OBSERVATIONS. (Hansard, 18 May 1874)

§ MR. BENTINCK
, in rising to call attention to the want of harmony which seems to have existed at the late Board of Admiralty; and to move for a Copy of the submission of the Comptroller of the Navy of last year and the present year preparatory to forming the Navy Estimates, said, that great apprehension existed in the minds of many persons as to the position of our Navy, and that it was clear, from statements made in the House and in the public journals, the impression prevailed that there had been hitherto in the conduct of our naval administration a want of harmony at the Board of Admiralty which had been productive of the most disastrous consequences. Assuming that proper harmony did not exist—assuming the impression which existed to be correct, that there had been a divergence of opinion between the naval authorities and the civilians—he came to the conclusion that the naval opinions had been overridden by those of the civilians. If that were the case, the management of our naval affairs was not what it ought to be. He believed the country to be of opinion that the system which now existed was an erroneous system, and that under such a system mismanagement must naturally be the result. He would ask, was it reasonable that the House should be called upon to vote Supplies for the Navy, and yet be utterly in the dark as to how the affairs of the Navy were administered, and on whom the responsibility rested? He believed that information could be obtained in the manner which he had suggested in his Motion, which he would now submit to the House.

§ MR. SPEAKER
observed that such an Amendment could not now be moved.

§ MR. BENTINCK
wanted to know if it was not competent for him to move an Amendment.

§ MR. SPEAKER
said, the House had affirmed the Motion that the words "That I do leave the Chair" should 427 stand part of the Question, and any Amendment must be consistent with that Question. The words proposed by the hon. Member were not consistent with that Question.

§ MR. BENTINCK
, while submitting to the decision of the Chair, said, he regretted that his Amendment was not in Order, but expressed a hope that he should receive sufficient support to induce the Government to furnish the country with the information which he desired to obtain, so that it might be known who were really the responsible parties at the Board of Admiralty. His object in bringing forward the question was to obtain an expression of the opinion of the House.

§ MR. GOSCHEN
said, the hon. Member for Norfolk had asked certain questions on subjects concerning which, he said, the country was in the dark. But he gathered from what had passed in the House before, that the hon. Member was sometimes in the dark when other people knew perfectly well what was going on, and that when explanations were given to him it was perfectly impossible to make them reach his mind. Therefore, he feared that very little that fell from him would be satisfactory to that hon. Member. Even if his explanations did to any slight extent reach the hon. Member's mind, they were only sufficient to make the hon. Member misunderstand him, and become incredulous as to what had been stated. Therefore, the hon. Member could not be surprised if no long answer were given to his question. Perhaps, however, he might make the hon. Member understand what he meant better than he had done on a previous occasion if he now told him that no want of harmony had existed at the late Board of Admiralty. The submissions made for a certain number of men by the Comptroller last year and in the present year had been granted by the Board of Admiralty. Those were, he thought, clear statements, and he hoped they would satisfy the hon. Member, or would at all events satisfy those hon. Members who believed what was told them. It was perfectly well known to the House that the First Lord of the Admiralty was responsible for the Estimates which were laid on the Table, and the hon. Member might as well ask how the Home Secretary or the Secretary of State for War was advised with regard to his 428 Department as to call for the departmental statements on which a Ministerial decision must be founded. Of course, there would be differences of opinion, even when men acted together with the greatest harmony; and he could only state in the strongest terms that it was incorrect for the hon. Member to place on the Paper the allegation that a want of harmony appeared to have existed in the late Board, of Admiralty. The hon. Member believed that as long as the First Lord of the Admiralty was a civilian, there was no chance of the Navy being in an efficient state. In 1872, in Committee of Supply on Navy Estimates, the hon. Member moved the omission of the First Lord's salary from the Estimates, to test the feeling of the House on the question. And what support did he receive? The hon. Member was afraid to divide, and his Motion was negatived without a division. The debates on the Navy Estimates from year to year—and not less this year than in any previous one—would convince the House that the post of First Lord of the Admiralty was one of considerable difficulty, and as long as Parliament continued the system of placing a civilian in that position, he trusted that Parliament would support him when he tried to do his duty. He put it to the good feeling of both sides of the House whether, while it was thought absolutely necessary in a constitutional sense to retain a civilian as First Lord of the Admiralty, they should in every debate assert that he must be incompetent to do his duty. Let them make up their minds either that there should be a professional man at the head of the Board of Admiralty, or that there should not; but if they thought a civilian ought to have those difficult and arduous duties cast upon him, he hoped the House would support him when he endeavoured to perform them.