* MR. GIBSON BOWLES (Lynn Regis)said the matter which he had now to introduce to the notice of the House was one of great importance—: of national importance. The question was whether Gibraltar had ceased to be an impregnable fortress and a safe naval refuge, and had become an untenable refuge for ships, owing to the character of certain works made there, and to the great improvements and the increased range, mobility, and invisibility of modern guns. By his Amendment he asked that an inquiry, a prompt, complete, and thorough inquiry, should be made into the circumstances which had arisen and which might render Gibraltar a source of weakness to the Empire instead of being a source of strength. He had feared at one time that he would have had to discuss the question and endeavour to persuade the House that the view he took upon the question was the right one, and he thought he could have so persuaded the House. But such a discussion would have involved many considerations with regard to foreign nations which he would have 1063 hesitated to adduce and have been sorry to discuss in the House. He had always been anxious not to debate this question in the House, and the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House would not question the fact that he (Mr. Bowles) had taken months before, and repeatedly since, such steps as lay in his power to induce the Government, by private representations, to undertake the inquiry he desired. He assured the House that it was only because those efforts failed that be was, as he thought, driven to resort to the pamphlet he had published upon the subject and to put the Amendment on the Paper. To his great relief he had now received a communication from the Government, which made him hope it might be unnecessary to proceed further with his Amendment; and he had, if he might use the metaphor, not come down to lay siege to the Government, but to receive the keys of the fortress.
He had few more words to say upon the subject. It was, in his opinion, his duty towards the question itself, and also to those who had promised to support him in his resolution not to withdraw the Amendment quite silently or without some assurance from the Government that they would take steps to satisfy himself, and those who had done him the honour to support him, by agreeing to such an inquiry as he desired into the safety and adequacy and defensibility of the works, and the comparative advantages of the east and west sides of the Rock. It was a question whether any of the works on the western side might not require to be transferred to the eastern, and, if so, whether any other works would require to be erected there.
He trusted he might receive that assurance, and he also trusted that if the inquiry showed, as it undoubtedly would show, that there were dangers in the present system which it was essential to remedy, the Government would consider what remedy to apply and would apply it. The Government might consider that he had taken up this matter with an undue amount of determination and pressed it with what might be considered an undue amount of pertinacity, but if that were so be had done it solely from a sense of public duty 1064 and to avoid what he, at all events, thought was likely to be a danger to the Empire. He had done his duty so far as he could, and he was glad to admit that he bad been met with an open-mindedness on the part of the Government which was as novel as it was agreeable. He formally moved the Amendment of which he had given notice.
§
Amendment proposed—
At the end of the Question, to add the words,—'And we humbly represent to Your Majesty the desirability of now making a further and more complete inquiry into the works under construction at Gibraltar, and the dangers to which those works are exposed; and of suspending the further prosecution of work on Docks Nos. 1 and 2 until such inquiry has been completed and its results considered by Your Majesty's Government.'"—(Mr. Gibson Bowles).
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
§ THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,) Manchester, E.As my hon. friend has only moved this formally, I hope the House will forgive me for rising to reply without awaiting the formality of the Amendment being-seconded. I am sure everybody will agree that my hon. friend made no undue claim upon the House when he said he was moved solely by a sense of public duty and by no other motive in bringing up this question. In refraining from pressing the Amendment he has, I think, given additional proof of the patriotism and public spirit with which he is animated. I am glad, although I am in one respect sorry, that my hon. friend has not had an opportunity of making a speech upon this subject, because a speech from him upon a subject with regard to which he possesses a minute knowledge and does not depend upon hearsay for his facts would be most welcome. But my hon. friend must realise that it is impossible to have a discussion upon this question without raising international and strategical problems which in the public interest it would not be wise to thrash thoroughly out across the floor of the House.
It is possible that international questions might be dragged by accident into the discussion, and when such inter- 1065 national questions are dragged into a debate it is difficult to be, assured that there may not be misunderstandings and misconceptions, which it is always desirable to avoid. Now we thoroughly recognise the necessity, with my hon. friend, that the ever changing nature of naval warfare requires us from time to time to review the conditions under which a great naval base like Gibraltar is defended, and my hon. friend has done much to show that such occasion of review presents itself at the present time, and I am sure, if he will give us his valuable assistance in carrying out that review, either formally or informally, we shall be grateful to him, and I know, through private communications with mm, that my hon. friend is quite ready to lay before the Admiralty and the War Office all the information at his disposal. In the meantime I do not think it is necessary for me to do more than thank him for the patriotic line he has taken.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURMy hon. friend whispers to me that I have not promised the inquiry; but that I will certainly do now, and I ask my hon. friend to take notice of the fact that I hope he will serve upon it and give us the benefit of his information and advice.
§ MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON (Dundee)concurred in the views of the Leader of the House, and thought the inquiry would be an extremely useful one. His only object in intervening in the discussion was to make it perfectly clear that the scheme for the defence of Gibraltar, which was now called into question, was not in any way thoughtlessly adopted either by the late Liberal Government or the House itself. He believed there never was a scheme sanctioned more deliberately by the House with its eyes open than this scheme. At the time it was proposed an informal expert Committee sat for several days. The Committee consisted of every Member of the House who chose to take part in it. and it was satisfactory to all, including the hon. Member for King's Lynn, who expressed in the debate which subsequently took place an 1066 opinion in favour of the dock in the position decided on, and said that even in the unlikely event of a war with Spain, it would not in all probability suffer much damage.
* MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid that if the hon. Gentleman was going to enter into a discussion to which he would not have an opportunity of replying, and to, refer to observations made by him in a debate which took place in 1896, he should also read the reply made by him in his pamphlet.
§ MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONsaid that he only referred to the debate in order to show that the, scheme at that time was apparently satisfactory to the hon. Member. At the same time the hon. Gentleman was quite entitled to take the line he had. He had discharged his public duty conscientiously, and he (Mr. Robertson) was glad that he, had received a favourable reply from the Government.
§ MR. BARTLEY (Islington, N.)This seems to me to raise a question of a somewhat serious nature. It appears to me a very strange thing that both the Governments—the late Liberal Government and the Conservative Government—should propose to spend many millions upon works at Gibraltar, and that it should fall to the lot of my hon. friend, a civilian Member, to find out that this was not a wise thing to do. Having regard to the many naval experts there are in the Service, it is strange that it should fall to my hon. friend to discover that there is sufficient doubt about the construction of these forts, or harbours, or docks, or whatever they are, to necessitate having a Committee to inquire into them. I do find it extremely difficult to understand how it came to be possible for my hon. friend to go to Gibraltar and see things which ought to be, to the ordinary military man, obvious, and then to write a pamphlet which induces the Government practically to alter the plans they have adopted. If this be true of the greatest fortress we hold, one of the wonders of the world, and one of the glories of the Empire, how can we who profess to know nothing about the Army or Navy feel satisfied that the Army and Navy 1067 are being managed properly in other directions? The First Lord of the Treasury acknowledges that he wants a Committee to inquire into this question, and he asks a gentleman who is neither a soldier nor a sailor to act upon it. That seems to me to be a most extraordinary thing. The alterations in the conditions of warfare, no doubt, have been very great, but have we to learn from the Boers that modern artillery has a range of 9,000 or 10,000 yards? We should have known this long ago. Many civilians knew it, and my hon. friend knew it. Lord Goschen was for years at the head of the Navy. He has been succeeded by a great man (the Earl of Selborne). Did any of these people know about the dangers which have been pointed out by my hon. friend? It has fallen to my hon. friend, a civilian, to point out to the Army and Navy these elementary principles. If this is the way the affairs of our Army and Navy are conducted, all I can say is that the public will demand, more than ever before, that there should be most sweeping reforms.
This is not a party question in any sense, because at the General Election the question next to the war was the reform of the Army and Navy, and there is a feeling abroad that, in spite of the enormous sums which we have expended, in spite of the many millions, now amounting to over £30,000,000 or £40,000,000 annually, for the Army and Navy, we have not got a technical body in any of these branches of the service able to find out the dangers which have been referred to. It remains for a private Member of this House to discover them. It is for the purpose of inquiring into these things that a Committee is to be appointed. I do say that, in the interest of our great country, and in the interest of the Army and Navy, it is necessary that this matter should be looked into. We should, with these facts before us, look more carefully than ever into every detail of Army and Navy administration, so as to put the country on a footing of real security. I am sure that the public will agree that the Army and Navy organisation is completely wrong, and the idea will be forced upon them that something of a drastic nature should be carried out at once.
§ * SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT (Sheffield, Ecclesall)The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down has based his statements on a large assumption— namely, that the hon. Member for King's Lynn is correct in his facts with regard to this issue. I do not at all regret that this Committee has been granted; but I must endorse to a very large extent what has been said by the hon. Member opposite. I do not think that any question has been more elaborately inquired into by all the experts available than this question, and I hope the House will not assume that the hon. Member for King's Lynn—whose great authority on these questions I admit, and who is very often correct in his views — is right in this case, because there is a great deal to be said on the other side, as will no doubt appear when the new Committee sifts all the evidence available.
The whole question is a very simple one, and may be put into a single sentence: whether the risk of war with Spain—and that is a very small one— is not completely outweighed by the great and undoubted dangers which the east side of the dock presents for the dock accommodation now being provided. That is the principal question that the Committee will have to consider. [An HON. MEMBER: No.] There are the great depth of the sea, exposure to the wind and waves, and to the attacks from the sea to be set off. That is the main question the Committee will have to consider, and I doubt if the evidence will bear out what my hon. friend has stated. I trust the House will not assume that my hon. friend is correct in this case because he has published a pamphlet and obtained a Committee.
§ * SIR JOHN COLOMB (Great Yarmouth)I extremely rejoice at the turn this debate has taken, and I congratulate my hon. friend the mover of the Amendment. I also rejoice at the prompt action of my right hon. friend the First Lord of the Treasury in at once meeting my hon. friend, and thus avoiding further discussion.
I only rise now to draw attention to a matter which I have often brought before the House on former occasions, and that is the position of this House with 1069 regard to the expenditure of money on the Army and Navy. The body I want to have an explanation about as regards this matter of Gibraltar is the Cabinet Defence Committee. That is the body I consider entirely responsible for the existing state of things. I am not going into any details. I shall confine myself broadly to the commonplace fact that this important question concerning Gibraltar is partly naval and partly military. It involves considerations of naval strategy, and when you come to the details it requires technical military knowledge. I hope that by and by we shall get at the fact whether this matter was or was not decided by the Defence Committee of the Cabinet. Was it decided by two Defence Committees of two different Governments or not? We are told that this Defence Committee keeps no records, and therefore perhaps we shall never know. I trust I shall have an opportunity to illustrate more fully the evil of our present system in dealing with these problems—the system which precludes the action of this most responsible Defence Committee of the Cabinet from being commented upon by this House. The whole difficulty would be got over if the Government would allocate £5 as salary to the President of the Defence Committee on the Army or Navy Estimates. This House would then be in a position to find out who was responsible in this country for what has been done and what has been left undone at Gibraltar and elsewhere. I am delighted at the course events have taken.
MR. GIBSON BOWLESI have to thank the First Lord of the Treasury for the assurance he has given. I assure him that, so far as I can, consistently with my public duty, I shall give him every assistance I am able to afford. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Main Question again proposed.