§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That 122, 500 men and boys be em- 962 ployed for the Sea and Coast Guard Service for the year ending on the 31st pay of March, 1903, including 19, 805 Royal Marines. "
§ (7. 54.) CAPTAIN JESSEL (St. Pancras, S.)
said he wished to direct attention to the personnel of the Navy. The number of men and boys on the Estimates was, he believed, the maximum number the Committee had ever been asked to vote. In addition some 20, 000 men were provided in the Naval Reserve. That seemed to be a very large force, but it 963 was practically certain that in time of war they would be obliged to include a great many more men. When they considered the reserves of men which foreign nations were able to draw upon, it was evident that something should be done to supplement the existing force they had. At an interesting meeting at the Mansion House last month, it was stated that no doubt in time of war they would have a quarter of a million of men afloat. He was very glad to observe that the First Lord of the Admiralty had appointed a Committee to deal with the question of the Naval Reserve, and he was especially glad that one of the terms of reference to that Committee was to find out how far a naval volunteer movement could be utilised towards contributing to the remaining requirements of the Fleet. The hon. Member for Rotherhithe called attention to the fact that in his constituency there were about 12, 000 men who could be called upon in time of war to man the defences of the Thames. He hoped the Admiralty would consider whether the reserve of volunteers should be confined simply to home defence. It would be very ludicrous for a man on board a ship, when he had sailed beyond home waters, to request the Captain to transfer him to another ship on the ground that he was not liable to serve beyond the British seas. If the volunteer movement were to be of any use—and from the enthusiastic meetings which had been held in the City of London and in several large towns it seemed as if it would—it should be clearly laid down that a volunteer might be called on to serve anywhere in the event of war. Otherwise, they would be face to face with another sham, and would be relying on another broken reed. He hoped, if officers and men came forward and gave their services to the country, that the Government would behave towards them in a generous spirit. It should be remembered that in the last naval war, that between the United States and Spain, the United States had a great many volunteers serving on board their ships, and the Secretary of the Navy issued an interesting Report detailing their services and stating how highly their efficient aid was approved. He also wished to call attention to the 964 question of supplementing the existing surgeons of the Fleet. It was a curious fact that the only officers who were not represented in the Royal Naval Reserve were the surgeons. There were no facilities given to surgeons and doctors to join the Reserve. He had heard expressions of opinion on the part of several gentlemen who would only be too pleased to join the Reserve a ssurgeons; but the Admiralty; for some reason or other, refused to grant them concessions. It seemed to him that in time of war the Navy would require a great many more surgeons than were on the active list, and he could not understand why medical gentlemen were not allowed the same privileges as other aspirants to join the Naval Reserve. The difficulty was met, as far as it possibly could be, by allowing medical officers to enrol themselves for temporary employment by the Admiralty. But it seemed to him it would be a great advantage if medical men were given some sort of training on board ship in view of the duties they would be called on to perform in time of war. He was told that most of those gentlemen would not require any retaining fee; they would be glad to have simply the privilege of serving in the Royal Navy Reserve. If the Admiralty could not see their way to allow medical men to join the Naval Reserve, they could at all events allow them to form part of the proposed volunteer movement. With reference to the Naval Intelligence Department, the hon. Member for Haddingtonshire showed that there were only 13 officers in that Department as compared with 18 in the corresponding, German Department, and he also stated that Germany had some 13 naval attachés who looked after the interests of their country. That was a most important branch of the Navy, and it looked as if it were treated in the Navy in the same manner as it had been treated in the Army. The Navy authorities, like the military authorities, did not employ any thing like the same proportion of officers as was considered necessary by foreign nations. They had heard the other day in connection with the buying of remounts that the War Office did not inform the Military Attaché at Vienna that officers were being sent out to buy horses. The presumption was that the Government did not think much of the Military Attachés, but at the same time there 965 could be no doubt that the duties of those gentlemen were very important. The Attachés could inform the Admiralty of new developments in foreign Navies, and he ventured to think that there were points on which this country could learn from other Powers, and therefore he hoped that more attention would be paid to the Intelligence Department of the Navy.
§ (8. 1.) MR. MAJENDIE (Portsmouth)
said he desired to bring to the attention of the Committee the question of the warrant officers. Over and over again commissions in the Army were given to men raised from the ranks, whereas no such thing occurred in the Navy. It seemed absurd that this should be so in the junior and not in the senior service. Only three persons had been promoted to honorary rank in the Navy. The warrant officers would be quite content if the rank of honorary lieutenant were given on their being pensioned. What inducement could be offered to men who entered the Navy if, when they had attained the rank of chief petty officer, they were on retirement reduced to the rank of first class petty officer as regards pension? The matter had, he believed, been considered, and the Admiralty were in favour of his suggestion, but up to the present it had not been carried into effect. Then with regard to the personnel of the Naval Reserve, Putting the number of the personnel of the Navy at 120, 000, which he believed was rather over than under the mark, if war broke out, and we became actively engaged, our losses might amount to say thirty or forty per cent., and therefore he hoped that the Committee which was to be appointed to inquire into this matter would see their way to recommend that the reserves should be tremendously increased, and that the question of the naval volunteers should not be lost sight of. Before the war broke out the Volunteers were looked upon as a paper force, but since they had been to the front and done yeoman service for their country it had been discovered that they were by no means a paper force. Therefore lie said, with regard to the naval volunteers, give them a chance. He advocated that a volunteer force for 966 the Navy should be started, and that it should be made as efficient as possible. A graceful tribute had been paid by the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Admiralty to the Admiral of the Mediterranean fleet, to whom the thanks of the country were due for all he had done for that fleet, because he, in conjunction with Lord Charles Beresford, had brought that fleet to a state of efficiency which it had never attained before. [8.4.]
§ (8.38.) WILLIAM ALLAN (Gateshead)
said he wished to say a few words on Vote A, which dealt with the number of men and officers. He would confine his remarks to the engine-room section under the Vote. The number of men in the engineering branch of the Navy he thought was totally inadequate for the number of ships which were at present afloat, and their ships were very much undermanned in the engine room. According to the statement in the Estimates there were only 918 engine-room officers, and this total included assistant engineers and the temporary service men for the whole Fleet. A remarkable contrast was presented when they compared the duties and responsibilities of engine, room officers with other Departments. They had no less than 391 paymasters and 420 medical officers in the Fleet. If they compared the duties and responsibilities of the officers of those two branches with those of the engineer officers it would be found that the number of engine room officers was far too few for the safe and perfect manning of the Fleet. They had not anything like the number of engineers which they ought to have. They had no engineers' Reserve at all, and they could not put their hands upon any extra men to look after the machinery on board their warships when they might be wanted. The Navy was at present short of over 800 engineer officers, 1, 300 artificers, besides a large number of firemen. He wished to know if anything could be done to increase the number of engineer officers so as to equip their vessels with a full complement of men at all times. If they were to mobilise their Fleet to-morrow it would be found that they had not enough engineer officers to man all their ships. There was no Fleet in the world more under- 967 manned in the engine rooms than the British Fleet. There were far too few engineer officers, and an effort should be made to increase their number, not only for the sake of the efficient handling of the vessels, but also for the security of the Empire in the event of a war.
§ (8.45.) MR. PLUMMER, (Newcastle-on-Tyne)
said he wished to say a few words from the layman's point of view. He welcomed the assurance that the relations existing between the Admiralty and the large manufacturing establishments for the production of ships and armour plates were of a most cordial character. He heartily concurred with the hon. and learned Member for Haddington, who, on Friday last, said that these establishments were really part of the national defence, and constituted a valuable national asset and reserve power that ought to be carefully cultivated. They were indeed supplementary dockyards and arsenals, the value of which he was glad to know the Admiralty was more and more recognising. A continuity of policy towards these establishments was necessary; they could not be expected to lay down costly plant unless they had fair expectation of getting some share of the work of the nation—in short, a return for the capital expended. He was glad to know that the Secretary to the Admiralty was fully alive to the importance of this, and also to the importance of another subject to which in passing he would allude, namely, that, in dealing with the replies received from time to time regarding tenders, of giving, due consideration to the important element of time for delivery. He ventured to think that it was sometimes better to expend a considerable amount of money more in securing that a contract should be completed within a given time, than that the order should go to another yard in another part of the country, where perhaps it would be found that the conditions, with respect to the time of delivery, were not carried out. It would, in that case, be false economy to give the work where it could not be carried out in a given period. This was a matter which in the past had not had sufficient attention paid to it by the Admiralty, but he hoped that in the future it would not be lost sight of.
He cordially endorsed the reference of the Secretary to the Admiralty to the 968 new Chief Constructor, who had not only rendered distinguished service in connection with naval matters, but had, in connection with the Reserve Forces, done notable work. He was commanding officer of the Volunteer regiment which had the honour of providing the Elswick Battery for South African service. The re-gunning of the Navy was a satisfactory feature in the Government programme, and he hoped it would be earnestly continued until all the effective vessels on the active list were efficiently equipped. He said "effective vessels, "because he was rather of the opinion, which was shared by others, that there were still vessels on that list that could scarcely justify their claim to be considered as efficient and effective.
Some transfers had taken place during the past year, and others, he had no doubt, under the active scrutiny of the Secretary to the Admiralty, would be transferred in the coming year. He did not know whether the hon. Gentleman had noticed in the Globe of Friday last a novel method which the Admiralty formerly had of getting rid of obsolete vessels. An extract quoted from the Globe of March 14th, 1838, was as follows—It is rumoured that the Government is about to present the inhabitants of Harwich with two or three ships of war for the purpose of breakwaters, which will form a beautiful promenade, exceedingly inviting to any visitors who are in the habit of visiting this very pleasant watering-place, and will also protect Government and other property.He did not suggest that the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Admiralty should follow the example of his predecessors by offering obsolete ships to fashionable watering-places, for he would probably find it very difficult to secure an acceptance from any such place. He suggested, however, that it was more than ever desirable that inefficient vessels should be transferred from the active list and given an opportunity of doing useful work in more peaceful paths as training ships, and in similar directions.
He very heartily supported the proposal to grant pensions to the widows of all men who lost their lives in the service. The recent disaster to the "Cobra" had brought the inequality of the existing condition of things very forcibly to the front. He was sure the House would not rest satisfied until the dependents of men who lost their lives when on duty, whether in time of war or peace, received 969 equal pension benefits. He also noted with extreme satisfaction the encouraging reply of the Secretary to the Admiralty to the questions raised in regard to the status of naval engineers. If the more generous treatment indicated by the hon. Gentleman's speech were given to that deserving class of men, he would be doing not only a service to the men themselves, but to the nation in whose service the ships were employed. He heartily agreed with the hon. Member for Gateshead that the vessels were practically useless unless they were properly engineered by a satisfied and well-paid staff.
§ (8. 55.) MR. CALDWELL (Lanarkshire, Mid.)
desired to know to what extent merchant vessels would be utilised as cruisers in time of war. There could be no doubt that subsidised merchant vessels would prove an important factor in a naval war. This was fully realised by Germany and by France. Ger-Ian vessels on the Atlantic and on the China station were much superior in speed to British vessels. The P. and O. steamers could not compare with vessels under the German flag on the China station. Year after year the Germans were producing 12, 000 ton boats for the service to China, and the very highest the P. and O. sent was 8, 000 tons. The same could be said with regard to the Australian service. Supposing war were to break out, what would be the value of these ships in the case of the German Navy? They were ships of enormous speed compared to anything belonging to the British. They were able to manœeuvre and go from place to place in a way that the P. and O. and Canadian Pacific boats could never follow. We should have to despatch some of the quickest of our naval boats to go about guarding our great lumberers which carried mails. The hon. Member for Gateshead had referred to the want of engineers. In the German boats to which he had referred there was practically a reserve of engineers and seamen who could be employed on iron-dads in the event of war. Therefore, we must look to what other nations were doing. The German Government were giving subsidies to these boats which were not much greater than the money we gave 970 in connection with the mail contracts. I We gave subsidies to the P. and O., and some other great lumbering boats which went at twelve knots an hour, as against the German boats which could steam at twenty-three knots an hour. These foreign subsidised ships came into competition with our mercantile marine, to the injury of our carrying trade. He thought they were entitled to have this matter brought before the Admiralty. He found that the Canadian Government were entering into a mail contract for ships which could only steam twelve knots an hour. These were not boats of the newest construction, and no other nation would dream of subsidising them. If we were going to subsidise vessels, these should be of the highest speed and newest construction. Germany had practically a valuable reserve in her mercantile marine at very little cost. He held that we should be getting the services of a mercantile marine which could compete with that of other countries, by giving no subsidies unless the ship-owners studied the requirements of the Navy in this respect. During the war in China a P. and O. vessel, the "Athenia," was chartered by the Government as a hospital ship. Surely the Admiralty ought to provide hospital ships of their own for use in small wars instead of chartering vessels at the rate of £1 per ton per month. He remembered a discussion in the House on the great loss of life which had been occasioned by the want of a hospital ship in the Suez Canal during one of the Egyptian campaigns. He had another suggestion to make, and that was that some of our fast cruisers should be utilised for carrying the mails to India, China, and Australia at the rate of twenty knots an hour. That would bring the various countries into closer communication than at present, while it would form a capital training for officers and men, and make them acquainted with every part of the world. Moreover, if there were any defects in the cruisers they would be discovered during these voyages, and our expensive fleet could be utilised in that way for the benefit of the country, instead of playing into the hands of the shipowners.
(9.8.) MR. ARTHUR, LEE (Hampshire, Fareham)
said he wished to call the attention of the Secretary to the Admiralty to a comparatively small matter, but one which was of great importance to a section of his constituents. Men of the Royal Marines, who had married with the consent of the authorities and were stationed at Eastney or Forton, where there were no married quarters, got a lodging allowance of 6d. a day, which, however, was quite insufficient. This grievance was increased by the fact that that allowance was stopped when the men were sent to sea, and the families left behind were practically turned into the street. The lodging allowance, small as it was, should be continued to their families, at least to the extent of 4½d, per day, when the men went to sea. The money might be paid into a fund which could be administered by the Commandant. He urged the Secretary to the Admiralty to consider this matter favourably.
§ (9.12.) MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER
said that the debate had touched upon a large number of questions which were of very real importance in connection with the administration of the Navy. He most readily recognised that the invitation which he had ventured to address to lion. Members, to put questions to him, had been responded to, and he felt it a duty to answer, as far as he was able, those questions of detail as well as those of higher public importance. His hon. friend the Member for Gateshead had touched on two questions, one of which, with his permission, he would defer dealing with till a subsequent occasion. He thought it would be fairer to the hon. Member for Gateshead, and would give more satisfaction to himself, if they had a square discussion in regard to the question of boilers, after the hon. Member had in his possession the latest documents and information which the Government had in regard to them. The hon. Member touched on the gunning of the ships of the Fleet. The hon. Member knew that he and himself had been allies on this matter, and if he felt that there had been a want of progress in that direction, lie would be as much distressed as the hon. Member. But his criticism was 972 hardly justified by existing circumstances. He understood the hon. Member to say that we were under-gunning our large cruisers compared with those of other countries. That was not the fact. Take the case of the "Drake" and the "Cressy" class. In the case, for instance, of the "Léon Gambetta," a cruiser of 12, 351 tons—
§ MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER
said she might be an old ship, but she was not yet finished. She was to carry two 7.6-in. guns† and fourteen 5.6-in. guns. That armament did not compare at all with that of the "Cressy" or the "Drake." The "Jean d'Arc," another French cruiser of 12, 000 tons, carried two 7.6-in. guns and sixteen 5.7-in. guns. Again, this armament was not comparable to that of the "Cressy" or the "Drake." The "Drake," with a displacement of 14, 000 tons, carried two 9.2-in. guns and sixteen 6-in. guns—an infinitely superior weapon to the 7.6-in. gun and sixteen 6-in. guns; and the "Cressy," with a displacement of 12, 000 tons, carried two 9-in. guns and twelve 6-in. guns. Still, lie quite agreed that it was high time that the Admiralty should devote their energies to giving a powerful armament to our ships. In an amateur way lie had made a study of the gunnery of the Navy ever since the time of the Armada, and he had found that heavy guns had usually carried the day, and that in every conflict since the time of the Armada that fleet had been victorious which had guns of the heaviest calibre. He did not lay that down as a canon. [Laughter.] He pleaded guilty to having committed an unintentional crime. He only made the statement as an amateur, but it would show that he was not unaware of the importance of the question that had been raised.
Then, in addition to the gunning of new ships, a question had been raised by more than one hon. Member tonight with regard to those ships that were being converted. It had been asked why the ships which were now being converted, or were about to be converted, were not armed in†Mr. Arnold-Forster intended to say four, not two.973 the first instance with a heavier class of gun. He had his own views as to that, but it must be admitted that circumstances had changed. When these ships were designed, the 4.7-in. guns of a ship of the "Talbot" class would have penetrated the armour of any cruiser afloat, but that was not the case now. We had to face the fact that many of the cruisers now afloat carried armour not penetrable by the 4.7-in. gun, and that did furnish a reasonable explanation of the change now being made. It had been very reasonably asked whether the enlarged armament and protection of these vessels would affect their stability or seaworthiness. One hon. Member had suggested that these ships were out of date, but there was no foundation at all for that. The proof of the pudding was in the eating. These ships went all over the world, and encountered all sorts of weather, and the Admiralty had reports from their commanding officers as to their good behaviour at sea, and there was not the slightest foundation for the suggestion that they were unstable or unseaworthy in any way.
The question had been asked, what would be the effect of these additions, which were not contemplated when the ships were designed, and he had thought that it was only due to the House to make inquiries and to ascertain. With regard to the effect of the alterations, he found that the "Royal Sovereign," with a displacement of 14, 000 tons, would carry an additional weight of 180 tons; the "Barfleur" and the "Centurion," with a displacement of 10, 500 tons, 360 tons; the "Powerful" awl the "Terrible," with a displacement of 14, 200 tons, with four extra guns and their proper ammunition supply, 240 tons; and ships of the "Minerva" class, with a displacement of 5, 600 tons, 90 tons only; and in order obtain this considerable advancement armament and protection it was not e petted that more than one-tenth of a knot would be lost in speed in any ship.
As to distribution, he was not moved by the criticism of the hon. Member for Dundee, who attacked the Statement of the First Lord and described the paragraph which dealt with this matter as misty and vague. As the noble Lord had said, the distribution of the fleet must and did alter from time to time according 974 to the circumstances which had to be confronted. One hon. Member criticised the Admiralty for not giving employment to a sufficient number of naval officers within its walls, and contended that it would be a great advantage to the Lords of the Admiralty to have the assistance of more naval officers. Did the hon. Gentleman realise the extent to which naval assistance was already provided? Already there were four Naval Lords, all of whom were admirals of great experience; there was a Director of Naval Intelligence, also an admirals a Superintendent of Ordnance Stores, also an admiral; a Superintendent of Naval Reserves, also an admiral; and the Hydrographer to the Admiralty. There were also a number of subordinates of these officers, all officers fresh from the sea, whose work was a most valuable feature in the administration of the Admiralty. It was most desirable that hon. Members should call attention from time to time to the undoubted congestion in the Admiralty, but they ought to be told that steps had already been taken ill that direction. In order to relieve the pressure on the Admiralty, much greater power had been given to commanders-in-chief and admirals-superintendent of dockyards.
The hon. Member for the Shipley Division spoke of the extent of foreign progress, referring especially to the programmes of Germany and the United. States, and supported the view that our own programme was inadequate. He did not think he could with advantage add anything to what he had already said on that question, but he could assure the hon. Member that the progress being made by foreign countries was being very carefully watched. When the hon. Gentleman spoke of prospective construction in Germany or elsewhere, he might remind him that promises were not always performed. The Admiralty had before them at this moment promises of construction on the part of foreign countries which had not always ripened into performance, but when they did ripen they would have the earnest attention of the Admiralty.
An hon. Member had alluded to the loss this House had sustained through not having in the House a larger number of Members who had had experience in the Navy. That was a misfortune for which 975 he was not responsible. With regard to the question of inviting Volunteers to join the Navy for service only in home waters, he did not think there was any intention of that kind at the Admiralty. He believed there were many men who would be very glad to servo their country in an emergency, but who would not undertake to serve on the lower deck in any part of the world, because their private circumstances would not permit it; and he conceived there might be some system, of volunteering which would combine the conditions of service all over the world with those which could be rendered in local waters in the case of the safety of the country being threatened.
A very important point was raised by the hon. Member for Dundee with regard to the passage in the First Lord's Memorandum respecting the promotion of naval officers to nag rank. The best method for the rejuvenation of the Hag rank was to appoint to ships in commission younger post-captains and pass them on in due succession to the flag rank, and not by the supersession of I Admirals in command; by that means they might hope to arrive at the desired result. It was of the greatest importance to the Navy that younger officers should command our ships, and that they should then pass on to flag rank, in which they could perform most important service.
He admitted the importance of what had been said as to the necessity of officers in the service being acquainted with foreign languages. The Admiralty had appointed to the Channel Squadron an officer for the teaching of French. They had given facilities for the learning of foreign languages, especially French, to ships in commission, particularly in the Mediterranean, arid they gave greater encouragement to those possessed of a knowledge of these languages on entering the "Britannia." But it was difficult for an executive officer, considering the pressure on his time, to obtain a colloquial knowledge of a foreign language, and he did not think for a moment that they would be able to give the officers any very great opportunities of learning modern languages while they were serving on board ship. His hope was in the direction of doing more to encourage half-pay officers to visit foreign countries in order to learn their languages.
976 The hon. Member who suggested that the Admiralty had withdrawn some of the newer destroyers from the ordinary service was entirely wrong. All the Admiralty had done was to adopt the ordinary procedure of giving over for practice purposes boats that were not of the newest type. The hon. Member for Devonport had made a suggestion of weight in stating that the Admiralty should not, in the effort to obtain a more staunch type of destroyer, abandon a high rate of speed. He could assure the hon. Gentleman that that would not be the case, but there were many circumstances which demanded a more powerful class of boat. Many hon. Members had seen the German boats which came to this country, and went from here to the Mediterranean, which were fine, strong boats. They did not rival in speed some of our fastest boats, but for the ordinary rough and tumble they were very fine boats indeed; and the object of the Admiralty was to secure that they had two classes of destroyers—boats able to keep the sea in rough weather, and boats which, in fair weather conditions, could attain a very high speed.
As to the case which had been laid before him with regard to the Royal Marines, he would take pains to ascertain whether it was not possible to put the Marines on the same footing as the Army in that respect. The hon. Member for Mid Lanarkshire asked some question with regard to subsidised cruisers. That was a matter that had received the most careful consideration from the Admiralty. They had entered into an arrangement with the companies for a larger utilisation of subsidized cruisers in time of war. They had made agreements with seven companies instead of four; they had subventioned eighteen ships instead of eleven; and the number of ships placed at their disposal without pay was thirty-two instead of seventeen.
The Admiralty had not lost sight of the necessity of an increased medical service for the Navy in time of war. But it was a mistake to suppose that the Admiralty, merely by paying a retaining fee to doctors, could obtain exactly what they required. They were making arrangements by which they would obtain the services in time of war of a number of qualified medical officers; 977 but they had riot found on inquiry that they could much improve their position by giving doctors retaining fees in time of peace. It had been found in the case of the war in South Africa that medical doctors of the very highest rank were ready to assist the troops in the field in the matter of medical service; but those were not gentlemen who would have availed themselves of a retaining; and the Admiralty believed that if they were to offer a retaining fee, they would obtain, no doubt, doctors of considerable merit, but of less qualifications than those upon whom they could rely to give their services to the country in time of war.
He had so often dealt with the question of gunboats that it was almost unnecessary to say anything further. It had been said that in the supply of gunboats for the protection of fisheries, Ireland was treated worse than Scotland. As a matter of fact, the number of gunboats patrolling the Irish coasts was larger than the number patrolling the coasts of Scotland. But the Admiralty could not accept the duty of undertaking to enforce the by-laws of any local authority. The fate of the "Cobra "had also been referred to. The "Cobra" had been built by a very eminent firm of naval architects; and it was considered of importance by the Admiralty that she should not pass to any foreign Power. She was inspected by Admiralty officials, and, while she was found to be inadequate, from an Admiralty point of view, in the matter of construction, she had made a good many runs in unfavourable weather; and it was believed that when considerable structural alterations had been made in her she could be brought safely round to a Royal dockyard. No one regretted more than he the fate of the ship, but it was not really known how she went to the bottom, and it would be most unfair to lay the blame on the Construction Staff of either the Admiralty or the Elswick Works for that most unhappy episode. That matter had been fully dealt with by the Court of Inquiry.
§ (9.45.) SIR CHARLES DILKE (Forest of Dean)
said his first remark in connection with the personnel of the Navy concerned naval volunteering. First of all, could the Secretary to the Admiralty give the Committee any information on a matter he had not named, viz., that of 978 the protection of coaling stations—a matter which had been in dispute between the War Office and the Admiralty, and one which, it was feared, might, in time of war, throw upon the Navy a strain which would be very detrimental to the performance of the ordinary duties of a Navy, especially those of an offensive Navy such as ours must be in time of war. Last year the matter was left in a most uncertain condition, and the Committee ought to have, either from the War Office or from the Admiralty, some statement showing that the matter had been fought out by the Cabinet, as it certainly was a matter requiring settlement. The question was raised in Parliament last year in a most unfortunate manner by a Statement by the Secretary of State for War, which was afterwards repudiated by the First Lord of the Admiralty. The matter could not be left as it then stood, but no allusion had been made to it this year, either in the Memorandum of the Secretary of State for War or in the Statement of the First Lord of the Admiralty, and it was the duty of Parliament to press for a decision on a matter so vital. An obvious case in point—which had been put forward not as covering the whole ground, but as showing what it might lead to—was that of Sierra Leone. There was a very unhealthy place; nobody had ever wanted to take it over, but the Navy insisted, and had always insisted, that it was an absolutely essential coaling station. That being so, it was necessary that the Navy and Army should settle as to its defence in time of war. The Navy must not be unnecessarily tied to the defence of these places, which, no doubt, required some local garrison of their own. These considerations illustrated the fact that, although our naval operations as a whole must be offensive in time of war, there were a number of parts of the world in which locally there would have to be defensive operations. The Channel Islands might be quoted. A fleet could not be perpetually tied up, circling round the Channel islands, but defensive operations had not been provided for. At the time of the Fashoda scare it was proposed to have a torpedo station at Alderney, but that was not a place from which Jersey could be defended, and the defence of Jersey was no easy matter. Had 979 the Admiralty thought out the naval volunteering question in connection with such problems as these? What was it intended the naval volunteers should do? The Secretary to the admiralty had said that a portion of them were to serve in what he called "local waters." To serve how? Were they to serve on torpedo boats or destroyers? Of all men, those who served on such vessels required to be the most highly trained. The most highly trained seamen in the world were none too good for serving on torpedo boats and destroyers, and it would not do to put half-trained volunteers to service of that kind. Before the Admiralty began in any degree to rely on a force of naval volunteers, the House ought to be told what danger these volunteers were meant to meet, the kind of craft they were to man, and how far they were intended to be worked into any system of local defence for those places in winch the policy of the Navy would have to be a defensive policy.
§ MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER made an observation which did not reach the Press Gallery.
§ * SIR CHARLES DILKE hoped the Committee would not be led away on this matter and think they had tapped a very valuable and large source of supply. The number of volunteers who would be content to go abroad under all circumstances and serve on the lower deck of a battleship would be very small. The number who would volunteer for service in local waters would, no doubt, be larger, but the Committee wanted to know of what use they were going to be. Were they to be trained men whose services would be of any real value to the Navy? Then there was the question of the Colonial Naval Reserve. Those who first brought the matter before the House were not the persons to heap contempt upon the idea. He was one of those who, for years, had pressed on the Committee the view that in Newfoundland something might be done in that direction. The Admiralty now seemed to have the idea that in every other Colony as well it would be possible to raise such a force, but there they would be leaning on a broken reed. The wages paid to seamen in the Australian Colonies 980 and New Zealand were so enormous that it was impossible to hope that any large supply could be drawn from that source. Although wages were low in Newfoundland and in the maritime provinces of Canada, yet there were difficulties, of which the Admiralty were well aware, which made him personally doubt whether in any Colony there was so hopeful a field as in the particular case of Newfoundland. In that case they were told that legislation was necessary, but he was sure the House would welcome whatever measures were required.
It was not necessary this year to say much on the question of personnel at large, as the subject had been referred to a Committee, in whose proceedings and Report the House would be greatly interested. The subject was debated last year in another place, and the state of things then revealed and admitted was very grave. Lord Brassey, who brought the matter forward, said that—
We had failed to raise Reserves on any adequate scale, and that the resources we formerly possessed for manning the Navy front the Reserves were failing; it was no longer possible to maintain the Reserves at the strength voted by Parliament.
That was true, and no attempt was made to deny it. The Gentleman who replied for the Government said—
It was obviously impossible to rely on the Mercantile Marine as a Reserve for the Navy in anything like the same proportion as in days gone by.
Lord Goschen then gave his opinion, and pointed out that—
There was a tendency to create Reserves which were merely Paper Reserves, upon which we could not count in time of war, or else Reserves winch had not had the necessary training.
§ Those were the difficulties the Committee had to face, and he could not see how they were to be adequately dealt with, without bringing in, to some extent, the principle of short service. He knew the enormous advantage they gained from the long-service system, and would be the last to desire to interfere with it so far as the great majority of the men were concerned, but he was convinced they would never get in any system of Reserve the number of men required for the complete mobilisation of the Fleet on the-outbreak of war, and to provide for the wastage of war, without bringing in, to 981 some extent, short-service men alongside long-service men. In other countries short-service and long-service men served side by side without the slightest difficulty, and he believed they could serve side by side in our Navy just as they did in the Army. Then, the complete absence of anything like a Stoker Reserve was one of the most formidable dangers the Personnel Committee would have to deal with. Personally, he agreed that the engine-room complements were too low, but as it was a matter with which that Committee would have to consider, it was unnecessary to enlarge upon it. The question of the training of the officers of the Fleet had been mentioned. The hon. Member for Devonport had put some questions with regard to the training at the very top of the tree—the school of Naval Strategy, as it was called. When the question was raised two years ago, just before Mr. Goschen left office, those interested were politely laughed at by the Admiralty, but last year the present First Lord of the Admiralty claimed credit in the House of Lords for having, as he said, laid the first stone of such a system. Information ought to have been given to the House as to the continuance of that experiment, and the hon. Member for Devonport was entitled to some reply from the Secretary to the Admiralty on the point.
§ With regard to the new programme, it appeared to have been assumed by the Committee, and certainly by the Admiralty, that all the dangerous delays of the past were over; that we had made up our arrears, and that the deplorable condition of affairs revealed last year and the year before was at an end. The Report of the Committee on that question presided over by the Secretary to the Admiralty, would be read with much attention when it appeared. He believed, however, that the hon. Gentleman himself must feel that the excuses that he had to give from day to day with regard to delays were not satisfactory. One had only to compare the statements of the First Lord of two years ago, of last year, and of this year, to find whole catalogues of ships still very heavily in arrears and increasing in arrears each year, upon the original statements made. Take for example the statements made with reference to the "Vengeance," a 982 ship which was included in the programme of 1897, which was promised two years ago for the summer of 1901, and which was mentioned this year as being a battleship which would be completed and passed into the Fleet Reserve in the course of the present year. The delay which had occurred in completing the "Vengeance," the "London," the "Bulwark," and the "Venerable," was undeniable proof of his statement that these delays still occurred, and the Committee ought to press for a mull Report of the Committee presided over by his hon. friend, which they hoped might throw some light on the extraordinary delay that had occurred. He now came to the triangular duel which had been going on in these debates with regard to the programme of new construction in the laying down of new ships for this year. If this were an ordinary occasion, he should certainly have criticised the hon. Member for Dundee with more ferocity, but if he did so he was afraid of being accused of doing it in the interests of some party which was yet unborn. Therefore, he wished to criticise his hon. friend with all friendliness. The hon. Member for Dundee had complained that the Estimates this year were too large.
§ MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON
said that he had simply repeated on this occasion the criticism he made last year. The Estimates were substantially the same as last year, and last year they showed a great increase.
§ *SIR CHARLES DILKE
said that the hon. Member for Dundee went on to say that he was not going to push his grumble too far so long as the war in South Africa was going on, and that when the war was over the Estimates would have to be reduced.
§ *SIR CHARLES DILKE
said that practically meant the same thing as "reduced." He was not in a position to judge whether the money was well 983 expended or not, and in that matter they were obliged to trust the Admiralty. With regard to the programme of new construction which was before them for the present year, he emphatically asserted that it was infinitely small as compared with previous years, and its smallness was totally unexplained. The answer given in this respect was one which could not be satisfactory either to the Committee or to the country. The hon. Member for Dundee had made a suggestion to the Government. He suggested that their programme would have been larger but for the treaty of alliance with Japan, and he asked if the Government had considered that alliance in drawing up their programme. The hon. Member for Dundee had suggested that the programme would have been larger but for this alliance, and the strength of the Japanese fleet. The hon. Member for the Shipley Division said he was convinced that the Government had not considered, and no British Government ought to consider, such an alliance in such a connection and he asserted his conviction that the Government had not taken the Japanese fleet into consideration. In that remark he was cheered by the Secretary for the Admiralty, and so they might take it that the Government repudiated the suggestion made by the hon. Member for Dundee. That was not their reason, and therefore they had to consider this programme upon its merits. Some years ago there was a vote of censure moved by the Conservative Party upon the Liberal Party, for insufficiency in their shipbuilding programme, and he spoke in favour of that vote of censure, because he thought that the defence was insufficient. The view which he took at that time was confirmed by the great increase in the Navy Estimates which followed in the succeeding year. The programme which was now before them was the same programme which was censured by the Conservative Party at that time, namely, two battleships and two cruisers. In 1893 the programme, the smallness of which led to the vote of censure, contained two battleships and two first-class cruisers. In 1894, as a result of that vote of censure, he supposed, the programme was increased to seven battleships in the year and six second-class cruisers. In 1895 theta were no battleships, but four first-class cruisers and four second-class cruisers were laid down. In 1896 the programme 984 included five battleships and four first-class cruisers, as well as a large number of third-class cruisers. In 1897 there were two programmes in the year, but he would only deal with the first programme, in which there were four battleships. In 1898 there were also two programmes, and the first programme included three battleships and four armoured cruisers. The other night, when he attacked the Government on this point, the Secretary to the Admiralty said that the programme was not extraordinarily small, and lie asked what would happen if they made an enormous increase in one year followed by a sudden drop the next year. He wished to remind the hon. Gentleman that he was calling attention to something altogether out of the common, because the smallness of the programme of the present year was altogether out of the common. The Secretary to the Admiralty in his reply took the programmes of the four years 1899, 1900, 1901, and 1902, and he took battleships and first-class cruisers only. In 1899 he said there were six, in 1900 eight, in 1901 nine, and in 1902 four. Taking his own figures, where was the steady continuity of which the Secretary to the Admiralty spoke? He would say no doubt that there was continuity in the amount he took upon the Construction Vote, but where would that continuity be in three or four years time? Unless they took some extraordinary measures next year to make up for this singular drop, there would be exactly that jumping up and down in future years which the hon. Gentleman said he was anxious to avoid. There had been only one programme for a good many years past which was in the least comparable as regarded smallness with the present year, and that was the programme of 1895, and that programme followed the programme of 1894, which contained seven battleships. He could see no explanation for this in what had been stated by the Secretary to the Admiralty. The hon. Member for Dundee suggested that the Alliance with Japan had some bearing upon this matter, but this idea had been repudiated and the programme had to be defended upon its merits. He confessed that the present condition of Europe did not seem to him to be such as to justify this altogether abnormal departure from the standard 985 of past years, f or what he had pointed out was an extraordinary drop. In 1897 they had four battleships, and in 1898 three battleships and four armoured cruisers in the first programme.
§ *SIR CHARLES DILKE
pointed out that he had taken exactly what the hon. Gentleman himself put forward.
§ *SIR CHARLES DILKE
said that if the hon. Gentleman was going to count sloops and torpedo boats as ships he would give up the game. He counted only battleships, armoured cruisers, and first-class cruisers, simply because they were what the lion. Gentleman took himself in his Statement. He was prepared to take battleships and first and second-class cruisers, and even then he could not see any excuse or any possible defence for the meagreness of the programme presented to the House, which appeared to be based upon some pessimistic consideration, not of the finances this year, but of the state of the finances in the years into which the main expenditure on new ships would fall. Unless this deficiency in the programme were made up in some way we must in the future again see those ups and downs in naval expenditure which many of them had so bitterly deplored in the past.
§ (10.17.) MR. PENN (Lewisham)
called attention to a sentence in the First Lord's Statement in which it was stated that no ships, however excellent, would be effective in the hands of an inefficient personnel. He believed that to be absolutely indisputable from any point of view whatever. Upon the next page of the same Statement there was another paragraph which caused him no small amount of uneasiness. In that paragraph the First Lord of the Admiralty said that the training of seamen should be directed towards acquiring a knowledge of the structure of machinery of the modern man-of-war, and the capacity of dealing with repairs. If that suggestion were 986 carried out, it would go far to defeat what he and many hon. Members had fought for for years, namely, provision for a much larger increase of skilled labour in the engine-room complement of His Majesty's ships. The sailor had never yet been brought up to the use of tools, and he was not a skilled num who would be useful for repairing machinery. If the machinery was going to be handed over to the care of seamen, he thought the last state would be worse than the first, and be could not think that this new proposal was in any way a sound departure. In war time there might be a hostile fleet between some of the ships and the dockyard, and it would be well that they should be able to attend to certain repairs, without having to run in to the dockyard. The increase in the number of engineers and artificers did not appear to him to be in proper proportion to the increase in the fleet. He strongly emphasized the view that the men should be able to put matters right themselves, but that they should not be absolutely overworked. There was a common belief prevalent that when the ship was in port, it was an easy time for the men below. On the contrary, it was their hardest time, and they were glad enough to get to sea for a rest.
He did not propose to deal at any length with the boiler question, because it would be more properly discussed under Vote 8. In the Interim Report of the Boiler Committee it was laid down that, in view of the large waste of water that went on with water-tube boilers, cylindrical boilers should be fitted for distilling purposes, and he noticed that that recommendation had been disregarded. He did not propose to push the matter further at present, and he merely asked for information upon it. He wished to say a word or two upon the admirable and excellent departure of giving private builders opportunities of carrying out certain conditions laid down by the Admiralty instead of having the plans and specifications drawn up at Whitehall. That practice tended to decentralisation, and he believed that it was a policy which would lead very largely to improvement in His Majesty's ships, because they would have brought to bear upon them not only the vast skill of the Admiralty officials, but also the skill of the highly trained and highly paid persons in private yards who were capable of fulfilling any conditions 987 which the Admiralty might lay down. The First Lord had stated that the number of stokers in the Fleet Reserve had been largely exhausted, and their place had to be taken by civilians. He wished to point out that the stokers, who had been more or less in charge while the ships were in the dockyard, and the Fleet Reserve would know the run of those ships, and be more familiar with them when put in commission, and they would be able to give information to the engine-room crew, who would be pitch-forked as strangers into those vessels. Lastly, he asked when the House would have the further Report on the trials of the "Hyacinth" and "Minerva," and what prospect there was of receiving another interim, or a final report of the Boiler Committee.
§ (1ft 25.) SIR JOHN COLOMB (Great Yarmouth)
said the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean had dealt at some length with the question of construction, and he wished to associate himself with the right hon. Baronet in expressing dissatisfaction with the naval programme of this year, which was he thought, not sufficient to maintain the position which this country ought to be in. He also agreed with what the right hon. Baronet had said with regard to our coaling stations. As the question of Reserves of men and the whole subject of the personnel of the Fleet had been referred to a Committee, he would defer his criticisms upon these points until the matter had been thoroughly examined. With regard to the higher education of the officers, he thought that what was needed was not merely to educate them in the higher duties of naval strategy, but in the higher duties of administration. In his opinion there was a perilous congestion at the Admiralty which prevented the naval Lords from giving adequate attention to Naval problems. Every Naval Lord should have attached to him a captain or a commander, who could relieve the Naval Lord of much of the routine work under his direction. This would be a means of education in itself. He also thought that in all the home manœuvres recently held, and which formed a basis for discussion, it was never contemplated by the Admiralty to exclude Press correspondents. The Press had always been present in the ships, and the correspondents had 988 almost become umpires from the independence of their views. They had certainly largely promoted the advance of naval knowledge. He wanted to know whether the Admiralty were going to persist in excluding Press correspondents from being present in ships when Channel and Mediterranean fleets were combined for exercises. He could not see what justification there was for that, and he wished emphatically to express the desire that the Admiralty should recall their decision, and that next year they should riot put that restriction in force, so as to cover up the operations of these combined fleets from the public.
As to the question of foreign languages, he quite agreed with his hon. friend that there was a difficulty, especially in regard to young officers, but if the Admiralty were eager that officers on half-pay should become interpreters, they must take a more liberal view in the matter of pay. The Table given on page 5 of the First Lord's Statement as to the various employments of officers wanted amending, because they could not tell from it what naval officers were on half-pay. Again, there was a Table showing the additions to be made to the personnel of the Navy this year. Did all the 266 officers mentioned in the Table belong to the executive branch, and if not, how were they sorted out He asked the same question in regard to the 143 warrant officers. His study of the figures showed that there was a great increase in the "miscellaneous" branch of the Navy. There was a danger in that. He did not understand that, they were fully trained combatants; in fact, he was very sure they were not. He wanted to know on what principle these increases of branches had been made. He could not discover any principle which ruled the ratio of increase of any branch of the Fleet. For instance, the increase of engine-room artificers was 3.8 per cent.; last year there was no increase at all. This year the increase of stokers was 25.8 per cent.; last year it was only 13.3. Last year the increase of seamen was 30.7 per cent.; this year it was 38 per cent. Last year the increase of marines was 37.4; this year not a single man, was to be added. He asked his hon. friend if he could give the House a glimmer of the principle which ruled 989 the increases on the different branches, and their relation one to another. All the inquiries he had been able to make convinced him that this was a hand - to - mouth system, and he did not think that that was wise. The gunnery branch of the personnel consisted of two divisions; first, that portion specially trained for executive duty, and second, the Royal Marine Artillery, which was a very expensive and very highly trained force. He wished to draw attention to the fact that while they were not keeping up the number of Marine Artillery they were consequently allowing the gunnery training sadly to deteriorate. If the meaning was to gradually extinguish that part of the service, why did not the Admiralty say so, and not spend the money of the country on a force which was not, under conditions imposed, fully trained? He would take the last battleship that had been commissioned —the "Irresistible." There were forty-five first-class gunners, but two-thirds of these were recruits, while the remaining third had not revised their naval gunnery, because they had had no time to do it. In fact, some of those old gunners had never completed their training according to the standard laid down. Of Marine Artillery gunners 68 were stowed away in the "Duke of Wellington" not doing artillery but dockyard work. That was a misappropriation of the force. He could assure the iron. Gentleman the Secretary to the Admiralty that there was considerable discontent because the Marine Artillery gunners had not received the rating and pay of Second Captains of guns, while that rating had been granted to the Infantry Marines.
§ (10.44.) MR. KEARLEY
said he wished to ask whether under the new scheme of organizing the Naval Ordnance Department, warrant officers had found that employment which had been promised to them for many years. He also wanted to know the reason for the delay in carrying out the recommendations of the Victualling Committee. The explanation in the First Lord's Statement would not hold water. There was a very strong feeling that the recommendations of the victualling Committee ought to be given effect to at once. That Committee found that the food of the Navy was inadequate, in variety at all 990 events, and he saw no reason for hanging up their decision for another year. He did not know if the Chancellor of tile Exchequer were responsible, but, if not, surely effect should be given at once to the recommendations of the Committee in squadrons near home. The hon. Member for Portsmouth put a Question on Friday night with reference to the Greenwich Fund. He did not want to go into detail, as the question had been brought up year after year, and the hon. Gentleman knew exactly what it was. He wished to know whether the Government were inclined to give the men concerned the pensions to which they said they were entitled. There did appear to be an express contract in their favour. He was glad that the ten years confirmed service which had to elapse before engine-room artificers were eligible for warrant rank was now to count from the moment a mart joined. He understood that concession had been granted. He did not desire to discuss the question of the Reserves in detail, but there was one question which he thought he was entitled to ask in connection with them, and that was, the number of pensioners who had joined the Admiralty Fleet. Reserve, other than seamen pensioners. The seamen pensioners' Reserve had become part and parcel of the Admiralty Fleet, and it would be useful to know how many new pensioners had joined. [MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER gave the figures, but was not distinctly heard in the Gallery.] The hon. Gentleman mentioned on Friday night that it would be obligatory for all pensioners at the expiration of their service to become members of the Fleet Reserve.
§ *MR. KEARLEY
said he thought it applied to all pensioners. Now he understood that all men who elected to leave the service at the expiration of their first term would be compelled to join the Reserve, but that would be a very long time ahead. It would be at least 12 years before it could come into effect, and, therefore, the Committee need not give any more attention to it at present. Persons reading the debates might think that a great reserve system was to come into force in a year or two, but that was not the case. The hon. Gentleman 991 stated that the Colonial experiment of inducing men to join the Reserve had succeeded in Newfoundland, and that any difficulties which had cropped up had been legal difficulties. He should like to point out in connection with the delay in giving effect to the recommendations of the Victualling Committee, that the reservists who joined in Newfoundland made very serious statements about the food. They said they were practically half starved, and he would therefore advise the hon. Gentleman, if he seriously intended to encourage Colonists to join the Reserve, to establish new food arrangements; otherwise the Colonists would not accept the existing regime, as sailors who had no other alternative did. They were told that a Volunteer Reserve was about to be established. He expected that the hon. Gentleman anticipated that the same class would join the Volunteers for the Navy as did for the Army—merchants, professional men, and so on—and therefore he thought it would be necessary for the Admiralty to alter their methods and to throw down the barriers which at present prevented a man from having an open career from the bottom to the top. There had been serving in South Africa and China warrant-officers who had distinguished themselves very much. He had already called attention to the fact that those men were not eligible for the Distinguished Service Order, because the statute governing that Order stated it could only be given to commissioned officers. The hon. Gentleman recognised that there was a great grievance in the matter and finally, instead of the Distinguished Service Order being enlarged, a new Order was set up, called the Conspicuous Service Order. He had read the case which the Admiralty had put before the King asking him to establish the new Order, and it seemed to him that it was a class distinction. Why a man who showed gallantry should not be as eligible for the Distinguished Service Order as an officer, he failed to see, and surely in these democratic days the Admiralty would have done better, instead of setting up a new Order and creating a class distinction, to have thrown down the barriers of the old Order, making it open to all men. If volunteers joined the Navy, they and the Colonists would be the very first to express most serious dissent from such a class distinction. He thought it was 992 important to call attention to matters of that kind, because only the other day it was elicited that some distinction was made on board transports in the food for ordinary soldiers and for volunteers. The case was so indefensible that the noble Lord the Financial Secretary to the War Office said that instructions had been given that it should not recur. That showed the spirit which obtained, when it was possible that such an insult could be offered to a man as differentiation in his food. He said deliberately that the Distinguished Service Order should not be limited to commissioned officers, but should be treated in a democratic way. With reference to the personnel, he desired to say a few words as to the scarcity of skilled ratings in the Navy. They were dangerously weak in all branches of the service, and the reason was that the pay and prospects were not sufficient to encourage men to join. The hon. and gallant Member for Yarmouth referred to the stokers. Everyone knew that stoking was the weakest branch of the Navy; but it was the worst paid and the hardest worked. The naval shipwrights also were thoroughly weak, and the Admiralty had had to resort to the expedient of taking boys into their own yards and passing them through an inadequate apprenticeship of four years in order to get them to join the Navy. That was a doubtful expedient, and he warned the hon. Gentlemen that there would be very serious difficulties in the Government yards with ordinary shipwrights who had had to serve six years apprenticeship. Surely the Admiralty ought to have the same apprenticeship conditions as were required for ordinary shipwrights.
His final word would be on the necessity of training men in the Navy to shoot. He thought the Committee would agree that gunnery was the most important thing in the Navy. However skilful a commander might be, the last word rested with the man behind the gun. A good shot might be almost said to be born, not made, and he thought the Admirality would do well to pay the greatest amount of attention to developing good shooting among the young men who joined the Navy, and the way to do that was to test everyone entering the Navy, how- 993 ever young he might be, to see whether he had any natural aptitude for shooting. If he had, then he should be trained and his qualities developed, and hen they found they had got good men the Admiralty should endeavour to retain them by offering them proper inducements. When the fateful day arrived, first - rate shots behind the guns of the Navy would be worth the weight in gold of the shots they fired. At present magnificent shots were at liberty to leave the Navy after their first term or at the age of 38. Surely it was a short-sighted policy to allow a man who was a valuable shot to leave at 38 years of age, with many years of usefulness before him. They knew to their cost that there were many Boers in the field in South Africa over 60 years of age who were still capable of using their rifles to great advantage. There were men in the Navy at present who could scarcely miss with big naval guns, and who could rain shot on a ship like hailstones. A man of that kind would be able to demoralise his adversary in five minutes, and send him to the bottom in a quarter of an hour. It was Captain Scott who had developed modern gunnery in the Navy, and he had brought about an astounding improvement. Take the record of Captain Scott's ship the "Terrible." In the prize-firing competition throughout the Fleet last year, the 6-in. guns of the "Terrible" made 101 hits in 128 rounds, but the average of the Fleet was only about 35 per cent. of hits. Let the Committee assume that the "Powerful," the sister ship to the "Terrible," had a record of only 35 per cent. of hits as compared to the 80 per cent. of the "Terrible "—he was not asserting that the "Powerful" actually had so low an average—and entered into a single-handed contest with the "Terrible." It was a thousand to one on the "Terrible," yet the ships were equal in every other quality except firing. Therefore, he ventured to call attention to the necessity of increasing the shooting qualities of the men. They should be tested young. As an instance of good shooting, he would mention the name of a petty officer on the "Terrible" whom he thought deserved to be mentioned in the House of Commons. That was William Grounds, who as a Gun 994 Captain worked a 6-in. quick-firing gun. In the annual prize firing competition in His Majesty's Fleet last year, he achieved the phenomenal record of firing eight rounds ill olio minute from the 6-in. gun, and hitting the target every time, and this from a ship steaming 12 knots per hour. When he arrived at the age of 38, he would be able to leave the service, and no effort or inducement would be made or offered to retain him. In the event of war breaking out, what would they not give to have a man like William Grounds, with such a splendid record? His only reward now was a cheer from his mess-mates when he went below to a dinner of salt beef. If he had been shooting at Bisley he would have won the Queen's prize, and the money and glory attaching to it. Good shooting at sea was worth far more to the country than good shooting at Bisley, and he would press on the Admiralty to give the matter their serious attention and encouragement. They had made one concession by giving the Marines all advantage which had hitherto beendenied to them. The Marines were unable to qualify as seamen gunners, but that had now been conceded. The commanders of ships and admirals of squadrons should be given to understand that in future the test of efficiency of a vessel would not be polished brass work or white paint, but gunnery, and it would not be a bad thing to let it be known throughout the Navy that a ship would be tested by its gunnery record and that the officer ill command would be denied promotion until at all events the record of his ship was very much more than 35 per cent. The next naval war would be in favour of the nation that had the best gunnery, and if the Admiralty took the matter to heart and worked away at it, he was perfectly certain they would soon have the best gunnery of any navy in the world, so that when the time came the Navy would be able to give an excellent account of itself.
§ (11. 12.) THE CIVIL LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. PRETYMAN, Suffolk, Woodbridge)
said he desired to reply to a Question which had been put by the hon. Member for Portsmouth, and also by the hon. Member for Devonport. The point raised by the hon. Member for Portsmouth was with reference to the widows and children on the Greenwich 995 Fund. He understood the hon. Member to say that the widows' pensions depended on the old age pension fund at Greenwich. In the original foundation charter of 1694, under which the Greenwich Fund was administered, and also in the confirming Act of 1696, it was provided that, among other purposes, the fund was for the maintenance of widows and the education of children of men slain or disabled in the service. The money was provided for that particular purpose among others, but out of a very large sum only £5, 500 had been devoted to widows and children.
§ MR REGINALD LUCAS (Portsmouth)
asked if the money came from the Greenwich Fund or from Imperial sources.
§ *MR. PRETYMAN
said it came from the Greenwich Fund, but he understood the hon. Member to say that it came from the old age pension fund at Greenwich. That was not the case. Under the original foundation of the fund, one of the objects of the fund was that to which the money was now devoted, and it was not diverted from, but devoted to, the purpose for which it was intended. The hon. Member also raised the question of the pensioners who had reached the age of 55, and who had not yet obtained a pension of 5d. a day. That matter was very fully dealt with two or three years ago by the present Secretary to the Treasury, and therefore he did not think it necessary to go into it at any great length. But the hon. Gentleman opposite made a statement that there was a clear understanding that all pensioners who reached the age of 55 should receive that pension. He really did not think that the hon. Gentleman could substantiate that statement, because when the whole question was investigated by a Committee in 1892 they reported that there was no very clear understanding either on one side or on the other. It was not proved that it was incumbent on the Admiralty to pay the pensions, and the fact was that after the Report of the Committee a compromise was arrived at, and the Greenwich Hospital Fund was considerably increased. Needless to say, every possible effort was being made by the Admiralty to increase the yield of the funds by judicious investments, and he was glad to say the tendency was towards increase. So far 996 as the funds would allow, every pensioner on reaching the age of 55 would get a pension, but the number of pensioners eligible bad increased more rapidly than the funds available, and consequently there were a number of men who had reached the age of 55 but had not yet received the pension. The cases were considered on their merits. It should be remembered that it was not a pension standing by itself, but was in addition to the pension of £31, of which the men were already in receipt. It was therefore better that each case should be considered on its merits, and those in need receive the preference.
(11. 18.) MR. POWER
said the hon. Member had been misinformed in regard to the point raised by him earlier in the debate. The Committee had been given to understand that Ireland was treated far more favourably than Scotland in regard to the protection to the fisheries afforded by the Admiralty. But that was not the ease at all, as would be seen by references to previous statements in the House. In February 1900, Mr. Plunkett said—There are no gunboats employed for the purpose mentioned on the Irish coast,while, in the same session, the Lord Advocate stated that, in addition to the three cruisers or gun-boats employed by the Scotch Fisheries Board themselves, there were three boats placed at their disposal by the Admiralty. The request for similar assistance in regard to Ireland had been again and again refused, so that the reply given to the Committee was not at all in accordance with the facts.
§ (11. 22.) MR. REGINALD LUCAS
said he did not desire unduly to labour the question of the old age pensions, but he represented a large number of men who believed they were entitled to receive those pensions. The matter was discussed in 1898, when the matter was apparently settled to the satisfaction of the Committee, but not to the satisfaction of the men concerned, and he would be wanting in his duty, after the interest he had taken in the question and the promises he had made, if he did not state that the matter could not be left in its present position. So long as these claimants were left unsatisfied, so long must those who represented them bring the matter before the House. Some years ago, when a Committee sat 997 on the question, the late Duke of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, then Duke of Edinburgh, stated that there was no purpose to which the funds at Greenwich could be better and more properly applied than that of pensioning old seamen. Before the same Committee, an official of the Admiralty admitted that men entered the Navy partly because of the inducement of these pensions being held out to them as a prospect for their old age. On a subsequent occasion, in reply to a Question whether, if the justice of the ease was put before Parliament, Parliament would make the ample concession which these old pensioners demanded, the answer was given that if a case was made out, Parliament would undoubtedly make the concession. He believed a good case could be made out, and he desired to say that he reserved to himself the right of again bringing forward the matter when an opportunity offered; he would then amplify the case and ask the Committee to judge it on its merits.
§ (11. 27.) MR. DILLON (Mayo, E.) called attention to the increase in the number of men and boys asked for, and, as a protest against what he considered extravagant expenditure, moved to reduce the number by 5, 000. The number of men had been increased from year to year, and there was not the slightest prospect of a cessation. In 1893, up to which time the yearly increase had been very slight, the Navy cost £14, 000, 000 or £15, 000, 000 for the year; the expenditure now find reached £33, 000, 000. What had the Empire gained by that 'enormous increase? In that connection he had been greatly struck by a publication issued last year by an association with which the present Secretary to the Admiralty used to act in co-operation—the Navy League.
§ MR. DILLON
said that at all events it was a very influential body, which made a great deal of noise, and had undoubtedly been responsible for a great deal of the enormous additions to the Navy in recent 998 years. That association said last year that the power of England at sea was at a lower ebb than it had ever been at before. That, according to the Navy League, was the result of the increases of the last seven or eight years, and he was not at all sure there was not some justification for the statement. He had watched these events closely, and he maintained that the extreme development of the German, Russian, and French Navies dated from the period when England began to increase its Fleet. The Government of this country was responsible for that ruinous competition now going on among the great Powers as to who was to have the greatest possible Navy. What had been the result of the insane course which the Government of this country had entered upon? The result was that first of all they were told —he always thought that it was an excessive fallacy—that we were bound to keep a Fleet equal to any other two fleets in the world. England had assumed an attitude of such arrogance in the face of the world that the idea had been pretty generally spread abroad that the only safety of this country lay in being able to sweep all the other Navies off the seas if they combined against Britain. Such a tone of mind was a form of madness which would inevitably lead to the heaping on the shoulders of the taxpayers of the country an utterly ruinous burden. The Irish people were entitled to view with growing alarm and anxiety the enormous increase in the armaments of this country. He fully admitted the force of the arguments, if they were used with less arrogance and in a manner less calculated to inflame the jealousies and the fears of foreign Powers, that this country should maintain a great Fleet in order to secure mastery of the seas and to protect her commerce. But Ireland was a poor little country with no commerce to prey upon. He did not believe it would make £10 a year difference to Ireland if the whole of the British Fleet disappeared tomorrow. Except in the port of Belfast, they had nothing to plunder or lose. How could it be but a constant source of exasperation to the Irish people that they had to pay a full share of the cost of this enormous and ever-increasing Fleet, while Australia and Canada, which obtained immense benefits 999 from the Navy, got their share of protection without paying a penny for its support? It was monstrously unjust, and really it appeared grotesque to the Irish Members to hear all the talk at present about the loyalty of the Colonies, which obtained this protection while impoverished Ireland was bound to pay a share for the cost of the Fleet. It was not Ireland alone that suffered from these unbounded armaments. This country had been passing through a period of prosperity, but he believed the time was at hand when the war tax would press heavily on the people of this country. The taxpayers would find that they were severely punished, and the reaction would be all the stronger on account of the extravagance of the Government in connection with the Fleet.
He desired to draw attention to the manning of the mercantile marine. The Secretary to the Admiralty complained of the failure of the Naval Reserve. He had often heard gloomy pictures drawn by naval experts of the dreadful position in which this country would be placed if engaged in a severe naval war. It would be utterly impossible for this country to make up for the wastage of war at sea. It was a most extraordinary thing that the people of this country, who had the greatest mercantile marine in the world, should show themselves so persistently indifferent to the manning of that service. Their merchant ships were now very largely manned by foreigners, and those who spoke on behalf of the British seamen were howled down and made little of by Ministers when they called attention to the fact that the manning of British ships by foreigners was going on day by day. The number of foreigners enormously exceeded the number of Englishmen, and if Britain were tomorrow to look to the merchant marine for reinforcements in time of war, it would be found that they were leaning on a broken reed. So far as he knew, that peculiarity was confined to England. He did not believe that either France or Germany, or any other country, had a, merchant marine manned by foreigners, and it appeared to him an extraordinary thing that the British Government and the Naval authorities should allow- this to go on. On a recent occasion the ques- 1000 tion of the la scars was raised. The great P. and O. line was subsidised to an enormous extent, utterly out of proportion to the service it did to the State. As was pointed out by the hon. Member for Mid. Lanark, that line ought to have on the Eastern seas ships infinitely superior in point of speed to those it kept float carrying the mails of this country. The P. and O. Company insisted upon its right to man its ships largely with lascars.
THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN
Order, order! This vote is for 122, 500 officers, seamen, boys, and Royal Marries for His Majesty's ships and the Royal Marine divisions. It has nothing to do with the manning of merchant ships.
§ MR. DILLON
Yes, but the main. Question has always been discussed on the first Vote. [Cries of "Order!" from the Conservative Benches.] I am perfectly in order. The hon. Gentlemen do not seem to be accustomed to hear these matters discussed, or to know what is in order. The Secretary to the Admiralty traversed the entire field of the Vote. That has been the invariable custom. It is only an accidental thing that the Secretary to the Admiralty made his statement before the Speaker left the Chair. As a rule, the Secretary to the Admiralty, or the First Lord, has made his statement before the Speaker left the Chair, but as soon as the Speaker left the Chair the general discussion was resumed. I have said all I have to say about the Naval Reserve.
The hon. Member, referring to the position of the engineers on board His Majesty's ships, said he had for many years listened to the discussions on this subject, and he had never been able to understand why it was that there should exist a pig-headed and narrow-minded jealousy about giving this body of men their proper rank. Why should a man possessing the technical skill of an engineer be placed in a position of inferiority to the executive officers? He had always thought it a most monstrous thing. He supposed it was a survival of the views of discipline held in the old days when ships were propelled by sail. The engineer ought to be placed in a position of equality with the executive officers of the ship. He wished to know on what ground this request was refused, because it ought to be the natural desire of the 1001 Admiralty to remove the grievances of the engineers. He moved to reduce the number of men by 5, 000.
§ (11.47.) Motion made, and Question put, "That 117, 500 men and boys be employed1002
§ for the said Service.—(Mr. Dillon.)
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes, 41; Noes, 188. (Division List No.45.)1003
|Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)||Lundon, W.||O'Mara, James|
|Ambrose, Robert||MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.||O'Shaughnessy, P. J.|
|Blake, Edward||M'Govern, T.||Power, Patrick Joseph|
|Boland, John||M'Hugh, Patrick A.||Reddy, M.|
|Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)||M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)||Redmond, John E. (Waterford)|
|Crean, Eugene||Mooney, John J.||Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)|
|Cremer William Randal||Murphy, John||Sheehan, Daniel Daniel|
|Cullinan, J.||Nannetti, Joseph P.||Sullivan, Donal|
|Delany, William||Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)||Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)|
|Dillon, John||O'Brien, Kendal(Tipp'rary Mid.|
|Doogan, P. C.||O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)||TELLERS FOR THE AYES;|
|Ffreneh, Peter||O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.)||Sir Thomas Esmonde and|
|Flynn, James Christopher||O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.||Captain Donelan.|
|Gilhooly, James||O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)|
|Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)||O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.|
|Joyce, Michael||O'Malley, William|
|Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F||Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Manc'r||Long, Col. C. W. (Evesham)|
|Anson, Sir William Reynell||Finch, George H.||Lonsdale, John Brownlee|
|Arnold-Forster, thigh O.||Fisher, William Hayes||Lowe, Francis William|
|Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John||Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)||Lowther, C. (Cumb. Eskdale|
|Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy||Galloway, William Johnson||Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)|
|Bailey, James (Walworth)||Gardner, Ernest||Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth|
|Bain, Colonel James Robert||Gladstone Rt. Hn. Herbert John||Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred|
|Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)||Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick||Macdona, John Cumming|
|Balfour, Rt. Hn. G'rld. W. (Leeds||Gordon, Hn. J E. (Elgin & Nairn)||MacIver, David (Liverpoo|
|Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.||Gordon, Maj. Evans-(T'r H'm ts||M'Arthur, William, (Cornwall|
|Banbury, Frederick George||Gore, Hn. G. R. C. Ormsby-(Sal'p||Majendie, James A. H.|
|Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir MichaelHicks||Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby-(Linc.)||Manners, Lord Cecil|
|Bignold, Arthur||Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon||Maxwell, W. J. H. (Dumfriessh.)|
|Blnndell, Colonel Henry||Gretton, John||Molesworth, Sir Lewis|
|Bond Edward||Greville, Hon. Ronald||Montagu, Hon. J. Scott (Hants)|
|Brigg, John||Grey, Sir Edward (Berwick)||Moore, William (Antrim, N.)|
|Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John||Griffith, Ellis J.||More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire)|
|Brown, George M. (Edinburgh)||Ham ilton, Marq. of (L'nd'nderry||Morgan, David J. (Walth'mstow|
|Bull, William James||Hare, Thomas Leigh||Morrell, George Herbert|
|Butcher, John George||Harmsworth, R. Leicester||Morrison, James Archibald|
|Caldwell, James||Harris, Frederick Leverton||Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)|
|Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.||Haslett, Sir James Horner||Morton, Ed. J. C. (Devonport|
|Cautley, Henry Strother||Hay, Hon. Claude George||Moulton, John Fletcher|
|Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire||Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-||Murray, Rt. Hon. A. G. (Bute)|
|Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)||Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley||Murray, Chas. J. (Coventry)|
|Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)||Henderson, Alexander||Nicol, Donald Ninian|
|Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm.||Hoare, Sir Samuel||Norman, Henry|
|Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'r||Hogg, Lindsay||Nussey, Thomas Willans|
|Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry||Hope, J F. (Sheffield, Brightside||Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay|
|Charrington, Spencer||Hoult, Joseph,||Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)|
|Coghill, Douglas Harry||Johnston, William (Belfast)||Pilkington, Lieut. -Col. Richard|
|Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse||Joicey, Sir James||Pixie, Duncan, V.|
|Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready||Jones, William (Carnarvonshire||Plummer, Walter R.|
|Compton, Lord Alwyne||Kearley, Hudson E.||Powell, Sir Francis Sharp|
|Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)||Keswick, William||Pretyman, Ernest George|
|Craig, Robert Hunter||Lambert, George||Rryce-Jones, Lt. -Col. Edward|
|Crossley, Sir Savile||Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.||Rurvis, Robert|
|Dalkeith, Earl of||Law, Andrew Bonar||Pym, C. Guy|
|Dalrymple, Sir Charles||Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)||Pasch, Major Frederick Carne|
|Davies, Sir Horatio D. (Chatham||Lawson, John Grant||Pea, Russell|
|Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.||Layland Barratt, Francis||Reid, James (Greenock)|
|Dorington, Sir John Edward||Lee, ArthurH(Hants., Fareham||Renwick, George|
|Doughty, George||Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)||Rickett, J. Compton|
|Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-||Legge, Col. lion. Heneage||Ridley, Hn. M. W.(Staleyhridge|
|Duke, Henry Edward||Leveson, Gower, Frederick N. S||Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Charles T.|
|Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin||Levy Maurice.||Robertson, Herbert (Hackney|
|Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward||Lockwood, Lt. -Col. A. R.||Ropner, Col. Robert|
|Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter||Soares, Ernest J.||White, Luke (York, E. R.)|
|Round, James||Stanley Hon, A. (Ormskirk),||Whiteley, H. (Ashton und Lyne|
|Royds, Clement Molyneux||Stanley, Edward J. (Somerset)||Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)|
|Runciman, Walter||Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)||Whitmore, Charles Algernon|
|Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-||Stock, James Henry||Willoughby de Eresby (Lord)|
|Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)||Stroyan, John||Wilson, A. S. (York E. R.)|
|Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert||Sturt, Hon. Humphry N.||Wilson, F. W. (Norfolk, Mid.)|
|Seely, C. H. (Lincoln)||Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)||Wilson, John (Glasgow)|
|Seeley, Maj. J. E. B. (I. of Wight)||Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G. (Oxford U.)||Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh. N|
|Sharpe, William Edward T.||Thomas, David A. (Merthyr)||Wortley, Rt. Hn. C. B. Stuart-|
|Shaw, Thomas (Hawick E.)||Thomson, F. W. (York, W. R.)||Wylie, Alexander|
|Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew)||Thornton, Percy M.||Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong|
|Sinclair, Louis (Romford)||Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray|
|Smith, A. H. (Hertford East)||Treveleyan, Charles Philips||TELLERS FOR THE NOES—|
|Smith, H. C. (North'mb. T'yside)||Walker, Col. William Hall||Sir William Walrond and|
|Smith, J. P. (Lanarks)||Warde, Colonel C. E.||Mr. Anstruther.|
|Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand||Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney|
§ Original Question again proposed.
§ (11. 58.) Mr. FLYNN (Cork, S.)
said he had intended to speak earlier in the evening, but having listened to so many experts he had not had the opportunity.
§ It being Midnight, the Chairman proceeded to interrupt the business.1004
§ Whereupon Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
§ Question put, "That the Question be now put."
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes, 153; Noes, 73. (Division List No.46.)1005
|Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F||Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk.||Morgan, David J. (W'lthamstow|
|Anson, Sir William Reynell||Gordon, Hn. J. E. (Elgin & Nairn||Morrell, George Herbert|
|Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.||Gordon, Maj. E. (T'w'r Hamlets||Morrison, James Archibald|
|Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John||Gore, Hn. G. R. C. Ormsby-(Salop||Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptford|
|Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy||Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby-(Lincs.)||Murray, Rt. Hn. A. Graham (B'te|
|Bailey, James (Walworth)||Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon||Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)|
|Bain, Colonel James Robert||Gretton, John||Nicol, Donald Ninian|
|Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)||Greville, Hon. Ronald||Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay|
|Balfour, Rt. Hn. Ger. W. (Leeds||Hamilton, Marg. of (L'nd'nderry||Pilkington, Lieut. -Col. Richard|
|Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.||Hare, Thomas Leigh||Plummer, Walter R.|
|Banbury, Frederick George||Harris, Frederick Leverton||Powell, Sir Francis Sharp|
|Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir MichaelHicks||Haslett, Sir James Horner||Pretyman, Ernest George|
|Bignold, Arthur||Hay, Hon. Claude George||Pryce-Jones, Lt. -Col. Edward|
|Blundell, Col. Henry||Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley||Purvis, Robert|
|Bond, Edward||Henderson, Alexander||Pym, C. Guy|
|Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John||Hoare, Sir Samuel||Rasch, Major Frederic Carne|
|Bull, William James||Hogg, Lindsay||Reid, James (Greenock)|
|Butcher, John George||Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside||Renwick, George|
|Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.||Hoult, Joseph||Ridley, Hon. M. W. (Stalybridge|
|Cautley, Henry Strother||Johnston, William (Belfast)||Ritchie, Rt. Hon. Chas. Thomson|
|Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire||Kearley, Hudson E.||Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)|
|Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)||Keswick, William||Ropner, Colonel Robert|
|Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)||Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.||Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter|
|Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm.||Law, Andrew Bonar||Round, James|
|Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'r)||Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)||Royds, Clement Molyneux|
|Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry||Lawson, John Grant||Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-|
|Charrington, Spencer||Lee, A. H. (Hants, Fareham)||Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert|
|Coghill, Douglas Harry||Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)||Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)|
|Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse||Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage||Seely, Maj. J. E. B. (Isle of Wight|
|Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready||Leveson-Gower, Fredk. N. S.||Sharpe, William Edward T.|
|Compton, Lord Alwyne||Lockwood, Lt. Col. A. R.||Shaw-Stewart, N. H. (Renfrew|
|Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)||Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham)||Sinclair, Louis (Romford)|
|Crossley, Sir Savile||Lonsdale, John Brownlee||Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East|
|Dalkeith, Earl of||Lowe, Francis William||Smith, H. C. (N'rth'mb. T'neside|
|Dalrymple, Sir Charles||Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale)||Smith, Jas. Parker (Lanarks.)|
|Davies, Sir Horatio D. (Chatham||Lncas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)||Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)|
|Dorington, Sir John Edward||Lucas, ReginaldJ. (Portsmouth)||Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk|
|Doughty, George||Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred||Stanley, Edward Jas. (Somerset|
|Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-||Macdona, John Cumming||Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)|
|Duke, Henry Edward||MacIver, David (Liverpool)||Stock, James Henry|
|Burning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin||Majendie, James A. H.||Stroyan, John|
|Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward||Manners, Lord Cecil||Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier|
|Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Man'r.||Maxwell, W. J. H. (D'mfri'sshire||Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)|
|Finch, George H.||Molesworth, Sir Lewis||Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G. (Oxf'dUniv.|
|Fisher, William Hayes||Montagu, Hon. J. Scott (Hants.)||Thornton, Percy M.|
|Galloway, William Johnson||Moore, William (Antrim, N.)||Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray|
|Gardner, Ernest||More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire)||Walker, Col. William Hall|
|Warde, Colonel C. E.||Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.)||Wylie, Alexander|
|Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)||Wilson, Fred W. (Norfolk, Mid.||Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong|
|Whiteley, H. (Ashton und. Lyne||Wilson, John (Glasgow)||TELLERS FOR THE AYES—|
|Whitmore, Charles Algernon||Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh. N.)||Sir William Walrond and|
|Willoughby de Eresby, Lord||Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-||Mr. Anstruther.|
|Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)||Jones, William (Carnarvonshire||O'Mara, James|
|Ambrose, Robert||Joyce, Michael||O'Shaughnessy, P. J.|
|Blake, Edward||Lambert, George||Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)|
|Boland, John||Layland-Barratt, Francis||Pirie, Duncan V.|
|Brigg, John||Levy, Maurice||Power, Patrick Joseph|
|Brown, Geo. M. (Edinburgh)||Landon, W.||Rea, Russell|
|Caldwell, James||MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.||Reddy, M.|
|Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)||M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)||Redmond, John E. (Waterford)|
|Craig, Robert Hunter||M'Govern, T.||Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)|
|Crean, Eugene||M'Hugh, Patrick A.||Runciman, Walter|
|Cremer, William Randal||M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)||Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel|
|Cullinan, J.||Mooney, John J.||Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)|
|Delany, William||Morton, Edw. J. C. (Devonport)||Sheehan, Daniel Daniel|
|Dewar, John A. (Invernesshire)||Moulton, John Fletcher||Soares, Ernest J.|
|Dillon, John||Murphy, John||Sullivan, Donal|
|Doogan, P. C.||Nannetti, Joseph P.||Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr|
|Ffrench, Peter||Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)||Thomson, F. W. (York, W. R.)|
|Flynn, James Christopher||Norman, Henry||Trevelyan, Charles Philips|
|Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)||Nussey, Thomas Willans||White, Luke (York, E. R.)|
|Gilhooly, James||O'Brien, Ken. (Tipperary, Mid.)||Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)|
|Griffith, Ellis J.||O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)||Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)|
|Harmsworth, R. (Leicester)||O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.)||TELLERS FOR THE NOES—|
|Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-||O'Connor, Jas. (Wicklow, W.)||Sir Thomas Esmonde and|
|Hobhouse, C. E. H. (Bristol, E.)||O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)||Captain Donelan.|
|Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)||O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.|
|Joicey, Sir James||O'Malley, William|
§ (12.5) Original Question put accordingly.1006
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes, 183; Noes, 40. (Division List No.47.1007
|Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir A. F.||Dorington, Sir John Edward||Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.|
|Anson, Sir William Reynell||Doughty, George||Law, Andrew Bonar|
|Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.||Douglas, Rt. Hn. A. Akers-||Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)|
|Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John||Duke, Henry Edward||Lawson, John Grant|
|Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy||Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin||Layland-Barratt, Francis|
|Bailey, James (Walworth)||Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward||Lee, Arth. H. (Hants., Fareham)|
|Bain, Col. James Robert||Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J (Mane'r||Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)|
|Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)||Finch, George H.||Legge, Col. Hon. Honeage|
|Balfour, RtHnGer'ldW. (Leeds)||Fisher, William Hayes||Leveson-Gower, Fredk. N. S.|
|Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.||Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)||Levy, Maurice|
|Banbury, Frederick George||Galloway, William Johnson||Lockwood, Lt. -Col. A. R.|
|Beach, Rt. Hon. Sir M. H.||Gardner, Ernest||Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham|
|Bignold, Arthur||Godson, Sir Augustus Fred'rick||Lonsdale, John Brownlee|
|Blundell, Colonel Henry||Gordon, Hn. J. E. (Elgin & Nairn)||Lowe, Francis William|
|Bond, Edward||Gordon, Maj. Evans-(T'rH'ml'ts||Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale)|
|Brigg, John||Gore, Hn G. R. C. Ormsby-(Salop||Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)|
|Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John||Gore, Hn. S. F. Ormsby-(Line.)||Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth|
|Brown, George M. (Edinburgh)||Gorst, Rt. Hn. Sir John Eldon||Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred|
|Bull, William James||Gretton, John||Macdona, John Cumming|
|Butcher, John George||Greville, Hon. Ronald||MacIver, David (Liverpool)|
|Caldwell, James||Griffith, Ellis J.||M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)|
|Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edwd. H.||Hamilton, Marg. Of (L'nd'nderry||M'Kenna, Reginald|
|Cautley, Henry Strother||Hare, Thomas Leigh||Majendie, James A. H.|
|Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire||Harmsworth, R. Leicester||Manners, Lord Cecil|
|Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)||Harris, Frederick Leverton||Maxwell, W. J. H. (Dumfriessh.|
|Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)||Haslett, Sir James Horner||Molesworth, Sir Lewis|
|Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm.||Hay, Hon. Claude George||Montagu, Hon. J. Scott (Hants.)|
|Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'r||Hayne, Rt. Hn. Charles Seale-||Moore, William (Antrim, N.)|
|Charrington, Spencer||Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley||More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire|
|Coghill, Douglas Harry||Henderson, Alexander||Morgan, David J (Walth'mstow|
|Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse||Hoare, Sir Samuel||Morrell, George Herbert|
|Colomb, Sir John Chas. Ready||Hogg, Lindsay||Morrison, James Archibald|
|Compton, Lord Alwyne||Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside||Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptford|
|Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)||Hoult, Joseph||Morton, Edwd. J. C. (Devonport|
|Craig, Robert Hunter||Johnston, William (Belfast)||Moulton, John Fletcher|
|Crossley, Sir Savile||Joicey, Sir James||Murray, R t. Hn A Graham (Bute|
|Dalkeith, Earl of||Jones, W. (Carnarvonshire)||Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)|
|Dalrymple, Sir Charles||Kearley, Hudson E.||Nicol, Donald Ninian|
|Davies, Sir Horatio D. (Chatham||Keswick, William||Norman, Henry|
|Dewar, J. A. (Inverness-sh.)||Lambert, George|
|Nussey, Thomas Willans||Runciman, Walter||Thornton, Percy M.|
|Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay||Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-||Tomlinson, Wm. Edwd. Murray|
|Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)||Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)||Trevelyan, Charles Philips|
|Pilkington, Lieut.-Col. Richard||Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert||Walker, Col. William Hall|
|Pirie, Duncan V.||Seely, Chas. Hilton (Lincoln)||Warde, Col. C. E.|
|Plummer, Walter R.||Seely, Maj. J. E. B(Isleof Wight)||Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)|
|Powell, Sir Francis Sharp||Sharpe, William Edward T.||White, Luke (York, E. R.)|
|Pretyman, Ernest George||Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew)||Whiteley, H(Ashtonund. Lyne)|
|Pryce-Jones, Lt. -Col. Edward||Sinclair, Louis (Romford)||Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)|
|Purvis, Robert||Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)||Whitmore, Charles Algernon|
|Pym, C. Guy||Smith, H C(North'mb. Tyneside)||Willoughby de Eresby, Lord|
|Rasch, Major Frederic Carne||Smith, Jas. Parker (Lanarks.)||Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.)|
|Rea, Russell||Smith, Hn. W. F. D. (Strand)||Wilson, Fred. W.(Norfolk, Mid.)|
|Reid, James (Greenock)||Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk)||Wilson, John (Glasgow)|
|Renwick, (George)||Stanley, Edward Jas. (Somerset)||Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh. N.)|
|Ridley, Hon. M. W. (Stalybridge)||Stanley, Lord (Lanes.)||Wortley, Rt. Hn. C. B. Stuart-|
|Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson||Stock, James Henry||Wylie, Alexander|
|Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)||Stroyan, John||Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong|
|Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)||Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier|
|Ropner, Colonel Robert||Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)||TELLERS FOR THE AYES—|
|Rothschild, Hon. Lionel W.||Talbot, Rt. HnJ. G. (Oxfd Univ.)||Sir William Walrond and|
|Round, James||Thomas, David Alfred(Merthyr)||Mr. Anstruther.|
|Royds, Clement Molyneux||Thomson, F. W. (York, W. R.)|
|Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)||Joyce, Michael||O'Kelly, J. (Roscommon, N.)|
|Ambrose, Robert||Lundon, W.||O'Malley, William|
|Blake, Edward||MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.||O'Mara, James|
|Boland, John||M'Govern, T.||O'Shaughnessy, P. J.|
|Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)||M'Hugh, Patrick A.||Power, Patrick Joseph|
|Crean, Eugene||M'Killop, W. Sligo, (North)||Reddy, M.|
|Cremer, William Randal||Mooney, John J.||Redmond, John E. (Waterford)|
|Cullinan, J.||Murphy, John||Sheehan, Daniel Daniel|
|Delany, William||Nannetti, Joseph P.||Sullivan, Donal|
|Dillon, John||Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)||Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)|
|Doogan, P. C.||O'Brien, Kendal(Tipp'rary Mid.|
|Ffrench, Peter||O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)|
|Flynn, James Christopher||O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.)||TELLERS FOR THE NOES—|
|Gilhooly, James||O'Connor, James(Wicklow, W.)||Sir Thomas Esmonde and|
|Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)||O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)||Captain Donelan.|
§ Whereupon the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
§ Resolution to be reported tomorrow.
§ Committee to sit again tomorrow.