§ SUPPLY considered in Committee.
§ (In the Committee.)
§ (1.) £ 1,235,326, Dockyards and Naval Yards at Home and Abroad.
429§ MR. HUNTstated, in answer to a Question, that the Vote included a Supplementary Sum with the Original Estimates.
§ MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, that the Committee would perceive that the Supplementary Estimates which the right hon. Gentleman had proposed to take under this head as compared with last year was £150,000, but that only £95,000 of that sum was to be devoted towards increasing the fighting force of the Navy—namely, to hasten the building of the Shannon, the Superb, and the Inflexible, and to commence two new iron-clads, each of which was ultimately to cost £250,000. It was proposed, however, only to advance these two vessels by about one-tenth. The result, as the difference between the estimates of the late and those of the present First Lord, was represented by about 1,850 tons of addition to the effective strength of the Navy, or about one-third the quantity contained in a ship of the size of the Superb. The right hon. Gentleman had stated the other night that that sum was not the measure of our deficiencies, and that in all probability next year an additional sum would be required to place our Navy on a satisfactory footing. Next year would probably take care of itself, and the right hon. Gentleman would very likely then find good reason for not increasing the Navy Estimates. The right hon. Gentleman had said he could not spend any more money on the Navy this year if he had it. Now, the right hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. Guilders) had been able to spend £550,000 in 1871, after the month of August, and therefore the right hon. Gentleman opposite, having 10 months of the financial year before him, could spend 20 times the sum he had asked for upon the Navy, if he chose to adopt such a course. Thus he might have spent more in hastening the Superb and the Téméraire, and in completing the new works at Chatham. His main object in rising, however, was to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the sum of £6,000 which he proposed to spend on a depôt ship for Hong Kong was the total sum that would be required for that purpose, because he knew that the fitting out of depot ships was generally a very expensive matter, the fitting out of the Victor Emmanuel for the Gold Coast having required about £35,000; 430 while the purpose for which they were sent out could be more satisfactorily and economically attained by erecting hospitals on shore. The late Government had established a hospital on the shore Hong Kong, and he believed that it was a wise policy to have shore depôts instead of ships wherever that was possible.
§ MR. HUNTreplied that the sum of £6,000 referred to would not be the total sum required for fitting up the depôt ship for Hong Kong, and that at present it was impossible for him to state exactly what the total sum required would be. He thought, however, that the sum of £10,000 would cover the expense. The depot ship at Hong Kong which this ship was to replace was reported to him to be unfit for human habitation, and the Victor Emmanuel had accordingly been ordered out to replace her. She had been fitted out with a great many special appliances when sent to the Gold Coast, which would account for the great cost; but on this occasion it would be materially less.
§ MR. GOSCHENwished to impress upon the right hon. Gentleman the expediency of a suggestion he offered on a former evening—namely, that he would consider the advisability as far as possible of replacing receiving ships on foreign stations by iron-clads, which would add to the strength of the defences, and, so to speak, kill two birds with one stone.
§ MR. CHILDERS, seeing his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his place, wished to put a Question to him of which he had given him private Notice. The Naval Supplementary Estimates amounted to £150,000, and they contained provision to the extent of £40,000 for the year, to be expended on two vessels of the Shannon class. As far as could be at present ascertained, the expenditure of that sum on these vessels during the present year would mortgage the Estimates next year to the extent of £400,000. It was now some little time since the commencement of the financial year, and two months' since his right hon. Friend must have framed his Budget, and the Question he wished to put to him was, whether at the present time, with the experience he had had since the commencement of the financial year, he was so satisfied as to the prospects of 431 the Revenue as to feel that Supplementary Estimates could be passed without additional Ways and Means? He admitted that it was difficult to forecast the prospects of the financial year in the middle of May; but still many pregnant facts were known, and it was not unreasonable that he should call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to them, and elicit from him a statement with respect to the finances which could not fail to be of considerable importance. The great heads of the Revenue were the Customs, the Excise, and Stamps. The right hon. Gentleman, in making his Financial Statement, had announced that he anticipated an augmentation under the head of the Excise of £918,000, and under the head of Stamps of £330,000, making a total augmentation under these two heads of £1,248,000. It was true that under the head of Excise there would be a considerable falling off in the last quarter of the year, when the horse duty came to an end.
§ SIR JOHN HAYrose to ask, whether the right hon. Gentleman was in Order in raising that discussion on a question of general policy at a moment when the Speaker had left the Chair?
THE CHAIRMANsaid, that as far as the right hon. Gentleman's remarks applied to the Supplementary Estimates he was in Order; but that he would not be so, if he proceeded to discuss the financial policy of the ensuing year.
§ MR. CHILDERSsaid, he had not the slightest intention of raising any question of general financial policy; the figures he was referring to bore upon the question, whether they could vote the Supplementary Estimate without making provision for it by taxation or other means? What he was showing was that, according to the Treasury Returns up to the 8th or 9th of May—if the portion of the year which had just passed was a fair criterion—instead of there being £138,000 in excess of the receipts of last year, under the heads of Excise and Stamps, there had been a falling off to the extent of £187,000—equal to a deficiency of £325,000, or £2,900,000 upon the year. The Customs were more difficult to compare; but here, again, he doubted whether the Budget Estimate would be fulfilled. He wished to know if there were any disturbing causes in action, which would prevent the present receipts from being a fair criterion by which to judge 432 what they might expect for the financial year? He trusted his right hon. Friend was in a position to satisfy the Committee and the country that the Revenue was in such a satisfactory condition as to warrant the voting of the Supplementary Estimates now before the Committee, and the others which, it was known, were to come without explanation as to Ways and Means.
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that in reference to the mortgaging of the Revenue of next year, he should leave that question to be answered by his right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty; but with regard to the actual position of financial affairs, he thought the Question addressed to him was one which it was perfectly natural and proper to ask on the Vote for a Supplementary Estimate. His right hon. Friend spoke from the information which he deduced from the weekly statements issued from the Treasury, and which were made public. Those statements were, to a certain extent, useful; but, unless they were viewed with very great caution indeed, they were apt to be misleading. He confessed that, although he looked at them with the advantage of being able to consult the officers of the Treasury with regard to them, he had more than once found himself going astray in the conclusions he had drawn from them. His right hon. Friend said that, up to the 9th of May, the Revenue was lower than it was for the corresponding period of last year. Well, at first sight, that appeared to be a very alarming fact; but, in the first place, the period was short of that of last year by one day. That did not seem to be much, but it was as well to take it into account in estimating and ascertaining where the difference lay. In spirits alone, for instance, the difference of a single day amounted to about £40,000. There was another point to which no attention could possibly have been drawn, and which would to a great extent explain the falling off referred to by his right hon. Friend. He still confined himself to spirits—a very important part of the Excise revenue. The greater proportion of the receipts from the spirit duties came by the hands of the officers of the Inland Revenue; but a system of bonding was carried on partly in Inland Revenue and partly in Customs' warehouses, and, by 433 an arrangement between the two Departments, the Customs officers were willing to bond spirits or other articles for the Inland Revenue, and the Inland Revenue officers were willing to bond spirits and other articles for the Customs. When the articles were taken out of bond the money was received by the one Department and handed over to the other. He had seen the Chairman of the Board of Inland Revenue, in consequence of the Notice received from his right hon. Friend; and had learnt from him that, comparing the two periods referred to, a sum of £100,000 had been received last year by the Inland Revenue from the officers of the Customs in respect of duties received by the Inland Revenue and Customs from spirits, and due to the Inland Revenue, and that no such sum was received this year. It would look, therefore, as if the Inland Revenue had fallen off by £100,000; but, in point of fact, he was informed that £90,000 had been so received, but was not yet brought into account. There were one or two other points to which he might refer, but they were quite alien to the Navy Estimates. As a general answer to his right hon. Friend, he would say that, although the Revenue was not as brilliant as he could wish, there was nothing whatever about it to cause him any uneasiness at present in view of his Estimate. The receipts from the Customs were very satisfactory; those from the Inland Revenue were in some respects less satisfactory. The great falling off was in licences, amounting in one week to about £120,000; but licences were an article on which the receipts might come in one week or another, and it so happened that a larger sum was received under that head in the corresponding period of last year. There was nothing to make him feel uneasy at present, and at the end of the quarter he would be in a position to give further information, as he would then be in full possession of the details necessary for the purpose.
§ MR. HUNTremarked that although future Revenue was mortgaged to the extent of £440,000, it did not follow that the entire amount would fall upon the receipts of next year. That would entirely depend upon the proposals he or his successor might make with regard to the building of ships.
§ GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURpointed out that this charge was yearly on the increase, and required to be carefully looked after. He referred to an item in the Vote for police expenditure, and expressed a hope that instead of being scattered broadcast over several grants of the whole Estimate, the whole of the expenditure for that Force would be shown in one sum, so that one might be able to understand distinctly what it was, and also what were the number of the Force. He complained of the inconsistent manner in which charges were dealt with. The cost of the police connected with the watching of Dockyards was debited in the Naval Estimates, whereas the heavy outlay for naval guns and projectiles, and all the other charges relating thereto was charged on the War Office Estimates. The accounts of the Metropolitan Police should, to be consistent, show the whole expenditure for police; but then Parliamentary responsibility would cease to belong to the First Lord of the Admiralty: and in the way the cost of the naval armaments was presented to Parliament, the responsibility for the outlay was thrown on the War Minister, and taken off the shoulders of the Admiralty.
§ MR. E. J. REEDthought that, instead of expending £25,000 each on two now ships, it would be better to expend £50,000 upon one. The Committee ought to have further information with respect to the vessels which were in course of construction.
§ SIR JOHN HAYhoped that the First Lord of the Admiralty would not accede to the suggestion, as he thought that it would be more advisable to begin two ships, than to begin only one. He would like to see the £45,000 intended for the Orontes applied to the completion of those iron-clads.
§ MR. A. F. EGERTONstated that the question of having an iron-clad as the depôt ship had been carefully considered, and had been unanimously objected to by the advisers of the Admiralty. It would be more expensive to build a depot on land than to use a ship. As to the police, the expense had increased in common with that of all other labour. He would, however, consider whether the form of the Vote could be improved. With re-regard to building two iron-clads by contract, some wished for only one ship and others for four, and as the opinion of 435 various high authorities on both sides of the House differed so much with reference to this subject, he trusted that the Committee would accept the proposal of the First Lord of the Admiralty, which he believed would meet the exigencies of the case.
ADMIRAL ELLIOTI would desire to take this opportunity, which is the first which the Rules of the House have afforded me, of replying to the various comments which have been made by hon. Members on the opinions which I expressed in a speech of some length on the 20th April last, on the House going into Committee of Supply on Navy Estimates. I trust that I shall not weary the House by continuing this discussion, but I would venture to observe that although the debate has been considerably prolonged, it cannot be said that the time of the House has been occupied with considerations of professional or practical subjects, but rather with lengthened Ministerial explanations, and, I might almost say, apologies for the state in which the Navy and Dockyards of this country have been handed over by the Liberal Government to their successors. I refer to the very long speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Pontefract (Mr. Childers), the several speeches from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London (Mr. Goschen), the several speeches from the late Secretary to the Admiralty, the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. Shaw Lefevre), and lastly, a very lengthy legal exposition on Naval affairs from the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the City of Oxford (Sir William Harcourt)—who, by-the-bye, frankly confessed that he did not know very much about Naval matters. At the commencement of this debate, I called the attention of the House to the condition and management of Her Majesty's Dockyards. I expressed the opinion that the system which had grown up of late had very much impaired that state of preparation for war in which these Naval establishments should be at all times maintained—also that the monies voted for the maintenance of these establishments were misappropriated and were practically expended to a largo extent in maintaining the private dockyards of the country, and that this system considerably increased the burden of taxation, because these 436 monies were not utilized in the most profitable manner for the advantage of the properties of the Crown. I expressed the opinion that our national Dockyards in time of peace should be to the utmost extent self-producing, and that the labour of those establishments should be of a permanent character, and not on the hired system, in order that the Crown might be independent of those evils which might arise from disturbances in the labour market. In fact, I pointed out that the principal features of mismanagement were—the contract system of production, the hired system of labour, and the redundant accounts and returns. I pointed out the origin of this system, and the object held in view by its supporters, and I called upon the Government and this new House of Parliament to redress the abuses I complained of, as trustees and stewards of this valuable national property. Having listened attentively to the comments which have been made upon my speech, I claim that the main features of my complaint have received no satisfactory reply—in fact, that the very important question of how far the system which prevails does impair a state of preparation for war has never been referred to by any one hon. Member who has spoken on this subject. I also consider that the question of unprofitable expenditure remains unanswered; and I claim that the arguments of the other side of the House could only be regarded in the light of confessions and avoidance. I would first deal with those comments which present the most pleasing aspect of affairs. I noticed with pleasure the words which fell from the First Lord of the Admiralty—that it was his intention to employ additional men in the Devonport Dockyard in the construction of boilers—the cost being, as he said, 25 per cent cheaper than work given to private firms. I highly commend this decision, and especially an expression which fell from the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Hunt), that he did not see why monies should be spent outside the Dockyards which could be more profitably expended within. I consider this to be the first step in the right direction. I was glad to hear from the Secretary to the Admiralty (Mr. A. F. Egerton), that he agreed with me to the extent that he thought "experience showed, on the whole, that large ships could be built in the Dockyards better and cheaper than 437 outside;" and I trust that, as regards the hired system, he will, after further consideration, be able to agree with me that the normal requirements of labour in the Dockyards should be on the system of permanent employment. The hon. Member will, I trust, see force in the argument that private capitalists who, like himself, are large employers of labour, would gladly enter into a contract for permanent employment at fixed wages, but that they cannot do so, because they are never certain of the amount of work they may have to perform; but that the Crown being the only employer of labour that can enter into a permanent contract, it is immensely to its advantage to do so, so as to obtain freedom from disturbance and from high prices, and secure other valuable considerations connected with the discipline, contentment, and superior skill of the artizans. The hon. Member (Mr. A. F. Egerton) did remark upon the increase in the pension list which would be caused by the increase of the numbers on the establishments; but I trust he will be able to satisfy himself that there is a considerable set-off against these expenses in the improved and increased amount of work obtained, and in the increased productive power of the Dockyards at the outbreak of war; for it cannot be denied that there is considerable loss at present incurred from unskilled labour, impaired discipline, constant changes, and discontent. I was glad to hear from the hon. Member that he was prepared to reconsider his opinions when better informed as regards the question of increased expenditure involved. The hon. Member for Reading (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) approved of the hired system on the grounds that it excited emulation, and enabled us to compare one class of work with another, and said that he did not think it would be wise to extend the system of establishment to the factories. He also expressed an opinion in favour of the contract system, on the grounds that there was not sufficient room in the Dockyards for building and repairing all Her Majesty's ships in peace time. Now, as regards these opinions, I will only say that I consider them to be so unsound that I think if the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) will take the trouble to inquire more fully into the matter he will see good reasons for altering his judgment. I now 438 come to the more unpleasant feature of the hostile comments made on my speech on Dockyards. The speech of the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Reed) was certainly strongly opposed to the views which I had expressed, and was therefore opposed to the views and aspirations of the Dockyard men themselves as expressed in their Memorials which are in the possession of this House. I find some difficulty in replying to the arguments of Mr. Reed, inasmuch as his opinions conveyed to his constituents since he addressed the House, are at variance with the opinions recorded by the Press as having been expressed within the House in reply to my speech. I will, however, select the opinions expressed within this House, as recorded by the Press, as being most likely to have conveyed his real sentiments, because they were uttered in the presence of those Members interested in the private trade, and were in support of a policy for which Mr. Reed himself is to a great extent responsible, and because these sentiments are only natural coming from the manager of a great building establishment, and a contractor for the construction of foreign men-of-war. Well, then, Mr. Reed recommended the continuance of the hired system of labour on the ground that it taught the Admiralty to become accustomed to higher rates of pay! I leave it to the House to decide whether this is a statesmanlike speech on the part of a Member of Parliament who may be considered in the light of a trustee of the monies of the Crown and responsible for their most economical and profitable expenditure. Then as regards the diverting of the monies voted for the maintenance of the Royal Dockyards, to the purpose of maintaining the private yards of the country and enabling them, by building foreign war ships, to increase the maritime strength of foreign nations, I can only reply to such an opinion by saying that it is wanting in patriotism and sound judgment; and I would ask whether the country is also to rejoice that the experience gained by Mr. Reed as Chief Constructor of the Navy, after a wasteful expenditure of twelve millions of money in experiments resulting in an obsolete Fleet, should now be utilized for developing foreign Navies? In reply to my remarks on the employment of hired labour, Mr. Reed has charged me with having attacked the character of the 439 hired men of Her Majesty's Dockyards. I consider this to have been an unwarrantable misconstruction of my words as reported by the Press, and that the inference drawn from what fell from me on the subject of hired labour was so unfair that I can only consider it as an attempt to damage me in the eyes of my constituents—a great portion of whom, as is well known to Mr. Reed, are hired artificers. Is it likely that as I owe my seat in Parliament to a great extent to these voters, that I should have sought to reflect upon their behaviour or character, more especially when by so doing I must have equally cast an imputation on the character of the established men, seeing that they have all sprung from the hired list? I can only in self defence throw back the imputation on those who made it. I said that these men were trade unionists, and if Mr. Peed considers trade unionism and bad conduct to be synonymous terms, the inference is his own, not mine. I also said that they might strike for wages. Again I say, that if that remark is synonymous with bad conduct the inference is Mr. Reed's, not mine. I said that inferior workmen enter the yards, and when they become more skilled, they leave. I said that the discipline was relaxed owing to the independence of their position. I said that the constant changes were subversive of efficiency. In all this, the inference that their conduct is bad comes from Mr. Reed, and not from me. I conclude by observing that I said nothing of these men which they have not said for themselves in their Memorials. I have the pleasure to inform Mr. Reed that the shaft has missed its aim, as I have received letters from all quarters—from the workmen themselves—expressive of their satisfaction at the manner in which I advocated their interests. In conclusion, I will now leave it to the common sense of this House, and of the country at large, to decide whether Imperial interests are to be sacrificed in order that one branch of industry may flourish, and that we may assist to develop the naval power of foreign nations, and whether it is sound policy that the efficiency of the Dockyards for war service should be impaired, and that additional burdens should be imposed on the taxpayers for the benefit of one class of the people. I would observe that I have never denied that the existing system was beneficial 440 to the private ship-builders; but I consider it a monstrous proposition to make to this House that monies voted for one purpose are to be turned aside to another. I am perfectly aware of the great power, both inside and outside this House, which has hitherto been exercised in support of those great vested interests connected with the private shipbuilding trade of this country; but I am hopeful that this discussion has not fallen altogether idly upon the ears of those hon. Members who re-represent in this House the industry to which I have referred, and that if it can be shown them, as I believe it can, that the national interests suffer, and that the power of our Navy is impaired, I feel assured that their sense of duty, as Members of this House, and their patriotism, will induce them to support the First Lord of the Admiralty in reforming those abuses in the management of Her Majesty's Dockyards which have grown up of late years, and which it has been my duty, to the best of my ability, to expose.
§ Vote agreed to.
§ (2.) £1,143,159, Naval Stores.
§ MR. SHAW LEFEVREwished to offer an explanation to the Committee with regard to this Vote, so far as it affected the late Admiralty. The First Lord had stated that he was able now to effect an economy on the Vote of £55,000, and to apply that amount towards the material of building the vessels for which he had taken an increased number of men under Vote 6. The right hon. Gentleman attributed that economy to the fall which had taken place in the price of coal, and to the effect of contract arrangements, neither of which results could possibly have boon foreseen when he (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) originally framed the Estimates. It must at any rate be some satisfaction to hon. and gallant Gentlemen opposite, who had for the past five years been complaining of the deplorable state of the stores, to know that all their statements had been proved to be unfounded, and that the first thing that a Conservative Government did on coming into power was to economize from the Store Vote to the extent of £55,000. As the right hon. Gentleman had not stated what the improved contract arrangements wore, the Committee might perhaps wish to know them. The 441 contract arrangements were only entered into last year, and they were as followed:—It was found advisable in the first place to break off a number of old existing contracts for a large amount of stores of uncertain quantities, which were to be supplied on demand from the Dockyards, and to invite tenders for specific articles of smaller amount; and, secondly, the Superintendent of Contracts, at his own suggestion, went down to Birmingham, Leeds, and other places, and had communication with leading manufacturers who had contracted for the Admiralty; and, strange to say, he found that they were under the impression that the old objectionable system of contracts still existed, under which it was necessary to "tip" some of the Admiralty officials, in order to get contracts, and to be relieved of harassing penalties, and were quite unaware of all the changes made by his right hon. Friend (Mr. Baxter). After the explanations of the Superintendent of Contracts, those leading manufacturers promised to tender for the next Government contracts. The new contracts were not out when he (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) left office, but he believed that the result of the new arrangements had been that very much improved tenders had been sent in at very much lower rates than had been expected, and that the leading manufacturers now tendered for the Government contracts. It was due to the Superintendent of Contracts to say that he had rendered a public service by his exertions in this matter.
§ LORD ESLINGTONdesired to call attention to a case which he thought painfully illustrative of the manner in which money went in the Dockyards. The Undaunted had been launched in January, 1861, at Chatham, and had never been commissioned, having always since that time been lying in the Dockyard. It was roughly estimated that a further expenditure of £16,000 was necessary in order to render her fit to go to sea, and, including that sum, her total first cost would be £121,142—that was to say, £71,350 spent upon her hull, £33,792 upon her machinery, and the additional sum of £16,000 already mentioned. But the further expenditure actually proposed on the vessel was not merely £16,000; it was no less than £41,748—namely, over £26,000 for material, and over £14,000 for labour. 442 These figures related, as he had shown, to a vessel that was launched more than 13 years ago, and had never been sent to sea. He thought it was a matter that required explanation.
§ GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURdecidedly objected to the present practice of making the War Office Estimates bear the heavy burden of the outlay for naval armaments. During the past 12 years the Army expenditure had been swelled to the extent of several millions by the costly, and many changes in the armament of the Navy. Every description of gun and carriage had been tried at the expense of the Army, and often charged forward with a recklessness which could only be the result of knowing that the expense would not be borne by the Admiralty Estimates, and with the knowledge that the defence before Parliament would devolve on the War Minister, and not on the First Lord of the Admiralty. He complained, so far from this liability being lessened, he now found that various items, such as torpedoes, had been transferred to the Army Estimates, whereas they ought properly to be included in the Vote for naval Stores.
§ MR. E. J. REEDexplained, in regard to the Undaunted, that he did not take exception to the sum proposed; but he objected to its being placed under the head of repairs, when, in fact, it was really to be applied in supplying her with a finishing equipment and with a poop, in order to adapt her for the service for which she was required.
§ MR. A. F. EGERTONsaid, he could confirm the remarks of the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) in regard to the satisfactory condition of the Stores Department, and had great pleasure in bearing testimony to the salutary reforms which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Montrose (Mr. Baxter) had been instrumental in effecting in the department. Why the Undaunted had not previously been put in commission he could not say. He did not think the expense of repairs excessive, as it included the practical finishing of the ship, and even while in harbour a certain sum was required for repairs, for it was quite certain that in the course of time ships deteriorated and required new machinery and repairs if they were to be kept fit for service. As to the armament being provided by the Admiralty instead of by the War Office, 443 as proposed by the hon. and gallant Member for Kincardineshire (General Sir George Balfour), the present system was preferred by those most conversant with the subject, both in the Admiralty and out of it; but if the change could be shown to promote economy and efficiency, the subject deserved fuller consideration than it would receive in Committee.
§ Vote agreed to.
§
(3.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £802,904, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Expense of Steam Machinery and Ships building by Contract, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1875.
§ MR. PALMER, in moving that the Vote be reduced by the sum of £45,000, said, that before entering into his reason for objecting to the Vote, he wished to bring before the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty the suggestion that had been thrown out by the hon. Member for Pembroke, that when those Estimates were laid before the House full information should be afforded the hon. Members, so that they might know, when a Vote was first taken, to what extent the Estimate was intended to be carried. This Vote would only be an instalment on account, and when the first Vote was taken, it should be added on to the following Votes, until the whole was completed, that the House might then know whether the Estimate had been exceeded or not. The information that he had received upon this Vote naturally was not derived from Papers emanating from the Government, but from information he had received elsewhere. He therefore thought it right to make this Motion, and he wished to assure the right hon. Gentleman that he was not actuated by any hostile feeling; but he simply thought the First Lord of the Admiralty had been badly advised in the spending of a large sum of money upon a ship which, when completed at a large cost, would not prove so satisfactory as a new ship would have done. Although a practical question, he would state it very briefly to the House, so that every hon. Member would be able to take a common-sense view of the whole matter. The Orontes was a steamer built above 12 years ago for the transport 444 service. He had no doubt that at the time she was built she was in every way a credit to our naval architects as well as to the most approved marine engineers. The vessel was 2,812 tons measurement, and was of 500 horse power. Her original cost was about £70,000 for the hull, and £25,000 for the engines, to which must be added some extras for enlarging the poops—amounting to £6,000—making in all about £100,000 as the total cost of the ship. Now, the vessel, he believed, had done satisfactory work, and had proved herself most efficient as a transport. But the House would scarcely credit that it was now intended to put 50 feet in the steamer amidships in order to lengthen her. [Mr. HUNT: We are only going to put 30 feet.] If 30 feet, it did not alter very materially the question. He could also inform the House that the old engines were quite unfit for further work, and that new compound engines on the most improved principle were to be substituted. This work, as he was informed, would, in all, amount to £103,000, a sum which exceeded, in fact, the original cost of the ship. And to that amount must be added considerable sums for further outfit; so that this vessel, when completed, would cost more than would build a new ship with all the modern appliances that had resulted from the progress naval architecture had made within the last 12 years. The ship in itself, when lengthened, could not, of course, possess the same symmetry of lines as a new ship, because 50 or 30 feet put into a vessel amidships could not be worked in so as to be in entire harmony with the old lines; and for a vessel which was intended to attain speed, and to transport troops, he certainly thought the proposed expenditure, on the part of the Government, would prove very unsatisfactory. Some large companies and steamship owners, when they had an old vessel, such as the Orontes, usually sold her for what she would bring, and replaced her by a new one. Surely, if large companies could take such a course, it ought to be adopted by Her Majesty's Government. Observing the hon. and gallant Member for Chatham (Admiral Elliot) in his place, he wished to state, with reference to some remarks the hon. and gallant Admiral had made in a former speech upon the question of the 445 Dockyards—which remarks had caused some irritation out of the House, inasmuch as he had accused the working men in private yards of not being to be relied upon in a pressure of work during the time of war, because of their trades' unions and other combinations—that he had from his own experience knowledge to directly contradict such a statement. During the late Russian War a large amount of work was thrown upon private yards by the Government, and the men engaged on them worked most loyally and satisfactorily, without a murmur and without raising any difficulty, until the whole of that work was completed. This was certainly a very great contrast to what the hon. Member had stated with reference to what had taken place in the Chatham yard. [Admiral ELLIOT said, he had been misunderstood.] He (Mr. Palmer) was glad to find that there might have been some misunderstanding; but the hon. Member had been so reported in The Times. He would not detain the House longer with reference to the Orontes, but he really did hope either that the explanation to be given by the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty, would be of such a character as to induce him to withdraw his Amendment, or that he should be supported by the House in not permitting this piece of extravagance to be carried through by the Admiralty.
§ GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURseconded the Amendment.
§
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £757,904, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Expense of Steam Machinery and Ships building by Contract, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st clay of March 1875."—(Mr. Palmer)
§ MR. HUNTsaid, he had stated the other night that they were deficient of one troop-ship. They required four troop-ships for the normal service of the Army, and in order to have four efficient ships, they ought really to have five; so that he might put it that they were now in want of two troop-ships. It was admitted on all hands that it was the worst economy to hire ships for the normal service. The question was this—Should they make serviceable a ship they had got, or sell her and build a new one? The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London (Mr. Goschen) 446 favoured the plan of selling the ship they had, and providing a new one; but the right hon. Gentleman had not taken any money for providing a new ship. The highest price they could get for that ship, if they sold her, was £30,000; and the calculations which he had been able to make from the officers of his Department, under advice, of the cost of lengthening the Orontes in the way proposed, as against purchasing a ship giving the same accommodation, showed that by lengthening her there would be a saving effected for the country of from £30,000 to £40,000. They were now negotiating for tenders for lengthening the ship, and, therefore, at present it was impossible for him to name the sum in the Estimates. Though built 12 years ago, the Orontes was an exceedingly well-built ship and very strong, and when she had been lengthened and had new bulk-heads put into her, and new boilers and compound engines, she was likely to be serviceable for 20 years to come. Under those circumstances, he had arrived at the conclusion that the course which his advisers had recommended to him was the best and also the most economical. When lengthened and improved, as suggested, the Orontes would have accommodation for a whole battalion, and would be a really useful and efficient troop-ship. The right hon. and gallant Member for Stamford (Sir John Hay) wanted the money to be spent, not on the Orontes, but on iron-clads; but if they negatived that proposition, the money would not be expended on iron-clads.
MR. MACGERGORcomplained that the manner in which the Estimates were made out left the Committee in the dark on many important points. He agreed with the right hon. Gentleman the First, Lord of the Admiralty that they should have the means of doing their own regular transport service; but he did not think they should go further, because in cases of emergency the Mercantile Marine could be relied on. A pressure was no doubt felt at the time of the Crimean War, but it could not be taken as a criterion, for matters were very much improved since then; ships which at that time cost £3 5s. a ton, being now to be had for £1 5s. He thought, with the alterations that were to be made on the Orontes, she would be a very cheap and efficient troop-ship. The Admiralty, 447 however, should be careful about the tender, and see that they did not pay too much for the work, for if they took the value of the vessel at £30,000, and added £70,000 for the lengthening and new machinery, that would be equal to £100,000, for which, he believed, they could build a new, strong ship, with all the modern improvements.
§ MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, the late Admiralty had considered and determined not to undertake the repair of the Orontes. Four firms had tendered for the work, the lowest tender being £103,000, and they had rejected it, believing they could get a better ship for the money. He thought that for our normal troop-ship service four ships were more than sufficient. The present year was provided for, but one would be required for next year, and the late Admiralty had proposed to purchase one, believing that they would get a suitable one for about £130,000.
§ MR. SAMUDAcomplained that on that and on other matters the Committee had not that amount of information which it was entitled to expect from the Government. With respect to the Orontes, he admitted that she was a good ship, but pointed out that her age would be greatly against her if it should ever be found necessary to sell her. So far from wishing the First Lord of the Admiralty to build one instead of two vessels, he wished the right hon. Gentleman had proposed to build four instead of two. The Shannon, however, was not in one sense an iron-clad at all; he had been informed she was constructed with an iron-clad bulkhead near the bows, and wings from this extending only a short distance aft, and such a class of vessel would be of no practical use in these days, as she would be obliged to keep her head to the foe, unless the speed was sufficiently great to compensate for the want of armour. In the case of the Inflexible, there would be a vessel 300 feet long, 100 feet of which was to be covered with plate-armour, the other two-thirds having not a particle of armour; so that it seemed that we were coming back to the errors which were committed when the vessels of the Warrior class were built.
§ ADMIRAL EGERTONthought it would be wise if the Vote was deferred for a little while, for, as to the Shannon, they were told that she could only fight in 448 a particular way, and it might be worth while to consider the question of speed. If it was proceeded with, he would vote for the Amendment. He hoped that the First Lord of the Admiralty would not build more iron-clads than he could possibly help, as he felt sure that the days of that kind of vessel were numbered.
§ MR. A. F. EGERTONsaid, it was believed that the repairs of the Orontes, would not cost the whole amount asked for that purpose. The question of the speed of the Shannon was now under consideration, and the Admiralty was quite disposed to add to her speed, if it should be thought necessary.
§ MR. E. J. REEDintimated that he should support the Government, as he thought that when a Vote had been carefully prepared and proposed for a specific purpose, the Committee would do well not to refuse it. He might explain that many large steamship companies had done, and were doing, exactly what the Government proposed—namely, lengthen their ships and compound their engines. If the Government sold the Orontes for £30,000, the House might be prepared to hear some very unpleasant comments on the subject next year, and the Admiralty might expect to experience more opposition than they did that night. They ought not to condemn the ships of the Government simply because hon. Members did not agree about them. There could be no doubt that the Navy was now very strong, and whatever faults might be found with the Shannon and the Inflexible, they constituted a very important addition to the power of the Navy.
§ MR. HUNTsaid, it appeared from a Report of Mr. Barnaby, the chief architect of the Navy, that the Shannon was efficiently armoured.
§ MR. GOSCHENsaid, he trusted his hon. Friend would not press the Motion to a division, because it would be trenching upon that responsibility which they were bound to delegate to the Ministry.
§ Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Original Question put, and agreed to.
§ House resumed.
§ Resolutions to be reported To-morrow;
§ Committee to sit again upon Wednesday.