§ £4,786,700, Shipbuilding, Repairs, Maintenance, etc.—Matériel.
§ MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid he wished to cancel the few remarks which he was compelled under the stress of circumstances to make before the dinner hour, and to say what he had to say now. He would like to say what he had to say clearly and emphatically, because he thought it was time that the Committee and the House generally should realise what was the value of the exaggerations in which his hon. friend the Member for Gateshead was accustomed to indulge, and how much harm might be done to a good cause by the repetition of statements which did not illustrate, but disguised, the facts which the speaker desired to bring to the notice of the Committee. The hon. Member had done to-day what he always had done. He indulged in a series of violent attacks on the Admiralty. He had said there were no business men and no business faculty and that there was gross waste of 767 money at the Admiralty, and he had adduced what he thought were instances illustrating his assertions. He asked the Committee to test the value of the hon. Member's charges by the light of what he was going to tell them. To begin with, the hon. Member had not yet arrived at the commencement of his Parliamentary career in connection with the Admiralty. The hon. Member had been digging like a sort of ghoul among the corpses; he had been digging among the dead incidents of the past.
§ SIR WILLIAM ALLANDoes the hon. Member suggest that those are the dead men of the Admiralty?
§ MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid he meant the dead ships. The men were very much alive, and most of them were at sea doing their duty. His point was that most of the hon. Member's examples referred to matters which had no more to do with the Admiralty existing now than with the moon. The hon. Member had said that the Admiralty had been extraordinarily extravagant and foolish with regard to the "Hecate." But the question of there boilering of the "Hecate" came up for consideration two years before he happened to be a member of the Board of Admiralty. The boilers were never put into the "Hecate" as the hon. Member led the Committee to suppose.
§ SIR WILLIAM ALLANI did not say so.
§ MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERasked then what the hon. Member did say. His charge was that there had been a grave dereliction of duty because the Admiralty bought boilers, put them into a ship, and then sold the ship and lost the value of the boilers. It was said that £9,000 was paid for the boilers.
§ SIR WILLIAM ALLANThat was the amount given by the Committee of Public Accounts as having been spent on her.
§ MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid it was represented that so much had been spent on the ship, and that then the 768 ship was sold and that the money was lost. That related to the affairs of five years ago. But the boilers were never put into the ship. The ship was condemned as inefficient. The boilers were retained and were to be utilised for dockyard service, whilst the ship was sold for scrap iron. The hon. Member had referred to the Royal yacht. This matter had been discussed up hill and down dale. The hon. Member had interrupted him and told him that the question of the Royal yacht came up in the Estimates of this year. It did nothing of the kind. The hon. Member was a great deal too free in interrupting him. The other day, presuming on the ignorance of the House about a technical matter, with which he affected to be acquainted, the hon. Member told him that he was wrong in saying that certain evaporators primed, and stated that evaporators could not prime. The hon. Member was entirely wrong on that occasion, whilst he himself was entirely right and moreover happened to be perfectly acquainted with every circumstance with regard to those particular evaporators at the time. He asked the Committee not to take the statements of the hon. Member quite at the foot of the letter. The hon. Member had suggested that there had been some underhand work about the Admiralty yacht. He strongly resented the imputation which was put upon him by the hon. Member, and which was none the less an imputation because the hon. Member chose to pretend that he imputed nothing. The yacht was put up to tender, and the same specification was sent out to every one of the firms. Neither the hon. Gentleman the Member for Gateshead nor any other hon. Member, if called upon to decide on a question which depended solely on the appropriateness of a vessel for the purpose for which it was designed and the cost of that vessel, would have come to any other conclusion than that at which the Admiralty were compelled to arrive. The reason the yacht was taken from this particular builder was that it was thousands of pounds less in cost.
§ SIR WILLIAM ALLANIt was smaller.
§ MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid that, small or large, the reason why the yacht was accepted was because it was appropriate to its purpose and light in cost. The hon. Member had raised the question of boilers. The Committee had heard a good deal about that before, and he did not intend to repeat what he had said on a great many other occasions. The hon. Member and he happened to be a good deal in agreement with regard to these boilers, but it was a waste of time to come to the Committee now and revive these dead and buried stories. The hon. Member had spoken of "the boilers which the Admiralty were putting into our ships." The Admiralty were not putting the Belleville boiler into ships; that boiler had been abandoned by the Admiralty for all ships in the Navy. What was the use of the hon. Member getting up and attacking him on the subject of the Belleville boiler?
§ SIR WILLIAM ALLANI am not attacking you.
§ MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid he took responsibility on behalf of the Admiralty. The hon. Member had misled the House and the Committee on this as on almost every other matter on which he had spoken that evening. He had led the Committee to believe that certain boilers were being put into ships when, as he knew perfectly well, they had been discarded. The hon. Member got up as a specialist—he was sometimes tempted to believe that there was only one engineer on the whole of the earth, and that was the hon. Member for Gateshead — and the hon. Member, speaking as a specialist, excited the mirth and approbation of the Committee by saying that these ships burned twice the amount of coal that the old cylindrical-boilered ships did.
§ SIR WILLIAM ALLANSo they do.
§ MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERThe hon. Member had now repeated the statement. It was an exaggeration so gross, so utterly unfounded, that the hon. Member had absolutely no business, even with the liberty which it was customary to accord to him in that Committee, to make such a statement. He had not come across one 770 single statement in the hon. Member's speech which, so far as his information went, had any reference to the facts as they were. The hon. Member said that French battleships and cruisers were being fitted with cylindrical boilers. He believed there was absolutely no foundation whatever for that statement. He had always admitted that the water-tube boiler ships—the Belleville boiler ships—had been extravagant in their consumption of coal; but if any advantage was to be gained by an attack on the policy of using them, or any other policy, that good was neutralised by gross exaggeration, such as they had heard from the hon. Member. The hon. Member also attacked the Admiralty for an alleged under-estimate. He had read the Report of the Public Accounts Committee with great interest and respect; but he held that if any other Department could show that on an expenditure of £31,000,000 there was so little to find fault with they might be proud of it. What was the gravamen of these charges? One charge had reference to an event of fifteen years ago. No one of them had relation to any modern event. The hon. Member had said that there was an under-estimate of £34,000 with regard to a particular ship. That was not so. The under-estimate was in respect of a contribution in aid on a particular Vote, and he submitted that when they were dealing with a sum of £31,000,000 an under-estimate in regard to a contribution in aid of £34,000 was a trivial matter and could not form ground for the attack the hon. Member had made. The hon. Member spoke of the cases of the "Medusa," the "Medea," and the "Hermes" in the extraordinary slapdash style he was wont to adopt. He said the Admiralty had wasted £164,000 on the boilers of those ships. The "Medea" and "Medusa" were two small cruisers which had been running a very long time with cylindrical boilers; but it was decided as a matter of policy, on the authority of men of great experience at the Admiralty, to devote these two ships to experiments with two different classes of boilers, and the old cylindrical boilers were taken out and new boilers were put in. He admitted it was an experiment; but experiments had to be paid for, and he submitted that the price of restoring the boilers in the "Medea" was not excessive when it was considered, in the first place, 771 that by making the experiment they were contributing largely to their knowledge of these boilers, and, in the second place, that they were making the ships eminently fit for service as fast cruisers. The hon. Member had thought fit to lump together the case of the "Medea" and the "Medusa," on the one hand, and that of the "Hermes," on the other. The two cases had no more to do with each other than the moon had to do with the Medway. The "Hermes" broke down badly, and her breakdown was one of the circumstances which led him to distrust and dislike the Belleville boilers. There was no more ardent advocate of the change in the boiler installation of the "Hermes" than himself. He was astonished the hon. Gentleman should use the "Hermes" as a stick to beat him with. He believed that no wiser step had been taken than to put a better class of boiler into that ship. To say that the money had been wasted was to entirely mislead the Committee. The hon. Member had done great service in the House, and was capable of doing more, and he was largely in agreement with him on many matters; but no good purpose was served by these exaggerations and mis-statements. He was prepared to take his stand on this, that in case after case the hon. Member had made statements to the Committee which were absolutely incorrect. He knew these attacks would recur, but he might be blamed if he allowed the hon. Member's exaggerations, of which he was exceedingly conscious, to pass unnoticed, if the hon. Member would ever accept any advice from him, he would moderate his transports and would endeavour to confine his great knowledge and ability to subjects he had followed Out more accurately than those to which he had referred. If he did so he would continue to be an ornament to the debates of the House, instead of, as he thought he had been in this case, a detriment.
§ SIR WILLIAM ALLANsaid the hon. Gentleman had accused him of exaggeration. He only took his stand on the figures given to him in the statement published by the Admiralty itself. In the Appropriation Account the "Hermes," the "Medusa," and the "Medea" were lumped 772 together, and a total sum of money was set against the three. There was no exaggeration on his part. It would not pay him to exaggerate. He knew the hon. Gentleman was omniscient and knew all things. Why, he might command the Channel Fleet. Let him now bring the hon. Gentleman to his senses. As to the "Enchantress," what did Messrs. A. & J. Inglis say? They said that from Mr. Forster's statement any business man would infer that all the Estimates were based on a certain definite specification and design, whereas each firm submitted their own designs and specifications, embodying their conception of the requirements of the Admiralty. He had only quoted the Admiralty's own way of doing business. The Admiralty never asked the firms to tender on one specification alike.
§ MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid the hon. Gentleman was quite wrong. All the firms were invited to tender on a definite specification.
§ SIR WILLIAM ALLANsaid that what the hon. Gentleman called a specification was not a specification at all. He had had more specifications of ships and engines through his hands than the hon. Gentleman. That was only an outline. If Messrs. A. and J. Inglis had been asked to tender for a 3,000 tons ship, he questioned whether their tender would have been more than that of Messrs. Harland and Wolff. He repelled the insinuation that he exaggerated. He did nothing of the kind. The exaggerations were the hon. Gentleman's, who was sitting there as a barrister for the defence of the Admiralty. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the Royal yacht. There was an expense connected with that vessel which ought to be accounted for. If it was not mentioned in the Estimates it ought to be. The hon. Gentleman had called in question what had been said about the consumption of coal on the "Spartiate." He should like to see the diagrams from the engine-room showing what the boat had been doing. The vessel did not go at more than ten knots. She took forty-three days to go to Hong Kong, a distance of 9,600 miles. There was no use holding up the "Spartiate" 773 as a low-consumption boat. He could give the Committee the opinions of Admirals on the whole thing. He supposed the hon. Gentleman thought he had scored off him, but he had not. It was all very well for the hon. Gentleman to come down to the House with a sort of righteous indignation. That was what he was paid for, but facts were facts.
§ MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERasked whether the hon. Member could substantiate the statement that the consumption of coal in certain ships was double that in others.
§ SIR WILLIAM ALLANasked what the "Europa" burned going to Australia, and the "Good Hope" going to the Cape. What did the "Hyacinth," the "Ocean," and the "Glory" burn? He asked the hon. Member to compare the consumption of coal with the indicated horse-power.
§ MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERThe hon. Member does exaggerate grossly. He says they burn double. He is entirely wrong.
§ SIR WILLIAM ALLANsaid that was an easy way to try to shut up a Member, but the day had gone by for minimising facts, more especially with the Navy, the first line of defence. He was surprised that he should be accused of exaggeration. What interest had he in this beyond a desire to see that the Navy, the first line of defence, was capable of doing its work at all times? He took their own figures; and the day had gone past for standing at that box and accusing him of exaggerating. It would not do. Ministers must stand up there and tell the truth. They must let the country know the reason of the increase of their repairs bill. Why was their "Terrible" at Glasgow, their "Canopus" at Laird's, and other boats scattered all over the country? The hon. Gentleman is paid to minimise and hide everything, and not tell the real facts of the case. While he had the honour to be in that House he would vote against that hiding of the truth. The Secretary 774 to the Admiralty had not told the Committee why they took Babcock and Wilcox's boilers without any experience. Were the Admiralty to spend the nation's money without being called in question? He would call them in question every time it was necessary in the interest of the Navy, and while they got ships that could neither steam safely nor well.
§ SIR J. COLOMBsaid the hon. Member for Gateshead showed the true characteristic of the British Navy, for he did not know when he was beaten, and the Secretary to the Admiralty adopted in the debate the principle in naval policy of offensive defence. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would say whether the progress made up to 1st April with regard to the six battleships and eleven armoured cruisers, and so on, which, according to the First Lord's statement, were to be completed this year was satisfactory. Was the progress made during the past few weeks up to what was anticipated? He thought it would be very interesting to know the precise nature of the experiments which were being made in regard to the storage to prevent the deterioration of coal stored all over the world. He also asked whether any further information could be given in regard to the experiments with oil fuel, and whether the smoke difficulty in connection with the use of oil fuel showed any probability of being solved? He further asked whether any information could be given as to the results of the trials of the "Velox"? He wished to know particularly in regard to the progress made with the three submarine boats included in the list of vessels which were to be completed this year. He himself believed that the submarine vessel was mainly of value for defensive purposes. Could any information be given as to whether these vessels were to take the offensive and not the defensive? It was extremely important that the submarine boat should be experimented with in order that its qualifications and efficiency might be tested. It was necessary that they should know how far these vessels were capable of being navigated in varying depths and in tortuous estuaries. Fixed military 775 defences and garrisons presupposed a visible attack, and therefore the nature of the work which the submarine boat would be able to perform had a very important bearing as affecting our military policy, which was costing so much on great fortifications and garrisons.
§ MR. MARKHAM (Nottinghamshire' Mansfield), while acknowledging the past services of the hon. Member for Gateshead on the boiler question, said the Admiralty would have incurred a grave responsibility if they did not now follow the advice of the experts who were consulted. They took the best advice obtainable in the country, and the Report they received from leading engineers was unanimously in favour of the adoption of water-tube boilers in the Navy. Last autumn when he was in America he went very carefully into this question with officers and engineers of the American Navy, and they were unanimously of opinion that our Government had taken the right course in making a combination of cylindrical and water-tube boilers. The hon. Member for Gateshead stated that the coal consumption with water-tube boilers was more than double that with cylindrical boilers. His impression was that in full-speed trials between the "Hyacinth" and the "Minerva" the coal consumption was rather more economical in the "Minerva," and he hoped the Secretary to the Admiralty would give the Committee some information on that point. He could only trust that the Admiralty would pursue the course they had taken, using discretion before they adopted any particular boilers; but he was convinced that a water-tube boiler was necessary for the country.
§ MR. REGINALD LUCASsaid that so far as he was able to judge we were much better off in the matter of rapid ship-building than either France or the United States, but he was not quite so sure that we were as well off in that respect as Germany. There was no doubt that there had been an improvement this year. The matter was most important, and it should be remembered that a saving of time was a saving of 776 money. The motto should be "More-haste, less waste." He thought it would be an assurance to the country if the hon. Gentleman could give the Committee some information as to the "County" class of cruisers.
§ MR. KEARLEYsaid he thought it would not be inopportune if he took the opportunity of congratulating the Admiralty on some judicious reforms which had been carried out as the outcome of suggestions made last year. He, himself, had then stated that it would be advantageous to the Navy if ships built by private contract were completed in the contractor's yard, and not brought round to the Naval Arsenals and subjected to what was termed a process of completion. The latter process had involved a great waste of time and money. The Admiralty had accepted the suggestion, and the ships built in private yards were now completed there. He congratulated the hon. Gentleman on the good results that had accrued from that course to the taxpayers and the Navy generally. Another reform that had taken place was to send ships for repairs to contractors' yards, so as to leave the Government dockyards free for new construction. He, however, wanted to call the attention of the Committee to the basis of the arrangement between the Admiralty and the contractors. He understood that no estimate of the cost of the repairs was given by the contractors beforehand. That was quite contrary to the system which prevailed in the Government yards. An estimate was there made, and consequently the Admiralty knew what the repairs were going to cost. The working basis between the Admiralty and the contractors, he was informed, was that the contractors were permitted to take a profit of 20 per cent. for wear and tear expenses; and over and above that they were assured a clear profit of 10 per cent. That seemed to him to be rather an extravagant arrangement. It would be more economical and businesslike if the contractors were called upon to give an estimate before the repairs were undertaken, for he believed if they were given a free-hand the repairs in the long run would be very costly. He also 777 congratulated the Admiralty on the good progress made in expediting the output of ships and in overtaking arrears of construction since the strike. That was to be attributed largely to the ability and energy of the Controller. That gentleman had also made it his special business to turn out excessive weights from the ships, which enabled him to give greater gun-power, a thing which was much required. In regard to the work carried out in the contract yards, both as to the completion of new ships and as to repairs, the Admiralty were fortunate enough to have obtained the services of a very distinguished man, Captain Jellico, as naval assistant. It was most necessary that the professional staff at the Admiralty should be strengthened, and that men of experience, with a practical knowledge of naval needs, should be employed in superintending the building and repairs in private yards. He would remind the hon. Gentleman that at Devonport next July there would not be a single ship on the slips. Quite an exceptional state of things prevailed in that dockyard, as there was only one ship building there at the present moment. He wanted to ask the hon. Gentleman how he proposed to place his orders for new construction, because it would be rather a serious thing for the Government yards to be short of work. Another question was as to dockyard equipment, so far as regarded machinery. The hon. Gentleman last year had admitted that the equipment was by no means up-to-date, or as efficient as the Admiralty wished to make it. He believed that some additions of modern machinery had been made, much to the benefit of the yards, but there was enormous room for further improvements, both in the machinery and the haulage in the yards. Inferior methods of hauling were very costly, and it would be a most material help if tramlines were laid down throughout the whole of the main avenues in the yards, and also into the workshops.
The Government seemed to have an attachment to lighting their workshops with gas; they did not appear hardly to realise that there was such a thing as electric light. The expense of burning gas 778 was very high, and at this time of day every workshop in the Government establishments should be thoroughly equipped with the electric light. Then most valuable space in the Government dockyards was taken up by great quantities of rummage. It would be more economical to get rid of this rummage rather than store it, and devote the space to more useful purposes. There was no doubt that the men on the constructors' staff in the yards had not opportunities afforded to them of widening the horizon of their knowledge. He thought it would be a good thing for the Admiralty if they afforded the constructors an opportunity of seeing what was going on, not only in this country, but in other countries, where they might obtain ideas of what up-to-date methods meant. He also made the suggestion that the workmen should be invited to submit any idea of improvements in machinery. The spirit of repressing all initiative led to apathy. It was within his own knowledge that the Government had men of ideas in their employment, and if these men were encouraged to submit their ideas in any direction for adoption it would be of the utmost benefit to the service. He had heard that suggestions for improvements which had been made to the chief constructor had not been received with any great favour. It was the practice in America, as well as in most private yards in this country, to give the greatest possible encouragement to workmen to submit the ideas which occurred to them for improvements to their superiors, and that had frequently led to the development of great inventions. The Secretary to the Admiralty, who was a reformer at heart, was to be congratulated on the good work which he had done, and he submitted to him that if the suggestions which he had made were carried out, the result would not be detrimental, but beneficial, to the Admiralty.
§ MR. GROVES (Salford, S.)said it was quite evident that the hon. Member for Gateshead had devoted a considerable amount of time to special matters connected with the Navy, although it was difficult sometimes to discriminate between the point where the 779 hon. Member for Gateshead was naturally carried away by his enthusiastic temperament and the real facts of the case. While he would be the last man in the House to depreciate the enormous amount of good and earnest work which the Secretary to the Admiralty had done, yet he thought the hon. Gentleman might have imparted less heat into the answer he gave to the hon. Member for Gateshead. He wished to ask the hon. Member whether the consumption of coal in the "Minerva" and the "Hyacinth" was identical, and whether the complement of stokers was the same on both ships. They knew that in trials a considerable addition was often made to the complement of the lower deck from the seamen class. Before he sat down he wished to congratulate the Secretary to the Admiralty on the enormous advances which had been made at the Admiralty under his administration.
§ MR. GODDARD (Ipswich)said that anyone who suggested economy in connection with the Navy, laid himself open to criticism, if not to condemnation; but there was one kind of economy which might, with great advantage to the finances of the country, be put into practice without in any way interfering with the efficiency or strength of the Navy. The method of transferring surpluses from one Vote to another was often the cause of considerable extravagance. In connection with the Shipbuilding Vote and the last Appropriation Account, the Public Accounts Committee found that on an original Estimate of £13,802,000, and a Supplementary Estimate of £191,500, there was a surplus of £346,405. But the total amount surrendered on the whole of the Navy accounts was only £94,184, so that, roughly, £250,000, deliberately voted by Parliament for the purposes of shipbuilding had been spent on other Naval Votes altogether. Such a system, he thought, was not conducive to economy. Misapprehension, too, was caused by the form in which the accounts were rendered; they were not sufficiently clear to be properly understood by the ordinary observer. For instance, in the last Appropriation Account on Vote 8, Section 2, there was a deficiency of £16,662. That was 780 a small sum on a very large Vote. But when the figures were examined there was an immense variation. Under different sub-heads there were deficits amounting to £149,500; on four subheads there were savings of £62,755; and there was an excess of appropriations in aid over the Estimate of £70,164; so that the variation, instead of being £16,662, was really £282,497. That was one of the reasons why a more economical working of the Shipbuilding Vote could not be shown. Too often the Estimates were altogether wrong, and even after they had been revised they were exceeded. When once a ship had been begun, there was no means of stopping it; they were obliged to pass the revised Estimates because the ship had to be completed. The Admiralty ought to take steps to see that their Estimates more nearly approximated to the actual cost of the ships. He was not an advocate of any unwise reduction in the expenditure on the Navy, but he was a strong advocate of true economy, and when an estimate for the building of a ship was presented, he thought it ought to be adhered to as nearly as possible, and that when a certain sum of money had been voted for shipbuilding purposes, it was an unwise step to allow any surplus to be used for totally different objects.
§ MR. RUNCIMANunderstood that the Admiralty were making experiments in the use of oil fuel, and he suggested they should be cautious so as to be able to drop it, if necessary, without great expense. The supply of oil fuel was in extremely few hands. A large number of wells in the Far East had recently been acquired by an American trust, and one of the largest lines, which had been practically the pioneer in the use of oil fuel, had been obliged to lay up a large number of their vessels in consequence of their supply of oil being so much restricted by this trust. He hoped, therefore, that the Admiralty, before they committed themselves to the use of oil fuel in any of their ships, would be sure they had sufficient supplies, to prevent any irrevocable mistake being made. Although he could not endorse in detail all the hon. Member for Gateshead had said, there were matters in 781 his speech on which further inquiries were desirable. Had the Secretary considered how badly the ships of the Navy compared in point of consumption of coal with the ideal set before Mercantile Marine engineers of 1 lb. per i.h.p. per hour? An exact analogy between the Merchant Service and the Navy in this respect was, of course, impossible, but of the vessels added last year the "Russell's" consumption worked out at 2.09 lb. per i.h.p. per hour, the "Exmouth's" at 2.13, which was more than double the ideal of the Merchant Service. Only one vessel came anywhere near the Merchant Service minimum, and it would be interesting if the hon. Gentleman could give some explanation of the fact. One could not help seeing that behind the powerful denunciations of the hon. Member for Gateshead there was a great deal of truth. One of the things that made those who were watching the trials of His Majesty's ships anxious was the fact that a vessel seldom went on a trial without having a serious breakdown. Whatever might be the cause of that, it ought to be cured sooner or later. He suggested that it was due to the fact that the naval architect invariably put too much pressure on the engine builder, with the result that he had been compelled to lower the engine weights below the point of safety. That was very poor economy, and it did not tend to the efficiency of the various vessels. He hoped that under the régime of Mr. Phillip Watts, whose appointment to the Admiralty the whole country greeted with satisfaction and confidence, this state of things would be altered. With regard to the suggestion of the hon. Member for Devonport, he might mention that Germany last year sent a Commission to all the large private shipbuilding yards in the United Kingdom and the United States to acquire information for use in their own service. Without altogether following the German model, he thought that perhaps the Admiralty might take a hint from Germany in that respect.
§ MR. DUKE (Plymouth)said it had been stated that the Admiralty had no plans at present for laying down any 782 new ships at Devonport Dockyard. Up to the present the shipbuilding there had been carried on satisfactorily, the ships having been completed mostly within the programme time and in some cases under the estimate. Unless a new ship was laid down when the "King Edward VII." was launched, the very extensive plant at Devonport would be idle, except for repairs, a result which would be looked at with some apprehension by the people of the district. He desired to ask, therefore, whether there was any prospect of a ship being laid down at Devonport within any reasonable period after the completion of the one now being built
§ MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid he did not agree with the hon. Member for Ipswich that any substantial economy could be effected by the plan he proposed, that every allocation for the Navy should be stereotyped, and that if it were found impossible to apply the money to the particular purpose named it should go back to the Exchequer. That would be a very undesirable result. It was the considered opinion of many Parliaments that the Admiralty should be allowed to apply money which was found not to be applicable to one purpose to another, provided that the sanction of the Treasury was given. That sanction was always asked for, and he believed invariably obtained. They could not in practice carry out these allocations to their final conclusion with absolute certainty. They could not prophesy a war in China, or a strike, or the breakdown of a particular contractor.
His hon. friend the Member for South Salford had reproached him for using perhaps too much heat in answering his hon. friend the Member for Gateshead. He regretted that he should think so, but perhaps his hon. friend hardly felt as he did how serious it was that misstatements of this kind should be made in the House of Commons. Statements which had not the slightest foundation, when made in that House, would be regarded as having some substance; and it he had shown undue heat he regretted it, but it must be set down to his zeal for the Service. He believed his hon. friend would himself speak with some heat, if he were face to face with 783 statements such as those with which he had to deal. To take one example—the hon. Member for Gateshead declared that £2,200,000 had been paid by the Admiralty to a French firm in respect of certain boilers. There was not the slightest foundation for that statement. Apart from the royalties, of which the hon. Member had spoken separately, not one single brass farthing had been paid by the Admiralty to any French firm in respect of any of these boilers. The statement in itself was, of course, absurd, but he knew that it would be disseminated all over the country, and that it would come back to him as an accepted article of belief. Statements of this kind were calculated to do much harm, and he could not accept them without demur. In reply to the question of the hon. Member for Dewsbury in regard to oil fuel, he could assure him that the Admiralty were fully aware of the grounds for proceeding with great caution in the matter. It was a fascinating, but a very difficult subject, and the circumstances which the hon. Member had brought to their notice were not unknown to the Admiralty. The questions with regard to the sources from which oil could be supplied were important indeed. They were now continuing their experiments in the use of oil fuel, and they had been, on the whole, a success. Both in regard to the efficiency of oil as compared with coal and the diminution of smoke, there had undoubtedly been progress. But the hon. Member might reassure himself that there was no danger of the Admiralty's committing themselves so far in the matter of oil as to make it impossible to withdraw. Should the use of oil be found, for one reason or another—and there might be many reasons—to be undesirable they would be able to resume the use of coal, not only in ships in general, but in the ships fitted for oil purposes; and if at anytime there should be a breakdown in the installation in any ship they would be able at once to resort to the use of coal. He did not propose to go further into the question of submarines beyond saying that the Admiralty were satisfied with the progress which had been made with the boats made at Barrow and now being tested at Portsmouth. He had been asked for some reassurance on the important question of the rate of shipbuilding. He 784 fully admitted that that was a very important question which the Committee of the House of Commons had not only a right, but almost a duty, to press on the Admiralty. He was glad to say that they were very sanguine that the difficulties which had been so serious in the past were not likely to recur in the future. On the contrary, so far from there being any undue delay anticipated, they believed that the delays which they thought would be inevitable in the case of the ships of the "County" class, postponed owing to alterations in the armour and difficulties in reaching a decision as to the type of boiler, would be overcome, and that in some cases there would be no final delay in the delivery of the ships. The hon. Member for Devonport had alluded to the great services of the present Controller, both in furthering the rapidity and construction in the dockyards and in initiating and conducting reforms in the matter of weights carried on our ships. He believed a great deal was to be gained by a reduction of weights, which were involved in the carrying on board ship of non-essential articles, and he was certain that the inquiry and the execution of any work which might result from it could not be entrusted to better hands than those of the present Controller of the Navy.
The hon. Members for Plymouth and Devonport had asked him a question with regard to a matter which affected that port very closely—viz., whether it was proposed to lay down any new ships at Keyham or Devonport this year. He had to say that the Admiralty did not intend to do so. The whole scheme of shipbuilding for the Navy had to be very carefully considered, and the allocation of ships to dockyard or contract establishments was decided by what were believed to be the general interests of the Navy. But he could reassure the hon. Members in one respect, for if they would consult the Navy Estimates they would find that the provision for these dockyards was not only not diminished but was increased in the ensuing year. The Admiralty would find ample work for the whole of the establishment of Keyham and Devonport dockyards, and 785 though he would never pledge himself to the principle that the Admiralty were not entitled, in the interests of the public service, at any time to discharge men from the dockyards, in this case, he was glad to say, there appeared to be no necessity for any discharges such as the hon. Member feared. The hon. Member had called his attention to the question of the machinery in the dockyards; that was a very important matter indeed, and one which had engaged the attention of the Admiralty very closely. He did not think hon. Members realised how much bad already been done, or whit large sums had been spent during the last few years in improving the machinery of the dockyards. There had been, speaking from his own experience, extending over a period of twenty years, almost a revolution in regard to the machinery in the dockyards, although there remained a large margin to be made up. But he was very sanguine that before many months they would be in a position to tell the House that they were able to contemplate the entire recreation of the dockyards as efficient naval establishments. He had seen enough of the manufacture of ships to know that the truest economy lay in the efficiency and perfection of their machinery. They were contemplating the introduction of electrical installation in all the dockyards, which they believed would enormously tend to economy by the centralisation of their sources of power; they would obtain the convenience of electric light coupled with the economy that would be derived from the power of transmitting weights from one place to another by electric traction.
He had been asked whether they were taking adequate steps to control their new departure in the matter of completing and repairing ships by contract in the contract yards. This he could say, that whatever might be the ultimate result of the experiment,—and at present they had not had sufficient experience to justify them in forming an opinion—it had relieved them from a congestion of the dockyards, it had enabled them to do work that could not have been contemplated under any other circumstances; and, as far as they had been able at present to investigate, the work was being turned out in a manner 786 that would prove very satisfactory to the comfort and health of the officers and men of the ships. With regard to the question of cost, these were perhaps too early days to form a definite opinion; but at any rate he could say that the prices of repairing ships in the contract yards had been such as not to deter them from continuing the experiment. Weighing in the balance the advantages gained and the cost, they were convinced that they would gain considerably by continuing this experiment. The hon. Member for Dewsbury made some remarks, with which he had great sympathy, with regard to the question of the engine machinery of our ships. He thought the hon. Member had perhaps exaggerated a little in regard to the amount of coal consumed in relation horse-power, although he knew the hon. Member spoke as an expert. He thought, however, that although 1 lb. might be the ideal, 1.4 lbs. was nearer the actual minimum consumption in merchant steamers. He thought the hon. Member must be aware that the circumstances did not allow them to predicate the same results from a marine engine for a warship as in the case of a mercantile marine. He would point out, however, that there had been a very considerable reduction in the coal consumption on the ships as they were running now. He confessed he should like to see a greater return to the longer stroke and the larger engine, if the circumstances of marine construction would allow it. He had great confidence in the resource of the Director of Naval Construction, and believed that whatever engineering science was capable of accomplishing in this direction would be accomplished. But, as the hon. Member knew, the stress put upon the engines in the engine-room of a modern man-of-war was tremendous, and it was astounding what efficiency there was in the engines of a warship, considering the enormous task they had to perform in a limited space.
With regard to the suggestion of the hon. Member for Devonport that our dockyard officials should visit home and foreign dockyard establishments more frequently, he would say that very little went on in the great engineering establishments which, in one way or another, was not brought under the 787 notice of those who were concerned with naval construction. He believed a great deal was to be got from the initiative and ingenuity of those employed in engineering work, and it was not a new idea to him that they should ask those thus engaged to contribute their ideas from time to time. He did not want hon. Members to think that the scientific departments of the Admiralty in these matters were ill-equipped, which he knew they were not, or that they were non-receptive of suggestions. He believed that in regard to all the matters raised in the course of the debate there was a considerable amount of real progress. He had been asked a question with regard to the coal consumption of the water-tube and the cylindrical boilers. It was perfectly impossible for him to give the coal consumption of the very large number of ships, over 500, unequally divided between these two systems, but he happened to have before him the coal consumption of two ships that recently ran out to Gibraltar under precisely the same conditions of speed—the "Hyacinth' and the "Minerva." The "Hyacinth" and the "Minerva" ran out under 7,000 horse-power from Plymouth to Gibraltar. The coal consumption of the "Hyacinth" was 2.10 lb. per indicated horse-power, and of the "Minerva" 1.97 lb. per indicated horse power. There was, therefore, a very slight difference, but the advantage was in favour of the cylindrical boiler.
MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid he had rarely heard a more fruitful and useful discussion on the Navy than they had had that night, or a more ample answer than that just supplied by the hon. Gentleman. He wished to refer to the appropriation of money voted for the Admiralty for one purpose to another purpose. He looked on this as a serious abuse, and as involving an entire departure from the system of finance laid down by the Act of 1866. It had been done in the War Office, and, to his knowledge, from experience gained on the Public Accounts Committee, they had been deprived of the power of tracing millions. As to the use of oil fuel, which he brought to the attention of the House as long ago as 1893, he had a suspicion that those concerned in 788 the experiments had not tried to succeed. He had always held the firm conviction that the use of oil on board ship would be of enormous advantage, especially in the case of torpedo-destroyers, for they would he able to get rid of the smoke and would not require stokers. But with their experiments the Admiralty had gone on, year after year, failing, while the mercantile marine had gone on, year after year, succeeding. If they could not get the oil in this country, he should admit that that was a serious reason against using it. But we had large quantities of shale in this country stretching from sea to sea. It began at King's Lynn, where there were 600 feet of it, and reached to Portland. He did not know whether the whole of the shale at King's Lynn was oil-producing, but large portions of it were. He should like to know whether the Admiralty had made experiments with some of it.
§ MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERYes.
MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid he was glad to hear that. It showed that the hon. Gentleman was not inaccessible to good ideas. He thought there had been some slackness in adopting the turbine. It was no longer an experiment. The hon. Member for Dumbarton had constructed three vessels which had been an unqualified success. The turbine was a beautiful engine, and had a most smooth motion. He thought turbines might be fitted to large vessels as well as destroyers.
§ MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERWe are fitting them to a cruiser and to a destroyer.
MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid he was glad to hear that. He trusted that the question of fitting them to battleships would be considered. The advantages were enormous, and it was much easier to get them below the water-line.
§ SIR WILLIAM ALLANsaid the French battleships which he mentioned earlier in the debate as having multi-tubular boilers were the "Democratic," the "Justice," and the "Vérité." There 789 were also two first-class cruisers. With regard to the £2,200,000, in October, 1898, Belleville boilers were ordered for forty-one ships, representing 577,700 indicated horse-power. Taking the average, that represented sixty ships boilered and to be boilered, the price being from £2 10s. to £2 12s. per indicated horse-power. If the Secretary to the Admiralty would multiply that he would arrive at the total he had given.
§ MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid he was not good at sums, but he knew that not one penny of the sum referred to had gone abroad, but that, all the boilers were made by British makers, which made a very great difference. The hon. Gentleman led the House to believe that this money had been paid to a French firm, but there was no foundation whatever for that statement. With regard to the French battleships and cruisers, his information was contrary to that obtained by the hon. Member, but these vessels had not been begun. When they were begun they might receive a different kind of boiler. It had only just been decided by the French Chamber that the vessels should be proceeded with.
§ MR. CREANthought that in many ways the Admiralty could effect economy, and at the same time maintain efficiency. Within the last few days he had received a communication from the only southern port in Ireland capable of executing any work for the Government, and that information was to the effect that one of the ships there had been ordered off to a dockyard in another part of Ireland which was already congested with work. He thought this was a great injustice to 790 the district he represented, for at the port he referred to warships had been repaired to the satisfaction of the Admiralty, and it was a great hardship that those vessels should be taken away from that port, and sent long distances by sea to dockyards which did not want the work. The transfer of this warship from Cork Harbour to Belfast was an extraordinary state of things. He was not speaking as the advocate for any private firm, but he thought it would be to the advantage of the Admiralty to have auxiliary docks in this part of Ireland to execute their own work. If the Admiralty would encourage dockyards which were capable and willing to execute repairs, and give such dockyards in Ireland a fair share of the money allocated for this work, it would be to the advantage of this country in the end. The dockyard to which he referred was for many years derelict until this English firm took it up. He understood that this Government work was done by schedule, and therefore he was not asking for any preferential treatment. Not only was this particular dockyard capable of executing Admiralty work, but he complained that the quantity of work given to this firm was of such a niggardly character that it was not worth having. There was no complaint of the inefficiency of work done by this firm, and he hoped the Secretary to the Admiralty would consider these facts and not treat them differently to other dockyards. The Government were now initiating a new policy to try and keep the Irish peasantry at home, and they should at east try and help other industries and see that Ireland had fair play in the gigantic race that was going on in the commercial world. He hoped that in 791 future they would receive fair play, and that a fair proportion of work would be given to them. Ireland contributed its fair share to the taxation of the United Kingdom, and the colonies could not compare with Ireland in regard to the amount of money they were contributing towards the upkeep of the Navy. Therefore, he thought they ought to get a fair proportion of that money back in their own country. He asked the Admiralty not to take vessels out of Cork harbour and send them to Devonport and Liverpool.
§ SIR FORTESCUE FLANNERYsaid he wished to correct a mistake which appeared to have been made by the hon. Member for King's Lynn in regard to liquid fuel. He knew that within the last few years the Admiralty, under the energetic guidance of Lord Selborne, had been dealing with this question with energy and with every possible skill. His hon. friend had stated that the Mercantile Marine had been using liquid fuel with success, and that was absolutely true. He wished to point out, however, that the conditions under which vessels in the Mercantile Marine were worked were entirely different to vessels in the Navy. In the Mercantile Marine considerations of weight and space were of almost no importance, or at any rate that consideration was considerably less than in the crowded machinery room of a warship. There was three times the quantity of space in the vessels of the Mercantile Marine as compared with battleships and destroyers. On account of the confined space these difficulties had arisen. He believed that the experiments the Admiralty were making were in the right direction, and 792 they had now gone far towards solving the difficulties. Speaking from practical experience upon this question of liquid fuel, he thought the Admiralty were doing the country a great service and advancing the cause of science, and very shortly they would overcome the difficulties. He did not think they deserved the censure which his hon. friend had passed upon them. The vessels in the mercantile service had followed the first experiments made under the care of the Admiralty in regard to the use of turbine engines. The chief difficulty was that they were enormously wasteful in coal consumption, and he thought it would be found that their wastefulness would stand very much in their way; nevertheless, for vessels where speed and economy of weight and machinery were of first importance, the use of turbines was an enormous advance. Upon these points of liquid fuel and the use of turbines, he thought the Admiralty were showing the greatest possible progressiveness, and their enlightened policy deserved the appreciation of the House.
§ CAPTAIN DONELANsaid he represented a constituency which included a considerable area of Cork Harbour, and he wished to support the claim made by his hon. friend on behalf of the South of Ireland in regard to the Admiralty work to private yards. He considered that warships ought to be sent over to Ireland, provided that the work could be done as cheaply and satisfactorily as in English dockyards. With reference to this particular dockyard, neither his hon. friend nor himself had the slightest personal interest in it. They made this claim solely on behalf of the South of Ireland, which possessed a very well-equipped private yard; he 793 knew that any small work which had been given to this private company had been carried out very satisfactorily. An opportunity now arose of sending work to private firms, not under contract but at scheduled prices. Why should this dock not be given some share of the work? He thought that the claim was a very reasonable one. He had not the least objection to Belfast getting any amount of work, but he claimed that the South of Ireland was entitled to a share of Admiralty work. The private firm to which he alluded had expended a considerable sum of money in the development of this dockyard and they were paying about £1,500 a week in wages. That amount of money spent in a poor district in Ireland was a very important matter, and he thought this firm were entitled to some encouragement for being plucky enough to sink such a largo amount of money in a dockyard in Ireland. He hoped the Secretary to the Admiralty would give this matter his favourable consideration.
§ MR. MARKHAMasked what was the consumption per indicated horse-power guaranteed in these turbines which had been fitted in the torpedo destroyer he had mentioned.
§ MR. REGINALD LUCASasked for some information about the "County" class of vessels.
§ MR. FLYNN (Cork, N.)said that upon former occasions Irish representatives had thought it their duty to call attention to the claims of Ireland upon this question, and they had succeeded in getting some small recognition of the fact that a small share of the enormous amount spent 794 upon the Navy should be expended in some parts of Ireland. They had succeeded in getting something, and perhaps should be thankful for small mercies. But the question raised by his hon. friend with reference to the unfair treatment meted out to the Passage Docks was an entirely different matter, He found there was an increase of £576,000 for repairs; and it seemed to him very singular that the year in which the estimates jumped up to that extent should be the very year in which the Government sent work away from Cork Harbour. They had no interest in the Passage Docks or in the particular company owning them, except a public interest. The Company had sunk a very large amount of capital, and had given considerable employment; and their work, on their own showing, was as good as could be obtained at any other yard. In the circumstances it was a very unfair proceeding on the part of the Admiralty to send this ship to be repaired at Belfast. The Passage Docks was on the Admiralty list, was thoroughly well equipped, the management was enterprising and active, and claimed that they were in a position to do the work at the same price as any other private yard. That being so, he was puzzled to understand the action taken by the Admiralty. A short time ago the Passage Docks Company under took work of a very difficult and costly character on the east coast of Africa. A large ship was burned nearly to the water's edge. The company sent out a crew, brought the hulk back, and repaired it so well that it was classed A1 at Lloyds and sold for a large sum. A company which could do that could certainly repair a Government ship; and he thought he 795 was amply justified in making a protest and asking the Admiralty to reconsider the matter.
MR. ARNOLD-FOPSTERsaid he did not think there was any reason for alarm with regard to the ships of the "County" class. He did not know to what his hon. friend referred, unless it was the failure of some of the ships to attain the high speed of twenty-three knots on their trials. They had attained a very high speed, but the Admiralty were not satisfied, and he believed that by changing the screws a speed of twenty-three knots would eventually be obtained. Apart from that the ships had given satisfaction. In reply to the hon. Member for North East Cork, he thought the hon. Member did not feel as much surprise as he would have the Committee believe. He himself was very familiar with the character of the yard referred to, as he had caused inquiries to be made into its capabilities. A certain amount of work had been given to the yard. Of course, it was practically a new yard; but the Admiralty were sufficiently satisfied with the work done to be able to inform the Company, as they did a few days ago, that the capabilities of the yard were understood, and that its claims for receiving Admiralty work would be considered. The hon. Gentleman might spare himself the trouble of applying any pressure, because, as long as he had anything to do with the Admiralty, the distribution of the work would depend on only one consideration—namely, what was best in the interests of the Navy. There was no unwillingness, on the contrary there was a disposition, to take every opportunity that the peculiarities of the yard would allow, to make use of it. The 796 Admiralty were very glad that the yard was there, but it must not expect to obtain all at once the amount of Admiralty work which the older yards obtained. With reference to the question asked by the hon. Member for the Mansfield Division, the "Velox" was the only boat fitted with reciprocating and turbine engines. The consumption of coal on the "Velox" was at first very formidable, but it had been now reduced to more satisfactory proportions, and it was hoped that it would be reduced still further. He could not give particulars with respect to the other two turbine vessels, as they were still under construction.
§ MR EDMUND ROBERTSONsaid they had had a long and very exacting day, and he would suggest that the Vote be now taken, and that Rrogress be reported.
§ MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid he had no objection; but he thought it was understood that, as they had been discussing the two Votes together they would, as a corollary, vote on them together. He could not possibly pledge himself to have a discussion on Section 3.
§ MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONsaid he quite understood that.
§ Resolution to be reported upon Monday next; Committee to sit again to-morrow.