HC Deb 27 July 1903 vol 126 cc392-407

Considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

[Mr. J. W. LOWTHER (Cumberland, Penrith) in the Chair.]

Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

MR. BUCHANAN

said that the Amendment he had on the Paper raised a most important question. There was a substantial alteration in this Bill as compared with the four previous Naval Works Acts. The money borrowed under these previous Acts was to be paid off by terminable annuities which were all to expire at a date thirty years after the passing of the Act of 1895. In this Bill, for the first time, the annuities were to he paid off at varying periods acording to the time at which the money was borrowed. There were several objections to this proposal, not exclusively financial; and the financial objections were obvious. It was clear that this provision very largely extended the duration of time over which the country would be paying for the works included in the schedule. Possibly that might be a good thing with regard to larger works, but it was hardly capable of defence with regard to minor works. Hitherto it had only been assumed that the scheme which was started in 1895 had been supplemented; that it was looked upon as one continuous scheme for the completion of necessary Naval Defence Works. The Civil Lord of the Admiralty admitted that the items in the Bill were final, but that the amount was not. That was all the more reason why a fixed date should be assigned for the repayment of the loan. Surely it was absurd that money should be spread over an indefinite period of years for works in the schedule of the Bill, which undoubtedly could not be completed for ten or twelve years. He ventured to think that several of the works would not be completed for twenty years.

Amendment proposed— In page 1, line 15, to leave out from the word 'Act,' to end of line 19."—(Mr. Buchanan.)

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."

* THE CIVIL LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. PRETYMAN, Suffolk, Woodbridge)

said he thought if the hon. Gentleman would look into the question further he would see that the effect of carrying out the policy of 1895, or rather the provisions of the Act of 1895, would land them in a very great financial difficulty. The right, hon. Gentleman the Member for West Monmouthshire, who was Chancellor of the Exchequer in 1895, then stated that the principle of the Bill was to equalise expenditure by a well regulated system of loans. Many of the works mentioned in the schedule of the Bill might not be completed until 1910 or 1915; and if they borrowed the money as from 1895, the result would be that the rate of repayment over the period of ten years from 1915 to 1925 would, according, to a calculation he had had made, be something approaching £3,000,000 a year. That would be an impossible burden on the Navy Estimates. If the hon. Gentleman made a calculation for himself he would see that the Bill was not really a departure from the principle of the Bill of 1895. It merely meant spreading the works over a longer period.

MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON (Dundee)

said the hon. Gentleman had correctly quoted the speech of his right hon. friend the Member for West Monmouthshire, who was Chancellor of the Exchequer in 1895 when the first Naval Works Bill was brought in, and who said that the principle of the Bill was to equalise expenditure by a well-regulated system of loans. But the Committee had to interpret those words by the Act

AYES.
Anson, Sir William Reynell Balfour, Rt Hn Gerland W (Leeds Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H
Arkwright, John Stanhope Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs.)
Arnold-Forster, Hugh O. Banbury, Sir Frederick George Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire
Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benj. Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)
Aubrey-Fleteher, Rt. Hn. Sir H. Bhownaggree, Sir M. M. Chamberlain, Rt. Hon J (Birm
Bagot, Capt. Josceline Fitz Roy Bignold, Arthur Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. JA (Wore
Bailey, James (Walworth) Blundell, Colonel Henry Chapman, Edward
Bain, Colonel James Robert Bond, Edward Charrington, Spencer
Balcarres, Lord Boscawen, Arthur Griffith- Clive, Captain Percy A.
Balfour, Rt. Hon. A.J. (Manch'r Bul,. William James Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.
Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey Butcher, John George Coddington, Sir William

of 1895, which was to spread the repayments over a period of thirty years from the beginning of the system. An assurance was then given to the House that if they permitted them to begin a police of borrowing for naval works the whole expenditure would end in thirty years. They did not, perhaps, anticipate the enormous development of naval works carried on by the Administration which succeeded theirs; but he thought it would be a departure if they now altered the period during which the repayments were to be made. He was glad to think that the works would be over by 1915. The result would be that between 1915 and 1925 they should have to pay something like £3,000,000 a year be way of interest and sinking fund. But considering the enormous additions that had already been made to the Navy he thought the hon. Gentleman ought not to be frightened at that expenditure. Personally he would be inclined to support the existing system, because it would involve the expenditure of £3,000,000 a year for interest and repayments of loans, and might thus conduce to economy on the part of the Admiralty.

MR. BUCHANAN

said that the Amendment was one of very considerable importance. He had not made a calculation in the manner suggested by the Civil Lord of the Admiralty. They had already a sum of £500,000 for the extinction of terminable annuities; and he laid stress on the fact that they should insist on having some finality as regarded the repayment of the loans.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes, 173; Noes, 67. (Division List No. 189.)

Coghill, Douglas Harry Henderson, Sir Alexander Percy, Earl
Cohen, Benjamin Louis Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T. Pilkington, Colonel Richard
Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready Hoult, Joseph Plummer, Walter R.
Colston, Chas, Edw H. Athole Howard, Jno (Kent, Faver'h'n Pretyman, Ernest George
Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas Howard, J. (Midd., Tott'ham Purvis, Robert
Corbett, T. L. (Down, North) Hudson, George Bickersteth Rattigan, Sir William Henry
Cripps, Charles Alfred Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. ArthurFred. Reid, James (Greenock)
Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine
Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile Kemp, Lieut.-Colonel George Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson
Dalkeith, Earl of Kenyon, Hon. G. T. (Denbigh Robertson, H. (Hackney)
Dalrymple, Sir Charles Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W.(Salop Rolleston, Sir John F. L.
Davenport, William Bromley- Keswick, William Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye
Dickson, Charles Scott Kimber, Henry Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-
Dimsdale, Rt. Hon. Sir Jos. C Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm. Sadler, Col. Saml. Alexander
Dixon-Hartland, Sir F. Dixon Laurie, Lieut.-General Samuel, Harry (Limehouse)
Dorington, Rt. Hon. Sir J. E. Law, Andrew Bonar(Glasgow Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert
Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool Seely, Chas. Hilton (Lincoln)
Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin Lawson, John Grant (Yorks. N R Seely, Maj. JEB.(Isle of Wight
Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir Wm. Hart Lee, A. H. (Hants, Fareham) Sharpe, William Edward T.
Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead) Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew)
Faber, George Denison (York) Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage Simeon, Sir Barrington
Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward Leveson-Gower, Fredk. N. S. Sinclair, Louis (Romford)
Fergusson, Rt Hn. Sir J.(Manc'r Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R. Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, E.)
Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine Stanley, Edw. Jas. (Somerset)
Finch, Rt. Hon. George H. Long, Rt. Hn. W. (Bristol, S. Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)
Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne Lonsdale, John Brownlee Stone, Sir Benjamin
Fisher, William Hayes Lowther, Rt. Hon. Jas. (Kent) Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)
Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon Loyd, Archie Kirkman Talbot, RtHn J.G.(Oxf'd Univ.
Flannery, Sir Fortescue Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.
Flower, Ernest Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth Tritton, Charles Ernest
Forster, Henry William Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward
Foster, Philip S. (Warwick, S.W Macdona, John Cumming Valentia, Viscount
Fyler, John Arthur M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool) Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H.
Gardner, Ernest Malcolm, Ian Warde, Colonel C. E.
Gibbs, Hn A.G.H (City of Lond Maxwell, Rt Hn. Sir H E(Wigt'n Webb, Colonel William George
Gordon, Hn. J.E. (Elgin & Nrn Montagu, G. (Huntingdon) Whiteley, H(Ashton-und-Lyne
Gore, Hn. GR. C. Ormsby-(Salop Morgan, David J(Walthamstow Williams, Rt Hn J Powell-(Birm
Gorst, Rt. Hn. Sir John Eldon Morrell, George Herbert Wilson, A. Stanley(York, E.R.
Goschen, Hon George Joachim Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer Wilson, John (Glasgow)
Grenfell, William Henry Mount, William Arthur Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson
Hain, Edward Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C. Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-
Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F. Murray, Rt Hn A. Graham (Bute Wrightson, Sir Thomas
Hamilton, RtHnLord G(Midd'x Murray, Charles J. (Coventry) Wylie, Alexander
Hare, Thomas Leigh Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath) Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George
Harris, Frederick Leverton Nicholson, William Graham
Hatch, Ernest Frederick G. Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay TELLERS FOE THE AYES—
Hay, Hon. Claude George Peel, Hn. Wm. Robert Wellesley Sir Alexander Acland-
Heaton, John Henniker Pemberton, John S. G. Hood and Mr. Anstruther.
NOES.
Asher, Alexander Elibank, Master of Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.
Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbt. Hy. Evans, Sir Francis H (Maidstone M'Arthur, William (Cornwall
Atherley-Jones, L. Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co. Moulton, John Fletcher
Barlow, John Emmott Fuller, J. M. F. Palmer, Sir Charles M.(Durham
Beaumont, Wentworth C. B. Goddard, Daniel Ford Partington, Oswald
Bolton, Thomas Dolling Grant, Corrie Paulton, James Mellor
Brigg, John Griffith, Ellis J. Perks, Robert William
Broadhurst, Henry Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton Rea, Russell
Bryce, Rt. Hon. James Hayne, Rt. Hon. Chas. Seale- Reid, Sir R. Threshie(Dumfries)
Buxton, Sydney Charles Hayter, Rt Hon Sir Arthur D. Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)
Cameron, Robert Horniman, Frederick John Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)
Causton, Richard Knight Hutchinson, Dr. Charles Fredk. Rose, Charles Day
Channing, Francis Allston Jacoby, James Alfred Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland
Cremer, William Randal Joicey, Sir James Schwann, Charles E.
Crooks, William Jones, David Brynmor (Swansea Shackleton, David James
Dalziel, James Henry Jones, William (Carnarvonsh. Shaw, Thomas (Hawick, B.)
Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardign Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall) Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)
Dewar, John A.(Inverness-shire Levy, Maurice Spencer, Rt Hn. C.R(Northants
Dunn, Sir William Lloyd-George, David Taylor, Theo. C. (Radcliffe)
Thomas, David A. (Merthyr) Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney TELLERS FOR THE NOES—
Toulmin, George White, Luke (York, E. R.) Mr. Buchanan and Mr.
Ure, Alexander Whittaker, Thomas Palmer Caldwell.
Walton, J. Lawson (Leeds, S.) Wilson, H. J. (York, W. R.
Wason, Eugene(Clackmannan) Yoxall, James Henry

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2 agreed to.

MR. BUCHANAN

said that the question that he raised on this Amendment was the propriety of having such large general items in the schedule of a Bill of this kind. What they had always contended for had been the policy of borrowing money for definite work of a permanent character and entailing considerable expense at a particular time. The general proposal to vote £1,000,000 or £1,250,000 for deepening harbours and approaches gave enormous latitude to the spending Department of the Admiralty. They had evidence that under this large item of deepening harbours and approaches all sorts and kinds of comparatively small works might be embarked upon, not merely deepening and dredging harbours but buying dredgers for the purpose, and other matters which could not be looked upon as a proper method of spending money which we had borrowed. The Civil Lord had stated that the Government had in this Bill come to the determination that although the money was not final the items were final. Were the smaller items included in these larger items to be final or would the Government consider itself entitled in years to come to insert under the larger heads new works, because, if they did, that would do away to a large extent with the assurance given by the hon. Gentleman. It was obvious that if the Government were still to be entitled to insert new sub-heads and new works under the larger heads of items that that must be so. He begged to move the Amendment.

Amendment proposed— In page 2, to leave out lines 20 and 21."—(Mr. Buchanan.)

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the schedule."

* SIR JOHN COLOMB (Great Yarmouth)

said he did not altogether agree with the hon. Gentleman who raised this question. Deepening harbours was highly necessary owing to the increased draught of ships and to silting up of channels, and he did not see how such a matter could be dealt with from year to year. They must make arrangements a long way ahead.

* MR. PRETYMAN

said the hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment did not realise that this item must be of a general nature, because dredging was carried on by one body from harbour to harbour. So far as the control of Parliament was concerned, that was better secured by adding to this Vote every two years than by taking a large sum in the first instance and coming to this House every two years and having it renewed. And it must be remembered that dredging harbours was not a work carried on by only one service. It embraced several services. He did not wish to weary the Committee with details. The matter had been placed fully before the House in the Memorandum of the First Lord. As to the question of finality all he could say was that this Bill had been before the House on four or five previous occasions and had always had the approval of the House. When they came to the final Bill he hoped all the work would be completed.

MR. BUCHANAN

asked whether any new works would be added.

* MR. PRETYMAN

said there would probably be a considerable addition for improving the access at Chatham.

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

objected to the expenditure of such large sums on the deepening of water-beds and so forth without the places being clearly stated. There were harbours on the East Coast in connection with which enormous sums had been spent for the very purpose for which the money now asked for was required; and the Government benefited by all this work without paying anything towards the cost. He believed a promise was made on behalf of the Government to contribute £250,000 towards the work on the Tyne, but the Tyne Commissioners, although they had spent nearly £5,000,000, had never been able to get a farthing out of the Government. He hoped the hon. Member in charge of the Bill would look into the matter and see why the promise had not been fulfilled.

* MR. PRETYMAN

pointed out that this money was for purely naval harbours.

MR. BUCHANAN

asked whether the hon. Member reserved to himself power to put in the schedule only work for deepening the approaches at Chatham, or a general power of inserting new items.

* MR. PRETYMAN

said there was a general power, but he merely expressed the hope that it would not be necessary to add any item other than that connected with Chatham.

MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON

asked whether the hon. Member would give an assurance that no new item other than the one referred to would be added.

* MR. PRETYMAN

said he was unable to give the assurance. He could only express the hope that it would not be necessary to add anything else.

Question put, and agreed to.

MR. GIBSON BOWLES (Lynn Regis)

moved the omission from the schedule of the item relating to dockyard extension at Gibraltar. Not only would the work, if carried out, be dangerous in itself, but it would make Gibraltar a weakness instead of a strength to the Empire. The highest authorities had declared it to be impossible to make Gibraltar, with the new works on the western side, tenable unless we had a separate army of 30.000 or 40,000 men to occupy the 600 square miles of territory opposite. The Civil Lord would not deny that that was the settled opinion of the best military authorities. The gravity of the matter had greatly increased within the last few days, as Senor Silvela on the eve of giving up office, had made use in the Spanish Cortes of expressions which had been taken by the Spanish newspapers to amount to a declaration of an alliance with France. Señor Silvela stated that Gibraltar would be the center of any fighting which took place over questions arising in or about the Mediterranean. The Admiralty had put forward all sorts of pretences in this matter. First they said it was impossible to build a harbour on the eastern side of Gibraltar because the water was too deep, but he pointed our that it was equally deep on the other side. Then they said the weather was so bad that work could be done only one day in two, but that pretence had been blown to the winds by their own Commisions. The contention that a harbour on the eastern side would cost £10,000,000 and take twenty years to build had also been demolished. His endeavour had always been to save money from the western side in order to get a more secure harbour on the eastern side, but he had been unable to induce the Admiralty to accept either his views or the views of their own experts. He was afraid that most serious embarrassments would arise from a continuance of this expenditure. Some day His Majesty's Government might find that Gibraltar in consequence of the foolish expenditure of £4,000,000 or £5,000,000, instead of being a source of strength would be a source of weakness. It would be the objective against which every enemy of England would direct their guns; therefore, he thought a profound mistake had been committed. He agreed that it was right to build one dock and to expend £1,500,000 upon it, but when it was proposed to spend £4,500,000 upon three docks he began to oppose the scheme. All that he had contended about Gibraltar had been completely borne out by the most capable expert at the Admiralty. The necessity for a large Army to defend Gibraltar had been completely overlooked. The whole of this expenditure would not be advantageous, but mischievous.

Amendment proposed— In page 2, to leave out line 24."—(Mr. Gibson Bowles.)

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the schedule."

* MR. PRETYMAN

said this question had been fully discussed on previous occasions both in this House and in another place. The hon. Member for King's Lynn had taken great interest in this matter, and both the House and the Country were indebted to him for the light he had thrown upon it. This was a question of tile percentage of security. The east side of the rock was precipitous, and it would be impossible to locate any establishment on that side which would be secure from fire. Therefore, the only thing that could be erected on the east side which would be really secure would be one dock. Even then the approach to that dock would be exposed to fire. It was pointed out by the Committee that while the proposed harbour on the east side would not be exposed to concentrated fire from the shore, it would not be free from gun fire altogether. They had to face the fact that in view of the very long range of artillery fire Gibraltar had not that absolute security which some people imagined. It was, however, of immense value to the Navy not only in war, but during preparation for war, and he could not follow his hon. friend in the argument that while one dock was most desirable three were quite unnecessary. The large protective works being constructed were just as effective for the protection of three as for one dock, and therefore the proportionate expenditure was by no means so great. He could not follow his hon. friend in his remarks as to the opinions expressed by experts on this question. At any rate, the opinions he had mentioned had not reached the Admiralty in the form that he had put them to the Committee. On the contrary, these opinions were entirely in a contrary sense. He did not think any ground had been made out to induce the Committee to reverse the decision already arrived at.

Mr. GIBSON BOWLES

said that although it was true that the eastern side, according to theoretical statistics, was not absolutely free from fire, the Committee reported that the eastern side was fourteen times as secure as the western side. The hon. Member for Woodbridge affected not to know anything about the report which stated that they must have a separate army. He could not believe that the hon. Member was ignorant of that report. The report was in the hands of Admiral Rawson, and the Committee of which he (the hon. Member) was a member and he had the best of all reasons for knowing that it had been communicated to the Admiralty. If the hon. Member had not seen it he should apply to the Secretary of State for War and then state how he proposed to find that separate army of 30,000 or 40,000 men which they were told was the only way to make Gibraltar tenable. He begged leave to withdraw his Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. BUCHANAN

said he raised a similar question to that which was discussed in reference to the harbour approaches. Certain statements were made in the First Lord of the Admiralty's annual statement about a veriety of works, but they had not had any enumeration or record of the works that were being undertaken by the Admiralty under this Bill. The Civil Lord enumerated certain works including work at Wei-hai-Wei, and he mentioned other works and other places which were not mentioned by the First Lord of the Admiralty. The resule was that the House and the Committee were absolutely in the dark as to the way in which this large sum of money was being spent. Every two years they authorized the Admiralty to spend up to a maximum for coaling facilities and fuel storage at home and abroad, but they got no statement as to what works were being undertaken, and their cost, or when they were going to be completed. If the hon. Member could tell them of some settled scheme for the disposal of this money, and inform them that no other work would be added, that would meet the demands they had made.

Amendment proposed— In page 2, to leave out line 35."—(Mr. Buchanan.)

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the schedule."

* MR. PRETYMAN

said he did not think the hon. Member was in the House when he made his statement upon this Bill. In a long speech which he was allowed to inflict upon the House, he detailed all the works, and the House approved of those items. The hon. Member asked that there should be specific items, and that was exactly what had been done. He had a specific list of the works totalling up to the sum which was now being asked for, and there was nothing vague about it. Unless it was the wish of the House, he would not inflict all those items on the Committee, but if the hon. Member wished it, he should have great pleasure in showing him the figures, and he would then see that definite sums were allotted, and the works would be completed for the sums he was asking for.

MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON

said that what his hon. friend wanted was an assurance that no new items would be introduced. If some such assurance was forthcoming he would not advise his hon. friend to take the opinion of the Committee upon this question. Otherwise he thought his hon. friend ought to go to a division.

* MR. PRETYMAN

said he must adhere to the specific pledge he had already given. The amount for the item now stood at £1,250,000. He understood the hon. Gentleman to ask a pledge that that would not be increased in future by the addition of any sub-item. He hoped there would be no necessity to make any further addition to this item, but he could not give a

AYESs
Agg-Gardner, James Tynte Blundell, Colonel Henry Coghill, Douglas Harry
Anson, Sir William Reynell Boscawen, Arthur Griffith- Cohen, Benjamin Louis
Arkwright, John Stanhope Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready
Arnold-Forster, Hugh O. Bull, William James Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole
Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John Butcher, John George Compton, Lord Alwyne
Bailey, James (Walworth) Carson, Rt. Hn. Sir Edw K Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas
Bain, Colonel James Robert Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs.) Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)
Balcarres, Lord Cavendish, V C W (Derbysh.) Cripps, Charles Alfred
Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (Manch'r Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile
Balfour, Rt. Hn. G. W. (Leeds Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J.(Birm.) Dalkeith, Earl of
Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch. Chamberlain, Rt Hn. J.A(Worc. Dalrymple, Sir Charles
Banbury, Sir Frederick George Chapman, Edward Davenport, William Bromley-
Bentinck, Lord Henry C. Charrington, Spencer Dickson, Charles Scott
Bhownaggree, Sir M. M. Clare, Octavius Leigh Dimsdale, Rt. Hon. Sir Jos. C.
Bignold, Arthur Clive, Captain Percy A. Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon
Bigwood, James Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E. Dorington, Rt. Hon. Sir J. E.

definite pledge, because it was perfectly clear that it would not be in the interest of the Navy to do so. He asked the hon. Gentleman to suppose that such a pledge were given, and that he, finding himself at the Admiralty in the future, considered it necessary to make an addition, would he thank him for having given the pledge?

MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON

Yes.

* MR. PRETYMAN

said he hoped not. The hon. Gentleman would see that it was impossible for him to give a definite pledge.

MR. WHITLEY (Halifax)

asked whether the list specifying the expenditure under this item would come before the Comptroller and Auditor-General, and whether he could report to the House on the expenditure of the money. What was required was that this £1,250,000 should not be looked upon by the Admiralty as merely a lump sum to be devoted as they pleased. The Committee required a clear assurance that, apart from unforeseen exigencies, the money would be devoted strictly to the purposes stated in the schedule of the Bill.

* MR. PRETYMAN

said all the figures would be placed before the Comptroller and Auditor-General, and he would report to the House any departure from the original proposal.

Question put

The Committee divided: Ayes, 167; s, 62. (Division List No. 190.)

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- Keswick, William Plummer, Walter R.
Duke, Henry Edward King, Sir Henry Seymour Pretyman, Ernest George
Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin Laurie, Lieut.-General Purvis, Robert
Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir William Hart Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow Rattigan, Sir William Henry
Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool Reid, James (Greenock)
Faber, George Denison (York) Lawson, J. Grant(Yorks., N.R.) Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine
Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Ed. Lee, A. H. (Hants, Fareham) Ridley, S. F. (Bethnal Green)
Fergusson, Rt Hon. Sir J.(Man'r Leveson-Gower, Frederick N.S. Ritchie, Rt. Hn. C. Thomson
Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R. Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)
Finch, Rt. Hon. George H. Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine Rolleston, Sir John F. L.
Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne Long, Rt. Hn. W. (Bristol, S. Runciman, Walter
Fisher, William Hayes Lonsdale, John Brownlee Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-
Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon Lowe, Francis William Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander
Flannery, Sir Fortescue Loyd, Archie Kirkman Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)
Flower, Ernest Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft) Seely, Chas. Hilton (Lincoln)
Forster, Henry William Lucas, Reginald J.(Portsmouth) Seely, Maj. J.E.B.(Isle of Wight
Foster, Philip S.(Warwick, S.W Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred Sharpe, William Edward T.
Fuller, J. M. F. Macdona, John Cumming Sinclair, Louis (Romford)
Fyler, John Arthur M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool) Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, E.)
Gardner, Ernest Maxwell, Rt Hn Sir H. E(Wigt'n) Smith Hn. W. F. D. (Strand)
Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick Molesworth, Sir Lewis Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)
Gore, Hn G.R C Ormsby (Salop Montagu, G. (Huntingdon) Stone, Sir Benjamin
Goschen, Hon. George Joachim Morgan, David J.(Walth'mst'w) Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)
Goulding, Edward Alfred Morrell, George Herbert Tritton, Charles Ernest
Grenfell, William Henry Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer Valentia, Viscount
Hall, Edward Marshall Mount, William Arthur Walker, Col. William Hall
Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F. Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C. Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H.
Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G(Midd'x Muntz, Sir Philip A. Warde, Colonel C. E.
Hare, Thomas, Leigh Murray, Rt Hn A. Graham(Bute Webb, Col. William George
Harris, Frederick Leverton Murray, Charles.J. (Coventry) Whiteley, H.(Ashton und. Lyne
Hay, Hon. Claude George Nicholson, William Graham Wilson, John (Glasgow)
Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T. Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay Worsley-Tavlor, Henry Wilson
Hoult, Joseph Parker Sir Gilbert Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-
Houston, Robert Paterson Parkes, Ebenezer Wrightson, Sir Thomas
Howard, Jno (Kent, Fave'hm Pease, H. Pike (Darlington) Wylie, Alexander
Hudson, George Bickersteth Peel, Hn Wm. Robert Wellesley Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George
Jeffreys, Rt. Hn. Arthur Fred Pemberton, John S. G.
Jessel, Capt. Herbert Merton Percy, Earl TELLERS FOR THE AYES—
Kemp, Lieut.-Colonel George Pierpoint, Robert Sir Alexander Acland-
Kenyon, Hon. G. T. (Denbigh Pilkington, Col. Richard Hood and Mr. Anstruther.
Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop. Platt-Higgins, Frederick
NOES.
Asher, Alexander Goddard, Daniel Ford Schwann, Charles E.
Atherley-Jones, L. Grant, Carrie Shackleton, David James
Beaumont, Wentworth C. B. Griffith, Ellis J. Shaw, Thomas (Hawick, B.)
Bolton, Thomas Dolling Gurdon, sir W. Brampton Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)
Brigg, John Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B. Spencer, Rt Hn. CR. (Northants
Broadhurst, Henry Hayne, Rt. Hon. Chas. Seale- Taylor, Theodore C. (Radeliffe)
Bryce, Right Hon. James Holland, Sir William Henry Thomas, David Alfred(Merthyr
Burns, John Horniman, Frederick John Thomson, F. W. (York, W. R.)
Caldwell, James Hutchinson, Dr. Charles Fredk. Tomkinson, James
Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H. Jones, David Brynmor(Swansea Toulmin, George
Causton, Richard Knight Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire) Ure, Alexander
Cawley, Frederick Kearley, Hudson E. Wason, John Catheart(Orkney
Channing, Francis Allston Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall) Weir, James Galloway
Cremer, William Randal Levy, Maurice White, Luke (York, E. R.)
Crooks, William Lough, Thomas Whiteley, G. (York, W. R.)
Dalziel, James Henry M'Arthr, Wiliam (Cornwall) Whitley J. H. (Halifax)
Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan Partington, Oswald Whittaker, Thomas Palmer
Dewar, John A.(Inverness-sh.) Perks, Robert William Wilson, Henry J.(York, W.R.)
Evans, Sir F. H. (Maidstone) Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries
Farquharson, Dr. Robert Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion) TELLERS FOR THE NOES—
Foster, Sir Walter (Dreby Co.) Robertson, Edmund (Dundee) Mr. Buchanan and Sir
Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert J. Samuel, Herbt. L. (Cleveland) James Joicey.
MR. BUCHANAN

said the next item related to a very important point because it was an innovation as compared with previous Bills. For the first time the large item of £50,000 was inserted in the schedule for Chatham Dockyard extension, and no estimate of the total cost of the work undertaken was given. It had been the invariable practice to submit to Parliament an estimate of the total cost of the work for which the initial expenditure was being asked in a Naval Works Bill.

And, it being half-past Seven of the clock, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.

Committee report Progress; to sit again this evening.