§ Motion made, and Question proposed,
§ 1. "That a sum, not exceeding £8,800,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expenses of Wages, etc., to Officers, Seamen, and Boys, Coastguard, and Royal Marines, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1915."
§ Mr. J. HOGGE
I beg to move to reduce the Vote by £100.
There are certain observations which come to one in connection with this particular Vote which are very serious in view of the Debate that we have had to-day. If what is true of the Army is also to be potentially true of the Navy, it is increasingly important that there should be the fullest opportunity for all the men drawing wages from the Admiralty to rise from the post of common sailor to that of Lord High Admiral of the Fleet. We have no assurance that the system which at present obtains in the Navy affords such an opportunity. I do not think that we can reasonably be asked to vote to-night with- 144 out a word of discussion a sum of so many million pounds because although, presumably, it would not be in order to discuss the wider question of whether or not you can get at these wages sufficient men to man the Fleet that you have, or the potential Fleet that you may have, there is the extremely important question of the encouragement of men to join the Navy. For instance, take the town which I represent. Edinburgh is not a seaport itself, but it is adjacent to and connected with the seaport of Leith. It is very important that we should be able to recruit men for the Navy from both those towns. I happened to be in Edinburgh a short time ago, and after great effort I discovered the recruiting office of the Admiralty. Instead of being in any way adjacent to the population that one might expect to join the Navy on the wages advertised in the windows of the recruiting office, I found the office tucked away Under the shadow of Edinburgh Castle, in a street through which not more than a few hundred pedestrians pass each day. I asked myself whether this was the up-to-date method in which the Admiralty 145 propose to recruit Scotsmen for the Navy. As a matter of fact, the average Scotsman has a prejudice against joining the Navy. That prejudice is one that ought to be overcome. I cannot for the life of me see why the Admiralty should not transfer their office from the place where it exists—
§ The CHAIRMAN
This appears to be a matter which should have come on the Vote that we have just passed. It is only on that Vote that the wider discussion can take place. Here we are dealing only with the question whether we shall pay the men whom we have already decided to engage for the year.
§ The CHAIRMAN
It would have been in order on Vote A, and will no doubt be in order on the substituted Vote which it has been arranged to take on another occasion. But it is certainly not in order on Vote 1.
§ Mr. HOGGE
If I may not pursue the question of recruiting, may I turn my attention to the Royal Marines? It is extremely important that the Admiralty should bear in mind the fact that, in Scotland, a very large number of the men who belong in any way to the Naval Service, belong to the Royal Marines. I think we are entitled to claim for these men considerations which are riot meted out. You find, for instance, that in the Island of Lewis, which has been referred to for several hours this afternoon, that no fewer than 4,000 of the male population belong to either the Naval Reserve, the Territorials, the Royal Marines or the Army. You find that this Government has so much sympathy with that small island that produces 4,000 men to whom they pay wages, that by way of making a bold move on the land question they lock these men up.
§ The CHAIRMAN
The hon. Member appears to be making a second speech following one he made on another Motion this afternoon.
§ Mr. MACPHERSON
It is astonishing to me that when so many millions of pounds of public money are to be voted 146 that you see the benches opposite absolutely destitute of all but a solitary Member, who is sitting right at the back. Like my hon. Friend the Member for East Edinburgh, I protest against a Vote of this magnitude being hurried through during the dinner hour. There are certain items here in which personally I am deeply interested. I find on page 18 of the Naval Estimates that the Recruiting Expenses have gone up nearly £10,000 in the year. I am anxious, Mr. Maclean, to find out from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty why there is such an increase in one year. We are well aware that the Army, in order to encourage recruits to join it, has had to completely change its modus operandi. We have the Army now advertising in the various newspapers, in the half-penny Press, the magazines, and even in the Labour Press, in order to induce stalwart young men to join. Is there any proposal to be made on behalf of the Naval authorities to advertise in the same way? I cannot make out from the voluminous Paper which I have got in front of me whether the Naval authorities are satisfied with their recruiting. In any case there must be some explanation.
§ The DEPUTY - CHAIRMAN (Mr. Maclean)
The hon. Member seems to me to be dealing with the Vote which has just been passed dealing with the number of men. I have not yet noted any reference to the wages of the men.
Sir H. DALZIEL
Do I understand you, Mr. Maclean, to rule that the question of recruiting cannot be raised on this Vote? On this page there is an item for recruiting.
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
I see on page 18 there is an item, Item H, Recruiting Expenses. I might have taken up the hon. Member wrongly, seeing I have just stepped into the Chair, but I understood his remarks to have reference to the Vote which has just been passed by the House.
§ Mr. MACPHERSON
I was referring to Item H, Vote 1, which includes Recruiting, Coastguard, etc., and I think I may very properly draw attention to this matter. In 1913 the recruiting expenses were £35,800, and I want to ask my right hon., Friend what is the cause of it? May I ask, further, whether the recruiting officer for the Navy is in receipt of a larger salary 147 than he has been in the past? I understand that the salary of the recruiting officer for the Army has been raised, and I want to know whether the same has taken place in relation to the recruiting officer for the Navy, and whether that would be justified by the additional Navy recruits? I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman what is meant by Item J at the foot of page 18? Where does the money come from? I see that last year it was £138,000. This year it is less by £12,000. I want some explanation of that. Before I sit down I should like to say once more how preposterous it is that Imperial Parliament with so few sitting here should pass all these Votes. Where are all the Little Navyites? I do not see a single well-known Member, except my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry. Where is the Suicide Club? I have never been identified with the little Navy clamour, but, on behalf of the public taxpayer, I want to know why this enormous amount of money is to be spent on these special branches of the Service?
§ The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara)
In reply to the hon. Gentleman the Member for East Edinburgh, who raised the question of promotion from the ranks, may I draw his attention to the fact that the matter was dealt with very fully last Wednesday on the question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair." I then did my best to state what had been done in the matter. And, if I may direct my hon. Friend's attention to the Debate that then arose, he will see that this difficulty in regard to recruiting was dealt with. I understand it is not quite in order now, or I should deal with it, but I will look into the proposition—
§ Dr. MACNAMARA
I said I understood it was not in order, and I was just saying that I was therefore prevented from going into the matter, and that if it was in order I would have been glad to make a statement upon it, but, in the circumstances, I will make a note of it. With regard to the pay, we raised the pay in December, 1912, by something like £340,000. My hon. Friend the Member for Ross and Cromarty called my attention to the increase of £10,300, as shown in the Estimates. He 148 said, "Does that mean that you are spending more upon recruiting than you spent last year?" What it means is this: There were a number of recruiters who were paid up to the present Estimates under Subheads A, D, and E—that is to say, their pay was charged under one or either of these sub-heads. What we have done is this: We have transferred the pay of these men, who are devoted to the work of recruiting, to Sub-head H, and it is entirely a matter of rearrangement of the Estimates. We have in one respect added to the cost by the purchase of an enamel advertising poster for recruiting. If the hon. Member gives attention to these matters he will notice that poster, and he will see the better character of it, but the great bulk of the addition is due to the transfer from certain sub-heads to this particular sub-head. Then he dealt with Item J, Appropriations-in-Aid, and he said I do not understand what that is about.
§ 9.0 P.M.
§ Dr. MACNAMARA
We estimated last year we would get £138,000– this year we got £126,000—that is a reduction. Let me tell my hon. Friend the sources from which we get that £126,000 in aid. It is, of course, a decrease of £12,000. In the first place, we appropriated for this Vote part of the contribution of the Government of India on account of His Majesty's ships in Indian waters. There is no variation in that. There is a diminution on account of the withdrawal of the "Philomel" engaged in the suppression of the Arms Traffic in the Persian Gulf. There is a decrease due to the cessation of the contributions paid by the Commonwealth Government. There is no variation in respect of the contribution by the Union of South Africa, or the Australian Commonwealth, and there is a certain increase in charge due to the increased number of men. There is no variation in respect to the amount we receive, and there is an increase of £400 in respect of coastguard buildings, for which provision is made under Sub-head C of this Vote. If my hon. Friend takes all these items together, one with another, he will see that the Appropriations-in-Aid are decreased by £12,000.
§ Mr. HOGGE
I am quite sure we are very much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for his extremely lucid explanation of 149 the points put by my hon. Friend and myself, but since I sat down I notice on page 18, at the foot of the third column, a little word in italics, which shows £12,000 in aid, is an Appropriation-in-Aid of this particular case. I should like to ask, does this refer to the £12,000 purloined from the coffers of the Admiralty for the pay of these men, and if that is the way in which the Admiralty recoup themselves for the money stolen in a particular way?
§ Mr. HOGGE
I understand that the Secretary to the Admiralty does not remember that this money was stolen, but surely it is notorious that a large amount of money was stolen from one of our large ships! The case went into the Police Courts, and presumably somebody had got to find the money. I do not imagine my right hon. Friend made it up himself, or found it by some method or other. I daresay he left it to somebody else to find. Apparently, at the moment, he is unable to suggest what this £12,000 is for, but me should like to have some elucidation of this question of the purloined money. I think it is an extremely bad principle to try and secure this money in this particular way. I should like to have a statement from the Secretary to the Admiralty as to the principle on which he acts in regard to the various Colonies. For instance, how do you deal with the Appropriations in India as compared with the Australian Commonwealth? There are different kinds of Colonies involved. Presumably the Australian Commonwealth would not allow us to interfere in domestic matters connected with their shores. We would have an entirely different claim in dealing with the Crown Colonies like India. On what basis are Appropriations obtained? What distinction do the Admiralty draw between the different kinds of Colonies, and how far do we lose control of what we ought to have full control of by securing these Appropriations-in-Aid from these different Colonies?
I should like also to have some explanation of the items of purchase of discharge. The hon. Member referred to recruiting men for the Navy. Here he seems to have some money repaid to the Navy for men who leave. Obviously it is well for this House to get at the root of this particular question, because undoubtedly, if we find the cause that induces men to seek for discharge, we will obtain know- 150 ledge of a cause that ought to be obviated if we want to be successful in recruiting. I do not like such items as "Miscellaneous Receipts." Can my right hon. Friend tell us what £1,200 on page 23 is for? It is a sum of £1,200, three times the salary of a Member of Parliament, but not half that of a Cabinet Minister. Does that item involve such things as the cost of visits to the Navy? Does it include any money spent upon refreshments of any kind? This House ought not to be asked to pass £12,000 without a great deal of explanation in detail. Then there is an item for the stoppages of pay of men in cells. This seems appropriate on this Vote, because we have been discussing the habits of men confined in cells. What is the nature of the offence? If a sailor stops off a night without leave and is fined in any way, what difference is there in the stoppages of his pay and the stoppage in the pay of an officer attending the Goodwood meeting? I remember on one occasion one of the junior Whips on the Opposition Bench asked the First Lord if he could make adequate arrangements so that the Fleet might be within distance of Goodwood while the races were being run, and he answered by saying that he would do all he could to bring the Fleet within reach so that the officers could attend that particular meeting. I am anxious for similar privileges for the common sailor. Here you have a stoppage of pay for the men while in cells. If you put a man in a cell, why should you stop his pay as well? It seems preposterous to both fine a man and confine him in solitary confinement.
§ Mr. HOGGE
Then I will leave the cell and deal with the officers and men. How much money is stopped in this way out of the pay of the men as compared with the officers? How do you deal with the delinquents? Is one dealt with in the third class and the other in the first class? I submit that this question would require to be adequately dealt with, otherwise I shall insist upon a Division.
§ Dr. MACNAMARA
I explained this item of £12,000 in answer to the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Macpherson). There is no question whatever of that being money purloined from the Navy, because I gave every detail showing the total amount. With regard to the £12,000 that was stolen, I assume it would be written off as an irrecoverable balance. 151 My hon. Friend asked a question about the Appropriation representing Colonial contributions. If he will look at the general Estimates he will find there a statement showing all these contributions.
§ Dr. MACNAMARA
I think not. What we do is to take a portion of those amounts and apply it to certain Votes. For instance, we take Vote 1. Under this Vote there are certain men engaged in dealing with the arms traffic in the Persian Gulf. We take a sum representing the value of those services, and that goes to make the Appropriation-in-Aid in reduction of Vote 1. Our expectation is that we shall get £12,000 less from all those sources than we did last year. With regard to stoppages of the pay of men in cells, that is an increased Appropriation-in-Aid, because of the larger number of men in the Fleet, although I am glad to say that the number is very small.
§ Dr. MACNAMARA
Up to a few years ago, when a man in the Navy offended against military discipline, he might have been sent to a naval prison, but we have adopted the Army system of detention in barracks, under which the men do not put on any uniform but their own, and they are treated in a way which does not interfere with their self-respect. I am glad that we have substituted detention in barracks for the old system of sending the men to prison.
§ Question put, "That the sum of £8,800,000 be granted for the said Service."
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
There is no record of the reduction at the Table; but, of course, if the hon. Gentleman wishes to move, he can do so.
§ Question put, "That a sum, not exceeding £8,799,900, be granted for the said Service."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 4; Noes, 229.153
|Division No. 53.]||AYES.||[9.15 p.m.|
|Barnes, George N.||Byles, Sir William Pollard||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.|
|Bryce, J. Annan||Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)||James Hogge and Mr. Macpherson.|
|Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)||Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)||Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson|
|Acland, Francis Dyke||Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.||Ffrench, Peter|
|Addison, Dr. Christopher||Condon, Thomas Joseph||Field, William|
|Agg-Gardner, James Tynte||Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.||Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward|
|Agnew, Sir George William||Cotton, William Francis||Fitzgibbon, John|
|Alden, Percy||Cowan, W. H.||Flavin, Michael Joseph|
|Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire)||Crooks, William||France, Gerald Ashburner|
|Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud)||Crumley, Patrick||Gelder, Sir W. A.|
|Armitage, Robert||Cullinan, John||Glanville, Harold James|
|Baring, Maj. Hon. Guy V. (Winchester)||Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)||Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford|
|Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick Burghs)||Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)||Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)|
|Barton, William||Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)||Greig, Colonel J. W.|
|Beale, Sir William Phipson||Dawes, James Arthur||Griffith, Ellis Jones|
|Beauchamp, Sir Edward||Delany, William||Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.)|
|Black, Arthur W.||Denman, Hon. R. D.||Gulland, John William|
|Boland, John Pius||Devlin, Joseph||Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)|
|Booth, Frederick Handel||Dewar, Sir J. A.||Hackett, John|
|Bowerman, Charles W.||Dillon, John||Hancock, John George|
|Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)||Donelan, Captain A.||Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale)|
|Brace, William||Doris, William||Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)|
|Brady, Patrick Joseph||Doughty, Sir George||Hardie, J. Keir|
|Brocklehurst, W. B.||Duffy, William J.||Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds.)|
|Buckmaster, Sir Stanley O.||Duke, Henry Edward||Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)|
|Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas||Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)||Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)|
|Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)||Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)||Hayden, John Patrick|
|Carr-Gomm, H. W.||Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)||Hayward, Evan|
|Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)||Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)||Hazleton, Richard|
|Chancellor, Henry George||Essex, Sir Richard Walter||Helme, Sir Norval Watson|
|Chapple, Dr. William Allen||Falconer, James||Henderson, Arthur (Durham)|
|Clancy, John Joseph||Farrell, James Patrick||Henry, Sir Charles|
|Clough, William||Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charle||Hewart, Gordon|
|Higham, John Sharp||Morton, Alpheus Cleophas||Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter|
|Hinds, John||Muldoon, John||Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.|
|Holmes, Daniel Turner||Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert||Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)|
|Howard, Hon. Geoffrey||Murphy, Martin J.||Scanlan, Thomas|
|Hughes, Spencer Leigh||Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)||Sheehy, David|
|John, Edward Thomas||Nolan, Joseph||Shortt, Edward|
|Johnson, W.||Nugent, Sir Walter Richard||Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Alisebrook|
|Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)||O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)||Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)|
|Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)||O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)||Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)|
|Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)||O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)||Snowden, Philip|
|Jones, Leif (Notts, Rushcliffe)||O'Doherty, Philip||Soames, Arthur Wellesley|
|Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)||O'Donnell, Thomas||Spear, Sir John Ward|
|Jones, William, S. Glyn- (Stepney)||O'Dowd, John||Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)|
|Joyce, Michael||O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.)||Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)|
|Kellaway, Frederick George||O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)||Taylor, Theodore C.(Radcliffe)|
|Kelly, Edward||O'Malley, William||Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)|
|Kennedy, Vincent Paul||O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)||Tennant, Harold John|
|Kenyon, Barnet||O'Shaughnessy, P. J.||Thomas, James Henry|
|Kilbride, Denis||O'Shee, James John||Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)|
|Lambert, Rt. Hon. G. (Devon, S.Molton)||O'Sullivan, Timothy||Thorne, William (West Ham)|
|Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)||Palmer, Godfrey Mark||Toulmin, Sir George|
|Lardner, James C. R.||Parker, James (Halifax)||Trevelyan, Charles Philips|
|Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)||Parry, Thomas H.||Verney, Sir Harry|
|Levy, Sir Maurice||Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)||Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)|
|Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert||Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham)||Ward, W. Dudley(Southampton)|
|Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)||Perkins, Walter F.||Wardle, George J.|
|Lundon, Thomas||Peto, Basil Edward||Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)|
|Lyell, Charles Henry||Phillips, John (Longford, S.)||Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)|
|Lynch, Arthur Alfred||Pointer, Joseph||Webb, H.|
|McGhee, Richard||Pratt, J. W.||White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)|
|Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.||Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)||White, Patrick (Meath, North)|
|MacNeill, J. G. Swift (Donegal, South)||Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)||Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.|
|MacVeagh, Jeremiah||Radford, George Heynes||Whyte, Alexander F. (Perth)|
|M'Callum, Sir John M.||Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel||Williams, Aneurin (Durham, N.W.)|
|McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald||Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)||Williams, John (Glamorgan)|
|M'Micking, Major Gilbert||Reddy, Michael||Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)|
|Marks, Sir George Croydon||Redmond, John E. (Waterford)||Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)|
|Marshall, Arthur Harold||Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)||Williamson, Sir Archibald|
|Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)||Richardson, Albion (Peckham)||Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)|
|Meehan, Patrick J. (Queen's Co., Leix.)||Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)||Wilson, W. T.(Westhoughton)|
|Middlebrook, William||Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)||Wing, Thomas Edward|
|Millar, James Duncan||Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)||Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glasgow)|
|Molloy, Michael||Robinson, Sidney||Yeo, Alfred William|
|Montagu, Hon. E. S.||Roche, Augustine (Louth)||Young, William (Perthshire, East)|
|Mooney, John J.||Roche, John (Galway, E.)|
|Morgan, George Hay||Roe, Sir Thomas||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.|
|Morison, Hector||Rowlands, James||Illingworth and Mr. Wedgwood Benn.|
Original question put, and agreed to.