§ Motion made, and Question proposed,
§ 5. "That a sum, not exceeding £157,400, 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, 1911."
§ Lord CHARLES BERESFORDWe may have the biggest and the best Fleet, with the best officers and men, but if the officers and men, are not properly educated we shall go far to lose actions. It is the human element that will win, not ships and guns; therefore we cannot be too careful with regard to the education not only of our officers, but also of the men. I do not think this question has been ever thoroughly thrashed out in the House of Commons. I am referring to the efforts which have been made for giving a better education to the officers of the Fleet. The new scheme has been launched, and we have to do our level best to make it as good as possible; but there are certain features connected with it that must be extensively modified if it is to succeed. The 1902 scheme was launched with the unanimous support of the senior officers of the Service and of those who had made a continual study of what was really necessary for the education of the Fleet. The 1905 scheme was launched very quickly. A Committee sat; it did not examine a single executive officer; it examined five engineer officers in one day, and five Marine officers in a week; it reported in a very few weeks; and the scheme became the authoritative scheme which has to be obeyed in the Service. There are many points in that scheme which I and many others think are not at all for the benefit of the Service, and certainly not for the benefit of the education of officers.
Will the Secretary to the Admiralty tell us clearly whether or not these officers are to be interchangeable? The time has arrived in all Services, even in all businesses and industries, for specialisation. 850 There has never been a time in our history when the specialist in certain work was more wanted. To think that a man can do everything and take his turn in all the different departments in the British Navy equally well is absolutely absurd. You might as well include clergymen and doctors among interchangeable officers. There was a strong minority report, signed by very distinguished officers, which we have not seen. May I ask, in particular, whether the very basis of the scheme has not already been altered. The Director of Naval Education delivered a lecture which I would commend to the attention of the Committee if they wish to see a paper containing most flattering and unctuous remarks on those who carried out the scheme, and the egotism of which I never read anything to equal. In one part of the lecture, which was never answered—I only wish I had been at the lecture; I would have knocked the whole thing into a cocked hat —it says:—
Under the new scheme, midshipmen will no longer be under the naval instructor at sea; the distraction of the claims of school will be absent.On top of that, the Admiralty sent the best instructors of the Service to one of the colleges to be instructed as to what they were to teach these young lads who went to sea. Not one batch ever went to sea under the new scheme that had not its instructor with it. A new circular has come out under which an instructor is to be with the midshipmen in their first and third years. The basis of the scheme was that these lads were to be taught the whole of their mathematics before they went to sea, so that the remainder of their time could be devoted to professional subjects under the instruction of the officers of the ship. I hope the Secretary to the Admiralty will explain why in that particular the scheme has been so entirely altered.The new scheme also states that the lads are to be taught principally by lectures. What boy ever cared a fig about a lecture? He always goes to sleep; but put him to a lathe or to do something and he will do his level best. As for an x plus y lecture, a lad never pays the slightest attention to it, and with very few exceptions it is a mere waste of time. Are the Admiralty still intending to carry out this process of education by lectures? I am not sure whether I shall be in order in calling attention on this Vote to the interchangeability of the Marines and to the question of the engineers.
§ The CHAIRMANI do not know the exact point to which the Noble Lord wishes to refer, but I cannot see at present how it would be in order on this Vote.
§ Sir CHARLES DILKEMay I point out that the engineers do not stand in quite the same position as the Marines? The engineering college, which makes a speciality of enginering education; comes under this Vote.
§ The CHAIRMANI do not know what is the exact point the Noble Lord wishes to raise. Anything under the head of education comes under this Vote, but the question of interchangeability at a later stage would not.
§ Sir CHARLES DILKEI merely pointed out that the two matters mentioned by the Noble Lord are not similar. Engineering education for the creation of specialists is an educational Vote by itself, and is greatly reduced in consequence of the increase of the other system. The question of the engineers is affected by this Vote.
§ Lord CHARLES BERESFORDI think the question as it affects the engineers comes on this Vote. The important point about it is that the engineers have been caused a great amount of disappointment and irritation. They were led to believe, in the Press and elsewhere, that they were to receive great additions to their rank and power. No service can be really disciplined, happy, smart and efficient if any class of officers in it are not contented, and, though I entirely object to the view of the engineering officers with regard to their having this increased power and rank, I wish to point out that they are labouring under a sense of having been more or less promised, or of having been led to expect, these additions, and that, not having got them, they are not as contented as they should be. I think the question ought to be cleared up. This education question was run in a most scandalous way. I do not think the term is too strong. Old naval officers will remember a person called Rollo Appleyard writing tremendous letters to the engineering papers, and signing himself as if he were a civil engineer on shore. The public paid great attention to those letters, but when somebody took the trouble to find out who the writer was he was found to be a naval engineer on full pay who had been put up to do it. Directly this was found out Rollo Appleyard disappeared back to the place from which he ought never to have 852 come. We are going half mad on this question of theoretical education. I am as keen as anybody on proper education being given, but you will never teach a man to handle a ship, to handle the men under him, to fire a gun, or to lower a boat in a gale by x plus y mathematics. Under this new scheme seamen lads are to be advanced over the heads of other men because they are better at mathematics. That is altogether wrong. You are putting the Education Department and the Director of Education in far too powerful a position in the Service. He is laying down the law as to what are the requisite qualifications for a British admiral who has to handle men and handle ships. According to a circular dated 8th March, 1910, this is one of the questions the advanced class of seamen boys have to answer:—
If a = y + z-2x, if b = x + z -2y, if c = x + y -2z. find out in terms of x, y and z. the value of a2 +b2-c2 -2abWill anything in that question help that lad to lay a gun, or fire a shot, or anything else necessary for the hard physical life on a British man-of-war? But this lad's progress has to be watched with a view to his early advancement—that is to say, that the lad who can do this will go over the heads of other able seamen or petty officers. Because he can do this he has to have advancement, over others by whom he would be beaten at all practical work such as occurs in a gale of wind or in handling a gun. We must watch this very narrowly. We want to have our officers and men educated as well as we can, but for goodness sake do not put theory before practice I You want practical men when you go into action or when you are in a gale of wind. This is equally for the men and for the officers. As I said before. I am no advocate for ignorance. I want education to be as thorough as possible; but do not let us be carried away by this sort of sentimental nonsense, and put the man I have referred to in front of another man who can do practical work such as handle a boat or do any other work he has to do.There is another point I want to bring out in this education question. I think the hon. Gentleman will agree with me that it is perfectly possible to have an officer, or man, a splendid mathematician, without the slightest capability of handling men or a fleet. This is born in men. You can make a man who is not good do his work better by these means, but you can never make him brilliant. If you are 853 going to give the advantage to the officer or the man because of his knowledge of mathematics you are doing a very wrong thing and making a mistake. I want to ask the hon. Gentleman if the Board of Admiralty as a whole have seen the circular for Advanced Seamen Boys, dated 8th March, 1910 (N. 14058/1909, No. 10), because if they have I am very much astonished that it ever went out. I do not think they have seen it. I do not think they will agree that these boys are to be pushed forward over other boys on account of the knowledge I have mentioned. In the last few years there have been some circulars sent out to the fleets which the Board of Admiralty as a whole—certainly the political chiefs—never saw at all. If they had, I do not think they would have approved of them. I do not think they did approve of them. I can bring to their notice a pamphlet which deals largely with naval education. If the Committee will allow me I will tell them the story of that pamphlet. It is headed: "The Truth about the Navy." It has got the Admiralty seal on it. It was sent out to the fleets all over the world with an order from the Admiralty that this was to be issued to the men's libraries. It came out to the fleet I was commanding in, I think, December, 1908. The Board of Admiralty came out to Malta in January, 1907, and I at once said to them: "What on earth induced you to send out such a thing as that; to send such a pamphlet as that to be issued to the men's libraries of the Fleet is deplorable." They said they knew nothing about it. I showed them my telegram. I refused to issue that pamphlet unless I got a definite order from the Board of Admiralty to issue it. I carried my point. The pamphlets were not sent to me as commander-in-chief, they were sent to my captains. My captains read the order and said to me: "Surely this pamphlet was never intended to be issued to the men's libraries, or any library on board-ship; it is full of political questions, full of unctuous praise of a large number of people, and it has some sentences in it which are very liable to make a great stir, and provoke great irritation in neighbouring countries? I sent my telegram home. I never issued the pamphlet to the men's libraries. Will the right hon. Gentleman make a note of this and let me know if this pamphlet is in the libraries of the other fleets, or any of the reserve ships at present?
§ The CHAIRMANI do not know whether this has to do with the Vote. I must ask the Minister in charge.
§ Dr. MACNAMARAI cannot say. I do not know the pamphlet. I never saw it. But if this book has reference to the education of the Fleet I assume, Sir, it will be in order. What is the date of it?
§ Lord CHARLES BERESFORDThe date of it is 1906, and the front of it says that it can be bought from Chapman and Hall.
§ Dr. MACNAMARAThat has nothing to do with it.
§ Lord CHARLES BERESFORDI beg your pardon, it is everything to do with it. It is the foundation of the scheme for the education of the Fleet which I am endeavouring to pick holes in. It is entitled: "New Training Scheme," by A Captain, R.N., and it was adopted. We want to know who was that "Captain, R.N.," and why this scheme was adopted in the Service without the officers being consulted in any way whatever. As I have shown the Committee, it has already been altered by the naval instructor, who was never to go with the lads at all, being called in, and now he has to go afloat. I will read for the benefit of the Committee one or two things out of this pamphlet. I objected to it by telegraph because it had political bias. It was full of praise for certain people who had got this thing published. It had matters in it which had been violently attacked at home, and which had been made party questions; and I say it was absolutely wrong to send to the men or the officers of the Fleet a pamphlet of that character. This was the sort of thing that was in it:—
When there is weakness at home, it is the Bis-marckian rule to create a diversion abroad. The historians will learn that … and subsequent growth of anti-British feeling in Germany in association with various acts and speeches of those in high places have not been due to mere accident or carelessness.That is a nice thing to issue to the public library of a ship! But there is worse than that:—On the hypothesis that the German fleet is being created mainly with a view to fighting and defeating the British fleet under fortuitous circumstances. Great Britain may come within the zone of German war dreams, and no one acquainted with the German people, the German Navy League propaganda, and German periodicals, can doubt that the Fatherland indulges in war dreams of lurid triumph.I say it was a scandal to send that to the men of our Fleet. It is the very thing 855 that makes bad feeling between two countries. What right had we to send out with authority to the men of the Fleet a pamphlet which had political bias in it?
§ Dr. MACNAMARAIs it called "The Truth about the Navy?" There has never been a penny in any Estimates for it.
§ Lord CHARLES BERESFORDWas it not Mr. Carlyon Bellairs, the Member for King's Lynn, who in this House got out from the Front Bench that the Admiralty paid £19 odd for that pamphlet? It was paid for by Admiralty money, and the Admiralty denied in a telegram to me that it was official. They said: "There is not the slightest idea of giving official sanction to it." I had the Board of Admiralty at Malta with me. I do not know who sent that telegram for them. The Admiralty telegram said:—
The pamphlet in question has been supplied in the usual course. Nothing is known that is objectionable in it. But if you have any cause for objection, you can withhold its issue, as it is quite immaterial to their lordships whether it is circulated or not. There is not the slightest idea of giving any official sanction to it.My answer to that was:—The pamphlet, as the Admiralty states, was supplied in the usual course; but the Admiralty wrapper and official stamp gives the pamphlet official sanction, and the letter accompanying the pamphlet orders it to be placed in the ship's library.Was not that official? The hon. Gentleman has nothing to do with it. I am not blaming him. I am blaming any state of affairs that can allow such a thing as this. If you will look at the Debate in the House of Commons, you will find that Mr. Carlyon Bellairs got it from the Front Bench that the pamphlet costs £19 of Government money. [An Hon. MEMBER: "£20."]Well, £20. It cost money.
§ Dr. MACNAMARABut not money in this Vote.
§ Lord CHARLES BERESFORDOh, no! That is a little beside the mark. I object to that pamphlet; and I have just read out to you that other about the men. I do not think it is a wise thing to give lads advancement over others because they can do the mathematics specified, and I am only bringing forward this pamphlet because it was written in connection with the naval training question. It is that naval training that I say will have to be modified. We in the service always do 856 our best to make a bad thing into a good thing, but this is not a good thing, and it will have to be modified. None of the officers in the service were ever consulted about the education scheme at all, and you will have to alter it. I want to ask the hon. Gentleman if he will find out if that pamphlet is in the ships' libraries?
§ Dr. MACNAMARAYes.
§ Lord CHARLES BERESFORDIf it is, and he notes what I have read, he will see the propriety of having it withdrawn. I would like answered the questions that I have put with regard to the education matter. Are these officers to be interchangeable? Am I right or wrong in stating that one of the principal points in this education scheme that the naval instructor was never to appear on board with new lads from Osborne has been entirely altered? Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the Committee of any other alterations there are with regard to the scheme, and whether the Admiralty have approved of it as far as it goes? Will the Admiralty inform the Engineer Department of the Navy that those intimations they received publicly—and I believe privately—that they were to receive certain honours, certain definite powers, are not to be given? I think it is due to the engineers that they ought to know, and I am sure the Committee will be very glad to have the questions which I have put answered.
§ Mr. W. W ASHLEYI wish to ask the hon. Gentleman who represents the Admiralty to explain the item in the Estimates on page 73, under miscellaneous items of expenses for boys, how it is that the reduction of £40 has been effected on last year? The Admiralty is saving £40 under this head of last year, but if we turn to page 3 to the explanation of "difference in numbers," it will be seen that it is proposed to have 794 boys more this year than last year. I shall be glad, therefore, if the hon. Member will explain how he is going to reduce the Vote by £40 and yet have 794 more boys this year than last year.
§ Earl WINTERTONSome of us are anxious to know a little more about the pamphlet which has been referred to by my Noble Friend, and I will, therefore, put one or two questions to the hon. Gentleman representing the Admiralty. As I understand it, this pamphlet is issued by order of what is known as the educational staff, which comes under this Vote. It 857 would seem to me to be a matter entirely cogent to this Vote to inquire of the Government, who is responsible for the issue of this pamphlet. As one anxious not to introduce controversial matter, I am bound to say I consider this pamphlet one of the most inflammatory pamphlets ever issued by the Admiralty or anyone else.
§ The CHAIRMANThis pamphlet, I understand, was issued many years ago. I do not know by whom, but the matter seems to me pertinent to this Vote only in so far as it is a defence of the scheme of education attacked. Otherwise it is not in order.
§ Earl WINTERTONI entirely bow to your ruling. The point I submit is that this pamphlet, although issued in 1906, is still in circulation in the libraries of the Navy. It is issued under a scheme which we are discussing in this Vote, and I venture to submit unless it was issued under such a scheme there would be no object in issuing it at all. If it was not issued under such a scheme, it is purely a party pamphlet, and I know at the time it was issued, whatever views people might hold upon the North Sea question or otherwise upon the question of German or English navies, there was no one who read this pamphlet but regretted it was issued under official cognisance or authority to the men of the Fleet. The extracts which my Noble Friend read from this pamphlet are sufficient evidence to show the Committee that it contains statements of the most inflammatory character. I do not wish to introduce any unnecessary controversy, but it has been an open secret that this pamphlet was written by Lord Fisher of Kesteven.
§ Earl WINTERTONThe hon. Gentleman denies that. Then by whom was it issued?
§ Mr. LAMBERTI do not know.
§ Earl WINTERTONThe hon. Gentleman says he does not know by whom it was issued or by whom it was written.
§ Mr. LAMBERTI denied the statement that the late First Sea Lord wrote it.
§ Earl WINTERTONI have certain information which I am not at liberty to give which shows that it was written by Lord Fisher of Kesteven. I am willing to 858 withdraw that statement if the hon. Gentleman says who wrote the pamphlet. The hon. Gentleman gives no answer to that. The fact remains it was issued, and it is not necessary for my argument to draw the name of Lord Fisher into it, although I continue to maintain it was written by him, and unless there is a denial of that by the hon. Gentleman opposite I shall continue to hold that view. It is an open secret in the Navy that this pamphlet was written by Lord Fisher, and I challenge the hon. Gentleman to deny it. What was the need for this pamphlet? It contains a lot of inflammatory and controversial matter. If it had been issued by the Maritime League or the Navy League or any other such league it would foe said to have been deliberately intended to make bad blood between England and Germany. We require some explanation of the issue of this pamphlet. The history of the pamphlet left, not only in this House, but outside it, a very bad impression as to the kind of intrigue that went on at the Admiralty under Lord Fisher's administration.
§ The CHAIRMANThat is not in order.
§ Earl WINTERTONI have nothing more to say, but I hope at the same time we shall have some explanation in regard to this matter. I have put three questions to the Government, namely, who issued the pamphlet, who paid for the issue of it, and who wrote it?
§ Captain GILMOURI wish to ask a question with regard to the system of technical education in the Navy. I would like to know what has been done by way of assisting the men to fit them for taking up positions in civil life after leaving the Service. I know that certain experiments have been made in that direction at Eastney, and reference has been made to the statement which the First Lord of the Admiralty made in explanation of that system and also to some extent in other directions. I should therefore be glad if the Government would give us some explanation of the matter.
§ Dr. MACNAMARAWith regard to the point which has been made by the last speaker, I desire to say we have for some considerable time past set such a scheme on foot—rather I should say the officers at Eastney have set such a scheme on foot—whereby men may be equipped for a better opportunity of getting employment when they leave the Ser- 859 vice. The hon. Member referred to the scheme which was going on at Eastney for giving the men technical training. It is progressing satisfactorily, and certainly we must all watch its progress with an eye of sympathy. With regard to the pamphlet, I believe that the pamphlet was issued in 1906. I have never seen it or read it; I do not know who wrote it, or anything else about it. I am responsible for these Estimates, and there is no money in the Estimates in respect of this pamphlet.
§ Mr. ASHLEYBut the pamphlet is still in the libraries.
§ Dr. MACNAMARAI think I am right in saying there never has been any money in the Estimates for the issue of the pamphlet. It is now, indeed, brought to my notice for the first time. I may be quite wrong as to whether there was ever any money in the Estimate for this pamphlet, but there is no money in this Estimate. The Noble Lord opposite and hon. Gentlemen opposite raised the question of the pamphlet on the ground that it is still in the libraries. I will make due inquiries upon that point and I will inform hon. Gentlemen whether it is there now or not. One good thing at any rate has emerged from this discussion. Hon. Gentlemen opposite have been, quite rightly and very properly, deprecating anything in the nature of embittering international relationships. I am extremely glad to hear it, and I am certain that all parts of the House will share my gladness. The main subject touched upon in these discussions was that of the whole question of the training of the naval officer. The Noble Lord the Member for Portsmouth does not agree with common entry and common training. He said it was a bad thing, but with his true loyalty to the Service of which he is such a distinguished Member he will do his best to make it go. I do not think it is a bad thing. I think it is a very good thing, and I also shall do my best to ensure its success. The Noble Lord is wrong in stating that the adoption of that scheme was the result of the work of one Committee. There had been a number of Committees dealing with the question of the training of naval officers. Several Committees investigated the question of the training of naval officers before Lord Selborne's scheme.
§ Lord CHARLES BERESFORDThat is perfectly true, but my point was that the 860 1905 scheme, which was an entire alteration of the 1902 scheme, was the result. The 1902 scheme—that was common entry and specialisation—had all our support, but the 1905 scheme wanted to make a handy Billie of every officer, so that he was to be able to do everything, and that scheme was the result of one Committee's investigation.
§ Dr. MACNAMARAYou cannot take the changes of the 1905 scheme and discuss them apart from Lord Selborne's scheme of 1902. The one depended very much upon the other. Now, the genesis of that scheme, as the Noble Lord knows, was common entry and common training up to a certain point. We take in these boys, they go before an interviewing committee, and I do not know anything which I have ever come across in educational matters, and, although I have not the knowledge in naval matters of the Noble Lord, I have a large knowledge of educational matters, and I do not know anything that works so admirably as does this interviewing committee. You have a Flag Officer, and experienced men like Dr. Gow, Dr. Burge, Canon Lyttelton and Mr. Benson. You have a second naval officer, a post captain with some experience of training work, and a representative of the First Lord. They examine these boys, and they get at their native genius. They get at the intellect of these boys in a way in which they could not get at it in a month's examination. The Noble Lord opposite is out against professors, lecturers, and examinations.
§ Lord CHARLES BERESFORDI am in favour of expert inquiry, and I am very much against people who are very clever mathematically making out difficulties for others not so clever mathematically. I am in favour of the practical people. I like practical working people better than theoretical people.
§ Dr. MACNAMARAThe Noble Lord referred to these things as sentimental nonsense.
§ Lord CHARLES BERESFORDNot all of them.
§ Dr. MACNAMARAAfter the interview and medical examination they are selected practically upon the result of that interview to which I have referred, subject to a qualifying examination. You get at the native capacity and genius of these boys in that interview. They then go down to 861 Osborne and Dartmouth for two years each. The Noble Lord says do not let them sit there to be lectured by professors. The British Navy has to depend on brains as well as upon brawn.
§ Lord CHARLES BERESFORDYes, but not all brains.
§ Dr. MACNAMARANo, and not all brawn. I say that the training at Osborne and Dartmouth is about the best I have come across. It is first-class secondary education of a modern type with a necessary touch—yes, more than a touch—of navigation and seamanship, and the general duties of a naval officer. The Noble Lord may know that the first batch under this scheme joined the Fleet in May, 1908, and they will become sublieutenants in July, 1911. I am not a naval expert, but I have seen these young officers on many occasions, and they seem to me to be very thorough and very keen, and so far from the naval officer being a jack of all trades and master of none, under the present system I think the naval officer of the future will know something about everything and everything about some one thing. I do not know any finer equipment than that. The Noble Lord has dwelt upon the word "inter-changeability," in fact, he has made it a sort of shibboleth. As I pointed out on a former occasion, and as I point out now, we wish to give high specialisation with the faculty to assume executive control. We issued a circular upon this subject in May, 1908, in which we pointed out that the details of the scheme would be subject to such revision as experience might show to be necessary. I have carefully listened to what the Noble Lord has said to-day, and I shall bear in mind his criticism. I wish, however, it to be remembered that we stated frankly that the details of this new scheme would be subject to revision. I think the Noble Lord rather overdid his criticism in regard to mathematics. I agree that x plus y will not help a man to fire a gun, but it will help him to find the range and also help him to hit the bulls-eye. It must not be thought that we do not want high mathematical training, and nobody understands that better than the Noble Lord opposite. We have taken up the training of sub-lieutenants under the new system at Keyham, and of course we have establishments for giving specialisation to older officers in the Navy.
§ Mr. ARTHUR LEEThere are two points which I wish to raise. My first point is 862 with regard to the interviewing committee to which the Secretary to the Admiralty referred. I am in hearty agreement with his general observations upon this question. He very truly described the method of selection of these boys. I wish to know if, in addition to the indication of ability which the boys themselves give before the committee, and in addition to the reports of the boys' schoolmasters the new system permits it to be stated to the committee by whom the boys are recommended? I believe that was originally done, and I took exception to it at the time when I was at the Admiralty, because I thought it tended even in the case of the most impartial committee to undue favour being given to those boys who were recommended by some distinguished person. I wish to know if that system still obtains, and perhaps the hon. Gentleman will inform me whether the committee, in making their selection, are in possession of any knowledge as to who has recommended the candidates apart from the boys' own schoolmasters? I hope that such recommendations as I have alluded to are no longer allowed, because if the new system is to be a success it is necessary that every boy should be selected absolutely upon his merits, and no recommendation from distinguished persons outside should be laid before the committee under the new scheme.
The Secretary to the Admiralty has described the working of the new educational system. I should, of course, be the last person to criticise that scheme, because I was more or less implicated in its inception. The hon. Gentleman has described how the scheme has worked up to a certain point, and I think we all agree that the results are apparently admirable and hopeful as regards the future. We are now coming to the point at which, in a very-short time, the whole effect of the scheme will be put to the test where the senior hatch of these boys from Osborne and Dartmouth will pass through the rank of midshipman and sub-lieutenant, and when they will have to decide which branch of the Service they are going to specialise. This has been foreseen from the first This is the first great fence to be jumped, and the first great obstacle to be faced. You now reach that point where you will find that a number of young officers will be required for the first time to become lieutenants in the engineering department or lieutenants in the marine. What I want to know is whether the Admiralty have yet 863 any indications which will enable them to forecast how many of these young officers are going voluntarily to select these branches and elect to serve in the engineering branch or the marine branch. I also wish to know, in the unhappy event of a sufficient number not electing voluntarily to join those Services, what steps are the Admiralty going to take to fill up the vacancies in those branches in order to make the new scheme a success and to continue it upon the lines laid down. We all hope that the scheme is going to be successful, but this can only be determined when the moment arrives at which an opinion can be pronounced upon the scheme as a whole. I hope the First Lord of the Admiralty will give some anxious thought to this matter.
I do not agree with what my Noble Friend has said about specialisation. I do not think it was ever intended that there should be permanent specialisation. What was intended was temporary specialisation for a period for every officer having a prospect of success after a certain number of years, with the chance of going back to the executive branch unless he wished to permanently specialise. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will tell us what he is going to do in the event of his not being able to get sufficient naval volunteers for the engineering and marine branches.
§ Mr. GIBSON BOWLESMay I remind the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Arthur Lee) that whatever difficulties he has pointed out are of his own creation?
§ Mr. GIBSON BOWLESAnd you did not provide for them.
§ 6.0 P.M.
§ Mr. GIBSON BOWLESThen I understand that the hon. Member opposite and his associates formulated and passed a scheme of training for the Navy involving difficulties which he knew of then and knows now, and yet he did not provide for meeting those difficulties. I remember when this scheme was put forward in 1902 I strongly objected to it largely upon the ground of the difficulties that 864 would be found in regard to its working. You invite young gentlemen to go into the Navy, and they are selected by this admirable committee, which is to find out all about them and their capacity and their adaptability for the Service in an interview of about two and a half minutes.
§ Dr. MACNAMARAdissented.
§ Mr. GIBSON BOWLESWell, a quarter of an hour. I do not think I could find out all about the hon. Gentleman himself in a quarter of an hour, especially if I met him for the first time. These young gentlemen all intend to be sailor officers.
§ Lord CHARLES BERESFORDAll admirals.
§ Mr. GIBSON BOWLESAnd they all intend to be admirals, and most of them Admirals of the Fleet. Having got them into the Navy, you say, "I am going to train you all together; I am going to give you all a common training." That, in my opinion, is the first great mistake. Sailor officers require to be trained differently from engineers or engineer officers. But that is the plan. We are going to fill them with science till they can scarcely understand what they have got in them, and require spectacles to bring it out of them. Then we are going to say to these young gentlemen, "You are not going to be executive naval officers, but Marines or engineers." That is a breach of the understanding on which all these young gentlemen enter the Navy. They all intend to be sailor officers, lieutenants and admirals. The difficulty is one entirely of your own creation. The new scheme creates the difficulty.
§ Mr. LEEI do not in the least object to the hon. Gentleman attacking me or the scheme, but he might describe it correctly. These young officers, as soon as they reach the right command, have to go back to the executive branch unless they are permitted to specialise permanently. The intention of the scheme was that they should get back into the executive line from the rank of commander onwards and so have the opportunity of becoming admirals.
§ Mr. GIBSON BOWLESI do not think the right hon. Gentleman has improved his position by this interruption. It appears there is not to be one specialisation, but many specialisations. This young 865 gentleman is first to be an engineer, then an executive officer, and then, I suppose, an engineer again.
§ Mr. GIBSON BOWLESThat is the effect of the explanation the right hon. Gentleman has given. The real truth is that these young men are to be either fish, flesh, or good red herring, as the Admiralty choose. They go in to be fish, and do not want to be flesh or herring, but the Admiralty says, "When you have been herrings, you shall be fish at some other period." You want the sailor officer specialised and kept in his position, the engineer specialised and kept in his position—he is not an engineer really, but an engine-driver—and you want the Marine Specialised and kept in his position. You have abandoned that. That, I think, is the inherent difficulty of the position. I have never heard any justification for the alterations that were then made. You had an excellent method of training your engineer officer and an admirable method of training your Marine officer, superior possibly to any military department in any force in the world, and you chose to create these difficulties yourselves. I think it rather hard that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Lee) should come to the present First Lord of the Admiralty and deal with him as though he had created the difficulty, and ask him how he is going to get out of it. I do not think it is possible to get out of it.
Secondly, there is the question of this science, x plus y. Of course, you want a vast amount of science in the Navy. You have to use the highest mathematics in the naval service and to calculate curves of the most extraordinary difficulty. I admit that, but that work should be done by a few professors highly skilled, and they should be at home. I admit and assert that you want men of the highest scientific knowledge, but you do not want them on the boat or in the ship; they ought to be in the Admiralty—in those new buildings where you would have all the appliances of the highest kind. What you want in the ordinary naval officer is practical experience of practical matters. The fault of the scheme is that it sets up science, not in a higher position than it should hold, but in a place different from that it should occupy. I believe you are entirely wrong in requiring these little boys to fill their heads with science. I saw some of the new midshipmen when at 866 Gibraltar the other day, and I am told that the effect of the extraordinary amount of x s which they have got to get into their heads is to leave them very much confused. You should put the naval officer into his apprenticeship as soon as you can. Put him on board ship and give him command of a boat's crew. Some of the boat's crew will probably run away, get drunk, and return without any clothes on. Let him learn to prevent these things. That is the way to teach a naval officer. Teach him to handle men, and, if he fails, take the boat away from him. That is the way to make a practical naval officer. You do not want that particular science in that particular gentleman; science can be provided for him from the shore.
I was rather disappointed with the definition given by the hon. Gentleman (Dr. Macnamara) of what a naval officer should know. He said he should know something about everything and everything about one thing. It is quite impossible, in the limitations of human life, for any human being to attain to that. If a naval officer knows how to deal with ships and boats and a certain number and a certain kind of man, that is as much as can be required of him. The knowing of something about everything and of everything about something—that you can find at home, if at all, and that you should leave at home. At sea you want a man who knows how to handle a ship, whether it is a torpedo boat, a destroyer, a cruiser, or a man of war; and he can only learn that by the most intense application from his earliest youth to that task. He must serve an apprenticeship at sea. If you suppose that by serving a long apprenticeship to science you thereby become a seaman and a capable handler of ships and men, you make a most profound mistake. It is the mistake made in this plan.
Then I come, to interchangeability. It was certainly suggested in the plan as first proposed that all these officers should be interchangeable. I believe to some extent that has been abandoned, but to what extent I do not quite know. The Noble Lord will perhaps suggest that it was not Lord Selborne, but Lord Cawdor who did this.
§ Lord CHARLES BERESFORDUnder the scheme of 1902, there were to be specialists, but under the scheme of 1905 everybody was to be a specialist in everything, and that cannot work
§ Mr. GIBSON BOWLESI can perfectly well remember denouncing the scheme of 1902 on account of its creating what I ventured then to call the interchangeable popinjay. I do not know how far that has been abandoned. I am perfectly convinced you will have to make a complete abandonment of that before you can get the proper work out of your naval officer. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Lee) has alluded to the time when the boys trained under the new scheme will become lieutenants. I believe I am right in saying that that will be in 1912. You will therefore, in 1912, have your new lieutenants flowing into your man-of-war. Let the Committee remember that the lieutenant is the backbone of the service. It is not the commander, the captain, nor the admiral upon whom the efficiency, the capacity, and the ability of the Fleet depend, but it is upon the large body of lieutenants. If, then, you are making a mistake, as I venture to think you are, and if you are continuing the mistake, as I believe you are, and if you are introducing the wrong sort of lieutenants into the Navy from the year 1912 onwards, you are beginning a very serious deterioration of your naval capacity. I am persuaded that the old and not the new way is the right one. A man learned his trade, not by sitting at a desk and having his head filled with formulse, but by sitting in the sternsheets of a boat and learning how to handle the boat and the men in it, even to taking an iron tiller and giving a man a crack on the head if he did not do what he told him. That was the hard school in which the naval officer really learned his profession. X and y must be had, but they should be left at home. The practical way, I believe, is the right way. I could really dwell at great length upon this subject. I feel intensely the enormous importance of it, and I feel that we are at this moment gambling with the future of our naval officer. If the scheme started in 1902 and since somewhat modified—though not to the extent I should have liked—is right, it is well and good, but we know the old system was right. It bred the best officer in the world. It is true it was another kind of ship, but it was not another kind of Service; it was essentially the same. We do not know, we have to guess whether this will be right. I myself have the greatest doubt about it. I always had. I still believe you are going the wrong way. It seems to be suggested 868 that you are to change about, that you are to change your executive man to an engineering man or to a marine man, and that then you are to bring the engineer and the marine back to the Executive Branch. I believe that is the crowning error of all. Do I understand that you are to select your naval officer as an engineering officer, and that he should then leave the stokehole and go on the bridge and become an executive officer and handle the ship?
§ Mr. LEEI am not making any suggestion. I am describing the scheme. A young officer has to specialise in one branch or the other for a certain period only. He does not choose the period, but he chooses the branch in which he specialises. At the end of that period he has to go back to the Executive Branch, unless he is allowed to remain in the branch in which he has specialised on account of having shown a special aptitude for it.
§ Mr. GIBSON BOWLESThe right hon. Gentleman says "Go back." Go back to what? I understand that the boy is forcibly specialised by the Admiralty. At any rate, that is what it will come to, and you must not expect that lieutenants who go into the Navy will consent to become engineers. Do you think that a boy who enters full of romance thinking he is to become an effective naval officer will voluntarily become an engineer? I do not believe you will find one in twenty who will do that. You will have to force them to specialise. The First Lord of the Admiralty shakes his head. I do not know what experience he may have among these young gentlemen, but from my knowledge of them and of their parents I believe the strongest resistance will be shown to forcible specialisation as engineers. You are going to make them specialise as engineers, and then under your scheme they will leave the engine room and go on to the bridge. Surely that is not the right way to go about the business. If you want a man to handle a ship you must bring him up with that object. If you want him to run an engine train him to do it. And if you want him to command the Marines, red or blue, you must bring him up to that. You cannot have the jack of all trades whom some people seem to admire. I should like to see this scheme largely modified, and some sort of reasonable prospect held out to these young gentlemen that they shall be trained for the job which they have entered the Navy to learn, and that 869 they shall not be expected to turn their hand to another job. I look forward with great apprehension to the advent of this new kind of lieutenant who will come into charge of His Majesty's ships a few years hence.
§ Mr. McKENNAI hope the views expressed by my hon. Friend will not obtain currency generally throughout the Navy or among the parents of the young officers. The view which he has expressed shows that he completely misunderstands the present system. I should be unwilling in the circumstances to use strong language, but it really is necessary that outside it should be understood that this Education Scheme has no connection, at all with the picture drawn by my hon. Friend. In the Navy we have long had a system of specialisation by young officers, and I want to say that we certainly include among our best lieutenants at the present time specialists in gunnery and torpedo work, and also in navigation. We do not say that these men who specialise in gunnery, torpedo and navigation are actuated by the hope of becoming Admirals of the Fleet, or that they divorce themselves from the executive, and will not hereafter command ships. On the contrary they are regarded as amongst our best men, and if my hon. Friend will go through the list of officers at the head of the Navy at the present time, the list of commanders and captains of big battleships, the list of admirals, and Admirals of the Fleet, he will find that the specialists absorb amongst themselves a very large proportion of the best appointments. The system embodied in the new scheme is that we should have an engineer specialist in the same way as we have gunnery and torpedo specialists. But the hon. Gentleman asks will you get young officers to specialise for the engine-room—will they be content to go down into the engine-room? Why not? The gunnery specialist does not have a very easy time—he has to spend a great deal of time in his study, he is not the man on the bridge and does not satisfy the picture of an ordinary officer which my hon. Friend has drawn.
§ Mr. GIBSON BOWLESIndeed, he does. These other specialists do not come within the view I was putting forward. These torpedo and gunnery and navigation lieutenants are all seamen executive officers—not engineers. What I wanted to point out was that usually a boy who 870 comes into the Fleet does not intend to be an engineer.
§ Mr. McKENNAIf the hon. Gentleman will look into the history of the Navy he will find that exactly the same argument he is using with regard to the engineer specialists was in former days used about the navigating officers. In former days we had gunnery and torpedo specialists, and then the navigating officer was in exactly the same position as the engineer officer is at this moment.
§ Lord CHARLES BERESFORDHe never could be an admiral.
§ Mr. McKENNAThe Noble Lord has not caught my point. The change was made in the system of educating the navigating officer. They were made executive officers, and trained as specialists, in order to obtain exactly the same rank and status as the ordinary executive officers.
§ Lord CHARLES BERESFORDThe navigating officer was always an executive officer, and he could not become an admiral. There are now 3,200 officers on the list, from admiral down to midshipman. They can all become admirals, and I would ask you to look at the irritation caused by the fact that they do not do so. Now you are going to add 2,300 more engineering and marine officers, and you are telling them that they also can become admirals. That will be your difficulty, because they will join in the believe that they may become admirals, whereas they will not be able to do so, and you will have to specialise them.
§ Mr McKENNAThat is a new grievance. You say that these boys enter with the chance of becoming admirals, and if we only told them at the start that they would have no such chance they would be perfectly satisfied. I am sorry I cannot come to any other conclusion than that. In former days the navigating officer was not an officer of the same status and position as the ordinary executive officer—he held separate rank. But when the Admiralty made a change and gave the navigating officer the same rank as the ordinary executive officer, precisely the same argument now used by my hon. Friend in relation to the engineering officers was then used in regard to the navigating officers. We have now an Admiral of the Fleet who was entered under the old system. He turned over when the change was made, and is now in exactly the same 871 position as other executive officers. If my hon. Friend will only be patient he will find that the experience which the Admiralty have had with regard to the navigating officers will be repeated with regard to the engineering officers, who will become specialists. The hon. Member for Fareharn laid himself open to the retort of my hon. Friend—I do not join in it—that this danger was foreseen and ought to have been guarded against before the scheme was adopted. I think the Admiralty of the day in 1902 were right in adopting this scheme. This danger was foreseen; but, although foreseen, the risk had to be taken. Nobody could avoid taking it. How do we find ourselves in 1910? What is our present prospect? That is the only point we have to consider. The scheme has been adopted, and midshipmen have been trained under it. I beg my hon. Friend not to instil into the minds of those whom we are recruiting as our future officers the idea that it is an unworthy thing to go into the engineroom. The engineer officers have absolutely as good prospects as the officers in every other branch, and I certainly hope that we shall obtain the necessary number of volunteers. The hon. Gentleman asked me what reasons we have for thinking that the scheme will work successfully in practice—what indication we have of that? Of course, at the moment it is impossible to say how many of these lieutenants will volunteer to become specialists in the engineering branch; but where-ever I have been I have asked the captains I have met who have had the new scheme under consideration, and I have been again and again told by responsible men that they have not a shadow of doubt that volunteers will readily come forward for the engineering branch. Personally, so far as I have an opinion on the subject, I have the strongest belief that when the time comes the inducements to join the engineering branch are so great that we shall have an abundance of volunteers. The sub-lieutenant who specialises as an engineer gets higher pay—he gets the pay of a specialist. He is also relieved of watch-keeping duty on the bridge, and I confess I do not know from my observation of human nature that young men are particularly fond of watching duties on the bridge. I believe that this inducement alone will be sufficient to enable us to obtain the necessary number of volunteers for the branch. As a matter 872 of fact, there is another strong inducement. We find, as the result of the training at Osborne and Portsmouth, that a large number of midshipmen have developed special engineering tastes, and they will have a far better chance of success and prominence in the Navy as engineer specialists than in any other branch. Just as in the case of the youngster who shows a great aptitude for gunnery, so, in the case of the engineer specialist, the boy who becomes an engineer will see his way to distinction equally in that branch. Taking all these considerations together—the actual opinions and representations of the officers, the arguments which have been advanced to the engineer specialists, and the better prospects in the service which will be open to a skilful engineer rather than to the ordinary rank and file sea officers—I personally have very little doubt that we shall have no difficulty whatever in securing the necessary volunteers when the time comes. An hon. Gentleman referred to the case of the marine branch, and I have recently had an opportunity of discussing this point with the captains of one of the ships that I visited, who had the new scheme in his ship, and he told me that two of the midshipmen were anxious to volunteer for the marine branch, but I am unable to ascertain the precise figures. It was generally considered that there would be none, but one captain told me that there were two on his ship, and I have no doubt at all that volunteers will be found when the time comes. But, of course, in an important matter of this sort the Admiralty cannot merely rely upon volunteers, and we have secured ourselves against all risks in regard to the marine and engineer services being maintained, because every single cadet who is entered at Osborne is entered for all three branches, and really without any hardship or without any unfair play, we should be perfectly entitled to commandeer them for each of the three branches. I do not think it will be necessary, and as far as I have observed the Board of Admiralty which introduced this scheme in 1902, of which the hon. Member opposite was a member, were thoroughly justified in believing that they had laid the best basis for a scheme of naval training which this country has ever had.
§ Mr. McKENNANo recommendations from outside or inside the Admiralty, except the recommendations of the schoolmasters, are made known to the members of the committee. Care is also taken that the names of the members of the committee should not be known outside. Consequently very little, if any, opportunity is given to any person to communicate with them. The recommendations which may be made on behalf of particular boys are known only to the First Lord of the day.
§ Mr. LEEWhile thanking the First Lord for that answer, may I ask him if he will go a little further, and say whether, as a general rule, the First Lord accepts the recommendations of the committee as to the boys.
§ Mr. McKENNAI have no reason to conceal anything from the Committee as to this system. The committee, after interviewing the boys, divide them up into classes, and I will call the classes Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6, and so on. We have usually to select from seventy to eighty names, and the boys of the first class may not number more than ten or twenty, and these will be taken as a matter of course, and so on, with the following classes until we reach one in which if all the boys were taken the total required would be exceeded. In considering the selection of boys from that particular class the recommendations are considered; that is to say, the members of the Board of Admiralty have a right to recommend a boy, and the old system is adhered to that a captain may make a recommendation on commission of his ship. These recommendations are then considered, but it is only when there is doubt as to which of a number of boys are to be taken that the recommendation becomes of use.
§ Mr. GIBSON BOWLESIs it the First Lord who makes the selection?
§ Mr. McKENNAYes. It is I myself who make the selection.
§ Mr. ASHLEYI cannot allow this Vote to pass without expressing my regret and that of many hon. Members on these benches, at the unsatisfactory reply which the Financial Secretary made to the point raised by the Noble Lord (Lord Charles Beresford) in regard to a pamphlet entitled "The Truth About the Navy." I do not wish to drag anybody's name into this discussion, but the people who are 874 responsible for this pamphlet, and the question with regard to it raised by the Noble Lord, are the Government of the day, and no one else. The hon. Gentlemen in reply to the Noble Lord said that he knew nothing about the pamphlet, and had not read it, and so far as he knew, no money had ever been taken by the Admiralty for it. I think that is a very unsatisfactory answer. The hon. Gentleman should know about this pamphlet, which is a very important one. It came out with the Admiralty's stamp; it is still circulated on the ships, and apparently contains extracts of an ill-advised character in regard to a friendly power. It ought not, therefore, to be dismissed in half a dozen sentences by the representative of the Government, and I think it was hardly fair of the hon. Gentleman to insinuate that we on this side made statements of a defamatory character against a friendly power. Therefore I think it is right to make a protest against this very important matter which was raised by the Noble Lord being dismissed in half-a-dozen sentences by a representative of the Government without any information being given in regard to it.
§ Dr. MACNAMARAThe only question which was asked me was whether it was still in the library, and I said I would find out. I do not know what more I could say except that I would inquire.
§ Mr. MARKHAMI desire to ask a question about Osborne, and whether the sanitary conditions are such that the cadets can go there without any injury to their health. A series of letters has appeared in the "Times" from the parents of cadets, and the right hon. Gentleman is aware that a great deal of sickness has prevailed at Osborne. I went through the college myself some months ago, and although I grant the conditions appear sanitary in every respect, still there has been a great amount of doubt raised about the matter.
§ The CHAIRMANI do not think that this arises on this Vote. It comes on on Vote 10.
§ Mr. MARKHAMOn the point of Order, Sir. We have the Vote for the officers on page 71, who are responsible for the education and discipline, and I would venture to suggest that the surgeons also come into this Vote. Therefore, I am in order in dealing with the medical portion of the administration.
§ The CHAIRMANIt does not come in this Vote. It does not come in here at all.
§ Mr. MARKHAMOn the point of Order, Sir. Are we not discussing Vote 5?
§ The CHAIRMANOf course we are discussing Vote 5, but the question of the condition of Osborne does not come up upon it, but only the education given at Osborne.
§ Mr. MARKHAMI will confine myself to the duties of the Fleet surgeons at Osborne on page 51, and I would point out that the sanitary conditions of the establishment have been for a long time past unhealthy.
§ The CHAIRMANI can assure the hon. Gentleman he is out of Order.
§ Mr. MARKHAMAm I not in Order in saying that the chief surgeon is not doing his duty? How can I call attention to it in any other way.
§ The CHAIRMANI told the hon. Gentleman that he could call attention to it on Vote 10, which is the proper Vote to raise it upon.
§ Mr. MARKHAMWith great respect I cannot call attention to the failure of duty by that officer on that Vote.
§ The CHAIRMANThe particular point which the hon. Member raises comes on Vote 10 (Works, Buildings and Repairs at Home and Abroad).
§ Question put, and agreed to.