HC Deb 26 October 1908 vol 194 cc1597-8
MR. ASHLEY

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether there is any permanent armament in the landward forts forming the defences of the great naval arsenals of Portsmouth, Plymouth, Devonport, and Chatham; and, if so, what is the nature of such armaments.

MR. HALDANE

There is no permanent armament in the landward forts for the defence of our naval ports. Although it was originally intended that they should contain such armament, it is now held to be preferable to provide the garrisons of the forts, which may be of considerable use for purposes of defence, with movable armament which can be used for mobile defence. The naval ports mentioned are all in possession of their movable armament.

MR. ASHLEY

Am I to understand that these defences are practically of no use at all?

MR. HALDANE

On the contrary, they are held to be of more effect than if supplied with fixed guns.

MR. ASHLEY

asked why Continental nations had these defences for their forts.

MR. HALDANE

said that the recommendations of an extremely competent committee appointed by Lord Lansdowne to deal with this question had been carried out.

*MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER (Croydon)

asked whether it was the fact that any great border fortresses in other countries had been strengthened by the removal of these armaments?

MR. HALDANE

said he did not know what the arrangements as to these armaments were in other countries, but, being a Scotsman, he would ask the right hon. Gentleman another Question—namely, why, if he held these views now, he did not in other days reverse the arrangement?

MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER

As an explanation, may I remind the right hon. Gentleman—

*MR. SPEAKER

Order, order. There are 159 Questions on the Paper.