§ Let us, therefore, examine our commitments. First of all comes the Navy. Up to the present we have been considering the Naval problem from the point of view of merely spending money.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEI hope hon. Gentlemen will extend to me their indulgence. I am afraid that I shall have to try their patience by speaking at considerable length, and I do not want to strain my voice. I will do my very best. I shall now have to invite hon. Members and the country to consider the Naval problem from the equally essential but less agreeable standpoint of paying. Spending is pleasant, paying is irksome; spending is noble, paying is sordid. And it is on me falls the labour of making the arrangements for the less attractive part of the Naval programme. Let us see what it means. The building of two "Dreadnoughts" represents nearly a penny a year on the income tax during the two years of construction. The construction of four "Dreadnoughts" therefore, represents nearly 2d., and of eight "Dreadnoghts" nearly 4d., added on to the income tax. It is my business as Finance Minister to consider all these programmes which add to the expenditure of the country in the terms of new taxes. In estimating what the Naval programme is likely to cost the Chancellor of the Exchequer next year I must, of course, premise that it is quite impossible with even approximate accuracy to forecast twelve months' ahead what the expenditure in any Department of the Government is likely to be, at least so I am assured.
But there are one or two facts which lead to the inevitable conclusion that we must look forward to a considerable increase in our Naval expenditure next year. Let us, first of all, examine the prospect, if the programme this year is confined to four "Dreadnoughts." Then I will examine what it will mean if we have eight "Dreadnoughts." The Vote taken this year in respect of building these four "Dreadnoughts" will cover building operations in the case of two "Dreadnoughts" for nine months, in the case of the second instalment for only six months, and the first few months' ex- 479 pense upon these huge machines is, I am told, the least burdensome. But next year the Treasury will have to find money for paying the whole cost of construction of four "Dreadnoughts" during an unbroken period of 12 months. This, in addition to an eleven months' building on the two "Dreadnoughts" which were laid down some time ago, will bring up the Estimates of the year for Naval construction to a figure which is considerably above even the increased estimate of this year. But if, in addition to these four "Dreadnoughts," we are to have a 12 months' expenditure upon still four more, the Naval bill for the year will attain very serious and grave dimensions indeed, at which the taxpayer may well shudder. It is quite impossible to say in advance what the Naval Estimates will be next year, because there are other items in those estimates, but on construction alone the increase will be something gigantic. I am not putting these considerations forward in any sense as reasons why we should not incur this expenditure. Whatever be the cost, no great country can afford to shirk its responsibilities for the defence of its coasts against every possible invader, and I am not dwelling on the magnitude of the burden which is cast upon us in order to suggest that we should in the slightest degree lighten the load by evading any part of our obligations. I have simply invited the Committee to consider the prospect in front of them, not with a view to urging them to run away from the imperative duty which is thrust upon them of providing for the defence of the country, but rather in order that they might follow me in facing that prospect, and make beforehand all the provision which wise and resolute forethought shall deem adequate for the occasion. We all value too highly the immunity which this country has so long enjoyed from the horrors of an invaded land to endanger it for lack of timely prevision. That immunity at its very lowest has been for generations, and still is, a great national asset. It has undoubtedly given us the tranquillity and the security which has enabled us to build up our great national wealth. It is an essential part of that wealth. At the highest it means an inviolable guarantee for our national freedom and independence. Nay, more. Many a time in comparatively recent history it has been the citadel and the sole guarantee which has saved the menaced liberties of Europe from an impending doom. I can 480 assure hon. Members if they still have any suspicion lurking in their minds that any Member of this Government or of this, party proposes in any ill-judged fit of parsimony to risk even for an hour so precious a national treasure they can dismiss those unworthy suspicions entirely from their minds. Such a stupendous act of folly would, in the present temper of nations, not be Liberalism, but lunacy. We do not intend to put in jeopardy the naval supremacy which is so essential not only to our national existence, but, in our judgment, to the vital interests of Western civilisation.