- 1. £782,100, Half-Pay, Reserved, and Retired Pay.
- 2. £1,160,700, Naval and Marine Pensions, Gratuities, and Compassionate Allowances.
- 3. £350,100, Civil Pensions and Gratuities.
- 4. Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £246,500, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Medical Services, including the cost of Medical Establishments at Home and Abroad, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March. 1903."
§ *(4.15.) SIR CHARLES DILKE (Gloucestershire, Forest of Dean)
asked what steps were being taken towards altering the Navy Medical Service in the way suggested ill the debates a year previously. The whole tendency of naval medical opinion was now, he believed, more and more in favour of attaching hospital ships, both in war and in peace, to all squadrons, and even of allowing those hospital ships, to accompany the squadrons on their cruises. The necessity for having special hospital ships was becoming more and more recognised, and he would like to know what the Admiralty intended doing.
§ THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. ARNOLD-FORSTER,) Belfast, W.
said the principle of attaching hospital ships to the squadrons in time of peace was not to be extended, but provision had been made for rapidly equipping hospital ships in time of war. The whole fittings for several ships had been provided, and arrangements made for medical officers to accompany them. Large quantities of additional medical stores had also been provided, and there were now four ships immediately available. There was no intention of carrying the policy of having hospital ships afloat with the squadrons any further at present, there being sanatoria on land which were deemed sufficient for present purposes in time of peace.
§ MR. WHITLEY (Halifax)
asked for an explanation of the fact that, while there was practically no increase in the total number of persons employed —the total being 138 as against 137 last year—the salaries had risen by £4,800. He suggested that the increase was altogether 1033 out of proportion and that the Committee ought to have some explanation.
§ MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER
said that medical officers in the Army were about to receive higher emoluments, and it was thought necessary, in order to maintain the high standard of efficiency in the naval medical service, to offer corresponding inducements to doctors to enter the Navy.
§ MR. WHITLEY
What is the new rate of pay to be? This is a Very large increase to have passed through the Committee without a word of explanation.
(4.20.) MR. GIBSON BOWLES (Lynn Regis)
asked for further explanation as to the policy of the Admiralty in regard to hospital ships. He said it was an entirely new thing in the history of the Navy that each ship was not to look after her own wounded in action; and he very much doubted the feasibility of the scheme of having hospital ships to accompany the Fleets. There was ample accommodation on board each ship for her own wounded and sick, and he feared that if hospital ships were attached to squadrons they would prove a drag, and impair the efficiency of the Fleet. He saw no necessity for them. He presumed that the hospital ships would not be armed, and that we should call in aid the Geneva Convention and place them under the care of some neutral nation. This was a serious new departure, and he wanted the necessity for it to be shown.
§ MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER
was sorry he could not at the moment give the precise details asked for by the hon. Member for Halifax. In reply to the hon. Member for King's Lynn, he could only say that the policy of hospital ships had been deliberately adopted after a great deal of consideration by the Admiralty. The medical view and, he believed, the naval view also was that 1034 the conditions of a modern ironclad war-vessel were so unfavourable to the nursing Of the sick and wounded that it was most desirable to have hospital ships, especially in the case of war, where the wounded could be properly attended to. He was aware that the hon. Member did not agree with the general view as to the desirability of introducing the protection of the Geneva Convention, but, undoubtedly, in the Navy it was held that hospital ships ought to be provided in order to relieve fighting ships of the care of their sick and wounded.
§ MR. WHITLEY
again pressed for further information as to the increase in the pay of naval medical officers.
§ MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER
said he could not give the actual difference in salaries between this year and last, but on page 8 of the Estimate the hon. Member would find information as to individual salaries.
§ (4.25.) SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN (Stirling Burghs)
asked if he rightly understood the Secretary to the Admiralty to have said that the naval medical service was in a perfectly satisfactory condition—that the Navy obtained the services as doctors of men of the proper stamp and education. Why, then, should the salaries of medical officers be increased in the Navy merely because the Army was obliged to increase its inducements? He desired to know whether the Admiralty had been consulted before the War Office increased the salaries of medical officers in the Army, which would necessarily involve a corresponding increase in the Navy.
§ MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER
replied that hitherto the number of candidates for the medical service of the Navy had been sufficient; but after the emoluments in the Army had been increased a diminution in the number took place, and it was decided by the Admiralty, after consultation with the War Office, to offer the same emoluments in the Navy.
§ SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN
said that what he wanted to know was whether before one Department forced 1035 the hands of another there was proper communication between the two Departments.
§ MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER
said circumstances were more pressing, no doubt, in the Army than in the Navy, and, in view of the war, it became absolutely necessary to increase the pay of Army medical officers. It was inevitable, of course, that the Navy would have to follow suit.
§ MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER
said it was the case that at Haslar and Portsmouth a certain number of members of the Metropolitan Police Force were employed, but they were part of the police organisation which looked after the dockyards. Haulbowline was on a very much smaller scale than the English dockyards, and as no ships were paid off there, there was no need for a police establishment in connection with the hospital.
§ Mr. WHITLEY
said he did not think the hon. Gentleman quite appreciated the point of his question. He would try and illustrate it. On page 49, the first item was the salary of the Inspector General, £2,600. Last year that item only amounted to £2,178. This was a considerable increase, which was absolutely unexplained in the Estimates. He noticed that they did not in these cases—as in the case of the Civil Service and Army Estimates—get the figures showing the starting salary, the yearly increment, and the maximum, so as to be able to ascertain if officers were receiving increases of salary at the rate which Parliament had agreed to. It was not satisfactory that these increases should not be given without consultation with Parliament, and without any reason being shown on the face of the Estimates. Were the increases merely the normal increases caused by the officers starting at a minimum salary and rising by annual increments, or were they due to any particular advances to the individuals concerned?
§ (4.31). Mr. T. M. HEALY (Louth, N.)
said the point raised by the hon. Member for North Cork with regard to the non-provision of police at Irish ports was an important one, and had not been met by the reply of the Secretary to the Admiralty. The reason given for there being no police provided at Irish ports was that no necessity existed for them, because ships were not paid off at those ports. But at another point in the Estimates there was an item for "Wages, etc., of Police Force employed in Hospitals abroad," amounting to £2,078, while in England the advantage amounted to £2,572. For the sister island, however, which was taxed for the purposes of the Navy, not one shilling was provided. The usual system of boycotting was followed. She was not given even the advantage which arose from ships being paid off in the country, whereas provision was made for police at Colonial ports in connection with the paying off of ships to the extent of over £2,000 a year, although those places did not contribute a single sixpence towards the upkeep of the Navy. The Secretary to the Admiralty representing, as he did, the shipbuilding constituency of Belfast, had constantly expressed his desire to do something to redress the inequalities under which Ireland suffered on the general Navy question, but the reason always given why nothing was done was that the dockyards and so on were not suitable. Here, however, was a matter which did not require a single plank or appliance; it was simply a matter of arrangement, as the men could be paid off at any port whatsoever. Loyalty and so forth was expected from the Irish people, but it seemed to be the object of t he Government that not a single shilling should go to that country in the shape of wages or anything else in return for the taxes they exacted. The Committee were entitled to some explanation with regard to this large sum for police at hospitals abroad. What hospitals were they? From where were the police drafted? Of what nationality were they? Upon what basis was the force organised? Under what provisions of the Navy Act was it raised? It was common knowledge that the Colonies benefited from the Army to the extent of 5s. a day—in which 1037 connection he suggested they should be called "Crown" Colonies, but he did not know before that they benefited to this large extent from the Navy. Finally, he thought the admission of the Secretary to the Admiralty that because of the war the Government had been compelled to raise the wages in the Navy, which was not at all engaged in the conflict, was one of the most serious outcomes of the struggle of which they were yet aware.
§ (4.37). MR. WHITLEY
said he had not yet received a satisfactory reply to his Question, and as a protest he moved to reduce the Vote "A" by £100.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Item A (Salaries) be reduced by £100."—(Mr. Whitley.)
§ MR. DILLON (Mayo,E.)
drew attention to the fact that the chaplains at Haslar and Plymouth received salaries of £312 and £325 respectively, and, in addition, drew civil allowances of £100 a year each. He did not quarrel with the salaries paid, but he desired to know what the civil allowance was for, and why these chaplains should have nearly £500 a year each, while the Catholic chaplains at Portsmouth and Chatham received only about £200. When the question was raised on a former occasion, the hon. Gentleman made a sympathetic but not entirely satisfactory reply. He did not go into particulars, but he stated that any representations to the Admiralty as to the insufficiency of the salary would receive the consideration of the Admiralty. He (the hon. Member) therefore would give the Secretary to the Admiralty notice that in response to that invitation he proposed to send in a representation, demanding, as a matter of right, that Catholic chaplains at the home stations, who were very hard-worked men, should be put on a footing of equality, as regarded salary, with the Anglican chaplains on the establishment.
§ MR. LOUGH (Islington, W.)
asked whether the explanation which had been given as to Item A covered other increases as well, as the £4,000 under Vote A was the smallest part of the increase. A full reply had not been given to the point raised by the Leader of 1038 the Opposition as to whether there had been sufficient consultation between the Army Department and the Navy Department before the increase referred to was agreed upon.
§ (4.43.) MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER
could not admit that the matter of these salaries had been sprung upon the Committee. There was only one way in which such matters could be brought under the notice of Members, viz., that of putting down the increases under the respective Votes to be discussed. That had been done in this particular case, and the hon. Member had very properly called attention to others. He had endeavoured to explain the origin of the increases, and he thought he made it perfectly clear. But the hon. Member now asked for further details, and particularly whether they were for progressive increases of salaries. There was an item of £393 on that ground; there was an increase to the Deputy Inspector General and surgeons at Hong Kong, which accounted for the small sum of £154; there was a forage allowance to the medical officer at Cape Town, who had to visit the hospital on land at some distance from the ship; but the bulk of the addition was owing to the increase of the medical officers which had been considered necessary in view of the circumstances to which he had already referred. As to the point raised by the hon. Member for East Mayo, the representations the hon. Member proposed to make would be carefully considered. It was not, however, reasonable to suggest that the emoluments of the chaplains should be on the same footing, as over 80 per cent. of the men were ministered to by the chaplains on the establishment.
§ MR. DILLON
pointed out that there were thirty Established chaplains, but only three or four Catholic chaplains.
§ MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER
said there were a great many Roman Catholic chaplains besides those in the establishment. The matter had been sympathetically considered, and he believed the salaries they received were ample for the services rendered. The hon. Member had undertaken to show that that was not case, so he would await the receipt of the communication he had promised to make.
§ MR.EDMUND ROBERTSON ROBERTSON (Dundee)
called attention to the fact that there was an increase of more than £3,000 on the salaries in this Vote. This vote related to those establishments and had nothing to do with the Navy, therefore this increase was in respect of surgeons. The hon. Member had explained that this increase, except to a small degree, was not automatic, and it meant a general raising of the salaries paid to surgeons. That increase also applied, he understood, to surgeons on board ship. This was a general raising of medical officers' salaries, which extended not only to shore establishments but to the whole of the naval medical officers. He did not know whether the Secretary to the Admiralty could tell them the total figures in regard to these increases in Votes attributable to this raising of the general level of medical salaries of all sorts.
§ MR. DILLON
said he had understated his case, because he found that there were 111 Established Church chaplains against some four or five Roman Catholic chaplains.
§ (4.50.) MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER
The hon. Member for Dundee has asked me for exact figures and I can give them. The proposed addition is from 11s. 6d. to 14s. per day, and after four years service 13s. 6d. to 17s. I have not got the whole list, but I shall be pleased to show it to the hon. Member. The rise of staff surgeons on promotion will be from 21s. to 24s., and after four years from 24s. to 27s.
§ MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER
It is not so much as that. Some of the ranks are already paid on a scale which is smaller or equal to the Army rate. I shall be pleased to show all these figures to the hon. Member.
§ MR. WHITLEY
said he proposed to press this matter to a division, not because he objected to these medical men having higher rates of pay, but because he felt strongly that it was wrong that this Committee ought to be asked to vote public money without any notice, not knowing how the increase was caused, and without showing on the face of the Vote, as was done in the case of most other Departments, what the rate of pay was.
§ MR. WHITLEY
said there was nothing to show what increase had taken place on this Vote as compared with last year. He thought the Secretary to the Admiralty ought to undertake to give this information in all future alterations of this kind. There ought to be a plain statement upon the face of the Vote, showing that these increases had been decided upon, and then the Committee could take them into consideration when the Vote was under discussion.
§ (4.55.) MR. DILLON
said he agreed with his hon. friend that there was not sufficient information on the face of the Estimates. It always seemed to him to be most cruel to have an immense body of men at sea at the mercy of an entirely incompetent medical man. From his own knowledge, he knew that a great many of the medical men who went into the Navy were the most imperfectly trained in the profession. Personally, he would like to see the medical men in the Navy better paid than in the Army, because the unfortunate surgeon on board a man-of-war had also to be a physician, able to treat all cases of sickness without opportunities of consulting other medical men. Therefore his duties were much more responsible than those in the same profession in the Army
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Original Question again proposed.1041
§ MR. WHITLEY
called attention to a very extraordinary increase in the items for gas and electric lighting in Class F. In some establishments they had introduced the electric light, and a large amount of money had been spent upon it. There was an increase of £1,340 in this respect, and yet there had only been a saving of £130 on the gas bill. He trusted that that was not the form of economy which was going on in all the Departments. The total expenditure for lighting, gas and electricity, had very seriously increased.
§ MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER
said he quite agreed with what had been said in regard to the increase on this Vote.
§ MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER
I understand that that is the case. It includes the cost of electric lighting at the Haslar Hospital.
§ MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER
I have already explained that, in accordance with the general policy of the Government, provision is being made for additional hospital ships in time of war. The first increase is in respect of the up-keep of the men, which is an entirely new addition on this Vote. The other expenditure under sub-head H is in regard to clothing and medical stores devoted to the hospital ships.
§ Question put and agreed to.
§ (5.0.) Motion made, and Question proposed "That a sum, not exceeding £17,700, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Martial Law, including the cost of Naval Prisons at home and abroad, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1903."
§ (5.3.) MR. KEARLEY (Devonport)
moved to reduce the Vote by £100 in order to call the attention of the Committee to the disability under 1042 which the marine officers suffered by not being entitled to sit on courts-martial afloat, and consequently not being able to try marines on board ship. He pointed out that marine officers when ashore were not only qualified to try members of their own corps, but to try members of the Army. When embarked, the positions on courts-martial were monopolised by naval officers of the executive branch. That seemed to be a great injustice, and was strongly resented by the marine officers themselves.
§ MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER
I do not think we can legitimately discuss this question on the Vote now before the Committee. It is a disability the marine officers afloat are under by statute. I do not at this moment see how a disability of marine officers afloat comes under this Vote.
§ MR. KEARLEY
I am surprised that my hon. friend takes that view. I tried to raise the question last year on the Army Annual Bill, and I was ruled out by order of the Chairman of Committee. There is provision in the Vote for courts-martial.
§ MR. KEARLEY
My grievance is that these men afloat are not permitted to sit on courts-martial. If I cannot call attention to the question on this occasion, what other occasion can I take? I am glad to see that the Chairman does not rule me out of order. I do not think he would be justified in doing it.
* THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN
I cannot find that there is anything in the Vote for courts martial afloat. Therefore I am obliged to rule the hon. Member out of order.
§ MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON
Item A is not limited to courts-martial ashore. It includes the expenses of naval witnesses. It may be as a matter of fact limited to proceedings on shore.
§ MR. KEARLEY
I wish to point out that I have raised the question on this Vote before, and it, has not been ruled out of order. I think Item A clearly demonstrates that I am in order on this 1043 occasion. I understand that the hon. Gentleman has now withdrawn his objection.
* THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN
I understand that by Act of Parliament marine officers cannot sit on courts-martial afloat.
The objection is that there is a statutory prohibition by which marine officers are prevented from sitting on courts-martial afloat. If that is so, the hon. Member ought to give us the reference to the statute.
THE CIVIL LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. PRETTYMAN,) Suffolk, Woodridge
Marines cannot take part in courts-martial afloat.
asked the reason for this disqualification. Was it because their educational equipment was not adequate? If that were urged, he would point out that the marines alone of all naval officers were instructed and examined in martial law, and therefore it could not be on that score. The reason was pretty well known. It was because there was jealousy against this particular corps. The officers felt it was a slur that they should be deprived of this privilege. Perhaps the most clenching thing he could adduce in support of his claim was the definite pledge on the subject which was given by the First Lord of the Admiralty in 1891. Sir John Pope Hennessy, who brought forward the question, said—I had an Amendment on the Paper with the object of effecting such a change in the law as will enable marine officers to sit on courts-marital to try marines for offences committed when afloat. There is a great deal of interest felt in this Government will be able to give me an assurance that the matter I refer to will not be lost sight of.The first Lord of the Admirately (Lord George Hamilton) replied—A good many naval officers object to the proposed change, but I personally cannot see why the change not be made, and I will undertake to consider the matter and propose an Amendment to the Naval Discipline Act this session or next with the object of carrying it out.Mr. Shaw Lefevre, who was then a Member of the House, said—I trust the hon. Member for Kilkenny will remain satisfied with the assurance he has received from the noble Lord.
* THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN
I must rule the hon. Member out of order if he proposes a change of legislation. That has always been considered to be out of order in Committee of Supply. I understood that was what the hon. Member was doing.
§ Motion made, and Question put, "That a sum, not exceeding£17,600, be granted for the said service."—(Mr.Kearley)
§ (5.10.) MR. O'MARA (Kilkenny, S.)
pointed out that there were increases under the heads "Courts-Martial," "Naval prisons at home," "Naval prisons abroad," and "Conveyance of prisoners, "amounting in all to £1,500. He thought some explanation ought to be vouchsafed to the Committee for the large and striking increases. He found that the estimated cost for the coming year for Lewes prison was £4,688. The number of prisoners last year was 120, so that the rate per prisoner was £40 a year. He did not think the Committee could object to that as too high a sum. When he looked at the estimate for Bodmin prison, he found that the charge per prisoner worked out at £104 a year. There was many a man outside of prison walls to whom £104 would be a little fortune. He could not understand why a prisoner at Bodmin should cost so large an amount of money, unless it was that they entertained him with champagne and pati de fois gras. There was a still more remarkable case; that of Portsmouth. The total cost of maintaining that prison was £9,048, and during the year the number of prisoners was 26, which worked out that each prisoner cost £350 a year. He thought that extraordinary figure demanded some explanation.
§ MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER
The hon. Member is entirely wrong. £7,075 of that £9,000 was simply carried forward from other accounts.
§ (5.16) Question Put.
§ The Committee divided; Ayes,133; Noes,221. (Division List No.70.)1047
|Abraham, William(Cork, N. E.)||Grant, Corrie||O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)|
|Abraham, William (Rhondda)||Grey, Sir Edward (Berwick)||O'Kelly, James(Roscommon, N.|
|Allan, William (Gateshead)||Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton||O'Malley, William|
|Allen, Charles P.(Glouc., Stroud||Hammond, John||O'Mara, James|
|Ambrose, Robert||Harmsworth, R. Leicester||O'Shaughnessy, P. J.|
|Asquith, Rt Hon Herbert Henry||Hayden, John Patrick||O'Shee, James John|
|Atherley-Jones L.||Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-||Perks, Robert William|
|Barlow, John Emmott||Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.||Pirie, Duncan V.|
|Barry, E. (Cork, S.)||Healy, Timothy Michael||Power, Patrick Joseph|
|Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)||Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.||Price, Robert John|
|Blake, Edward||Holland, William Henry||Priestley, Arthur|
|Boland, John||Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)||Rea, Russell|
|Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson||Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.||Redmond, John E.(Waterford)|
|Burns, John||Jacoby, James Alfred||Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries|
|Caldwell, James||Joyce, Michael||Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)|
|Cameron, Robert||Kennedy, James Patrick||Roche, John|
|Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)||Kinlock, Sir John George Smvth||Runciman, Walter|
|Carew, James Lawrence||Kitson, Sir James||Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)|
|Causton, Richard Knight||Labouchere, Henry||Sheehan, Daniel Daniel|
|Cawley, Frederick||Lambert, George||Soares, Ernest J.|
|Channing, Francis Allston||Layland-Barratt, Francis||Stevenson, Francis S.|
|Cogan, Denis J.||Lundon, W.||Sullivan, Donal|
|Condon, Thomas Joseph||Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.||Tennant, Harold John|
|Craig, Robert Hunter||MacNeill, John Gordon Swift||Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr|
|Crean, Eugene||MacVeagh, Jeremiah||Thomas, F. Freeman-(Hastings)|
|Cullinan, J.||M'Hugh, Patrick A.||Tomkinson, James|
|Dalziel, James Henry||M'Kean, John||Trevelyan, Charles Philips|
|Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan||M'Kenna, Reginald||Wallace, Robert|
|Delany, William||M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)||Walton, John Lawson(Leeds, S.|
|Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.||M'Laren, Charles Benjamin||Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)|
|Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles||Mansfield, Horace Rendall||Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.|
|Dillon, John||Markham, Arthur Basil||Wason, Eugene(Clackmannan)|
|Donelan, Captain A.||Moulton, John Fletcher||Weir, James Galloway|
|Doogan, P. C.||Murphy, John||White, George (Norfolk)|
|Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)||Nannetti, Joseph P.||White, Luke (York, E.R.)|
|Duncan, J. Hastings||Nolan, Col. John P.(Galway, N.)||White, Patrick (Meath, North|
|Dunn, Sir William||Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)||Whiteley, George (York, W. R.)|
|Edwards, Frank||Norman, Henry||Whittaker, Thomas Palmer|
|Elibank, Master of||Norton, Captain Cecil William||Young, Samuel|
|Farquharson, Dr. Robert||O'Brien, James F. X. (Cork)||Yoxall, James Henry|
|Farrell, James Patrick||O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid|
|Fenwick, Charles||O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)|
|Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)||O'Brien, P.J. (Tipperary, N.)||TELLERS FOR THE AYES—|
|Ffrench, Peter||O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)|
|Flynn, James Christopher||O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)||Mr. Kearley and Mr. Whitley.|
|Gilhooly, James||O'Dowd, John|
|Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.||Blundell, Colonel Henry||Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready|
|Agg-Gardner, James Tynte||Bousfield, William Robert||Colston, Chas. Edw. H.Athole|
|Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel||Bowles, Capt. H. F. (Middlesex||Compton, Lord Alwyne|
|Allhusen, Augustus Hy. Eden||Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn||Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)|
|Archdale, Edward Mervyn||Brassey, Albert||Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)|
|Arnold-Forster Hugh O.||Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John||Cranborne, Viscount|
|Arrol, Sir William||Brookfield, Colonel Montagu||Cripps, Charles Alfred|
|Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John||Bullard, Sir Harry||Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)|
|Austin, Sir John||Burdett-Coutts, W.||Crossley, Sir Savile|
|Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy||Campbell, Rt. Hn. J A.(Glasgow||Cubitt, Hon. Honry|
|Bailey, James (Walworth)||Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.||Dalrymple, Sir Charles|
|Bain, Colonel James Robert||Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs.)||Davenport, William Bromley-|
|Baird, John George Alexander||Cavendish, V.C.W. (Derbyshire||Denny, Colonel|
|Balcarres, Lord||Cayzer, Sir Charles William||Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-|
|Balfour, Rt. Hon. A.J.(Manch'r||Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)||Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph|
|Balfour Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)||Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)||Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon|
|Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W.(Leeds||Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J.(Birm.||Dorington, Sir John Edward|
|Banes, Major George Edward||Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'r||Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-|
|Bartley, George C. T.||Chapman, Edward||Duke, Henry Edward|
|Beach, Rt Hn. Sir Michael Hicks||Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H.A.E.||Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir Wm. Hart|
|Bentinck, Lord Henry C.||Coghill, Douglas Harry||Elliott, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas|
|Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.||Cohen, Benjamin Louis||Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.)|
|Bigwood, James||Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse||Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward|
|Finch, George H.||Lee, Arthur H (Hants, Fareham||Renshaw, Charles Bine|
|Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne||Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)||Renwick, George|
|Fisher, William Hayes||Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage||Ridley, Hn. M.W.(Stalybridge)|
|FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose-||Leveson-Gower, Frederick N.S.||Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson|
|Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry||Llewellyn, Evan Henry||Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)|
|Forster, Henry William||Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A.R.||Rolleston, Sir John F. L.|
|Foster, PhilipS.(Warwick, SW||Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine||Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter|
|Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry||Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham||Round, James|
|Galloway, William Johnson||Long, Rt Hon Walter(Bristol,S)||Royds, Clement Molyueux|
|Gardner, Ernest||Lowther, C. (Camb., Eskdale)||Russell, T. W.|
|Garfit, William||Lowther, Rt. Hon. James (Kent)||Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-|
|Gibbs, Hn. A G H. (City of Lond.||Lloyd, Archie Kirkham||Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander|
|Gibbs, Hon. Vicary (St.Albans)||Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowesto ft||Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)|
|Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick||Macartney, Rt Hn. W G. Ellison||Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert|
|Gordon. Hn. J. E. (Elgin& Nairn)||Macdona, John Cumming||Seely, Maj. J E. B. (Isleof Wight)|
|Gordon J. (Londonderry, S.)||Maclver, David (Liverpool)||Seton Karr, Henry|
|Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby-(Linc.)||M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)||Simeon, Sir Barrington|
|Goschen, Hon. George Joachim||Majendie, James A. H.||Sinclair, Louis (Romford)|
|Green, Walford D (Wednesbury||Maple, Sir John Blundell||Smith, Abel H.(Hertford, East)|
|Greene, Sir E. W. (BurySt. Ed.||Martin, Richard Biddulph||Smith, HC(North'mb, Tyneside|
|Groves, James Grimble||Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W.F.||Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.)|
|Hain, Edward||Maxwell, Rt Hn Sir H E. (Wigt'n||Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)|
|Halsey, Rt. Hn. Thomas F.||Maxwell, W J H (Dumfriesshire||Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich)|
|Hambro, Charles Eric||Melville, Beresford Valentine||Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)|
|Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G.(Mid'x||Mildmay, Francis Bingham||Stewart Sir Mark J. M'Taggart|
|Hamilton, Marqof (L'nd'nderry||Molesworth, Sir Lewis||Stone, Sir Benjamin|
|Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.||Montagu. Hon. J. Scott (Hants.||Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley|
|Hardy, Laurence(K'nt, Ashford||Moore, William (Antrim, N.)||Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier|
|Hare, Thomas Leigh||More, Robert Jasper(Shropshire||Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)|
|Harris, Frederick Leverton||Morgan, Hn. Fred, (Monm'thsh.||Thornburn, Sir Walter|
|Haslam, Sir Alfred S.||Morrell, George Herbert||Thornton, Percy M.|
|Heath, James (Staffords, N. W.||Morrison, James Archibald||Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray|
|Heaton, John Henniker||Morton, Arthur H A.(Deptford)||Tritton, Charles Ernest|
|Helder, Augustus||Muntz, Philip A.||Tuke, Sir Charles Batty|
|Higginbottom, S.W.||Murray, Rt Hn. A Graham (Bute||Valentia, Viscount|
|Hoare, Sir Samuel||Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)||Warde, Colonel C. E.|
|Hogg, Lindsay||Myers, William Henry||Welby, Sir Charles G.E.(Notts.|
|Hope J.F.(Sheffield, Brights'de||Nicholson, William Graham||Whitmore, Charles Algernon|
|Houston, Robert Paterson||Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay||Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)|
|Howard, J. (Mid. Tottenham)||Parker, Gilbert||Willoughby de Eresby, Lord|
|Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil||Pease, Herbt. Pike(Darlington)||Willox, Sir John Archibald|
|Hudson, George Bickersteth||Penn, John||Wilson, John (Glasgow)|
|Johnston, William (Belfast)||Pierpoint, Robert||Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh. N.)|
|Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H.||Plummer, Walter R.||Wodehouse, Rt Hn. E. R. (Bath)|
|Kenyon, James (Lancs., Bury)||Powell, Sir Francis Sharp||Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson|
|Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop.||Pretyman, Ernest George||Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-|
|Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.||Purvis, Robert||Wylie, Alexander|
|Law, Andrew Bonar||Randles, John S.|
|Lawrence, Joseph (Monmouth)||Rasca, Major Frederic Carne||TELLERS FOR THE NOES—|
|Lawson, John Grant||Rattigan, Sir William Henry||Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.|
|Lecky, Rt.Hn. William Edw. H.||Reid. James (Greenock)|
§ Original question again proposed.
§ (5.30.) MR. WHITLEY
said that there was another matter which he should like to have explained before the Vote was passed. It related to naval prisons. There was an increase of neatly £1,000, in addition to a large increase last year. The figures for the last three years were as follows:—1900–1, £13,300; 1901–2, £16,200; and 1902–3, £17,700. The increase was not accounted for by increased accommodation, as it appeared that at Lewes prison, with accommodation for 142 prisoners, the average daily number was 120; at Bodmin prison, with accommodation for 100, 68; 1048 and at Portsmouth prison, with accommodation for 60, 26. There appeared to have been a Treasury protest, with respect to some of the expenditure. In 1900 there were only two naval prisons, and at that time, no doubt, there was need for further accommodation, and in 1900–1 £2,000 was included in the Estimates for enlarging the prison at Bodmin in order to accommodate thirty more prisoners. He should have thought, that that was all that was required; but there was in that year a further sum of £1,500 for adapting Portsmouth Barracks to the purposes of a naval prison. On July 1049 21st, 1900, a few months after the Estimates were presented to Parliament, the Admiralty asked the Treasury to sanction an annual charge of £1,760 for the maintenance of Portsmouth prison. According to the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General, it appeared that the Treasury replied that they felt it difficult to sanction the creation of an establishment costing £1,760 a year for a purpose for which Parliament had made no provision. He thought that was a case where the accommodation provided had over-run the real needs, and where a little practical economy might be introduced. The personnel of the Navy was the best of any service in the country. He should have thought that the amount of crime in the Navy requiring imprisonment was very small indeed, and it was a great disappointment to him to find such a constant increase in the Estimates under that head. They were gradually abolishing civil prisons, and were turning the space they occupied to more useful purposes. He hoped the hon. Gentleman would be able to give a satisfactory explanation of the increase.
§ (5.35.) MR. ARNOLD - FORSTER
said he shared the hon. Gentleman's admiration for the personnel of the Navy, but this increase was caused, to a very considerable extent, by the very wise policy of providing separate prison accommodation for naval prisoners. He could remember the time when naval prisoners were sent to ordinary gaols, which was exceedingly bad for the service. He thought it very satisfactory that accommodation was now provided solely for naval prisoners, and the fact that such accommodation had been provided did not indicate any increase in the ratio of crime in the Navy. There was, no doubt, a certain increase in the number of prisoners, but that arose from the fact that the personnel of the Navy had very largely increased. He did not quite understand the objection of the hon. Member where the average number of inmates was less than the total capacity of the prisons. For instance, the presence of a large fleet at Portsmouth might result in a large number of prisoners being confined in Portsmouth prison, which was a short service prison, and it would be most unfortunate, in an emergency of that kind, if the prison were over-crowded, if and naval prisoners 1050 had to be transferred to ordinary gaols. The increase under Sub-head B amounted to only £558, which was made up of small sums, such as provision for a warder and assistant warder in Lewes gaol, progressive increase of wages, subsistence, for additional prisoners, and so on. As to there being any difference between the Treasury and the Admiralty with regard to the matter, that was not the case. All those proposals had been sanctioned by the Treasury.
§ (5.40.) MR. RUNCIMAN (Dewsbury)
asked if the hon. Gentleman could explain why the chaplain at Lewes prison was paid £500 a year, whereas no chaplains were provided in the other two prisons. The chaplain at Lewes gaol looked after some 144 souls, which was a very small parish for such a large salary. Why should he have such a large salary when no chaplains were provided at either Portsmouth or Bodmin prisons?
§ MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER
said that the circumstances in Lewes and Portsmouth were quite different. Lewes prison was a long service gaol, and men were confined in it for years, some times for life; but at Portsmouth prison the inmates were only resident a few days or weeks, and were then restored to the ministrations of the chaplains of the Fleet.
§ MR. J. P. FARRELL (Longford, N.)
asked whether in the long sentence prisons the Government made any arrangements for Catholic prisoners having the ministrations of a Catholic chaplain. No information was given as to the religious denominations of the prisoners, and he assumed that they included Catholic prisoners. He hoped the hon. Gentleman would give information on that point, which was very important as far as Catholics were concerned.
MR. GIBSON BOWLES
said it was very startling that the chaplain at Lewes prison should get five times as much as the doctor and nearly twice as much as the Governor. What earthly reason could there be for giving the Governor, who was responsible for the conduct of everybody in the gaol, including the chaplain, £327 a year, and the chaplain £500? That required some explanation, and he hoped that the hon. Gentleman would at any rate give the Committee an 1051 assurance that he would look into the question of the chaplain's salary with a view to reducing it.
§ MR. J. P. FARRELL
asked if the hon. Gentleman would reply to his question. If not, he would have to move a reduction of the Vote.
§ MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER
said there were one or two Roman Catholic prisoners in Lewes, and he imagined that the same arrangements were made for them as were made for every other prisoner in the kingdom to receive the ministrations of their religion. There could not be a clergyman of every denomination at each prison.
§ MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER
said that the doctor was a local medical practitioner, and his work at the prison was only a small portion of his practice. The whole work of the chaplain was within the walls of the gaol.
§ MR. RUNCIMAN
asked why it was not possible to get a clergyman from outside to take in the prison as part of his parish. Many clergymen would be glad to undertake the work at a nominal salary.
§ (5.46.) Question put.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes, 282; Noes, 57. (Division List No. 71.)1053
|Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.||Burdett-Coutts, W.||Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan|
|Agg-Gardner, James Tynte||Butcher, John George||Denny, Colonel|
|Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel||Caldwell, James||Dewar, John A.(Inverness-sh.)|
|Allan, William (Gateshead)||Cameron, Robert||Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.|
|Allen, Chas. P. (Glouc., Stroud||Campbell, Rt Hn J A (Glasgow||Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles|
|Allhusen, Augustus H'nry Eden||Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.||Disracli, Coningsby Ralph|
|Archdale, Edward Mervyn||Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs.)||Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon|
|Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.||Cavendish, V C W (Derbyshire||Dorington, Sir John Edward|
|Arrol, Sir William||Cawley, Frederick||Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-|
|Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John||Cayzer, Sir Charles William||Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)|
|Austin, Sir John||Cayzer, Sir Charles William||Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)|
|Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy||Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)||Duncan, J. Hastings|
|Bailey, James (Walworth)||Chamberlain, Rt Hon J (Birm.)||Dunn, Sir William|
|Bain, Colonel James Robert||Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'r||Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart|
|Baird, John George Alexander||Channing, Francis Allston||Edwards, Frank|
|Balcarres, Lord||Chapman, Edward||Elibank, Master of|
|Balfour, Rt. Hon. A.J.(Manch'r||Carrington, Spencer||Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas|
|Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)||Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.||Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.)|
|Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W.(Leeds||Coghill, Douglas Harry||Farquharson, Dr. Robert|
|Banes, Major George Edward||Cohen, Benjamin Louis||Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward|
|Beach, Rt Hn Sir Michael Hicks||Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse||Fenwick, Charles|
|Bentinck, Lord Henry C.||Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole||Finch, George H.|
|Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.||Compton, Lord Atwyne||Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne|
|Bignold, Arthur||Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)||Fisher, William Hayes|
|Bigwood, James||Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)||FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose-|
|Blundell, Colonel Henry||Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge||Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry|
|Bousfield, William Robert||Craig, Robert Hunter||Forster, Henry William|
|Bowles, Capt. H. F.(Middlesex)||Cranborne, Viscount||Foster, Philip S (Warwick, S. W.|
|Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn)||Cripps, Charles, Alfred||Fuller, J. M. F.|
|Brassey, Albert||Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)||Galloway, William Johnson|
|Brigg, John||Crossley, Sir Savile||Gardner, Ernest|
|Brocrick, Rt. Hon. St. John||Cubitt, Hon. Henry||Garfit, William|
|Brookfield, Colonel Montagu||Dalrymple, Sir Charles||Gibbs, Hn A G H (City of Lond.|
|Bryce, Rt. Hon. James||Dalziel, James Henry||Gibbs, Hn. Vicary (St. Albans)|
|Bullard, Sir Harry||Davenport, William Bromley-||Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick|
|Gordon, Hn J E (Elgin & Nairn||MacIver, David (Liverpool)||Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-|
|Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)||Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.||Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander|
|Goschen, Hon. George Joachim||M'Kenna, Reginald||Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)|
|Grant, Corrie||M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)||Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert|
|Green, Walford D (Wednesbury||Majendie, James A. H.||Seely, Maj, J. E B (Isle of Wight|
|Greene, Sir E W (B'ry S Edm'nds)||Mansfield, Horace Rendall||Seton-Karr, Henry|
|Groves, James Grimble||Maple, Sir John Blundell||Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)|
|Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton||Markham, Arthur Basil||Shaw-Stewart, M.H.(Renfrew)|
|Guthrie, Walter Murray||Martin, Richard Biddulph||Shipman, Dr. John G.|
|Hain, Edward||Massey-Mainwaring, Hn W. F.||Simeon, Sir Barrington|
|Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.||Maxwell, Rt Hn Sir H E (Wigt'n||Smith, Abel H.(Hertford, East)|
|Hambro, Charles Eric||Maxwell, W J H(Dumfriesshire||Smith, HC(North'mb. Tyneside|
|Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G (Midd'x||Melville, Beresford Valentine||Smith, James Parker(Lanarks.)|
|Hamilton, Marq. of (L'nd'nderry||Mildmay, Francis Bingham||Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)|
|Hanbury, Rt. Hn. Robert Wm.||Milner, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick G.||Soares, Ernest J.|
|Hare, Thomas, Leigh||Molesworth, Sir Lewis||Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich)|
|Harmsworth, R. Leicester||Montagu, Hon. J. Scott (Hants.)||Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)|
|Harris, Frederick Leverton||Moore, William (Antrim, N.)||Stevenson, Francis S.|
|Haslam, Sir Alfred S.||More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire)||Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart|
|Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-||Morgan, Hn. Fred. (Monm'thsh.||Stone, Sir Benjamin|
|Heath, James (Staffords, N. W.)||Morrell, George Herbert||Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley|
|Heaton, John Henniker||Morrison, James Archibald||Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier|
|Helder, Augustus||Morton, Arthur H.A.(Deptford||Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)|
|Higginbottom, S. W.||Moulton, John Fletcher||Tennant, Harold John|
|Hoare, Sir Samuel||Muntz, Philip A.||Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr|
|Hogg, Lindsay||Murray, Rt Hn. A. Gr'h'm (Bute||Thomas, F. Freeman-(Hastings|
|Holland, William Henry||Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)||Thorburn, Sir Walter|
|Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside||Myers, William Henry||Thornton, Percy M.|
|Houston, Robert Paterson||Nicholson, William Graham||Tomkinson, James|
|Howard. J. (Midd., Tottenham)||Norton, Capt. Cecil William||Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray|
|Hozier, Hn. James Henry Cecil||Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay||Tritton, Charles Ernest|
|Hudson, George Bickersteth||Parker, Gilbert||Tuke, Sir John Batty|
|Jackson, Rt. Hn. Wm. Lawies||Pease, Herbt. Pike (Darlington||Valentia, Viscount|
|Jacoby, James Alfred||Penn, John||Wallace, Robert|
|Johnston, William (Belfast)||Perks, Robert William||Walton, John Lawson (Leeds,S.)|
|Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)||Pierpoint, Robert||Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)|
|Kearley, Hudson E.||Pirie, Duncan V.||Warde, Colonel C. E.|
|Kennaway, Rt Hon. Sir John H.||Platt-Haggins, Frederick||Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.|
|Kenyon, James (Lancs., Bury)||Plummer, Walter R.||Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)|
|Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W.(Salop.||Powell, Sir Francis Sharp||Welby, Sir Charles G. E. (Notts.)|
|Kinloch, Sir John Geo. Smyth||Pretyman, Ernest George||Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Loyd|
|Kitson, Sir James||Price, Robert John||White, George (Norfolk)|
|Lambert, George||Priestley, Arthur||White, Luke (York, E. R.)|
|Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.||Purvis, Robert||Whiteley, George(York, W.R.)|
|Lawrence, Joseph (Monmouth)||Randles John S.||Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)|
|Lawson, John Grant||Rasch, Major Frederic Carne||Willoughby de Eresby, Lord|
|Layland-Barratt, Francis||Rattigan, Sir William Henry||Willox, Sir John Archibald|
|Lecky, Rt. Hn. William Edw. H.||Rea, Russell||Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)|
|Lee, Arthur H.(Hants., Fareh'm||Reid, James (Greenock)||Wilson, John (Glasgow)|
|Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)||Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries||Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh. N.)|
|Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage||Renshaw, Charles Bine||Wilson-Todd, Wm. H. (Yorks.)|
|Leveson-Gower, Frederick N.S.||Renwick, George||Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E.R.(Bath)|
|Llewellyn, Evan Henry||Ridley, Hn. M.W.(Stalybridge)||Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson|
|Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine||Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson||Wortley, Rt. Hn. C. B. Stuart-|
|Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol, S)||Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)||Wylie, Alexander|
|Lowther, C. (Cumb. Eskdale)||Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)|
|Lowther, Rt. Hon. James (Kent)||Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter|
|Loyd, Archie Kirkman||Round, James||TELLERS FOR THE AYES—|
|Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)||Royds, Clement Molyneux|
|Macartney, Rt Hn W G Ellison||Runciman, Walter||Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.|
|Macdona, John Cumming||Russell, T. W.|
|Abraham, William(Cork, N.E.)||Crean, Eugene||Healy, Timothy Michael|
|Abraham, William (Rhondda)||Cullinan, J.||Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)|
|Ambrose, Robert||Delany, William||Jordan, Jeremiah|
|Barry, E. (Cork, S.)||Dillon, John||Joyce, Michael|
|Blake, Edward||Doogan, P. C.||Kennedy, Patrick James|
|Boland, John||Farrell, James Patrick||Lundon, W.|
|Burns, John||Ffrench, Peter||MacNeill, John Gordon Swift|
|Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)||Flynn, James Christopher||MacVeagh Jeremiah|
|Carew, James Lawrence||Gilhooly, James||M'Hugh, Patrick A.|
|Cogan, Denis J.||Hammond, John||M'Kean, John|
|Condon, Thomas Joseph||Hayden, John Patrick||M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)|
Original Question put, and agreed to.
|Murphy, John||O'Dowd, John||Sheehan, Daniel Daniel|
|Nannetti, Joseph P.||O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)||Sullivan, Donal|
|Nolan, Col. John P. (Galway, N.)||O'kelly, James (Roscommon,N.||White, Patrick (Meath, North)|
|Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)||O'Malley, William||Young, Samuel|
|O'Brien, James F. X. (Cork)||O'Mara, James|
|O'Brien Kendal(Tipperary Mid||O'Shaughnessy, P. J.|
|O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.)||O'Shee, James John||TELLERS FOR THE NOES—|
|O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.||Power, Patrick Joseph|
|O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)||Redmond, John F.(Waterford)||Captain Donelan and Mr. Patrick O'Brien.|
|O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)||Roche, John|
§ 6. £101,700, Educational Services.
§ * SIR CHARLES DILKE
said he desired to ask the hon. Gentleman if he could tell the Committee what progress was being made with the expansion of the school of naval strategy. When the matter was raised two years ago, the Admiralty did not appear to view the matter with much favour. He however, understood that the hon. Gentleman took credit to himself now for having made a start in this work, which he believed was a good one, and he would like to know what was being done.
(5.58.) MR. GIBSON BOWLES
said he believed that the whole matter of naval education was in the hands of a council, the composition of which was altogether faulty. It was composed chiefly of scientific gentlemen who were too much accustomed to fixed science. His view was that naval education should be placed in the hands of naval officers, and that these scientists should only be called in when required. Another thing was that there had undoubtedly been a great deal too much scientific cramming in the system of education, and too little practical instruction in matters required by naval officers in their profession. There was no matter more important to naval officers than that they should have, at any rate, an elementary knowledge of the law of nations. With any complication that arose, the naval officer had to deal himself; there was no manual to help him in the difficult task he had to perform; he could get no advice or counsel from anybody; he had to rely on himself. But would it be believed that practically no instruction was given in the law of nations? There had been, indeed, a manual, but a most faulty one, and it was in consequence of the faults in that book that some untoward incidents had occurred in South Africa, and had 1056 resulted in our having to pay £28,000 compensation to the Germans, when we ought to have had £100.000 from them. He believed the Secretary to the Admiralty took a special interest in these educational matters, and he hoped the hon. Member would be able to tell the Committee that he was about to tackle some of these subjects, as they should have been tackled long ago. For ten years he had pressed the necessity of a special manual on the law of nations for the use of our Navy. Such a manual was written for the French Navy years ago, and a most admirable book it was, but no work of that sort had been written for the English Navy. Of all the Navies in the world, the English Navy was the one which most required a comprehensive manual on the subject, giving the matters which the sailor required, and leaving out those he did not require. Another important point that should be attended to was the teaching of modern languages. It was practically impossible for any naval officer to learn any language other than his own, except perhaps Latin. High marks were given for Latin, but French and other languages were almost neglected. As soon as a naval officer left the "Britannia," his instruction in modern languages came to an end. It was true provision was made for enabling naval officers to live abroad for a time—three months, he believed—in order to become interpreters, but, as a matter of fact no naval lieutenant was ever able to avail himself of that provision, because the Admiralty would not grant him the necessary leave. The result was that the ignorance of English naval officers of ordinary foreign languages, such as French. Italian, and Spanish, was not only notorious, but shameful. He would not go into the question of the age for entering the "Britannia," but perhaps the Secretary to the Admiralty could say whether it was in contemplation to revert to the lower age for cadets. At any rate, 1057 he earnestly hoped it was the intention of the Admiralty to improve the system of instruction at Greenwich in the direction he had indicated.
§ (6.7.) MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER
said the subject which had now been brought forward was really one of the most important of all the matters on the subsidiary Votes. He could not agree, however, that the arrangement of the curriculum of naval education could, with great advantage, be left entirely to naval officers. They ought, undoubtedly, to have a very large say in the matter, but his own impression was that education, whether for naval or any other purposes, was, to a large extent, a question for skilled consideration. There were certain universal rules, known to specialists, with regard to the imparting of information, the method of imparting it, and the time necessary for acquiring it, which applied not only to naval education, but other branches of instruction. He believed the broadestminded educational specialist and a naval officer were the proper mixture for such a duty. But there was a great deal of weight in the criticisms directed against the scheme of naval education. The difficulties in the way of formulating a perfect scheme or anything approaching thereto, were, he would not say insuper able, but very great indeed. The hon. Member for King's Lynn had touched on one of them, viz., the universal demand made on the time of naval officers for practical subjects, and which, consequently, was deducted from the time available for general study. He agreed—he put it no higher than a personal opinion—that it was most desirable to aim at the introduction into the Navy of more general education. Undoubtedly the present class of officer was an exceedingly good product, but he could not shut his eyes to the fact that in the profession of the Navy, as in every other, the standard of accomplishments was rising, and unless a naval officer was put in a position, in which he would advance pari passu with educated men of other professions, he would suffer in that connection. He quite agreed it would be a great advantage if some of those non-technical subjects, which, however, were very closely connected with naval matters, could be taught.
1058 As to the school of strategy at Greenwich, about which the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean inquired, there had, undoubtedly, been progress. Provision had been made for lectures by persons not connected with the personnel of the college, and those lectures had been greatly appreciated. Under the present director of the course, a great deal had been taught which was not taught before. If, however, he were to say that he was satisfied that all had been done, or was likely to be done, under present arrangements, which ought to be done for the training of the British naval officer, he would be going very far in excess of his belief.
The hon. Member for King's Lynn had referred once more to the question of languages. It was true that the easiest time for the study of languages was youth, and he looked forward to the day when greater encouragement would be given to "Britannia" cadets to study modern languages than was now given. Something had been attempted with regard to the continuance of the study of French after leaving the "Britannia," and an instructor was now being appointed for the Channel Fleet, who would be able to continue the teaching of French—not adequately, but to some extent.
§ MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER
Yes. But he still maintained that no adequate teaching of languages would be arrived at until they were able to allow, persuade, or compel officers to live abroad for some period of their term of service, in order to acquire colloquially the language of the country, and, what was as important, some knowledge of the feeling and attitude of mind of the people of the country. The first Lord of the Admiralty had invited discussion of these matters, and some response had already been made to that invitation. The objection might be raised that this was a matter which the Admiralty must deal with on its own responsibility, but, at the same time, the subject was so complicated and concerned with so many things not purely naval, that he thought it was right to invite the co-operation and seek the views of those who were not specially connected with the naval service.
1059 He entirely agreed with the hon. Member for King's Lynn as to the necessity of something more being taught of the law of nations than was the case at present. He had been greatly struck by a small book which had been recently compiled for the, United States Navy, and put into the hands of all their naval officers as a guide to them in the many difficult situations in which a naval officer might find himself. He believed that a most valuable book might be written on British diplomacy as conducted by British naval officers, and that it would form a very creditable chapter in the history of our diplomacy. The country owed them a great deal for what they had already done, and it owed them a little more in the direction of making their task easier for them than it had hitherto been. He would certainly like to see some volume, perhaps a little more advanced and fuller than that prepared for the United States Navy, produced for our own. If there could be introduced at Greenwich, to a larger extent, lectures on international obligations, he was sure they would do good service. There was no Navy the officers of which found themselves more often face to face with complicated diplomatic situations than our own, and those officers should be given all the assistance possible. He agreed that the suggestion made by his hon. friend was one which ought not to be allowed to pass by. He hoped, however, that the Committee would be patient with the Admiralty as long as they had reason to believe that the Government were sincerely interested in this question. He welcomed any stimulus in this matter in the interests of the Navy, and naval officers who were as conscious as any one could be of the necessity of having the same opportunities of education which were open to the officers of other nations, and which were open to those of their own rank and position in civil life in this country. They were as conscious of this as any hon. Member of this House could be. He did not know that he needed to say anything more upon this point. It was quite true, as the hon. Member for King's Lynn had said, that these matters were engaging the attention of the Admiralty, and he hoped that either himself or his successor might be able to do more in this direction in the future than had been done hitherto.
§ (6.22.) MR. ASQUITH (Fife, E.)
I trust that the House will recognise the tone and the substance of what the hon. Gentleman has said. We know already, from the services which he has rendered as a private Member by way of criticism, that no one is more alive to this question than the Secretary to the Admiralty. It is always very easy to talk generally, but very difficult to combine in the true proportion, in a service like the Navy, general education with technical instruction. But there are one or two points which have been brought out in the course of this discussion which, as the hon. Member has truly said, were, in a sense, invited by the First Lord of the Admiralty, and I think we ought to put it upon record. My first point is as regards the teaching of foreign languages. I cannot help saying, after having looked as carefully as I could into this matter, that I think the provision made both in the "Britannia" and the Naval College in this important respect is totally inadequate. In the "Britannia" there are about 300 Naval cadets, and I notice in the Estimates, here under the heading of "Instructors in Foreign. Languages," that there are only two French masters provided for the whole of these 300 boys, while German seems to be ignored altogether. That, surely, is a most insufficient provision in what ought to be regarded as one of the essential rudiments of their education. If you turn again to the Royal Naval College at Greenwich, although the provision there is on a somewhat more liberal scale, yet there are only five instructors in all foreign languages, including French, German, Spanish, and Italian, out of a staff which exceeds fifty in number. It therefore appears to me that a practical beginning might be made in the direction which the hon. Gentleman has indicated in both these institutions, and the existing staff might be reinforced, and provision made for the teaching of some other language besides French. I was glad to hear what the hon. Gentleman told us as to the intentions of the Department in providing opportunities for naval officers to carry on abroad their studies in these languages, in order to make themselves more perfect than they have at present the opportunity of doing. The other point to which the hon. Member for King's Lynn called attention, is of equal, if not greater, importance. I mean the question of providing some kind of instruction, some ready and 1061 available text-book, on international law. I believe it to be true that the great majority of our naval officers, through no fault of their own, have not more than the most elementary acquaintance with the principles and practice of international law. It surely might be possible to do what, as has been mentioned, has been done in the case of the American Navy. We have only to go into the Temple any day to find a number of men, unemployed, with plenty of time, plenty of ability, who would, for a modest consideration, give their services to the State. I am perfectly sure that we could find men in abundance, and fitted in every way by ability, knowledge, and a power of exposition, to provide such a manual as we all agree to be necessary. I express the hope that the Admiralty will make a solid advance in these matters before this time next year.
§ * SIR J. FERGUSSON (Manchester, N.E.)
said he should like to say a word or two upon this question of foreign languages. He found that, as a rule, every officer in the Swedish Navy had to be acquainted with three languages. That was not the case in the British Navy, and it struck him that while British naval officers were so fully employed as they were at present they could hardly expect them to learn foreign languages. One important step towards accomplishing this object would be that the standard for a knowledge of languages possessed by cadets should be raised on their entering the "Britannia," because they ought to be well grounded in foreign languages before they joined, and then it would he easier to carry on their instruction. There were two classes of persons who could largely add to efficiency in this work, and they were the parents of the boys and the instructors in the schools. He was very much surprised at the small attention that was given to foreign languages in the private schools, and if parents would require more definite instruction in languages, he thought more instructors would be provided. He thought this was so important that he insisted upon his sons having extra lessons in French and German, and two of his sons had risen rapidly in their profession, largely owing to the good knowledge which they obtained at school of the former language. If a higher standard with regard to foreign 1062 languages was insisted upon when entering the Navy, it would be more easily kept up afterwards.
§ (6.26.) CAPTAIN NORTON (Newington, W.)
said he was disposed to think that a great deal had been done in reference to the teaching of modern languages to the cadets on board the "Britannia," and in encouraging them to learn foreign languages before their entrance on board that ship. He had had sufficient experience of the acquisition of modern languages to know that it was a most difficult thing, after acquiring a language, to keep up that language. What a boy learned prior to entering the "Britannia," and what he learned on that ship, were only the ground-work of what he required to know as a naval officer. They could only put a certain amount into a boy's head, and it was almost useless to expect the high standard which was necessary in mathematics and other subjects from those boys, while demanding at the same time a high standard in modern languages. He suggested that the Admiralty should do what was done in the armies of nearly all Continental countries, namely, that officers should be given an incentive in the Navy to acquire that further knowledge of languages which was necessary tinder the only possible way which was pointed out by the Secretary to the Admiralty. It was necessary that they should know, not only the language, but also something about the country and the nation which employed that language. The only incentive given as prizes to naval officers for modern languages amounted only to about £125. The proper course to take was to give an extra inducement to those officers who had a special aptitude for languages to go to those countries where those particular languages were spoken, and, provided that they afterwards attained a certain proficiency, they should be awarded a certain premium. The system adopted by the Indian Army for the acquisition of the Russian language should be followed in the Navy. This would operate in two directions. The naval officer who went to Russia would, at the same time that he was acquiring that language, also be able to acquire much information with reference to the naval capacity of that particular nation, and its powers in 1063 regard to ship building. He could also be preparing himself for the position of attaché at that particular Court. The expense of this arrangement would be very small, and the nation would benefit very greatly if they happened to be brought into conflict with any particular nation; they would then have at their disposal a certain number of naval officers who would be a valuable acquisition in time of war. He had been told that the majority of competent officers were already fully employed in their profession, but he would point out that there were always a certain number of officers upon half-pay, and instead of wasting their time they should be given some inducement to acquire these languages if they had any wish to do so. He hoped the Secretary to the Admiralty would give serious consideration to this question, with a view to improving the standard of education among naval officers in this respect.
(6.30.) MR. PARKER SMITH (Lanarkshire, Partick)
said this Estimate was really one of the most important of all they were voting tonight. It was very easy for Gentlemen to get up and say that this, that, and the other piece of knowledge was required, and that the boys should be taught these subjects. The hon. Member for King's Lynn had said this was an elaborate and complicated profession, and that, therefore, the full control of the education should be put into the hands of the naval officers. It had also been suggested that modern languages were essential. What they wanted in taking boys into the "Britannia" was that we should take good sample boys in the general stream. He would not argue the question whether modern languages got a sufficient position or whether Latin got too much. For himself, he believed in Latin, and he did not think it received too much attention. They should not make the boys cram and specialise too early. He urged that the general control of naval education should be in the hands of men who had devoted more study to the principles of education than naval officers generally had. He thought that we had attempted to put too much miscellaneous knowledge into the heads of young officers, and that we must 1064 simplify our practice in that respect. He agreed that it was important to give young lieutenants opportunities of studying languages abroad. The only effective way in which modern languages could be learned was by residing in the country where they were spoken.
§ MR. TREVELYAN (Yorkshire, W.R., Elland)
said he believed no examinations were held for cadets except in England, and he suggested that the Colonies should be enabled to take their share in the naval service more than at the present time. With that object, examinations should be held in Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and the Cape. As things stood, boys in the Colonies were practically excluded from entering the Navy—except, at any rate, the sons of very rich men indeed, who could afford to send them to be educated in England. When he raised this question before, an official answer was given that the difficulties were practically insuperable. They were not insuperable. It was merely a matter of expense. It was said there were no applications from the Colonies that examinations should be held out there. He did not think that was a sufficient answer. Obviously only a small part of the community in the Colonies would wish to send their sons into the Navy, and there was not likely to be any large public demand for examinations, but it seemed to him that if there were only one or two men who would send their sons into the Navy what he proposed would be worth doing, because it would be the beginning of a big Imperial movement of the practical kind which was wanted. He thought we ought not to abandon the idea of holding Colonial examinations without very strong reasons for doing so.
§ *(6.38.) SIR JOHN COLOMB (Great Yarmouth)
said that a naval officer up to the age of twenty or twenty-one was totally absorbed in learning his duties on board ship. Before getting in, he had to pass a certain standard as a cadet; but having passed that, there was neither time nor opportunity for attempting to teach him more than was now taught. He agreed that the nature of the instruction might be very 1065 much improved, but at the age of twenty-one the opportunity had really gone for acquiring foreign languages at the receptive period of his existence. We were piling up on the executive officers all sorts of knowledge in addition to practical seamanship, and he did not see how the process could be carried further. Under the present conditions of naval organization it was practically impossible for lieutenants to learn modern languages abroad. We had to approach this whole question of education from a very much wider point of view. In this House and in the country it was supposed that the Navy simply consisted of admirals, captains, commanders, and lieutenants. Not so, they formed the smaller portion of the whole naval service. There was that great and growing branch, the engineers; there was what was called the Civil branch, which included a very large number of officers, and there was also the Marine branch. If interpreters were wanted, we ought to look for them to the officers of the Civil branch, and to the officers of the Marine forces. When he looked at the Estimate now before the Committee, he found that we were spending more money on mathematical professors than any other professors, and it was the universal opinion in the service that the education of young naval officers was far too much in the direction of mathematics. There had been a long time a most able gentleman at the head of the education staff, but it was quite evident that he was deadly opposed to the teaching of naval history, and therefore our young officers were brought up without any knowledge of the history of their own service. So far as the education course went, he was at one with some hon. Members who had spoken in saying that the present system wanted amending. We had built a naval college, but, ignoring the consequences of modern conditions, we kept it exclusively for the instruction of one branch of the naval service. We must open our minds a little more to the changes which had taken place in the composition and structure of the personnel of the Fleet. In his view, the only sound way of proceeding was to enter all youths intended to be officers of His Majesty's Fleet at the Naval College at Dartmouth, that they should all have the same instruction, 1066 theoretical and practical, up to the age of eighteen or twenty, and that then they those who, under observation, had shown the best aptitude, should be put into the branches of the service for which they were most adapted, where they could complete their education. To keep the service in grooves a hundred years old was extravagant, pernicious, and dangerous to the future efficiency of the Fleet. He saw that there was no increase in the Vote for lectures; it stood at £400. That meant the utmost limit of the Admiralty idea of the necessity for the higher education of the senior naval officers. Although we were the greatest—and must continue to be, if we were to live at all—maritime nation in the world, we were absolutely behind all the other nations in the means and the machinery by which we gave our senior naval officers opportunities for learning their business. He regretted extremely that there was no advance on that £400. It was the only higher education that the senior officers got, although it was an innovation of only the last few years. He understood that there was a great thirst amongst naval officers for such higher education, but how could the Admiralty get the best brains in the country to impart it when they only offered £5, or at most £10, for each lecture? There was another point. As his hon. Friend well knew, these branches of higher education were numerous; but there was one of which naval officers were entirely ignorant, and that was the question of the natural influence of the distribution of commerce on naval policy. There were no means, either in the Intelligence Department, or at Dartmouth or Greenwich Colleges, for enabling senior officers of His Majesty's Fleet to obtain, in the slightest degree, any knowledge of the movements of commerce on the naval stations at which they might be expected some day to hold command. He knew that a very able gentleman belonging to the Mercantile Marine, and also the Secretary at Lloyds, had been asked to give lectures on the subject, and that these lectures had been a revelation to the senior naval officers who had attended them as to what they would have to do in the event of war. But he likewise knew that the Naval Intelligence Department had no 1067 means or compiling accurate information from day to day of the movements of commerce. That was a branch of study which naval officers should have an opportunity of pursuing, but they hardly got it. The hon. Member for the Elland Division was, he thought, under a little misapprehension as to Colonial nominations to the Navy. Certain nominations were placed by the Admiralty at the disposal of the Colonial Office every year, which the Colonial Office placed at the disposal of the Colonial Governments. The young gentlemen so nominated were allowed to enter a lower standard of examination, and had, therefore, greater facilities for entering the Navy, as regarded tests, than the youth of this country. [An HON. MEMBER: How many?] Very few, only four; but he understood that there was no great demand even for these. He sympathised with the hon. Member in his opinion that the problem before the Empire was the discharge of naval obligations by all parts of the Empire, and to have a common Navy for a common Empire. He hoped the hon. Gentleman the Financial Secretary to the Admiralty would give some clear indication as to whether the Admiralty were really in earnest in the matter of naval education—first of all, in regard to the Service as a whole, and secondly, in regard to the higher education of the senior officers in the Navy. The root of all this lay in another branch of the Service. The cost of the higher education of a Marine Artillery officer was higher, and the standard of scientific knowledge required was greater, than that of an executive officer up to twenty-one years. And yet when the country spent all this money on him and turned him out a practical Artillery officer, fit to serve as such on land or sea, he was sent on board ship to do nothing at all. The Admiralty should also see the necessity for using these officers by giving them education in hydraulics, electricity, and foreign languages.
§ (6.53.) MR. ARCHDALE (Fermanagh, N.)
said he agreed with the hon. and gallant Member for West Newington in regard to the question of teaching foreign languages. At present when a naval officer became an in- 1068 terpreter, unless he was appointed to a flag-ship, he got no extra pay at all. That was no encouragement to officers to study foreign languages. At the same time, he thought that the Admiralty had made great strides in the matter of education. He was not one of those who thought that too much mathematics was taught, for that study was the most important part of the science of gunnery and torpedoes. As to Greek, he did not think that, unless a man was going to become a parson, it was of any use learning that language at all.
§ CAPTAIN NORTON
said he would make a definite suggestion in order to carry out the aims of the hon. and gallant Gentleman as regarded the acquisition of foreign languages in the Navy. He was aware of the difficulty owing to the dearth of lieutenants and sub-lieutenants in the Navy, but that could be met in this way—after a young officer had passed through Greenwich, provided he showed an aptitude for a given language, he should be given six months leave of absence to go to the country where that language was spoken, and then he should be given a reward after having passed his examination.
§ (6.59.) MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER
said he could assure the Committee that the Admiralty had given serious consideration to this question of the higher education of naval officers. The hon. and gallant Gentleman who had last spoken had suggested that lieutenants should be allowed to proceed to foreign countries to learn foreign languages, but under present circumstances that was not possible. He recognised that facilities of that kind might be given, as was done in the case of foreign Navies, and half-pay officers might be inclined to take advantage of such a scheme. He recognised the value of the suggestion of the hon. Member for West Newington, but there was a very great need for the services of these officers on board ship, and, however ideal the scheme of the hon. Member was, we must face the serious practical difficulty presented by this need for officers. The hon. Member for the Elland Division expressed a thought which must have been present in the mind of 1069 every Member who had studied the question of the relations of the Navy to the Colonies, and it was rather interesting to reflect that the flag officer who was about to command on the North America Station was himself a Canadian cadet who had passed successfully through the junior ranks of the Navy. The suggestion of the hon. Member that there should be a preliminary examination in the Colonies to enable Colonial cadets to satisfy themselves that they would be able to take up a naval career on coming to this country was entitled to favourable consideration.
§ Vote agreed to.
§ 7. Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £65,600, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the expenses of scientific services, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1903."
§ (7.5.) MR. O'MARA
said that very little objection could be taken to this Vote as a whole. There were, however, several items to which he desired to call attention. There was under Vote B for the Royal Observatory, Greenwich, an item "Expenses of Board of Visitors, £85." He did not object to an annual lunch for the Board of Visitors, but he could not imagine how their expenses came to £85, unless they broke the windows after the lunch. Unless he had some assurance that this expenditure would not happen again, he must move a reduction of the Vote by £85. There were a few other items in the Vote which required some explanation. He was glad that they did not have a total solar eclipse every year, because the last time, in May, 1901, it cost the country £500. Then there was another sum of £200 for the "determination of the longitude of Paris," and another £100 for the "determination of the solar parallax from photographs of Eros." He did not see the utility of expenditure of this kind. He noticed that the "Calculations for Ten Year Star Catalogue" only cost £50, and he submitted that a very important and useful catalogue like that ought not to be cut down simply because the taxpayer was overtaxed owing to the war in South Africa. He hoped they would 1070 have a satisfactory explanation of these items. He moved a reduction of the Vote by £85 under sub-head B.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £65,515, be granted for the said Service."—(Mr. O'Mara.)
§ (7.10.) MR. KEARLEY
called attention to the robbery of old relics from the Greenwich Museum. He wished to know if any of those relics had been recovered, and also whether the museum building had now been placed in a position of security so that a robbery of that kind could not occur again.
§ * MR. PRETYMAN
I regret to say that none of these relics have been recovered, and no trace of them has been heard of since the robbery occurred. Most careful precautions have been taken since the theft to render the museum secure, and the inner part has been turned into a strong room. It has also been placed more directly under the charge of the Metropolitan Police instead of pensioners, who, though quite as zealous as the former, were not so skilled in the prevention of crime.
§ * SIR JOHN COLOMB
said he wished to allude to the item of £300 for the Royal United Service Institute. This money was allocated for the benefit of the education of the naval services. The money was very properly given, but what was happening was that there was a general decline in the number of naval papers and discussions at the Institution as compared with the number of military papers. As the Admiralty were giving £300 to assist this Institution, he asked his hon. friend to go into this matter, and he would find that his statement that naval papers and discussions were being blotted out by degrees was correct. One reason, of course, for this was that there were more military than naval officers at home. But another reason was that there was an impression among young officers in the Navy that they were liable to get a black mark against their names if they read papers or took part in discussions on matters naval at the institution. He would ask the Secretary to the Admiralty to give him an undertaking that he would make inquiries into the matter, and, if he 1071 found that this impression did exist, that he would take some steps to disabuse the minds of naval officers of the idea that there was any prejudice against them on this account, or that the Admiralty in any way deprecated or disliked discussions or papers being read on naval matters at the United Service Institution by naval officers.
(7.18.) MR. GIBSON BOWLES
said it was a ridiculous contradiction for the Admiralty, on the one hand, to give £300 a year to the United Service Institution for the purpose of encouraging the discussion of military and naval matters, and, on the other hand, to prohibit in set terms naval officers from reading papers. He called attention to this matter in 1893, and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Clitheroe, who then represented the Admiralty in this House, was not ashamed to get up in his place and defend what he considered the most outrageous prohibition of a very useful paper. It was absurd for the Admiralty to go on prohibiting the reading of useful papers by naval officers, and at the same time to go on subscribing £300 a year to the United Service Institution. The military papers read at the Institution were most interesting, but it was a fact that there was almost an absolute dearth of naval papers. That was not because naval officers were indisposed to write or were incapable of writing on naval subjects, but because they believed that the Admiralty looked with displeasure on the discussion by naval officers of naval matters. If that was an unfounded belief, he thought much good would be done if the Admiralty would let it be known that it was so.
§ MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER
said that this was a matter of which he had no personal knowledge, but he should like to point out, so far as the discussion of naval matters at the United Service Institution was concerned, that the very last paper read there was on a naval subject, and that the naval essays which were published in the Journal of the Institution were mostly written by young officers. He would say that, so far from such a course getting a black mark put against the name of an officer, he regarded it as a most useful contribution 1072 to contemporary naval science. He had no right to defend the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Clitheroe, but he could conceive circumstances in which it would not only be right for, but the duty of, the Admiralty to desire officers who had recently been occupying positions on active service not to deal with matters which in one aspect were military, but which in another aspect were political, and he should not like, on the part of the Admiralty, to make any general statement which would interfere with the exercise of the clear right that that must always be. Before the Vote was passed, he should like to call attention to a small item in the Vote for the Cape Observatory, and to say what a great work was being done by Sir David Gill there, who was measuring the meridian from the south of Africa to the northern-most point of Europe. Though small means were allowed him, Sir David Gill was really doing an international work.
§ Question put, and negatived.
§ 8. £286,900, Royal Naval Reserves.