the mercantile service, and, in fact, to the country at large, it was the Survey department of the Navy. With regard to the Hydrographical department, there were many reasons why it should remain in the Admiralty itself. Constant reference had to be made to the Hydrographer by the Admiralty, who had the greatest confidence in him. The Committee was, no doubt, aware that the building of a new Admiralty had been for a long time in contemplation. The greatest inconveniences and disadvantages were occasioned by several parts of the Admiralty being scattered in various parts of London. The Admiralty hoped at once to make better arrangements with regard to what he might call the stores of the Hydrographical department, by availing themselves of a room for that purpose in the building at Greenwich. As to the removal of Portsmouth College to Greenwich, he did not propose that the discussion on that question should be taken that night. He thought it would be more convenient to take that discussion on Vote 11, when they came to the item of £10,000 for adapting Greenwich Hospital for the purposes of a naval college. There was a charge for the Naval College at Portsmouth. Now, a good many months must elapse before 1615 the scheme for adapting Greenwich Hospital to the purposes of a naval college could be put into working order, and any surplus in respect of the Vote for Portsmouth College could be applied to the college at Greenwich, when put into working order. He hoped the hon. Baronet opposite would consent to postpone the discussion as to the education of officers, which could also be properly discussed on Vote 11. As to Vote 3, with regard to the officers employed on the re-construction of the Admiralty, he would remind the Committee that it constantly happened that new appointments were made before the Estimates were presented to the House, because the exigencies of the public service frequently required that that should be done; and in the case under notice, he thought it would have been impossible to postpone the appointments until the Vote had been taken, but the arrangement would not, of course, bind the judgment of Parliament. With regard to the college at Netley, it must not be confounded with the college at Greenwich for the general education of officers. The arrangement as regarded Netley was this, that naval surgeons should be admitted at present into the school now under the War Office for the education of military surgeons.

LORD HENRY LENNOX
said, he never heard anything more unsatisfactory than the statement of the right hon. Gentleman with regard to the change of officers, and that subject must be fully discussed on a future occasion.

§ MR. ALDERMAN LUSK
said, he was told that a great deal of money was spent on scientific objects sometimes unnecessarily, and too much time occupied by vessels employed in surveying, considering the progress made. He hoped the Government would take care that the public got full value for money.

§ MR. GOSCHEN
said, in answer to the noble Lord, that new appointments were frequently made when Parliament was not sitting, and afterwards the necessary Estimates were asked for. There was no intention to avoid discussion on the matter. He could also assure his hon. Friend (Mr. Alderman Lusk) that the surveys could not be done by means of private vessels at anything like the cost, and that it was an advantage to have the Government vessels cruising about, instead of lying idle, even al- 1616 though they were not so expeditious as they might be in executing the surveys.

§ SIR JOHN HAY
said, he could not agree that it was the frequent practice to create new offices like those referred to, and to ask for the necessary money afterwards.

§ MR. GRAVES
asked whether there was any other Vote upon which the question of the survey of the Straits of Magellan could be raised?

§ MR. GOSCHEN
said, he feared not, but hoped it would not be thought necessary to stop this Vote, because he would be very happy to confer with the hon. Member, and if that survey were shown to be more important than any other, it should have the preference.

§ SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONE
remarked that there had not been a survey on the Coast of India for 12 years, and if the Admiralty accepted the responsibility, it was their look-out. In his opinion a ship was not adapted for the survey unless she had the application of steam power. He also thought that the masters of tugs should receive higher wages.

MR. E. W. DUFF
wished to know whether the sum of £43,000 for the conveyance of officers, seamen, and marines was to be granted to carry out the new policy of the Admiralty in sending out crews in rotten ships?

§ MR. G. BENTINCK
endorsed the views of the hon. Baronet (Sir James Elphinstone) respecting the masters of tugs. He had had many opportunities of seeing how those persons conducted their business, and in his estimation no class of men were better entitled to a higher rate of remuneration.

§ MR. RYLANDS
, referring to an item of £1,715 for services against pirates, objected to rewards being given to the officers of the Cockchafer and Algerine, the latter vessel having, he believed, fired into a merchantman, supposing her to be a piratical craft.

§ SIR JOHN HAY
said, he concurred in the objections taken by the hon. Member for Banffshire (Mr. E. W. Duff), to the system of sending out officers and men to foreign stations in half-rotten ships.

LORD HENRY LENNOX
joined in urging the claims of the masters of dockyard craft, but thought their case did not properly come under the present Vote.

§ MR. GOSCHEN
explained that the rewards for services against pirates were given under judicial or semi-judicial decisions, and were claimed of right. The transactions to which the hon. Member (Mr. Rylands) referred occurred a considerable time ago. Explanations on the question raised by the hon. Member for Banffshire (Mr. R. W. Duff) could be better given when Vote 6 came under discussion.