HC Deb 28 June 1883 vol 280 cc1802-24

(7.) £864,800, Half-Pay, Reserved Half-Pay, and Retired Pay to Officers of the Navy and Marines.

CAPTAIN PRICE

said, he thought the Committee had some reason to complain of the course taken by the Government in reference to the Navy Estimates. On the 7th of May last the Committee were engaged in discussing Vote 2. Progress on that occasion was reported at a late hour of the night, on the understanding that the discussion on that particular Vote should be continued when the Committee met again. He asked at the commencement of the evening whether they would be in Order in taking Vote 15; and Mr. Speaker ruled that the Government were in Order in so doing, and that it was not altogether a question of Order, but a question of the convenience of the House. His contention was that on the occasion he was referring to the Committee were given distinctly to understand, when Progress was reported, that the Business was to be taken up at the particular stage reached. The noble Marquess the Secretary of State for War was then acting as Leader of the House, and he consented that the discussion on matters connected with the personnel of the Navy should, as in former years, take place on Vote 2. But the Government had now left that Vote altogether, and passed on to Vote 15. His objection to that proceeding was not on the ground of irregularity, but because it would result in the Estimates being put off until it was, for various reasons, too late to discuss them efficiently. The Committee were now asked to grant a certain sum of money, and when it was granted he know very well that the promised opportunity for discussion would be postponed till the month of August. They had always been told that the Navy Estimates should be brought forward at an early period; but, as a matter of fact, they had never been discussed before the first week in August. He submitted that, in the course they were now taking, the Government were not acting properly in this matter, and that the Navy Estimates ought to be discussed at a period of the evening when Members were likely to be present who took an interest in the questions that would be raised. He thought that Progress might that evening have been reported on the Army Estimates at half-past 10 o'clock, for the purpose of proceeding with the Navy Estimates.

SIR JOHN HAY

said, he hoped some assurance would be given from the Treasury Bench that the claims of the widow of the late Captain Brownrigg had not been forgotten, and that she had received some consideration for the gallant manner in which her husband lost his life, as had been promised on a former occasion.

MR. CAMPBELL - BANNERMAN

said, the circumstance referred to by the right hon. and gallant Admiral occurred before he held his present Office, and the case had not come before him. Under the circumstances, he was unable to reply to the question put to him; but he would inquire into the matter and give an answer on Report.

Vote agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That a sum, not exceeding £876,900, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Expense of Military Pensions and Allowances, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1884.

MR. STEWART MACLIVER

said, he might refer under this Vote, which related to pensions, to a new Circular which had been issued by the Admiralty dealing with engine-room artificers. By that Circular, these men had to serve two years more in order to acquire a pension. Hitherto they had been entered for 10 years, and then re-entered for 10 years, while by this new Circular men who had served 10 years were required to serve 12 years more. The effect had been that out of 600 men not a dozen had re-entered; and one reason why they had not re-entered had been this — that the effect of this Circular would be to defer their rise of pay. The number of artificers entered from 1873 to 1876 was 96 — those had obtained their second rise of pay; but under this new Circular their next rise of pay was to be deferred until the completion of the 12th year. They would be deprived of 3d. per day for two years, or 2s. 6d. per man. Then, between the latter part of 1876 to 1882, 313 men joined, and those men would be mulcted of £4 11s. 3d. each, which was 3d. per day for one year, before they got their next rise, and then would be deprived of 3d. per day for two years before they got their subsequent rise. In all, this loss amounted to £13 13s. 9d. per man for men of this class. The loss to the men was something enormous. Men who had joined from 1872 to 1882 would lose to the amount of £5,755 6s. 3d. Surely a mistake like that would not be allowed to continue; and he should be glad to hoar some explanation of it from his hon. Friend the Secretary to the Admiralty.

MR. PULESTON

said, he thought they were entitled to more ample opportunities for the discussion of the ques- tions that were raised in connection with the Navy Estimates. This was a question which they should be placed in a position to consider a little more exhaustively than was then possible. The Prime Minister had said that an entire evening should be devoted to the Navy Estimates, and if that was still the intention of the Government, he did not wish to prolong the present discussion; but if these brief snatches of time only were to be placed at their disposal, then he should follow his hon. Friend opposite fully into the question he had raised with reference to the effect of the recent Circular upon the pay of these engine-room artificers. But his desire was to allow the Vote to pass, on the understanding that another opportunity would be given to discuss the point raised by his hon. Friend as well as other kindred matters.

MR. CAMPBELL - BANNERMAN

said, that the hon. and gallant Member for Devonport (Captain Price) found fault with the Government for not going on with the consideration of Vote 2. He begged to assure the hon. and gallant Gentleman that the reason for the course they were now following was the convenience of the House; because it might otherwise have been alleged that insufficient time was allowed for the discussion which hon. Members desired to take upon that Vote. The money now asked for by the Government was necessary for the pay of the Navy, and he had not anticipated that, under the circumstances of the case, any discussion would have been raised on the present occasion. It was not unnatural that his hon. Friend behind him (Mr.Macliver) should have said something on the subject of the recent Circular, so far as its effect upon the wages of engine-room artificers was concerned; but he thought it would be much better that this question should be considered when they reached Vote 2.

MR. A. F. EGERTON

said, if it were understood that another opportunity would be afforded for the discussion of the question raised by the hon. Gentleman opposite, he thought that it would be better to go into the matter when that opportunity presented itself.

SIR JOHN HAY

said, it was impossible for the Government, notwithstanding the statement just made by the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Admiralty, to make sure of a discussion on Vote 2 on all the subjects connected with the Navy which hon. Members would have to refer to. The difficulty they were placed in was this. The Admiralty asked for £2,000,000, which would meet their expenditure during the months of July and August; and unless the House continued to sit into September he felt sure that the general discussion of the Navy Estimates which had been promised would probably be postponed until the next Session of Parliament. His hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Devonport (Captain Price) complained of the invariable delay which took place in bringing forward the Navy Estimates. The result of that delay was that the Estimates were year after year shunted until the and of the Session, the Government, in the meantime, having obtained without the least trouble all the supplies they wanted. It was true that when the end of the Session approached the Estimates would be brought forward; but hon. Members would then find that no one was present to discuss them. The rest of the money would then be taken for the Shipbuilding Vote and the Vote for the matériel of the Navy, and so the general discussion that was to have taken place would be again put off indefinitely. The fact was, this was really not the way in which Public Business ought to be conducted. He did not blame the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman) in the slightest degree; but he considered that the £10,000,000 required for the service of the Navy ought not to be voted in a slipshod manner. Two nights only had been given to the discussion. The general discussion had not yet been completed. He was sure that those who were present upon the two last occasions would not say that there was any prolonged or unnecessary discussion. The Government were now asking for £2,000,000 without any discussion whatever, which would adjourn the proper discussion of the Navy Estimates until the time when no one was present.

MR. CAMPBELL - BANNERMAN

said, the Prime Minister had given an assurance that night that the Government would take care that an opportunity would be given for resuming the discussion of the Navy Estimates. That promise would be fulfilled. There was no intention that the Votes should be put off until the end of August; but, of course, the Prime Minister was unable to state a definite day on which they would again be taken. The right hon. Gentleman had, however, promised that the House should shortly have an opportunity given to it for discussing Naval matters. Two nights had already been given for discussing Navy Estimates; and if the first night was not a full one, it was not the fault of the Government, but owing to the fact that a Motion was brought on before the Estimates.

SIR JOHN HAY

said, that if they were very soon to have a discussion on the Navy Estimates it would be better the hon. Gentleman should only take £1,000,000 instead of £2,000,000; £1,000,000 would last him all through July, and then the Committee would be assured that the promise of the Prime Minister would be necessarily fulfilled before the closing days of the Session. That was the proper Constitutional course to take.

THE CHAIRMAN

I must point out to the Committee that, in my opinion, the question raised by the hon. Member for Plymouth (Mr. Macliver) is in no wise relative to Vote 2. That is the Vote on which he may properly raise the question.

MR. PULESTON

said, in reference to what had fallen from his right hon. and gallant Friend (Sir John Hay) and the Secretary to the Admiralty (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman) as to the pledge given by the Primo Minister that they should have an early day for the discussion of the Navy Estimates, he might remind the Committee that the Prime Minister had said that they intended to go on continuously with the Committee on the Parliamentary Elections (Corrupt and Illegal Practices) Bill. That alone precluded them from any chance of reexamining and considering the Navy Estimates at an early day.

MR. STEWART MACLIVER

said, he understood that on the last occasion when the Estimates were before the Committee he could introduce the question of the engine-room artificers upon the present Vote. The Chairman had now ruled that it could not be taken except under Vote 2. What he wanted particularly to call attention to was, that of the 600 engine-room artificers not a dozen of them had consented to re-enter the Service, on account of the irregular character and the obnoxious regulations of the Circular recently issued. He would like to know whether the Secretary to the Admiralty (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman) meant to modify the terms of the Circular or not?

CAPTAIN PRICE

considered that Votes 1 and 2 were proper Votes on which the hon. Gentleman the Member for Plymouth (Mr. Macliver) could very properly raise questions with regard to the engine-room artificers. As concerned the Vote immediately before the Committee, he (Captain Price) desired to say one or two words regarding the rating of chief petty officers. That was a question strictly of pensions. He believed he was correct in saying—and he was sure the Secretary to the Admiralty would. correct him if he was wrong—that reports had been made to the Admiralty, by officers in Her Majesty's Service, that there was a difficulty in getting men to take the rating of a chief petty officer. Generally speaking, that rating was offered to men of 14 or 15 years' service, just four or five years before they retired from the Service. There was great difficulty in getting them to come forward, and for this reason—that there was no difference made in the pensions of the men from what they would receive if they remained in the Service simply as petty officers. A man had to consider what gain it would be to him to take the rating with the increased responsibility of chief petty officer. He had an increase of pay amounting to 5d. per day. So far so good; but, on the other hand, he had to provide himself with a new uniform, and that cost him £13. He was allowed to sell his old one, which brought him in about £2; so that altogether he was £11 out of pocket. It therefore took him about 18 months of his increased pay before he could meet the cost of the uniform; so that naturally what a chief petty officer looked forward to was his pension. That was the root of the difficulty. They did not get proper men to come forward. Captains of ships and Admirals of ports had almost to press young men—men who were not fitted for the rating—to take the rating of chief petty officer, because the officers who had had long experience would not take it for the reason he (Captain Price) had indicated. He hoped the Secretary to the Admiralty would be able to say whether the Admiralty had considered the matter, and if they had come to any decision. He trusted he had made the case clear; it was a very simple one, and he hoped the effects were as he had stated. If they could not get proper men to take the rating, they must look for the reasons; and if the reasons were as he believed them to be, it was a fair case for some amelioration to be given.

SIR EDWARD J. REED

said, it appeared to him that the Committee were at some disadvantage by the ruling just given. It was clearly understood when Vote 1 was passed, that the Committee would be allowed on Vote 2 to range over the whole Estimate as if Vote 1 had not been passed. He was, therefore, quite startled to learn that they would be debarred, when they came to Vote 2, from giving the discussion the range which was distinctly understood it might take. He considered that the discussion had disclosed what he believed to be very grave irregularities in connection with the Estimates. It seemed to him most improper that the Government should, on an occasion like this, take Votes for £2,000,000 for Half-Pay and Pensions, and should feel at liberty to apply that money over the whole range of the Naval Service. He believed that was thoroughly and entirely unconstitutional, although he knew it was not unusual. And it appeared to him that a very great improvement upon the Constitutional practices of the House would take place if they insisted upon the Government of the day expending only the money which the House of Commons voted. Now-a-days they got Votes of this description for one set of Services, and they spent the money upon other sets; and they felt themselves at liberty to postpone the full discussion on the Naval Estimates to a period in the Session when it could not be properly discussed. His opinion was that the House would do well, if instead of passing, as it sometimes did, abstract Resolutions in favour of economy, it asserted its control over the expenditure, and only allowed that specific expenditure which it had voted. Now, he wished to say a word or two upon the Vote which was now before them. He should only say a word or two, and that by way of protest. It had been the fashion lately for hon. Members on the other side of the House to accuse hon. Members on the Ministerial side of saying things out of the House which they dared not say in the House. Now, he wished to state in the House, more strongly than he had ever stated out of it, that his objection was to that lavish expenditure—that increasing expenditure—of the public money upon the Non-Effective Services. He took the trouble that evening to look through the Votes of that year, so as to find out how much the Government considered they could afford to spend upon the additions to their Iron-clad Fleet. He found that, upon making a liberal estimate, the whole amount they proposed to spend on their iron-clads was but £1,000,000. What, however, they proposed to expend upon half-pay and pensions was £2,000,000. It did seem to him a most deplorable thing that, while the Votes of Parliament for the necessary and efficient performance of the Public Service and the keeping the country in its proper position should be subject to diminution, the Vote for Non-Effective Service should go on increasing year by year. It would be a shame and a disgrace that Parliament should separate and dissolve without taking some active stop for the purpose of checking the Government in continually increasing this Vote for half-pay and pensions. He knew he did not get much support in a matter of this kind; but he was satisfied the Public Service was suffering immensely from the present state of things. He wished it to be clearly understood that in saying that he was not opposing in the abstract and generally half-pay and pensions; but what he did oppose was the very extraordinary and constant growth of the expenditure under that head. He maintained that there was no Service in the world which could go on continuously increasing the appropriation of money to persons for doing nothing without arriving at a grave and unexpected disadvantage. He did not know whether they would receive that night from the Secretary to the Admiralty any encouragement to believe that the Government were taking any measures with the view of checking the growth of expenditure under that head. He recognized perfectly well the importance and magnitude of the question, and he know also that a prospective reduction of those Votes was a matter of great difficulty. But he did not think it would be satisfactory to hon. Members of the Committee to be told that those Votes must go on increasing merely because it was difficult to prevent their growth. He considered that was a question which the Government ought to face; and he, for his part, found it difficult to give anything like cordial or hearty support to any Administration whatever which passed over a subject that had become one of grave scandal, seeing that in the course of a few years it was shown, by the Return obtained by the hon. Baronet opposite (Sir Massey Lopes), that wasteful expenditure had nearly doubled. He thought he would receive much support, on the contention that it amounted to a public scandal, that while they saw the nation could only afford to spend £1,000,000 a-year on improving their Fleet, they spent no less a sum than £2,000,000 upon people who did nothing at all. If they could receive any encouragement from the Government to look for a diminution he should be glad; if not, and providing he could get reasonable encouragement, they would be justified in trying next year to carry some adverse Resolution.

THE CHAIRMAN

The hon. Gentleman the Member for Cardiff (Sir Edward J. Reed) expresses some surprise at my view with regard to the Motion proposed by the hon. Member for Plymouth (Mr. Macliver). It is strictly in accord with the Rules of this House, as they have been practised for several years. The hon. Member for Plymouth has raised a question which was referred to distinctly and specifically in the Vote before the Committee, and which Vote was announced in the Orders of the Day. This is clearly a proper occasion to bring it forward. It is not proper to refer to it on Vote 2, to which it has no relevancy whatever.

MR. CAMPBELL - BANNERMAN

said, he did not understand his hon. Friend (Sir Edward J. Reed) to throw any doubt—in fact, he would have been behaving in an improper way if he had done so—upon the ruling of the Chair. While admitting that the decision of the Chair was in accordance with the Rules of the House, his hon. Friend alluded to the fact that there was an understanding among Members of the Committee as to the mode of arranging the discus- sion. He (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman) thought the Chairman said on a previous occasion that questions might be dealt with under Vote 2 which were strictly not in Order under that Vote, if there was a general agreement in the House that that should be allowed—and he (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman) thought there was that general agreement at the time. With regard to the subject of half-pay and pensions, raised by the hon. Gentleman (Sir Edward J. Reed), he could assure his hon. Friend that there was no one who looked upon the whole system of pensions with greater distrust and suspicion than he did himself. But, whatever they might think of the results of the system, they could not deny it was a system upon which the whole Public Service was built; and if there were those large Votes for Military and. Naval and Civil pensions, it was because they had induced officers and men to enter the Service many years ago on the understanding that there was so much pay and so much pension. That might be, or it might not be, a wasteful and improper way of conducting the Public Services. He dared say there was a good deal to be said in favour of paying a man the full amount he earned, and getting rid of the bargain of paying him a pension. But, unfortunately, whatever might be the merits of the question which was now raised it would only affect those who entered the Service in the future. The men who were now serving, and whose pensions formed the burden of the complaint, were men in regard to whom they were bound to carry out their obligations. The Government had no power to affect the growth of that Vote, as far as officers and men now serving in the Army and Navy were concerned. He bad one little crumb of comfort to give his hon. Friend, which was this—that in this year there occurred a cessation of the first Terminable Annuities in connection with the commutation of pensions, in consequence of which there was a saving this year to the extent of £17,898. That decrease would go on year by year for some time to come. He would also point out that the Government proposed, if Parliament would agree to it, to make a slight alteration in the service of the seamen who were to be engaged in the future, which would defer the period when they would become entitled to pensions. That was a step in the direction which his hon. Friend desired to see followed. But as to any sweeping reduction of that Vote, it was perfectly impossible it could be accomplished; because the nation had made certain contracts with officers and men, who were now serving in the Army and Navy, and it was bound, of course, to discharge its obligations.

MR. ILLING WORTH

said, he wished his hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff (Sir Edward J. Reed) had gone one step further. It was a debatable question whether the system of pensions was one really necessary for the Public Service. As a matter of fact, he considered that one of the evils of their Service was that they had about double the number of officers to any other civilized nation in the world. ["Oh, oh!"] He thought he could make good his statement. In the German Army they had only about half the number of officers that we had. [Mr. ASHMEAD - BARTLETT: No, no.] The fact was so notorious that he could not imagine anyone but the hon. Member for Eye doubting it for a moment. For his own part, he thought that if they could have public attention turned to the over-officering of the Navy and Army they would not only have a direct and large public saving in that direction, but also in another direction. He did not complain that there was too large a sum for the Non-Effective Services, as compared with the sum voted for the iron-clads and other implements of destruction; but he did consider that, in this country and all other countries, if it were not that the officers had an overwhelming influence in the maintenance of large Standing Armies, the public purse would be largely relieved of a great deal of the expenditure which was now regarded as necessary.

SIR EDWARD J. REED

said, of course he need not say he had any idea of proposing a reduction of anybody's pension who was entitled to a pension. His only desire was to prevent the introduction of any principle by which the Pension List would grow in the future. There was no difficulty in showing that the expenditure which they were providing for the future, upon the personnel of the Navy, was out of all proportion to the number of ships the nation had. As he understood the Chairman's ruling, it was necessary to take that part of the question now, because it could not be resumed on Vote 2; but he did not understand that ruling to limit the discussion to victuals and clothing on Vote 2.

MR. PULESTON

said, he thought it desirable that the Committee should distinctly understand whether, if this subject was brought up on Vote 2, the Chairman would rule that out of Order?

THE CHAIRMAN

I thought I had made matters perfectly clear. I said that the Motion of the hon. Member, which distinctly referred to this Vote, having been raised, it would be irregular to stop it at this point and relegate it to a Vote to which it has no relevancy.

MR. PULESTON

wished to know whether, when the subject was brought up again, the Chairman would rule that to be out of Order? Upon that would depend the course he would take now.

THE CHAIRMAN

I am unable to explain myself with greater clearness than I have already done three times.

CAPTAIN PRICE

said, he thought the Committee were getting a little mixed. It was about time they should review, and if possible reform, their procedure on the Navy Estimates. Vote 1 was wages for Seamen and Marines; but that was the Vote upon which the Minister introduced the Estimates, and covered all the ground connected with the Estimates, and hon. Members, in reply, covered the same ground, and discussed not only the question of wages, but shipbuilding, and pensions, and every matter connected with the Navy. It was found, however, that there was not time in one night to discuss all these matters; and the Government being anxious to get their money, Vote I was tacitly passed on the first night, with the understanding that on Vote 2 the same discussion should be renewed. As a matter of fact, on the last occasion they discussed very freely on Vote 2 the question of the matériel of the Navy chiefly in regard to shipbuilding, and then reported Progress, on the understanding that on the resumption of the debate on Vote 2 only questions relating to the personnel of the Navy should be discussed; but that meant not only that they should discuss pay, but also pensions, so that he took it when they came to Vote 2 it would be open to them to discuss every question relating to the Navy. He hoped that, as had hitherto been the case, when they came to that Vote, they would be at liberty to discuss such a question as that which had been raised by the hon. Member for Plymouth (Mr. Macliver)—namely, that of the engine.room artificers, and their pay and pensions.

MR. PULESTON

said, that, whatever was right or wrong in this matter, many of the Dockyard Representatives were absent to-night, on the understanding reiterated by the Prime Minister, that all these matters would be discussed on Vote 2. He respectfully repeated his question whether, on Vote 2, these questions would be ruled out of Order? Because upon the reply to that question would depend his action now.

MR. CALLAN

asked, whether, as a matter of procedure, it was in Order for the Government or the Front Opposition Bench, the Chairman having ruled that the question of pensions could be raised only on Vote 15, to make Rules to suit their own convenience, and discuss any matter but that which was before the Committee?

SIR JOHN HAY

said, he thought the matter before the Committee showed the great inconvenience of the course the Government had taken. The result of taking Votes 15 and 16 had been to entirely overturn the agreement which the Government had made. He was sure the Chairman's ruling commended itself to everyone present. Votes 15 and 16 had been brought before the Committee, and subjects relevant to them must be discussed upon this Vote. No doubt, upon Votes 1 and 2 the whole Naval arrangements had, as a matter of convenience, been discussed; but if, by arrangements which were excessively inconvenient, two Votes were taken without discussion to enable the Government to obtain £2,000,000, it was evident that none of the subjects appertaining to Votes 15 and 16 could be again discussed on Vote 2, in anticipation of Votes 15 and 16, which had already been discussed. The breaking of the arrangement which had been come to with the House did not rest with the regulations of the Committee, which they must all adhere to. It rested with the Government, who had come down and, in anticipation of the necessities of the Service, had appropriated £2,000,000 to be devoted to paying pensions and shipbuilding which were in arrear. That would keep them going during July and August; so that, although he recognized the desire of the Prime Minister to give an early day, what with the Parliamentary Elections (Corrupt and Illegal Practices) Bill and other matters, such an opportunity would not arrive until well on in August. By that time the £2,000,000 would be exhausted, and so would the attention of Members, and the Government would be able to take the rest of the money without discussion. Subjects relating to Votes 15 and 16 could not be discussed now; but he asked the Chairman whether, with reference to other subjects not appertaining to those Votes, the arrangement would still continue?

THE CHAIRMAN

There was, no doubt, what I must call an understanding—but that cannot be considered as of the importance of the Rules of the House—that on Vote 2 a general discussion was to be permitted; but, in the meanwhile, this question has been raised by the hon. Member on the Vote to which it strictly applies; and, therefore, it would not be proper, in my judgment, to relegate it to a Vote to which it has no relevance. I should consider that I was carrying out the Rules of the House, and of the Committee, if I gave a general effect to that understanding, which was accepted. It seems to me to be the general wish that there should be some discussion on Vote 2, somewhat of the nature of the discussion on Vote 1; but, clearly, it would not extend to matters which had been brought forward in their proper order.

MR. W. H. SMITH

said, he thought there was a little misunderstanding upon this question. The hon. Member for Cardiff (Sir Edward J. Reed) had referred to certain Orders or Circulars with regard to engineers and artificers, and the period at which they would be entitled to pensions. It appeared to him that the conditions under which engineers and artificers and other servants of the Crown might apply for pensions, were conditions which might properly be discussed on a Vote which concerned such distinct employment. This Vote was understood to apply to the payment not by way of food, but by making provision for those public servants; and the conditions under which they would cease to receive payment directly, and become eligible for pensions, clearly entered into the terms of their engage- ment. He, therefore, submitted that it would be proper that the Circulars should be discussed when Vote 2 came on again; and he concurred with his hon. Friend that there was considerable inconvenience in interrupting a discussion of this character by another Vote, such as that presented to.night. He was sure the Secretary to the Admiralty would admit that it was not desirable to have this interposition; and it would be much better that on another occasion they should be allowed to proceed regularly with the Estimates, and go through with a discussion that had been begun, because great less of time and inconvenience resulted from this interruption. The hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. Illingworth) appeared to think that the Navy was vastly over-officered, and that the effect was to greatly increase the charge on the public purse for the Navy, in excess of what was necessary for the Public Service; but if the hon. Member should some day be called upon to perform some of the duties in relation to the Navy—as he hoped he some day would be—he would form a very different view upon this question. He himself believed there was no excess of officers in the Navy whatever; and he said this after carefully considering the matter with the greatest possible desire to effect economies in the administration of the Public Service. He was convinced there could be no greater inconvenience than that there should be any excess of any expenditure which could be avoided; but with the advance of science, and with the increased demand for engines, there was much greater employment and necessity for younger officers in the Navy. Where in old days three lieutenants were required in a ship, there was now ample work and necessity for four or five. These officers had to be employed in their younger days, and some provision must be made for them afterwards. They could not be turned adrift after 10 or 15 years' service, to make their way in the world as best they could. There was no excess of officers at present; and if, unfortunately, they found themselves bound to go to war, there would be some difficulty in finding a sufficient number of qualified officers for the ships they would have to put into active service; and he was sure his opinion would be confirmed by those who were now responsible for the conduct of Her Majesty's Navy. Although he regretted that there should be so large a charge for the Non-Effective Service, he was afraid that was part of the conditions of the engagements into which they had entered with these men; and that if they were to do away with the system of pensions now in operation, they would have enormously to increase their rates of pay. These were provisions which offered very small rewards for zeal, and intelligence, and education, and devotion to the Service; and it was quite certain that if men were exposed to the chance of being dismissed from employment to which they had devoted themselves, at the age of 35 or 40 years, there would be greater difficulty, in the first instance, in finding men, and, next, it would be necessary to very largely increase the pay; and even then he doubted whether the country would be as well served as it was at the present time. With regard to the conditions under which the blue-jackets entered the Service, he was glad to find than an endeavour was to be made to extend the period when they would be entitled to pensions. He believed that the Service would be greatly benefited by that postponement in every way. The blue jackets jackets would acquire a greater responsibility, and would thus improve the Service; it would lessen the charges for the Service, and there might be economy in giving higher pensions after 25 years' service, instead of after 20 years' service, as at present. The effect on the lower deck men would tend greatly to the improvement of the discipline and tone of the ships. He regretted that hon. Members, who had not any personal knowledge of the Service, had spoken, as they sometimes had, of officers who deserved all credit, and the most complete confidence of the country; for he was sure that anyone who had any knowledge of the sacrifices these men made could thoroughly appreciate the extent of the demands of the Service upon these officers in times of emergency and difficulty.

MR. ONSLOW

wished to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty what he meant by saying that he was a convert against the system of pensions? In this Vote there were pensions to officers for good and meritorious services; pensions for conspicuous bravery by engineers and warrant officers; pensions for the widows of naval officers; and gratuities for seamen and marines. Would the hon. Gentleman like to qualify the statement he had made? How far would he go to abolish these pensions? The Secretary of State for War had gone so far as to say that pensions must be increased in the Army. Did the hon. Gentleman intend to do away with pensions in the Navy altogether, or to increase the existing pensions? He thought every officer in the Navy would wish to have some explanation of the statement; and it was due to the Committee that the hon. Gentleman should give some explanation.

MR. CAMPBELL - BANNERMAN

said, his explanation was that he had not made such a statement. He had explicitly said that nothing that was done with regard to pensions would affect anyone now in the Navy. With respect to the question of the hon. and gallant Member for Devonport (Captain Price) as to petty officers, that matter was now under consideration, and the Admiralty were endeavouring to arrive at a satisfactory conclusion upon it. The same thing might be said with regard to the question of engine-room artificers. A complete answer had not been received to the Circular which had been issued; but if the proposal was ultimately found insufficient for its purpose, they would be ready to consider further what should be done.

MR. PULESTON

said, with regard to the hon. Gentleman's statement that he could not give a further answer as to the Circular, under the ruling of the Chairman the matter could not be brought up again; and he, therefore would move that Progress be reported.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Puleston.)

MR. CAMPBELL - BANNERMAN

said, he hoped the hon. Member would not persist in his Motion. The Committee had been for three-quarters of an hour discussing whether a particular matter could be discussed or not; and the Chairman had distinctly stated that if there was a general understanding that this matter should be alluded to, he would not raise any objection to that being done on Vote 2.

MR. PULESTON

said, that was all he wanted to know.

MR. CAMPBELL - BANNERMAN

said, with regard to the engine-room artificers, their pension was only one point in their case, and, as the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. W. H. Smith) had pointed out, it really turned mainly upon the conditions governing their arrival at a pensionable period. It might probably be discussed on Vote 2, and he hoped the hon. Member would be satisfied with that.

THE CHAIRMAN

My duty is to carry out the Rules of the House, and there can be no question of what those Rules are in relation to this matter. The question now raised cannot, in my opinion, be referred to on Vote 2. That would be out of Order, were it not that there was a general understanding on the part of hon. Members that when Veto 2 came on I should not interpose. In the meantime, however, the question now raised by the hon. Member has been raised in its proper place, and has been discussed, and it would, therefore, be improper to remove it from that place in order to discuss it on a Vote to which it has no relevancy.

SIR EDWARD J. REED

said, that, if he rightly understood the Chairman, he meant to say that, so far as the pen.sions of the engine-room artificers were concerned, that question could not be raised again, but that the question of the pay of these people could be discussed again on Vote 2. Was that what the right hon. Gentleman had said? As to the unfair manner in which his hon. Friend the Member for Bradford (Mr. Illingworth) had been referred to, he wished to say this. It had been suggested that his hon. Friend had said something derogatory to some of the officers of Her Majesty's Navy.

MR. R. N. FOWLER

rose to Order. He believed the Motion before the Committee was that the Chairman do report Progress.

THE CHAIRMAN

Under the New Rules the hon. Gentleman must confine himself to the Question before the Committee

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

wished the Chairman to give the Committee some assistance in this matter. It was plain, from what had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. W. H. Smith), that he had misunderstood the question. If they passed this Vote, this matter could not be raised again; therefore, the passing of the Vote finally closed the discussion, and it would appear that the pledge given by the Prime Minister to the Committee would not be fulfilled—namely, that the whole question of Naval affairs could be discussed on Vote 2. In consequence of the right hon. Gentleman's pledge many hon. Members who were connected with the Dockyards were not now present to take part in the debate. The Government had, unintentionally, no doubt, got themselves and the Committee into this difficulty, and it would be only fair that they should see themselves and the Committee out of it. He would suggest, therefore, the propriety of postponing the Vote.

MR. CAMPBELL - BANNERMAN

said, he did not know whether the hon. Gentleman understood it, but only a small part of the case was affected by the consideration about which they had heard so much—namely, the question of the engine-room artificers' pensions. It was only the question of pensions which came under this Vote, and the whole of the rest of the case of the engine-room artificers could be discussed on Vote 2. The Question before the Committee was really whether they should go out of their way, by reporting Progress, to put off the Vote, when really only a small part, even of the case of the engine-room artificers, was involved.

SIR JOHN HAY

said, that if the Government would agree to a proposal he had to make, probably the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Puleston) would withdraw his Motion for reporting Progress. The Government had already obtained Vote 15, and if they would consent to take only the 1st section of Vote 16 they would have £1,500,000, which would be sufficient money to carry them on until the early part of August, and the Vote would be kept open for the subject which hon. Members interested in Dockyards wished to discuss.

MR. W. H. SMITH

said, it was never understood that any part of this Vote should be postponed until the early part of August. The Prime Minister had promised that an early day should be given for the discussion of this Vote; and it would not be in accordance with that understanding if these Estimates were postponed at the end of June until the beginning of August. They could not call the beginning of August an "early day."

MR. GLADSTONE

said, the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. W. H. Smith) was perfectly right in what he had said. The intention of the Government had certainly not been that this Vote should be taken so late as August, but that it should come on some day in July. It appeared to him that in a particular instance where a certain point had been discussed, as he understood had been the case with the subject of these pensions, it could hardly be supposed that the granting of an interval between the first and second part of the Vote was a question which fell within the spirit of the undertaking of the Government, any more than he understood from the Chairman it fell within the Rules of the Committee.

SIR JOHN HAY

said, that certain Members had believed that the general discussion would take place on Vote 2, and they were anxious to discuss, not the general, but a particular question. This particular subject rose on Vote 16. The right hon. Gentleman who presided over the Committee had ruled that this particular question could not be discussed on Vote 2. The Vote in which it occurred happened to be divided into two parts, and the first part of it had been put by the Chairman, and included a large sum for the expenses of the Navy in addition to the amount already granted. The proposal he made, which was to take the first half of the Vote now, and to leave the second upon which hon. Members wished to raise a specific question, was perfectly legitimate. Hon. Members were not present to raise this specific question in consequence of the pledges of the Government.

CAPTAIN PRICE

said, that the Prime Minister, in the few observations he had delivered, had given them a good reason why Progress should now be reported, and he did not think that anything which had been said had removed that reason. If the Prime Minister were even to give them a day for the discussion of the Navy Estimates they would be estopped from considering this subject of pensions now, or, at any other time this Session. Hon. Members had been in possession of the field the other day in discussing Vote 2. Under that Vote they could discuss the pensions of all Her Majesty's servants connected with the Navy; but now, if they passed this Vote, or part of it, they would be estopped from discussing the question which they wish to discuss.

THE CHAIRMAN

I observe in Section 2 there is a Vote taken for artificers, and if that section is not now put, I presume the discussion could be taken on it.

MR. CAMPBELL - BANNERMAN

said, the engine room artificers' pensions only appeared in part 1.

CAPTAIN PRICE

said, there was a large question as to pensions to be gone into.

MR. PULESTON

thought it was a mistake for any hon. Gentleman to suppose that the question of pensions was a small one.

MR. RAIKES

could not help asking the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he would not be economizing time by accepting the Motion for reporting Progress? It was clear the question hon. Members wished to discuss could not be raised on Vote 2. Was there, therefore, anything to be gained by endeavouring to divide Vote 2 into two sections?

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 47; Noes 74: Majority 27.—(Div. List, No. 154.)

Original Question again proposed.

MR. W. H. SMITH

said, he would venture to ask the Prime Minister to allow Progress to be reported now. It seemed to him that time would be saved by adopting this course, and that there would only be a small amount of discussion on the matter when it came before the Committee again. Undoubtedly, if the Vote were pressed on now, it would involve a great waste of time. A sufficient sum of money had been granted for the Public Service which would prevent any inconvenience whatever being experienced during the interval.

MR. GLADSTONE

said, he could not accede to reporting Progress upon the plea of the right hon. Gentleman, that some hon. Members were not present owing to their not having been aware that the subject was coming on for discussion. However, although the Government could not appreciate the reason given why Progress should be reported, they owed some consideration to the Committee. It had been suggested that if an adjournment were granted the discussion on a subsequent occasion would not be prolonged. To this no one had objected, and he supposed he might take it that silence gave consent. On this understanding he would accede to the wish of a large number of Members.

Resolutions to be reported To-morrow.

Committee also report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.