§ *LORD BRASSEYMy Lords, I rise to call attention to the Report of the Departmental Committee appointed by the Admiralty under the Earl of North-brook, recommending the constitution of the Royal Corps of Constructors, and to the increasing duties and responsibilities of the professional officers at the Admiralty and dockyards. In introducing this subject I make no reflection on the Board of Admiralty or on Sir William White. The faults which I shall endeavour to point out are not of recent date. They are more or less inherent in any system which must be administered under rigid rules. To Sir William White the highest praise is due. A noble fleet has been constructed for the Navy under his direction, and to his ability the highest testimony is borne by the leading men of his own profession, abroad as well as at home.
Turning to the general question, it is the settled policy of the country that the British Navy should be maintained at such a standard of strength as will secure the integrity of the Empire, and adequately protect our lines of communication across the ocean. The number of men voted for the Navy has been doubled since I first entered Parliament, while the sum voted for new construction in the last Estimates prepared by Lord Goschen was no less than £8,460,000. There are some who think that our expenditure, large as it is, scarcely suffices for our 5 needs. When, however, we compare the shipbuilding Votes of our own Navy with those of France and Russia, and note the fact that, taken together, the combined expenditure of the two Powers is considerably less than that incurred for the British Navy; and if we further take into view that shipbuilding is more costly elsewhere than with us, it seems a clear duty, before adding to Estimates, to secure the most effective application of the vast sums which the wise liberality of Parliament has already placed in the hands of the Admiralty.
In the department of construction all depends on the scientific attainments of the naval architect and the practical knowledge and experience of the shipbuilder. The professional work for the British Navy requires a large body of officers. It has been the policy of the Government to recruit for this service from the more promising students at the dockyard schools, and to train them at the public expense. The training is admirable. The positions opened to these highly-trained men, more especially on first entering the service, long remained unsatisfactory. The necessity for an improvement in the status of the constructive branch was brought before Lord North-brook by Sir Houston Stewart, who was for many years an able and popular Controller of the Navy. On his advice a Departmental Committee was appointed, over which, as Civil Lord of the Admiralty, I had the honour to preside. My colleagues were the late Sir Geoffrey Hornby, Mr. George Rendell, and Sir Nathaniel Barnaby was Sir William White.
Following, as we so often do in matters naval, the lead taken by France, a Royal School of Naval Architects had been established in 1864 at South Kensington. The school was subsequently transferred to the Naval College at Greenwich. The English training was in no respect inferior to the French. On the practical side it was perhaps superior. We had failed, as I have said, to provide suitable positions for our highly-trained men. On completing an elaborate course of professional study, the only position open to the students was that of an established workman, with the prospect of an early appointment as a supplementary dockyard draughtsman. In France, on the completion of their course, the students at once become junior officers 6 of the Genie Maritime. Sir Houston Stewart recommended an organisation for the British Navy similar to that established in France. This scheme was approved by the Committee. The result was the constitution of (the present Royal Corps of Constructors. The new organisation substantially improved the position of the junior officers. It was more difficult to deal with the superior ranks, and quite impossible to provide for special cases under fixed rules. I need not trouble your Lordships by going through the list in detail. It is sufficient to say that in the case of the Royal Corps of Constructors, as indeed in all branches of the public service, we find a tendency to employ large numbers, while there are but few valuable appointments.
The Corps of Constructors, like every other properly organised body, should be under a head whose superior authority is fully acknowledged. The chief should be supported by a stronger staff, under more direct responsibility to the country than at present. To Sir William White's subordinates the opportunity is too rarely given of making a name by professional ability and exertion. In the public service honours are coveted even more than pecuniary rewards. The C.B. has been given to three members of the clerical staff of the Secretary's Department at the Admiralty. No such mark of distinction has been given to any officers serving under Sir William White, whether at the Admiralty or the dockyards. It seems hardly consistent that the skill and ingenuity required to design and build a first-class battleship should be less rewarded than the performance, however efficient, of administrative duties. The Admiralty alone can judge as to the claims of j individuals to an increase of emoluments, or to honorary rewards. This, however, is certain, that many members of the Corps of Constructors—and not rarely the ablest — leave the public service. To give only a few examples. The well-known shipbuilding yard of Clydebank is under the management of Mr. Luke; the Barrow yard of the Vickers-Maxim Company is under Mr. Dunn, from whose designs a most powerful battleship has recently been built for Japan; the Armstrong shipbuilding yard is under Mr. Watts, whose cruisers, in the opinion of some authorities, have not their match in any navy; the yard at 7 Fairfield is under Professor Elgar, who gave up the appointment of Director of Dockyards in order to take the management. To this list I might add Mr. Biles, Professor at the Glasgow University and in large and lucrative practice as a consulting naval architect. All these gentlemen are in receipt of emoluments of from £3,000 to £4,000 a year upwards. Lastly, we have the cases of Sir Edward Reed and Sir William White, both of whom had left the Admiralty to take more advantageous positions and were brought back not without difficulty to fill the post of Director of Naval Construction. When we have to deal with the employment of labour and the economical use of materials l on a vast scale, and with designing work requiring talent of a high order, the wide contrast between the practice of our private employers and the cast-iron rules of the Treasury gives occasion for very grave reflection.
The condition of things which obtains to-day differs little from that described in the Memorandum which formed the basis of the reference to the Committee on Constructors. Sir Houston Stewart objected that—
No proper provision was made for men educated at the Naval College. Year by year their numbers increased, and no permanent positions were open to them of the character for which their training specially fitted them. There was consequently a great amount of dissatisfaction, and a large proportion quitted the Admiralty service as soon as possible.The temptation offered to men of the highest qualifications must always exist, but it should be possible to reduce its influence. In the constructive branch at the Admiralty, in so far as it is known to the public at large, responsibility seems unduly centralised. The Royal yacht has been a conspicuous instance. The want of stability when first put into water was the result of carelessness in matters of detail, for which those subordinate to the Director of Naval Construction should have been responsible. But Sir William White accepted the entire responsibility. It was chivalrous. It has brought out the more strongly our undue dependence on a single officer. In dealing with a vast expenditure of thirteen millions sterling on shipbuilding, repairs, and maintenance, it is clearly wrong that the Director of Construction should bear all the blame for failure and receive all the 8 credit for success. The country should have an assurance that he has around him a staff able to share in his responsibility, and qualified for promotion to the highest posts. This is the conclusion to which I hope I have brought your Lordships. It is, perhaps, desirable to impress these views on the Treasury even more than on the Board of Admiralty.It is an obvious remark that conditions which have been gradually brought about cannot be suddenly changed. To surround and support the Director of Construction with a staff in the position formerly held by the members of the Council of Naval Construction must be the work: of time. High appointments should clearly be the reward of approved merit. In dealing with that difficult branch of their administration, to which I have called attention, I would respectfully urge that the Admiralty should be allowed by the Treasury a free hand to do what is best for the public advantage.
§ *THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (The Earl of SELBORNE)My Lords, the noble Lord who has just sat down has, even in the presence of such high authorities as I see around me, a, very particular qualification for bringing this subject under the notice of the House, for, as he himself has told you, he was, the chairman of the Committee upon whose Report and recommendation the Office of Naval Construction and the Royal Corps of Naval Constructors were constituted. I do not think it is possible to exaggerate the importance of this branch of Admiralty work. The Controller's department is, I think, the chief department at the Admiralty, and in the Controller's department the branch under the Director of Naval Construction is the most important. Consequently, the, organisation and working and the future prospects of this branch of Admiralty work must always be a matter of constant, anxiety to any First Lord or any Board of Admiralty.
Before touching briefly on the largo principles which the noble Lord has raised, perhaps he will allow me to follow him in the historical retrospect which he sketched out, and to point out that in one or two respects, no doubt inadvertently, he has slightly misrepresented the exact position of affairs. For instance, the noble Lord laid considerable stress upon the fact that the 9 Admiralty had lost many—I think the word he used was "many"—of the more promising naval constructors because the prospects open to them in the Admiralty yards are not so favourable as, and are not a sufficient counter attraction to, the prospects offered by the private yards. I do not profess to have examined at length into the position of affairs that obtained in this respect before the year 1883, which was the year in which the Committee appointed by Lord North-brook, and of which the noble Lord was chairman, sat; but I find that since that year — the year the Royal Corps of Constructors was constituted — only four naval constructors have left the Admiralty yards for engagements in private yards before they reached their proper term of pension. One of the four was Mr. Watts, who succeeded Sir William (then Mr.) White at the Elswick Works when he left to join the Admiralty, and another was a gentleman whom Mr. Watts took with him. Besides those four there was Mr. Dunn, who, as the noble Lord stated, joined the Vickers-Maxim Works; but he retired in the ordinary course at the age of 60 with a pension, and then took, as be was entitled to do, this private employment.
I do not think, therefore, that it is quite accurate for the noble Lord to say that the Admiralty has lost in recent years the services of many of its more promising young constructors; and I attribute the fact that on the whole the national service has proved sufficiently attractive to these gentlemen mainly to the labours of the Committee over which the noble Lord so ably presided. Before that Committee sat there was only one avenue through which appointments could be obtained in the construction branch of the Admiralty, and that was through an apprenticeship in the Royal dockyards. Since that time there have been three separate avenues established, and the career has always been open to private individuals who had the necessary training and could pass the examination. The corps now consists of seventy-seven members, all graduated, as is the traditional habit with any body of public servants, in lank and salaries.
It is perfectly true that in the Royal Corps of Constructors, as in the public service generally, young men of special merit cannot be offered the special prizes that private employers offer. Every 10 officer in the public service has to appear in the Estimates with a definite status and a definite salary, and it is no more in my power than it is in the power of the head of any other Department to single out A or B and give him special inducements to remain, whether in the shape of bonuses or an increase of salary. Every man is obliged to work up in his grade, and all that the head of the Department can do is to give in these cases special and speedy promotion. But that on the whole the service has not proved unattractive is, I think, shown by the fact that, with all the inducements which the private yards can offer, only four have left the Admiralty service during the last seventeen years before they had reached a pensionable age. In another respect, also, I think I can correct a slight inaccuracy on the part of the noble Lord. He said, I think, that, with the exception of Sir William White, no members of this corps had received any recognition in the shape of an honour, while the Secretary's branch of the Admiralty had received several such rewards. That is not quite the case. Mr. Stainer, the civil assistant to the Admiral Superintendent of Portsmouth Dockyard, received the honour of a C.B. in 1897.
The noble Lord, after sketching the history of the construction department of the Admiralty, proceeded to draw the moral that that department was unduly centralised, and had more work than its present staff could properly perform, and he ascribed that state of affairs to the unsympathetic reception which the proposals of the Admiralty met with at the Treasury. I presume that all First Lords of the Admiralty—I am speaking in the presence of three noble Lords who have held that position— have felt that they could very much improve the Treasury; but in this case it would be most unfair, if there is any deficiency in staff or over-centralisation in the Department, to lay the blame at the door of the Treasury. I speak in the presence of Lord Goschen, whom I have only just had the honour of succeeding at the Admiralty, and I am sure my noble friend will agree with me when I say that up to the time of his leaving the office all the proposals which were put forward by the Director of Naval Construction, either as to an increase in the number of his staff or an improvement in the position of individual members of the corps, 11 had been finally adopted by the Board and sanctioned by the Treasury. Therefore it would be strictly inaccurate and unfair to lay at the door of the Treasury any blame for deficiencies in this Department, if deficiencies there be.
I cannot pass over without notice the noble Lord's allusion to the accident to the Royal yacht. There is nothing new to be said about it; the whole of the facts are well known. It is a matter of great anxiety and concern, to nobody more than to Sir William White. No man less deserved that such an accident should have occurred in the middle of his great career and public service. What the noble Lord who introduced this subject said as to the reputation of Sir William White was in no sense exaggerated. The services he has rendered to this country can only be described in the words "very great," and it is indeed unfortunate that, out of the 220 ships which up to the beginning of last year had been designed, the only one in which any error in calculation existed was the one most calculated to draw public attention to it.
I am afraid I have detained your Lordships at undue length, but I cannot sit down without dealing with what is really the gist of the observations which the noble Lord addressed to the House. His reason for bringing the question forward was his fear that the Director of Naval Construction is overburdened with work, and that his department is too centralised. I am the last person in the world to say there cannot be any over-centralisation at the Admiralty. It is one of the great difficulties that we have to endeavour to fight against in all our public Departments. You cannot have the advantages of a system without the disadvantages. The great advantage in our democratic system with respect to these great Services is that the public interest is so keen that it gives an unfeigned support to any Government which endeavours to maintain the Services in a proper state of efficiency. But there follows the inevitable thirst for information from Parliament—a thirst for information that requires an answer to be ready on every conceivable question of detail. That must necessarily tend to centralisation, however much you may fight against it. If you have to have in a pigeon-hole from which you can draw it at a day's notice the answer to any question which 12 may be asked in Parliament, the tendency of that pressure is towards centralisation.
Again, our system requires naturally and properly very strict financial control. The stricter and more rigid the financial control, the more difficult it is for the Minister to decentralise. If responsibility for every penny spent is centred in the head of the Department or one of his principal officers the work of devolving authority throughout the branches of a Department scattered all over the world becomes well-nigh impossible. At the same time I recognise that it is the duty of the head of any Department like the Admiralty to fight constantly against this tendency and to endeavour to increase devolution and decentralisation. This I shall always strive to the utmost to do. Also I am not prepared to say that the present staff of the Director of Naval Construction is sufficient for all the work that is thrown upon him. At present the Director has twenty-nine assistants in the Admiralty, but the Vote for construction is constantly increasing and shows no tendency to diminish, nor am I prepared to say that it ought.
The noble Lord mentioned incidentally that in recent years our Vote for construction had been greater than the Vote for construction of France and Russia combined. That is so. The House may be interested to learn that in the five-years that end on 31st March, I calculate roughly that the money spent on construction in this country would have exceeded the money spent on construction in France and Russia combined by about £4,300,000. I do not say that that is too much, or that it is alone a test of whether all that should be done has been done. Many other things have to be taken into consideration in addition to expenditure of money, but at all events it is an indication that we have not fallen behind in our construction to the degree that some people would have the country believe. All that, of course, must increase the work of the Constructor and his assistants. Therefore I am not prepared to dispute the noble Lord's general contention, that as the work increases so also must the staff. The noble Lord says it is very important that the staff in this department of the Admiralty should be able to continue the work from administration to administration and from generation to 13 generation without depending entirely on the genius of one man, who in the ordinary circumstances of affairs could not be permanent. I entirely agree with him.
It is absolutely necessary that provision should be made for the continuation of the work, and you cannot choose for the position of Director of Naval Construction a public servant solely on the grounds that he has honestly and laboriously for many years served his country. You want more than a man well trained and of the highest qualities and devotion to the public service. You want a man with something like genius, or at any rate a spark of genius. The designing of a battleship is one of the greatest efforts of human imagination, as well as a triumph of mechanical education and of mathematical knowledge. If the Royal Corps of Constructors at any time is unable to furnish a man with qualifications sufficient for so great a post, then in my opinion the Board ought not to be limited to that body for their selection. It is better that a man of superior intellect and higher professional qualifications should be taken from outside the public service rather than a man of lower qualifications from inside. What we should prefer would be that the corps should be so constituted and should receive such a succession of promising young constructors from the different sources of supply that it should in course of time become self-contained. The importance of the subject must be my excuse for having gone on beyond the limits that I had laid down for myself. I can only thank the noble Lord for bringing the question before the House, and assure him that I believe matters have certainly improved upon the state which he found before his Committee sat, and that the work he did has helped forward a final solution.