§
Resolution reported;
That it is expedient to authorise the issue, out of the Consolidated Fund, of any sums not exceeding in the whole £5,458,000, for the expenses of certain Military Works and other Military Services, and to authorise the Treasury to borrow by means of terminable annuities, payable out of moneys to be provided by Parliament for Army Services, and, if those moneys are insufficient, out of the Consolidated Fund, such sums as may be required for the purpose of providing money for the issue of the above-mentioned sum of £5,458,000 out of the Consolidated Fund, or the repayment to that Fund of all or any part of the sum so issued, and also to authorise the application of the Surplus of Income above Expenditure for the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1897, towards paying any sums authorised to be issued out of the Consolidated Fund for Military Works.
§ Resolution Read a Second time.
§ MR. T. LOUGH (Islington, W.)hoped the Government would not press this Report that night. If they did he should move the adjournment. There had been but an unsatisfactory discussion in Committee on the subject, the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill not having complete information. There was one subject upon which considerable interest was felt out of doors, and that was in reference to the large sum asked for for the erection of forts on the ranges of hills around London. He did not think the matter ought to be pressed through quite so quickly as this. It was a very extraordinary proposal, and the Government ought to give them fuller information about the matter. Although the amount involved might appear to be small, the business of the fortification of this great metropolis would lead to a large expenditure, and should be carefully looked into. Unless a full and satisfactory explanation was given, he thought it would be desirable to report Progress.
§ MR. BRODRICKremarked that the hon. Gentleman spoke at some length when this Resolution was before the Committee and when it seemed to be the general desire to get on with the discussion. The point the hon. Member raised 1021 had simply reference to the particulars of an expenditure—perhaps the smallest in the Bill: and what he had asked was that the Government should give full information and details as to every site on which it was proposed to mobilise troops. He might say that the Government desired to give the House every possible information in their power, but it would not be possible to designate, for the benefit of the whole world, the precise site on which it was intended, in case of invasion, to mobilise troops. But at the same time he should be perfectly prepared on the proper opportunity—which was on the Second Reading of the Bill—to give the House as full information as he possibly could on any subject that it seemed to be the general wish of the House to go into. As he told the Committee on Friday, the Government proposed to circulate with the Bill a full statement of all the places where it was proposed to reconstruct barracks at a cost of nearly three millions of money. As regarded the question of defence, he thought the hon. Gentleman would see there were limits to the disclosures it was desirable to make. On Friday he endeavoured to be perfectly frank with the Committee; he put before it every class of expenditure, with, as far as possible, details of that expenditure, and he trusted the hon. Member and the House would allow the Report stage to be taken, so that the Bill might be introduced. If hon. Gentlemen would look at the Bill, and select the points on which they desired to concentrate their attention, the Government would endeavour, to the best of their ability, to satisfy every reasonable demand that might be made in the matter.
§ SIR C. DILKE, whilst supporting the Government on this question, was bound to say that the Under Secretary for War had himself to blame for attention being called to this particular item mentioned by his hon. Friend, for the right hon. Gentleman introduced the matter on this head in a most unfortunate way. This was not a new expenditure for the fortification of London, but was the completion of a policy which had been carried out steadily ever since 1888, and which was almost concluded by the late Government, who finished the more important of the works which were contemplated in this scheme. It had been 1022 represented that this was a new departure—
§ MR. BRODRICKdid not think the right hon. Gentleman understood what he said the other night. What he said in the schedule under which this was contained was that the item was of a somewhat novel character, but that there was an exception, which was the item as to the fortification of London, which he then pointed out had been the policy of successive Governments since 1888.
§ SIR C. DILKEsaid that, as a matter of fact, anybody who took a walk round all these places on a Saturday afternoon might see them for himself, as the principal ones were finished. It was a strange thing that, as a matter of fact, this policy had never been discussed in that House, although Mr. Stanhope mentioned it in 1888. What was intended was the erection of certain defences for the decentralisation of stores for the use of Volunteers that might be mobilised at Dorking, Boxhill, Guildford and other places. He thought it was a pity that a language of mystery had been used about the matter. He was aware that some hon. and gallant Members opposite, and some hon. Gentlemen who belonged to the Navy, objected to it; but he himself supported it, and should vote in its favour in every division, as he believed it would give a certain amount of confidence to the public and the Press under certain circumstances.
§ SIR JOHN COLOMB (Great Yarmouth)deprecated the discussion of what was a very serious matter before they had the Bill in their hands. He strongly opposed that portion of it which dealt with anything like the fortification of London. That was only one item of the Bill, which covered a vast amount of ground and dealt with the most serious questions as to the defence of our Empire.
§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTthought it was very desirable that they should know whether London was being surrounded with fortifications. Nobody could say that that was not the impression conveyed who was in the habit of reading The Times newspaper. The solemn remonstrance given in The Times in regard to the important speech of the Undersecretary for War against the proposal of the fortification of London showed what had been the impression produced by the right hon. Gentleman. 1023 If that were a wrong impression, some other time than a quarter past 12 oclock should, he thought, be chosen for explaining it, so that the public could be made to understand that it was an entire delusion which had been disavowed by Her Majesty's Government. He thought it had created almost as much astonishment and amusement as the Bill which was introduced that afternoon. [Laughter.] The Fortification of London Bill and the Government Education Bill were two Bills which had taken the public entirely by surprise. [Ministerial cries of "Oh!" and laughter.] The country should have the opportunity of inquiring into both Measures. He hoped the Government would, at all events, say whether they were going to erect fortifications round London, or whether they were not.
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER, (Sir MICHAEL HICKS BEACH,) Bristol, W.hoped he could set the apprehensions of the right hon. Gentleman at rest. The Government were not going to erect a series of fortifications round London; they were simply going to complete the work which was undertaken by the right hon. Gentleman himself. [Laughter.] It was a work of a very simple character. It had cost, he thought, some. £68,000 in the past, and in the future it was calculated to cost not more than £96,000, and he did hope that that being so the Committee would feel that there was not a very important question at issue, and that they would allow his right hon. Friend to bring in the Bill.
§ MR. DILLONthought it was the duty of Irish Member's to resist such an expenditure. He did not care very much to what purpose the English people put their money provided they let Ireland have a fair share. The expenditure on military armaments and on the Navy during the last four or five years had been monstrous. He hoped they would have the support of the Conservative Members for Ireland in opposing this Report, because the present expenditure
§ was so enormous that Ireland was unable to bear her share of the burden.
§ MR. HUDSON KEARLEY (Devonport)thought that the expenditure of this additional sum of £96,000 would be a little wasteful. The statement was that London was going to be fortified. In his constituency there had been erected splendid monuments of the Palmerston era in the form of so-called fortifications. Lord Palmerston frightened the country into spending 11 millions of money. The whole town was barricaded with earthworks which were never worth a penny. Last year, as an act of humanity to the population, the War Department agreed to assent to the Town Council removing these ridiculous works, which they have now done at their own expense. In face of that experience, he thought they ought to resist this attempt to waste £96,000. The sooner the item was removed from the Bill the better it would be.
§ MR. VESEY KNOX (Londonderry)asked how much money was to be spent in barracks in Ireland. In many places the existing barracks were almost falling to pieces. Three years ago a promise was made that the barracks in his constituency would be put into a decent condition, but nothing had yet been done. Was provision made in this Bill for the necessary expenditure? He also wanted to know what proportion of the whole sum asked for by the Government was to be expended in Ireland. He fancied that the amount intended to be expended in fortifying Berehaven and Lough Swilly was exceedingly small.
§ DR. TANNER (Cork, Mid)emphasised the statements of previous speakers, and hoped that the works in Ireland would not be proceeded with until Irish opinion had been consulted. He trusted that the Motion would be pressed to a division.
§ Question put, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution:"—The House divided:—Ayes, 109; Noes, 29.—(Division List—No. 9—appended.)
1025| AYES. | ||
| Ashmead-Bartlett, Sir Ellis | Bartley, George C. T. | Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire) |
| Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John | Beach, Rt. Hon. Sir M. H. (Bristol) | Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm.) |
| Bailey, James (Walworth) | Bemrose, Henry Howe | Charrington, Spencer |
| Baker, Sir John | Boscawen, Arthur Griffith- | Clare, Octavius Leigh |
| Balcarres, Lord | Brassey, Albert | Clough, Walter Owen |
| Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (Manch'r) | Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John | Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H A. E |
| Balfour, Gerald William (Leeds) | Caldwell, James | Coghill, Douglas Harry |
| Banbury, Frederick George | Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lanes.) | Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse |
| Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready | Hobhouse, Henry | Purvis, Robert |
| Compton, Lord Alwyne (Beds) | Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry | Robertson, Herbert (Hackney) |
| Curzon, Rt. Hn. G. N. (Lanc. S. W.) | Jessel, Captain Herbert Morton | Russell, T. W. (Tyrone) |
| Curzon, Viscount (Bucks) | Johnston, William (Belfast) | Savory, Sir Joseph |
| Dalbiac, Major Philip Hugh | Kenny, William | Scoble, Sir Andrew Richard |
| Dane, Richard M. | Kenyon-Slaney, Col. William | Seely, Charles Hilton |
| Davies, W. Rees-(Pembrokesh.) | Lawrence, Edwin (Cornwall) | Smith, Abel H. (Christchurch) |
| Digby, John K. D. Wingfield- | Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool) | Stanley, Lord (Lanes.) |
| Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles | Lawson, John Grant (Yorks) | Stone, Sir Benjamin |
| Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- | Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington) | Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley |
| Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V. | Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R. (Essex) | Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester) |
| Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward | Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Liverpool) | Talbot, John G. (Oxford Univ.) |
| Finch, George H. | Lloyd, Archie Kirkman | Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray |
| Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne | Macartney, W. G. Ellison | Vincent, Col. Sir C E. Howard |
| Fairbank, Joseph Thomas | Macdona, John Cumming | Wanklyn, James Leslie |
| Fisher, William Hayes | McCalmont, Maj-. Gn. (Ant'm, N) | Webster, Sir R. E. (Isle of W.) |
| Fison, Frederick William | Malcolm, Ian | Welby, Lieut.-Col. A. G. E. |
| Flannery, Fortescue | Milward, Colonel Victor | Whiteley, H. (Ashton-under-L.) |
| Galloway, William Johnson | Monckton, Edward Philip | Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset) |
| Gibbs, Hn. A. G. H. (City of Lond.) | Montagu, Hon. J. Scott (Hants) | Williams, Jos. Powell-(Birin.) |
| Gibbs, Hon. Vicary (St. Albans) | Muntz, Philip A. | Willoughbyde Eresby, Lord |
| Goldsworthy, Major-General | Murray, Rt. Hn. A. Graham (Bute) | Willox, John Archibald |
| Goschen, George J. (Sussex) | Murray, Charles J. (Coventry) | Wodehouse, Edmond E. (Bath) |
| Graham, Henry Robert | Nicol, Donald Ninian | Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart- |
| Gray, Ernest (West Ham) | Parkes, Ebenezer | Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy |
| Gretton, John | Paulton, James Mellor | |
| Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm. | Pirie, Captain Duncan Vernon | TELLERS FOR THE AYES, Sir |
| Hare, Thomas Leigh | Platt-Higgins, Frederick | William Walrond and Mr. |
| Helder, Augustus | Pretyman, Capt. Ernest George | Anstruther. |
| Hermon-Hodge, Robert Trotter | Pryce-Jones, Edward | |
| NOES. | ||
| Birrell, Augustine | Hazell, Walter | Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion) |
| Cawley, Frederick | Jones, William (Carnarvonshire) | Robson, William Snowdon |
| Colville, John | Knox, Edmund Francis Vesey | Stanhope, Hon. Philip J. |
| Crean, Eugene | Lambert, George | Tanner, Charles Kearns |
| Daly, James | Leuty, Thomas Richmond | Williams, John Carveil (Notts) |
| Davitt, Michael | Logan, John William | Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.) |
| Dillon, John | Luttrell, Hugh Fownes | Woodhouse, Sir J. T (Hudd'rsf"ld) |
| Doogan, P. C. | M'Hugh, Patrick A. (Leitrim) | |
| Goddard, Daniel Ford | McKenna, Reginald | TELLERS FOR THE NOES, Mr. |
| Harrison, Charles | O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) | Kearley and Mr. Lough. |
| Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale- | O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary) |
§ Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Brodrick, Mr. Balfour and Mr. Powell-Williams.
§ Bill to provide for defraying the expenses of certain Military Works and other Military Services," presented accordingly, and Bead the First time; to be Bead a Second time upon Thursday, and to be printed.—[Bill 105.]