HC Deb 27 July 1903 vol 126 cc407-36

(Considered in Committee.)

(In the Committee.)

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

Schedule:—

MR. BUCHANAN,

continuing his remarks, complained that as the Estimates stood they did not show tile total estimated cost of the works undertaken at Chatham Dockyard. This marked a very serious departure from all the precedents of former Naval Works Bills or Acts. Hitherto it had been the invariable practice with regard to all specific works entered in these Acts that a sum should be inserted in the first column to give the House and the country an idea of the best estimate the Admiralty could give of the total estimated cost. They did not expect an estimate that could he absolutely relied on. They knew that with works of this sort, which took several years to carry out and involved au expenditure of £1,000,000 or £2,000,000 it was impossible to be accurate. But what the House would like to know was the best estimate die Admiralty could form of tile total cost of the work the House was asked to sanction expenditure for. Hitherto the first column had approximately represented the total commitment of the country in the Naval Works Act, and if that column were omitted its value for purposes of comparison was seriously impaired. In this case the land belonged to the naval authorities, and the objection about giving too much information about the purchase of land did not therefore apply. Surely the Admiralty could not have embarked on a considerable extension of one of their large dockyards without having a rough-and-ready idea of what the expense was to be, and what the cost would be upon the finances of the country. He asked that some estimate of the work that was being undertaken should be inserted in the schedule. He begged to move.

Amendment proposed— In page 2, to leave out line 36."—(Mr. Buchanan.)

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

* MR. PRETYMAN

said it was quite true that on the Second Reading of this Bill the point was made by the hon. Member for Perthshire and the hon. Member for Dundee, that a departure had been made in old practice with regard to this Bill. But there was a great difference between this Bill and preceding Bills of a like character. It was clear that in a large item of this description, which embraced very large and very various works, no estimate could be absolutely final; but in the debate on the Second Reading the hon. Member for Dundee pressed him to have this question carefully investigated before the Committee stage, and to present some sort of estimate as nearly as he could. He had seen that that was done, and the probable cost of these works, which would effect a complete revolution in Chatham Dockyard and bring it in all respects up to the level of the most up-to-date yards, would be £4,500,000. If that figure, however, were inserted in the schedule now, it would involve an Amendment which would give an opening for discussion on the Report stage—[Cries of "Why not?"]—and he hoped, therefore, that there would be a full opportunity for discussion now, and as he thought he had met hon. Members very fairly, it was reasonable to ask for an understanding that if the figure of £4,500,000 were inserted now, there should be no debate upon the Report stage.

MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON

thought that his hon. friend might be very well content with the success of his Motion, hon. Gentleman opposite having practically met his Amendment, but it was not reasonable that the Civil Lord should ask, as a condition of this particular being inserted in the schedule now, that there should be an understanding that there should be no debate on the Report stage.

* Mr. PRETYMAN

I meant upon the whole Bill.

MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON

said that only Amendments could be discussed upon the Report stage. They now knew for the first time the vast extent of these proposals, and it was not reasonable to ask the Committee either to discuss them now or to abstain from discussing them on the Report stage.

* MR. PRETYMAN

said if the hon. Gentleman only proposed to discuss this point on Report that was one thing, but to raise a discussion on the whole Bill was a totally different thing.

MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON

said they could not bind the House in a matter of this kind, but the Committee were sensible of the fact that the hon. Gentleman had complied with the Amendment of the hon. Member for Perthshire and he would have no desire to needlessly prolong the discussion. He hoped the hon. Gentleman would allow these figures to go into the schedule and then they could let the Report stage take its course.

MR. WHITLEY

thought the Committee could hardly realise the immense importance of the statement just made from the Treasury Bench. If they took this Vote of £50,000 it involved, as they now knew, a total expenditure of £4,500,000. He could not agree to allowing this £4,500,000 to be inserted in the schedule now, because they would thereby be specifically approving of expenditure to that amount on Chatham Dockyard. The question was bound up with the new naval base in Scotland, of which they did not yet know the cost, but which he supposed they could put down at £10,000,000, and it was a question how far they ought to go on reforming the old dockyards, such as Chatham. Surely the Committee never knew that all these millions were going to be expended on Chatham.

* SIR JOHN COLOMB

said he thought the hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment ought to be quite satisfied with the nature of the work proposed to be carried out at Chatham. He himself regretted that the Civil Lord had gone so far as to offer to insert details in the Vote now. He had not gathered from the hon. Gentleman when he estimated that these works would, be completed.

* MR. PRETYMAN

About 1910.

* SIR JOHN COLOMB

said in that case the expenditure would be spread over seven years. His own impression was that these extensions were unavoidable. It must be years and years before Rosyth became available, and in. the meantime the Fleet was growing.

MR. BUCHANAN

said he accepted with gratitude the statement made by the Civil Lord of the Admiralty, who had endeavoured fairly to meet the contention he had put forward mainly, as the hon. Gentleman knew, on financial grounds. He should therefore he perfectly prepared to withdraw his Amendment provided that the hem. Gentleman would insert the sum of £4,500,000 in the first column. He hoped the hon. Gentleman would also endeavour to meet him with regard to some of the other items in the schedule. With regard to the condition the hon. Gentleman laid down, he could only speak for himself, and he should certainly not raise this question at any future stage of the Bill. Lf they only got the Bill restored in part to the form of previous Naval Works Bills on the Statute-book they works Bills on the Statute-book they would have made a substantial change for the better.

MR. DALZIEL (Kirkcaldy Burghs)

expressed his surprise that this work should come to £4,500,000. What was the position before the Committee now? But for the indefatigable industry of the hon. Member for Perthshire this Vote might have passed utterly unknown, with the result that the Committee without knowledge night have pledged itself to an expenditure of £4,500,000. He did not question but that a very good case might be made out for this expenditure, but he had not heard any such case made out. He complained of the slipshod and casual way in which such a large expenditure was launched.

MR. WHITLEY

invited the Chancellor of the Exchequer to say whether, when the item of £50,000 was submitted to the Treasury, the sum of £4,500,000 was mentioned as being involved in the total cost of the works at Chatham.

* THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. RITCHIE, Croydon)

said that no final plans had been made out for the improvement of Chatham Dockyard, and therefore it was impossible to say what was likely to be the ultimate expenditure. He agreed that expenditure ought to be based on some calculation, and on some plans.

MR. DALZIEL

Are the plans prepared yet?

* MR. RITCHIE

said they were not yet finally prepared. It was impossible in this case for final plans to be prepared, because the work was extremely large. Of course there were plans, but no final plans; and therefore he did not think it advisable to put down any total sum in the Bill because it might be misleading to the House. His hon. friend, however, after looking into this matter very carefully, had come to the conclusion that he was well within the mark in naming £4,500,000, and therefore he saw no reason why this sum proposed to be taken should not be placed in the schedule if the Committee wished it. But his reason for not consenting to the insertion of the total sum was that he had not before him material for concluding that there would he an expenditure of £4,500,000, and because he was anxious not to mislead the Committee. He doubted very much whether any serious portion of the expenditure would be entailed within the period to which the Bill extended.

MR BROADHURST, (Leicester)

said that after the very important statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he did not think the Committee could be asked to santion any sum for the pro- posed scheme at Chatham. The Admiralty authorities had put down £50,000 under pressure of the Treasury, and now the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that there were no plans.

* MR. RITCHIE

; No final plans.

MR. BROADHURST

said he knew about engineers, and their plans and schemes. He never trusted them farther than he could throw a cow by its tail in matters of expenditure. If they once gave engineers a credit to commence their work there was no limitation to the Bill which they would run up. It was monstrous that the Admiralty should come down with £50,000 on paper, and say that they were willing to withdraw that sum on condition that the Committee would agree to insert £4,500,000 for works of which no settled plans were prepared. Probably three or four different engineers would be employed by the Government, and there was no guarantee that the whole scheme would cost only £4,500,000. They were spending over £4,000,000 at Keyham, and they were going to spend £4,000,000 or £5,000,000 on another dockyard in Scotland. This was too bad even for this Government. He had never heard a weaker case in his life. Thanks were due to the Chancellor of the Exchequer for his exposure of this slipshod method of doing the Admiralty business. The Admiralty was one of the most difficult, and probably one of the most wasteful, Government Departments, and the public had the least control over it, because it was always mystified with expert advice. Why should the Committee be asked to give a Vote for works about which they knew nothing? They had no assurance even as to whether the riverway was to be improved.

* MR. PRETYMAN

said he had explained that a short time ago.

MR. BROADHURST

said he had heard the hon. Gentleman talk about dredging and improving the bottom of the river from the Thames up to Chatham dockyard; but he was sure that if the Committee sanctioned the enlargement of the dockyard up to the value of £4,500,000, it would undoubtedly cost ultimately £6,000,000 or £7,000,000. He thought the Committee was not being treated quite fairly by the Admiralty.

SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN (Stirling Burghs)

said that the moral of the discussion seemed to be that this was not an item which ought to be inserted in the schedule of the Bill, on the showing of the Government themselves. He did not mean to say that there was any intention to deceive, but, at the same time, there was an item for £50,000, with a foot-note to the effect that this sum did not represent the total estimate of cost. But one would scarcely conclude from this that the total expenditure was to be at least £4,500,000. It was not treating the House or the country quite fairly to put down an item of £50,000 which did not represent the total cost, and then allow the discovery to be made that the real amount was to be £4,500,000. And even that was only a rough and apparently unfinished idea of what the expenditure would be. How much money would be expended this year? This was evidently the thin end of the wedge, and it was desirable that the House should know the bulk of the other end of the wedge. The best method would be to strike out the item of £50,000 altogether, and only insert the figures when the Admiralty had finally ascertained what the ultimate expenditure was to be.

* MR. RITCHIE

said that this was a course to which he could not give his assent. The right hon. Gentleman knew perfectly well that there was a great deal of work to be done before tenders could be accepted for the work. He had gone very carefully into the proposed expenditure, and had inquired as to the necessity for it; and on examination he was convinced that if Chatham Dockyard was to be utilised it was essential that this improvement should be made. But before they could begin to ask for tenders there must be a very considerable amount of expenditure incurred for necessary preliminary work, and it was necessary that the sum in the Bill should be taken this year if the work was to be proceeded with later. An endeavour must be made to ascertain exactly how the tenders were to be made out before the work could be contracted for. The work would not be gone on with until the House had enjoyed the opportunity of considering the question again, with a proper estimate contained in another Bill which would be presented to the House. This sum of £50,000 would be largely spent in the preliminary works which were essential to enable the Admiralty to receive proper tenders for the work to be done.

SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN

suggested that it would be better in that case to embody an item of money for the preparation of plans and to ascertain the requirements of the Chatham Dockyard. Then the Government would know what it really wanted, and it could come again for the whole sum required. The objection to the present proposal was that under cover of this small sum the House and the country were being asked to commit themselves to an unknown amount of expenditure.

SIR FORTESCUE FLANNERY (Yorkshire, Shipley)

said he could not agree with the last words of the Leader of the Opposition. It seemed to him that this small amount placed upon the Estimates was based upon a well-known custom which enabled the House to consider whether the works at Chatham dockyard should or should not be initiated. Anyone could understand that this dockyard, protected by nature and remote from the open sea could be kept free from attacks from the vessels of an enemy by torpedoes and other devices. Having decided that proper provision should be made for its protection and enlargement, it was, however, difficult to say beforehand what works would be required, as they could not be completed for five years. His hon. friend the Member for Leicester must know that changes were being made in the size, and particularly in the beam and draft of water, of ships of war, and therefore it was impossible to say what expenditure would ultimately be required. This item of £50,000 was only a "token" sum, and indicated that a very much larger expenditure would ultimately be required.

MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON

said that the few words spoken by the Chancellor of the Exchequer had thrown a good deal of light on this question. The right hon. Gentleman was no doubt right when he said that a certain amount of preliminary expenditure was necessary. But the expenditure of this sum of £50,000 was to be spread over a period of two years for the preliminary purpose mentioned by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. This sum would not be required for the next six months, and it would not have appeared in this Bill at all but for the system under which a Naval Works Bill was introduced every two years. This was the largest sum the House had ever been asked to vote for any Naval Works, larger than that for Keyham, or even for Gibraltar. He suggested that the item should be withdrawn from this Bill, and that a special Naval Works Bill should be brought for ward next year dealing with Chatham Dockyard, and also with Rosyth. He did not see why all that need be done during the next five or six months in reference to this scheme, could not be done by the Admiralty out of the resources at their disposal.

* MR. PRETYMAN

said that hon. Gentlemen opposite had pressed for some finality in naval works, and to make full provision for it. The Government had yielded to that pressure, and had given to the Committee the information as to what the Admiralty proposed to do, but they were immediately attacked for that by hon. Gentlemen opposite. These two accusations could not run together. In order to meet the financial requirements of the House the Government had to see that before any work was undertaken the House approved it, knowing the whole cost That was a financial principle laid down by the present Secretary of State for India and he entirely agreed with it. But before arriving at a final estimate it was necessary to spend money. It was impossible to arrive at the final sum required before any expenditure was incurred. He proposed to insert a total sum in the Bill on the clear understanding that it was not the final estimate after expenditure had been incurred, but the nearest figure they could give before expenditure, and as a compromise between the financial requirements and the works requirements. It was agreed that this work was necessary, and he thought they might fairly ask the Committee to sanction it.

SIR JAMES JOICEY

said the Admiralty did not go to work quite in a business way. What the Civil Lord said could not be done was done every day. He objected to the manner in which the proposal was put before the Committee. If a railway company were going to make an expenditure of over £4,000,000, the first thing they would do would be to instruct their engineer to prepare plans showing the work to be carried out. They would next make a complete estimate of the cost, and then call for tenders for the work. It was perfectly absurd for the Admiralty to say that before taking tenders £50,000 must be spent. He complained that bile Admiralty proceeded by rule of thumb, and that they had no actual plan in their mind of what they were going to do. The Opposition were not anxious to prevent any necessary work on the dockyard, but they did protest against an expenditure of £50,000 without knowing anything of the work to be done. The Government had got into a habit of late years, owing to their large majority, of practically treating the House of Commons with contempt. [MINISTERIAL cries of "No."] At any rate, they were asked to place such implicit confidence in the Government as to accept all statements from the Government Benches as being correct. He protested against that view. As an ordinary member of the rank and file he considered that he was sent to the House of Commons to look closely into these questions. Personally he was not content with the system adopted by the Government of asking the House for a blank cheque, and he hoped hon. Members on the Opposition side of the House would protest and vote against the Government putting in these sums without making a sufficiently definite explanation. The Government had done things which had never before been done by any other Government since he had been in the House. He was glad this question had been raised.

MR. KEARLEY (Devonport)

complained of the manner in which the proposal was brought before the Committee. He pointed out that when the Keyham extension works were proposed some years ago Lord Shuttleworth, who was then Secretary to the Admiralty, went down to the House and propounded his scheme. A request was then made for plans, which were duly placed on view. That course was not being followed in this instance, and until the Admiralty brought on the question of £50,000, they had no idea that £4,500,000 was to be spent at Chatham. He could not see why they should go on with this matter until the House had had an opportunity of knowing what works were to be carried out.

* MR. PRETYMAN

said he had already stated them fully.

MR. KEARLEY

said he had listened carefully but had failed to hear his hon. friend state with definiteness what works were to be carried out.

* MR. PRETYMAN

said he stated them with all definiteness.

MR. KEARLEY

said there was no.finality about this proposal. The Admiralty had no plan and the whole thing was in the air. He wished to know if the Civil Lord would pledge himself to put the plans in the tea-room.

* MR. PRETYMAN

promised that the general plans, at any rate, should be placed in the tea-room of the House.

MR. KEARLEY

was glad to have that promise, because at the present time there was not the faintest idea as to what was going to happen at Chatham.

MR. DALZIEL

said this was the most extraordinary course of procedure ever put forward by a responsible Government, for they were actually asked to borrow this money for thirty years for preliminary expenses. This expenditure ought to be placed upon the Estimates in the ordinary way. What would be the position if, after sanctioning this £50,000, the House decided that the expenditure of this £4,500,000 was unnecessary? The Civil Lord had promised that general plans would be placed in the tea-room. Would the hon. Gentleman agree to postpone this item until hon. Members had had an opportunity of seeing the plans? He would like to know how this £4,500,000 had been arrived at. They had no information about it and no plan. He supposed this £4,500,000 was not mentioned to the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the £50,000 was put down? As the right hon. Gentleman did not contradict that statement he assumed that the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not know that a sum equal to £4,500,000 would be required. The position was that the Civil Lord of the Admiralty had put forward an Estimate of £4,500,000 before it had been sanctioned by the Treasury. That was reversing the old order of things. The Admiralty made a proposal and the Committee sanctioned it, and afterwards the Civil Lord would be able to present a pistol at the head of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and say, "I have got you cornered now because the House has already sanctioned it." The proper course was for the Admiralty to begin by obtaining the imprimatur of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and then inform the House that the Treasury had sanctioned it. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer had said that he had gone carefully into these amounts and seen the plans, and that he was convinced of the necessity for this expenditure, that would have gone a long way to shorten this debate. The Committee was asked to sanction a preliminary expenditure when it was really committing itself to an expenditure of £4,500,000. In these circumstances there was no alternative but to divide against this proposal as a protest.

MR. BROADHURST

appealed to the Admiralty to postpone the matter until next year. He asserted that a sum so large as this would be justified in having a special Bill to itself. The Secretary to the Admiralty had given a certain number of items of the work to be executed at a cost of £4,500,000. He had said to engineers and contractors—"For these works we are prepared to give £4,500,000." That was not a business way of proceeding, and instead they ought to obtain plans and specifications, and then invite tenders in order to see how much the cost would be taking their own engineer's estimate as a basis for the tender. The hon. Gentleman no doubt knew what specifications were. [Cries of "Oh, oh" and "Hear, hear."] It was not everybody who knew what they were. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was a business man, and in submitting those considerations to the right hon. Gentleman he felt that it was only reasonable and respectful, and in the interests of the Government, the House, and the taxpayers that the proposal should be withdrawn for one year until proper plans had been pre-

AYES.
Agg-Gardner, James Tynte Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Ed. Murray, RtHn A. Graham(Bute
Anson, Sir William Reynell Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J(Manc'r Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)
Arkwright, John Stanhope Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay
Arnold-Forster, Hugh O. Finch, Rt. Hon. George H. Parker Sir Gilbert
Atkinson, Right Hon. John Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne Parkes, Ebenezer
Bain, Colonel James Robert Flower, Ernest Pease, H. Pike (Darlington)
Baird, John George Alexander Forster, Henry William Peel, Hn. Wm. R. Wellesley
Balcarres, Lord Foster, Philip S.(Warwick, S. W. Percy, Earl
Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (Manch'r Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick Pierpoint, Robert
Balfour, Captain C.B.(Hornsey) Gore, Hn. GRC. Ormsby-(Salop Pilkington, Colonel Richard
Balfour, RtHn. Gerald W(Leeds Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir J. Eldon Platt-Higgins, Frederick
Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch. Goschen, Hon. George Joachim Plummer, Walter R.
Banbury, Sir Frederick George Goulding, Edward Alfred Pretyman, Ernest George
Bentinck, Lord Henry C. Gray, Ernest (West Ham) Purvis, Robert
Bignold, Arthur Hamilton, Rt. Hn. Ld G.(Mid'x) Reid, James (Greenock)
Blundell, Colonel Henry Hare, Thomas Leigh Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine
Bond, Edward Harris, Frederick Leverton Ritchie, Rt Hn. Chas. Thomson
Boscawen, Arthur Griffith Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T. Robertson, H. (Hackney)
Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John Hoult, Joseph Round, Rt. Hon. James
Bull, William James Howard, Jno (Kent, Faver nm Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-
Butcher, John George Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred. Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander
Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H. Jessel, Capt. Herbert Merton Sinclair, Louis (Romford)
Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs.) Johnstone, Heywood Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, E.)
Cavendish, V.C.W. (Derbyshire Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J A (Worc Keswick, William Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)
Chapman, Edward King, Sir Henry Seymour Stock, James Henry
Clare, Octavius Leigh Knowles, Lees Stone, Sir Benjamin
Cochrane, Hn. Thos. H. A. E. Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow) Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)
Cohen, Benjamin Louis Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool) Talbot, RtHn. J.G.(Oxf d Univ.
Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse Lawson, John Grant(Yorks, NR Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)
Colomb, Sir John Chas. Ready Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage Tritton, Charles Ernest
Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole Leveson-Gower, Frederick N.S. Valentia, Viscount
Compton, Lord Alwyne Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R. Walker, Col. William Hall
Corbett. T. L. (Down, North) Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir Wm. H
Cripps, Charles Alfred Long, Rt. Hon. Walter(Bristol, S Webb, Colonel William George
Cross, H. Shepherd (Bolton) Lonsdale, John Brownlee Whiteley, H.(Ashton-und-Lyne
Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile Lowe, Francis William Whitmore, Charles Algernon
Dalkeith, Earl of Loyd, Archie Kirkman Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.
Dalrymple, Sir Charles Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowstoft) Wilson, John (Glasgow)
Davenport, William Bromley Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred Wrightson, Sir Thomas
Dickson, Charles Scott Macdona, John Cumming Wylie, Alexander
Dorington, Rt. Hon. Sir J. E. M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool) Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George
Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers Moon, Edward Robert Pacy
Duke, Henry Edward Morrell, George Herbert TELLERS FOR THE AYES—
Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer Sir Alexander Acland-
Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas Mount, William Arthur Hood and Mr. Anstruther.
Faber, George Denison (York) Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.
NOES.
Ashton, Thomas Glair Bryce, Rt. Hon. James Causton, Richard Knight
Atherley-Jones, L. Burns, John Cawley, Frederick
Bolton, Thomas Dolling Caldwell, James Cremer, William Randal
Brigs, John Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H. Crooks, William

pared and submitted, and proper estimates taken, instead of a full disclosure being made to the contractors of the full price that would be given for the completion of certain works. He appealed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to advise his colleagues to take that reasonable course.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes, 136; Noes, 60. (Division List No. 191.)

Dalziel, James Henry Levy, Maurice Thomas, F. Freeman-(Hastings
Davies, M. Vaughan (Cardign Lloyd-George, David Thomson, F. W. (York, W. R.)
Dewar, John A.(Inverness-sh. Lough, Thomas Tomkinson, James
Evans, Sir F. H. (Maidstone) M'Arthur, William (Cornwall) Toulmin, George
Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co. M'Kenna, Reginald Ure, Alexander
Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert J. Partington, Oswald Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)
Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton Perks, Robert William Weir, James Galloway
Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion) White, Luke (York, E. R.)
Helme, Norval Waston Roberts, John H. (Denbighs) Whiteley, George (York, W. R.
Holland, Sir William Henry Robertson, Edmund (Dundee Whittaker, Thomas Palmer
Horniman, Frederick John Runciman, Walter Wilson, Henry J.(York, W.R.)
Joicey, Sir James Shackleton, David James Yoxall, James Henry
Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire) Shaw, Thomas (Hawick, B.)
Kearley, Hudson E. Shipman, Dr. John G.
Kilbride, Denis Sinclair, John (Forfarshire) TELLERS FOR THE NOES—
Lambert, George Soames, Arthur Wellesley Mr. Broadhurst and Mr.
Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall) Taylor, Theo. C. (Radcliffe) Whitley.
Layland-Barratt, Francis Thomas, David A. (Merthyr)
MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON,

on a point of order, asked how, in view of the fact that the result of the division was to retain the whole of line 36 in the schedule, the Government proposed on the Report stage to move in any figures by way of Amendment.

* THE CHAIRMAN

That is not a point of order.

MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON

But how is the proposed Amendment of the Government to be inserted?

* THE CHAIRMAN

It cannot be, as the House has insisted on retaining the whole line and has thereby rejected the Amendment.

MR. THOMAS SHAW (Hawick Burghs)

moved to reduce the proposed expenditure of £200,000 on the new naval establishment at Rosyth to £120,000. They were told that that sum did not represent the total estimated cost. On the Second Reading he asked the Government what was their contemplated expenditure on Rosyth, and he would again repeat that Question on the present occasion. Surely when they bought the land the Government had some idea of the cost of the works they contemplated. Had the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself inquired into the expenditure on the naval base, and if so what had been the result of his inquiry? As business men the Government could not have come forward with a scheme of which they had not counted the cost. The Rouse, at any rate, was entirely in the dark as to what it was intended to do. Now £122,000 was paid for the land, and for that money they got 1,460 acres. What did the price work out at? On the Second Reading he cited the price of land to be acquired under the Irish Land Bill, and he showed that the price paid at Rosyth was stupendously in excess of any price contemplated to be paid in Ireland. Now, he would give another illustration showing how the State had been bled. The Government bought 1,100 acres on Salisbury Plain for £15,750, or £15 per acre, roughly speaking; but at Rosyth they bought 1,464 acres for £122,000. That, he supposed, was the price of secrecy.

SIR FREDERICK BANBURY (Camberwell, Peckham)

Does the hon. Gentleman think the value of land is the same at all places?

MR. THOMAS SHAW

No. His point was that the Secretary for War complained that in the Salisbury Plain case the State was forced to pay a higher price because secrecy had not been preserved. But in the Rosyth case they had secrecy, and with what result? Why, they had paid £84 per acre! It was a most strange and inequitable transaction. Let them look at it in the light of the number of years purchase. If land were highly rented it would, on the same ratio of years purchase, fetch a higher figure than land low rented. The rental value of the land at Rosyth was 22s. per acre, so that, as the result of a secret transaction, it had been sold at the rate of seventy-five years' purchase. That might be all right, but it needed a lot of explaining. An enormous price had been paid to the owner of the land without it being known that the Admiralty were in the market, for they were told that the negotiations were carried on through a private individual. The great defect in this matter was that the Government had deliberately abandoned the procedure put in their hands under the Military Works Bill, a procedure which gave them power to buy the land by arbitration. Under the Lands Clauses Act they had to convert an unwilling seller into a willing seller, and then to add 10 per cent. to the price. It was said that value was given for amenity to the grounds of Hopetoun House, which was separated from this land by a large and deep arm of the sea. The idea of giving amenity value in respect of land which did not adjoin the estate seemed to be a thing as to which Parliament needed a full explanation. They had been told that an esteemed friend of his, Mr. Binnie, was consulted as to the value of the land. But what was the question put to him? Was he asked as to its value on the footing that the land was to be compulsorily taken? Of course, if so, he dealt with it on the basis of an unwilling seller, and he would have to add 10 per cent. But if he were asked the question on the footing that the man would not sell except at a price so high as to induce him to be willing to sell, the whole theory of the Lands Clauses arbitration disappeared entirely. This transaction deserved the closest scrutiny. He took exception to the extraordinary statement that in Scotland it was the practice to add 50 per cent. in arbitrations to the agricultural value of the land for compulsory sale. But if the owner had been given twenty-five years' purchase instead of seventy-five, with 50 per cent. added for compulsory sale, the price paid would have been £60,000 only instead of £122,000, and however much ingenuity might be displayed in explaining that transaction, he ventured to say it was very strange indeed.

Amendment proposed— In page 3, line 15, column 5, to leave out,£200,000 and insert '£130,100.'"—(Mr. Thomas Shaw.)

Question proposed, "That £200,000 stand part of the schedule."

* THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. A. GRAHAM MURRAY, Buteshire)

Said that he never heart an attack made on a transaction with less ground than that which had been made by one who ought o know better. In spite of all the follies that were credited to Government by the Opposition, he did not suppose that hon. Members opposite thought the Admiralty saw any fun in throwing money to the bottom of the sea. Therefore, the accusation, if it meant anything, resolved itself into this—that the Admiralty had knowingly made a present of public money to a nobleman who happened to be a political friend of theirs. He did not suppose that the height of ingenuity could suggest that the site was chosen as a naval base because it belonged to Lord Linlithgow; it was chosen because the situation was a good one on the Firth of Forth, and he was much mistaken as to Scotch feeling in particular and national feeling in general, if anyone could be found to say that the selection was a bad one. Once Rosyth was selected, the person who happened to be the owner, so far as the Admiralty was concerned, was a matter of chance. It was often said that the Government ought to act as business men in this case? The Admiralty had their own professional valuers, but they recognized that Scotch land would need to be valued by Scotch valuers. Months ago he was asked by the Admiralty tom help them as to the selection of the proper men. He found that Mr. Davidson of Saltoun and Lord Rosebery's factor, Mr. Gledinning, who had been privately consulted by Lord Linlithgow as to the value of the property, were not available. But he selected a gentle man with an absolutely unique experience of Scottish land, Mr. Binnie, and associated with him was Mr. Campbell Murray, the factor of the hon. Baronet who represented one of the divisions of Glasgow. These gentlemen were told to give the Admiralty their view of the proper valuation of the land. The hon. and learned Member asked whether the owner was a willing seller or not. He was not a willing seller in the sense that his land was not in the market for sale. But if a man was not in the market with his property, and that property was required by a railway company or a Government Department with compulsory powers, was it to be believed that the man would sell his land by private treaty for less than he could get in arbitration? It was childish to suggest that the allowance for compulsory acquisition should be excluded, when in order to get it all the owner had to do was to go to arbitration. Then the hon. and learned Member, who ought to know better, said that the ordinary practice in Scottish arbitration with respect to agricultural land was not to add 50 per cent. for compulsory acquisition. Had he forgotten the arbitration on the Earl of Moray's estate when the railway over the Forth Bridge was projected? Ever since then it had been held as settled that the allowance for compulsion was 50 per cent. for agricultural land. On the other hand, the compulsory allowance on felling value was 10 per cent. But, after all, this had nothing to do with the question. It was no use saying that land in another part of the kingdom had been obtained at £15 an acre. What relation had an acre of land on Salisbury Plain to an acre of land in the City of London, and what relation had either to an acre of land at Rosyth? The circumstances and conditions of each particular case must be known before it could be determined whether or not a fair bargain had been made. The House of Commons could not constitute itself a, jury of valuers without evidence and without knowledge of the conditions. Two most experienced valuers had reported to the Admiralty that their valuation was within £9,000 of what could be arranged by settlement, and as it was £60,000 below what was originally claimed, they advised the Admiralty to pay the extra £9,000, and so get rid of the heavy arbitration expenses, and the danger of a much higher award. One of the last Government arbitrations in Scotland was at Broughty Ferry, when the War Office witnesses valued the land at £3,500, and when the oversman—who was the hon. and learned Member for the Border Burghs himself—awarded £9,000. The felting value of land could not be calculated in years' purchase of the arable rent. Each case must be judged on its own merits, and unless the House was prepared to affirm the absurd proposition that it was wrong for the Government to make a private settlement, it was foolish and idle to attempt to set aside as unjust and inequitable a settlement advised by two such eminent and skilful valuers as those who had been consulted by the Admiralty in this case.

SIR H. CAMPBELL BANNERMAN

The right hon. Gentleman has made a most ingenious plea in defence of this extraordinary transaction, but I think that most people would be disposed to say "the thing exists." The right hon. Gentleman cannot get over the seventy-five years purchase. He throws scorn on the argument of my hon. and learned friend, and says, "What is the use of talking of Salisbury Plain girl making comparisons with other parts of the country?" But I do not think the number of years purchase differs very much. The rental may differ, but the mode of calculation does not differ very materially. Let me give a case as an instance. A property was sold not many months ago in the neighbourhood of Rosyth. I know a good deal about Rosyth. Rosyth is not in my constituency, but it is close to two ports of my constituency which I visit every year in the exercise of the useful function of giving account to my constituents of what I have been doing, and I know perfectly well the character of the land, its position, and its advantages and disadvantages, so far as they appear on the surface, although I have never been underground. But here is a property of the same kind of land in the same county, not many miles off, which was sold the other day for £38,000. There were 2,200 acres, the agricultural rent was £1,100, the mineral rent was £800; so that the total rent was £1,900. That property was sold for £38,000, including minerals, which are not included in this purchase. That is the ordinary value of laud of this kind. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the railway that runs through Lord Moray's property a little hit farther along the coast in the same part of the world, where there was a great amenity, as we say in Scotland. It was a beautiful little district. The railway at Aberdour was spoiling the scenery and the capabilities of the country. There is nothing of the kind at Rosyth, and it is perfect nonsense to talk of anything in the nature of an eyesore or as destroying property when you have I do not know how many miles of sea between it and Lord Hopetoun's house. This was a separate little property, entirely apart from the Hopetoun property, with no picturesque value whatever. Although we are perfectly willing that Lord Linlithgow should get full value for his property—no one would have anything but good feeling towards Lord Linlithgow—it is absurd to reckon up all these advantages which do not exist in order to put up the price for this property. Then we are told that there is feuing value. There is no feuing value. Almost anywhere you can find a landed proprietor who can feu a piece of his land in order to meet the fancy of an individual, and get a considerable feu duty. But it would never do for him to multiply that by the number of acres he has in his property, and say that that was the feuing value. A feu estate is a totally different thing from an estate on which there is an accidental feu. I have never heard a lamer case made out, either on the ground of amenities in Scotland or on the ground of feu value, especially when you come to think of the agricultural value of land in the market in the very locality in which Rosyth is situated. Put out of your mind Salisbury Plain. I am not sure that property always goes very cheaply even on Salisbury Plain. Put the City of London aside. Take any case of property in the same district, and how does this bargain stand? The Lord Advocate can hardly look us in the face and pretend that this is a reasonable bargain. The fact which he cannot get over is the fact of seventy-five years' purchase. Let him produce any other instance where the Government have been acquiring property in Scotland on a scale like this, and at anything like the price. What did they pay for the Barry property? I guarantee it was nothing like this. There is not a word to be said for the whole transaction. It is so flagrant and enormous that it passes the possibilities of defence, and although we can think nothing wrong of Lord Linlithgow—a man for whom we have the greatest respects and whom we are very glad to see getting the full value of the land that belongs to him—yet we cannot but denounce the reckless or, at any rate, mistaken bargain which the Government have made in this important matter.

SIR FORTESCUE FLANNERY

said the Leader of the Opposition had not alluded to the fact, stated by the Lord Advocate, that the valuers retained by the Admiralty had valued this property at within £9,000 of the price paid. Until some proof was forthcoming that the professional valuers, in whose honour and ability he had every confidence, were wrong, he should believe that this transaction had been carried through in a perfectly proper manner, and that a reasonable bargain had been made in the interest of the nation. The figures in the ease cited by the right hon. Gentleman appeared somewhat extraordinary. The estate referred to was sold, according to the right hon. Gentleman, for £38,000, and the rental was £1,100 for agricultural value, and £800 for minerals. That worked out at 5 per cent. per annum. Surely the right hon. Gentleman had made a mistake in his figures. As to the amenity, in this instance the State had insisted on purchasing a piece of land which was greatly valued by the former owner. This land was in full view of an historic mansion. Upon it was to be erected factories, chimneys belching forth smoke, and all the other paraphernalia of a dockyard, which would seriously destroy the amenities from the sentimental and artistic point of view of this land. The nobleman enjoying these amenities was compelled against his will to sell his property, and he sold it as an honourable man should. He for one refused to believe that there was anything in the way of want of judgment on the part of the Admiralty in this transaction, and he hoped it would prove entirely satisfactory.

MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON

said the question raised two aspects—the business aspect, and the naval aspect. The whole of the present debate had turned on the business aspect, and he rose mainly for the purpose of asking the Civil Lord for some information on the naval aspect. With reference to his hon. friend's contention the Lord Advocate in his reply appeared to introduce quite unnecessary passion into his arguments. For instance, he said that his hon. friend the Member for the Border Burghs had made a charge which, if it meant anything at all, meant that the Admiralty had knowingly made a present of public money to a political supporter. His hon. friend said nothing of the kind.

* MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY

said that he did not say it was suggested; but that that was what the charge came to.

MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON

said he did not certainly suggest anything of the kind, nor did his hon. friend. The charge had a meaning quite apart from that suggestion altogether; and his hon. friend repudiated any such suggestion. His hon. friend dealt with the matter as one of public business, and the introduction of political friendship by the Lord Advocate was not justified by anything that had been said.

* MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY

said in the first debate on the subject the expression "a political friend" was used, and "a scandalous job" was referred to, and the words were printed on newspaper placards.

MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON

said the phrases "a monstrous job" and "a political supporter" were not used from that bench. It was admitted on both sides that the price paid amounted to seventy-five and a half years purchase; that was a matter of arithmetic.

* MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY

said it really was not, because seventy-five and a half years purchase was based on the agricultural rental, and had no regard to the prospective feuing or building value. It seemed to him like describing avoirdupois by troy weight.

MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON

said right hon. Gentleman would forgive him reminding him that in his reply he did not say a word about feuing value. His hon. friend said that the land had no feuing value other than that which it might acquire by the Admiralty coming into the district. It was extraordinary thing that two competent valuers should have arrived at a value which, to the common sense of that House, seemed exceedingly high. The explanation of the Lord Advocate was, that in Scotland in cases of compulsory purchase arbitrators habitually added 50 per cent. to the normal value.

* MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY

said what he had stated was that 50 per cent. had been added to agricultural value, and 10 per cent. to feuing value.

MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON

said could not pretend to dispute that. He would accept it. He did not care a button about railway companies or corporations; but it was different when the greatest Department of the State wanted land for the greatest of all national purposes that it should be compelled to pay 50 per cent. more than its value as agricultural land. It was not a job but a scandal that the country could not resume possession of its own land for the purpose of national defence without having to pay such an enormous price. The result would be that something would have to be done to given he State the right to take land for public purpose. He wished to ask the noble Lord if he has any explanation to offer as to the naval aspect of this question. That was a great deal more important than the question they had been discussing, important thought that was. He wished to ask if the noble Lord would follow the precedent he set in the case of Chatham, and give the Committee a rough estimate of the total cost of the proposed establishment at Rosyth. The Civil Lord cleared away the darkness with regard to Chatham; he hoped he would now clear away the darkness abour Rosyth. He wished to know what was to be set up, what would be the estimated total cost, and whether the Civil Lord intended on the Report stage to put the figures in.

MR. JOHN DEWAR (Inverness)

said that the most telling part of the Lord Advocate's defence was that the Committee should not form themselves into a valuation Committee, as many hon. Members had never seen the place and knew nothing of it. That, however, did not prevent the Committee from expressing an opinion as to the value the State had received for the money which had been paid. He thought the Committee were of opinion that too much was given for this piece of land. The Lord Advocate could not get over the fact that seventy-five years purchase had been paid for it. According to his hon. friend the Member for the Border Burghs twenty-five years purchase would have been a considerable price for agriculture land, a even with fifty per cent. added on the total would only amount to £60,000 or half the price paid. The Lord Advocate got over the price by saying that there was a feuing value in the land, but that was directly contradicted by hon. Members who knew the land and all the circumstances. He asked the Lord Advocate whether any land at Rosyth had ever been feued, whether any inquiries for land there had ever been made, and whether any feuing plan had been prepared. He was prepared to admit that the Lord Advocate's witnesses were as good as could have been got; but the Lord Advocate knew very well that in arbitration cases witnesses who would give unfavourable evidence need not necessarily be called. He was prepared to say that if the Lord Advocate had this ease to prepare he would produce witnesses who would put the value very much nearer the figure that they contended it ought to be than it was. He would support the Amendment of his hon friend. If the Government had taken compulsory powers in this matter, and had prepared a case for arbitration, they would have got the land very much cheaper. He did not say it was a job, but it was the result of mismanagement.

* SIR WILLIAM TOMLINSON (Preston)

said the question appeared to him to be simply this—whether the Government would have done better by acquiring the land compulsorily or by negotiation. He could give instances which occurred in England to show that under the Land Claims Act the Agricultural value of the land would not be the only element which would be taken into account. When land was compulsorily acquired, any tribunal would add to its agricultural value a reasonable amount in view of its capability for the purpose for which it was acquired. In this instance the proximity of he land to the estuary would have been taken into account. It appeared to him that if the Government had proceeded through compulsion they

AYES.
Agg-Gardner, James Tynte Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey Bousfield, William Robert
Anson, Sir William Reynell Balfour, Rt. Hn. G. W. (Leeds Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John
Arkwright, John Stanhope Balfour, Renneth R.(Christch.) Butcher, John George
Arnold-Forster, Hugh O. Banbury, Sir Frederick George Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H
Atkinson, Rt. Hon.John Bentinck, Lord Henry C. Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs.)
Bagot, Capt.Josceline FitzRoy Bignold, Arthur Cavendish, V.C.W.(Derbyshire
Bain, Colonel James Robert Blundell, Colonel Henry Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)
Balcarres, Lord Bond, Edward Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)
Balfour, Rt.Hon. A. J. (Manch'r Boscawen, Arthur Griffith- Chamberlain, RtHn.J.A. (Worc

would not have secured the land at an easier price.

* MR. PRETYMAN

said that with reference to the question of the hon. Member for Dundee as to the estimated cost of the work at Rosyth, it was perfectly evident that at that stage of the project it would be absolutely impossible for the Admiralty, however willing they might be, to give any such estimate. He went very fully into the question on the previous occasion, and had now nothing to add. With reference to the insertion of the figures, that had already been shown to be impossible. He had expressed his willingness to endeavour to secure the insertion of the figures.

* THE CHAIRMAN

I do not think it desirable to go back on these matters. The hon. Gentleman must confine himself to the question now before the Committee.

* MR. PRETYMAN

said he had nothing further to add.

MR. THOMAS SHAW

said that the House of Commons ought to know from the Government what was in their own minds with regard to the expenditure on Rosyth. The Government must have some idea, and the House of Commons should be put in possession of it. He did not think that the Lord Advocate had met the case which he had put before the Committee. His case was totally irrespective of the nobleman concerned, who had nothing whatever to do with it. That nobleman was perfectly right in demanding a large price from the Government; the Government had the power to compel him to sell, but they abandoned it. He could not understand how the Government had been led into such a transaction; and he thought that the defence offered by the Lord Advocate was not at all satisfactory.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes, 144; Noes, 55. (Division List No. 192.)

Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E. Hoult, Joseph Pretyman, Ernest George
Collings, Right Hon. Jesse Howard, Jno. (Kent, Faversham Purvis, Robert
Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred. Reid, James (Greenock)
Colston, Chas. Edw. H Athole Jessel,Captain Herbert Merton Remnant, James Farquharson
Compton, Lord Alwyne Kemp, Lieut.-Colonel George Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson
Corbett, T. L. (Down, North) Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop Robertson, Herbert (Hackney
Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton Keswick, William Round, Rt. Hon. James
Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile King, Sir Henry Seymour Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-
Dalkeith, Earl of Knowles, Lees Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander
Dalrymple, Sir Charles Law, Andrew Boner (Glasgow) Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)
Davenport, William Bromley- Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool Seely, Charles Hilton(Lincoln
Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan Lawson, J. Grant(Yorks., N.R.) Seely, Maj.J. E. B. (Isle of Wight
Dickson, Charles Scott Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead) Sinclair, Louis (Romford)
Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage Skewes-Cox, Thomas
Dorington, Rt. Hon. Sir J. E. Leveson-Gower, Frederick N.S. Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, E.)
Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- Llewellyn, Evan Henry Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)
Duke, Henry Edward Lockwood, Limit-Col. A. R. Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)
Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine Stock, James Henry
Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol, S Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)
Faber, George Denison (York) Lonsdale, John Brownlee Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G. (Oxf'd Univ
Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Ed. Lowe, Francis William Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)
Fergusson, Rt. Hn Sir J.(Manc'r Loyd, Archie Kirkman Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.
Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft Valentia, Viscount
Finch, Rt. Hon. George H. Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred Walker, Col. William Hall
Finlay, Sir Hobert Bannatyne Macdona, John Cumming Walrond, Rt. Hn Sir William H.
Forster, Henry William M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool Warde, Colonel C. E.
Foster, Philip S.(Warwick, S. W Moon, Edward Robert Pacy Webb, Colonel William George
Fyler, John Arthur Morgan, David J (Walthamstow Whitmore, Charles Algernon
Gibbs, Hn. A.G.H. (City of Lond Morrell, George Herbert Willow, Sir John Archibald
Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E R.
Gore,Hn.G RC. Ormsby-(Salop Mount, William Arthur Wilson, John (Falkrik)
Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir J. Eldon Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C. Wortley, Rt. Hn.C. B. Stuart-
Goschen, Hon. George Joachim Murray, Rt. Hn A.Graham(Bute Wrightson, Sir Thomas
Goulding, Edward Alfred Murray, Charles J. (Coventry) Wylie, Alexander
Gray, Ernest (West Ham) Parkes, Ebenezer Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George
Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G.(Mid' x Pease, Herbt. Pike (Darlington
Hare, Thomas Leigh Peel, Hn. Wm. R. Wellesley
Harris, Frederick Leverton Percy, Earl TELLERS FOR THE AYES—
Hay, Hon. Claude George Pierpoint, Robert Sir Alexander Acland-
Henderson, Sir Alexander Pilkington, Col. Richard Hood, and Mr. Anstruther.
Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T. Platt-Higgins, Frederick
NOES.
Asher, Alexander Helme, Norval Watson Shipman, Dr. John G.
Ashton, Thomas Gair Horniman, Frederick John Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)
Beaumont, Wentworth C. B. Joicey, Sir James Soames, Arthur Wellesley
Bolton, Thomas Dolling Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.) Spencer, Rt. Hn C. R. (Northants
Brigg, John Kearley, Hudson E. Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)
Broadhurst, Henry Kilbride, Denis Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr
Bryce, Right Hon. James Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall Thomas, F. Freeman(Hastings)
Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn Layland-Barratt, Francis Thomson, F. W. (York, W.R.)
Burns, John Levy, Maurice Tomkinson, James
Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H. Lough, Thomas Toulmin, George
Causton, Richard Knight M 'Arthur, William (Cornwall) Warner, Thos. Courtenay T.
Cawley, Frederick Partington, Oswald White, Luke (York, E. R.)
Cremer, William Randal Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion) Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)
Dalziel, James Henry Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.) Whittaker, Thomas Palmer
Evans, Sir F. H. (Maidstone) Robertson, Edmund (Dundee) Yoxall, James Henry
Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith) Rose, Charles Day
Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert J. Runciman, Walter
Griffith, Ellis J. Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel) TELLERS FOR THE NOES—
Gordon, Sir W. Brampton Shackleton, David James Mr. Caldwell and Mr.
Hayne, Rt. Hon Charles Seale- Shaw, Thomas (Hawick, B.) Dewar.
MR. BUCHANAN

moved to leave out line 18 of the schedule. He said the question of gunnery schools to which this item referred illustrated in another way the uncertain character of the schedules of these Acts. In the 1897 and 1899 Acts a total estimated cost of £227,000 was put down for Sheerness naval barracks; the works were never done, and the proposal was abandoned. Now the item appeared under the general head of gunnery schools on the Medway and elsewhere. He thought they were justified in asking the Admiralty for a definite understanding that no new item or sub-item should be added to this in future Acts.

Amendment proposed— In page 3, to leave out line 18."—(Mr. Buchanan.)

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

* MR. PRETYMAN

said the item related to Sheerness, and it was not the case that the proposed works had been abandoned. The works were to be removed to another site. Part of the money was for a gunnery school at Devonport. Nothing would be added to the item without the consent of the House.

Question put, and agreed to.

* SIR JOHN COLOMB

moved to amend the schedule by substituting £670,400 for the sum of £791,400, the estimated total cost of the Portsmouth naval barracks. He said his belief was that the Admiralty were spending a great deal too much on bricks and mortar for naval barracks. An increase in the Navy did not mean a need for more barrack accommodation in the same way as an increase in the Army. This was because a great many of the men in the Navy were married and did not live in barracks at all. The only explanation the Committee had received was that the barracks were necessary in connection with the question of mobilisation. He would remind the Committee that mobilisation was the work of a week. It was a false principle to build permanent barracks to provide for the necessity of a week. He moved.

Amendment proposed— In page 3, line 19, to leave out '£791,400,' and insert '£670,400.'"—(Sir John, Colomb.)

Question proposed, "That £791,400 stand part of the schedule."

* MR. PRETYMAN

said the increased sum was required to provide additional hammock accommodation for the men during mobilisation. It was also required for the provision of swimming-baths, gymnasia, sick-quarters, and other accommodation.

MR. COURTENAY WARNER (Staffordshire, Lichfield)

said he understood that a great part of the expenditure of this amount was not necessary for the permanent establishment, but only for purposes of mobilisation. Was that so?

* MR. PRETYMAN

This only refers to the extra hammocks.

MR. WHITLEY

said these Naval Works Bills were encouraging the Admiralty to spend money on bricks and mortar which ought to be spent on good ships and providing better conditions for the men on board. He thought there ought to have been on the face of the schedule a detailed statement showing the cause for the expenditure proposed to be incurred. It was a kind of finance the House would have to put a stop to if it was to have control over the spending of the money.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

And, it being Midnight, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.

Committee report Progress; to sit again to-morrow.