§ 1. "That a sum, not exceeding £3,646,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Naval Armaments, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1905."
210§ 2. Sec. 1. "That a sum, not exceeding £3,044,200, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expenses of the Personnel for Shipbuilding, Repairs, Maintenance, &c, 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."
§ 3. Sec. 2. "That a sum, not exceeding £5,062,800, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of the Materiel for Shipbuilding, Repairs, Maintenance, &c, 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."
§ 4."That a sum, not exceeding £2,428,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Victualling and Clothing for the Navy, including the cost of Victualling Establishments at Home and Abroad, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1905."
§ 5."That a sum, not exceeding £293,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Medical Services, including the cost of Medical Establishments at Home and Abroad, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1905."
§ 6."That a sum, not exceeding £15,500 be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Martial Law, including the cost of Naval Prisons at Home and Abroad, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1905."
§ 7. "That a sum, not exceeding £72,600, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expenses of Scientific Services, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1905."
§ 8. "That a sum, not exceeding£404,500, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expenses of the Royal Naval Reserve, the Royal Fleet Reserve (including Seamen Pensioner Reserve), and the Royal Naval Volunteers, &c., which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1905."
§ 9. "That a sum, not exceeding £444,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the 211 Expense of various Miscellaneous Effective Services, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1905."
§ 10."That a sum, not exceeding £796,200, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Half Pay, Reserved, and Retired Pay, to Officers of the Navy and Marines, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March. 1905."
§ 11."That a sum, not exceeding £353,300, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Civil Pensions and Gratuities, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1905."
§ Resolutions read a second time.
§ First Resolution.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Commiteee in the said Resolution."
§ MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON (Dundee)complained that these Naval Votes had rather suddenly been sprung upon the House; that two days ago the Prime Minister had stated that he only proposed to take Votes 1 and 8, and therefore he (Mr. Robertson) moved that this particular item be postponed, and that the same course should be taken with the following Votes.
§ THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. PRETYMAN,) Suffolk, Woodbridgesaid he consented to the Motion.
§ Debate to be resumed upon Monday next.
§ Second Resolution.
§ MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONsaid with regard to the subject matter of this Vote he might remind the House that when the Naval Votes were last before the Committee of Supply the serious discussion as to the naval programme of the year was by general consent post- 212 poned to a later date, and he did not propose to go into that matter now, but to wait until the new policy of the Admiralty was stated. There were only one or two points to which he would call attention. One was the question of boilers.
§ MR. SPEAKERwas understood to rule that the question of boilers could not be raised upon this Vote.
§ MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONsaid that in Committee of Supply the Committee had been allowed to discuss the whole question on this particular Vote but if Mr. Speaker ruled that he was out of order in discussing it now he would reserve what he had to say on that point. What he really wished to do, so far as Mr. Speaker's ruling would permit, was to call the special attention of the House to the unique circumstances under which this Vote was being taken this year. One of the most remarkable examples of the way in which the financial control of this House was being curtailed was that after the House had limited by its Rules the number of days on which Supply was to be discussed they found that a large portion of the time allotted for the discussion of Supply was taken up the discussion of private business. The Government was not responsible for this, nor was the official whose duty it was to regulate private business in the House. He made no complaint with regard to it and merely desired to point out that on every occasion when Supply was to be discussed—
§ MR. SPEAKERsaid that this subject was not relevant to the Vote under discussion.
§ MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONsaid he was induced to mention the fact because of the circumstance that a great portion of the time of the Evening Sitting was to be occupied by the discussion of a private Bill. What he wanted to know, in the interest of public business, was what would be the exact financial result of passing this Resolution. The House must remember that this Resolution had been suddenly sprung upon it, and that in answer to an inquiry he made, it was stated that it was necessary for Treasury reasons. That 213 immediately put him on the scent of his right hon. friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The real reason why this Vote was to be passed to-day was that it would enable the Admiralty to get hold of money which had been granted for other purposes, by the one Consolidated Fund Act that had been passed this session, for naval purposes. Few Members of Parliament were aware of the fact recently stated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that under the Public Accounts and Charges Act of 1891 it was possible to direct to Navy or Army purposes money voted by the House for Civil Service purposes. He might be permitted to say that the money granted at the beginning of the session for Naval Supply amounted to about twelve weeks supply, while that for the Army was about three weeks supply, and that for the Civil Services about twenty-three weeks supply. It might very well be that the naval money was now exhausted because they were now told that the large sum granted in the beginning of the year for Civil Services would have to be made available for the Naval Vote. That was a matter that was well worth the serious consideration of the House, because it was owing to that fact that the House now found itself in this extraordinary position. Everything would be legitimised if these Resolutions were followed by Resolutions of Ways and Means to provide the money, and by the setting up of a new Consolidated Fund Bill. That was an old constitutional practice of the House which the Chancellor of the Exchequer understood as well as anybody.
§ MR SPEAKERsaid he failed to see how this subject could be raised on the Resolution now before the House.
§ MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONsaid his point was that the passing of these Resolutions would have a most unusual consequence unless followed by the practice which he had indicated. It would mean the allocation of money granted for one purpose to quite a different purpose.
§ MR. BUCHANAN (Perthshire, E.)asked whether the Committee were not entitled to information from the Chancellor of the Exchequer as to whether if they passed 214 this Resolution there was any security that the money would be expended on the purposes for which it was voted.
§ MR. SPEAKERsaid that that point could not be raised on the question of whether or not the sum mentioned was one which ought to be voted for the purpose named in the Resolution. He would not raise any objection to a Question being asked and answered across the floor of the House, but he was bound to object to a discussion as to what was the legal and constitutional method of ultimately dealing with the Supply, whether by a Consolidated Fund Bill, by the Appropriation Bill at the end of the session or by a Resolution under the Act of 1891. The question here was whether the sum named was a proper sum to be granted.
§ MR. BRYCE (Aberdeen, S.)asked whether it was not open to his hon. friend to point out the inconvenience of the Committee voting this sum of money for a particular purpose when there was reason to believe it would be applied to another purpose.
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN,) Worcestershire, E.thought the point the hon. Member desired to raise had reference to the effect of Section 2 (1) of the Public Accounts and Charges Act, 1891, and he submitted that that was not a matter that could be discussed in Committee of Supply or on Report. The course of action was laid down by statute and the action of the Treasury was in pursuance of the statute.
MR. GIBSON BOWLES (Lynn Regis)pointed out that the statement of the right hon. Gentleman was the converse of the argument of the hon. Member for Dundee, whose complaint was that money already capable of being issued under the Act of 1891 would be issued for this service if the Resolution were voted. Was it not pertinent to the passing of the Resolution that the House should consider what its effect would be?
§ MR. SPEAKERsaid it would not be pertinent to inquire whether, after the money was granted, it was likely the 215 Treasury would act legally or illegally in appropriating money for the purposes named in the Resolution. That question did not arise on the Vote in Committee of Supply or on Report.
MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid the question of the Treasury acting legally or illegally did not arise. There was no Question that the Treasury could legally take money voted for the Civil Service, and, if this Resolution were passed, apply it to the purposes of the Navy; and that, he believed, was the objection entertained by the hon. Member opposite to the passing of the Resolution.
§ MR. SPEAKERsaid that made it quite clear that the question referred to by the hon. Member for Dundee could not arise on the Resolution, as the suggestion was simply that something would take place which was perfectly legal under an Act of Parliament. The hon. Member was finding fault with that Act.
§ MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONsaid it was extremely difficult to state the point he desired to make. He did not challenge the law as stated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. What he wanted to point out was that on the facts of the present year the passing of this Resolution would have serious consequences. Money granted for the Civil Service in the first Consolidated Fund Act might, would, and must be applied by the Government to purposes other than that for which it was voted.
§ MR. SPEAKERI still think that this is not in order on this Resolution.
§ MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONsaid he had nearly finished all he intended to say on the matter, and he thanked Mr. Speaker for the consideration he had shown him.
§ MR. KEARLEY (Devonport)called attention to the manner in which a man permanently injured in the service of the Admiralty had been treated by the Department. The Admiralty had a scheme, to which the employees had assented, by which they contracted out of the Workmen's Compensation Act. The man to whose case he desired to 216 refer had been permanently injured through a piece of timber falling on his head, and the Admiralty, instead of giving the man a pension or compensation in accordance with their agreement— under which persons permanently disabled were promised 24/60ths of their last emoluments—had simply made him an allowance for six months, at the end of which period the case was to be further considered. The accident happened sixteen months ago and he submitted that the Admiralty ought now to deal with the case in the manner provided for by the agreement. There was no doubt whatever as to the total and permanent disablement, and it was extremely hard that the sufferings of the man should be aggravated by the anxiety and worry connected with the uncertainty of the future. If the workman was in a position to lodge a complaint with the Registrar of Friendly Societies, an inquiry would be held, and the power of contracting out withdrawn from the Admiralty. The matter was a most important one as the case was merely typical of many, and he would be glad to hear the Admiralty's explanation of the business. He wished to raise another question. A couple of months ago he pointed out the rental conditions of Devonport and that it would be only fair to make the same arrangements there as appertained in London by which the police received lodging allowance on a scale according to the conditions of the rent they had to pay. The Home Secretary gave an undertaking that he would have an inquiry held by the Chief Commissioner of Police, and that if what he had stated was found to be true he would make allowance as in the Metropolis. He had given the Home Secretary three hours notice that the question was going to be raised, but the right hon. Gentleman had not yet arrived in the House. Under those circumstances he did not know what his rights would be. Had he to continue speaking until the right hon. Gentleman came in? [An HON. MEMBER: You had better not sit down.] Meanwhile he would turn to another question, there were a considerable number of discharges going on in Devonport dockyard He believed about 200 men had been under notice during the last two or three weeks. It might possibly be due to some 217 adjustment between one branch and another.
§ MR. KEARLEYsaid he had mentioned all he desired to say and he did not wish to waste the time of the House by killing time until the Home Secretary should arrive. He thought the right hon. Gentleman might treat the House with more consideration.
§ MR. PRETYMANsaid he would ask his right hon. friend to give a reply to the question when he came in.
§ MR. REGINALD LUCAS (Portsmouth)said he had received some correspondence upon the same subject; and perhaps his right hon. friend would be able to tell him whether the matter had been considered.
§ The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. AKERS-DOUGLAS,) Kent, St. Augustine'ssaid he had made inquiries in Devonport and other dockyards into the circumstances in which the police had to find accommodation. On the whole the rent did not seem to press so heavily on the men in these stations as it did in London, but their was it seemed to him sufficient reason for extending the minimum allowance granted in London of 1s. 6d. per week to such cases in the dockyards as came within the same conditions as governed the grant in London. He saw no reason why the dockyard police should be treated differently, and he was ready to apply the same regulations under the same conditions as applied in London, e.g., that the men lived in approved quarters near their work and necessarily paid 6s. a week and upwards for rent.
§ MR. BUCHANANasked for a short statement as to the views of the Government in regard to the naval programme which was laid before the House at the begining of the year. It was more than two months since the Vote was passed in Committee of Supply, and more than three months since the Navy Estimates were laid before the House, and a good deal had happened since 218 then. They were told early in the session that the naval programme might have to be modified, and he pointed out at that time that it was unwise from a financial point of view, when grave problems in naval warfare in the Far East were being solved, to commit this country irretrievably to the full programme of construction, which was exceedingly costly, and in regard to which they were not absolutely clear that they had arrived at the best possible type. He alluded in particular to the expenditure recommended this year, amounting to over £3,000,000, upon the three battleships of the "King Edward VII." type which they were told were of a type that the Admiralty did not originally intended to adopt, but which at the last moment they resolved to build. In regard to the scouts built within the last two or three years that seemed to him to be a rather rash form of expenditure.
§ MR. PRETYMANThat question will come up under a subsequent Vote.
§ MR. BUCHANANsaid he was only going to say that this was another illustration of the way in which the Admiralty was apt to commit itself somewhat rapidly to a form of construction which would entail a very large expenditure before they were satisfied that it was the best form of ship to construct. This caused them to be suspicious of the way the Admiralty undertook large expenditure. He wished to know whether the Secretary to the Admiralty would during the present session state if the naval programme was going to be modified in any degree, and, if so, would he also say in what way it was going to be modified.
§ Sir CHARLES DILKEsaid there had been a good many changes backwards and forwards with regard to Wei-hai-Wei. He noticed on page 120 of the Navy Estimates an expenditure of £500 for a King's Harbour Master and Naval Executive Officer at Wei-hai-Wei. That seemed to indicate that Wei-hai-Wei was now being treated as a dockyard port. He understood that the fortifications had been put an end to, and the only establishment there at the present moment was a naval hospital. In the 219 explanation given by the First Lord of the Admiralty it was said that coaling accommodation had been provided at Wei-hai-Wei, but they had not been informed as to that provision. He was aware that the difficulty was that the entrancs to Wei-hai-Wei was very broad, and could not be effectively closed against torpedo attacks; and therefore he thought the House ought to be informed with regard to the provision of coaling accommodation at Wei-hai-Wei. He wished to know if any change had come about as to the use which was to be made of that place. The appointment of a King's Harbour Master seemed to indicate something more had been contemplated.
§ MR. PRETYMANsaid that in regard to the case mentioned by Mr. Kearley he was sorry he had not given notice. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the case some time ago in the Lobby.
§ MR. KEARLEYI gave notice to the Civil Lord in writing.
§ MR. PRETYMANsaid it was impossible to remember for several months the details of a case of this kind. These cases must be dealt with on their merits, and it was impossible to lay down a general rule. Each case was gone into most carefully. There was every desire that an employee should get something, certainly not worse, but slightly better, than he was entitled to under the Act. He was sure the Civil Lord would look into this particular case, and send a report to the hon. Member. With regard to the point raised by the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean the King's Harbour Master there had the control of the whole water area, and he had no special connection with the hospital or the coaling station. TheAdmiralty were responsible for the berthing of all ships at Wei-hai-Wei whether they were Admiralty ships or other shipping, and therefore it was necessary to appoint a King's Harbour Master and that was the reason why he was appointed. With regard to the coaling station he explained it to the House two years ago. The amount of coal kept at Wei-hai-Wei was 6,000 tons.
§ SIR CHARLES DILKEBut this is a new matter this year in the statement 220 of the First Lord accompanying the Estimates.
§ MR. PRETYMANsaid that was the same matter. He believed that the accommodation had now been completed although it was not completed at the time the statement was issued. There had been no variation from the statement in regard to providing accommodation for 6,000 tons of coal. The question of the hospital was at this moment being considered. The state of affairs in the Far East might altogether change the situation there, and therefore no expenditure at the present moment was being incurred there and the matter had been hung up. He might say, in answer to the definite question of the hon. Gentleman opposite, that no change in the programme already announced was contemplated—namely, two battleships, four armed cruisers, and fourteen destroyers.
§ Third Resolution.
§ MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONsaid he was sorry to be under the necessity of addressing the House again, but what he had to say about shipbuilding was more relevant to Section 2 than Section 1. He for one, and the hon. Member for East Perthshire for another, refused to admit that the assent of Parliament had been given to the new construction programme of the year. It had never been discussed. It was put off to another occasion two and a half months ago. He thought it was right that the discussion of the new programme should come late rather than early in the year. They were all agreed that they should abstain from discussing new construction on Sections 1 and 2, and that it should be brought up formally on Section 3. This was the 30th of June, and there was still a month available for discussing the Vote. They were promised a day for that Vote. He was perfectly certain that an opportunity would be afforded to the House for the discussion of the new naval programme, but with the Speaker in the Chair it would be a hopeless failure. It could not be properly discussed except in Committee, when hon. Gentlemen could speak more than once, 221 and when they could be answered as often as might be necessary. He only wanted on this occasion to say that he thought they ought to know something now about the overdue Report of the Boiler Committee. There was a Boiler Committee still sitting dealing with the problem of boilers, and perhaps the hon. Gentleman would tell the Committee whether any Report had been presented, and, if so, whether it would be submitted to the House. He had pressed the hon. Gentleman, by means of Questions addressed to him, several times for the report of the Court of Inquiry into the loss of the Submarine A 1. They had abstained from discussing this matter while the Court was sitting, but the inquiry had now been completed, and he thought the House was entitled to have the report of that Court. If the report was confidential something as a substitute for it ought to be produced. His hon. friend the Member for East Perthshire had alluded to the new class of vessels called scouts. There had been a great deal of alarmist literature appearing lately on the subject, and he thought it might be useful if the hon. Gentleman were to give the House some reassuring declaration as to the fitness of this class of vessel for the purpose for which it was designed.
§ SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid there was no doubt that the Report of the Boiler Committee had been in the hands of the Admiralty for a considerable time, and there was no reason why it should not have been published at least a month ago. It had been stated, not in the authorised quarters, but in that portion of the Press which deal twith naval questions, that there was considerable difference of opinion in the Admiralty as to the best class of boiler to adopt. It had been said that as the result of the trials which had taken place the new First Sea Lord took a wholly different view from that taken by the Controller of the Navy, though he did not in the least believe that there was any foundation for that statement. As the statement had been made, and as the Report of the Boiler Committee had been ready for a considerable time, it would be wise to give to the House the authorised opinions of those gentlemen, and if necessary a 222 note from the Admiralty themselves on that Report, because all sorts of unauthorised stories were going about. The friends of each class of boilers had their say, and all this could be put an end to by the publication of the Report.
MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid the introduction of the new class of scouts was the most important departure the Government had taken for many a long day. He asked for information in regard to the new vessels. If they were successful they would entirely obviate the necessity of subsidising the merchantfleet. They were contrived and designed for the sole purpose of replacing the merchant cruisers—the Cunarders—but, as the right hon. Gentleman had said, very considerable doubt had been thrown upon one of their most important features, namely, their area of action. An article in The Times had raised the doubt, though he believed that it was an absurdly exaggerated article. Certainly the alarmist tone adopted was not in the least justified by the facts. The scout vessels had been represented to be practically useless in carrying sufficient coal or any area of action necessary for a scouting vessel. Personally, he had great hopes of the vessel, though it would be well if the Admiralty would give the House a reassuring account of the scout class of vessel so as to dispel the deep suspicion which had been cast upon it by The Times article. He had advocated the adoption of oil fuel for the Navy for the last dozen years. He believed that there was a large amount of oil fuel in the country, and he understood that an experiment with this fuel had been carried out. Was the Admiralty satisfied that there were adequate supplies of oil fuel in this country? In his opinion oil fuel doubled the area of action of ships, and it was no exaggeration to say that it was worth twice as much to a ship as coal. The consideration for the Navy was whether we could have a sufficient supply of oil fuel in this country. He believed we could. The Estimates contained a sum amounting to over £2,000,000 for coal in the dockyards. Was it the practice of the Admiralty when foreign war vessels entered our ports to allow them to take in a supply of coal, or were the 223 foreign war vessels referred to the private trader? Care had to be exercised in this matter or fear of creating a breach of the laws of neutrality in helping what might possibly be a belligerent vessel. Was a condition enforced upon such vessels to the effect that the coal would only be used to allow the to go back to their own ports and not for belligerent purposes?
§ MR. PRETYMANsaid that the idea of building these scouts was that they should have equal speed but a greater radius of action than destroyers; and, therefore, they would avoid the necessity of any Admiral commanding a fleet using destroyers for purely scouting purposes when they were required for other purposes. That was the real origin of these scouting ships. Eight of them were being built. The purpose for which these vessels had been specially designed was to accompany a fleet and clear out the smaller craft which might endanger the safety of the fleet. It was not intended to lay down any more of this class until the value of the eight now under construction had been actually tested. The hon. Member for King's Lynn had referred to an article in The Times in which the figures quoted were considerably overdrawn. The whole gravamen of that article was in respect of the coal supply, but there was a mistake in the figures quoted, viz., that when these vessels were steaming at their normal draught they would be only carrying 150 tons of coal. That was not the fact. The draught which was imposed at their trials required them to carry sufficient coal to steam 3,000 miles at a speed of ten knots, and the quantity would vary slightly in different vessels. These vessels were not designed by the Admiralty. They had been frequently told that it was thought desirable to give an opportunity to eminent private naval draughtsmen to design ships for the Royal Navy and give them a tee hand. In this particular case the private firms in this country had been given that opportunity provided that they could fulfil the particular requirements as to speed and radius of action. They were permitted to send in their own specifications and designs, and the result was the eight vessels were now under con- 224 struction. Four firms were building them —two each. Messrs. Armstrong; Vickers; Fairfield; and Cammell, Laird and Company. Each of these vessels fulfilled the requirements of the Admiralty, although there were certain variations in the coal-bunker capacity. The largest capacity was 600 tons, which was considerably more than was indicated in The Times article. He joined issue with the hon. Member in his statement that a third-class cruiser would be a better vessel for the purpose for which these vessels were designed. The cost of a scout was very much the same as a third-class cruiser, which could only proceed at the rate of twenty-two knots an hour, but which had a more powerful armament. In the case of the scout they had the extra speed and so they had to sacrifice something in the way of armament. The purpose of the scout was that it should be able to approach an enemy's fleet consisting of a number of swift cruisers, and be able to escape and return and give information to the Admiral Commanding-in-Chief. It was perfectly clear that a third-class cruiser armament would give her no advantage, because she would not be able to fight a swift first or second-class cruiser of the enemy's fleet, and therefore her armament in that particular respect would be wasted, while the extra three-knots speed of the scout would be far more useful for the particular purpose he had indicated. The Admiralty had never claimed, and did not now claim, that these scouts would be fit for ocean work. They were fitted specially for Mediterranean work, and would be useful also for Channel work within the compass of their radius of action. But they were not designed for long-distance ocean work. It was not pretended that they were designed to accompany a fleet across the Atlantic. What it came to was this— that they were costly vessels, perhaps, but that they were the cheapest vessels and the smallest which could steam twenty-five knots for eight hours in succession; and that really was the problem set to the designers of the private firms. At the same time, they could steam 3,000 miles at the rate of ten knots an hour. When these eight scouts had been tested at sea, they would then be in a 225 position to decide whether they ought to ask the House to vote money for more of them.
MR. GIBSON BOWLESasked if he was right in saying that while at ten knots the scouts could steam 3,000 miles, at twenty-five knots they could steam only 200 miles.
§ MR. PRETYMANsaid that 3,000 miles at ten knots was limited by coal capacity, and twenty-five knots for eight hours was not limited by coal capacity. The limit was that of the engine power. The scouts could not steam twenty-five knots an hour for more than eight hours without some relaxation of the strain on the machinery. The destroyers could team only twenty-five knots an hour for not more than four hours.
MR. GIBSON BOWLESasked if the scouts could steam twenty-five knots for eight hours, and then, after being eased down, steam another twenty-five knots.
§ MR. PRETYMANCertainly. With regard to the inquiry into the loss of Submarine A1 he understood a statement was desired on a subsequent Vote.
§ SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid that the House was promised very definitely that there should be a general statement, not only a statement with reference to the loss of Submarine A1.
§ MR. PRETYMANsaid he would be perfectly prepared to make a statement; but he thought it could be made with better effect on a future occasion.
§ MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONasked if the report of the inquiry would be issued.
§ MR. PRETYMANsaid he was afraid he could not promise the hon. Gentleman the report of the inquiry. On principle such reports were not published. As to the Boiler Committee, the Admiralty had received an interim Report, and the final Report was daily expected. He was glad to be able to assure the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Forest of Dean that he heard no suggestion of any difference of opinion within the Admiralty or among distinguished 226 naval officers outside the Admiralty with regard to the matter. As to oil fuel, it was a most important question, to which the Admiralty had for some time been devoting a great deal of attention. It was a question, however, which in the interests of the Navy he would not deal with at any great length. He would, however, refer to two points. If a supply could be obtained from within the British Empire, which would be accessible in war time, then he thought the requirements would be met. The point, however, was not as to whether a supply was or was not in the British Empire, but whether the supply would be available both in peace and war, and whether they should be able to develop in peace time supplies that would be available in time of war. He could inform the hon. Gentleman that there was a prospect, certainly a possibility, of such a supply being obtained. That was the point of view from which the matter was being considered by the Admiralty. The hon. Gentleman said that oil fuel would double the radius of action; but he did not wish the House to accept that statement as being endorsed by the Admiralty. There were many advantages in the use of oil fuel; but one point should not be lost sight of, and that was that coal was abundant and obtainable in all quarters of the globe; and until oil was equally available it would be impossible to rely upon it solely for fuel. If the experiments in oil which were now being made by the Admiralty were successful, and if adequate supplies of oil were available, no doubt the proper arrangement would be the use of coal and oil in combination as fuel. In that way a considerable amount of labour in the stokehole would be avoided. With regard to the supply of coal by the Admiralty to foreign warships, as a general rule foreign warships obtained their supplies from the ordinary merchants of the port. But if the Admiralty were desired for a special reason, and as a matter of courtesy and convenience, to supply coal to a warship of another Power, they would consider the application on its merits. It would only be granted under exceptional circumstances and with the most careful safeguards.
§ MR. BUCHANANsaid that the House was indebted to the hon. Gentleman for 227 his statement, which justified the criticisms which had been advanced. If the Admiralty were engaged in totally novel experiments, they ought to be conducted on a limited scale; and should not involve the country in more expense than was absolutely necessary. Hon. Gentlemen opposite always asked if the House was going to refuse expenditure on the Navy. They did not want to refuse expenditure; but they wanted to know whether it was necessary or not. He gathered that the scouts were something between a third-class cruiser and a destroyer; and that they cost about the same as a third-class cruiser, and three times as much as a destroyer. The Admiralty might be justified in making these experiments, but in common prudence they should not have embarked on a scheme necessitating the building of eight ships, but have contented themselves with experimenting with two or, at the outside, three vessels. He did not pretend to follow the whole subject, but the way it came home to the laymen of the House like himself was that it was of little use for these ships to go at a speed of twenty knots from Gibraltar to Malta, if having done that they had not sufficient coal to come back. It was quite clear that at the present moment the Admiralty were in doubt as to whether this experiment was going to be successful or not. In his opinion, under the circumstances, the House was justified in watching very narrowly any new departure made by the Admiralty having regard to the consequences involved.
§ Further Consideration of subsequent Resolutions deferred till Monday next.