§ LORD G. HAMILTON (Middlesex, Ealing)I wish to put a question of which I have given private notice to the Financial Secretary to the Admiralty. I regret the shortness of the notice, but I have been compelled to give short notice in consequence of the Motion which is to be made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer without notice to terminate the Naval Debate to-night. I wish to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty, with a view to showing the character and dimensions of the Debate of this evening, whether the cost of the new shipbuilding scheme to be introduced to the House tonight does not approximate, independently of the cost of armament, to some £5,000,000; and whether there is any modern precedent for the House being asked to sanction such an expenditure before we are in full possession of the dimensions, speed, armour, and armaments of the respective vessels comprised in the scheme?
§ SIR W. HARCOURTI should like to answer the question. I have made inquiry upon the subject, and I find that since the year 1880—that is to say, for 13 years—there has never been but one instance in which the first Vote of the Navy Estimates has taken more than one night.
§ LORD G. HAMILTONI want to know whether my statement is correct, that this expenditure, which is independent of armaments, approximates to £5,000,000; and whether, under these circumstances, the Chancellor of the Exchequer wishes to persevere with his ill-advised Motion?
§ SIR W. HARCOURTI have not looked into the question of amounts, but I do not think that under the late Administration the amounts asked for were small. I find that, with the exception of 1886, which was also the year in which the Home Rule Bill was introduced, only one night has been taken for the first Vote. I do not think that that particular occasion was signalised by any large amount of money voted. The Government only ask by the Motion for to-night to be enabled to dispose of the first Navy Vote. I mention this because there is some idea that we intend to extend it to other Votes. We intend that if by going on for a short time after 12 o'clock we could get the Vote we should not be prevented by the Twelve o'clock Rule from doing so. That is our only intention in putting down the Motion.
§ LORD G. HAMILTONMay I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he is aware that the only large Shipbuilding Vote proposed by the late Government was embodied in a Bill which occupied at the very least ten days, independently of the discussion of the Estimates?
§ MR. A. O'CONNOR (Donegal, E.)May I ask whether, as a matter of fact, any money was included in the first Vote for construction?
§ SIR W. HARCOURTI believe that is the fact, and I think that disposes of the noble Lord's question.
§ LORD G. HAMILTONWill the right hon. Gentleman undertake that, until the Dockyard Vote is taken, no money shall be spent on new construction?
§ SIR W. HARCOURTindicated dissent.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURAs I understand, the right hon. Gentleman, in spite of the wording of his Motion, does not propose to deal to-night with the Supplementary Estimates after 12 o'clock, but he does intend to insist upon having the Navy Vote. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman has rightly apprehended my noble Friend's point. The difficulty we are in is this: We desire the explanation of the Government of their important shipbuilding programme. It has been the custom in this House to discuss the Government's naval policy upon the first Vote brought forward before Easter. In that policy the most important element this year is the large 1107 Vote of £5,000,000 for construction. We have not the information which it is usual to give, and in the absence of it it is impossible to discuss the Vote. Bearing in mind that the Government's Predecessors used to give before the discussion of the Estimates an elaborate Memorandum explaining and justifying their policy, I ask the right hon. Gentleman, keeping in view the meagre character of the information given in the Estimates, and the great and important questions raised, whether he still desires that they should be discussed in the small hours of the morning?
§ SIR W. HARCOURTThe right hon. Gentleman is mistaken in his view. The general policy of construction has been habitually discussed on the Shipbuilding Vote, and not on the first Vote. [Cries of "No!"] So I am informed. The right hon. Gentleman used the word "insist." I have never used that word. What I said was that we have not got on very fast with the Estimates, and I see no reason whatever why this first Vote for the Navy should not be taken, as it has been habitually taken, in a single night. What the Government desire is that we shall not be debarred from obtaining the Vote because of the hard and fast Twelve o'clock Rule. I may say to hon. Gentlemen opposite that we have not the smallest desire to use pressure. I am endeavouring to speak in moderate language. We do want to get on with the Public Business. If we can dispose of this Vote to-night, as we have disposed of it for the past 13 years, I think we shall be doing the Business of the House in the manner in which it ought to be done.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURI am sure there is no reason to complain of the tone of the right hon. Gentleman. If he only desires to abrogate the Twelve o'clock Rule in order that the first Vote may be taken within a brief period after midnight, I, for one, shall not oppose the action of the Government.
§ MR. BARTLEYAs it appears that although the Chancellor of the Exchequer has put on the Paper a Notice of Motion for the suspension of the Twelve o'clock Rule for all the Estimates he does not now intend to make such a proposal, I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will give us a promise that on future occasions he will 1108 give us notice when he is going to suspend the Twelve o'clock Rule, and also put down distinctly what he means to include in it, instead of putting down a large proposal and withdrawing the greater part of it when pressure is brought to bear upon him?
§ SIR W. HARCOURTThat is not a fair representation of what I have done. First of all, the usual notice in this case has been given. It was necessary and proper to give the notice in the form in which it has been given, because, as the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition has very properly said, if the Debate on the first Vote should come to an end at 10 or 11 o'clock we certainly should go on with the other Votes. Therefore, it is not fair to say that we have put down too large a proposal, which we intended to withdraw under pressure. We are doing now exactly what we intended to do.