§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That 129,000 officers, seamen, and boys be employed for the Sea and Coast Guard Services for the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1906, including 20,211 Royal Marines."
§ *MR. PRETYMANsaid it was desirable that Vote A and also Vote 1 should be passed to-night. He would endeavour to answer as briefly as possible some of the points which had been raised in the discussion. The question of sea time had been very carefully calculated; and the result of the present system would be that there would be two years active service for officers and men in full commission, and from fourteen to sixteen months in harbour. It might be necessary to work ships in time of war with reduced crews; and the nucleus crews which had been formed would under this scheme obtain very valuable experience. With reference to the question of the secrecy of designs, he did not think he had anything to add to what he had said before. When a ship was completed or partially completed the design was, of course, known; but it was quite another matter to allow the particulars of a design to transpire while the ship was on the stocks, even though it was inevitable that the design would be public property later on. His hon. and gallant friend raised the question as to the two classes of destroyers, one for ocean work and the other for work in narrow waters. It was not true to say that the new twenty-five-and-a-half "knotters" had proved inferior to the old thirty "knotters." In anything like dirty weather the twenty-five-and-a-half "knotters" had shown their superiority. As he had stated to the Committee, they had failed to produce a better design which would combine greater speed with greater stability at a limited cost. After all cost was a convenient standard and index. The evolution of these two classes 1312 was the result of the old battle of opposing factors—navigability and invisibility. It was not true to say that they had abandoned the policy of reducing the size of the destroyers; but they could not get in one class maximum speed and maximum invisibility both in narrow waters and in the open. Therefore, instead of trying to build one class of destroyer, which would attain a maximum speed in all waters, they had designed two classes, each of which advanced to some extent, separately, as regarded speed and invisibility, so as severally to meet requirements in narrow waters and in the open sea.
§ MR. LOUGH (Islington, W.)asked if the present destroyers were useless.
§ *MR. PRETYMANsaid certainly not. Far from being useless they were as good to-day as any destroyers that could be pitted against them.
§ *SIR JOHN COLOMBsaid one of the reasons given for the building of these wastal destroyers was that they were cheap.
§ *MR. PRETYMANsaid that, as he had already explained, cost was an important factor; but other considerations had also to be taken into account. As regarded the point raised by his noble friend the Member for Ealing as to taking over the defence of naval bases by the Navy, that was a point of great difficulty, and involved a very large question of policy. It was desirable that the defence of naval bases should be, as far as possible, in one hand, and under one control; but there ust be a dividing line somewhere, and he could think of no more convenient dividing line than the natural dividing line between the Army and Navy—land and sea.
§ LORD GEORGE HAMILTONsaid his suggestion was that the duty discharged by the Army in connection with naval bases should be transferred to the Navy.
§ *MR. PRETYMANsaid that the Navy had already a very considerable area to administer; and the defence of naval bases would be a very large additional 1313 commitment. He hoped that, as the Vote had been fully discussed, the Committee would now allow it to be taken.
§ MR. BUCHANANsaid he was somewhat surprised at the suggestion of the hon. Gentleman. So far from suffering from superabundance of information he thought the Committee had some reason to complain that more information had not been given. The hon. Gentleman seemed to be somewhat chary of given information. There was a fundamental difference of opinion between the hon. Gentleman and hon. Members on his side as to the position in which the hon. Gentleman, as the representative of a great spending Department, should stand before the House of Commons. At this most important stage in the history of the Navy, when Estimates were brought forward which marked a new departure in naval policy and finance, the Committee was entitled to receive a full statement from the Minister with regard to that policy. He was surprised that the hon. Gentleman did not make a fuller and more complete statement with regard to the finance of the new system. The hon. Gentleman stated that the redistribution of the Navy was a matter which it was hardly proper for the House of Commons to discuss. He took exception to that. What was the House of Commons for, if not to discuss fully all that concerned the policy and finance of the Navy? What was the use of devoting several paragraphs in the First Lord's Statement to the redistribution of the Navy if the representative of the Navy in this House said it was not a proper subject for discussion? Of course, it would be absurd for him to suggest that there should be eight battleships in the Mediterranean instead of ten, but that was not the question they desired to discuss. It was the general cause which prompted the Government to alter the main lines of the distribution of the Navy, and regarding that no information had been given. His view was that the hon. Gentleman, particularly when he had to bring forward a scheme marking a new departure in policy, ought to take the House of Commons and the country fully and frankly into his confidence. That was not only fair to the House of Commons, 1314 but it was best and wisest for himself. A few days ago when a demand was made that the Secretary to the Admiralty should make his statement in Committee instead of with Mr. Speaker in the Chair, the Prime Minister asked what was the good of discussing the policy of the Naval Estimates before they had heard the representative of the Government in charge of them. There seemed, at the time, to be much force in the argument, but, as a matter of fact, so far from making a full statement of the policy of the Admiralty, the hon. Gentleman gave very little information at all, though his statement had been to a certain extent supplemented in response to the interrogatories of the hon. Member for Dundee and others.
The present Navy Estimates were important for two reasons—first, as marking a new naval policy, and, secondly, as indicating a new financial policy with regard to naval affairs. Personally, he cordially welcomed the reduction in the Naval Votes, having always striven, to the best of his ability, to place some curb upon the constant advance in naval and military expenditure, but he would like to be satisfied that it was a real reduction, based upon policy, which would entail further or consequential reductions in years to come. He submitted that the Committee had a right to expect further details with regard to the new policy, especially as much would be heard in the country of its merits and the reductions it had resulted in. A lead had already been given on the subject by the Prime Minister in his rather foolish speech at Glasgow a couple of months ago, and hon. Gentlemen opposite would, doubtless, gladly follow in the same direction. A full defence should be given in the House of Commons, where statements could be, criticised, questions asked, and foundations carefully examined. The Secretary to the Admiralty declared the policy to rest upon three foundations—the new distribution of the Fleet, the elimination of out-of-date slaps, and the organisation of new bases.
§ *MR. PRETYMANI said the organisation, of nucleus crews.
§ *MR. BUCHANANsaid he was quoting from The Times.
§ MR. PRETYMANThen I was misreported.
§ MR. BUCHANANsaid that might be so, but he would certainly desire to say a word about the reorganisation of naval bases. He would found his observations not upon the speech of the Secretary to the Admiralty, but upon the Statement of the First Lord, who called attention to the reorganisation of existing naval bases as an important reform. First, with regard to the distribution of the Fleet. A full statement ought to be made of the grounds upon which the large and far-reaching alterations had been made. In his Memorandum of December last, the First Lord stated that he could not then say what was to be done with the China Squadron. But there was no mention of the China Squadron in the new Statement, nor had the hon. Gentleman given any satisfactory explanation. As to the elimination of out-of-date ships, he was at a loss where to begin. Confusion had been worse confounded with regard to the ships that were being weeded out and the ships that were being retained. The Memorandum of the First Lord, in which was enunciated the policy of removing a number of ships from the active list, was dated December 6th. The Prime Minister's speech containing the remark about "the courageous stroke of the pen" was delivered about the middle of January. Surely, then, it would have been possible and only right and courteous to have placed the House of Commons, in the middle of March or before the Navy Estimates were introduced, in possession of full information with regard to the ships that were being struck off the effective list. So far as the Admiralty were concerned they had given no information at all voluntarily. From the Papers issued in response to the demands of the hon. Member for Dundee it was difficult to make out what the action of the Government was in the matter. There was a list, of vessels being struck off the effective list, and there was also a list of cruisers not being struck off; but would the Committee believe that there were actually sixteen vessels which appeared in both lists? What did that mean?
§ *MR. PRETYMANsaid it all arose out of the use of the word "effective." By the order of the House of Commons a Return had been prepared of effective and non-effective ships, but those terms no longer definitely covered the new classification of ships. He therefore communicated privately with the hon. Member for Dundee asking in what form he would like the Return prepared. The ships in Part I. were all combatant ships, and therefore those in 1b, "Ships of comparatively small fighting value," appeared as combatant ships in the effective Return referred to by the hon. Member, while at the express desire of the hon. Member for Dundee they were included in the Return originally moved for of non-effective ships.
§ MR. BUCHANANsaid there was a further difficulty. The Return referred to "the classification of ships affected by the redistribution of the Fleet since October last as will be shown in Appendix B of the Dockyard Expense Accounts Blue-book, 1903–1904." But that Blue-book was not yet issued. He would not have complained of that if the classification in this Return corresponded in any degree with the classification in previous Dockyard Expense Accounts Blue-books, but it did not. Appendix B was entirely altered in form. He submitted that that was not at all a fair and straightforward way of treating the House of Commons.
§ *MR. PRETYMANsaid that all this difficulty had arisen from his great anxiety to give hon. Members the information they had asked for. At their request he had given the information in the form asked for, but rather piecemeal. If he had refused to give the information until he could supply it in its final form there would have been none of these complaints.
§ MR. BUCHANANsaid the hon. Gentleman knew that this most cardinal point in the new naval policy was mentioned in the First Lord's Statement of December last, and he would have better shown his anxiety to meet the reasonable demands of the House of Commons for information if, when the Estimates were produced, and not afterwards under pressure, 1317 he had supplied the information in a complete and intelligible form. The reason given by the First Lord for the removal of many of these ships from the effective list was not that they were out of date, but that they were of such a character as to be a source of weakness and a cause of anxiety to British Admirals. and that they might bring discredit on the British Navy. But which of the ships were really to be considered as coming within that category? As a result of the information given and the Answers supplied, the Committee were completely in the dark as to what vessels were really considered to be obsolete and fit only to be sold. What really was the policy of the Government with regard to the ships they were removing from the effective list? Information had been given as to the amount recently spent on repairs on the ships included in one or other of the lists. In 1903–4 £51,000 and £48,000 were spent on the "Medea" and the "Medusa" respectively. But in the present year there were the following amounts put down for repairs of vessels struck off the effective list: the "Sans Pareil," £12,300; the "Collingwood." £20,858; the "Naiad."£33,578; the "Philomel," £22,538; the "Barracouta"—which was to be sold—£28,066. Other vessels were down for smaller sums, and the total amounted to between £140,000 and £150,000. Surely that showed a great want of foresight on the part of the Admiralty during recent years. In the face of these hard facts and figures the confidence of the country in the wisdom of the Admiralty would be sorely shaken. Then, taking these lists in their widest form, there were still left upon the active list eighty or a hundred vessels of the same character attached to squadrons throughout the world. What were the Government going to do with those vessels? Was this only the beginning of a policy, or was it a policy complete in itself? Was it the policy of the Admiralty that in future the British Fleet should consist of battleships, armoured cruisers, scouts, torpedo destroyers, submarines, and vessels of that character, and that eventually protected and semi-protected cruisers should disappear altogether?
Then with regard to the bases. The hon. Gentleman had said that he did 1318 not mention them in his introductory statement. But the First Lord had called attention to the subject. Why did not the Admiralty make a clean breast of the matter? It was a new departure; why not tell the House of Commons all about it? He was inclined to think the policy a wise one, but more information was necessary. As he understood the statement, Halifax, Esquimault, Jamaica, and Trincomalee were to cease to be naval bases at all. Why could they not be told what was being done in regard to Bermuda? Apparently there was going to be a large alteration in the position Bermuda held as a naval base. The personnel there had been, largely reduced, and the expenditure had been reduced from £12,000 to £5,000. They had also had a statement from the Secretary of State for War that the garrison at Bermuda was to be reduced by one-half. The statement of the Secretary of State for War made it quite clear what was going to be done, and why could they not have a similar statement from the Secretary to the Admiralty? In the past they had been spending money out of the Naval Works Loans hand over hand upon Bermuda. A Return had been issued by the Secretary to the Treasury showing that £609,000 had been spent upon works at Bermuda, £380,000 out of Naval Works Loans, and £229,000 out of money voted for works for the Navy. Until the present year they had been yearly increasing expenditure upon permanent works, and now there had been a sudden change of policy and the works were being stopped. How could the House of Commons and the public have any confidence in the foresight of the Admiralty when they pursued a policy of this kind? Whenever they saw a new departure on the part of a public Department from the practice of previous years, he urged hon. Members to immediately take notice of it, because the following year it might be quoted as a precedent. In previous years the Admiralty had always given them a summary of the cost of works both under the Votes and under the Loans Acts, and the had always taken good care to note the important ones. It was extraordinary that the appendix to the First Lord's Statement, in dealing with the expenditure under the Naval Works Act, omitted all 1319 mention of the works at Bermuda, Chatham, and Rosyth. Explanation had been asked for again and again, and had been refused. This was behaving discourteously to the House of Commons, and if there had been a change in the policy of the Admiralty all along the line why were they not told whether there had been any change in this respect. The Chatham extension and the Rosyth dockyard were put into the Loans Bill of 1903, but the Admiralty would not give them the figures. He agreed that it was a wise policy to curtail this expenditure from loans, but he thought they ought to be supplied with more information. The only item of expenditure for Rosyth which they were told about was £112 paid to the local authorities for supplying water to a community which, up to the present, had no actual existence. He hoped that fact would not escape the attention of hon. Members when they came to go more closely into these Estimates.
But did the proposals now put before them mean a real reduction? He was bound to say that owing to the lack of proper information it was very difficult to form a conclusion. They had not yet got from the Government a complete statement of the naval expenditure for the year. Hon. Members were aware that besides the Navy Estimates there was a vast amount of expenditure under the Naval Loans Acts, and the House should insist upon getting from the Government a complete estimate of the amount of money they intended to spend out of loans for the current year. Was there any reason why the progressive increase of expenditure upon loans should not cease? Owing to the existence of these Loans Acts the Admiralty were tempted to transfer expenditure from works to loans. Under the Navy Appropriation Acts year after year the Comptroller and Auditor-General made a note of expenditure which was taken from the Votes and placed upon the Loans Fund. There was one instance of a charge for buying a church and parsonage house at Portsmouth for which money was asked for in 1903–4, and without the knowledge of the House that money had been taken oft the Votes and placed to the Loans Account to be paid for in thirty years. Was that right and 1320 fair? Did actions like that inspire them with confidence in the Estimates? In face of facts like these it was impossible for them to know whether this was a real reduction or not until they got fuller information. They had got very little information upon the question of repairs. The decrease was about £500,000, but £300,000 of that was due to the Admiralty method of doing the repairs in their own dockyards. He wished to know were they likely to have the repairs done more cheaply in the future over the whole Fleet generally when they would have to be done at Gibraltar and Malta? Would the repairs done at those places be cheaper than if they were done at the home ports? To his mind the evidence was all the other way. They would have to send out the men and stores there.
§ *MR. PRETYMANBut the labour will be cheaper.
§ MR. BUCHANANsaid that would constitute only a flea-bite in the expenditure. There was another fundamental question to which up to the present he had not been able to get an answer. A large number of ships were to be removed from the effective list, and at the present time they were in commission with full crews. Those vessels were to be removed and placed in charge of caretakers. What would become of those crews? If this scheme was to be consistent, ought they not also to have a real proposal for a reduction, of the men? Seeing that there was a large reduction in the number of ships, surely there ought to be, as a logical consequence, a reduction in the personnel under Vote A. There appeared to be no such reduction; and for that and other reasons he submitted that the scheme presented by the Admiralty was not a properly thought-out scheme to bring back naval expenditure to the reasonable figure of former years. He could not help thinking that the scheme put before them was merely a tentative one for this year only, and put together in view of an early dissolution of Parliament.
§ MR. REGINALD LUCAS (Portsmouth)thought the debate had proved useful in making clearer the case of the ships struck 1321 off the Navy List. He instanced the "Melpomene," which had been represented in a naval journal as a nineteen-knot cruiser. As a matter of fact, it was on record that on one voyage in 1899 with full bunkers she had only succeeded in doing seven knots. If this were her condition she had better be discarded. There was a further protest against the striking off of some ships which it now appeared had not been struck off. On the other hand, he instanced the "Arethusa" and the "Archer," and quoted from foreign navy lists cruisers of similar character still counted effective, and submitted the question as to whether we had not been premature and too comprehensive in our dismissal of ships. Referring to the First Lord's Statement, he pointed out that a reversal of policy in the matter of boilers was announced. Now Babcock and Yarrow boilers were in favour; but from the best information at his disposal, he was led to believe that the Belleville boiler was after all the best, the most economical in coal consumption, and possessing a great advantage in that it was capable of being mended at sea by refitting of tubes, whereas the others were likely to require repairing in a dockyard. He hoped that old prejudice's would not be allowed to affect the question. With regard to the difference in type of destroyers, he expressed misgivings. He knew not whether economy was the main object, as suggested by the hon. Member for Yarmouth; but it seemed not impossible that confusion and mischief might ensue. If an admiral were supplied or reinforced with the wrong type, a situation might be produced analogous to that arising out of the alleged message, "Infantry preferred," at the outbreak of war in South Africa. The Secretary to the Admiralty had briefly answered his inquiries as to the Naval Volunteers by saying that they were being trained to take their place in the Fleet upon the outbreak of war. Yes, but the Secretary of State for War 1322 was in his place, and he had announced that the Volunteer soldier was practically useless for purposes of modern warfare. Naval training was manifestly more technical and specialised than military training and they could only hope that they would not presently be told that the time and money spent on the Naval Volunteer service had been wasted and must be discontinued.
§ *MR. PRETYMAN rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
§ MR. WINSTON CHURCHILL (Oldham), who spoke seated and with his hat on, asked whether it was in order for a Minister to closure one of his own supporters before the hon. Member had finished his remarks.
§ MR. JOSEPH WALTON (Yorkshire, W.R., Barnsley),seated and with his hat on, asked whether the whole naval policy of the Government could be discussed on Vote I.
*THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMANsaid the practice had always been, after a discussion on Vote A, that if there was a general assent of the House to that course, a general discussion might, with the approval of the Chairman, be taken on Vote I.
§ MR. LOUGHsaid about an hour and a quarter ago, in reply to a question, he was told that the subject he referred to would be fully opened on the next Vote, and no objection was taken, and it was under those conditions that the debate had been continued.
*THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMANNo such question was put to me, and I must be satisfied that there is a general assent of the House.
§ MR. LOUGHsubmitted that when they received such a promise from a Minister it should settle the matter.
§ MR. WINSTON CHURCHILLasked if the general assent of the House had been obtained.
*THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMANsaid that under the circumstances, on Vote I., if no, objection was taken by hon. Gentlemen on either side of the House, he should rule that a general discussion was in order.
§ Question put, "That the Question be now put."
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes, 205; Noes, 141. (Division List No. 44.)
1327| AYES. | ||
| Agg-Gardner, James Tynte | Dalkeith, Earl of | Hoult, Joseph |
| Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel | Dalrymple, Sir Charles | Howard, John (Kent, Faversham |
| Allhusen, Augustus Henry Eden | Davenport, William Bromley | Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil |
| Anson, Sir William Reynell | Davies, Sir Horatio D. (Chatham | Hunt, Rowland |
| Arkwright, John Stanhope | Dickson, Charles Scott | Jessel, Captain Herbert Morton |
| Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. Hugh O. | Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph | Kerr, John |
| Arrol, Sir William | Dorington, Rt. Hn. Sir John E. | Keswick, William |
| Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John | Doughty, Sir George | Kimber, Sir Henry |
| Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy | Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers | Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm. |
| Bain, Colonel James Robert | Duke, Henry Edward | Laurie, Lieut-General |
| Balcarres, Lord | Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir William Hart | Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow) |
| Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (Manch'r) | Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton | Lawrence, Sir Joseph (Monm'th) |
| Balfour, Rt. Hn. Gerald W (Leeds | Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.) | Lawson, Hn. H. L. W. (Mile End) |
| Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch. | Fardell, Sir T. George | Lawson, John Grant (Yorks N. R. |
| Banbury, Sir Frederick George | Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward | Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham |
| Banner, John S. Harmood | Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Manc'r | Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead) |
| Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin | Finch, Rt. Hon. George H. | Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage |
| Bentinck, Lord Henry C. | Finlay, Sir R. B. (Inv'rn'B'ghs) | Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S. |
| Bhownaggree, Sir M. M. | Fisher, William Hayes | Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R. |
| Bignold, Sir Arthur | Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon | Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine |
| Bigwood, James | Flannery, Sir Fortescue | Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham) |
| Bill, Charles | Flower, Sir Ernest | Lowe, Francis William |
| Bingham, Lord | Forster, Henry William | Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale) |
| Blundell, Colonel Henry | Foster, Philip S. (Warwick, S. W. | Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft) |
| Bond, Edward | Gardner, Ernest | Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred |
| Boscawen, Arthur Griffith | Gibbs, Hon. A. G. H. | Macdona, John Cumming |
| Bowles, Lt.-Col. H. F. (Middlesex | Gordon, Hn. J. E. (Elgin & Nairn | MacIver, David (Liverpool) |
| Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John | Gordon, Maj Evans-(T'rH'mlets | Maconochie, A. W. |
| Bull, William James | Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby- | M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool) |
| Campbell, J. H. M. (Dublin Univ. | Graham, Henry Robert | M'Calmont, Colonel James |
| Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H. | Gray, Ernest (West Ham) | Majendie, James A. H. |
| Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire | Green, Walford D. (Wednesbury | Malcolm, Ian |
| Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich) | Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury | Marks, Harry Hananel |
| Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. Were. | Greene, W. Raymond (Cambs.) | Martin, Richard Biddulph |
| Chapman, Edward | Grenfell, William Henry | Maxwell. Rt Hon. Sir H. E. Wigt'n |
| Clive, Captain Percy A. | Gretton, John | Maxwell, W. J. H (Dumfriessh're |
| Coates, Edward Feetham | Greville, Hon, Ronald | Milner, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G. |
| Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E. | Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F. | Moles worth, Sir Lewis |
| Colomb, Rt. Hon. Sir John C. R. | Hambro, Charles Eric | Montagu, Hon. J. Scott (Hants). |
| Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole | Hamilton, Rt. Hn Lord G. (Midd' x | Moore, William |
| Compton, Lord Alwyne | Hamilton, Marq. of (L'nd'nderry | Morgan, David J. (Walthamstow |
| Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas | Harris, F. Leverton (Tynem'th | Morpeth, Viscount |
| Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow) | Heath, Sir James (Staffords, N. W | Morrell, George Herbert |
| Corbett, T. L. (Down, North) | Heaton, John Henniker | Morrison, James Archibald |
| Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim. S. | Henderson, Sir A. (Stafford, W.) | Mount, William Arthur |
| Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile | Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T. | Murray, Charles J. (Coventry) |
| Cubitt, Hon. Henry | Hogg, Lindsay | Myers, William Henry |
| Cust, Henry John C. | Hope. J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside | Nicholson, William Graham |
| Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington | Round, Rt. Hon. James | Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth) |
| Peel, Hn. Wm. Robert Wellesley | Royds, Clement Molyneux | Thorburn, Sir Walter |
| Percy Earl | Rutherford, John (Lancashire) | Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M. |
| Pierpoint, Robert | Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool) | Tuff, Charles |
| Pilkington, Colonel Richard | Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford | Tuke, Sir John Batty |
| Platt-Higgins, Frederick | Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander | Turnour, Viscount |
| Plummer, Sir Walter R. | Sandys, Lieut. Col. Thos. Myles | Vincent, Col. Sir C E. H (Sheffield) |
| Powell, Sir Francis Sharp | Scott, Sir S. (Marlyebone W.) | Walker, Col. William Hall |
| Pretyman, Ernest George | Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln) | Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H. |
| Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward | Seton-Carr, Sir Henry | Warde, Colonel C. E. |
| Purvis, Robert | Sharpe, William Edward T. | Welby, Lt.-Col. A. C. E. (Taunton |
| Pym, C. Guy | Shaw-Stewart, Sir H. (Renfrew | Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd |
| Randles, John S. | Sinclair, Louis (Romford) | Wilson, John (Glasgow) |
| Rankin, Sir James | Sloan, Thomas Henry | Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart |
| Rasch, Sir Frederick Carne | Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East | Wrightson, Sir Thomas |
| Ratcliff, R. F. | Smith, Hon. W. F. D). (Strand) | Wylie, Alexander |
| Reid, James (Greenock) | Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk | Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong |
| Remmant, James Farquharson | Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Lancs. | |
| Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield) | Stone, Sir Benjamin | TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir |
| Robertson, Herbert (Hackney) | Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley | Alexander Acland-Hood and |
| Rolleston, Sir John F. L. | Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester) | Viscount Valentia. |
| Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter | Talbot, Rt Hn. J. G. (Oxf'dUniv. | |
| NOES. | ||
| Abraham, William, (Cork N. E | Higham, John Sharpe | O'Dowd, John |
| Ainsworth, John Stirling | Hobhouse. C. E. H. (Bristol. E.) | O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.) |
| Allen, Charles P. | Holland, Sir William Henry | O'Malley, William |
| Ashton, Thomas Gair | Horniman, Frederick John | O'Shaughnessy, P. J. |
| Barran, Rowland Hirst | Hutchinson, Dr. Charles Fredk. | Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden) |
| Benn, John Williams | Jacoby, James Alfred | Pirie, Duncan V. |
| Black, Alexander William | Jones, Leif (Appleby) | Power, Patrick Joseph |
| Boland, John | Jones, William (Garnarvonshire) | Rea, Russell |
| Brigg, John | Kearley, Hudson E. | Reckitt, Harold James |
| Bright, Allan Heywood | Kennedy, Vincent P. (Cavan, W. | Reddy, M. |
| Broadhurst, Henry | Kilbride, Denis | Redmond, John E. (Waterford) |
| Burke, E. Haviland | Kitson, Sir James | Rickett, J. Compton |
| Caldwell, James | Labouchere, Henry | Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion) |
| Campbell, John (Armagh, S.) | Lambert, George | Roberts, John H. (Derbighs.) |
| Causton, Richard Knight | Lamont, Norman | Robertson, Edmund (Dundee) |
| Channing, Francis Allston | Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W. | Robson, William Snowdon |
| Cheetham, John Frederick | Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Gornwall) | Roche, John |
| Churchill, Winston Spencer | Layland-Barratt, Francis | Rose, Charles Day |
| Clancy, John Joseph | Levy, Maurice | Runciman, Walter |
| Condon, Thomas Joseph | Lewis, John Herbert | Russell, T. W. |
| Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark) | Lough, Thomas | Samuel, Herbert L. (Gleveland |
| Crean, Eugene | Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth) | Seely, Maj J E. B. (Isle of Wight |
| Cremer, William Randal | Lundon, W. | Sheehan, Daniel Daniel |
| Cullinan, J. | Lyell, Charles Henry | Sheehy, David |
| Dalziel, James Henry | Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J. | Shipman, Dr. John G. |
| Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen) | MacVeagh, Jeremiah | Sinclair, John (Forfarshire) |
| Delany, William | M'Crae, George | Slack, John Bamford |
| Devlin, Charles Ramsay (Galway | M'Hugh, Patrick A. | Soames, Arthur Wellesley |
| Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.) | M'Kean, John | Soares, Ernest J. |
| Doogan, P. C. | M'Kenna, Reginald | Spencer, Rt. Hn. C. R. (Northants |
| Duffy, William J. | M'Laren, Sir Charles Benjamin | Stanhope, Hon. Philip James |
| Edwards, Frank | Markham, Arthur Basil | Sullivan, Donal |
| Ellis, John Edward (Notts.) | Mitchell, Edw. (Fermanagh, N.) | Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe) |
| Esmonde, Sir Thomas | Mooney, John J. | Tennant, Harold John |
| Eve, Harry Trelawney | Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen) | Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E. |
| Fenwick, Charles | Murphy, John | Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr) |
| Flynn, James Christopher | Nannetti, Joseph P. | Toulmin, George |
| Fuller, J. M. F. | Newnes, Sir George | Trevelyar, Charles Philips |
| Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John | Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South) | Ure, Alexander |
| Goddard, Daniel Ford | Norman, Henry | Walton, Joseph (Barnsley) |
| Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton | O'Brien, Kendal (TipperaryMid | Warner, Thomas Courtenay T. |
| Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B. | O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) | White, George (Norfolk) |
| Hayden, John Patrick | O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.) | White, Luke (York, E. R.) |
| Healy, Timothy Michael | O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.) | White, Patrick (Meath, North) |
| Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H. | O'Connor, 'John (Kildare, N.) | Whiteley, George (York, W. R.) |
| Whittaker, Thomas Palmer | Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.) | TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. |
| Williams, Osmond (Merioneth) | Woodhouse, Sir JT. (Huddersf'd | Buchanan and Mr. J. H. |
| Wills, Arthur Walters (N.Dorset | Young, Samuel | Whitley. |
§ Question put accordingly, "That 129,000 officers, seamen, and boys be employed for the Sea and Coast Guard Services for the year ending on the 31st
1328§ day of March, 1906, including 20,211 Royal Marines."
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes, 215; Noes, 84. (Division List No. 45.)
1329| AYES. | ||
| Agg-Gardner, James Tynte | Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers | Lee, Arthur H (Hants., Farcham |
| Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel | Duke, Henry Edward | Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead) |
| Allen, Charles P. | Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton | Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage |
| Anson Sir William Reynell | Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W. | Leveson-Gower, Freder'k N.S. |
| Arkwright, John Stanhope | Fardell, Sir T. George | Lockwood, Lieut-Col. A. R. |
| Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. Hugh O. | Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward | Loder, Gerald W. Erskine |
| Arrol, Sir William | Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J (Manc'r | Long, Col. C. W. (Evesham |
| Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John | Finch, Rt. Hon. George H. | Lowe, Francis William |
| Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy | Finlay, Sir R B (Inv'rn'ss B'ghs) | Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale) |
| Bain, Colonel James Robert | Fisher, William Hayes | Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft) |
| Balcarres, Lord | Fitzroy, Hn. Edward Algernon | Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsm'th) |
| Balfour, Rt Hon. A. J. (Manch'r | Flannery, Sir Fortescue | Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred |
| Balfour, Rt. Hn Gerald W (Leeds | Flower, Sir Ernest | Macdona, John Cumming |
| Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch. | Forster, Henry William | MacIver, David (Liverpool) |
| Banbury, Sir Frederick George | Foster, Philip S (Warwick, S. W. | Maconochie, A. W. |
| Banner, John S. Harmood- | Gardner, Ernest | M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool) |
| Barran, Rowland Hirst | Gibbs, Hon. A. G. H. | M'Calmont, Colonel James |
| Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin | Gordon, Hn. J E (Elgin & Nairn | M'Laren, Sir C. Benjamin |
| Bentinck, Lord Henry C. | Gordon, Maj Evans-(T'r H'mlets | Majendie, James A. H. |
| Bhownaggree, Sir M. M. | Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby- | Malcolm, Ian |
| Bignold, Sir Arthur | Graham, Henry Robert | Marks, Harry Hananel |
| Bigwood, James | Gray, Ernest (West Ham) | Martin, Richard Biddulph |
| Bill, Charles | Green, Walford D (Wednesbury | Maxwell, Rt Hn Sir H E (Wigt'n) |
| Bingham, Lord | Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury) | Maxwell, W J H (Dumfriesshire |
| Blundell, Colonel Henry | Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs.) | Milner, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick G. |
| Bond, Edward | Grenfell, William Henry | Molesworth, Sir Lewis |
| Boscawen, Arthur Griffith | Gretton, John | Moore, William |
| Bowles, Lt.-Col H. F. (Middlesex | Greville, Hon. Ronald | Morgan, David J (Walthamstow |
| Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John | Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard. B. | Morpeth Viscount |
| Caldwell, James | Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F. | Morrell, George Herbert |
| Campbell, J. H. M. (Dublin Univ. | Hambro, Charles Eric | Mount, William Arthur |
| Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H. | Hamilton, Rt. Hn Lord G (Midd'x | Murray, Charles J. (Coventry) |
| Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire | Hamilton, Marq of (L'nd'nderry | Myers, William Henry |
| Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich) | Harris, F. Levorton (Tynem'th | Nicholson, William Graham |
| Chamberlain, Rt. Hn J A(Wore. | Heath, Sir James (Staffords, NW. | Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden) |
| Chapman, Edward | Heaton, John Henniker | Peel, Hn. Wm R. Wellesley |
| Churchill, Winston Spencer | Henderson, Sir A. (Stafford, W.) | Percy, Earl |
| Clive, Captain Percy A. | Hermon-Hodgo, Sir Robert T. | Pierpoint, Robert |
| Coates, Edward Feetham | Hogg, Lindsay | Pilkington, Colonel Richard |
| Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E. | Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside | Platt-Higgins, Frederick |
| Colomb, Rt. Hn. Sir John C.R. | Hoult, Joseph | Plummer, Sir Walter R. |
| Colston, Chas. Edw. H Athole | Howard, John (Kent, Favershm | Powell, Sir Francis Sharp |
| Compton, Lord Alwyne | Hozier, Hn. James Henry Cecil | Pretyman, Ernest George |
| Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas | Hunt, Rowland | Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward |
| Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow | Jessel, Capt. Herbert Morton | Purvis, Robert |
| Corbett, T. L. (Down, North) | Kerr, John | Pym, C. Guy |
| Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile | Keswick, William | Randles, John S, |
| Cubitt, Hon. Henry | Kimber, Sir Henry | Rankin, Sir James |
| Cust, Henry John C. | Lambert, George | Ratcliff, R. F. |
| Dalkeith, Earl of | Lambton, Hn. Frederick Wm. | Reid, James (Greenock) |
| Dalrymple, Sir Charles | Lamont, Norman | Remnant, J Farquharson |
| Davenport, William Bromley | Laurie, Lieut-General | Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.) |
| Davies, Sir Horatio D (Chatham | Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow) | Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield) |
| Dickson, Charles Scott | Lawrence, Sir Joseph (Monm'th | Robertson, Herbert (Hackney) |
| Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph | Lawson,Hn. H. L.W.(Mile End) | Rolleston, Sir John F. L. |
| Dorington, Rt. Hn. Sir John E. | Lawson, John Grant (Yorks, NR | Rose, Charles Day |
| Doughty, Sir George | Layland-Barratt, Francis | Rothschild, Hn. Lionel Walter |
| Round, Rt. Hon. James | Sloan, Thomas Henry | Walker, Col. William Hall |
| Royds, Clement Molyneux | Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, E.) | Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H. |
| Runciman, Walter | Smith, Hon. W. F. D (Strand) | Warde, Colonel C. E. |
| Rutherford, John (Lancashire | Soares, Ernest J. | Warner, Thos. Courtenay T. |
| Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool) | Stanley, Hn. Arthur Ormskirk | Welby, Lt.-Col. A C E (Taunton |
| Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford | Stanley, Rt. Hn. Lord (Lancs.) | Wharton, Rt. Hn. John Lloyd |
| Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander | Stone, Sir Benjamin | Whitley, J. H. (Halifax) |
| Samuel Herbert L. (Cleveland | Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester) | Wills, Arthur Walters (N Dorset |
| Sandys, Lieut.-Col. T. Myles | Talbot, Rt. Hn J G (Oxf'd Univ.) | Wilson, John (Glasgow) |
| Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.) | Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth) | Wortley, Rt. Hn. C. B. Stuart |
| Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln) | Thorburn, Sir Walter | Wrightson, Sir Thomas |
| Seely, Maj. J. E. B. (Isle of Wight | Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M. | Wylie, Alexander |
| Seton-Karr, Sir Henry | Trevelyan, Charles Philips | |
| Sharpe, William Edward T. | Tuff, Charles | TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir |
| Shaw-Stewart, Sir H, (Renfrew) | Tuke, Sir John Batty | Alexander Acland Hood |
| Sinclair, Louis (Romford) | Turnour, Viscount | and Viscount Valentia. |
| NOES. | ||
| Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.) | Kennedy, Vincent P (Cavan, W. | Rickett, J. Compton |
| Ainsworth, John Stirling | Kilbride, Denis | Robson, William Snowdon |
| Boland, John | Kitson, Sir James | Roche, John |
| Brigg, John | Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W.) | Russell, T. W. |
| Bright, Allan Heywood | Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall) | Sheehan, Daniel Daniel |
| Burke, E. Haviland | Levy, Maurice | Sheehy, David |
| Campbell, John (Armagh, S.) | Lough, Thomas | Shipman, Dr. John G. |
| Channing, Francis Allston | Lundon, W. | Slack, John Bamford |
| Clancy, John Joseph | MacVeagh, Jeremiah | Stanhope, Hn. Philip James |
| Condon, Thomas Joseph | M'Crae, George | Sullivan, Donal |
| Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark | M'Kean, John | Taylor, Theodere C. (Radcliffe) |
| Crean, Eugene | Markham, Arthur Basil | Tennant, Harold John |
| Cremer, William Randal | Mooney, John J. | Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.) |
| Cullinan, J. | Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen) | Thomas, David Alfred (Merth'r |
| Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen) | Murphy, John | Toulmin, George |
| Delany, William | Nannetti, Joseph P. | Ure, Alexander |
| Devlin, Charles Ramsay (Galwy | Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South) | Walton, Joseph (Barnsley) |
| Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.) | O'Brien Kendal (Tipperary Mid | White, George (Norfolk) |
| Doogan, P. C. | O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) | White, Luke (York, E. R.) |
| Duffy, William J. | O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.) | White, Patrick (Meath, North) |
| Esmonde, Sir Thomas | O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.) | Whittaker, Thomas Palmer |
| Eve, Harry Trelawney | O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.) | Williams, Osmond (Merioneth) |
| Fenwick, Charles | O'Dowd, John | Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.) |
| Flynn, James Christopher | O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.) | Young, Samuel |
| Goddard, Daniel Ford | O'Malley, William | |
| Hayden, John Patrick | O'Shaughnessy, P. J | TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. |
| Healy, Timothy Michael | Pirie, Duncan V. | Labouchere and Mr. Charles |
| Higham, John Sharpe | Power, Patrick Joseph | Hobhouse. |
| Jacoby, James Alfred | Reddy, M. | |
| Jones, Leif (Appleby) | Redmond, John E (Waterford) |
§ And, it being alter Midnight, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
§ Resolution to be reported this day.
§ Committee to sit again To-morrow.