§ 1. £1,023,100, Works, Buildings, and Repairs at Home and Abroad.
SIR U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH (Lancashire, Clitheroe)
said that the sum asked for was the largest which had ever been presented under this Vote. To this must be added another amount of much more than two millions for works under the Naval Works Act. The hon. Gentleman was called upon to administer on behalf of the Government an enormous sum, and he heartily congratulated him, and sympathised with him as well, on the great responsibility which rested upon him. The works under the Act were of very great importance, and the House was naturally anxious for the fullest information about them. He should like to know when the Naval Works Bill would be introduced, and whether the fullest opportunities for discussion would be given. If he received an assurance that ample opportunity would be afforded for full debate, then he would not on the present occasion detain the Committee with any observations on naval works, for he would very much prefer to discuss that after the Civil Lord had made the customary statement in introducing the Naval Works Bill.
§ * SIR JOHN COLOMB (Great Yarmouth)
asked for some explanation of the proposed expenditure on the boom defences of Southampton. Were not the Southampton Waters already adequately protected by the torpedo establishments at Spithead and the Needles? He would like also some information as to what was being 239 done with the coaling arrangements at Simons Bay. He was told that there were only six lighters there, the biggest of which held but seventy tons, while the tug for moving them alongside was condemned as far back as 1894. In fact, she could not do her work in anything like a breeze. Were the Government and the Admiralty sufficiently alive to the deficiencies in this matter? Further, he wished to inquire if the dredging had been completed at Wei-hai-wei, and were the Admiralty satisfied that sufficient had been done in this matter. Finally, he had to ask what progress had been made for improved coaling facilities at the Falkland Islands.
§ MR. FLYNN (Cork, N.)
said he found on reference to the Votes that whereas at English dockyards they were spending hundreds of thousands of pounds, at Haulbowline they only proposed to spend some £4,000 odd. The disparity was very great, and it was rendered all the more remarkable by the fact that the money spent at Haulbowline was distributed over a number of years, and expended very slowly, whereas the money voted for the English dockyards was got rid of with much greater rapidity. He was not complaining of the action of the present Board of Admiralty with regard to Haulbowline, because it had shown a more generous spirit than its predecessor. Seeing that at Chatham, Sheerness, Portsmouth, Devonport, and Pembroke the Vote for works, buildings, etc., amounted to over half a million sterling, the very fact that only £4,200 was to be given to Haulbowline illustrated the niggardly spirit in which the spending authorities of their great Departments dealt with Ireland. Passing on to the Vote for hospitals, he found that at Plymouth it was proposed to expend some £65,000 and at Portland £03,000, but at Haulbowline only £13,000 was to be laid out, and that in spite of the fact that large numbers of His Majesty's ships entered Queenstown harbour and quite recently there had been outbreaks of smallpox, which had rendered it necessary to send some of the men into the hospitals there. He did hope that the £17,000 which it was proposed now to spend at Haulbowline would be spent with dispatch, and that there would be 240 no unnecessary delay in the matter. Then he came to the question of armaments, and here again there was another striking contrast. At Portsmouth £47,000 was to be spent, but the Vote for Bantry Bay was only £2,700, and of that only £700 had yet been laid out. That again illustrated the manner in which the Admiralty treated this question when stations in Ireland were concerned. They had in the Cork post office a still further illustration of this, for the rebuilding of that establishment had been spread over three years, whereas an ordinary contractor would have done the work in six months. He hoped that the Admiralty would make up their mind to push the work forward more rapidly, and treat Irish stations on an equal footing with English stations.
§ * THE CIVIL LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. PRETYMAN,) Suffolk, Woodbridge
said that the Naval Works Bill would be brought in later in the session, but the exact date must be left to the decision of the Leader of the House. He hoped, however, that it would be introduced without much delay after the House assembled. Of course, it was not for him to give pledges with regard to the conduct of business, but he was perfectly certain there would be ample opportunity afforded for a full debate. The occasion of the introduction of the Naval Works Bill might be the most convenient time for discussing the great and important works which were included in the Bill. With reference to the position of Southampton, he might point out that it was almost a part of the great naval port of Portsmouth. Circumstances might arise when the Fleet would have to make temporary use of Southampton Waters; and it was for naval purposes and not for commercial purposes that this new defence was provided. Simons Bay and Falkland Islands were portions of great questions which were now receiving the most careful consideration with reference to the coaling of the Fleet. The work at Simons Bay was in progress, but it did not come under this Vote, and a fuller statement on that subject would be made later. The Falkland Islands were under consideration. Some of the work was being put out to contract, 241 progress was being made. The object of spending money at the Falkland Islands was to secure that the position should be made available for coaling the Fleet. Replying to the hon. Member for North Cork, he admitted that the figures quoted by the hon. Member with reference to the expenditure at Haulbowline and Bantry Bay were less than those relating to the great dockyards in England. He assumed, however, that the hon. Member intended to take them in a proportionate sense, and would not expect to have so much money spent at a small dockyard as at a large one.
§ * MR. PRETYMAN
said he quite took it that the hon. Member's argument was based on the question of proportion, but he might also inform him that in addition to the sums he had quoted, £12,000 was being expended at Haulbowline, and no less than £63,000 was included in the Naval Works Act for other work in Ireland. He thought that would remove practically any cause of complaint. Altogether a sum of £75,000 was now actually being spent by the Admiralty in Ireland. It should be remembered that in devoting money to Haulbowline as they were now doing they were doing it with the prospect of making still greater use of that dockyard in future years, and of spending a still greater sum on ship repairing and building there. The money they were now voting might be taken as an earnest of what was to be spent in Ireland in the future. With regard to works at Bantry Bay, the hon. Member had complained of the slowness with which the money was being expended, but he would like to point out that it would be impossible to push forward the work with greater rapidity without importing a large quantity of labour from other districts. He did not imagine the hon. Member would desire that, and the Admiralty were acting under the belief that the ordinary population of Bantry would really derive more advantage from a slow and continuous expenditure than 242 if thousands of pounds were laid out in one year.
§ MR. KEARLEY (Devonport)
referred to the question of the rifle range for the Marines at Plymouth. The present accommodation was quite inadequate, and a long way from the town. Last year it was stated that the War Office had acquired a range on Dartmoor, and that the Admiralty had asked that Department to negotiate for a site which should be available for the rifle practice of the Marines. It was understood that there were great difficulties, presumably connected with the landlord element, in the way, and the hon. Member then in charge of the Vote suggested that the time had arrived when the War Office should proceed by Provisional Order. Had the arrangement for this most urgently needed rifle range site been concluded? The hon. Member expressed his approval of the expenditure at various dockyards in the erection of new workshops, and hoped the machinery would be of the most modern description. In some yards the machinery was much behind the times, and it was impossible for work to progress as rapidly as the country desired unless the machinery was up to date. At Devonport two docks had been widened to accommodate second class battleships, but unfortunately the width was not sufficient to accommodate battleships of the size now being built. The era of so-called second class battleships had passed away, and the hon. Member, therefore, suggested that by certain alterations the docks at Devonport could and should be made available for the class of ships now being built.
§ * SIR JOHN COLOMB
, in reference to the item for booms to close the port at Southampton, thought it was the first time such a charge had appeared on the Navy Estimates. The business of the Navy was to keep the ports open, and the access to them clear. Southampton was an inner port in a completely and almost over-defended area, and in that respect differed from other ports. He should be glad if the matter could be explained.
§ * THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. ARNOLD-FORSTER,) Belfast, W.
243 said this was no new departure; the boom arrangement had existed for some time at Southampton. The money was taken to repair a portion which had been destroyed by fire. It was impossible to regard Southampton as a port not involved in military matters. In connection with the present war, nearly the whole of the troops had gone from Southampton, while if any attack were made which involved Portsmouth harbour, Southampton harbour would be equally exposed; and certainly the hon, and gallant Gentleman the Member for Great Yarmouth would be the last willingly to divorce military from naval operations. It was almost inconceivable, if this country was engaged in any military operations, that the embarkation or debarkation of troops would not be going on at Southampton Water, which it would be the duty of the Navy to safeguard. Therefore, although there might be objections to the principle of applying boom defence to the defence of harbours, if the principle was adopted at all, Southampton was eminently a place at which it should be applied.
§ MR. COURTENAY WARNER (Staffordshire, Lichfield)
thought the charge for booms was rather an Army than a Navy charge. There were two Votes affecting Hong Kong. It was an acknowledged fact that the defences of Hong Kong were in a hopelessly bad state, and it would be interesting to have details of this expenditure. Something certainly ought to be done towards making Hong Kong more defensible now that it had become one of our most important strategic positions in regard to China, A considerable sum appeared to have been spent on dredging in Portsmouth harbour. But a very serious question arose. The entrance to the harbour was very narrow, and the more dredging operations took place the larger became the basin inside, with the result that the dredging had already increased the current in the mouth of the harbour to a dangerous extent. The Admiralty would not be acting wisely if they carried on these operations too largely without widening the aperture for letting the water in and out with the rise and fall of the tide.
§ SIR EDWARD SASSOON (Hythe)
asked whether Stanley harbour was being 244 fortified, and urged the advisability of connecting it by cable with the Cape.
§ * MR. PRETYMAN
said that the matter of the rifle range for the Marines was entirely in the hands of the War Office, and he believed the negotiations were not yet completed. He understood that a great number of small owners were concerned, but he had no absolute information on the matter generally. In regard to the Devonport docks, they had there at present one dock capable of taking the largest battleship, and new docks which were being constructed would take such ships. It was not felt necessary, therefore, to widen the present docks. In reference to the question of dredging at Portsmouth, that matter was being very carefully watched. There had been dredging above low water, but the volume had not been so largely increased, and this would accelerate the current at Portsmouth Harbour. This dredging had not been done to any dangerous extent. The question of providing guns at Hong Kong was a matter in which the War Office solely was concerned.
§ Resolution agreed to.
§ 2. Motion made, and Question proposed. "That a sum, not exceeding £359,500, be granted to His Majesty to defray the expense of various Miscellaneous Effective Services, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March. 1902.
§ MR. FLYNN
asked for some information in regard to the travelling allowance per diem to seamen and Marines. He presumed that the travelling expenses of naval marine officers should be something respectable. What was the amount allowed? Was it so much per day, or so much per hundred miles while travelling from one station to another? Not long ago he saw a steamer travelling to Ireland from Portsmouth with a number of Marines on board bound for Cork. They got in a train on the Great Western Railway, and he was assured that they were only allowed sixpence per day for supper for all the night, and the miserable breakfast they got in the morning. The result was that they were turned out on the 245 quay at Cork more dead than alive. He did not think soldiers travelling all night and having to provide breakfast next morning should be paid the miserable sum of sixpence per day travelling allowance. With regard to Roman Catholic chaplains for the Navy, they were anxious to know if the hon. Member for West Belfast had anything to add in reference to Roman Catholic chaplains being attached to squadrons or services on shore being provided for. A large number of Roman Catholic sailors who joined the Navy were anxious to receive the ministrations of their own faith. So great was the need in this matter that those connected with the Navy at Cork Harbour had established some kind of a guild to provide for these services for the sailors by private subscription. He hoped the Secretary to the Admiralty would have some additional information to give to the Committee in addition to what he gave last week. There was one other matter, to which he referred with some reluctance, and that was the trip of the Duke and Duchess of Cornwall and York to Australia. There was not a proper opportunity afforded a few nights ago when the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil asked how it was that the sum required for this trip was taken without the previous sanction of the House of Commons. He objected to this upon principle, and when the question was asked as to who was responsible for this expenditure being undertaken, the Chancellor of the Exchequer replied. "I am responsible." There was a question of principle involved in that, and the Admiralty should have got the sanction of the House of Commons to such a large expenditure before incurring it. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had no right to violate this principle. Fie was quite aware that this trip was contemplated during the reign of the late Queen, and was suggested more or less by her. But neither the Admiralty nor the Chancellor of the Exchequer had asked for the money, and he objected to the idea that because the expedition had been commenced the money was to be voted sub silentio. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had no right to undertake such a responsibility without the previous sanction of the House.
§ * MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER
said the hon. Member was under a misapprehension. The expedition had not been undertaken without the sanction of Parliament. A sum of £35,000 for this expedition was voted by the House on the Supplementary Estimates. If the item was struck out of the present Vote the expedition would have to be recalled, but the constitutional point which had been raised had been fully met. With regard to Roman Catholic chaplains, this Vote did not deal with the payment to chaplains on board ship or those attached to naval institutions. The other matter mentioned by the hon. Member was that the subsistence allowance of sixpence a day was only given to seamen and Marines travelling, from port to port. If the hon. Member could give him the particulars of a specific case he would investigate it. Within the last few days he had had occasion to examine the question of subsistence allowance both for men and boys on journeys from port to port, but he did not find that the facts corresponded with what the hon. Gentleman had suggested had come under his notice.
§ * SIR CHARLES DILKE (Gloucestershire, Forest-of-Dean)
said there was one matter on this Vote which had not been mentioned; he meant the Vote for naval attachés. The increase was very large indeed, and he was entirely favourable to it. But no statement had been made as to the character of the new arrangements. What chiefly interested, him was the necessity which undoubtedly existed for appointing really able men as military and naval attaches. If the hon. Gentleman would mention to the First Lord of the Admiralty the interest felt in the House in regard to the personality of the attachés, he would do a good service. It would be practically admitted that in the past the appointments had been of various degrees of merit. These appointments were of the highest possible importance, but that importance depended entirely upon the character of the men selected.
§ MR. KEARLEY
said he wanted to refer to the question which had been mentioned the previous week, namely, the grant to warrant officers of the Distinguished 247 Service Order. Would the hon. Gentleman tell the Committee whether the warrant officers would receive any medal at all, and whether this Vote comprised the medals that were going to be issued in connection with the South African and Chinese campaigns. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman might say whether, since the previous week, the Admiralty had come to any conclusion as to the distribution of the Distinguished Service Order to warrant officers, or, if they were not to receive the distinguished Service Order, what decoration they might expect.
§ MR. FLYNN
asked if the same rate of pay applied to seamen, the Marines travelling from one ship or station to another, partly by sea and partly by land, as was given to soldiers. He had seen seamen and Marines travelling between Bristol and Cardiff. The boat did not leave Milford till the morning, and could not get to Cork till eight o'clock at night. All that the men were allowed was 6d. for supper and 6d. next day for breakfast. He had asked the officer in charge, who told him that 6d. a day was all that the men got for subsistence. That was a most disgraceful and utterly inadequate allowance.
§ * MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER
said that unless the men were borne on the ship's books he was not responsible. In regard to what had been said as to naval attachés, it was of the highest importance that the officers appointed to represent the Navy should be selected with the greatest care. It would tend to make the selection of first-rate officers easier if the emoluments were increased. These emoluments were being increased, and the remainder of the increase in the Vote was due to the fact that a fourth naval attaché had been appointed. The hon. Member for Devonport had asked if he could make a statement now in regard to decorations for warrant officers in the South African War and the Chinese campaign. He regretted he could not do so. He should be loth to make any statement until the announcement could be made in a complete form, not only as to the honorary distinctions to be granted, but also as to the question of emoluments. These two questions 248 would have to be dealt with in a different way, and when a decision had been arrived at by the Admiralty, he would be happy to inform the hon. Member.
§ MR. COURTENAY WARNER
asked whether the large increase in the Vote for naval attachés was for salaries and expenses in addition to their pay, for he supposed that they got their pay under another Vote. The hon. Gentleman had spoken about some of the salaries being increased and of the appointment of a fourth attaché. Did that mean that there were only four naval attachés altogether?
§ CAPTAIN NORTON (Newington, W.)
said he noticed under head A an increase of £6,000, with reference to passage money and the conveyance of officers, seamen, and Marines. He wanted to know how that increase arose, and what proportion was paid to officers, seamen, and Marines respectively.
§ * MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER
said he could not give the hon. Member the actual details, but the increase in the Vote was due to the fact that more officers and men had been sent out this year for reliefs to South Africa and others had been brought back and had received passages by mail steamers. With regard to the naval attachés, the present arrangement was that these officers received a consolidated rate of pay, and they were also granted, of course, certain travelling allowances, and special allowances for special work. As to their distribution, there were at present two attachés in Europe, with headquarters at Paris and Berlin. There were also two naval attachés whose duty it was to obtain information with regard to naval progress in the United States and Japan.
§ CAPTAIN NORTON
said that they ought to have had a schedule showing the different rates of passage money for the different classes, and whether the rates varied with different steamship companies.
§ CAPTAIN NORTON
asked the right hon. Gentleman if he could state the various rates for pilotage and towing of His Majesty's ships. Was this system by tonnage or otherwise?
§ * MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER
said he was afraid he could not answer the latter question off-hand. He referred hon. Gentlemen to the statute which governed the question of the reduced charges for men, and to the very elaborate details with reference to the particulars and allowances. Pilots were to a large extent dispensed with in His Majesty's ships, but there were some small items for pilotage. The bulk of the sum, however, was for towing.
§ question he put. The hon. Gentleman could without referring to any schedule merely give an approximate idea of how much of this sum was for railway and steamboat fares and how much was for the maintenance of the men when travelling on service. As the explanation of the hon. Gentleman had been so unsatisfactory, he moved to reduce the Vote by £100.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Item A be reduced by £100."—(Mr. Flynn).
§ MR. WARNER
said that when the hon. Gentleman referred to the "statute" he no doubt referred to the Army Annual Bill, which put the allowance at 6d. a day. He contended that that sum was far too small.
§ Question put.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes, 87; Noes, 195. (Division List No. 111).251
|Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.||Gilhooly, James||O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)|
|Allen, Charles P (Glouc, Stroud||Goddard, Daniel Ford||O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)|
|Ashton, Thomas Gair||Grant, Corrie||O'Dowd, John|
|Barry, E. (Cork, S.)||Harwood, George||O'Kelly, Jas. (Roscommon, N.)|
|Black, Alexander William||Hayden, John Patrick||Oldroyd, Mark|
|Blake, Edward||Hobhouse, C. E. H. (Bristol, E.)||O'Malley, William|
|Boland, John||Horniman, Frederick John||O'Shaughnessy, P. J.|
|Boyle, James||Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.||Philipps, John Wynford|
|Burke, E. Haviland-||Jacoby, James Alfred||Reckitt, Harold James|
|Caine, William Sproston||Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)||Reddy, M.|
|Caldwell, James||Joyce, Michael||Redmond, John E. (Waterford|
|Cameron, Robert||Kearley, Hudson E.||Redmond, William (Clare)|
|Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)||Lambert, George||Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)|
|Carvill, Patrick Geo. Hamilton||Layland-Barratt, Francis||Smith, Samuel (Flint)|
|Cogan, Denis J.||Leamy, Edmund||Stevenson, Francis S.|
|Condon, Thomas Joseph||Leng, Sir John||Sullivan, Donal|
|Craig, Robert Hunter||Lewis, John Herbert||Tennant, Harold John|
|Crean, Eugene.||Lundon, W.||Thomas, J. A (Glamorgan Gower|
|Cremer, William Randal||M'Fadden, Edward||Ure, Alexander|
|Crombie, John William||M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)||Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)|
|Cullinan, J.||Markham, Arthur Basil||Warner, Thos. Courtenay T.|
|Delany, William||Mooney, John J.||Weir, James Galloway|
|Donelan, Captain A.||Murphy, J.||White, Luke (York. E. R.)|
|Doogan, P. C.||Nannetti, Joseph P.||White, Patrick (Meath, North)|
|Duffy, William J.||Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)||Whittaker, Thomas Palmer|
|Dunn, Sir William||O'Brien, James F. X. (Cork)||Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)|
|Esmonde, Sir Thomas||O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid)||Yoxall, James Henry|
|Ffrench, Peter||O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)||TELLERS FOR THE AYES—|
|Flavin, Michael Joseph||O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.||Mr. Flynn and Captain Norton.|
|Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.||O'Doherty, William|
|Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.||Archdale, Edward Mervyn||Ashmead-Bartlett, Sir Ellis|
|Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel||Arkwright, John Stanhope||Asquith, Rt. Hn Herbert Henry|
|Allhusen, Augustus Henry E.||Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.||Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John|
|Austin, Sir John||Hain, Edward||Nicol, Donald Ninian|
|Bailey, James (Walworth)||Haldane, Richard Burdon||Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay|
|Bain, Colonel James Robert||Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.||Palmer, Sir Chas. M. (Durham)|
|Baird, John George Alexander||Harmsworth, R. Leicester||Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)|
|Balfour, Rt. Hn. G. W. (Leeds)||Harris, F. Leverton (Tynem'th||Parker, Gilbert|
|Banbury, Frederick George||Haslam, Sir Alfred S.||Partington, Oswald|
|Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin||Hay, Hon. Claude George||Platt-Higgins, Frederick|
|Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir M. H. (Bristol||Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale||Plummer, Walter R.|
|Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.||Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley||Powell, Sir Francis Sharp|
|Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.||Helme, Norval Watson||Pretyman, Ernest George|
|Blundell, Colonel Henry||Henderson, Alexander||Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward|
|Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-||Higgin bottom, S. W.||Purvis, Robert|
|Boulnois, Edmund||Hobhouse, Hy. (Somerset, E.)||Randles, John S.|
|Bowles, Capt. H. F. (Middlesex||Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside||Rankin, Sir James|
|Brookfield, Colonel Montagu||Horner, Frederick William||Rasch, Major Frederic Carne|
|Bryce, Rt. Hon. James||Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry||Rea, Russell|
|Buxton, Sydney Charles||Hozier, Hon. Jas. Henry Cecil||Renwick, George|
|Carson, Rt. Hn. Sir Edw. H.||Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse||Ridley, Hn. M. W. (Stalybridge|
|Causton, Richard Knight||Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick||Ridley, S. F. (Bethnal Green)|
|Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lanes.)||Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)||Rigg, Richard|
|Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbysh.)||Jones, David Brynmor (Swans'a||Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson|
|Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)||Kay-Shuttleworth, Rt. Hn Sir U||Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)|
|Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm.||Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop.||Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)|
|Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'r||Kimber, Henry||Royds, Clement Molyneux|
|Charrington, Spencer||Kitson, Sir James||Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford|
|Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.||Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.||Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)|
|Coghill, Douglas Harry||Laurie, Lieut.-General||Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert|
|Cohen, Benjamin Louis||Law, Andrew Bonar||Sharpe, William Edward T.|
|Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse||Lawson, John Grant||Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew)|
|Colomb, Sir J. Chas. Ready||Lee, Arthur H (Hants., Fareh'm||Shipman, Dr. John G.|
|Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow||Leigh, Sir Joseph||Smith, H C (North'mb Tyneside|
|Cox, Irwin Edw. Bainbridge||Leighton, Stanley||Smith, Jas. Parker (Lanarks.|
|Cripps, Charles Alfred||Levy, Maurice||Spear, John Ward|
|Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton||Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham)||Spencer, Rt. Hn C R (Northants|
|Cust, Henry John C.||Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol, S.||Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.|
|Dalrymple, Sir Charles||Lonsdale, John Brownlee||Strachey, Edward|
|Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)||Loyd, Archie Kirkman||Stroyan, John|
|Dewar, John A. (Invernesshire||Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)||Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)|
|Dewar, T. R. (T'rH'mlets S Geo.||Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth||Thomas, Alfred (Glamorgan, E.|
|Dickson, Charles Scott||Macartney, Rt. Hn. W G Ellison||Thorburn, Sir Walter|
|Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles||Macdona, John dimming||Thornton, Percy M.|
|Dixon-Hartland, Sir F. Dixon||MacIver, David (Liverpool)||Tritton, Charles Ernest|
|Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-||Maconochie, A. W.||Valentia, Viscount|
|Duke, Henry Edward||M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)||Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. H (Shef'ld|
|Duncan, James H.||M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)||Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)|
|Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir Wm. Hart||M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire||Wallace, Robert|
|Edwards, Frank||Majendie, James A. H.||Warde, Lieut.-Col. C. E.|
|Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas||Malcolm, Ian||Warr, Augustus Frederick|
|Emmott, Alfred||Maple, Sir John Blundell||Welby, Sir Charles G. E. (Notts.|
|Faber, George Denison||Maxwell, Rt Hn Sir H E (Wigton||Whitmore, Charles Algernon|
|Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward||Maxwell, W J H (Dumfriesshire||Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset).|
|Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst||Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.||Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.)|
|Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne||Milton, Viscount||Wilson, John (Falkirk)|
|FitzGerald, Sir Robt. Penrose||Montagu, G (Huntingdon)||Wilson, John (Glasgow)|
|Fitzroy, Hn. Edward Algernon||More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire)||Wilson-Todd, Wm. H. (Yorks)|
|Fletcher, Sir Henry||Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow||Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R. (Bath|
|Garfit, William||Morrell, George Herbert||Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm|
|Gladstone, Rt Hn Herbert John||Morrison, James Archibald||Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-|
|Gordon, Hn. J. E. (Elgin & Nairn||Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptford||Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George|
|Gordon, Maj Evans- (T'rH'mlets||Mount, William Arthur||Young, Commander (Berks, E.)|
|Gorst, Rt Hon. Sir John Eldon||Murray, Rt. Hn. A. G. (Bute)||TELLERS FOR THE NOES—|
|Goulding, Edward Alfred||Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)||Mr. Anstruther and Mr. Hayes Fisher.|
|Greene, Sir E W (B'ry. S Edm'ds||Nicholson, William Graham|
§ Original Question again proposed.
§ MR. KEARLEY
drew attention to the item of wages of the Metropolitan police employed in the dockyards, and asked if it were intended to make the same concession to the police of Devonport as had 252 been made to the Metropolitan police. That concession had been made in consequence of the high rents the men had to pay in London. It was a matter of common notoriety that the rental conditions prevailing at Devonport were even higher than those prevailing in London. The last 253 Census Returns had called attention to the enormous overcrowding in the town, and showed that a very large percentage of the people were housed in a single room. If the police of Devonport did not get this concession granted to them it would be most unfair. Of course they knew that Devonport was a landlord's monopoly pure and simple. He agreed that the population had no means of extricating themselves, but that was no reason, when a concession was made on a definite basis, that it should not be extended to another place suffering under precisely the same conditions. He begged to move the reduction of this item by £100.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Item S be reduced by £100, in respect of the Salaries of the Water Police"—(Mr. Kearley.)
§ CAPTAIN NORTON
asked whether any portion of the amount for contingent expenses could be used for lodging allowance, or whether anything had been given to these men in the shape of lodging allowance. It would be in the recollection of the Committee that an increase was given to the Metropolitan police force as a special allowance for lodging-house accommodation. It was manifestly unjust that a similar allowance should not be made to the men at Devonport. With regard to the water police, he wished to know whether it was the case that when they succeeded in rescuing a person from drowning they received no compensation whatever, whereas if the individual was allowed to drown and they succeeded in getting out the corpse they were allowed something.
§ * MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER
asked whether the hon. Member was speaking of the police on the Thames within the Metropolitan area, or the police under the control of the Admiralty.
§ CAPTAIN NORTON
said he was alluding to the water police. He presumed they were under the Admiralty if they were in the Admiralty Vote.
§ * MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER
said the Admiralty had nothing to do with the pay and allowances of the water' police. They were sent down by the authorities of the Metropolitan police for service under the Admiralty in the dockyards, and the Admiralty paid the sum demanded by the authorities of the Metropolitan police with the sanction of the Treasury.
§ MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON (Dundee)
said the Amendment before the Committee raised a question of principle, namely, that an allowance ought to be extended to the men at Devonport. When the question was last before the House the First Lord of the Admiralty promised to inquire into it. The hon. Gentleman representing the Admiralty had not attempted to discuss the question or to give any official answer to the case that had been made out. The hon. Gentleman said this was a question for the Metropolitan police authorities. The authority immediately responsible for this was the Admiralty, If his hon. friend divided the Committee on the question he should feel bound to support the Amendment.
§ Question put.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes, 128: Noes, 173. (Division List No. 112.)257
|Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.||Burns, John||Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)|
|Allen, C. P. (Glouc, Stroud)||Buxton, Sydney Charles||Delany, William|
|Asher, Alexander||Caine, William Sproston||Dewar, J. A. (Inverness-sh.)|
|Ashton, Thomas Gair||Caldwell, James||Dilke, Rt. Hn. Sir Charles|
|Asquith, Rt. Hn Herbert Henry||Cameron, Robert||Donelan, Captain A.|
|Barry, E. (Cork, S.)||Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)||Doogan, P. C.|
|Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)||Carvill, Patrick G. Hamilton||Duffy, William J.|
|Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.||Causton, Richard Knight||Duke, Henry Edward|
|Bell, Richard||Cogan, Denis J.||Duncan, James H.|
|Black, Alexander William||Condon, Thomas Joseph||Dunn, Sir William|
|Blake, Edward||Craig, Robert Hunter||Edwards, Frank|
|Boland, John||Crean, Eugene||Emmott, Alfred|
|Boyle, James||Cremer, William Randal||Esmonde, Sir Thomas|
|Bryce, Rt. Hon. James||Crombie, John William||Ffrench, Peter|
|Burke, E. Haviland||Cullinan, J.||Flavin, Michael Joseph|
|Flynn, James Christopher||Lough, Thomas||Redmond, J. E. (Waterford)|
|Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)||Lundon, W.||Redmond, William (Clare)|
|Gilhooly, James||M'Dermott, Patrick||Rigg, Richard|
|Gladstone, Rt Hn Herbert John||M'Fadden, Edward||Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)|
|Goddard, Daniel Ford||M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)||Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)|
|Grant, Corrie||Markham, Arthur Basil||Schwann, Charles E.|
|Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton||Mooney, John J.||Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)|
|Haldane, Richard Burdon||Murphy, J.||Shipman, Dr. John G.|
|Harmsworth, R. Leicester||Nannetti, Joseph P.||Smith, Samuel (Flint)|
|Harwood, George||Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)||Spencer, Rt. Hn. C R (Northants|
|Hay, Hon. Claude George||Norton, Capt. Cecil William||Stevenson, Francis S.|
|Hayden, John Patrick||O'Brien, James F. X. (Cork)||Strachey, Edward|
|Hayne, Rt. Hn. Charles Seale||O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid)||Sullivan, Donal|
|Helme, Norval Watson||O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)||Tennant, Harold John|
|Hobhouse, C. E H. (Bristol, E.||O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.||Thomas, Alfred (Glamorgan, E.|
|Horniman, Frederick John||O'Doherty, William||Thomas, J A (Glamorgan, Gow'r|
|Jacoby, James Alfred||O'Donnell, J. (Mayo, S.)||Ure, Alexander|
|Jones, David B. (Swansea)||O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)||Wallace, Robert|
|Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)||O'Dowd, John||Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)|
|Joyce, Michael||O'Malley, William||Weir, James Galloway|
|Kitson, Sir James||O'Shaughnessy, P. J.||White, Luke (York, E. R.)|
|Lambert, George||Palmer, Sir Chas. M. (Durham||White, Patrick (Meath, North)|
|Layland-Barratt, Francis||Partington, Oswald||Whittaker, Thomas Palmer|
|Leamy, Edmund||Philipps, John Wynford||Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)|
|Leigh, Sir Joseph||Pickard, Benjamin||Yoxall, James Henry|
|Leng, Sir John||Price, Robert John|
|Levy, Maurice||Rea, Russell||TELLERS FOR THE AYES—|
|Lewis, John Herbert||Reckitt, Harold James||Mr. Kearley and Mr. Warner.|
|Lloyd-George, Herbert||Reddy, M.|
|Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex F.||Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)||Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)|
|Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel||Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge||Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T. (Denbigh)|
|Allhusen, Augustus Hy. Eden||Cripps, Charles Alfred||Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop)|
|Archdale, Edward Mervyn||Cross, H. Shepherd (Bolton)||Kimber, Henry|
|Arkwright, John Stanhope||Cust, Henry John C.||Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.|
|Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.||Dalrymple, Sir Charles||Laurie, Lieut.-General|
|Ashmead-Bartlett, Sir Ellis||Dewar, T. R (T'rH'mlets, S. Geo.||Law, Andrew Bonar|
|Atkinson, Right Hon. John||Dickson, Charles Scott||Lawson, John Grant|
|Austin, Sir John||Dixon-Hartland, Sir F. Dixon||Lee, Arthur H. (Hants. Fareh'm|
|Bagot, Capt. Josceline Fitz Roy||Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-||Long, Col Charles W. (Evesham|
|Bailey, James (Walworth)||Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart||Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol, S|
|Bain, Colonel James Robert||Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas||Lonsdale, John Brownlee|
|Baird, John George Alexander||Faber, George Denison||Loyd, Archie Kirkman|
|Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (Manch'r.||Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edw.||Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)|
|Balfour, Rt. Hn. G. W. (Leeds)||Fielden, Edw. Brocklehurst||Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsm'th)|
|Banbury, Frederick George||Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne||Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred|
|Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin||Firbank, Joseph Thomas||Macartney, Rt. Hn. W. G. E.|
|Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir M. H. (Brstol||FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose-||Macdona, John Cumming|
|Bhownaggre, Sir M. M.||Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon||MacIver, David (Liverpool)|
|Bignold, Arthur||Fletcher, Sir Henry||M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)|
|Blundell, Colonel Henry||Garfit, William||M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)|
|Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-||Gordon, Hn. J. E. (Elgin & Nairn||Majendie, James A. H.|
|Boulnois, Edmund||Gordon, Maj. Evans- (Tr.Hmlts||Malcolm, Ian|
|Bowles, Capt. H. F. (Middle'x||Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon||Maple, Sir John Blundell|
|Brookfield, Colonel Montagu||Goulding, Edward Alfred||Martin, Richard Biddulph|
|Bullard, Sir Harry||Greene, Sir E W (B'ry S Edm'nds||Maxwell, Rt Hn Sir H E (Wigt'n|
|Butcher, John George||Hain, Edward||Maxwell, W. J. H. (Dumfriessh.|
|Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.||Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G. (Mid'x||Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.|
|Cautley, Henry Strother||Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.||Milton, Viscount|
|Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs.)||Harris, F. L. (Tynemouth)||Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)|
|Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbysh.)||Haslam, Sir Alfred S.||Moon, Edward Robert Pacy|
|Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)||Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley||More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire-|
|Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm.)||Henderson, Alexander||Morgan, David J. (Walthamst.)|
|Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc.||Higginbottom, S. W.||Morrell, George Herbert|
|Charrington, Spencer||Hobhouse, Henry (Somerset, E.||Morrison, James Archibald|
|Cochrane, Hn. Thos. H. A. E.||Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brights'de||Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptford|
|Coghill, Douglas Harry||Horner, Frederick William||Mount, William Arthur|
|Cohen, Benjamin Louis||Houldsworth, Sir William Hy.||Murray, Rt Hn A. Graham (Bute|
|Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse||Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil||Murray, Chas. J. (Coventry)|
|Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready||Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse||Nicholson, William Graham|
|Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow||Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick||Nicol, Donald Ninian|
|O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens||Royds, Clement Molyneux||Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)|
|Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay||Sackville, Col. S G. Stopford-||Warde, Lieut.-Col. C. E.|
|Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)||Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)||Warr, Augustus Frederick|
|Parker, Gilbert||Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert||Welby, Sir Charles G. E (Notts.|
|Platt-Higgins, Frederick||Sharpe, William Edward T.||Whitmore, Charles Algernon|
|Plummer, Walter R.||Shaw-Ste wart, M. H. (Renfrew)||Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)|
|Powell, Sir Francis Sharp||Smith, H C (Northmb. Tyneside||Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.)|
|Pretyman, Ernest George||Smith, Jas. Parker (Lanarks.)||Wilson, John (Falkirk)|
|Pryce Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward||Spear, John Ward||Wilson, John (Glasgow)|
|Purvis, Robert||Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.||Wilson-Todd, W. H. (Yorks.)|
|Randles, John S.||Stroyan, John||Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R. (Bath|
|Rankin, Sir James||Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley||Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm|
|Rasch, Major Frederic Came||Thorburn, Sir Walter||Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George|
|Renwick, George||Thornton, Percy M.||Young, Commander (Berks, E.)|
|Ridley, Hon. M. W. (Stalybridge||Tomlinson, Wm. Ed. Murray|
|Ridley, S. Forde (Bethnal Green||Tritton, Charles Ernest||TELLERS FOR THE NOES—|
|Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson||Valentia, Viscount||Mr. Anstruther and Mr. Hayes Fisher.|
|Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)||Vincent, Col. Sir C E H (Sheffield|
§ Original Question again proposed.
§ MR. HERBERT LEWIS (Flint Boroughs)
asked whether the amount for telegraphic communications covered wireless telegraphy, as it had been stated that very important experiments had been made.
* THE CHAIRMAN
ruled that, as the item dealing with this matter had been passed, the subject could not now be discussed.
§ MR. HERBERT LEWIS
then alluded to the contributions in aid of charitable and religious institutions, and asked what institutions were referred to. There were also contributions in aid of sailors' homes. These were excellent institutions, saving sailors from the temptations which beset them on shore, and tending to preserve their reputation and character, and that only £1,000 should be given to such institutions was parsimony in a direction in which it was not desirable.
§ MR. LOUGH (Islington, W.)
directed attention to the large amount required in connection with the special journey of the "Ophir" to Australia. There were £126,000 for hire, and £56,000 for the fitting up, and the fittings were actually to be sold on the return of the ship for £.3,300. It was very desirable that some, explanation of that great difference should be given.
§ MR. KEARLEY
, referring to an item for the hire of foreign interpreters, and commenting on the fact that the bulk 258 of the young fellows entering the Navy had no knowledge of any language other than their own, suggested that the Admiralty would be taking an admirable step in connection with the training of their officers if, instead of troubling about the classics, they insisted that no cadet should be taken into the Navy who had not a good colloquial knowledge of, at all events, German and French. In regard to the training of carrier pigeons, he asked for information as to where the operations were being carried on, and the place to and from which the pigeons were being trained to fly. At Dover he had seen a consignment of pigeons landed from Germany, in the custody of German officials connected with the Army or Navy, and those birds were released at Dover to fly back to Kiel or wherever else they had come from. The Committee were entitled to know whether the Admiralty had similar facilities granted to them with regard to flying pigeons from Germany to England.
§ * MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER
, who was very indistinctly heard, was understood to state that contributions were made from naval funds only to institutions directly connected with the interests of the Navy, and were usually limited to £50 for each institution. It would no doubt be satisfactory to many if the Admiralty were to give largely to deserving institutions, but the need must be proved before further funds could be asked for. With regard to the "Ophir," the hon. Member for West Islington was wrong in supposing that the £3,300 was for the whole of the fittings. About three-fourths of 259 the fittings would not be required after the conclusion of the voyage, and the contractors were willing to take them back at a fixed price. As to the increase for telegraphic communication, it was due to telephonic connection at the principal dockyard ports.
§ MR. LAMBERT (Devonshire, South Molton)
wished to know the principle on which the £340 now asked for was distributed for religious institutions. If it was between all the religious institutions in the land the amount was very inadequate. It was very important that there should be an equable distribution between the different denominations, and that no invidious distinction should be made between Nonconformists and Church bodies. Precisely the same remark applied to allowances to ministers of religion. With regard to the hire of foreign interpreters, it was admitted on all sides that it was better to have a knowledge of modern languages than of Latin and Greek; and it would certainly be a great advantage for naval officers themselves to be able to speak languages instead of employing interpreters. It was impossible to carry on a really satisfactory conversation through an interpreter, as he was always likely to put his own gloss on the matter.
§ CAPTAIN NORTON
asked whether the Committee were to understand that these contributions in aid of religious institutions were for the purpose of encouraging or developing religion. If that was the object the amount was totally inadequate. If, however, the contributions were merely doles to certain religious institutions, the Committee were entitled to know whether any undue preference was given to any one sect over another. In regard to the contributions to sailors' homes, he asked how many of those homes there were, and how much was given to each. Surely the home at Portsmouth received more than £50, as it would be manifestly unfair to give only that sum to such a home, doing so much work, and to give an exactly similar amount to some small institution which did comparatively little. As to the hire of interpreters, were those interpreters in out-of-the-way places and for languages not usually studied? It would 260 also be interesting to know whether any incentive was given to naval cadets and officers to perfect themselves in modern languages. In most other navies the officers before they entered the service were encouraged to learn at least English as one language, and special facilities were given to enable them to visit other countries for the purpose of passing as interpreters. A somewhat similar system prevailed with regard to our own officers in the Army, especially those attached to the Indian Army with reference to the learning of Russian. Was there any such system in connection with the Navy? In view of the vast development of the Russian navy, the fact that Russia had now an outlet in the Pacific, and seeing that our Fleet in Chinese waters had been increased, some incentive ought to be given to our naval officers to study Russian. Twenty years ago positively not a single officer in the Army knew Russian, and at the present moment he believed only one officer in the Navy had a knowledge of the language. If any misfortune happened to that particular officer we should have to depend upon an interpreter, who, in all probability, would be a Polish Jew, to negotiate between ourselves and the Russians upon any matter connected with the Navy. The training of carrier pigeons also was a matter of considerable importance. It was known that quite recently a pigeon-loft had been erected at Aldershot, and a distinguished officer placed in charge thereof. In Continental centres pigeons had been used for some time and found of the greatest value, and certainly they could be used with much advantage in the event of naval warfare between ourselves and any Continental Power. He therefore asked whether there was a proper loft for the training of these pigeons; if so, where; and also whether there was any intention of extending the practice, so as to provide a complete system of pigeon carriers throughout the British Isles.
§ * MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER
said the Committee might rest assured that the small sum of £350 for contributions to religious denominations was not spent in propping up any particular denomination. Small contributions were given in large dockyard towns in assisting 261 institutions connected with the places of worship attended by the sailors, and one denomination was not favoured more than another. With regard to the hire of interpreters, he believed that a considerable portion of the amount was with reference to interpreters in Chinese, and he could hardly suppose, the hon. Member would suggest that naval officers should qualify in that language. It might be possible to encourage the study of French and German among hoys before they entered the "Britannia"; but it was one of the misfortunes of the naval service that it was not possible to give enough leave to junior officers to enable them to study foreign languages abroad. Facilities were afforded for the study of Russian, and a gratuity of £150 was paid to any officer who would qualify as an interpreter in Russian. This year steps had been taken to improve young officers in regard to their knowledge of foreign languages.
§ CAPTAIN NORTON
said the Secretary to the Admiralty did not state whether opportunities were afforded these officers to study Russian in Russia, as well as granting them £150. No man could acquire a, good knowledge of Russian without six months residence at Moscow. ["Oh, oh."] He was speaking from experience, and he knew that no man could get anything like a knowledge of the Russian language without spending six months in some portion of the Russian Empire. It was absurd to offer £150, because living was so dear abroad. If the only incentive to learn Russian was the granting of a bonus of £150 after a man had succeeded in passing a most difficult examination, this inducement was practically a, dead letter.
§ MR. JOHN WILSON (Durham, Mid)
said he understood that the answer given by the hon. Gentleman applied to places of worship largely frequented by Marines and seamen. There was an item of £7,300 in the Vote given to ministers of religion. He wished to know whether the sum given to ministers of religion was distributed in the same way as the sum given to religious and charitable institutions. Was it given in a proportionate manner, and without regard to any particular denomination?
§ * MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER
said that at the ports frequently or occasionally visited by men-of-war money was granted to ministers of various denominations, some of the ministers belonging to the Church of England, others to the Roman Catholics, and some to the Nonconformists. Altogether some 200 or 300 grants were made, varying in amount from £25 to £200. He had no reason to believe that the sums granted were, inadequate. With regard to interpreters, while facilities were given to officers on half-pay to study foreign languages abroad, the duties of the naval service were such that it was very rare indeed that naval officers, especially junior naval officers, could go to foreign countries.
§ CAPTAIN NORTON
asked if it was at all likely that any naval officer occupying the position of a naval commander could go to Russia to study Russian under such circumstances.
§ * MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER
replied that it was not at all unlikely. They did it in the Army, and he hoped advantage would be taken of this offer in the Navy.
§ MR. JOHN WILSON (Durham, Mid)
desired to know on what principle the money granted to ministers was allocated. Was it distributed according to the number of men who attended the services?
§ * MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER
said that in some cases the money was allocated in accordance with the number of men who attended a particular place of worship, and in some cases according to the services of the minister. If the hon. Member desired to see the list of these ministers he should be very pleased to allow him the opportunity of doing so, and he would give him any further information which he desired. They were spread not only throughout the United Kingdom, but all over the world, and the money was distributed without regard to any particular denominations.
§ CAPTAIN NORTON
asked if the Secretary to the Admiralty could state whether it was true or not that at the present moment there was not a single commander in the Navy qualified to act as an 263 interpreter in Russian. Some further incentive should be given to officers of all ranks, and they should be placed in the same position as the officers in the Indian Army, who were allowed to draw their full pay, their bonus, and their travelling expenses during the whole time they were away in Russia studying that language. Seeing the importance of officers possessing a knowledge of Russian at the present time, he wished to know whether the Admiralty were prepared to offer the officers in the Navy similar advantages in regard to the study in Russian to those at present offered to the officers in the Indian Army.
§ MR. LAMBERT
said the hon. Gentleman had not told them directly that no denomination was favoured under his scheme. If the sailors went to the Established Church, surely they did not want to give an other salary to the minister. If the sailors went to a Nonconformist place of worship, then there would be an excuse for adding something to the very small salaries which Nonconformist ministers received. They did not want any favouritism displayed, and if the Admiralty were going to endow any particular denomination they would object to it in the strongest possible way. He wished to know by whom the grants were made, He felt that unless he was able to get a satisfactory assurance from the hon. Member on these points he should have to take the sense of the House about giving a new endowment to a particular religious denomination.
§ MR. HERBERT LEWIS
pointed out that the Secretary to the Admiralty had not given any information with reference to the training of carrier pigeons. The hon. Member for Devonport raised that question, and he showed that the German
|Abraham, Win. (Cork, N. E.)||Black, Alexander William||Cameron, Robert|
|Allen, Chas. P. (Glouc., Stroud)||Blake, Edward||Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)|
|Ambrose, Robert||Boland, John||Carvill, Patrick Geo. Hamilton|
|Asher, Alexander||Bolton, Thomas Dolling||Causton, Richard Knight|
|Ashton, Thomas Gair||Boyle, James||Cogan, Denis J.|
|Asquith, Rt Hn. Herbert Henry||Burke, E. Haviland||Condon, Thomas Joseph|
|Barry, E. (Cork, S.)||Burns, John||Craig, Robert Hunter|
|Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)||Buxton, Sydney Charles||Crean, Eugene|
|Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.||Caine, William Sproston||Crombie, John William|
|Bell, Richard||Caldwell, James||Cullinan, J.|
§ Government gave every possible facility to this system, He wished to know whether the Government were going to afford similar facilities in this country. It was a question of the most important nature, because our international relations were now of a kaleidoscopic character and we ought to be fully prepared. With regard to languages, he knew that a great many Russian officers spoke English, and he thought this language ought to be encouraged more amongst English naval officers.
§ MR. LAMBERT
said that as a protest against the vague manner in which the questions he raised had been answered, he would move to reduce the Vote by £40.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Item I be reduced by £40, in respect of Contributions in Aid of Religious Institutions."—(Mr. Lambert.)
§ MR. T. P. O'CONNOR (Liverpool, Scotland)
said there was only one Church represented on His Majesty's vessels, and that was the Established Church. Therefore the amount voted under this Vote to chaplains was a new form of endowment of the Established Church, and should be so treated.
* THE CHAIRMAN
The hon. Member has mistaken the item, which relates to contributions made to religious and charitable institutions.
§ Question put.
§ The Committee divided:—Aves, 130; Noes, 183. (Division List No. 113.)267
|Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan||Layland-Barratt, Francis||Price, Robert John|
|Delany, William||Leamy, Edmund||Rea, Russell|
|Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.||Leigh, Sir Joseph||Reckitt, Harold James|
|Donelan, Capt. A.||Leng, Sir John||Reddy, M.|
|Doogan, P. C.||Levy, Maurice||Redmond, John E (Waterford)|
|Duffy, William.).||Lewis, John Herbert||Redmond, William (Clare)|
|Dunn, Sir William||Lough, Thomas||Rigg, Richard|
|Edwards, Frank||Lundon, W.||Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)|
|Emmott, Alfred||MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.||Robson, William Snowdon|
|Esmonde, Sir Thomas||M'Dermott, Patrick||Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)|
|Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)||M'Fadden, Edward||Schwarm, Charles E.|
|Farquharson, Dr. Robert||M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)||Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)|
|Ffrench, Peter||Markham, Arthur Basil||Shipman, Dr. John G.|
|Flavin, Michael Joseph||Mooney, John J.||Spencer, Rt Hn C. R. (Northants|
|Flynn, James Christopher||Murphy, J.||Stevenson, Francis S.|
|Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.||Nannetti, Joseph P.||Strachey, Edward|
|Gilhooly, James||Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)||Sullivan, Donal|
|Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herb. John||Norton, Capt. Cecil William||Tennant, Harold John|
|Goddard, Daniel Ford||O'Brien, James F. X. (Cork)||Thomas, Alfred (Glamorgan, E.|
|Grant, Corrie||O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid.||Thomas, J. A. (Glam., Gower|
|Griffith, Ellis J.||O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)||Wallace, Robert|
|Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton||O'Connor, James (Wicklow)||Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)|
|Harmsworth, R. Leicester||O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)||Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.|
|Harwood, George||O'Doherty, William||Weir, James Galloway|
|Hayden, John Patrick||O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)||White, Luke (York, E. K.)|
|Hayne, Rt. Hon. Chas. Seale-||O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)||White, Patrick (Meath, North)|
|Helme, Norval Watson||O'Dowd, John||Whittaker, Thomas Palmer|
|Hobhouse, C. E. H. (Bristol, E.)||O'Kelly, J. (Roscommon. N.)||Wilson, Fred. W (Norfolk, Mid.|
|Horniman, Frederick John||O'Malley, William||Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)|
|Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.||O'Shaughnessy, P. J.||Yoxall, James Henry|
|Jacoby, James Alfred||Palmer, Sir Charles M. (Durham|
|Jones, David B. (Swansea)||Partington, Oswald||TELLERS FOR THE AYES—|
|Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.)||Phillips, John Wynford||Mr. Lambert and Mr. Kearley.|
|Joyce, Michael||Pickard, Benjamin|
|Kitson, Sir James||Power, Patrick Joseph|
|Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.||Clare, Octavius Leigh||Garfit, William|
|Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel||Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. F.||Gordon, Rt Hn J E (Elgin & N'irn|
|Allhusen, Augustus Henry E.||Coghill, Douglas Harry||Gordon, Maj. E. (T'wer H'mlts.|
|Archdale, Edward Mervyn||Cohen, Benjamin Louis||Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon|
|Arkwright, John Stanhope||Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse||Goulding, Edward Alfred|
|Arnold-Forster, Hugh O||Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready||Greene, Sir E W (B'ry S Edm'nds|
|Ashmead-Bartlett, Sir Ellis||Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athol'e||Halsey, Thomas Frederick|
|Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John||Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas||Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G. (M'dx)|
|Austin, Sir John||Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow||Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.|
|Bagot, Capt. Josceline Fitz Roy||Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)||Harris, F. Leverton (Tynem'th)|
|Bailey, James (Walworth)||Cranborne, Viscount||Haslam, Sir Alfred S|
|Bain, Colonel James Robert||Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)||Hay, Hon. Claude George|
|Baird, John George Alexander||Cross, Herb, Shepherd (Bolton)||Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley|
|Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (Manch'r||Cust, Henry John C.||Henderson, Alexander|
|Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W. (Leeds||Dalrymple, Sir Charles||Higginbottom, S. W.|
|Ban bury, Frederick George||Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)||Hobhouse, Henry (Somerset, E.|
|Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin||Dewar, T. R (T'rH'mlets, S Geo.||Hope, J. F (Sheffield, Brightside|
|Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir M. H (Bristol)||Dickson, Charles Scott||Horner, Frederick William|
|Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.||Dilke, Rt. Hon Sir Charles||Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry|
|Bignold, Arthur||Dimsdale, Sir J. Cockfield||Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse|
|Bigwood, James||Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred. D.||Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick|
|Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-||Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers||Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)|
|Boulnois, Edmund||Duke, Henry Edward||Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T. (Denbigh)|
|Brookfield, Colonel Montagu||Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin||Kenyon-Slaney, Col W. (Salop.)|
|Bull, William James||Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart||Kimber, Henry|
|Bullard, Sir Harry||Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas||Lambton, Hon. Frederick W'm.|
|Butcher, John George||Faber, George Denison||Laurie, Lieut.-General|
|Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.||Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn F M ward||Law, Andrew Bonar|
|Cautley, Henry Strother||Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst||Lawson, John Grant|
|Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs.)||Finch, George H.||Lee, Arthur H(Hants., Fareh'm|
|Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbysh.||Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne||Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage|
|Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)||Firbank, Joseph Thomas||Long, Col. Charles W (Evesham|
|Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm.||FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose-||Long, Rt Hn. Walter (Bristol, S.|
|Chamberlain, J Austen (Worc'r||Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.||Lonsdale, John Brownlee|
|Charrington, Spencer||Fletcher, Sir Henry||Loyd, Archie Kirkman|
|Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)||Nicol, Donald Ninian||Smith, H C (Northumb Tyns'ide|
|Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth||O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens||Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.|
|Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred||Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay||Spear, John Ward|
|Macartney, Rt Hon W G Ellison||Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)||Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.|
|Macdona, John Cumming||Parker, Gilbert||Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley|
|M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)||Peel, Hn. William Robert W.||Thorburn, Sir Walter|
|M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)||Penn, John||Thornton, Percy M.|
|Majendie, James A. H.||Platt-Higgins, Frederick||Tomlinson, William Edw. M.|
|Malcolm, Ian||Plammer, Walter R.||Tritton, Charles Ernest|
|Manners, Lord Cecil||Powell, Sir Francis Sharp||Valentia, Viscount|
|Maple, Sir John Blundell||Pretyman, Ernest George||Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)|
|Martin, Richard Biddulph||Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward||Warde, Lieut.-Col. C. E.|
|Maxwell, Rt. Hn Sir H E (Wigt'n||Purvis, Robert||Warr, Augustus Frederick|
|Maxwell, W. J. H. (Damfriessh.||Randles, John S.||Welby, Sir Charles G. E. (Notts.|
|Meysey Thompson, Sir H. M.||Rankin, Sir James||Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)|
|Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)||Rasch, Major Frederick C.||Wilson, Arthur S. (York, E. R.|
|Moon, Edward Robert Pacy||Rentoul, James Alexander||Wilson, John (Falkirk)|
|More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire||Renwick, George||Wilson, John (Glasgow)|
|Morgan, David J (Walthamst'w||Ridley, S. F. (Bethnal Green)||Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh, N.|
|Morrell, George Herbert||Richie, Rt. Hon. Charles T.||Wilson-Todd, Wm. H. (Yorks.)|
|Morris, Hon. Martin Henry F.||Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)||Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R. (Bath|
|Morrison, James Archibald||Royds, Clement Molyneux||Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm|
|Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)||Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-||Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George|
|Mount, William Arthur||Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)||Young, Commander (Berks, E.)|
|Murray, Rt. Hn. A. G. (Bute)||Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert||TELLERS FOR THE NOES—|
|Murray, Chas. J. (Coventry)||Sharpe, William Edward T.||Mr. Anstruther and Mr. Hayes Fisher.|
|Nicholson, Wm. Graham||Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew)|
§ Original Question again proposed.
§ CAPTAIN NORTON
said he understood that the Government would be not unwilling to meet them in reference to certain Estimates if they granted facilities for the passage of Votes 10, 11, 13, and 15. Vote; 5 was a labour Vote, in which, as a South London Member, he took very special interest, for it contained a very hard case of some 300 men who were employed by the Government at a wage of only 20s. per week, out of which they were obliged to pay some 9s. per week for rooms. This was a scandal to any Government, and he took it that this Vote would not be placed after Votes 8, 9, and 12, but that Vote 2 would be taken first.
§ CAPTAIN NORTON
said he did not wish to prolong the discussion in regard to naval interpreters, but the answer he had received had been most unsatisfactory. He expressed the hope that increased facilities would be given to naval officers to acquire Continental languages.
§ MR. WILLIAM REDMOND (Clare, E.)
asked if the question of the Catholic chaplains in the Navy could be raised 268 on Vote 11, or whether it would be more properly taken on Vote 12.
* THE CHAIRMAN
did not think the question of Catholic chaplains in the Navy could be raised on the Vote under discussion, as what was proposed was to give a sum of money to ministers of religion on shore.
§ MR. T. P. O'CONNOR
said be wished to put it to the Secretary to the Admiralty that if it were good policy to have religious services for sailors of all denominations, it was part of that policy that the Estimates should contain an allowance for chaplains on shore. He had been told by men connected with the Navy that the service ashore was not altogether of the kind which met the spiritual needs and habits of the sailors. For that reason, it was very difficult to get the sailors to leave their ships and go to service on shore. Therefore, if the Secretary to the Admiralty had to choose between having a chaplain on shore and a chaplain with a place on board ship, and chose the former, he would be making an unwise decision, and one not in consonance with the feelings and habits of sailors. This was a question on which his countrymen felt very strongly. It had been raised for a quarter of the cen- 269 tury, and no solution of it had yet been found.
§ * MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER
said that the Vote was not for any services held on His Majesty's ships. It was simply for allowances, either by grant or contribution, in respect to attendance on the services of ministers who were not connected in any way with the Royal Navy.
§ MR. WILLIAM REDMOND
accepted the statement of the hon. Gentleman, but said he would take an, early opportunity of calling attention to the fact that not a single penny was given to any minister except ministers of the Church of England. He had not the slightest objection to ministers of the Church of England receiving allowances; but it was unfair that the Roman, Catholic and the Nonconformist ministers received no allowances. He would also raise the question, of the rank of Catholic chaplains on board ship and on, shore. The Catholic priest on, shore did not get the same rank as the Protestant clergyman.
§ CAPTAIN NORTON
said he had no desire to go to a division, for the hon. Gentleman had met them very fairly; but they must have some explanation in regard to the question of interpreters. The hon. Member for the Stroud Division of Gloucestershire had told him that he bad spent six months in Russia, and that the result was practically nil; and, therefore, unless some special incentive was given to officers to study languages, the result would be that in Chinese matters they would have no officer capable of interpreting in Russian, He hoped the hon, Gentleman would do everything possible to give an incentive to either halt pay or full pay officers to study languages.
§ * MR. ALLEN (Gloucestershire, Stroud)
said that the hon. Member for West Newington had exaggerated a little but was in the main correct. He had worked very hard at Russian at home, and then went out to Russia, where he studied for six months, working eight hours a day, and living with a Russian family the whole time. At the end of that period he found that, while 270 he could get along well enough with reading novels and the newspapers, he could not read documents or anything of that kind. His experience was that nobody could go to Russia and learn Russian to an extent that would be really useful under twelve months solid hard work.
§ 3. £790,900, Half-Pay, Reserved, and Retired Pay.
§ 4. £340,600, Civil Pensions and Gratuities.
§ 5. £219,000, Medical Establishments and Services.
§ 6. £10,200, Martial Law, etc.
§ MR. KEARLEY
said he wished under this Vote to refer to the ineligibility of Marine officers to sit on courts-martial when afloat. They had the privilege when ashore not only to sit on courts-martial but even to act as president; but, notwithstanding the fact that the Marine officers constituted one-fifth of the personnel of the Navy, they had not that right when serving afloat. This matter was brought before the House many years ago by Sir John Pope Hennessy, who was assured by the First Lord of the Admiralty of the day that the mutter would be remedied, He, in fact, went out of his way to emphasise his definite promise by saying that the Naval Lords of the Admiralty recognised the justice of the claims of the Marine officers. He was aware that it was said that if this claim were to be conceded the doctors and the paymasters would demand the same privileges, He had nothing to do with that. All he asserted was that the Marines were a large and effective force in the Navy, and thought by some to be the best body of men in the service of the country; and it was monstrous that they should be excluded from this privilege, and it bred a great amount of discontent. The seaman part of the Navy entertained a pre judice against Marine officers sitting on courts-martial; they would exclude everybody from enjoying any privilege which they enjoyed. They had also the greatest possible objection to giving the engineer officers the position they ought to take; but he did not raise 271 that point specifically at this moment, although engineer officers were precluded from sitting on courts-martial. He appealed to the hon. Gentleman, and to any fair-minded man in the House, as to whether this privilege should any longer be denied to the Marine officers, and he hoped that the hon. Gentleman would be able to give a pledge that this injustice would be remedied.
§ * SIR JOHN COLOMB
said he entirely supported the view that Marine officers who were combatant officers, and who were equal in every respect, except that of handling the ships, to the naval officers should be eligible to sit on courts-martial on board ship. It did not follow that any admiral at sea would be compelled to appoint a Marine officer on any particular court-martial, but Marine officers should be eligible to sit according to their rank, He well remembered the distinct pledge given by a former First Lord of the Admiralty that this would be remedied. He wished to take exception, to the use of the word "prejudice," on, the part of naval officers, by the hon. Member for Devonport. Whatever prejudice there might have been in the past there was none now. Looked at from every point of view, to concede this function to the Marine officers would be to the advantage of the public service. He would remind the Committee, more over, that the Marine officers, whether infantry or artillery, were the only officers instructed in the principles of law. He knew how keenly this matter was felt in the service, and, in the interests of the efficiency of the service and the well-being of the Fleet, he hoped it would be remedied.
§ MR. E. J. C. MORTON (Devonport)
said that Marine officers not being eligible to sit on courts-martial at sea, involved not only an, injustice to the Marine officers, but to the men. The Marines would have much greater confidence in the equity of the courts-martial if their own officers were allowed to sit upon them.
§ * MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER
said that the hon. Members who had spoken had put very forcibly their arguments in favour of the concession. It happened 272 that at present officers of the Royal Marines were qualified to sit on courts-martial ashore, but not afloat. In his opinion, if ever the Admiralty were to change their views with regard to this subject, it appeared to him that it would be preferable that the Marines should take their places on courts-martial as officers of the Navy, and not merely as assessors representing the Marines, there being, as far as he was aware no such want of confidence in the existing courts as had been suggested by the junior Member for Devonport.
§ 7. £100,600, Educational Services.
§ 8. £65,800, Scientific Services.