§ "That a sum, not exceeding £1,634,200, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Works, Buildings, and Repairs, at Home and Abroad, including the cost of Superintendence, Purchase of Sites, Grants in Aid, and other Charges connected therewith, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1905."
§ Resolution read a second time.
§ MR. WHITLEYsaid that when they were in Committee upon this Vote he asked the hon. Gentleman in charge of it several questions, to which he was not able to give an answer at the time, and he promised to circulate and send to him personally some information on the points he raised. Apparently the hon. Member had overlooked that matter, because he had not yet received the promised explanation. One of the points he inquired about was on page 133 of the Estimates, where he drew attention to a discrepancy in the figures, for it would be found on that page that the pay did not correspond to the number of officers concerned, especially in regard to civil engineers and assistant surveyors. It was rather remarkable that whilst there was a reduction in the numbers there was an increase in the pay of £100. He hoped the Government would explain that point. The totals given in that column did not add up correctly and there must be some discrepancy on that page. There were several other items which were not discussed in Committee because the closure was moved. An explanation had been promised him before the closure was moved in regard to items on page 138 which dealt with the cold meat store at Gibraltar. Last year the amount for this purpose was £15,000, but this year the amount put down was £38,500. This building, he understood, was originally built as an ammunition store, and was found unsuitable, and so it was changed into a cold meat store. He wished to know how it was that this had become such a costly undertaking. On page 140 there was an item 1494 for the Haslar Hospital, which had in creased from £20,000 to £22,500. There was another extraordinary increase on page 142 for the accommodation on shore of boys' training establishments. Last year this item was £100,000, but this year it had increased to £450,000. He protested against the practice of putting down comparatively small sums one year and then, without any explanation or authority from the House, after having got in the thin end of the wedge, gradually, year by year, raising the figures to what were really large undertakings. The Admiralty ought to come to the Committee and obtain authority to begin these undertakings, and then the House could give its sanction or not. This Vote was the worst in the whole of the Estimates for this fault. Year after year they went on voting these large sums blindfold, and that was the manner in which the Navy Estimates had been brought up to such an immense sum. On page 143 the Naval Ordinance Stores accommodation had been put down at £57,030, whilst last year it was only £23,600. He understood that this expenditure was to be shared between the Admiralty and the War Office, but was this not done last year? Upon great Votes like these Estimates contained, he thought they ought to have some systematic method of putting them plainly before the House. These were all questions of great importance, and in order to protest against this method of continually raising the Estimates he begged to move a reduction of this Vote by £1,000.
§
Amendment proposed—
To leave out the sum of £1,634,200,' and insert the sum of £1,633,200'"—(Mr. Whitley)—instead thereof.
§ Question proposed, "That £1,634,200 stand part of the said Resolution."
§ MR. BLACKsaid he desired to support the reduction which had been moved by his hon. friend, but he did so on somewhat different grounds. He did so in order to draw attention to the way in which the Admiralty failed to apprehend the real interests of the works they undertook. At the 1495 initiation of a local minister in the North-east of Scotland the Admiralty undertook the construction of a Naval Reserve battery in the middle of one of the largest resident fishing populations in the British Isles on the coast of Banffshire. As matters stood at present fishermen were seldom induced to join that branch of the service. The Admiralty apprehended the situation and agreed to place a Naval Reserve battery at that spot and there appeared last year a sum of £3,500 in the Estimates for the erection of a Naval Reserve battery at Buckie. Up to this point the Admiralty took a correct view of the situation, but when they came to negotiate for the ground required which was most suitable for the purpose, they were met by a difficulty because the proprietor declined to part with it. The Admiralty might have put into force their compulsory powers to acquire the ground, or they might have moved their battery some small distance from this locality. The whole idea of this battery was that it might be in the midst of a seafaring population, whom it was desired to attract. But the Admiralty chose a most futile and useless course, for instead of placing this Naval Reserve battery in the middle of a large resident seafaring population, they had gone away for a distance of twenty miles, and placed it in the midst of a small fishing population. At the place originally selected there was a population of 4,000, whilst the population of the place chosen was only some 400 or 500, and therefore, there was little prospect of this battery proving of any great service to the Navy. He hoped they would have some explanation of this error of judgment in not putting into force their compulsory powers. They could not have acted in this matter from motives of economy, because even under compulsory powers £10 per acre would be a very ample allowance. That represented about £2,500 and surely for this it was worth while to have adopted compulsory powers. He hoped they would be given some satisfactory explanation of this matter.
He also desired to call attention to the position of the new naval base at Rosyth. 1496 It was a matter of great importance, when the Admiralty were proposing to lay out a town, that they should, if possible, build a garden city. [An HON. MEMBER Oh, oh!] Did the hon. Member opposite object to garden cities? He thought Rosyth ought to be made as attractive and healthy as possible for the Government employees and others who would have to reside there, and this was a unique opportunity for making it a garden city. They had acquired at this place some 1,200 or 1,300 acres for a new naval base, and it had occurred to many persons that the Government had an opportunity now which he hoped they would net neglect of laying out the town in such a way that it would have boulevards and plenty of open spaces so as to prevent the evil of overcrowding which had occurred at Devonport. He thought some explanation was due to the House in regard to the very large cost of the site at Rosyth. The net rental of the land was £1,200,and they had ascertained that the Government had paid £140,000 for, it or about 100 years purchase. He had inspected the site himself, and he ventured to assert that there was no building value in the site, and the true criterion was what would they get for it if they put up this land for sale and abandoned their idea of making it a naval base. In that case he did not think they would get more than £40,000 for what they had paid £140,000. That indicated very great extravagance, and he had not heard any satisfactory explanation of it. He was not aware that any great progress had been made with the works at Rosyth, and he wished to know when a serious beginning was going to be made. He hoped a satisfactory explanation of those points would be given.
§ MR. SPEAR (Devonshire, Tavistock)thought something ought to be done to secure the use of Dartmoor granite for the Portsmouth extension works, instead of importing granite from Norway. They had been told on good authority that there was granite enough at Dartmoor to build ten Londons. Dartmoor granite was now being sent to build London bridges, and it did seem an injustice to the locality that the Admiralty should be bringing granite all 1497 the way from Norway for the extension of these works. In Devonshire there was scarcely any local industry, and recently these granite quarries had been largely developed. Considering that native granite could be supplied as cheaply as any other granite he thougth those who contributed to the taxes of this country were entitled to more consideration. If Dartmoor granite could be supplied as cheaply and without injury to the public service he thought this ought to be done instead of going all the way to Norway for it.
§ MR. BUCHANANsaid there were two or three subjects which remained over when they discussed this Vote in Committee which had not been mentioned. With regard to Rosyth, they had been promised information, but they had not been told anything as to the progress of these works, and they had had to fall back for information upon a lecture delivered at the Surveyors' Institute with regard to the Rosyth works. It appeared from the speech delivered by Mr. Binnie that not only had the Government to pay a large sum for the land in the first instance, but they had also to pay a further sum for mineral rights which were not likely to be worked. They had also been informed that there had been some difficulty in regard to buying up the agricultural leases. They had been forced to derive their information from all sorts of stray authorities such as rectors and surveyors, and he thought they had a right to demand full information either in the Memorandum of the First Lord of the Admiralty or from the Civil Lord as to what was being done with regard to this dockyard. He understood that things were almost at a standstill now at Rosyth. There were one or two other matters which were left over when the closure was moved. Some of the items had gone up by leaps and bounds. The accommodation of naval cadets at Osborne had increased from £40,000 to £160,000, and at Singapore an item of £23,000 had increased to £57,000. There were other points upon which he would not detain the House, but he trusted that the points which 1498 had been mentioned would be dealt with.
§ MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSEsaid he desired to ask a question with regard to the Coastguard stations at West Bay in Dorsetshire. He did not think this was a suitable place at which to spend £4,000, because the population was by no means large. He happened to see the accommodation there some little time ago, and it was not in accordance with the needs of the place. He thought they ought to have some explanation from the hon. Member in regard to the expenditure proposed at this place. With regard to the payment of advances under the Naval Works Acts he noticed that this expenditure had gone up by more than £140,000. Like expenditure under the Military Works Acts this expenditure increased every year, and this was a very unsatisfactory feature in both the Naval and Military Estimates. The capital expenditure was not put down here, and he ventured to think that before they passed this Estimate lightly they ought to have some statement, not only as to what the total expenditure was likely to be, but also as to what it would be next year. They ought to have some indication given as to finality in regard to this expenditure.
§ *THE CIVIL LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (MR. ARTHUR LEE,) Hampshire, Farehamsaid he desired to express his regret to the hon. Member for Halifax for not having been able before this to supply him with the amended copy of page 133, which he promised him during the Committee stage. He was sure the hon. Member would acquit him of any desire to deprive him of that information, but he had only received a proof of the amended copy that afternoon, and ho intended handing it to the hon. Member before the debate took place, had it been possible. The hon. Member would find in the amended copy all the points he had raised cleared up, and when printed it would be laid upon the Table of the House. The hon. Member for Halifax had also referred to the increase in the Estimate from £20,000 last year to £22,500 this year for the adaptation of the Haslar Hospital 1499 building. It was always difficult to foresee the exact expenditure that would be required to adapt an old building and bring it up-to-date. It had been found that the floors were not in such a good state as had been expected, and therefore it had been found necessary to renew them. Consequently, an additional expenditure of £2,500 had to be incurred. The hon. Member had also referred to item GG., which related to accommodation on shore of boys' training establishments. He agreed with the hon. Member that some explanation was necessary of the large increase in that item. Last year the amount was £100,000, but that was only to provide for one of the training ships on shore, and it was never intended that that should be the end of the policy of accommodating these boys in barracks on shore. He could defend this policy, very easily, in the first place by pointing out that it was extremely economical to transfer these establishments to the shore. As to the question of hulks, as compared with barracks, the latter were much superior from a sanitary as well as from a financial point of view. He thought that the economies achieved justified the expenditure. It would perhaps interest the House to hear that on working out the cost of maintenance of the structures of these hulks, as compared with barracks on shore, the former cost £7 per boy per annum, whilst the latter cost only 30s. per boy. The total saving effected by these four establishments would amount to about £30,000 a year in actual maintenance and repairs alone. He thought the House would see that that in itself was sufficient to justify the capital expenditure on these barracks, even if the hulks were capable of continuing the work for many years longer. As a matter of fact however, these hulks which it was proposed to replace were not in a satisfactory condition. They were insanitary, and they could not be repaired to carry on the necessary work. Therefore the Admiralty were confronted with the alternative of either preparing new hulks, which would have been a costly business, or of providing barracks on shore. The House was aware that there were many advantages in accommodating the boys on shore. They were able to be better trained, there was more space, and they were able to sleep in beds instead of hammocks, which was a good thing for 1500 growing boys. He thought this policy was desirable from every point of view, and he hoped he had been able to indicate that it was an economical policy. It was not proposed at present to build all four of these training establishments. It was only proposed to provide two at present, one at Shotley and the other at Queensferry, because the training ships at those places were in such a parlous condition that it was absolutely necessary to provide other accommodation for the boys. The total sum put down in the Estimate would not be required immediately, but the Admiralty felt that it would be more straightforward to tell the House at once the total extent of this policy, and let them know what was ultimately proposed to be done.
Reference had been made to two items somewhat similar in their character, the cold meat store at Gibraltar and the ordnance buildings at Singapore. There was no increased cost in these items, although he admitted that this was not clearly shown on the Estimate. The explanation was really very simple. These were services which were being jointly paid for by the Army and Navy. Last year only the Admiralty portion of the Vote was shown. This year the total was shown, but the amount to be provided for on Navy Votes had not increased. Last year it was explained in a footnote that half of the expenditure on the work was chargeable on the Navy Votes and the other half on the Army Votes.
§ MR. WHITLEYWhy is the meat store so costly?
§ *MR. ARTHUR LEEsaid the buildings were large, and difficult of construction, and the hon. Member was aware that it was necessary in the case of a fortress like Gibraltar to make larger preparation for the storage of food than at a station in this country.
The question whether a Reserve Battery should or should not be erected at Buckie had been carefully considered, but the Admiralty found that it was impossible to obtain a site there. The local landowners refused to give a site. The hon. Member 1501 for Banffshire would remember that a pledge had been given to him that the whole of the proceedings should be suspended for several weeks, to give him an opportunity of negotiating in the matter. He failed in those negotiations, and the Admiralty failed to persuade the local landowners to part with their property. The only other alternative was to proceed by compulsory powers.
§ *MR. ARTHUR LEEThe hon. Member said "hear, hear," but he could assure him that the Admiralty, acting on the advice of their legal advisers, decided that it would be most unwise to proceed by compulsory powers in the matter of establishing a firing battery. It was difficult to foresee how far there might be deterioration of surrounding property or what might be the extent of the claims for compensation in the case of a firing battery being established. They had heard of cases in which people living miles away had made claims for compensation on the ground that their nerves were shattered by the sound of the guns.
§ *MR. ARTHUR LEEsaid there was not the same objection at the place selected. The town council had afforded the Admiralty every opportunity for securing a suitable site. He did not say that the site chosen was altogether as good as the other, but it was suitable, and the work would now be proceeded with.
The question of forming a garden city at Rosyth was fully discussed last year. The hon. Gentleman was told that the Admiralty was sympathetically inclined to the proposal to have a model city in 1502 the neighbourhood of Rosyth, but they were not themselves prepared to build a garden city for the accommodation of the workpeople in the dockyard. All they would do was to see whether any land was available for workmen's dwellings after meeting all the requirements of the dockyard, and, if there was, they would encourage the erection of buildings there with due regard to hygienic considerations, space, and so forth. When the time came for building, the Admiralty would be willing to confer with gentlemen who were interested in this idea of a garden city, fn reply to the question as to when the dockyard works would be commenced, all he could say at present was that they would be commenced as soon as the scheme of the proposed dockyard had been fully determined. Hon. Gentlemen must not think that the laving out of a first-class dockyard could be settled in a few days, or even a few months. In the first place it was necessary to make a very elaborate examination of the ground. It was necessary to make most careful borings in order to determine the best sites for docks and other structures, and that work had been pressed on with the utmost vigour during the past year. In addition to that it had been decided to send the superintending engineer to inspect the most modern dockyards on the Continent in order that we should have the advantage of the latest and most scientific ideas on this subject. He could assure the hon. Gentleman that there was no undue delay whatever, and the report that the works had been stopped was absolutely untrue. This was a, matter that must not be gone into headlong and without due consideration. The hon. Member for the Lichfield Division had referred to the item of "Rents" which was made up of a number of small sums, and he was afraid that he could not give him details at present, but he should be 1503 very glad to give him, personally, the information he desired. The hon. I Member for East Perthshire asked about the Coastguard item. He had dealt with that matter fully on the last occasion the Vote came up for consideration. He might repeat that the policy now adopted would effect a saving because by building Coastguard stations on loan they would be relieved of the enormous sums which they had to pay for rents of buildings which were in many cases unsuitable. The hon. Member for East Bristol had said that the Coastguard station at West Bay was unnecessary. The hon. Member was entitled to his opinion, but he could only reply that in the opinion of the
§ responsible advisers of the Admiralty in this matter, it was a necessary station. The hon. Member also asked a Question as to the repayment of annuities under sub-head Q. It was always unpleasant having to pay one's debts, but it was the fate of solvent "debtors, such as he hoped the Admiralty would always prove to be, to have to pay back the money they borrowed. As these works to which the annuities referred were carried out with the full assent of Parliament it was obvious that the charges must be met.
§ Question put.
§ The House divided: Ayes, 157; Noes, 52. (Division List No. 62.)
1505| AYES. | ||
| Anson, Sir William Reynell | Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph | Keswick, William |
| Arkwright, John Stanhope | Doughty, George | Lawrence, Sir Jos. (Monmouth) |
| Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. Hugh O. | Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers | Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool) |
| Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John | Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin | Lawson, John Grant(Yorks, N.R |
| Aubrey- Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir H. | Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart | Lee, Arthur H. (Hants., Fareham |
| Bain, Colonel James Robert | Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton | Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage |
| Balcarres, Lord | Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J.(Manc'r | Leveson-Gower, Frederick N.S |
| Balfour, Rt. Hn. A.J.(Manch'r) | Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst | Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine |
| Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey) | Finch, Rt. Hon. G. H. | Long, Rt. Hn. Walter(Bristol, S.) |
| Balfour, Rt. Hn. Gerald W.(Leeds | Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne | Lonsdale, John Brownlee |
| Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch. | Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon | Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft) |
| Banbury, Sir Frederick George | Flower, Sir Ernest | Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth |
| Barran, Rowland Hirst | Forster Henry William | Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred |
| Bentinck, Lord Henry C. | Fuller, J. M. F. | Macdona, John Cumming |
| Bignold, Arthur | Fyler, John Arthur | Maconochie, A. W. |
| Bigwood, James | Gardner, Ernest | M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool) |
| Blundell, Colonel Henry | Gordon, Hn. J.E. (Elgin & Nairn) | Manners, Lord Cecil |
| Bond, Edward | Gordon, Maj Evans-(T'r H'mlets | Martin, Richard Biddulph |
| Boscawen, Arthur Griffith | Gore, Hn G.R.C. Ormsby-(Salop | Maxwell, W. J. H.(Dumfriesshire |
| Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John | Goschen, Hon. George Joachim | Milner, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G. |
| Brotherton, Edward Allen | Gray, Ernest (West Ham) | Morpeth, Viscount |
| Burdett-Coutts, W. | Grenfell, William Henry | Morrell, George Herbert |
| Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H. | Gretton, John | Morrison, James Archibald |
| Cautley, Henry Strother | Groves, James Grimble | Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer |
| Cavendish, V.C.W. (Derbyshire | Hambro, Charles Eric | Mount, William Arthur |
| Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich) | Hamilton, Marq of(L'nd'nderry) | Murray, Rt Hn. A. Graham(Bute |
| Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A (Worc. | Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford | Murray, Charles J. (Coventry) |
| Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath) | ||
| Clive, Captain Percy A. | Hare, Thomas Leigh | Nicholson, William, Graham |
| Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H.A.E. | Harris, F. Leverton(Tynem'th) | Peel, Hn. Wm. Robert Wellesley |
| Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse | Harris, Dr. Fredk. R.(Dulwich) | Percy, Earl |
| Colomb, Sir John Chas. Ready | Hay, Hon. Claude George | Platt Higgins, Frederick |
| Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole | Heath, James (Staffords, N.W. | Plummer, Walter R. |
| Compton, Lord Alwyne | Henderson, Sir A. (Stafford, W. | Powell, Sir Francis Sharp |
| Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas | Hickman, Sir Alfred | Pretyman, Ernest George |
| Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge | Hope, J.F. (Sheffield, Brightside | Pym, C. Guy |
| Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile | Hoult, Joseph | Randles John S. |
| Cust, Henry John C. | Howard, John(Kent, Faversham | Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne |
| Dalkeith, Earl of | Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil | Reid, James (Greenock) |
| Dalrymple, Sir Charles | Hunt, Rowland | Ridley, Hon. M.W.(Stalybridge) |
| Davenport, William Bromley | Jebb, Sir Richard Clayerhouse | Ridley, S. Forde(Bethnal Green |
| Dewar, Sir T. R.(Tower Hamlets) | Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T.(Denbigh) | Robertson, Herbert (Hackney) |
| Dickson, Charles Scott | Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop. | Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert |
| Digby John K. D. Wingfield. | Kerr, John | Rutherford, W. M. (Liverpool) |
| Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford | Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester) | Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset) |
| Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander | Thornton, Percy M. | Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.) |
| Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.) | Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M. | Wilson John (Glasgow) |
| Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln) | Tuff, Charles | Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E.R.(Bath) |
| Seely, Maj. J.E.B.(Isle of Wight | Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward | Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George |
| Spear, John Ward | Valentia, Viscount | Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong |
| Stanley Edward Jas. (Somerset) | Walker, Col. William Hall | |
| Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Lancs.) | Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H. | TELLERS FOR THE AYES— |
| Stewart, Sir Mark J. M Taggart | Warde, Colonel C. E. | Sir Alexander Acland-Hood |
| Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M | Whiteley, H.(Ashton und Lyne) | and Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes- |
| Stock, James Henry | Whitmore, Charles Algernon | |
| NOES. | ||
| Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.) | Holland, Sir William Henry | Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.) |
| Atherley-Jones, L. | Joicey, Sir James | Sheehan, Daniel Daniel |
| Barry, E. (Cork, S.) | Jones, William(Carnarvonshire) | Sinclair, John (Forfarshire) |
| Bell, Richard | M'Arthur, William (Cornwall) | Slack, John Bamford |
| Black, Alexander William | M'Crae, George | Spencer, Rt. Hn. C.R.(Northants |
| Brown, George M. (Edinburgh) | Markham, Arthur Basil | Strachey, Sir Edward |
| Caldwell, James | Murnaghan, George | Sullivan, Donal |
| Causton, Richard Knight | Nussey, Thomas Willans | Thomas, David Alfred(Merthyr) |
| Cawley, Frederick | O'Brien, Kendal(Tipperary Mid) | Tomkinson, James |
| Channing, Francis Allston | O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.) | Toulmin, George |
| Crean, Eugene | O'Mara, James | Warner, Thomas Courtenay T. |
| Cremer, William Randal | Reddy, M. | Wason, Jn. Cathcart (Orkney) |
| Ffrench Peter | Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion) | White, Luke (York, E. R.) |
| Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John | Roche, John | Whittaker, Thomas Palmer |
| Hammond, John | Roe, Sir Thomas | |
| Harcourt, Lewis V.(Rossendale) | Runciman, Walter | TELLERS FOR THE NOES— |
| Harmsworth, R. Leicester | Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland) | Mr. Whitley and Mr. Buchanan. |
| Hayden, John Patrick | Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel) | |
| Hobhouse, C. E. H. (Bristol, E.) | Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford) |
Resolution agreed to.
§ Adjourned at four minutes after Twelve o'clock.