§ A. Motion made, and question proposed, "That 118,625 men and boys be employed for the Sea and Coast Guard Services for the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1902, including 19,805 Royal Marines."
§ COMMANDER YOUNG (Berkshire, Wokingham)
congratulated the Secretary to the Admiralty on his promise to use every effort to find out who was to blame for the delay in the shipbuilding programme. There had undoubtedly been great delay, and blame must attach to somebody—either the Admiralty or 996 the contractors. He agreed with hon. Members who had declared that the amount of money put apart for shipbuilding was inadequate for the present year if we were to keep up the proportion which would enable our Fleet to meet two foreign fleets at sea. He did not go quite so far as the right hon. Baronet the Member for Forest of Dean, who held that our Fleet should be strong enough to hold its own against any three foreign fleets combined, but he believed that by the end of this year, when the money to be voted had been expended, we should not be in a position to meet even the combined fleets of two Great Powers at sea. We were especially deficient in battleships, only three of which were provided for in the Estimates, whereas we ought to be laying down twelve as compared with other nations.
He had to congratulate the hon. Gentleman also on his statement with regard to the Belleville boilers. The hon. Gentleman declared that the Admiralty would not bring the ships into the yards in order to remove the boilers, and probably most hon. Members would be satisfied by the remarks of the Member for South Antrim, that if proper stokers were employed we should be able to get good results from the ships with Belleville boilers, until the Admiralty could come to a conclusion as to which was the best boiler to adopt. There would have been a scare in the country if the Secretary to the Admiralty had not made his declaration last night. There was not the least doubt about it that for military purposes the water-tube boiler must be the boiler for the Navy in the future. We should not be able to blockade our enemies' ports in the same way as Nelson used to; we should instead keep our big battleships at convenient ports and maintain communication by means of wire and fast cruisers, which could bo told off to watch the enemy. And it would consequently be necessary for our battleships to be able to raise steam at short notice, so as to go out and meet the enemy. He trusted and believed that the difficulties with regard to water-tube boilers would in due course be overcome.
He wished to ask the Admiralty to give serious consideration to the question raised by the hon. Members opposite with regard to the appointment of Roman 997 Catholic chaplains to our flagships. While he could not support the Amendment that had been moved on Thursday, he certainly agreed with the principle embodied in it, namely, that there should be a Roman Catholic chaplain with every fleet. It might be argued that on many of our smaller ships it was impossible to carry any chaplain at all. Well, he knew from experience the disadvantage of being without a chaplain, He had been a long time on small ships, and had to act as chaplain, and he was sorry to say he was a failure in that capacity: it was one of the instances where the "handy man" did not rise to the occasion. Complaint had been made by an hon. Member opposite that Roman Catholics in some of the ships anchored off the coast of Ireland had not been allowed to go ashore for religious ministrations. That probably was correct. But was not the refusal most likely due to the fact that the Naval Manœuvres were in progress, or that there was a fear that the men might fail to re-join their ships? He had seen men sent ashore on Sunday in very unsuitable weather. On board ships on that day it was customary to wear their best Sunday clothes, and when Roman Catholics and men of other denominations had to go ashore to obtain religious ministrations when it was blowing hard he very much doubted if the attendant circumstances put them in a proper frame of mind for listening to their chaplains. He could not see what objection there possibly could be to the appointment of Roman Catholic chaplains except one, and that was the difficulty of finding accommodation. But surely in our large battleships room could be found for one Roman Catholic chaplain, and he ventured to assert that if only a trial were made the difficulty as to accommodation would soon disappear.
The hon. and gallant Member for Great Yarmouth brought forward the other night the question of the education and training of naval officers. He agreed with every word uttered by the hon. and gallant Gentleman, and he certainly held that a strong Committee ought to be appointed to deal with the question. His opinion was that we took youngsters into the Navy at too old an age. Their general education should be paid more attention to. Classics need not be insisted upon so 998 much, but a knowledge of foreign languages, especially. French and German, and of international law, should be I imparted to all our officers. The hon. and gallant Member had referred to the differences of opinion which existed among naval officers on this subject. Undoubtedly there were differences. Sir M. Culme-Seymour on the one hand, and Admiral Nicholson on the other, entertained entirely different opinions, and it was, therefore, desirable that a Committee should be formed as soon as possible to go into the whole question. What was necessary was that our officers should master the details of gunnery and be able to handle their ships; that they should understand torpedo work and submarine boats, and, if that were done, a great deal of theoretical teaching might be dispensed with.
He had a few words to say with regard to the status of warrant officer's. He could approach this question in. an impartial spirit, because he represented what was practically an agricultural constituency, and his views, as well as those of his shipmates in the Navy, on that particular question would not carry much weight with his constituents. These warrant officers were, in his opinion, the backbone of the Service. He knew that the Secretary to the Admiralty was willing to do all he possibly could for them. He had shown that willingness in the past. but of course, occupying the position he now did, he could scarcely be expected to act right up to his declarations. Still, it might he hoped that he would be able to carry out many of those reforms he had so eloquently urged on the floor of the House. His suggestion was that a chief warrant officer, after three years service, should be given the honorary rank of lieutenant, and he believed that if that were done the effect would he to attract a better class of youngsters into the Navy, be- cause they would realise that, after eighteen or twenty years service, they would get a chance of promotion to commissioned rank. He was of opinion also that it would be a good thing for the Navy if some of the junior warrant officers were promoted to the rank of lieutenant and put into ships to serve in that capacity. There were, he knew, great difficulties in the way of doing 999 that. But he believed they could be overcome if only admirals and captains of our Navy would recognise that in the young warrant officer there was good material, which justified raising him to the higher rank. These men should be picked out and sent to Greenwich, and should have opportunities afforded them of studying gunnery and torpedo practice. Such a policy would stimulate the wish of the parents to send their children into the Navy, and would thus do the Service great good. He had never heard any of his shipmates offer objection to such a proposal. There were other matters in regard to warrant officers upon which he proposed to speak when the Votes particularly affecting them were under considera-tion.
One other subject he should like to say a few words upon, and that was the question of the leave of officers. Officers who had been abroad a great number of years were only allowed, when they got home, a fortnight's leave for each whole year of service in, probably, some wretched climate. Now that was not sufficient, and he would urge that the period should be increased. But that was not the whole difficulty. It not infrequently happened that when an officer came home after three years foreign service, and started off on his six weeks leave, he was, at the end of a fortnight, appointed to another ship and at once sent out to a foreign station, thereby losing the month's leave to which he was entitled. He would ask that that leave should be allowed to stand to his credit when he came home from the next cruise, and added to the fresh leave which he had thereby earned.
He would like to ask further if it were not possible to make better arrangements for the watering of our battleships, both at home and abroad. Would it not be advisable that water tank ships should accompany a fleet, so that when the vessels came to anchor all the fires could be put out, and the engineers and stokers be given a free hand to devote their whole attention to the cleaning of the engines, instead of having to keep a certain number of boilers going for condensing purposes? There were other matters, especially in regard to naval engineers, upon which he hoped to say a few words upon some 1000 future occasion, but he would not now further detain the Committee.
§ MR. JOYCE (Limerick)
said he had listened with great pleasure to the speech which had just been delivered. The hon. and gallant Gentleman had spoken about the disabilities of Roman Catholic seamen, and he hoped that the officials of the Admiralty would take cognisance of his remarks, based as they were upon practical experience. The time had arrived when the Admiralty should get rid of the disabilities under which Roman Catholic sailors suffered, and should appoint at least one priest to every squadron. He wished to say a few words in regard to the claims of Ireland to enjoy some share of the expenditure of the Royal Navy. He came from a harbour which could shelter the whole British Navy—he referred to the Shannon. He was not proposing to put forward any claim on behalf of the Shannon for the establishment of a dockyard there, because he doubted if any practical good could result therefrom. But he did intend to advocate the claim of the fisheries of Ireland to be protected against poaching. It had often been reported that in various places on the Irish coast, and in the estuaries of the rivers, poaching was largely carried on, especially by French mackerel fishermen, and surely it was not asking too much that a sufficient number of small gunboats should be detailed to patrol the coast of Ireland, I in order to put a stop to those illegal: practices. During the past ten or twelve years the salmon and trout fisheries of Ireland had deteriorated very seriously, and the cause of the deterioration was undoubtedly the poaching carried on by steam and sailing trawlers and French mackerel fishermen. Was it not time that such a large, hardworking and deserving class of the community, such as the Irish fishermen undoubtedly were, had their interests protected as much as possible by the Navy, towards the maintenance of which Ireland undoubtedly paid more than its fair proportion. He hoped they would have some assurance from the representative of the Admiralty that that protection would be afforded, and that some gunboats, of which there were plenty, should be detailed to patrol 1001 the Irish coast. It could not be denied that that was a most reasonable suggestion.
§ MR. PENN (Lewisham)
said he wished to congratulate his hon. friend on the appointment of a Committee to see whether the work of naval construction could in any way be accelerated, He understood that the hon. Gentleman had invited the contractors for both ships and engines to attend before the Committee, and to give it their views, so that it might be enabled to suggest to the Admiralty officials some mode by which the work could be pushed forward. He believed the result would be largely to get over the difficulty which now prevented our shipbuilding progressing so rapidly as in former years. It appeared to him that a somewhat false standard had been set up in regard to this matter of the construction of ships, on account of the racing against each other by certain dockyards. Although one ship might be turned out at great speed it was possible that other ships in the same dockyard were delayed for the purpose.
With regard to the Report of the Boilers Committee, there were many suggestions in it which appeared to him to be exceedingly valuable, and there was one point which he believed had not been touched upon by any previous speaker. The Committee recognised the possibility of a combination of boilers in the same ship. In many foreign navies, and notably the German, that combination already obtained. The Committee pointed out that it might be desirable to combine two types of water-tube boilers in the same vessel. That was a very valuable admission. Reference to the Report showed that the small tube boiler was not that very fragile or short-lived thing which it was supposed to be. The "Pelorus" was referred to in the Report of the Committee. It had been in commission for three years, doing duty with the Channel Squadron. The "Pactolus," too, which was fitted with small tube boilers, was commissioned at Christmas, 1898, and, after serving one commission again resumed active duty with the Fleet after only a very slight overhaul. He believed it had been found that the small water-tube boilers in these vessels had given very satisfactory results, and that they were not so liable to trouble as boilers 1002 of the Belleville type, because the circulation was infinitely quicker and the risk of damage from deposits to the tube infinitely less. He saw that the Committee had recommended a trial of the Yarrow large tube boiler, and he certainly should watch with the greatest interest trials with boilers of this type. It had been suggested that the Admiralty should take out the Belleville boilers already fitted in His Majesty's ships, and replace them with cylindrical boilers. That appeared to him to be a very dangerous and retrograde policy, because in order to do that they would have to take up the decks and to interfere with machinery specially designed for working those boilers. The results obtained would inevitably be less satisfactory, and for this reason—the machinery was designed to carry steam at 250 lbs., and if they put in cylindrical boilers he very much doubted if they would be able to get them to run at that pressure. They would also find that the space occupied by the boilers would be so great that it would inevitably reduce the steaming value of the ship. He would suggest, as an alternative, that they substituted the small tube boiler for the Belleville type, instead of introducing the cylindrical type. This was a question, however, with which the Committee were thoroughly competent to deal. The Report which had been issued was only an interim report, and he believed that the final Report would be of the greatest possible value to the Navy. He had never been a friend of the Belleville boiler, but he had always held that some kind of water-tube boiler would have to be used in the future, and he believed that the Committee would be enabled to decide upon the best type.
§ MR. FIELD (Dublin, St. Patrick)
said he had no intention of debating Belleville boilers, construction or discipline, but he desired to direct the attention of the Committee to certain points which affected Irish interests. Having some knowledge of and taking an interest in the fishing industries, he supported the view of the hon. Member for Limerick, and could substantiate his statements that the steam trawlers encroached within the legal bounds, interfering with spawning grounds and destroying young fish by the million. Gunboats for protec- 1003 tion were placed around the coasts of England and Scotland, but although frequent applications were made, it was difficult, if not impossible, to obtain them for Ireland. He had made several applications, and asked questions regarding Dublin and Galway, but little practical result followed. In this connection, too, it might be useful for the Committee to know that it was also very hard sometimes to obtain the co-operation of the coastguards, who should be further utilised for the protection of fisheries around the Irish coast. But if gunboats could not be obtained for the protection of fisheries, they were available to assist evictions. Some years since a gunboat was sent to an eviction in the west of Ireland. She was wrecked upon the expedition—possibly a just retribution, and a lesson to the Admiralty. He therefore hoped that no more gunboats would be employed at evictions, but that they would be obtainable for the protection of Irish fisheries. He entirely agreed with the hon. Member for Wokingham that Roman Catholic chaplains should be granted in the Navy. From every point of view the demand was reasonable, and its necessity obvious.
But his main object in rising was to express the opinion of the Irish people upon the vital and important issue in this matter. Ireland was overtaxed, as the Report of the Financial Relations Commission proved, and as a member of the Irish Financial Reform League he was aware that a strong feeling existed amongst all sections of politicians on this over-taxation grievance. Part of this Irish taxation was levied to support the British Navy, which was used to defend this country, and to protect the British Mercantile Marine. Now, what were the functions of the British Mercantile Marine? They were to pour into Great Britain from all parts of the world food products, to enter into competition with Ireland, an agricultural country, under what is called free trade—which is really a policy of free imports; that is to say, Ireland is taxed to maintain competition with her products. He always argued that taxation was not in itself an evil, provided always it returned in some way to those who paid it: but in this instance the money was exported from Ireland, and 1004 never returned, through any channel whatever. English and Scotch Members could vote this money with a light heart, because it came back somehow to their respective countries, but Ireland was a notable exception. Let the Committee examine the facts. The proposed expenditure amounted to thirty-two millions, or a sum almost equal to that expended on the navies of France, Germany, and the United States. Of this thirty-two millions Ireland, under existing fiscal arrangements, would have to provide about three millions sterling What were the Irish taxpayers to receive in return? Almost nothing. In the victualling and clothing department £2.390,000 were to be spent. How-much of it would go to Ireland? Very little, if any, money or contracts. If he was correctly informed, the pork contract was for Danish pork, and the beef contract for American beef, for the greater portion of the supplies. There were no biscuits supplied from Ireland, although Jacobs, in his own constituency, was one of the largest biscuit manufacturers in the three kingdoms. No clothing nor outfit of any kind whatever. No construction—Belfast and Londonderry were ignored. No repairs. Even from Haul-bowline ships were towed away to be repaired in the south of England. Some time since he asked questions about a disabled vessel which arrived at Queens-town, and almost foundered when being towed across the Channel. This was Admiralty practice in Ireland. He had been lately to Castletown, Berehaven, one of the finest harbours in the world, where the Fleet often anchors. Had there been any local expenditure? No, not as much as a boat-slip or pier was constructed. Fortifications had been dug out and guns concealed, but the work was done by the Army Sapper Corps, and the native residents were not much employed. As the Irish producers—manufacturersandlabourers—werealmost entirely excluded from this Naval Vote, he most emphatically was against this enormous and increasing expenditure, as opposed to Irish interests, because neither custom, nor money, nor labour came to Ireland. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would definitely reply to the points he had raised. In conclusion,. he suggested that at least three million 1005 pounds be expended during the current year in Ireland for produce and labour, as a recoup for the over-taxation extracted from an already impoverished country.
§ MR. PLATT-HIGGINS (Salford, N.)
desired to call attention to the inadequate number and position of the engineering branch of the Navy. From the Memorandum just issued by the Admiralty, it appeared that they bad this year appointed 287 additional officers, but of that number only twenty-one were engineer officers. The question arose—was that increase of twenty-one even adequate in proportion to the increase in horse-power? From a Return issued in 1898 it appeared that in 1888 the Admiralty complement of engineer officers was 662, but that was previous to the introduction of the water-tube boiler, and it might be considered that in that year the engineers had few duties connected with the stokehole. The indicated horsepower of the Navy to-day was about three times that of 1888, therefore three times as many engineer officers were required, but instead of there being 1,986 engineer officers, as there should be, we had only 962. a deficit of 1.000 according to the Admiralty standard of 1888 It might possibly be argued that the increase of horse-power did not necessarily imply a corresponding increase of engineer officers, but that contention was entirely upset by the introduction of the water-tube boilers, which placed a large amount of extra work upon the engineer officers.
The present complements of engineer officers were quite inadequate, as was shown on the trials of large cruisers, when it was found necessary to largely supplement them. Much the same thing might be said with regard to the stokers. He had ascertained that the number of stokers required to man the Navy on half-boiler power, according to the Admiralty scale, was 29.000 and what proportion did that scale bear to the number of stokers required in time of war? The "Formidable," with a complement of 143 stokers, had no fewer than 197 stokers on her trial trip, or an increase of 40 per cent., and the "Cressy," with a complement of 182,had258 stokers on her trial trip. It almost seemed to show that 40 per cent. must be added to the Admiralty complement. He was sorry that the Admiralty seemed to be 1006 going backwards on even their present inadequate scale. For instance, although the "King Alfred" was a sister ship to the "Powerful," and had 5,000 horsepower more, yet the Admiralty complement was thirty stokers less than that of the "Powerful." He had said that the Navy required 29.000 stokers to man our ships for half-boiler power, but if we wished to bring them up to full power, and also to prepare for contingencies such as sickness, we must add 50 per cent., which would raise the 29,000 to 44.000 stokers, adequately to man our men-of-war in time of war. Allowing for the fact, that in times of peace only about three-fifths of our ships were in commission, we wanted 26,000 stokers for the ships in commission to-day. but we had only 21,000. Therefore, we were 1.000 officers and 5.000 stokers short. Why was there this dearth of engineer officers? It was not so much the want of money as that we could not get them. The position of the engineer officers was entirely inadequate. The Admiralty was reduced to the necessity of advertising in the engineering papers for temporary or emergency officers who were of a far inferior standard to those who bad passed through the course at Keyham, and this must be very injurious to the service. It had been said that other nations had this same difficulty in regard to reconciling the position of their engineer officers with the executive branch, but why should not this country be the first to obtain the advantages of recognising that the centre of gravity of a war ship was shifting from above deck to below deck, and that it is the man who keeps the ship in speed we must look after, therefore he hoped the Secretary to the Admiralty would see his way to a more adequate recognition of the position of the engineer officers.
§ *MR. FENWICK (Northumberland, Wansbeck)
said it would be interesting to know when this cumulative expenditure on the Navy might be expected to cease. He was not interested in the question of water-tube boilers; his interest lay in some of the human machinery used in the Navy. He joined in the appeal that had just been made on behalf of the engineers and particularly of the men who manned our ships below the decks. He thought the two things which lay at the root of the difficulty of procuring engineers were 1007 money and fair treatment. The Admiralty had considerable difticulty in attracting good engineers and artificers to the Navy for the reason that the Service was not made sufficiently attractive to induce artificers to join. Engineer artificers were very intelligent and highly skilled artisans, and they had to pass a very severe examination as to their skill and physical fitness before they were accepted and enrolled in the Service. These men trained in the Navy would cost the country £200 per man before they reached the stage of efficiency attained by engine-room artificers when they entered the Navy. That was the sum which these men had spent upon their education before joining the Service, and what inducements were offered in the shape of pay?—5s. 6d. a day! That rate of pay was fixed eighteen years ago, and since that time the wages in private engineering shops had increased 15 or 20 per cent. He was of opinion that when the rate of pay was fixed it was fixed far below what ought to have been given, and it ought to be increased. If the rate of pay was increased the Navy would obtain all the men they required. With regard to increase in rank to that of a warrant officer, it seemed to him absurd that a man should be required to have reached thirty-five years of age as well as have ten years confirmed service to his credit before he was entitled to take his higher rating. Ten years service was sufficient without penalising a man by compelling him to wait until he was twenty-five years of age before ho could commence to qualify. If that condition was removed younger and more efficient men would be attracted to the Navy, and that was what the Service required. He therefore recommended the abolition of the age limit and the retention only of the ten years confirmed service. The retiring pensions, also, were disproportionate to the wages earned by the artificers, and he hoped the hon. Gentleman would be able to see his way to make some concession in regard to that matter.
§ *THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. ARNOLD-FORSTER, Belfast, W.)
thought that the view which had been expressed in the course of the discussion that the money for the Ship- 1008 building Vote was not sufficient was hardly the view which the Committee would be inclined to take. He expressed his appreciation of the valuable services of the warrant officers, and said that they had no more ardent champions than the officers of the Navy. The hon. and gallant Member for Wokingham had said that the opinion of naval officers coincided with his own. Had there been unanimity of opinion among naval officers, the matter would have been dealt with long ago. It was because there was at present a difference among the superior officers of the Navy with regard to the way this question should be dealt with that there had not been any conclusion arrived at such as that suggested. It was not clear that any great boon would be conferred on the warrant officers by making it a condition that they should receive commissioned rank. There were many circumstances which differentiated the warrant officers from the quartermasters in the Army. The quartermaster was very often an elderly man with a wife and family, and he lived amid his own domestic surroundings. There was no similar opportunity for the warrant officer, who received his commission and had to take his place lateinlife intheward-room, which was the sole social establishment on board a ship-of-war. They must look rather in the direction of supplying adequate inducements on shore for warrant officers of long service and tried capacity. Pledges had been given on this matter which must be carried out. A Committee was now considering the question, and he hoped that the inquiry would result in some advantages to the warrant officers. The whole subject was engaging the attention of the Admiralty.
Hon. Members from Ireland drew attention to the protection of the fisheries. It was not the case to say nothing was done for the protection of Irish fisheries. A torpedo gunboat, two steam cruisers, and two sailing cruisers were detached by the Admiralty for the purpose, and lately an arrangement had been made by the Irish Government to equip a special cruiser. The Admiralty did not pretend in any part of the United Kingdom to superintend the fisheries or to enforce the bye-laws of any local authority, but it did undertake to protect all 1009 fisheries of the United Kingdom as far as possible from any encroachment by foreign fishermen. Complaint had been made of the inadequacy of Admiralty expenditure in Ireland. The hon. Member for the St. Patrick Division of Dublin had alluded to the lack of expenditure for construction in Ireland. But the Admiralty was not to blame for any slackness in shipbuilding. The hon. Gentleman had suggested that facilities should be given for the building and repairing of ships in Ireland. If the Department should receive tenders from Galway or Derry to build a battleship for the Navy, he would undertake to see that the Admiralty afforded every chance of success. As a matter of fact, however, the amount of Admiralty expenditure in Ireland was underrated. Some years ago, he believed, the expenditure was estimated to amount to nearly half a million, and the expenditure at the present time must be larger. More had been done in the last few years to make Haul-bowline a well-equipped and effective dockyard than had been the case for many years past. The expenditure there had largely increased, and the personnel had increased likewise. But in addition to the increased expenditure there was a constant expenditure going on by reason of the visits of the Channel Fleet and the presence of another guardship on the Irish coast.
It was said that the Admiralty had been misinformed with reference to the engineer officers of the Navy, the engine-room artificers, and the stokers. He declared that there was no shortage in respect of engine-room artificers at the present time. He took full cognisance of the statements on this subject from the hon. Member for the Wans-beck Division. With regard to engineers, he had made himself acquainted with the discussions which had taken place at their representative institutions, and no one could read these discussions without feeling the difficulties of the question. It was a question which must engage the attention of the Admiralty. Only last year a concession was made to engineers in the Navy, and this he believed had been accepted as some amelioration of their position. he wished that requests on their behalf were put in a more definite form, ft was asked that engineer officers should be given executive 1010 rank, and with one exception this had not been found possible in any foreign Navy. That was not a reason against it, but it was an argument they had to consider. It was said that they must give executive authority to the engineers over their men. That proposal was based on a false analogy. It was suggested that an engineer officer could not punish the men under his command for breaches of discipline, but no more could a lieutenant in command of a turret. It was a standing rule in the Navy that on punishment could be inflicted until twenty-four hours after the offence had been committed, and it could only be inflicted by the captain of the ship or the officer he had deputed for the purpose. There was no injustice that he could see done to the engineer officer. With regard to the question of engineers being allowed to sit on courts-martial, his view was that if the Admiralty should see their way to agree to this proposal at any time it would be much wiser and more satisfactory to allow engineers to sit as naval officers, and not as engineers. Another point which he knew had engaged attention was the failure of a large number of engineers to reach the highest branch of the profession; that was to say, promotion of engineer officers to the higher grades must of necessity be arrested at a certain point short of executive command. He did not see how that difficulty was to be got over wholly. It had been got over in part. There had been a considerable addition made to the number in the higher ranks which engineers were capable of attaining. Whether that number could be increased he did not know. One great experiment was being made with regard to engineers, namely, in the United States. The idea was to enter all officers for deck service and for engine-room service indifferently, and to appoint them to either of these services. That was an experiment which would be most interesting and instructive. He was told that up to the present moment the experiment had not succeeded, and they might not get from that all the lessons they would have liked to get. The condition of things was not altogether satisfactory, and they ought to make an attempt to improve matters, for they 1011 could not exaggerate the importance of the engineering branch of the Service. It was an importance which had greatly increased, and he believed anything that could be done to ameliorate the condition of the engineer officers consistently with the interests of the Navy ought to be done. He did not believe that the full weight of criticism in this matter came from the engineers themselves. He did not find evidence of that. On the contrary, he found that there were very varied opinions, but, as he had stated before, this was a matter which ought to receive the consideration it deserved. If hon. Members would grapple a little more closely with the difficulties of the question, and would submit proposals not incompatible with the interests of the Service, such proposals would receive from the Board of Admiralty all the attention they deserved. All that had been said in reference to engine-room artificers and the question of qualifying age for warrant officers deserved careful consideration. It was not in his power to give any pledge, but the matter should be referred to the Board. In regard to pensions, he was fully sensible of the importance of the remarks made, and no opportunity should be lost for giving them full consideration.
§ THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR, Manchester, E.)
suggested that at this point it might be convenient to the Committee to take Tote A. The general discussion might equally range over Vote 1.
§ MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON (Dundee)
saw no convenience in this, and it might be that a specific Amendment might be raised on Vote 1.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR
was quite ready to consult the general convenience, but it might be understood that at the end of the discussion the two Votes should be taken.
§ MR. JOHN REDMOND (Waterford)
said that so far as the Irish Members were concerned they were only anxious to adopt whatever course would be most convenient. It seemed to him that a general discussion such as was now proceeding might be out of order on Vote 1 if a specific Amendment were moved. He suggested that it would be 1012 better to go on with Vote A until matters, of general interest had been disposed of.
§ MR. KEARLEY (Devonport)
said they all recognised the enormous advantage of having in the Secretary to the Admiralty a gentleman who had a thorough and comprehensive knowledge of every question brought up, and who was able to deal with it instantly and satisfactorily. That was a matter which they could fully appreciate. Whatever might have been the advantages in the past of having a round man in a square hole, they at all events on this occasion had the right man in the right place. The hon. Member had replied to some observations made by the hon. and gallant Member for the Wokingham Division in regard to the treatment of warrant officers. The hon. and gallant Member said that young men of the lower deck who showed special aptitude should be taken in hand then and there by the Admiralty and sent to Greenwich, and given every opportunity of training and education, so that they could have access to the commissioned ranks. Of course, hon. Members knew that the opportunity now came rather late. A man was married and had a family, and consequently it was very difficult for him to uphold the position. But it did seem wrong, in his judgment, that the whole of the lower deck of the Navy should be shut out from the opportunity of attaining the higher ranks of the Navy. They had heard in connection with the war in South Africa that the officers there had not proved what the country might have anticipated. A good many disasters had resulted from bad leading. There had been social barriers interposed under which men in the lower ranks could not attain the higher. He was perfectly certain that the country would find sooner or later that it had made a serious mistake. The hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Admiralty had made one step forward when he recalled the numerous pledges in regard to the finding of positions for warrant officers given by both administrations extending over a period of ten years. He hoped these pledges-would now bear fruit, and that in the hands of the Secretary to the Admiralty they would no longer have a long series of these pledges, but some practical proposal during the current year.
1013 In regard to the engine-room complement, there had been some weighty and powerful speeches by gentlemen who prefaced their remarks with the observation that they were perfectly free and independent, and that they did not represent an interest, and so on. He thought the suggestion was that those who did represent the naval interests were supposed to be under some taint, and that they did not speak with absolutely free minds. He must absolutely deny the soft impeachment. Some hon. Members did represent these men, but they were just as much entitled to speak for them as an agricultural Member was to speak in favour of agriculturists. At all events, these Members were rather late in the field. His hon. friends and himself had been bringing forward these questions for the last nine years, and they were very glad to have the assistance of others, but nevertheless they recognised that it was their duty to bring these questions before the House on behalf of their constituents. He personally brought them forward because he took a great interest in all questions affecting the Navy. The Secretary to the Admiralty in his reply told them that there was no dearth of engine-room artificers, and that, indeed, last year the Admiralty had to stop recruiting. That seemed a strange thing when they considered that they had permanently reduced the engine-room complements, and that at the present moment they could not mobilise the Fleet for war. Two years ago, when they mobilised for the Manoeuvres, they had only one-third of the complement according to the mobilisation scheme, and they had to denude the harbour ships to find men to make up that one-third. It seemed strange to him that they were in such an unfortunate position. Whether that was so or not, certainly with regard to engine-room artificers there was a most woeful lack of skilled rating. The Admiralty, under Mr. Goschen, resorted to all sorts of expedients to get over the difficulty. He took offence at the fact that the trades unions of the country were boycotting the Navy because the Admiralty would not accord to the men the treatment which the trades unions said they were entitled to outside the Navy. The present Secretary to the Admiralty had been very fair, for he had recognised the 1014 importance of those questions affecting the warrant officers, engine-room artificers, and engineers. He thought the hon. Member would find before long that it would be a cheaper operation to give these men a. better status, both with regard to rank and pay, than they at present enjoyed.
During the nine years he had been in the House he had had the pleasure of voting for Roman Catholic chaplains in the Fleet.
With regard to the question of courts-martial, he pointed out that under Clause 58 of the Navy Discipline Act executive engineer officers were not entitled to sit on these courts, and he urged that it would only be fair if when a member of the engine-room staff was to be tried by court-martial one of his class should be on it. The present was a manifestly unfair arrangement, and he suggested that Clause 58 required alteration. He had a special reason to give why it should be altered. Pledges given in the House were supposed to count for something. When First Lord of the Admiralty the Secretary of State for India gave an absolute and definite pledge in this House in 1891 to Sir John Pope Henessey, who brought the matter forward, that the arrangement should be altered. The noble Lord said the Naval Lords did not agree with him, but he thought it was right, and he promised that the concession should be made.
Last summer the Admiralty appointed a Departmental Committee to deal with the question of victualling for the Navy. He appeared before the Committee in July last and gave evidence, and he thought the time had now arrived when they should have some statement as to the outcome of the deliberations. Their complaint was that the variety of the food in the Navy was deficient. Nobody suggested for a moment that the quantity was deficient, because having illustrations of the good physique of the men of the Navy it was impossible to suggest that they were being starved. The food continued on the basis established a quarter of a century ago, and the standard of living in the country had enormously improved since then. The men were compelled, as it were, to supplement the dietary by making purchases in the canteen. 1015 It was estimated that this represented a drain of 30s. a month on the pay of the men. They were served with dry bread and cheese, but no butter or milk, and they did not get preserves. It was a dietary altogether out of date. Another point raised was with regard to the meal hours. They were most antiquated and ludicrous —breakfast was at eight o'clock, dinner at twelve, and what was called supper at four. That was the last meal a man got until the morning came round again. He knew there was an option exercised of making an additional issue under certain circumstances of half a pint of cocoa, but the system, was altogether wrong under which the last meal was at four o'clock in the afternoon. He did not want to go into too much detail on this question, because he hoped the hon. Member would give them some satisfaction as to what decision had been come to. He wished to say a word as to the management of the canteen. The canteen system was one of which the Admiralty took no particular cognisance. Food was put on board the ship, and the men were exploited right and left with high prices. Contractors got the business, but he could not see why the Admiralty should not carry on these canteens themselves, and sell articles at practically cost price. He suggested that the Admiralty should set up in various ports cold storage depots, so that there would be more fresh food served out to the Navy. These depots might be set up at Hong Kong, Malta, Esquimault, and Sydney. These were coaling stations where the fleet congregated.
He was glad that the Admiralty were encouraging men who showed a special aptitude for gunnery, and that they were recognising the Marines on board ship. But he did not see why a marine should only be paid an additional 1d. per day for holding the same qualification which a seaman-gunner held, and for which he got 3d. per day. It was most important that the gunners should have every encouragement. However good a ship might be, and however good the officers and crew to bring the ship within striking distance, the gunner had the last word. They knew what good sighting meant in the war between the Americans and the Spanish. 1016 The Americans mowed the Spanish down because they had good gunners.
He wished to know whether the pledge given by Mr. Goschen last year, that the whole question of labour should be taken into consideration, was in course of being carried out. The standard rate of pay in Government establishments was far below that prevailing in outside employment. At the time of the General Election the First Lord of the Treasury gave on behalf of his party a definite promise that fair wages would be paid to Government workmen. The question of pensions affecting chief petty officers and engine-room artificers had been referred to and the Secretary to the Admiralty said that all pensions were based on the rating held in the service, and that the men had not very much to complain about, as they were pensioned on their rating. That was what he should like him to inquire into, because an engine-room artificer held during the time he was serving the rating of chief petty officer, but when he went into retirement he was not pensioned on that rating at all. He was pensioned on a rating which he did not hold—that of first-class petty officer. It worked out in this way. Although this was a skilled man, who came to them with his skill which did not cost the Admiralty anything, after having qualified himself at some other body's expense, and although they must give him a high rate of pay as a skilled artisan, they sent him out of the service in twenty-two years, or what not, and they gave him a pension altogether disproportionate to the rate of pay drawn when he was serving. The grievance with regard to the petty officers of the second branch was that they could not hold a higher rating and were pensioned at the lower rating. This was a question which had been discussed over and over again. Lord Charles Beresford made a rather inflammatory speech against the hesitation of the Admiralty to grant what was generally recognised throughout the whole Navy as a concession that ought to be made. The hon. Member hoped that now they would receive a more definite offer.
§ MR. FFRENCH (Wexford, S.)
complained that the fishery off the coast of 1017 Wexford, which a few years ago was valuable and remunerative, had, owing to the incursions of steam trawlers from Bristol, Milford, and other places, been rendered almost worthless to the Wexford fishermen. Some time ago the names of the steam trawlers were actually secured and forwarded to the proper authorities, but the Government refused to prosecute. on the ground that the captain and crews could not be identified. It would, however, have been a very easy matter, having obtained the name of the vessel, to find out the captain and crew. For three years he had repeatedly asked for a gunboat or a sloop-of-war to protect, not only the Wexford fishery, but the Irish fisheries generally, but he had always been told that none could be spared. Last year the Vice-President of the Board of Agriculture promised that as soon as the Board got into working order an armed vessel would be procured to patrol Irish, waters. That had been done, and some months ago, when the steam trawlers again visited the Wexford coast, the Vice-President sent a gunboat down and caught them in the act of piracy. Only a small grant of money was set apart for the Board of Agriculture, and it was not fair that out of that sum Ireland should have to equip this armed vessel, especially considering that Irishmen paid so much towards the maintenance of the Navy, from which they derived no benefit whatever. Ireland had no commerce or trade to protect. She once, had both, but England deprived her of them just as she did of her national Parliament. No doubt it was good policy from the English point of view to strengthen her First Line of defence to keep off foreign invaders. Ireland, however, feared no foreign invaders, as the country had been so impoverished that it would not be worth the while of any nation to take it. Englishmen used to sing, "We've got the ships, we've got the men, and we've got the money too." but now the tune had changed to, "We want the ships, we want the men, and we want the money too." If the Government wanted ships, men, and money, let them tax their own country and self-governing colonies, but not Ireland, which derived no benefit whatever from the expenditure.
MR. POWER (Waterford, E.)
reminded the Leader of the House that 1018 when he was at the Irish Office and a Bill was introduced dealing with steam trawling he induced the Irish Members to withdraw their opposition by an undertaking that ample provision would be made for the protection of the fisheries. They were given to understand that the Admiralty was prepared to back up the right hon. Gentleman's promise, but nothing satisfactory had been done. The hon. Gentleman in charge of the Vote had made out that a certain number of gunboats and cruisers had been placed at the disposal of the Irish Board of Agriculture.
§ *MR. ARNOLD- FORSTER
I said that five vessels were supplied by the Admiralty, and that a vessel has been recently supplied by the Admiralty for the protection of the fisheries, but outside the control of the Admiralty.
maintained that the funds at the disposal of the Board of Agriculture were very limited, and it was not fair that out of them this vessel should have to be equipped. The Government should supply more boats for the protection, of the Irish fisheries, as the coasts were absolutely infested by these steam trawlers, and owing to the laws being bye-laws instead of general laws damage was being done every day. The hon. Gentleman had given the go-by to the very important question of Catholic chaplains. The Catholic Bishop of Water-ford had recently said that if no action was taken by the authorities he should think it his duty to use his influence with, the young men in that district to prevent them joining the Naval Reserve, and he would be perfectly justified in so doing. Out of the sum which was now asked for some £2,500,000 would fall upon Ireland, and what would Ireland gain in return in the shape of trade protection? They had very little trade to protect, because it was notorious that by various laws they took good care to crush the trade of Ireland generations ago. He thought some of the great battleships might be built in Ireland instead of simply sending there ships which required repairs.
There was one point to which he, particularly desired to call attention. All hon. Members acknowledged that more gunnery practice was required both in the Army and the Navy. Along the coast of Ireland they had naval stations for their 1019 Reserve men, but they knew absolutely nothing of gun practice, although the Naval authorities recognised that this was a most important branch of the Service. He maintained that the most important thing they could do was to teach those Naval Reserve men how to handle a gun, and that could only be done by having targets at sea. In his locality no provision was made for getting out those targets properly, and they could only be used when the weather was calm, and when they did not move about. Such practice as that was very little use; and as they had plenty of southwesterly weather, under present circumstances it was impossible to have gun practice during a good many months. If they provided a small boat-slip at Tramore continual practice could be provided, and he hoped the hon. Gentleman would have a Report made as to whether this could be done, and what the cost would be. Some few years ago the Admiralty decided that they did not think this was necessary, but the number of men in training there had increased very largely since, and they could not have proper practice unless some better accommodation was made. He hoped the hon. Gentleman would consult his own Naval authorities on this subject, for he felt that they would bear him out that what he had suggested was absolutely necessary. A very small expenditure in this direction would enable the Reserves to be drilled properly, whereas under the present condition of things matters were so bad that they could not even launch a boat to put up their target unless the weather was absolutely calm. He commended this suggestion to the favourable consideration of the Admiralty, and he
|Acland- Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F||Bond, Edward||Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas|
|Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel||Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-||Corbett, A. Cameron(Glasgow)|
|Arkwright, John Stanhope||Bull, William James||Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)|
|Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.||Bullard, Sir Harry||Cox, Irwin Edw. Bainbridge|
|Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John||Carson, Rt. Hn. Sir Edw. H.||Cranborne, Viscount|
|Austin, Sir John||Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs.)||Cripps, Charles Alfred|
|Bailey, James (Walworth)||Cavendish, V.C.W (Derbyshire||Dewar, T. R. (T'rH'mletsS.Geo.|
|Bain, Colonel James Robert||Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)||Dickson, Charles Scott|
|Baird, John George Alexander||Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J(Birm.||Dixon-Poynder, Sir John P.|
|Balcarres, Lord||Chamberlain, J. Austen(Worc'r||Dimsdale, Sir Joseph C.|
|Baldwin, Alfred||Chapman, Edward||Dixon-Hartland, Sir F.Dixon|
|Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (Manch'r||Charrington, Spencer||Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-|
|Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W (Leeds||Churchill, Winston Spencer||Duke, Henry Edward|
|Banbury, Frederick George||Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.||Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin|
|Bartley, George C. T.||Cohen, Benjamin Louis||Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton|
|Bathurst, Hon. Allen B.||Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse||Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn 'Edwd.|
|Beach, Rt Hn. Sir M. H. (Bristol)||Colomb, Sir J. Charles Ready||Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Man'r|
|Bignold, Arthur||Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole||Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst|
§ ventured to say that his claim was a very reasonable one.
§ MR. WILLIAM REDMOND (Clare, E.)
On a point of order, I desire to ask whether your attention was called to the fact that before the closure was accepted by you, Mr. Lowther, five or six English Members on the opposite side of the House rose to speak.
§ SIR FORTESCUE FLANNERY (Yorkshire. Shipley)
On a point of order. Mr. Lowther, I wish to say that that is not so.
§ MR. WILLIAM REDMOND
On a point of order I ask, with great respect, whether it is in order for an hon. Gentleman opposite to flatly contradict the statement which I made, when it is within the knowledge of every hon. Member on this side of the House that at least four hon. Gentlemen on the other side rose to speak, including the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth?
I think the denial of the hon. Member might have been couched in more polite language, but I do not think it is unparliamentary to say, "That is not so."
§ Question put, "That the Question be now put."
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes, 180;
§ Noes, 94. (Division List No. 91.)1021
|Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne||Kimber, Henry||Powell, Sir Francis Sharp|
|Fisher, William Hayes||Knowles, Lees||Pretyman, Ernest George|
|FitzGerald, Sir Robt. Penrose-||Lawson, John Grant||Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward|
|Fitzroy, Hon. Edw. Algernon||Lecky, Rt. Hn William Edw. H.||Purvi, Robert|
|Flannery, Sir Fortescue||Lee, A. H. (Hants, Fareham)||Pym, C. Guy|
|Fletcher, Sir Henry||Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage||Rasch, Major Frederic Carne|
|Flower, Ernest||Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie||Remnant, James Farquharson|
|Garfit, William||Leighton, Stanley||Renwick, George|
|Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon||Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.||Ridley, S. F. (Bethnal Green)|
|Goschen, Hn. George Joachim||Long, Rt Hn Walter (Bristol, S.)||Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye|
|Goulding, Edward Alfred||Loyd, Archie Kirkman||Ropner, Colonel Robert|
|Graham, Henry Robert||Lucas, Reginald J.(Portsm'th)||Royds, Clement Molyneux|
|Green, Walford D (Wednesbury)||Macartney, Rt Hn W. G. Ellison||Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)|
|Greene, Sir E W (B'rySEdm'nda||Macdona, John Cumming||Sharpe, William Edward T.|
|Grenfell, William Henry||M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)||Shaw-Stewart, M. H (Renfrew)|
|Hain, Edward||M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh W||Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)|
|Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G. (Mid'x)||Majendie, James A. H.||Smith, Hon. W. F. D.(Strand)|
|Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robt. Wm.||Malcolm, Ian||Stanley, Hon. A. (Ormskirk)|
|Hare, Thomas Leigh||Martin, Richard Biddulph||Stewart, Sir M. J. M'Taggart|
|Harris, F.Leverton (Tynem'th)||Maxwell, Rt Hn Sir H E (W'igton||Stroyan, John|
|Hay, Hon. Claude George||Maxwell, W.J. (Dumfriesshire)||Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley|
|Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley)||Melville, Beresford Valentine||Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier|
|Heath, James (Staffords, N. W.)||Milton, Viscount||Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)|
|Henderson, Alexander||Molesworth, Sir Lewis||Tomlinson, Wm. Edw Murray|
|Higginbottom, S. W.||Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)||Tritton, Charles Ernest|
|Hoare, Edw. Brodie (Hampsd.||Moon, Edward Robert Pacy||Valentia, Viscount|
|Hoare, Sir Samuel (Norwich)||More, Robert J. (Shropshire)||Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. H. (Sh'ffi'd)|
|Hobhouse, Hy. (Somerset, E.)||Morrison, James Archibald||Walker, Col. William Hall|
|Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside||Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptford)||Warde, Lieut.-Col. C. E.|
|Horner, Frederick William||Mount, William Arthur||Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)|
|Howard, Capt. J (Kent, Faversh)||Murray, Rt Hn A Graham (Bute)||Welby, Lt.-Col. A.C.E (Tauntn)|
|Howard, J. (Mid., Tottenham)||Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)||Welby, Sir C. G. E. (Notts.)|
|Hozier, Hon. James Hy. Cecil||Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)||Whitmore, Charles Algernon|
|Hudson, George Bickersteth||Nicholson, William Graham||Williams, Rt Hn J. Powell (Bir.)|
|Hughes, Colonel Edwin||Nicol, Donald Ninian||Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R. (Bath|
|Hutton, John (Yorks, N.R.)||O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens||Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm|
|Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse||Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay||Wortley, Rt. Hn. C.B. Stuart-|
|Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick||Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)||Wrightson, Sir Thomas|
|Jessel, Cap. Herbert Merton||Pemberton, John S. G.||Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George|
|Johnston, William (Belfast)||Penn, John||Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong|
|Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T. (Denbigh)||Pierpoint, Robert||TELLERS FOE THE AYES—Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.|
|Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop||Platt-Higgins, Frederick|
|Keswick, William||Plummer, Walter R.|
|Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.||Harmsworth, R. Leicester||O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N|
|Asher, Alexander||Hayden, John Patrick||O'Malley, William|
|Ashton, Thomas Gair||Hayne, Rt. Hon.Charles Seale-||O'Mara, James|
|Black, Alexander William||Jacoby, James Alfred||O'Shaughnessy, P. J.|
|Blake, Edward||Jameson, Major J. Eustace||O'Shee, James John|
|Burke, E. Haviland-||Jones, D. Brynmor (Swansea)||Power, Patrick Joseph|
|Burns, John||Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)||Price, Robert John|
|Buxton, Sydney Charles||Joyce, Michael||Rea, Russell|
|Caldwell, James||Kearley, Hudson E.||Reckitt, Harold James|
|Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)||Kennedy, Patrick James||Reddy, M.|
|Carew, James Laurence||Lambert, George||Redmond, John E. (Waterford)|
|Carvill, Patrick Geo. Hamilton||Layland-Barratt, Francis||Redmond, William (Clare)|
|Clancy, John Joseph||Leamy, Edmund||Rigg, Richard|
|Condon, Thomas Joseph||Leigh, Sir Joseph||Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)|
|Crean, Eugene||Leng, Sir John||Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)|
|Cullinan, J.||Lundon, W.||Shipman, Dr. John G.|
|Daly, James||MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.||Sinclair, Capt. John (Forfarsh.|
|Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)||M'Dermott, Patrick||Soares, Ernest J.|
|Davies, M.Vaughan-(Cardigan)||M'Fadden, Edward||Spencer, Rt. Hn. C R (Northants)|
|Donelan, Captain A.||M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)||Strachey, Edward|
|Doogan, P. C.||Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe||Sullivan, Donal|
|Duffy, William J.||Markham, Arthur Basil||Thomas, David A. (Merthyr)|
|Emmott, Alfred||Murphy, J.||Thompson, E. C. (Monaghan, N.)|
|Esmonde, Sir Thomas||Nannetti, Joseph P.||Ure, Alexander|
|Fenwick, Charles||Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)||Warner, Thos. Courtenay T.|
|Ffrench, Peter||O'Brien, James F. X. (Cork)||White, Luke (York, E.R.)|
|Field, William||O'Brien, Kendal (TipperaryMd)||Wodehouse, Hn. Armine (Essex|
|Flavin, Michael Joseph||O'Brien, Patrick (Ki kenny)||Yoxall, James Henry|
|Flynn, James Christopher||O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.)|
|Foster, Sir W. (Derby Co.)||O'Doherty, William||TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Edward Morton and Mr. Tennant.|
|Furness, Sir Christopher||O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)|
|Gilhooly, James||O'Dowd, John|
|Hammond, John||O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)|
§ Question put accordingly, "That 118,625 men and boys be employed for the Sea and Coast Guard Services for the year ending on the 31st day of March,1024
§ 1902, including 19,805 Royal Marines."
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes, 224; Noes, 54. (Division List No. 92.)
|Valentia, Viscount||White, Luke (York, E.R.)||Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George|
|Vincent, Col Sir CEH. (Sheffield||Whitmore, Charles Algernon||Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong|
|Walker, Col. William Holl||Williams, Rt Hn J Powell-(Br'm||Yoxall, James Henry|
|Warde, Lieut.-Col. C. E.||Wodehouse, Hn. Armine (Essex|
|Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.||Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R (Bath)||TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.|
|Wason, John C. (Orkney)||Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm|
|Welby, Lt.-Col. ACE (Taunton||Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-|
|Welby, Sir Chas. G. E. (Notts.)||Wrightson, Sir Thomas|
|Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)||Gilhooly, James||O'Doherty, William|
|Blake, Edward||Hammond, John||O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)|
|Boyle, James||Hayden, John Patrick||O'Dowd, John|
|Burke, E. Haviland-||Jameson, Major J. Eustace||O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)|
|Burns, John||Joyce, Michael||O'Kelly, James (Roscommon N.|
|Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)||Kennedy, Patrick James||O'Malley, William|
|Carew, James Laurence||Leamy, Edmund||O'Mara, James|
|Carvill, Patrick Geo. Hamilton||Lundon, W.||O'Shaughnessy, P. J.|
|Clancy, John Joseph||MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.||O'Shee, James John|
|Condon, Thomas Joseph||M'Dermott, Patrick||Power, Patrick Joseph|
|Crean, Eugene||M'Fadden, Edward||Reddy, M.|
|Cullinan, J.||M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)||Redmond, John E. (Waterford)|
|Daly, James||Murphy, J.||Redmond, William (Clare)|
|Doogan, P. C.||Nannetti, Joseph P.||Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)|
|Duffy, William J.||Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)||Sullivan, Donal|
|Ffrench, Peter||O'Brien, James F. X. (Cork)||Thompson, E. C. (Monaghan, N.)|
|Field, William||O'Brien, Kendal (Tippera'y Mid)||TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir Thomas Esmonde and Captain Donelan.|
|Flavin, Michael Joseph||O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)|
|Flynn, James Christopher||O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.)|
§ 1. Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £5,760,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expenses of Wages, etc. to Officers, Seamen and Boys, Coast Guard, and Royal Marines, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1902."
§ MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON
On a point of order, I should like to put a question. Do we understand that the general discussion is being continued on this Vote?
§ MR. JOHN REDMOND
Surely it is within your recollection, Mr. Lowther, and within the recollection of everybody in the House who was here earlier in the afternoon, that at the time the First Lord of the Treasury asked us to let Vote A pass to come to Vote 1 on the ground that we could have a general discussion on Vote 1, when I suggested that that might possibly not be in order the First Lord of the Treasury shook his head, and from your silence, Mr. Lowther, we were all under the impression that a general discussion could take place on Vote 1. I may be allowed to point out that there are remain- 1026 ing one or two small questions—one of which was raised by almost the last speaker—which have received no answer at all.
§ MR. JOHN REDMOND
No, I refer to the question of accommodation at Tramore, in the county of Waterford. As I stated earlier in the afternoon, there is not the slightest desire on these Votes to have anything in the nature of illegitimate or improper discussion. I may say that on this Vote we had determined that five or ten minutes longer would have enabled us to have concluded the discussion on the Vote. If the right hon. Gentleman had not been so precipitate in moving to cut short the debate I think it would have been better from his own point of view, for he would not have imported the heat which he has done into this matter, and he certainly would have ensured that the sitting would not have been indefinitely prolonged. If, contrary to the universal understanding arrived at earlier in the afternoon, we are now to be shut out from the discussion of main topics, so far from facilitating the progress of business, the illegitimate use of the closure will urge every hon. Member on these benches to throw every obstacle in the way.
I understand that the hon. Member for Waterford was 1027 asking me a question. In reply to the question, certainly it is always possible by agreement between the two sides of the House, with the Chairman giving his consent, to arrange that a discussion shall be taken upon a particular Vote which otherwise might not be in order. I would point out. however, that when the First Lord of the Treasury made that suggestion it was refused by the hon. Member for Dundee sitting on the Front Opposition Bench. As it was refused, and as I was not asked to give my consent, I had no consent to give, and I have, therefore, to follow the ordinary rules of the House.
§ MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON
As you have referred to my action, Mr. Lowther, I wish to say that if the genera) discussion is not to be continued on Vote 1, I do not see what is to be gained by this change.
§ MR. KEARLEY
said he understood that the hon. Gentleman would not be permitted to reply on the various subjects which had been raised. The hon. Member in charge of the Vote had given his reply after one and a half hour's discussion. Was it to be understood now that they could have no reply given to the various questions which they had raised, upon the only opportunity which they had had of raising them?
Strictly speaking, any hon. Member who addresses the Committee on this Vote must make his speech relevant to this Vote, but possibly under the circumstances the House would allow the hon. Member in charge of this Vote to reply to the questions which have been raised.
§ MR. JOHN REDMOND
Does your ruling amount to this—that no further questions of general interest can be raised?
"General interest" opens up rather a big question. I should much rather prefer to rule on each point as it arises. This Vote is a big one, and covers a great deal of ground, and it is possible to bring in a good many subjects within, the purview of this Vote. I would rather decide on each particular question as it arises.
§ MR. JOHN REDMOND
I will mention one specific question which has already been touched upon in the general discussion, and which has not been answered adequately by the Government —I refer to the question of providing further facilities, from the Admiralty point of view, of boat stages or piers in certain parts of Ireland. Should I be entitled now to continue that discussion?
§ MR. JOHN REDMOND
That is a subject which was in order on Vote A, but is not in order on Vote 1. Therefore I beg to move, Mr. Lowther, that you now report progress, and I do so for the purpose of calling attention to what has occurred. I think the Secretary to the Admiralty, as far as he had the opportunity of doing so, answered the questions put to him in a very fair way. I think the Secretary to the Admiralty will admit that it is an unreasonable thing, especially after what occurred earlier in the afternoon, to deprive us of this opportunity of raising this and similar questions. If, as I said before, we had been permitted to continue this discussion for a quarter of an hour longer, the hon. Gentleman no doubt would have answered the point raised by the hon. Member for East Water ford, and he could have disposed of it in a few sentences. No doubt they would have been of a sympathetic character. By the operation of this rule, which has been brought into play by the Leader of the House, who was not present during the discussion—
§ MR. JOHN REDMOND
Then, Sir, if the right hon. Gentleman was present, he deliberately moved the closure to prevent his hon. friend next to him from giving an answer. The right hon. Gentleman will gain nothing by this. Such conduct is absurd and childish, and if he desires to get his Estimates; through he should take advantage of the conciliatory spirit shown to him earlier in the afternoon. There was not the slightest intention of prolonging this 1029 discussion up to half an hour ago, and everyone present knows that our contributions to this debate were reasonable and to the point, and the proof of this is to be found in the fact that every one of the questions asked met with a sympathetic answer from the Secretary to the Admiralty. The last point mentioned has not met with that sympathetic consideration, because his mouth has been closed by the moving of the closure. It is not only Members on this side of the House who have been closured by this motion, but also Members on the other side. The hon. Member for one of the Divisions of Yorkshire ought to apologise for the flat contradiction—such as I have often heard censured from the Chair—he gave to the statement that some Members rose on that side of the House when the First Lord of the Treasury moved the closure. The contradiction was wrong. Members sitting behind him as well as in front of him rose. The Government will see that in interrupting the amiable and reasonable course of the debate in the way the First Lord of the Treasury has done he is gaining nothing, and he is closing the mouths of hon. Members who wish to raise legitimate discussion. In order to mark the sense of the impropriety and utter unwisdom and stupidity of these proceedings, I beg to move that you now report progress.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress; and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. John Redmond.)
§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR
The hon. Member has used many hard words, chiefly directed against me and the course I have adopted, his view being that without the closure we should have got on a little bit better. The hon. Member was not present in the House when I made an appeal to the Committee about half-past one o'clock. I was extremely anxious to come to some amicable arrangement—[Mr. JOHN REDMOND: So wasI]—and I am quite sure I said nothing that could injure the susceptibility of the most tender conscience. I then suggested that we should come to a distinct understanding that the debate on the Naval Estimates should finish at some reasonable hour.
§ MR. JOHN REDMOND
The right hon. Gentleman is unintentionally doing me an injustice. I told him so far as Members on this side of the House were concerned that we had no desire to unduly prolong the discussion, nor did we do so. As a matter of fact we had made up our mind to allow Vote A to come to a con elusion within a few minutes of the time the right hon. Gentleman moved the closure.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR
I am always glad to have communications in a friendly spirit as to the course of business, but I could not in justice to the House allow the discussion to drag on to what might have been an interminable length. I am not attacking hon. Gentlemen opposite, and I am not blaming them. I am only explaining why I, responsible in a measure for the conduct of business, and in no sense desirous of exercising any authority harshly over any section of the House, but having in view the general course of the debate, asked the Committee to conclude the discussion on Vote A and go on to Vote 1, surely not an unreasonable course. The hon. Gentleman said I did that for the purpose of preventing my hon. friend replying to a question put to him. But my hon. friend had no information, and could not have given a reply.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR
Of course my hon. friend will make an inquiry. There need be no anxiety on the part of the hon. Member for East Waterford or any of his hon. friends that because an assurance was not given by my hon. friend the matter will escape his attention. It will not escape his attention. I hope the Committee will now proceed with the remaining business.
§ MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON
A suggestion made by yourself, Mr. Chairman, a few minutes ago will relieve the Committee from this difficulty. If that suggestion is now acted on, I am sure my hon. friends will meet it in a reasonable spirit.
§ SIR FORTESCUE FLANNERY
Perhaps as the hon. Member for Water-ford has made a personal allusion to myself, I may be allowed to say a word. The allegation was that half a dozen Members on this side of the House had risen. I did not for a moment intend to be rude to the hon. Member for East Glare. What I did desire to indicate was that several hon. Members had matters which they desired to put before the Committee, but having regard to the urgency of business they did not rise to do so. I beg to assure the hon. Member that I had not the smallest intention of showing rudeness to him or to any of his colleagues.
§ MR. WILLIAM REDMOND
I wish to be allowed to say that I accept fully the assurance of the hon. Gentleman. As a matter of personal explanation what occurred was this: When the closure was moved five or six English Members got up to speak. On my mentioning that fact the hon. Member said it was not true. I accept what he has now said, but I desire to say that I am in a position to prove that at least five, and I believe six, Members stood up. The hon. Member for Great Yarmouth, the hon. Member for Plymouth, two hon. Members sitting behind the hon. Gentleman, and the hon. Member for Devonport, making five, stood up. I am quite sure that the hon. Gentleman will refrain from accusing me of stating what is not true. I quite accept what he has said, and I merely wish to put myself straight with the Committee. I am prepared to fight for my principles, but I have never told lies.
said he acknowledged that he was intimidated to a certain extent by the presence of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House, and was not able to make his statement as clear as he would
|Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.||Condon, Thomas Joseph||Gilhooly, James|
|Blake, Edward||Crean, Eugene||Hammond, John|
|Boyle, James||Cullinan, J.||Hayden, John Patrick|
|Burke, E. Haviland-||Daly, James||Jacoby, James Alfred|
|Burns, John||Doogan, P. C.||Jameson, Major J. Eustace|
|Caldwell, James||Duffy, William J.||Jones, David Brynmor (Swans'a|
|Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)||Ffrench, Peter||Joyce, Michael|
|Carew, James Laurence||Field, William||Kennedy, Patrick James|
|Carvill, Patrick Geo. Hamilton||Flavin, Michael Joseph||Lambert, George|
|Clancy, John Joseph||Flynn, James Christopher||Layland-Barratt, Francis.|
§ have wished. He brought under the notice of the Admiralty two specific cases of local interest, and he certainly thought that his hon. friend in moving to report progress was quite within his right, because the matter would not have taken three minutes to explain. He thought the course taken by the right hon. Gentle-man would only prolong the debate. The right hon. Gentleman had raised, the anger of hon. Members, and his tactics, far from facilitating business, would retard it. He ventured to corroborate the fact that several hon. Members had risen to continue the discussion when the closure was moved.
§ MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN (Kilkenny)
said he supported the motion that progress be reported for the reasons advanced by his hon. friend, and also for another reason. It was very extraordinary to him that hon. Members should be so very reluctant to give a Saturday afternoon to the service of the great Empire about which they boasted so much. His hon. friends were willing to stay, but evidently hon. Members opposite thought more of a Saturday to Monday in the country than of the Empire, and he thought it desirable that progress should be reported in order to enable them to catch their afternoon trains. He could not understand why hon. Members were: reluctant to make a sacrifice. They went to great expense to get into the House, and when they got in their whole idea seemed to be to get out of it again. He hoped the motion would be accepted.
§ Question put.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 64; Noes, 218. (Division List No. 93.)
|Leamy, Edmund||O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)||Redmond, John E. (Waterford)|
|Leigh, Sir Joseph||O'Connor, J. (Wicklow, W)||Redmond, William (Clare)|
|Lundon, W.||O'Doherty, William||Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)|
|MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.||O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)||Sullivan, Donal|
|M'Dermott, Patrick||O'Dowd, John||Thompson, E. C. (Monaghan, N.)|
|M'Fadden, Edward||O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)||Ure, Alexander|
|M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)||O'Kelly, Jas. (Roscommon, N.)||White, Luke (York, E. R.)|
|Morton, Edw. J. C. (Devonport)||O'Malley, William||Yoxall, James Henry|
|Murphy, J.||O'Mara, James|
|Nannetti, Joseph P.||O'Shaughnessy, P. J.||TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir Thomas Esmonde and Captain Donelan.|
|Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)||O'Shee, James John|
|O'Brien, James F. X. (Cork)||Power, Patrick Joseph|
|O'Brien, Kendal (Tipp'ry, Mid.)||Reddy, M.|
|Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.||Emmott, Alfred||Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage|
|Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel||Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward||Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie|
|Arkwright, John Stanhope||Fenwick, Charles||Leighton, Stanley|
|Arnold-Former, Hugh O.||Fergusson, Rt Hn. Sir J. (Manc'r)||Lockwood, Lt-Col. A. R.|
|Asher, Alexander||Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst||Long, Rt. Hn Walter (Bristol, S.)|
|Ashton, Thomas Gair||Finlay, Sir Robt. Bannatyne||Loyd, Arthur Kirkman|
|Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John||Fisher, William Hayes||Lucas, Reginald J.(Portsmouth|
|Austin, Sir John||FitzGerald, Sir Robt. Penrose-||Macartney, Rt Hn W.G. Ellison|
|Bailey, James (Walworth)||Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon||Macdona, John Cumming|
|Bain, Colonel James Robert||Flannery, Sir Fortescue||Maconochie, A. W.|
|Baird, John Geo. Alexander||Fletcher, Sir Henry||M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)|
|Balcarres, Lord||Flower, Ernest||M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh W|
|Baldwin, Alfred||Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)||Majendie, James A. H.|
|Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (Manch'r||Furness, Sir Christopher||Malcolm, Ian|
|Balfour, Rt. Hon. G. W. (Leeds)||Garfit, William||Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe|
|Banbury, Frederick George||Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon||Markham, Arthur Basil|
|Bartley, George C. T.||Goschen, Hon. George Joachim||Martin, Richard Biddulph|
|Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin||Goulding, Edward Alfred||Maxwell, Rt Hn Sir H. E (Wigt'n|
|Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir M. H. (Bristol||Graham, Henry Robert||Maxwell, W. J. H. (Dumfriessh.|
|Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.||Green, Walford D. (Wednesb'y.||Melville, Beresford Valentine|
|Bignold, Arthur||Greene, Sir E W (B'ryS Edm'nds)||Molesworth, Sir Lewis|
|Bigwood, James||Grenfell, William Henry||Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)|
|Bill, Charles||Guthrie, Walter Murray||Moon, Edward Robert Pacy|
|Black, Alexander William||Hain, Edward||More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire)|
|Bond, Edward||Halsey, Thomas Frederick||Morris, Hon. Martin Henry F.|
|Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-||Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G (Middx||Morrison, James Archibald|
|Brown, Alex. H. (Shropshire)||Hanhury, Rt. Hon. Robt. Wm.||Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptford)|
|Bull, William James||Hare, Thomas Leigh||Mount, William Arthur|
|Bullard, Sir Harry||Harris, F.Leverton (Tynem'th.||Murray, Rt Hn A. Graham (Bute|
|Buxton, Sydney Charles||Haslam, Sir Alfred S.||Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)|
|Carson, Rt. Hn. Sir Edw. H.||Hay, Hon. Claude George||Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)|
|Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs.)||Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-||Nicholson, William Graham|
|Cavendish, V.C.W. (Derbysh.)||Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley)||Nicol, Donald Ninian|
|Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)||Heath, James (Staffords., N. W.||O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens|
|Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm.)||Henderson, Alexander||Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)|
|Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc.||Higginbottom, S. W.||Penn, John|
|Chapman, Edward||Hoare, Edw. Brodie (Hampst'd)||Pierpoint, Robert|
|Charrington, Spencer||Hoare, Sir Samuel (Norwich)||Platt-Higgins, Frederick|
|Churchill, Winston Spencer||Hobhouse, Henry (Somerset, E.||Plummer, Walter R.|
|Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.||Hope J. F (Sheffield, Brightside)||Powell, Sir Francis Sharp|
|Cohen, Benjamin Louis||Horner, Frederick William||Pretyman, Ernest George|
|Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse||Howard, Capt. J. (Faversham)||Price, Robert John|
|Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready||Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham)||Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward|
|Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole||Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil||Purvis, Robert|
|Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas||Hudson, George Bickersteth||Pym, C. Guy|
|Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)||Hughes, Colonel Edwin||Rasch, Major Frederic Carne|
|Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)||Hutton, John (Yorks, N. R.)||Rea, Russell|
|Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge||Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse||Remnant, James Farquharson|
|Cranborne, Viscount||Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick||Renwick, George|
|Cripps, Charles Alfred||Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton||Ridley, S. Forde (Bethnal Green|
|Dewar, T. R (T'rH'mlets,S Geo.||Johnston, William (Belfast)||Rigg, Richard|
|Dickson, Charles Scott||Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.||Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)|
|Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.||Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T. (Denbigh||Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye|
|Dimsdale, Sir Joseph Cockfield||Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop.||Ropner, Colonel Robert|
|Dixon-Hartland, Sir F. Dixon||Kimber, Henry||Royds, Clement Molyneux|
|Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-||Kinloch, Sir John George Smyth||Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-|
|Duke, Henry Edward||Knowles, Lees||Sandys, Lieut.-Cl. Thos. Myles|
|Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin||Lawson, John Grant||Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)|
|Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir Wm. Hart||Lecky, Rt. Hn. William Edw H.||Seton-Karr, Henry|
|Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton||Lee, Arthur H (Hants, Fareham||Sharpe, William Edward T.|
|Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew||Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier||Welby, Sir Charles G.E. (Notts.|
|Shipman, Dr John G.||Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)||Whitmore, Charles Algernon|
|Sinclair, Capt. John(Forfarsh.)||Tennant, Harold John||Williams, Rt Hn J Powell (Birm)|
|Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)||Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr||Wodehouse, Hn Armine (Essex|
|Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.)||Thorburn, Sir Walter||Wodehouse, Rt Hn. E. R. (Rath)|
|Smith, Hon. W. F. D.(Scrand)||Tollemache, Henry James||Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm|
|Soares, Ernest J.||Tomlinson, Wm. Edw.Murray||Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-|
|Spencer, Rt Hn C. R. (Northn'ts.)||Tritton, Charles Ernest||Wrightson, Sir Thomas|
|Stanley, Hon Arthur(Ormskirk)||Valentia, Viscount||Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George|
|Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart||Walker, Col. William Hall||Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong|
|Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.||Warde, Lieut.-Col. C. E.|
|Strachey, Edward||Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.||TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther|
|Stroyan, John||Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney|
|Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley||Welby, Lt.-Col. ACE (Taunton|
§ Original Question again proposed.
§ MR. E. J. C. MORTON
I desire to refer to a matter which has been already referred to, but the point I wish to bring before the Committee has not previously been brought forward. The question I particularly wish to refer to is one which my hon. friend has already given a certain reply to, but the main question to which I desire to make allusion is the position of warrant officers in the British Navy. In connection with it, may I point out that in my opinion it has not been adequately brought before the Committee. Particularly at the commencement of a new Parliament, I may be allowed to bring forward certain considerations in regard to it, which have not been brought forward in this Parliament, although they have been in previous Parliaments. The point I want to make, and the emphasis I wish to lay on this question, is that it is not only a question mainly of justice to the warrant officers of the Service, it is not merely a question—although that is a wide way of looking at it—that affects the treatment of every rank and rating in the British Navy indirectly, but it is a question of supreme public importance. It is of great importance to the efficiency of the Navy itself, and especially a question which concerns a subject which at any rate used to be regarded as the special constitutional duty of this House—namely, the economic administration of the finances of this country. I do not know whether hon. Members are aware of the fact that throughout the whole history of this country its naval strength has depended entirely on the personnel of the Navy. I believe there never was a naval war in which our ships in matters of construction have been superior to the ships of our enemy. We were ridicu- 1036 lously inferior at the time of the Armada, and even down to Trafalgar the best ships in the British Navy were ships taken from the French. The whole strength of the Navy throughout its history has depended on its personnel, and therefore it is a matter of supreme importance that we should regard personnel as the most important element in our Navy. I would like to ask the attention of the Committee to the fact that it takes twice as long to make a British seaman as to build a first-class battleship. It costs £300 from the moment you first catch the boy until he becomes an ordinary seaman, and oven then you do not get the full value out of him that you expect. He begins as an ordinary seaman, after £300 has been expended on him, at an average age of about eighteen years, but you do not get the full value out of him until he becomes an able seaman, at about twenty-one. Then he serves seven years, and at the age of twenty-eight he has his first opportunity of leaving the Navy altogether, or he can re-engage for another ten years. It must be obvious to the Committee that the second ten years are of the greatest value. They are the best years of the man's life, and he is fully competent. Now what happens? From twenty-eight to about thirty-one he has the opportunity of reaching the highest rating open to him—namely, that of warrant officer. He then has to go on for twenty years before he gets the opportunity of a rise at all, and then in a very few cases he becomes what is popularly known as a chief—chief warrant officer, chief gunner, or chief carpenter. He has then a few years of commissioned rank, and he retires with the honorary rank of lieutenant. But practically, with the exception of 1037 these very few cases, all men at the age of from twenty-eight to thirty-one find a brick wall across their career, and they have got no further opportunity of advancing. Contrast that with the condition of things in the Army. Will anyone maintain that the rank and file of the Army are superior in training, or education, or ability to the rank and file of the Navy? In the Army we have a special line of promotion, known as the quartermaster's line, which is exclusively for men risen from the ranks, and such men can become lieutenants and captains. In one case I know of, a man who acted as major retired with the rank of colonel, receiving the full value in pay and in every other respect of the rank that he nominally held. What is the result of the present regulation in the Navy? and I ask the attention of the Committee to it. The result is that at the end of the first ten years service, when a man is from twenty-eight to thirty-one there is a more numerous leakage from the Navy than from any other Service under the Crown. I have the last Return, moved for by myself a year and a half ago. Unfortunately the last year is 1895, but I would like to ask the attention of the Committee to the percentage of men who, having served ten years in the Navy, did not join for a second ten years, The percentage in 1887 was just over 24 per cent., in 1888 just over 32 per cent., in 1880 over.33 per cent., in 1890 over 32 per cent., in 1891 it was exactly 33 per cent., in 1892, 29 per cent,, in. 1893, 23 per cent., in 1894, 21 per cent., and in 1895 it was again nearly 23 per cent. It should be remembered that every one of these men who did not rejoin cost the nation £300 as an initial charge before any advantage was got out of their services. If, therefore, we could do something to induce a man to rejoin for another ten years who otherwise would not rejoin, we would undoubtedly save half the initial cost, or £150 on every man.
It is pointed out to us and claimed by the warrant officers themselves that what they want is a career such as is offered to the common soldier in the Army. I know perfectly well that we cannot start on exactly the same lines, but we may do something analogous by giving commissioned rank to be exclu- 1038 sively devoted to warrant officers, who would be allotted certain services. You might, for instance, allot the Ordnance Store Department to them, or the management of coaling stations might be handed over to warrant officers with commissioned rank. If you do that I believe you will give a career, which will not only affect the warrant officers, but will loosen promotion all down the ratings of the Navy, and will give the hope of a career to every boy joining the Navy. I wish the Committee to realise what we are losing by not giving such a line of promotion. What becomes of the men who do not rejoin? I remember the reply of a previous Board of Admiralty to me on this point. They said whatever I might say about leakage in the Navy, and the want of a career, at any rate they could say that whereas the Army had a difficulty in recruiting the Navy had no such difficulty. That is no answer whatever. I can well believe that the Navy finds no difficulty in recruiting under existing circumstances. First of all, the Navy is a popular Service in the, imagination of every British boy, and in the second place, the parents of a boy know that the whole charge of his education and keep is taken off their hands, that he will be taught a trade at the expense of the nation, and that at the end of ten years, before he is thirty, he can leave the Navy a skilled tradesman—one of the best workmen in the country—who can get work anywhere. Further, in the American Navy, which has no training ships whatever, they are able to pay double the wages to their men that we can afford to pay, and they know that they can man their Navy out of men on whom we have spent £300 per man, and who have served ten years in our Navy. Some fifteen years ago, an agitation was got up in America to start a training-ship for the American Navy. The then Secretary of the American Navy, in a public speech, said that they had no need for training ships, because the American Navy could get any amount of the best material in the world—namely, British sailors who had served ten years in the British Navy. It seems to me singularly foolish to waste £300 per man for men for the American Navy, but that need not be done if we would only offer a career to every boy joining our Navy. 1039 I know perfectly well, from previous experience, that no man in this House is more sympathetic in his views than my hon. friend in charge of this Vote. I know also that during the nine years I have been in this House we have had nearly all the naval professional Members sympathetic with the idea of establishing a line of promotion such as I have suggested. We also know that men, including previous First Lords of the Admiralty, gave, as my hon. friend acknowledges, pledges on this question, and yet nothing has been done. I recollect Mr. Goschen replying to me some years ago, and saying that I must surely realise that, inasmuch as nothing had been done, there must be grave reasons against the proposal. It is a curious fact, but we have never been able to get it stated what these reasons are. By a process of exhaustion and not by positive evidence, I have arrived at a conclusion, and that is that the only persons who object are the Naval Lords of the Admiralty. They are the only body that I do not know to be in favour of this proposal. Knowing the sympathy of my hon. friend, and knowing that there exists very grave obstruction in some place or other, I think I am justified in bringing the national importance of this question before the Committee, and putting it on a basis other than justice to the men themselves.
I have only to say, in conclusion, that I hope my hon. friend will say something in his reply on this and the other points that have been raised since he spoke last. I am not going into the arguments over again, because that would be redundancy, and would weary the Committee, but I would specially direct the attention of my hon. friend to the question of the food of the men in the Navy, to which the senior Member for Devonport has already referred in detail. The hon. Member for the Wansbeck Division referred to the engine-room artificers. No doubt there is a conflict of opinion as to the facts in regard to them. The only other point to which I especially wish to direct the attention of my hon. friend, is the question of the wages, particularly of the poorest paid of all—people in the dockyards. Nineteen shillings a week is very inadequate pay for a man engaged 1040 on such work. It is the poorest paid men I feel most about, because they are the men who have the least power to bring pressure to bear on their behalf.
But, after all, the principal question which I urge upon the attention of my hon. friend is that of the treatment of warrant officers, and that is a question not only of justice to the men, but of the efficiency of the Fleet, of the economic expenditure of the money voted by this House for the Navy, and of what the nation as a nation owes to these men. There is no more loyal body of men employed by the Government than these warrant officers. I will give an illustration of that. With the full consent of the officers they had carried on an agitation, but the moment the war broke out they announced publicly in their organ—the Warrant Officer's Gazette—that until the war was over, they would desist from all agitation for the redress of their grievances. Under these circumstances I think they are a body of men who are worthy of all the support which can be given them, but which at present is denied to them.
§ MR. COCHRANE (Ayrshire, N.)
said he did not often intrude himself on the Committee, especially on. Naval questions. However, he had almost a hereditary interest in these matters, for members of his family, for many generations back, had served in the Navy of various monarchs in this country, and possibly more of them had risen to the highest commands in the Service than had come from any other family in the United Kingdom. He had listened with great interest to the speech of his hon. friend below him, in which he had touched on many questions, giving a very well merited word of praise to his hon. and gallant friend the Member for the Wokingham Division, who spoke with all the authority which appertained to an officer who had served twenty years in His Majesty's Navy. There was one question on which the Secretary to the Admiralty had not been decisive, namely, the provision of a Roman Catholic chaplain to each squadron of the Navy. Although he himself was a Scotchman and a Presbyterian, he had considerable sympathy with hon. Members from Ireland in their demands for Catholic chaplains in the Navy. Hon. Members 1041 opposite came of a grand fighting race, which had done splendid service in the Army and the Navy. If, as they said, and he believed it was true, they placed very great and exceptional value upon the services of their chaplain in times of accident or illness, as was shown by the picture drawn by his hon. and gallant friend as to what would be done in order to obtain ministrations of a clergyman, then in the interests of the country it was obvious that the Admiralty should grant the request of the hon. Members.
Upon the general question of the Navy, he was not like some Members opposite; he approved entirely of the amount which was being spent on the Navy, and only wished it were more, for he felt that the vital interests of the country were bound up in the Navy. He had a very personal and peculiar interest in the question of boilers. His grandfather, Lord Dundonald, who was known in this House as Lord Cochrane, was the first to advocate the use of steam generated in water-tube boilers in all the vessels in the Navy, and did so with such importunity as was always necessary in order to get the Admiralty to adopt any change. He had been looking up some correspondence which had taken place between his grandfather and Lord Minto, who was First Lord of the Admiralty between 1835 and 1841, after that noble Lord had been relieved from the cares of office, and when ho took a very different view of things from what he had done in office. Writing with "greater freedom and less responsibility" in 1842, he said that it had been his intention to have fitted up a frigate with one of Lord Cochrane's engines, with a view to the introduction of occasional steam power in all the ships of the line. Lord Cochrane might wish to steam at a rate of ten miles an hour; his wish was much more humble—something equivalent to five knots an hour. He (the speaker) honestly believed that if it had not been for the action of the Members in this House five knots would have been the normal speed of the ships of the Navy at the present day. Lord Dundonald patented a water-tube boiler in 1843, which the hon. Member opposite, who spoke with great technical knowledge, assured him was the exact prototype of the tubular boilers at present used in the Navy. Lord undonald brought this boiler 1042 before the naval authorities, and finally the Admiralty commissioned a ship to be built in which to try them. It was found, however, when the ship was built that it was too small for the boilers, and that it could only put to sea in the calmest weather. The boilers had worked splendidly on land, and had given satisfaction to the engineers, but when fitted on board ship they did not come up to expectation, and did not do the work which they ought to have done. Naval officers were a very unsuspicious race as a rule, but the working of the boilers was so extraordinary that when they returned to port the engines were taken to pieces and carefully examined. The engineers wrote a report on the matter to Lord Dundonald, in which they stated that to their astonishment they found in the middle suction pipe an. elm plug driven in so hard that they were obliged to cut it out. Of course, any alteration on the ships of the Navy naturally met with considerable opposition, some of it ludicrous; for instance, that which objected to the introduction of steam on the ground that the smoke from the funnels would blacken the sails of the Fleet! He did not pretend to say that the failure of some of the boilers recently was due to any foul play, although it had been suggested that that had been the case. But the new form of boilers now being tried was a modern invention, and engineers who had to deal with them had only been accustomed to work the old form of cylindrical boilers. Water-tube boilers required the most careful handling by highly scientifically trained men to get the best results out of them, and he did not believe that they were being tried in all the ships under the most advantageous circumstances. That was all he intended to imply. His hon. friend had taken the best means to inform himself on the subject, and had called in the assistance of a committee of experts, whose opinion must carry great weight in the House and the country. He only hoped that these water-tube boilers, which had been sixty years before the country, would not be abandoned without sufficient reflection, inquiry, and experience.
He had great sympathy with those hon. Members who urged the claims of engineers to an improvement in their professional position. The engineers 1043 had legitimate complaints, and their demands should be conceded. The Victorian Order had recently been distributed on a certain ship, and the engineer, who probably did more work than anybody else on board, was the only officer who did not get an Order.
The question of submarine boats was of the very greatest importance, and he would like to know if the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Admiralty could not really furnish the Committee with some definite information in regard to the submarine boats under order. Ho believed that no submarine boat yet built had been a pronounced success, and he would like to know whether any means had been discovered of steering these boats under the surface. He also wanted to know whether provision had been made for the supply of patent fuel and liquid fuel, for both of these were of great importance.
§ MR. GILHOOLY
wished to direct attention to an accident which had occurred in Berehaven Harbour on 1st March. A launch was sailing from H.M.S. "Resolution" to Berehaven with a crew composed of boys and a boy officer. The only able seaman on board was the coxswain, a man of long experience, who was steering the boat, which, however, capsized and seven of the crew were drowned. In his opinion there must have been some mismanagement on the part of those in charge of the launch, because Berehaven was one of the safest harbours in the world. No doubt it was a rough day, but was it necessary that these boys should be sent off in a boat in a rough sea in command of only a boy officer? And why were there no life belts provided in the boat? The bodies had not yet been found, and he wanted to know, if they were found, whether the parents of these boys would get them for interment in the county of Cork.
He complained of the insulting and offensive treatment to which Irish sailors were subjected by an officer in charge of the "Collingwood" in Bantry Bay, who talked of Irish seamen as Irish pigs. If they wanted Irishmen to fight their battles either on sea or land they should be treated with ordinary respect and courtesy. He must say that it 1044 would be no surprise, if the men were treated in that fashion by aristocratic and ill-conditioned officers, that when they went into action the men would turn and give assistance to the enemy rather than to their officers. He insisted also that gross injustice was done in connection with the expenditure of the Admiralty in Ireland. Squadrons occasionally put into Berehaven, but their necessary supplies were brought over from co-operative stores in England, instead of being bought locally. Another thing was the manifest unfairness of paying the men on board ships which were in an Irish port. It had frequently occurred that, although money was due to the men on a certain day, the payment was postponed until the ship put to sea in order that the money might be spent in English ports. Moreover, a good many of the Irish sailors required the money in Ireland in order to assist their relatives. The hon. Gentleman had stated from the Treasury Bench that ample provision had been made for the protection of Irish fisheries from illegal trawling, and that a gunboat had been commissioned for this protective work. To his own knowledge several steam beam trawlers from England had made incursions into Bantry Bay. It was true that the "Fly" was sent to watch them, but its speed was not sufficient to keep up with the swift trawlers, which had done very serious injury to the fishermen's nets and lines.
MR. NOLAN (Louth, S.)
said he could have wished that the Secretary to the Admiralty had been a little more definite in his promise in regard to the provision of Catholic chaplains for Catholic seamen. He could not help feeling, in listening to the speech of the hon. Gentleman, that he did not seem to appreciate the passionate desire of Irishmen, no matter what their creed, for the ministrations of their clergymen in sickness or in danger of death. Some years ago an officer of the Royal Irish Constabulary drew his attention to the fact that although there was room enough for members of the force to grumble and growl about their duties, there was one thing they never objected to, and that was that when some poor stray outcast who had been arrested during the day was taken ill in the hours 1045 of the night with a sickness which might possibly terminate in death, and wanted the ministrations of the minister of the religion to which he belonged, there never was the slightest hesitation on the part of the members of the force in at once jumping out of bed, putting on their clothes, and rushing off for that minister, He mentioned this to show the right hon. Gentleman how great a boon it would be to Irish sailors if facilities were given them to have the ministrations of a chaplain of their own creed when in sickness or in danger of death.
Another matter to which attention had been drawn was the necessity of preventing trawlers coming within the prescribed three-mile limit. So far as his constituency was concerned, he had to thank the Department for having recently placed a gunboat at Drogheda Head. That boat, during the short time it had been there, had done remarkably good work in the interests of the fishermen. The fishermen on the west coast of Ireland required a little more protection in this way than they could possibly receive from the six vessels which had been referred to. The coast line of Ireland was some 2,000 miles, and it was rather too much to expect that six of even the most efficient vessels would be able adequately to protect the fishing grounds of such an extensive coast line. This was a question of enormous importance, not only to the fishermen themselves hut to the Navy, the strength of which above all was in the personnel. If men were wanted for the Navy no better provision could be made than by maintaining the fishing industry of the country, from which the very best recruits were drawn. France, at a considerable cost to herself, maintained and protected the fisheries for the special purpose of training men for the sea upon whom to fall back to man the Navy in time of need. He reminded the hon. Gentleman that the Irish Parliament in the closing years of the eighteenth century, when the Empire —or the Monarchy, as it then was—was in danger, voted no fewer than 40,000 for the Navy, and those 40,000 were Roman Catholic fishermen of the west and south coasts of Ireland. In the course of a few years an Irish Parliament might be sitting in Dublin, and although he could scarcely conceive 1046 under existing circumstances any such number joining the Navy, he was perfectly convinced that if an Irish Parliament made a call the fishermen would not fail to respond to it. One thing, however, stood in the way of obtaining any number of recruits among the Irish fishermen which did not exist one hundred years ago, which was that owing to the neglect of the British Government a large proportion of the fishing population had been swept away.
Order, order! The topics with which the hon. Gentleman is now dealing I do not think are relevant to the question before the Committee.
said he bowed to the ruling of the Chairman, and would pass to another point. He desired to draw attention to the necessity of providing piers and harbour accommodation in various parts of Ireland.
§ *MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER
said the provision of piers and harbours was nothing to do with the Admiralty. They had no right to do anything with regard to piers and harbours.
§ MAJOR JAMESON (Clare, W.)
Upon a point of order, Sir, we were certainly told we could speak on the question of piers and harbours.
§ *MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER
Those are military works; those which the hon. Member for South Louth has referred to, piers and harbours of refuge, do not come under the Navy Vote at all.
§ MAJOR JAMESON
said they had never been able to discover tinder what vote piers and harbours came. If they went to the Board of Trade they were kicked out.
If the hon. Gentleman who is in charge of the Vote says that piers and harbours in Ireland do not come under this Vote, I do not see how you can expect him to give an answer.
§ MR. JOHN REDMOND
said he did not know that it was the desire of his hon. friend to raise the question of piers and harbours, otherwise he would have advised him that this was not the opportunity to do so.
§ *MR. ARNOLD -FORSTER
Oh, I do not mind. I will reply to anything that I can, but I am unable to reply to questions with regard to piers and harbours or fisheries.
reminded the Secretary to the Admiralty that he represented a maritime constituency, and upon that part of the coast of Ireland there was slender protection for vessels driven to seek shelter by stress of weather, and it would be to the advantage of the Navy and shipping in general, as well as the fishermen, if provision were made in the shape of suitable landing-places.
§ *MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER
said it would perhaps be convenient if he were now to reply to the questions which had been raised. He was bound to say he was unable at this moment to answer them all, but if there was any part where the arrangements for landing required inquiry and alteration in order to increase the efficiency of the Navy, he would be glad to make that inquiry. He would answer the specific questions which had been put to him.
§ MR. JOHN REDMOND
I understand that the right hon. Gentleman now gives us an assurance that there shall be an inquiry into this question, because he says if there is anything worth inquiring into, he will inquire into if.
§ *MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER
said the senior Member for Devonport had spoken of the victualling of the Navy, a question which was also referred to by the hon. Member for Portsmouth on the preceding night. Well, he agreed that there was room for readjustment in the victualling arrangements of the Navy. The Admiralty was of that opinion also, and had appointed a Committee of Inquiry. The hon. Member combained that the Committee had not reported at an earlier date in view of the considerable time that had elapsed since its appointment, but if he knew how enormous were the transactions that the Admiralty had to conduct, and how very many considerations were involved in any change, he would not make such a complaint. He could assure him that the Committee had not wasted time, and he hoped to be able before long to announce that it had com- 1048 pleted its deliberations and had arrived at a conclusion which would be satisfactory to the men of the Navy. The food now supplied was neither insufficient nor inferior, but there was, he believed, room for variety, and possibly a change in the time for meals might be attended with increased comfort. Then there was the question of the canteens, and as to that he was bound to say he was uninformed at the present moment; still, he undertook that the matter should have his careful consideration. As to cold storage, depots were being built at Malta and Gibraltar, and the use of cold-stored meat had already been introduced on the China Station, and the officers had reported most favourably on the condition of the meat distributed to the ships there.
The hon. Member for Devonport had spoken of the leakage of men from the Service as having amounted to 23 per cent. But that was not leakage in the ordinary sense of the word. It consisted of men who, having completed their engagement on which they entered the Navy, had decided not to re-enter, and he should be inclined rather to suggest that the number of men who had re-engaged was remarkable. Indeed, the total had increased in recent years. The hon. Member for North Ayrshire had given the Committee some very interesting reminiscences. He came of a gallant naval family, but probably the instruction he had given them was not necessary to provide a solution of the problems to which ho applied it, namely, the question of the Belleville boiler. He urged that a trial should be given them from the scientific side, and he need have no doubt whatever but that it would be. He spoke, too, of submarine boats, but at that period of the evening it was impossible to go into the matter at any length, the more so because the Admiralty had not yet had an opportunity of testing those boats for itself. All the information he could give was equally available to all hon. Members, and was to be found in the descriptions given by foreign authorities of the character and performances of these boats. The hon. Member for West Cork had insisted on the importance of protecting the Irish fisheries against trawlers, and he could only repeat that any specific instance of 1049 neglect on the part of the Royal Navy should receive the prompt attention of the Admiralty authorities. The work of the Navy was already very heavy, and it was not intended that it should go outside its duty. It was not the duty of the Royal Navy to enforce local bye-laws for the protection of Irish fisheries—[An HON. MEMBER: They are not local bye-laws.]—but any neglect or shortcoming on the part of the Navy, if reported, should be inquired into.
Can the hon. Gentleman say if the gunboats which have been placed at the disposal of the authorities for the protection of Irish fisheries are to be placed permanently on that duty?
§ *MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER
said there were five vessels belonging to the Royal Navy devoted to the work of protecting the fisheries on the high seas, and a vessel had also been recently acquired by the Irish Government, over which the Admiralty had no control.
§ *MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER
Sufficient for the day is the evil thereof. He could not trust his memory to give the names off-hand. As to the question of Roman Catholic chaplains for the Navy, he could only once again promise to lay the views of hon. Members fully before the Admiralty. He thought he could not be expected to say more than that.
§ MR. FLYNN (Cork, N.)
said hon. Members around him regarded the reply of the hon. Gentleman on the subject of the protection of Irish fisheries with some alarm. It was not correct to suggest that the bye-laws which the Navy were asked to enforce were local bye-laws. The regulations were made by the Inspectors of Fisheries and confirmed by the Lord Lieutenant, and were as much the law of the land as any law emanating from Parliament. They were now told that five gunboats were set apart for the protection of the fisheries. The hon. Gentleman had asked for explicit instances of neglect, but ever since he had been in the House he had heard repeated 1050 questions put on this question, and promises of protection given in reply, but no effective good had been done. The Board of Agriculture, they were informed, had itself acquired a vessel for the work. Well, his information was that the vessel in question was a steam launch, the armament of which consisted of a double-barrelled shot gun. There were depredations continually going on off the Irish coast. The fishermen in their small boats could not get up to the steam trawlers in order to secure their numbers, and as great efforts had been made to develop the Irish fisheries, large sums of money having been expended for the purpose, it was not unreasonable that the Irish Members should on behalf of the poor fishermen call on the Government to do its obvious duty in the matter, and to put down illegality. He had himself seen French boats come within the limits over and over again, take fish and get off before the local boats could get near enough to detect the names of the vessels. He hoped the Admiralty would in the future pay more heed to this complaint than it had done in the past. Let them compare the treatment meted out to this important Irish industry with what was done in Australia. Ireland, it was admitted, contributed nearly three million sterling annually to the maintenance of the Navy. The Australian colonies at the most spent £49,000, yet Ireland was refused the protection of a few gunboats, although she constituted a nursery for the Navy, and possessed one of the best fish-breeding grounds in the world. She also suffered great injustice in regard to the naval expenditure of this country. Surely she was entitled to have spent in Ireland a large proportion of the money she had to contribute for the Navy. But how did she fare in the matter of ship construction? She got nothing back, and with the exception of Haulbowline, which he admitted had received more liberal treatment of late years, Ireland did not receive a pound of the expenditure on the Navy. There were two sources from which, apart altogether from dockyard work and naval construction, Ireland might fairly expect to share in the expenditure. One was in the matter of victualling, and the other was in con- 1051 nection with the discharge of seamen. For many months in the year large numbers of vessels were anchored off Berehaven—one of the finest harbours in the west of Europe—and yet nothing whatever was purchased in the town if it could possibly be avoided. In Queens-town harbour the same thing occurred, and although at one time it was customary to pay vessels off in Irish harbours, now they were sent to an English port for the purpose, and the Irish tradesmen lost the benefit which they might otherwise gain from the seamen expending their wages on coining off a long commission. That was surely not fair treatment for the wealthier country to extend to her poorer neighbour, but still, it was an illustration of the niggardly manner in which the great spending Departments of the State treated Ireland. The expenditure on the Navy was increasing with enormous rapidity, and those responsible for it plunged into it heedless of the developments which submarine engineering might produce. The taxpayer was groaning under the burden, the increase of which never gave satisfaction to those who were continually crying for more.
§ MAJOR JAMESON
said the hon. Member for Devonport had commented on the difficulty of getting recruits for the Navy. The remedy was to open up a career. It was well known that in the Navy boys had not the same chance of rising from the ranks as in the Army, and he would ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if it were not possible for a warrant officer who had become chief engineer after probably forty years service to obtain commissioned rank within three years from that time? He would suggest that there were many cases of warrant officers who had served with great distinction for many years who might advantageously be promoted to the rank of substitute lieutenant. During the last fourteen years he believed there had only been three warrant officers so promoted, and he feared it was the case that the commissioned ranks of the Navy were closed to deserving men even after thirty-five or forty years of distinguished service. Another matter to which he wished to draw attention was the length of time petty officers had 1052 to serve before they got an increase of pay. At present many of them received little more than 6d. per day increase when promoted to boatswain's rank. They had. however, to provide themselves with new uniforms, and subscribe largely to the mess, their expenses being increased by about 50 per cent. Yet their increase of pay was only from 5s. 6d. to 6s. per day. Some special allowance ought certainly to be made to them to help them meet the great additional expense cast upon them by the promotion. Then again, the carpenters of the Navy complained of the very small amount of pay they received; although they had practically the same rank and duties as foremen in private yards, they got far less pay, and he suggested that they should be raised to 8s. 6d. per day. Without such an increase, how could they expect to get really good men for the positions? The authorities were guilty of childish, cheeseparing practices in these matters. They would strain at a gnat and swallow a camel. They refused a shilling, but would waste millions of money on Belleville boilers and the like. Again, there was the question of compassionate allowances to the wives and children of deserving warrant officers who died in the Service. Why should not this: class have the allowance as well as the other classes? Why should men who had risen from the ranks be debarred from having it? It was simply scandalous. Next he wished to ask why no protection was afforded to the Shannon, the largest river in the three kingdoms. For seven years they had been knocking at the Admiralty door, but they had failed to induce the authorities to place a guard-ship there. He thought that if a training ship were placed in the Shannon it would encourage the recruiting for the Navy in the south of Ireland, and he demanded that a gunboat be placed at the mouth of the same river in order to protect the Irish fisheries from the inroads of the French trawlers. Those vessels were allowed to poach in Irish waters with impunity, and although he had called attention to this matter two years previously the Government had done nothing. Ireland paid one-twelfth of the cost of the Navy, and it was only just that they should derive some benefit from it.
§ MR. O'SHEE (Waterford, W.)
asked whether the five gunboats alluded to were for the protection of Irish fisheries lone or for the fisheries of the three kingdoms?
§ *MR. O'SHEE
complained that no good had been done by these vessels, and thought it was a somewhat remarkable fact that the one vessel which had been placed at the disposal of the Department of Agriculture had been able to do more for the protection of Irish fisheries in the short time it had been engaged in that task than these five boats altogether during the whole time they had been on the coast. Whilst that boat had had many prosecutions, not a single ease had been brought forward by the other five. If those vessels had been doing their duty they had been doing it in a most extraordinary manner, and he hoped that some inquiry would be made as to the mode in which they carried out their duty. He was glad to see that steps were at last being alien to see the importance of the submarine boats. If those boats were able to do half what was claimed for them, then the present gigantic expenditure for naval construction was entirely uncalled for. A submarine boat could be built for £25,000 and manned by ten men, and if it were true that they were able to combat the big ships which the Government were building, those ships would be absolutely useless except for carrying the submarine boats to places where they were to work. It was important that the Government should make up their mind quickly as to the nature of these vessels. If they were all that was claimed for them, it would render unnecessary the £9,000,000 which was now being expended on new battleships. He did not agree with the suggestion that guardships and training ships should be placed on the coast of Ireland for the purpose of inducing young Irishmen to join the Navy, because he regretted
|Acland- Hood, Capt. Sir Alex F.||Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John||Bain, Colonel James Robert|
|Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel||Austin, Sir John||Baird, John Geo. Alexander|
|Arkwright, John Stanhope||Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy||Baldwin, Alfred|
|Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.||Bailey, James (Walworth)||Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (Manch'r|
§ that his young countrymen should ever be persuaded to enter the Service. The first use of the Navy was the defence of our shores, and for this purpose the money required ought not to be half the amount that was asked. The proper way to defend our shores was to adopt a short service conscription for home defence, and if that were done there would be no fear of invasion, and, so far as home defence was concerned, this huge expenditure on the Navy would be unnecessary. Why should the Government set up the standard that the Navy of this country should be larger than the combined fleets of France and Russia? Italy, which had as large a coast to defend, set up no such standard, nor was she in a constant state of fear and trembling lest her shores should be invaded. And if it came to a question of protecting foreign trade, he would point out that neither Germany nor the United States, the great trade rivals of this country, had anything like so large a navy. While there were Catholics in the Navy it would be, he thought, to the interest of the country and the Government to give every opportunity for them to receive the ministrations of their religion. He was sorry to see so many Irish Catholics in the Navy, and he thought it the duty of all true Irishmen, until self-government was granted to Ireland, to advise all young Irishmen to refrain from joining the Service. A hundred years ago two-thirds of the men in the Navy were Irishmen, and it was the fighting qualities of those men that made the Navy so successful at that time. It was not the guns that won our battles, but the fighting courage of the men who boarded the ships of the enemy.
§ Question put, "That the Question be now put."
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes, 177; Noes, 77. (Division List No. 94.)
|Balfour, Rt. Hn. Ger. W. (Leeds||Greene, Hy. D. (Shrewsbury)||Nicol, Donald Ninian|
|Banbury, Frederick George||Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill||O'Neill, Hon. Herbert Torrens|
|Bartley, George C. T.||Guthrie, Walter Murray||Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)|
|Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin||Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G. (Mid'x||Penn, John|
|Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir M. H. (Bristol||Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert W.||Pierpoint, Robert|
|Bignold, Arthur||Hare, Thomas Leigh||Platt-Higgins, Frederick|
|Bigwood, James||Harris, F. L. (Tynemouth)||Plummer, Walter R.|
|Bond, Edward||Hay, Hon. Claude George||Powell, Sir Francis Sharp|
|Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-||Heath, Arthur H. (Hanley)||Pretyman, Ernest George|
|Brown, Alexander H. (Shropsh.||Heath, Jas. (Staffords., N.W.)||Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward|
|Bull, William James||Henderson, Alexander||Purvis, Robert|
|Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.||Higginbottom, S.W.||Pym, C. Guy|
|Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbysh.)||Hobhouse, Henry (Somerset, E.||Remnant, James Farquharson|
|Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)||Hope, J.F. (Sheffield, Brightside||Ridley, S. Forde (Bethnal Green|
|Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)||Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham)||Ropner, Colonel Robert|
|Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J (Birm.||Hozier, Hon. James Henry C.||Round, James|
|Chamberlain, J Austen (Worc'r||Hudson, George Bickersteth||Royds, Clement Molyneux|
|Chapman, Edward||Hutton, John (Yorks., N. R.)||Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-|
|Charrington, Spencer||Jebb, Sir Richard C.||Sandys, Lieut-Col. Thos. Myles|
|Cochrane, Hn. Thos. H. A. E.||Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick||Seely, Charles Hilton(Lincoln)|
|Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse||Johnston, William (Belfast)||Sharpe, William Edw. T.|
|Colomb, Sir John Chas. Ready||Kenyon, Hon. G. T. (Denbigh||Shaw-Stewart, M. H.(Renfrew)|
|Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole||Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop.||Skewes-Cox, Thomas|
|Compton, Lord Alwyne||Kimber, Henry||Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East|
|Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)||Knowles, Lees||Smith, Jas, Parker (Lanarks.)|
|Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)||Lawson, John Grant||Smith, Hon. W. F. D.(Strand)|
|Cranborne, Viscount||Lecky, Rt. Hn. William Edw. H||Stanley, Hon Arthur(Ormskirk|
|Cripps, Charles Alfred||Lee, Arthur H (Hants, Fareham)||Stewart, Sir Mark J M'Taggart|
|Davies, Sir Horatio D. (Chath'm||Legge, Col. Hon Heneage||Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.|
|Davies, M.Vaughan-(Cardigan||Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie||Stroyan, John|
|Dickson, Charles Scott||Leighton, Stanley||Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley|
|Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.||Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.||Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier|
|Dimsdale, Sir Joseph Cockfield||Long, Rt Hn. Walter (Bristol, S.||Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)|
|Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fd.Dixon||Loyd, Archie Kirkman||Thorburn, Sir Walter|
|Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-||Lucas, Col. Francis(Lowestoft)||Tollemache, Henry James|
|Duke, Henry Edward||Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth)||Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray|
|Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin||Macartney, Rt. Hn. W. G. E.||Tritton, Charles Ernest|
|Dyke, Rt. Hon Sir William Hart||Macdona, John Cumming||Valentia, Viscount|
|Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton||M'Arthur, Charles(Liverpool)||Vincent, Col Sir CEH (Sheffield|
|Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edw.||Majendie, James A. H.||Walker, Col. William Hall|
|Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Manc'r)||Malcolm, Ian||Warde, Lieut.-Col. C. E.|
|Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst||Maxwell, Rt Hn Sir HE (Wigt'n||Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney|
|Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne||Maxwell, W.J.H. (Dumfriessh||Welby, Lt.-Col. A. CE (Taunton|
|Fisher, William Hayes||Melville, Beresford Valentine||Welby, Sir Charles G. E. (Notts.|
|FitzGerald, Sir R. Penrose-||Molesworth, Sir Lewis||Whitmore, (Charles Algernon|
|Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.||Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)||Williams, Rt Hn J Powell-(Birm|
|Flannery, Sir Fortescue||Moon, Edward Robert Pacy||Wilson, A. Stanley (Yorks, E. R.|
|Fletcher, Sir Henry||More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire||Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R. (Bath|
|Flower, Ernest||Morris, Hon. Martin Henry F.||Wolfl, Gustav Wilhelm|
|Garfit, William||Morrison, James Archibald||Wortley, Rt. Hon. C.B. Stuart-|
|Gordon, Maj Evans (T'rH'mlets)||Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptf'rd||Wrightson, Sir Thomas|
|Goschen, Hon. George J.||Mount, William Arthur||Wyndham, Rt Hon. George|
|Goulding, Edward Alfred||Murray, Rt Hn A Graham (Bute||Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong|
|Graham, Henry Robert||Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)||TELLERS FOE THE AYES—|
|Green, W. D. (Wednesbury)||Murray, Col.Wyndham (Bath)||Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.|
|Greene, Sir EW (B'rySEdm'nds)||Nicholson, William Graham|
|Abraham, William (Cork,N. E.)||Douglas, Chas. M. (Lanark)||Lambert, George|
|Ambrose, Robert||Duffy, William J.||Leamy, Edmund|
|Asher, Alexander||Ffrench, Peter||Leigh, Sir Joseph|
|Blake, Edward||Field, William||Lundon, W.|
|Boyle, James||Flavin, Michael Joseph||MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.|
|Burke, E. Haviland-||Flynn, James Christopher||M'Dermott, Patrick|
|Caldwell, James||Furness, Sir Christopher||M'Fadden, Edward|
|Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)||Gilhooly, James||M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)|
|Carew, James Laurence||Hammond, John||Morgan, J. Lloyd(Carmarthen)|
|Carvill, Patrick Geo. Hamilton||Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)||Morley, Charles (Breconshire)|
|Causton, Richard Knight||Hayden, John Patrick||Morton, Edw. J.C. (Devonport)|
|Clancy, John Joseph||Hayne, Rt. Hn. Chas. Seale-||Murphy, J.|
|Condon, Thomas Joseph||Jacoby, James Alfred||Nannetti, Joseph P.|
|Crean, Eugene||Jameson, Major J. Eustace||Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)|
|Cullinan, J.||Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)||O'Brien, James F. X. (Cork)|
|Daly, James||Joyce, Michael||O'Brien, Kendal (Tippera'yMid|
|Doogan, P. C.||Kennedy, Patrick James||O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)|
|O'Doherty, William||Rea, Russell||Stevenson, Francis S.|
|O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)||Reckitt, Harold James||Sullivan, Donal|
|O'Dowd, John||Reddy, M.||Tennant, Harold John|
|O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)||Redmond, John E. (Waterford)||Thompson, E. C. (Monaghan, N.)|
|O'Kelly, James(Roscommon, N)||Redmond, William (Clare)||White, Luke, (York, E. R.)|
|O'Malley, William||Rigg, Richard||Yoxall, James Henry|
|O'Mara, James||Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)|
|O'Shaughnessy, P. J.||Sinclair, Capt. John (Forfarsh.)||TELLERS FOR THE NOES—|
|O'Shee, James John||Smith, Samuel (Flint)||Sir Thomas Esmonde and Captain Donelan.|
|Power, Patrick Joseph||Spencer, Rt. Hn. C. R. (Nrtha'ts|
§ Question put accordingly, "That a sum, not exceeding £5,760,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expenses of Wages, etc., to Officers, Seamen and Boys, Coast Guard, and
|Acland-Hood, Capt.Sir Alex.F.||Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward||Loyd, Archie Kirkman|
|Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel||Fergusson, Rt Hn. Sir J. (Manc'r)||Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)|
|Arkwright, John Stanhope||Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst||Lucas, Reginald J (Portsmouth)|
|Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.||Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne||Macartney, Rt Hn W. G. Ellison|
|Asher, Alexander||Fisher, William Hayes||Macdona, John Cumming|
|Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John||FitzGerald, Sir Rbt. Penrose-||M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)|
|Austin, Sir John||Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon||Majendie, James A. H.|
|Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy||Flannery, Sir Fortescue||Malcolm. Ian|
|Fletcher, Sir Henry||Maxwell, Rt Hn Sir H. E. (Wig'n|
|Bailey, James (Walworth)||Flower, Ernest||Maxwell, W. J. H. (Dumfriessh.|
|Bain, Colonel James Robert||Furness, Sir Christopher||Melville, Beresford Valentine|
|Baird, John George Alexander||Garfit, William||Molesworth, Sir Lewis|
|Baldwin, Alfred||Gordon, Maj Evans-(T'rH'mIts)||Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)|
|Balfour, Rt. Hon. A.J. (Manch'r)||Goschen, Hon. George Joachim||Moon, Edward Robert Pacy|
|Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W (Leeds||Goulding, Edward Alfred||More, Robt, Jasper (Shropshire)|
|Banbury, Frederick George||Graham, Henry Robert||Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)|
|Bartley, George C. T.||Green, Walford D (Wednesbury||Morley, Charles (Breconshire)|
|Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin||Greene, Sir E W (B'rySEdm'nds||Morris, Hon. Martin Henry F.|
|Beach, Rt Hn. Sir M. H. (Bristol)||Greene, HenryD. (Shrewsbury||Morrison, James Archibald|
|Bignold, Arthur||Guthrie, Walter Murray||Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptford)|
|Bigwood, James||Hain, Edward||Morton, Edw. J. C. (Devonport)|
|Bond, Edward||Hamilton, Rt. Hn. Ld. G.(Midx.||Mount, William Arthur|
|Boscawen, Arthur Griffith.||Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Rbt. Wm.||Murray, Rt Hn A. Graham(Bute|
|Brown, Alexander H.(Shropsh.)||Hare, Thomas Leigh||Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)|
|Bull, William James||Harris, F. Leverton (Tynem'th||Murray, Col. Wyndham(Bath)|
|Caldwell, James||Hay, Hon. Claude George||Nicholson, William Graham|
|Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.||Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-||Nicol, Donald Ninian|
|Causton, Richard Knight||Heath, A. Howard (Hanley)||O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens|
|Cavendish, V.C. W(Derbyshire)||Heath, James (Staffords, N. W.|
|Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)||Henderson, Alexander||Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)|
|Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)||Higginbottom, S. W.||Penn, John|
|Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm.||Hobhouse, H. (Somerset, E.)||Pierpoint, Robert|
|Chamberlain, J. A. (Worc'r)||Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Bright'de||Platt-Higgins. Frederick|
|Chapman, Edward||Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham||Plummer, Walter R,|
|Charrington, Spencer||Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil||Powell, Sir Francis Sharp|
|Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.||Hudson, George Bickersteth||Pretyman, Ernest George|
|Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse||Hutton, John (Yorks, N.R.)||Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward|
|Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready||Jacoby, James Alfred||Purvis, Robert|
|Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole||Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse||Reckitt, Harold James|
|Compton, Lord Alwyne||Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick||Remnant, James Farquharson|
|Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)||Johnston. William (Belfast)||Ridley, S. Forde (Bethnal Green|
|Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)||Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)||Rigg, Richard|
|Cranborne, Viscount||Kenyon, Hon. G. T. (Denbigh)||Ropner, Colonel Robert|
|Cripps, Charles Alfred||Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W (Salop)||Round, James|
|Davies, Sir H. D. (Chatham)||Kimber, Henry||Royds, Clement Molyneux|
|Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan)||Knowles, Lees||Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-|
|Dickson, Charles Scott||Lambert, George||Sandys,Lt.-Col. Thos. Myles|
|Dickson- Poynder, Sir John P.||Lawson, John Grant||Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)|
|Dimsdale, Sir Joseph Cockfield||Lecky, Rt. Hn. Wm. Edw. H.||Sharpe, William Edward T.|
|Dixon-Hartland, SirF. Dixon||Lee, Capt. A. H (Hants, Farehm)||Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew)|
|Douglas, Rt, Hon. A. Akers-||Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage||Skewes-Cox, Thomas|
|Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)||Leigh, Sir Joseph||Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, E.)|
|Duke, Henry Edward||Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie||Smith, James Parker(Lanarks.)|
|Durning-Lawrence, Sir Ed win||Leighton, Stanley||Smith, Hn. W. F. D. (Strand)|
|Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir Wm. H.||Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.||Spencer, Rt. Hn. C. R (N'rth'nts.)|
|Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton||Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol, S.||Stanley, Hon Arthur(Ormskirk)|
§ Royal Marines, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1902."
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes. 196; Noes, 53. (Division List No. 95.)
|Stevenson, Francis S.||Tritton, Charles Ernest||Wilson, A. S. (York, E. R.)|
|Stewart, Sir M. J. M'Taggart||Valentia, Viscount||Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R. (Bath|
|Stirling-Maxwell, Sir J. M.||Vincent, Col. Sir C.E.H (Shef'd||Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm|
|Stroyan, John||Walker, Col. Wm. Hall||Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-|
|Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley||Warde, Lieut.-Col. C. E.||Wrightson, Sir Thomas|
|Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier||Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney||Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George|
|Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)||Welby, Lt.-Col. A.C.E. (Ta'nt'n||Yerburgh, Rbt. Armstrong|
|Tennant, Harold John||Welby, SirChas. G. E. (Notts||Yoxall, James Henry|
|Thorburn, Sir Walter||White, Luke (York, E. R.)||TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.|
|Tollemache, Henry James||Whitmore, Chas. Algernon|
|Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray||WilliamsRtHn J Powell(Birm)|
|Abraham, William (Cork,N. E.)||Gilhooly, James||O'Doberty, William|
|Ambrose, Robert||Hammond, John||O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)|
|Blake, Edward||Hardie, J. K.(MerthyrTydvil)||O'Dowu, John|
|Boyle, James||Hayden, John Patrick||O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)|
|Burke, E. Haviland-||Jameson, Major J. Eustace||O'Kelly, James(Roscommon.N)|
|Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)||Joyce, Michael||O'Malley, William|
|Carow, James Laurence||Kennedy, Patrick James||O'Mara, James|
|Carvill, Patrick Geo. Hamilton||Leamy, Edmund||O'Shaughnessy, P. J.|
|Clancy, John Joseph||Lundon, W.||O'Shee, James John|
|Condon, Thomas Joseph||MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.||Power, Patrick Joseph|
|Crean, Eugene||M'Dermott, Patrick||Reddy, M.|
|Cullinan, J.||M'Fadden, Edward||Redmond, John E. (Waterford)|
|Daly, James||M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)||Redmond, William (Clare)|
|Doogan,P. C.||Murphy, J.||Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)|
|Duffy, William J.||Nannetti, Joseph P.||Sullivan, Donal|
|Ffrench, Peter||Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)|
|Field, William||O'Brien, James F. X. (Cork)||TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir Thomas Esmonde and Captain Donelan.|
|Flavin, Michael Joseph||O'Brien, Kendal (Tipper'ry Mid|
|Flynn, James Christopher||O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)|