THIRD READING.

HC Deb 20 May 1889 vol 336 cc504-81

Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Amendment proposed to Question [17th May], "That the Bill be now read the third time."

And which Amendment was, to leave out the word "now," and, at the end of the Question, to add the words "upon this day six months."—(Mr. Howell.)

Question again proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."

* MR. FENWICk (Northumberland, Wansbeck)

It seems to me that the speeches to which we listened the other night from the right hon. Member for the Bridgeton Division (Sir G. Trevelyan) and the right hon. Member for Derby (Sir W. Harcourt), will do much to recall the public mind to the vast importance of this measure and the very hasty and precipitate manner in which the Government have embarked in a policy which is to envolve the expenditure of a very large sum of public money. If such speeches had been delivered from the Front Opposition Bench in the earlier stages of the Bill, it would not have been possible for the noble Lord to have boasted as he did on Friday night that the proposals of the Government had received a greater amount of popular support than any similar proposal of recent years. As a matter of fact, I should be disposed to dispute the popularity of the proposals in the country, except in one or two places where advantages have been held out in the shape of prospective contracts, and even in such districts these prospects have not always been sufficient to create enthusiasm or popularity for the proposals of the Government. Though such prospects were artfully put before the electors both of the Govan and Gorton Divisions, the voters were not disposed to show any enthusiasm for the Government proposals. But I fear that the quiescent and unquestioning attitude displayed by our Front Opposition Bench will have done very much to create the impression in the public mind that the Government have made out their case, and I am afraid the Liberal Leaders will be saddled with some amount of responsibility for the blundering policy now being pursued by Her Majesty's Government. The noble Lord (Lord G. Hamilton) complained the other night of the amount of repetition which has taken place in the course of this debate. No doubt it must be very inconvenient for a Minister to hear the strongest arguments in condemnation of his proposals coming from his own side of the House and quoted from his own public utterances. I doubt very much whether the House or the country has yet fully realized the complete ministerial transformation that has taken place on this question. On the 2nd May, 1887, the First Lord of the Admiralty (Lord George Hamilton), speaking at the Royal Academy, and referring to the Jubilee Review that was shortly to take place at Spithead, is reported to have said:— I may say without boasting that on that day will be paraded a Fleet superior in strength and power to any fleet which has ever been seen by any sovereign in time of peace. On the 19th of July following, in this House, he is reported to have said:— I have never said that the Navy Estimates could not be reduced, and the estimates for this year show a reduction of £800,000. I stated in my Memorandum that I was satisfied that for years to come there could be a steady reduction of expenditure and an increase of efficiency. On the 4th of February last year, in an address to his constituents at Ealing, he is reported to have said:— Our relative superiority to other fleets is greater now than it has been for years past. Next year and the year after it will be greater still. The House will remember that the main argument on which the noble Lord based his contention in favour of the introduction of this Bill was that it was necessary for the protection of British commerce that we should possess a Fleet equal in strength to the fleets of any two combined nations. On the 13th of March, 1888, he used language in this House which showed most clearly that at the present time we possess a Fleet exactly of the dimensions which he said we ought to maintain. He said:— The result is that whereas on March 1st, 1887, we had 171,000 tons (of armoured ships), as against 119,000 for France, 41,000 for Italy, and 26,000 for Russia, we shall have at April, 1890, 311,000 tons, as against 184,000 for France, 100,000 for Italy, and 73,000 for Russia.… I am well within the mark when I say that we are from 30 to 40 per cent above the next most powerful naval power. Therefore, on the noble Lord's own showing, we shall in 1890 be possessed of as great a tonnage of armoured ships almost as the three greatest naval Powers of Europe. Lord Elphinstone, speaking in the other House last year, is reported to have said that the present rate of construction was such that we were turning out two ships to one of any foreign Power. Is the noble Lord prepared to say that Lord Elphinstone, when he uttered those words, spoke correctly? [Lord G. HAMILTON was understood to indicate assent]. I am glad to have the assent of the noble Lord to that statement. Under such circumstances, why do the Government ask Parliament for additional money, and attempt to bind Parliament for a successive number of years? The noble Lord said on Friday morning that in the event of war it would be impossible. to make the necessary preparations on the spur of the moment. It seems to me that would be a very good argument if Parliament had hitherto refused to grant the necessary money for the purpose of strengthening the Navy. But, during the last ten years, Parliament has granted a sum of over £42,000,000 for the purpose of strengthening our naval defences. The House and the country are entitled to know what has led to the change of front on the part of the noble Lord. Parliament has not to my knowledge received any satisfactory answer to the question, and I think we are entitled to one. I do not say it is an unworthy thing for a man, when he sees that he has been in error, to frankly admit his error and to change his opinion. But I think we are entitled to know, after the repeated utterances we have had from the noble Lord as to the satisfactory and sufficient strength of the Navy, why he has seen fit to change his opinion, and to make such an extravagant demand upon the public purse as this. I think the country is also entitled to know what Department it is intended to trust the expenditure of this money to. Is it intended to entrust the unreformed Department of the Admiralty with it? I was surprised to observe the other day that even hon. and gallant. Gentlemen opposite are not yet satisfied with the administration of the Admiralty Department. I saw it stated in the Standard the other day that a number of gentlemen, led by the noble Lord the Member for Marylebone (Lord C. Beresford), intend to raise this question on the Navy Vote, and even the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Admiralty (Mr. A. B. Forwood) has complained about the wastefulness of the Admiralty Department. Speaking at Skelmersdale, the hon. Member said:— When he saw how matters were conducted there [at the Admiralty] and how money was expended, not to say wasted, a feeling of hopelessness, approaching sometimes to helplessness, came over him. When the Secretary to the Admiralty, with his knowledge of business, and how great and important businesses should be conducted, goes to the Admiralty, he is so appalled by the state of confusion and chaos he finds that a feeling of hopelessness, if not of helplessness, comes over him. And yet it is to this unreformed Department that the spending of this large sum of money is to be entrusted. Now, I regard the policy underlying this Bill as bad in the extreme, yea, as positively mischievous, and one to which I trust the working classes of this country will never for one moment lend their sympathy or support. The hon. and gallant Admiral the Member for Eastbourne (Admiral Field) made some reference on Friday night to the inheritance which he said the Conservatives succeeded to from their Liberal predecessors in 1842. I think he spoke somewhat scornfully of that inheritance. I happen to have by me an extract from a speech of a statesman whose name is sacred in the memory of the working classes of this country, a statesman whose authority, I think, will be admitted even by the hon. and gallant Gentleman. I have here a statement made by Sir Robert Peel on the 27th August, 1841, which, even now, completely represents the feelings of the working classes on this subject. When he was at the head of a large Conservative majority what were his opinions with reference to the inheritance to which the Conservatives succeeded? He said, in reply to the wirepullers who were then working the oracle, as they are working it now—he said, in reply to the gentlemen described by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Sir W. Harcourt), the other night—as sweet little cherubs who sit up aloft:— Is not the time come when the powerful countries of Europe should reduce those military, armaments which they have so sedulously raised? Is not the time come when they should be prepared to declare that there is no use in such overgrown establishments? What is the advantage of one Power greatly increasing its Army and Navy? Does it not see that other Powers will follow its example? The consequence of this must be, that no increase of relative strength will accrue to any one Power; but there must be a universal consumption of the resources of every country in military preparations. They are, in fact, depriving peace of half its advantages, and anticipating the energies of war whenever they may be required. Sir Robert Peel went on to indicate a policy which the working classes now most earnestly implore the Government to carry out. He said:— The true interest of Europe is to come to some one common accord so as to enable every country to reduce those military armaments which belong to a state of war rather than of peace. I do wish that the Councils of every country (or that the public voice and mind, if the Councils did not) would willingly propagate such a doctrine. Such is the policy which the working classes earnestly entreat you to support. The present time, too, is opportune for the adoption of such a policy, because you have repeatedly assured Parliament that our foreign relations continue to be most cordial and friendly. If you had wished to do honour to the memory of the great statesman I have referred to; you would have observed the course he lays down in the words I have quoted. Had you done so you would have earned the lasting gratitude of the working classes of this country. Believing, therefore, that the policy which underlies the proposal you have laid before Parliament is both mischievous and wasteful, I shall vote for the rejection of the Bill.

* ADMIRAL MAYNE (Pembroke and Haverfordwest)

I rise solely for the purpose of giving the House the exact words of Mr. Cobden, with reference to expenditure on the Navy, as he has been put in evidence and misquoted several times by hon. Gentlemen opposite, and his words carry great weight in the country. I think the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Fenwick), who has just quoted the words of a revered statesman, will admit that Mr. Cobden is as sound an authority as Sir Robert Peel. At any rate, during the time which elapsed between the expression of the two opinions, Gentlemen opposite had ample opportunity of carrying out the policy they are now urging upon us, as they boast of having been in power for two-thirds of the last 50 years. When, in 1884, Sir Thomas Brassey proposed to spend £5,000,000 on the Navy, why did they not advocate the peace policy? Why did not the hon. Gentleman the Member for Cardiff (Sir E. Reed) go in at that time for the criticism of the Admiral and Mersey class of vessels? But, as I have said, I wish to correct the statement as to Mr.. Cobden's opinion. The other night the hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. Picton) told us that Mr. Cobden did say he would spend £100,000,000 on the Navy, but it was to be spent if there was a necessity. Mr. Cobden said nothing about necessity; but Mr. Cobden, with that clearness for which he was so celebrated, did not leave any one in doubt as to his real meaning. Mr. Cobden said— If you take the Navies of the two countries for the last century you will find that when in a normal state of peace the French have had a Nary little more than half the size of that of England. If you take the expenditure, you will find that the French naval armaments had during all that period, by a sort of tacit arrangement, as I have said, spent rather more than half of what England has spent upon her Navy. He then goes on to say— I would tell to the French Government, as I now tell you, that if I found that the French Government had done anything to disturb that relation which has existed pretty nearly for a century in the proportion of the French and English Navies, I should have suspected some sinister design on the part of the French Government and should have considered myself a traitor to my country if I had allowed the Government of that country, on proof of any sinister intentions, to have made use of me to mislead or hoodwink England by leading me to suppose that my instrumentality was being used for the promotion of commercial intercourse, when I had grounds to believe they were entering upon a policy of war. England has four times, at least, the amount of mercantile tonnage to protect at sea that France has, and surely that gives us a legitimate pretension to have a larger Navy than France. Besides, this country is an island; we cannot communicate with any part of the world except by sea. France, on the other hand, has a frontier upon land, by which she can communicate with the whole world. We have, I think, unfortunately for ourselves, about a hundred times the amount of territory beyond the seas to protect as colonies and dependencies that France has. France has also twice or three times as large an Army as England has. All these things give us the right to have a Navy somewhat in the proportion to the French Navy which we find to have existed, if we look back, over the past century. Nobody has disputed it. Mr. Cobden does not live in these days, or he would not have been able to say that. "I would be the last person," Mr. Cobden goes on to say— who would even advocate any undue change in this proportion. On the contrary, I have said it in the House of Commons, and I repeat it to you, if the French Government showed a sinister design to increase their Navy to an equality with ours, then, after every explanation to prevent such an abusrd waste, I should vote 100 millions sterling rather than allow that Navy to be increased to a level with ours, because I should say that any attempt of that sort, without any legitimate grounds, would argue some sinister designs upon this country. This speech was delivered at the time when Mr. Cobden had been negotiating with France a treaty which bound the two countries closer together than ever, and at a time when, certainly far more than at the present time, France had a stable Government. I have no intention of following hon. and right hon. Gentle men opposite into the question of whether formerly the First Lord of the Admiralty or the Secretary for the Admiralty said something not altogether consistent with what they say now. The whole position is in no way altered since the Bill was introduced, or since the time that the hon. Gentleman the Leader—I do not know what party it is, but we will call it the simple aggravation party— proposed a direct veto of the Bill. Then he was defeated by a majority of 14, and I trust, and I believe, that at this stage the measure will have an equal number of supporters, because no hon. Member has got up and, attempted to show from anything like figures that bear looking into, that this increase of the Navy is not required to raise it, not to the standard that Cobden urged it should be kept up to, a proportion of two to one; but to keep it up to a third more than any other Navy, which everybody admits is necessary for the defence of the country. All other questions are mere side issues, and in no way justify this most unusual attempt to throw it out on the Third Reading.

* MR SHAW LEFEVRE (Bradford, Central)

The hon. and gallant Member is perfectly right in quoting Mr. Cobden; Mr. Cobden on that occasion said that if France determined to raise her Fleet to an equality with ours he would spend a hundred millions to bring our Fleet to a superiority. But the hon. and gallant Member should recollect that Mr. Cobden in his most able pamphlet on "Three Panics," published shortly afterwards, pointed out that since the beginning of the century the porportion of the French Fleet to that of England had been as two to three, and he also pointed out that if we raised our Fleet beyond that proportion France would certainly follow and the proportion would remain the same, and so I think Mr. Cobden can be quoted in favour of an economical policy. The hon. Member for the Wansbeck Division (Mr. Fenwick) in his able Speech made a complaint of the attitude of Members on this Bench; but for myself I feel that I am not open to his reflections, for I voted againt the Second Reading of the Bill, and in the course of Committee I endeavoured to reduce the measure to somewhat more moderate proportions, but in vain. It is proposed to spend no less than ten millions in excess of what may be called the normal rate of expenditure in Dockyards on shipbuilding. I have objected to that on the ground that the effect will be to stimulate other Powers and spend in a similar proportion, and I feel absolutely certain that when the Bill is passed we shall see the French Navy increased and the relative proportions between us will remain the same. Indeed I have already seen it stated that the French Minister of Marine has declared that in consequence of the measure proposed by the Board of Admiralty in this country, he will have to propose considerable larger expenditure to the French Legislature.

LORD G. HAMILTON

Where is that stated?

* MR. SHAW LEFEVRE

My right hon. friend the Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler) stated to me only a few minutes ago that he had seen it in an account of the proceedings in the French Chamber. I have followed closely the statements of the noble Lord, and certainly expected that he would have made some defence for this largely increased expenditure, but I have not heard from him a single word in disproof of the many statements made last Session and the previous Session, that the Navy of England by the end of 1890 would be in excess of that of France by the proportion of three to two. The Secretary to the Admiralty has spoken frequently to the same effect, and it is somewhat curious that even pending these discussions here the Secretary to the Admiralty went to Liverpool and made a speech there in which he stated more than once that the Navy was never better prepared for war than at present, and that numerically and in character it is superior to the Navies of any two foreign nations, but he said the lessons taught by the manœuvres showed that the extent of our superiority was not so great in the minds of responsible Naval officers as to secure our supremacy so absolutely unquestionable as it ought to be if we were to maintain the advantages of our position. So it would appear that the Secretary to the Admiralty has yielded his own better judgment to the opinion of Naval officers, and it would appear from what has been said by the hon and gallant Member who sits behind him that we are called upon to make this increase in the Navy, not because it is the real belief of the contract element of the Board of Admiralty, but in consequence of the pressure brought to bear upon the Board of Naval officers. I challenge the Secretary to the Navy to get up and say that he belives this expenditure is really necessary. I am perfectly certain he cannot and will not do so. He admits that the Navy is stronger than it has ever been, that it is equal to the Navies of any two Powers, and that the additional expenditure is forced by other authorities. But the noble Lord and the Secretary to the Admiralty have frequently told us during the last two years that if we only maintain our present rate of expenditure, that is to say, that if we take into account the vessels lost, falling out of service and depreciated, allowing 40 per cent. for wastage, that expenditure in a few years would add to our superiority. When we compare the expenditure of the last two or three years with the average of the last 20 years, we find that it is almost 70 per cent in excess of the normal expenditure. For the 20 years 1864 to 1884, the annual expenditure on materials on various constructions was £1,526,000, and this year it is £2,650,000, surely a very large increase irrespective of that now proposed. I stated in the debate on the Second Reading that if you compared the naval expenditure of this country with that of France for the last 50 or 60 years, you always find the proportion of expenditure as three to two. I will only go back for 25 years, and I find that proportion maintained, and just as our expenditure increased, so in pro- portion did that of France. During the first five years of the period, our average was £1,375,000, and that of France £880,000. In 1859 our expenditure increased to £1,895,000, and that of France to £1,112,000. From 1864 to 1888 England spent £41,700,000 upon her fleet, France £28,100,000. In 1885 there was a very large increase in our expenditure under Lord Northbrook's programme, and in the following year France increased her expenditure in exactly the same proportion. During the last three years in England the expenditure on new ships has averaged £2,730,000; in France it has been £1,800,000, still keeping the same proportion. So I assume from what has gone before, that at the end of the period for the present programme, the proportion will still remain about the same. We are going to spend in four years 8 millions for new construction, wholly irrespective of armaments, and adding that to the normal expenditure in Dockyards, will make an average annual expenditure of £4,600,000, three times the expenditure of the 20 years I referred to. I am absolutely certain that France and other Powers will follow suit, and at the end of the period our relative position will be precisely the same. Assuming that it is desirable to increase somewhat the Navy, I maintain that the mode is unwise and impolitic. It is proposed to lay down 70 vessels. But no one has condemned such a policy more than the Secretary to the Admiralty, on the ground that by laying down many vessels at the same time we should stereotype the class and the designs of one construction, and the First Lord also has on many occasions pointed out how unwise that policy would be, and up to the present he has given us no reason for changing that policy hitherto pursued. I ventured to point out in Committee how it was possible by a slight modification in the programme spreading construction over six years instead of four some of the danger would be avoided. The true policy to my mind is to lay down a certain number of vessels each year, and to build continuously but cautiously, avoiding multiplication of types. For the first time the policy of annually laying down a certain number of ships is being abandoned, and we are asked to lay down 70 vessels, of which 42 are of the same type. Two years ago the noble Lord said that he did not propose to lay down any more ironclads, and that the other Powers had come to the same conclusion. Then last year he proposed to build 24 vessels—sloops and small corvettes—which were to cost one and-a-half million. Now the country is suddenly asked to spend ten millions in building 10 ironclads of the largest class, and the reason assigned for this change is the development of quick-firing guns and new explosives, which has given a great impetus to the building of ironclads. I think it might be desirable to build a small number of ironclads, but to lay down 10 at once is certainly an unwise policy, both from the financial and the shipbuilding points of view. In three or four years better designs will be produced, and the ships built at such an enormous cost may prove to be obsolete. On this ground I endeavoured on a former occasion to restrict the threatened evils, but unfortunately without result, the noble Lord would not listen to the proposals from this Bench. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, in a long speech, also urged the objections from a financial point of view. On both grounds we urged the proposals of the Government were unwise and unnecessasy, and my strong belief is that the result will be to stimulate other Powers to fresh exertions. Two or three years hence we shall find other Powers making fresh preparations to facilitate the production of vessels of a new and improved type which will render almost obsolete those we are now about to lay down in large numbers at enormous cost.

* GENERAL SIR E. B. HAMLEY (Birkenhead)

One thing has been made clear during the progress of this Bill—that its opponents would be very glad to trip it up, but do not see their way to do it with safety to themselves. For it is evident that if there is one thing which the people of England just now have more at heart than another it is that the Navy should be raised to a strength adequate to the needs of the country. Therefore, hon. Members opposite began by endeavouring to do that indirectly which they did not dare to do directly, and in this spirit it was that the right hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. Childers) proposed to raise the sum asked for by throwing it on the annual Estimates, and that question has been again raised by the mover of the present Now, the proposal of the Government has there advantages—that it renders it certain that the money will be raised; that it will be applied to the purpose intended and to no other; and that this purpose will be accomplished in a certain definite time. For this certainty that the desire of the country will be fulfilled, hon. Members opposite wish to substitute a method by which that desire will certainly not be fulfilled, and they profess to advocate this from the highest motives because their method is more constitutional, for they appear for this occasion only as defenders of the Constitution. Now, the right hon. Member for Edinburgh knows, or if he does not, he is the only Member who does not know it—that if you wish to render a measure of this kind perfectly futile and inoperative you could not take a better way than to provide for it by the annual Estimates. And it is not too much to say that most of the shortcomings in works, stores, and equipments laid at the doors of the War Office and Admiralty have been mainly due to the system of sacrificing the provision made for them in the Estimates. I am not surprised, then, that neither the House nor the country accepted the authority of the right hon. Gentleman opposite in the matter. Indeed it was not very surprising on other grounds that his authority was not accepted. It has been the fortune of the right hon. Member for Edinburgh to fill a great number of posts in the State£ had almost said his misfortune—for if he had only filled one or two we might still have been permitted to indulge the hope that one might yet be found to which his peculiar and as yet undiscovered genius might be suited. But we can no longer cherish that expectation. The right hon. Gentleman has run through the whole gamut, and the problem is still unsolved, and therefore it is not surprising that when the right hon. Gentleman advised us to drop the Government way, which means how to do it, and adopt his way, which means how not to do it, nobody listened to him, even though he gives his advice as the champion of the Constitution. On the Second Reading there was what I may call a short comic interlude during which the hon. Gentleman the Senior Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) and the hon. Baronet the Member for Cumberland (Sir W. Lawson) made speeches which bore the same relation to the business of this House as a burlesque at the Strand does to the legitimate drama, and as they probably did not expect their eccentric performances to be taken seriously they need not occupy attention, and I will not further advert to them. The mover of the present Amendment and his supporters can hardly expect at this stage to defeat the Bill, but the hon. Members can still continue to express their dislike to it, and therefore they dwell on the extravagance of the measure, the waste of money— and in the supposed interests of that shadowy personage the taxpayer, in whose name so many strange doctrines are put forth, they denounce it. They appear to believe that all these millions will be so much money absolutely lost to the country, and that we shall have nothing to show for it except some unremunerative war-ships. But it must be evident that all this large sum will be spent in this country, and chiefly in the form of wages, and will therefore be expended entirely for the benefit of the working class, who, moreover, will contribute little or nothing to the taxation which is to produce or replace the money; and the Opponents of the measure are therefore opposing what would be for the benefit pure and simple of the working class—the class of which many of them claim to be specially the representatives.. Whether their unlucky clients will approve of their efforts to rob them of this great benefit must appear doubtful to those hon. Members themselves when they come to think of it. Well, the hon. Member for Leicester based his opposition mainly on different grounds, on sentimental grounds—namely, on his faith in human nature. And his faith in human nature has led him to believe, among other curious things, that the fact that we have the largest commerce in the world is a good reason why we should not protect it. The hon. Member and everybody else in a community like ours ought to know that security is the very life-blood of commerce, and that for us it means security on our coasts, and security on the high seas. Other Powers have little ocean commerce to guard or to lose, while we must be prepared to spread our efforts over an immense area to defend a great many points and trade routes against a concentrated attack on either, and this alone ought to carry conviction of the necessity for our great superiority at sea. The hon. Member's faith in human nature has also led him to believe that our Government ought to make it its business to impress on other Governments the expediency of disarmament, and that to show our sincerity we should begin by ceasing all efforts for our own defence, just as some worthy persons become total abstainers in order the better to convert their intemperate brethren. I should much like to see the appeal formulated which the hon. Member would address to foreign Governments on the subject. Does he consider what disarmament means for them— the cessation and dissolution of that vast system, naval as well as military, which absorbs so huge a share of the population and resources and intellect of the Continent. Surely the people of those States would not submit to such a burthen unless they believed it to be necessary to their safety? And how would the hon, Member propose to convince Germany that she ought to disarm in the present attitude of France? How could he convert France to his views, while she is convinced that her great neighbour cherishes the hope of completely crushing her next time? How could he induce Russia to give up her traditional policy of aggression and conquest? How could he persuade Austria and Italy to abandon their means of defence, and with them all hope of obtaining powerful allies? And while the individual powers would be thus deaf to counsel, how could he hope to prevail on all together? Every one of them knows that to disarm would mean to drop out of her place as a great Power and never to regain it. Therefore the Cabinets of Europe would turn a deaf ear even to the honeyed words of the hon. Member for Leicester, or to any Government which should make itself his mouthpiece; and few of us would wish, I should hope to see England in the position of volunteering advice which nobody listens to. Let us hope that the time may come when disarmament may become possible, probably through the action of the peoples of Europe, who will refuse any longer to continue the ruinous competition of warlike power. But it has not come yet, and till it does hon. Members who amuse themselves with devising plans for converting the Powers of Europe by talk must be content to be regarded as unpractical and even mischievous dreamers. And why do the people of England wish to See this Bill passed? It is because they feel that England should be not merely a great Naval Power, but the predominant Naval Power; and that, so long as her position as such is open to doubt, so long does she fall short of the necessities which her geographical situation and her widespread Empire impose on her. The people feel, more perhaps than their rulers feel, that England stands alone among nations in this—that she is nothing if not a sea Power, that she is encircled by the ocean, and that all her paths—paths which she must incessantly traverse—are on the deep, and her first duty, a duty fixed on her by nature herself, is to make these facts the basis of her policy, whether for peace or war. And the Government, therefore, cannot be too warmly congratulated on having recognized these facts, and on having wisely resolved to satisfy the desire of the people by raising England to its proper supremacy among the sea Powers.

MR. S. STOREY (Sunderland)

We always find that when the Admirals want anything the Generals will help them, and doubtless now, as on the former occasion, the noble Lord finding that he has a Douglas and a Hotspur to back him thinks he may bid defiance to the world of Radicals in arms who represent the shadowy taxpayer. I do not hope that at this late period of the debate I can say anything new, but perhaps hon. Members will premit me to say how these proposals have struck a mind which at any rate comes fresh to the question. I first heard of the proposals, in a happier atmosphere than. that of smoky London. I have not been present at the debates, I have not listened to the talk in the Lobbies, and the opinion I express may be called uninformed, but it is one I have come to upon considerations of my own. The first reports I heard in America were that the noble Lord proposed to ask for no less a sum than 21 millions for the further enlargement of the British Navy. I must confess that so large a sum startled me. At the same time I am one of those who are always free to admit that it is the paramount duty of a Government worthy the name, and of the House of Commons, to perfect defensive position of the country, and I think they incur a grave responsibility who set themselves to oppose well-considered and necessary—even if expensive—proposals for that end. I have noticed, however, of late years, that this doctrine has been pushed to the length of holding that upon matters of armament, patriotism demand that we should be all at one to the extent of accepting any projects that Ministers or quacks may prescribe,ignoring the higher duties of the House,to examine with lynx-eyed keenness, that the scare does not usurp the place of Real danger. I was very much struck by the remarkable speech of the right hon. Member for Derby (Sir W. Har court). To that speech no answer has yet been given from the Front Bench, and I hope that the Secretary to the Admiralty, or some one for him, will rise and give an answer to the House and to the country. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby is in the habit of putting things very plainly, and I should like to attempt to emphasize his position. I cannot hope to imitate the thunders of the gods, but I can put the thing in concrete English thus:—The right hon. Gentle man on Friday night proved, first, out of the mouth of the noble Lord, that in 1886 the Liberal Government handed over to the Tory Government a Fleet which was equal to the Fleets of any three other naval nations. He proved in the second place, out of the noble Lord's mouth, or by his works, that he reduced the Naval Estimates in 1887, and again in 1888, and encouraged the country to believe that there was every possibility that such a happy state of things would continue in the future. He proved in the third place from the noble Lord's statements that he came to the conclusion suddenly that some change was necessary, and some large expenditure desirable, and that that conviction sprang from the experience he got at the Autumn Manœuvres last year.

LORD G. HAMILTON

I did not say that.

MR. STOREY

I understood that to be the meaning of the noble Lord's words—and I have examined the point —or at any rate that his conviction was considerably reinforced by that experience, but there seems to be a difficulty both in and out of the House to know exactly what he did say.

LORD G. HAMILTON

Allusion had been made to a statement in my memorandum of 1887–88, and I stated that I considered that in fighting power we were superior to any other Naval Power, but I spoke with great reserve as to what protection we could give to our commerce, and I said the opinion I then held had been confirmed by the Autumn Manœuvres.

MR. STOREY

Holding that opinion why did the noble Lord permit the First Sea Lord a fortnight before to state that not more than six swift cruisers were necessary? I will not press the point, but, dealing with the most important statement of the hon. Member for Derby—as yet undenied—as to the Fleet of this country in 1886 being equal to the Fleets of any three Naval Powers—

LORD G. HAMILTON

I never said so.

MR. STOREY

Whose fault is it that we are in a worse position now, and if we are not, where is the justification for the enormous expenditure proposed? Let us suppose for the sake of argument—and I cannot suppose it otherwise—that the decision the noble Lord arrived at was right, that there ought to be an enormous and sudden increase of the Navy, I want to ask him how he should have gone about it, and perhaps the Secretary for the Admiralty will answer this point. If the increase be right, no more unbusinesslike method could be adopted by anybody. Let us suppose the existence of a firm which has large business dealings all over the world, and that it finds that rivals are stretching out their hands and taking possession of part of their field and coming into close competition. What would be the method of dealing with that difficulty on the part of any sensible business house? They would go to work quietly and make no noise about it; they would not indulge in shrieks and make flaming statements as to what they were doing, to make their opponents more active than in the past. What has been the Government plan—the noble Lord's plan? Having hatched a sort of legislative bantam, he goes in front of the whole world and says: "Behold this bantam! when it grows to the size that I mean to have it, no possible combination of other bantams in the world will be able to beat it." This policy defeats its own ends. When the hon. Gentle. man opposite mentioned France he was met by denials from the Front Bench. The right hon. Member for Derby said he saw that the energetic action of the noble Lord was going to be followed by France; that was denied. I do not know how it may be with France. I was in the extreme West of America—California—when this proposal was made, and in crossing the States I found everywhere, amongst Democrats as well as Republicans, men of position, the resolution formed and stated that America should have a larger Fleet than in the past. When I got to Washington I saw the Secretary of the Admiralty, the most powerful politician in America, and I spoke to him about that resolution. He said— We do intend to have a larger and stronger fleet, and you cannot complain of it in England because you are spending 21 millions extra on your own fleet. That is exactly the effect which this dramatic method of the Government has. Your action brings about a reflex action elsewhere, and ere long the relative proportions will remain as they have been. If the noble Lord had gone about this matter quietly, aiming at securing practical results rather than dramatic effects, he might with our long purse and unrivalled powers of shipbuilding have created the state of things he desires quietly. But he acts the part of Mr. Vincent Crummels, of that infant prodigy, of whom Dickens tells it was kept upon unlimited supplies of gin so as to keep it small— a method we should like to see applied to these bloated proposals. The proposal is theatrical in another sense. I saw it was to be an expenditure of 21 millions, whilst in the Western States of America; when I got nearer home I found it had dwindled to 10, and when I got to the House I soon discovered that the noble Lord allocates seven,and proposes to ask for a blank cheque to be honoured some day for the other three. I happened to be present the other night when the hon. Member for Newcastle raised this point. The noble Lord said that if the present Government were in office it might be used for new buildings or for the reduction of the Estimates, so that three millions are to be free. I would suggest another method to the noble Lord for its use. If the virtuous Tories are in Office, I am sure s they will come down in 1891 or 1892, as they have done before, and plume themselves on having the magnificent sum of three millions in hand, and, in face of a General Election, they will apply it to the reduction of taxation. I think I have shown how this Motion strikes me as unbusinesslike, and likely to defeat its own ends, but I have a far stronger objection than that, which I think is also held by many Members on this side of the House. I say the proposal as to financial methods is decidedly unconstitutional, and in connection with this point, I cannot but refer to what the gallant Admiral (Admiral Field) opposite said. With the frankness which distinguishes a sailor, but is inconvenient in politicians, he said the Government meant to put compulsion on the House of Commons. That is treason to the House of Commons, neither more nor less. If the gallant Admiral had seen the face of the noble Lord when he said that, he would have thought he had made a mistake. The noble Lord himself said that he meant to take security against the hon. Member for Derby. I am sure if the gallant Admiral goes to sea and exposes his ships to be raked fore and aft by the enemy as he has done the Government arguments to the Radical Benches, he will never rest in Westminster Abbey. Some of my friends complain that I vote with the Tories. So I do, when I think they are right. I regard some of them on the Treasury Bench as more promising disciples of Radicalism than the right hon. Member for Mid Lothian and the right hon. Member for Derby. They passed the closure, enacted perpetual coercion for Ireland, and they propose this unconstitutional method of taking away from the House of Commons the keystone of its power and the people's liberties, the right to vote each year the money for our defences. No wonder I can afford to vote for a Conservative Government when it develops Radical propensities like these. I do not mean Radical because they are right, but in the sense of being extreme—revolutionary, I may call them. I trust there are some hon. Members opposite who realize what they are doing. If you can vote a sum of money for the Navy, spreading over several years, you can do it for the Army; if you can do it for the Army you can do it for any other service, and so you whittle away that Constitutional right of the House of Commons by which, in ancient days, we brought Kings and Lords to their knees and compelled them to obey the will of the people. What guarantee have we that either the Government or the Opposition in the future when they get the money, will, under the present system, expend it advantageously? This Bill, besides being unbusinesslike, ineffectual and unconstitutional, has one more objection that can be raised against it. What guarantee have we when those Gentlemen on that (the Ministerial) side take command in the future—nay, I will go so far as to say, when these Gentlemen on this side take command—that under such a system as the present the Bill before the House will be found to secure the ends aimed at? Why, during the comparatively short period of my life this House of Commons has provided for the Government to expend on the Navy alone a sum very nearly equal to the whole National Debt. Well, as to the money asked for by this Bill, you will get it, and, I will undertake to say, you will spend it; but I question very much whether you will produce the results you anticipate, unless the whole system of the Admiralty be altered. Unless new men be placed there, and new methods of conducting its business adopted, I see no hope of your being able to secure efficient results for the people. The noble Lord at the head of the Admiralty knows—and no one knows better—that five or seven years hence, when this money is all spent, and his mighty fleet of ships has been created, all of them that have not collided in the Channel, or that have not been sunk on the rocks of the Mediterranean, will have become as obsolete for fighting purposes as Noah's Ark; while in seven years' time there will be a new generation of nautical Oliver Twists crying out for more, and money will then be demanded alike by Generals and Admirals, and expended by the Government just as it is to-day. I thank the House for having given me this opportunity of making these few remarks, and I will close by saying that, mainly on the ground that these proposals are in their money aspect unconstitutional, and that the method is unbusiness like and self-defeating, I condemn the scheme of the Government, and shall be glad, though at this late stage, to give my vote against it.

* MR. FORWOOD (Ormskirk, Liverpool)

I am sure there is no one in this House who will not join with me in welcoming back, after a long absence, the hon. Member for Sunderland, whose eloquent tones we have listened to in the important part he has taken in the discussions of this question. But, Sir, if I have rightly gathered what the hon. Gentleman has said, I think I am correct in saying that his opinion on this Bill has been very much founded upon what he heard from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Sir W. Harcourt) on Friday last. Although, after the eight or ten occasions on which the Bill has been discussed in this House I feel almost ashamed further to take up the time of the House, yet there are some points that have been brought forward by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby, to which attention must be called. I greatly regret that the right hon. Gentleman is not in his place, because it is very inconvenient when one has to call attention to very serious observations and mistakes that have been made in a particular speech to do so in the absence of the speaker, by whom they were made. I am sure that no one who was present in the House on Friday could have failed to observe the manœuvre which was then executed by inducing my noble Friend to reply at the hour he did. Immediately my noble Friend sat down, he was followed by the right hon. Gentle man the Member for Derby, and I am bound to say of that right hon. Gentleman that he adhered, if it were possible, even less scrupulously to the facts than is his wont. He gave on that occasion an additional license to his ingenuity and vivid imagination, and I very much doubt whether that license would have been given had my noble Friend had the opportunity of reply. As it happened, in regard to that debate, my noble Friend's hands were tied behind his back, because he had not a further opportunity of replying to the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman. Observations have been made from time to time in this House as to the statements which have been put forward by my noble Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty, by my Friend the First Sea Lord (Sir Arthur Hood), and by myself, with regard to the state of the Navy. With regard to what I have had to say I may at once state I have not one single word to retract or withdraw, and I believe I am speaking quite as much for the noble Lord near me, as well as for the First Sea Lord, as I have said for myself, when I say that they also have nothing to withdraw from the public statements and evidence they have given. All that we ask is that what we have stated shall be quoted in our own words, and not garbled and made use of without the context. Furthermore, I think that the varying circumstances which do and must arise in regard to the naval policy of any Government ought to be considered in dealing with statements made two or three years ago; and I am bound to conclude that the unfair use made by right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby of statements, or alleged statements, on the part of the Government, has had considerable effect on the mind of the hon. Member for Sunderland who has just spoken. Now, Sir, the right. hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby attributed to my noble Friend in a speech he made at Birmingham the remark "That the late Liberal Government had left the Navy in a terribly insufficient condition;" and in order to contrast my noble Friend's present position with his past utterances, the right hon. Gentleman proceeded to state that at the Mansion House, in the year 1886, the noble Lord had stated "That the ships in commission exceeded the combined Forces of the three greatest Naval Powers in Europe," and he also said that that was my noble Friend's description of the Navy he had inherited from his predecessors. It was upon these two quotations that the whole of the right hon. Gentleman's speech was based; but I do not think he will be surprised to hear that neither statement was made by my noble Friend. What was said at Birmingham by my noble Friend was this: He was speaking in reference to certain ammunition that had not been ordered for quick firing guns by the late Government and he said: "Although the Government had ordered a large number of quick firing guns, yet they had deliberately struck out the order for the ammunition which rendered the guns efficient" Now, construed for Party purposes, these words of my noble Friend were transposed in this House to mean, that the late Liberal Government had left the Navy in a terribly insufficient condition. Well, Sir, I say that that statement, as made in this House, was perfectly unjustifiable; that it had never been made by my noble Friend, and that the words which really were used by him would bear no such interpretation. Now, I will take the other words that were said to have been used, and the contrast that was endeavoured to be drawn. What the noble Lord said at the Mansion House was that "The number of ships in commission was greater than that of any three navies "; and this was transposed by the right hon. Gentleman and put as an expression of opinion with regard to the condition of the Navy; though I dare say the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby does not know the difference between the number of ships in commission and the condition of the Navy. Then, Sir, comments were made on the evidence of an absent man—the First Sea Lord, which were even more unfair—and here I am bound to say that the right hon. Gentleman is not the only one who has not fairly quoted the evidence given by the First Sea Lord. The right hon. Gentleman in his speech on Friday stated that "The First Sea Lord was satisfied with everything on the 16th June; yet early in July we heard of this great plan for the increase of the Navy." My hon. Friend the Member for Banff (Mr. R. W. Duff) has, on a previous occasion, gone even further than this, for he said, "The First Sea Lord gave evidence to the Committee, and yet at the time he had the new scheme in his pocket." Now, Sir, when Sir Arthur Hood gave his evidence he had previously stated that no complete scheme, or plan of campaign, or whatever it may be called, had ever been laid before the Admiralty. I am going to ask the House, in the case of Sir Arthur Hood, one of the most distinguished naval officers of the day, to allow me to quote his own words. Sir A. Hood was asked whether, in his opinion, the Navy at the present moment was fully adequate to perform its duties. His reply was:— I am satisfied with the relative number of battle ships on these two conditions—first, that we shall continue to build battle ships to be ready to take the place of those that become obsolete, so that by the time they become obsolete we shall have new ships ready to take their place; and, secondly, that in the event of any other Power laying down more armourclads, we should, at the same time, lay down vessels which would be certainly more powerful and faster….I do not think we have enough fast cruisers…. They are the most pressing requirement. Now, I ask the House to bear in mind two important conditions which Sir Arthur Hood attached to his evidence. He said— I am satisfied with the Navy on two points, provided we go on building further ironclads; and, secondly, that we watch the course of other Powers. And in regard to the second condition, I desire to give the House some information as to what has been the policy of other Powers during the last 12 or 15 months. The facts I am about to state were known before our programme was laid before the House and the public. I am dealing with the armoured vessels of the world, and I do so without in any sense desiring to draw an invidious comparison between the work being done by one Power and another. I wish to lay before the House all the information we possess before it comes to a vote. France had six armoured vessels dawdling upon the stocks up to within the last few months. They were doing their work in such a manner that the vessels would be in hand about ten years, but about the middle of last year they pushed them to completion, and they have since laid down three, if not four, certainly three more vessels. Russia also in 1888, had laid down, or was preparing to lay down, five armoured vessels, and they have one or two more under consideration. The largest is over 10,000 tons. Practically she is re-erecting her armoured Navy. I want the House to understand that this increase of Russia's Navy is not attributable to our policy. I happened to take up a journal in which was a communication from one of those enterprising creations of modern times, the interviewer who has apparently been to Russia. I read the following:— It is not surprising that mistaken ideas prevail as to the facts about Russia's armaments. It is stated in an English newspaper that Russia is taking steps to largely increase her Navy, in consequence of the extraordinary activity of the British Admiralty. Nothing could be further from the truth. The expansion of the Russian Navy is owing to no sudden impulse, but is the result of a carefully considered and long settled plan, but of late years,. the strides towards completion have been more rapid than was contemplated in the original proposal. We all know that within the past few months Germany has commenced a new programme, which includes 13 armoured vessels, four being heavy ironclads, and some of which are already under weigh. Italy, we know, has pushed on to completion the three iron-clads she had on hand, and proposes to lay down another. We also know that Spain has four armoured vessels under construction, and plans for several others are in course of preparation. The hon. Member (Mr. Storey) has referred to the United States, which are building two armoured vessels, and have obtained authority to build three additional vessels. From the remarks of the hon. Member, the House might have been led to believe that the action of the United States had been taken subsequent to the action of Her Majesty's Government. Nothing could be further from the truth. Two vessels were laid down in the United States last year, and under the Bill, which received assent before the change of President on the 4th March last, three more were to be commenced.

MR. STOREY

The hon. Gentleman is aware that in America they are slow moving, and he had better wait two or three months, when he will find that. what I have said is absolutely the fact, that in the United States they justify their action—as he will see from the debates—by the extreme action taken, by this Government.

* MR. FORWOOD

I shall not be surprised at all if America goes on increasing her Navy. She has a large surplus revenue which she does not know what to, do with. If she does not spend it on the Navy or Public Works she will be obliged to reduce the duties, but the President is pledged to maintain the duties. As they must get rid of their money, they can do so in no more popular way than by spending it among the shipbuilders of the country.

MR. ILLINGWORTH

Did not the First Lord of the Admiralty in his opening speech declare that there was no abnormal expenditure on the part of the Naval Powers of the Continent?

* MR. FORWOOD

My noble Friend's remark was that the expenditure was ceaseless, but had not been so remarkable in the past few months. The statement I have made has simply reference to what other nations are doing at the present moment. However, our programme is for four and a-half years, and we are placing before the House the work we propose to do in each of the following five years. Now, Sir, we have every reason to expect that foreign Governments will go on with the work of constructing their navies, and the facts I have stated with regard to foreign Powers have, I think, a very important bearing upon that part of Sir Arthur Hood's evidence which I have already quoted. come to another point of the right hon. Gentleman's speech on Friday, where he said it was all nonsense to talk about the programme being a new programme recommended by the responsible advicers of the Admiralty; it was nothing of the kind. Well, of course, that is the usually courteous way in which the right hon. Gentleman conveys his point blank denial. I can quite understand his scepticism as to any such plan being recommended by the responsible advisers of the Admiralty, for I am bound to say the mode of conducting the business of the Admiralty in past years has been exceedingly slovenly. It is probably the first time in Naval administration that any Government has had the courage to call in responsible Naval advisers to state what they considered a sufficient number of vessels to protect the trade, commerce, and interests of this country. There has always been a feeling that their advice would lead to a large expenditure, and that it would be very troublesome in constructing a popular Naval Budget, to have obtained the counsel of professional and responsible advisers beforehand as to what was necessary for the security of the country. I admit that it was a bold step to take. The relative superiority between nations as regards their navies depends not only on numbers, but on the position their opponents may occupy. Of course, if it came merely to a question of Fleets meeting in the open sea it would be a simple matter to state the number of vessels that would be required to cope with another certain number of vessels. But it is a very different matter when we have objective points to defend, as well as the duty of protecting our own coasts. I believe that those who wish to see this country strong and properly protected hold that the right position for us to occupy is to have regard not only to the force that can be mustered by any two possible antagonists in positions most favourable to them, and that we must have regard to our having a force placed in the most difficult position as regards the interests of this country. This was the proposition placed before the naval advisers of the Board. That proposition they answered, and on that answer our scheme is based. What they recommend is supported by the evidence which the Naval Manœuvres afforded. I venture to say to this House that with such a knowledge as we possess, and with such an opinion from our responsible officers, we should have been untrue to the trust reposed in us for the protection of the Empire had we not laid before the House this plan, leaving to the House the responsibility of accepting or rejecting it. We are told that our scheme is to be opposed on the Third Reading, and a Division is to be taken; but, at any rate, we shall not have against us the vote of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Stirling Burghs, who, when challenged by me, said that, although it would be difficult for him to vote with us, yet he was going to support the proposition of the Government. The hon. Member for Sunderland and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford twitted us with the unbusinesslike manner in which we are carrying out our scheme, and said that no business man, no private firm, would lay down vessels in the way we propose. I quite admit that the right policy, and the best policy, in shipbuilding, whether by private companies or by the Government, is to lay down a continuous amount of tonnage, so that you may not have to put down a large number one year, and a small number another. What might be prudent on the part of a private individual might be very imprudent on the part of the Government, in whose case time is the most important element. These vessels must be completed within the time stated in the Bill, and every care has been taken to have the designs completely matured and the amount of armament fixed before any steps are taken to have the vessels constructed. As the hon. Member for Sunderland has raised a question as to the constitutional character of the finance and there appears to be some confusion in the matter as to the three millions of money, I will again explain that the Bill provides for an expenditure of 10 millions of money on contract work and 11½ millions on work to be done in the dockyards, including armaments, and the three millions have nothing what ever to do with any amount in the Bill. It is simply a surplus sum of money—if the normal rate of expenditure is maintained—available to go on with new construction as present ships fall out of the dockyards, and so to prevent the discharge of men at the dockyards. I think the House will admit that if the Government lay down a programme to be executed within a given time, unless they wish to see the dockyards shut up, they must provide for further expenditure on other work to follow. With regard to the constitutional character of our finance, all I can say is that the £10,000,000 of money are going in contracts, and whether they are in the Bill or not, being contracts it can make no difference in the control of this House over the money. The money for dockyard-built ships will come before the House from year to year to be voted; but having the scheme embodied in the Bill, if any Government desired for popularity's sake to reduce the Estimates, they would have to explain that the reduction meant a reduction in the shipbuilding which the House had already ordered, and was not merely a sum to be cut off the Estimate without any explanation at all. I believe the Vote on the Second Reading showed that the Bill commends itself to the common sense of the majority of the House, and I trust that on the Third Reading there be sufficient unanimity to show that the protection of the Empire is a matter in respect of which none will seek to gain a Party advantage.

MR. J. ROWLANDS (Finsbury, E.)

The speech of the hon. and gallant General opposite (Sir E. Hamley) has given me an additional reason for desiring to speak this afternoon. He seemed to think that some of us are putting ourselves out of touch with our constituents. Now, I believe that we—the opponents of the Bill will have no difficulty whatever in justifying ourselves before our constituents. So far as I can ascertain, we are just in the same position now as we were when the Bill was first brought in. There has been no clear Ministerial statement giving a distinct reason why there should be this extraordinary expenditure on the Navy. Hon. Gentlemen opposite only regard it as a sop in the pan, and tell us that something more will be required to make the Navy perfect. Even the noble Lord the Member for Marylebone (Lord C. Beresford) does not like the Bill, because the Government have not submitted a thoroughly complete scheme, and one that will be sufficient for the country once for all. I have risen to take part in the debate, however, chiefly on account of the extraordinary way in which the name of an illustrious statesman has been attempted to be utilized by hon. Gentlemen opposite. I was astonished to be told on Friday by a gallant Admiral, who is one of the warm supporters of the Government, to study Richard Cobden. Now, I think that I studied Richard Cobden before the gallant Admiral made up his mind to favour the country with a specimen of his ability in the political arena. When I was quite a youth Richard Cobden was one of the men I followed most assiduously. When I heard him quoted the other night, I asked myself, "What has become of the author of 'The Three Panics?'" I wonder whether the gallant Admiral has ever read "The Three Panics" carefully and assiduously? The whole of Richard Cobden's life was spent in attacking with vigour the panics which were repeatedly being got up. He attacked—first, the panic of 1847–48; next, the panic of 1851–52 and 1853; and, lastly, the panic of 1859–60 and '61. Richard Cobden has over and over again been brought into court by hon. Members on the other side of the House as a witness in favour of the scheme of the Government. Let me direct attention to Mr. Cobden's speech in this House in 1859 before the Commercial Treaty was signed. Was it a speech in favour of an extensive expenditure on the part of the Admiralty beyond the ordinary expenditure? Not at all. It was a powerful and trenchant speech against a similar panic to that which we are attacking now, and it was made in opposition to one of these extraordinary attempts to extract a large sum of money from the country without any particular object. On the 29th of July, 1859, Richard Cobden said:— We have been asked to vote this year for the purposes of the Navy no less than £26,000,000 sterling, or twice the amount voted for a similar object when I first entered the House. We are called upon this year to vote three times as much for the Navy as was the case in 1835, when the Duke of Wellington and Sir Robert Peel were at the head of affairs. Is that a speech in favour of the argument of hon. Gentlemen opposite? We have had in the course of this debate inuendos against the conduct of the French, Russian, and other European Governments, and we are given to understand that it is necessary to make this expenditure because something horrible is going to happen owing to the conduct of these Governments. Mr. Cobden, in the speech I am quoting, went on to say:— While the Courts of these countries have been holding friendly intercourse, the Governments at the same time have been preparing for an outbreak of war, and have never shown the slightest confidence in each other. This is a degrading policy in the sight of the world. I say that we ought to have as large a Navy in England as any other country possesses. If I saw a disposition on the part of France to have as large a Navy as England—"

ADMIRAL MAYNE

The speech which I quoted was one delivered by Mr. Cobden at Rochdale.

MR. J. ROWLANDS

This is the only speech which I have, and it was delivered in this House. Mr. Cobden went on to say— If I saw a disposition on the part of France to have as large a Navy as England, and no inclination to yield to the offer of an explanation, I should suspect France of having a sinister purpose in her armaments, and if it came to a question of rivalry after the offer of explanation had been made, I would as cheerfully vote £100,000,000 sterling as I would vote £5,000,000 under the present system. Speaking again as to what might be necessary under certain circumstances, Mr. Cobden said— I would submit to these evils when they are necessary; but for Heaven's sake do not impose them on the people longer than you can! With reason, argument, and justice remove them from among them. In the present instance the Government have not shown the paramount importance of expending this money. On the contrary, we are already overburdened with a struggling population, and we say, "Do not do this until it is an absolute necessity, and then, when you can show that there is a necessity, possibly we shall be as ready as you are to vote the money." Mr. Cobden told us in "The Three Panics" that— The effect produced by the invasion panic in England was very dissimilar upon different classes in France. Statesmen and men of education and experience, did not give the British Government credit for sincerity when it made the alleged naval armaments of France the plea for extraordinary warlike preparations. Their opinion could not be better expressed than in the words of M. Ducos, who, when writing privately to one of his colleagues during the former panic, observed that 'the English Cabinet may possibly not be very much distressed by these imaginary terrors (as we have sometimes seen among ourselves), inasmuch as they enable them to swell their Budget, and serve to strengthen a somewhat uncertain majority in Parliament' The Government want a huge sum of money to spend in the Dockyards, and we suspect that their object is to squander it before the next Election. [Cries of "Oh!"] I have a perfect right to look for an object. It is not necessary that I should refer further to Mr. Cobden; but I could stand here all day and pelt hon. Members opposite with quotations from his speeches. Before I sit down let me give another quotation—this time from the late Joseph flume, who on one occasion said— Our present panics are not due, as in times past, to old women, but to having too many clubs about London containing so many half-pay officers, with nothing to do but to look after themselves and their friends. These are the men who write to the newspapers, and are anxious to bring grist to the mill somehow or other. There were, therefore, in those days persons who held very much the opinion which we hold now. It is the old rivalry and the old attempt to best one another, leaving the mass of the toilers of the country to pay the cost. But there are those who believe that the strength of an Empire does not consist in the amount of money spent year by year in taxation, but upon the condition in which the masses of the people are. An Empire existing under good conditions, with a free and prosperous people, should the emergency arise, however strongly they may be imbued with high and noble peace principles, will know how to meet it, and would go forth to encounter any foe who might care to enter the field against them. I have made these remarks by way of protest against the policy of the Government, and I shall go into the Lobby in support of the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green as one of the legitimate heirs of Richard Cobden. [Cries of "Oh!"] I should like to know how long hon. Gentlemen opposite have posed as the heirs of Richard Cobden, and have been proud of his deeds. I have yet to learn that they are admirers of his grand policy of Free Trade and non-intervention. It is certainly in his spirit that we on this side of the House shall go into the Lobby to vote against the proposals of the Government.

* LORD C. BERESFORD (Marylebone, E.)

I should not have intervened in this debate but for the remarks of the Secretary of the Admiralty. It all shows how careful we ought to be in these matters on both sides of the House to bury all questions of Party when we are considering the defence of the country. I myself have always carefully avoided saying what occurred when other Governments were in power, and to put my views as clearly as possible before the House without touching sore places. Now, my noble Friend at Birmingham certainly did say something which irritated some people.

LORD G. HAMILTON

I said nothing at Birmingham which I have not said in this House over and over again.

* LORD C. BERESFORD

My noble Friend has corrected me. Then he has certainly been misunderstood, but the debate, in my opinion, has been prolonged in consequence of what he did say. I think that all questions of Party should be barred on an occasion like this when we are discussing the defences of the country. I do not blame the Front Bench for changing its mind and for making out black is white if they will only admit that they have been misinformed, but they have adopted the political way of getting out of the difficulty. I think it is much better to be broad and honest, and if they have made a mistake say so. Depend upon it, the conduct of my late colleagues and the Government have done more to stop this Bill passing quickly than anything else. I object to their making out that I can neither read nor write, hear nor see. The Secretary of the Admiralty spoke of altered circumstances. I entirely disagree with him. The circumstances have not altered in the least. The proposals which I made on the 13th of December were almost identical with the proposals now made by the Government, but I was answered by the Government and told that I was altogether wrong, and that there was no necessity for them. I want to know what vessels Russia and France and Italy have laid down above and beyond that Return. I deny that there are any, and the Secretary of the Admiralty must know it.

* MR. FORWOOD

What Return is the noble Lord referring to? The facts I gave were from the Return made this year.

* LORD C. BERESFORD

The hon. Member stated that France, Italy, and Russia have laid down some battleships lately. I say that no battleships have been laid down since "the navies of other countries" Return—a Return which has been discussed over and over again.

* MR. FORWOOD

I must interrupt my noble Friend again. The facts I gave had reference to work since March in last year.

* LORD C. BERESFORD

That lands the hon. Member in a bigger hole than ever. It was only in December last that I spoke, and then I was proved to be altogether wrong.

* MR. FORWOOD

So you were.

* LORD C. BERESFORD

The hon. Gentleman says—So I was. I cannot understand what he means, and I must leave him to explain. It is impossible to argue with people who go about like a weathercock. They have altered their minds, and now they are going to do the right thing. Hon. Gentlemen opposite have called attention to what has been said in justification of the plan of the Admiralty. What my noble Friend ought to have done was to call upon his naval advisers to prepare a complete plan saying what ships are necessary for the defence of the Empire, with its enormous amount of imports and exports. What has he done according to his own statement? He has gone all through the figures of the Admiralty. I do not agree with him that the statements have been most extraordinary. Now, Sir, will the Civil Lord of the Admiralty tell the House that any Admiral besides Sir Arthur Hood declares that he is satisfied that this increase of the Fleet will meet all our requirements? Will it meet the wastage? We are not going to lay down any ships besides these for the next five years. Shall we, at the end of that time, have a Fleet? Do all the Admirals agree with Sir Arthur Hood? If the Civil Lord tells us they are, I shall be amazed.

* LORD G. HAMILTON

All the Naval Lords signed the statement that, if we make the addition to the Fleet, as according to the Bill we propose to do in the next four years, the Navy will be equal to the combined forces of two Powers.

* LORD C. BERESFORD

I think that that is very satisfactory, and as the First Lord tells us that, I am perfectly ready to go with him as far as that argument goes. But I do not know what the House of Commons will say when, in four years' time, they are asked for a further increase of the Navy, as I know hon. Members will be, as sure as they sit on those Benches. What we ought to do is to run our Fleet up to a given standard first, and then allow for wastage. The Naval Estimates would then be nearly normal; but as sure as you go on with this sort of policy you will have these panics over and over again. I think the First Lord makes out his plan in a half-hearted and very unbusinesslike way. Take, for instance, the wastage of the Fleet. He puts down four ironclads as obsolete. But according to his own showing at the end of four years 14 other ironclads will have become obsolete, and yet in the next three years only 10 battle ships are to be built, so that he will not meet the actual wastage. With regard to some observations made by the hon. Member for Wansbeck, as to the naval position of this country and of France in 1843, I should like to point out that British commerce has, since that time, gone on increasing by hundreds of millions sterling, while the force which we have to defend it has hardly increased at all. That is the point before the country. The Government have put difficulties in their own way by the manner in which they have brought their scheme forward. If they had made the addition to the Navy in a proper, businesslike fashion it would have been far better for the country, and for the House of Commons, and for themselves. At the same time, I shall go into the Lobby with them, as I consider it to be absolutely necessary that our Fleet should be run up to the standard which they have laid down.

MR. R. W. DUFF (Banffshire)

I propose to trouble the House with but few remarks. We, on the Opposition side of the House, have been somewhat disappointed by the statement of the. Secretary to the Admiralty, who did not reply in the smallest degree to the speeches made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby. The hon. Gentleman commenced by accusing the right hon. Gentleman of having made misstatements, but he has not attempted to deny or explain away the speech of the First Lord at the Mansion House in. 1886, in which he intended to convey to the country the idea that our Navy was strong enough to compete with that of any three Powers combined.

* LORD G. HAMILTON

Nothing of the kind.

MR. DUFF

The right hon. Gentleman said that this country had more ships in commission than any three European Powers. Did that mean anything or nothing? I say it conveyed to the people the idea that our Navy was stronger than that of any three Powers. Of course, we knew that this was pure, sheer, unadulterated nonsense, and that in order to make the statement the Government would have to count every Queen's yacht, every receiving ship, and every old hulk even down to the Victory. But was it proper for the First Lord to go to the Mansion House and convey such an expression? I consider that my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby was perfectly justified in quoting that remark of the noble Lord's as evidence that nine months after the Government came into Office they were satisfied with the condition of things in the Navy.

* LORD G. HAMILTON

The right hon. Gentleman has distorted my meaning. In the speech to which the hon. Member has referred I spoke of the grave defects and deficiencies in the naval organization of the country, and said that they were in course of being remedied. I said it was as senseless to ignore any shortcomings as it was irrational to exaggerate or distort them. And then, after stating certain facts, I went on to say that we had in this country naval resources which were practically unlimited, and that it was the duty of the Department to see that proper steps were taken to utilize them.

MR. DUFF

I observe that the noble Lord has not alluded to the most important part of the speech, in which he said that "the number of ships in commission, armoured and unarmoured, exceeds the combined forces of the three greatest European Powers." We have heard no explanation of that statement, and later on at Birmingham he repeated the story of the quick-firing ammunition of which we have heard so much. In regard to that I should like to mention one circumstance, and that is, that in the year 1886 the amount taken for naval ordnance was £1,600,000, or £200,000 more than we are spending just now. Yet we are told that at that time there was a serious deficiency in the ammunition. The Secretary to the Admiralty has accused me of misrepresenting the evidence of Sir A. Hood. Now, I may mention that I have had a correspondence with Sir Arthur on the subject. He appeared to think that I misquoted him, and I told him that if he was not satisfied with my explanation, I was perfectly willing to publish it. He said, however, that there was no necessity for that. I confess that I am still at a loss to understand the position of the Admiralty with regard to an increase in the Navy. The First Naval Lord told the Committee on the 16th June that he only wanted six more cruisers.

* MR. FORWOOD

By 1890.

MR. DUFF

He was several times asked, are you satisfied with the armour clads, and he replied yes, provided you build me these six cruisers. Yet he admits that fourteen days afterwards—on the 1st July—this scheme was in print, at the very time when, as has been declared over and over again, our Fleet was equal to the combined Fleets of France and Russia.

* LORD GEORGE HAMILTON

Never.

MR. DUFF

Do not be so rash in contradiction. I say we have had that statement over and over again. Now, the Secretary to the Admiralty, in a speech delivered at the London Chamber of Commerce in March, 1888, said:— But it was asked whether the British Navy was able to cope with any reasonable combination of Foreign Powers. It could be answered that England was more than equal in strength to two of the greatest nations in Europe—France and Russia.

* MR. FORWOOD

Will the hon. Member continue the quotation, and not divorce it from the context? In the next sentence I gave the numbers, and on those numbers I based the comparison.

MR. DUFF

I venture to say that that statement contains the deliberate opinion of the Admiralty.

* MR. FORWOOD

I gave the numbers and compared them.

MR. DUFF

I take the words "equal in strength;" how can that mean equal in numbers? That was the opinion of the Secretary to the Admiralty on March 23. On the 1st July he gives us a different account. How is it possible for the House or the country to have any confidence in such a vacillating policy as that of the Government? When I said the other day that the First Naval Lord must, while he was giving his evidence before the Committee, have had the present scheme in his pocket, I meant that he must have had it in his mind, for it was in print on July 1.

* LORD GEORGE HAMILTON

The scheme was not in print then.

MR. DUFF

The First Naval Lord has stated that it was in print on the 1st July; he stated that in the correspondence, on his honour as an officer and a gentleman. The Secretary to the Admiralty has accused the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby of making garbled statements. I leave the House to judge which are the most garbled, his statements or those of the Admiralty. I quite agree with my right hon. Friend that the Government scheme is really that of the noble Lord the Member for Marylebone watered down; but while the noble Lord has put forward his scheme in a businesslike spirit and said what he thinks the British Navy has to do, and how many ships are required for the work, the Government have given the House no reasons whatever for their scheme. In the interests of the Navy, which I have very much at heart, I regret the spirit of swagger in which this Bill—purporting to spend twenty-one and a half millions, whereas really we are only going to spend eight millions extra—has been introduced.

MR. ILLINGWORTH (Bradford, W.)

I think the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby has completely knocked overboard this scheme of the Government, and it was evidently the duty of the noble Lord the First Lord of the Admiralty to attempt to put it on its legs again. Now, Mr. Speaker, opinion on this side of the House, and out of doors, will certainly be that the Secretary to the Admiralty has not succeeded in re establishing the case of the Government. We were asked in the original Resolution to declare that it was expedient to increase the Navy considerably and to spend a large sum of money in the course of the next five years, and I confess that as the debate goes on I am becoming profoundly convinced that this is a scare to which the House of Commons is asked to give way, and that the longer the question remains under consideration, the less necessity will be shown for this extraordinary outlay. Sir, it is quite right—and no doubt the noble Lord the First Lord of the Admiralty, and the Leader of the House of Commons were well advised in attempting to close the debate on Friday night—that the less opportunity there is given for the continuation of the debate the better for them. But the debate having been continued, I am bound to say that hon. Gentlemen who have spoken this evening may fairly claim to represent the feeling of the masses of the people—they may say that they really reflect the opinion of the vast majority of the public on the scheme. It may be that the Government found it necessary to bring forward the scheme, but what a marvel it is that the noble Lord the First Lord of the Admiralty should have had anything to do with bringing it forward. If he desired to maintain his own character for consistency, and for knowledge of the Department of which he has charge, he would have said, after the declarations he had made in the country and in this House on the question of our Navy being able to cope with any two Continental Powers, that he could not consistently come down with proposals which implied that the Navy was in no such safe condition. Now, many of us are placed in the difficulty of not knowing whether we are to believe, the noble Lord's-statement to-day, or the statement he has been making during the last two or three years. For my own part, I am, disposed to believe the noble Lord's original statement; I cannot place any reliance upon his present declarations, and my belief is that he has been driven to change his position. I am afraid it is only too true, as was said by the noble Lord the Member for Marylebone, that the First Lord of the Admiralty is nothing but a weather-cock, and that he changes his position day after day, week after week, and month after month as events occur. I believe the Vote asked for to-night shows, on the part of the Government, a want of consideration and a want of deliberation. I am not going to occupy the time of the House beyond dealing with one or two points which the noble Lord has referred to. He stated that this proposed enormous extension of the Navy was received by all the Powers with satisfaction. I ventured to interject at the time an inquiry "What Powers?" and at the same time the noble Lord the Member for Marylebone, asked if any diplomatic despatches had been received from the different Governments in Europe, expressing approval of this singular increase of the British Navy. Now, I ask what Powers did the First Lord of the Admiralty refer to. I fear, Mr. Speaker, that the British Government is taking sides, and is becoming a partizan in the squabbles of the Continent. I can understand that this proposal may be acceptable to Germany, and possibly to Austria and Italy; but does the noble Lord wish the House and the country to understand that Russia, or the United States of America, or France view this increase of the Navy to any satisfaction? The noble Lord knows very well these Powers cannot do so, because they must be aware that if we are arming in this way it is against a combination of some or all of these Powers that we are preparing. Well, Sir, the noble Lord has further informed us that this increase of the Navy is really intended to maintain the peace of Europe. But, Mr. Speaker, we were told at the outset that this extraordinary expenditure and this large increase was intended to protect British commerce, and render the British shores safe from attack. Does the noble Lord intend us to understand that we are indulging in this enormous expenditure with a view to domineering over all the countries of Europe, and to maintaining the peace? If he does, I can only say that nothing more chimerical or more unlikely can be expected from British Government entering upon such a scheme which has been conceived in this way. If we are really interested in the maintenance of the peace of Europe, I venture to suggest that we must adopt very different methods than this rivalry in the increase of the Army and Navy, of this country, and instead of taking up such an attitude we should adopt a more rational position. The gallant officer stated that the time would come when the people of Europe would put a check to this mad expenditure on the part of Europe. I was glad to hear from such a quarter such a prophecy. We on this side have indulged this hope for a long time past, but we want to see the beginning of such a change, and what I assert is that if a great and general catastrophe in Europe is to be avoided it must be by proper steps being taken, to ameliorate the present pressure upon the industrial classes of the Continent. In Italy, Austria, and Germany the industrial classes are manifesting a great spirit of dissatisfaction and of despair, and a determination also no longer to tolerate the crushing burden under which they writhe. I know it is difficult for any one of the States on the Continent to take the initiative, but I think we might usefully employ ourselves in this direction. What use is diplomacy, if it is not able to do something in the way of mitigating situations? We spend large sums in keeping gentlemen in every capital in Europe in order that we may remain on good terms with the different nations and in order that they may remove any international difficulties which prevail. What have these gentlemen been doing all these years? Have we any evidence that any attempt whatever has been made by these gentlemen to mitigate the situation on the Continent, to offer their good offices towards a general reduction of armaments on the Continent? If they have not used their good offices in this direc- tion, I maintain they have failed in their duty, not only towards England, but to the world at large. I have said there is evidence of a disposition on the part of the present Government to lean towards the triple alliance on the Continent. I am not here to say that the policy of Germany, Austria, and Italy may not be one as well worthy of our support as any that France or any other Power can suggest, but I insist that we ought to take no share in any of these Continental struggles. We are practically boycotting France, and I ask how by such means we shall keep out of difficulty. I believe the people will in a very short time come round to see that the proposals of the Government are mischievous from first to last, and that there has been cast on the country increased burdens for which there is no necessity whatever, and which will only tend to aggravate the situation.["Divide."] No doubt it is very important that Gentlemen opposite should dine at a certain hour, but it is also important that when it is proposed to spend 20 millions of money those who feel called upon to protest against the expenditure should be heard. I put infinitely more faith in a single act which has been performed within the last few days than I put in the expenditure of this extra 10 millions of money. The Lord Mayor of London has done this country splendid service by his presence in Paris, and by his declaration there that the British people wish to live on the best of terms with the French, and wish to remove every possible cause of jealousy, and, if Governments fail us, and if the House of Commons is not true to the people, then we must rely upon these other methods such as that taken by the Lord Mayor and the utterances of Members in this House who are entitled to speak on behalf of the industrial classes of this country to save us and the Continent of Europe from the catastrophe which seems impending.

SIR W. LAWSON (Cumberland, Cockermouth)

I thoroughly agree with my hon. Friend that when it is proposed to spend enormous sums of money upon armaments, it is the duty of this House to carefully consider the proposition. I do not see how anyone can complain of this debate being prolonged, seeing that this measure has been described by the Times, the official organ of the Government, as the principal measure of the Session. If the Government's scheme be right and good, one acceptable to the country, one which is capable of defence, surely it is in their interest that it should be discussed as much as possible in the House. Now, Sir, we were told in the Queen's Speech that the Navy is to be increased that it may the better protect our shores and our commerce. The First Lord of the Admiralty has said since that the object of it is the promotion of the peace of Europe. I suppose the promotion of the peace of Europe means an interference in the abominable quarrels which go on in Europe with which we have no manner of concern. Surely you do not want this Navy for that. It is only a year ago that the First Lord of the Admiralty said:— I am well within the mark when I say we are 30 or 40 per cent above the next most powerful Naval Power. Where, therefore, is the danger to our commerce? What is the Government afraid of? I do not suppose they are anxious about commerce, for they are doing all they can to prevent sugar coming into this country. If there is any danger to the commerce of the country how is it that not one of the representatives of the working men in this House is found to support this measure? I see near me two friends of mine who are distinguished representatives of the commerce of the country— my hon. Friend the Member for Hull (Mr. C. Wilson) and my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton (Mr. Evans). Both of them are dead against this scheme. Their living depends upon commerce, and surely if any persons are competent to speak on this matter they are gentlemen of that description. The fact is, this Bill is to give us power to meddle and muddle in every abominable European quarrel that goes on. Therefore, the object of the measure is bad; it is not defence but defiance. This is a preparation for war, and I declare that preparation for war is the first step towards war. The Bill is also bad in the way in which it attempts to accomplish its object. How delightful it was to hear the hon. and gallant Admiral (Admiral Field) say that the scheme was one for compelling future Parliaments to do the bidding of the present government The hon. and gallant Gentleman also said another good thing. He said it was very well to get all this money voted while we had the Irishmen with us, a clear admission that he knows Home Rule is coming very soon. Of course there is danger of invasion. Lord Salisbury told us the other day there was danger of being invaded by the Irish. I should think he is the only person who entertains that opinion. It seems to me that from beginning to end the scheme is a confession of incompetence on the part of the Government. Some time ago we had a whole night of quotations from the speeches of the First Lord of the Admiralty and his subordinate, the Secretary to the Admiralty. We have tried to get a speech from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Eccleshall Division of Sheffield (Mr. Ashmead-Bartlett), who, no doubt, had he spoken would have made a speech more absurd than either of the other two. But we have not succeeded in the attempt. Again, the scheme involves the adoption of a most unconstitutional course. If I may use the expression, I assert that the policy which the Bill embodies is an idiotic policy—a policy of unlimited brag. We are practically saying to other nations, "We are stonger, more powerful than you, and we will show you we are." The expenditure of our money in such an effort is the most wicked and wanton waste of the resources of the country that has ever been proposed. Whom is this done to please? Who is at the bottom of this? The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Sir William Harcourt) told us the other night that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Marylebone (Lord C. Beresford) is at the bottom of it. I have a great respect for the noble Lord, and for his ability and courage, but I do not think he has influence enough to get up a scare entirely by himself. The First Lord of the Admiralty said in this House that the Monarchies and Governments of Europe were anxious to prolong the state of European peace, and they therefore welcomed this addition to our forces as a guarantee that we should have additional power to secure the maintenance of peace. I think that was one of the most extraordinary statements I ever heard in this House. The argument is that these great additions to our Navy are made to please other Powers. I suppose, then, we must be pleased to see them arming. Then the noble Lord (Lord G. Hamilton) says that the increasing armaments of other nations have rendered an increase necessary on our part. So that all nations are to go on arming against one another because they cannot keep the peace with one another unless they do so. I think that declaration of the noble Lord is the most ridiculous political statement we have ever heard, except, of course, the one respecting the invasion of Ireland used by Lord Salisbury. I must say I never heard any proposal brought forward with so little show of argument in its favour. It would almost appear that the nations of the earth who are indulging in this insane rivalry had gone stark, staring mad. I think it was Bishop Butler who said there were times when nations went mad, and I should think that this is one of the occasions. But it is more sad than mad to see the Government of this country taking advantage of this ridiculous scare, which they know is a scare, just to put a few contracts into the hands of a few shipbuilders, and to get places and promotion and good pensions for the fighting classes. [Cries of "Divide."] I do not know why the hon. Gentlemen who called out "Divide" should remain to hear me. They do not agree with what I say, and I have not much hope of converting them. There are, however, many hon. Members here who are ready to repeat my protest against this wicked and wanton waste of public money. There are many other hon. Members here ready to repeat the protest. Lethon. Members opposite retire until the Division. If they do not hear our arguments, I am sure they will vote with a much clearer conscience against us. I am rejoiced to find the working men taking this matter up, and the more this matter is discussed the more they will see that this expenditure is a dead loss to the working men. Mr. Ruskin says the time is drawing near for the workmen who are conscious of their own power and probity to draw together into action, and that the real, true cause of the increase of armaments is simply the gain of manufacturers of the instruments of death. That is the opinion of all great thinkers and writers and philosophers who have looked into this question—that these war armaments are kept up, for the sake of a class and not in the interest of the people. The First Lord of the Admiralty never answers me when I put questions to him in this House. I suppose he cannot answer me. But let him try. I am sorry he cannot speak again in this debate, but he could send for the hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. Ashmead-Bartlett). I wonder what has become of him? The noble Lord (Lord G. Hamilton) talks about protecting the Empire, but he will not tell us who is the enemy he is afraid of, or what danger there is of our quarrelling with anybody. As long as that question remains unanswered, the Government remains condemned. If we really are on the cordial relations with foreign countries that the hon. Member says we are, why is it not possible for us to enter into negotiations with them? Mr. Cobden has been quoted to-night, but I would point out that in the very speech which has been referred to, he said, "he would vote that money after every explanation to present such an absurd waste had taken place." That is the whole point. All we want is some explanation with other Governments. There have been since 1850 no less than 52 important cases in which international disputes have been settled by arbitration. My gallant Friend opposite (Admiral Field), in his speech the other night, extolled the Jingoes, and said our country had been made by Jingoes. I will tell you one achievement in this generation which exceeds the deeds of all the Jingoes ever born, and that was the settlement of the Alabama question by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. Gladstone), and I tell the noble Lord opposite (Lord G. Hamilton), that long after the massacre of Tel-el-Kebir and the devastation of Alexandria have been forgotten, that arbitration business will be looked upon as one of the noblest and soundest pieces of statesmanship ever accomplished. I say that the Government can at least negotiate with Foreign Powers for a reduction of their armaments. It is because I cannot find a shred of evidence that either the Ministers or their Ambassadors have ever made a single step or an honest endeavour to obtain a mutual reduction of armaments that I am opposed to this Bill. And yet, Mr. Speaker, I am really not altogether sorry that this measure has been brought in. It will teach the people of this country what the Tory Government is capable of. It will teach the country that the Tory Government considers that working men were born simply to maintain fighting men. It will prove that the Tory Government absolutely refuses to appeal to the conscience and the justice of other nations, but will maintain for evermore that odious military system which produces the misery of the many and conduces to the advantage of only a very small portion of the people. I will finish with an epilogue, which I read only yesterday. One of the Kings of Prussia was once appealed to by a poor woman to release her son from military service. He applied, "I myself and my nobles are soldiers. What can your son wish for better than to enter the Army?" The poor woman answered, "Ah, Sire, fighting may be very good for you and your nobles who have nothing better to do, but my son has learnt to be a shoemaker." Mr. Speaker, it is because I am heart and soul for the shoemakers, and heart and soul against the nobles, that I give my most hearty support to the Motion of my hon. Friend.

The House divided:—Ayes 183; Noes 101—(Division List, No. 119.)

Main Question put, and agreed to.

Bill read the third time, and passed.