§ SUPPLY—considered in Committee.
§ (In the Committee.)
§ (1.) £1,072,380, Naval Stores, &c.
§ SIR. JAMES ELPHINSTONEsaid, he wished to recall the attention of the Committee to the observation of the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty the other night, when the subject of stores was under discussion, that statements were repeatedly made by Members of the Opposition, and as repeatedly denied, with reference to the scarcity of the stock of stores in the dockyards. The right hon. Gentleman was perfectly correct; those statements had been frequently made, and repeatedly denied. They would be made again, and in all probability denied again. In order to show that he was not entirely wrong in the statement he had made on this question, he would point out that, according to an account which had been placed in the hands of hon. Members that Session, it appeared a large amount had been transferred from the Shipbuilding to the Store Vote. The Admiralty had sold a very large quantity of stores, and had expended the proceeds in the purchase of other stores; but the money so obtained not sufficing for the purpose, a letter signed by the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Admiralty had been sent to the Treasury, making an application for the sum of £121,000, for the purchase of further stores. It was thus clear that a most incautious and imprudent reduction of stores had been made, and that the Admiralty had since been increasing, sub rosâ, the amount of the stores, which were even now in a very bare state, in consequence of the sales to which he had referred having been made. The right hon. Gentleman had stated that the storehouses were overflowing with stores. He could not see where those stores were; and he had been informed on reliable authority, that there were not in all Her Majesty's Dockyards stores sufficient to fit out four or five sail of the line. It was only when the Appropriation Amounts were brought forward that hon. Members who found fault with the Admiralty administration had the means of verifying their statements, which right hon. Gentlemen opposite usually met with a flat denial. On the 437 subject of anchors and cables, he had been informed that several of Her Majesty's ships had been endangered by their cables and anchors being inadequate to the work they had to perform, and he could not help expressing his opinion that Mr. Trotman's anchors, which were used on board the Great Eastern and the Royal yacht, were the best in existence, and he saw no reason why they should not be supplied to the Fleet.
§ MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, he rose for the purpose of pointing out that the observations of the hon. Baronet the Member for Portsmouth (Sir James Elphinstone), to the effect that the sale of Admiralty stores had been excessive ought to receive some notice from Her Majesty's Government.
§ MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, that he had only delayed rising in order to see whether any hon. Member would wish to address the House on the subject, and that the only answer he could offer to the allegation of the hon. Baronet the Member for Portsmouth (Sir James Elphinstone), that the storehouses of the Admiralty had been emptied of their contents was, that it was not supported by the real facts of the case. The evidence which had lately been given on the subject before the Committee sitting upstairs should have convinced the hon. Baronet that there was no real ground for his complaints on this question. The sum which had been expended in 1871 in the purchase of stores was only slightly in excess of the sum that had been voted by Parliament for that purpose, and the reason why the expenditure was in excess of the Vote was, that it was thought desirable to keep a six months' supply of a particular class of stores in the dockyards. He believed the decision on the subject had been arrived at by the Secretary to the Treasury before he (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) came into office, and by the consent of the Treasury the money was transferred from another Vote. That operation had been largely resorted to by all preceding Governments.
§ SIR JOHN HAYsaid, the evidence of the Committee which the hon. Gentleman opposite had just alluded to was satisfactory as regarded the quality of stores; but as to the other matters in question, nothing very definite could be determined until the evidence was com- 438 pleted. Vote 10 was by far the largest sum which had been voted by Parliament under that head for many years, or, perhaps, ever. Probably the whole amount was wanted. The last Vote of the late Government, £892,000, was reduced to £779,000, and considerable sales of stores were made when the present Government came into power. As his hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth (Sir James Elphinstone) had frequently observed, a lamentable deficiency in stores was the result of that reduction. He thought it was wrong on the part of the Admiralty to appropriate to the purchase of stores, part of the money that had been voted for the building of ships, as thereby the Admiralty led the country to believe that certain things would happen, which were never realized. For instance, the Admiralty, before the Vote for the building of ships was granted, held out the hope that 20,000 tons of shipping would be built—namely, 12,000 tons of armour-clad and 8,000 tons of wooden shipping. No such amount had been built, and money voted for shipbuilding had been applied to the purchase of a mere supply of six months' stores in excess of the Vote for Stores.
§ MR. HERMONcomplained that no notice had been taken by the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Admiralty of the remarks made by the hon. Member for Portsmouth (Sir James Elphinstone) on the subject of Trotman's anchor. He was alarmed at that statement and hoped the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty would be prepared to give some satisfactory assurance to the Committee upon the subject.
§ MR. GOSCHENsaid, he took exception to the statement of the hon. Baronet the Member for Stamford (Sir John Hay), that the Vote for Stores that year was larger than it had ever been. [Sir JOHN HAY qualified his assertion by saying "since 1867–8."] The expenditure for stores in the year in which the Abyssinian Expedition was made, the last year of office of the late Government was £1,085,000, or more than £200,000 in excess of their proposal to Parliament, and larger than the Vote of the present year, when the cost of all kinds of stores had largely increased. He protested against any comparison between the expenditures of different years, unless that clement of in- 439 creased cost was taken into consideration. The Committee had already been informed that the increase of the Vote in the present year was owing entirely to the increase in the cost of coal and metal—a matter over which the Admiralty had no control. In fact, the increase of prices caused an addition of £150,000. With regard to anchors and cables, he could only repeat that it was entirely a professional matter. Officers of the Navy were not in favour of Trotman's anchor, and it was his duty to be guided by their opinion on the subject. Though Trotman's anchor might be admirably suited to merchant ships, it did not necessarily follow that it was suited to the ships of the Navy. He was informed by his professional advisers that though Trotman's anchor held well, it did not bite well. He was willing, however, to undertake that there should be a further investigation of the matter if necessary. The Admiralty was fully alive to the subject of anchors and cables. The question of cables was undergoing an examination by the present Controller and other Naval Lords in conjunction with manufactures of cables.
§ MR. G. BENTINCKsaid, he was glad to hear that the subject of Trotman's anchor was under consideration, in consequence of the numerous casualties which had occurred; but why had it not been considered before? He had heard with great surprise that the naval authorities to whom the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty referred were not satisfied with the biting powers of Trotman's anchors. If such were the fact, it only showed that the highest authorities might differ, because a Commission, consisting of four or five distinguished Admirals and other persons, appointed to investigate practically the relative merits of the different descriptions of anchors, after applying ample tests, reported unanimously in condemnation of the Admiralty anchor as the worst, save one, of all the competing anchors, and as wanting in every essential quality which should distinguish an anchor. They also reported that Trotman's anchor was the best of all, and fully equal to others of much greater weight—a point of much importance in maritime work. Before the Committee of 1861, Admiral Denman said that since 1854, in his experience on board the Royal yacht, he had always found Trotman's 440 anchor hold perfectly, and that it never failed under the most trying circumstances. He added—
It is vastly superior to the Admiralty anchor in every respect; and I cannot understand why the Admiralty have not more readily supplied these light and more efficient anchors.Other evidence was to the same effect. He should like to know who were the officers who now objected to Trotman's anchor, in direct contradiction to the results of a test supplied by the Admiralty themselves? It was due not only to Mr. Trotman, but to the Service, that the case should be fully gone into. Mr. Trotman had now no personal interest in the matter, for his patent had expired. He was influenced solely by a desire to benefit the Service, and the safety of Her Majesty's ships required that the matter should not be allowed to remain in abeyance. Hereafter he would move for a Return of the recent Report made respecting these anchors, and presumed that the right hon. Gentleman would not refuse to produce it.
LORD HENRY LENNOXsaid, the hon. Gentleman the Secretary of the Admiralty had stated that the dockyards were not now denuded of stores; but the complaint made by his hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth (Sir James Elphinstone) was, that when the dockyards were so denuded the House was constantly assured that they were full of stores. When the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Pontefract (Mr. Childers) came into office, he abandoned wooden shipbuilding, and sold timber in large quantities. In 1871 a change of policy became necessary; and his hon. Friend's case was that, if the dockyards had not before been denuded of stores, the House would not have been called upon to increase the stock of timber at the enhanced prices of to-day. He could not help thinking that during the last four years there had been, in dealing with this subject, a want of that candour on which the right hon. Gentleman had laid so much stress. It would have been more candid on the part of the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Admiralty if he had stated that although the dockyards were not now they had been denuded of timber.
§ MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, he thought it satisfactory that the charge made against the present Board of Admiralty had been abandoned, and that 441 another charge which was equally without foundation had been substituted—namely, that the late Board of Admiralty three years ago had denuded the dockyards of stores; now, what was the fact? In the year 1867 the stock of timber amounted to £1,500,000, and as the average consumption was only one-tenth of that amount, it followed that the Admiralty had 10 years' stock of timber in hand. That amount was perfectly unjustifiable and caused the greatest possible waste; indeed, the loss arising from the deterioration of timber amounted to several thousands a-year. The noble Lord the Member for Chichester (Lord Henry Lennox) had spoken of the palmy days of Lord Palmerston, and pointed to the accumulations which in those days were made. But what was the result? Why, that they had now on hand no less than 13,000 loads of Italian oak which was unsaleable and unfit for shipbuilding. That was a species of economy which he for one could not advise or approve. The wise policy was to lay in such an amount as was or might reasonably be expected to be required. They had now timber to the amount of £500,000, and the annual consumption averaged £150,000 during the last few years. Of course, the necessary consequence of such an operation was, that they should from time to time make purchases as they had done last year. From the accounts they had received from the dockyards, he believed they had no reason to apprehend any deficiency of stock. The statement of the noble Lord had, in fact, no greater foundation than many of the statements made by him at a recent meeting at Reading, at which his (Mr. Shaw Lefevre's) rival for the representation of the borough, Mr. Attenborough, attended. He had waited to see whether the noble Lord would repeat those statements in the House; but as he had not done so, it would not be necessary to do more than to give them a general denial. For his part, he thought that during the sitting of Parliament it was the duty of a Member who had complaint to make of the administration of the Government, to make it in the House, and not to go down to particular constituencies, and retail at second-hand those misstatements. He understood the noble Lord the other evening to admit that he had somewhat drawn the long-bow, and, 442 therefore, he would only remind the noble Lord that the House resented any attempt to make political capital out of the Navy. It was far too important a branch of the Service of the country to be allowed to become the shuttlecock of party. Why did the noble Lord make attacks on the Admiralty out of the House, which he did not repeat within its walls? Why was the noble Lord continuous in his attacks upon his (Mr. Shaw Lefevre's) right hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract (Mr. Childers) during his illness and consequent absence—attacks which he never ventured to repeat in his presence? Because the noble Lord knew very well that there was no ground for the charges; because he lived in a glass case himself; and, next, because he knew the House would not allow political capital to be made out of the Navy. He hoped the noble Lord would excuse him (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) if he advised him to give up his connection with that troop of itinerants that were now paying visits to the suburban towns, or in future to confine himself in the provinces to the wise course he pursued in that House, where his conduct had been usually cautious and courteous.
LORD HENRY LENNOXI can only say, Sir, that anything more irregular has never proceeded from any hon. Member of this House, than have been the remarks which have just fallen from the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Admiralty. Irregular remarks proceeding from any hon. Member of this House are to be deprecated; but when they come from the Treasury bench; from a Gentleman who is supposed to be selected for the position he occupies, because of his superior accomplishments and extra knowledge of the forms of the House, they are doubly to be deprecated. A right hon. Friend of mine, and other hon. Members near me, wished more than once to interfere and put a stop to the unseemly exhibition of alarm which the hon. Gentleman has just displayed as to the safety of his seat for Reading; but I will not enter further into the matter than to say, that I was amused to hear from the hon. Gentleman that I had refrained from making attacks in this House upon the naval conduct of the right hon. Gentleman opposite the Member for Pontefract (Mr. Childers). I thought that, on the contrary, I had 443 taken up too much of the time of the House in doing so, and I frequently curtailed my remarks for fear of interfering with the progress of Public Business. I believe that no other hon. or right hon. Gentleman opposite will charge me with having abstained from challenging the naval administration of the present Government. The hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Admiralty says that I live in a glass house. Well, I can only say that if I do, and that there is no stronger arm in the House than that of the hon. Gentleman to throw a stone at it, I shall remain very comfortably in my glass case to the end of my Parliamentary career.
§ MR. WYKEHAM MARTINsuggested that if the 30,000 tons of timber, to which the Secretary to the Admiralty had alluded as unsaleable, were unfit for shipbuilding, they should be sold for firewood.
§ MR. GOSCHENdenied that there was any indisposition on the part of the Admiralty to introduce new anchors. They had recently introduced two, and were making trial of Trotman's. He thought the hon. Baronet opposite the Member for Portsmouth (Sir James Elphinstone) would admit that naval men were not generally in favour of Trotman's anchor.
§ SIR JOHN HAYobserved that with respect to holding power, Trotman's anchor was considered the best; but there was an objection to it in the Navy, in consequence of the difficulty of stowing it.
§ MR. HERMONwas surprised to hear that there was a large quantity of timber in the shipbuilding yards utterly useless. He could not conceive that any timber, even with the most careless management, could be so deteriorated as to make it necessary that it should be destroyed, like so much tobacco.
§ MR. SAMUDAobjected to the sale of excessive stores at a sacrifice, if there was a chance of using them; and asked for an explanation of the statement by the Secretary to the Admiralty that there was a large quantity of useless timber in the yards? He thought that, with regard to all these matters of detail in relation to cables and anchors, there were so many circumstances to be taken into consideration, that they ought to hesitate before pronouncing a censure on the conduct of the Admiralty. The anchors used in 444 the Devastation were essentially of the character of Trotman's anchors.
§ GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURurged upon the Committee the great importance of abstaining from making expenditure on stores for Army and Navy a party question. Having had the honour to serve under the right hon. Baronet the Member for Droitwich (Sir John Pakington) he could speak of the anxiety felt by him to provide the Army with stores, in such quantities as would combine efficiency with economy; and doubtless the present Secretary of State for War had evinced the same desire. As respected the Admiralty, he was favourably impressed from information obtained in "another place," with the efforts made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Pontefract (Mr. Childers) in regard to stores. It must be remembered that the change made in the fleet of the country by the recent Admiralty administrations necessitated a change in the character as well as the quantity of stores used. The change had, no doubt, been going on for years, but practically it was only since 1868 that the old establishment of the wooden Navy of four fleets, each of 30 line-of-battle ships, with the due proportion of frigates, and mounting in all 18,000 smooth-bore guns, had been effectually changed into an iron-clad fleet mounting only about 2,200 guns. The experience derived from the previous numerous vessels of the wooden navy, as to the quality, cost, and description of stores required for use, could not be made applicable to the stores of the present iron navy. Indeed, the old and long-established proportions of stores to be kept in reserve for war, could not be adhered to in the present day. These changes in the fleet had therefore raised difficulties in deciding on the outlay to be incurred on stores: It was one of the most difficult operations in Army or Naval administrations to determine the proportions of stores to be maintained in excess of the annual expenditure. It was comparatively easy to settle the amount required to provide all that was to be consumed within the year; but it was entirely different when stores had to be laid in as a reserve for unforeseen emergencies. It was in the loss on stores which became obsolete, that waste was to be expected, and the economy of good administration could 445 best be shown by minimizing the inevitable loss on stores that must deteriorate from long keeping. Now, as regarded the present and past expenditure on stores, he urged on the attention of the Committee that the House could not judge of its propriety; seeing that the money provided was only for laying in stores, and no information was before the House as to their future employment. Until therefore the state of the stores for Army and Navy, as to the remains in stock at the beginning and end of the year, and the receipts and expenditure within the year, were known, these criticisms on money expenditure were of no use.
§ MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, that the timber in question had been purchased for a special purpose, in the construction of ships' frames, but iron was now used for that purpose. A large portion of the timber had been put up for sale, but no purchasers were found for it. Seven hundred loads had, however, been utilized during the last three years, and efforts would be made to turn it to account as speedily as possible.
§ SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONEsaid, he deemed it improvident, considering that the teak forests of India were rapidly being exhausted, to sell timber which could not be replaced at the price. As to Italian oak, it was thought important to obtain it in 1862 for heavy screw line-of-battle ships, and when the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Admiralty said it could not be used, he ought to be superseded, for with very little ingenuity it might be made serviceable. Unless stronger evidence were adduced, he could not credit the alleged extent of its deterioration, the only deterioration which he knew of arising from the penurious practice of not protecting it from the weather in some of the dockyards. The time of the Committee might be much better occupied than in electioneering matters. Members often visited each other's boroughs, sometimes in peace and sometimes in war, and it should be remembered that the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord himself went down to Bristol. [Mr. GOSCHEN: By invitation of the Members.] The present Board were struggling against the adverse circumstances bequeathed them by the late First Lord (Mr. Childers) but they had not the fairness to acknowledge that his administration 446 was a failure, and that they were doing their best to repair his errors.
§ MR. RYLANDScomplained of the repetition of charges against his right hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract (Mr. Childers) which had frequently been refuted. He took little interest in the recriminations of the two from benches as to which had been the more extravagant, but he maintained that the present expenditure was excessive. Of course, we must keep up our Navy; but that was no justification for buying a large quantity of stores which might become useless, and lead to absolute waste. In a short time, we should probably find the price of coals and the price of iron falling in the market. He, therefore, regarded it as an improvident policy to put on additional men and buy large quantities of materials in order to find them work. He was anxious for the production of the Return, promised by the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord, of ships which had vanished from the Navy, and hoped it would comprise the last 15 years, believing it would show that money had been wasted in ships of types which, while they were actually on the stocks, had become obsolete.
§ SIR JOHN HAYsaid, that the stock of timber formerly kept in store was about 60,000 loads, it being assumed that 20,000 loads would be necessary for one year's consumption. About 80,000 loads was, he thought, the quantity in store when the late Government left office. What quantity of timber was now in store he did not know, but it was very desirable that the Committee should be informed what was the condition of the wooden ships of the Navy. Unlike his predecessor, the right hon. Gentleman the present First Lord of the Admiralty had recognized the necessity of wooden ships. We had nine frigates now in commission, two building, and 20 in reserve. He should like to know how many of the 20 in reserve were fit for commission. He was led to believe the number was only four. He should also like some information as to how many corvettes, sloops, &c., were fit for commission, as to the cost at which they could be repaired, and whether they were worth repairing? With regard to iron-clads, we now appeared to be reduced to 22 or 23, exclusive of the Devastation and two ships now building.
§ MR. MELLORreferred to a Return before him, by which it appeared that the Admiralty had actually re-purchased some of the material of vessels which they had disposed of by private contract.
§ MR. GOSCHENexplained that when stores were sold the proceeds did not go to the Admiralty, but passed to the Exchequer. The increase in the sum for stores this year was due not to any increase in the quantity bought, but to the extraordinary rise in prices. He also denied generally that there had been any undue reduction of stores made by his right hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract (Mr. Childers), or any undue increase made by himself. The country required a certain number of ships, and if the number was diminished by ships vanishing from the Navy, it was necessary to replace them. He had no Papers then before him by means of which to gratify the natural curiosity of the hon. Baronet the Member for Stamford (Sir John Hay). As to frigates, the hon. Baronet's statement seemed to be substantially correct. There might be differences of opinion as to whether a frigate was worth repairing or not. No country in the world was, so far as he was aware, at present building frigates, and few were repairing them. Large corvettes, heavily armed, were taking their place. As to sloops, every effort was being made to build them.
§ Vote agreed to.
§ (2.) £609,366, Steam Machinery and Ships Building by Contract.
LORD HENRY LENNOXcomplained of the difficulty which he found in making out from the Estimates, in their present state, the sums which were expended on unarmoured vessels built by contract during the year, and the ships on which the money had been laid out. In the year 1872–3 the Admiralty asked for a sum of £106,340 for those ships, and there was a Supplemental Estimate of £18,000, making altogether £124,340. Now, according to a Return which he held in his hand, and which had been moved for by his hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Laird), he found that in that year the Admiralty bad ordered 17 new ships, and the total 448 estimate for the first cost was, he found, £182,000, whereas the sum authorized by Parliament was only £124,340. It appeared, however, by the Return before the Committee, that only £152,000 was actually expended. Now, there was no reference made in the Estimates as to any balance, and he understood from the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty that we had under Section B a liability this year of £211,411 to complete unarmoured ships already begun, or upwards of £100,000 more than Parliament had authorized. He hoped next year an Appendix would be given to the Vote, something like that attached to Vote 6, and showing what was the work which had really been done in the dockyards, as well as the work done under contract. The Return, too, was drawn up in a somewhat careless manner, because under the head "now building," some 11 vessels were set down which, according to the Return itself, had been completed in 1871.
§ MR. GOSCHENexplained that there was some foundation for the remarks of the noble Lord, the Member for Chichester (Lord Henry Lennox), and that the sum of £211,411 for ships already ordered was a mistake caused by a misprint. He might add that full particulars had never been given with regard to Vote 10, as to ships building by contract, inasmuch as it was not considered by the Admiralty desirable to show contractors at what price the ships had been estimated by the Admiralty. With regard to the past, he was willing to investigate the former Admiralty accounts, in order to see if it could be more accurately shown what had been done during the past two or three years. The increase in the Estimate for the present year, under the head of contracts for building ships, was due to the fact that several contracts had not been entered into last year in consequence of the high prices demanded, and the delay had resulted in a gain of £40,000 to the country. It was, however, necessary that the vessels authorized to be built should be ordered to be commenced by the contractors during the present year, and it was owing to these arrears in the shipbuilding that were included in the Estimates for the present year that the latter showed an increase over those of last year. The increase was also partly owing to the fact that it had been deter- 449 mined to build the corvette Rover by contract, instead of in the Government Dockyards. He complained of the noble Lord opposite, because, in the long list of ships which he alleged had not been completed, he did not give the Admiralty credit for several vessels which had been completed.
§ MR. SAMUDAcomplained of the proportionately small amount of ships which were being built by contract this year as compared with those which were being built in the Royal Dockyards. He did so, because he was convinced that contract ships were built for fully 20 per cent less than the same vessels would cost in the Government Dockyards. This evil, from an economical point of view, was growing worse and worse, as at present, it was only intended to spend £91,000, as against £2,200,000, proposed to be expended in the dockyards.
§ MR. GOSCHENsaid, the true test of the proportion mentioned by the hon. Member who had just sat down was the amount of tonnage proposed to be built. The hon. Member simply took the amount of new ships, and left out those ordered last year and completed this. The real proportion was this—the Admiralty proposed to build 14,000 tons in the Dockyards, and 6,000 tons by contract, the latter being paid for.
§ SIR JOHN HAYpointed out that there appeared to be a sum of £100,000 asked for in excess of the amount required for building vessels by contract, and, perhaps, it would turn out next February that this sum had been appropriated to increasing the stores.
§ MR. GOSCHENexplained that the whole of the money taken last year had not been spent in shipbuilding. He would place an explanatory Paper on the Table.
§ MR. MAGNIACdrew attention to the enormous cost of maintaining compound engines, which would go a long way towards swallowing up the sum saved by those engines by their smaller consumption of coal. He suggested that a Return should be presented to the House showing the cost of maintaining these engines, and how much coal they saved annually.
§ MR. MONTAGU CHAMBERSthought the private builders had got the "lion's share" with respect to the building of ships for the Navy, for 450 £144,000 of new work was proposed to be given them altogether, although only £91,000 was to be spent this year.
§ MR. RYLANDSsaid, the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Samuda) had put himself out of court by the apology he made for the Government the other night, when a proposition was made to reduce the number of men in the Dockyards to 11,000. As, however, they had chosen to employ 13,000 or 14,000 men in them, they must find them something to do, and could not, of course, give out so much contract work. It would seem from the statement of the Government as to a great part of the Vote for the Dockyards and of that for Stores being required for repairs, that the iron-clads were more injurious to each other than to anything else. The Admiralty ought to produce these accounts in such a shape that the Committee might know more accurately what was being done by contract, and what in the dockyards. As it appeared that ships were built in private yards at a cost less by 20 per cent than those built in the dockyards, he thought the policy of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Pontefract (Mr. Childers) of purchasing from private yards at least a fifth of the ships added to the Navy was a right policy, and he should like to see it carried out.
§ MR. GOSCHENsaid, the accounts laid before the Committee were very elaborate and costly. Of the 20,000 tons of shipbuilding required by the Admiralty, 6,000 would be obtained from private yards—that was to say, private builders would build much more than a fourth of the 20,000 tons. Some of the ships built in the dockyards cost less, others more, than those constructed by private firms.
§ MR. SAMUDAsaid, it had been shown before the Committee presided over by the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. Seely), that if a very moderate sum were added for Establishment charges, a vessel would cost £100 per ton in the dockyards, whereas if built by private contract, it would cost very considerably less.
§ MR. GOSCHENsaid, it must be remembered that the Establishment must always remain for expansion during war. Private shipbuilders might compete with the Royal Yards for the building of a certain class of vessels, though it was doubtful, whether they could build so cheaply. But there was much loose 451 assertion as to the cost of building in the dockyards.
§ MR. MONTAGU CHAMBERS,as a representative of a dockyard town, could not help saying that much of the work done in the Royal Yards for repairs was rendered necessary by the badness of the shipbuilding work done for the Navy by contract. He maintained that the dockyards, though at one time they were not well managed and the accounts were irregularly kept, were cheaper and produced better work than private yards. He protested, therefore, against attempts to run them down. He held that the time had come for placing the men employed in the steam factories, now a permanent branch of the Service, on the Establishment, they being entitled to equal advantages with the shipwrights and others in the old-fashioned yards.
§ SIR JOHN HAYwished to know whether the schooners required to regulate the labour traffic in Australia, for which a Supplementary Estimate of £18,000 had been taken, had been completed?
§ MR. GOSCHENbelieved they must be all completed by this time, as they were to have been launched last February. The Estimate of £18,000 taken for them would not be exceeded.
§ Vote agreed to.
§ (3.) £682,218 New Works, Buildings, Machinery, and Repairs.
§ SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONEtook occasion to urge on the Admiralty the desirability of erecting naval barracks at Portsmouth. They would prove a great comfort to the men, while they would lead to a diminution of crime and to increased regularity in the service.
§ MR. CANDLISHrequested explanations of the four following items:—£1,000 in respect of a permanent hospital to be erected at Portland at a cost of £30,000; £2,000 for workshops in connection with Somerset Dock, at Malta, which would cost altogether £22,000; £1,000 on account of £10,000 for new storehouses at Sydney Garden Island; and £1,000 on account of £10,000 for dredging and forming landing-stages at Port Said.
§ MR. SHAW LEFEVREstated that the works at Portsmouth undertaken by the contractors would be completed before the end of the financial year, but the work in the hands of the convicts 452 would not be completed so soon. With regard to naval barracks, no decision had been, at present, come to on the point. The land at Port Said had been bought as a coaling station jointly by the Indian and Imperial Governments, and it was intended to embank it also at their joint expense. It was proposed to build a hospital at Portland for the men of the Channel Fleet, and it was intended to utilize the Somerset Dock at Malta by building workshops in accordance with the recommendations of the Parliamentary Committee in 1864.
§ In reply to Sir JOHN HAY,
§ MR. GOSCHENsaid, in his own personal view, a great deal might be advanced in favour of the establishment of naval barracks, but it was a matter of so much importance to the whole of the Admiralty, that he was not prepared to make any statement at that moment, and without consultation with those whose opinions were of the greatest value. In regard to the works at Chatham, too much praise could not be given to the director of those works, for the energy and great intelligence with which he had conducted the whole of the operations, and he was glad to think there would be a surplus on the original estimate.
§ MR. MACFIEsaid, that a great deal of money was being spent on defensive works in the Southern part of the Island, but little or nothing was being done north of the Thames, and especially on the east coast. He submitted that defensive works might be erected at a comparative small cost about Queens-ferry in the Firth of Forth. There was at present before Parliament, a Bill for erecting a bridge across the Firth of Forth, and he hoped the First Lord of the Admiralty would direct his attention to that scheme, in order to see that the bridge was not constructed at such a low level as to prevent vessels of war from passing under it. The height proposed was 150 feet, with an alternative plan of 140 feet, and he doubted very much whether this altitude would prove sufficient for all purposes.
§ MR. SHAW LEFEVREcould hold no hope that any proposal would be made, at all events, for some time, to construct works at the point mentioned by the hon. Member for Leith.
§ Vote agreed to.
453§ (4.) £70,800, Medicines, Medical Stores, &c.
§ SIR JOHN HAYsuggested that a work recently published by Dr. Fayrer on the subject of wounds from Indian snakes should be supplied to naval hospitals for the information of medical men. He wished a few copies of the book could be obtained and distributed.
§ MR. GOSCHENsaid, his attention had been directed to the subject.
§ Vote agreed to.
§ (5.) £16,080, Martial Law and Law Charges.
§ (6.) £105,288 Miscellaneous Services.
LORD HENRY LENNOXcalled attention to the services rendered by Mr. May, at Portsmouth, who had been rewarded by the miserable pension of £17 a-year.
§ MR. GOSCHENsaid, if a special application were made to the Admiralty it would be favourably considered.
§ SIR JOHN HAYasked whether it was intended to appoint Naval Attaches at foreign Embassies?
§ MR. GOSCHENbelieved there had only been two permanent Naval Attacheés—namely, at Washington and Paris. Instead, however, of continuing them, it had been thought desirable to gather information as to the various European Navies, and Captain Goodenough had given valuable Reports on the French, Italian, and Russian Navies. On his resignation, Vice Admiral Ryder had been deputed to go over the ground again, and he had been in France, and would go to Russia in the summer. [Mr. RYLANDS: Not as a permanent appointment.] No; his engagement would terminate two years hence. Captain Gore Jones would also be sent to Washington, where he would remain some little time.
§ Vote agreed to.
§
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £847,462, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Expense of Half-pay, Reserved and Retired Pay, to Officers of the Navy and Royal Marines, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st clay of March 1874.
§ MR. GOSCHENsaid, the Vote presented an increase, which was accounted for by certain changes made in the retirement of classes of officers other than those to whom the scheme of his right 454 hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract (Mr. Childers) applied. A certain number of sub-lieutenants had been promoted to be lieutenants, it being thought undesirable that persons should remain sub-lieutenants more than four years. He wished to state a few points connected with the Vote to which attention had naturally been drawn. It had been stated that the scheme had not diminished the lists as rapidly as his right hon. Friend expected. His right hon. Friend never, however, intended to strain the regulations so as to drive the younger captains off the list by refusing them employment. It would be unfair to diminish the lists by compelling officers to quit the service by such a course. As regarded age, indeed, the scheme was compulsory; but as regarded a great portion of its attractions it had to be worked voluntarily by the officers. The question, therefore, was how they could offer sufficient inducements to officers to retire? He must repeat that, although the Admiralty were sometimes accused of being over-economical in working the system of retirement, a more liberal scheme than that of his right hon. Friend had never been propounded. It offered larger pecuniary inducements to retirement than any previous scheme. He entirely agreed that it was a matter of most serious importance that they should diminish the number of officers on the Half-pay List; and there were only two ways of doing that; either by employing them or offering them terms of retirement which they would accept. It was impossible to create employment simply to appoint more captains and commanders of ships. He entirely denied that the number of unemployed officers was greater now than in former years. In 1868 there were 171 captains on the Half-pay List; in 1869 the number was 187; in 1870, 199; in 1871, after the retirement scheme, the number was 150; in 1872, 146; in 1873, 139. There were now 139 captains on the Half-pay List, as compared with 171 in 1868. The number of officers unemployed, though large in itself, was therefore small as compared with former years. With regard to commanders the number on the Half-pay List had been 203 in 1868; in 1869, 222; in 1870, 231; in 1871, 157; in 1872, 156; and in 1873, 148. Though there were more officers on the Half-pay List than anyone liked, it was not true 455 that there was anything in the proposal of the Admiralty which had increased this, which was always considered one of the "blots" of the Service. He had seen in several quarters that there was a disposition to put pressure on the Admiralty with a view to reduce the Half-pay List by some further proposal. Now, nothing could be more agreeable to the Admiralty than to receive a proposal by which, through some quick operation, they could place the lists on their normal footing, and give officers more rapid and continuous employment, because nothing could be worse for the efficiency of officers than to remain so long on shore when ships were changing so rapidly. In regard to age, no system of compulsory retirement less stringent would be applicable. If such a proposal as he had seen in some of the public organs—namely, a scheme involving a cost of £18,000 a-year by which the lists would be reduced to their normal numbers, and more continuous employment be provided for officers could be devised, he should regard it with the greatest favour; and Parliament, he thought, would not be disinclined to sanction it. But it required the greatest care and delicacy in examining it, for the more it was looked into the more questionable it would appear whether any rough-and-ready scheme of giving an extra 10 years' service to every officer to induce him to retire, as was done in the Civil Service in cases of compulsory abolition of office, would be satisfactory. All he could say was, if some such scheme would have the desired effect, the Admiralty would most cordially entertain it. He thought it right to make these preliminary remarks in proposing this Vote; for if such a scheme were carried out, a Supplementary Vote would be necessary. He did not consider that officers had now more grievances to complain of under this head than previously; but still he thought the retirement of his right hon. Friend should be helped on by every possible means, and if the Half-pay List could be reduced by any scheme of voluntary retirement the Admiralty would examine it with every wish to effect the object in view.
§ SIR JOHN HAYsuggested that the Vote should be deferred.
§ Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
456§ (7.) £643,216, Military Pensions and Allowances.
§ (8.) £296,448, Civil Pensions.
§ Resolutions to be reported.
§
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £167,740, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Expense for the Freight of Ships, for the Victualling and for the Conveyance of Troops on account of the Army Department, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1874.
§ House resumed.
§ Resolutions to be reported To-morrow, at Two of the clock;
§ Committee also report Progress; to sit again upon Thursday 5th June.