§ 1. £3,646,000, Naval Armaments.
MR. GIBSON BOWLES (Lynn Regis)said he wished to call attention to the question of the gunning of the new armoured cruisers. No doubt any considerable, alteration in naval gunning would involve an alteration in the designs of the vessels. On this question he very much regretted the absence of the Secretary for War, who had always been his leader in that matter. It was of the utmost importance that armoured cruisers should be amply gunned, but, as a matter of fact, every one of our armoured cruisers, and our unarmoured cruisers too, had been, and was still, absurdly under-gunned. In his opinion gunning was of greater importance to armoured cruisers than even to battleships. A cruiser was able to maintain its distance from a battleship, and, if provided with a very heavy gun, would be capable of engaging and perhaps defeating many of the battleships afloat. If a cruiser was under-gunned it could only make use of its speed for the purpose of getting away. The recent experience of Japan showed the enormous effect that heavy guns might produce upon a fortress when they were handled with the very great skill which the Japanese had shown in their naval engagements; and in the bombardment 28 of Port Arthur it would have been immaterial whether cruisers or battleships were employed, provided the cruisers were fitted with sufficiently heavy guns. No one at the Admiralty now denied the importance of putting in our cruisers the heaviest possible guns consistent with their other requirements. Of course, he was not unaware of the conditions of shipping, and the necessity for making provision for coal and ammunition. But in regard to our armoured cruisers we were further behind the Japanese than we were in respect of our battleships, of which our two best were those we had recently bought from Chili. He was specially alluding to the "Argyll" class of cruisers, which were originally designed for 6-inch guns. It was now proposed to add four 7.5 guns, one forward on the centre line, one aft on the centre line, and one on each side. That was altogether an inadequate provision. He suggested that they should leave the 6-inch guns, but should substitute 9.2 guns for the 7.5 guns. He trusted that before any further progress was made with these cruisers, Mr. Watt, the present Constructor and Designer of the Navy, would be let loose to revolutionise, if need be, the whole of the designs of Sir William White.
§ * MR. REGINALD LUCAS (Portsmouth)asked the Secretary to the Admiralty what the Admiralty were doing or intended to do with regard to the encouragement of efficiency in the use of torpedoes. A great deal had been said of the necessity of improving the shooting of the Navy, and during the last year or two great improvement had been made, on which they could congratulate themselves. There was to-day in the papers a very interesting letter describing what took place at Chemulpho, where two Russian ships were destroyed, and he had received a letter from the FarEast supplementing the information which was given. In the late war between Japan and China five ships were sunk by torpedoes, and none, so far as known, by gun fire. In the present war five ships had already been sunk by torpedoes, but none so far as known by gun fire. It followed from this that, however necessary it might be to have our shooting effective, it was not less necessary to have the management 29 of torpedoes in the highest possible state of efficiency. The question which suggested itself to him was whether persons of the various ratings of the Navy-received sufficient encouragement in studying and perfecting themselves in the use of torpedoes. The two points which he thought arose out of the naval engagements in the Far East were (1) the very great interest those who considered naval matters ought to take in perfecting as far as they could the use of torpedoes among our ships; (2) whether anything could be done to increase the protection afforded to those fighting on the upper decks. Another very notable point which he thought ought to be borne in mind was that the officers on Russian ships became so deaf that the voice tubes for giving orders were useless. These were points which directly affected the arming of our ships, and it would be gratifying if the Secretary to the Admiralty could give him some information upon them.
§ * SIR CHARLES DILKE (Gloucestershire, Forest of Dean)said the point raised by the hon. Member for King's Lynn was one which had been raised by the present Secretary for War year after year, and some increase in the gun power of our cruisers had recently been made, no doubt in consequence of the presence of the right hon. Gentleman at the Admiralty. With regard to the gunning of battleships, there was no tendency, so far as the account showed, to increase the calibre of the guns. We were spending more money on guns this financial year than we spent last year, but the increase was almost entirely upon 6-inch guns. That was a fact that required some explanation.
§ * THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. PRETYMAN)said these were partly for the Mercantile Cruisers.
§ * SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid there was no building of 7.5-inch guns, which were the guns which, in the case of foreign Governments, were very rapidly taking the place of the 6-inch guns. We had only four 7.5-inch guns to be completed in this year, but there was nothing shown with regard to the future. It would be gratifying if the Secretary to the Admiralty could make any statement on this 30 point. We ought to be able to gain a good deal of experience as to gunnery and gunpowder from the Russo-Japanese War. We were, at this moment, introducing an improved cordite. It was impossible for the House of Commons to say what that improved cordite might be worth, but it made them a little uneasy when they read, year after year, the comments upon our gunpowder of foreign Governments, all of whom thought they had a better gunpowder than we had. He hoped the Admiralty might be able to gain information as to what was the value, in practice, of the Japanese high explosive for the contents of shells, which was a new powder and one which was not used by any other Power. An enormous sum of money was being spent—rightly, as he thought—upon sending British generals to watch the Japanese military operations; but, so far as they knew, nothing of a corresponding nature had been done in order to inform the House and the country as to the character of the Japanese naval operations, which were of far greater importance to us and which might have a much closer bearing on our future policy than the military operations. No doubt the Admiralty had taken such steps, but they had not heard of them. He thought the Committee would be specially interested to learn that the Admiralty were taking, or had taken, steps to acquaint themselves with this new Japanese high explosive and its action in war.
§ * SIR JOHN COLOMB (Great Yarmouth)referring to the observations of the right hon. Member for the Forest of Dean with regard to the estimate for military attaches to the Japanese Army, and to his comments as to the absence of a similar provision on the part of the Navy, said he thought the Committee should have more information as to what the Admiralty had done, or was doing, to gather up all the knowledge necessary to guide us, from the practical experience of the Japanese. It must be plain to everyone that our policy was to retain superiority at sea, and, that being so, it was of the utmost importance that any war in which we might be engaged should be brought to a conclusion as speedily as possible. The logical result of our policy was that we should maintain a Navy 31 sufficient to bottle up in their harbours the ships of our enemy, but we must also reach them in their hiding-places; and unless we developed high angle fire it was impossible to reach ships when in hiding. He thought his hon. friend should give some information as to what the Admiralty were doing in the way of investigating the possibilities of increasing high angle fire. So far as he could see, this Vote must increase with the increase of the Navy and increased cost of production; but there was one thing with regard to which he had never been quite clear, and that was whether the Admiralty were providing sufficient reserve of ordnance and fittings for our Fleet at the different stations. A good deal had no doubt been done but he would be glad to know to what extent the reserve of guns, naval armaments generally, and necessary fittings had been increased. Had there been any definite standard to work to? because it must be remembered that the shortness of the life of our guns was unavoidable. With regard to the lessons which might be drawn from the Japanese War, he did not think the time had yet arrived to be dogmatic on the subject, although it was quite certain there had been some most valuable proofs which would, and must, dispose of many vague theories. Any hon. Member who wished to be informed upon this point should read that most valuable book, "The Surgical and Medical History of the Naval War between Japan and China." The hon. Member for Portsmouth had asked for increased protection for the personnel, and both he and the hon. Member for King's Lynn proposed to increase weights. Something must be given up, and, inasmuch as the probable loss of life in proportion to the matériel was steadily decreasing, our real difficulty was not loss of life, but damage to ships and paralysis of ships through damage and although reasonable protection ought to be giver to the personnel where possible, he (Sir John) would sacrifice nothing in ships' efficiency in matériel to try and secure what was an impossibility namely immunity from loss of life on board ship in time of war. He would have an ample reserve of guns and fittings.
§ MR. KEARLEY (Devonport)said there was one direction in which the Admiralty had been very culpable with regard to the efficiency of guns. There were, according to his information, many of our best ships with quick-firing guns fitted with the old, slow breech movement of three-lever action, whereas in the modern quick-firing guns there was only a one-lever action, and the speed was consequently increased. But what was worse, was, that in ships that had been recently refitted, the "Endymion" and the "Theseus," this old, obsolete breech action was still being used, necessitating a great sacrifice of gun-power which might be remedied with a very small outlay. Another thing which affected the efficiency of our gunnery was that many ships still carried the old muzzle-loading 9-pounder guns instead of 12-pounder breech-loading guns. That was a question which had been raised many times, and the House had frequently been assured of the deletion of these guns; nevertheless some of our ships were still carrying them. The sighting of the guns was the most vital part of gunnery efficiency. He was told that the sights of most of the ships' guns were hopelessly wrong, and that it was impossible to work with the present sights with any degree of certainty. He understood that the matter of sighting wanted a thorough overhauling, and it had been suggested to him that there should be a Committee appointed of the very best gunnery experts in the Navy. The results on the "Majestic," for instance, were the outcome of the energy of the gunnery instructor and gunnery lieutenant. The Admiralty were quite aware of these deficiencies, but he thought the House would be interested to know what the Admiralty were doing to improve the sighting of the guns.
§ MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON (Dundee)said this was an exceedingly large Vote, amounting this year to £3,646,000, an increase on last year of about £500,000. That was a matter which the Committee at large could appreciate far better than the technical questions of gunnery which were relevant to the Vote. He did not propose to oppose the Government in this matter; he merely wished to call attention to this fact to prove the truth 33 of the generalisation that everything depended on the Shipbuilding Vote. If the Committee compared that Vote with what it was ten years ago, they would find that it had risen from £1,500,000 to nearly £4,000,000, while the cost of new construction had risen by £1,250,000 in the same period. Every increase of the Shipbuilding Vote must of necessity increase all other Votes, because, having increased the ships, the Admiralty must increase the crews and find money to pay them. The Secretary to the Admiralty would be bound to say that the enormous figures he was now asking for in respect of armaments were purely consequential on the enormous Shipbuilding Vote of last year. If it was true that this Armaments Vote was consequential on the other, what was the use of the Committee criticising any Vote except that for shipbuilding? How could they challenge the details of any Vote of this kind before they had challenged the Shipbuilding Vote, which was the only one which could be effectively criticised. The question of depôts for stores came up year after year, and it would be satisfactory to the Committee if the Secretary to the Admiralty could give some explanation on that subject. Another point to which he wished to draw attention was the item called "Appropriations in Aid," which included the contributions from India, Australia, and South Africa. These contributions were very small—so small, in fact, that it might be said that the Empire outside the United Kingdom had paid only 1 per cent. of the whole cost of the Navy. He should like to know on what principle these contributions were apportioned in the different Votes. Cape Colony contributed £60,000, and of that £200 was included in the Armaments Vote, while of the Australian contributions, supposed to be specially applicable to the maintenance of the Australian squadron, only £60 went into that Vote. He had been struck by the extreme difference between the proportions of the Australian and South African contributions, and would like to have some explanation in regard to it.
§ * MR. PRETYMANsaid he welcomed the discussion which had taken place upon this Vote, which was really one of the most important items in the Navy 34 Estimates. Captain Mahan had described a ship of war as merely an exaggerated gun-carriage; in other words, the ship existed to carry the guns, and therefore a discussion on the guns provided for the Navy was of the first importance, and overrode every other subject in this Vote. It was a highly technical subject, but he would point out that the question of under-gunning raised what was, after all, the real question—namely, the relative importance of the different factors which had to be considered in the construction of a ship of war. It was true, as a general principle, that when two cruisers met in combat the cruiser which had the most guns and the heaviest guns would win; but that could not always be held to be true, because there were other factors besides the number, calibre, and even range of the guns which had great influence in determining the issue of the conflict, and these factors had to be taken into account in the construction of the ship which was meant to fight at a high rate of speed, and it was necessary that the guns of a cruiser should be such as would enable it to be fought properly at a high rate of speed. He admitted that the gunning of our cruisers, especially cruisers of the improved "County" class, required explanation. The "County" class included ships of two distinct periods, namely, ten ships of the "Kent" class, carrying fourteen 6-inch guns, also the "Devonshire" class, consisting of the "Devonshire," the "Hampshire," the "Argyll," the "Roxburgh," the "Antrim," and the "Carnarvon," of which the armament was two 7.5 guns and ten 6-inch guns, and the more modern and powerful "Warrior" class, consisting of the "Duke of Edinburgh," the "Black Prince," the "Warrior," the "Achilles." The "Natal," and the "Cochrane." the armament for which, as originally designed, was six 9.2 guns and ten 6-inch guns. There was also the "Drake" class from which a certain amount of experience had been derived. While referring to that experience, combined with the experience derived from long-range practice in the Mediterranean, he might say that there were at present two Committees on gunnery sitting, but they were not Admiralty Committees. One Committee was sitting with the Mediterranean Fleet 35 and the other with the Channel Fleet, and they were composed of sailors actually serving with the squadrons. It was obviously better that the Committee should consist of practical sailors who were able to judge from personal experience the results of the daily firing rather than of theoretical experts assisted by naval authorities who could not view or take part in the experiments, and these Committees, so composed, were sitting to consider the questions on gunnery which the Admiralty were constantly referring to them. Long-range firing, which was 6ne of the subjects actually under consideration, required great command of the gun. The command of the maindeck guns of the improved "County" and "Duke of Edinburgh" classes, like that of the original "County" and "Drake" classes, was only about ten feet, which, in practice, was not found to be sufficient for thoroughly effective long-range firing. Move over, on cruisers where it was necessary to use the guns while travelling at high speeds, the insufficient command of the guns rendered their effective use impossible if there was any sea on, by reason of the great volume of water thrown over the gun ports. As to the calibre of the guns, the Admiralty thoroughly recognised the desirability of having, wherever possible, 7.5 rather than .inch guns, and, taking all these matters into consideration, they had decided, after consultation with gunnery experts, and prolonged discussion, to make certain alterations in the armaments of the ships. In the "Devonshire" class, the two 7.5 guns would remain, but the four forward 6-inch guns would be replaced by two 7.5 guns in gun houses on the upper deck, one on each side, with a command of 19 feet instead of 10 feet.
MR. GIBSON BOWLESasked whether there would be three 7.5 guns capable of being fired on the same broadside—three and no more?
§ * MR. PRETYMANsaid that that was the case. The two new 7.5 guns would have a great, angle fire—from ahead to well abaft the beam, but not across ship. The six 6-inch guns would be left three on each side, so that there would be three 6-inch and three 7.5 guns on each broadside. Changes were projected 36 also in the "Warrior" class. The "Duke of Edinburgh" and the "Black Prince" were so far advanced that the cost of the alterations would be prohibitive; consequently they would retain the armament for which they were designed, except that the projection forward would be abolished, and the guns would be able to fire only on the broadside. It was considered more advantageous to do away with the projection than to retain the a head fire of the forward 6-inch guns. In the remaining four ships of this class, the ten 6-inch guns would be replaced by four 7.5 guns. There would be no maindeck armament at all; the guns would all be mounted on the upper deck with a command of 19 feet instead of 10 feet. The number of guns was largely reduced, but the Committee would realise that the stability of a ship was greatly affected by the guns being placed in a much higher position. Moreover, the weight of the mounting of the 7.5 guns was considerably greater than that of the 6-inch guns, and it was not possible to secure the advantages which the proposed alterations would afford, and, at the same time, retain the larger number of suns.
§ SIR J. FERGUSSON (Manchester, N.E.)asked whether the guns would be protected.
§ * MR. PRETYMANsaid the guns would be in gun houses or turrets, with complete protection.
§ * SIR CHARLES DILKEpointed out that no provision for 7.5 guns was made in the Estimates.
§ * MR. PRETYMANsaid that that was accounted for by the fact that the change had only just been decided upon. There would be a much larger proportion of 7.5 guns in the Navy, as a considerable number of 6-inch guns were being replaced by the 7.5 guns. No loss would accrue, however, as the 6-inch guns designed for the "Devonshire" class would come in for other purposes, mainly for the arming of the large mercantile cruisers.
§ * SIR CHARLES DILKEasked whether the Admiralty would not require to begin making any 7.5 guns before next March.
§ * MR. PRETYMANunderstood that the guns necessary this year were included in the Estimates.
§ * SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid there was no provision at all in the Estimates.
§ * MR. PRETYMANsaid he could not explain the non-inclusion off-hand; it was a technical point, and he would obtain exact information if the right hon. Baronet placed a Question on the Paper. Under the new arrangements for training, the same encouragements were given to skill in the use of torpedoes as in the use of guns. The war in the Far East had demonstrated the great value of the torpedo as a naval weapon, and it was just as important that an award should be given for skill in its use as for skill in the use of guns. He was not personally aware that any special attention had been paid to the question of high angle fire from the point of view put forward by the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth. It should be borne in mind that such high angle fire would require a specialised ship. He pointed out that high angle firing necessarily implied specialisation, and it was undesirable, in principle, to specialise ships for one particular fighting purpose. The ships must be utilised as cruisers or battleships. The armoured cruisers and battleships were close together now, and it was undesirable, as a principle, to specialise ships if it could be avoided. He would take care, however, to see that the suggestion of the hon. Member received every consideration. No subject had received more attention from the Admiralty than the reserve of ordnance. The House had been asked to sanction a large expenditure to make up the reserve of ordnance to its full strength. The definite standard for 9.2 guns and above was one gun per ship. When the ships were built, the reserve gun was constructed in all its parts at the same time as the guns which were to be placed in the ship. In respect of the 7.5 guns, one gun in reserve was provided for every four guns shown in the Estimates as belonging to the ships, and for the 6-inch guns one for every five. This standard had been worked out, and all the guns were available when wanted. As to the calibre of the guns, it was 38 suggested that, in the past, the length of the gun had been sacrificed to the requirements of construction. That, again, was a question of rival factors contending for weight. The important point as to the length of the gun was the weight which that gun entailed on the ship to curry. The size of the turret or casemate necessarily varied with the length of the gun which was to be inside. There must be room to contain the gun from the face of the breech, and in addition there must be room behind the lace of the breech to work the gun. The size of the casemate or turret was therefore the governing factor. The Admiralty were now constructing 6-inch guns which were all to be 50 calibre, as well as 50 calibre 7.5 guns. They were experimenting with the 50 calibre, and the experiments had been brought to a satisfactory conclusion for the 9.2 guns. It was now necessary with the 45 calibre 12-inch gun to add a dead weight of no less than seven tons to the breech of the gun in order that the pivoting point of the gun might be further in rear, thus saving a large amount of weight in the mounting. In the past, possibly, we might not have advanced to the same extent as some other countries in the length of the guns. The guns in use now were 45 calibre, but they used to be 40 calibre. In all these matter, the most careful experiments were necessary. It was clear that with the 50 calibre gun, giving an increase of velocity and pressure, new problems and difficulties would arise, and it would not be safe to imperil the existence of the gun by embarking on experiments which might not be fully justified before it was adopted in the Navy. The question of sighting had also been raised, but on this point there was a great deal of misapprehension. When hon. Members spoke of sighting a gun it appeared to be thought that they were speaking in the same way as of the sighting of a rifle. It was not a question of sighting at all; it was purely and solely a question of gearing. The guns in ships were enclosed in turrets, and in order that two guns in a turret should work together the turret sight from which they were fired was automatic. This meant that the sighting was worked from the outside of the 39 turret, and it automatically regulated the direction of the gun within. In order to obtain that automatic action the most complicated and difficult gearing was necessary. The hon. Member for Devon-port had suggested that, although there were other systems, only one system had been adopted by the Admiralty.
§ MR. KEARLEYsaid that what he stated was that there were two different sighting arrangements, the old and the obsolete, and the new system, and both of them were defective.
§ * MR. PRETYMANsaid that was the misapprehension of which he complained. There was a different system of sighting for almost every gun in the Navy. Every gun introduced had some modification which necessitated a different system of gearing which had to be worked out and applied for every gun. There were no two systems of sighting prevailing, and no reform was needed in the sense that the Navy was wrong in the system of sighting which it had adopted. Different guns entailed different systems of gearing, and a system of attachment had to be carried out which had to lie invented ad hoc. The Admiralty and the contractors deliberated together and considered how this system of gearing could be perfected to the best advantage. But absolute perfection was unattainable. There was always some danger of pinions and gearings not being absolutely locked; and it might happen that there would be Some slight play which would cause the gun in being fired to communicate a slight motion to the pinions and gearing, and thus cause what was known as "back lash." But the Admiralty were always working to get as near perfection as they could. In the case of the "Centurion" and "Barfleur" experiments had been carried out, and here was a case in point where the sighting was worked from the turret. A considerable increase of accuracy almost approaching to the absolute had been attained. A great improvement in attachment was now being added, which would not entail a great cost, for the "Centurion." When complaint was made of the expense, hon. Members should remember that the main factor in the increase of every Vote was due to the increase in new construction. 40 If they built more ships they would have to provide more money in every Vote, and on each particular Vote they had to consider how far it was necessary to provide for those requirements. Taking the discussion on this particular Vote into review, all the points which were brought forward were points involving increased expenditure. It was perfectly evident that, the ships having been built, they must be fitted with the most modern and efficient armament that could be supplied. In stating this he was only pointing out what was self-evident, and both the Committee and the Admiralty would fail in their duty if they did not provide the ships with the best armaments obtainable. That expenditure must be faced if we desired to have the best Navy. As long as this House desired to have a Navy of the standard and the number which were now demanded and required by the country neither the Admiralty nor any Committee of the House could reduce Vote 9 which they were now discussing.
MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid he might congratulate himself on having elicited from the hon. Gentleman the very important statement he had just made. When he drew attention to the important matter of the gunning of the ships he did not know that the Admiralty had been devoting their attention to it. The changes which were being made showed a proper frame of mind on the part of the Admiralty, but he was inclined to think the hon. Gentleman might have given a little more. The hon. Gentleman said 7.5 guns, but he himself would prefer 9.2. The hon. Gentleman need not tell them that the vessels would not carry 9.2 guns. He held that they could. The "St. George." which was smaller than the "Argyll" and "Devonshire," had two 9.2 guns, and ten 6-inch guns. He claimed, therefore, that this fact alone showed that ships of the "Argyll" and "Devonshire" class were perfectly capable of carrying 9.2 guns. There were also examples in the Japanese fleet which could be cited in support of this contention. Now that the hon. Gentleman had entered on the path of reform, in what he thought was a proper spirit, with regard to the gunning of the ships, he earnestly begged him to consult 41 the gunnery authorities, and to replace the four big guns by four bigger ones. The arrangement was to have four 7.5 guns, three of which could fire from cither beam and one ahead. He suggested that these should be 9.2 instead of 7.5 guns. The hon. Gentleman should remember that guns were growing in calibre day by day, and in this case he should not make two bites of a cherry. The hon. Gentleman had stated that the sighting of the "Centurion" could be made right at Hong-Kong. He did not believe that. The House had already received an explanation from the hon. Gentleman of the complicated nature of the gearing on which sighting now depended. He did not know whether, when the hon. Gentleman stated that it was automatic, he meant that the man who set the sight also pulled the trigger.
§ * MR. PRETYMANNo, they may fire automatically or not as they like.
Mr. GIBSON BOWLESsaid his point was that when the complicated gearing got loose the gun did not automatically follow the sighting, The sighting of the "Centurion" undoubtedly was not satisfactory, and he did not think it could be made satisfactory at Hong-Kong. In order that so complicated a piece of gearing might be properly adjusted, it was absolutely necessary to bring the vessel back to England.
§ * MR. PRETYMANsaid the Admiralty were informed by the authorities that the work could be done at Hong-Kong.
MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid the hon. Gentleman was no doubt a great civil authority, but there were specialists in gunnery who were better entitled to express an opinion on a subject like this. He was not at liberty to give the name of his authority, but he had good authority for saying that it was hopeless to expect that the work could be done at Hong-Kong. He congratulated the Committee on the fact having been elicited that the Admiralty recognised the necessity for providing guns of larger calibre. He trusted they would take further steps in replacing 7.5 by 9.2 guns.
§ MR. KEARLEYreminded the Secretary to the Admiralty that such experts as Vickers, Maxim, and Co. and Armstrong had been given free hands, and yet had failed to make the sighting of the "Centurion" satisfactory.
§ * MR. PRETYMANsaid he had explained that the endeavour had been to work the gear for the two guns together, but, having given up the attempt, by working the guns independently the difficulties arising from complicated cross gearing would be eliminated.
§ MR. KEARLEYsaid some sacrifice was made by not laying and firing the guns automatically.
§ * MR. PRETYMANassented.
§ MR. KEARLEYasked if in refitting ships the old breech action had been adopted, as in the case of the "Endymion."
§ * MR. PRETYMANsaid, he was not aware of the facts in the instance mentioned. He could not off-hand give details, but the fitting with improved breech action was governed in each case by such conditions as the age of the ship, her future destination, whether the guns were to be replaced by others, and many questions of detail. In giving his previous answer he omitted to refer to the question why naval as well as military expenditure had not been incurred for watching events in the Far East. It was not necessary to do this, for we had a naval force in the China seas, and naval officers upon whom the Admiralty could rely. Even possible step was being taken to obtain the fullest information. It was evident that it was not quite the same thing for an officer to accompany an army in the field and for an officer to be on board a ship going into action.
§ vote agreed to.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum not exceeding £3,044,200, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expenses of the Personnel for Shipbuilding, Repairs, Maintenance, etc., including the cost of Establishments of Dockyards and Naval Yards at Home and 43 Abroad, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1905."
§ MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONthought it was desirable that at this point there should be some general understanding as to the further progress of the discussion of these Estimates. An unusually large proportion of time had already been spent on them, which was perhaps a little unfair for those who did not take an interest in naval matters, but he supposed the real fact was that the Admiralty was the only Department that was always ready. It was most important that the shipbuilding programme of the Government should not be allowed to pass out of the control of the House at so early a period of the session. That principle had been recognised for a great many years, the basis of it being that they should delay as long as possible the final seal to the Government's proposals in order to see what the developments might be. This year the principle was more important than usual. By the month of July, if the Russo-Japanese war lasted so long, they would be better able to say whether it was reasonable that this large Vote for new construction should be granted by Parliament or not. As he understood, the Government had no objection to that delay, but he wanted the understanding to be made publicly. He understood that the third section of Vote 8, which was the important one, would not be taken that day, but would be withheld to a comparatively late period of the session. It was essential that Vote 12, which was a sort of key Vote, should also be postponed to the latest possible period of the session; and to that he also understood the Government assented. He did not wish to anticipate the discussion on the shipbuilding programme of the present year, but he wished to point out the significance of certain figures which the hon. Gentleman had given the House in answer to a Question he had put on the Paper.
§ * MR. PRETYMANsaid that when the hon. and learned Gentleman spoke of a general discussion on the third section of Vote 8, did he mean on the principle of the Vote, and not on small details, like dockyard wages?
§ MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONPerfectly. He quite understood that all the important naval questions would be raised better on Section 3 than on any other section. He had asked the hon. Gentleman what had been the addition by way of new construction, as measured by tonnage, to the British, French, Russian, and German Navies in the period of the last nine years; and the result was this: that while the three next European navies to our own had added to their tonnage 847,000 tons, the Navy of Great Britain had added to its tonnage 933,000, or 100,000 tons more than all these three nations combined. He was not going to draw any inference from that now. He did not, of course, contend that tonnage alone was a conclusive criterion; but neither was it an irrelevant criterion. And in the end, if proper qualifications were made, it was a real method of comparison. It was, therefore, worth while keeping in mind when considering the two or the three-Power standard, that we had exceeded by 100,000 tons the combined tonnage of France, Russia, and Germany. There was another fact in connection with that which was important, not from the naval but the economic point of view. The hon. Gentleman the Civil Lord of the Admiralty had told the House that in the last nine years we had spent £70,000,000 on new construction, as compared with £82,000,000 spent by France, Germany, and Russia. Now for £70,000,000 we had produced 100,000 more tonnage in new construction than £82,000,000 spent by the three great Continental Powers. In other words, in nine years we had spent in adding to our Navy £70,000,000, what was equivalent to £90,000,000 of expenditure by the three next great naval Powers. Now, that advantage was due—nobody disputed it—to the fact that we were a free-trade country. Every £70,000,000 we spent was as good as £90,000,000 spent by these foreign countries, That was an element of strength well worthy of being taken into account when comparing our position with that of other Powers.
§ * SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid he would like to say a word, not so much by way of dissent as by way of caution, as to what 45 had fallen from his hon. and learned friend in regard to naval expenditure during the past nine years. These nine years went back considerably before the date at which the very rapid augmentation of the German shipbuilding programme began. He fully agreed with his hon. and learned friend that at this moment naval questions were in a transitory state, and that shipbuilding must go on in the immediate future less rapidly than in the recent past. He did not think, however, that it was too much to say that the German shipbuilding, which began considerably after the nine-year period referred to by his hon. and learned friend, had been directed against this country. In 1897 the German Emperor stated publicly—
I will never rest until I have raised my navy to a position similar to that occupied by my army.and in 1899 the Emperor said that—It was his desire that the Germans should be in a position to dictate peace on water as well as on land.These were very remarkable statements on the part of so great a ruler and one so strong. And when they remembered that only this week there had appeared officially in Germany a document in which it was stated that—War in the future must be waged in such a way as to destroy not only the naval and military forces of the enemy, but the whole of their material and moral resources.He thought they were very far away from the general admission of those principles of peace which had been enunciated at the Hague Conference. He was as prepared as any one to go a long way in the direction of Army economy, but as long as such declarations as these were made, it was impossible that any great reductions should be made in our naval expenditure. He admitted, with his hon. and learned friend, that naval matters were in a transitory state and that France was going less rapidly in her shipbuilding programme than a few years ago; but until it was known what Russia and Germany were going to do in the future in that direction no decision on the question could be pronounced.
§ * SIR JOHN COLOMBsaid he agreed with the right hon. Baronet 46 that the figures quoted by the hon. and learned Member for Dundee should be received with caution. They did not cover the whole problem, although, no doubt, they were an important element. The only use of producing figures like these seemed to him to be to prove that we were spending too much on the Navy; but the two Power standard was only a rule-of-thumb standard and nothing more. There was, for instance, no basis of comparison between our sea duties and responsibilities all over the world and those of France or Germany. It ought to be remembered that war took longer to prepare for and was swifter in its result. It also should be remembered that certain Powers which were mentioned usually were not the only Powers. As an indication of how careful the Admiralty ought, to be, he would mention that the. United States had thirteen battleships under construction.
§ MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONWould the hon. and gallant Gentleman build against those?
§ * SIR JOHN COLOMBsad that this country should build against any nation for the reason that it was a sea Empire. The fact he had stated showed how careful they ought to be in drawing general conclusions.
§ * SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid he wished to ask a Question with reference to the boilers. It was whether the House would be put in possession of a list of the boiler accidents and boiler repairs which had occurred since the first Report of the Boiler Committee, distinguishing between the various classes of boilers. The House was not aware of the information which was in the possession of the Admiralty with regard to the working of the various classes of boilers. Then as regarded the explosion on board the "Good Hope" it was stated at the time that it was due to Belleville boilers; but he was informed that the inquiry showed that that was not the case. He also wished to ask whether any report would be made to the House with reference to the "Spartiate" and "Europa" class. He himself had never expressed any view in the House in 47 favour of any particular class of boiler, but, undoubtedly, it was the fact that boilers which were found to be unsatisfactory in this country were being put into new ships abroad. That went to support the contention that the real fault was not with the boilers, but with the training of the stokers, and that stokers who were competent to work one class of boiler were not competent to work another.
§ * MR. PRETYMANsaid he would take care that the right hon. Gentleman was furnished with the information as to the accidents for which he asked. Perhaps he might say generally that he entirely agreed with what he right hon. Gentleman said as to the main difficulty of water-tube boilers being due to want of knowledge on the part of the stokers. The experiment was undertaken on too large a scale in the first instance, and the experience the Admiralty had now gained went to strengthen that impression, because at present they were finding that the water-tube boilers were giving much greater satisfaction than they gave in the first instance. The Committee were still conducting experiments and reporting at intervals, but they had not yet presented their final Report, and therefore the Admiralty were not vet in a position to come to a final conclusion; but all the steps which had been taken with reference to boilers in new ships were taken on the advice of the Committee. Every possible step was being taken to perfect the training of the stokers. Each type of boiler had been set up in hulks at different ports in order that the stokers might be trained in the use of the particular boiler with which the ship to which they were appointed was fitted.
§ CAPTAIN NORTON (Newington, W.)said he wished to call attention to the treatment of labour generally by the Admiralty. When the Resolution of his hon. friend the Member for the Clitheroe Division was discussed, the Government gave the House to understand that they were prepared to do what was asked—namely, to pay the standard rate of wages in the locality. Now, the opportunity was given to the Government to show that they were prepared to carry out what must be regarded as a pledge. When the Resolution was under discussion 48 he urged that it should be made clearer by the addition of a sentence from the contract of the London County Council, making it clear that what was intended was not what might be called a current wage or a living wage, but the standard wage as arranged between employer and employed in each particular locality. He would not deal with the different classes of artificers on the Navy, regarding which his hon. friend the Member for Devonport had more accurate and precise knowledge, but he world venture to deal with the joiners who had brought their grievance specially to his notice. They complained that the Government, taking advantage of their position, used shipwrights to do joiners' work. Hon. Members would be aware that a joiner was regarded as a superior tradesman as compared with a shipwright, but it was difficult to say where the exact line of demarcation occurred. It might he said that economy was effected in getting the smartest and the nattiest shipwrights to do joiners' work, but that was an injustice to the joiners. The joiners also complained that they were paid some eight shillings a week less than other employers paid, but of that he was not in a position to speak. It might be that it paid a man with regular employment in one place to accept a lower rate of wages, but it was false economy on the part of the Government, because, if men were wanted, only the men out of work would accept the terms. The great grievance of the joiners was in connection with inspection. They maintained that the inspection was carried out by men who were not efficient tradesmen. This was especially the case in connection with official residences throughout the country. It might be urged that this was a very narrow and difficult matter, but he ventured to propose a Committee to inquire into the question of inspection. His contention was that no man could inspect work who was not brought up to the trade or occupation. That was a very great grievance of which the joiners complained. But a matter in which he took a still deeper interest was the way in which unskilled labour was dealt with. The House upon a previous occasion was given to understand that the Government were prepared 49 to meet them in the Resolution brought forward by the hon. Member for Clitheroe, and the opportunity had now arisen when the Government could show the country at large whether, when they accepted that Resolution, they were throwing dust in the eyes of labour; whether it was their intention to carry out the Resolution or whether its acceptance on their part was the mere expression of a pious opinion to avoid a division at an inconvenient moment. When that Resolution was before the House he pointed out that at the Royal Victoria Victualling Yard the work given to the unskilled labourer was not only of an exhausting character but that it also entailed some responsibility, yet these men were only paid 21s. a week. These men were working side by side with men in the employ of contractors who received from 24s. to 30s. a week and knew perfectly well that the contractors were compelled by the Government to pay the current rate of wages, with the result that their men were receiving 7½d. an hour whereas they themselves only received 5d. and a fraction, it was grossly unfair that the Government should take advantage of the labour market in this way and pay so miserable a wage as 21s. a week. From every point of view the action of the Government stood condemned. Over and over again the Government had declined to deal with this matter lest the whole question should be opened up, but now there was an opportunity for them to declare their intention to ascertain what was the standard rate of wage for all classes of labour in the various towns where the Government employed labour. So Far as London was concerned, the case was clear. This Victualling Yard was situated in Deptford, where no lower rat of wages than 24s. a week was paid, and unless there was a distinct promise that the wages paid by the Government should not be lower than that he should move a reduction of the Vote by £100.
THE CHAIRMANDoes that question arise on this Vote? That should surely come on the Victualling Vote and not on this.
§ MR. KEARLEYsubmitted that the question of labour did arise on Vote 8, and therefore the Amendment would be 50 in order. He disclaimed any intention of going into any elaborate discussion affecting the conditions of labour in the Government service, but thought that in view of the acceptance of the Motion of the Member for Clitheroe by the Government, the Committee were entitled to ask what interpretation the Government put on that acceptance. When the Fair Wages Resolution was brought forward twelve years ago, the interpretation of the Government was that they should be model employers, not in advance of everybody else, but in the first flight. That interpretation had resulted in the payment of a wage of 21s. a week for skilled labour whilst the scavengers of London streets got 24s. and the County Council gave 30s. a week. That was cert duly not carrying out the interpretation of model employment. The wage for unskilled labour throughout, the Admiralty establishments amounted to the munificent sum of 20s. a week, and at Devonport the rental conditions were higher than in London and the overcrowding was greater. He was convinced that there was no intention on the part of the Government to look into this matter but he submitted that an obligation lay upon the Government as a great employer of labour to set a standard, and if they depreciated wages contractors followed suit. He remembered the time when the wages in Devon port were only 15s. a week, and it was with the greatest difficulty that they had finally got them up to 20s., which was not a living wage, when the labourers had to pay 3s. 6d. a week for house accommodation. What they asked for was a living wage The Admiralty had promised to inquire into this matter, but so far as the Committee knew no such inquiry had been made. In regard to the classification of labour, the Government followed a system which private employers would not tolerate for a moment. Men who in private yards did work similar to that of the so-called "unskilled" labourer in Government employ were members of skilled trades and received 30s. a week, but by this classification the Government got the work done "on the cheap," and that was probably the object of the classification. As to the skilled labour proper, the one request of the shipwrights and others was that their wages should 51 be based on the average paid in private yards whore Government work was done, with a proper deduction for the so-called privileges of Government employees. That was surely a reasonable demand. The Admiralty claimed to be a model employer, but how could that position be maintained when, in places where the rental conditions and the consequent overcrowding were as bad as, or even worse than, in London, the Department paid a huge army of unskilled labour the utterly inadequate wage of 20s. a week?
§ CAPTAIN NORTONexplained that it he had gone somewhat beyond the Chairman's ruling in dealing with the Deptford Victualling Yard it was because if happened to be the best illustration available in connection with this question. The men at Deptford, many of whom worked for less than the current wage, were the only men in the county of London who did work for the Admiralty, and in their case there had been a gross failure on the part of the Government to carry out the undertaking of a few weeks ago.
§ * MR. REGINALD LUCASsaid he did not intend to detain the Committee at any length, as he and other representatives of dockyard constituencies had recently had an opportunity of stating fully their views to the Board of Admiralty. It was much to the advantage of all concerned that such private conferences should be held, and he had no desire to jeopardise, by any action in Committee, the concession which had been made therein. He would only ask whether any decision had been arrived at with regard to the matters then discussed, or whether any steps were in contemplation by the Admiralty.
§ MR. J. F. HOPE (Sheffield, Brightside)asked when the designs for the new cruisers in the present year's programme would be issued, and when the orders for the balance of the armament required for the battleships of last year's programme would be placed.
§ * MR. PRETYMANsaid that as the matter referred to by the last speaker did not really rise on this section of the Vote, he had not armed himself with the 52 information asked for. The probability was that the designs for the new programme would be issued about the end of August, but if the hon. Member would place on the Paper Questions dealing with the two points he had raised, he would obtain the required information. The dockyard question was discussed shortly before the recess, and he was unable to add much to the statement then made. The hon. Member for Newington had given the Admiralty very little credit for anything that had been done. Only last year the wages of joiners were raised from 31s. to 32s. 6d., hired men from 29s. 6d. to 31s., while joiners working at dangerous machines were paid an extra 2s. 9d. per week. The hon. Member for Devonport had used the friendly threat that, unless the Admiralty made certain concessions, this question would be constantly raised in the House. But, whatever wages were paid by Government Departments, the representatives of constituencies concerned would still ask that those wages should be increased.
§ MR. KEARLEYOh, no! That is absurd.
§ MR. PRETYMANThe hon. Member had characterised the Board of Admiralty as "sweaters." That was an unnecessarily offensive term. It was eminently desirable that the Department should be able to transfer labour from one yard to another, and, the character of Admiralty work being practically uniform, the principle adopted was that the wages for particular kinds of work-should be uniform throughout Admiralty establishments, with the exception that in the case of the London establishments an extra 1s. should be given in consequence of the increased cost of living. There were no skilled tradesmen employed by the Admiralty at either Deptford or Woolwich, so that the question arose only in the matter of unskilled labour. It had also to be borne in mind that the wages were so finely graduated, from the unskilled labourer at 20s. a week up to the highest paid branches of work, that a rise in the lowest scale must carry with it an increase over the whole area of wages. The cost of giving ordinary Admiralty labourers an additional shilling a week 53 would be about £10,000 a year, but to give an additional shilling a week to all the workmen would cost £104,000 a year, and that would add very appreciably to the Estimates. The Admiralty could not approach this question from the point of view of rental or Parliamentary pressure, but only from the point of view that they should give a uniform wage rather in advance of the general wage paid by private employers for similar work. He did not think the Admiralty would be justified in paying higher wages than private employers paid for similar work, and such a proposal, he felt sure, would not receive the approval of the House. The hon. Member for Devonport said the Admiralty were not model employers, and were, in fact, sweater paying lower wages than other people, and he argued that if the Admiralty paid better wages private employers would follow suit. As a matter of fact the Admiralty were paying higher wages than those paid in general employment in the same district for the same class of labour. He agreed that at the large naval ports the Admiralty monopolised dockyard work and the standard there applicable to private employment was not therefore of any great value. He had in his possession the particulars of the rates of wages paid in private employment in all the great dockyards and shipbuilding centres. The rate paid by the Admiralty for unskilled labour was 5d. per hour, and that was higher than the rate paid by private employers. It was true that in London dockers received 6d. per hour, but that was for casual employment. At the Thames Ironworks the contractors paid 6d. per hour, and at Hull the wages were slightly above the Admiralty rate, but in the Mersey, and at Barrow, Belfast, on the Clyde and the Forth, Tyne, Tees, the Wear, and at Portsmouth, Chatham, and Devonport the Admiralty standard was higher than that of private employment for unskilled labour. On the Tees it was 4.75d. per hour in private employment; on the Wear 4½d. to 6d.; Portsmouth 4d. to 5d.; on the Forth 3.7d.; the Clyde 3.75d. to 4.5d.; Hull 5.43d. to 5.66d.; the Mersey 4½d. to 5d.; Barrow 4d.; and Belfast 4½ and 4.88d. Those were the actual wages paid in private employment in those districts. It was impossible for the Admiralty to fix the uniform 54 rate at a point higher than it was in one particular place where the Admiralty employed only a minimum amount of labour. It should not be imagined that he did not sympathise with those upon whose behalf hon. Members opposite had spoken. He was sure they all sympathised with the difficulties of a man who had to work for 21s. a week and live in a crowded district like London or Devonport, and they would all like to see that wage increased. Ho did not, however, think that they would be justified in spending the taxpayers' money in giving more than a slight increase on the general rate of wages paid in private employment. This question could only be considered from the point of view of what was just and fair to the taxpayers. Both last year and this year members of the Admiralty Board had visited the various naval establishments and received deputations of all classes of workmen, and individual workmen, upon any points they desired to lay before them. The question of the rate of wages was a matter which was under constant consideration and the needs and position or the labourer were always being considered. It was, however, a large question, and it would be easy, convenient, and pleasant to be able to increase the wages from 21s to 24s., but in view of the general rate of wages paid throughout the country by private employers and the duty the Admiralty owed to the taxpayers of the country they could not accede to this demand.
§ CAPTAIN NORTONsaid he had not made any demand for a uniform rate of wages, but he maintained that it was a gross injustice and monstrously unfair to pay a man at Haulbowline in Ireland the same rate as in a crowded district like London. The basis of the whole thing depended upon the house rent. If a man could get a cottage and a piece of land in one district for 2s. or 3s. a week he would have 17s. a week to live upon; hut if a man had to pay 8s. or 9s. for similar accommodation in another district he had only 13s. or 14s. left to support his family. This was a gross injustice to the men themselves and also to the ratepayers, because the other workmen in the district had in the end to support the widows and children of such men who did not 55 receive sufficient wages to make proper provision for their families. He begged to move that this Vote be reduced by £100.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum not exceeding £3,044,100, be granted for the said Service."—(Captain Norton.)
§ MR. KEARLEYsaid the hon. Member had read out a list of the wages paid for unskilled labour in various dockyards throughout the country and he had claimed that the Admiralty paid a higher rate for unskilled labour in their dockyards than was being paid by the great private shipbuilding yards throughout the country. He felt positive that the figures quoted were not reliable, and if the hon. Member would supply him with the list of the wages he had read out he would investigate them. He wished to
§ know if the Secretary to the Admiralty was prepared to grant the request which had been made in case he was able to show, after investigation, that the rate now being paid to unskilled labour was not an equivalent of what was being paid in private yards? All he asked was that the men should be treated in accordance with the pledge already given by the Government. He based the request which had been made upon what was paid in private yards where Government work was done and the Government were not paying those wages. He would have those figures investigated and he should be very disappointed if he found them correct.
§ Question put.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes, 90; Noes, 157. (Division List No. 74.)
57| AYES. | ||
| Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.) | Horniman, Frederick John | Rigg, Richard |
| Ambrose, Robert | Hutchinson, Dr Charles Fredk. | Robertson, Edmund (Dundee) |
| Barlow, John Emmott | Joicey, Sir James | Robson, William Snowdon |
| Black, Alexander William | Jones, David Brynmor(Swansea) | Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye |
| Boland, John | Jones, William (Carnarvonshire | Runciman Walter |
| Brigg, John | Joyce, Michael | Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland |
| Broadhurst, Henry | Kitson, Sir James | Schwann, Charles E. |
| Burke, E. Haviland- | Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall) | Shackleton, David James |
| Burns, John | Leamy, Edmund | Shipman, Dr. John G. |
| Burt, Thomas | Leese, Sir Joseph F (Accrington | Sinclair, John (Forfarshire) |
| Caldwell, James | Leng, Sir John | Smith, Samuel (Flint) |
| Campbell, John (Armagh, S.) | Levy, Maurice | Spencer, Rt. Hn. C. R. (Northants) |
| Causton, Richard Knight | Lewis, John Herbert | Sullivan, Donal |
| Cawley, Frederick | Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth | Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe) |
| Channing, Francis Allston | Lundon, W. | Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.) |
| Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark) | Lyell, Charles Henry | Trevelyan, Charles Philips |
| Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles | MacVeagh, Jeremiah | Waldron, Lawrence Ambrose |
| Doogan, P. C. | M'Arthur, William (Cornwall) | Wallace, Robert |
| Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark) | M'Kenna, Reginald | Walton, Joseph (Barnsley) |
| Ellis, John Edward (Notts.) | Mooney, John J. | Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney) |
| Emmott, Alfred | Moulton John Fletcher | White, Luke (York, E. R.) |
| Esmonde, Sir Thomas | Murphy, John | Whiteley, George (York, W. R.) |
| Fenwick, Charles | O'Brien, James F. X. (Cork) | Whitley, J. H. (Halifax) |
| Ffrench, Peter | O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) | Whittaker, Thomas Palmer |
| Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.) | O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.) | Wilson, Fred. W. (Norkfolk Mid.) |
| Griffith, Ellis J. | O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.) | Wilson, Henry J. (York W.R.) |
| Harcourt, Lewis V. (Rossendale) | O' Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.) | |
| Harmsworth, R. Leicester | O'Malley, William | TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Captain Norton and Mr. Kearley. |
| Harrington, Timothy | O'Mara, James | |
| Hay, Hon. Claude George | Priestley, Arthur | |
| Hayden, John Patrick | Rea, Russell | |
| Henderson, Arthur (Durham) | Redmond, John E. (Waterford) | |
| NOES. | ||
| Agg-Gardner, James Tynte | Balcarres, Lord | Bignold, Arthur |
| Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel | Baldwin, Alfred | Bigwood, James |
| Anson, Sir William Reynell | Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (Manch'r) | Blundell, Colonel Henry |
| Arrol, Sir William | Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W Leeds | Boulnois, Edmund |
| Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John | Banbury Sir Frederick George | Bowles, Lt.-Col. H. F. (Middlesex) |
| Bain, Colonel James Robert | Hartley, Sir (George C. T.) | Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn) |
| Campbell, Rt Hn. J A. (Glasgow | Groves, James Grimble | Plummer, Walter R. |
| Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H. | Gunter, Sir Robert | Pretyman, Ernest George |
| Cautley, Henry Strother | Hall, Edward Marshall | Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward |
| Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs.) | Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F. | Pym, C. Guy |
| Cavendish, V C W. (Derbyshire | Hamilton, Marq. of (L'nd'nderry) | Quilter, Sir Cuthbert |
| Chapman, Edward | Haslam, Sir Alfred S. | Randles, John S. |
| Charrington, Spencer | Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley) | Rasch, Sir Frederick Carne |
| Clive, Captain Percy A. | Heath, James (Staffords, N.W. | Ratcliff, R. F. |
| Coates, Edward Feetham | Henderson,Sir A.(Stafford, W.) | Reid, James (Greenock) |
| Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E. | Hoare, Sir Samuel | Ridley, Hn. M. W.(Stalybridge |
| Coghill, Douglas Harry | Hogg Lindsay | Rutherford, John (Lancashire) |
| Cohen, Benjamin Louis | Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside) | Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool) |
| Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse | Hornby, Sir William Henry | Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford- |
| Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready | Houston, Robert Paterson | Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander |
| Colston, Chas, Edw. H. Athole | Hozier Hon. James Henry Cecil | Samuel, Sir Harry S.(Limehouse) |
| Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge | Hudson, George Bickersteth | Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.) |
| Craig, Charles Curtis(Antrim S.) | Kemp, Lieut.-Colonel George | Seeley, Charles Hilton |
| Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile | Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T. (Denbigh. | Sharpe, William Edward T. |
| Dalkeith, Karl of | Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W.(Salop) | Smith, Able H. (Hertford East |
| Dalrymple, Sir Charles | Kerr, John | Smith, H C. (North'mb. Tyneside |
| Davenport, William Bromley. | Kimber, Henry | Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand) |
| Davies, Sir Horatio D.(Chatham) | Laurie, Lieut.-General | Spear John Ward |
| Denny, Colonel | Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow) | Spencer, Sir E.(W. Bromwich) |
| Dewar, Sir T R (Tower Hamlets | Lawrence Sir Joseph (Monmouth) | Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Lancs.) |
| Dickinson, Robert Edmond | Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool) | Stroyan, John |
| Dickson, Charles Scott | Lawson, John Grant(Yorks N.R.) | Talbot, Lord (Chichester) |
| Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers | Lee, Arthur H. (Hants.,Fareham) | Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth) |
| Doxford, Sir William Theodore | Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead) | Thorburn, Sir Walter |
| Eiliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas | Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage | Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M. |
| Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.) | Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine | Tritton, Charles Ernest |
| Fardell, Sir T. George | Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham) | Tuff, Charles |
| Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir. J. (Manc'r) | Loyd, Archie Kirkham | Tuke, Sir John Batty |
| Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst | Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft) | Valentia, Viscount |
| Finch, Rt. Hon. George H. | Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred | Warde, Colonel C. E. |
| Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne | Macdona, John Cumming | Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd |
| Fisher, William Hayes | Maconochie, A. W. | Whitmore, Charles Algernon |
| FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose- | M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire) | Wilson, A. Stanley(York, E. R.) |
| Forster, Henry William | Majendie, James A. H. | Wilson-Todd, Sir W. H. (Yorks.) |
| Fyler, John Arthur | Martin, Richard Biddulph | Wolff, Gustay Wilhelm |
| Galloway, William Johnson | Montague, G. (Huntingdon) | Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson |
| Gardner, Ernest | Morgan, David J (Walthamstow) | Wrightson, Sir Thomas |
| Garfit, William | Murray, Rt Hn A Graham (Bute | Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George |
| Godson Sir Augustus Frederick | Newdegate, Francis A. N. | Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong |
| Gordon. Hn. J. E. (Elgin & Nairn) | Palmer, Walter (Salisbury) | |
| Gordon, Maj. Evans (T'r H'mlets | Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington | TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes. |
| Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon | Peel Hn. Wm. Robert Wellesley | |
| Goulding, Edward Alfred | Percy, Earl | |
| Gretton, John | Platt Higgins, Frederick |
Question put, and agreed to.
§ Original Question again proposed.
§ MR. WHITLEYsaid he wished to ask a Question in regard to the pay of the police on duty at the dockyards. The amount in this Vote was £46,450, but that was by no means the total. There were items for police in other Votes which brought the total up to at least £84,000 a year. That seemed to him to be a very extravagant sum to pay for the police services at the dockyards. He could not help thinking that there was room for some economy in this matter. He asked the hon. Gentleman to look into this and see whether it was not possible to do with a smaller force.
§ * MR. PRETYMANsaid the hon. Member had raised a point which had already 58 been anticipated. The present dockyard police force was a branch of the Metropolitan Police, and it was a very expensive and efficient force. This matter had engaged the attention of the Admiralty, and the present arrangements in regard to foreign yards was not considered altogether satisfactory. The whole matter was now under the most careful consideration of the Admiralty, and Sir Charles Havard had visited the dockyards at Gibraltar, Malta and elsewhere. They hoped shortly to receive his Report and to be able to deal with the question.
§ MR. KEARLEYsaid a concession was recently made to the Metropolitan Police in the shape of rent-pay where the rent conditions were above the average. That 59 concession had given great satisfaction to the members of the force. The amount was 1s. 6d. per week. He had asked the Home Secretary whether he would make inquiry as to the rent conditions in Devonport, and if they were found to be as onerous as in London whether a similar concession would be granted. Could the hon. Gentleman give him a satisfactory answer on that point?
§ CAPTAIN NORTONsaid that in London the Home Office recognised the fact that in consequence of the increased rentals which the working classes were obliged to pay, it was their duty to give an increase of pay to the constables in the Metropolitan area in the shape of rent-aid. That was 2s. 6d. in the four central districts. 2s. in certain other districts, and 1s. 6d. in the rest of the area. He was anxious to see equal justice dealt out to the members of the Metropolitan Police Force who were on duty in the various dockyard towns.
§ THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. AKERS DOUGLAS,) Kent, St. Augustine'ssaid he was quite aware that a promise had been made in regard to this matter, and that promise had not been forgotten. By his instructions the Commissioner of Police was making a special inquiry into the conditions at Devonport and other dockyards; and when the report was presented he should give it his most careful consideration. He quite agreed that, if the conditions were the same, similar treatment should be accorded to all the members of the force, whether they were employed at Devon-port or any other place.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £5,062,800, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of the Matériel for Shipbuilding, Repairs, Maintenance, etc., including the cost of Establishments of Dockyards and Naval Yards at Home and Abroad, which will come in course of payment, during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1905."
§ * SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid they were spending large sums of money, and 60 rapidly increasing sums, on the construction of submarine boats, and very little information had been given to the House—infinitely less information than in regard to any other class of shipbuilding. He should be the last person to desire to check this expenditure, or to ask for information which it was necessary to keep secret. But he had very great doubt whether it was necessary to keep the designs of submarines secret to the extent to which they had been kept secret up to the present time. Information on the subject was freely given at the dockyards to Members of the House, and to foreign naval attachés, and designs and photographs were freely published in the engineering newspapers. There was a considerable body of information as to the lines on winch improvements in submarines were proceeding; but there was an official secrecy, so far as the House was concerned, which was unnecessary. He appealed to the Admiralty to give the House such information as they could reasonably be expected to afford. A special reason for that appeal was supplied by the unfortunate accident of which they were all aware. A most absurd description of what happened had appeared in the newspapers. Anyone who knew anything about submarine construction was aware that that story must be untrue. It was quite clear that the men were drowned at once. The fact that these stories could get about and obtain credence, showed that there was some necessity for reassuring the country and the House by giving all the information as to the construction of submarines that could reasonably be given.
MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid that although he entirely approved of the Admiralty making experiments with submarines, he did not think they should go on with a very largely increased expenditure on submarine construction. The sphere of action of these boats was limited. He had no doubt of the courage and resource of the men employed in the submarines. Some of them were the best men in the Navy. A very large amount of experience had already been gained by the Admiralty which should enable them to come to something like a settled policy in regard to submarines. His own impression was that the use of submarines 61 for a great naval country like this was altogether doubtful; their sphere of action was so restricted, and the difficulty of their, management was so great. There was an enormous danger connected with submarines when they were manœuvring in a fairway, as was the case in the deplorable accident which had recently taken place. He was sure the Admiralty would feel it to be their duty to protect the men in these boats from vessels using the fairway without being aware that there were submarines in the vicinity. He was unable to see that submarines would be of any great value to a great naval country, and he thought the defence of our ports should be secured by over-water boats. He hoped the Admiralty would give the House some assurance that they had information not possessed by the House which justified their belief that they were right in continuing the construction of submarines.
THE EARL OF DALKEITH (Roxburgh)said he thought that the large item for coal should appear under some other heading than that of shipbuilding.
§ * MR. PRETYMANsaid that the point raised by the right hon. Baronet as to submarines was a very important one. He hoped the Committee would allow him to defer giving any detailed information until Section 3 of this Vote came under discussion. With regard to the unfortunate rumour to which the right hon. Baronet had referred, these boats or submarines immersed themselves not dynamically, not by their own weight, and could only be submerged by their own motion. Supposing any accident which only stopped the engines and did not admit large quantities of water immediately, the submarine would automatically rise to the surface. If she sank, and water rushed in rapidly, there would be no possibility of life on board. The original type of submarine cost about £35,000. The type which was now being constructed cost from £40,000 to £42,000, all told. There were some mollifications now being made in the engines which might slightly increase the cost, but he thought they might assume that, roughly speaking, the cost of a submarine was about £40,000. With regard to the observations of his hon. friend the Member for King's Lynn, he would say that the experience which 62 had been gained by those officers who had devoted themselves to this submarine work, and had shown such skill and gallantry, very much encouraged them to believe in the weapon they were using. At the same time those who had been opposing submarines were equally encouraged to believe that their opposition would be successful. It was not yet possible really to form a true opinion as to what the value of the submarine would eventually prove to be in war. The question was still experimental, and he thought the Admiralty might, to some extent, congratulate themselves that they were criticised from both points of view—first, that they were not building a sufficient number of submarines; and, secondly, that they were building too many. The Admiralty were building only half the number that France was building at the present moment, so that they were certainly not taking the lead. That was really due to the fact that the position of the submarine in war was not vet absolutely defined. But it was a weapon so far developed that it could not be left out of account. It would certainly be used, and he did not think, in view of the commitments and naval necessities of the country, the Admiralty would be safe in making a smaller provision than they were now asking the Committee to sanction. That was the position of the Admiralty. As to the coaling boats which were referred to by his noble friend his information was that the coal was used for dockyard purposes as well as for the Fleet. Of course, the item could be put under a separate Vote but that would involve a very considerable increase in the accounting work at the Admiralty. It was really a matter for the Committee to decide whether the charge should be a separate Vote or remain under a separate sub-head as it was at present. A separate Vote would, however, involve an increased cost without any equivalent advantage.
§ MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONsaid he quite concurred with the hon. Gentleman regarding the propriety of postponing the discussion of the submarine question. With reference to the terrible accident to Submarine Al he had deliberately refrained from discussing it at that stage because he understood the matter would 63 be the subject of inquiry by the proper authorities.
§ * MR. PRETYMANHear, hear!
§ Question put.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes, 210; Noes, 39. (Division List No. 75.)
65| AYES. | ||
| Agg-Gardner, James Tynte | Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Manc'r | Loyd, Archie Kirkman |
| Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel | Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst | Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft) |
| Anson, Sir William Reynell | Finch, Rt. Hon. George H. | Lucas, Reginald J.(Portsmouth) |
| Arrol, Sir William | Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne | Lyell, Charles Henry |
| Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John | Fisher, William Hayes | Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred |
| Bailey, James (Walworth) | FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose- | Macdona, John Cumming |
| Bain, Colonel James Robert | Forster, Henry William | Maconochie, A. W. |
| Balcarres, Lord | Fyler, John Arthur | M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire) |
| Balfour, Rt. Hon. A.J.(Manch'r) | Galloway, William Johnson | Majendie, James A. H. |
| Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W. (Leeds | Gardner, Ernest | Martin, Richard Biddulph |
| Banbury, Sir Frederick George | Garfit, William | Morgan, David J (Walthamstow) |
| Bartley, Sir George C. T. | Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick | Moulton, John Fletcher |
| Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir Michael Hicks | Gordon, Hn. J. E. (Elgin&Nairn) | Murray, Rt. Hn A. Graham (Bute |
| Bignold, Arthur | Gore, Hon. S.F. Ormsby-(Linc.) | Murray, Charles J. (Coventry) |
| Bigwood, James | Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon | Newdegate, Francis A. N. |
| Black, Alexander William | Goulding, Edward Alfred | Pease, Herbert Pike(Darlington) |
| Blundell, Colonel Henry | Groves, James Grimble | Peel, Hn. Wm. Robert Wellesley |
| Boulnois, Edmund | Gunter, Sir Robert | Percy, Earl |
| Bousfield, William Robert | Hall, Edward Marshall | Platt-Higgins, Frederick |
| Bowles, Lt.-Col. H.F(Middlesex | Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F. | Plummer, Walter R. |
| Bowles, T. Gibson(King's Lynn) | Hamilton, Marq. of (L'nd'nderry | Pretyman, Ernest George |
| Bull, William James | Harcourt, Louis V. (Rossendale) | Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward |
| Burt, Thomas | Harmsworth, R. Leicester | Pym, C. Guy |
| Butcher, John George | Harwood, George | Quilter, Sir Cuthbert |
| Caldwell, James | Haslam, Sir Alfred S. | Randles, John S. |
| Campbell, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Glasgow | Hay, Hon. Claude George | Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne |
| Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H. | Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley) | Ratcliff, R. F. |
| Cautley, Henry Strother | Heath, James (Staffords, N. W. | Reid, James (Greenock) |
| Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs.) | Henderson, Arthur (Durham) | Remnant, James Farquharson |
| Cavendish, V.C.W.(Derbyshire | Hoare, Sir Samuel | Ridley, Hon. M. W. (Stalybridge |
| Cawley, Frederick | Hogg, Lindsay | Rigg, Richard |
| Chapman, Edward | Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside | Robson, William Snowdon |
| Charrington, Spencer | Hornby, Sir William Henry | Rolleston, Sir John F. L. |
| Clive, Captain Percy A. | Horniman, Frederick John | Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye |
| Coates, Edward Feetham | Houston, Robert Paterson | Runciman, Walter |
| Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E. | Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil | Rutherford, John (Lancashire) |
| Coghill, Douglas Harry | Hudson, George Bickersteth | Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool) |
| Cohen, Benjamin Louis | Hutchinson, Dr. Charles Fredk. | Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander |
| Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse | Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton | Samuel, Sir Harry S.(Limehouse |
| Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready | Joicey, Sir James | Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland) |
| Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole | Jones, William (Carnarvonshire | Schwann, Charles E. |
| Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge | Kearley, Hudson E. | Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.) |
| Craig, Charles Curtis(Antrim, S.) | Kemp, Lieut.-Colonel George | Sharpe, William Edward T. |
| Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark) | Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T. (Denbigh) | Shipman, Dr. John G. |
| Cripps, Charles Alfred | Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W.(Salop.) | Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, E.) |
| Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile | Kerr, John | Smith, H. C. (No'th'mb Tyneside) |
| Dalkeith, Earl of | Keswick, William | Smith, Samuel (Flint) |
| Dalrymple, Sir Charles | Kimber, Henry | Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand) |
| Davenport, William Bromley- | Kitson, Sir James | Spear, John Ward |
| Davies, Sir Horatio D.(Chatham) | Laurie, Lieut.-General | Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich) |
| Denny Colonel | Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow | Stanley, Rt. Hn. Lord (Lancs.) |
| Dewar, Sir T. R. (Tower Hamlets) | Lawrence, Sir Joseph (Monm'th) | Stroyan, John |
| Dickson, Charles Scott | Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool) | Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester) |
| Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles | Lawson, John Grant (Yorks, N. R.) | Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth) |
| Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon | Lee, Arthur H.(Hants., Fareham) | Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe) |
| Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- | Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead) | Thorburn, Sir Walter |
| Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark) | Leese, Sir Joseph F (Accrington | Thornton, Percy M. |
| Doxford, Sir William Theodore | Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage | Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M. |
| Duke, Henry Edward | Leng, Sir John | Trevelyan, Charles Philips |
| Elibank, Master of | Lewis, John Herbert | Tritton, Charles Ernest |
| Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas | Llewellyn, Evan Henry | Tuff, Charles |
| Emmott, Alfred | Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine | Tuke, Sir John Batty |
| Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.) | Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham | Valentia, Viscount |
| Fenwick, Charles | Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol, S) | Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. H (Sheffield) |
| Wallace, Robert | Whitmore, Charles Algernon | Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George |
| Walton, Joseph (Barnsley) | Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E.R. | Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong |
| Warde, Colonel C. E. | Wilson, J. W.(Worcestersh, N.) | |
| Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney | Wilson-Todd, Sir W. H. (Yorks. | TELLERS FOR THE AYES— |
| Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd | Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E.R.(Bath) | Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes. |
| White, Luke (York, E. R.) | Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm | |
| Whiteley, George (York, W.R.) | Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson | |
| Whitley, J. H. (Halifax) | Wrightson, Sir Thomas | |
| NOES. | ||
| Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.) | Harrington, Timothy | O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N. |
| Ambrose, Robert | Hayden, John Patrick | O'Malley, William |
| Harlow, John Emmott | Jones, David Brynmor (Swansea | O'Mara, James |
| Boland, John | Joyce, Michael | Redmond, John E. (Waterford) |
| Brigg, John | Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall) | Shackleton, David James |
| Broadhurst, Henry | Leamy, Edmund | Sullivan, Donal |
| Burke, E. Haviland- | Levy, Maurice | Waldron, Lawrence Ambrose |
| Burns, John | Lundon, W. | Whittaker, Thomas Palmer |
| Campbell, John, (Armagh S.) | MacVeagh, Jeremiah | Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.) |
| Crean, Eugene | M'Hugh, Patrick A. | |
| Doogan, P. C. | Mooney, John, J. | TELLERS FOR THE NOES— Captain Donelan and Mr. Patrick O'Brien. |
| Ellis, John Edward (Notts.) | Murphy, John | |
| Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan | O'Brien, James F. X. (Cork) | |
| Ffrench, Peter | O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.) | |
| Griffith, Ellis J. | O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W. |
Question put, and agreed to.
§ 4.£2,428,000, Victualling and Clothing for the Navy.
§ MR. KEARLEYpointed out that when this Vote was last under discussion he had called attention to the policy of the Government in manufacturing their own stores. The then representative of the Admiralty received his representations in a very friendly spirit, and promised a full investigation of the matter. He would now be glad to know the decision at which they had arrived as to the continuance of the manufacture of flour, oatmeal, etc. On the last occasion he had proved that both the flour and oatmeal were bad and the men would not take them up, and had shown that a better article could be produced by our leading millers at a cheaper rate. He understood it was the intention of the Government to cease the manufacture of these articles, but he would be glad to know what they proposed to do in the future with regard to the manufacture of biscuits. The cost to the Admiralty of manufacturing biscuits was 16s. for 100 lbs. and the same article could be manufactured by outside manufacturers at 40 per cent, less, and such a thing surely required reconsideration. He again desired to draw attention to the question of the canteen system on board ship. It must be remembered that the saving to the men out of the Victualling 66 Vote, by reason of their not taking up their full rations, but taking money in lieu thereof, was £548,000. A very large proportion of that money, if not the whole, was spent in the canteen. The canteens on board ship were not worked or carried on by the Government but by some irresponsible individual who was allowed to find a location on board, or by a committee of the lower deck which had its own idea of prices. His complaint against the canteen was that it was corrupt; the whole of its conduct was dependent on "squaring," and the result of the payment of so many commissions was that most exorbitant prices had to be charged to the men using the canteen for inferior articles. Such a scandal, he contended, ought not to be allowed to go on. Common sense ought to override naval prejudice, and the Government itself ought to be responsible for these canteens. The Admiralty should take over the whole business and be their own buyers and sellers, and in return they would be able to give to the seamen wholesome articles at the lowest prices. As to the question of naval victualling generally, the Admiralty appeared to have on the brain the victualling of the Fleet in time of war. Their idea was that if war broke out it would be impossible to obtain any provisions whatever from shore, and on that assumption they proceeded to lay down in the 67 victualling yards reserves of provisions sufficient to feel every man of the Fleet, every man in the Reserves, the whole of the Coastguards, the whole of the Naval Reserves, and the whole of the Victualling Establishment, with the result that provisions accumulated until they became positively ancient. According to the Report of the Committee of two years ago, the Admiralty had in stock beef thirty years old.
§ * MR. PRETYMANreminded the hon. Member that that referred to the condition of affairs two or three years ago.
§ MR. KEARLEYwas glad to understand from the interruption that that state of things had been altered. Such a system was wasteful in the extreme; it entailed bad food, and it was altogether out of date. If the Navy was able to maintain its command of the sea—and that was the sole object of all this expenditure—none of the contingencies against which this reserve of food was directed would arise. Undoubtedly some reserve ought to be kept, but to lay in supplies for ten times the number of men who had to consume them was an ancient custom which ought to be abolished.
§ * MR. PRETYMANsaid that this question, which had been raised by the hon. Member on several previous occasions, had been carefully considered by the Admiralty. The description of two years ago could not be applied to the state of affairs to-day. It had been decided to cease the manufacture of oatmeal, salt, suet, and flour, but not of biscuits. The hon. Member was mistaken in supposing that the cost of manufacturing biscuits in the yards was greater than the cost at which they could be obtained from private manufacturers. The actual cost in the victualling yards, including direct and indirect charges, but excluding any charge for buildings, was 11s. 8d.
§ MR. KEARLEYsaid the cost was 16s. 1d. according to the Admiralty's own victualling accounts.
§ * MR. PRETYMANsaid that according to the figures worked out, the cost was 68 11s. 8d. at against 13s. 10d., the price for which a similar article could be obtained from private traders. These biscuits were not a trade article in general use, but they would be very necessary in time of war, and the introduction and possible development of bread-making plant in the new ships would not enable them to be dispensed with. The taunt that the Admiralty had the victualling of the Fleet in time of war on the brain was really the greatest compliment that could be paid to the Board, because the whole purpose of the Department and of the Fleet was preparation for war, and if the Admiralty laid their plans without reference to what would happen when the word "mobilise" flashed over the wires, they would be failing in their primary duty. Subject to that governing factor the criticisms of the hon. Member were deserving of, and had received, the careful attention of the Department, with the result that the manufacture of the three articles he had mentioned had been discontinued, and arrangements had been made by which private manufacturers undertook to keep in the trade a certain quantity of various provisions so that the Admiralty, while reducing their own stock, were still able to have at their disposal a quantity of meat which would be available in the event of the outbreak of war. Under the revised scale the preserved meat stocks would be turned over on an average in from two and a half to three years, and efforts were being made to reduce the period still further. The same remark applied to other kinds of stores. In regard to canteens, perhaps the men would derive some advantage in regard to the cost if the Admiralty supplied them with the various articles they required, but the men claimed the right to spend their own money exactly as they liked, and for the Admiralty to provide a general store under these circumstances would be going beyond what any Government ought to undertake. Although no doubt the criticism of the hon. Member opposite as to the high prices charged and the mismanagement of certain canteens was justified, still he thought he had drawn from them a very much too wide deduction. There were many canteens which were admirably managed, and he thought the Committee would agree with him 69 when he said that the general spirit of Englishmen was that they preferred to mismanage their own affairs rather than have them well managed for them by other people. The men liked to spend their own money in their own way. What the Admiralty could do was, as far as possible, to supervise the management of those canteens under a commissioned officer of the ship, and regulations had been issued drawing attention to this point, and directing that the canteen should be most thoroughly supervised and regulated in this way. While allowing the men to spend their own money as they liked, he thought this provision would minimise the evils which had been complained of.
§ MR. WHITLEYdrew attention to the continued increase in the Vote itself. The Vote showed an increase of £135,000, and this came on the top of an increase of £260,000 last year, so that in two years this Vote had increased by £400,000, or more than 20 per cent. There were several extraordinary increases, about which he should like, some explanation. The cost of rations to Royal Marines on shore had increased 150 per cent., and there was an increase of 100 per cent, on item K. Item M had also increased by £52,900. He understood that the increase in item G was due to the continuation of the improved feeding of the sailors which was sanctioned last year. He was sure they would all be in favour of that, and he did not desire to criticise it, but he should like to know whether this year's Estimate included the whole cost of the new arrangement in regard to the feeding of sailors. There was another important question in regard to payments for provisions not taken up, and he could not understand the continual increase in that item. There was a sum of £1,315,000 for provisions, and the next item was a sum of over £500,000 for provisions not taken up. He could not help thinking that there was something in this system which left an opening for a considerable reduction in expenditure. Why there should be such a largo increase in the amount for seamen's clothing, soap, and tobacco he could not understand, because the cost of those articles had not gone up. He hoped the hon. Member would be able to give them some assurance that they were not to look forward 70 annually to such large increases, and that he might see his way next year to present them with that unusual thing, namely, a decrease in the Estimates.
§ * MR. PRETYMANsaid the first cause in the general increase in the Estimates was the increase in the number of men by 3,000. There was in every case a particular reason for the special increase. The increase in the provisions for Marines was due to the decision that Marines on shore were to receive a free ration which they had not hitherto had. As to savings the men could take money instead of the rations, but he wished to point out that the money taken up as savings was an exact equivalent of the cost of the rations, and it did not affect the total, and there was no direct extra cost at all due to that system. He agreed that this system made it difficult to judge the stock they would require, but the system had existed for 100 years and it was one to which the men attached enormous value. Consequently the Admiralty did not see any reason why they should make a change. With regard to the increase in the cost of clothes this was due to the increase made in the Reserve.
§ MR. WHITLEYasked if it was open to a sailor to say that he would not take any dinner, but take the money instead. What we required in our sailors was health and strength. He could not agree with the hon. Gentleman that the present system was one which was desirable from the point of view of the taxpayer, whatever it might be from the point of view of the sailor. It seemed to him that it would in many ways lead to extravagance. There was, in this matter, an opening for a considerable amount of reform in the interest not only of the sailors but also of those who had to find the money. He asked the hon. Gentleman to consider whether it was not possible to make a change in the system which would remove the present temptation to extravagance.
§ Vote agreed to.
§ 5. £293,000, Medical Establishments and Services.
§ 6. £15,500, Martial Law, etc.
71§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £154,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Educational Services, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1905."
§ Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
§ 7. £72,600, Scientific Services.
§ 8. £404,500, Royal Naval Reserves.
§ 9. £444,000, Miscellaneous Effective Services.
§ 10.£796,200, Half-Pay, Reserved, and Retired Pay.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £1,208,800, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expenses of Naval and Marine Pensions, Gratuities, and Compassionate Allowances, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1905."
§ Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
§ 11. £353,300, Civil Pensions and Gratuities.
§ Resolutions to be reported To-morrow; Committee to sit again To-morrow.