APPLICATION OF SURPLUS INCOME OF YEAR 1895–6 FOR EXPENSES OF SCHEDULED WORKS.

HC Deb 26 March 1896 vol 39 cc188-233

"Such sum as is shown by the account certified by the Comptroller and Auditor General under section four of the Sinking Fund Act, 1875, to be the surplus of income above expenditure for the financial year ending the thirty-first day of March one thousand eight hundred and ninety six shall, instead of being applied as provided by the above-mentioned Act, be set apart in the Exchequer account and applied by the Treasury, at such times as they direct, as follows:—

1. (a) in paying off with interest any sum borrowed under the Naval Works Act, 1895;
2. (b) in repaying to the Consolidated Fund any sums issued in pursuance of the Naval Works Act, 1895, and not already repaid;
3. (c) in paying any sums authorised by this or any future Act to be issued out of the Consolidated Fund for the purpose of the works specified in the schedule to this Act."

SIR JOHN LUBBOCK (London University) moved to omit sub section C, which authorises the surplus of income above expenditure of the present financial year being applied, inter alia, "in paying any sums authorised by this or any future Act to be issued out of the Consolidated Fund for the purpose of the works specified in the schedule to this Act." He was afraid that the subsection involved an interference with the Sinking Fund under which we had paid off 150 millions of debt during the last 25 years. He protested against interfering with the Sinking Fund. The matter, however, was one of some complexity, and he should be glad if the right hon. Gentleman would give an explanation how the sub-section would work.

MR. GIBSON BOWLES (Lynn Regis)

, who had an Amendment on the. Paper having very much the same object, said, it seemed to him that this subsection proposed to take the realised surplus of this year, put it into a box, and then to give an unlimited authority to the Treasury to dispose of it as it pleased in making these works. He conceived that it was quite exceptional and irregular to give such unlimited authority; and that the proper way was to give authority to expend a sum "not exceeding" a specified amount. The three main objections to the subsection, therefore, were, first of all, the authority to expend the money was unlimited. It expended a large sum of money—£6,000,000 or £7,000,000—of which £8,000,000 were already taken, perhaps more. The sum was more than was required for the purpose of the Act, which only contemplated the expenditure, under this Bill, of £2,750,000; and, finally, this sub-section assumed to pass a future Act of Parliament.

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

regretted extremely any attempt to do away with the present system of reducing the debt. It seemed to him that there was a great danger in making a change in what he thought was a fundamental principle of their finance. When there was to be a large expenditure on the Navy he believed that the public would not grudge it. One or two enthusiastic persons had written to The Times stating that they were willing to go on paying a larger income-tax if necessary to secure an efficient Navy. He was a great believer in this enthusiasm, but he thought that the real way to show it was by our paying now the cost of this expenditure. If the country wanted these ships—and he agreed in the large addition to the Navy—surely the best proof of their earnestness was that they should now pay for them, and not make the reduction of the debt the means of paying.

*SIR JAMES FERGUSSON (Manchester, N. E.)

thought that the line of argument which had been pursued was scarcely in harmony with the general feeling of the public or of the majority of the House. No doubt it would be a great pity if the reduction of the debt was interfered with; but would it be desirable to increase taxation rather than apply the realised surplus to the formation of permanent works primarily designed for the security of the Empire? Again, to apply the unforeseen surplus temporarily to those works and to re-borrow our Treasury Bonds, would be to repeat what Mr. Pitt had attempted to maintain the Sinking Fund while he increased the debt. That would be financial purism of the highest degree. They recognised that the Government had made out an ample case for the institution of these works for the security of the Empire. We had a large realised surplus in hand, and it could not be applied to a more legitimate purpose than the one suggested.

THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. G. J. GOSCHEN,) St. George's, Hanover Square

thought that no one would be less inclined to diminish the ordinary methods of reducing the Debt than the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and if his right hon. Friend and himself had believed that what hon. Gentlemen had indicated would be the result, he thought that he might say they would not have been parties to any proposal of the kind. But the question which was presented to his right hon. Friend and himself was whether they should pay off the debt in present circumstances and borrow again the same amount the next day—whether they should go into the. money market with a large surplus which would be realised this year, or whether the simpler and more businesslike proposal was to set aside this surplus instead of borrowing it, instead of paying off the debt with one hand and raising it by annuities with the other. The difficulty of purchasing Consols also operated with his right hon. Friend and himself. The hon. Member for North Islington said that the Government ought to proceed by taxation rather than by borrowing; but he asked the Committee to remember that they were so far within the sums with which they had to deal, and were acting upon a policy which was initiated by the late Government, and endorsed by the House—namely, for these works the Government should proceed by borrowing and not by taxation. The Government were not now starting afresh; they had before them £8,000,000 or more sanctioned by the House to be borrowed by an Act of last year. The amount was not sanctioned, but the works were sanctioned costing about that amount. This was a general defence with regard to proceeding by loans instead of by taxation for these works. As to the arguments of the right hon. Member for the University of London relating to Sub-section c, he said that the Committee must distinguish between two sums—£2,750,000 to be authorised by this Bill, and any further amount which might remain over. The objections of the hon. Member for King's Lynn applied to the latter. The hon. Gentleman was too sanguine in the figures he quoted. He was informed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the sum which would remain over would not amount to millions; indeed, they would scarcely be counted by hundreds of thousands; the sum would be less than a quarter of a million. Therefore, the figures in question were not large. The Government were not asking the House to anticipate any great expenditure.

MR. COURTNEY

said, that the effect of the clause, as he read it, would be to interfere with, the redemption of the permanent debt to which the money proposed to be dealt with would be applied under the old law. The Government were proposing to stop the reduction of the permanent debt in order to avoid incurring a temporary debt. The First Lord of the Admiralty said that it would be absurd to apply this money to the reduction of the permanent debt on the one hand, and on the other to borrow an equivalent sum. That would, no doubt, be true if the two debts could be thought to have the same character, but as they could not, the absurdity disappeared.

SIR J. LUBBOCK

feared that the credit of the country would be seriously damaged if it should be thought abroad that we could not make an arrangement of this kind without tampering with the arrangements for the reduction of the debt.

*THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir MICHAEL HICKS BEACH,) Bristol, W.

denied that the course which the Government proposed to take would weaken our credit in the estimation of foreign nations. He drew a very broad distinction between the old Sinking Fund and the Sinking Fund in- cluded in the annual fixed charge for debt, and the latter would be maintained intact. A sum of £7,250,000, being more than had ever been specifically allotted in a year to the payment of debt, would be devoted to that purpose this year. The old Sinking Fund consisted of casual and spasmodic receipts from surplus revenue beyond the expenditure of the year. There had not been before in their time so large a surplus as the probable surplus of the present year, although it would not approach the amount which some hon. Members anticipated. A surplus, as the Committee were aware, might be applied to the reduction of the debt 12 months after the end of the financial year in which it had accrued. If the surplus to which the 4th Clause of the Bill referred were not applied as there proposed, it would remain for a year in the Treasury balances. The Government, if they were debarred from using it, would have to borrow, and 12 months hence when, to judge from present appearances, the Consol market might be even higher than it was now, the surplus would have to be applied to the redemption of Consols at a price higher perhaps than 110. It was not to the interest of the country that they should buy largely Consols at 110. It was, he thought, fairer to their successors that the reduction of the permanent debt should be stopped to this extent, than that they should be charged with a large sum for the payment of these permanent works, some of which, at any rate, ought to have been constructed before. He protested strongly against the suggestion that by this process the Government were doing anything whatever to weaken the credit of the country in the eyes of the world.

*SIR W. HARCOURT

said, that the distinction which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had made between the old Sinking Fund—which was the realised surplus—and the new Sinking Fund was a sound one. There was no one, he thought in that House who had more persistently maintained the duty of reducing the debt than he had himself. He had fulfilled that duty even in very difficult circumstances, when, by disregarding it, he might have avoided many burdens on the revenue of the year. The realised surplus was really what might be called an unexpected windfall, and there had rarely accrued such a large sum as fell this year into the Exchequer under the realised surplus of the year. Of course the regular funds for the redemption of the debt were the annuities in connection with the new Sinking Fund, and these, happily, would amount to some £6,000,000 or £7,000,000. Then there came in this unexpected windfall of several millions. Whilst he thought that the point which had been taken by the right hon. Member for Bodmin was a perfectly true one, the question was whether in what might, he hoped, be called exceptional circumstances, an exceptional surplus should be treated in this manner. He himself was prepared to consent to it, really in the interest of the redemption of the debt. ["Hear, hear!"] They must, however, take care they did not make the country impatient with the amount which was set aside in any particular year or in any particular generation for the redemption of the debt, for if in any particular year they made that sum too large they might be endangering the permanent provision for the redemption of the debt. ["Hear, hear!"] He certainly hoped that no Government would ever consent to dealing with and diminishing the Permanent Fund in the form of annuities for the redemption of the debt. That Permanent Fund was really for this country what other countries had in the shape of a war chest. It was a fund by which they could raise in an emergency, without adding to the taxation, great sums of money for the necessities of war, and therefore he hoped there was nothing in this proposal which would tend to endanger that provision. He should also hope that in ordinary times and under ordinary circumstances nothing would induce the Government to divert even the old Sinking Fund from the purpose to which it was by Statute applied. It was necessary, in this Bill, to get Parliamentary authority for the dealing with the old Sinking Fund this year, and this year only. It left that general principle and the application of the old Sinking Fund, as well as the other Sinking Fund intact in the future. If the old Sinking Fund of another year was to be dealt with, Parliamentary authority must be obtained for that purpose, and because there were exceptional circumstances in this year, and they were dealing with an exceptional surplus that had accrued, he had not felt it his duty to object to the provisions of this Bill. ["Hear, hear!"]

MR. COURTNEY

suspected that many Members of the Committee thought that by this process they were saving the country a deal of taxation. But what would be the effect of this process even if carried out to the extent of £6,000,000 of money? Instead of applying it to the redemption of the Permanent Debt, they were going to prevent the creation of terminable annuities. If they applied it to the redemption of the Debt they would extinguish an annual charge of £175,000; if they applied it to the matter of terminable annuities it would be £225,000. The whole saving, therefore, embodied in this process was something like £50,000 or £60,000 a year, and it was for the purpose of that they were going through a process that would impress the popular mind with the idea that they were granting £6,000,000 of money and applying it to an emergent necessity, whereas they were diverting it from one form of debt to prevent the creation of another form.

MR. WILLIAM REDMOND (Clare, E.)

hoped the right hon. Member for London University would not be induced to withdraw the Amendment. His objection to Clause 4 was that he did not think the proposal to increase the Navy was treating the people in a straightforward manner. If the Government wanted the people to pay several millions more for the Navy this year let them have the courage to do it by the imposition of a tax at once instead of endeavouring to do it by a side wind, for the people in the end would have to bear extra taxation to pay for it. They were dealing with this surplus in a light and airy fashion, but he would like to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he could tell them the amount of the surplus, and give them some explanation on the subject?

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

No.

MR. W. REDMOND

said, it seemed to him an extraordinary thing they should be asked to deal with a surplus as to which they had no definite information.

*MR. F. G. BANBURY (Camberwell, Peckham)

observed that the contention of the right hon. Member for the London University that the proposal of the Government was likely to affect the financial credit of this country was disproved by the fact that since the proposals were made Consols had risen, and were now higher than ever they had been before, and this notwithstanding the fact that the surplus was not going to be invested in Consols. There had, indeed, been a continual rise in the price of the Stocks since the proposal was made.

SIR JOHN LUBBOCK

observed that the hon. Member for Peckham had exaggerated what he had said, which was that he was sorry that the Government could not meet this exceptional expenditure without interfering with the Sinking Fund. He was obliged to the hon. Member for East Clare for his support, but after the discussion that had taken place he would ask leave to withdraw his Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

On the question that Clause 4 stand part of the Bill,

MR. W. REDMOND moved as an Amendment that the clause be omitted, again advancing the argument that they were dealing with a surplus of which they knew absolutely nothing. The Bill was not regarded with satisfaction by the Irish people, and he considered it little short of a disgrace that many of the Irish Members should not be there to voice the protest which their constituents expected them to make. By their absence such hon. Members were neglecting their duty, and did not deserve to be called Nationalist representatives. There was not a single Nationalist Member who, in view of the strong feeling of the Irish people in this matter, would attempt for a single moment to justify anything in this Bill or in this particular clause to his constituents. They were opposed to it to a man, and if the Nationalist Members were not present he would, at any rate, call for a Division and see if any of them were in the House. [Laughter.]

*THE CHAIRMAN

then put the Question that Clause 4 stand part of the Bill, and ruled that the "Ayes" had it.

MR. W. REDMOND

claimed that, "The Noes have it."

*THE CHAIRMAN

requested those who challenged his decision to rise in their places, whereupon several Irish and Radical Members stood up. The Chairman counted them and said; The Noes are 20; so the Ayes have it. [Laughter.]

On Clause 5,

MR. W. REDMOND moved the omission of the clause from the Bill as a protest against the proposed increase of expenditure on the Navy, saying he was convinced that there were many Members who were prepared to vote with him.

Question put, "That Clause 5 stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided:—Ayes, 300; Noes, 22.—(Division List, No. 67.)

MR. W. REDMOND

, on a point of order, said that, in a case in which the Chairman required the supporters of an Amendment to stand up and be counted, the Standing Order required that the names of the Members should be taken down. He knew that many more than twenty Members supported his Amendment; some of these were at the Bar, and some outside the door and in the Division Lobby, whither they had gone in anticipation of a Division.

*THE CHAIRMAN

said he had carried out the rule of the House, Standing Order 215, which was as follows:— After the lapse of two minutes, as indicated by the sand-glass upon the Table, Mr. Speaker, or the Chairman, if in his opinion the Division is frivolously or vexatiously claimed, may take the vote of the House, or Committee, by calling upon the Members who support, and who challenge his decision, successively to rise in their places; and he, thereupon, as he may think fit, either declares the determination of the House or Committee, or names-Tellers for a Division. In case there is no Division, the Speaker or Chairman declares to the House, or the Committee, the number of the minority who had challenged his decision, and their names are thereupon taken down in the House and printed with the List of Divisions. He counted all the Members who were within the House; some rose outside the Bar, and these he purposely did not count. The names of the twenty had been taken down; and the subsequent Division showed that the number was not very far wrong.

MR. W. REDMOND

said, the names of the twenty Members that had been taken down did not at all represent the support his Motion would have received.

MR. H. J. WILSON (York, N. R., Holmfirth)

The rule requires that the names shall be taken down forthwith. They were not taken down. ["They were."]

*THE CHAIRMAN

I beg your pardon, Sir; the names of the hon. Members who stood up were taken down forthwith by the Clerks at the Table, and will appear in the Votes to-morrow morning.

On the Schedule,

*MR. HERBERT LEWIS (Flint Boroughs) moved, in page 4, line 15, column 5, to leave out "£300,000" and to insert "£250,000." This, he said, was one of a series of Amendments, the object of which was to secure a a sum of £150,000 to be spent upon necessary works at Pembroke Dockyard. The Bill provided for the expenditure of £14,000,000 upon naval works and dockyards in various parts of Great Britain and other parts of the Empire. The noble Lord the Secretary for India (Lord George Hamilton) had said that Pembroke Dockyard was one of the most modern of all the dockyards, and the harbour one of the finest natural harbours in Great Britain. The enormous sum of £2,500,000 was to be spent at Gibraltar; and a part of it, at all events, could be more efficiently and economically spent upon some of the dockyards at home. He moved that the £300,000 allocated to Gibraltar be reduced to £250,000, partly by way of protest against the heavy expenditure and partly to obtain the money necessary to carry on the permanent works at Pembroke Dockyard. The Civil Lord of the Admiralty had taunted Members with desiring in the same breath to diminish and to increase the Estimates; but they were perfectly consistent in saying that the amount to be expended at one place was too large, and the amount allocated to another place not large enough. It was the allocation of the money he objected to, and therefore he moved the Amendment.

THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY

hoped the hon. Gentleman would not think him wanting in courtesy if he did not Debate at that stage the question of the works at Pembroke. He would only say he hoped the Committee would not diminish the amount intended for Gibraltar, for it was all needed. He also hoped the hon. Gentleman would not divide the Committee on his Amendment, but would content himself with raising the whole question of Pembroke Docks at a later stage.

The Committee divided:—Ayes, 294; Noes, 41.—(Division List, No. 68.)

ADMIRAL FIELD (Sussex, Eastbourne) moved, in the Schedule, page 4, line 17, column6 (Dover), to leave out "1905–6," and insert "1900–1." He said that the Dover Harbour Works were among those to which the First Lord of the Admiralty had alluded when he said that ''some of them ought to have been constructed before; and that was an argument for hastening the completion.'' If the Government were in earnest, how could they coolly put down 10 years for the completion of Dover Harbour? In 1883, the present Leader of the Opposition, then Home Secretary, said that the question of Dover Harbour had been considered by a Committee of the Cabinet, and they had come to the conclusion that the Dover works were amongst the first which ought to be undertaken. Thirteen years had passed, and nothing had been done. The question was now of greater importance, and time was of the essence of it.

THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY

The date given in the Schedule is supposed to be the shortest time within which the work can be completed. As much labour and expenditure as possible shall be put into it each year, for the Government attach as much importance to it as my hon. and gallant Friend. A survey is now in progress, and if that shows that the work can be done in four or five years instead of in ten, the money will be forthcoming to push on the works.

ADMIRAL FIELD

said he was glad to hear that; but they had had assurances before from Governments.

*THE CHAIRMAN

I have grave doubts whether the hon. Member would be in order in moving this Amendment. If he will look at the Schedule he will see the heading of the column in which his Amendment occurs is ''Expected date of completion." If he were successful in his Amendment it would not compel the works to be completed in the shorter period. The column is really inserted in the Schedule by way of giving general information, and the hon. Member's Amendment, if carried, could have no enactive force.

ADMIRAL FIELD

asked for an assurance from the Government that the work was to be carried on by free labour. Sir Edward Watkin, in the Debate of 1883, had declared that the Dover works ought to be completed in four years.

THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY

said that free labour and not convict labour would be employed on the work.

MR. GIBSON BOWLES moved, in Schedule, page 4, line 17, to leave out, "Dover, 1,920,000, 150,000, 1905–6." He said that he was profoundly convinced that Dover was not the proper place in which to make a harbour for our fleet. The fleet should not be at Dover in time of war. It should be at sea, and on the move, or else stowed safely out of the way of torpedo attacks. He saw that it was hopeless to take a Division on the question; but he must protest against this expenditure of £2,000,000 which would probably become £4,000,000 before the work was finished. He had, indeed, serious doubts whether the Admiralty could succeed in making the harbour at Dover, because already the works had been silted up. In order to enable the gallant Admiral to continue his speech, he begged to move the Amendment in his name.

SIR JOHN COLOMB (Yarmouth)

entered his protest against the construction of a new harbour at Dover. If it was to be assumed that our command of the sea was to be in jeopardy owing to our fleet being employed away from home or beaten in the Channel, they could not attempt to embark a military force at Dover under these circumstances at all. His belief was that the true strategical position for such a harbour was much further westward, and he was not sure whether it was not Berehaven.

ADMIRAL FIELD

said, he would quote an opinion which would have some weight with the hon. Member for King's Lynn. The Duke of Wellington — [cheers] — the greatest soldier of his age, in reply to a question put to him before the Royal Commission of 1843, said, in reference to a harbour between Portsmouth and the Downs, that he thought a harbour at Dover was ''not only desirable, but absolutely necessary.'' He would quote now a naval authority, Sir Alexander Milnes, a First Sea Lord, who said:— I look upon Dover as a central point connected with operations of a warlike nature anywhere on our own or the adjoining coast. He thought the Duke of Wellington sufficiently answered the hon. Member for King's Lynn, and Sir Alexander Milnes his hon. and gallant friend.

MR. W. REDMOND

was glad to hear the suggestion in favour of Berehaven. For his part, however, as he had more than once stated, he was opposed to this expenditure altogether because he considered it unnecessary, but if it was to be undertaken, he contended that some of the money should be spent for the benefit of the Irish people. The hon. Member who represented the Admiralty (Mr. Macartney), and who was himself an Irish Member, would not deny that there was a strong feeling in Ireland, from Belfast to Cork, and from east to west, that the country was not fairly treated in this matter. If a certain amount was allowed to be spent, say a million or two, in the west of Ireland, it would no doubt be a satisfaction to the people, and they would feel that they were getting some value for the taxes they paid. And it must be borne in mind that Ireland paid more than her fair proportion——

*THE CHAIRMAN

I must ask the hon. Member to limit himself to the question before the Committee, which is, whether £150,000 would be spent upon Dover.

MR. W. REDMOND

had not the slightest desire to travel outside the ruling, but he would ask the First Lord to explain how it was that Ireland was absolutely ignored.

*THE CHAIRMAN

The hon. Member is doing exactly what I have told him he was out of order in doing. I hope he won't compel me to put the Standing Order in force.

MR. W. REDMOND

said, that in order to keep himself in order he would move to omit Dover and insert Berehaven.

*THE CHAIRMAN

That is unnecessary, because the Amendment is that Dover be left out.

SIR A. B. FORWOOD (Liverpool, Ormskirk)

regretted that the scheme for a large expenditure at Dover was not referred either to a Select Committee or a Committee of Experts for consideration, in view of the great difference of opinion of naval officers on the subject. There was only one matter which reconciled him to this expenditure. That was the explanation attached to the Bill, that the estimate for Dover Harbour was subject to revision when the necessary preliminary works had been completed and plans prepared, and that the survey was being actively pushed forward. He did not think the money spent in making this preliminary examination would be wasted, and when they had the Report of the survey, and saw the plans, they would be able to say whether they would go on further with the work or not. He should not be at all surprised, looking at the nature and extent of the work contemplated at Dover, the amount of dredging, the exposure of the breakwater that must be erected there, and the immense depth of water that must be attained if their ironclads were to make any use of the harbour, if the expenditure, instead of being £2,000,000, went up to seven, eight, or even ten millions. He should not vote against the proposal this time, but he hoped the money would be spent in making a thorough examination, so as to enable the plans to be carefully prepared.

THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY

said, he would remind the Committee that practically this matter was settled in the minds of the immense majority of Members of the House of Commons last year. Dover was looked upon as one of the most important works in the Bill of last year, and they were now giving effect to that policy—a policy absolutely indispensable to the security of the country. If they were to wait for absolute unanimity with regard to the defences of the country, the work would continually lag behind, as it had lagged behind in the past, and they would never get forward at all. He should say that if there was one point upon which Naval opinion was, not absolutely, but nearly, unanimous, it would be that the works at Dover should be pushed forward with all possible speed. He trusted the great majority of the Committee would be in favour of that policy. The hon. Member for Clare seemed to be entirely unaware of how they proceeded in these matters. They did not sit down and say how much money should be allocated to England, to Ireland, or to Scotland, but it was expert professional advice which they followed, and it was upon strategic grounds alone that the allocation of this money was decided. They were acting in this matter upon professional advice, and that professional advice they believed to be entirely sound.

MR. W. REDMOND

asked the right hon. Gentleman if he could give the Committee the Naval authorities who had advised that Dover was a more suitable place for a harbour than some of the magnificent sites upon the west coast of Ireland, whose natural advantages were at least equal to those offered by Dover. He was not disposed to be at all unreasonable in this matter, but what he wanted was for some one connected with the Admiralty to give a statement that there was a desire that Ireland should have a share of this money.

*THE CHAIRMAN

Order, order! That is a question which, as I have pointed out twice or three times, does not arise upon this Amendment.

MR. GIBSON BOWLES

asked leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. W. REDMOND

rose to move in page 4, line 17, to leave out the word ''Dover,'' in order to insert the word "Berehaven." The First Lord of the Admiralty had said that the spending of this money was the result of Naval advice, but it was a most extraordinary thing that although Ireland possessed some of the finest natural advantages for harbours and naval works of this kind nothing was ever done for Ireland in that direction. He appealed to the Secretary of the Admiralty, himself a representative for an Irish constituency, to get up in his place and say that this matter would receive the attention of the Government, and that there would be some equalising of matters by giving Ireland some share of this expenditure.

THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. W. E. MACARTNEY,) Antrim, S.

assured the hon. Gentleman that in the future, as in the past, any advantage or disadvantage of places in Ireland from a strategic point of view would he fully considered by the Admiralty in reference to naval works.

MR. W. REDMOND

asked whether the desirability of constructing a naval dock on the west coast of Ireland had been under consideration or not?

MR. MACARTNEY

I cannot say it has been under consideration.

MR. VESEY KNOX (Londonderry)

asked the right hon. Gentleman whether he was aware that at the present time steps were being taken to re-start the shipping industry in the city of Derry. Some permanent works were necessary—

*THE CHAIRMAN

said this did not arise out of the Amendment.

SIR JAMES JOICEY (Durham, Chester-le-Street)

said he had the gravest doubt as to the wisdom of the course which the Government were pursuing. He was not going to attempt to put his opinion against the opinion of those experts who had guided the Admiralty in this matter, but he was bound to say, from what he knew of Dover and of harbour making, that the amount put down here for the making of such a harbour as would suit their heavy ironclads was, he thought, altogether insufficient.

MR. W. FIELD (Dublin, St. Patrick)

said, that if hon. Members considered that, of this expenditure of £22,000,000, Ireland's share, according to taxation, would be over £1,000,000, and that they were only getting a few thousand pounds, they would see the reasonableness of their demand that Ireland should receive her due share of the money.

The Committee divided:—Ayes, 303; Noes, 33.—(Division List, No. 69).

*LIEUT.-GENERAL LAURIE (Pembroke and Haverfordwest)

, who had the following Amendment on the Paper:— Schedule, page 4, line 20, column 5, to leave out "£300,000," and to insert "£200,000," said that looking over the Bill he saw that no provision was made for providing or improving any yard to the north of the Land's End. He therefore placed this Amendment on the Paper, not on local grounds, but because he believed that the money under this Bill should be spent in the interests of the nation, and not of particular localities, and he considered it all important, on strategic and departmental grounds, that provision should be made for developing dock accommodation north of the Land's End, and he had to look for the sources whence funds could be provided for initiating such a policy. He was happy to say, however, that funds had been otherwise provided than by the clause in which he proposed to make that provision, and under those circumstances it would be unnecessary for him to move the Amendment which stood on the Paper in his name, especially as he did not desire to take away funds proposed to be spent in other yards.

*MR. HERBERT LEWIS

proposed, in page 4, line 22, after the word "machinery," to insert the words "and Pembroke Dock for the construction of a jetty and dry dock." The hon. Member explained that the object of his Amendment was to secure the allocation of £150,000 for the purpose of necessary works at Pembroke Dock. This Bill proposed to apply more than £14,000,000 sterling in the whole for the construction of naval works in the various dockyards of the United Kingdom, and in other parts of the Empire. Pembroke Dockyard was one of the most important of them all, and he had the authority of the Secretary for India, who was once at the head of the Admiralty, for saying that it was the most modern dockyard in England, and the best laid out. It possessed the finest harbour in the United Kingdom, and he believed that the money proposed to be devoted to naval works could not be better expended anywhere than at Pembroke; and yet, of the vast sum of £14,000,000, to which the Bill under consideration related, not a shilling was to be spent at Pembroke Dock. It was true that the First Lord of the Admiralty had stated that the required amount might possibly be provided for in Estimates for future years; but this was work of a permanent character to which this Bill related, and yet the Government proposed to spend £300,000 on dredging, much of which must necessarily be work of ephemeral effect. If Pembroke were omitted from this Bill, it would be in an inferior position to the other dockyards. Devonport, Portsmouth and Chatham were to be placed in a better position than before, but absolutely nothing was to be done for Pembroke. The consequence of pursuing a policy of this kind in the case of Pembroke would be to make it more and more inferior to the other dockyards. This practically meant, as the Secretary for India stated last year, the extinction of Pembroke. He had the noble Lord's authority for saying that, of the four great naval dockyards in the country, only three could build ships of the largest dimensions, and of these Pembroke was one; and yet, while improvements were, in the interests of economy and efficiency, required at Pembroke, and while large and permanent additions were being made to the Navy, nothing was being done for the improvement of Pembroke. What was required in that dockyard was a large dry dock, a jetty, and a powerful pair of shear legs. It was true that the jetty and shear legs might be constructed for £100,000; they might even be constructed for less, but a dry dock was required for the purpose of fitting and finishing vessels which have now to be taken to Devonport to be completed, and the whole work could not be done for less than £150,000. This was just 1 per cent. of the amount applied to naval works by the present Bill. Their demand, he thought, was the most reasonable that had ever been put forward in connection with any Measure. At Pembroke only one part of the work required in connection with the construction of a ship could now be performed, namely, the commencement, which included all work up to the launching of the vessel. All the necessary work up to the launch could be done at the dockyard, but when the vessel was launched, she could not be brought alongside, but had to be towed to a point three-quarters of a mile out of the precincts of the yard, to a jetty called Hobbs' Point. The vessel there had to be moored and re-moored at every turn of the tide, which rose and fell a considerable distance. Fitters of ironwork, carpenters, and other artificers had necessarily to put in a great deal of work and material to advance the interior fitting of the ship before it left Pembroke. Those workmen, and the material they used, had to be ferried back and forward from the yard over the intervening distance to Hobbs' Point in launches and boats, and if a man forgot a tool or some necessary material, or if the need of either suddenly arose, he had to be taken back in a launch or boat to the yard to get it. Heavy boilers and other machinery had to be brought in lighters and landed on the dockyard ground, and then they were re-embarked on the lighters and taken to Hobbs' Point and re-landed. All this loss of time and money, and the transfer of machinery, would be saved if a jetty were constructed at Hobbs' Point. It had been calculated that the saving in money and in time would amount to £10,000 for the work to be done on one vessel only of the largest size. The jetty would also, if constructed, be very useful for coaling purposes for Her Majesty's ships. In time of war the resources of the three great dockyards in the south of England would be strained to the uttermost, while those of Pembroke could be concentrated upon shipbuilding. The vessels, moreover, could be completed there, and the risks incidental to towage and convoy to Devonport in time of war would be avoided. The dockyard would be then able to undertake the repair of every vessel that came to the harbour. On every point he had mentioned he could quote the authority of the Secretary for India, who went into the case thoroughly ten years ago. He had received a deputation upon the subject, and had expressed his concurrence in the necessity for the works, and he stated that he had always considered that Pembroke had a primary claim for the additional expenditure that would be required. His opinion was supported by that of other prominent naval authorities in the House. The hon. Member for Kirkdale had stated that all naval authorities agreed that, for the purpose of construction, finishing and repairing of vessels Pembroke Dock was of the highest importance, and while condemning emphatically the policy of the Government which concentrated all their efforts on Portsmouth, Devonport, and Chatham, he drew attention to the importance of Pembroke as a most important strategical point as a protection for the commerce of the Mersey, the Clyde, and the Bristol Channel. The hon. Member for Belfast had supported the policy of treating Pembroke Dock fairly. The hon. Member for the Eastbourne Division of Sussex had urged the strategic importance of Pembroke Dock, and had stated that naval opinion was agreed on the duty of the Government with regard to Pembroke. The power, he said, was with the Government of the day, who ought not to shrink from what they knew to be right. The Board of Admiralty only last year investigated the question on the spot, and announced that they intended to build a jetty at Pembroke Dock and do away with the present inconvenient and expensive arrangements of Hobbs' Point. The hon. Member for King's Lynn gave his voice and his vote on the same side. It might be urged that this amount would be provided for in the Estimates for next year, but what guarantee had they that the House of Commons would sanction it? The House and the country were in a hot fit now about naval expenditure; in a year's time the reaction might come, a cold fit might supervene, with results that would be disastrous to Pembroke Dock. He for one thought that we were spending a great deal too much upon our naval works, but the Government had the power to carry the expenditure of this money, and it was the business of the country to see that it was properly allocated. He hoped hon. Members who had voted not merely for the insertion of the amount in the Estimate for a future year, for that was promised last year, but who had voted for the insertion of a specific amount to be expended on Pembroke in the Naval Works Bill last year, would be consistent with the vote they then gave, and do justice to Pembroke. They voted for a grant to Pembroke when the House only proposed to spend eight and a half millions on naval works; now it proposed to spend fourteen millions on the same object; and to leave Pembroke Dock absolutely out in the cold, so far as the provisions of the Bill were concerned, would be, he thought, a piece of injustice which no one could extenuate. He therefore hoped the Government would act in accordance with the letter and the spirit of the line they had taken when in opposition, and that they would not utterly neglect or leave to the mercy of Parliament in a future year this dockyard, situated in the finest harbour on this island, with adequate protection from torpedo attacks, and with unlimited possibilities of usefulness for the purpose of offence and defence in time of war.

THE CIVIL LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN,) Worcestershire, E.

hoped that when the hon. Member opposite had heard the explanation of the Government he would not think it necessary to press the Amendment to a Division. The hon. Member, he thought, was under some misapprehension as to the intentions of the Government, and as to what would be attained by the proposals of the Admiralty. The hon. Member said that the Government were placing Pembroke in an inferior position by not including it in the Naval Works Bill. He protested against the idea that works carried out under Vote 10 of the Estimates in the ordinary way were supposed to be less important than works carried out under the Naval Works Bill. The Admiralty would have come to Parliament at once with a proposal for the construction of the jetty had it not been that after the present Government took office grave doubts were raised as to the expediency of the Scheme which had been discussed in that House. It would have been foolish for the Admiralty to go forward with a scheme intended to benefit Pembroke when these doubts had been expressed about its expediency. But a Committee was appointed to consider the Scheme, and it had reported, and the Admiralty were now in a position to say that the construction of the jetty was possible and would benefit Pembroke. They were not, however, in a position to include an Estimate for the purpose in the Naval Works Bill, for they could not say what the construction of the jetty would cost. They had, however, taken in Vote 10 of the Estimates for the coming financial year a sum of money for improvements at Pembroke Dockyard, and they would spend it on the commencement of this work, and his right hon. Friend would be prepared, when they came to Parliament next year with a Bill to continue the present one, to include in it provision for the completion of the jetty. The hon. Member for the Flint Boroughs desired that it should be no longer necessary to take ships away from Pembroke as soon as they were launched, and that it should be possible to complete them at Pembroke as they were completed at other places. This jetty, he thought, would supply what the hon. Member wanted. He was advised that if the jetty was constructed, it would be possible to bring ships alongside, and, practically to complete them at Pembroke, at any rate, to complete them up to the point which was reached by contractors

MR. HERBERT LEWIS

regretted that a more satisfactory reply had not been given. The noble Lord the Secretary of State for India, who had been First Lord of the Admiralty, last year deliberately moved the inclusion of Pembroke in the Naval Works Bill. The hon. Member had not replied to his argument that that course was the right course to have taken then. Still more was it the right course to pursue now. The hon. Member said that the Admiralty had at one time grave doubts as to the expediency of constructing the jetty, but the present Secretary of State for India had gone into the question before, and had come to the conclusion that it was expedient.

MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN

said, that information was put before the present Board of Admiralty, which was not in the possession of his right hon. Friend and the late Board of Admiralty. It was that information which gave rise to the doubt which was not a spontaneous growth in the minds of the Members of the present Board.

MR. HERBERT LEWIS

said that, as the doubt had been removed, it would appear that the Admiralty had listened to some cock-and-bull story. The Admiralty ought to censure the parties who supplied the information that caused the doubt. He wished to draw the attention of the hon. Member to this point, that in time of war, unless vessels could be actually completed at Pembroke, they would have to be conveyed round to Devonport to be finished.

MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN

explained that he had said that the jetty at Pembroke would render the completion of vessels possible. They would be completed there with the exception of certain small fittings.

MR. HERBERT LEWIS

asked, whether the ships would be ready to take part in an engagement? Vessels, if they left Pembroke unable to take part in a naval engagement, would be useless, for they would not be in a position to defend themselves. The hon. Member protested against his statement that Pembroke was placed in an inferior position by not being included in the Naval Works Bill. He had made that statement, not upon his own authority, but upon the authority of the Secretary of State for India, who said last year— Nobody could deny that Pembroke was placed in a very inferior position as compared with other dockyards. Under this Bill (the Bill providing only for an expenditure of eight and a half millions), Devonport, Portsmouth, and Chatham would be in a better position than before, while Pembroke remained where it was. If that was the case under a Bill providing for the expenditure of £8,500,000 how much more would it be the case under a Bill which provided for the expenditure of £14,000,000? While the manner of the reply of the hon. Gentleman the Civil Lord of the Admiralty was everything that could be desired, the reply itself was entirely at variance with the attitude taken up by the Opposition last year.

SIR JOHN COLOMB

said, he had every sympathy with the claims put forward on behalf of Pembroke. The place was one of great importance, and in the past it had been too much neglected. But he did not see how they were to get more than had been promised by the Civil Lord. While the hon. Gentleman was speaking the hon. Member for the Flint Boroughs was engaged in conversation with the hon. Member for Northampton, and therefore he missed the very cream of that statement. The Admiralty had said they recognised the extreme importance of putting Pembroke in such a position that ships could be completed for sea there, and under such circumstances he did not think hon. Members would do their cause much good by pressing the matter to a Division.

THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY

denied that there had been any breach of faith. The Admiralty proposed to carry out exactly what was suggested last year. A jetty was then proposed, and now one upon an enlarged plan was to be constructed. The work could not be put into the Bill now, because they could not increase the total amount, but they would meet the wishes of the Opposition last year, including the hon. gentleman himself, by putting it in the Bill after this financial year was ended. It was inevitable, for the sake of the other items which were at present in the Bill, that this one must be brought in.

*LIEUTENANT-GENERAL LAURIE

said, the Admiralty had accepted the principle that Pembroke should be made a finishing yard, and they proposed to place a jetty there as the first step. That being the case, after all the House had heard he appealed to them whether he had not every reason to be satisfied.

MR. D. LLOYD-GEORGE (Carnavon District)

agreed that the First Lord of the Admiralty had made a very substantial concession to Pembroke, but still what he promised fell short of the demand made last year by the present Secretary of State for India. The noble Lord's first point was that it ought not to be left to the Estimates for the year to make provision for a permanent jetty. The right hon. Gentleman had made a fair answer. He had said he was prepared to go as far as possible in the current year's expenditure, but next year he would include it in the naval works. On that point the answer was satisfactory. But, with regard to the second point of the noble Lord, he could not accept the reply given as a complete one. Last year, the noble Lord said:— At Pembroke only one part of the work required in connection with the construction of a ship could he performed- namely, the commencement, which included all work up to the launching. There were two other stages, the advancement and the final completion. That was the whole point at issue. Would the work to be undertaken by the Government in future include those two stages? He understood from the Civil Lord that there was, at any rate, one important part of the work that could not be done at Pembroke. Suppose a ship turned in there for the purpose of repairs after a naval engagement, would it be possible to complete the repairs there? If not, the object which the noble Lord professed to have in view had not been carried out.

THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY

said, his noble Friend the Secretary of State for India treated Pembroke as a finishing yard. Ships could be finished almost to the last stage.

MR. LLOYD-GEORGE

was sorry if he appeared to be too expressively persistent, but he was simply making the demand which the noble Lord made last year. The right hon. Gentleman was labouring under a misapprehension. The noble Lord's demand was not confined to converting Pembroke into a building yard, for he said:— It seemed to him essential, therefore, that Pembroke should be included in the Bill. It had the finest harbour, he supposed, in the United Kingdom, and that being so, surely it was advisable that the naval dockyard there should be so constituted that in time of war it would be in a position to undertake the repair of every vessel that had to come into the harbour. The right hon. Gentleman surely could not complain of them if they made exactly the demand which his colleague and predecessor, the noble Lord, pressed on the Government by dividing the House.

THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY

We divided on the jetty.

MR. LLOYD-GEORGE

begged the right hon. Gentleman's pardon. The noble Lord said Pembroke had the finest harbour in the United Kingdom, and it ought to be in a position to repair every vessel that came there. They were, therefore, making the identical demand that the noble Lord made.

THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY

said, that last year they divided on the sum of £60,000 for a jetty. Now the Government proposed to spend £99,000. Pembroke would be included in any large proposals, but beyond that they could not go at present.

MR. HERBERT LEWIS

said, they were asking for one per cent. only for this great and important dockyard, and the right hon. Gentleman said they should not fasten on any particular part of the Vote, but what had the Member for Kirkdale said? That for the purpose of construction, finishing and repairing, Pembroke was of the highest importance. One would have thought that where they were going to spend 14 millions they would have done everything possible for Pembroke. They were making a modest and reasonable demand, and unless the right hon. Gentleman saw his way to granting the small amount they demanded he should go to a Division.

MR. LLOYD-GEORGE

said, he had simply quoted the words used by the noble Lord (Hamilton):— That the naval dockyard"—Pembroke— "should be so constituted that in time of war it would be capable of undertaking the repair of every vessel that came into the harbour. ["Hear, hear!"] It was very convenient at that time to say that; there was an election coming on—[cheers]—and it was necessary to appeal to the electors of the Pembroke Docks. The appeal was made, and every advantage was taken of it, and the seat was won. He thought that under the circumstances the noble Lord should have been in his place. The whole point was that Pembroke must be put on the same footing as Devonport? Was that done?

The Committee Divided:—Ayes, 52; Noes, 183.—(Division List, No. 70.)

DR. CLARK (Caithness)

proposed, in page 4, line 21, col. 5, to reduce the sum of =£500,000 allotted to the extension of Keyham Harbour by £100,000. Last year the House had voted a large sum for the extension of Devonport Dock, and now they were asked to vote a million and a quarter in addition to the sum obtained last year. Out of the 14 millions asked for these purposes, it was proposed to spend about nine millions in the south of England.

*THE CHAIRMAN

said, he had already ruled that if a Motion was made to diminish the sum allotted to a particular work the Debate must be confined to that sum in respect of that work.

DR. CLARK

said, he did not think this extension was required, or that the south of England was the proper place for shipbuilding or repairing. It was far away from the sources from which raw material came, from iron and coal, and they had not in that part of England that class of skilled labour which they ought to have ready at hand for any emergency. It was all very well in the olden days to build ships in the south, when ships were built of oak, because there was plenty of timber in the south, but nowadays no merchant ships were built in the south of England but in the north, and the ships for our navy ought therefore, to be built in the north. If that were done several ships could be repaired at the same time, because the skilled men who were employed on merchant shipbuilding could be turned on to the work.

*THE CHAIRMAN

said, the Amendment was in line 21, column 5 to omit £500,000, in order to insert £400,000. The question was that £500,000 stand part of the Bill.

MR. W. FIELD

asked if he would be in order in endeavouring to show that Haulbowline was entitled to a certain share of this expenditure, as it was more sheltered from attack?

*THE CHAIRMAN

ruled that this would not be in order.

MR. W. REDMOND

asked if it would be in order to move that the word Keyham be omitted in order to insert the word Haulbowline?

*THE CHAIRMAN

No, we have now reached the figure £500,000.

MR. J. CALDWELL (Lanark, Mid.)

supported the Amendment. Keyham harbour was a most indefensible harbour, there were not sufficient batteries there to safeguard ships which might be lying outside waiting their turn to get into dock. It would be necessary, therefore, if the harbour were extended to improve the defences of the harbour. It was very inconvenient to have all our dockyards on the south of England, which necessitated an enormous amount of money for the cost of the carriage of raw material from the north.

MR. MACARTNEY

Where would you put your dockyard?

MR. CALDWELL

said the Chairman did not allow him to state that. With regard to labour, it had been pointed out that in time of peace all repairs could be carried out in the Government dockyards, but what would be the case in the time of war? In time of war the Government would find themselves unable to procure the services of skilled shipwrights. If the Government established their dockyards in more convenient places near the centres of mercantile shipbuilding, they would at all times be able to rely upon obtaining the services of as many skilled operatives as they might require. They were also entitled to complain that England was always chosen as the place in which dockyard accommodation was provided. This was a united Kingdom, consisting of England, Scotland, and Ireland, and Scotchmen and Irishmen had a right to complain that the Government always selected England as the place in which dockyard accommodation was to be provided. The hon. Gentleman opposite had taken no notice of the objection that had been raised that our dockyards were not conveniently situated either as regarded materials or labour. If in time of war a ship was injured off the north of Ireland where was she to go to for repairs? He hoped that the hon. Member who moved the Amendment would go to a Division, and if he did so he should certainly support him in order to mark his sense of the injustice of spending all this money upon the dockyards in England.

MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN

said he would do his best to try and answer the various points that had been raised by the hon. Member for Caithness and the hon. Member for Mid Lanark in connection with this subject. Both those hon. Members appeared to have fallen into the mistake of supposing that our dockyards were used only for ship building, whereas, in fact, they were also used for repairing. Both hon. Members had also asserted that the Government system was not a cheap one, because the dockyards were so far removed from the raw material that was required for effective repairs. But the fact was that the Government were now not only building but were executing repairs in the dockyards far more cheaply than they could get the work done by contract in the North. The hon. Member for Mid Lanark had raised the point whether in time of war the Government would be able to get a sufficient quantity of skilled labour for the dockyartds. He could assure the hon. Gentleman that the Government found no difficulty in obtaining any amount of skilled labour that they required. If they could not take the dockyards to the skilled labour they could always bring the skilled labour to the dockyards. It must not be forgotten that Keyham Harbour was well defended, not only on the sea face, but also on the land side, which would be a most important fact in the time of war. As the best of the alternatives before them, the Government had chosen to carry out the plans that had met with the approval of the House of Commons.

MR. LLOYD-GEORGE

hoped that the House would fully appreciate the reason of the objection which they had raised to this expenditure. In their opinion the dockyards should be placed as near to the centre of mercantile shipbuilding as possible, where skilled labour might be obtained in a few hours. The hon. Gentleman opposite had said that hands could be obtained from the Tyne or the Clyde, but no wages that the Government could offer would induce men to remove from the place where they had carried on their employment all their lives. The objection which they were now making had been raised repeatedly by hon. Members who were now on the Government side of the House when they were in Opposition. He objected to the money being spent entirely upon Portsmouth and other English dockyards.

*THE CHAIRMAN

Order, order! The hon. Gentleman is now resuming the Debate that was concluded some time ago. I hope that he will not continue to repeat the arguments that have already been used.

MR. LLOYD-GEORGE

said that he was merely illustrating the position that he and other hon. Gentlemen near him had taken up in reference to this subject.

MR. CALDWELL

said he wished to call the attention of the Civil Lord to two points. First, in replying to the argument based upon the expense of conveying material to Keyham, the hon. Gentleman said that the Admiralty were able to get their work done cheaper at Keyham than in the North. He wished to point out that work done by private enterprise was quite a different thing to work done in Government dockyards, and if there were a Government dockyard in the North, where iron and steel were produced, the work could be done still cheaper than at Keyham. Then the Civil Lord said that there was no difficulty about getting skilled labour at Keyham. He did not question that at all, so far as ordinary employment was concerned. Of course, where there was a Government dockyard giving continuous employment there was no difficulty whatever in getting plenty of skilled labour. The contention was that in case of emergency, when it was necessary to repair ships disabled in action, an enormous number of additional hands would be required, and at Keyham there were no surplus hands to fall back upon. They would have to be brought from the North. There would not only be the expense of bringing men from the North, but he doubted whether the men would be prevailed upon to leave their employment there for a limited time. If there was a dockyard in the North ships could be built and repaired at a great deal less cost than at Keyham, and there would always be plenty of surplus hands to fall back upon in case of emergency.

DR. CLARK

contended that the building could be done 20 or 30 per cent. cheaper in the North than in the South. At present, if a large number of ships came in for repair, not only would more skilled labour than was obtainable be required, but also a large amount of machinery.

Question put, "That '£500,000' stand part of the Schedule."

The Committee divided:—Ayes, 160; Noes, 35.—(Division List, No. 71.)

On the return of the CHAIRMAN, after the usual interval,

MR. W. FIELD

asked for an explanation of the enormous demand made by the War Office for Portsmouth docks. He objected to the south coast of England being converted into a naval depôt; it was a concentration that was not without its dangers, facilitating, as it did, the destruction of our dockyards by a hostile fleet. Cases had occurred of warships being damaged off Ireland and almost sinking before they could reach England to be repaired. There did not appear to be any common sense in making vessels go such long distances for repairs, and there were positions in the north of England and in Ireland where repairs might very well be carried out. He quite agreed with the criticisms that had been passed upon the absence of dockyards from the great centres of activity in the North. It was difficult to understand how such a large sum as £595,000 could be monopolised by Portsmouth. Ireland and the North of England ought to have some share of this money. The country was raising a large sum to protect the Mercantile Marine in order that food might be imported to bring down the prices of home produce. With half the land in the three Kingdoms going out of cultivation, the country was heavily taxed to protect the Mercantile Marine—["Order, order!"] —but he would not pursue that subject.

*THE CHAIRMAN

I was going to invite the hon. Member not to pursue the subject.

MR. FIELD

I am glad, Sir, to have anticipated your invitation. [Laughter.] The question was, what did the Government intend to do with Haulbowline? Ireland contributed to this outlay £1,800,000, and had but £50,000 returned.

*THE CHAIRMAN

The hon. Member is a long way from Portsmouth. [Laughter.]

MR. FIELD

Yes, but I am getting home.

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

contrasted the enormous amount spent at Portsmouth with the beggarly sum allocated to the Irish dockyard, and that had been obtained only by the most strenuous exertions, whilst the expenditure on the south coast was incurred without any overpowering need or pressure. Although the regular Opposition seemed to have abdicated their functions on. this matter, he did not believe that these enormous sums were required for England.

*THE CHAIRMAN

said there was no question before the Committee.

THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY

rose in his place and claimed to move— That the Question 'That the Question, That the words of the Schedule to the end of line 34 stand part of the Schedule' be now put.

Question put, "That that Question be now put."

The Committee divided:—Ayes, 179; Noes, 41.—(Division List, No. 72.)

Question put accordingly.

The Committee divided:—Ayes, 183; Noes, 37.—(Division List, No. 73.)

*MR. GIBSON BOWLES moved, in page 4, line 35, to leave out:—

Dartmouth College for Naval Cadets 196,000

60,000

1899–1900

He said that the proposed substitution of a Naval College for the Britannia was sheer wantonnesss, due to the fact that the First Lord of the Admiralty had more money than he knew what to do with. This year the Admiralty had developed a perfect wildness for bricks and mortar, and seemed to forget that their real concern was with ships. He was not to be told in this matter that the First Lord was adopting the advice of his Naval advisers. The correspondence in the newspapers had shown that there was the greatest difference on the question between Naval officers; and the best Naval opinion was all in favour of the old system with the Britannia. But in any difference between experts, the First Lord of the Admiralty had to decide himself; and, therefore, on him fell the responsibility for the decision in the present case. If the training of the cadets were to be continued on board a ship, then no doubt Dartmouth had its advantages as a place where that ship might be moored. But if a college were to be built, then Dartmouth was most certainly the wrong site for that college. It was an unwholesome and relaxing place, and there was constant sickness in the town. The only thing that enabled the cadets on the Britannia to keep healthy was the fact that they were on water, and not on land. The Britannia was the healthiest place in or near Dartmouth, because it was moored in running water, and there was a constant draught through the ship. The sickness there was less than that of any college on shore. But Dartmouth was not the best imaginable place for training cadets under any circumstances. It was a bad place for boat sailing, for, shut in as it was by high land on either side, there was never a true wind blowing in the harbour. If they wanted a site for a college, there was a place not far off which would be far superior, and that was Falmouth. That was an extremely good place for boat sailing. [An HON. MEMBER: "No, no!"] But yes. The hon. Member who interrupted was the Member for the Division in which Dartmouth lay. [Laughter.] He did not wonder at him being in favour of a quarter of a million being spent on Dartmouth. [Laughter.] Falmouth had none of those conditions of high land, none of those untrue winds, flaws or sudden gusts which prevailed at Dartmouth. But he objected to any college whatever. He believed that the true college for a boy who was going to be a seaman was a ship and nothing else. The proper way to teach the young cadet was to catch him young and send him on board the Britannia as they were taught now. Then when the boy came to go to a sea-going ship he was prepared at any rate in these respects—he could go about safely, he had learnt the names of things, he had lived a ship's life, and could take up sea-going duties which he would be entirely incompetent to do if he was taken from a college on shore. He would undertake to say that never at any period of the nation's history had England had such a splendid set of officers as the Britannia had produced. They have been tried in every capacity and never been found wanting. He defied the right hon. Gentleman to find fault with the officers of the Navy. ["Hear, hear!"] Then why change the system? ["Hear, hear!"] Were they going to give way to the desires of a few masters, mostly parsons, who did not want to live on the ship but wanted a cabbage garden on shore? No; the thing was too serious and the results would be too serious to make such a change as that without due cause. Of course there were defects in the ship, but they could get a new one. He was defending, not the ship, but the principle of training sailors on a ship and not on shore. He denied, however, that there were sanitary objections to the Britannia; the amount of sickness was far less than in Dartmouth itself. He had had two boys there one after the other and their health was extremely good, and they were now at sea and he hoped doing their duty. [Cheers.] Of course they were doing their duty. As to discipline, it was easier to maintain good discipline in a ship than if the cadets were rambling about in a large college on shore; moreover, it was ship and not shore discipline. It was said that some of the masters did not live on board, but the most important thing was that the naval officer should live on board, and that he did. His own opinion was —and here he was supported by the opinion of the captain of the Britannia —that instead of spending two years on board ship the boy should be allowed to spend two and a half years. They had far more than they could do in two years, and it would be a great advantage if another six months were added. The right hon. Gentleman instead of doing that took half a year off, and he not only reduced the time, but he spoiled it, because that would be one and a half years not on ship but on shore. He came to the other consideration advanced by the right hon. Gentleman. He said he wanted to get the boys from the larger area of the public schools. But that would be a smaller area, and, moreover, it was the area of the rich man's sons. The Navy had always been, and should always be, a poor service. It was not the rich man who made the great naval officer, it was the son of the poor Norfolk parson, who had eleven children — the Nelson — that was the man who made the great naval officer. It was not the rich man they wanted in the Navy, it was the poor man. Then if they took the boys from the public schools, what would be the result?

*THE CHAIRMAN

I do not see how the hon. Member can raise this subject on this question. This question relates solely to the establishment of a college on land, and not to the area from which the boys are taken.

*MR. GIBSON BOWLES

said that, with respect, he was adducing the argument which the right hon. Gentleman had used.

*THE CHAIRMAN

The right hon. Gentleman has made no such statement on this part of the Bill. I have no doubt that in a former discussion on the matter the right hon. Gentleman may have made such a statement, but at present the only matter for the consideration of the Committee is the establishment of this college on shore.

*MR. GIBSON BOWLES

said, if he was not allowed to discuss the point, he must depart from it. He contended that the system of the college was in itself radically vicious. The right hon. Gentleman said he wished to draw the boys from the public school area, which was a smaller area.

THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (who was imperfectly heard)

said, that in the general statement, he treated the general question of the education of the Navy. That had several branches, and the two matters to which he referred, had no connection with the whole part of the great question on education.

*MR. GIBSON BOWLES

said, it seemed that the right hon. Gentleman was rather more irrelevant when he made his statement, than he was when he (Mr. Bowles) made his.

*THE CHAIRMAN

The hon. Member seems to be challenging my decision. I cannot allow that to pass. The right hon. Gentleman made his statement on the Estimates, either when the House was going into Committee of Supply, or in Committee of Supply. It was then open to the hon. Member to criticise the statement, or to say anything he pleased. On the present occasion the only question before the Committee is the establishment or the non-establishment of this college.

*MR. GIBSON BOWLES

said, he believed he was right in saying that Mr. Lowther was not in the Chair when the right hon. Gentleman made his statement, and therefore he thought he was not challenging his decision, than which nothing would be further from his desire. He was sorry he could not show that the proposed change of system was not to be defended. He was profoundly convinced, that if they wished to make seamen and officer seamen and not officer landsmen, they must begin by giving to them that training which had been accorded them hitherto on the Britannia, and which had been most successful. He had heard no good reason for complaining of the results of that system; and let the House believe him, that if they departed from it, they would rue the day they did so. They would not indeed at first see the effects of it. Many years would elapse after they had founded this college before they saw the final result of what he believed would be the serious deterioration of their officers. "Whatever might be the ships they built, whatever might be the docks they constructed, it was at last on the men and the officers that the utility and the ability of the Service depended. He believed that, not merely the future of the Navy, but the future of the country, might be involved in any plan which tended to deteriorate the officers of the Naval Service. He was convinced they were taking, if they did take it, a most dangerous step—taken, it seemed to him, without due consideration and without due reason—without any reason at all— and he earnestly appealed to the right hon. Gentleman not to persist in a course which, he was convinced, could not but end in disaster.

ADMIRAL FIELD

contended that it was of paramount importance that a false step should not be taken. He agreed with his hon. Friend in the main propositions which he had urged; though, of course, he did not agree with everything the hon. Member had said. It was, however, of paramount importance that a false step should not be taken. What was the system pursued by the Admiralty, with the approval of the House at the present time, in the manufacture of seamen to supply the waste life in the Navy? They were in possession of the best ships in any country, all commanded by efficient officers. Under that system, over 4,000 boys were turned into the Service per annum; and he failed to see how the First Lord of the Admiralty could be a party to the proprosal of training Naval Cadets in an artificial manner in a college on shore. He appealed to the right hon. Gentleman to remember the system pursued in order to supply the officers of the Mercantile Marine at the present time. Could it be urged that the system of training which was good for the officers of the Mercantile Marine was bad for the young Naval officers? Not only had this policy been pursued with regard to boys and officers of the Mercantile Marine, but they also pursued a system of industrial training ships round the coast. No doubt some Naval officers had changed their views on this point; but the great body of Naval officers had not changed their views. He contended that it was a different thing to build a college and place it at Dartmouth for all time, so that it could not be moved. They would thus be stereotyping the position and placing a college there, when perhaps, in the course of ten years, a change might occur. For instance, the age of the boys might be raised to 15 to 17½ years; and he did not think that anyone would be rash enough to keep lads in a college at that age, instead of sending them out and bringing them under discipline at once. In view, therefore, of raising the age further, he thought it would be a fatal error to place a college at Dartmouth, which might have to be used eventually as a lunatic asylum. This question had been dealt with in the recommendations of a former Sites Committee of the Admiralty, presided over by a distinguished officer. The question of sites was referred to the Committee, and in their Report it was said that the Solent afforded superior advantages for the cruising of a training ship. If, therefore, a site could be found on the banks of the Solent, the Committee recommended the selection of the latter site. They further pointed out the disadvantage of a heavy rainfall at Dartmouth during a large portion of the year, whereas the situation of the Solent was more favourable in this respect. He did not wish himself to indicate any particular site in preference to another, but he urged that the relaxing character of the climate at Dartmouth was a grave objection to the selection of a site at that place. Nor did he wish to prolong the conflict on this matter, but, feeling so strongly upon it as he did, he must ask the First Lord of the Admiralty not to thrust this proposal down the throats of those who objected to it by a Vote of the House. ["Hear, hear!"] The right hon. Gentleman might at least follow the course previously adopted by his predecessors, and appoint another Committee composed of naval and medical men to go thoroughly into the question. More than 20 years had passed since the last Committee reported, and many changes had taken place since then. Sites which were then considered to be desirable might have since become undesirable, and so in the contrary sense. Such a Committee would not take long to report—not more than three months—and by that means full information might be obtained. For hon. Members must remember that if a mistake was made in the matter it could not afterwards be remedied; and, after all, naval men wore the best judges in such a question as this. ["Hear, hear."] He would not take the extreme course of moving to expunge the Vote, strong as his views were in favour of a ship for educating the cadets, and therefore he hoped the First Lord would not show unreasonable haste in the matter, but have further investigation made. The right hon. Gentleman had heard that competent authorities had stated that Dartmouth was open to grave objection as a site for the college, and in those circumstances he appealed to him to reconsider his position in the matter. The question was not a Party one; it was a national question, for it was of the utmost importance that our naval officers should be trained in the best possible way. He therefore again appealed to the First Lord of the Admiralty to seriously consider the suggestion he had made with reference to the appointment of a Committee, and sincerely hoped he should receive a conciliatory answer. ["Hear, hear!"]

MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN

said, with reference to what fell from the hon. Member for King's Lynn, he should like to emphasise a remark which had been made on the question by his right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty—namely, that the system of education which the Admiralty proposed—whether it was a right or a wrong one—was not at all dependent upon the establishment of a college. The changes which the right hon. Gentleman proposed in the system of education for naval cadets would have been proposed regardless of the suggestion of a college, and a college would have been proposed whether those changes had been suggested or not. In regard to the suggestion of the hon. Member that the Admiralty must have made this proposal to erect a college in place of the Britannia with levity, and in order to please the masters who desired houses on shore, he could assure the Committee that nothing could be further from the real state of the facts. ["Hear, hear!"] It was on the advice of competent naval authority that the change was proposed, and on account of no suggestion or desire on the part of the masters. ["Hear, hear!"] The Amendment covered two important points. In the first place there was the question whether there should be a college on shore in place of the Britannia, and in the second place whether that college should be at Dartmouth. As to the first point, he could not but think that the hon. Member for King's Lynn and the hon. and gallant Member for Eastbourne altogether overrated the change in naval education which would be made by transferring the cadets from the Britannia to a college on shore. ["Hear, hear!"] The other night he called the attention of hon. Members to the actual condition of things in regard to the Britannia. At first sight, doubtless, there would seem to be some weight in the contention that men who were to follow the sea should be trained on board ship. But here the question arose whether the Britannia could, in any proper sense of the term, be called a ship, and whether an education on board the Britannia could be considered equal to training at sea. When the question was last before the House he wished to quote from the report of Admiral Luard's Committee on the education of naval officers, but he could not place his hand upon the document at the moment. He had it now before him, and he would read the opinion they gave of the Britannia. [Admiral FIELD: "What is the date?"] The date of the Report was 1885, and the Committee stated that "the internal arrangements of the Britannia were utterly unlike those of a man-of-war, and that she might be better described as a floating school than as a ship." That was the point he wished to emphasise, because it simply reduced the question to this — that it was not a question between a ship and a college, but a question between a floating school and a school on shore. ["Hear, hear!"] The Committee went on to say that the Britannia, as time passed, became less and less like a ship and more like a school. If some other ship were chosen to replace the Britannia, was it not likely that its evolution would be the same, and that in the end they would only have replaced one floating school by another? He did not pretend to say that naval opinion was unanimous on this question, but he could say that there was a great amount of very distinguished naval opinion in favour of the establishment of a college on shore. The Admiralty had been charged with having acted with levity. But twenty years ago the same proposal as was now made was put before the House by the Admiralty of that day and had the approval of men like Sir Geoffrey Hornby and Sir Alexander Milne. It could not be seriously contended that a plan which had been under consideration for so long a time was made with levity. ["Hear, hear!"] With respect to the question of the site of the new college, his hon. Friends inclined to the view that Dartmouth was not the best place that could be chosen. He might remind the Committee that this proposal, when made twenty years ago, was not defeated upon its merits, but in consequence of the rival and conflicting claims of the places where the college could be established. In these circumstances, he thought he might say to his hon. and gallant Friend, "In vain is the net spread in the sight of any bird." He was not prepared to treat the site as an open question and to involve the House in an Inquiry into all the eligible sites in the Kingdom. What he maintained was that the proposed site was a most eligible one. His hon. and gallant Friend would prefer a site near the Solent, but the Committee reported in favour of Dartmouth.

ADMIRAL FIELD

pointed out that what the Committee said was this— If a site equally eligible with that of Dartmouth could be found on the banks of the Solent, it would be preferable to select the latter.

MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN

said, that that was so, but that the Committee were unable to find such a site, and accordingly reported that, except in respect of the moisture of the climate, the Dartmouth site must be pronounced the best. "Hear, hear?"] If 20 years ago it was difficult to find a site as eligible near the Solent, it had become more difficult now, when the Solent water was much more crowded than it was then. Great expense would be necessary before a site near the Solent could be made available for the purposes of the college, including sailing, boating, and bathing. The Committee reported that the Dartmouth site was very good, having regard to the important items of boating and bathing, and the opportunities which the boys would have of exercise on shore. If Dartmouth was so relaxing a place that it was not a proper spot to select, what was to be said of the successive Boards of Admiralty that had kept the Britannia moored there for so many years? If the objections to Dartmouth were as great as his hon. Friends alleged, surely the ship would have been removed years ago. ["Hear, hear!"] Admitting that the Britannia was not unhealthy, still healthier would be a college built on the top of a hill. The opinion of the medical advisers of the Admiralty was very favourable to the site selected. He trusted he had said enough to show that by this proposal they were not bringing the country nearer to the end of its naval greatness [laughter and "Hear, hear!"] and that it would be impossible to find a better site for the college than the one chosen, and difficult to discover one as good. ["Hear hear!"]

*CAPTAIN PHILLPOTTS (Devon, Torquay)

said, he had listened attentively to the arguments and conclusions of the hon. Member for King's Lynn and the hon. and gallant Admiral the Member for Eastbourne without being convinced by the one or impressed by the other. It had been said naval officers did not agree. He was not fortunate enough to agree with the hon. and gallant Admiral to-night, but if he disagreed with that Gentleman he was in agreement with the vast number of naval officers who were serving at present, and who were responsible for the well-being of the Service. He reminded the hon. and gallant Admiral that during the considerable time which had elapsed since he had any experience in a sea-going man-of-war a great deal had happened, many changes had taken place throughout the Service. With regard to the necessity of a college, there was little to be said after the able speech of the Civil Lord, and he would merely say that the hon. Member for King's Lynn was very much mistaken in his contention that Dartmouth was in any sense an unhealthy place; indeed, the men at Dartmouth who had least work to do were the doctors. As to the boating facilities, since the Britannia had been stationed there had not been a fatal accident to any of the cadets while in one of the ship's boats. That fact alone answered the objection that Dartmouth was not a good place for boating. As to nautical training, he contended that when the present gunboat or old yacht was replaced by a sloop, as he understood it was to be, the nautical training would be efficient, and the mere fact of the boys living in a house instead of a hulk would make no practical difference. The rainfall at Dartmouth was the same as at the Isle of Wight and along the whole south coast as far as Brighton, with the exception of the month of February. Indeed, the whole tenor of the Report of the Committee from which the hon. and gallant Member for Eastbourne had quoted was in favour of Dartmouth as a site. Having studied the question closely he was perfectly satisfied that no more suitable place could be found on the coast of England, and therefore, he trusted the Admiralty would not yield in any degree to the request of the hon. and gallant Admiral. One point not touched upon was that the winter was short at Dartmouth. There was finer weather there during the winter months than in any other seaport in England, so that there was less interference with the out-of-door work of the cadets than there would be at other places. Dartmouth had been selected for the site of the naval college, not owing to any outside influence, not because there was any powerful Member to speak for it; it spoke for itself. He was the only representative of Dartmouth, and if it had not been for the natural advantages of the place, and the fact that successive Boards of Admiralty, Committees of Inquiry and others had reported that Dartmouth was the most suitable site, it would not have been chosen.

Question put, "That the word 'Dartmouth' stand part of the Schedule."

The Committee divided:—Ayes 287; Noes42.—(Division List, No. 74.)

On the Question, "That this be the Schedule of the Bill,"

DR. CLARK

said, that last year there had been a strong opposition to the proposal to allot £360,000 for the purposes of the dock at Gibraltar, but now this proposal had developed into one for £2,670,000. The absurdity of making the docks at the proposed place, where they could be controlled by guns from the Spanish side, had been pointed out, and he thought the suggestion had been made that the docks should be at the east instead of the west.

*THE CHAIRMAN

said, the hon. Member would not be entitled on the present Question to go into the various items composing the Schedule.

DR. CLARK

said, the First Lord had, he. thought, committed a breach of faith in moving that the £4,500,000 should be closured.

*THE CHAIRMAN

said, no reflection on the previous Resolution could be entertained.

DR. CLARK

said, on the Second Reading of the Bill the question of Gibraltar was raised, and the right hon. Gentleman then pointed out that that was a question for consideration in Committee. They had now got to the Committee stage. He only wanted to point out the strong reasons that had been urged by the two hon. Members who had protested last year against this money being spent in such a place as Gibraltar when the money was so much wanted at home. He should like to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty why this sum of £2,600,000 was to be spent upon Gibraltar. Up to now no information on the subject had been given by the Government.

*THE CHAIRMAN

Order, order! The hon. Gentleman must see that it would be a most disorderly thing to discuss matters which the Committee have already agreed to. He must confine himself to a general discussion.

DR. CLARK

said that surely, he was entitled to ask the question of the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty. He was not bound to vote for this money being granted for the objects of the Bill unless he received full information from the Government on the point. What he wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty was, whether these new docks that were to be made at Gibraltar, were to be constructed still further to the west than had been proposed by the late Government, so as to bring them under the guns of the Spanish forts?

THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY

said, that he should be out of order if he attempted to follow the hon. Member who had just sat down through all his observations. He could only say in reply to the question of the hon. Gentleman that the new dockyards at Gibraltar would not be constructed further to the west than had been contemplated by the late Government.

MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON (Dundee)

said that upon the Motion before the Committee he certainly did not propose to raise any question whatever with regard to the items in the Schedule. He, however, had a right to remind the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty that the Schedule consisted of two parts; one part of the Schedule was the old part and it embodied the proposals that were made by the late Government, and he thought it was unfortunate that discussions had been raised that evening upon that part of the Schedule in reference to items that had been fully discussed when the late Government were in office; while the other part of the Schedule, which was entirely new, had not been discussed at all owing to the course that Her Majesty's Government had thought fit to take. For his own part, he was perfectly loyal to those who claimed to be responsible for this Bill. The Bill was the Bill of the late Government, and formed the most essential part of their naval policy, and the Members of that Government were not likely to turn their backs upon their own Measure now that they were out of office. But, with reference to that part of the Schedule which was new, he regretted that there had been no discussion. Believing that there would be an opportunity on the Report stage of the Bill to discuss the various matters that were contained in the Schedule of the Bill, he had taken no part in the discussion of the Measure up to now. It was most unfortunate that there should be no opportunity of discussing the new items in the Schedule. He hoped that in the circumstances the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty would give some undertaking that an opportunity should be afforded of discussing them upon the Third Reading of the Bill.

THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY

said, that an oppportunity would be afforded of discussing the new items in the Schedule upon the Third Reading of the Bill, if hon. Members opposite really desired to discuss them.

MR. CALDWELL

said, it might be perfectly true that the right hon. Gentleman had had no intimation from his side of the House, as he said; but, at the same time, it must be remembered that no one on his side of the House had the slightest intimation that the right hon. Gentleman intended to closure this portion of the Schedule.

*THE CHAIRMAN

It is a well-established rule of Debate that no reflection is allowed to be cast upon a decision to which the House has already come.

MR. CALDWELL

said he had no intention of making any reflection whatever on the decision the House had come to. As he understood it, the right hon. Gentleman was endeavouring to excuse himself on the ground that he would not have moved the Closure if he had had any intimation from the Opposition side of the House that a discussion was desired.

*THE CHAIRMAN

Order, order! This is all wholly irrelevant to the discussion on the Schedule to the Bill.

Question put, "That this be the Schedule of the Bill."

The Committee divided:—Ayes, 237; Noes,31.—(Division List, No. 75.)

On the question, "That this be the Preamble of the Bill,"

MR. KNOX (Londonderry)

asked why there was such a long preamble? He understood it was the practice of the Statute Law Revision Committee to repeal all preambles in Acts of Parliament, so that it seemed rather absurd they should be enacting preambles day after day. He should like to ask why, as a matter of drafting, there should be a preamble?

THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY

stated that the same preamble had been adopted as in previous Bills on the subject.

Motion agreed to.

Bill reported without Amendment.

On the Motion that the Third Reading be taken on Tuesday,

MR. JOHN MORLEY (Montrose Burghs)

rose, and said he was not sure he was strictly in order in making any remarks on the Motion. But it was a Motion that affected the state of business of the House, and it would be convenient if they could find out from the Government whether they intended to deal with an important branch of business that the whole House hoped they would be discussing. He did not suppose the House had ever before been so surprised and disappointed as at that moment. [Cheers.]

*MR. SPEAKER

Order, order! The right hon. Gentleman will be in order in strictly confining himself to the question whether the Naval Works Bill should be taken on Tuesday or another day. But he would not be in order in discussing any other matter.

MR. MORLEY

then said he would postpone his remarks until the Motion for the adjournment of the House. ["Hear, hear!"]

Bill to be read the Third time Tomorrow.