§ Resolutions 5 to 7 agreed to.
§
Resolution 8.
That a sum, not exceeding £1,315,200, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Expense of Naval Commands, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1894.
§ Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
§ MR. BRODRICK (Surrey, Guildford)said, he wished to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty a question with regard to an answer he gave some time ago respecting projectiles. The right hon. Gentleman then stated that an order had been given to a foreign firm for projectiles for the Navy. He (Mr. Brodrick) asked whether firms had been invited to tender for those projectiles, and what was the difference in the tenders as between British and foreign firms? The right hon. Gentleman said in effect that it was not desirable, in the interests of the Public Service, that such particulars should be given.
SIR U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTHWhat I said was that it was not considered desirable to give the names of the firm, or the other particulars asked for in the question, and that I could only 1617 repeat that the foreign tender was more than 30 per cent. below that of any English firm.
§ MR. BRODRICKsaid, that of course a good deal would depend upon what English firms were invited to tender. He thought that, having regard to the information which had been readily given to Parliament in past years, it was somewhat straining a point to keep secret the names of the firms or the prices. It was the falsest economy to depend upon foreign firms for supplying projectiles of which we ought to have a constant power of supply in this country. The late Government found themselves in a great difficulty in this respect, because they experienced a total paralysis of the trade in 1885 and 1886, when sudden demands were made upon it, and it was found impossible to obtain the necessary supplies because the machinery was not laid down, and there was no staff capable of making the projectiles. The policy of the late First Lord of the Admiralty (Lord G. Hamilton) was to build up the trade and endeavour to spread the orders over a number of years, so that a certain number of workmen might be employed, and that there should be a power of expansion. It was perfectly obvious that if our supplies were obtained from Germany and any contingency arose, we should be unable to obtain the projectiles we needed for the country. If the right hon. Gentleman went to Germany for these projectiles, we should not be able to draw supplies from that country if she was engaged in war. They had found a Sheffield firm able to supply these projectiles quickly, the only difficulty being that the Department were not able to give a sufficiently large order to keep the staff employed. If the right hon. Gentleman said that he could not get the supplies at home, no doubt he would be acting wisely in getting them from abroad. But a gain of 30 per cent. was infinitesimally small compared with the enormous extra charge we should have to pay if, in case of war, we should have to obtain these projectiles in a hurry from our own firms. The present was obviously not a time at which to get these projectiles from abroad. Just now there were large discharges taking place at Woolwich, and there were still more coming on. To get arms from abroad was bad policy at 1618 present; it would be absolutely suicidal in time of war. He would ask the right hon. Gentleman what it was besides price which induced the Government to throw over the policy of their predecessors, who aimed at building up a trade within these Islands for providing warlike supplies.
SIR U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTHsaid, he was very glad the hon. Member had brought forward this question, though he thought he had some right to complain that he received no notice of the fact till 20 minutes past 5.
§ MR. BRODRICKsaid, a notice on the subject had been on the Paper for four months.
SIR U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTHsaid, that passing from that matter, he would claim for Her Majesty's Government the right to go to whatever market might be the best market and cheapest market for the purposes of buying what they wanted in the Navy. He thought also he might assert, as a general principle, that the question of price must be considered in buying munitions of war, or any other articles which were needed for the Naval Service. Some prices were prohibitive, and in this case the foreign tender was 33 per cent below that of any English firm. Such a difference in the price was a matter which could not be left out of sight, although he should presently admit that there were other points which they were bound to consider in connection with armour-piercing projectiles. There was another point even more important than price, and that was quality. He wished to say as little as he possibly could, and he hoped he should not in this Debate be driven to say more in respect of the quality of English armour-piercing projectiles. There was a special kind of steel required for the projectiles in the production of which the foreign makers, especially the French, had been much more successful than English manufacturers. It was of paramount importance to obtain projectiles which would pierce thick armour, and for a shell to explode inside the enemy's ship instead of outside. On the general question of quality and price he would quote an authority which he thought the hon. Gentleman would respect— 1619
If the supply could be got in England without an increase in cost, it ought to be done, but it was not easy to get supplies. He hoped the Committee would support the Government, not because he wished to see an extension of the system of buying abroad, but because he thought the best supply ought to be got. The country could not afford to spend £400,000 or £500,000 a year more in buying at home, though if all things were equal the home producer should have the advantageHe was quoting from words spoken by the hon. Gentleman himself in Committee of Supply. Those were principles upon which the Government had acted in this case. The hon. Gentleman was then speaking of supplies of meat to the Army and Navy. He (Sir U. Kay-Shuttleworth) was now referring to supplies of munitions of war. He admitted that another argument came in. He admitted it was of importance that we should in tills country be able to produce those munitions of war, whatever they might be, of which we might have to get increased supplies in time of war. He admitted in such cases some sacrifice of additional outlay might be made if we got the full quality we required. But then the question arose—first, were the quantities required large? Because, if they were not large, then our stores would not need constant replenishment. If they were laying in a small stock which would not need replenishment in time of peace, a store of something which would only be needed in time of war, the question he had just mentioned did not arise. What were the facts in the case of armour-piercing projectiles? The quantity was small, for this reason—they were only supplied to battleships and first-class cruisers. In addition, these projectiles were never used in practice or in times of peace. They were simply stored up for use in time of war. It was extremely unlikely that any of these stores, unless in the event of a very long war, would need replenishing; therefore there was no waste going on, as in the case with other projectiles. Then came another question as to whether it was worth while for English firms, or for the Arsenal at Woolwich, to lay down plant for the production of some article of which only a comparatively small quantity was needed. Their experience was, it was very difficult to get contractors to lay down plant; and that it was very bad economy to lay down a quantity of plant at Woolwich for the production of an article of 1620 which only a small quantity was needed, and which Woolwich would not go on manufacturing from year to year. Those were his answers to the points raised. There had been the greatest anxiety on the part of the Admiralty, as much as on the part of the War Office, to encourage English manufacturers. Orders for armour-piercing projectiles had been given to English manufacturers for the purpose of encouraging them to try and enter into competition with foreigners, and produce what was wanted. But he was sorry to say that the experience of the Admiralty had not been perfectly encouraging. On that subject, as he had said, he did not wish to be driven into a statement on the subject of quality; he did not wish to say anything which might injure English manufactures in comparison with the products of foreign countries. Therefore, he refrained from entering upon that. He wished the House, however, distinctly to understand, and to remember, that the Government were not guided in this matter solely by the question of price. The question of quality had a great deal to do with the decision come to. Acting on the principle which he had just laid down, and desiring to encourage British manufacturers, if possible, to get munitions of war manufactured at home, the Admiralty had taken such steps as were in their power to assist their friends at Sheffield to produce these projectiles.
§ An hon. MEMBER: Were English firms invited to compete?
SIR U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTHThe hon. Gentleman asked whether English firms were invited to compete. Certainly they were—not only one, but more than one—and the very firms with which they had had experience, and who had to some extent produced armour-piercing projectiles—
§ SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTHow many?
SIR U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTHsaid, to the best of his recollection, there were two or three, perhaps even more. He did not think it was good policy to publish to the world the names of firms who had been unsuccessful in a competition. It was not his intention to inflict an injury upon any of their friends, with whom they hoped to have relations in the future, in consequence of their not 1621 being able to produce what was wanted at the present moment. As to the name of the French firm who supplied the projectiles, it was important the name of a particular firm carrying out an order from the British Government should not be found out by any answer he might give in the House of Commons. Their experience was that if a Foreign Government discovered, on official authority, that a particular firm was supplying projectiles or munitions of war to this country pressure might be put upon them. Our interests at home might thereby suffer, and he would consequently refrain from giving the name of the foreign firm.
§ COLONEL HOWARD VINCENTIt is perfectly well known.
SIR U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTHsaid, he dared say such might now be the case, but he was not going to give the name officially. As to the efforts which had been made by the President of the Board of Admiralty to assist their friends in producing these munitions of war, the firm who failed to get this order because the French tender was 33 per cent. below their tenders was no doubt very much disappointed at failing to secure the order. He arranged that a special interview should be held with that firm, and the Director of Naval Ordnance gave to that firm, as he was prepared to give to any other firm in the United Kingdom, the fullest information that they could require on any point on which they needed information, and which would enable them to compete with foreign firms. He was present at the interview, and the fullest information was afforded. He was not aware that an interview of that kind had been held before. At all events, he could say this for the Admiralty, that every sort of information would be thus open. He thought it was fully understood at Sheffield that any British manufacturer would receive every information he wished. The hon. Member (Mr. Brodrick) was a Member of the late Government. What did they do? He had in his hand a long list, which he could read to the House, of orders given year by year through the Department in which the hon. Member was Financial Secretary to foreigners for these very armour-piercing projectiles. In the year 1887 an order for £11,900 worth was given to a foreign firm. And 1622 he could give other cases of large orders to foreigners in several succeeding years. In all these cases there was not a difference of 33 per cent., or anything like so much, in the tenders of the foreign and the British firms. He thought, after that, he would leave the question to the judgment of the House. In conclusion, he might say that in this matter they had made no new departure, except in the pains he had personally taken on behalf of the Board of Admiralty to ensure the fullest information being given to British manufacturers, so that, if possible, they might have British firms capable of producing these munitions.
§ COLONEL HOWARD VINCENT (Sheffield, Central)said, the reply of the Secretary to the Admiralty to his hon. Friend (Mr. Brodrick) was of so unsatisfactory a character that he felt absolutely compelled to move a reduction of the. Vote by £100. The right hon. Gentleman had gone into the history of the order from a French firm of shell which ought to have been given to Sheffield manufacturers, and he had expressed great anxiety to assist "our friends in Sheffield." But the right hon. Gentleman had taken a most peculiar way of assisting "our friends in Sheffield" when he pointed out publicly in the House that the opinion of himself and his colleagues, was that French firms were capable of making much better shells than the houses in Sheffield, who had devoted so much capital and experience to the work. The right hon. Gentleman stated that a special kind of steel was required for the shells that were ordered from the French firms. But shortly afterwards the right hon. Gentleman stated that two or three Sheffield firms had been invited to, tender. If they had not been capable of making this special kind of shell, why were they invited to tender? It was clear that the firms who were invited to tender were capable of producing the kind of shells required. Specifications were sent to them, and the firms themselves thought they were capable of producing quite as good shells as the French firms. He would call attention to the fact that upon the express invitation of the Government Sheffield firms had spent hundreds of thousands of pounds in preparing plant for the production of armonr-plate, shells, and other apparatus required by the Government, and this was the way in which 1623 their efforts to fulfil the requirements of the country were treated. They were invited to tender, and because the tender of a French firm was slightly lower than that of the English firms, and that mainly because of the rate of wages to be paid, the Government ignored altogether the home producer, and in this time of great distress gave the order to a foreign firm. The right hon. Gentleman said it was absolutely necessary to obtain these supplies from France. Where should we be if our relations with Foreign Powers were to change? Where should we be in time of war if we relied for our armaments and munitions of war upon France, Germany, and other Continental countries? Home manufacturers must be encouraged to produce what was required for the defence of the country, and for the independence of the flag in all parts of the Empire. The right hon. Gentleman himself admitted this to be the case, because he said if it were known to the French Government that a French firm had obtained this contract pressure would be put by the Government on the firm—pressure to do what? To make the munitions of an inferior quality, or to omit some details in the shells which would prevent them when firing from achieving their purpose. That was the pressure to be put by the French Government upon the French firm. The right hon. Gentleman thought he could conceal the name of the firm. He (Colonel Howard Vincent) knew the name, but as the right hon. Gentleman had said that it was absolutely necessary in the interests of the Public Service not to mention it, he would refrain from doing so; but the name was perfectly well-known to every manufacturer in the country interested in the question, and it was perfectly well known to the French Government. He happened to be in Paris a few days ago, and he ascertained the name from the French authorities themselves. The Customs House invoice alone would show it, if there had been any difficulty whatever in the matter. The right hon. Gentleman prided himself upon the reduction of orders given to foreigners in recent years. A late Member of the House, Mr. Peter Macdonald, had moved for a Return of contracts given to foreigners in the seven years, 1879–85, inclusive. That Return 1624 showed the annual amount was £130,000. By the efforts of the late Government the amount was reduced to an average of something like £30,000 a year, but the moment the right hon. Gentleman's Party came into power they found the orders given to manufacturers outside the United Kingdom were precisely double the amount given by their predecessors. The Admiralty gave orders last year to foreigners amounting to £29,552, and the War Office gave similar contracts to the amount of £30,000.
§ COLONEL HOWARD VINCENTsaid, he had not got them.
SIB U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTHThe Admiralty orders for 1892 were £25,880. I got that figure from the Return for which the hon. Member himself moved.
§ COLONEL HOWARD VINCENTsaid, he would point out that the amount last year was considerably more than the preceding year. He had spoken of the whole Government, and the Return showed that, taking the Government as a whole, the amount given to foreign contractors was quite double what it had been in the preceding year. But a far greater question hinged upon the matter than appeared at first sight. The contract for these shells was given to a foreign firm, and the agents of the firm came to the arsenals and to the shooting grounds of this country, and the shells were tested in their presence, so that they had the advantage of seeing the progress which we had made in armaments of war up to date. Every facility and every advantage was given to them, facilities and advantages which were denied to the representatives of the home firms. It was all very well for the right hon. Gentleman to say that he was anxious to encourage their Sheffield friends and home producers. What they wanted was not mere sentiment, but actual practice. Why had the right hon. Gentleman given this contract to a French firm? It was because he was influenced entirely by the question of price, because he could get these shells a little cheaper in France than in Sheffield, that he said—"We will go over the heads of the Sheffield firms; we will ignore the distress and want of 1625 work that prevails at the present time at Sheffield; and we will, in order to make a little saving in our Estimates, give this advantage to a foreigner, and take it away from our own countrymen." It was this act on the part of the Government, and many other like proceedings, which brought upon the Government today the very urgent and very pressing question of the unemployed. He intended to persevere in his Motion for the reduction of the Vote, in order to mark his sense and that of his friends of the action of the Government in taking advantage of this particular time to place a contract outside the Kingdom, more especially when the article was of such a character as that in question.
§ SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTthought the House would agree that his hon. Friend the late Financial Secretary to the War Office had done good service in bringing this question forward. The policy of the late Government was to reduce as much as possible the amount of work given to foreigners by the Government Departments. That policy was early avowed and consistently carried out, and if a comparative examination of the amounts in value of work given to foreign contractors by the Government of 1880, and the Government which followed it, were made, it would be found that the amount actually given by the Conservative Government was much less than the amount given by their predecessors. The Secretary to the Admiralty seemed to pride himself on the fact that the amount of work given to foreigners by the Admiralty this year was only £29,000, as compared with £25,000 last year. He seemed to make little of this difference of £4,000.
§ MR. MUNDELLAHear, hear!
§ SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTobserved that one of the Members for Sheffield encouraged the Financial Secretary to the Admiralty in that view. The right hon. Gentleman might be very brave on that subject in the House, but he should like to see him before an audience in Brightside upon it. The Financial Secretary seemed to make little difference between the two amounts, but it was precisely the sum which the Government asserted that they saved by giving this contract to the foreign firm. Now, what was this contract which had been given away? It was not for an 1626 ordinary manufacture. These shells were the most important projectiles that were made for the Navy. The right hon. Gentleman had laid great stress upon the fact that it was absolutely essential that we should have these armour-pierced projectiles in order that the shells fired from battleships and first-class cruisers, which were the vital strength of our Navy, should be able to penetrate the enormous armour and burst inside the ship. Did the right hon. Gentleman really mean that £19,000 worth of projectiles of this kind was sufficient for the Navy in time of war? He used as one of his principal arguments in justification for giving the order abroad that the amount was small, but did he really think that this amount would suffice in time of war?
SIR U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTHCertainly not. The Conservative Board of Admiralty, of which the hon. Member was a member, ordered a vast number.
§ SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTdenied that the expression vast amount was justified. At the beginning of the term of Office of the late Government, and before the manufacture of armour-piercing projectiles was understood in this country, certain orders were given abroad. It was necessary; and one reason was that the projectiles might be tested, and that the process of manufacture might be found out; but the amount of the orders was not vast. But the point of importance of these orders was this consideration: These were most important projectiles for the armament of our battleships and cruisers, and according to the statement of the right hon. Gentleman—a most unfortunate state of affairs if correct—the French are more successful in making these projectiles than our manufacturers are, and according to his further argument it was almost impossible to induce our manufacturers to put down fresh plant for the production. The sending this order of £19,000 abroad would probably make a difference of £5,000, the cost of fresh machinery, but if this order of £19,000 had been given to an English firm they might thereby have been enabled so to improve their machinery that in the future they could produce projectiles equal to those manufactured in France. That was a very serious consideration when the House remembered that in case of 1627 war the necessity for these projectiles would be doubled, trebled, and very likely increased tenfold. The right hon. Gentleman made a very curious statement indeed, to the effect that the Admiralty were at full liberty to buy in the cheapest market at home or abroad. Had he in mind when he made the statement that the price of labour was involved in the cheapness of production? The question of labour was an important consideration in connection with this manufacture, and there was in operation a Resolution of the House with reference to the payment of labour in the execution of Government contracts. So that the Government, in giving these orders abroad for these projectiles, when they could be produced in this country, practically attempted to go behind the abstract Resolution of the House. To this point he wanted the attention of all Members representing manufacturing constituencies. He did not think there was any desire to press the present Board of Admiralty to make any revelation that would be injurious to British interests or to British manufacturers. If, in the opinion of the Board of Admiralty, these armour-piercing projectiles could not be made in this country, then it was of the utmost importance that the Board of Admiralty should give British firms every possible help, not only by way of advice, but even by paying a little more for these projectiles, so that manufacturers might be encouraged to lay down fresh plant. This was of the utmost importance, because his hon. Friend pointed out if to-morrow or next year we found ourselves faced by a naval war, or a war with France, we should be in this position, that our supply of projectiles would be cut off. Now was the time to encourage British firms to make these projectiles. This was a time of peace—it was to be hoped a time of prolonged peace—but all omens abroad were not peaceful, and by giving this order to an English firm it would have enabled the Sheffield firm to perfect its means of manufacturing these essential projectiles in England, and then, when we were faced by the dire contingency of war, our supply would not fail.
§ MR. RADCLIFFE COOKE (Hereford)said, he did not generally agree with his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Central Sheffield. He entirely dis- 1628 agreed with his general protective policy. He was of opinion that they ought to buy in the cheapest market. But there was another kind of protection which the Financial Secretary to the Admiralty seemed wholly to have forgotten, and that was the protection of British shores, the protection of British commerce, and the protection of the British Empire. Why should we have to depend for these projectiles on some foreign firm? There were some matters on which the Financial Secretary to the Admiralty ought to have given the House information. He ought to have told them in what particulars foreign manufacturers excelled English manufacturers. The hon. Gentleman ought to tell the English manufacturers where they were deficient, in order to enable them to produce these projectiles which were so essential to the Naval Service. How could English manufacturers be expected to lay down the plant for these projectiles when the Government on which they had to depend for custom gave them no encouragement and support?
§ MR. MUNDELLAAs two Sheffield Members have spoken in this Debate, the House will, I am sure, allow a few words from a third Sheffield Representative. I am sorry, in the interest of Sheffield, this matter should have been discussed. It would have been better in the interest of Sheffield if it had been left alone, and I know that that is the opinion of the best contractors of Sheffield.
§ MR. MUNDELLAI am speaking from their own lips.
§ COLONEL HOWARD VINCENTSo am I.
§ MR. MUNDELLANo one has taken greater interest in the production of steel projectiles in Sheffield than I have. It. was due to my action that the manufacture of steel at Woolwich was stopped. Nothing could be more absurd than what we found in 1884. Lord Hartington, then Secretary for War, came to me and said, "I find that Woolwich is laying down an enormous plant at enormous cost for the production of steel, for they say Sheffield cannot make decent steel." Imagine a state of things like that, that Sheffield, close to the coalfields, with a reputation for the excellence 1629 of its manufactures, could not produce steel to meet the requirements of the Admiralty and the War Office. In the result, the manufacture at Woolwich was brought to a stand. What was the next point that arose? Before the late Government went into Office Lord Hartington and Mr. Brand, then head of the Ordnance Department, went to Sheffield, with Representatives of the War Office and the Admiralty, and arranged with Sheffield manufacturers to produce so many thousand tons of steel a year.
§ SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTThat is not the point.
§ MR. MUNDELLAThe hon. Gentleman will find it is to the point if he will give me his attention. The hon. Gentleman made an attack upon my hon. Friend for giving orders for projectiles abroad because they were 33 per cent. lower in price than projectiles from Sheffield, whereas, when he and his friends were in Office in 1891, they gave orders abroad when the difference was only 10 per cent. or 15 per cent. between the Sheffield and foreign prices.
§ MR. BRODRICKCan the right hon. Gentleman give us the instance?
§ MR. MUNDELLAI know what I am saying.
§ MR. BRODRICKBut can the right hon. Gentleman give us the facts?
§ MR. MUNDELLAI can if at liberty to do so. In 1890 there was a competition for certain steel projectiles, the amount of the order being £13,080. There were two competitors from France, and there were some from Sheffield. The order was given to a foreign firm, although the difference was that between £109 and £120. How can the hon. Member, therefore, decently make an attack on my hon. Friend because he had given an order abroad when the difference in price was more than 33 per cent.? Now, the facts are these. It has been felt at the Admiralty and the War Office that in the past they have given no assistance to English manufacturers. I have myself constantly complained of this. They have not given the required information, and the trials had not been fair towards the English manufacturer. He was asked to compete, not being told precisely the specific hardness of the article against which his projectile was to be directed, and then his projectile was condemned, and he was told that his pro- 1630 duction was not equal to the foreign production. This occurred again and again. Quite recently the late First Lord of the Admiralty told me that my constituents were not equal to the production—that they had not the technical knowledge. Over and over again I have heard this said.
§ SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTWhen?
§ MR. MUNDELLARecently.
§ SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTWas this a private or a public conversation?
§ MR. SPEAKEROrder, order! The right hon. Gentlemen will proceed if he does not give way.
§ MR. MUNDELLAI have heard this said repeatedly. It was the same at the War Office, where there was the greatest difficulty in convincing permanent officials and others. The hon. Gentleman knows that I was constantly using my influence with them to convince them that Sheffield could produce as good steel as foreigners, as good steel as the War Office required, and we were in correspondence about it. I am thankful to say that we have at last got the officials to believe that Sheffield can, if its manufacturers have a fair chance, produce just as good projectiles, just as good steel, as any foreign country. But the difficulty was to convince the permanent officials and experts that the manufacturers of this country could do that. It has been made matter of reproach against the Government that they have in the year spent £60,000 in encouraging foreign trade, whereas the year before the late Government only spent something like £40,000. What was the reason for the difference? The hon. Gentleman opposite ought to know that last year the Government bought walnut butts for rifles to the extent of £30,000, and this timber grows in Roumelia and Spain, and the wood is necessary for rifle butt ends, but the late Government let the supply run low.
§ COLONEL HOWARD VINCENTThe Return shows there was a purchase in 1892 under this head.
§ MR. MUNDELLAYes, there was, for £18,000 less than this year, and that was the real difference. The Government had to lay in butts and fore-ends to the amount of £18,000 more than the year before. With respect to projectiles, 1631 I have watched with the greatest possible interest the progress of steel manufacture for the last 25 years in connection with past supplies from Sheffield. What has been the result? The Government have recognised the importance of producing all war material at home, if possible, and have decided that the English contractor should have the chance of fair information, should know what he has to compete with, the specific hardness of the armour he is required to pierce. There is great conflict between the powers of attack and defence, and if we keep the manufacturer of projectiles in ignorance of the strength of the defence his missiles are to pierce, then his productions are brought into disrepute. I must say that it was a very unworthy thing to try to make political capital out of such paltry questions as this. The difference on this order of £19,000 is said to be due to difference in wages. Nothing of the kind. I sincerely hope that the steps taken by my right hon. Friend this year will have the effect that all manufacturers, and not the manufacturers of Sheffield alone, will be in a position to make Government independent of foreign supplies for armour and other raw material. I must complain again that an attempt should be made to make this a Party matter. The hon. Member for Ecclesall said, immediately the present Government came in, they began to spend more money abroad to the detriment of English trade. That is an untrue statement. Nothing of the kind has been done. We have diminished so far as we could the amount of supplies drawn from abroad, seeking to make the Services independent of foreigners in respect to armaments. The arguments used about the expenditure of £60,000 abroad are absurd. What a small amount this is out of an expenditure of 30 odd millions which we spend on the Navy and Army! The matter is almost beneath contempt. But I sincerely trust that we will take courage and develop supplies from our own people, so that in future we will not be dependent upon foreigners for either armaments or projectiles.
§ MR. BRODRICKsaid, as a matter of personal explanation he might say that the question of foreign supplies was never raised when he was at the War Office.
MR. GIBSON BOWLES (Lynn Regis)said, he did not think the constituents of the right hon. Gentleman would be wholly satisfied with him. He told them that the men of Sheffield could make just as good projectiles as the foreigners, whereas the Secretary to the Admiralty said they could not.
§ MR. MUNDELLAI knew nothing about the matter till I saw the Return, and then I made inquiries.
MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid, the Secretary to the Admiralty also told him that he claimed for the Government the right to buy in the cheapest market, but they were also told that they were not to sweat the labourer, and what he wanted to know was whether the Government were not buying sweated shells? If it was the principle of the Government to buy in the cheapest market they could get sailors, and Admirals, and Ministers of State abroad a great deal cheaper than they got them here. He, for his part, would be ready to pay a great deal more for our stores in order to keep them in the hands of the people of this country. He did not care which Party practised this system, but he was perfectly convinced that it was a dangerous thing to rely on foreign countries for the supply of their war material. The right hon. Gentleman said that not one of these armour-piercing projectiles was used in the course of ordinary practice on a man-of-war. Surely that was extremely dangerous. It was a rule of the Service that four rounds should be fired from every gun every six weeks. The object of that, of course, was to make the men acquainted with their guns and projectiles, yet it appeared that in the case of these projectiles that rule was abrogated. The Secretary to the Admiralty made a great affectation of secrecy in this matter, and said he would not disclose the name of the firm from whom these projectiles were ordered. It seemed to him a secret de polichinelle. They had been told yesterday by the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean (Sir C. W. Dilke) that the whole of the Cabinet secrets had been for years disclosed to the French Government. Why should they not know this one? For his own part, he was not content to think in the case of war England would send forth British sailors fed on American beef and 1633 armed with German cutlasses, and firing French shells. These shells were said to he 33 per cent. cheaper than the British; but he held that it was important they in England should know how to manufacture such shells, and how were they to know how if they did not have the opportunity? They could not rely on France in time of trouble—which might be with France itself—and he hoped the question would be considered with a view to their having justice done to the British workmen in these Departments.
§ MR. H. S. FOSTER (Suffolk, Lowestoft)said, there was one part of the speech of the President of the Board of Trade which should not escape attention. The right hon. Gentleman had practically admitted that English manufacturers had not had fair trials. That was an admission which practically had been dragged from the right hon. Gentleman. The probability was that if the right hon. Gentleman had not sat for a Sheffield constituency he would not have made that admission that evening. The right hon. Gentleman laid the blame on the permanent officials. He (Mr. Foster) hoped that this would be taken note of by hon. Members who had been saying all along that great reforms were needed both at the Admiralty and the War Office—that the permanent officials had too much power in their hands. If that discussion had done no other good, it was of value for this admission on the part of the right hon. Gentleman. He (Mr. Foster) had held the opinion for a considerable time that it was a libel on the English manufacturer whenever a Member of the responsible Government of this country stood up and told not only this House and this country, but our competitors abroad, that foreign manufacturers were more competent to manufacture war material than our own manufacturers. Such a statement not only implied an injustice to the British manufacturer in the sending of orders abroad by the English Government, but it hindered British manufacturers in competing for orders from foreign Governments. He was reminded that on one occasion a great injustice was done in this respect by Lord Hartington (now the Duke of Devonshire), of course, quite unintentionally. His Lordship made a statement that our manufacturers could not do 1634 something which foreign manufacturers were doing. The foreign manufacturers at once seized upon the statement, and used it to obtain orders, to the prejudice of the British manufacturers. Such conduct was, of course, to be deprecated, whichever Party was in power. The utmost encouragement should be given to British manufacturers. He begged to move a reduction of the Vote by £100.
§ MR. SPEAKERsaid, that could not be done, as the Question had already been put, "That the House agree with the Committee's Resolution."
§ Question put.
§ The House divided:—Ayes 123; Noes 20.—(Division List, No. 309.)
§ Resolutions 9 and 10 agreed to.
§
Resolution 11.
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.
§ MR. A. C. MORTONmoved to reduce the Vote by £100 in order to call attention to the appointment to the office of Naval Adviser to the Inspector General of Fortifications. This office was held by Prince Louis of Batten-berg, and he desired to know what the duties were, and whether that gentleman was properly qualified to fulfil them? It was admitted that there had been favouritism in a previous appointment, and on that ground he took objection to this one. He objected entirely to foreigners being appointed to British offices, and he was astonished that military and naval officers in that House should coolly agree to such appointments. He did not know Prince Louis, but it was a fact, he believed, that other competent English officers had been passed over in his interest, and he thought they had, therefore, a right to inquire whether he was a competent person for this position. Unless the Government proved to his satisfaction that we had no officers capable of performing these duties they would have no excuse of appointing a foreigner. Englishmen, Scotchmen, Irishmen, and Welshmen had a right to be first considered with regard to these appointments. In his opinion, we had plenty of naval officers in this 1635 country who were better qualified in every way than foreigners possibly could be for filling such a position. In order to emphasise his opinion in regard to this matter, he begged to move to reduce the Vote by £700, the salary attached to this post.
§ Amendment proposed, to leave out "£231,000," in order to insert" £230,300."—(Mr. A. C. Morton.)
§ Question proposed, "That £231,000 stand part of the said Resolution."
SIR U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTHsaid, he really need not detain the House for more than a very few minutes on this matter. This appointment was made in the ordinary course. The office, which was one of considerable value, though not of the highest rank or importance, was filled by a junior Captain, and the First Lord of the Admiralty, after considering the claims of different junior Captains for this office and their qualifications, came to the conclusion that Prince Louis of Battenberg, who had served with much credit in various stations and various ships during the course of his naval career, was, on the whole, the fittest person for the office, to which he was accordingly appointed. His hon. Friend put forward the argument that Prince Louis was a foreigner. The hon. Member was mistaken, because since the year 1868 Prince Louis had been a naturalised Englishman, and he entered the Navy shortly after his naturalisation. He served on the Britannia as a boy, doing exceedingly well, and he served with credit as a Lieutenant. In all his earlier career, when he proved himself to be an efficient officer of the Navy, he was no near relative of the Queen.
§ MR. A. C. MORTONI said nothing about the Queen.
SIR U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTHsaid, he might as well explain this fact, because some people might think it was by some special favouritism that Prince Louis of Battenberg had obtained the position he now held. He could only say, in common with everyone else at the Admiralty, that they had found him a most efficient officer, and peculiarly well qualified to fill the office. There was absolutely no favouritism in the appointment, Prince Louis having been 1636 selected simply on account of his high merit as an officer. His hon. Friend had asked what the duties of the office were. He had already explained that it was always filled by a junior Captain; therefore, it would be seen that it was not an office of the highest importance. Generally, an officer was chosen who had lately been employed on sea service, and that qualification Prince Louis possessed. The tenure of the office was usually for two years, and the duty of the officer who held it was to represent naval interests on the Defence Committee with special reference to commercial ports and coaling stations. This was an office which enabled touch to be kept between the Admiralty and the War Office on very important matters which necessitated the freest communication, and that a junior Captain should be employed in this way was exceedingly useful, and prevented any friction or any want of complete understanding between the War Office and the Admiralty. The appointment had proved of great benefit to the relations between the two Departments, and had facilitated the solution of questions between them, especially with reference to the important question of combined action in the preparations for war. There was no subject connected with the Admiralty or the War Office on which it was more essential there should be complete harmony between the two Departments than on that of combined action in, and preparation for, war. Those were the duties attaching to the post of Adviser to the Inspector of Fortifications which Prince Louis now held.
§ MR. A. C. MORTONDoes this junior Captain represent the Government in connection with war?
SIR U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTHreplied, no; but there were junior officers in the Navy who were capable of rendering service in the consideration of questions of this sort. Of course, the important decisions were taken by the Board of Admiralty and the Secretary of State; but where any junior officer, who was an efficient man, made valuable suggestions, he hoped and believed they would receive quite as much consideration as if they came from an Admiral or a Field Marshal. He had again to say that the office under discussion was a useful 1637 one, and was admirably filled by Prince Louis.
§ Question put, and agreed to.
§ Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
§ MAJOR RASCHwished to call the attention of the House to the continued injustice perpetrated on the sailors and fishermen of Kent and Essex, caused by the direct orders of the First Lord of the Admiralty. So great was this grievance and injustice that he proposed to divide the House on the question if he could get anyone to tell with him. For the last 18 mouths the Admiralty had been dredging the channel from Chatham to Sheerness in order that they might be able to bring ships of war down the Medway. The Admiralty took the deposit of mud which they dredged from the Medway, and they threw it broadcast on the fishing grounds of the Kent and Essex fishermen. The defence which the Financial Secretary to the Admiralty had always made was that the channel must be dredged, and the mud put somewhere. That defence was absolutely futile. Of course the channel must be dredged, but to say that the mud must be deposited on the fishing ground was about as sensible and reasonable as it would be to say it ought to be deposited in Old Palace Yard. The Admiralty had no defence, and they ought to shoot this mud where other contractors were obliged to shoot it—that was in deep water some 10 or 12 miles on the other side of the Nore Light. In consequence of the conduct of the Admiralty in acting in the way of which he complained, the fishing grounds were covered with débris, the fish were driven away, the men's nets were torn and broken, and practically these sailors and fishermen were being driven off the coast, which meant that some of the finest class of men were being driven out of employment and out of the country. The Admiralty had not the slightest excuse or reason for carrying on this practice. Under the Fishery Acts which were passed whilst the right hon. Member for Bristol (Sir M. Hicks-Beach) was at the Board of Trade, fishery districts were empowered to prosecute anybody who deposited refuse or débris on these 1638 grounds, and if any Public Body or Corporation shot mud on the fishing grounds they were very properly had up and heavily fined. Even such an august Body as the London County Council had to take its two sludge boats right out to sea and deposit the mud in deep water. But the Board of Admiralty, in defiance of all remonstrances and petitions, and flying in the face of the law, continued to take mud on to these fishing grounds, the excuse for their conduct, he supposed, being that they were a Public Department under the Crown, who were, therefore, above the law, and could do precisely as they liked. The matter had frequently been brought under the notice of the Admiralty. In June of last year he moved a reduction of the Vote for the purpose of calling attention to this very practice, and Memorials and Petitions had been sent in to the Board. Some little time ago a deputation waited on Lord Spencer, who promised a Committee of Inquiry. The gentlemen composing this Committee of Inquiry went to a place called the Lea; they sat for three hours, and, although they came with their minds made up against the fishermen, he believed they had drawn up a Report which was so hostile to the action of the Admiralty in this matter, that the right hon. Gentleman opposite had not dared to lay the Report on the Table of the House. Afterwards, when he (Major Rasch) called attention to the matter, the Secretary to the Admiralty treated him with a kind of accentuated harshness which was very much to be deprecated, and then moved the Closure in order, he imagined, to prevent him (Major Rasch) replying and defending himself. In order to bring the matter home to the right hon. Gentleman, and in the hope of relieving his own constituents of this nuisance for the future, he begged to move the reduction of the Vote by £1,000.
§ MR. SPEAKERThe hon. and gallant Gentleman cannot move a reduction—that has already been done—but he can divide against the whole Vote.
§ MAJOR RASCHsaid, he would adopt the latter course.
§ MR. E. ROBERTSONsaid that, as this concerned the Works Department of the Admiralty, he might be permitted to reply, although the only answer he 1639 could give to the hon. and gallant Member would be a repetition of former answers on the point. The hon. and gallant Gentleman was doing an injustice to the gentlemen who were sent down to inquire into this matter when he said they went down with closed minds. He had read their Report—which was a confidential one, and could not, therefore, be placed on the Table of the House—and it was not so conclusive as the hon. Gentleman seemed to think. They did report that a certain amount of damage was done to the fishing ground, though nothing like the amount alleged by the hon. and gallant Gentleman and his supporters. The real answer was this, and he had given it before: This work of dredging the channel of the Medway was, according to naval advisers of the Admiralty, absolutely necessary, and it could not be discontinued. They must have the channel placed in such a position as to allow the passage of the largest ships in the Navy. But once the work was completed, as it would be in a short time, arrangements would be made whereby future dredging operations would be carried on in a manner that would obviate any possible objection on the part of the hon. and gallant Member and his constituents.
MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid, the Civil Lord of the Admiralty had given a most complete and satisfactory answer to everything the hon. and gallant Gentleman did not say, but no answer to anything he did say. Nobody ever disputed the necessity for this dredging, but what they did say was that it was not necessary and right to shoot all the refuse dredged from this channel on to the fishing ground of these poor people. It was surprising how easily and quickly a fishing ground might be ruined by such means, for the débris tore and cut the nets of the fishermen, and drove away or killed the fish, and thus the means of livelihood of many hardworking fishermen on the coast in question were being seriously interfered with by the action of the Admiralty. No answer had been given or attempted to be given by the Government, and under these circumstances he had no alternative but to vote with his hon. and gallant Friend.
§ Question put.
§ The House divided:—Ayes 90; Noes 33.—(Division List, No. 310.)
§ Resolution agreed to.
§ Resolution 12 agreed to.
§
Resolution 13.
That a sum, not exceeding £956,400, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Expense of Naval and Marine Pensions, Gratuities, and Compassionate Allowances, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1894.
§ MR. KEARLEY (Devonport)said, he wished to call attention to the pension arrangements and the manner in which the dependent relatives of those who were lost in such catastrophes as that of the Victoria were provided for. When the Victoria went down he endeavoured to get the Government to undertake the responsibility of providing for those who suffered by the loss. Unfortunately he did not succeed. He desired again to express the opinion that this obligation should be undertaken by the country. Whenever there was a great naval catastrophe the public responded very liberally, but there was a general desire among naval men to have an Insurance Fund, towards which the men might themselves make some voluntary contribution. The desire was that the fund should be an Insurance Fund for the widows and families when the men died even outside the Service. The feeling of naval men was that the country should give an assurance that in the event of any mishap overtaking seamen those who were left behind should be adequately provided for. To this might be added the funds now administered by various bodies, such as the Commissioners of the Royal Patriotic Fund. The naval men suggested that the Government should appoint a Committee to investigate the position of the various funds in existence, many of which were being administered by the Commissioners of the Patriotic Fund. There were the funds connected with the Captain, £10,000; the Eurydice, £4,000; the Atalanta, £2,000; the Naval Exhibition Fund, and the Victoria Fund, from which latter it was estimated they would have a balance of £25,000. The feeling was that these funds administered by the Patriotic Fund Commissioners were not being adminis- 1641 tered in the way they should be. There was a sum of £42,000 available from these funds for the nucleus of such a fund as he suggested, and therefore he asked the Admiralty to seriously consider whether it was not possible to appoint a Committee. He would not impute any negligence to the Patriotic Fund, but it was not a popular body. It was too official, and out of touch with the spirit of the people for whom these funds were collected. Naval men were very strongly of opinion that the balances that had accrued should form the nucleus of this Naval Insurance Fund. He had an idea that at the time of the loss of the Victoria Earl Spencer was considering the advisability of appointing a Committee on the subject. There was also the question of meeting the claims of men who were within a few months of completing 20 years' service. He had also formally to call attention to the anomalous position of the chief petty officers in regard to pensions, and also to the question of allotment letters left behind by men on foreign service for the benefit of wives and families. The chief petty officers were in the position that, though promoted in rank, they had no advantage as to pension. This was a very great grievance, and one that ought to be remedied, he thought, without delay. These men should not be asked to assume greater responsibility than they otherwise would have without allowing them to have a corresponding advantage. On the other question—that of allotments—he thought it was known to most Members who were interested in the dockyards that the system as it existed at present was a serious one leading to great evil and mischief. He hoped that upon this matter the Government would take the right course, and throw over those official obstacles which had stood in the way of reform for so many years.
§ SIR A. ROLLITsaid, it was a mistake to say that the Naval Exhibition Fund was administered by the Commissioners of the Patriotic Fund. It was at first proposed that the Naval Exhibition Fund of £40,000 would be administered by them, but that course was not adopted.
§ MR. KEARLEYsaid, he was quite aware of that, and he had not stated that it was.
§ SIR A. ROLLITsaid, he certainly gathered the opposite from the words used.
§ MR. CLOUGH (Portsmouth)said, he wished to support the observations of the hon. Member for Devonport as to the institution of an Insurance Fund for naval men, and he also wished to urge the claims of men to a pension who had not reached the maximum of their service of 20 years. There were many men who, having served 19 and 19½y years, ought to be entitled to consideration. As to the chief petty officers, he agreed that they suffered great hardship, and he hoped the question would be kept in view. A sergeant in the Army got £36 per annum, but these men got only £33, although the conditions of service were equal. He hoped that, at any rate, this matter would be looked into, and that the Army sergeant and the chief petty officer of whom he spoke would be placed upon an equal footing. This would be but fair and equitable. He agreed also with regard to what had been said on the question of allotments.
§ THE CIVIL LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. E. ROBERTSON,) Dundeesaid, that the hon. Member would not expect from him any intimation of a policy in regard to an Insurance Fund. All that he could do now was to express his entire sympathy with the object, and his hope that something might come of the suggestion. He was glad to have the assurance that the men in the Navy were anxious that such a fund should be established, and he was sure that the sympathy of his Colleagues would be no less warm than his own with such a meritorious proposal. He would not enter into the question of the administration of existing funds, or into the system of the Patriotic Fund. The Admiralty had no official control over these matters; but, so far as the First Lord of the Admiralty was concerned, the suggestions he had made were in the same direction as that indicated by the hon. Member. Earl Spencer had distinctly kept open the possibility of the appointment of a Committee which should have for its specific purpose the gathering into one fund of all the dispersed balances that now existed for naval charitable objects. He had no doubt that the suggestion would bear fruit, and he hoped that it would be at no distant day. The experiment of admitting direct representatives of the men to the administration of 1643 the Victoria Fund had turned out extremely well. The Admiralty Fund had been distributed. Seventy-two claims had been made for pensions for widows, and 67 had been already paid. In 81 cases of dependent relatives 65 had received the maximum, so that practically all that the Admiralty could do with the Navy Vote and the Greenwich Hospital Fund had been done. Happily there remained the large sum given by the public, and which he hoped would be applied in eking out the somewhat slender assistance granted by the State.
§ MR. BAKER (Portsmouth)said, if a man served 15 years and then renewed for 15 more he appeared to get no credit for his first term of service.
§ MR. CLOUGHrose, but—
§ MR. SPEAKERsaid, he had already spoken, and could not speak again, the House not being in Committee.
§ MR. CLOUGHbegged pardon. He had forgotten at the moment.
§ MR. KEARLEYsaid, his point with regard to the pensions had not been replied to.
THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Sir U. KAY-SHUTTLE-WORTH,) Lancashire, Clitheroewas understood to say he had taken a great interest in the question, and he wished that it might be possible to devise some system that would be satisfactory.
§ Resolution agreed to.
§ Resolutions 14 and 15 agreed to.