HC Deb 12 March 1896 vol 38 cc841-57

Motion made, and Question proposed— That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £1,100,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1896, for additional expenditure on the following Navy Services, viz.:—

Vote 8. Shipbuilding, Repairs, Maintenance, etc.:— £
Sec. 1. Personnel … 146,500
Sec. 2. Materiel … 444,000
Sec. 3. Contract Work … 307,000
Vote 9. Naval Armaments … 202,500
Total £1,100,000."
MR. KEARLEY (Devonport)

suggested that the discussion on this Vote should be taken on the Report stage; only about two hours would be required.

MR. WILLIAM REDMOND moved to omit Section 1 (personnel). He had no desire to take up the time of the Committee, but he felt bound to move the Amendment which the hon. Member for Roscommon had put down upon the Paper, to leave out Vote 8, Section 1. There was an extraordinary increase in the amount of this item, and he was decidedly of opinion that the Government had afforded no satisfactory explanation of that increase.

THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY

said, in reference to what had fallen from the hon. Member for Devonport, the Committee would remember that the whole of this subject was discussed on Vote A.

MR. E. J. C. MORTON

said, that perhaps hon. Members would have a better opportunity for discussing the question on the Report if the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House would undertake to afford facilities for that discussion. He begged to move to report progress.

THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY

thought that some such arrangement might be arrived at.

THE CHAIRMAN

said that in that case the best course would be for the hon. Member for Devonport to withdraw his Motion for reporting progress.

MR. MORTON

said that he should be glad, in the circumstances, to ask leave to withdraw his Motion for reporting progress.

Motion to report progress, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. T. M. HEALY

said that the complaint of the Irish Members was that no part of this enormous Vote was expended in Ireland, and that was a matter they should have time to discuss. They wanted their fair proportion of the expenditure. The Government expended £10,000,000 in England and gave Ireland £30,000. It was absurd. It was simply shocking. Year after year the Government when in opposition used the argument the Irish Members were now using, and then when they were in power they used the argument they were now using. They all knew it was necessary to have the Votes before March 31st, and the Government should have some reasonable facilities for getting their Votes; and if the Government would come to some reasonable understanding as to giving a fair time for the Amendment of the hon. Member for Roscommon, the Irish Members would be disposed to meet them. There was no disposition to keep the Government sitting to a late hour. All they desired was that they should have a fair time for the discussion of their grievances. Up to the present the Irish side of the case had not been heard at all.

MR. WILLIAM REDMOND

said, the right hon. Gentleman would perhaps allow him to give an additional reason for postponing this Vote. It was that there were some Gentlemen who had given notice of Amendments to the Supplementary Estimates who were not present. [Ministerial laughter.] It was never anticipated that this Vote would be taken at such an hour.

MR. DILLON

pointed out that he had an Amendment to Vote 1, which raised not a question of policy, but a question of enormous importance, and that was the scandalous treatment of Catholics in the Navy in regard to the provision of chaplains. They had had assurances that the grievances would be redressed, and the Government ought to be compelled to redress it. He claimed that a fair opportunity should be given him to bring this question forward. It could only be raised, he understood, on Vote 1.

THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY

I have explained to the Committee more than once the legal position in which we stand. It is absolutely necessary that we should get to-night the Votes which were on the Paper. I understand that there would be no objection to pass those Votes if it were possible to arrange for a discussion of the questions which hon. Gentlemen wish to raise at an early hour to-morrow. To meet the views of hon. Gentlemen I would suggest that to-morrow we could begin business by discussing the Supplementary Votes and Vote 1 if an honourable understanding were entered into by hon. Gentlemen opposite, both above and below the Gangway, that the discussion would not be a long one and would finish before the dinner hour.

MR. J. G. WEIR

said, that he wished to call attention to the position of the coastguard in the North of Scotland, and that he would like to do so before the right hon. Gentleman obtained the money which he wanted and not afterwards.

MR. T. M. HEALY

observed that hon. Members above the Gangway on his side of the House could not interfere with the discretion of Members below the Gangway, nor could the latter interfere with the discretion of the former. He thought himself that to ask that the discussion should cease by the dinner hour was hardly reasonable. The understanding would be that a fair and reasonable time should be occupied and no more.

MR. W. ALLAN (Gateshead)

asked when the Government intended to take Vote 8 for the Navy?

THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY

I am afraid I cannot tell the hon. Member, but it will not be taken to-morrow nor on Monday.

MR. LABOUCHERE

said there were three points to be discussed: (1) Dockyards; (2) the general question of the fair amount of money to be spent in Ireland; and (3) the treatment of Catholics. It seemed to be improbable that those three questions could be discussed before the dinner hour to-morrow. He asked the First Lord of the Admiralty to explain why the report stage should not be taken on Monday?

THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. G. J. GOSCHEN,) St. George's, Hanover Square

said that with reference to the Supplementary Estimates the Government had come near to the end of their money, and next week the Government would need more money to carry the Departments on. Friday was, therefore, the last possible day.

MR. H. E. KEARLEY

asked for a short discussion on Vote 1 on Monday. The discussion would last for two or three hours.

THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY

said he would be glad to meet the proposals suggested by the hon. Member if he was not to be met on the Army Estimates by similar demands for Friday and Monday. He suggested that they should get all the Votes that evening; report them to-morrow after 12 o'clock, and on Monday get the Speaker out of the chair on the Army Estimates. If the Government could arrange with hon. Members on that point he was ready to distribute the time to the convenience of the House, but it must be fair time to those who wished to discuss the Motions on the Army Estimates. He was, therefore, in some difficulty in the matter. If hon. Members from Ireland would undertake only to take two hours for their particular. interests—["Too short"]—and English Dockyard Members made a similar promise with regard to Monday, he would take the risk of cutting two hours off Friday and Monday on the understanding that the House would assist the Government in getting the Speaker out af the Chair on the Army Estimates on Monday.

DR. TANNER

reminded the First Lord of the Treasury that there was one Vote which would require most thorough discussion, and that was the Army Medical Vote.

MR. LABOUCHERE

thought the arrangement proposed by the right hon. Gentleman a perfectly fair one as regards the Motions on getting the Speaker out of the Chair.

MR. J. G. WEIR

complained that the claims of Scotland were lost sight of in the suggested arrangement.

THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY

hoped he would not be pressed further, as it might be at the cost of those Members who had claims in connection with the Army Estimates.

MR. DILLON

replied that the Gentlemen interested in the Army Estimates could talk about the Army at 2 or 3 o'clock on Saturday morning. He should have great difficulty about consenting to a binding arrangement as regards the exact length of the discussions. If the Government met his demand with regard to Catholic sailors reasonably, the discussion might close in a quarter or half an hour; but, if it was met with a flat refusal, the discussion might be prolonged.

THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY

said it must be evident that he could not accept that arrangement. The Navy, having had the best part of so many evenings, it would not be fair to drive the Army Estimates into late hours.

MR. E. J. C. MORTON (Devonport)

said, the position they were in was an unfortunate one. As he understood it, the right hon. Gentleman offered them two hours on Vote 1 on Monday. On that Vote was absolutely the first opportunity that hon. Members would have had of discussing matters connected with the Naval Service, on which they felt very strongly, and which he believed was of vital importance to the efficiency of the Navy itself. On that same Vote, and out of the two hours to be given, was to be discussed that extremely important subject which the hon Member for East Mayo wished to bring before the House. They could not therefore possibly put up with two hours for the discussion of both those matters.

THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY

said, he thought the question which the hon. Member for East Mayo wished to bring forward might be raised on Vote 11.

MR. DILLON,

what I want is that a Catholic Chaplain should be appointed to each Squadron, and that can only be raised on Vote 1.

THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY

I think it would come under Vote 11.

MR. DILLON

said, he feared he should be ruled out of Order if he brought the matter forward under that Vote. What he wanted was the Catholic chaplains should have the same status in the Navy as Protestant chaplains.

THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY

asked the Chairman whether that could be raised on Vote 11.

THE CHAIRMAN

said, he saw no reason why the question could not be raised on the Vote referred to.

MR. DILLON

said, that Vote 1 dealt with chaplins in Her Majesty's ships, while Vote 11, as far as he understood, dealt with chaplains in Her Majesty's dockyards.

THE CHAIRMAN

said Vote 11 was for allowances for chaplains in Her Majesty's ships and at establishments. He confessed he was not as familiar as perhaps he ought to be with all the details of these Votes, but it did seem to him that the question that the hon. Member wished to raise might properly be raised on Vote 11.

MR. WILLIAM REDMOND

said that, as it was perfectly evident that two hours to-morrow would not be sufficient to satisfy the requirements of the Irish Members and of the hon. Member for Devonport, and as he did not see that anything could be done, he begged to move the Amendment that was on the Paper on the personnel.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Item, Vote 8, Section 1, personnel, of £146,500, be omitted from the proposed Vote."

MR. W. O. CLOUGH (Portsmouth)

would make an appeal to the hon. Member to meet the First Lord of the Treasury in the spirit he had shown to the House that night. He thought hon. Members might endeavour to come to an understanding that would facilitate the business of the House. He hoped his hon. Friend would withdraw his Amendment, and let them see if they could not come to some arrangement, so that they might get matters that were necessary discussed, and discussed in a conciliatory spirit.

MR. W. ALLAN

said that he had been looking at the Statement with the Supplementary Estimate, and it struck him that the Admiralty officials had been spending a great deal of money unexpectedly to push the work forward. The rapidity with which they had been building the heavy ironclads lately had involved an extra amount of labour and of material. Seeing that this was a practical piece of management, requiring money to pay legitimate debts, he would appeal to the hon. Member for Clare to look at the matter from a practical engineering point of view. The money had been spent—and, he believed judiciously spent—in getting these ships built so rapidly; and he would ask the hon. Member to withdraw his Amendment and accept the proposal of the First Lord of the Treasury.

MR. WILLIAM REDMOND

replied that nothing would have given him greater pleasure than to have responded to the appeal made to him by the hon Member for Gateshead, but unfortunately, as he was not an engineer, he could not look at the matter from an engineering point of view, but must regard it from the point of view of his constituents.

MR. T. M. HEALY

observed that, as they were going on with the Votes, he should like to have some statement as to the Naval policy. Practically he believed the whole of the money concerned in this Vote would be spent in England, and in a very narrow and small corner of the Kingdom. It was merely using a curt phrase to say that Ireland with Great Britain formed part of one United Kingdom, if Ireland, whilst compelled to pay more than her fair share of taxation was not allowed to participate in any of the advantages which might result from the expenditure of money on work carried out for Government purposes. In the case of every £5 that was expended, £4 19s. 11¾d. were spent in England, and the odd farthing in Ireland. More money might usefully be spent in Ireland. Take the case of H. M S. Resolution, which got injured whilst on the Irish coast a year ago. She might have put into Queenstown and been refitted in the Dock at Haulbowline if there had been proper equipment there, as there ought to be. But she had to go across to Portsmouth or Plymouth, and get refitted there. The whole position as regarded Ireland was a very difficult one. The Government said they could not spend the money there because they had not, as in the case of Haulbowline, got proper equipment, and then they would not provide the necessary equipment for fear they should have to spend the money in that country. If the Government were going to adopt a policy involving a large expenditure of money, then Ireland, which would have to contribute her share, should also take her proportion of the advantage which might result from the spending of money on works. Not only was Ireland robbed of £2,750,000 annually, but she was entirely neglected when any shipbuilding or other work was required to be done. If the Irish Members were to remain in that House they must have separate officers, who would have regard to the claims of Ireland in the matter of expenditure of this character. Hitherto the policy of the Navy had been to exclude Irishmen from appointments on board ship. This would not be denied even by the Members of the Liberal Government. The reason was one of religion. It was not a reason of bigotry, but because Catholics were not wanted in the Navy, as a Catholic chaplain would have to be employed and the accessories of the Catholic religion provided. Turning to the subject of the Vote, we were spending £2,500,000 on Gibraltar alone, from which the Spaniard would derive enormous benefits. Yet, even military men were doubtful of the real value of Gibraltar to the Empire. No one would deny that the South of Ireland occupied an enormous strategic position, and it was desirable that there should be a naval repairing station there. Bantry Bay would be an important port for the Navy. If anything went wrong with these war vessels, where would they get repairs for torpedo boats and engines? Were their ships in time of stress and storm to go from Bantry Bay to Plymouth and Portsmouth? It would be absurd. Bantry Bay was one of the most important and commodious harbours for navigating and docking purposes in the Three Kingdoms. First-class battleships had been manœuvred in the Bay for the last seven or eight years. There was a practice of "crossing the boom," and there were more facilities for it in Bantry Bay than anywhere else. The policy of this country in regard to the Navy was not only selfish, but foolishly selfish. When there was trouble with foreign countries it was Irishmen were not loyal. Was it expected of them that they would join heartily in voting ten millions for the Navy when they knew that Ireland was to get all the kicks and England all the halfpence? He did not pretend that Ireland could produce engines; but at all events it could do a great deal of fitting-up. There had been a little additional expenditure at Haulbowline; but what was it in comparison with the whole outlay? If Irishmen were to be told that Ireland was unsuited for naval expenditure, then Ireland ought to be exempted from contributing towards that expenditure. There were in England 70 or 80 officials connected with expenditure, and yet Ireland had only a Chief Secretary and an Attorney General to look after its interests. Ireland also required to have specialised men to look after its interests. At all events the Government might give Ireland some money for piers and harbours, while spending it at Gibraltar, Hong-Kong, and other places.

MR. HERBERT LEWIS (Flint Boroughs)

would remind the Committee that Wales had a dockyard at Pembroke, and this Supplementary Estimate gave no information as to the distribution of this Supplementary Estimate among the dockyards of the country. What he and his friends asked was that this promise should be fulfilled, and fulfilled in a substantial manner.

MR. MACARTNEY

said the Vote of £146,000 was owing entirely to the increased expenditure on dockyard wages resulting from the more rapid progress made in shipbuilding. The £146,000 would be spent in English and Scotch dockyards, £6,000 going to Pembroke.

MR. T. M. HEALY

Not a halfpenny to Ireland.

MR. MACARTNEY

There is no naval shipbuilding in Ireland.

MR. T. M. HEALY

Is that the answer we are going to get?

MR. W. REDMOND

thought the House would now see what the grievance of the Irish Members was. An enormous sum was to be spent, and the Secretary to the Admiralty rose and showed that not a single penny was to be spent in Ireland. If hon. Gentlemen thought of the matter for one moment, they could not think it unreasonable that the representatives of Ireland should feel aggrieved and should protest against the present extraordinary state of affairs. The hon. Gentleman said there was no shipbuilding in Ireland.

MR. MACARTNEY

said that what he intended to convey was that none of the ships in respect of which this additional money was taken were to be built in Ireland.

MR. T. M. HEALY

Why not?

MR. W. REDMOND

said, the Secretary to the Admiralty had not met his objection, which was that no more of this work had been given to Ireland. Ships could be built in Ireland, and though the shipyards were in the north of Ireland he was sure every Irish Member would be glad to see these yards get their fair share of the work. The First Lord of the Admiralty would no doubt give the usual official assurance, which would be to the effect that tenders would be asked for, that everybody could compete, and that if the Irish tenders were better than the English tenders the Irish yards would get the work. That did not meet the grievance at all. Naturally, English shipbuilders were in a better position than the Irish shipbuilders, but he thought the latter should have a full and fair share of the work. Would the right hon. Gentleman undertake that a full share of the work would be given to Ireland? There must be something in the nature of a definite assurance, and not merely a statement to the effect that Irish firms could submit tenders. Let the First Lord say that some arrangement would be made whereby a considerable amount of the money would be spent in Ireland.

MR. W. ALLAN

said, he would like to say a word or two in respect to the giving of this work to Ireland. He thought some of his hon. Friends were a little at sea. It must be borne in mind that in tendering for the building of ships for the Navy two essential conditions were required—the yard and plant must be fit for the work, and the price must be commensurate with what was wanted.

THE CHAIRMAN

said, the hon. Gentleman was now referring to the question of tendering.

MR. ALLAN

No, Sir.

THE CHAIRMAN

said, the word tendering reached his ears. Any discussion of that kind would come under Section 3, Contract work. The present Vote was in respect of men who were employed in the dockyards, and did not refer to the cost of ships to be built by contract.

MR. ALLAN

said, his hon. Friends complained of work not being given to Ireland. He was endeavouring to show why part of the money did not go to Ireland; the reason was that there was only one firm who could build ships for the Navy, and they declined to tender for the work.

DR. CLARK

said, the point under consideration was that they were spending a large amount of money in English Dockyards and nothing in Irish Dockyards. Haulbowline was a most suitable site for a large shipbuilding establishment, and if there was a wise First Lord of the Admiralty a fine harbour would be constructed there.

THE CHAIRMAN

said, the hon. Member would not be in Order in discussing the general question of a dockyard at Haulbowline, as this was a Vote for the wages of the men employed in the dockyards.

DR. CLARK

said, there was nothing to show how much of the Vote went to foreign yards. We ought to have all our eggs in one basket. We ought not to be limited to the south coast of England, where we had to carry coal and iron a long distance. He represented a county where both coal and iron were cheap, and where labour was comparatively cheap—a county in which there was plenty of brains, and from which all the new improvements now came. In both the Firth of Forth and the Firth of Clyde were suitable places for dockyards, and he hoped that in any further schemes the First Lord of the Admiralty would think of these places.

THE CHAIRMAN

Order, order! The item of new works does not arise on this Vote.

DR. TANNER

complained that in the expenditure of money on repairs a preference was always given to Chatham. He pointed to the breakdown of the Apollo observing that, if a proper staff had been employed at Haulbowline, the risk and expense of taking the vessel would have been avoided.

THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY

said, in regard to Haulbowline Dockyard, the Government simply asked for money which had been spent for extra labour. He could not arrange the work in the dockyards in such a fashion as would enable him to give to Irish dockyards what Irish representatives called their fair share of expenditure. They were obliged to get the work done where it could be done in the best manner, and, therefore, they could not pick and choose their dockyards. If he could do so he should be only too glad to give Ireland a greater share of the work. Under these circumstances he hoped that hon. Members would see that he could not do what they asked him to do.

MR. DILLON

said, he fully recognised the courtesy of the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty in the answer he had given him. The present Government had undoubtedly shown a desire to act fairly in this matter, but the fact remained that Ireland did not get a fair proportion of the benefit of tills enormous expenditure. The right hon. Gentleman had said that the Government were bound to get the work done where they could get it done in the best manner. But the fact was that whereas for years upon years untold wealth had been squandered upon English dockyards no provision whatever had been made for extending the dockyards in Ireland or Scotland, so as to enable them to compete on fair terms with the English dockyards. Of course Scotland did not feel the pinch so much as Ireland did, because she was a much wealthier country. He thought that the time had come when the Government might give way, and consent to adjourn the Debate, as it was perfectly clear that they had put down more work than could be got through for that evening. He could conscientiously say that certainly up to two o'clock that morning nothing had occurred that would deserve to be called obstruction, in fact the greater part of the time had been occupied by the officials or ex-officials upon the two Front Benches. He contended that the Secretary for the Colonies was unquestionably responsible for the prolongation of the Debate in the earlier part of the sitting. What seemed to him a reasonable and fair arrangement was this, that the Army officers should come down to-morrow night and take the whole of the discussion on their Vote, and that the Vote for the Navy should be taken on Monday. For his part, he had only one question to raise on Vote 1, namely, the question relating to Chaplains. That and the general discussion on the Irish aspect of the question might not last more than two hours, but it would be impossible for him to bind himself to keep the discussion on the question he wished to raise within two hours. It depended entirely on the way in which he was met. If he, was met with a flat negative the Debate might be prolonged. He would suggest that the Committee should accept the proposal made by the First-Lord of the Treasury that the 12 o'clock Rule should be suspended to-morrow night, that the Army Gentlemen should have as long a discussion as they liked, and that Vote 1 for the Navy should be taken on Monday.

MR. WILLIAM REDMOND

said, that with reference to the Supplementary Estimates, he was satisfied to take the opinion of the House upon it. It did seem to him something like adding insult twin jury for the right hon. Gentleman to get up and say that the Government were going to spend money on Haulbowline. An expenditure in Ireland of £50,000 out of a total expenditure of £23,000,000 was beggarly, and against this shabby treatment of Ireland her representatives would continue to protest.

MR. HERBERT LEWIS

asked as to the allocation of the amounts spent in increasing the wages of dockyard workers. He understood that out of the total Estimate only £6,000 would go to Pembroke dockyard. He urged upon the First Lord of the Admiralty the expediency of largely increasing the sum which it was intended at present to allocate to Pembroke.

MR. MACARTNEY

said, that the hon. Member did not understand clearly what had been done. This money had been spent in connection with the acceleration and completion of ships, and not in connection, with the normal work in the dockyards, and at Pembroke there had not been as much acceleration as elsewhere.

MR. WEIR

complained that not a penny out of the large sum asked for was to go to Scotland. He wished to know whether during the rush of work in the dockyards there had been any overtime employment, and if so, whether it had been paid at the ordinary rate or at the rate of time and a quarter or time and a half?

THE CIVIL LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN, Worcestershire, E.

) said, that the Admiralty had taken on. 5,000 men to cope with the extra work to be done. It was not thought desirable to take on more men, partly because there was no space for more men to work on the ship, and probably, if more men were taken on it would only result in great discharges later. A certain amount of overtime had to be paid for at extra rates up to time and three-quarters.

Original Question again proposed.

Whereupon Motion made, and Question put, That the Item, Vote 8, Section 1, Personnel of £146,500, be omitted from the proposed Vote." —(Mr. William, Redmond.)

The Committee divided:—Ayes, 27; Noes, 175.—(Division List, No. 50.)

DR. TANNER

said, he desired to refer to the large sums of money asked for metal and metal articles. The original Estimate was £1,427,174, but the revised Estimate was £1,713,674. That was to say they were called upon to pass a sum of £286,500. This was an item which should be explained before they passed it, and they ought to know how it came to pass that the revised Estimate so far exceeded the original Estimate as to make a supplementary Estimale of £286,500 necessary.

DR. CLARK

said, they were really not being asked to vote any money. What the Government had done was, during the six months they had been in office, to buy as much material as would take up the next six months, and hence, taking the two years, the whole average sum would be the same.

Motion made and Question put, "That Item 3 (Contract Work) be omitted trom the proposed Vote."

DR. CLARK,

speaking to a point of order, stated that Item 2 was proposed to be omitted, but he did not know that anyone had proposed the omission of Item 3.

THE CHAIRMAN

The hon. Member for East Clare proposed the omission of Item 3, and that is the Amendment I have put from the Chair.

Original Question again proposed.

Whereupon Motion made, and Question put, That the Item, Vote 8, Section 3, Contract Work of £307,000, be omitted from the proposed Vote."—(Mr. William Redmond.)

The Committee divided:—Ayes, 29; Noes, 169.—(Division List, No. 51.)

Dr. TANNER rose to continue the Debate on the Vote, and was speaking when—

THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the original Question be now put."

Question put, "That the Original Question be now put."

The Committee divided:—Ayes, 163; Noes, 34.—(Division List, No 52)

Original Question put accordingly, That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £1,100,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1896, for additional expenditure on the following Navy Services, viz.:—

Vote 8. Shipbuilding, Repairs, Maintenance, etc.:—

Sec. 1. Personnel … £146,500
Sec. 2. Materiel … 444,000
Sec. 3. Contract Work … 307,000
Vote 9. Naval Armaments … 202,500
Total … £1,100,000"

The Committee divided:—Ayes, 173; Noes, 26.—(Division List, No. 53.)