§ 5. £80,500, Educational Services.
ADMIRAL FIELD (Sussex, Eastbourne)said, he had received a letter that day from a very distinguished officer in the Service, in which he complained that a certain midshipman was about to be allowed to pass his examination for sub-lieutenant before he was 19 years of age. Such a favour was without precedent, except in the case of Royal Princes, or unless a midshipman desired to pass when he was sailing for foreign service, and in that case his seniority would only date from his 19th year. He also referred to the case of a very smart Marine officer who had obtained leave at his own expense, and had gone to Russia and had mastered the language. With a view to encourage the study of that language, Lord Wolseley had got the War Office to make grants to certain officers. The Marine officer and an officer in the Yorkshire Regiment passed the same examination; but while the Line officer received a bonus of £150, the Marine officer got nothing. He thought it was most important that sub-lieutenants should be trained in the handling of torpedo boats, and he also considered that there should be some competent persons to teach swimming.
MR. GIBSON BOWLES (Lynn Regis)called attention to the system of examination at Greenwich, and said that the students who competed were not told in what respect their answers were wrong, which prevented them from learning anything from the examinations. He was opposed to the prominence given to higher mathematics and to the subject of fortification, contending, in respect of the last-named subject, that it was a mistake to divert the sailor's attention from sea fighting to land fighting. The subject of navigation and nautical astronomy were also referred to, it being shown that, while the navigation course was not obligatory on officers above the rank of sub-lieutenant, the course of mathematics 1540 was, whereas the reverse should be the case. There was also a course of special lectures given, especially by Mr. Lawrence, who preached the greatest nonsense on the subject of International Law, and who was the author of what was held to be an official text-book on the subject. For example, Mr. Lawrence said that no notice of hostilities was required, this doctrine being at variance with the teaching of other writers on International Law. If there was one nation more than another which required a text-book on the Law of Nations it was this country. Certainly a proper text-book to replace the book of Mr. Lawrence, and amplified as to the special necessities of seamen, would be a great advantage. It appeared that the horse marine had become an absolute reality, for he found there was a Vote for instruction in riding of officers of the Royal Marines. In order to complete the system of instruction it should be rendered less theoretical and more practical, and a practical school of tactics was absolutely needed, say, at Portsmouth.
SIR U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTHsaid, he would be glad to receive the details of the cases of the two officers mentioned by the hon. and gallant Member for Eastbourne. He would take care that the subject of the importance of training sub-lieutenants in the use of the torpedo was mentioned in the proper quarter. The subject of teaching stokers swimming had been prominently before the Admiralty since the unfortunate disaster to the Victoria. Active measures had been taken to promote the teaching of swimming among stokers, particularly at Sheerness and at some of the other dockyards. No doubt much had still to be done, but that subject was receiving the careful attention of the Admiralty. With regard to the remarks of the hon. Member for King's Lynn in respect to the Royal Naval College, the points raised would receive careful consideration. If an officer of Marines had to be called upon to act on shore—and they frequently had to act on shore—it was desirable that he should be able to ride. Therefore, a beginning had been made to teach the officers of Marines to ride.
§ Vote agreed to,
§ 6. £59,300, Scientific Services.
1541ADMIRAL FIELDcalled attention to the inadequate recognition given to the Survey Service, as shown by the Hydrographer's Report. He particularly referred to the men. There was no encouragement given to them. Most of their work was done in boats, and they went back to their ships in the evening. It was a severe service, and the men did not receive even extra pay for their work.
§ MR. FORWOODthought that if the right hon. Baronet had given the House the same information as was given in previous years—namely, a Return setting forth the expenditure of the different services of the Navy, similar to the Return given by the War Office as an Appendix to their Estimates, probably the speech of the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Admiral Field) would not have been made. In 1892–93 the expenditure in connection with the Hydrographer's Department amounted to £97,000. Practically £100,000 a year was spent on this work. At present many nations relied upon us to do surveying work which they ought to do themselves. He thought that some International agreement ought to be come to on the subject.
MR. GIBSON BOWLESconsidered that the men—he was not speaking of the officers—engaged in this particular service had some claim on the Admiralty, and some small extra allowance should be made to them in return for their extremely hard work. Our surveys were exceedingly good, and the charts issued by the Admiralty Board were deserving of every word said of them. The Admiralty charts were much superior to other charts issued by private publishers, and it was of the utmost importance that the ships of the Mercantile Marine should be encouraged to provide themselves with Admiralty charts instead of the inferior charts sold by ordinary salesmen. In order to bring about this result, he suggested that the price of the Admiralty charts should be reduced, as also that of The Nautical Almanac, which, he suggested, might be sold for 1s.
SIR U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTHremarked that, considering the excellence of the works and the expenses involved in their production, the charts and The Nautical Almanac were sold at a very 1542 cheap rate, so that he was afraid it would hardly be possible to make any further reduction. The right hon. Gentleman opposite did good service in drawing attention to the fact that £97,000 a year was spent on hydrographic work and surveying, and he mentioned that a Return was not presented this year. It was dropped by the Board of the Admiralty (of which the right hon. Gentleman was a member) last year, and was not presented to Parliament. It was prepared for the use of the Admiralty, but was never ordered by the Admiralty to be printed and presented as a Return, and the same course had been adopted this year. It was a useful document to refer to, but he was not quite sure whether it was worth the expense of printing it. He would consider the suggestion that extra pay should be given to men engaged in survey work. He could not forget, however, that if extra pay was granted in one quarter it was exceedingly difficult to refuse it in others, and therefore he could not undertake that the suggestion would be given effect to. Reference had been made to the discovery of rocks, and the more complete the surveys became the more rocks were discovered. He was afraid it would be impossible for any official survey to discover all these rocks in all parts of the world, but the Admiralty did their best in this direction, and it was satisfactory to find some rocks were discovered before disasters resulted. He would promise that all the matters mentioned should receive careful consideration.
§ COMMANDER BETHELL, who said he had had some years' experience in this particular branch of the Service, observed that the men engaged in surveying had the hardest work in the Naval Service, and that for many years it had been recognised that they ought to be given more pay. The same inducements as were formerly given, and which for some reason had been taken away, should be held out to officers to join this Department of the Service, which was a very important one, but which there had always been a difficulty in getting officers to join.
§ Vote agreed to.
1543§ 7. £172,000, Royal Naval Reserves.
§ LORD G. HAMILTON (Middlesex, Ealing)said, he believed there was some understanding that they should, if possible, dispose of all the Votes that night, therefore he should curtail his observations on this and other Votes to the smallest possible compass, because he hoped the House of Commons would be able to get through that necessary work and then adjourn at a respectable hour. He wished to ask whether anything had been done towards the experiment of placing the firemen on the same footing as the men of the Naval Reserve, and whether the system of training the Naval Reserve had been changed? The period of training which the Naval Reserve had hitherto undergone was 28 days, and he understood that some alteration had recently been made or was proposed to be made.
§ SIR G. BADEN-POWELLbrought forward certain complaints made by the firemen, the seamen, and the officers of the Royal Naval Reserve. The seamen, he said, were very anxious to be assimilated more and more to the Royal Navy, and he was glad to think that the Admiralty were, at all events, meeting them on some of the points, such as that of clothing. He should like to hear something on the question of pensions. The men of the Royal Naval Reserve had made great efforts to secure what to some men seemed rather a small concession, but which was a great one to them—namely, that the age of receiving pensions in their case should be assimilated to that of the men of the Royal Navy. In the case of the Royal Naval Reserve the age was 60; in the case of the Navy it was 50. It had been stated that the Admiralty were in doubt whether the Royal Naval Reserve should have pensions at all. If they were not to have pensions let the Admiralty say so at once. The firemen had grievances with regard to drill and to certificates of discharge, and he believed they wished also to have some sort of authority in the larger ports to whom they could apply to be registered. If those grievances were met he had no doubt there would be a great improvement in stokers and firemen. The grievance of the officers was with reference to precedence, and he was told 1544 there had been several resignations in India in consequence of this grievance. It was a well-known grievance; and whereas the Royal Naval Reserve, by several Orders in Council, were given precedence after officers of the Royal Navy, suddenly, in 1891, the Indian Marine was brought to life again, and the officers were given seniority over the officers of the Royal Naval Reserve. It was perhaps a matter much of sentiment, but he hoped that the Admiralty would find some way out of the difficulty, perhaps by deciding that the officers of these two Services should be placed on a similar footing of seniority.
ADMIRAL FIELDgreatly sympathised with the view put forward by the hon. Member who had last spoken. He himself considered that the Indian Marine had nothing to do with the old Indian Navy. They did not fly even a pennant in their ships. As to their qualifications, while the sub-lieutenants of the Royal Naval Reserve must have a master's certificate, the sub-lieutenants of the Indian Marine must have only a mate's certificate. Then there were only 170 officers in the Indian Marine, while there were 1,288 in the Royal Naval Reserve. The Indian Marine was not called on to serve out of India, but the Royal Naval Reserve had to serve anywhere and everywhere if wanted. He failed to see why the Indian Marines should be petted at the expense of the Naval Reserve. He supported the Naval Reserve officers in this matter. It was a grievance they felt strongly upon, and a grievance that ought to be settled to their satisfaction. They did not ask to be put before the Indian Marine, but they demanded that the Indian Marine should not be put before and made senior to them. The hon. and gallant Gentleman pointed to the fact that a great many of our seamen, after serving their term of 12 years in the Navy, left the Service altogether. He suggested some inducement should be offered to get them to join the Naval Reserve. If they were engaged to serve for 12 years, from the age of 18, they might, if they did not re-engage at the end of the 12 years, be required to serve five years in the Royal Naval Reserve.
§ *MR. GIBSONBOWLES, speaking as a Royal Naval Reserve officer himself, did not think this grievance of his brother officers with regard to precedence was well-founded. It was not well-founded for this simple reason: The Indian Marine was a permanent service of the first line. The Royal Naval Reserve was not a permanent service; it was ancillary to the other and in the second line, and, therefore, its officers ought to come after the officers of the other Service. As regarded pensions to the Reserve men, he did not think the men had any great grievance; but he thought it would be advantageous if they could obtain pensions on their attaining 50 years instead of 60 years of age.
§ MR. E. ROBERTSONpromised that the various suggestions which had been made by hon. Members should receive full consideration. As to the grievance of the Royal Naval Reserve officers as regarded the precedence allowed to officers of the Indian Marine, he might almost leave hon. Members who had spoken to answer each other, for they had effectively done so. The real fact was, as had been pointed out by the hon. Member for King's Lynn, the Indian Marine was a permanent service of naval men in the service of the Crown. [Admiral FIELD: Not naval men.] They were, at any rate, in the service of the Crown, and they ceased to be civilians. The other men were in a totally different position, and that was why the Admiralty had not been able to listen to the complaint of the officers of the Royal Naval Reserve. The officers of the Royal Naval Reserve had no vested right. It was really only a sentimental grievance, and the difference of the footing on which the officers of the two Services stood justified the Admiralty in the rule they laid down as to precedence. He could hold out no hope that the present Board of Admiralty would alter the rule in this matter laid down by a previous Board. As to the question with regard to pensions being paid at an early age, the matter should receive consideration. As to the query of the noble Lord who asked if the experiment with regard to the firemen had been successful, too short a period had yet elapsed to be able to deter- 1546 mine. As to the training of the Royal Naval Reserves, the recommendations made by Sir George Tryon's Committee had been given effect to.
§ Vote agreed to.
§ 8. £1,315,200, for Naval Armaments.
§ MR. FORWOODsaid, the Committee were probably aware that up to two or three years ago the Vote for Naval Armaments was entirely administered by the War Office. That was a highly inconvenient, and in the case of war a very dangerous, system. In consequence of the appointment of an inter-Departmental Committee of the War Office and the Admiralty, a complete change had been made in the custody of, and responsibility for, naval armaments, so far as regarded account keeping. But there was one important change recommended by that Committee which had not yet been carried out, and that was as regarded the purchase of naval armaments. Although the Admiralty obtained the money from this House, and were entirely responsible for the administration of this Vote, yet for a large portion of the material and supplies required they had to go to the War Office. He would point out that it had been recommended before now that the purchase of these stores should be made by the Admiralty itself—by its officers. It was manifest to anyone who had had any experience that it was impossible—at least that it was highly inconvenient—for one Department to act on behalf of another Department, or to communicate with another on the subject, without having a great deal of unnecessary correspondence. In time of emergency the existing system would not be found workable. He felt it would lead to great confusion. A transfer had already been made on the recommendation of a Committee with respect to the keeping of accounts; but the Committee, of which he (Mr. Forwood) was a Member, also recommended that the whole responsibility in regard to contracts for stores should be borne by the Admiralty. He could only give it as his opinion the change was necessary to prevent the delays and difficulties that must otherwise arise in time of emergency, which, as he said, might lead to serious disaster. One other point. The sum 1547 estimated this year was less than would be required, unless the Government had been able to obtain armaments at a less cost than they were originally put down at in the original Estimate. He hoped the Government would give some information showing the reason for the increase.
§ COMMANDER BETHELLsaid, he had only one or two remarks to make. He wished to know whether the guns to be constructed during the present year were in anticipation of the vessels about to be laid down; and whether the experiments with wire guns were sufficiently satisfactory to indicate a chance of their being carried in the ships of the near future? He would also like to be informed whether experiments had lately been made with shells similar to the melanite shells in use in the French Navy?
§ MR. KEARLEYsaid, he would like to draw attention to the inconvenience to men in the Naval Ordnance Department of having the pay-day changed from Fridays to Saturdays. He hoped the old custom would be agreed to by the Government. There were certain privileges which the men used to enjoy, and which should be granted to them in the ordinary way.
§ MR. E. ROBERTSONsaid, the question of the inconvenience of the pay-day was being considered. The hon. Gentleman was understood to say that as to the privileges referred to full compensation was always made to the men who had lost them.
ADMIRAL FIELDsaid, he wished to know how it came that certain guns of the Colossus had been found unserviceable? He also wished to inquire as to the reserve guns at Malta, and to express his disapproval of the 12-pounder gun being fired from the top of the conning tower in the new torpedo-boat destroyers. He was opposed to the practice of discharging torpedoes from the bow, because of the danger of the vessel overtaking the torpedo. He would point out particularly that, if it had been resolved that the 12-pounder in the new torpedo catchers was to be fired from the top of the conning tower, it would be practically impossible for the officer in the tower to 1548 perform his duties. Upon this question he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would be able to give them some information.
MR. GIBSON BOWLESasked whether the reserve guns were in a reliable condition? With regard to the Colossus, three or four of the guns were found to be unserviceable. They had had other similar experiences, and he would like to know what were the patterns of the guns, and the condition in which they now were?
SIR U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH (Lancashire, Clitheroe)said, what had occurred in reference to the guns of the Colossus was simply ordinary wear and tear. With respect to the guns generally, the assurance he could give was that, instead of the ships waiting for guns, the guns would be waiting for the ships. They were well in advance with the supply of guns for new ships, and, although the battleships under the Naval Defence Act were being pushed forward, and would, he hoped, be finished this year, not one of these vessels would have to wait for her guns. With regard to the system of purchasing naval armaments by an officer of the War Department, there were two sides to the question. Care should be taken to guard against competition between one Public Department and another, and there should be no want of uniformity between the guns of one Department and those of another. Both guns and ammunition should be interchangeable between land and sea service. It was an administrative question of great importance, and would receive the attention of the Admiralty. The present system secured these objects, but he was not quite certain that a system could not be devised which would sufficiently secure them, and yet not be open to the objection urged to the present system.
§ MR. TOMLINSON (Preston)said, there were two or three questions remaining unanswered. He would like to hear whether any change had been made in the guns at Malta.
SIR U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTHwas understood to say that these matters would have attention. The defective guns at Malta were coming home.
§ Vote agreed to.
§
9. Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £380,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Expense of Works, Buildings, and Repairs, at Home and Abroad, including the cost of Superintendence, Purchase of Sites, Grants in Aid, and other Charges connected therewith, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1894.
§ SIR E. TEMPLEsaid, he desired to say a few words upon Gibraltar, which next after the Cape of Good Hope was the most important strategic position they had in the world. He had endeavoured to bring this question on before, but was told that it could not be done until this Vote was reached. He regretted the unavoidable absence—the absence through sudden illness—of the hon. Member for West Belfast (Mr. Arnold-Forster), who desired him to express his regret to the House on this account. In the absence of the hon. Gentleman, who was particularly well acquainted with this subject, he would endeavour to deal with it as well as he could. He would ask the Committee to consider for a moment what were the objects for which they retained Gibraltar, which was one of the most vital positions on earth for our Navy. They retained it, first, as a fortress commanding the Mediterranean; secondly, as a place from which a squadron could issue forth—on the pounce, as it were; thirdly, as a coaling station. These three purposes were answered. There was yet a fourth, which was not answered.
§ THE CHAIRMAN (Mr. ROBY)The Vote is for new works and improvements, and I do not think the hon. Baronet is entitled to raise this question upon it. This is a question of policy, and it is out of Order.
§ SIR C. DILKEsaid, on a point of Order, he would remind the Chairman very respectfully that when the hon. Member for West Belfast spoke on this important subject of Gibraltar on a former occasion he was told by the Chairman of Committees (Mr. Mellor) that he would 1550 be in Order in raising the question on this Vote.
SIR U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTHsaid, the statement was that on the Vote for the New Mole some points in connection with Gibraltar could be brought forward, but it was not said that the hon. Member would be at liberty to go into the whole question of the Rock of Gibraltar and its strategical position.
MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid, it seemed to him clear that they should be able to raise this question on the present Vote, which was for new works. The question he understood the hon. Baronet wished to raise was that of a repairing dock, which would come under the head of "new work." They had been debarred from discussing the question on a previous occasion. Surely they would not be debarred now? They had a right, if he might venture to say so with every respect to the Chair, to discuss this matter.
§ MR. FORWOODIs not the New Mole part and parcel of the new dock, and made from its excavations?
§ MR. E. ROBERTSONThat is not so.
§ THE CHAIRMANIf Mr. Mellor ruled that this discussion would be in Order on the present Vote I give way.
§ MR. E. ROBERTSONWhat he ruled, Sir, was that the question of Works should come up on the Works Vote, and nothing else. He did not say that a general discussion concerning Gibraltar could come up on this Vote.
§ SIR C. W. DILKE; My recollection is distinctly as I stated; but if there is any doubt on the matter, would not the hon. Member be in Order in raising the matter as a question of high policy on the salary of the First Lord of the Admiralty?
§ MR. JESSE COLLINGSWhether it is the Mole or any other part of the works that is in question, can it be discussed other than on Gibraltar as a whole?
§ THE CHAIRMANIt is clear that nothing can be discussed on this Vote that does not distinctly relate to the works that are to be effected under it—certainly not the question of the retention or the non-retention of Gibraltar.
§ SIR E. TEMPLEI was mentioning this point as a proof—
THE CHAIRMAN (interrupting)The hon. Baronet will be good enough to confine himself strictly to the Vote.
§ SIR C. W. DILKECannot the question of policy be raised on Vote 12?
§ THE CHAIRMANI will deal with that matter when it arises.
§ LORD G. HAMILTONrose—
§ THE CHAIRMANOrder, order! Sir Richard Temple.
§ SIR R. TEMPLEWe are shut out from dealing with a most material point. The Government knew perfectly well that Mr. Mellor gave his ruling in favour of the raising of this question on the present Vote. [Cries of "Order!"] I desire to state the ruling. It was given whilst a speech was being made by the hon. Member for West Belfast regarding the provision of a dock at Gibraltar, to which we understood that this Mole was ancillary. I hold that I am entitled to urge on the Government the importance of providing a repairing dock as part of the works at Gibraltar. You say, Sir, that it is not competent on this Vote to urge that a repairing dock ought to be part of the new works; then I obey your ruling.
§ THE CHAIRMANThe hon. Baronet must confine himself strictly to the Mole.
§ SIR R. TEMPLEThen I must take some other opportunity of raising the more important question. As to the Mole, which certainly is in the Vote, I want to know—and I am speaking in the presence of naval authorities—what is the use of it unless it is followed by a dock? [Cries of "Order!"] The Government are to blame for shortening our privileges. This Mole is a distinct part of the dock, and I beg to point out to the House, and through the House to the country and to all persons who are interested in the well-being and security of our Navy, that the work upon this Mole, which is an essential preliminary and a subsidiary undertaking to the provision of a dock, is being carried out at a snail's pace. Look at the figures presented to us. This year £5,000 is put down, although in another column there is the figure of £54,000 as already spent, 1552 and the total amount, we are informed, yet to be spent is £80,000. At this rate we shall be 10, 15, or 20 years before we complete the Mole. Yet this is an essential undertaking, for in the event of war with France, and a naval action being fought at Toulon, what would become of our wounded ships if they could not put into Gibraltar for repairs? What could they do? They would either have to go to Malta and run the gauntlet of Tunis, or go to Gibraltar and stop there without the possibility of being repaired. They could not be brought to England in the face of Brest and Cherbourg. Therefore, a repairing dock at Gibraltar is vital. I apologise to the Committee for having been obliged to treat this matter in such a fragmentary, cursory, and imperfect a manner, but the fault lies with the Rules of the House, which now and then prevent the proper discussion of matters of the highest importance to our naval supremacy. But we shall take other opportunities of urging this on the Government.
§ MR. KEARLEYwas understood to ask whether the probationary period for labourers in the dockyards was to be abolished. In the case of carpenters and other mechanics at the Works Department, the rates of pay were altogether disproportionate to those which prevailed in the Trades Unions outside. The Union rate of pay for carpenters was 7½d. an hour, which worked out at 31s. 6d. per week, but in the Works Department the wages paid were as low as 25s. The Department frequently undertook work for other Departments, and though the scale of wages paid was only 25s. or 26s. a week the charge made to those other Departments was 7¾d. an hour. The Works Department charged the dockyard when it did work for it a scale equal to the Trades Union rate of wages. If, therefore, the full rate of wage was charged it was only fair that the men should be paid an amount approximating to that. There was a great grievance felt in 1891 under the late Secretary to the Admiralty, and he need not say that since the new scheme had been in force and the mechanics had been left out of consideration altogether the feeling of discontent had become intensified. The 1553 hon. Member (Mr. E. Robertson) in replying would perhaps say that the mechanical capacity of these men was inferior to that of the men employed in the dockyard. He had two arguments to meet that. He had to point out that many of the men had been employed at the dockyards, and when discharges had taken place had joined the Works Department, their characters being good and their capabilities satisfactory. His second argument was the character of the work these men were called upon to do. When the late Commander-in-Chief came to Devonport great alterations were made at his official residence—Mount Wise. Amongst other things, the ball-room was redecorated and the stables were altered in honour of the Duke of Edinburgh taking the command. It was evident that the workmanship must be of the highest quality. The men employed were from the Works Department—and he mentioned this to show that these mechanics were of equal ability to any employed in any other Government Department. He hoped that before the 1st of April, when the new scheme would come into force, the case of the mechanics would be considered, and that they would be put on a proper footing.
§ THE CHAIRMAN (Mr. MELLOR)This Vote is for works, and not wages.
§ LORD G. HAMILTONsaid, he proposed to point out that the money taken in this Vote was inadequate, and he submitted that he would be in Order in taking that course. It would be impossible to discuss the question of adequacy or inadequacy without noticing the works which were deemed necessary. There was a reduction this year of £68,000 in the amounts allocated to these two most important stations. Less money was taken this year than last, when, in his opinion, there should have been an increase, and the Vote was really quite £100,000 less than it ought to be. He had analysed the figures, and found that there was this year a reduction of 20 per cent. in the case of all large works compared with the amount voted last year, and in respect of Malta and Gibraltar the amounts taken were 40 per cent. less than last year. Lately increased importance had been attached to Malta, and larger expense had been incurred 1554 there, but it had been thought necessary also to extend the works at Gibraltar, and the construction of a mole had been decided on. The question of the mole and a now repairing dock being together, the dock would practically be cut out of the rock as an extension of the mole. Last year £5,000 only was taken for the extension of the mole, but the money was unfortunately not spent, and all that it was proposed to do this year was to re-vote that sum. Gibraltar was maintained simply as a naval station, but the whole of the defences there were under the control of the Army; and so long as that system continued, he did not believe there would ever be satisfactory results. The opinion prevailed in many important quarters that Gibraltar was the most strategical position we possessed, and that it was, therefore, essential to render it as perfect as possible for naval purposes. He admitted that there were difficulties in the way which had prevented the Government pushing on with the dock. Still, he thought that a more vigorous attempt should be made to extend the mole. But the War Office and the Colonial Office were of opinion that the population of Gibraltar should not be larger than it was; therefore, it was difficult to carry on the work. Notwithstanding that difficulty, the position of Gibraltar was so important that he thought the difficulty ought to be faced. He would, therefore, impress upon the Admiralty that the question of dockyard accommodation was a pressing one, and he hoped they would take it into their serious consideration. Attempts had been made to get this accommodation supplied through civilian intervention, but he doubted if that would be possible. Steps should be taken to bring the three Departments—the War Office, Admiralty, and Colonial Office—into agreement upon the matter. This question was even more important now than before, because the Admiralty were about to construct two gigantic cruisers, each costing £1,500,000, and the dock at Malta was the only one large enough to receive them. Was it worth while to construct ships if there was no dock at Gibraltar to accommodate them? To his mind, it was a matter of national policy to provide adequate accommodation for these vessels. 1555 He hoped both sides of the House would join in pressing upon the Government the importance of getting on with the work at Gibraltar.
§ SIR C. W. DILKEagreed with the noble Lord as to the importance of this question. At the moment when Russia was establishing naval stations in the Mediterranean, the importance of Gibraltar was increasing every day. There were two naval policies in the event of war—one was to hold the Mediterranean and the other was to retire to Gibraltar, but in either case we should require ample coaling and dockyard accommodation there.
§ SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTsaid, that the value of our trade which passed within reach of Gibraltar, either through the Mediterranean or down the West Coast of Africa, annually was £250,000,000. That was the value of our trade in that part of the world, and it was equally necessary that we should take measures at Gibraltar to protect it whichever of the two policies referred to by the right hon. Baronet we adopted—either that of holding the Mediterranean or retiring to Gibraltar. It was well-known to every great Power in Europe that if war were to break out between us and our great rival in the Mediterranean, our Fleet would, owing to its comparative weakness, have to fall back upon Gibraltar for reinforcements. That was a fact which it was no use attempting to conceal. In all probability the great naval action of the war would take place at or near that place. No doubt some of our ships would be seriously injured, and so long as we had no repairing dock at Gibraltar we should run the risk of having one or more of our ironclads, which cost £1,000,000 each, rendered useless or of losing them, for we should have to send them either to Malta or up the coast of Spain and through the Bay of Biscay to Portsmouth or Devonport, and either route would be beset by an active and powerful enemy. Such a state of things would be absurd. If the late Government had not been compelled to repair the deficiencies and weakness of the Fleet as they found it there was not the slightest doubt they would have undertaken that important work at Gibraltar. With regard to the 1556 mole at Gibraltar, in the opinion of naval authorities that was intimately connected with the question of the proposed dock. According to the evidence given before the Committee over which he had presided, if the dock were constructed it would give facilities, through the excavation of stone, for the construction of 360 additional feet of the mole. He had seen it reported in the papers that the Secretary to the Admiralty and the Financial Secretary were about to proceed to Gibraltar. If that was so, he hoped they would give the closest attention to the question of the site for a dock. He trusted that the Representatives of the Military Service would not allow sentimental objections to prevail against the adoption of this most valuable site. The Mole Parade was not absolutely necessary for the military, and by using that for a dock they would get an admirable site. No position at Gibraltar could be free from land fire, and there would always be a certain risk of that in the event of a war with Spain; but the position in the new Mole Parade was practically invulnerable to sea fire. He hoped, also, that the practicability of a secure mole would be considered for the sake of the comfort of our sailors—who, when lying at Gibraltar, would like to feel secure from torpedo attack—and for the sake of coaling. Coaling was at present carried on at Gibraltar by means of 40 or 50 hulks, which were all in private hands. In the event of war a couple of torpedo-boats could slip in in the dark and destroy all the coal hulks. If a mole were made available for coaling, a royalty of 6d. or 1s. a ton might be charged for coaling, and in this way £20,000 or £30,000 a year might be raised. That would be sufficient to pay the interest on a loan, by means of which the whole of the necessary works could be effected. That might be a too sanguine view of the matter; but, at any rate, it would go a long way towards it, the estimated cost of the mole and dock being £600,000. For this sum an invaluable dock could be obtained at Gibraltar and the port made practically free from torpedo attack—for about two-thirds the cost of one of our line of battleships. When these facts were taken into consideration the Committee, he thought, would agree that the 1557 Government should lose no time in dealing with the matter. In 1890 some 560,000 tons of coal were transferred from the hulks or travelling colliers at Gibraltar to merchant vessels in addition to that supplied to Her Majesty's ships. This was the most pressing question of all in connection with the Navy at the present time, and he hoped the Government would give it immediate and thorough attention.
§ SIR J. GOLDSMIDsaid, that anyone who had been on board a ship in Gibraltar Harbour when she was endeavouring to coal in rough weather, as he had had the misfortune to be, would know how difficult an operation it was, and would be able to form an idea of the risk that one of Her Majesty's ships would have to face, when coaling, with an enemy outside. He was able, therefore, to speak as to the importance of the construction of the mole, and also as to the necessity of dock accommodation. The one thing depended upon the other, and the sooner the mole was completed the sooner would it be possible to provide dock accommodation. He would join in the appeal to the Government to be a little more liberal in their supplies for expenditure in these works. Works quickly executed always in the end cost less than those which dragged their slow length along.
§ MR. E. ROBERTSONsaid, that with regard to what had fallen from the hon. Member for Devonport, who asked whether the probationary period for unskilled labour would be abolished, there were difficulties in the way of his making a statement just now. The hon. Member, however, would be able to form an idea of the nature of his reply from what he had said on a previous occasion. As to the workmen on the Works Department, he proposed to take the course which had been taken in the case of the dockyard men. Nothing had been further from the intention of the Government than to prevent the discussion of a question so important as that of the Gibraltar dockyards; but, of course, the Regulation of Order in the Committee was the work of the Chair. He was not concerned to deny anything that had been said about the desirability—and he might go so far as to say the necessity—of building dock- 1558 yards at Gibraltar. The First Lord of the Admiralty (Earl Spencer) had expressed the views of the Government on this question in another place, and by those views the Admiralty were, of course, bound. One reason why nothing appeared in the Estimates with reference to the dock at Gibraltar was that there were a great many other things which had to be done. A great dock had just been finished at Malta, and two other docks were in progress at Portsmouth, whilst there were pending at Devonport questions of dock-building policy which had to be taken into consideration. The supposition that the mole and the dock were necessarily bound up together in the way suggested by some hon. Members was refuted by the history of the mole itself. The mole had been there 10 years, while the dock was not there yet. The Admiralty had found that they had to strike the balance of advantages this year, and the balance they struck excluded from the Estimates the Gibraltar docks. Some of the hon. Members who had spoken had had the great advantage of having seen Gibraltar, and he hoped to have that pleasure before very long if the Debate was not unduly prolonged.
ADMIRAL FIELDsaid, he thought some of his friends on both sides of the House would some day have a rude awakening on the subject of the dock at Gibraltar.
§ Question put, and agreed to.
§ 10. £160,100, Miscellaneous Effective Services, agreed to.
§
11. Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £231,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Expenses of the Admiralty Office, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1894.
§ SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTsaid, that there had lately been cruising round the Eastern Mediterranean a French Squadron which was as large and as strong as the whole of our Mediterranean Fleet, and there was, in addition, a large squadron of reserves at Toulon. At the same time, the whole of Europe was interested by the fact that the Russian Fleet was about to visit the French at Toulon. It was also stated that arrangements were being made to 1559 establish a Russian Squadron permanently in the Mediterranean with a permanent port or naval harbour. In spite of these important facts, the present Board of Admiralty had allowed our Navy to be depleted by the loss of a first-class battleship without taking any steps to make up for that loss. He regarded this as a failure of policy which was deplorable. He made a strong protest against the Admiralty allowing our Fleet to be weakened by the loss of a great battleship at a time when our naval strength was, in the opinion of many high authorities, below what it should be, when other Powers were slowly increasing their naval strength, and when France, Russia, Italy, and Germany were spending more in proportion to their previous strength in construction than we were spending this year.
§ SIR C. W. DILKEwished to know whether the Government had put on record in any form the reasons which had induced them to refuse to adopt the Report of the Commission on Civil Establishments with regard to the abolition of the position of the Civil Lord of the Admiralty? Of course, nobody would wish to abolish the present occupant of the office; but the view the Commission took was that the administrative work done by the Civil Lord might be performed by permanent officials, and that more Parliamentary work might be discharged by the Secretary to the Admiralty. He wished, further, to know whether fresh instructions were given each year to the naval officers employed on the coast of Newfoundland, or whether copies of the same Instructions were sent out year by year?
SIR U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTHI am not aware that any new Orders have been issued to the officers on the Newfoundland station differing from those it has been customary to issue, nor am I aware that the Admiralty have put on record any new opinion with regard to the retention of the office of Civil Lord; if so, it was done during the time of the late Board of Admiralty.
§ SIR C. W. DILKEThe Commission on Civil Establishments condemned the retention of the office, and the reasons for the adoption by the Government of the contrary opinion ought, I think, to be put on record.
SIR U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTHI will look into the matter, and if my right hon. Friend likes to question me further on the subject, I shall be pleased to answer him. As to what my right hon. Friend says about the possibility of having much of the work done by my hon. Friend the Civil Lord (Mr. E. Robertson) and myself transferred to permanent officials, I heartily agree. An amount of administrative work falls upon us which is quite exceptional in the Public Service. I have really entered so fully on previous occasions into the questions raised by the hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir E. Ash-mead-Bartlett) that I must ask to be excused from repeating what I have said. I have told the House that the fact that the strength of the Navy has been reduced by the loss of the Victoria has been taken into account, and will be considered with the programme for future shipbuilding. We have not thought it our duty to come at once to the House of Commons to ask for a Supplementary Estimate. Of course, we bear the responsibility of not having done so, but I can assure the House and the country that we are not blind to the facts of the case.
ADMIRAL FIELDinquired whether the defects that must have been brought to light by the experiments tried in the Summer Manœuvres would be remedied, and particularly whether anything would be done to get rid of the deficiency in the signalling staffs of torpedo-catchers and smaller ships?
§ THE CHAIRMANThat hardly comes under this Vote.
ADMIRAL FIELDinquired whether the Admiralty would consider the desirability of appointing a Departmental Committee to consider the grievances of the coastguards, warrant officers, and chief boatmen, and the chief officers of the coastguard and the stokers?
§ MR. KEARLEY (Devonport)said, he wished to move a reduction in the salary of the Secretary to the Admiralty (Sir U. Kay-Shuttleworth).
§ THE CHAIRMANIt is out of Order to move to reduce the salary of the Financial Secretary or the Secretary to the Admiralty for the purpose of bringing forward any questions.
§ MR. KEARLEYsaid, in that case he would be pleased to transfer the reduction to the salary of the First Lord of the Admiralty.
§ THE CHAIRMANWill the hon. Gentleman state what his ground is?
§ MR. KEARLEYsaid, his ground was the evasive answers given to questions put by him in the House about the absence of the Commander-in-Chief of Devonport, His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh. The question he put was whether the Secretary to the Admiralty could state the total number of days on which His Royal Highness was absent from his duties on leave or otherwise during each of the three years he was at Devonport. The question was met with a point-blank refusal by the right hon. Gentleman (Sir U. Kay-Shuttleworth), who, however, made some interesting statements which were deserving of consideration. The right hon. Gentleman said the movements of the Commander-in-Chief were governed by the exigencies of the services and by the reasonable requirements of officers; that the Admiralty were responsible for the leave granted to the Duke of Edinburgh, and that the amount of leave granted did not interfere with the efficient performance of his duties by the Commander-in-Chief. He was justified in refusing to accept such a reply as had been given him. He asked for specific information, and he thought he ought to receive it. In the absence of the information which the Government could supply, he had private information of his own—not drawn from official sources, but drawn in the ordinary way from public journals, where the absences of His Royal Highness were noted as they occurred as matters of passing interest. The facts were reliable. His Royal Highness had been appointed for three years, and he held the appointment for two years and 10 months. In 1890 he was absent for 59 days, in 1891 for 116 days, in 1892 for 145 days, and during the time he held the command in 1893 he was absent 49 days, making a total of 369 days. No account was taken in this enumeration of local absences, such as visits to various seats in the neighbourhood, which were described as being within the boundaries of the port.
§ THE CHAIRMANI did not quite catch the last date.
§ MR. KEARLEYsaid, the last absences were in June, 1893. He was well aware that there were certain ways in which these absences could be explained. He must, however, press for information as to the number of days of the Duke's absence—the official record. He thought he was entitled to a better answer than he had yet succeeded in obtaining. There must be some reason for withholding the information. In his opinion, the precedent was dangerous and hurtful, and he would express his sense of disapproval by moving the reduction of the Secretary's salary by £100.
§ THE CHAIRMANThe hon. Member cannot do that.
§ MR. KEARLEYThe Secretary to the Admiralty's salary, Sir? Then I move to reduce the First Lord's salary by £100.
§
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That Item A. Salaries, be reduced by the sum of it 100, in respect of the Salary of the-First Lord of the Admiralty."—(Mr. Kearley,)
§ LORD G. HAMILTON (Middlesex, Ealing)said, he was responsible for the appointment of the Duke of Edinburgh to the command to which the hon. Member had referred. The hon. Member had a right, of course, to pass criticism, but any Member of the Government had a right in the exercise of his discretion to decline to answer him. [Cries of "Oh, oh!"] The hon. Member seemed to have obtained his information as to His Royal Highness's leave from a certain Plymouth paper.
§ MR. KEARLEYThat is not my only source of information. It is a matter of public notoriety.
§ LORD G. HAMILTONsaid, all he could say was that if the paper was not more accurate on this question than it was in its remarks about the late Board of Admiralty no truthful man would attach any importance to it. The Duke of Edinburgh was appointed to the Devonport command by him (Lord G. Hamilton), and everyone knew he was a singularly able officer; and no one 1563 could deny that during the time he was Commander-in-Chief his command was in a most efficient condition. The Duke of Edinburgh was an able administrator, and every time that he himself, as First Lord of the Admiralty, visited Devonport he found the Fleet in the most admirable order. He could not state how many days the Duke of Edinburgh had been absent from Devonport, but he could say that when he accepted the appointment His Royal Highness informed him that he had duties to discharge as personal Aide-de-Camp to the Queen, which might necessitate his absence at certain times from the port. The Admiralty thought that a legitimate cause of absence. During the time the Duke of Edinburgh held the command at Devonport several visits were paid by Royal and Imperial personages to this country, and on these occasions it was natural that the highest personage in the realm should be anxious to have associated with those exalted personages so distinguished an officer as her son had proved himself to be, and who could take part in the many State ceremonies. It was quite new to him that the Duke of Edinburgh was unduly absent during the time he held the command, and his (Lord G. Hamilton's) strong impression was that, if the facts were accurately known, it would be found that these occasional absences were due to the Duke's position as personal Aide-de-Comp to the Queen, and the ordinary two months' leave, which an Admiral was entitled to, formed the greater portion, if not the entire time His Royal Highness was absent. It did appear to him to be an abuse of the Forms of the House to move the reduction of salary of the First Lord of the Admiralty, because an hon. Member thought he had not been adequately informed as to the number of days on which a certain Admiral was absent from his command.
§ MR. A. C. MORTONsaid, Ministers were paid to answer questions—they might refuse to answer questions, but it would be at their peril—and hon. Members were entitled to the information they asked for. The noble Lord opposite had given the Committee information which the Secretary to the Admiralty might have given in answer to his hon. Friend's question.
§ LORD G. HAMILTONI was personally responsible for the appointment.
§ MR. A. C. MORTONsaid, there was no justification for refusing the information. He wondered what position the Navy would be in if every Admiral were absent from his command for 369 days in two years and 10 months. It was a very serious thing when members of the Royal Family were shown favouritism; and he held that when a member of the Royal Family accepted an appointment, the country had a right to claim that he should do the work attached to it. No complaint was made against the Duke for want of efficiency. The complaint was that he, was not at his post when there was work to do. He was elsewhere instead of discharging the duties of his office. There was a very strong feeling outside with regard to the favouritism shown in such cases as this. The noble Lord had a right to say what he liked, but he was not now in Office; and it was the duty of the Government to give answers to questions put, and not to defy the House and refuse information. He hoped the necessary information would now be forthcoming.
SIR U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTHsaid, he was sorry the hon. Member for Devonport should think that on any occasion he had given an evasive answer. He was always ready to give any information that it lay in his power to give, and he believed his answers were always straightforward. There were certain Rules in the Naval Service as to these matters, and he understood, from his close relations with those at the head of the Service, that it would be a grave departure from what had always been considered the practice to give details of the amount of leave granted to officers holding such positions as that of Commander-in-Chief. Comparisons between one efficient officer and another would be invidious, and it would be improper for the Board of Admiralty to give such information as had been asked for. In his question his hon. Friend had suggested 1565 that there was some want of attention on the part of the Duke of Edinburgh to his duties.
§ MR. KEARLEYI made no suggestion of that kind.
SIR U. KAY-SHUTTLEWOKTHsaid, his hon. Friend said that His Royal Highness was away more than he ought to have been; but this was a question that did not arise for the House of Commons unless there was a departure from the usual Regulations or the public interest suffered. It was his duty, as representing the Admiralty in the House of Commons, to protect any efficient officer from the suggestion that he had done something or left something undone to the detriment of the Public Service. He could assure the hon. Member that he had endeavoured to treat the case of His Royal Highness exactly as he would treat the case of any other Commander-in-Chief. He came now to the Amendment, and he would point out that the leave granted to His Royal Highness since Lord Spencer took Office as First Lord was a small amount. His hon. Friend would see that the First Lord was only responsible for that small amount. He hoped the Amendment would not, in these circumstances, be pressed.
§ MR. KEARLEYsaid, he regretted that he could not withdraw. He could not see why a different attitude should be taken upon these questions when the right hon. Gentleman was in Office from that taken when in Opposition. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to think that he did him some wrong. If he submitted the question to a Committee of a few Members of the House he would guarantee to prove every word he had said—and more.
§ Question put.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 19; Noes 95.—(Division List, No. 308.)
§ Original Question put, and agreed to.
§ The following Votes were agreed to:—
§ 12. £768,700, Half-Pay, Reserved, and Retired Pay.
1566§ 13. £956,400, Naval and Marine Pensions, Gratuities, and Compassionate Allowances.
§ 14. £312,200, Civil Pensions and Gratuities.
§ 15. £60,300, Additional Naval Force for Service in Australasian Waters.