§ SIR JOHN HAY, in rising to call attention to certain passages in the Evidence given before the Joint Committee on the Channel Tunnel, which show the opinions of the highest authorities concerning the defencelessness of the Country, more especially as regards the insufficiency of the number of Iron-clad Ships and Guns, said, that great weight must be attached to the evidence given before the Committee by Lord Wolseley and Admiral Rice, the Commander-in-Chief of the Fleet at the Nore. Lord Wolseley was of opinion that an Army of 500,000 men, which was the number calculated upon to resist invasion, would require at least 1,600 guns, and 5,220 horses, and that it would take a year and a half before these could be supplied. To Admiral Rice the following Question was put by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. E. W. Harcourt):—
Supposing that our Fleet had been beaten, what power of restoring that Fleet should we have, and in what time, from our Colonial Possessions abroad?The Admiral's reply was—None, I should say." "Have we at the present moment, do you consider, a sufficient number of ships available for the defence of the Channel."—"May I ask whether you mean under any conceivable circumstances?" "At the present moment?" "At the present moment, yes."—"To prevent the landing of 20,000 men?The answer was—That involves the question of whom we have to deal with and to meet. If we are to meet any two first-class European Powers at sea I do not think we have.In reply to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Montrose (Mr. Baxter) Admiral Rice said—I do not know that the mercantile ships would be of much value in preventing invasion. They would be of much use in assisting us in making one." "Would they not be available in case of difficulties with other countries?"—"As cruisers, yes. In former days the three-deckers commanded the sea; now the iron-clads do, and nothing can touch them or fight them except other iron-clads." "I gather from the tenour of your evidence that you do not think it is probable that a large force, such as Sir Lintorn Simmons said, can be landed upon our coasts as long as the British Navy is in the condition that it is now?"—"I do not mean to say that, because I do not think it is quite as efficient as it might be for such contingencies; it does very well for what it has to do; but if we 1369 got into difficulties, I think we should find ourselves in a difficulty from not having ships enough—iron-clads.He had one or two further extracts to read. The following Questions were put to the noble and gallant Lord (Lord Wolseley), and the answers were instructive:—Question.—You would advocate some increase to our Land Forces and to our Navy? Answer.—Certainly to our Navy: our Navy more than to our Land Forces. Question.—You are not one of those who think that our Navy is in an inefficient state; but that it is not numerous enough? Answer.—It is not numerous enough. I cannot express an opinion as regards the efficiency of the Navy; but I believe it is in a very efficient condition as far as it goes…. If you compare the condition of England now with the condition of England when the Duke of Wellington wrote that celebrated letter, you cannot compare the defensive conditions of England now with what they were then; France is much more formidable now than she was then, and comparing her Fleet now with what it was then, relatively to ours, its strength has vastly increased. Question.—What I am saying is this—that upon the whole, relatively to our past condition, the defensive forces of this country are larger than they were since the Peace of 1815, excepting at the times of actual war, or apprehension of war? Answer.—Not as you said, very much stronger; they are stronger than they were at the time that the Duke of Wellington wrote that letter; but relatively stronger considering the size of the French Army now, and of the great addition she had made to her Fleet.He thought that anyone who cared for the defence of the country, who knew | its weakness, would forgive him for bringing the subject before the House. They already had the acknowledgment of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. W. H. Smith) that the number of iron-clads were too few. The iron-clads being built were insufficient to compete with the 19 iron-clads completed by France; and when they heard that 8,000 more workmen were employed in the French Dockyards than we employed, it was time we turned attention to this subject.
§ SIR EDWARD J. REEDsaid, he had no intention of occupying more than a minute or two; but he could not refrain from expressing general concurrence with the views which the right hon. and gallant Baronet had laid down. He thought the country was much indebted to him for bringing forward this question with his knowledge, experience, and fair-mindedness, if he might be allowed to say so. He must say he heard the statement of the hon. Member for 1370 Hastings (Sir Thomas Brassey) as to the strength of the Navy with pain; it was the most couleur de rose statement that could be made, and imposed upon them the duty of looking very closely into the figures for the future. It appeared to him that this was a question which the House ought to take into its consideration, and devote a Select Committee to it; and next year, if he were able, he should move for a Select Committee to inquire into the strength and condition of the Navy, and other matters—namely, the expenditure upon the Effective and Non Effective Services, and to try whether they could not take some more effective measures than were held out from the Government Benches. He considered it was of the utmost importance that if the Government did not see its way to make an improvement, the House should take the matter into its own hands.
§ GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURsaid, he thought it necessary again to call attention to a consideration which he had frequently presented—namely, that the Navy must continue inefficient so long as it depended upon another Department for its guns, and thereby place on the Secretary of State for War the duty and responsibility of providing and maintaining in readiness the armament and projectiles, as well as the ammunition of the Fleet. They required at least 3,000 new guns for the Navy, and if they were at war probably 4,000, and only a small portion of the armament was at present in readiness. The cost of the guns for the Navy ought to be taken on the Navy Estimates, and removed from the Estimates of the War Office. The Navy should be allowed to supply their own guns. It would require about £4,000,000 to make the Navy efficient; and that sum, if raised on loan, could be paid off in the way of Annuities in six or eight years. The Navy should also take charge of all their Reserve armament and stores, and make the military equipments on board ship be accounted for direct to the Admiralty, instead of, as at present, to the War Office.
§ SIR HENRY HOLLAND, in supporting the remarks of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman (Sir John Hay) and the hon. Gentleman (Sir Edward J. Reed) with reference to the unsatisfactory condition of the Navy, said, that he was also desirous of seeing the supply of guns to the Naval and Military Ser- 1371 vices kept distinct. The Government ought "seriously to reconsider that question, for although he knew there was a strong feeling entertained by many officials that cheapness was really secured, after all he ventured to doubt whether such was the case. As regarded the stores, he hoped that the Government would also take into consideration the subject of having those accounts audited, to some extent, by the Comptroller and Auditor General. With regard to the suggestion by the hon. Member for Car-diff (Sir Edward J. Reed), that there should be a Select Committee to inquire into the state of the Navy, he (Sir Henry Holland) confessed that he viewed that proposal with some amount of apprehension; because it appeared to him that by the publication of the Evidence before such a Committee, foreign nations would become as well-informed as ourselves as to the real state of the case and our difficulties. Matters not at all desirable to be revealed would thus become public property. If an inquiry had to be instituted, he ventured to suggest that it should be a Royal Commission, whose proceedings would be confidential.
§ MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANtook no exception to the speeches which had been made, although he thought the right hon. and gallant Gentleman (Sir John Hay) had not chosen the most suitable way of bringing the subject before the House. They had already on three occasions that Session pretty fully discussed the condition of the Navy, and he had really nothing to add to his former statements. The right hon. and gallant Admiral had founded his remarks on the evidence given before a Committee appointed to consider the question of the Channel Tunnel. That question had excited very strong opinions on the one side and the other. Lord Wolseley, who was one of the witnesses, had, from the first, taken a decided view and uttered very strong language against the Tunnel; and it was, therefore, natural, when he was giving his evidence, that he should accentuate as much as possible the defenceless condition of the country. So, also, with the right hon. and gallant Gentleman himself and other witnesses before the Committee. But there were a good many persons of equal eminence who held opinions the other way; and though the right hon. and gallant Gen- 1372 tleman and Lord Wolseley had expressed strong opinions as to the Navy, that must not be taken as settling the question. He would not now go into the details of the matter, but would merely state that the witnesses to whom he referred thought the country had not such a Navy as would secure perfect immunity from invasion. That was not the view which those who were at present responsible for the condition of the Navy entertained; but, at the same time, he would say that such opinions would always receive due consideration. His hon. Friend (Sir Edward J. Reed) said that he would move for a Select Committee next Session to inquire into the condition of the Navy. He (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman) entertained objections to the appointment of such a Committee, some of which had been expressed by his hon. Friend the Member for Midhurst (Sir Henry Holland); but, without saying what would be the course which Government would adopt next Session, he did not think that the Department viewed with any hostility any measures which might be taken by the House to examine into the subject, and to see whether they had the fullest information as to the means of supplying the country with both ships and guns. The subject of the supply of guns was of great importance; but it was fully before them, and the advantages and disadvantages of the present system were well known. It was not for him nor for the Admiralty to settle whether the present system should be continued or modified; but the opinions expressed would have due weight with his Colleagues at the "War Office. Nothing had been said of a definite character to call for a more specific reply.