NAVAL DEFENCE BILL. (No. 186.) (Hansard, 13 May 1889)

MR. G. J. SHAW LEFEVRE (Bradford, Central)
The Amendment I have to move is one of some importance, though, as it does not touch the principle of the Bill, I think it may be accepted by the noble Lord without substantially interfering with the object which he has in view. My proposal is to substitute the word "may" for "shall" in this clause, which, as it stands, imposes a statutory obligation to carry out the programme of the Bill—a programme extending over four years—and to carry it out exactly in the manner stated in the schedule as regards the class of vessel, the armaments, and the cost. It appears from the schedule and also from the statement made by the noble Lord 1907 that no fewer than 70 vessels are to be laid down precisely according to the schedule, and no discretion apparently is to be allowed to the Admiralty in future as to the types of vessel to be laid down. If they were to be laid down in the present financial year I would not make the objection, because they might be carried out without any substantial change. But I understand from the schedule that a considerable number of these vessels will b. laid down, not this year, but in the course of the next two years; indeed, I gather that 22 of them are to be so delayed, as the whole of the vessels cannot possibly all be laid down at once. Now, in regard to the 22 vessels which cannot be laid down until after the expiration of two years, it does seem to me to be absurd that so long in advance we should prescribe by Act of Parliament the exact type of vessel and the size and nature of the armament. That is surely a novelty in procedure at the Admiralty and in the legislation of this House. These 22 vessels include one ironclad of 9,000 tons, two protected cruisers of 7,300 tons, ten cruisers of second class of 3,500 tons each, and eight torpedo vessels of 750 tons each. Between the present time and the day when they can possibly be laid down there may be considerable changes of view as to what class of vessel it is desirable to lay down. I will give a very striking illustration of the changes which might take place in something less than two years. In the latter part of the Session of 1887, I moved for a Royal Commission to consider the types of the ironclads which should be laid down in the future; but the noble Lord refused to give the Royal Commission, on the ground that the Government had determined not to lay down any iron-clads at all. He said he did not believe that in the future it would ever again be necessary to lay down any fresh iron-clads. On the 7th of March this year the noble Lord said that two years previously he had hoped that the Nile and Trafalgar would be the last battleships laid down in this country, as it then appeared that there was to be a general cessation of ironclad building, torpedo boats having come into use. The second European naval Power—France—had practically suspended her armour-clad building, and the other Powers had followed her example. 1908 But since then, owing to the development in quick firing guns and the use of new explosives, a general impetus had again been given to the building of ironclads, and consequently he (the noble Lord) came down to this House and made a proposal to lay down no fewer than 10 armoured vessels. Now I quote that simply to show what great changes may take place in the course of two years. It is unreasonable to expect that there will be no change of opinion in the course of the next two yearn which may prove of equal importance. I say it is not wise, neither is it prudent to decide, two years in advance, the type of vessels to be built either in our Dockyards or by contract. The effect would be to relieve the Admiralty of all responsibility, for when once these vessels are determined on the Admiralty, whatever may be the views of the members of the Board individually, will consider themselves bound by this Bill. I understand also that it is proposed to lay down 32 vessels by contract. Now, the noble Lord will find, when he comes to invite tenders, that it is not desirable in the present state of the shipbuilding business to contract for all these vessels at once; but the Act of Parliament will hardly give him any choice. Then if any change has to be' made a new Act will be necessary, and the House of Lords will obtain a control which they do not now possess over the naval expenditure of this country. Would it not be wise instead of imposing a statutory obligation on the noble Lord and the Admiralty, to give theta some discretion by inserting the word "may" instead of "shall" in this clause. There need be no fear that the money will not be spent eventually; indeed, the present Admiralty would be very different from its predecessors, and from every other public department, if it failed to spend the money voted. Again, in regard to the control which this proposal will give the House of Lords over the naval and military expenditure of this country, I contend it is contrary to all constitutional practice, for it has always rested solely with this House to determine what shall be the nature and extent of our naval and military expenditure. I believe we shall be acting more in accordance with constitutional practice by giving permissive powers in this clause instead of 1909 imposing a statutory obligation, because then the responsibility will rest with the Admiralty. The wisest course will be, while indicating in the schedule the class of vessels which the Government and the Admiralty now think may be prudently laid down to avoid imposing any statutory obligation on the Admiralty to carry out a specific programme, but to leave to them the responsibility in the future of determining whether it is wise and prudent when the time comes to build vessels of the class indicated in the schedule. I think the noble Lord may well accept my Amendment which is in accord with the policy he has proposed to the House, for while it will give him full power to act according to the Act of Parliament and its schedules, it will enable him, should circumstances arise hereafter which make it undesirable to carry out the Programme now laid down in its specific form, to make any necessary changes.
Amendment proposed, "In page 1, line 25, to leave out, ninety-four,' and insert nine-six.'"—(Mr. Shaw Lefevre.)
Question proposed, "That 'ninety-four' stand part of the Clause."

§ *LORD G. HAMILTON
I believe there is a general impression among Members of this House that in an Act of Parliament the words "may" and "shall" are almost convertible terms. At any rate I have often heard that they have pretty much the same meaning, but in order to make it clear what we desire we have used the imperative mood and inserted the word shall." No doubt a statutory obligation is imposed by the Bill on the Admiralty; but I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that it was not without careful investigation as to the producing powers of the country that the Government took upon themselves this statutory obligation, and having so taken it upon themselves they think it undesirable that it should be optional on the part of any future Admiralty to vary the policy to which the Government are committed. The right hon. Gentleman argues that it is not business-like to lay down so many ships at one time. I quite agree with him that that would certainly be so if it were not that time was of primary importance. But we hold time to be of the utmost importance, and therefore deem it necessary to press forward the completion of 1910 the vessels. The number of vessels to be laid down this year is 52, and in subsequent years 18. I agree that in these days of change it is not desirable to decide long in advance the class of vessel to be built. But with respect to some of the ships, a discretion is reserved. All the ironclads with the exception of one will be laid down this year; and that one at the beginning of next year. As to the 18 vessels which are not to be laid down this year, five will be begun next year, ten the year after, and three the year after that. These are all of the smaller type, and no vessels of an experimental type are to be built. Thus far I believe we are on safe ground. The right hon. Gentleman also said that this Bill would give the House of Lords control over taxation. I do not agree with that. No doubt the House of Lords might throw out a Bill modifying this Bill; but they have no power with regard to expenditure which is decided by the annual Estimates. The Government have taken every precaution to secure the completion of the vessels, and I think the word "shall" is preferable to the word "may."

MR. GLADSTONE
I do not think that upon this occasion it is desirable for us to occupy the time of the House at any great length, but one objection to the whole proceeding is so strong that I am glad that my right hon. Friend has taken an appropriate point. Now, there are two observations which I wish to make clear, and the first is this, that in my opinion the use of the word "shall" is altogether inconsistent with the proposal of the Government themselves, which is that, as regarded 11 millions, the whole expenditure is to depend upon the voting of money from year to year. At the same time Parliament is to enact without any qualification or reservation that in any contingency a certain number of ships shall be built. At the same time, it is provided that as regards one-half of the expenditure Parliament may say whether the "shall" shall be bonâ fide binding. This is not a Parliamentary or appropriate mode of proceeding. The word "shall" means "shall," and it is a strange and wholly unprecedented method of proceeding to say with one breath that a thing "shall" be done, and then, as to half that thing, to reserve 1911 liberty of action from year to year. The word "may" would be a sufficient indication of the present intention of the Government, and I therefore support my right hon. Friend's Amendment, though I should much prefer the proposal of my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton—that the money should be voted from year to year. In taking this course, we are not desirous of securing any surreptitious advantage. The Government are well assured that they will be able to carry their proposal to spend this money. The noble Lord said there is great ambiguity about the use of the word "may" in Acts of Parliament, but so far as regards this particular Bill there would be no such ambiguity whatever. The substitution of the word "may" for "shall" would in no way weaken the proposal of the Goverment as it stands in the Bill as a whole, and it would be consistent in its application of the two portions of the money, whereas in the form in which it now stands it is inconsistent in its application to that part of the money which Parliament is to vote from year to year.

§ *MR. W. H. SMITH
The argument of the right hon. Gentleman goes to this, so far as a portion of the expenditure is concerned the word "may" will have all the effect of the word "shall." But the right hon. Gentleman has already explained to the Committee that he really desires to make a decided change in the character of the Bill, and to secure that the money shall be voted year by year. [Mr. GLADSTONE: By a subsequent Amendment.] And it is in the spirit of the Amendment of the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton which is to follow that the right hon. Member for Mid Lothian wishes to effect that change. It is on that account alone that the Government must insist on the retention of the word "shall." We desire to give emphasis to the purpose for which the Bill is framed which is to secure that a scheme which hangs together and which cannot be separated without injury to all its parts, shall be carried out in its entirety. Of course, it is open to Parliament, if it thinks fit, to refuse to vote that which is proposed annually to carry out that part of the programme which depends on annual Votes. But we hold the belief that the direction in the Bill when it becomes an 1912 Act will not be lightly overridden by Parliaments or Governments which may follow, and that therefore it is of the highest importance to the interests of the country that the plan shall be taken and carried into effect as a whole.

§ *LORD C. BERESFORD (Marylebone, E.)
I have often heard the saying about driving a coach through an Act of Parliament. I conceive that nothing would be more easy than to effect such an operation as that, if we substituted the word "may" for "shall." I am glad that the Government insist on retaining the word "shall," because in days gone by curious things have happened from Party exigencies. On one occasion the item for the ammunition of certain guns which have been voted for the Fleet was struck out. It is to avoid that kind of proceeding that they ought to stick to the word "shall." It is a bad thing for the Services not to have a continuity of policy. Personally, I should have liked to see the clause made much stronger. I should like to see the First Lord of the Admiralty and the First Lord of the Treasury put under some sort of contract with the people, so that if these ships fail, or are not ready at the stipulated time, they should both be hanged. We might then get direct responsibility in this matter. I am glad the Government intend to vote against the Amendment.

§ *MR. SHAW LEFEVRE
Since I spoke last, I have looked through the Acts directing work to be carried out, but I cannot find a single case in which the word "shall" has been used instead of the word "may." In the case of the Fortifications Act, of 1858, and also in the case of the construction of the naval docks and basins at Portsmouth and Chatham in 1859, "may" was used, and not "shall." Last year in the Act authorizing the construction of the Australian vessels, the word used was "may," and not "shall." Precedent, therefore, is in my favour.
Question put, and agreed to.

§ *MR. H. H. FOWLER (Wolverhampton)
I beg to move to insert after the word "shall" in line 23, the words "so far as is practicable." I am afraid I shall not have the support of the noble Lord the Member for Marylebone (Lord C. Beresford), because these words are to prevent the very thing he desires. If the clause remains as it is, the Ad- 1913 miralty will be guilty of an indictable offence if, through some mischance or no fault of their own, these vessels are not completed before the 1st of April, 1894. I will not enter into the question of the probability or otherwise of the noble Lord (Lord G. Hamilton) being First Lord of the Admiralty in 1894, but assuming that he is, I should be sorry to see him and his colleagues in the position of being charged with an indictable offence. This is a pure question of drafting, and I think the noble Lord will see at once that they ought not to be required to do what may be found to be absolutely impossible.
Amendment proposed, "Clause 1, page 1, line 23, after 'shall,' insert, 'so far as is practicable'" (Mr. H. Fowler).
Question proposed, "That these words be there inserted."

§ LORD G. HAMILTON
Of course, if it is impracticable it cannot be done.

§ *MR. H. H. FOWLER
If it is not done, you commit an indictable offence.

§ LORD G. HAMILTON
But I have no objection to the Amendement.
Question put, and agreed to.

§ *MR. SHAW LEFEVRE
The object of the Amendment which I have now to move is to spread the building of a large number of these vessels over a somewhat longer period, and thus make it possible to avoid many of the ends which have been pointed out in the course of these debates. The First Lord of the Admiralty has more than once said that the proposal of the Government is to lay down no fewer than 70 vessels, of which 52 are to be taken in hand at once, 20 in the dockyards and 32 by contract. As I pointed out a few nights ago, no one has more frequently condemned the policy of laying down an enormous number of vessels at once than the noble Lord himself; and the Secretary to the Admiralty (Mr. For wood) has gone the length of saying that the laying down of a very large number of vessels at one time is fraught with difficulty and danger. What the Admiralty now ask us to do is to run headlong into these difficulties and dangers—not only to lay down vessels by the dozen, but by the score. If there have been difficulties and dangers in this policy in the past, surely there is in 1914 the present. There is the greatest possible uncertainty with regard to the value of the types of many of these vessels. Not only is this a dangerous policy with respect to larger vessels like ironclads, but it is equally so with respect to cruisers. At this moment a great improvement is being effected in the speed of cruisers. Here is a striking illustration of how vessels are superseded almost before they are completed in the Estimates now before us. In 1885 four vessels of the Mersey type, of 4,000 tons displacement, were laid down with a speed of sixteen knots, and seventeen knots with a forced draught. In 1887, cruisers of another type, vessels of 3,400 tons were laid down, and they have a greater speed by two knots than the Mersey type of vessels, some of which are not even now completed. I have not the smallest doubt that in two or three years' time, we shall find it desirable to to lay down cruisers of greater speed than those the noble Lord proposes to lay down, and therefore we shall probably find ourselves possessed of forty or fifty vessels which have been superseded by other vessels. But there is another point which I would urge on the Government as a reason for not commencing all these vessels at once, and that is the state of the ship building trade. The noble Lord has told us he did not embark on this scheme without careful consideration of the state of the ship building trade, but I cannot but think that he has not been sufficiently informed on the subject. I undertake to say, from inquiries I have made, that there will be the greatest possible difficulty in obtaining proper firms to tender for the vesssels it is proposed to lay down by contract. It is proposed that 22 vessels with a tonnage of 160,000, should be laid down in private yards. Now what is the state of the ship, building trade? We all know that some years ago this trade was in a very depressed condition. Whereas, in 1883, vessels with a total tonage of 891,000, were built in private yards, in 1886 the tonage fell to 331,000. In 1888 there was a great demand for new ships, and in the course of the year 573,000 tons were built. I understand that every private yard is full of orders, and that there is the greatest difficulty in obtaining firms to tender for the building of 1915 private vessels, that in fact there are vessels with an aggregate of 1,000,000 tons in hand at the present moment. I assert, therefore, it will be impossible to go into the market and invite tenders for the 22 vessels with 160,000 tons without raising considerably the price of the vessels. I am told by many competent people that the price will probably rise something like 25 or 30 per cent. Not only so, but the present state of affairs will have its effect upon the vessels built in the dockyards. The vessels built there will require an enormous amount of material. I understand that four of the large type of ironclads which are to be built in the dockyards will each of them require no less an amount than 400,000 tons weight of armour plates. Now, if you go into private yards you will practically invite competition against the vessels which are building in your own dockyards, in respect of the armour plates, and also of other material. In that way too you will raise the price against yourselves. It appears to me, therefore, that from every point of view it would be far better to spread your shipbuilding over a somewhat longer time. What I suggest is that instead of building these vessels in four-and-a-half years as now specified in the Bill, you should not be required to complete them under six years. If you adopt my plan it will not be necessary to enter into contracts immediately, for all of the 22 vessels it is proposed to build them by contract. You will be able to defer commencing a certain number of these vessels for two years, some of them possibly for three years, and in the meantime you will be able to gain experience with regard to the value of the types of vessels you propose to build, and you will also be able to devote a great deal of the constructive talent of the Admiralty to the perfecting of the designs of the vessels to be laid down. You will, moreover, have the advantage of seeing what other Powers do in the same direction. As to the type of ironclad, I cannot think it is wise to lay down at once so many as eight ironclads of the largest class. I know there is very great difference of opinion amongst very competent men as to the value of vessels of 14,000 tons. Lord Armstrong has expressed the opinion 1916 that it would be far wiser to lay down vessels of a smaller type and with a greater speed, and I believe I am right in saying that the Barrow Shipbuilding Company, Limited, laid before the Admiralty plans of armour clad vessels of 3,500 tons, it being contended by the very able naval architect who advises that company that four vessels of this size can be built for the same price as one of the vessels of 14,000 tons, and that they would be of much greater value.

§ LORD CHARLES BERESFORD
Who says that?

§ *MR. SHAW LEFEVRE
Sir Nathaniel Barnaby. He is a naval architect who for many years advised the Admiralty with regard to vessels under construction, and his authority is deservedly very high. But the House will perhaps recollect that two years ago I moved for a Royal Commission to inquire into the type of armour clad vessels which should be constructed, and I still think it is unfortunate the noble Lord resisted that Motion. If it were possible for the noble Lord to institute an inquiry within the next few months, at all events, as regards the vessels he proposes to lay down, and as to what types they should be, certainly it appears to me, in the present state of opinion, it would be most desirable to have such an inquiry, collecting the opinions of all competent men on the subject, before finally determining the types of vessels. All these considerations point to the expediency of extending over a somewhat longer period the programme proposed by the Bill. What would be the effect of spreading the programme over a period of six years instead of the four-and-a-half years proposed in the Bill. Dividing the proposed expenditure of ten millions over six years means an expenditure each year of 1,600,000, which is only £200,000 more than the annual payment now proposed to be spread over seven years. Adopt the principle of expenditure and payment over six years, and you avoid all those financial proposals in the Bill which are fraught with novelty and constitutional difficulty. It would be possible to pay for the vessels as they are built, making the payments equal in each of the six years—a far better plan, I think, than to spread the construction over four- 1917 and-a-half years and the payments over seven years. Under the present arrangement it is proposed to incur the expenditure but not to make the payment on the vessels of no less than £2,400,000 in the present year, next year £4,700,000, the third year £3,000,000, having very unequal payments over the term of years. I would suggest as an alternative spreading the building over a somewhat longer period, and spreading the payment equally over a term of years, instead of concentrating it in three or four years. It appears to me a preferable proposal to that in the Bill, both from an economic point of view, avoiding the necessity of throwing all the vessels on the trade at once for contract, and from a shipbuilding point of view, preventing the determining of the types of vessels, at the same time stereotyping the vessels of the Navy and throwing the cost on future years after the vessels are completed. The adoption of this plan would not be inconsistent with the main details of the Bill. I offer the Amendment as not in hostility to any of the main objects of the Bill, and it is quite consistent with all the noble Lord has said for the last two or three years as to increasing the strength of the Navy.
Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 25, to leave out "ninety-four" and insert "ninety-six." — (Mr. Shaw Lefevre.)
Question proposed, "That ninety-four ' stand part of the clause."
Attention was called to the fact that there were not 40 Members present. The House was counted, and 40 Members were found to be present.

§ *LORD C. BERESFORD (Marylebone, E.)
I think there are some tremendous objections to the arguments brought forward by the right hon. Gentleman opposite. I would like to ask him this question: Does he regard the financial question of greater importance than the question of the safety of the Empire? I would also ask him whether he agrees that the standard of our fleet should be such as to enable us to defend the interests of the Empire against the fleets of two combined nations. If he does agree in that he must also agree that we cannot be too quick in running our fleet up to that 1918 standard. I have also shown the House that the proposal of my noble Friend (Lord G. Hamilton) does not come up to the standard which he acknowledges is desirable. The other night I proved conclusively that the First Lord was wrong in saying that the standard he desires would be necessarily arrived at when his programme is finished, because of scratching four ships off his list, as he has done on account of their being obsolete. He ought to have scratched off 18, some of which at the end of five years would be 32 years old. The right hon. Gentleman opposite says "take a little longer to build your ships"—

§ *MR. SHAW LEFEVRE
I did not say that; I said, spread the building of these vessels over a longer period. Do not commence the building of so many of them at once.

§ *LORD CHARLES BERESFORD
Then we at once go back to the other question. What does the right hon. Gentleman consider the standard of the fleet? I entirely disagree with the right. hon. Gentleman. On many points I think the administration of my noble Friend (Lord G. Hamilton) cannot be too highly praised, but where he has made a mistake is in not allowing for the wastage of the fleet. In five or six years there may be some scare in Europe, and you will go through exactly the same thing again. I have clamoured and hallooed in order to get a business-like arrangement—namely, to fix a standard, and run your fleet up to it. If you do that the country knows what you are at. If you follow the present plan the country does not know what you are at. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Shaw Lefevre), said a naval architect had stated his opinion that four ships of a certain tonnage, a certain armament and a certain price would be more useful for defending this Empire than one ship of large tonnage at the same price. I hope the right hon. Gentleman did not think as he seemed to imply that I had sneered at Sir Nathaniel Barnaby as a professional man. I consider him a first class architect, but I do not consider him the kind of man to tell me, as a naval officer, what sort of ships I ought to have to fight with. My brother officers and I have to do the work and we know what kind of ship, we want to do it with.

THE CHAIRMAN
I must point out to the Committee the limited nature of the Amendment moved. It proposes merely to substitute 1896 for 1894 as the time when these ships shall be completed.

§ *LORD CHARLES BERESFORD
Well Sir, I was arguing against what the right hon. Gentleman said. I hope the noble Lord (Lord G. Hamilton) will insist upon furnishing these ships as soon as ever he can. They are necessary for the defence of our Empire, and I hope we shall not have the construction delayed for another two years.

§ MR. COSSHAM (Bristol, E.)
I support the Amendment, because, as we are going to do a bad thing, I should like to spread it over a longer period. I shall be very glad if we could reach a point at which we should have absolute safety, but I notice that every improvement made in the Army or Navy seems to render us less safe than we were before. It seems as if those who spend the money get up the scares for their own amusement. I think the time has come when we must protest against this useless and wasteful expenditure.

§ *LORD G. HAMILTON
When I brought this scheme before the House, I expressed a hope that it would be accepted as a whole. We propose to speed £21,500,000 in five years, and the right hon. Gentleman's proposal is to spread the expenditure over seven years.

§ *MR. SHAW LEFEVRE
I take the proposal of the Government as spreading over four-and-a half years, and I propose to spend it over six years.

§ *LORD G. HAMILTON
Six and a half years, I should say. Anyhow, it seems that there will be a difference of about four or five millions sterling in the amount spent in the first five years. Our proposal would be reduced by that amount, and a corresponding number of ships struck off our programme. We cannot assent to such a proposal. The right hon. Gentleman spoke of the objections of putting down many ships at once. We have most carefully considered those objections. He is incorrect in assuming that a number of new ships have recently been given to the shipbuilding yards. There was a considerable spurt in shipbuilding last year, but the majority of ships in private yards are now approaching completion. 1920 We made careful inquiry also as to the capacity of this country to produce the heaviest armour plates, and I think I may say we have succeeded in making arrangements, assuming the House agrees to our proposal, which will enable us to get the plates when we require them. At present the number of ships we have in hand, and our liabilities in reference to incomplete ships, are less than they have been at any period for some years, and at the close of the present financial year we shall have only four ships and only one ironclad unfinished. I have a list of the number of armourclads that have been on the stocks in the last few years. In almost every year there were more than 10. The number rose to 13 in 1884–5. It was 13 in 1885–6, and 21 in 1886–7. It must be recollected that during the last few years we have deliberatety held our hand in regard to new ships, in order that we might complete the work we had left unfinished, and in order that we might obtain the fullest information in reference to the designs to be adopted. We cannot accept the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment. This is a five years' programme, and we cannot consent to having the period during which it is to be completed in any way altered.

§ MR. SHAW LEFEVRE
The noble Lord has either misinterpreted or misstated my proposal. I do not propose to cut down the expenditure by five or six millions sterling, or to cut down the number of ships. All I propose is to spread the expenditure over six years instead of four and a half years, and the effect would be to obviate the necessity of laying down so many vessels immediately. The noble Lord has stated over and over again the objections to the laying down of so many vessels at once. Those objections seem to me conclusive, and I believe that, unless my Amendment is adopted, the Board of Admiralty will before long find out they have made a great mistake.

§ MR. LABOUCHERE
The noble Lord the Member for Marylebone has furnished us with an excellent argument in favour of my right hon. Friend's Amendment, for he said in his speech the same thing would occur at the end of five years. Now, we consider this expenditure wasteful, and in excess of the requirements of the country. The noble Lord the Member 1921 for Marylebone seems to be able to make the Government do pretty well what he likes in naval matters, and it is very clear at the end of that period he will come forward and say, "I want another £5,000,000 or £10,000,000." It seems to me, therefore, that it is better to spread the payment over a much longer period. I am only sorry that my right hon. Friend did not say twenty years instead of six years. As he has proposed to increase the period to six years I shall support his Amendment.

§ *SIR D. CURRIE (Perthshire, W.)
I am convinced that it is absolutely necessary to have these ships completed as soon as possible, and I hope the Government will insist upon pressing them forward without delay in the interests of the security of the Empire.
The Committee divided:—Ayes 105; Noes 60.—(Div. List, No. 107.)

§ *MR. H. H. FOWLER
I rise, Sir, to move on this Clause, in line 26, to leave out from "of," to the second "the," in line 27, and insert "moneys to be provided by Parliament for this purpose." This Amendment I at once frankly admit embraces the other Amendments on the Paper in my name, and I submit to the House that the debate should take place upon this Amendment, and not upon the subsequent Amendments. By this Amendment I am not going to raise the question of the policy of the Government, which I think the Committee has accepted. I am not considering the proposal to spend 21½millions to carry out the Government scheme. I do not interfere with their proposal that 10 millions should be for contract vessels, and 11½ millions for dockyard vessels. I do not interfere with the special desire of the First Lord of the Admiralty, that he should not be hampered by surrendering balances of the end of the year. The noble Lord (Lord C. Beresford) pointed out that the surrender of these balances interferes very much with the continuity of policy. My Amendment interferes with none of these things. It leaves the £21,500,000—the £10,000,000 for contract vessels and £11,500,000 for Dockyard vessels—and it leaves money voted for the purposes of naval defence, so that it cannot 1922 be diverted at the end of the year from the purposes for which it was voted. My Amendment leaves every one of these things untouched. What, then, is the nature of the difference between myself and the Government? The difference is this: that instead of this money being for the first time in our history charged upon the Consolidated Fund, which means its withdrawal from the annual control of Parliament, it shall year by year be voted by Parliament. The words of my Amendment are, "out of moneys to be provided by Parliament"—a phrase which the Government know, as well as I do, is invariably used in reference to public expenditure. When Parliament contemplates a future expenditure, Parliament has invariably up to this time stated that it shall be "out of moneys provided by Parliament." There are only two reasons that can be urged against this. The first is—and I fully admit the great weight of it—that the noble Lord does not wish to be hampered in his work by surrendering money which is actually needed for naval purposes—which is being really spent on naval purposes—but which, owing to a technicality, he is unable to apply to naval purposes. By Clause 2, a naval account is to be opened, and money voted for shipbuilding out of the annual Estimates is to be carried to that fund, and whatever proportion the House of Commons thinks fit to vote out of that ten millions I propose should also go to that fund. There would be no possibility of surrendering balances were my Amendment adopted. You are afraid of the House of Commons interfering with the policy of shipbuilding. That is exactly the argument by which I wish to stand or fall. I say as a historic fact—and no one contradicted me the other night when I said it—that the House of Commons has never yet refused any expenditure for naval purposes which the Government of the day have come to the Table and said they desired, and I do not believe for a moment that the House of Commons will do so. But surely there is something more—namely, that the House of Commons should retain its control over the expenditure of the country; but to take it away, even in respect of our apparently desirable or apparently good purpose, would 1923 establish a precedent for many mischievous purposes which would hereafter follow. If you vote a Naval Defence Budget, why not vote a Military Budget. We have heard some utterances on military matters which ought to arouse our protest; and my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby has already alluded in this letter to what I call the unconstitutional and unprecedented conduct of the Adjutant General of the Army. That, however, is a matter which I will not go into, because it is my intention, and the intention of many more of this House, to raise the question of that noble Lord's action when his salary comes before the House. As a member of this House pointed out to me, there "is the possibility of a Radical Government coming into power; and if this precedent is allowed to pass, what is there to prevent you Radicals voting a prospective Budget that you may effect a series of revolutionary schemes?" I do not attach much weight to the observation myself; but what I want to point out is this: that the House of Commons has not even for fortifications, not even for extensions of dockyards, parted with its control over the annual expenditure of the country. I am not wishing to impede, delay, or maim the scheme of the Government at this moment by this Amendment; I am simply asking the House to adhere to what has been its invariable practice, and I would ask the First Lord of the Treasury, who I know is a cautious and experienced politician, to consider whether these mischievous precedents which are being established, and which do not appear so mischievous when used for the purposes of the present Administration, may not be used by some other Administration some other day, for some other purpose which may not appear so desirable as this does. I mentioned the other night that it is the hard cases which make the law; it is these dangerous precedents for desirable objects which open the door, and once the door is opened you cannot tell what may follow. I therefore ask the Government and the House not to give a Party consideration to this question of retaining annual control of the expenditure of the country, but to guard that control, which exclusively belongs to this House, from inter- 1924 ference by any other branch of the Legislature.

§ *LORD G. HAMILTON (Middlesex)
I admit at once that any Amendment coming from the right hon. Gentleman is well worthy of the attention of the Committee, and any suggestion which he may make, that would not interfere with the operation of the Bill and which would avert dangerous precedents, is well worthy of consideration. Now, I heard the right hon. Gentleman, with great ingenuity and skill of argument, put this case the other night, and he was very strong on precedent, and he quoted a number of Acts of Parliament to show how our conduct was absolutely unprecedented, but like an adroit advocate, he omitted one Act of Parliament—an Act of Parliament which bears on this point. In the year 1872, when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian was in power, he was fortunate enough to be in receipt of a revenue, which, to use his own words, was advancing by leaps and bounds. And in that year it was necessary to incur a certain expenditure in connection with the Army for the purpose of localizing the military forces, and completing certain barracks, and the amount he proposed to spend was £3,500,000. What does the right hon. Gentleman then propose? He did not cite that as a precedent which he intends to follow, or which ought to be followed. On the contrary, he thinks it a most mischievous and dangerous precedent. The then Government proposed to raise this sum of £3,500,000 by payments out of the Consolidated Fund. In that sense their proposal was similar to ours. We, however, put on taxation for the purpose of repaying the sum raised, while the Government of 1872 took off taxation, and the worst part of the proposal was that the money was put upon the Consolidated Fund not because the revenue of the year would not bear it, but simply for the purpose of enabling the right hon. Member for Mid Lothian to present a popularity Budget. The sum which he took off taxation was £4,000,000, nearly £500,000 in excess of the sum he put upon the Consolidated Fund. Yet it was said by the right hon. Gentleman opposite that it has never yet been proposed that any Military Budget 1925 should be voted in advance or spread over a number of years, or paid out of the Consolidated Fund. So far as precedent is concerned the Government have a distinct precedent for what they are doing, with the exception that the Government have taken out of their action all that was dangerous in the proposals of the right hon. Member for Mid Lothian, and we believe we have made a proposal which is in every sense safe and business-like. The right hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment seems to suppose that the only object of the Government is to escape from the interference of Parliament, of which we are afraid. I will say at once that the Government are not afraid of the interference of the House of Commons. It is perfectly true that the House of Commons has never refused money to the Government which has made out a case for it, but there are other considerations which must weigh with the Committee as men of business. It has been determined by the House of Commons in repeated majorities that a certain number of ships shall be built in a certain time, and a considerable portion of the ships must be armoured ships. The main cost of the armoured ships must come in the second year when the armourplates are fixed, and I defy the ingenuity of man to equalize the expenditure over each year. I will take a past case of which the right hon. Member for South Edinburgh has some knowledge. Lord Northbrook proposed to spend a certain sum on a special programme, and made financial arrangements which the Government enunciated in the House. His proposal was to raise £800,000 in the first year, £800,000 in the second year, and £500,000 in each of the remaining years until the expenditure was met. That arrangement was made after careful calculation, and was the best estimate the Government could make, but the whole thing fell to pieces. The actual expenditure was £1,066,000 in the first year, £1,350,000 in the second year, £813,000 in the third year, and £300,000 in the fourth year. The Committee will there see that, although dealing with a smaller sum than the present, the financial provision was altogether out of accord with the expenditure of those years. The Government have placed on the Table of the House an estimate showing 1926 the probable expenditure on contract ships—namely, in the first year, £2,850,000, second year £4,450,000, and third year £1,900,000. If this expenditure were included in the annual Estimates, see what fluctuations of taxation it would necessarily involve. Those fluctuations are most mischievous to trade. I contend that both from the business point of view and from that of the taxpayer the proposal made by my right hon. Friend is a right one—namely, to spread the payment over seven years, although the expenditure is actually incurred within five. The right hon. Gentleman objects to this money being put on the Consolidated Fund because he says it will take away the control of Parliament over the expenditure. For my own part, however, I contend that if the House authorize the expenditure and the Government enter into contracts on the faith of it, the House is not either legally or morally competent to repudiate the liability so incurred. If such a policy were adopted it would be absolutely ruinous to the economical administration of the Admiralty, for, of course, contractors would demand a higher price to cover the risk of repudiation. It is, therefore, absolutley immaterial whether the money is put upon the Consolidated Fund or voted annually by the House. I quite agree, however, that the expenditure on the Navy should be within the cognizance of the House, and to meet the views of the right hon. Gentleman on that subject, I will undertake to lay before the House each year precisely the same statements as to contract ships as are made with regard to Dockyard ships. I believe that by adopting that course the House will practically have just as much control over the expenditure as if it were included in the Estimates. I think I have shown three things—first, that we are not establishing a dangerous precedent, but have whittled down a dangerous precedent; next, that our proposals are in themselves businesslike and have not omitted the interest of the taxpayer; and lastly, that they do not unduly interfere with what I contend everybody should try to maintain—the annual control of the House over all the expenditure associated with it.

§ *MR. CHILDERS (Edinburgh)
I am called upon by the noble Lord the 1927 First Lord of the Admiralty to offer to the Committee a few remarks in reply to his reference to what Lord Northbrook proposed in 1885. He said that Lord Northbrook had laid before Parliament a scheme for spending £800,000 and £500,000 upon shipbuilding in three successive years. He then stated that sums very much in excess of Lord Northbrook's estimates — £1,066,000, £1,350,000 and £813,000—were expended in those three years, and the noble Lord said that in consequence of of the inconvenience caused by these excesses, he did not propose to follow the plan of coming to Parliament each year, but would make this a charge upon the Consolidated Fund. It is true that under Lord Northbrook's plan the expenditure on ships in two years was a quarter of a million and half a million more than the original Estimate But why was this? Why, the noble Lord took great credit for the fact two years ago, when he said that he had expedited the expenditure under Lord Northbrook's scheme. It was because he had deliberately accelerated the rate of building that the excess had occurred. No inconvenience whatever had resulted, so far as Parliamentary proceeding was concerned. The Votes had not been been disturbed, but on the contrary, we on this side of the House entirely approved of the action of Government in spreading over three years only what had been intended to be spent in five. But let me ask this question, if this new principle of forming a fund to spread equally over a series of years, and that exceeding the time of construction, and the cost of the ships built by contract in private yards, ought it not to apply to ships built in in the Dockyards? In that case also the cost of a particular ship will always be far greater in the second than in the first and third years. Moreover, the question is one which affects the annual control of Parliament over the whole of our naval building expenditure, and a large amount of our military expenditure, and if the arguments for the charge be sound we shall probably be asked, as has been urged abroad, to Vote Supplies for two or three years instead of one, and then the control of this House over the annual expenditure will be lost. The noble Lord also spoke of the precedent of 1872. It is true that in that 1928 one case Parliament was asked to make a certain charge on the Consolidated Fund for a Military expenditure, repaying it in, I think, 21 years. But that was not for perishable articles like ships; it was for the building of permanent barracks which will last 100 years. There is, therefore, no analogy between the two classes of expenditure. What I want the noble Lord to say is whether, if he thinks that is a good rule for ships built by contract, it is, in his e pinion, also a good rule for other classes of expenditure in connection with the Army and Navy. I want to knowhow he can draw a distinction between ships built by contract and ships, built in the Dockyards in respect of his manner of financial provision. Hitherto the Constitutional principle, as to which both sides of the House have agreed, that the ordinary expenditure on the Army and Navy should be voted year by year; has been jealously protected, and I fear the worst consequences from its being so lightly set aside.

§ *COLONEL BLUNDELL (Ince)
I feel bound to protest against the proposal that the Army expenditure should be taken in a different manner from that of the Navy. I think there is a great deal of money wasted in the Army by voting it from year to year; but as I do not wish to detain the House, I will only say that I think both Services stand on the same footing; they are the insurance of the country, and if that insurance is not sufficient it is our duty to make it so without delay.

§ *SDI W. BARTTELOT (Sussex, North-West)
I wish to say a word as to the Army Organization Scheme. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Edinburgh (Mr. Childers) will recollect that the £3,500,000 voted in 1872 for the building of barracks when Lord Cardwell, then Mr. Cardwell, was Secretary of State for War was not accounted for annually to the House of Commons.

§ *MR. CHILDERS
An account in. detail was laid before the House every year, and precise information was given in the Military Estimates on the subject.

§ *SIR W. BARTTELOT
In those, Estimates there was no account whatever, and when asked for it was not forthcoming for the particular time stated. I do not say it was not given afterwards; but it was absolutely at the 1929 option of the Ministers of the day to use the money as they thought fit for each year. I should also like to ask the right hon. Gentleman what was the intention of the Government of the day with respect to the £8,000,000 for the Suez Canal? The money was to be spread over a long term of years for the benefit of a foreign company to be paid off not annually, but by certain instalments extending over a series of years.

§ *MR. CHILDERS
The money was to be lent to the Suez Canal Company in the same way as other loans are made by the Government. It was not a question of money being included in the Estimates inasmuch as it was not to be expended by any Department of the Government.

§ SIR W. LAWSON (Cockermouth)
I should like to ask the noble Lord and Gentleman this. If he looks at the Return lately published he will see it stated that we are as strong in ships of war as the four Navies of France, Russia, Germany and Italy. I want to know whether we are to take that Return as as correct?

§ LORD G. HAMILTON
The hon. Baronet must recollect that we are talking of the necessity of maintaining in the future our supremacy at sea for the protection of this country and of its commerce, and, therefore, we say it is necessary that we should have a much larger proportion of cruisers and line of battle ships than we now have.

§ SIR W. LAWSON
I must repeat my question whether we are to take the Return to which I have referred as accurate?

§ LORD G. HAMILTON
Perfectly.
Amendment negatived.

§ *MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN
I have an Amendment which is not on the Paper, and it is to omit from line 29 the word "seventh" and insert the word "fifth." The effect of this Amendment will be to confine the granting of the money to the exact time within which the expenditure would take place. I am not going to raise again the Constitutional and financial points dealt with by my right hon. Friends near me. The First Lord of the Admiralty has used the argument that there is con- 1930 siderable difficulty in equalizing the payments of the several years, which no doubt, according to the Government proposals, would be the case, because they intend in one year to commence a large number of vessels, and will have in the second year a larger amount of expenditure than in the first, as the most expensive part of the process is performed in the second year. Had the Government chosen to have pursued a more systematic course, and to have laid down one or two ironclads last year, and the year before, and so gone on after having thus paved the way, instead of starting in this spasmodic way by at once laying down a large number of vessels, the payments which have equalized themselves; but as it is, I admit there is something to be said, from the point of view of administrative convenience, in favour of the scheme, which enables the Government to avoid coming to Parliament for a larger sum of money in some years than in others. But the whole of the work is to be done in five years; why, then, should any part of the expenditure be spread over seven? Why should not the whole of the money he provided for the years in which the expenditure takes place? I have heard no argument used by the Government in support of their proposal in this respect. A proposal had been made to extend the time; but the Government would not hear of that; they would have the ships finished in five years. But why extend the expenture over seven years? Does the Chancellor of the Exchequer think the country so lukewarm in the matter, or the resources of the country so few, that he has to spread the payments over seven years? I think it would require some strong and pressing argument to induce the House to grant what is proposed. The hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite, I think, missed the point as to the loan for barracks, in 1872. Hitherto we have been accustomed to loans for definite and tangible permanent work, such as building fortifications and baracks; and last year, when we provided for the Australian ships, was the first occasion on which a loan was resorted to, within recent years, for a transitory and perishable service. That exception is now extended by the Government and all I wish to do in this Amendment is to secure that, whatever financial irregularities 1931 we are being led into under the authority of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, we should, at least, be able to say that the effort we are called upon to make is not so great that we cannot discharge our liabilities within the term within which the expenditure is to be incurred.
Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 29, to leave out "seventh," and insert "fifth: "—(Mr. Campbell-Bannerman).
Question proposed "That 'seventh' stand part of the clause."

§ *MR. GOSCHEN
We are not prepared to accept the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman. While Her Majesty's Government do not believe the country to be lukewarm with regard to this measure, I am glad also to see that, whilst the right hon. Gentleman is not lukewarm, there is not that violent opposition to this scheme which at one time we had been led to anticipate. We should have had no difficulty in proposing this measure in any form, but we have had to consider what is the best and fairest method of meeting the payments. In this effort we are both making up for arrears and forestalling the efforts of the future. We find that at this particular moment it is necessary for many reasons, which have been explained at various times, to bring up the strength of our naval forces. It is an exceptional effort we are making, and we think it right to deal with it as an exceptional effort, believing that little blame would be attached to the Government if they had said the payment should be spread over ten years instead of seven. We think we have gone far to meet the general anxiety that every generation should pay its fair share by saying that the whole of this exceptional and abnormal effort should be paid for in seven years. What generation will most benefit from our exertions? Not the taxpayers of the next three or four years, during which the ships will be in course of construction, but those of the sixth and seventh and subsequent years when this large force will have been added to the Navy. Doubtless, hon. Gentlemen are right in saying that perishable Services can scarcely be treated in the same way as permanent ones, but though these ships will not be as permanent as fortifications, they will be more permanent than the ships of the past.

§ *LORD C. BERESFORD (Marylebone, E.)
I cannot understand why on earth the Government want to extend the payments over seven years when they are going to build the ships in five years. Although I do not want to vote against the Government, I am afraid I shall have to vote for the Amendment. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has said this addition to the Fleet will be a permanent one. I distinctly controvert that, and will endeavour to prove that I am in the right, feeling sure that as time goes on I shall be found to be in the right, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the wrung. It is for this reason I shall have to go into the Lobby with the right hon. Gentleman opposite. One hon. Member referred to the question of barrack accommodation, and said the borrowing of money for providing that was justifiable because the barracks were permanent fixtures. So too, I say, ought the Fleet to be permanent; you ought to get it up to a given standard, and take care that steps are taken every year to replace ships which have become obsolete. We have been told that ironclads only last a given number of years. Why, they bear no comparison with the old style of ship. The Victory, when she fought the battle of Trafalgar, was 45 years old, and she was 75 years old when she was put out of commission The right hon. Gentleman opposite was quite right when he said that we ought to have gone on building ironclads every year. No doing so is one reason why we have to build a large number now to bring the Fleet up to its proper strength. We ought also to allow for wastage, and the 20 millions ought to be in addition to the ordinary wastage of the Fleet. If you do not do this, why in a few years' time you will have another exceptional expenditure to replace those ships which, in a year or two, will have become obsolete. I intend to vote against the Government.

§ *MR. GOSCHEN
My noble Friend is going to vote against the Government because they do not want to vote two millions a year instead of one million and a-half. But I thought my noble Friend wanted to borrow the money for the whole expenditure and suspend the Sinking Fund, and yet he is going to vote against us for spreading the payment of this money over seven years instead of five.

§ *MR. WINTERBOTHAM (Gloucester, Cirencester)
The Chancellor of the Exchequer has told us we are to spread this money over seven years, instead of paying our way as we go on. I fail to see why the unhappy taxpayers of seven years hence should have this burden put on them. We ought to pay for putting the Navy in a proper condition. We have been told that we shall have a period of rest after this money has been spent. I do not in the least believe it. We have already been warned we shall have another scare in due course, and we have also been informed that a large expenditure will be required for the Army, so that the taxpayer of six and seven years' hence will have quite enough to do to meet fresh abnormal and exceptional expenditure. Then the Prime Minister, speaking in the West Country, recently told us of the terrible danger we may run of invasion from Ireland. I do hope that my right hon. Friends on the Front Opposition Bench, who, I fear, somewhat deserve the taunt thrown out by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that they are lukewarm in their opposition to this monstrous and unnecessary proposal, will take courage from the promise of support given by the noble Lord opposite, and go to a division on this point, which is a very plain one, and which the country will understand, and that we may not again see what we have seen more than once in the past—a Conservative Government spending the money, and leaving a Liberal Government to pay it.

MR. CRAIG (Newcastle)
Before this Vote is taken, I wish to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to explain what is meant by the difference of £3,054,000 between the sum available to new construction (£11,554,000) and the sum required to complete the new programme (£11,500,000.)

§ *LORD G. HAMILTON
Anybody acquainted with our Dockyards would understand the importance of not allowing the work to stand still. We propose to allot a certain amount of money to complete a given number of ships, and then as the programme is completed, the money may be used for additions, or it may be saved. At any rate, it becomes free.

MR. CRAIG
In what sense?

§ *LORD G. HAMILTON
In the sense that there are no liabilities to meet. If 1934 the present Government are still in office, I have no doubt the money will be devoted to new construction, but if hon. Gentlemen opposite are in a majority, and if the views they express to-night still prevail, the 3 millions will be available for the reduction of the Estimates.

MR. CRAIG
Then it comes to this, that the Government are asking us to grant £3,054,000, which is not yet allocated on the new programme. Why should we vote money to be used in 1893–94 for laying down vessels if the Government of the day choose so to spend the money?

§ *LORD GEORGE HAMILTON
The money is to be devoted to new construction, and when the new programme is completed there will be a surplus of £3,054,000, which will be dealt with as the House likes. We do not ask the House to come to any decision on that.

MR. CRAIG
Then why ask the House to vote the money now?

§ *MR. GOSCHEN
The money will not be used now. There is no clause in the Bill in which this is asked for.

§ *MR. CHILDERS
I wish to put one question, which directly bears on the policy of this system of advance for naval and military purposes. Two months ago the House was informed that there would be another large sum to be borrowed, I believe some five or six millions for barrack accommodation. I should like to know whether the Government have yet decided to ask the House for authority to make this advance also?

§ *MR. W. H. SMITH
That is a totally different matter. The Secretary for War says that he would have to make certain proposals which were to be submitted to a Committee of the House of Commons.

§ *MR. CHILDERS
I thought the inquiry took place last year?

§ *MR. W. H. SMITH
No, Sir; the proposals are to be referred to a Committee for inquiry. They are in an entirely inchoate state at the present time. I think it is not desirable to mix up the discussion of this matter with the Bill now before the House.

§ *MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN
I should like to refer again to the important point raised by the hon. Member for Newcastle. It is evident that on the 1935 completion of the new programme we shall have three millions unappropriated, and which will be at the disposal of Parliament either to spend or to save. But at that time Parliament will have to meet two years' payment of the funded charges, created by this Bill, for expenditure already incurred. I do not consider it a very satisfactory arrangement that you should have arrears on one account, and at the same time an actual saving on the other.

§ *MR. GOSCHEN
It seems to me that it is a charming argument for the Bill, as we shall have means to pay at the very time the money has to be paid.
The Committee divided:—Ayes 177; Noes 99.—(Div. List, No. 108.)

§ LORD G. HAMILTON
I beg to move to add:— The expression 'money expended' will include the value of stores issued from stock and used in tho construction or completion of the vessels built under this Act. Clause, as amended, agreed to.

§ *MR. H. H. FOWLER
The object of my clause is simply to follow the precedent which the noble Lord in his speech earlier in the evening stated that he was willing to follow—namely, that of giving to Parliament every information with reference to these contracts. I wish Parliament to have laid before it every year the contracts which the Admiralty enter into by virtue of this Act. It may be said that the contracts will be very voluminous in their specifications, and may contain details which it is not desirable should be known to other contractors. I would therefore be content to take a summary of every contract, and to alter the period of 30 days to any longer period which the 1936 Government think necessary in the interest of the public service.

§ LORD G. HAMILTON
I quite agree with the object of the right hon. Gentleman, but I think the clause, even if amended as suggested, goes a little further than the right hon. Gentleman wishes. It would run "a summary of every contract entered into by virtue of this Act." I would suggest we should say "a summary of every contract entered into by virtue of this Act for the construction of the vessels should be laid before both Houses of Parliament," and I would say "90 days" instead of "30," and "30" instead of "15."

§ *MR. H. H. FOWLER
Would you say "construction and arming of the vessels"?

§ LORD G. HAMILTON
No; there are a number of small contracts that it would not be necessary to enter into. Vessels and guns" will be sufficient.

§ *MR. W. H. SMITH
I would suggest it would be convenient to bring the matter up on Report to-morrow. The particular phraseology of the clause ought to be very carefully considered. The Government wish to give the country complete information; but I think it would be more satisfactory if the matter were properly considered, and if a clause relating to it were brought up on the Report.

§ *MR. H. H. FOWLER
I quite agree with what the right hon. Gentleman has said, and on the understanding that the Government will bring up a new clause to-morrow, I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Schedule stand part of he Bill."

COLONEL NOLAN (Galway)
It strikes me as extraordinary you should put in the schedule of a Bill that is to 1937 last five years the number of quick-firing guns. We may have all sorts of inventions in the meanwhile, and the number and pattern of those guns may have to be totally modified. It is proposed we should tie our hands for five years, that the Admiralty should not be able to make any change in such a small matter as small guns without an Act of Parliament.

§ CAPTAIN PRICE (Devonport)
The hon. and gallant Gentleman has omitted to observe that the word "approximate" occurs in the Schedule.

§ MR. DUFF (Banffshire)
I quite agree with my hon. and gallant Friend. I think it would be very rash to tie ourselves down to the exact form of guns when we know the rapid development of quick firing guns. In this matter I should like to give the Admiralty a little more liberty. We have already suffered very much by tying ourselves to the 110-ton gun, and therefore I think it would be wise to accept the suggestion of the hon. and gallant Member for Galway, and cut out of the Schedule the reference to the number of small guns.

§ LORD G. HAMILTON
The object of the Schedule is to give as much information as possible to the House. The hon. Gentleman says it is a great mistake for the Admiralty to tie themselves down to a particular form of gun. I think it is a greater mistake to build ships without knowing what guns we are to put in them.

COLONEL NOLAN
Would it not be well to leave out of the Schedule the numbers of all guns under six-inch?

§ LORD G. HAMILTON
If it is the wish of the Committee to leave out part of the Schedule, I would not object, but I cannot leave out all under six-inch guns.

THE CHAIRMAN
The question "That the Schedule stand part of the Bill" has been proposed.

COLONEL NOLAN
The noble Lord may strike out the words on the Report.

§ LORD G. HAMILTON
I will make a proposal on Report.
Question put, and agreed to.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill, as amended, be reported to the House."

§ MR. ISAACSON
I should like to know what the Government intend to do with regard to the armour-plating. 1938 There are only two firms in England which can compete for contracts for the armour-plating, and we are entirely at the mercy of those two firms. Indeed, I am convinced that if we manufactured the armour-plating ourselves we should effect a saving of £1,500,000.

THE CHAIRMAN
Order, order! The hon. Member has neglected the proper opportunity for raising this question. He may no doubt ask a question of the First Lord of the Admiralty, but he cannot discuss anything at this point.
Question put, and agreed to.
Bill reported, as amended, to be considered to-morrow, at Two of the clock.