§ 1. Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £5,962,000, be granted to His Majesty to defray the Expenses of Wages, etc., to Officers, Seamen and Boys, Coast Guard, and Royal Marines, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1903."
§ (5.7.) MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON (Dundee)said that he assumed that the general discussion which usually took place on the first of the two Votes, Vote A rand Vote 1, would be permitted tonight to take place on Vote 1. The general practice was to regard Vote A as carrying not only the discussion relevant 1049 to the Vote itself, but the general discussion that might take place on Vote A and Vote 1. That question did not interest him personally, because the matters to which he wished to call attention were within the four corners of the Vote before the House, but he thought the position ought to be generally understood by the House. Vote 1 was the Vote for the wages of the men whose numbers were voted on the previous evening. It was consequential to Vote A, and any question relative to the number of men was also relevant to the amount of money which was to pay for them. The most important points to which he wished to refer related to the comparative stages, which he had on several occasions brought before the House and Committee, but as to which he had been unable to obtain a sufficient reply. The magnitude of this as of other Votes was dependent not upon possible requirements of our own, but upon what had been done by the Navies of other Powers. The one test of comparative strength relative to this particular Vote was the numbers of the personnel of other Navies, and it was really with the desire to obtain some satisfactory official reply on the point that he again raised the question. In September last a well-known and recognised writer on naval subjects—Mr. Thursfield—challenged certain statements which had hitherto passed current with regard to the rival fleets of the world, and he made the positive statement that the number of officers and men voted in 1900 was in France 50,243, and in Russia 54,462, making a total of 101,705; while for the year 1901 he gave the figures 51,243 for France and 59,462 for Russia. These were much higher -figures than any he had been able to obtain. The writer went on to say:
I am not at liberty to give my authority for the foregoing figures, but, though not official, it is unimpeachable,and he declared that inquiry in the proper quarters would establish the correctness of the figures. If the Admiralty had such information or were able to obtain it, it was their duty to put it before the House, and he hoped the hon. Gentleman would state exactly what the Admiralty did know about the numerical strength of foreign 1050 fleets. He did not know whether those figures were correct or not, but he held in iris hand a letter from an official connected with the Admiralty, in which it was stated there had been practically no increase in the personnel of the French Navy, and that the numbers were 42,500 in 1884, and 43,C00 in 1901. There was a considerable discrepancy between the two sets of figures, but whether the figures of his informant or those of the writer in The Times were correct was not of great importance. The point to be emphasized was that this recognised writer on naval matters declared that information to be procurable; and if it was procurable by him it must be procurable by the Admiralty; and if the Admiralty had it, they ought to give it to the country. Was the hon. Gentleman in a position to lay before the House such a statement as was certainly supplied to him when in office in 1894 or there-abouts—a statement calculated on the same basis as our own Estimates—of the a anal service list of the Fleets of Europe? Great changes had doubtless taken place since 1894, but if such a statement could be made then, a corresponding statement could be made now. He was perfectly aware that there were grave difficulties in the way of making a proper comparison, especially when dealing with the French Navy, and any conclusions to be drawn from such figures would have to be corrected and modified in regard to certain peculiarities which they knew to exist. Such information would afford one other test of our comparative strength. The tests of a comparison of the respective tonnage, numbers of ships, an d of financial outlay, each of which was comparatively simple and easy, were open to all the world, but that for which he was asking, which was an undeniable element in the question of comparative strength, was absolutely unknown to the House.Another matter to which he desired briefly to refer was that of the promotion of officers of the navigating class in the Navy. According to figures which had been put into his hand referring to the number of promotions from the rank of commander, out of 65 candidates promoted in the last four years, only six had been navigating commanders, and he believed the same proportion would be found to prevail in regard to the pro- 1051 motions from the rank of lieutenant. There could be no dispute about the relative position of navigating commanders and lieutenants, and he understood that there was great dissatisfaction at the small proportion of promotions from that class. He did not know whether the matter had been brought formally before the Admiralty, but perhaps the hon. Gentleman could state whether any real grievance in that respect existed, and if so, whether the Admiralty intended to take any steps to remedy it. An hon. Member, who spoke with practical experience of the Navy, had adverted to what was practically a branch of the same subject. The grievance of the navigating officer was likely to be of the same character as that of the poor officer. His grievance was that those who could afford to do things for the service out of their own pocket obtained an unfair advantage in regard to promotion. He (the hon. Member) did not say that that was an established fact, but it was the case that among navigating officers there was the feeling that they had not the same chances of pro motion as other men had, and in the interests of the service that feeling ought to be removed. He hoped that before the discussion closed the hon. Gentleman would give the House some information on the points he had raised.
§ (5.11.) M. FLYNN (Cork, N.)said he approached this question of naval expenditure from an entirely different point of view from that which had been adopted in the debate hitherto. To a lover of peace, progress, and economy, the present expenditure was almost appalling. In less than twenty years the expenditure on the Navy had trebled, having increased from about £10,000,000 to £34,000,000. The entire Navy Estimates laid before Parliament last year amounted to £31,155,000, but to arrive at the correct figures there had to be added the amount expended on naval works under the Naval Works Act. A very significant fact was that the more the expenditure grew, the more did certain people in the country and in the House demand further expenditure. At one time, a two-Power-standard was thought quite sufficient, but now a three-Power-standard was required.
THE DEPUTY CHAIRMANOrder, order! The hon. Member must confine his remarks on this Vote as far as possible to the men. I understand it has always been the custom in Committee of Supply to take the general discussion on Vote A, and on Vote 1 for Members to keep as much as possible to questions arising on the wages or the money voted for the men.
§ SIR FORTESCUF FLANNERY (York-shire, Shipley)asked whether the Deputy Chairman would not re-consider the ruling he had just given. There had been a variation of that practice, inasmuch as the general discussion had been allowed on Vote 1. He did not say that that was always the case, but it was certainly within his recollection that such a proceeding had been a
THE DEPUTY CHAIRMANI think that has generally been when the discussion has not taken place on Vote A. The general discussion takes place either on Vote A or on Vote 1, but I understand that, according to the precedents of the Committee, the general discussion does not take place on both.
§ MR. FLYNNsaid it must be obvious that when they were discussing the wages of the men it was more germane than general expenditure. He viewed this increase in the number of men with great alarm and apprehension, for he thought that this country was embarking upon a wild and reckless course in piling tip these expenses year after year. These Estimates were simply a premium of insurance paid for commerce, and a poor country like Ireland was called upon to contribute no less than about £3,500,000 towards this insurance. Cape Colony contributed—
THE DEPUTY CHAIRMANOrder, order! The hon. Member must not go into the question of financial relations. The question before the Committee is not how the money is to be raised, but how it is to be spent.
§ MR. FLYNNsaid that although Ireland, contributed this large sum, she could not even get a gunboat to protect the fisheries along the coa
§ (5.18.) MR. PLATT-HIGGINS (Salford, N.)desired to say a few words in reference to the dissatisfaction and discontent which prevailed among the officers of Engineers of the Navy in regard to their status as officers, and chances of promotion. He would be ungrateful if he did not acknowledge the steps which the present Board of Admiralty had taken in regard to opening out a few higher posts for Engineer Officers. Previously, whilst every Executive Officer had one chance in eight of attaining the rank of Captain, an Engineer Officer had only one chance in 45. These new additions made the chance one in 32, but even yet, the Engineer Officer had only one fourth of the chance of advancement of the Executive Officer, and this could not be regarded as satisfactory. The Secretary to the Admiralty stated in his opening speech that the demands of the Engineer Officer both for promotion and increase in numbers were inconsistent the one with the other; but surely that was only because the advancement was blocked at the upper end. There was one block now at the post of Chief Engineer, but this was only because many ships, which on account of their size were entitled to have Chief Engineers, were put off with officers of less standing and experience than Chief Engineers. If this matter alone was dealt with, as it ought to be according to the regulations, it would be one avenue of promotion more. One thing demanded by the Engineer Officers was the power of inflicting the same minor punishments as have long been held by the Officer of Marines, and surely an officer at the head of 300 artificers and stokers ought to be entrusted with equal powers to those given to an officer in command of 100 Marines.
He had formed one of a body of 50 Members of Parliament who waited upon the First Lord last year in reference to this subject. Some comments had been made upon the interjections of the First Lord as to whether it was suggested by the deputation there was any want of discipline in the stoke hole under present arrangements. He believed the personality of the present Engineer Officers had enabled them to keep their men fairly in hand up to the present time, but every one must be aware that power of 1054 more immediate action would be required in time of war, and it was for this we ought to prepare, quite irrespective of the feelings of the officers.
Again, the Secretary to the Admiralty had suggested there was some attempt to "put back" the engineers. He was not aware of it, but he was aware that there was a strong feeling existing that there was an attempt to repress the engineers, and thereby to prevent them from attaining that position which the order of evolution in the Navy was calculated to confer upon them. This attempt at repression had worked so much effect as to cause the engineers of the north-east coast to declare that there was a positive feeling of aversion towards the engineer service in the minds of those who might be expected to furnish the applicants for posts in the service, and surely it was a positive public danger that such a feeling should exist. The one remedy demanded on all hands was that the status of the Engineer Officer should be improved, and that he should be given the same position as the Executive Officer, so that his position should be commensurate with his responsibility. A short time ago there was an accident happened to the "Sanspareil." Several officers were somewhat severely punished, but the Engineer Officer was censured for not exercising his authority! Surely a strange proceeding when it is remembered that authority is the one thing denied to the Engineer Officer. The effect of this was obvious in the steadily decreasing number of qualified young men offering themselves for this branch of the service. And now this question had to be asked, Who is it that is standing in the way of this long demanded reform? He did not know even the names of the present Sea Lords of the Admiralty, and he was quite prepared to believe they were gallant and distinguished officers, but it was their predecessors who had withstood the introduction of steam power into the Navy, who had opposed armour plating, breach-loading guns, quick-firing guns, and the removal of masts and yards, and the question he asked was, was a body with such traditions as this a fit body to 1055 form an impartial judgment on a question so nearly affecting the position of its own particular caste?
The Engineer-in-Chief was denied a seat at this Board, although he was the head of the engineering profession in the service, whilst the Civil Lord, who might know nothing of the subject, was a member of it and took part in its deliberations. Surely it could not be right that the Engineer-in-Chief should be excluded from this Board, and he even yet trusted that the First Lord would listen to the claim he had put forward for giving executive rank to the Engineer Officers, and thereby rehabilitate the service in public estimation.
§ *(5. 27.) MR. WILLIAM ALLAN (Gates-head)endorsed the sentiments expressed by the hon. Member who had just spoken in favour of the engineering branch of the Navy. He could say truly that the engineering branch of the Navy was the worst treated of any branch in the Navy. For a great many years no progress had been made whatever in the direction of giving the engineers a status commensurate with their responsibilities on board ships. In his own naval engineering days, they had simply to keep up steam and drive the engines, and they used to be able to do that without any fear of a disaster, because in those days they had no water-tube boilers. The reason engineers were treated in this way was that the old caste prejudice still obtained on board every ship in the Fleet. The Executive Officers had never felt as they should feel towards the engineers. When it was first suggested by Henry Bell, who built the "Comet," the first steamboat, in 1803, to put steam power into our men-of-war, although the suggestion was backed by Lord Nelson, the then First Lord of the Admiralty declined to touch steam at all. From that date to this there had always been a spirit of opposition to the scientific branch of the Navy. Suppose that an engineer of five years service was put on board a torpedo boat and a midshipman was put in command. If a fireman refused to do duty, that engineer could not punish him. He had to take the engineer before the junior officer. Look at the degradation of the scientific man! There were 200 1056 or 300 men in the stoke-hole of a warship, and yet the Chief Engineer dare not say one single word to the firemen for neglect of duty. If he did so, the firemen complained against the engineer. In these circumstances how could they expect a contented body of men in the engineering branch on board His Majesty's ships? What would be the result in war time? That would be the time to test the men upon whom we had to depend for the safety of our ships. The refusal to allow engineers to rank with the officers was due simply to an old prejudice. Referring to the way in which the engineers were treated in the matter of pay, the hon. Member said the Chief Engineers were paid 16s. to 30s. per day. A Fleet surgeon, who had a few pills to make up or a little medicine to give to the sailors occasionally, received from 30s. to 36s. per day. What were a Fleet surgeon's responsibilities in comparison with those of a fleet engineer? A Fleet surgeon was not a better trained man than a fleet engineer. He was not so well trained scientifically. Comparing the pay of engineers and surgeons, he said the former received 10s. to 12s. per day, while the latter received from 14s. to 20s. per day. Why should the surgeon, who was not a better educated or so scientific a man, be higher paid? Among the clerical staff, paymasters received 14s. to 33s. per day. He would ask the Secretary to the Admiralty, who had made a close study of the various branches of the Navy, whether that was giving fair play or fair pay to the engineers. He could not aver it was. The hon. Gentleman's sentiments were known to him years ago about this state of things. The engineers were the poorest paid men in the Fleet, considering their responsibilities, and he did not wonder that they were discontented. They had very little chance of promotion and no status was given to them. Why was there no proper status given to them? He spoke from a national point of view. This was not a Party matter. He put it to the Committee on the grounds of common fair play. A chief artificer in the engine-room received 7s.to 7s. 6d. per day, and an artificer 5s. 6d. to Cs. 6d. per day. He did not consider that adequate for the work they had to do. He received 1057 many letters from engineers in regard to their condition and treatment on board the ships. These poor fellows did not dare to write. They were afraid to do so lest they should be found out. If they were found out, hon. Members knew what would happen. The pay in the engineering department was miserably out of proportion to the responsibilities of their work, and their status ought to be made equal to that of any officer on the quarter-deck.
§ (5.40.) SIR FORTESCUE FLANNERYsaid his hon. friend had placed the grievance of the engineers before the Committee in so far as it related to the matter of pay. He desired to place the matter on a higher and more national basis than his hon. friend, and to say that the efficiency of the Fleet was in danger by the present state of matters with regard to engineers. His hon. friend had compared the pay of the engineers with that of the other civil officers in the Fleet. The question was whether the conditions of service and the rates of pat for engineers were such as to secure for the Fleet the services of the best and most efficient men. It was not a question of appealing to the Committee ad misericordiam for something better for the engineers who were in the service. The true test for the Committee was whether or not the conditions of service were such as to secure the most efficient service in the engineering department. He desired to express the sincere disappointment of many hon. Members that the deputation which the First Lord of the Admiralty was courteous enough to receive upon this subject had had no larger result. It was true that offices had been created, such as chief inspectors and inspectors of machinery, to which the engineers could be promoted, but that was the extent of the concession which had been granted by the Admiralty to the engineers. The Secretary to the Admiralty in his speech indicated that one of the objects which he desired was to bring the Naval Engineers into the traditions of the Navy. Everyone agreed that that would be of immense advantage to the Fleet, but how would the engineers be brought into the naval traditions so long as they were kept as a civil branch of the Navy? If the engineers 1058 were kept on the same basis as the doctor, chaplain, and paymaster, and had no fighting rank, how could they be expected to enter into the naval traditions, the fighting traditions of the Navy? The question of pay was, no doubt, a serious grievance, but he ventured to say that the engineers felt infinitely more strongly the comparative degradation which was put upon them by being denied executive rank. This reform must come. He believed positively that it would come, but it would only come by agitation in this House, because agitation among the engineers themselves would not be consistent with Naval discipline. Nor would it be what his hon. friend and himself, who were concerned in this matter, would for a moment desire to see established among them. They had only to rely on the sense of justice and fair cling of this House, and the feeling that the Admiralty must ere long wake up to find that they had not sufficient engineers to do the work of the Fleet. Lord Selborne said that the increase in the Reserves had kept pace with the other service ratings. This matter of the Reserves was being referred to a capable Committee under the presidency of the hon. Baronet the Member for the Berwick Division; but here again the engineers were at a disability. On that Committee there were three admirals, a paymaster, and representatives of every branch of the Fleet, except the engineers. Why was that? Engineering evidence would be taken by that Committee, and when the question of debating the Report arose, he claimed that there ought to be an engineer either from the Fleet or elsewhere, who was not committed in any way to any opinion on this matter, but who would have the opportunity of bringing his practical knowledge to the assistance of the Committee. It was not yet too late for the Admiralty to make good the deficiency, and he appealed to his hon. friend to do so if he possibly could. He would point out, in regard to the figures in the Estimates, that while they had a large number—although none to spare—of deck or executive officers for the Naval Reserve, there was a much less number of qualified applicants in the engineer branch. One - fourth of the executive officers were waiting for commissions, but only one-seventh of qualified 1059 engineers were waiting for commissions. Then only 73 of the 400 engineers in the Royal Naval Reserve had been trained in warships! Three years ago the Admiralty announced with great satisfaction that they intended to give the opportunity to mercantile engineers to go on board. His Majesty's ships for the purpose of training, but, unfortunately, the response was merely nominal, simply because the conditions were not sufficiently good to compensate mercantile engineers for the loss of time. The result was that on a normal establishment of 400 engineers available for assisting the Fleet in war time, only 73 had had any warship training. He appealed to hon. Members who knew engineering matters to testify how far an engineer belonging to the Mercantile Marine, who had had no training on a warship, would be of any good in time of war.
§ MR. WILLIAM ALLANNo good at all.
§ SIR FORTESCUE FLANNERYsaid he would not go quite so far as that, but having regard to the different conditions under which an engineer from the Mercantile Marine would have to work, his usefulness would be a comparatively negligible quantity. He appealed to his hon. friend to take steps either to bring this matter definitely before the Manning Committee, or in such other way as he thought fit, so as to improve the condition and training of the Royal Naval Reserve engineers, both in the dockyards and at sea. His hon. friend who last spoke had referred to the great difficulties which the engineers had to encounter in regard to the new type of boilers with which they had to deal. A very serious complaint had to be made against the Admiralty, that, although this was the third night of the debate on a question of the most urgent importance in regard to the Fleet, the House was still in ignorance of the Report made to the Admiralty by the Boiler Committee. In the absence of the Report he desired to speak with great caution; but he expressed the opinion that they seemed to be in danger of rushing from experimentalisation of one kind of boiler, into the other extreme of experimentalisation as regarded another kind of boiler.
§ THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER, Belfast, W.)I understood that this discussion was confined to the Vote for the men.
§ SIR FORTESCUE FLANNERYthought that his hon. friend might have confidence in the Chairman. He begged to say that it was a little hard on, and, he ventured to say, scarcely fair to hon. Members who took a deep interest in this question, that after the Report of the Boiler Committee had been — he would not say withheld, but had not been placed within the knowledge of the House—his hon. friend should not have trusted himself to the Chairman on a question of order. Now, in seven vessels of the Fleet, Babcock and Wilcox boilers were to he fitted, and one with combined Belleville and Babcock and Wilcox boilers, two with the Niclause boilers, one with the Durr boiler, and one with the Yarrow and Durr boiler. He would not make a word of complaint about fitting one or two vessels with the Babcock and Wilcox boilers, but—
THE DEPUTY CHAIRMANOrder, order! The hon. Member must restrict his observations to the Vote for the men—the engineers.
§ SIR FORTESCUE FLANNERYsaid that if the Chairman considered he had been going too far beyond the strict line of the Vote, he would not pursue it, except to say that in regard to the necessity for training the men, he conceived that to have two ships fitted with each type of boiler was reasonable, but not seven or eight. The latter was carrying the matter further than experience at present justified. He expressed sincere regret that this House had not had full opportunity of discussing the boiler question. Passing from this, he wished to emphasise the statement made by his hon. and gallant friend the Member for Great Yarmouth, upon the question of the Colonies identifying themselves with this country in making provision for the Fleet, not only in men, but in money. He would make a suggestion. At the time of the Coronation, authoritative representatives of every one of the Colonies would be in London, and the opportunity might be 1061 taken to test their feeling as to some system of federation as regarded a Navy for the whole Empire. They knew how difficult it was to get a common basis. Three of the Colonies had already come forward to our assistance—the Cape, Natal, and Australia. The amount was small, but a start had been made. It might be that, at first, they could not get anything like the proportion of contributions that they expected. He cared nothing for that, so long as they made a commencement. Then there would be a Navy for the defence of the Empire, contributed to by every part of the Empire, and representative of every pert of the Empire, showing that they were as ready to fight afloat for the Empire as they had shown themselves ready to fight for it on shore.
§ MR. LOUGH (Islington, W.)thought that more information ought to be afforded to the House as to the casualties which occurred in the Navy. About a month ago he wrote to the Admiralty for information, and he did not think he was very well treated. In his letter to the First Lord of the Admiralty, he asked would it be possible to obtain a Return of the casualties involving loss of life since the 1st of January, 1891, setting out the nature of the disaster, its cause, and the number of lives lost. The answer he got in debate the other night, and it was quite appalling. The hon. Gentleman said that two Departments of the Navy h id been working for a fortnight to give him the answer to his Question. If that was the case, he thought the records of those Departments must be in a bad way. Statistics of all accidents should be kept so as to be accessible to every Member of the House. There were the accidents to the "Viper" and the "Cobra," and there lied been others. Could the Secretary to the Admiralty give them any information about the number of casualties for the year? There was a warship lost off the coast of South Africa, and something had been said about the accident to the "Sybil" and the "Condor" as well. He would like the hon. Gentleman to promise a Return of all these casualties, for he was sure that such a Return would be appreciated by many members of the Committee.
§ (6.5.) COLONEL ROPNER (Stockton)called attention to the feeling existing among the engineers, and expressed the opinion that unless something was done, hereafter there would be considerable difficulty in obtaining the engineers required for the Navy. He feared there was still a prejudice against the engineering class, as a class, in the Navy, and for that reason many years ago, the engineers of our modern steamers were not thought of much account. He had been a shipowner for thirty or forty years, and he recollected that when his firm first sent their steamers to sea, they scarcely ever considered the position of their engineers on board. However, the Merchant Navy soon found out that, after all, the sailing of those steamers depended much more largely upon engineers than upon the sailors themselves. They found that unless they recognised the position of the engineers on board, they could not maintain that order which was required in the stokehole in order that the interests of the owners might be safeguarded. He was afraid that the prejudice against the engineers at that time had been carried down to this day. Engineers, as a class, were vastly different men from what they were twenty or thirty years ago. Today they were a highly-educated set of men, and he hoped the Admiralty would recognise that the time had come when their status must be improved. They formed about a third of the whole of the men employed on board our men-of-war, and no wonder that they claimed to be considered in this matter. A great amount of money was now spent upon the education of engineers, possibly as much as upon medical men, and could it be wondered at that they claimed to be treated in much the same way? In the speech which the Secretary to the Admiralty made last night they were assured that this matter had his full sympathy. He hoped that what had been said that evening would have full weight with the Admiralty. These men were tied hand and foot, and he was very pleased to hear the Secretary to the Admiralty state that he was alive to what was being done by other Navies in this matter. If the signs of the times were read correctly it would be seen that there were several European Powers 1063 envying the position of the British Navy, and an effort was being made by them to bring their Navies up to the same position which ours had attained. Much as we prided ourselves upon the position of our Navy, that position was considerably endangered today, for we required, above all things, good engineers. To-day we sailed our ships without masts, and we relied on the engines; therefore we ought to have a large number of reserve engineers ready to take their places in time of need on board the men-of-war. How could we expect to get those men in the Reserve if we did not offer them sufficient advantages to lay themselves out for a career in the Navy? The time might come when they would be required. He had every confidence not only in the Secretary to the Admiralty but also in the Admiralty itself; and when they once became aware that this was a matter which absolutely required the attention of our statesmen he believed that the Government would at once give it the attention which it demanded.
§ MR. KEARLEY (Devonport)said he wished to draw the attention of the Committee to the unsatisfactory state of the canteens on board ship. As many hon. Members were aware, the food which was supplied to the sailors by contract was not very satisfactory, and the men had to supplement their dietary out of their own pay. Consequently, canteens were allowed on board with the consent of the Admiralty, and it was to these canteens that he desired to call the attention of the Committee.
§ MR. KEARLEYsubmitted that he was perfectly in order in raising the question on this Vote because his argument raised the contention that the men were obliged out of their scanty pay to supplement their rations. He should show that the men were deprived of part of their pay in this way.
THE DEPUTY CHAIRMANThe hon. Gentleman would be more in order in discussing this question on Vote 2.
§ MR. KEARLEYI agree it would be more in order on Vote 2 but is it out of order on this Vote?
§ (6.16) MR. ARCHDALE (Fermanagh, N.)said he merely rose to take exception to one or two remarks of the hon. Member for Gateshead, who was so respected by the House that everything which fell from him was received with great interest. As one of the Executive Officers who had been accused of having a "caste feeling" against the promotion of the engineering officers, he felt bound to say a few words. It was a good many years ago since he was at sea, but when he was on active service he always entertained feelings of the greatest friendship with the engineering officers on board. They had not the advantages which they have now, but every Executive Officer in the service sympathised with the engineers, and hoped they would receive all they asked for.
§ MR. WILLIAM ALLANWhy have they not received it?
§ MR. ARCHDALEcould not say, but it was certainly not due to any caste feeling on the part of their fellow officers. The hon. Member had spoken of an engineer, with fifteen years seniority, being put in charge of the engines of a torpedo boat of which a midshipman was in command, but that was not so; that was never done. The hon. Gentleman also expressed the opinion that the Lords of the Admiralty were against this reform or any reforms. Again, that was not the fact. His opinion, based on the Statement issued by the First Lord, and the speech made by the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury in introducing the Estimates, was that the Admiralty was showing a very progressive attitude, and he hoped that attitude would be continued. Training for the reserves coming from the Colonies was much needed, and he hoped ships would be placed in the Colonial ports so that the men there might be trained. It was with satisfaction that he heard that many naval officers were being brought into the Admiralty 1065 to assist the Lords of the Admiralty in the discharge of their duty. It was a principle that he thought might be carried much further. As regards destroyers and torpedo boats, there was no better way of training young naval officers than to put them in command of these boats for a short time. Now that there was no mast and yard work, no young officer could acquire the habit of quick decision and nerve which he used to get by sailoring work, except by going about in torpedo boats and destroyers, and having to decide at once the course which they should adopt when they became senior officers in charge of other ships. For that reason he hoped it would be possible to employ plenty of destroyers, and that when small disasters occurred they should not be regarded in a more serious light than any accident happening to any officer on the ship he commanded. He thought that warrant officers ought to receive more consideration than they at present received; that a bluejacket who, by hard work, good conduct, and a considerable amount of brain work, had attained the rank of warrant officer, should be better treated with regard to pay, rank, pension and allowances. The only increase they got on becoming warrant officers was less than 6d. a day; they actually received only an extra 5d. a day, and had to buy new uniforms and belong to a new mess, and were really worse off than the petty officers. Warrant officers, in his opinion, should receive Gs. a day. He also considered that after eighteen years service in that rank, they might fairly be given the rank of chief warrant officer. He asked that the children of warrant officers should he granted compassionate allowances. The children of all other officers were granted a compassionate allowance, and he thought it was only fair that this concession should be granted to the children of warrant officers. He thought also that any officer in charge of stores on board a man-of-war should receive 1s. a day, in order to make him careful in guarding and looking after the stores on board ship. He appealed also for some amelioration of the position of the naval schoolmasters, who, though not a numerous body of men, were well deserving of the best consideration of 1066 the Admiralty. In conclusion, he congratulated the Committee upon the way in which this Vote had been debated. It must be a matter of great congratulation for the service and the country that naval affairs were always raised above the level of Party discussion.
§ (6.28) AIR. E. J. C. MORTON (Devonport)said there were two considerations which were always apt to be forgotten when treating with the Navy—one was that it took double as long to make an able seaman as it took to build an ironclad, and the other was that during the whole glorious career of the Navy its success had always depended on its splendid personnel and not upon the design of the ships. It was an admitted fact that from the time of the Armada down to the end of the Napoleonic Wars, our ships were always inferior in design to those against which they fought, and that we had always won owing to our personnel. There was no single point in which we could do so much to improve the personnel of the Navy as in improving the status of the warrant officer, for the reason that if the status of the warrant officer was improved it would loosen promotion through all the ratings of the Navy. A man became a warrant officer between twenty-eight and thirty, and he then found a brick wall set up in front of him, between hint and further promotion. He had to wait until he was over fifty years of age before he could become chief warrant officer. If the career that was offered to a private soldier in the army was contrasted to that which was offered to a boy entering the Navy, there was no comparison between them. The private soldier had a line of promotion preserved for him along the quartermaster ranks; he could rise to a lieutenant and captain, and there was one case where a private rose to the active rank of major and retired with the honorary rank of colonel. There was no such opportunity in the Navy, where a man was certainly in an inferior position to his fellow who joined the Army. Look at the importance from the national point of view. A man became an ordinary seaman at the age of eighteen. 1067 The nation did not get its full value out of him until he became an able seaman at the age, say, of twenty-one. The nation then got his full service for seven years—until he was twenty-eight. Then the first opportunity came to him to leave the Navy, and it was found some years ago that almost a third of the men who were given the opportunity of either leaving or re-engaging left the Navy. Obviously the best value for the nation was got out of men between the ages of twenty-eight and thirty-eight. It cost £300 to make a boy into an able seaman, but one-half of that £300 would be saved in the case of each individual man who could be induced to re-engage for a second term of ten years, because for the initial expenditure of £300 twenty years instead of ten of the man's life would be spent in the service of the nation. By dint of appeals in the House, and doubtless a sense of justice in the Admiralty, certain concessions had been obtained during the last five or six years, and as a result, instead of 33 per cent. failing to re-engage, as was the case ten years ago, the percentage now was twenty-three. If there could be given to warrant officers in the Navy a career such as was given to warrant officers in the Army, along the quartermaster line, he believed a large proportion of even that 23 per cent. would be induced to re-engage. A practical proof of that statement was the fact that the warrant officers were making that their principal demand. If, out of the more than 1,000 men who every year failed to re-engage, 40 could he induced to re-engage by such a prospect, there would probably be saved double the amount of the Admiralty Estimate of the cost of creating such a line of promotion. It was impossible to draw an exact analogue between the quartermaster line in the Army and a similar line in the Navy, but it was probably not beyond the ingenuity of the Admiralty to reserve certain classes of work for warrant-officers with commissioned rank, and to create a line of promotion that should be exclusively for those who joined the service as boys, thus giving them a career in life, which would not only be an act of justice to those concerned, but also a means by which the nation would save much of the expenditure in the way he had suggested, 1068 and knit together the whole service in an even stronger and more patriotic manner than at present. The matter had been brought before the House regularly for many years, but he had never been able to understand why such a line of promotion was not granted. The idea had been approved in many quarters, and it was only by a process of exhaustion that he had been able to guess—it was nothing more than that—that the real opposition came from the Naval Lords. He did not know whether that was correct or not, but at any rate they were the only persons he had been able to find who were not in sympathy with the suggestion. He hoped the present Board of Admiralty would make a more serious effort than had hitherto been made to carry out what had been regarded in the Navy as a pledge given by the present Secretary of State for India when First Lord of the Admiralty some twelve years ago in respect to this matter.
§ *(6.38.) MR. DUKE (Plymouth)said the Board of Admiralty had apparently not yet recognised that it was the largest employer of skilled labour in the country. There was—as one found by actual contact with the skilled men in the service—a certain ineptitude in the dealings of the Board with its skilled employees. That arose, he thought, from want of appreciation of the fact that the Board of Admiralty now no longer directed the destinies of a fleet entirely manned by seamen, but that it commanded services of vast numbers of mechanics—workmen who, if they were not in the Navy and under naval discipline, would be able to bring their requirements constantly before the attention of their employers. The question of the engineers had been very much debated in the naval ports, but he had never heard the matter discussed in a spirit which was in any way contrary to the spirit of discipline which his hon. friend had commended to the engineering branch of the Service, or in a spirit of anything other than absolute loyalty to the traditions of men who were officers and members of the Naval Service; but there was undoubtedly a strong feeling among them that the efficiency of their own service would be promoted and there would be an encouragement which was not now given if their rank were made an actual rank by giving them the same measure of 1069 disciplinary power as those holding rank corresponding to theirs, and perhaps more particularly by qualifying engineer officers to take part in the proceedings of courts martial, at any rate where engineer officers were concerned. Matters of that kind were valued more by the engineers than considerations of pecuniary profit. He sincerely hoped the Board of Admiralty would recognise the spirit in which the engineers approached them with regard to these matters, and that concessions would be made, even if all that was asked on their behalf could not be granted. As to the warrant officers, he thought his hon. friend had an opportunity, which he shewed a disposition to seize, of providing something better in the way of a career for those men. He noticed in the Memorandum of the First Lord that the late military superintendent of the Naval Ordnance Department had been replaced by a naval officer. If the Board of Admiralty could see their way to make that Department a Naval Department, and to substitute for military or civilian officials deserving men from the warrant officer rank in the Navy, it would be a concession which would be of the greatest possible advantage in encouraging warrant officers. He could not give the exact figures of the relative promotions from warrant officer rank to executive rank as compared with promotions from the ranks in the Army to commissioned rank, but the comparison was startling—units in place of hundreds. In fact, for all the gallant services warrant officers rendered in charge of guns and detachments in South Africa, he believed the total number of promotions to executive rank had been three, while the number of promotions in the Army to commissioned rank was certainly numbered by scores, if not by hundreds. He did not say there was a complete analogy between the Services, and that they could as easily carry the promotion on to the commissioned ranks in the Navy as in the Army, but if the warrant officers had, at any rate before the end of their career, the possibility of attaining something in respect of rank which gave them a prospect in life and promotion among their fellow men, and also the prospect of some material advantage in employment, such as the Naval Ordnance Department might give them, it would be a great encouragement to the men. With regard to the mechanical ratings in the Navy, there were little 1070 discrepancies and disparities in the promotion of the various classes which were constantly brought in a perfectly proper way to the notice of Members for naval ports, but, somehow, they did not get remedied. He was told by a naval officer with regard to one of these matters that it was only a question of a ½d. a day and a stripe on the arm for a limited number of men, but there was nothing, in his opinion, that would conduce more to the efficiency of the service than that that little concession should be given with regard to one particular mechanical rating. He (the hon. Member) suggested that the Admiralty had not quite appreciated the position of an employer of skilled labour in dealing with its mechanics, and he asked the hon. Gentleman to consider whether there was not some possible means of re-considering, from time to time, the position of such classes of men as those to whom he had referred, so as to remove small anomalies by a systematic process which would be consistent with the discipline of the Navy, and would very often prevent the necessity of discussions in the House. If there were a system at the Admiralty of dealing with the skilled employees, it might very well be extended to the dockyards, and then Members for dockyard boroughs and naval ports would not have the responsibility which they now had of fathering the appeals which were made in season and out of season to the Board of Admiralty to deal with grievances within the Department which really were differences between master and servants, and which master and servants ought to have some regular mode of dealing with between themselves without the intervention of Members of Parliament, and without having to resort to anything which appeared like a breach of discipline.
§ *(6.45.) MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERThere are many points which have again been raised, which I will endeavour to answer, and I regret that some hon. Members who have asked me Questions are not present to judge of the value of the answers I am able to give. The hon. and learned Member for Dundee has put a most reasonable Question with regard to the personnel of foreign fleets as compared with our own. With regard to our own Fleet, I can give him official data, but with reference to foreign fleets, I can 1071 only give him the best information we possess. I believe I am right in saying that the personnel of the two fleets which the hon. Member referred to may be estimated to be in round figures 51,000 on the active list of the French Navy and 59,000 in the Russian Navy. Of course hon. Members know very well that we must add to these figures very large numbers of men who are not on the active service list of their respective Navies. For instance, in France the whole of the maritime able-bodied population under the age of fifty, amounting to about 90,000 men, are liable to be called upon for service in the Navy in time of war. There is also this fact to be remembered—that while, in the event of war, the welfare of this country would necessitate our maintaining our mercantile ships on the sea, it would be very advantageous to France and Russia, from both a military and a pecuniary point of view, to withdraw their highly subsidised ships from the sea and transfer the men on board those ships to the Navy.
§ MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONHave you any other figures?
§ *MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERI have the figures for Germany—31,000. In Germany there are also reserves.
§ MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONWill you give a Return?
§ *MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERI will not pledge myself to give a Return, because these are not official figures. It is the best information I can obtain, and these figures are obtained from the best sources open to me. The hon. Member for West Islington has charged me with what amounts to discourtesy for not having given him the information he required. I can only repeat that the hon. Member asked me for information going over a very large area indeed. He asked me to give him a return of all the casualties which had occurred as the result of accidents to ships. I told him that if he would define what he wanted in any way, I should be glad to give him the information which he required. I told him that many ships had had sight accidents, had gone aground and so on, and there had been many accidents which were not attended with 1072 injury to life and limb. I informed the hon. Member that I would gladly give him the particulars of any ship's losses or any accident to life and limb which had resulted from such accidents if he would give me the form in which he wanted the information. I gave him a list of the injuries in the case of boiler accidents in torpedo destroyers. I may say that I have received, while this debate has been going on, the first fruit of my researches, and I shall be glad to give the particulars I have received to the hon. Member. With reference to the point raised by the hon. Member for the Shipley Division, I wish to explain that no one regrets more than I do the absence of the Report upon which he commented. I may say that when I made my appeal to the hon. Member for Gateshead to postpone the debate on the Boiler question to a later date, I explained that I proposed, if he agreed, to postpone the discussion till the Report was issued. As a matter of fact, the Report was only received in the ordinary way a short time ago, and was at once circulated. I think it will be admitted that it is reasonable that the members of the Admiralty Board should have the opportunity of reading that Report before it was sent to the printers. Only at the commencement of this debate I received an explanation as to why the printers had not been able to supply it up to the present time, and the delay was due to the fact that the printers had to prepare a large number of double-sheet diagrams. I assure the Committee that there has been no desire whatever on the part of the Admiralty to withhold this Report.
§ SIR FORTESCUE FLANNERYsaid he did not suggest that the Admiralty had any desire to keep the Report back.
§ *MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERA considerable portion of the debate has been taken up by an exceedingly moderate but forcible discussion on a matter which we have already debated — the question of the engineers. Most of what has been said is well said, and has been helpful, but I do not think that everything that has been said was either well said or helpful. It 1073 is not a fact that there has been any failure in the engine-rooms, and if it be asked whether the Admiralty are giving a sufficient engine-room complement, I say that, generally speaking, they are. It has been complained that the engine - room complement is not sufficiently large; but engineering Members know very well that the conditions which obtain on board merchant ships cannot be reproduced in the Royal Navy. Many merchant hips always steam at a high speed from port to port; but the times when ships in the Royal Navy steam at a high speed are exceedingly rare. It is absolutely impossible to frame the engine-room complement in the Navy on a perpetual full-speed basis; it would not be economical, and it would be physically impossible on account of the space available.
There has been, I admit, great pressure on the engine-room complements owing to the introduction of the Belleville boilers, and there have been additions made to some of the engine - room complements on that account; whether those additions have been as large as some hon. Members think desirable is an open question. I do not think that on board other ships there has been any work imposed on the engine-room complements which has been more than they have been able to perform, and to perform well. While I am most ready to receive guidance from members of the Committee, I think hey ought to admit that there have been, not only professions of willingness to meet their reasonable requests, but that there has already been considerable progress. I am obliged to the hon. Member who reminded me of one change which has been made in the last few weeks by which the chances of promotion in the engineering branch have been increased from one in forty-five to one in thirty-two. That in itself is a very substantial improvement. The contention raised by the hon. Member for Salford is not one that I can accept, namely, that there can be a great increase in promotion in the Engineer Branch concurrently with a large addition of numbers. We have two branches of the Service growing up side by side in the proportion of about two to five, and the rate of promotion is 1074 equal until we come to the position of captain of the ship. But it is admitted on all sides that it is not desirable to give the post of captain of a ship to a member of the engineering branch; and, when we remember that there are 400 ships in commission, each of which has a captain or commander, and that, so far as those 400 ships are concerned, there is no equivalent line of promotion in the engineering branch, there must be constriction of the upward flow of promotion when we come to that stage. Therefore it does not help the matter merely to say that there shall be more promotion in existing conditions. I believe we must look for some other remedy if we are to attain the end which I think is desirable—to enlarge the opportunities which are given to engineer officers.
A remark had been made by one hon. Member to the effect that it was impossible for the engineer officer to state his claims in this House, but I think that remark was rather ungrateful. The remark is perfectly true, but I think the engineers have succeeded in finding very able and numerous advocates. It does strike me, however, that what is true of the engineering branch is true of every other branch of the Navy, and although we have had in this debate many speeches from advocates of the engineers' cause in every section of the House, we have not heard a word about the other branches of the Navy. It is the duty of the Admiralty to arrange matters so that all branches shall receive the treatment which is due to them in respect of their particular services. It is no use suggesting that there has been any degradation, for that is the word that was used in connection with the engineers. I can say from my own knowledge, and I think it will be borne out by every engineer officer, that whatever may have happened in the past, there is nothing in the social life of the ward-room on board His Majesty's ships at the present time which inflicts any stigma or reproach on engineer officers. Every man is taken exactly for what he is, and an engineer officer is on an absolute equality with every other officer. I know that that does not exhaust the question. We are told that there are some questions of pay which require to be remedied. I think the 1075 question of pay is not quite fairly stated by the hon. Member who points to alleged discrepancies between the rates of pay of those in the engineering branch and of some others, because he omitted the charge pay and other allowances to engineer officers. But the question of pay is not the real matter agitating the minds of hon. Members interested in the engineer officers. With regard to the question of punishment, what is claimed for the engineer officers is something which is conceded to no other officer on board ship. I would point out that the lieutenant with the same seniority as the engineer has absolutely no power of punishment. He is in that matter in precisely the same position as an engineer officer. The officer in charge of the guns in the turret has no authority whatever to punish any of the men under his command. These men, like those under the control of the Engineer, can be punished only by the direct authority of the Captain or Commander. The principle on board a man-of-war is that no man can be punished till twenty-four hours after the offence. This applies to all ranks. It s true that the officer of Royal Marines has certain limited powers of punishment over his own men, and I am aware that there is, as has been stated, some difference of naval opinion as to whether similar powers might not be extended to the engine room. We must, however, in this matter, go forward, if at all, very carefully. It is very easy indeed to make mistakes. While we are charged with inflicting degradation on one class of officers, I would point out that there is not another country in the world which I believe gives the engineer officer as high a position as that which he enjoys in the British Navy. There is no position in the French or German Navy comparable to the position held by our own engineer officers. [An Hon. MEMBER: "The United States."] There is the case of the United States, where an experiment of the kind which some hon. Members seem to approve has been made. That experiment has been pronounced, on the authority of the chief engineer of the United States Navy, and I believe, in the opinion of almost all experienced officers in the United States Navy, to be a failure. I have a state- 1076 ment before me by the head of the Engineering Department that there has been retrogression in the engineer branch of the United States Navy during the last two years. There was an attempt made, perfectly bone fide, to assimilate the two branches of the service in every particular. It seems to me that the attempt was made in a way which was doomed from the outset to failure. It was an attempt to make the two branches coalesce, not from the beginning, but a stage when each had become specialised; but it has not succeeded.
I wish to say one word in regard to the attack made by another hon. Member on the Naval Lords of the Admiralty. I must say that it appeared to me to be most unnecessary and most unjust, not to say discourteous. We were told that the Naval Lords of the Admiralty were the men who opposed the introduction of steam-power, ironclads, breach-loading and machine guns, into our Navy. Well, but I would point out that we have ironclads, steamships, breach-loading guns, and that we have no longer masts and yards. All these things have been introduced by successive Boards of Admiralty, and I think we are indebted to the Naval Lords who for 150 years have administered the Navy of this country at any rate in such a manner that the country has been secure from invasion by any foreign Power. It was rather unfortunate that the only use made of the name of Nelson in the debate was to suggest, on the slender authority of some unauthenticated legend, that he would have been against the introduction of steam into the Navy. I believe the Naval Lords are very jealous of the privileges and rights of all branches of the Navy, and I believe they are ready now, as they have been in the past, to be impressed by every reasonable appeal, but they are not prepared to make changes without due consideration. Something was said about a Colonial contribution to the Navy. It is perfectly true, and I am glad to think it is so, that we are to have the advantage of a conference of representatives of Colonies this year, and I think it would be the greatest mistake if we allowed that conference to assemble here without bringing this question before its members 1077 and ascertaining what are their views and the views of those they represent with regard to some contribution to the Navy.
References have been made to the case of warrant officers. They have great claims upon the Navy. The hon. Member was misinformed in stating that the warrant officers do not receive commissioned rank. A very large number do retire with commissioned rank, but I know that the hon. Member always holds the view, which he frequently impresses on the House, to the effect that it might be possible for a certain number of warrant officers to receive earlier in their career the recognition of commissioned rank. There are difficulties, as he knows, which do not make the case of the Navy on all fours with that of the Army. It would not be always a boon to the warrant officers to be transferred to the wardroom early in their career and compelled to take up duties there after they have been serving as warrant officers. Therefore the analogy of the paymaster in the Army was not entirely relevant. It is most important that the warrant officers should receive every possible encouragement, and I am glad that my hon. friend the Civil Lord tells me that by the Report which has been made with reference to the re-organisation of the Naval Ordnance Department, it is proposed to give some further employment to a certain number of warrant officers, but I do not think that exhausts the possibilities of giving further advantages to so important a class of men of the Royal Navy. I do not know that I have passed over any definite question that has been addressed to me. I hope I have not done so, but if I have, it is due to the fact that my memory is not so good as it ought to be.
§ *(7.10.) SIR JOHN COLOMB (Great Yarmouth)said the speech the hon. Gentleman had just made was an extremely important one. He was most glad it was authoritatively stated that there was to be a conference of colonial representatives this year on the Navy. That was a great advance on the statement of the First Lord on this subject. The First Lord's statement referred simply to Australia, with respect to which there was already an agreement for the 1078 protection of her local floating commerce. The First Lord's only reference to this was limited to what the future composition of the Australian squadron would be.
§ *SIR JOHN COLOMBsaid he would not pursue that matter. He presumed he should not be out of order in expressing agreement with the hon. Gentleman that the matter of the maintenance of the British fleet, when it came before the conference, should not be approached in any carping or criticising spirit, but in a spirit of general good feeling and good will, relying on the strength of the case to bring it to a conclusion satisfactory to all parties. In regard to the engineer question, he hoped his hon. friend and the Admiralty would take note of the whole tendency of the debate every time it was discussed. It was a matter to which public attention had been directed, and upon which the mind of the House of Commons was fixed, and the Admiralty would have to deal with it. He asked for explanations as to the three discrepant statements in the Estimates, and the statement of the First Lord with respect to the increase in the number of commissioned officers.
§ MR. BROADHURST (Leicester)asked whether, if any compact as to contributions to the Navy from the Colonies were entered into at the colonial conference, that arrangement would be submitted to the House of Commons before being concluded.
(7.15.) MR. DILLON (Mayo, E.)said his only object in moving to reduce the Vote was to give to those who held strong views on the question of a contribution by the Colonies towards the expenses of the Navy an opportunity of placing their votes on record. In reference to what fell from the Secretary to the Admiralty as to the proposed Conference with the representatives of the Colonies this year, he desired to say that he heard that with great satisfaction. It was the first definite declaration they had had of an intention on the part of the Government 1079 really to put this question of the representation of the Colonies in the Navy and a contribution by them to the expenses of the Navy on a proper footing. If the British people were going to go on with this expenditure on the Navy to an almost illimitable extent, the time had come when those great and wealthy Colonies should be asked to pay their share. It appeared to him to be an absurdity that the Colonials, for whom he had great respect and who had always treated him with generosity, should go on talking about their loyalty and devotion to the mother country, if they were not prepared to take on their shoulders a portion of the enormous and crushing burden which the mother country now bore practically alone.
Motion made, and Question proposed—"That a sum, not exceeding £5,462,000, be granted for the said Service."—(Mr. Dillon.)
| AYES. | ||
| Abraham, William(Cork,N.E.) | Lundon, W. | O'Dowd, John |
| Ambrose, Robert | MacVeagh, Jeremiah | O'Kelly, James(Roscommon,N |
| Blake, Edward | M'Govern, T. | O'Malley, William |
| Boland, John | M'Hugh, Patrick A. | O'Mara, James |
| Burke, E. Haviland- | M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North) | O'Shaughnessy, P. J. |
| Campbell, John (Armagh, S.) | Mooney, John J. | Power, Patrick Joseph |
| Condon, Thomas Joseph | Murphy, John | Reddy, M. |
| Crean, Engene | Nannetti, Joseph P. | Redmond, John E. (Waterford) |
| Cremer, William Randal | Nolan, Col. JohnP.(Galway,N.) | Sheehan, Daniel Daniel |
| Cullinan, J. | Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South) | Sullivan, Donal |
| Delany, William | O'Brien, James F. X. (Cork) | Wilson, Henry J. (York,W.R.) |
| Dillon, John | O'Brien, Kendal(Tipperary Mid | Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.) |
| Doogan, P. C. | O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) | Young, Samuel |
| Ffrench, Peter | O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.) | |
| Flynn, James Christopher | O'Connor,James(Wicklow,W.) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES— |
| Gilhooly, James | O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool) | Sir Thomas Esmonde and |
| Joyce, Michael | O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.) | Captain Donelan. |
| NOES. | ||
| Acland-Hood,Capt.SirAlex.F. | Blundell, Colonel Henry | Charrington, Spencer |
| Agg-Gardner, James Tynte | Boscawen, Arthur Griffith- | Clare, Octavius Leigh |
| Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel | Brig, John | Clive, Captain Percy A. |
| Allan, William (Gateshead) | Broadhurst, Henry | Coghill, Douglas Harry |
| Anson, Sir William Reynell | Brown, George M. (Edinburgh) | Cohen, Benjamin Louis |
| Archdale, Edward Mervyn | Bryce, Rt. Hon. James | Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse |
| Arnold-Forster, Hugh O. | Butcher, John George | Colomb,SirJohnCharlesReady |
| Arroll, Sir William | Buxton, Sydney Charles | Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole |
| Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John | Caine, William Sproston | Compton, Lord Alwyne |
| Bain, Colonel James Robert | Caldwell, James | Corbett, A. Cameron(Glasgow) |
| Baird, John George Alexander | Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H. | Corbett, T. L. (Down, North) |
| Balfour,RtHnGerald W.(Leeds | Cautley, Henry Strother | Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge |
| Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch. | Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs.) | Craig, Robert Hunter |
| Banbury, Frederick George | Cavendish,V.C.W (Derbyshire | Cross, Alexander (Glasgow) |
| Beach, RtHn.SirMichaelHicks | Cawley, Frederick | Cross, Herb. Shepherd(Bolton) |
| Beaumont, Wentworth C. B. | Cecil, Evelyn (Ashton Manor) | Cust, Henry John C. |
| Bell, Richard | Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich) | Dalkeith, Earl of |
| Bhownaggree, Sir M. M. | Chamberlain, Rt.Hon.J.(Birm. | Dalrymple, Sir Charles |
| Bignold, Arthur | Chamberlain,J.Austen(Worc'r | Dalziel, James Henry |
| Black, Alexander William | Chapman, Edward | Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen) |
§ MR. BROADHURSTasked that before the vote was taken, an answer should be given to the Question he had put to the Secretary to the Admiralty.
§ *SIR M. HICKS BEACHI do not think it would be in order, or even at all desirable, that we should discuss this important matter on this Vote. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we have it very carefully under consideration. We do not intend to approach the Colonies by any means as beggars. We believe they desire, so far as they are able, to share with us the burden of Empire. Of course the House will be made acquainted with anything that takes place.
(7.20.) Question put.
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 47; Noes, 263. (Division List No. 49.)
| Davies,SirHoratioD.(Chath'm | Kearley, Hudson E. | Ritchie,Rt.HonChas.Thomson |
| Denny, Colonel | Kenyon, Hon. Geo.T.(D'nbigh) | Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion) |
| Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles | Kenyon-Slaney,Col.W.(Salop) | Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.) |
| Dixon-Hartland, Sir F. Dixon | Keswick, William | Rolleston, Sir John F. L. |
| Dorington, Sir John Edward | King, Sir Henry Seymour | Ropner, Colonel Robert |
| Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- | Kitson, Sir James | Round, James |
| Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark) | Knowles, Lees | Runciman, Walter |
| Doxtord,Sir William Theodore | Lambert, George | Russell, T. W. |
| Duke, Henry Edward | Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool) | Rutherford, John |
| Dyke, Rt. Hon SirWilliam Hart | Lawson, John Grant | Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford- |
| Emmott, Alfred | Layland-Barratt, Francis | Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander |
| Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.) | Lee, Arthur H.(Hants, Fareh'm | Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse) |
| Fardell, Sir T. George | Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead) | Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert |
| Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith) | Leese, SirJoseph F.(Accrington | Scott, Chas. Prestwich (Leigh) |
| Fergusson, Rt HonSir J (Manc'r | Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage | Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.) |
| Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst | Leigh Bennnett, Henry Currie | Seely, Charles Hilton(Lincoln) |
| Finch, George H. | Leveson-Gower,FrederickN.S. | Seton-Karr, Henry |
| Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne | Levy, Maurice | Sharpe, William Edward T. |
| Fisher, William Hayes | Lewis, John Herbert | Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford) |
| Fison, Frederick William | Llewellyn, Evan Henry | Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.) |
| Fitzroy, Hon. Edw. Algernon | Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R. | Sinclair, Louis (Romford) |
| Flannery, Sir Fortescue | Lonsdale, John Brownlee | Skewes-Cox, Thomas |
| Foster, PhilipS.(Warwick,S.W | Lowe, Francis William | Smith,AbelH.(Hertford, East) |
| Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.) | Lucas, ReginaldJ. (Portsmouth | Smith, HC(North'mb. Tyneside |
| Fuller, J. M. F. | Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred | Smith,JamesParker(Lanarks.) |
| Galloway, William Johnson | Macdona, John Cumming | Spear, John Ward |
| Gardner, Ernest | MacIver, David (Liverpool) | Spencer, Rt.HnC.R.(N'rthants |
| Garfit, William | Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J. | Stanley,EdwardJas.(Somerset |
| Goddard, Daniel Ford | M'Calmont, Col.J.(Antrim, E.) | Stanley, Lord (Lancs.) |
| Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk. | M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire | Stock, James Henry |
| Gordon,Hn.J.E.(Eigin & Nairn | Majendie, James A. H. | Stone, Sir Benjamin |
| Gore, HnG. R. C. Ormsby-(Sal'p | Manners Lord Cecil | Strachey, Sir Edward |
| Gore, Hon.S.F.Ormslby-(Linc.) | Mansfield, Horace Rendall | Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley |
| Gorst, Rt. Hon, Sir John Eldon | Markham, Arthur Basil | Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier |
| Grant, Corrie | Massey-Mainwaring, Hn W.F. | Talbot, Rt HnJ.G.(Oxf'd-Univ. |
| Greene,SirEW(B'ryS Edm'nds | Maxwell,W.J. H.(D'mfriess're | Thomas, Alfred(Glamorgan, E. |
| Greville, Hon. Roland | Melville, Beresford Valentine | Thomas, David Alfred (M'rthyr |
| Grey, Sir Edward (Berwick) | Molesworth, Sir Lewis | Thomas,JA(Glam'rgan, Gower |
| Griffiths, Ellis J. | Moore, William (Antrim, N.) | Thomson, F. W. (York, W.R.) |
| Hamilton, RtHnLordG(Midd'x | More, Robt. Jasper(Shropshire) | Thornton, Percy M. |
| Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robt.Wm. | Morgan,J. Lloyd(Carmarthen) | Tomkinson, James |
| Hardy, Laurence(Kent,Ashf'rd | Morrell, George Herbert | Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray |
| Hare, Thomas Leigh | Morton, ArthurH.A.(Deptford | Tuke, Sir John Batty |
| Harmsworth, R. Leicester | Moulton, John Fletcher | Walker, Col. William Hall |
| Harris, Frederick Leverton | Murray, RtHnA.Graham(Bute | Wallace, Robert |
| Haslam, Sir Alfred S. | Murray, Charles J. (Coventry) | Warde, Colonel C. E. |
| Haslett, Sir James Horner | Myers, William Henry | Wason,Eugene(Clackmannan) |
| Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo. | Newnes, Sir George | Wason,John Cathcart(Orkney |
| Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale | Nicholson, William Graham | Wharton, Rt. Hon.John Lloyd |
| Heath,ArthurHoward(Hadley | Norton, Capt. Cecil William | White, George (Norfolk) |
| Heath,James(Staffords.,N.W. | Nussey, Thomas Willams | White, Luke (York, E. R.) |
| Hermon-Hodge, Robt. Trotter | Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay | Whiteley,H(Ashtonund, Lyne |
| Higginbottom, S. W. | Palmer, Walter (Salisbury) | Whitley, J. H. (Halifax) |
| Hoare, Sir Samuel | Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden) | Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset) |
| Hogg, Lindsay | Pilkington, Lieut.-Col. Richard | Willoughby de Eresby, Lord |
| Hope,J.F. (Sheffie'd, Brightside | Pirie, Duncan V. | Wilson,A. Stanley(York, E. R.) |
| Hornby, Sir William Henry | Platt-Higgins, Frederick | Wilson, Fred. W(Norfolk,Mid. |
| Hoult, Joseph | Plummer, Walter R. | Wilson, John (Glasgow) |
| Howard,John(Kent, Favers'am | Powell, Sir Francis Sharp | Wodehouse,Rt.Hn.E.R.(Bath) |
| Howard,J. (Midd.,Tottenham) | Pretyman, Ernest George | Woodhouse,SirJ T(Huddersf'd |
| Hudson, George Bickersteth | Price, Robert John | Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart- |
| Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley) | Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward | Wrightson, Sir Thomas |
| Jackson, Rt. Hon. Wm. Lawies | Purvis, Robert | Wylie, Alexander |
| Jacoby, James Alfred | Rankin, Sir James | Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George |
| Johnston, William (Belfast) | Rea, Russell | Yoxall, James Henry |
| Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex) | Reid, James (Greenock) | |
| Joicey, Sir James | Renwick, George | TELLERS FOR THE NOES— |
| Jones, David Brynmor(Sw'nsea | Rickett, J. Compton | Sir William Walrond and |
| Jones, William (C'rnarvonshire | Ridley, HonM.W. (Stalybridge | Mr Anstruther |