§ SUPPLY—considered in Committee.
§ (In the Committee.)
§ (1.) £1,106,581, Victuals and Clothing for Seamen and Marines.
§ MR. SHAW-LEFEVREsaid, he wished for some explanations relating to an increased share of the expense of Indian troop-ships now borne by the Admiralty. They were employed by the Indian Government for seven months, and then the men were sent to the depot ships for five months. They were, however, practically at the disposal of the Indian Government, and could not be used in any other way. The claim of the Indian Government to be relieved from a portion of this charge was not a new one, but upon the whole it was, he thought, fair that the Indian Government should pay for the whole year.
§ MR. HUNTsaid, he feared there had been a disposition now and then to press too hardly on the Revenues of India. He had looked into the matter, and when he found that the Indian troopships were only employed for seven months, it certainly seemed to him exorbitant to charge them for the whole year. A satisfactory arrangement had been concluded with the Indian Government, by which the expense to which the hon. Member had referred would be borne in equitable proportions between the Government of this country and the Government of India. He hoped, in return, that the Indian Government would make some allowance under other heads.
§ GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURthanked the right hon. Gentleman for the acknowledgment he had made as to the hard pressure put on Indian finances. It was not only by the Navy, but by the Army that this pressure had been applied, and as he thought unjustly applied. The Imperial Government had seen fit to deprive India of its own Navy and of its own European Army; and then had pressed India to meet charges which would not have arisen if these forces had been kept up by India; or, at all events, the extraordinary expenses which both Departments now demanded from India for measures suited for Imperial reasons, and not for Indian purposes, would not have been incurred by India for its own services. It was creditable 655 to the Conservative Party for having effected the arrangement to which he had referred, and which he had himself long since advocated.
§ MR. SHAW-LEFEVREalso considered the explanation of the First Lord of the Admiralty satisfactory.
§ MR. SAMUDAwas about to direct attention to the position of assistant-engineers in the Navy, when—
§ MR. ALGERNON EGERTONrose to Order, and said, he thought the subject could not be discussed on the present Vote. It related to Vote 1, which had already been agreed to.
THE CHAIRMANsaid, he could not see in what respect the question could be raised on the Vote under consideration. In any remarks the hon. Member might desire to make he must confine himself to that Vote.
§ MR. GOSCHENsaid, that there was always a great desire on the part of the House to facilitate the passing of the 1st Vote; and it was impossible after the general statement on a Vote, to enter into particulars. If the ruling of the Chairman was good, those who objected to any item would be placed in this dilemma—either they must in future refuse to agree to Vote 1 on the night the Navy Estimates were introduced, or deprive themselves of the opportunity of raising questions which might be of great interest and importance.
THE CHAIRMANsaid, his only wish was to facilitate the business of the Committee as much as possible, desiring that each Member should have full liberty to discuss every topic arising out of the Vote proposed. The hon. Gentleman the Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Samuda) would have several opportunities of bringing forward the subject to which he had referred; but in Committee it could be done only on Vote 1, which had been disposed of.
§ CAPTAIN NOLANthought that Vote I having been passed for the convenience of the Minister, the line of exclusion ought not to be too rigidly drawn. If it were, the decision would prevent private Members from raising questions which they wished to discuss.
§ MR. HUNTsaid, he was anxious that no technical difficulty should be placed in the way of his hon. Friend bringing forward the subject to which he had alluded.
§ MR. SAMUDAsaid, that was the 656 only opportunity he would have of calling attention to the position of the engineers. Unnecessary restrictions were, in his opinion, placed in the way of their advancement, and all he asked for was, that those who were capable of taking the position of chief engineers might be advanced to that post without being obliged to wait until they reached the age of 40; and that when they were retired they might be relieved from the humiliation of signing a paper declaring that they had been pensioned, like warrant officers or cooks. He hoped the subject would receive the consideration of the Admiralty.
§ SIR JOHN HAYhoped that the Chairman would reconsider his decision with reference to the limits that should be put upon the discussion on Vote 2 for Victuals, inasmuch as it was of considerable advantage that the Vote for Men should be allowed to be taken on the evening when the Estimates were first brought forward, leaving all minor points relating to that Vote to be discussed on Vote 2.
THE CHAIRMANsaid, that the rule he had laid down was that most conducive to the dispatch of Business. No doubt, a certain latitude might have been occasionally allowed by his Predecessors in the Chair, and he had not, perhaps, been strict enough in enforcing the rule, being reluctant to interfere. The rule, however, was imperative that after the first Vote upon which the general discussion was had, was taken, the speakers on all future Votes were to confine themselves to the matter of the particular Vote under discussion at the time, and when his attention was called to the fact that that rule was being infringed, he felt bound to say, that he adhered to the opinion, that it was an inconvenient practice to exceed the limits of any particular Vote, after the first, in discussing that Vote.
§ MR. GOSCHENasked the First Lord of the Admiralty for an explanation of an increase in the items in respect of the allowance in lieu of provisions for the Royal Naval Reserve, and the Coast Guard Service. He desired to know, also, whether any progress had been made in elucidating the subject of lighting Her Majesty's Ships; and, further, why there was an addition to the amount for clothing the Second-Class Reserve?
§ MR. T. BRASSEYwas of opinion that the engineers were not sufficiently paid, and that a solution of the difficulty would be found in diminishing the number of engineer officers in the Fleet, and employing a considerable number of skilled artificers to perform the manual labour in the engine room.
§ MR. HUNTsaid, he was not inclined unnecessarily to limit discussion on naval matters, but he thought that the remarks of hon. Members on the present occasion had been extended to all the provisions, rather than the victuals of the Navy. He was, however, glad of the opportunity of saying that the very difficult question with regard to the engineers was under his consideration, although he was not yet justified in announcing his decision respecting it. In reply to the questions of the right hon. Gentleman the late First Lord, an increase of £5,466 had been caused by the addition of 4,000 men in the Naval Reserve; and of £3,867 for the Coast Guard, because it had been found that the amount hitherto taken was not sufficient; but there had been no change in the regulations. The system of lighting the ships on service was under consideration, and experiments were being made with regard to a new system; but the question was not yet ripe for decision. The increase in the Vote for clothes to the Naval Reserve was owing partly to an increase in the numbers of that Force, but mainly to a suit of clothes being given to such men as chose to reenter that service at the expiration of their first term.
§ Vote agreed, to.
§ (2.) £183,916, Admiralty Office.
§ MR. GOSCHENasked the reason for changing the titles of the officers in the Constructor's department; and, whether the business at the Board of Admiralty was conducted with the same formalities as it used to be?
§ MR. HUNTsaid, that no formal change had been made in the mode of conducting business at the Admiralty; but he was led to believe that the naval Members of the Board were now consulted on many matters on which they were not consulted by his two immediate Predecessors. With regard to the titles of the officers in the Dockyard, it was represented to him that the title of Master Shipwright did not convey a just 658 idea of the importance of the office, and it had therefore been changed into that of Chief Constructor of the Yard.
§ MR. E. J. REEDasked, whether the effect of the establishment of a Council of Construction had been to concentrate or diffuse responsibility?
§ MR. HUNTsaid, that both in the Admiralty and the Dockyards, those at the head of the Constructor's department were responsible generally for construction. The engineers were responsible for the engineering part of the work, subject to the Constructor.
§ MR. SHAW-LEFEVREobserved that the newspapers had stated that the post of the late Solicitor to the Admiralty was not to be filled up at present. He ventured to suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that he should take that opportunity of considering whether some of the work performed by the Solicitor might not in future be performed by the Permanent Secretary, who was of very high legal attainments, and who, by the appointment of a Naval Secretary, had been relieved of much of his work.
§ MR. HUNTsaid, that, consequent upon the death of Mr. Bristowe, which he much regretted, a temporary arrangement had been made. No permanent arrangement would be entered upon until inquiries, which had been set on foot before that event happened, had been completed.
§ MR. CHILDERSexpressed his approval of the arrangement.
§ Vote agreed to.
§ (3.) £188,505, Coast Guard Service, Royal Naval Reserve, &c.
§ MR. T. BRASSEYsaid, it was very satisfactory to find that the rules and regulations which had been made by the late Government were approved by the right hon. Gentleman. He hoped to see a gradual increase in the number of gunboats and drill stations for the training of the men of the Reserve during the summer months. There were many places in which drill stations might be established with great advantage to the requirements of the service.
§ MR. GOSCHENwished to know the number of the Royal Naval Reserve for whom it was intended to provide?
§ MR. HUNTsaid, it was intended to employ a certain number of gunboats for training purposes during the year, 659 and he hoped, in future, to increase that number, as he was exceedingly anxious that the men should learn to work guns afloat. With regard to the question as to the number of men to be enrolled in the Naval Reserve, there were 12,500 of the First Class, and 5,000 of the Second; and, as he had said the other day, they proposed to enrol 500 boys in a Third Class; but whether they would get the number they hoped this year, he did not know. He hoped, however, that they would come up. This would make 18,000 in all, and they hoped, from" the manner in which the men were coming in, 16,900 being on the books already, to have 18,000 this year; and he further hoped that, with the increased facilities for drill, they would obtain an efficient body of men for that branch of the service.
§ MR. GOSCHENhoped the right hon. Gentleman would adopt some measure of present increase of pay as an inducement to boys to join the service, which, in his opinion, would operate better than the prospect of pensions, which, however small, would, in their accumulation, become a heavy charge upon the country.
§ MR. E. J. REEDwas of opinion that small gunboats would prove of very great use for training purposes at many places where drill stations might be established.
§ CAPTAIN G. E. PRICEhoped that proper opportunities would be given for instruction in gunnery to those under drill. In that view 9-inch guns might be advantageously employed, under supervision, for training exercise.
§ MR. GOURLEYwished to know how the men of the Naval Reserve were to be found in case of a war breaking out? At present they did not turn up for drill in a satisfactory manner, and the question was, where were they to be found when a pressing call for their services might arise. The men employed in the shipyards might be made available and utilized for the requirements of the Service should urgent occasion arise.
§ SIR JOHN HAYhoped the Admiralty would not lose sight of the suggestion of the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Devonport. He also wished to draw attention to the importance of having a Reserve of stokers, in case of any emergency arising.
§ MR. CHILDERSsaid, that when he was at the Admiralty the separate 660 Coastguard Department was abolished, and that nothing had been more inconvenient than the voluminous correspondence between that Department and the Admiralty Office, and he therefore hoped that care would be taken to guard against any such system in respect to the Reserve Office.
§ MR. HUNTassured the right hon. Gentleman that the communications which took place between the Admiralty and the Reserve Office were of the shortest possible character, and every pains were taken to prevent any unnecessary expense. With respect to the employment of men employed on shore, it was intended to relax the regulations of the Naval Reserve so as to include in it men who had been actually at sea, but this would not extend to shipwrights who had not served on board. It was not to be expected that a man would lose his sea legs the moment he left a ship. He could not actually state the percentage of the men who did not attend drill, but it was taken into consideration in the Estimate. The question of having a Reserve of stokers—a most important question—would be considered.
§ Vote agreed, to.
§ (4.) £107,324, Scientific Departments.
MR. HANBUBY-TEACYsaid, that Greenwich College was doing good service; but its usefulness would be much increased if, instead of having so many officers idle upon half-pay, they were placed upon full pay and allowed to pursue their studies in foreign languages, navigation, and other subjects. It was much to the detriment of officers that they were often kept at home on half-pay, instead of doing some kind of professional work.
§ MR. R. W. DUFFagreed in the suggestion, and thought that a larger sum should be allowed than £150 for the library and allowance to librarian at the College.
§ SIR MASSEY LOPESobserved that the number of officers studying at Greenwich College was now 230, as compared with 194 last year.
§ MR. GOSCHENsaid, that the hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir Massey Lopes) had not answered the point respecting full pay. He (Mr. Goschen) thought it was immensely to the credit of commanders and captains that at their age 661 they should go through the very hard work of the Royal Naval College.
§ MR. HUNTexplained that neither from the authorities of the College, nor from any officer in the service who had been there, had any representation reached him to the effect that captains and commanders should be placed on full pay, and it was not for him to originate a measure which would largely increase the Votes.
§ Vote agreed to.
§ (5.) £75,548, Victualling Yards at Home and Abroad.
§ (6.) £64,644, Medical Establishments at Home and Abroad.
§ (7.) £18,868, Marine Divisions.
§ In reply to General Sir GEORGE BALFOUR,
§ MR. HUNTsaid, they had very little difficulty in filling up the numbers of that force, which was but a very few men short at the present time.
§ Vote agreed to.
§ (8.) £73,330, Medicines and Medical Stores, &c.
§ MR. GOURLEYsaid, he took objection to the item of £15,500 for carrying out the Contagious Diseases Act, and asked for an explanation of how so large a sum was to be expended?
§ MR. ALGERNON EGERTONsaid, he had not the details of that portion of the Vote before him; but he could state generally that the money went to support two hospitals at the naval stations.
§ MR. WHALLEYsaid, he had spent some time at Portsmouth and Devonport Hospitals in making inquiries relative to the working of this Act, and he was convinced that no public money was better expended and for better purposes. The Act had worked well in the social interests of those districts where it was in operation.
§ MR. GOURLEYobjected to public money being used to legalize vice.
§ Vote agreed to.
§ (9.) £15,904, Martial Law and Law Charges.
§ (10.) £148,823, Miscellaneous Services.
§ MR. SAMUDAsaid, he wished to call attention to the smallness of the sum (£2,000) proposed to be set apart for torpedo experiments, which he regarded 662 as being of great and growing importance. He thought the Vote ought to be greatly increased on account of that importance.
§ MR. WHITWELLasked for an explanation of the great increase of the Vote for "officers and seamen."
§ MR. E. J. REEDsaid, that the two vessels of extreme speed proposed to be built by the Government would be valuable in the use of torpedoes. He did not, however, think that the experiments upon torpedoes should be pushed too far, as with fast vessels, which might be used also as dispatch boats, it would be easy when required to develop by their means the best kinds of torpedo warfare. If they took any urgent measures for developing torpedo warfare they would be conferring very great benefits on other countries.
§ MR. GOSCHENwished to know whether the charge for torpedo experiments was separated from the charge for maintaining the Vernon, which had been set apart for instructing officers in the use of torpedoes?
§ MR. HUNTsaid, that torpedo experiments were conducted by the War Office and the Admiralty together. The War Office Vote for the purpose amounted this year, he believed, to £4,500, in addition to the sum taken in the Navy Estimates. But that by no means represented the expenditure on the torpedo system. Independently of the Vernon, which was the torpedo school ship, the Admiralty had been fitting vessels of different kinds for the purpose of torpedo warfare, partly experimental and partly otherwise, and the fitting of those vessels came under the Dockyard Vote. One ship would cost £5,000 to have her fitted out, another £1,000, and preparations were made to adapt vessels of a smaller size for the same purpose. The question was a very interesting one, and every year was assuming greater importance. It was not desirable to go into particulars in discussing the question, but every attention was given to the matter by the Admiralty and the War Office. We had Reports from our naval attaches both in America and the Courts of Europe as to the experiments in these countries, and we were regularly receiving information on the subject.
In reply to Sir HENRY DEUMMOND-WOLFF
§ MR. HUNTsaid, that there was one naval attaché to the Courts of Europe. He was not fixed at any one Court, but travelled from place to place.
§ Vote agreed to.
§ (11.) £888,211, Half-Pay, Reserved Pay, and Retired Pay.
§ SIR JOHN HAYcalled attention to the fact that this Vote had increased by £200,000, which was an addition to the dead weight of our naval expenditure. The good intentions, moreover, of those who proposed it, and owing to whom it had been incurred had not been realized, as the country expected they would be. He would take an opportunity of bringing the subject before the House on a future occasion.
§ Vote agreed to.
§ (12.) £681,781, Military Pensions and Allowances.
§ (13.) £284,529, Civil Pensions and Allowances.
§ (14.) £172,090, Army Department (Conveyance of Troops).
§ SIR JOHN HAYasked for some explanation.
§ Vote agreed to.
§ House resumed.
§ Resolution to be reported on Monday next; Committee to sit again upon Monday next.