SUPPLY.— [12th Allotted Day.] NAVAL WORKS.

HC Deb 01 July 1909 vol 7 cc613-76

Order read for further consideration of Sixth Resolution, "That a sum, not exceeding £2,916,300, 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 site, 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, 1910."

Question again proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

The CIVIL LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. George Lambert)

On March 22nd the Committee passed this Vote without any discussion, thus enabling the authorities to proceed with some of these naval works. The total of the vote is £2,916,300, an increase on last year's estimate of £609,000. It includes the annuity amounting to £1,330,000—an increase of £65,000 for the repayment of loans and interest. The last of the borrowings under the Government Loan Acts has been exercised. The first of these was passed in 1895. The last was passed in 1905. The present Government decided not to meet any further expenditure out of revenue. The total sum spent on this great works programme was £29,616,000; of this £27,352,000 were borrowed. There was provided before the year 1895, £241,000, and there has been provided by the present Government £2,023,000. Had it not been for this action on the part of the Government the amount of the annuity for 29 years would have been increased by £105,000. I have had a forecast of the annuity prepared, and I find that it rises to its maximum next year, when it will amount to £1,344,000. It will remain at that figure for 14 years, till 1924–5, and will then gradually decrease to the year 1938–9, when the last repayment will be made of £13,644. I hope those who have to pay that £13,000 will believe that they have received £13,000 of value for it. A few words upon this loan expenditure. I hope it will never be re-enacted, save in some grave national emergency. That emergency is not now. Happily this country can pay for its present prospective expenditure. I will not say that these loans lead to extravagance, but they do lead to financial elasticity. In the case of annual expenditure it is scrutinised by the Department, and has to pass under the vigilance of the Chancellor of the Exchequer; and a good many economies can be effected during construction. The structure may not be so massive or elaborate, but it is not quite necessary to hare a palace hewn out of a rock for a powder magazine. These loans may be considered to be good servants but bad masters. In 1905, the year when hon. Members opposite were responsible for the last Loan Act a sum of £1,750,000 was included for electric lighting and power and for the sake of completeness everything was drawn in, even the glass shades included for electric lighting and power, will agree, I think, that these glass shades are scarcely a proper subject to be paid for in 1908–9.

Docks, one would imagine, would be permanent, but the brooding brain of the naval architect is the despair of other people as well as that of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. If we have to rival in size the ships of other nations—which, of course, we shall do—a considerable portion of the docks which have been built cut of the loan expenditure will have to be rebuilt some 20 years before the last of the interest is paid. I do not make a complaint of that. I am only stating the fact. I am sure that the hon. Member for Fareham (Mr. Arthur Lee) does not want those controversies over again—those all night sittings, I hope they are gone for ever! There is a good deal of wisdom in the statement that few naval buildings nowadays can be constructed with a life of more than 15 years. On 29th March the Foreign Secretary said that we should have to rebuild our fleet. We shall have to rebuild many of our docks. If those who were responsible some 15 years ago had foreseen the future I have not the smallest doubt that a very large amount of the loan expenditure which has been spent would not have been spent; for we in this country have only one really good Government docking establishment—Devonport. This question has given the Admiralty very serious thought indeed, but I think the statement I am about to make will allay all genuine apprehension. Of course, the politically panic-stricken are people I cannot expect to deal with, but we are making rapid progress in the matter of docks. As to Rosyth, the details have been published. There have been many complaints from Members opposite as to the Government's delay in this matter. The present Government examined the scheme very carefully. They took stock of foreign dockyards, and all the while that was proceeding exploration work was never stopped. We have now an accurate knowledge of the site on which the Rosyth Dock is to be constructed, and if any Chancellor of the Exchequer wanted to know the value of the land for site or mineral value purposes we could give it to him, even though it is 40 feet under the water. The contract particulars are definite, specific, and complete. They provide that the contract shall be finished in seven years from 1st March, 1909. In order to stimulate the contractor, a bonus of £800 per week has been offered to him for earlier completion. That is a large sum, but I hope he will earn a year's bonus. The same rate of £800 per week will apply as a fine for delay. I could gave further information about the contract if required, but may I say a word about the land for the site? A new road has been constructed by the Admiralty on the north side, which leaves about 300 acres outside. Applications have been received from all sorts of people to buy this land. The Admiralty are in no hurry to realise, but they are willing to consider proposals for the development of the property, as a whole, with the view to securing the well-being of the future population. With regard to Portsmouth Lock, it was a matter of some apprehension to the Works Department whether the walls would stand the strain of pumping out that great quantity of water. That has been completed. Here, again, we offer the contractor £400 a week for an earlier completion. The contract is due to be completed within four years, and there will also be a fine if there is delay beyond the contract time. We cannot do more to stimulate the contractors for the early completion of this work.

I come to another question, that of floating docks. They have been raised in this House more than once. There was in this country considerable scepticism as to their feasibility, but we have made very searching inquiry, and I am glad to say that that inquiry has proved satisfactory. Floating docks have been in successful use abroad, and there are much larger ones in existence than we require. In America and Germany they have large floating docks admirably fulfilling their purposes. The United States floating dock in the Philippines has weathered at least one typhoon with but little movement. Floating docks have a mobility which cannot be possessed by the ordinary graving dock. They can, therefore, be fixed where they are strategically necessary. Another advantage, and a very valuable one, is that they can be completed within one and a half years. More than that, they are cheaper than the ordinary graving dock. Ships can be docked in a floating dock without passing into the basin, and that, I am sure the hon. Member for Fareham would bear me out in saying, is very valuable, especially in these times, when ships of the "Dreadnought" type cannot get into a dock at Portsmouth without passing through an emergency entrance which is barely large enough for such a ship. There are, of course, some disadvantages, because the floating dock has only a limited life of 40 years. It requires periodical repairs, but against this the overwhelming reason for floating docks in our present position is the rapidity with which they can be constructed. The "Dreadnought" design of vessels, for good or ill, has rendered many existing docks inadequate for their accommodation. Hon. Members will be glad to know that we propose to build two floating docks for the largest battleships, and this will materially add to our dock accommodation.

Haulbowline new dock will be completed by April, 1910. Then we have had a considerable amount of negotiation about the dock at Immingham, on the Humber. I am sorry to say the negotiations have fallen through. The cost was prohibitive. We could have really made two, if not three, floating docks for the money which was required to construct the graving dock at Immingham suitable for Admiralty purposes. As to the Tyne, from which we had a deputation, again I may say that the Admiralty are quite willing to give their co-operation, but in this matter we feel that the first steps should be taken by the great firms who live upon the Tyne. I should have thought it would have been worth their while to construct a great dock which would hold the largest ships, considering that round about there is such a large, important, and busy shipbuilding community. The conclusion I arrive at is that we are pushing forward this dock question with rapidity, and I hope the House will be satisfied that nothing has been neglected to have proper docking provision for these great ships that the Government are building. There are one or two other matters to which I should like to refer. The House is aware, of course, that all, or a very large portion, of the Fleet is now concentrated in Home waters. That necessitates many changes, not striking to the imagination, but of the first importance. Ammunition is brought home from abroad or ceases to be sent there, and the increasing size in the guns makes it imperative to provide further magazine accommodation. The shells of the 6-inch guns weighed 100 lb., those of the 12-inch guns weigh 850 lb.; therefore hon. Members can realise it takes a good deal more room to store 12-inch gun shells than it took to store 6-inch gun shells. At Bedenham, in Portsmouth Harbour, we are constructing a new cordite store at a cost of £89,000, and at Crombie, four miles from Rosyth, which is a very carefully selected site, land has been bought, and there we propose to construct another big magazine, which will afford accommodation for ammunition there. It is, of course, a necessary adjunct to a Naval base such as Rosyth, and it will have the additional advantage that our magazines will be more evenly distributed over the country, because the nearest magazine on the East Coast—the only magazine—is Chatham.

Then I turn to the question of torpedoes. As battleships have increased in their destructive efficiency similar ingenuity has been exercised and devised for weapons for destroying the ships. The torpedo, which two or three years ago had a range of 3,000 yards, or about two miles, has now largely exceeded that range. We are arranging for a new factory at Greenock; the contract was let last year, and will be finished next year, and the manufacture of torpedoes which has gone on at Woolwich will be transferred to Greenock. I am very sorry indeed that the men have to be transferred. It will mean a good deal of inconvenience to them, but a Committee has been appointed, and we hope to turn these men of Woolwich into canny Scots with as little inconvenience as possible to themselves. The range for testing these torpedoes will be close by. It is a testing range of four miles, and will be completed in the middle of next year.

We had to make land purchase at Greenock, which I notice has been animadverted upon rather severely. Well, the land for Greenock factory is 14¾ acres; 10 acres of dry land 4¾ wet land, or foreshore. The price of that was £27,225. The ten acres of dry land cost £2,000 per acre, the 4¾ acres of wet land cost £l,000 per acre, and these sums, with 10 per cent. for compulsory purchase, gives the total of £27,225. It is very difficult for the Admiralty to buy land. Arbitrators, especially Scotch arbitrators, are very estimable men, but they seem to be always "agin" the Government. I could give the House some illustrations showing that the Admiralty and other Government Departments have suffered very severely by going to arbitration in buying land for building purposes.

Then I turn to the question of Osborne, where we have completed, in that institution for the training of future naval officers, an isolation hospital. It seems that boys of 13 years—the age at which they enter Osborne—are peculiarly susceptible to all kinds of diseases—chicken-pox, measles, etc.; and there had been no proper accommodation, but the isolation hospital is now completed. I now corns to the question of the Gibraltar Water Supply. It is interesting and very important. The rock is honeycombed with tunnels. The rainfall is all collected for domestic and other purposes. The backyards are even cemented to be used as catchment areas. The domestic requirements of the Admiralty employés are very considerable. There are three great tanks hewn out of solid rock completed in 1907, with the capacity of five million gallons, and in order to fill these great tanks about 20 acres of rock on the eastern side has been roofed with galvanised iron in order to provide a catchment area for the filling of these tanks. It is hoped that there will be some economy. Personally, I am always rather dubious about prophesying economy in Government Departments. I have had some experience; we always make economic arrangements, but still apparently the cost goes up.

Then I turn to the question of Sheffield. This is a new idea. We have put up a small building there in order that the materials for gun-mounting and guns may be tested at Sheffield instead of being taken to Woolwich as heretofore. That seems an eminently businesslike arrangement which should conduce to economy. I must now refer to a question that excited considerable interest some time ago; it is the great granite question. There seemed to be a kind of semi-scare created because the Admiralty proposed to accept a tender for granite from Norway at a cost of £100,000, whereas the cost of British granite would have been £130,000, or 30 per cent. more. I wish in the first place to dispose of one delusion. There is not the smallest doubt we can obtain, and do obtain, granite of unimpeachable quality from Norway. If any hon. Members wish to see it let them go down to the South breakwater at Dover, and there they will find granite from Norway that has stood the full force of the Channel. I have often noticed that it is the privilege of the Members of the Opposition to suffer from convenient lapses of memory. I have not the smallest doubt that many of our indignant critics denounce the Government up hill and down dale for employing the foreigner while leaving our own workmen stranded in the streets. I would like to refresh their memory on their own record during the past ten years, when these great works were going on.

Mr. ARTHUR LEE

We were a Free Trade party then.

Mr. LAMBERT

Are you not now? But may I be allowed just to quote to the House what the late Government did when they were Free Traders? At Keyham £165,000 worth of foreign granite was used; at Dover £100,000 worth, at a saving of £1,270; at Gibraltar £14,900 worth of foreign granite was used at a saving of only £800; at. Chatham, in 1900, £76,500 of foreign granite was used at no saving at all; in the Cape of Good Hope £76,700 worth of foreign granite was used at a saving of £5,400. At Malta, Aberdeen granite was specified for, but, as a matter of fact, £180,000 worth of Italian granite was used, and upon that £180,000 worth of foreign granite the saving was the magnificent sum of £l,200. But the case that illustrates this best is that of Portsmouth No. 12 Dock. It was a small sum—the work was Departmental work. Hon. Gentlemen opposite had it under their control absolutely—the cost of the granite was £l,064, but they preferred to use foreign granite at a saving of £85. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Fareham says, "We were a Free Trade party then." I will now read a quotation from his Leader, and I shall be glad to know whether his Leader has changed his mind. The hon. Gentleman says they are going to turn over a new leaf—that they are penitent in this matter of granite. Well, the hon. Gentleman will have to convert his own Leader, because the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, speaking in April, 1902, said:— I cannot accede to the principle that we should deliberately buy in the more expensive market at the cost of the general taxpayer when elsewhere at a cheaper rate we can get such goods as we require. I should like to know whether the Leader of the Opposition has changed his opinion?

Mr. ARTHUR LEE

Better ask him.

Mr. LAMBERT

I assume that the hon. Gentleman opposite now is responsible, and possibly he may give me the answer. All I have to say is in this matter that if hon. Gentlemen opposite are going to turn over a new fiscal leaf, and are penitent because of these breaches of principles by their Government, I hope they will not forget other interests. I represent an agricultural constituency. I hope they will not forget the farmers, because the farmers are equally entitled to consideration with the granite producers, and if hon. Gentlemen put the same principles into force with regard to the farmers they will have to put the l½d. on the 4-lb. loaf, that is an increase of 30 per cent., and 4d.

a pound upon butter. Therefore) I say, I hope the hon. Gentlemen will be logical and go right through with their ideas. As far as I am concerned, I hope we in this House will always do to the general taxpayer what the general taxpayer would do by himself—that is, buy the most effective material in the cheapest market. Whatever may have been the cause, there may have been mistakes, but they were honestly made. There has been no corruption in our great different State Departments. I hope there never will be. But if we have this picking and choosing I think there will be very grave danger of that corruption creeping in. I have to ask the House to accept this Vote. It is a large Vote; the commitments are still larger, but, as we believe, they are necessary. It would be far more satisfactory to me personally, and to my colleagues, if these docks should be designed for commercial rather than for war purposes, but as security is the first essential to progress, and as we believe that sea supremacy is essential to attain that security, we ask the House to sanction this Resolution.

Mr. ARTHUR LEE

I do not propose to follow the Civil Lord in his discussion of that very interesting subject, Tariff Reform, about which a great deal might be said, because it is scarcely relevant to the particular Vote under discussion. I will only say with regard to his closing remarks that I think it is a little uncalled for that he should have introduced a suggestion that, if there happens to be a change in our fiscal system, it would lead to corruption in our public Departments. I have a higher opinion of the great public servants employed at the Admiralty and the Works Department and elsewhere than to think that there is any justification for that statement. With regard to what the Civil Lord said about Rosyth, when I listened to his speech I seemed to hear echoes of all the speeches on this subject delivered by him, and even by myself, for some years past. There was the adumbrating of a great scheme for a dockyard at Rosyth, and I begun to wonder whether it was really possible that four or five years had passed since those suggestions and adumbrations were first laid before the House of Commons. The Civil Lord then said he understood there had been complaints with regard to the delay. Certainly, in this matter of Rosyth, there has been very serious complaints, and whatever he may tell me about the plans which are now to be carried out, I can tell him that those plans are in all essentials precisely the same as the plans which were approved before the late Government went out of office. I know the plans were all prepared in June, 1006, for letting the contract, and, therefore, the delay has been entirely due to the present Government. I do not say that they may not have financial reasons sufficient to justify them not embarking upon that expenditure, but the delay was caused entirely by financial considerations, and not by any material considerations affecting Rosyth.

The Civil Lord said the Government had been taking stock of foreign dockyards. I may say that the late Government sent their superintendent engineer to Rosyth and other places with this object in view, and he made a very interesting report. We are told that the Admiralty have been making borings ever since, and one thing in which they have succeeded is in discovering what undeveloped minerals there are in Rosyth. That is quite possible, but I hope it is not a foretaste of the sort of proceedings they will have to adopt under the Finance Act in regard to every portion of the surface of the earth in the United Kingdom. If so, it will take the Government some time to collect the tax. The Civil Lord went on to speak upon the interesting subject of floating docks, and he said some scepticism had been shown by Members of this House with regard to the practicability or usefulness of floating docks. The chief scepticism I remember was shown in a speech made by the Civil Lord himself last Session when he pooh-poohed the idea of floating docks. I have his words here, but I do not wish to read them, but on that occasion, acting no doubt under instructions, he pooh-poohed the possibility of introducing floating docks, and repudiated suggestions made to him by an hon. Friend of his below the Gangway. As long as we get docks I do not care whether the Government has changed its mind or not. The hon. Member stated that the imperative reason which had forced the Government to change its mind upon this question is the rapidity with which these floating docks can be constructed as compared with graving docks. The reason why that rapidity has become necessary is on account of the procrastination of the Government during the last three years in regard to making provision for this essential to the efficiency of the fleet. I must remind the First Lord of the Admiralty that when he introduced the Navy Estimates on 16th March last he told us it had been suggested that floating docks should be built, and he said:— The difficulty we have to face is that there is nothing in the Estimates for this service. I challenged the right hon. Gentleman at the time on this point, and he said:— Yes, but those were small docks, and he was referring to docks to take the largest size of ships. He repudiated the suggestion that those two docks were to be made capable of taking the larger size of ships. Now we learn that they are to take the large ships, and in that respect there has been a change of policy since last March.

The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. McKenna)

I will explain the point later on.

Mr. ARTHUR LEE

The Civil Lord spoke about complaints from this side of the House, and said he could understand them from a certain point, but not coming from the politically panic-stricken. I am one of those who feel that the Government have not done their duty with regard to the provision of docks for the future needs of the fleet. Even now I believe what is proposed is an inadequate provision, and it is more particularly inadequate in view of the localities at which those docks are likely to be needed. I think there is great reason for public anxiety with regard to this point, and that anxiety is bound to grow as the fleet grows without the growth of the dock accommodation, and more particularly as the fleet continues to be more and more concentrated in the North Sea, where we are very short of this essential for the fleet. Accepting the Government's own statement, they tell us that at the beginning of 1912 we shall have either 16 or 20"Dreadnoughts."We know the Admiralty are more and more concentrating the pick of the Fleet in the North Sea. I wish to ask how many docks will they have available for that number of "Dreadnoughts" in the North Sea at the period when the ships are ready? I have studied the replies given by the First Lord of the Admiralty and other sources of information, and I find that at the present moment there is only one dock on the East Coast which is capable of taking a "Dreadnought," and even that is doubtful. Therefore, we have only one dock of this character on the East Coast. Recognising the vital importance of this question, the Government are going to construct two other floating docks in the most rapid way possible. I suppose it is possible that they may be completed by 1912. Rosyth obviously cannot be ready by that date, and, therefore, the maximum of docking accommodation we can have on the East Coast at the beginning of 1912, according to the Government's own figures, that we shall have then 16 or 20"Dreadnoughts"in those waters, will be two docks and one of the doubtful class. I think the First Lord of the Admiralty will admit that that will be a totally inadequate provision in case of war. There seems to be some little difference of opinion, or at any rate something that remains to be explained, with regard to the provision of docks on the East Coast, in view of the reply of the First Lord of the Admiralty on 28th June last, in replying to a question about docking accommodation on the East Coast. He was asked, after having given a list of the dry docks in the United Kingdom, "Are any of these dry docks on the East Coast?" He replied, "Yes, some of them are on the East Coast." I then asked him "Which?" And his reply was, "I think it is undesirable I should say where these docks are."

Mr. McKENNA

I included under "docks" those building and to be built. I included those to which money had been allocated, and for which the plans were made, as well as the two floating docks.

Mr. ARTHUR LEE

But that is not what the right hon. Gentleman was asked.

Mr. McKENNA

I explained what I meant by "under construction," and I interpreted "docks" as meaning those for which money had been taken, and for which the plans were made.

Mr ARTHUR LEE

May I assume that these two floating docks are to be placed on the East Coast?

Mr. McKENNA

That will depend upon the circumstances of the moment, but they might be placed there.

Mr. ARTHUR LEE

The right hon. Gentleman's answer to the question was, "Some of them are on the East Coast."

Mr. McKENNA

The question related to dry docks, and not necessarily graving docks, and I said some of them would be on the East Coast.

Mr. ARTHUR LEE

I do not know what the right hon. Gentleman is trying to conceal from us. Is the location of these two docks regarded as a confidential matter?

Mr. McKENNA

It is very undesirable to give the location for a floating dock which will not be built for 18 months, and it is undesirable to pledge the Admiralty to place a floating dock at any particular spot at this moment.

Mr. ARTHUR LEE

I understand that these docks can be towed about to any place that is necessary. I think the right hon. Gentleman rather strains the privilege which is always gladly accorded to a responsible Minister of not giving any information which he thinks is not desirable in the interests of the public service. The right hon. Gentleman seems to adopt that course in regard to any question which the Admiralty consider is an awkward one. I agree that that reply is applicable to secret matters which would be of advantage to a foreign Power which they had no other means of ascertaining except from his reply, but really, the right hon. Gentleman, during the last few months particularly, has refused to answer perfectly plain questions of this kind again and again, without any substantial reason being given, simply on the ground that it is undesirable. I think this answer with regard to docks is a very glaring instance.

Mr. McKENNA

I do not think the hon. Member is justified in saying that. With regard to these docks anybody in the House will agree that it is undesirable to say at the present moment that it is our intention to place one of these docks at any particular place, where expectations might be raised which could not be realised. It might be desirable to have one of these docks at Grimsby or on the Med-way, but it is most undesirable now to state where those docks will be placed.

Mr. ARTHUR LEE

The Admiralty evidently have not made up their minds on this point, but that does not apply to the question of graving docks, which were included in my question, the position of which the right hon. Gentleman said it was undesirable to disclose.

Mr. McKENNA

I was then referring to dry docks, and I included the floating docks.

Mr. ARTHUR LEE

I hope the right hon. Gentleman, if he is going to speak, will explain that point, because he most distinctly gave the impression to the House that he was unwilling to disclose the position of the dry docks, by which I mean docks constructed of granite as distinct from floating docks. If that is not the case, perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will answer my question later on, and I will put it down in the form which I intended it to cover when it was put on the Paper last time. I still do not understand the right hon. Gentleman's reply, because he offered to show me privately on that occasion the positions of these docks. They must, therefore, have been settled.

Mr. McKENNA

I offered to show the hon. Gentleman where the existing graving docks in the country were situated.

Mr. ARTHUR LEE

I do not want any information given to me privately. This is information which the House of Commons and the taxpayers of the country are entitled to have. I shall put a question down again. Perhaps the First Lord will let us know whether he can answer it or not. It is really absurd to suppose you can conceal the position of docks of either kind. You might as well try and refuse to disclose the position of lighthouses. A floating dock is as prominent an object as a gasometer. It is absurd to suppose it will not be known to everyone who desires to know except the British taxpayer. The Civil Lord touched upon the question of subsidising private docks, and, to my disappointment, he informed us—negotiations with regard to the Immingharn Dock had broken down. I do not propose to deal with that, because my hon. Friend the Member for Grimsby (Sir George Doughty), who is familiar with the whole circumstances, will have something to say on it in the course of the Debate. I should like to touch on a broader question, and that is whether the whole system of subsidising private docks has broken down, or whether the Admiralty are still considering the question, and are still engaged in negotiations. It seems to some of us that if a private dock of suitable size can be adapted to Admiralty requirements for an additional cost of something like £50,000, and the owners are willing to do it, and give the Admiralty preference on payment of an annual subsidy, here is an opportunity of financial saving which should be particularly grateful to the economic instincts of the present Government. I do not mean that it would be sufficient to have merely a system of subsidised docks, but, in view of the fact that a sufficient number are not being provided by the Government itself, I do think it is a question which ought to be further considered. I hope the breaking down of the Immingharn negotiations is only one case, and does not mean the breaking down of the whole system. The Civil Lord men-tioned another great work, and that was the dock at Portsmouth. My remarks with regard to that are the same as apply to Rosyth. Here is a great work on which a very large sum of money is to be expended, and the instalment provided in this year's Vote is extremely small. Of course, if the Civil Lord can assure us that it is a physical impossibility for the contractor to spend any more money than is provided in the course of the 12 months, I have nothing more to say. In the first year, when the contractor has to get his plant on the spot, it is impossible to have any large expenditure on the works, but it is difficult to believe that in the case of Rosyth no more than £120,000 out of an estimate of £3,250,000 can be spent.

Mr. LAMBERT

No contractor earns much the first year. He has to get his plant there and everything in readiness for working. The Admiralty only pay for results. We have made the best calculation we can, and we have no desire to stint the contractor. We should be very glad indeed if the contractor could earn more.

Mr. ARTHUR LEE

If the contractor finds it possible to earn more, will the Admiralty supply the necessary funds? The Civil Lord went out of his way, I think to reopen the controversy with regard to expenditure under loan as compared with expenditure under estimate. He said he did not wish to reopen the controversy, and then he did, in a somewhat acute form. I do not want to follow him very far into it. The Foreign Secretary said we should have to rebuild our fleet, and the Civil Lord amplified that and said we should have to rebuild our docks also. That shows we have a serious programme of works expenditure before us, and I find it difficult to believe that the necessary works will be provided for without a further resort to expenditure under loan. We have seen in the last three years that the necessary works of the Navy have been starved for want of money. We have had the need admitted on all hands, and we have had the commencement of the work put off again and again, and an almost ridiculously small amount provided in the Estimates. Without going into the merits for the moment of the loan system, I feel certain this starving of works has resulted from the abandonment of the loan system. There is a great deal to be said for the change in the system if it had merely meant a transfer from loan to estimate, but in many cases since this Government came in the change has meant the abandonment of works altogether. I do not profess to be a financial purist, and I am really not able to understand why it should be perfectly right and proper in the eyes of this Government to borrow money in order to build the headquarters of a Territorial force, for example, or erect buildings for a department such as the Local Government Board, and why they should be perfectly prepared to sanction loans to provide for public buildings, even cab shelters in some cases, and furniture for elementary schools—why all that should be proper on which to spend borrowed money, while it should be grossly improper, and lead to extravagance to provide the necessary docks and works for the efficiency of the fleet. I must confess, not being a financial expert, that that is an insoluble mystery to me. It seems to me that in the present case the Government have allowed their financial purity to run mad, and they are driving this policy to an extreme, merely in order to justify the somewhat foolish speeches which I think they made in Opposition on this question of loan expenditure. I hope, if the First Lord speaks in the course of the afternoon, that he will give us a little more complete and definite assurance that the Admiralty are taking steps to provide docking accommodation on the East Coast for the great fleet they are now concentrating in the North Sea.

Sir CHARLES W. DILKE

I have never been able to see any difference between one Government and the other with regard to the question of secrecy to which the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Arthur Lee), who has just sat down, has referred. The most laughable case, I think, which I ever came across was in the time of the First Lord, I most admired, Mr. Goschen. He asked me to withdraw a question in the public interest, it was so serious, and I pointed out to him that the information concerned was all officially published by the Admiralty every year. Whether it ought to have been or not I do not know. I will not mention what it was. With regard to the much more important question, perhaps, of loan expenditure for naval and military works, it is not, of course, a party matter. I have always thought that at the time it was invented by a Liberal Government the argument in favour of loan expenditure was absolutely sound, but it is the experience of the working of it which has broken it down. There is absolutely an overwhelming case for loan expenditure if you can be sure you keep the loan for the right thing, but when you see what it leads to in practice any reasonable man must give it up. The thing was thoroughly fought out in India, and what is conclusive is the waste which has occurred. The hon. Gentleman has said that some works have been stopped altogether, because we no longer meet them out of the loan, but out of Votes. I am not blaming them, but the most startling cases were under the late Government. The whole of the mixed naval and military expenditure incurred for the Government occurred in consequence of the change in the concentration of the Fleet in the North Sea. We expend more and lose more where you pay out of loan. All sorts of stations all over the world were abandoned by the policy recently adopted and universally accepted by this House. Bits of them are still there, and have never been finished at all. We went on patching the station at St. Lucia till the last moment, and there we put a roof on after it was decided to abandon it, because it might be useful some day. A speech made yesterday by Lord Charles Beresford suggests that we are going to reverse that policy again, and that we are again going to set up all these establishments for the Fleet in different parts of the world from which we have withdrawn them. That will not be done if it is to be done out of Votes, but if you get a loan for something it might be put in. The argument is overwhelming on the practical facts, but the theoretical argument is in favour of the original proposal. Let us come to the actual things definitely before us in this Vote. I desire to express my regret that the promise made by the Government to put down Item E. Treasury Vote for the Committee of National Defence has not been kept. Such a promise was given and concurred in by both Front Benches, and both the Leader of the Opposition and the Prime Minister, at that time, agreed it was most important that the House should have an early opportunity of discussing these strategic questions, which are the very basis of this Vote. I am sorry that promise has not been kept. On the first day of the Navy Estimates, I think, it was admitted it would be wise that the discussion upon Item E, which was the subhead for National Defence, should be taken in alternate years, but that promise has been gradually receded from; we were promised it should be taken before Whitsuntide this year, but that promise has now vanished into space, and, from private inquiries I have made, there is no definite time fixed for it.

The creation of a base at Rosyth, the spending of money at Portsmouth, and the triumph with which we regarded the establishment of the base at Devonport— one, by the way, in a wrong situation— show that this Works Vote depends upon considerations which are really strategical. The decision to establish a completely equipped naval base at Rosyth was taken originally on an argument we had in this House, namely, that our principal establishments were in the wrong place, and that the Channel was too dangerous to trust to in time of war—a doctrine which impressed the German mind much more than ours, seeing that the one great standing difference between ourselves and Germany is the primary impression of Germany that nobody could use the Channel in time of war. The argument about the inability to use the Channel is one of degree. I have always expressed the view that the Channel will be sealed for use, and Rosyth was universally accepted by those who favoured the view of the concentration of the Fleet in the North Sea. The price of the site, the scale of the establishment and the situation, were details. The idea of the new naval dock on the North-East Coast was universally accepted by both sides which took part in the discussion. It was not because Rosyth was nearer to Germany than the Thames, for the Thames is just as much on the East Coast as Rosyth, but there were other considerations which made the North-East Coast different to the East for the purposes of repair in the North Sea. But the policy of the concentration of bases properly equipped for repair in war, and the number of bases being cut down, because everybody knows the most useful bases in war for ordinary purposes are flying bases at sea — that policy was adopted a very long time ago, and I am amazed at the manner in which the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Lee) has spoken, as if it concerned the present Government or the First Lord of the Admiralty. There has been enormous delay. The present First Sea Lord, or the late Government, take credit for having reversed the whole policy. They reversed the policy of having docks at Rosyth——

Mr. ARTHUR LEE

My statement was that the late Government—I myself being in charge of the Department—had made arrangements for the actual letting of the contract in June, 1906.

Sir C. W. DILKE

But I am talking of 1902.

Mr. ARTHUR LEE

The scheme was not initiated then.

Sir C. W. DILKE

Yes, there was a scheme at that time, and on 31st January, 1902, it was officially placed before this House, but it was initiated long before that. We bought the land.

Mr. ARTHUR LEE

The Berthing Committee's Report was issued in 1902, the preparation of plans was immediately proceeded with, and as soon as the plans were prepared they decided to go on with the work.

Sir C. W. DILKE

That is what the House thought, but it is not the fact. It was the official decision. The' fact was notorious at the time that everybody said it was stopped. I could not prove it now without going into personal or private communications. But I am going to attack the present Government for the delay. The complaint is that they themselves in the Appropriation Accounts two years ago pointed out there was a letter to the Treasury in which they used the very arguments that some of them were using in this House. The letter to the Treasury was dated 26th July, 1906, and in it a wish was expressed to meet the large savings of the current year by more rapid progress on all sides, and these words were used:— My Lords, having specially in view the desirability of relieving the Navy Estimates for 11)08–09, which must reach an abnormal figure in that year (as a result of Works expenditure). That was two years before the present Government foresaw the large expenditure which ought to be taking place at the present time. Now I come to the case which the hon. Member has forced me to make with regard to the original delay of these works. Of course, we cannot on this Vote properly discuss the situation and the reasons for that situation; but, taking them as they stand, we have the revelation of the articles in "The Times" called "The Case against the Admiralty." It is pretty well known who wrote them, or, at any rate, one set of them. I am very sorry that the terms, the Fisher policy and the Beresford policy, were applied to them. Those terms ought never to have been used. I have always expressed, and have held, the strongest possible view that it is a bad thing that great sailors should engage in warfare against one another, or at any rate should inspire their friends to do so. At any rate, "The Times" had a very long series of articles, and they sandwiched the "Attack" and the "Reply." In the second of these articles against the Admiralty there was a curious mixing together of two different documents. One was the Cawdor Memorandum, which was privately published, if I may say so, on the day the last Cabinet was held of the outgoing Government. It was not made public. It was not laid before this House, but I think it was communicated to the newspapers and circulated a few days later. The Cawdor Memorandum is a document which professes to recount the achievements of the administration of the late Government. It explains the policy and considerations which led to the scrapping of ships, it describes, the saving of money on works, and the general reduction of expenditure on the Fleet. It claims a very large economy. But in the second of "The Times" articles against the Admiralty there is an allusion to another Memorandum which is not the Cawdor Memorandum. It is a Memorandum which many Members of this House have received. A hasty reader would think the allusion to be the Cawdor Memorandum, but, as a matter of fact, it is to a mysterious Memorandum. In the Memorandum, which is not a Parliamentary Paper, there are the details of the savings by the late Government on works—these details are given in that mysterious Memorandum. The Memorandum is quoted in "The Times" article as though it were the Cawdor Memorandum, but it is not. "The Times" article is headed "Recent Naval Reforms: A Year's Work," the year being from the end of October to the end of October, and the Cawdor Memorandum is dated November, and was first published in December. But any casual reader would think that Lord Cawdor wrote that, and it gives the saving of seven millions on Rosyth and six millions on work approved and in hand. These are items which appear as saved in the speech made by the Leader of the Opposition about that time—"the courageous stroke of the pen" speech. In that series of articles, "The Case Against the Admiralty," in "The Times," signed "By a Critic," the fourth article appeared on 3rd May of the present year, and a reply is made to the present Prime Minister, who made a speech in which he alluded to these articles, and in that reply they said: "The document circulated to the Press… to which allusion was made in my second article." That is the name given to that which I have described as the mysterious Memorandum. The article then goes on to allude to the other series of articles in favour of the Admiralty, and says, the apologist states that he has not seen this Paper, and asserts that it "must have been confidential." That, the writer says, is not true. "It contains no suggestion or mark indicating that it was to be regarded as confidential, and was not so treated by its recipients." Then he goes on to say that he had received a copy of it himself, and he supposes that copies of the Memorandum were circulated to the Press.

I do not think it was unnecessary to mention this matter to the House, and I have not done so from the point of view of party benefit on one side or the other in regard to the matter of delay, although it helps to prove the case in regard to delay in the case of Rosyth, which I regret, but it does throw some light upon Admiralty methods which have not prevailed for some years now, but which prevailed very actively indeed at the time to which I make allusion. I shall not make any allusion, I should not be in order if I did, to the controversy which has gone on in regard to other memoranda, which were marked "secret and confidential," but this document was not marked either "secret" or "confidential," or "private," although it belongs to the same series, and is of the same date. "The Times," in using it, said it would quote this Memorandum as an example of a method of procedure previously unknown in the Admiralty, and I am happy to say it has since been unknown in the Admiralty. The portion of that Memorandum which is in order on this Vote is in these words, which are not quite the same words which were used on a previous occasion: "There has been a saving of 19 millions effected on Estimates 1904–6 (two years); six millions in Estimates (because including one million automatic increment); six millions in work approved and in hand; seven millions on Rosyth—nineteen millions. Do not spur a willing horse." A saving of 19 millions was claimed for the office to which I have referred. In my opinion, I repeat, Rosyth, when it was admitted to be necessary, ought to have been proceeded with at an infinitely earlier date, and while that is a heavy charge against the late Government it is also a charge against the present Government, so far as one year's delay is concerned. I think the arguments of the Admiralty themselves in their letter to the Treasury more than two years ago, is an overwhelming proof that it was our duty to have relieved the Naval Estimates at the present time to incur this expenditure, which was admittedly certain then, and when possibly it was urgent.

With regard to the matter of urgency, I am not alarmed, although scareable people are scared. We have had lists in the newspapers of a dozen or twenty, or a greater number, of docks which are said to be finished in Germany, but they do not exist; they have not been compared with the number of our docks, and there is nothing to be scared about. It is perfectly clear from the engineering reports that the progress which has been made in Germany is far less than that which has been suggested, and the number of available docks in the North Sea in the next three years is not a matter to be frightened at at all. But on the other hand I do think there is a case in regard to the delay which has occurred, and when once it was admitted the expenditure was necessary, the Estimates ought not to have been relieved. The Government to some extent, possibly under the pressure of public opinion, accept the plea of urgency, because the spending of £800 a week means there is urgency. It is a natural precaution, and it is natural that they should yield to public opinion, where probably there would not be much additional cost due to more rapid construction on the whole. Personally I feel it my duty to point out the difficulties which I feel, and the drawbacks in the support I give to the policy of the Board of Admiralty, because I have been an enthusiastic supporter of it, except on two points—a matter which is not in order and this particular matter on which I feel some doubt. I think, however, it is my duty to show, on the other side, what one feels against the Department, which, on the whole, one warmly supports.

The delay has been enormously grave. No one can read the final words of the Berthing Committee without knowing that. It is alleged by the author of a book called "The Admiralty in the Atlantic" that the Report embodying the decision to acquire the site at Rosyth dates from 1900, but I do not think that is so, and that that is a mistake. The Committee was appointed in 1900, and in that way the mistake has arisen. I myself was present at a meeting in the winter of 1900 at which the present Secretary of State for War was in the chair, and that meeting advocated the creation of a dock at Rosyth. At all events, the matter engaged the attention of the Berthing Committee, and a future Secretary to the Treasury and a future Chancellor of the Exchequer, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Worcestershire (Mr. Austen Chamberlain), was a member of the Berthing Committee, and it sat in 1900 or 1901, and this present scheme was !he necessary and natural result of the strategic disposition upon which we have been proceeding since that date. But after we had taken the decision to concentrate in the North Sea, and even before that, and even before the decision was given at that time, the present Secretary of State for War and the present Leader of the Opposition, at all events, and several men taking a clear view of Imperial strategy, were using the argument which I have used to-day of the necessity of having a base for the fleet in connection with this concentration in the North Sea or in a Scottish direction, and the earliest mention of that was earlier than the date I named. Now as to this delay, the Report was presented to Parliament on the 31st January, 1902, and it contains the whole scheme as it stands now. The land was bought early in 1903 by the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Pretyman), I think.

Mr. PRETYMAN

When you say the scheme you mean the proposal for the dock?

Sir C. W. DILKE

No; he proceeded to buy the land on the basis of the present scheme.

Mr. PRETYMAN

There was no plan or anything of the kind.

Sir C. W. DILKE

The plan—it does not take all these years to make a plan, and, of course, it is notorious that when the matter was first brought to him the plans were all prepared, and the borings and the geological examination made. Two years at the outside was to be taken up by these investigations, and they were absolutely stopped, absolutely suspended for a long time. I know myself that that occurred.

Mr. ARTHUR LEE

Where?

Sir C. W. DILKE

In the document which formed the basis of the speeches of the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. ARTHUR LEE

Is not the right hon. gentleman aware that the document to which he is alluding is not an official document? It is no more an official document than the other documents of which we have heard so much lately.

Sir C. W. DILKE

But in the Cawdor Memorandum credit is claimed for an enormous saving by the Admiralty, and the detailed Memorandum issued at the same time and issued by the same people gives the items of these savings.

Mr. PRETYMAN

We have heard a great deal of this Memorandum. It is impossible to regret the issue of that Memorandum more than I do; but here is one which happened not to be marked "secret" and "confidential" like the twenty-two others, and this one which was not mentioned to be secret is the one on which an article in "The Times" is based.

Sir C. W. DILKE

May I say this, I know as a fact that the alternative scheme which is now being raked up by the Government, of fleet docks to be placed in the Tyne and in the Wear, was an alternative scheme to the Rosyth scheme? The Rosyth scheme was stopped for a long time. I am sorry to find I am contradicted, but I am speaking of things I know. I regret the delay on both sides, but the Report giving the essentials of the present scheme was laid before Parliament, whenever it was written, on 31st January, 1902; the land was bought in 1903.

The SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara)

In 1904.

Sir C. W. DILKE

The land was purchased in 1903. The purchase agreement, which constitutes a sale, was made in 1903, and the land was therefore bought in 1903. When one finds credit taken for stopping it in the Memorandum, and the same figure as the amount of saving which was made, with the words about the scrapping policy, and the very same terms used as were used all through the speeches of the Government speakers, I cannot help thinking it is a notorious fact that the thing had been stopped and looked upon as a saving.

Mr. SPEAKER

It is very undesirable to carry on a discussion in this way. The hon. and gallant Member for Chelmsford will have an opportunity of making a reply later.

Mr. PRETYMAN

I did not speak.

Mr. SPEAKER

I heard the hon. Member several times.

Sir C. W. DILKE

The contract was made on 1st March of the present year, and although I think a year's delay is to be attributed to the present Government which ought not to have occurred, I attribute the main delay to the late Government under the circumstances which I have described. I hope we shall not have too much made of the argument of the delay having been caused by the need to explore the geological foundation, because it was a joke in this House. We know who were the great persons concerned in the struggle on the two sides, and, of course, when we were told each time we asked that the geological explorations would take a still longer time it became such a joke that everyone used to smile at the explanation. There was an enormous delay, and I think it is most regrettable. Now I come to the end of my story. As regards the further docking accommodation on the East Coast, subject to what I have said about the Thames being the East Coast for this purpose, and not being North-East for the purpose of the passage round these islands, a very different natter, I am glad to hear that one of these floating docks, which also admit the urgency of Rosyth, because to some extent they are a substitute, is to be placed in the Medway. If anything can be said as to the general nature of the arrangements which are proposed, say, at Newcastle, or whatever places are being negotiated with, we shall be glad to go into them, but we cannot press for it. But in the statement of the First Lord on the Navy Estimates this year I think the case is very fairly argued on the two sides, and so is the case against the Admiralty in the matter of delay, because it is admitted on the first page that the heavy charge on the present Vote is due to Portsmouth and Rosyth, which are the very items mentioned as those on which savings had originally taken place. Then the argument on page 5 shows the difficulty about the floating docks, and shows their weakness and their strength and on page 6 we have an account of the matter which has been named in the Government's speech to-day, and which is closely connected with Rosyth in one respect. The great powder magazine which is to be established behind Rosyth further up the inlet is, of course, subject to the same considerations of defence as the works at Rosyth itself. There are three things at which an adventurous foreign officer in war might be inclined to strike. I am not an alarmist, as the Admiralty well knows, but if there is anything which is vulnerable we have always taken the Tyne and the Forth as being vulnerable points, and in putting the great gunpowder works there you only impress the more upon us the necessity of being very careful about how you are going to keep the enemy out. The three things are the Forth Bridge, which cuts communication to a very serious degree, and will disorganise all your mobilisation and local defence arrangements, the docks, and now the powder magazine. Of course since defence by mine fields has been abandoned the control and the manning of the quick firing guns which anyone can see from the train in the three batteries is a matter of some anxiety, because of the extreme difficulty which has been shown in the very interesting series of articles in the "United Service Magazine" of providing rapidly under any system for the men sleeping at the guns at night. I only suggest that the anxiety, which was already considerable on account of the occurrence at the same spot, is still further perhaps increased by the existence of a new powder magazine.

Attention called to the fact that forty Members were not present; House counted, and forty Members being found present——

Mr. E. G. PRETYMAN

I will tell the House candidly what my recollection is, and I have as accurate and as close a personal knowledge of the transactions regarding Rosyth as it is possible for any human being to have. I was Chairman of the Berthing Committee, I was Civil Lord at the time, and responsible for all the details of the purchase, and was, further, responsible for the original examination of the site as to its suitability for the great naval dock. Speaking with a pretty vivid recollection of all the facts, I say that in the first instance there was never, to my knowledge, any intention whatever on our part of either abandoning or of delaying the construction of Rosyth.

Sir C. W. DILKE

"Our" being the Government as a whole or the Admiralty?

Mr. PRETYMAN

The Admiralty. It was not treated as a specially urgent matter —that I am entirely prepared to admit; but, there was absolutely, to my knowledge, no intention of ever abandoning it. On the other hand, in the Naval Works Bill of, I think, 1903, there were two great proposals—one for Chatham and one for Rosyth, and Chatham was abandoned for reasons mainly connected with the difficulty of keeping the approaches open up the Medway, and the whole East Coast necessities were to be concentrated at Rosyth.

Sir C. W. DILKE

It might clear the £'7,000,000 and the £5,000,000 in the document of which I spoke, which was the basis of the articles in the Press, if we could be told what was the apparent saving under this head, because that seems to involve both Chatham and Portsmouth. Rosyth is mentioned here by name.

Mr. PRETYMAN

It was on these two items. The expenditure at Chatham was gigantic, and what was felt by the Admiralty was that it was unjustifiable. It was a very difficult point, because we have been committed, and are committed, to a big naval base at Chatham, where there is a very large population and enormous existing facilities of incalculable value to the country and the Navy, and it is more advantageous to improve an existing basis than to start a new one. But the river approaches were so difficult that it was felt it was better to make the best use possible of Chatham, and to make any small extensions which were possible with the approaches as they existed, or as they might be slightly improved, and for the further accommodation of very large ships to concentrate on Rosyth, and so far from going to abandon Rosyth it was due to the concentration on Rosyth that the saving was due. I will not charge my memory with this detail, but there were to my certain recollection, two plans for Rosyth, and the second plan was less costly than the first.

Mr. McKENNA

Seven millions.

Mr. PRETYMAN

No, there is a misapprehension in the country and in the House in regard to that matter which I should like to clear up. When we originally proposed to buy the land I said that we proposed to lay out everything on the supposition that there would some day be a really great naval base there on the scale of Portsmouth or Devonport or Chatham, and that the cost might amount to a very large sum in the end, and the First Lord of the Admiralty the other day congratulated me on being instrumental in looking well ahead and buying a large area of land in order that the State might obtain any increment value which would accrue. We were not aware then that the State would seek for its own by other methods. At that time it was supposed that the land belonged to people who held what people called the sheepskin, and it was thought desirable that the State should hold the sheepskins of 1,500 acres round Rosyth for the purpose of obtaining increment value -and, secondly, for the purpose of laying out any immediate works which were required in such a manner and at such distances apart as would permit the interpolation and the addition of any future works of whatever character might be required for a great naval base without disorganisation and without the removal of existing buildings, at a minimum cost. There was confusion in the public mind. It was a new idea which had never been previously adopted, and I suppose it was not appreciated at the time. There was an idea went round the country that it was intended then and there to commence construction in the sense that the country was committed to an expenditure on a naval base amounting to £10,000,000 or £12,000,000. That was never our intention. The intention was at first to lay out the land with the view that it might be found desirable in the interests of the country to provide for its requirements there at a later date. The Estimates of that year proposed to provide for the construction of a basin, naval barracks ashore, and one or two other details. It was practically the same scheme as the present one. The right hon. Baronet (Sir Charles Dilke) said that this question of borings was a joke.

Sir C. DILKE

I said there were two distinct surveys made. There was a preliminary survey, and then there was a second one. What I suggested was that these surveys might all have been got through inside of two years.

Mr. PRETYMAN

I went there two or three times myself, and I can state that the work in connection with these borings was a matter of very great difficulty. We have a large area of foreshore to consider. That foreshore had to be examined. There were two layers of clay. The upper layer consisted of soft, soapy clay, unsuitable for a foundation. The stratum of clay below that was of a harder nature, and underneath, and coming through it at places, was rock bottom. The depth of the two clays amounted to 200ft. or 300ft. in some places. It was clearly necessary that the monoliths carrying the quay wall must go down through the full depth of the upper clay, which could carry nothing. The question then was whether the underlying clay was of sufficient hardness to carry the monoliths into. The points where the rock crop up through the clay, and where the clay and rock meet, and the depths of these two clays, had to be ascertained, and it was necessary to carry out borings to prove through the whole length of the frontage the various depths of clay and rock. The first set of borings was really a tentative thing to decide whether the place was suitable at all at any point for a foundation. These borings were carried out by the engineer, who is still in charge of the work, and there is no more competent officer anywhere. He satisfied himself after the first series of borings that there was a prima facie case in favour of a foundation being practicable. It was decided that there probably could be found a suitable foundation before the contract was let or the plans were prepared. The hon. Baronet will see the exact situation depends on the borings, the trace, and the basement. The borings at that expose;] situation had to be carried out over a distance of a mile and a half in order to ascertain the depth to which the foundation would have to go.

I think the right hon. Baronet will agree with me that I have made my case good, that there was no delay whatever after the borings were carried out. I do not say that this was treated as an urgent matter. I have never claimed that it was, but I claim that there was no undue or intentional delay, and I further state in regard to what may perhaps have been considered a cause of delay, namely, that we had two sets of plans prepared, that it was considered by the Board of Admiralty that the plans might be improved upon, and that there might be some economies effected. I cannot remember the exact details, but there was a certain amount of delay due to the preparation of the second set of plans, but that there was ever any intention to my knowledge of abandonment, or of seriously delaying the work, I entirely deny. I do not think that the First Lord of the Admiralty will suggest it. It is within my recollection that an Item was included in the Estimates for 1906 in connection with Rosyth. I was instrumental in preparing the Estimates for 1906, and I think I am correct in saying so. The Item was enough to enable the contract to be let. Very little money is required in the first year of letting a contract. It was intended to let the contract in the summer of 1906. When the Estimates appeared in the House that Item was not there, and there has since been very considerable delay. I do not wish to impute blame to the present Government for all the delay. I think everyone realises that it would have been very much better for us if Rosyth had been proceeded with at a much earlier date. I think events have proved that. I do not want to take it further than that. At the time we left office there was no apparent great urgency about Rosyth, but I say that every minute that has passed since has increased the urgency. Obviously every minute that has passed has accentuated the fact that it is on the East Coast that the greatest Naval activity and expenditure are required. Rosyth being obviously one point on which our energies in regard to these works should have been expended, I do think that the Government may certainly be blamed for not having realised sooner how very far behind they were getting in dock accommodation on the East Coast. We are now very much behind. There is no doubt about that, and it is a burden which the Government have inherited. We are changing front to a certain extent. For centuries we faced south. Now we are facing east, and that is the position we have to deal with. I think we are entitled to criticise the Government and say that they ought to have anticipated those events of which they must have knowledge long before the public. It is not for the Admiralty to wait until they are urged by public opinion to provide for the necessities due to that change of front. They ought surely to proceed with the plans, and especially in this case where the plans were laid out for them. I consider it is a piece of good fortune for the country and the Navy to have had it suggested that Rosyth should become a naval base. It happens that the recommendation was there ready made when for a totally different reason it became necessary to have a naval base there. I think we are entitled to criticise the present Board of Admiralty for not pressing on Rosyth sufficiently. I think they have not the same feeling about Rosyth as we had.

Sir C. DILKE

Are you speaking personally?

Mr. PRETYMAN

I hope the right hon. Baronet does not think that we are going to differentiate between Members of the Board of Admiralty. From what I know of the right hon. Baronet I think such a suggestion would not come from him, and I am sure it would not be made by anyone on the Treasury Bench. When we discuss the Admiralty we discuss the Board as a whole, and any attempt to differentiate the opinions of this man or of that man is absolutely futile. The Civil Lord has told us that two floating docks are to be immediately constructed for use on the East Coast. That would be welcome information if he was able to add to the statement where they are to get accommodation.

Mr. LAMBERT

I said they would be put where they were strategically necessary.

Mr. PRETYMAN

That brings me to my point. It is one thing to construct floating docks and another thing to have places to put them. The hon. Gentleman is aware that the coast on the East side of the country is rather different from that on the West side. On the East Coast there are hardly any places suitable for floating docks, for this reason: A floating dock must have a very great depth of water. To take in a "Dreadnought" I think something like a depth of 50 feet is required.

Mr. OWEN PHILLIPS

Fifty-eight feet.

Mr. PRETYMAN

A depth of 58 ft. of water is required, combined with very complete shelter. [An HOST. MEMBER: "No."] The hon. Gentleman says, "No," and I do not wish to put my opinion against his, but I have heard the opinion expressed by competent naval officers that you cannot put a vessel of 18,000 or 20,000 tons in a floating dock and expose it to wind pressure in an exposed place without incurring very serious risk. On the East Coast you will never find a depth of water anything approaching 60 ft., except where it is accompanied by a wide area and great exposure. Our East Coast estuaries are shallow. The North Sea itself is a shallow sea, and you cannot dredge to a depth of 58 ft. because it will immediately fill up. Therefore, the construction of floating docks involves the provision of some kind of camber of a depth of 58 ft., and the water must be maintained in the camber at that depth. To construct a shelter for a floating dock is very nearly as big an operation as the construction of a dry dock, I do not wish to dogmatise. It is a subject which has been a great deal discussed, and the opinions of competent engineers vary. Some engineers advocate floating docks, while others are opposed to them. It is not enough for the Admiralty to tell the House that floating docks are to be constructed on the East Coast without telling us where accommodation for them is going to be found, because it is almost as important for us to know where the camber or accommodation for a floating dock is going to be provided as to know where a dry dock is to be made, and what it is to cost.

The question is one of great complexity and difficulty. Of course, I know that the way in which a floating dock can be utilised owing to the possibility of being able to remove it from one place to another is an important advantage; but if this House is under the impression that a floating dock is a cheaper article than a dry dock, it is, I think, entirely under a misapprehension. The original cost is less, but the cost is enormous over a period of years, and if you take the cost of maintaining a floating dock under Vote "A" and add it to the interest on the cost of construction, I think you will find that it will cost very little, if anything, less than the cost of a dry dock.

Mr. LAMBERT

You can construct one in one and a half years and the other takes four years to construct.

Mr. PRETYMAN

That is a question of time and not of cost, but if anyone goes into the question and takes, over a long period of years, the depreciation of a floating dock and the heavy expense of repairs and the comparatively little depreciation of a dry dock, he will see there is little or no saving whatever in the construction of a floating dock.

Mr. J. M. HENDERSON

There have been complaints as regards the delay in the construction of the Rosyth Dock. I think all this hurry and bustle, of which we have heard so much of late, has been caused by the so-called German scare. It has all arisen within the last six or twelve months. I should like to clear up one matter with regard to the construction of the docks. It is supposed that they are to be built of granite. The great bulk of the docks at Rosyth will be built of concrete and Granolithic. The granite is only going to be used for the more vulnerable part. If the dock were to be built of granite it would cost mors by something like half a million. There is also a very grave misunderstanding with regard to the cost of this granite which is going to be used for Rosyth. It is said that the difference between the cost of British and Norwegian is the difference between £105,000 and £134,000. It is nothing like that. These were figures given by my hon. Friend below (me (Mr. McKenna) in March last, but if anybody reads carefully what he said he will find that he referred to the cost of the granite, the estimate price of the granite fixed in the dock. That is a very different thing from the granite supplied from the granite quarries. At that time he did not know really what the cost of the granite was, because this was the contractor's price, and the contractor does not tell anybody what his charges are. These prices which he gave were the prices of the finished article, and they include the whole of his work at Rosyth after the granite was delivered—all the haulage, the masonry, the work of adjustment, and all his establishment charges. I know that these establishment charges in this case amount to something like £40,000, so really the difference in price at Rosyth between Norwegian and British granite is the difference between £75,000 and £96,000. From the questions which have been put across the floor of the House, and from what we have seen in the public Press, this Government has been blamed for not setting aside altogether that difference by giving the order for British granite. But would the last Government have dared to do such a thing? It is all very well for irresponsible men and an irresponsible Press to suggest that, but would the last Government have dared to give such a bounty to British granite, and, if they had, would they not have been bound to see where that would lead to? If you give a bounty of 30 per cent. on a contract of £65,000 a bounty of over £20,000, where is that to lead you to in the hundred and one contracts issued from Government offices? Are you going to give bounties all round? How could you do it? The late Government never did it; the German Government, of which we hear such a lot, do not do it.

What happened in the case of the German Government? Two or three years ago a company I was connected with got an order for £10,000 worth of goods manufactured in England, which they could perfectly well manufacture over there, but the ring having put their own price on, the order was given to my friends, and that order was repeated two years afterwards for exactly the same amount. Only last year the German Government asked the Berlin people and the coal-owners throughout Germany for a quotation for a large quantity of coal. They put in a quotation, and as there was a ring they put it pretty high. What was the result. The German Government sent over here and got quotations from some 20 coal-owners. They put this before their own people, and they said, "These are the figures; if you like to come to it, you will have it." Like wise men, they came to it, and they had it. That is how other Governments do. From the expert point of view, it has been put that this Norwegian granite is not strong enough, and will not bear the proper strain. Who says that? The late Government cannot say that, because, as my hon. Friend below me pointed out, they used it for a dozen places, so that it does not lie with them to say that it is not good enough. If the British quarryowners say that it is not good enough, how do they account for the fact that time and again, when they have been short of stone for docks and other places, they have gone to this very same man who has sent in the lowest tender for the Rosyth Dock? And why did they go to him? Because they can rely on his supplying the goods quickly to enable them to meet the contract. These very same contractors, Easton, Gibb, and Co., had a contract for Kew Bridge, and they gave that contract to an English quarry owner and to a Scotch quarry owner. They were both—which is not very unusual—behind the time of their delivery, and the bridge had to be delivered completed under heavy penalties by the contractor by a certain date. They could not deliver the stone, and he went to this very same man; and one-third of Kew Bridge is Norwegian granite. So that British quarry owners cannot possibly say that the stone is not good enough for all purposes. Then we were told it was sweating, and it was dumping. What is the fact? I have taken a very great deal of trouble to find out the facts with regard to wages in Norway, and I find they are not quite comparable with the wages here, because they work somewhat differently. They do what is quite common in the North of England; they work in gangs. These gangs actually make from 9s. to 11s. a day, and to say that it is sweated employment is to talk nonsense. As a matter of fact, these quarry owners have their own trades union, and there is no doubt whatever that they are the best paid workmen in all Norway. With regard to dumping, one does not like to give this Norwegian granite an advertisement.

Mr. WILLIAM REDMOND

What you are doing, it strikes me.

Mr. HENDERSON

I cannot help it. It is as well, rather than the Government should be stupidly blamed for this, that the facts should be known. Anyone who will take the trouble to inquire into the matter will find this—that the Norwegian quarries arc situated beside the deep water. I have in my hands photographs of one belonging to a new firm. These quarries run for two miles—just imagine! from here to London Bridge— along the face of the open water. Along the front there is a tram laid down, on which the steam crane runs along, and picks the stones from the side of the quarry and drops it into the ship. There is no such thing here. The quarries in my districts lie 20 miles inland, and they do not outcrop on the side of the hill as they do in Norway, and you have to go two thirds the way to the top of the hill, and then cut down into the middle of the hill, and some of them go as much as 200 ft. deep, necessitating a whole series of expensive operations. Then in these quarries the stone is blasted. Wherever that is done there is always a lot of waste. Then the stone has to be drawn to the top, put into a wagon, and conveyed some 18 miles. That alone accounts for more than 6d. on every foot-cube. On the other hand, the whole of this Norwegian quarry crops out at the side of the hill, so that it can be cut in wedges at the point of severance without any blasting at all, and they can slip the stone down the side of the hill to the train which takes it away. That must account for a great deal in the difference of price; and there is no doubt whatever it cannot be said that there is anything in the shape of dumping in this Norwegian granite. Of course, we all know what the remedy suggested is. Hon. Gentlemen have not put these questions across the floor of the House without suggesting that the remedy is to put on a tariff. I am not going into the question of tariff, because it does not arise on this Vote, but you will observe that the difference in price is 25 per cent. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition has never spoken of anything but a small duty—5 per cent. or 10 per cent. But there would not be the slightest use in this case in putting on such a duty. He could not have stopped it under a 40 per cent. duty. Now we have never heard of such a duty imposed, and I do not suppose that any hon. Gentleman opposite will have the hardihood to go about the country suggesting that there should be a duty of 40 per cent. to keep out this granite. We have heard a great deal about the "Morning Post." I am not going to say much about it except this: the "Morning Post," while at the same time it was preaching the doctrine of keeping out the foreigner and of giving the work to our own people, it employed a French architect, an American builder, and used Norwegian granite.

Mr. SPEAKER

Order, order. Are these people employed at Rosyth? Rosyth is the subject we are now discussing.

Mr. HENDERSON

I was only giving it as an instance; I do not blame them; and I say if they have a right to do this, as I say they have, so much more is the Government of this country bound to do it. Every man is entitled to protect his own pocket; and certainly the Government are not only entitled, but they are bound to protect the taxpayers' pocket. That is all I meant. I am particularly sorry myself, as representing a granite-producing Constituency, that this granite should come from Norway. I did all I could to prevent it. More than 12 months ago, in regard to these contracts, the Member for Penryn, the Member for Launceston, and the Member for Bodmin and I brought a great many quarry owners to this House. We begged them to organise in order to secure these contracts. We had an interview with the First Lord, who met us very sympathetically. We asked him to meet us if he could, and without giving any pledge he said that he would get alternative contracts. They secured the Portsmouth contract, but all their efforts appear to have been in vain with regard to Rosyth. The hon. Member for South Aberdeen and myself have seen the contractor, and there is still some hope. He has promised to give them all an opportunity of competing again. If they can come within anything like the price, I dare say they will be able to secure it yet. I have not too ardent a hope that that may be the case.

Mr. W. REDMOND

Not after to-day.

Mr. HENDERSON

Whatever I have said will not alter the fact. The fact remains, and it is idle to shut our eyes to it. I really do not see why, because the Norwegians have all these advantages, we should say that we will not trade with them or seek to trade with them. To say that we will not do so would be most churlish, and would be against our own interests. The Government were perfectly right to accept that contract, and they would have been doing wrong to the State, and wrong to the taxpayers, if they had thought of or entertained the idea of giving such a large bounty as hon. Members opposite seem to think they ought to have given.

Mr. W. ASHLEY

The Civil Lord, in his speech, mentions that two floating docks were to be commenced, but did not inform us were they were going to be placed. The First Lord of the Admiralty interjected the statement that these docks would not be ready until the spring of 1912, and we may assume that an answer, which he gave to a question put to him some weeks ago, is approximately correct, namely, that they will be finished in two years from the time of being commenced. If that be so, surely the right hon. Gentleman might see his way to spend a little more money on these floating docks in view of the situation. I do not think it can be denied that the question of these docks is very urgent. He admitted—in answer to the questions of some hon. Members on this side of the House—that, at the present moment, there is no dock nearer than Portsmouth where a damaged "Dreadnought" could go if disabled in any way. If that be so, it is a very urgent matter that we should, at the earliest possible moment, complete these two floating docks for which money is taken in the Estimates of this year. I think the right hon. Gentleman might well consider whether it would not be advisable to spend rather more money than he intends to spend on these floating docks, and enable us to have a dock which would be able to take a"Dreadnought"—accommodation which we will not have at all unless we spend the extra money. With regard to Rosyth, it has been very ably dealt with by the hon. Member for the Chelmsford Division (Mr. Pretyman), who, I think, disposed of the suggestions of the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean that the late Government did not intend to proceed with the construction of Rosyth. The hon. and gallant Gentleman pointed out to us that the borings had taken a great deal of time, and he also pointed out that the late Government had put in their Estimates for 1906 not only the total sum of money which Rosyth was to take, but also put down a sum of money so that the work at Rosyth should be begun in 1906. If that be so, and I understand the First Lord of the Admiralty does not question that fact, then any allegation that the late Government were not anxious to press on Rosyth falls to the ground. When we come to the question of whether the present Govern- ment have fulfilled their national obligations, I think we are on a very different footing. What are the reasons given by the right hon. Gentleman in answer to the question of the Noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) with reference to Rosyth? The Noble Lord asked the reason of the delay of the construction of a dock on the East Coast for "Dreadnoughts" and the actual commencement of the work. The answer was that the investigation of foreign dockyards, trial borings, and the settlement of designs, with a variety of other circumstances, all contributed to postpone the actual date of construction after the decision was arrived at. It has already been pointed out that the investigation of foreign dockyards was carried out by the late Government, that the trial borings were carried out and completed by the late Government, and, therefore, we are driven to the conclusion that the only other reason which the right hon. Gentleman gave, namely, change of Government, is the reason why Rosyth was not proceeded with. Why not? Simply because they wished to save the money. They wished to save money all along on the Navy, and it is for this reason that they have made no provision for a floating dock on the East Coast. What have they done since they have been in office? They came into office in December, 1905, and during these three years they have only spent £10,000 at Rosyth. No justification has been given by the Civil Lord of the Admiralty for that delay, but perhaps the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord, if he speaks in this Debate, will give us some reason. But it does seem to me an extraordinary state of things that Rosyth, which was decided upon in 1902, the land being purchased in 1903, and all the preliminary investigations and borings completed in 1905, should, in 1909, be in the position of only having had £10,000 spent upon it

Mr. McKENNA

That is incorrect.

Mr. ASHLEY

I have the estimates for 31st March, 1909, which shows the sum of £10,000. I am perfectly correct.

Mr. LAMBERT

The hon. Gentleman is forgetting that we have the sum of £200,000 under the Naval Loans Bill of 1905. That money has been drawn upon, and is being drawn upon.

Mr. ASHLEY

It may have been drawn upon, but, as a matter of fact, we have ii stated here that only £10,000 has been spent on Rosyth during three years.

Mr. LAMBERT

That is not so.

Mr. ASHLEY

If the Government say it is not so, I leave it to the House and to the Government to work it out for themselves. At any rate, whatever sum they have spent, and whether I am right or whether I am wrong, nobody will deny that Rosyth is one of the instances where the Government have been neglectful of their duties as regards the Navy. I come to the question of the lock at Portsmouth, and here the Government seems to have been very chary of spending the taxpayers' money. Portsmouth Lock was decided upon in July, 1907, and it was to be finished, we were told, in the autumn of 1912. If hon. Members look at the Estimates they will see that in these few years we have only spent the sum of £52,000 out of the total estimate of £940,000 which the new lock will cost. Is there going to be a bonus given in this case to the contractor to expedite the work?

Mr. LAMBERT

I said so.

Mr. ASHLEY

Then because the Government have been dilatory at Portsmouth, and have not carried out this work as quickly as possible, we have now to pay a bonus to the contractor so that the lost time may be made up. Surely that is not the way in which the country wishes its affairs to be carried on. Then there is the question with regard to the dock at Colombo, which is to take vessels of the "Dreadnought" or "Invincible" type. I believe I am right in saying that these big ships could not go through the Canal, and in time of peace it is not necessary that they should; but in case of war, probably the Canal would not be open to men-o'-war, and they would have to go round by the Cape. Therefore, if these big ships are to use the Colombo Dock, which should be capable of taking a vessel of the "Dreadnought" type, it seems to me that the construction of the dock is considerably behind time. As to Chatham Harbour. I should like to know if 1s. 4d. per cubic yard is being paid for excavations at the entrance to Sheer-ness Harbour, and at Southend and Gravesend 8½d. per cubic foot is being paid for excavations there; while in the latter it ought to be more expensive, as it is further from the sea.

Mr. LAMBERT

Where have you got the figures from?

Mr. ASHLEY

From somebody on the spot. I am merely stating, if my figures are correct, that it is a matter for investigation. Dover Harbour does not seem to have turned out as well as was hoped. It was started under the Naval Works' Act of 1903, and a sum of £3,500,000 appropriated for the work. It was to be a great national harbour of refuge. It is a curious fact, it may be only a coincidence, but the fact remains, that while the Conservatives were in office the work seemed to go along very well there, and such progress was made that more money was spent than there was in the Estimates. Ever since the present Government have taken office there seems to have been a good deal of difficulty, and I understand the total sum will not exceed the original sum fixed for completion, although there will be two or three years' extra time. We know it has been found that the men-of-war, without a considerable amount of dredging, cannot use the harbour. Last year there was, I think, only £13,000 spent in dredging, and this year the sum is £15,500. At the present time it is well known that the harbour is no use at all for a big ship, while, as the tide runs so strongly, that smaller vessels can get up more quickly. I understand that last year the Admiralty issued an order that it was dangerous to enter the harbour in heavy weather. It will not be of much use as a harbour of refuge if ships cannot weather there. We know that the "Duke of Edinburgh" got into considerable difficulties in trying to get into the harbour. What steps are being taken to remedy what, I think the Government will agree, are great defects in this new harbour? A sum of £2,500,000 is being spent in Gibraltar, and £17,000 still remains to be spent in the present financial year. In Malta a smaller sum—£620,000—is being spent, and of that £51,000 in the present financial year. Are the Government satisfied these enormous sums are really being wisely spent in view of the great reduction of the garrison? The garrison in Malta has been reduced by half and at Gibraltar by one battalion.

Mr. LAMBERT

The money spent has been money spent by the late Government.

Mr. ASHLEY

I am sorry the Estimates do not seem to agree with what the hon. Member has said. According to them, £17,200 is to be spent at Gibraltar and £51,000 at Malta in the present financial year. Are we right in spending this money if the security is not an adequate one?

Mr. LAMBERT

These works have been going on for a great many years, and this amount of money is required to complete them. Gibraltar cost about 2½ millions, and surely it would be spoiling the ship for a ha'porth of tar if we did not spend £17,200 to complete them.

Mr. ASHLEY

I quite see the point, but is it not spoiling the ship for a ha'porth of tar to spend this sum of money without having adequate forces to protect those works? I wish to move the reduction of £100 in view of the fact that the Government have not spent the money for the defences of Rosyth in the way they ought to have done.

Mr. SPEAKER

The main Question has already been put from the Chair.

Mr. OWEN PHILIPPS

I congratulate the Government on having made a start in ordering large floating docks. When the Estimates first came before the House it appeared that they were going to build two small floating docks; but I am glad they have now made up their minds to spend the money in the most useful way, and that is to build docks large enough for our very largest ships. In view of the fact that in 1912 we will have either sixteen or twenty "Dreadnoughts," it is of the utmost importance that before that date we should have a sufficient number of graving docks and floating docks, both on the East Coast and on the West Coast, to enable any large ship of the "Dreadnought" class, which is damaged in war, to toe repaired as frequently as possible. I hope that now the Government have made a beginning in this matter that next year they may see their way to go on in the same direction by putting down a great many more, either of floating docks or graving docks, as the present provision is, in my opinion, absolutely inadequate for the number of large ships that are being added to the Navy.

An hon. Gentleman opposite, in discussing the number of docks available on the East Coast, seems to think that because the danger zone is at the present time on the East Coast, that all naval operations in the case of war would take place on the East Coast. I contend that in the event of war, say, with Germany, it is very probable that before the war had been going on for many days both the North Sea and the English Channel might be made practically unusable by ironclads, owing to the fact of the modern habit of using floating mines, and still more owing to the fact that any modern submarine has very much greater power of going over long distances than in the past. That might make it absolutely necessary that the naval fight might take place on the West Coast. Therefore it is equally important that provision should be made, not only on the East Coast, but also on the West Coast, for sufficient docks. I listened with very great interest to the discussion of the past history of Rosyth. Whether the late Government did or did not delay that great scheme, or whether it is only a delay caused by the present Government, personally I think it is a matter of absolutely no importance, because whether either or both delayed the scheme I believe the interests of the country have been served by the delay, as it is quite possible that before the whole scheme is carried out it may be found it is absolutely of no more use to the Navy than the large sum which we all know was spent on the island of St. Lucia, which has now been proved to have been absolutely wasted money. I hope the Government will continue, in dealing with Rosyth, not to press on the matter unduly, and to simply devote their energies to completing the dry docks they have next year, and use the rest of the money that they propose to spend on Rosyth in making a large number of docks at other ports.

Sir GEORGE DOUGHTY

Those who have listened to the speech made by the Civil Lord hours ago must, I am sure, have felt that his remarks would not allay any of the feeling that is in the country at the present time in regard to the condition of the East Coast and as to the steps that His Majesty's Government are taking to provide the necessary docking accommodation necessary in an emergency such as war. I listened with great interest to the able speeches of the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean (Sir Charles Dilke) and my hon. Friend below me (Mr. Arthur Lee), but those speeches did not seem to take us much further, so far as the present condition of affairs is concerned. From 1902 to 1906 there may or there may not have been delay. One thing is very certain, that when the present Government came into office matters were ready for the contract, and the contract could have been let within a very few weeks. There has been the gravest delay, amounting almost to indifference, in regard to Rosyth during the last three years. There was not the same apparent urgency between 1902 and 1906. But during the last three years a new condition of affairs has arisen in regard to the action Germany has taken, and in the country generally there is a strong feeling that indifference apparently reigns at the Admiralty in regard to the condition of affairs on the East Coast. The present Estimates provide for an expenditure of only about £140,000 on Rosyth. That is the kind of action the Government take when there is urgent necessity to carry out the work. If they had chosen during the three years they have been in office, they could have finished these works entirely. The work on the dry dock and the other things necessary for the commencement of an establishment at Rosyth could have been finished during the last three years, but we find ourselves with the work scarcely begun, only £10,000 or £12,000 having been paid for works already accomplished, and during the coming year not more than £140,000 is to be expended. At that rate, Rosyth would take 10 or 12 years to complete. We are to-day in just about the same position as we were a year ago. The Government's policy with regard to this urgent and most important matter is one of procrastination and risk. The Civil Lord referred to the amount of money necessary to be expended on dockyards. The general neglect in the maintenance of dockyards during the last few years is known to most people. Outside official circles it is being very generally discussed that the machinery and the up-keep of the dockyards is not anything like what it ought to be; and because the Government have not the most up-to-date and efficient machinery they cannot carry out their works in the way they should do or compete effectively with private yards. If they are not prepared to maintain the highest state of efficiency in regard to the tools with which they have to work in the dockyards they can get their work done neither as quickly nor as cheaply nor as efficiently as it can be done in the private yards, which are so thoroughly equipped. In regard to dock accommodation on the East Coast, it is quite certain that Rosyth will be no good for the purposes of the Admiralty for dry docking for at least another five years. On the Tyne there is one dry dock which, under certain conditions, may be used. That is the only dock on the East Coast that the Government could use for one of their "Dreadnoughts," and that is a private dock, having at high water 28 feet of water, which is not more under the best conditions than would be required for docking such ships as are now being built; while, in the event of their being disabled, that dock would be practically valueless. We had been hoping that the Admiralty were seriously considering this question, but they do not appear to be doing so. There are, however, a large number of Gentlemen in this House and out of it who are considering the matter, and in the interests of the nation hoping that something will be done to meet what may be a great necessity before 1912. The Germans are taking a wider view. They have not the great fleet that we have to look after; but they have probably as much wisdom as those who govern naval affairs in England, and they take steps wherever it is possible, from private sources as well as from naval sources, to find money to equip themselves with dry docks. They have six large dry docks available at the present time, and one very excellent dock at Hamburg, with a lifting capacity of something like 30,000 tons. There is another dry dock, with 112 feet entrance, under consideration by the German naval authorities. So that at the present time they have seven large dry docks, none with less than 56 feet entrance, all over 700 feet long, and all with the fullest water capacity for taking any ship they may have, and they have already equipped themselves with splendid instruments in the direction of taking care of their ships. The Government have known this all the time, but we are no better off in this respect than we were three years ago. They have not even ordered these floating docks yet; they have only talked about them; and unless there is a considerable agitation in the country I believe, judging from past experience, that if we are here a year hence, they will still be talking about them, and about what they are going to do. The First Lord of the Admiralty apparently does not like that remark.

The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. McKenna)

I do not mind it.

Sir GEORGE DOUGHTY

I quite agree; I suppose the right hon. Gentleman is powder-proof against almost anything. But as representing an East Coast Constituency, and a great sea interest, I contend that I am right in making the statement that the Government are neglecting this important matter. A great many questions have been asked on the subject of dry dock accommodation; but what does it all amount to now? That you will not have one dry dock on the East Coast, but you may be favoured with a floating dock should the necessities of the case require it. Is that the kind of protection we ought to have for the Navy on the East Coast? It is not because the Government have not had opportunities of making excellent terms for the provision of dry dock accommodation. No Government has had a better opportunity of making suitable arrangements for most efficient accommodation of that description. The Tyne authorities have been, and are, most anxious to meet the Government. They will be very glad to see provided and to assist in providing a dry dock on the Tyne, but the Admiralty have turned a deaf ear to almost every proposal made by them. In connection with the Humber, the authorities at Grimsby, who ought to and do take some interest in the protection of their great river, presented a case to the Admiralty some years ago, when the Immingham dock was about to be constructed. More than two years ago Lord Charles Beresford and other officials of the Admiralty visited those works, and made a report upon them. The Admiralty at that time had an opportunity of making an arrangement to construct a dry dock at that particular point, either for their own use, or for the joint use of themselves and the commercial undertaking there. The matter was allowed to slide for nearly two years, but during the last eight or nine months there has been some activity in regard to it on the part of the Admiralty—they have made an official inspection; they have had excellent terms offered them; they could have had and can have a dry dock on the Humber by the payment of a reasonable subsidy.

Mr. McKENNA

How much?

Sir GEORGE DOUGHTY

I do not wish to go into the details of it.

Mr. McKENNA

It is necessary to consider the details.

Sir GEORGE DOUGHTY

In the first place the commercial dock now being constructed would have been placed at the service of the Admiralty for a very small subsidy. Then a proposal for a large dock 750 feet long, with 100 feet entrance from the commercial wet dock itself, was placed before the Admiralty, and not a large subsidy was asked on that occasion.

Mr. McKENNA

How much?

Sir GEORGE DOUGHTY

The right hon. Gentleman can tell us that. Then the Admiralty suggested that they should have a dry dock with an entrance from the river—a very proper thing—of 110 feet, with the fullest depth of water possible, available for any purposes they might require. It was a magnificent scheme, involving an expenditure of nearly a million pounds. That money could, and would, have been found most gladly by the proprietors, and reasonable terms could have been, and can toe, arranged with them. The proprietors of these docks do not desire the Admiralty to come there unless they wish to do so. They put the scheme before the Admiralty entirely on national grounds; they were quite prepared to enter into a reasonable arrangement, and if the First Lord is desirous of discussing that reasonable proposal it can be discussed. But with a capital expenditure and the payment of a subsidy for a period of years there could, and can be, established there as fine a dock as the Government require for Admiralty purposes, and whatever that dock might earn during the time it was not used by the Admiralty itself would be set off against the subsidy. I mention that to show that the Admiralty have had an excellent opportunity of securing a first-class dry dock on the Humber, and there is no superior place on the East Coast. There is a depth of water of 28 feet at low water spring tide, and over 50 feet when the tide is on the flow. There is abundance of water also at the mouth of the Humber for practically the whole of the Channel Fleet to lie there. Under these circumstances I think I have shown the House that the Government might have had, if they had wished to, an excellent dry dock on the Humber, and could have had it finished by now. With regard to floating docks, I am not here to criticise or to find fault with the ordering of them as a most useful instrument, but a floating dock cannot be compared with a graving dock, either for its usefulness, stability, or general advantage for docking ships. One reason which has been assigned why the Government has ceased to consider this—if they have ceased—is that a dry dock is expensive, and the second reason is that you can get a floating dock in eighteen months instead of about two years. I consider that already time enough has been wasted by the Government in considering this question to have got a dry dock built. I consider that so far as the East Coast is concerned there ought to be at least two efficient and useful dry docks at the disposal of the Admiralty. There ought to be at least two floating docks which could be used under similar conditions. I hope the Government will take this matter into serious consideration, because it is a serious question from the standpoint of those who live at seaports, and who have their businesses at the seaports of the East Coast. They are large taxpayers, like the rest of the people of the country, and they have the same right to expect that the Admiralty will see to the protection of their commercial interests in the event of war, or any other difficulty of that kind. The opportunity has been presented to the Government. At present I say they have done nothing, and appear as though they are going to do nothing. I do hope that after this discussion we are going to have some assurance that the Government are not going to build "Dreadnoughts" without at the same time building and equipping docks for the purpose of harbouring them in case of need.

Mr. J. JENKINS

I am very anxious not to be misunderstood, and I want first of all to pay a tribute to the Admiralty on the fact that they have at last decided to give increased facilities in the way of dry docks and general docking accommodation. Three years or about ago, as a young Member of this House, I had the audacity to divide the House on this important question. I very seriously thought at that particular time that there was a necessity, if we were going to build two "Dreadnoughts," to find accommodation to repair them in the event of anything happening to them, but, although the Admiralty has decided to give facilities in the way of docking accommodation, I still adhere to what I said on the former occasion, and that is, that a floating dock is not, in my opinion, the dock that is necessary for repairing battleships of the dimensions of a "Dreadnought." I also, on the last occasion, stated that I had served my apprenticeship to the trade of shipbuilding, and I have also been in charge of a floating dock. Floating docks are very convenient in themselves. There are three floating docks in the district where I come from, that is the Bristol Channel district. But any huge repairs that any shipowner might wish to make to his vessel would not be made on a slipway if he got near a permanent dry dock. The number of dry docks in the country is thirteen. Three belong to the Government. One of these is at Portsmouth, and the other two at Devonport. The other ten belong to private companies. I cannot for the moment say where they are located, but I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, in his opinion, private companies would construct huge dry graving docks if they could build as the Civil Lord suggested? The only reasons assigned by him was, that first you could build floating docks quicker, that is, in eighteen months; and, secondly, that they are more economical. Economical! How far is that going to extend with the Admiralty? It is quite possible to be too economical with battleships costing £2,000,000. In the event of anything happening to the hull of such ships, or to the keel-plate, and the ship was placed on a floating dock, the difficulty in doing the repairs would be found to be immense. There is no such stability in the floating dock as there is in the permanent graving dock. I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman even yet to consider this important question. We have at the present time docks in existence that might very well be enlarged. The Civil Lord told us that the Haulbowline dry dock would be ready for use in 1910. The contract was let in 1907. It will be a fully equipped dock, capable of taking in a "Dreadnought." Very well, you have at Chatham at the present time a dry dock sufficiently large to take in a type of vessel like the "King Edward VII." These dry docks which we have already should be utilised for the repair of ships. In reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Sheerness the First Lord of the Admiralty, I think, suggested that one of these docks would be located at the lower end of the Medway and the other will be located I know not where! Have the Admiralty taken into consideration the location of the floating dock? Is it to be in a tidal water where there is a great ebb and flow of the tide. Take a typical case. Take the case of the "Sappho" that was recently run into. It was beached at Dover. Supposing the floating dock were located there and a ship of the "Dreadnought" class were in it receiving repairs, it would be exposed—supposing there was an invasion and an attack—to the enemy. What earthly use would there be in having that floating dock and that vessel standing the charges brought against them? Would they survive it? You had your dry docks in the days gone by, and the old fighters would hide themselves from the enemy by sweeping up the river and secluding themselves where no enemy could make an attack upon them. Is it wise to spend money on an instrument whose life is only 40 years? In the case that I have illustrated that life may be brought to a conclusion in a short space of time. I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman that the Admiralty should even yet consider this important problem. A floating dock is simply a shell that has to take in a huge battleship worth a couple of millions, and there is nothing like solidarity when you have to dock a ship of that description.

I want to refer briefly to the question of waterways. It is perfectly true that there is a sum of money being spent in this connection. There is allocated to the Medway £23,000, but I often wonder why the Government cannot make their watercourses of such a depth as to keep them up to date and fit for modern requirements. Twenty-five years ago I went up the Belfast loughs. What was the position then? You had to travel a circuitous route with the steamer going "dead slow." What is the position to-day now that Messrs. Harland and Wolff have the thing in hand? You can go up and down the loughs in the largest steamships. If that can be done by a private company surely in the interest of this country at large, in this important question of the British Navy—which has been recently forced and impressed upon us—the Government could do something of the same. I trust that the First Lord of the Admiralty and his advisers—who are doubtless men well equipped—will look into the matter. But I speak of what I know and from a practical point of view. One word more in reference to the statement of my hon. Friend, the Member for Grimsby (Sir George Doughty). He referred to the obsolete machinery in the dockyards. He did not wilfully make that statement I am sure, for it must be within his knowledge that the Government dockyards can do repairs at 10, 20 and 30 per cent. less cost than they can be done by private employers and in the private shipyards of the country. Where a Government can put out a huge vessel in two years and ten months, that stands to the credit of the Government and the men whom they employ.

Mr. HAY MORGAN

I rise for the purpose of recalling the attention of the House to the question of the supply of granite at Rosyth. I represent a Division in Cornwall in which there are to be found a large number of granite quarries. I frankly admit that I rise on this occasion to speak with regard to the granite question, because in the last election I pledged myself to do all that lay in my power to induce His Majesty's Government, were it Liberal or Conservative, to use British granite in the construction of Government work.

It is in fulfilment of that pledge that I am on my feet at this present moment. I must say that I am fairly staggered at the appearance of the Benches opposite, not only now, but all the way through since four o'clock. I will give the reason why it is that I am staggered at the comparative nudity of the Benches opposite. For the first three months of this Session the Government were greeted literally with a hailstorm of questions with regard to the supply of granite for Rosyth, and again and again the Government was threatened that when this Vote 10 came on something dreadful was going to happen. We have had four or five or six speeches from the Benches opposite, and in these speeches there was not the slightest reference to this question of the supply of granite. Why is this? I rather think it must be due to some word having been passed round from some authoritative source saying, "Do not be too strong upon this point. We shall be back in power some time, and we shall not be able to do anything better on the question than the present Government." The fact is that when hon. Gentlemen opposite were in power themselves they behaved in the same bad way in regard to this matter as the present Government are behaving. My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen—he might have been the Member for Norway from the way he spoke—was like a voice crying in the wilderness. He spoke about certain percentages in favour of Norwegian granite—he is a financial man—and the percentages he worked out showed that Norwegian granite was something like 25 per cent. cheaper, and then he contended that it was the duty of the Governmnet to protect the taxpayers' pockets. I have no doubt the pocket of every man is a most important part of his being. But, in my humble opinion, the business of a Government lies a great deal further than a man's pocket, and that in order to save his pocket it is necessary for the Government to give him protection for his home and shores by the efficiency of the Navy. I think the protection of the pocket is a small matter.

This is a Free Trade Government. I do not follow hon. Gentlemen opposite in their suggestion—I suppose the suggestion is implied—that there should be a tax upon any foreign granite. I do not think a tax upon foreign granite would keep it out; what I really think would happen would be that the price of granite would be so much raised that the Government and all other consumers would cease to use granite, and would go in for a cheaper material. Hon. Gentlemen opposite think that the Government ought to use British granite where it possibly can be used. That is a perfectly reasonable and just course, especially when the quality of British granite is admitted to be a great deal better than Norwegian granite. Down to 1896 there was not a bit of Norwegian granite or foreign granite used in the construction of Government docks or lighthouses or anything of the sort. It was all British granite down to 1896, and in many cases after that period. Why is it that British granite was used down to 1896 and after 1896 for Government work? There is only one answer to that question, and it is that those who use British granite knew it was better stuff, and, though it cost a little more money, it was well worth the extra. It was used in Portsmouth in 1898, in Key-ham Harbour in 1896, in Gibraltar in 1898, where, either expressly or impliedly, the Government orders insisted upon the use of British granite, and even now, when they use Norwegian granite for certain bits of docks, when they come to the hinges and smooth water-tight surfaces they still use British granite, because it is harder and because it is necessary to use better material for those particular portions of the docks.

It has been proved that Norwegian granite is 25 per cent. softer than British. The First Lord of the Admiralty made a statement some time ago that the Admiralty had now great experience of Norwegian granite. Well, considering it was only used in 1896 for the first time, I fail to see where the great experience of Norwegian granite comes in. I have no doubt the Government have been bolstered up by the friends of Norwegian granite, and have got a great opinion of it dinned into their heads. But, so far as its durability is concerned, they have practically no experience at all as compared with the durability of British granite. Municipalities like Glasgow, Liverpool, and Newcastle, who used Norwegian granite for setts, found it was too soft, and they took it up and put down British granite instead. May I put this question to the Admiralty? Why is Norwegian granite cheaper than British? Because it must be admitted it is cheaper. I admit what the hon. Member for Aberdeen said that it is cheaper because it is near the sea and because the fishermen and farmers engaged in their operations for certain portions of the year turn their labours in their spare time to cutting granite. That is true, and here is another fact. Norwegian granite is brought over in old bottoms, not only discarded by our own merchants but condemned by our own Board of Trade. In addition to that, there is this important fact, that the wages in Norway are lower than those in this country. Take the piece-work first. In connection with that there are three grades. In Scotland the first grade is paid 6d., in Norway 5d.; In Scotland the second grade is paid 1s. 9d., in Norway 1s. 3d.; in Scotland the third grade is paid 2s., in Norway 1s. 4d.

When the people of Birmingham thought about extending their Art Gallery, they issued a request for granite tenders. Tenders came in from Norway to the effect that granite could be supplied —dressed in Norway—at £7,137, but that if it had to be dressed in England, the cost would be £8,560, that is to say, that the difference of doing the work in Norway and doing the work in England was no less that £l,423, a difference of 20 per cent. Now, some portion of that was due to the fact that if the work was done in Norway, they would have to bring it over in large quantities, but I am told that a very small portion of the £1,423 extra would be due to that fact. Most of it would be due to the fact that you would have to pay higher wages in England. Another grievance is that the Fair Wages Resolution insisted upon in this country for British merchants is not insisted upon when the contract goes to Norway. That is grossly unfair, and is bound to make a difference in the price of the tender; in fact, I fail to see the use of having a Fair Wages Clause at all, except that it differentiates against this country. If the country are going to go abroad for their granite, let them go abroad for everything else they use. My hon. Friend beside me says: "What becomes of Free Trade?" I am not a bit troubled about Free Trade in this connection. Free Trade does not mean to me: "Buy in the market where you pay the least for the article." Free Trade, in my judgment, means: "Buy in the cheapest market, but remember that cheapness does not consist in money." Buy the best article at the lowest price. My hon. Friend the Secretary to the Admiralty, who is sitting on the Government Bench, smiles. I could take him to a shop in London where he would be supplied with boots at 7s. 6d. the pair, but these would never do. You have to look to quality as well as to price, and quite rightly so, and I ask the Government to apply the same principle —Free Traders though they are—to this granite question. The policy of the Norwegian granite merchant is perfectly obvious. It is, he intends to secure his contract at low prices, to ruin the British granite merchant by under-cutting him as much as he possibly can, and then—when he has ruined the British granite merchant—he will secure his own price. That can be shown by the history of the granite kerb trade. There is practically no granite kerb trade in this country now. In 1881 the Cornish quarries produced 39 miles of kerb. In 1903 they produced a quarter of a mile. That was due to the effect of Norwegian competition by which prices gradually went down until in 1905 the kerb trade in this country was practically killed. In 1905 the price for 8 in. by 12 in. kerbs was 1s. 0¼d. a foot; in 1906 it was 1s. 4d.; in 1907 it was 1s. 5d.; and the President of the Board of Trade told us the other day that from inquiries he had made in the London County Council in 1908 it was 1s. 6d., so that it had gone up from 1s. 0¼d. in 1905 to 1s. 6d. in 1908. That is what happened in that case. The Admiralty to-day by accepting granite 25 per cent. cheaper than British granite are in reality only cutting a rod for their own backs. When they have killed the granite industry in this country the Norwegian prices will immediately go up.

I appeal on behalf of the working men of my Division who are being driven out of the country by the action of the Admiralty. This is a skilled trade. You cannot get workers into the granite industry in a day. You cannot call them back from foreign countries to this country in a day. There are no granite workers in the kerb trade now, they have been driven abroad. These men did not go singing up and down the country, "We have no work to do." There were 1,100 men employed at granite works in my Constituency some years ago. To-day there are only 400. The rest have gone to America. I say that the policy which drives 700 men abroad in five years, sensible honest men, hard-working men, skilled workers—the policy which drives 700 men of that character abroad in five years is not a right policy. The Government has done a great deal to cure unemployment, we heard a great deal about the hurrying on of naval works in order to provide employment for the workers. Now you give an order that Rosyth works should be hurried on so that the men in Norway may be given work.

Sir ARTHUR BIGNOLD

Early this afternoon the Civil Lord of the Admiralty stated that we are to have two floating docks, and that they are to be placed in positions according to their strategical necessity. There can be no doubt about the necessity for them on the East Coast. In a question I addressed to the First Lord of the Admiralty a fortnight ago I put forward the statement, which he did not traverse, that any "Dreadnought" put out of action in the North Sea could not be repaired unless it was taken to Portsmouth and placed in dry dock, being exposed all the way to torpedo attack. It is a fact that our Fleet is quite defenceless in this respect from the Shetlands to the Tyne. I have heard to-day that the dry dock in the Tyne will take a "Dreadnought." I would like to ask what better locality could be found for the construction of a floating dock than Kirkwall Bay, by Scapa Flow, where there is a depth of water closely approximating to 60 feet, and where every admiral in the service is delighted to take his ships. With regard to the necessity of security for your floating docks, if you go between The Sutors you have absolutely the finest bay next to Fort Jackson which you could get, and it is capable of holding the entire British Navy at one time, and possesses an average depth of water of over 70 feet. It is admitted that for 18 months from the present time, if any of our ships were put out of action in the North Sea, they would have to be sent down to Devonport Or Portsmouth. I should like to ask the Government if they can give us any indication as to what is likely to be the cost of the construction of the floating dock. I have read with surprise that it is likely to be something like £300,000, but engineers who are supposed to know have assured me they would be very glad to undertake the construction of a floating dock for half that money. I feel certain the First Lord has under his observation the ports on the East Coast to which I have referred. If it is true that the cost of a floating dock is not more than £150,000, and that their construction may save the life of a "Dreadnought," I hope the Government will not halt at two floating docks, but will resolve immediately to construct three or four.

Mr. H. BELLOC

I want to call the attention of the House, and through the House the attention of all those who regard this matter as one of supreme imporance, to the fact that Votes for naval construction and the whole of our construction of docks and new naval stations omit all consideration of their defence. I should be out of order were I to go into any details of what the land defence of a naval base should be. There is a Vote under which this question can be discussed, but I wish to express my agreement with the hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean when he said it would have been better to discuss the general strategical position of the land and marine forces together. As that cannot be done, we must confine ourselves to what this Vote allows. I want the House to remember the gravity of the decision which has been come to by both parties, and which has become a fixed doctrine, that the defence of a naval base shall be for all practical purposes a purely naval defence. I want to point out why I differ from that point of view. If we were at war, being a maritime nation, there are two things at which an enemy would at once attempt to strike. That any enemy would attempt to strike at the British battleship fleet in the first stages of a war by laying against it other men-of-war in line of battle seems to me to be very doubtful. I think that the policy of our enemy would be rather to keep his fleet in harbour, safe from our attack. The two things our enemy would be tempted to strike at would be, first of all, our vast sea-borne commerce, and, secondly, our naval bases. Our naval bases are few in number. The French Government do not know at what point mobilisation might take place on the part of their enemy, or at which part of the 300 miles of their frontier an enemy might strike; but an enemy desiring to strike us would only have to choose places, the number of which can be counted on the fingers of one hand. The attack upon a naval base would be exceedingly rapid. When you are attacking a large area with a small force time, of course, is important, and when you are attacking a small and definite point with a large force time is far less important, because you can move with much more rapidity. If our enemy desired to strike at Rosyth, Sheerness, or Devonport, the objective would be a simple matter, because it would be like an attack upon a thing definitely known, and so small that an enemy would be able to choose his own time and weather.

But there is a third point. Not only would a small force be needed, but the amount of damage that could be done in that time by a small force might be enormous, and it might be absolute in a sense, crippling the Fleet in repair in the neighbourhood of the base. The vital points of any naval base are few. If an enemy destroyed perhaps half a dozen special points where special machinery is concentrated, you might in the space of the few hours make it impossible for a fleet to repair for some considerable period of time. To a modern fleet, much more than to the fleets upon which we base the historic traditions of the English Navy, immediate repair after an action is absolutely essential. The modern fleet lives by the power of repair just as much as by ammunition or by the skilful seamanship of its officers. If that is so, it seems to me to be most unwise for the Government to have taken up a policy of mere negation upon the subject of the defence of our naval bases. When the time comes it will be of moment to point out what has been designed for the defence of Rosyth itself, and I think it will be quite possible to show how inadequate that design is in regard to fortifications. Those who still maintain—and it is the official view—that a naval base in our case, and ours alone, can be defended by naval means entirely or mainly, if they are put to it will find it difficult to justify their position. I do not think there are many experts who believe that a naval base can be defended by naval means alone. If that theory were accepted then the damage that might be done by a raid would certainly be enormous in a short time, and might be absolute, and, in fact, turn the course of a war. In the past, when naval bases were not of the importance they are now, when a fleet could keep to sea for many weeks without repair, when all the repairs could be done at sea, and when it was not so necessary after a battle to send any ships to a naval base; when the superiority of the British Fleet was not a matter of theory but a question of proved fact; when our Fleet was overwhelmingly superior, in those days we fortified our naval bases. That is all I want to insist upon now. This is an important matter, but it is one which I cannot discuss properly within the limits of this Vote in the detail I should like.

Mr. WILLIAM REDMOND

I desire for a few moments to follow the lead given in this matter by the hon. Member for Aberdeen and the hon. Member for Truro. They make great complaint that the local granite quarries in their counties were entirely ignored, whilst large orders were given for Norwegian stone. If that applies to Aberdeen and Cornwall it also applies to a considerable extent to Ireland, because everybody knows perfectly well that there is in Ireland a great supply of granite, and if the Government only like to take the trouble which they ought to take in the matter it would be quite possible for purposes such as the construction of a dock at Rosyth to obtain large quantities of suitable stone from Ireland. When this matter was first raised in the House I was one of those who questioned the Government several times on the matter, and I agree with the hon. Member for Truro that it is a strange fact that many hon. Gentlemen occupying the Unionist Benches who were very diligent in questioning the Government on this matter are not present today in order to express more fully their opinion with regard to the purchase of Norwegian stone. I think it is a matter which ought to engage more interest than has been shown this afternoon. The hon. Member for Aberdeen delivered the most extraordinary speech that I have heard delivered in this House in all my life. He represents a constituency in the very heart of which there is absolutely the finest granite that can be found in the whole wide world outside of Ireland. Granite from Aberdeen is well known in every part of the world to be a most magnificent stone. There is plenty of it there, and the quarrying in Aberdeen is a great industry capable of enormous development, and yet the hon. Member for this constituency devoted nearly the whole of his speech to really showing that the Norwegian stone is much better than the Aberdeen stone. I am sorry the House of Commons was not built of the granite from Aberdeen, because it might have shown its value to their Member, who, to say the least of it, is not very ardent in expressing the opinion of his constituents in the matter. I say no more of him except that perhaps he has been living in a cave of Aberdeen granite stone for some time, and does not see the interests of his Constituency. The Civil Lord of the Admiralty, whenever Irish granite is mentioned, breaks into a smile, as if the subject was a comic one. It is not; on the contrary, it is a subject really of a serious and sad kind. Everybody knows that in the various portions of Ireland there is a large supply of the very best granite that can be had anywhere. When we ask the Government about the matter, we are immediately told that it is true there is granite in Ireland, but it is quite impossible to develop it, and that if they gave an order for Rosyth it could not be executed; quarries are closed down, and there are not a sufficient number of men at work; the thing is impossible. I am very sorry to say that owing to many long years of neglect on the part of successive Governments it is true that the quarries in Ireland are not in the position which they should occupy. Many have been closed down, and others have only been partially worked. The number of men employed in quarrying is small compared with what it was years ago. Still, it is perfectly true that if the Government were anxious to develop an Irish industry and to give employment to the Irish people, they would, at any rate, make a commencement in the matter. It is no answer to say that, because the quarry owners in Ireland may not be in a position at once to carry out completely a large order like that which might be given for Rosyth, no order at all should be given. The Government should at least give a share to the quarry owners in Ireland and let them supply as much as they can and do at least some part of the work. Instead of doing that, the Government, so far as I know, without making the slightest inquiry of any kind, go off gaily to Norway and give tens of thousands of pounds to foreign quarry owners and employ foreign labour.

We are told that in the interests of Free Trade you must buy where you can buy most cheaply, and that, if the Norwegian granite is cheaper than the Irish or Aberdeen granite, it must be obtained, especially by a Free Trade Government. Surely to goodness there must be an exception to every rule, and even the heart of the staunchest Free Trader must be touched to some extent by the fact that in the poorest districts of Ireland there are strong, able-bodied men anxious and willing to work, and looking for work, who are unable to earn a crust of bread, whilst tens of thousands of the money of the taxpayers of this country go into the pockets of foreign workmen in Norway. That is a state of affairs which ought not to be allowed to continue by any Government, whether Free Trade or Protectionist. The hon. Member for Aberdeen endeavoured to show that Norwegian workmen were paid as well as the British workmen and that the conditions of labour there were as good as here. He exhausted every argument in order to excuse the Government, but I venture to say there is no real excuse, and it is not the slightest use for the supporters of the Government to point to the Front Opposition Bench and say that when they were in office they got some Norwegian granite. I daresay they did, and they were just as wrong as the present Government. When the present Opposition come into power, if ever they do, I shall certainly with much interest look to see whether they act up to their principles in this matter. I shall expect that every bit of granite required for the whole of the British Empire will be taken out of Ireland, because they have led us to believe they will never, under any circumstances, use Norwegian granite so long as granite can be got from this country or from Ireland.

The First Lord of the Admiralty was good enough recently, when I pressed him, to answer questions; but from that day to this I have never been able to ascertain whether any serious effort was made by the Government to get from any quarry-owners in Ireland an estimate or an idea as to whether they could carry out any part of the work. Were they ever asked? Will the right hon. Gentleman give me the names of quarry-owners who were asked? Did they refuse? Did they say they were unable to supply any of the stone required, or was any effort made at all? I may be told the Government do not know that it was entirely a matter for the contractor, that it was the contractor who asked for the tenders, and that they are not in a position to know whether he asked for Irish, Scotch, or Cornish tenders. If that be the case, it is a very blameable state of affairs on the part of the Government. Before a large contract is given it ought to be made a condition that the contractors shall obtain the material required at home if possible. I have never been able to ascertain whether any such condition was made with the contractor for Rosyth. I venture to submit, as strongly as I can, that the question of price is not the only question to be considered in this matter. I may be told by the Government it is their business to see economy is practised, and that they should not give £20,00, £30,000, or £40,000 more for material at home than the price at which they can get it abroad. That is all very well, but there is the other side of the Question. There is the side which presents itself to men, like myself, who represent constituencies where there are granite quarries. When I pro back to Clare my constituents will say that "Dreadnoughts" are being built, but there are none being built in Ireland, and no employment given there. They will say that they saw that on 1st July the House of Commons was engaged in voting millions of money for great naval works in England and abroad, but that very little, hardly a shilling, is being spent in Ireland. We have only one naval station, at Haulbowline.

The SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara)

There is £30,000 on the Estimates for that.

Mr. WILLIAM REDMOND

Yes, we were very glad to get that £30,000, but how many millions are there in the whole of the Naval Estimates? Thirty thousand pounds is absolutely out of all proportion to what Ireland is entitled to, having regard to the taxation she pays. My constituents will say the Navy is being increased and "Dreadnoughts" are being built, millions are being spent for works at Rosyth, Gibraltar, and all over the world, but what do we get out of it? The Government will not even take what we can supply them. We can supply them with granite, but they actually go and spend our money, because it is, to a large extent, the money of the Irish taxpayers as well as the British taxpayers, in purchasing in Norway stone, which, with a little care, the Government could have procured in Ireland. It is all very well to talk of economy, but there is no economy in leaving the population on the shores of your country and in Ireland in a work-less condition. There is absolutely no economy in driving the young men of Ireland to emigrate because there is no work for them at home. I will undertake,if he will go with me, to take the First Lord of the Admiralty to districts in Ireland where there are quarries, either entirely or partially closed down, and where there is stone which could be developed and which is ready to the hands of the Government for such works as at Rosyth. I will show him at the same time portions of the country practically deserted and without population. I will show him districts where many of the able-bodied men who still remain only too anxious to get work, who cannot find work, and I will ask him to look on these things and say whether we are to be found fault with because we make such attempts as I am making tonight to get for our people and our country some return for the taxation they pay. I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to take a sympathetic view of the matter. Do not let us be told that we must get stone where it is cheapest. Do not let us be told we cannot supply fully the demand for a place like Rosyth, and that it is too big a job for Ireland. These replies lack sympathy and reality. When we ask that some little effort should be made by the Government to develop the resources of Ireland and give employment there, we do not often get sympathy, and the right hon. Gentleman ought to pledge himself on behalf of the Government that a beginning will be made, that the quarries in Ireland will be carefully inspected, that where stone can be got it will be got, and that encouragement will be given for the future development of the industry in Ireland, so that quarries now closed down may be opened up, and those now only partially worked may be extended and developed, giving employment to the people of the country who have paid their share of the taxation.

Mr. McKENNA

Many claims have, in the course of this Debate, been pressed upon me, and, of course, it is impossible for me to satisfy them all. The hon. Member for East Clare has spoken of the great value of Irish stone. I have heard a good deal about the merits of Cornish and Aberdeen granite. I fully recognise that all these classes of stone are most admirable, but, representing the taxpayer, as I do, I am bound to have some regard to cost, and to get the materials we require in the market which can at once supply the goods at a moderate price. Claims of a like nature have been made on behalf of various dockyard and other interests. I have been invited to establish floating locks at many places, including Cromarty, the Tyne, the Humber, and Chatham. I am only too anxious to satisfy every claim made upon me. I do not make any complaint of any legitimate interest being pressed on the attention of the Admiralty —I will give the House this assurance: that, for my part, I shall do my best to judge every claim purely and simply on its merits, and without regard to such pressure as hon. Members, very properly, no doubt, endeavour to put upon the Government, not in their own interests, but in the interests of those whom they represent. At the beginning of this discussion to-night we debated the question of Rosyth. I do not propose to go into the history of that undertaking, but if I sum up the situation in these words, I think it will suffice: For two years the late Government did not regard the building of Rosyth as urgent, and for one year the present Government, after it came into office, held the scheme up. I do not think that was an excessive time for a Government, which only came into office in December, to take to consider the merits of a scheme which involved the expenditure of several millions of money, and which had not been considered urgent by their predecessors. I submit that was a moderate time to consider whether or not it was desirable to immediately press the scheme forward. Remember it was never abandoned by the late Government or by the present Government. But there was the same want of urgency admitted by the late Government, and continued for a period of one year by the present Government. However, it has been decided to press the scheme forward, and it will be completed at the earliest possible moment. The hon. Member for Blackpool (Mr. Ashley) pressed my hon. Friend on a number of topics relating to contracts for which the present Government had not the smallest responsibility. Take the case of Gibraltar. The work there was begun in the year 1898, and the contract was let for that work as a whole. All the present Government have had to do for the last three or four years has been to pay cheques out to the contractor, accordingly as the work has been completed.

Mr. ASHLEY

My point was this. Although no doubt this Government were only carrying out contracts started by the late Government, it is responsible for reducing a number of men employed upon them.

Mr. McKENNA

I do not see that that has anything to do with the point I am raising. In regard to Gibraltar, the Government had nothing to do except to pay. They are responsible for the policy. They have to pay under a contract already made. The same remark applies to Dover. The hon. Gentleman has complained of the money spent there. We simply completed the contract which had already been entered into in respect of a matter for which the credit of the nation was pledged. We could take no other course. Indeed, I do not think the hon. Gentleman, in his references to Dover, did justice to the late Government. This contract was entered into at a time when the Eastern entrance was not open, and the Western entrance was not always satisfactory as an entrance to Dover Harbour. I cannot join with the hon. Member in his censure of the late Government in regard to their Dover scheme. Then we have had raised the question of the Colombo Graving Dock. I have been asked whether it is large enough to take a "Dreadnought." My answer is that it will not be. The hon. Member for East Clare (Mr. William Redmond) has requested some assurance as to the situation of the two floating docks which my hon. Friend has been able definitely to announce. They are to be of the largest size, and capable of taking the largest ship. So far as the Board of Admiralty anticipate at the present moment, one of the docks will be situated in the Medway. As a matter of fact the possible situations for large floating docks on the East Coast are limited in number. There are not many areas where you have in combination the required depth of water and the necessary protection. I think we have in the Medway both the sufficient depth and the protection which is necessary to make a floating dock perfectly safe. As regards the second floating dock various possible situations have been considered by the Admiralty, and we have no doubt that we shall be able to find a suitable place, but I do not think it would be desirable at this moment even to indicate where the Admiralty contemplates that the docks shall ultimately be situated. It will be no doubt on the East Coast, but I do not say it will always be situated there. It will be capable of being moved to other places. There will be a second home for the floating dock, and, of course, it will be in the vicinity of the repairing shops. In regard to the matter of building large graving docks it is receiving most anxious consideration. Negotiations are going on and preparations are being made, but I think the House will agree with me it would be undesirable to expose the Admiralty plans at this moment. The hon. Member for Grimsby has dilated on the facilities afforded by the Humber. I agree with him that if it were possible it would be well for us to conclude arrangements with the authorities for building a large dock there. But it is a question of price, and I had hoped that he had some authority to make an offer which I might find myself able to accept.

Sir G. DOUGHTY

It depends, of course, on the expenditure which is to be incurred in providing the docks.

Mr. McKENNA

I think I may say the price asked for was one which precluded us from coming to terms. We must have some regard to the interests of the taxpayers, even in supplying the urgent necessity for large docks. If other offers are made to the Admiralty which I am in a position to accept I shall be only too glad. We always keep an open mind on these matters, and are ready to do business on reasonable terms. I do not think the hon. Member was quite fair in the observations he made in regard to the dockyards. Repairs are most admirably carried out in them, and I do not think anyone will deny that in dealing with out great ships, built at Portsmouth and Devonport, the work undertaken at Haulbowline, Sheerness, and other places, is quite as well done as in any private yard.

Sir G. DOUGHTY

I did not say it wa3 not. I only suggested that it was more expensive.

Mr. McKENNA

I think if the hon. Member would accompany me to some of these yards I should be able to disprove that statement. I hope I may now be allowed to have this Vote.