NAVAL WORKS BILL.

HC Deb 03 May 1895 vol 33 cc400-40

The following Instructions to the Committee on the Naval Works Bill stood on the Paper:—

MR. H. E. KEARLEY (Devonport)

That it be an Instruction to the Committee that they have power to insert in the Bill provisions to extend the powers for the acquisition of land so as to include the acquisition of land for the purpose of housing workpeople employed upon any of the works contemplated by the Bill.

MR. G. C. T. BARTLEY (Islington, N.)

That it be an Instruction to the Committee that they have power to insert a clause specifying the time within which each of the works mentioned in the Schedule shall be completed.

LORD GEORGE HAMILTON (Middlesex, Ealing)

That it be an Instruction to the Committee that they have power to insert a clause by which it shall be obligatory upon the Treasury to annually apply to Parliament until all the moneys necessary to complete all the works contained in the Schedule have been sanctioned.

*MR. SPEAKER

These three Instructions are out of order. This Bill is founded on a Resolution of the Committee of Ways and Means, placing £1,000,000 for certain specific purposes to the use of the Royal Navy. The first Instruction proposes to empower the Committee on the Bill to insert in the Bill provisions to extend the powers for the acquisition of land so as to include the acquisition of land for the purpose of housing workpeople employed upon any of the works contemplated by the Bill. That is not a work for the purposes of the Royal Navy, and therefore it is entirely outside the objects for which the million of money has been sanctioned. I will take the third Instruction next. It proposes to give power to the Committee, to insert a clause, by which it shall be obligatory on the Treasury to annually apply to Parliament until all the moneys necessary to complete all the works contained in the scheme of the Government have been sanctioned. That proposes to bind future Parliaments to the expenditure of money not recommended by the Crown. This Bill, as I have said, is a Bill authorising the expenditure of £1,000,000 for certain specific works; and nothing can be done under the Bill beyond dealing with the expenditure of that million of money, and no more. The second Instruction is also clearly out of order for the same reason. This Instruction proposes that the Bill shall specify the time within which each of the works shall be completed. As no power is taken in the Bill to take money sufficient for the completion of the works, no power can be given to compel their completion. All the power that can be given under this Bill, and under the Resolution upon which it is founded, is to deal with an expenditure, for the proposed purposes, of £1,000,000.

The House then went into Committee on the Bill.

Mr. MELLOR in the Chair.

(In the Committee.)

Clause 1 (Power for Admiralty to construct scheduled works).

SIR GEORGE BADEN-POWELL (Liverpool, Kirkdale) moved the following Amendment:— page 1, line 18, after 'such lands,' insert 'as they may deem necessary for the whole of such work if and when completed.' He said the adoption of the Amendment would perfect the Bill on the lines and principles laid down in the Bill itself, and would make it more effectually carry out the purpose for which it was designed. It would promote efficiency and obviate any unnecessary expenditure.

THE CIVIL LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. EDMUND ROBERTSON,) Dundee

did not see that the words which the hon. Member proposed would make any difference. The first clause gave power to the Admiralty to forthwith construct the works specified in the Schedule of the Act at the places therein mentioned, and for that purpose "to acquire such lands as they may deem expedient.'' These words were wider than those of the hon. Gentleman, and he did not see that any purpose would be gained by accepting the Amendment.

SIR GEORGE BADEN-POWELL

said, that the clause did not cover the whole of the lands which might be necessary before the whole of the works were completed, but only covered the land for the works specified in the Schedule. If in order to complete the works they had in future years to purchase more lands, it did not seem to him that that would conduce to economy, and the best course would be to have the power now to purchase the necessary lands.

LORD GEORGE HAMILTON

thought there was another point in favour of the Amendment of his hon. Friend which merited the consideration of the representatives of the Admiralty. The ruling of the Speaker by which all his (Lord George Hamilton's) proposed Amendments were shown to be out of order made it clear that this Bill only gave authority to spend £1,000,000, and that it in no way bound subsequent Parliaments to go on with and complete the works. They had had the declaration of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that it was the intention of the Government that these works should be commenced and executed as rapidly as possible, but there was not, from beginning to end of the Bill, any single indication of what the ultimate intention of the Government was. He thought they ought to put in this Bill a clear indication of the intention of the promoters, and to which Parliament had assented. At present there was no indication that the works should be rapidly completed. The Schedule related to work to the extent of but £1,000,000, and they could only take land which was required for the completion of such works. He did not think it would conflict with any principle of the Bill laid down by the Government if they were to make it clear that the land to be bought was to be such as was necessary for the whole of the works that were to be executed.

MR. ROBERTSON

replied, that the power given to the Admiralty was wide enough to cover the large demands necessary. For the purpose of this clause they were to acquire such lands as they might deem expedient. He did not suppose that would limit the amount, whilst the proposed Amendment itself would limit rather than extend the scope of the Bill.

MR. T. GIBSON BOWLES (Lynn Regis)

remarked that undoubtedly the nature of the Resolution on which the Bill was founded did limit the acquisition of land to the £1,000,000 alone provided by the Bill. When the Civil Lord of the Admiralty argued that this power was so wide as to include the acquisition of any amount of land he forgot that the whole Bill only extended to £1,000,000, and they could not, therefore, in any case acquire land beyond that required for the works comprised in the £1,000,000. Before any further sums could be expended the Schedule would have to be altered. The hon. Gentleman was certainly not right in saying that there was absolutely unlimited discretion given to the Admiralty to acquire land by this clause, because, as he had pointed out, the whole expenditure under the Act was limited to £1,000,000. At the same time he did not quite see what great advantage would result from inserting the words of the Amendment, although his hon. Friend knew what their effect would be. It would, no doubt, have the result of indicating and prescribing the final purpose of that Act, but they could not by anything they put into any clause of the Bill give power to the Admiralty to buy anything beyond that for which they had sanction by the measure.

SIR GEORGE BADEN-POWELL

instanced the case of Keyham, and asked if it was proposed that the £80,000 taken should suffice for the whole of the land necessary, besides the works.

MR. G. J. GOSCHEN (St. George's, Hanover Square)

observed that in the clause as drawn it was stated that— the Admiralty may forthwith proceed to construct the works as specified in the Schedule of this Act at the places therein mentioned, and for that purpose may acquire such lands and execute such works. as they might deem expedient. He understood that power was not given to construct the works specified in the Schedule. It appeared to him that the Bill was inconsistent with itself. They might, the clause said, proceed to construct these works. But the whole of the works would cost far more than £1,000,000. The drafting of the Bill seemed to be faulty in this respect, because while the Government could begin upon the works specified in the Schedule of the Act, and could proceed to construct them, yet if they were to construct the whole of them they would be running against the other proposals in the Bill. They might not exceed the limit in the Schedule, but they took powers not to proceed with the construction of the works, but to proceed with the works specified in the Schedule. So that this clause would practically give power to construct the whole of the works. It would appear from this, which was the governing clause of the whole Bill, that the Government contemplated forthwith immediately to construct the works specified in the Schedule, whereas they really only took power at the best to construct one-eighth of the works in the Bill. He would suggest whether the words "forthwith proceed to construct" should not be modified to a certain extent. The Amendment of his hon. Friend would tend in some degree to meet the difficulty. He hoped the Government would not consider this to be a frivolous objection, because he regarded it as a weakness of the Bill that, while, it authorised the construction of the whole of the works, they were distinctly told it was only for part of them.

MR. ROBERTSON

differed with the meaning the right hon. Gentleman apparently attached to the expression "proceed to construct the works." The right hon. Gentleman seemed to take that in the sense that to construct meant to complete. Construct only meant to build. What the Admiralty were only authorised to make were the works comprised in the Schedule, and upon which they expended the amounts set forth in the Schedule. It seemed to him that the general power as to the acquisition of land which the clause gave, limited by the expression "as they may deem expedient," seemed amply wide enough for all the purposes of the Bill.

MR. GOSCHEN

said, the meaning the hon. Gentleman gave to the clause seemed to be that the Admiralty might forthwith construct the works as specified in the Schedule. But as the passage was drawn the power related to the whole of the works, and did not, he thought, refer to the specific amounts that were included. He did not know whether the Government would consent to amend the clause so as to read to this effect— Forthwith proceed to construct the works specified in the Schedule of this Act to the amount specified in that Schedule. Was the Bill to practically have the authority of Parliament to the construction of works for £9,000,000, or was it only to be a Bill to enable them to begin these works up to £1,000,000, leaving it entirely open what should be done?

MR. W. E. M. TOMLINSON (Preston)

questioned whether the Bill was so framed as to give the Government all the powers they wanted.

*THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Sir UGHTRED KAY-SHUTTLE WORTH) Lancashire, N. E., Clitheroe

thought what the hon. Gentleman had just said pointed the danger which the Government would be in if the suggestion of the right hon. Member for St. George's were adopted. If the words were limited in the way proposed it would limit their powers to the amount of land required for the year; whereas, as the clause runs, the Admiralty were allowed to purchase land for the purpose of the whole works to be constructed.

SIR GEORGE BADEN-POWELL

said, that if the Government really intended to take power to acquire all the land necessary for the works he had nothing more to say, because that was all he intended to do by his Amendment.

MR. GOSCHEN

wished to know to what exactly the Government held themselves bound. If they were unable to buy land what would be the result?

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

replied that in all the works set forth in the Schedule the land was already in possession of the Government, and if it were necessary in any case to acquire land otherwise—that was to say, under compulsory powers—it was quite certain such land would not be required this year. Therefore no practical difficulty need arise.

MR. G. C. T. BARTLEY

observed that if the Government contemplated giving orders to buy land which would not be required within the year, it was quite clear the Government were pledging Parliament in the future—a policy which he understood it was the boast of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he would not adopt.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

pointed out that in the Fortifications Act Sir S. Northcote was forbidden to make a contract which extended beyond the year. In this case the Government thought such a provision was unnecessarily stringent. A contract with reference to land would be just the same as any other contract. It was not a material point at all. When the Bill was originally submitted to him there was no power in it to take land. He thought the case might arise, and upon the precedents he came to the conclusion that power to acquire land should be taken. But as regarded the works that would come within the year no question with reference to land arose.

MR. T. GIBSON BOWLES

said, that the clause as drawn only gave power to purchase land for the purposes of the works in the Schedule. Now there was a great deal of the £9,000,000 of expenditure which was not in the Schedule at all. He did not know, for example, whether for the extension of barracks at Portsmouth it would be necessary to buy land. If so, it could not be done under this clause, Portsmouth not being in the Schedule. Therefore, as the clause stood, the Admiralty could not buy a foot of land at Portsmouth. [MR. E. ROBERTSON: "Hear, hear!"] Neither could they at Hong Kong, nor yet Dover. As long as that was understood he was quite satisfied.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 2 agreed to.

On Clause 3 (Issue of Money out of Consolidated Fund for Expenses of Scheduled Works),

LORD GEORGE HAMILTON

said, he had an Amendment to propose on this clause. The clause enacted that the Treasury should issue such sums as may be required by the Admiralty for executing the works as specified in the Schedule to the Act. He objected to the word "executing," that it conveyed the impression of the work being complete. When you say you execute a commission it implies that the transaction is more or less complete. Now, none of these works would be completed within the year, some of them would hardly be begun, and in this Bill there was no express intention of the Government to apply to Parliament in subsequent years for funds to meet the expenditure of subsequent years. He assumed that after April 1, 1896, it would not be competent to spend any more money under this Bill. If so, let it be clearly expressed in Clause 3. He accordingly moved to leave out "executing,'' and insert "commencing or advancing during the financial year ending April 1896." If these words were accepted, then the Government would be compelled to bring in a Bill next year in order to carry on the works.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, that the noble lord seemed to think that the word "executing" meant finishing. The Government did not attach any such meaning to the word. All that the Government proposed was that the necessary money should be taken for doing the work authorised during the year. If the noble lord preferred to have the Saxon word "doing" instead of "executing," he should raise no objection. He would agree to the word "doing" or the word "constructing."

LORD GEORGE HAMILTON

asked what objection there was to the words "commencing or advancing?"

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, that it might be that the work would be completed, and then the words "commencing or advancing" would not be applicable.

MR. GOSCHEN

thought that the word "executing," or the word "constructing," alone did not give a sufficiently distinct indication of that which was intended. He suggested that the words should be "commencing, advancing, or completing." That would cover every possible emergency.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER,

said, that he was always anxious not to waste time over technical discussions. He thought the words suggested by the right hon. Gentleman were unnecessary, but he would not oppose their insertion if that would satisfy the right hon. Gentleman.

LORD GEORGE HAMILTON

asked leave to withdraw his Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD GEORGE HAMILTON moved (Clause 3, page 2, line 9) to leave out "executing, in order to insert the words "commencing, advancing, or completing."

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 3.

LORD GEORGE HAMILTON moved, after the last Amendment, to add— During the financial year ending April One thousand eight hundred and ninety-six. He said that it would be well to assimilate the clause to the schedule. This Amendment would make it clear that no expenditure could be incurred after March 31, in the absence of fresh legislation.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

pointed out that the object of this Amendment was exactly the same as that of the Amendment at the bottom of the page (Further Application to Parliament.) The noble Lord could hardly expect him to adopt the Amendment in such a form. The statement in the Schedule was only a statement of proposed naval works.

MR. GOSCHEN

thought the right hon. Gentleman had dismissed this Amendment rather too hastily. This Amendment would not bind the next Parliament, which would only be influenced by the fact that the money would run out at the end of the financial year. Did the Government intend to spend this million within a year? [The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER: "Certainly."] That was the point to which his noble Friend called attention by this Amendment. It indicated that the million should be spent within the present financial year. As the Bill was drafted, this money could be borrowed this year, but there was nothing to indicate that it was to be spent in the present year. One result might be that the Government would spend this year £500,000, and,£250,000 next year, and £250,000 in the following year. They were anxious that the Government should agree to words showing that they intended to borrow and spend £1,000,000 in the course of the present financial year. He also wanted an explanation of the reasons which had induced the Government to fix the sum at£1,000,000. Was that the maximum which they thought could be usefully spent in the year, or was there any other special reason which had induced them to fix upon this particular sum?

MR. ROBERTSON

said, that the right hon. Gentleman thought there ought to be in the Bill something indicating the intention of the Government that this sum of £1,000,000 should be spent within the year. Well, the words in the Schedule were— Amount proposed to be expended between March 31 1895, and April 1 1896. As to intention, nothing could be more explicit than that the Amendment which the right hon. Gentleman wanted the Government to agree to would prevent them from expending any small sum which might happen not to have been spent within the year. The Amendment would only embarrass, instead of assisting, the Government. The words proposed did not import an obligation to spend; they rather imported an obligation not to spend. As to the question why £1,000,000 was asked for, the right hon. Gentleman had correctly divined the view of the Government. They thought that a million was the amount that could be spent profitably in the year.

SIR GEORGE BADEN-POWELL

observed that the Committee could only authorise this expenditure on the ground that it was urgently needed. He thought the Committee would like to see even more than £1,000,000 devoted to these urgent works, and yet the Government were making provision for not spending this sum in the twelve months. They opposed the insertion of words which would compel them so to spend it.

MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON

said, the hon. Member was in error. What the Government opposed was an Amendment which would not compel them to spend the money in the time.

MR. G. C. T. BARTLEY

thought that if the word "proposed" were omitted from the words quoted from the Schedule by the hon. Member for Dundee, the difficulty would be met. The words in the Schedule would then be— Amount to be expanded between March 31 1895, and April 1, 1896. That would be a clear indication of the intention of the Government.

MAJOR DARWIN (Staffordshire, Lichfield)

pointed out that the Bill, as it stood, authorised an expenditure which might run on after April 1 next year. That would be rather a curious financial precedent to set.

MR. W. E. M. TOMLINSON

asked what would happen if, at the end of February, the Government should have expended this million of money. He supposed that the works in course of construction would be stopped until a new Bill was passed, although the country would wish these works to be carried on continuously.

MR. T. GIBSON BOWLES

pointed out the, contrast between the word "proposed" in the schedule and the mandatory word "shall" in the clause. The clause said— The Treasury shall issue out of the Consolidated Fund such sums, not exceeding in the whole £1,000,000, as may be required by the Admiralty," &c. What would be done if the money was not spent? [The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER: "Then it will be returned."] Under the clause, as it stood, the Admiralty might ask for the whole million, and the Treasury would be bound to provide the money, but the Admiralty need not spend one farthing of it. That was the effect of the clause. The Treasury was bound under it to issue to the Admiralty whatever the Admiralty said they wanted, but there was nothing to show that the Admiralty were to spend all they received. It seemed to him that some amendment was absolutely required, that it should be provided that the Treasury should be bound to issue so much as the Admiralty required during the year, and no more. If the clause stood in its present form, it would amount to a binding enactment that the Treasury should issue £1,000,000 to the Admiralty whether the Admiralty spent it or not.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

thought that the Committee was spending a good deal too much time over a matter which was really not material. The hon. Member who had just sat down knew very little of the relations of the Treasury and Admiralty if he thought that the Treasury were in the habit of issuing money to the Admiralty which the Admiralty did not intend to spend. But if the Admiralty did not want to spend £1,000,000, there was nothing in the noble Lord's amendment that would compel them to spend it. He hoped they would now be allowed to get on.

MR. FORWOOD

pointed out that the custom as between the Treasury and the Admiralty was for the Treasury to issue money in lump sums every two or three months. Therefore, the Admiralty must be always two or three months in advance of expenditure. Thus they might have a surplus at the end of the year, and care should be taken to secure that that surplus should be spent in the following year.

LORD GEORGE HAMILTON

asked leave to withdraw the Amendment

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

On the question that Clause 3 stand part of the Bill,

LORD GEORGE HAMILTON

said, he wished to make an appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. In the course of the discussion on the Second Reading of this Bill the right hon. Gentleman said that the consideration as to whether or not the money for works should be raised by loan, was the permanent character of the work to be carried out. That he thought was a sound principle, and it would have been very much better for the finances of this country if it had always been acted upon. This Bill was an indication of that principle, but what they had to do was to endeavour to ensure in some way the continuity of these works. The moment the Government introduced a Bill of this kind, which contemplated great expenditure but limited the amount to be raised, the private Members were placed in a great difficulty in framing amendments. Every attempt they had made to ensure continuity had been ruled out of order, because they imposed on the Consolidated Fund a greater expenditure than that contemplated by the Bill. Would it not be possible for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to put some words in—he did not say now, but between this and Report—indicating the intention of the Government and of Parliament. Hereafter, whenever any fresh Bills were issued, there would always be two parties in the House, one against expenditure and the other in favour of it; and it was giving a great advantage to those who were opposed to expenditure not to mention in this Bill that it only dealt with the commencement of works which it was intended should be prosecuted rapidly. Moreover, by taking these works out of the ordinary Estimates, the Government prevented the annual discussion upon the Estimates of any one of these works, and it absolutely rested with the Treasury in future to say whether the House was to have any further Bills brought in in connection with these works. There was no power vested in Parliament of urging on thr works except by moving a Vote of Censure. Therefore, he hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be able to suggest some means and bring forward some words which would really express to future Parliaments what was the intention of the Government in this Bill.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, that there could not be the least doubt as to what the intentions of the Government were. What the noble Lord seemed to desire was that the House should bind future Governments and future Parliaments, and that was exactly contrary to the principle of the Bill. The doctrine laid down by Sir S. Northcote in l862 on the Fortifications Bill, was that the annual control of the House of Commons in these matters ought to be kept intact. That was the distinct principle for which Sir S. Northcote contended. He said— There were two objects in view. One was to limit the expenditure to the present year, by insisting on a correct and real appropriation of the money; and, secondly, to limit the power of the Government to bind the House by contract, so as to put it out of the power of the House in the next year to act freely in the matter. That was the principle on which this Bill was framed. Then it was quite clear that the Government had given an earnest of their intentions by the introduction of the Bill, and they would give a further earnest of them by the commencement of the works. What he objected to, and and what he thought was an entirely false principle, was that one Government should pass an enactment to bind people five or six years hence as to what they were to do. If such a provision was put into an Act of Parliament it would suspend the annual control of the House of Commons over the Estimates; but the principle of this Bill was to maintain the annual control of Parliament over the expenditure of the country, whether by way of votes or loans. As to the intentions of the Government, it was impossible that they could be more clearly declared. They were made clear both in the Bill and in their actions with regard to the contracts.

MR. GOSCHEN

said, there was some little inconsistency in the position of the Chancellor of the Exchequer; he did not wish to bind future Parliaments or future Governments, and yet, at the same time, he contemplated the possibility of entering into binding contracts for these works. By doing that the right hon. Gentleman would, on a large scale, anticipate the verdict of future Parliaments, and compel them to spend money quite as much as if he bound them by Act of Parliament.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, he had admitted that he made that exception to the principle.

MR. GOSCHEN

said, the matter was important financially. If the full scheme were in the Bill, then not only the Government, but their supporters and the Opposition would be bound to this expenditure; but, if the right hon. Gentleman carried out his own view, he would be binding future Parliaments by the Act of the Government alone, of which Parliament might have no cognizance at all. The Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed to make contracts with regard to these works without imposing any limitation upon himself. It was conceivable that under this elasticity, which he retained to himself, he might bind future Parliaments for the whole contemplated expenditure of nine millions. He was confident the Government would not proceed to that length; but would they insert in this Bill a limit beyond which they would not go? All desired that rapid progress should be made with these works, and while contracts entered into by the Government might further that object, and might prevent future Parliaments rejecting any portion of the works, nevertheless he thought it would be more constitutional to put it into the Bill, and thus, if the suspension of the works should be proposed, to give the House of Lords some voice in determining whether the country was to be defended or not. Although it might be unconstitutional so far to bind future Parliaments, he thought it equally unconstitutional to enter into contracts without any authority from Parliament at all. If the Opposition were in Office, he ventured to say that right hon. Gentlemen now on the Ministerial Benches would say: "What are you going to take this out of our hands for? You are are asking only for a million, and yet you are committing us to three or four millions." Sir Stafford Northcote was right in holding that if Parliament was not to be bound by a Bill, it ought to be bound by contracts made without its cognizance. He regretted that Parliament was not invited, as it was by the Barracks Act, to give its sanction to the whole scheme—a procedure to which the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not then object. The right hon. Gentleman said that he followed the precedent of the Fortifications Act; but, as had been mentioned, the works were never completed, for after a certain period the necessary Bills were no longer introduced. He did not know whether this was likely to be the result of the present attitude of the Government. Of course the Government acted wisely in not spending more money upon the fortifications; but the obvious result of the course adopted was that the money was not found, and guns for existing fortifications were not provided until 20 years after the scheme had been put into operation. It was not necessary to assume that future Parliaments would necessarily be vicious; and this House wished the work contemplated by the Bill to be done. He would suggest that the matter might be compromised by inserting in the preamble words to the effect that it was expedient to make provision for the construction of works specified in the Schedule, by putting all the works into the Schedule, and then by making provision for the execution of so much within a year, according to the plan of the Government. That would merely record the opinion of the House that it was expedient that all the works should be carried out, and it would leave it to future Parliaments to settle whether they should be completed. Thus it would be laid down that this Parliament contemplated the whole expenditure.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, he was extremely desirous, if it could be done consistently with the principle on which the Bill was founded, to make any alteration which would give satisfaction to Gentlemen opposite, and he would take the suggestion into consideration. But he must point out that there were dozens of contracts extending over several years, and applicable to all sorts of matters about which votes in Supply were taken every year. There was, for example, the new Admiralty buildings, which the noble Lord and he took so much part in arranging, and which the noble Lord himself might occupy some day; and with regard to these buildings there were contracts extending over several years, and which absolutely depended upon an annual vote. The Bill was needed in this case only because there was a loan; in all other respects there was correspondence with the cases in which an annual vote was taken in Parliament. In the case of a post-office building or the new Admiralty buildings, it was stated what the whole cost was expected to be, and how much was to be expended each year. This was the manner in which they were acting constantly in reference to matters in which there were contracts. This was consistent with keeping in the hands of the House of Commons the annual control of the amount it was thought right to spend upon a work. Here there was a statement of the whole work to be done, and of the money to be devoted to each object within a particular year; and there was really no difference between these and any other works except that these were done by loan, and, therefore, required a Bill.

MR. GOSCHEN

said, that if the Government would put into this Bill what was put into the Estimates, then the analogy would be complete.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

We will consider it.

SIR GEORGE BADEN POWELL

said, that if this Bill created debt it would be valuable to have some limit put to the debt it might create. It was a waste of words to argue upon such a Bill if it did not in any way bind future Parliaments. The next House of Commons would certainly have no control in the matter. It would have to continue the works already commenced. It would probably also have no control over the expenditure of moneys to be paid from the Treasury in the course of the year, because the Bill gave the Treasury power to issue money for the purpose of the Bill. It was very important that the total amount should be stated in the body of the Bill.

CAPTAIN BETHELL

pointed out that when work was undertaken and the contractors had only so much money assigned to them in one year, and they earned more than was assigned, it led to great waste of money. This had been condemned by both sides of the House, and he trusted it would be obviated in reference to the present Bill.

MR. FORWOOD

hoped that nothing that had been said would limit the Admiralty as to the extent of the contracts into which they entered. These were great works, for, out of £9,000,000, £6,000,000 would be performed by contract. A large amount of dredging and other work was to be done by contract, but some of the dredging would be done by the officers of the Admiralty. One of the proposed works amounted to £1,920,000, and £2,000,000 was to be spent for the works at Dover. If the work was to be done on the most economical lines, the contractor should know that be would have the full carrying out of the work. The control of Parliament over these large works was merely nominal. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had the idea of keeping this nominal control alive. He himself did not object if the work was done by contract and the House was sure of its completion.

*MR. T. GIBSON BOWLES

presumed that the, money was asked for by the Admiralty after careful and adequate consideration. But the £1,000,000 now to be asked for was for a purpose different from that originally embodied in the schedule. It was proposed to leave out Chatham to the extent of £22,000. Why, then, was Chatham mentioned originally? Was it put in with consideration or advisedly at a. higher sum than necessary? The Admiralty also proposed to add Dover and Hong Kong with,£10,000 for each in addition to the original plan which was for the completion of £1,000,000.

MR. GOSCHEN

said, on the question of the £1,000,000 he would appeal to the hon. Member in charge of the Bill whether there should not be a Resolution to enable him to carry out his intention. If they could not propose to increase the £1,000,000, a discussion as to whether it was adequate or not, would be ad rem. But he hoped the Civil Lord would consider whether the £1,000,000 could not be extended so as to cover the additional objects referred to. In the next place he would be glad to hear the kind of advice on which the Admiralty had proceeded. They were embarking on the expenditure of £1,000,000, and he wanted to know whether the best expert opinion had been taken as to the vast works that were proposed.

MR. ROBERTSON

said, he would explain why the alterations in the Schedule had been made. In deference to opinions strongly expressed in all quarters of the House, the Admiralty came to the conclusion that it would be well to include Dover and Hong Kong into the Bill, at the same time they were bound by the £1,000,000 provided for in the original Resolution. In consultation with the Gentleman at the head of the Works Department as to what item or items deductions could be made from to permit the introduction of two new items—Dover and Hong Kong he was advised that by a reduction as to Chatham Barracks, the sum would most convenently be obtained. He doubted whether anything would be gained by a new limit of £1,220,000, but he would consult his colleagues and report the result when they came to the next stage of the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman rightly assumed that the Admiralty would not make these proposals to Parliament without having taken the best professional advice. That had been taken from the Naval point of view—as to the necessity of particular works and particular sites, and on these Naval opinion must be conclusive. The professional head of the Works Department had been the main adviser of the Admiralty as far as the works had gone. In many of the largest works they had not got as far as the plans at Dover for instance. There the only thing they had to consider was how the contractor for the works should be strengthened by the best professional advice to be, obtained. The policy to which the right hon. Gentleman had alluded had actuated the proceedings of the Admiralty throughout. [An hon. MEMBER: "What about Gibraltar?"] The work at Gibraltar was founded to a large extent on the Report of a Committee. The Director of Works he was sure was the last person in the world who would desire to be deprived of assistance, and, so far as the Admiralty were concerned they were willing that he should have ample assistance.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 4.

SIR GEORGE BADEN-POWELL moved to insert after "money" in line 15, the words— Together with a statement of a fixed date by which the work, or portion of work, therein provided for, shall be completed. The Amendment, he said, would be of great convenience, both to the Treasury and the Admiralty, while it would enable the House to form some definite idea of the works for which it was voting the money each year. Unless the Amendment was adopted there was nothing in the Bill to prevent money voted in any one year, being taken from the Consolidated Fund, not in that year but in succeeding years.

MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON

said, that the proposal to fix a time limit was one to which he thought the Committee ought not to accede. In the Naval Defence Act, the time limit was one of the greatest embarrassments with which the Admiral had to deal—so great indeed that his first advice to the Board was that the shortest way of dealing with their difficulties was simply to repeal the Act. That course was not taken out of respect to hon. Gentlemen opposite, but the Admiralty had to bring in an amending Bill extending the time limit. The Admiralty desired to relieve themselves from the possibility of any embarrassment in future from the setting up of time limits, and on that ground he proposed not to accede to the Amendment.

LORD GEORGE HAMILTON

said, the introduction of the time-limit in the Naval Defence Act was an extraordinary success, because it resulted in a larger amount of work being achieved in a given time than had ever been done before. That being so, and it being the object of the Government to expedite these works, he did not see why they should not again have recourse to that procedure. The money necessary for these works might have to be raised by loan. How could the Treasury tell the amount of loans that would be required unless there was a time-limit within which the work was to be executed? He should say this Amendment would be a great safeguard to the Admiralty. It only compelled them to put in their Estimate the date at which they believed the work would be concluded.

MR. ROBERTSON

said, he had no objection, if it would meet the view of the noble Lord, to accept words providing that a statement should be made of the date at which the Admiralty "believed" the works would be completed.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

SIR GEORGE BADEN-POWELL moved to insert the following words— Together with a statement of the date by which the work or portion of work therein provided for, is expected to be completed.

Amendment agreed to.

MR. W. E. M. TOMLINSON moved to omit Sub-section 2. The scheme of the Bill, he said, would not necessarily lead to continuous work. Some works might be done faster than was contemplated by the Act. Suppose a particular work was completed two or three months before the regular time, it was quite obvious that operations there must stop unless they could find an excess from some other head. Was it wise to limit the excess of expenditure? Would it not be better to allow the works to go on leaving the question of limiting the excess of expenditure to the Government of the day?

*SIR U. KAY- SHUTTLEWORTH

said, the object of the sub-section was to give the Admiralty a freer hand than they would have if absolutely tied down to the amounts specified in the schedule for each work. The only limit was the total limit. They were advised that it was ample for the total purposes of the Bill during the year. But there were, very great uncertainties about works, especially about marine works, and it was possible that on some heads their estimates might be too small, while as regards others it might be too large. The sub-section enabled the Treasury from time to time to allow the Admiralty to use the money voted for one sub-head, for the purposes of another, on proper cause shown.

MR. TOMLINSON

said, if that was the object of the clause, it was very unfortunately expressed. Surely the proper way would be to say that any excess of expenditure on one head might be expended on other heads.

*SIR U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH

said, they could not exceed any sub-head in the ordinary Votes of the House without Treasury sanction. They had simply followed the regular practice of Parliament.

SIR GEORGE BADEN-POWELL

said, he put upon the Paper a similar Amendment, but simply with the view of eliciting from the Government a statement that it was not intended to forego expenditure under one head in order to provide funds to be expended under another head.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

*SIR ALBERT ROLLIT (Islington S.)

had not been convinced by the observations of the Secretary to the Admiralty that his Amendment ought not to be moved. He therefore proposed to move the Amendment standing in his name, in order that the House might have an opportunity of saving whether it thought the provisions of the Bill were proper and business-like. He most heartily approved of the Bill, and of all the works proposed in the Schedule, and he approved of the first three lines of sub-section 2 of clause 4; but the remainder of that sub-section enabled sums voted for one purpose to be applied for another. The practical effect of the Clause was to take the control of these works out of the hands of Parliament. The chief objection he had was one of account. If there was no such clause as this, the sums not spent would, in the ordinary course, have to be paid back to the Treasury. With such a clause there was a disposition to spend the whole of the money voted by Parliament. The whole tendency of the present system was wasteful. In the next place, a strong objection to the system was that it led to carelessness in the preparation of the Estimates. Then, it introduced into the whole arrangement a degree of uncertainty and of casuality which was undesirable. But the chief objection of all, probably, was that it was utterly unbusiness like to ask Parliament to vote certain sums for specific purposes and then alter the destination of them. It was for Parliament to say how the money should be spent, and to take care it was appropriated to proper purposes. There was in the Schedule an item for miscellaneous charges, which he took to be contingencies; therefore the margin it was suggested should be allowed already existed in the Schedule. In any case, he thought a Government Department ought not to be dependent upon, casual sums for the purpose of making up defences. He, therefore, moved an Amendment which would prevent the authorities having the option of diverting funds voted by Parliament.

Amendment proposed, clause 4, page 2, line 18, leave out from "Schedule to end of sub-section (Sir A. Rollit)

*SIR U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH

said, that one result of the adoption of the hon. Gentleman's Amendment would be that in respect of some works the Department would be put to the greatest possible inconvenience, because those, works would have to be stopped. But the hon. Gentleman's proposition was really out of place. If the hon. Member wished to introduce an important change of this kind, and thus tie down Departments to exact items, he should raise the question in a general form. This Bill was in strict accordance with the rules which prevailed all through the expenditure under the Estimates; and having had, as a member of the Public Accounts Committee, a good deal of experience of accounts, he really did not see how they could possibly work the system in the restricted manner suggested.

MR. G. C. T. BARTLEY

was satisfied that, some elasticity was absolutely necessary. It would be simply impossible to carry on the work if no single item was allowed to be exceeded. It was a mistake to tie the Department down too rigidly to every particular item.

MR. E. T. GOURLEY

reminded the Secretary to the Admiralty that the general question had been dealt with over and over again. There were no greater offenders than the Admiralty in the matter of asking Parliament for money for one purpose and then spending it upon another. He hoped his hon. Friend would persevere with the Amendment, and that the Committee would tell the Admiralty that in future, when they got money for one purpose, they must not spend if upon a totally different one.

MR. W. ALLAN (Gateshead)

said, his experience of contracting led him to believe, that the Admiralty could not be tied down in the way suggested. He, therefore, hoped his hon. Friend would withdraw the Amendment.

MR. FORWOOD

said, he had had some experience of the work of the Admiralty, and he was of opinion it would be quite impracticable, to carry out the administration of the Department unless there was the elasticity which had been referred to. It was as well to point out that both the Army and Navy were subject to a particular Audit Act, under which the Auditor and Controller General was bound to bring to the notice of Parliament any questions of this sort, so that if the Treasury did give authority to the Admiralty to spend money voted for one purpose, upon another purpose, it was the duty of the Auditor and Controller General to report the fact to Parliament. He suggested that in Clause 6 in this Bill the new Audit Act should be enumerated as well as the Act of 1866.

*SIR ALBERT ROLLIT

said he thought it his duty to make, the protest. Having made it, he begged leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 4 agreed to.

Clauses 5, 6, and 7 agreed to.

New clauses.

THE CHAIRMAN

The first new clause—"Further application to Parliament"—standing in the name of the noble Lord the Member for Ealing, is out of order.

LORD GEORGE HAMILTON moved the second new clause standing in his name. The Secretary to the Admiralty would see that the object of it was that a statement should be annually laid before Parliament.

Page2, after Clause 6, insert the following clause:—

(Annual Account to be laid before Parliament.)

The Admiralty shall at the close of every financial year cause to be made an Account showing—

1. (1) The total cost of each work, and the expenditure thereon up to date;
2. (2) The period within which it is proposed to complete each work.

Such Account to be laid before Parliament. (Lord George Hamilton).

MR. ROBERTSON

said, the course the Government proposed to adopt was to introduce annually a Bill, not an auxiliary to any previous Bill, but a principal Bill which would stand alone. In each annual Bill they would give a schedule of progress showing the original estimate of the probable expenditure for the work up to the last day of the past financial year, the amount to be expended in the new financial year and the amount required to complete the work. That procedure would supply all the particulars and information required, and would be much better he thought than the procedure suggested in the proposed new clause.

MR. GOSCHEN

That would seem to be a very satisfactory arrangement; and I would ask the hon. Gentleman to consider, before the Third Reading, whether it could not be embodied in the present Bill as far as possible; and whether he could not state in the Schedule what works are commenced, how much money has already been expended, how much would be required for the financial year, and also the amount required to complete?

MR. ROBERTSON

That will certainly be considered.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. A. B. FORWOOD moved the following new Clause:— A summary of the contracts entered into by virtue of this Act for carrying out in whole or in part each work enumerated in the Schedule shall be laid before both Houses of Parliament within 90 days after the same is entered into if Parliament is then sitting; and, if not, then within 30 days after the next meeting of Parliament.'' The works the clause referred to were the detached mole at Gibraltar; break-water at Portland; Keyham Dockyard extension: Portsmouth Docks and Dover harbour. When the Naval Defence Bill was before the House a similar clause was inserted, requiring the Admiralty on entering into any contracts under the Bill to lay a summary of those contracts on the Table of the House within a certain period; and following that precedent he thought similar information should be accorded to the House in regard to works done under the present Bill.

MR. ROBERTSON

said, that no doubt the right hon. Gentleman had the precedent of the Naval Defence Act in proposing this Clause; but his inclination would be to have, rather than the periodical returns suggested, an annual summary of the contracts under the Bill laid upon the Table of the House.

MR. FORWOOD

said, all he wanted was that the information should be laid before Parliament; and he was quite satisfied with the assurance of the Civil Lord that a return in the spirit of the Clause would be annually furnished.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. FORWOOD moved as new Clause:— Before entering into a contract for the execution of a part or the whole of any one of the works enumerated in the Second Schedule hereto there shall have been laid before both Houses of Parliament general plans and particulars of such work, and after such plans and particulars have lain for 40 days Before Parliament, then unless within such forty days a Resolution disapproving thereof has been passed by either House, contracts for such works may be concluded and the same commenced. Parliament had placed in the hands of the Admiralty eight or nine millions, or perhaps more, of money for those works. They were relying on the discretion of the Admiralty to see that the money was spent to the best advantage on the works; but he thought that before embarking on the largest of those works at any rate, there should be an opportunity given to the House of seeing the plans and of considering them.

MR. ROBERTSON

said, he had no hesitation in giving an assurance that every facility would be afforded to any hon. Gentleman who wished to become acquainted with the particulars of any contract, to acquire the information he desired. But to the Clause itself, the Admiralty had a strong objection. Everyone would understand that it would not be desirable in some cases that the plans and particulars of the works should receive the publicity they would acquire by being brought before the House. Confidential information to individual hon. Members would be freely given; but the public exhibition of plans and particulars of works, some of which involved delicate considerations, was not desirable; and besides, such a course would delay the completion of the schemes. He trusted the right hon. Gentleman would accept this assurance and not press the point.

*SIR EDWARD HARLAND (Belfast, N.)

quite approved of the suggestion made in the clause of the right hon. Gentleman, the Member for Ormskirk. He, for one, should have been glad if he could have seen any of the plans referred to by the Civil Lord. He had not had an opportunity of seeing any of them, except the one in the tea-room, of the Keyham Docks. He had been invited to see no other plan, though he took the keenest interest in the subject. He should be the last, if such plans were brought before the House, to do anything that would at all make them public, but he thought that as unwise a course even as making such plans public was that which was now sometimes adopted by the chief officials of the Admiralty propounding theories and prescribing and describing the construction of battle ships before audiences at certain public institutions. This was just as prejudicial, if not more so, than the disclosing the knowledge of what docks were going to be constructed. He thought that while there was reticence with regard to the naval works on shore, the Government ought certainly to be urged to put a stop to that publicity—by means of addresses by Admiralty officials at learned institutions—as to the construction of warships which was now so common. It was not right for the Admiralty to send their officials to fight their technical battles for them before such institutions.

*MR. T. GIBSON BOWLES

did not think that the disclosure of such information as was asked for by the new clause was altogether advisable, and after the assurance which had been given him he trusted the right hon. Gentleman would withdraw his Amendment.

MR. FORWOOD

did not think the laying of plans on the table of the House would make matters any more public than they were made when a contract was entered into for the execution of work. He believed they, in this House, were kept more in ignorance of what was being done in connection with their vessels and naval works generally than were the members of foreign Governments. However, after the assurance the Civil Lord had given, he would withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

On the question that the schedule stand part of the Bill,

LORD GEORGE HAMILTON

said he had an Amendment on the paper proposing to add before ''Schedule" the word "First," his object being to provide that there should be two schedules, so that there would be contained in the second schedule any works which it, was not proposed presently to proceed with. Since he had put his Amendment down, the hon. Gentleman had proposed to add to the first schedule two other works, so that it practically included all the proposed works except one, which had been omitted. If all the works were included in the schedule except one, the inference would be that it was not proposed to proceed with the one, and he suggested that it would be worth while to bring in a schedule for a merely nominal sum, dealing with the one case.

MR. ROBERTSON

promised that the matter should receive consideration, and—

LORD GEORGE HAMILTON

intimated that in these circumstances he should not move his Amendment.

*MR. T. GIBSON BOWLES

proposed the following Amendment:—"Schedule, page 3, line 21, leave out; 'Portland Break water, £90,000.'" He moved this Amendment, he said, because, in his own opinion, and, as far as he could gather, in the opinion of competent naval authorities, and according to the teaching of all the masters of naval strategy, the making of a breakwater on the open sea in which to lodge their fleet was a mistaken and a wrong plan. Portland was not the place in which they should have a fleet at all in time of war. If ever they found themselves at war with any European country, the whole of their South coast, including Portland, no doubt, should be provided with small vessels, but their fleet should be kept where they were safe from torpedo destroyers and yet available for service, at such ports, for example, as Portsmouth, Plymouth, and Chatham. If they wanted another station, then they could have it in the Scilly Islands. He thought the plan of making breakwaters in places like Portland, within close reach of the opposite foreign coast and on the open sea would be to invite attack. The enemy could fire into the brown of their ships from two or three miles out in the open sea, whilst their own fleet, being huddled up together, could not return the fire It was not in places like Portland the should put their fleets in time of war but they should either put them in safe landlocked places like Chatham or Plymouth, or else keep at sea. If they put a fleet inside this breakwater they would box up their own ships, destroy the mobility of the fleet, and the more they tried to keep the torpedo out, the more they would keep their own ships in. In addition, they would have between them and any enemy outside, a breakwater which, at low water, might prevent their ships using their guns. It was true they defended their vessels from the torpedo as it at present existed, but they left them open to attack by the enemy from mortal boats, which might approach and shell them from several points. There was, again, the aerial torpedo, against which the breakwater would be no defence whatever. He considered that all these plans of torpedo breakwater defences were entirely wrong on the open sea. Their proper defence against the torpedo was not to have their fleet where a torpedo boat, could easily approach and attack with comparative impunity; but in the case of the South Coast, the proper stations for the fleet were Chatham, Plymouth and Portsmouth. As for their torpedo boat destroyers, they had ample accommodation for them already. It was, he thought, a most mischievous thing to make such an enclosure as they proposed at Portland. That great master of naval strategy, Lord St. Vincent, had told them that their reliance should not be placed on defence of this description, but that— our great reliance is on the vigilance and activity of our cruisers at sea. To make a half-and-half compromise was the greatest mistake. He begged to move his Amendment.

SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT

was sorry to be obliged entirely to differ from the views which his hon. Friend had just put before the House. He failed to see the appositeness of the quotation which the hon. Member made from Lord St. Vincent, because in those days torpedo boats were unknown and probably unforeseen.

*MR. T. GIBSON BOWLES

At that date Fulton had already submitted his submarine torpedo-boat to our Admiralty.

SIR E. ASHMEAD BARTLETT

did not think, as a rule, that torpedo-boats were looked upon by British Admirals of those days as a quantity which must be regarded. Now, with regard to Portland generally, he had had the opportunity of hearing the opinions of many distinguished officers of the Navy, some of them men admitted on all sides to be of the highest authority on naval strategy and warfare, and he never heard but one opinion as to the great value of Portland as a naval station. He also differed from his hon. Friend's recommendation of Scilly as a station for the Fleet. The islands were a long way off the coast. The accommodation was not ample. In case we lost command of the sea for a few days or weeks, the station at Scilly would be entirely cut off. And another argument against Scilly was that it would be impossible there to observe the passage of vessels along the French coast. The distance was too great, whereas Portland was opposite Brest and Cherbourg. By placing our fleet in Portland with an outpost of torpedo-boats, and watching cruisers close to the island of Alderney, we had almost an ideal position for watching the movements of the French fleet in Brest or Cherbourg. For these reasons he supported very strongly the proposal of the Government to ask for the additional breakwater at Portland.

MR. E. T. GOURLEY

contended that the expenditure proposed on Portland breakwater was a sheer waste of money. It was totally unnecessary. Portland could only be used for coaling purposes and as a harbour of refuge. For those purposes there was now ample accommodation, and hence he hoped Parliament would refuse to vote this £90,000.

CAPTAIN BETHELL (York, E. R., Holderness)

was of opinion that it would be of the most enormous use to be able to send men-of-war into Portland where they would be safely protected from the attacks of torpedoes. It would make Portland a fortified Spithead.

MR T. LOUGH (Islington, W.)

thought this whole expenditure was an example of how, when we undertake works of this kind, we cannot be satisfied with a moderate programme, but must needs launch out into something quite unnecessary. Alderney had been mentioned. That was a place on which millions had been sunk, and it ought to be a warning. He did not desire to offer opposition to Devonport or Dover, which were most useful harbours, but everything spent on portland would be proved in the long run to be money thrown away. He should support the hon. Member if he went to a Division.

SIR GEORGE BADEN-POWELL

thought, the expenditure proposed was a comparatively small item, considering that it would make of Portland a complete harbour for war purposes. It was not as if they were constructing a new harbour; they were only making full use of the money already expended upon the place. As his hon. and gallant Friend had remarked, the scheme would make of Portland a fortified Spithead.

MR. ROBERTSON

said, his hon. Friend the Member for West Islington had pronounced in the most confident manner that the whole expenditure on Portland Harbour would be thrown away, He gave his word for that. No doubt his hon. Friend would be ready to extend a similar assurance to every item proposed in this Bill or any future Bill.

MR. LOUGH

I expressly said I approved of expenditure on Dover and Devonport.

MR. ROBERTSON

said, his hon. Friend expressed a strong opinion against the proposed expenditure in terms which justified what he had just said. The present controversy, however, was not raised by him but by the hon. Member for King's Lynn. Now, he had always acknowledged the authority of his hon. Friend on questions of this sort. He was afraid that the Admiralty must be content to be guided by the living authorities whom it could consult. He could not call Lord St. Vincent to whom the hon. Member had alluded, but he would call one of his living successors, who said that the construction of an enclosed Harbour at Portland was a necessity imposed upon the State by the conditions of modern warfare, because fleets in open anchorage were, exposed to night attacks by torpedo boats, and the positions selected for enclosure were all of primary strategical importance.

*MR. T. GIBSON BOWLES

Is that public?

MR. ROBERTSON

said it would be public to-morrow, and he would give his hon. Friend the name. Looking at the matter from a technical and strategical point of view, he thought the hon. Member must be content to be the, only man in the House who took the view he did, and he hoped he would not press his Amendment.

MR. T. LOUGH

said that he did not want a million thrown away, and the amount was certain to be a million before the work was done. He had not said a word agoinst any of the other important works.

*MR. T. GIBSON BOWLES

said he must assert his deep conviction of the mischief of this work by taking a Division.

LORD GEORGE HAMILTON

said, that of all the money spent on anchorages the most valuable was that spent on Portland.

The Committee divided:—Ayes, 9; Noes, 283—(Division List No. 51.)

CAPTAIN DONELAN (Cork, E.) moved: Schedule, page 3, line 25, in left-hand column, leave out "Haul-bowline," and in right-hand column, leave out, "300,000," and insert "290,000." Schedule, page 3, after line 25, insert,—

Haulbowline

Deepening approach channel & other purposes

10,000

He said that he felt compelled to adopt this course, which had the unanimous support and approval of the Party with whom he acted, in consequence of the very inadequate and unsatisfactory statements of the Civil Lord as to the question of Haulbowline raised on the Second Reading of the Bill. He thought it would be admitted by all parties that the Irish Members were not making any extravagant demand. They only asked that the solitary Government dockyard in Ireland should be placed in a position to enable, all the repairs required by H.M.'s ships on Irish stations to be carried out there. It was but a small return to make to Ireland in view of the contributions which that country was called upon to make towards the maintenance of the Navy. Last year an undertaking was given that all these repairs should in future, as far as possible, be executed at Haul-bowline. Looking at the present incomplete condition of that dockyard no one could fail to see that it was still without many of the requisite appliances for undertaking extensive repairs. As a proof of this statement, he mentioned that when he visited Haulbowline during the Easter Recess he was informed on excellent authority that the Queenstown guardship Warspite was sent across the Channel to undergo overhauling in an English dockyard. He wondered what the workmen of English ports would say if their guardships were sent across to Ireland every time they needed repairs. He thought that very soon an effective protest would be raised. He presumed that Ireland was expected to put up with this kind of treatment because she was accustomed to do so without a murmur. The amount estimated by the superintending engineer and the superintending chief clerk at Haulbowline for works considered by them to be absolutely indispensable to its proper equipment as a repairing yard was £10,000. He hoped that the Admiralty would give due weight to the recommendations of those competent officials, and also favourable consideration to this small claim on behalf of Haulbowline, compared with the vast expenditure in English dockyards.

MR. WILLIAM O'BRIEN (Cork)

said, that there was undoubtedly a strong feeling in Ireland upon this subject, and he hoped that the hon. Member the Civil Lord of the Admiralty would be able to give the House some assurance that the Admiralty would pay serious attention to the demand of Irish Members, that some portion of the enormous sum that was voted for the Navy would be spent in Ireland. The Admiralty proceeded by fits and starts, and had no regular programme for the carrying out the repairs of the Navy. It was most important to the efficiency of the Navy that there should be some station on the southern coast of Ireland at which Her Majesty's ships could be repaired, instead of their having to run across the channel, perhaps in the face of an enemy's fleet. He thought that some competent naval body should be appointed to inquire into the matter.

MR. WILLIAM REDMOND (Clare, E.)

said, that it was beyond doubt that if the Government had the will to do so they might find a way of spending a fair proportion of the sum voted for the Navy in Ireland. For instance, a large part of the necessary supplies required for the Navy might be procured in Ireland. It might be that these matters had got into certain grooves which it was difficult to get out of, but the Government ought to be prepared to face small difficulties of that character, and to be prepared to return to the Irish people some small portion, at all events, of the enormous sums that were voted for the Navy, to which Ireland was made to contribute an unjust and disproportionate share. The Irish people did not care twopence about the British Navy, which they regarded as a means for drawing large sums of money from Ireland, for which that country got no return. In England the most Radical Member might console himself by believing that, whatever sums were expended upon the British Navy, a considerable proportion of them went into the pockets of the working men, and contributed to the welfare of the general community; but that was not the case in Ireland, the trade of which was not assisted in the slightest degree by this enormous expenditure upon the Navy. He trusted that the hon. Gentleman the civil Lord of the Admiralty would be able to give the House some assurance that Ireland would in future obtain a fair and reasonable share of the benefit afforded by the expenditure of this enormous sum of money.

MR. ROBERTSON

said, that he hoped hon. Members representing Ireland would not think it out of place or out of temper in him to say that the question of nationality, that had been introduced into this topic, hardly impressed his mind as it seemed to impress them; because if they were Irish Members he was a Scotch Member, and if Ireland had got Haulbowline Scotland had got no such dockyard at all. He thought that the Irish Members must concede this much, that the Admiralty must deal with Haulbowbowline, as with other dockyards, upon business principles, and from the point of view of what was best for the advantage of the Navy. This was not a mere matter of sentiment, although he did not deny that sentiment might very legitimately come in, and, from a sentimental point of view, no officer connected with the Navy had taken greater interest in the matter than he had done, He had visited Haulbowline himself, and had been much impressed with the comparatively desolate scene. The vast dock, the tremendous machinery that had been erected for keeping that dock in order, and the small amount of business going on had combined to make a great impression on his mind. But the present Board of Admiralty was not responsible for the construction of the dockyard at Haulbowline. The idea when it was constructed was, not that it should be a regular dockyard, but a dockyard available for cases of emergency, such as war, and that, therefore, it would not be necessary to keep up a full staff in the dockyard. In addition to that it was thought that the dockyard should be available for small repairs for ships cruising in Irish waters. For some past years there seemed to have been a growing recognition of the possible utility of this place, and this was reflected in the amounts that had been provided in the Estimates. In l892–3 £1,987 was spent in connection with vessels at Haulbowline; in 1893–4 £3,408 was spent; and in 1894–5 there had, he believed, been a still greater increase of expenditure. During the same period the expenditure in the plant necessary to complete the dock, for the purposes which he had described, had steadily increased. In 1893–4,£3,550 was provided for under the Works Vote in the Estimates; last year £6,280 was the amount taken under the same Vote, and this year the amount which would be expended on the works and buildings in the yard would be £6,695. These figures showed that the possible utility of the yard had been recognised more and more by the Board of Admiralty. The hon. Member for West Clare had spoken of the want of interest of the Irish people in the Navy in consequence of the treatment which they had received. He would remind the hon. Member that Haulbowline was not the only naval item that ought to interest the Irish people. Even in the locality of Cork there were other naval works, and an addition had lately been made to these interesting items by the establishment of a training ship in the harbour. It was very gratifying to the head of the Admiralty Board, who had been connected so intimately with Ireland in past times, that he should have been the first to make this addition to the naval equipment of Ireland. The hon. Member for West Clare underrated Irish interest in the Navy. The Irish part of the personnel of the Navy had always been most distinguished; there were Irishmen in all ranks who added lustre to the Service. Reference had been made to the contract portion of the expenditure of the Navy, and that expenditure had been put at £28,000,000 for this year. That was £8,000,000 or more too much, the total expenditure, this year being about £19,000,000. For contract work Ireland, Scotland, and England were equally entitled to compete, and no preference was given to one part of the Kingdom as against any other part, But because a contract went, say, to Barrow, it did not follow that all the money paid in respect of that contract was spent in Barrow. Of the sum of £600,000 under a contract in Glasgow in connection with the Terrible, only half was spent in that place. The subcontracts necessary in order to execute the work were scattered over the United Kingdom. Therefore it must not be assumed that when a contract went to one place the whole of the money involved went there also. As he had said, Haulbowline Dock was to be used as an emergency dock in time of war, and for minor repairs in time of peace. If there was anything still to be done to complete the fitness of the dock for those purposes he thought it would be done. He had been asked to give an assurance that a competent naval inquiry would be made as to the present condition of the yard and the possible uses to which it could be put. Without committing himself to anything definite, he undertook to communicate with the First Lord on the subject, as it was worthy of consideration.

MR. J. C. FLYNN (Cork County, N.)

was glad that they had come to something like close quarters with the Civil Lord of the Admiralty. The hon. Member had said that the Naval authorities must proceed on business principles, and on business principles the Irish Members challenged the hon. Gentleman They said that Haulbowline Dockyard had cost about £800,000, that its position was excellent, and yet that no use was made of it except for the purpose of patching up a few ships. He was glad that an assurance had now been given that the Admiralty Would institute an inquiry as to the possible uses of this dockyard. He rather thought that the Civil Lord's statement that Haulbowline Dockyard was intended chiefly for use in time of war was inspired by the Admiralty in order to account for their neglect of the dockyard. But were they really expected to believe that a dockyard which was completely neglected, which was without proper plant and machinery, and which was not properly dredged, could, in the sudden event of war, be used for the purpose of repairing disabled ships? The idea was ridiculous. In the spring of last year the Chief Secretary for Ireland visited Haulbowline and it was pointed out to him by deputation that for about £20,000 the dockyard could be made available and could be worked provided ships were sent there in regular succession. The right hon. Gentleman promised to communicate that view to the Admiralty authorities, but no one had ever heard whether they had given heed to his representations. What Irish members now suggested to the Board of Admiralty was this, that if they were not prepared to make Haulbowline a yard for the construction of ships at present, they should at all events make it a repairing yard for the refitting and repairing of the ships on the Irish station. But it would be quite possible to make the dockyard available for building smaller vessels of war. He was glad they had had an assurance, though it, was by no means satisfactory, from the Civil Lord, and he hoped that in the near future the Admiralty would address themselves to the condition of this dockyard in all seriousness, and that it would not be the duty of the Irish members to bring up this question time after time in order to remind the Admiralty that they were neglecting an available dockyard.

CAPTAIN BETHELL

submitted that the Committee ought to be guided in this matter only by the importance of the dockyard in question. The south coast of Ireland was, strategically speaking, admirably situated, but he did not think that any dock there would be useful until one of the harbours was so defended as to make it possible to use it for war vessels. Until that was done Irish members would try in vain to get any considerable sum of money spent on Haulbowline. He submitted, therefore, to Irish members that they should impress that point upon the Government from time to time. If they got that done they would gain a point in the defence of the Empire, and might take pride to themselves upon it.

MR. MICHAEL AUSTIN (Limerick, W.)

said that during all the three years he had been in the House he had failed to find that the promises of the Government in regard to Haulbowline had been in any way realised. The Civil Lord had stated that this dock was originally built for the express purpose of its being utilised in time of war. The foundation-stone of the dock was laid 26 years ago by the present First Lord of the Admiralty when Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, and now they were to be told that it was only when war broke out that the Admiralty would furnish the dock with the necessary appliances. If, even in the course of three months, the English nation found itself in conflict with an enemy, could it be supposed that Haulbowline could be furnished with the proper appliances? It was more like a graveyard now than anything else. There was another matter that had been forced on the Government from time to time in connection with this dockyard. Irish members had strong reason to complain of the Government, not alone of this Government, but of every Government, but they would have to complain in a more effective manner still. The repairs to the ships on the Irish coast ought certainly to be executed at Haulbowline. He found that from 1888 to 1892 the cost of the repairs to ships on the Irish coast, amounted to £27,000, but all that money was spent in England. In the same period only,£1,100 was spent at Haulbowline. It had been generally estimated that £15,000 would put the dockyard in a sufficiently fit state to meet the requirements for the repairs to the vessels on the Irish coast. The Chief Secretary for Ireland had expressed himself favourably to the idea last year in a reply to an address from the Cork Chamber of Commerce, and he would like to know whether he had used his good offices with the Admiralty in connection with this matter. He contended that a strong case had been made out in favour of Haulbowline dockyard being placed on such a basis as would allow of vessels being repaired there; and he thought that project was one that should meet with the approbation of every member of the House.

DR. TANNER (Mid. Cork)

said, the Government ought at least to spend a little money on the hospital at Haulbowline; it was sadly in need of help to make it efficient. As regarded the place itself they ought to remember the original plans that were submitted to the present First Lord of the Admiralty when he laid the first stone of the dockyard buildings. Two graving docks were to be constructed, in addition to that now existing, to enable the Admiralty to dock their ships in time of war. There was hardly a better defended harbour in Great Britain or one more capable of accommodating the whole English Fleet. Bearing these facts in mind he asked the Government to devote more money to developing the dockyard.

*MR. ALFRED WEBB (Waterford, W.),

as representing an adjoining constituency, had given some attention to the question of Haulbowline, and thought that Irish Members ought to be treated fairly and squarely on this subject. It looked as if there were some other reason besides the want of money for the failure to make Haulbowline more efficient: if there were and if they were told the reason, perhaps it would satisfy them. If it were an accepted fact that there should be only so many dockyards, and if this was not to be one of them, let it be stated and then they would understand why money was not spent there. Whenever he was at Cork he looked upon Haulbowline almost as a joke. They were entitled to have the place made efficient or to be told why it was not made so.

*SIR U. KAY SHUTTLEWORTH

said it had already been pointed out that the effect of the Amendment would be to limit what the Government could expend at Haulbowline. He should astonish the Committee if he were to tell them of the recommendations they received from local officials to spend money on dockyards; to meet those demands would require the addition of millions to the Navy Estimates. All the Admiralty could do was to make a selection from the suggestions that were submitted to them and to do the best they could with the money available. Reference had been made to the case of the Apollo, which could not be repaired at the dockyard; but since that time it had been very greatly improved, and the improvements would enable much more to be done than could be done two or three years ago. The object of the Admiralty had been, as far as possible, to carry out here the repair of ships that were on the Irish station; but in cases of grave difficulty it would still be necessary to send to England. After the assurances given by the Civil Lord he hoped it would be recognised that there was a kindly feeling at the Admiralty towards Ireland, and that it acted with a desire to meet the just wishes of the Irish people. The young men who entered the Navy from Ireland turned out well, and the Admiralty were establishing a training ship at Queenstown. He hoped that in the circumstances the Amendment would not be pressed to a Division.

MR. T. SEXTON (Kerry, N.)

could not admit that the efficiency and bravery of Irishmen was any reason why the dockyard should remain unused. He was at a loss to understand why successive Governments allowed this cause of irritation and discontent to remain. It was not a matter of great financial importance. A satisfactory response to the claims of Irish Members would involve a comparatively insignificant expenditure; and a strong complaint might be made on the ground of the disparity in taxation between England and Ireland. He was content to treat the matter on business principles. He accepted the dictum of the Civil Lord, and said that an intelligent treatment of the matter on business principles would satisfy their judgment. The British people would not allow capital to go to waste. In this case £800,000 had been expended; and it was admitted that this was not to be wasted in time of war or of emergency. Undoubtedly if a war arose suddenly it would be useless; and, apart from war, if an emergency arose the dockyard was not in a fit state to enable repairs to be executed. If, as he understood the Civil Lord to promise, inquiries were to be, made with a view to ascertain whether the yard could be put in a condition to enable repairs to be executed there, and if there was to be an inquiry by a competent expert to satisfy the Admiralty as to the extent to which the dockyard could, on business principles, be employed to the public advantage, he was content for the present to accept the assurances that had been given and to ask the Mover of the Amendment not to press it.

CAPTAIN DONELAN

said, as he understood the Civil Lord to give these explicit undertakings, he would accept the advice given and withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment by leave withdrawn.

MR. EGERTON ALLEN (Pembroke District)

strongly urged increased expenditure by the Government on Pembroke Dockyard. He said he was not seeking any advantage for his constituents. The subject received the attention of the First Lord of the Admiralty and also of the Civil Lord of the Admiralty in the late Government, and it had also received the support of Liberal Officials at the Admiralty. Everyone knew that Milford Haven was the largest and finest port in the world; most people knew it was well-fortified and absolutely secure from attack from outside, and possessed an amount of water which enabled it to receive the Great Eastern, which often went to Milford. The dockyard had been used by the Admiralty for building very large ships. Therefore, from its fortified condition, depth of water, and splendid position, Pembroke Dockyard was a dockyard upon which money might safely and freely be spent by the Admiralty. It was not a fitting or finishing yard. Ships had to go to Chatham or Devonport to be finished. He asked that accommodation should be provided at Pembroke Dockyard which would enable the largest ships to be fitted and finished there. In 1885 a deputation waited on the then First Lord of the Admiralty and asked him for money to improve Pembroke Dockyard, and he told them——

It being ten minutes to 7 o'clock the the debate stood adjourned, and progress was reported.