NAVY SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1909–10. (Hansard, 2 March 1910)

§ The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. McKenna)
I propose to make a brief statement explanatory of the figures which have just been read from the Chair. The Committee will remember that when the Shipbuilding Vote was under discussion last July and the House then authorised the proposals of the Government to give the necessary orders for laying down early in the next financial year the four ships which have been frequently described as contingent ships, I then promised on behalf of the Government that if any part of the expenditure upon these four ships became payable in the course of the present financial year, I would introduce in this Committee a Supplementary Estimate in order to authorise the expenditure. Of the total of the present Vote the sum of £457,000 is due to expenditure on the four contingent ships. The items are made up as follows: Machinery, £60,000; hulls, £85,000; armour, £60,000; gun-mountings, £208,000, and guns, £44,000. The Committee will be interested to know the dates when the orders were given. They are as follows: Machinery and hulls, January last; armour, January; gun-mountings and guns, partly in December and partly in January.

Mr. GIBSON-BOWLES
When did you begin? What was the first date on which you gave orders?

§ Mr. McKENNA
Some time in December; I think in the first week of December, but I am not perfectly sure, but I can find out the date before this Debate is over. That is all I have to say to the Committtee upon the subject of contingent ships, which was fully debated last July, and authority given to the Government to give the necessary orders. The pledge then made was that the ships should be ordered in time to secure that they should be completed, ready for commission, before 31st March, 1912. In recent construction I am glad to say that we have been able to have ships completed, from the date of laying the keel to the time of commission, in less than twenty-four months. The "Vanguard," which was commissioned the other day, has actually taken, from the date of laying the keel, twenty-three months. Slight delay has occurred in one or two other ships, but in every case now we approximate to the period I have mentioned of twenty-four months. I have no reason to suppose that we should not be able, if we press our work, to complete our ships from the laying of the keel to the time of commission in less time than the two years I have mentioned. The Committee must understand that the period of which I now speak is the period from the laying of the keel to commissioning, and orders have to be given some time in advance of laying the keel if we are to be sure the ships will be ready in the time named. It is for these reasons that, although the keels will not be laid of any one of these four ships before 1st April that we nevertheless have been compelled to give the necessary orders for machinery and armour and gun-mounting, etc., some three or four months in advance of the time when the keels will be actually laid. With regard to the rest of the items of the Supplementary Estimate the two principal matters to which I will refer are, first, the item of £190,000 due to acceleration in the construction of the destroyers of this year's programme.

§ Mr. GIBSON BOWLES
Will the right hon. Gentleman pardon me for asking a question which is intended to clear up a particular point. May the Committee take it that from the date of the preparatory order to the date of the hoisting of the pennant, ready for action the time will be not twenty-four months, but twenty-seven months. Will that be the outside limit?

§ Mr. McKENNA
I would not like to put it with any certainty as low as twenty-seven. I think it will be twenty-seven, but in the case of gun-mountings it may be 908 twenty-eight. But, at any rate, in order to make sure, the Admiralty themselves have allowed close on twenty-eight months. But I think, if we are to judge by the case of the "Vanguard" and other ships, we probably could complete in less time. But as the Government gave a pledge, and rightly gave a pledge, that these ships should be ready at the end of March, 1912, we have taken every necessary step to secure that result.
As regards the rest of the Estimate, the principal item of £190,000 is for the machinery of the destroyer for this year's programme. We have pushed forward the programme, and instead of, as was anticipated, twenty destroyers being ready on the month of May or June, 1911, we hope they will be ready by April, 1911, and some before that. The period of construction is eighteen months. The time in the programme for laying down was November. We have rather accelerated both the orders and the work upon the destroyers, with the result that we expect to have them ready in March and April, 1911, instead of in May and June. In consequence there has been an extra expenditure upon the machinery of the destroyers of £190,000. The other main item is a sum of £100,000, which was spent on the purchase of two destroyers, of which I have already told the House. I may say that was a bargain in which the Admiralty did not come off badly. Then the other items are fully explained upon the paper circulated to the Committee, and I do not know at this stage that I can add anything in the way of explanation.

§ Mr. ARTHUR LEE
I need hardly say that I do not rise for the purpose of opposing this Supplementary Estimate or indeed of criticising the expenditure which the Government have incurred. If I may say so, I think the Opposition are very largely responsible for this Supplementary Estimate, and are quite prepared to bear the responsibility. After the statement which the right hon. Gentleman has just made, particularly with regard to the sum of money which has just been spent on the four contingent ships, if we make any criticisms at all they would be in the nature of regret that the sum already expended on these ships was not larger. The right hon. Gentleman has told us that out of a total of nearly £1,000,000 which is provided under this Estimate for new construction, less than half a million has gone to the four contingent ships, and that the orders were, as a matter of fact, not given 909 in any case till the month of December. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to think that by ordering ships in December he would be allowing ample time to build them and to complete them ready for commission by 31st March, 1912. I think his statement in regard to that seems somewhat optimistic in view of the experience of the past. He quoted it as true the case of the "Vanguard," where undoubtedly exceeding and almost unprecedented progress had been made in the construction of that ship. He gave us rather to understand that the Admiralty had been successful in the case of other ships in completing them within a period of two years from the time of what he calls the laying down of the keel.

§ Mr. McKENNA
I did not say the Admiralty has succeeded in doing so, but I did say we have anticipation that the ships now under construction will be completed in that time.

§ Mr. ARTHUR LEE
Yes, supposing everything goes on perfectly smoothly in regard to the shipbuilding industry, but the right hon. Gentleman must not forget the experiences of the last few years. He is not making allowance for unforeseen circumstances, he is making no allowance for accidents and for strikes such as delayed the construction of the "Superb" and the "Temeraire." He seems to have made no allowance for unforeseen difficulties such as have occurred in recent years. Take the case of the last six battleships of the "Dreadnought" class laid down in the time of the present Government, and it will be found that the average time of completion from the laying of the keel to commissioning has been 26½ months, which is 2½ months beyond the period which he thinks the Admiralty may confidently count upon. I think that is a somewhat optimistic anticipation on his part, and I am sorry he did not give a little more leeway by commencing his ships before he did, seeing that the House of Commons gave its sanction for those ships as long ago as last July. One of the four contingent ships has been placed with the Thames Ironworks Company. I am extremely glad that that yard, which has been utterly neglected for a good many years past, is now to be again developed, because I think it is of the utmost importance that the whole of our national resources in shipbuilding should, as far as possible, fee developed and fostered in every reasonable way. 910 But that yard has not had experience of construction of this class of ships; it has been practically closed for a number of years, and the plant and the experience of the employés must be, at any rate, out of date, and I feel in that case there is considerable risk that the anticipation which the Admiralty now make so confidently cannot be realised in regard to the building of the ship allotted to that yard. I want to look at the figures contained in this Estimate more closely, particularly with regard to the £999,000 which is allotted to new construction. On the first page under the section devoted to Votes 8 and 9 there is a sum of £999,000, less certain money taken by the services, and the amount taken for new construction is practically that sum. I am delighted to hear that the large amount of £190,000 is to go to expedite the destroyer programme for the current year. The right hon. Gentleman knows, as the House knows, that we have been falling behind as compared with other Powers in a remarkable degree in regard to the completion of our destroyer programme. We not only begin them very late, long after the programme is sanctioned by the House of Commons, but our vessels have taken, in many cases, and in almost all cases, twice as long as the ships which are being constructed of a similar class by our rivals. Even now the right hon. Gentleman has only been able to speed up matters to eighteen months, and I should like to ask him why it should be beyond the resources of British shipbuilders to build in less than eighteen months when the Germans have been able to complete them, even during the past year, in a period under twelve months. We are now necessarily dealing with rather small points, but when the Navy Estimates come on ten days hence I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be able to give us some accurate information with regard to this point, which is causing a great deal of disquietude to those interested in the Navy and to those interested in this vital branch of our defence.
The right hon. Gentleman told us that £100,000 of this money had been devoted to buying the two destroyers to replace the two we have lost, and he prides himself on the fact that the Admiralty have been able to get them for a sum of £100,000. I would like to know if these destroyers are of an up-to-date pattern. I understand that they are practically of the old River class, and that they are vessels of only 550 tons displacement and 911 7,000 horse-power, whereas the destroyers which we are now building for the present year's programme, and which we have built in past years, have been nearly 1,000 tons displacement and 15,000 horse-power. That is to say, these vessels are only half the tonnage and half the horse-power of the vessels which are now considered the proper dimension for His Majesty's Navy. I am not yet persuaded, although these vessels are undoubtedly cheap, that the nation's money has been spent to advantage upon them. I should like to know why we have gone back to a class of ship which was doubtless admirable in its day; why have the Admiralty expended this money upon these almost obsolete ships instead of adding to the ships provided for in the present year's programme, and having them built of a size which now finds favour with the naval authorities?
I come now to the other side of the balance-sheet. I am the last person to complain of the fact that the Admiralty finds it necessary to spend this extra mil lion upon a shipbuilding Vote, but I am afraid they have reduced that total by robbing other services in the Navy Estimates, as is clearly shown by their own Supplementary Estimate. The amount hitherto voted for auxiliary machinery has been reduced by £33,000, although in the actual sum voted last Session there was a reduction of £48,000 as compared with the year before. I think that point requires some explanation. Then there is what is, in my opinion, a still more sinister reduction of £59,000 in the money voted for projectiles and ammunition. The right hon. Gentleman necessarily in this matter causes to those of us who are not familiar with all the facts considerable anxiety—

§ The CHAIRMAN
I do not think we are now discussing the surpluses. I have no objection, of course, to the hon. Member asking for information about them, but we cannot alter them, and the proper time to discuss this matter is when we get before us a Resolution which authorises surpluses being devoted to this purpose; or, of course, on the Navy Estimates for next year, which will come before us later.

§ Mr. ARTHUR LEE
As these surpluses are shown in this Estimate to reduce the total which the Government are asking the House to agree to, I thought we might be entitled to ask how it is they have been able to show these surpluses.

§ The CHAIRMAN
Yes, but we cannot make them a subject of debate, although I do not want to stop the hon. Member asking for information about them.

§ Mr. ARTHUR LEE
I think we might have a very short statement from the First Lord of the Admiralty explaining them. I think it is only due to the Committee that such an explanation should be given before this Vote passes. I have no desire to debate the amount of ammunition, but I think I am only asking for information which we ought to have before we pass away from this subject. I notice there is also the reduction of £50,000 in the payment of wages to the personnel of the Fleet. I think some explanation should be given of that, because it seems to imply that there has been some reduction in the personnel, and it is difficult to see how you can reduce the wages without reducing a number of men to whom the wages are paid. I want the Secretary to the Admiralty to explain the figures in the Supplementary Estimate, and I wish to question him upon a matter of arithmetic. If he turns to the last item on Page 3 of the Supplementary Estimate he will see that there is a surplus of £177,000 upon new works, making, according to this estimate, a revised estimate of £993,520, but the actual sum voted by the House of Commons last Session for this service was £1,204,000. If you deduct the £177,000 surplus you get a revised estimate not of £993,520, but £1,027,000. There appears to be a discrepancy of over £30,000. I have added up those figures, and I still think the Secretary to the Admiralty will find that his arithmetic is not quite accurate.
These discussions upon a Supplementary Estimate are necessarily confined to details, and by the ruling of the Chair our discussion has been narrowed down to an extremely narrow point. But after all these figures refer only to the Estimates for 1909–10, and it would obviously be absurd to attempt to discuss the greater and wider naval policy upon the Estimates of the year which is passing away, particularly when we shall have the Estimates for the new year shortly before us. I want, however, to make this appeal to the right hon. Gentleman. In view of the fact that we cannot discuss any of the big questions now, I think the right hon. Gentleman should give the House of Commons the opportunity they are entitled to of considering the new Estimates by presenting them in sufficient time 913 before the actual discussion upon them takes place. I do not say that the right hon. Gentleman is any more to blame in this respect than his predecessors have been. In past years these Estimates have rather been thrown at the House of Commons a day before being discussed, and I remember one year in which they were produced on the very day the discussion took place. I therefore appeal to the First Lord of the Admiralty to let us have the Estimates in sufficient time not only to carefully consider them, but also to avoid that desecration of the Sabbath which has been forced upon us more than once during the last few years. I hope he will be able to meet us in this matter by giving the House the full opportunity to which it is entitled of having sufficient time to digest the details of this vast expenditure. I hope we shall be placed in possession of full information with regard to the surpluses in this Supplementary Estimate about which I am much more concerned than the amount of money which the Admiralty is spending.

§ Mr. LOUGH
moved to reduce the Vote by the sum of £100. I think the appeal which the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down has made is a most reasonable one. I think we ought to get the new Navy Estimates at a much earlier date than they have been promised or than we got them last year. The First Lord of the Admiralty promised that we should have them on Thursday week, but I hope that promise will be accelerated, because the Prime Minister has announced that we are to take the discussion on the Navy Estimates on Monday week, and that will leave only two days to consider the Navy Estimates in all their complicated detail. I think if the presentation of the Navy Estimates could be accelerated it would be for the general convenience of the House. The Secretary for War has promised to furnish his Estimates next Thursday, and I cannot see why the Admiralty should not be as smart in this matter as the War Office. I have put down a very small amount in my Motion for a reduction, but I cannot proceed to move that without saying that I have not the slightest idea of embarrassing the Government in any way at the present moment. On the contrary, I would like to assist in clearing away all those slight clouds which darken their path, as I would like to see the Government come forward at the head of a strong and practical majority and work this Parliament for many years for all it is worth, and the 914 Prime Minister can certainly rely upon my assistance in doing that. I have risen in order to move this small and unassuming reduction of these Estimates because I think it will be agreed that even this Supplementary Estimate raises a very large question. In the first place, it is a very large Supplementary Estimate. When I used to fight the battles of the Opposition, which has been my fate during most of my Parliamentary career, I used to denounce through all the moods and tenses the Gentlemen who sat on the Government bench for bringing in Supplementary Estimates at all, and especially for bringing in very large Supplementary Estimates. Here we have one which is much larger than it appears on the Paper and on the face of it. You say £689,100 should be allowed, but the Estimate is really for more than £1,000,000. I am not going into the question of the reductions, but the reductions do mean that there is more than £1,000,000 of fresh money being voted for a purpose with which I, for one, do not sympathise at all, and that is a very large amount at this stage. My right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty, in proposing, said the House of Commons sanctioned the laying down of the four ships last autumn. In one sense yes, but in another sense no. The House of Commons did not then tie the hands of the Ministry in any way, they left it to the Ministry to do as they liked with regard to those four ships. They might have chosen to have spent less money upon them, or not to have laid them down till a later date; in fact, they might have prevented any of this expenditure coming in as a Supplementary Estimate, and have thrown the whole cost of these new ships into the programme of next year. That is what I should like to have seen done. It is a very serious Estimate, and the effect of it is to increase by 40 per cent. the very large Naval Estimates of last year, which many of us looked upon with the greatest dislike, and I think that is a matter we ought to look into.
Then I have not been at all soothed by the explanation given of the Estimate by my right hon. Friend. He tells me that £456,000 are to be devoted to paying for the new four contingent ships, and he says another £200,000 practically—£190,000–is to be spent on the acceleration of certain other ships. This compels me to look back at the origin of these very large Naval Estimates. The House will remember the extraordinary circumstances under which they were introduced. We had little less 915 than a scare about our Navy a year ago when the Estimates were first laid before us, and the reason we were then told that it might be necessary to lay down some contingent ships was that another Power was accelerating its programme and hastening the completion of its ships. These statements were made with very great deliberation by the two Front Benches, and we have hardly had an opportunity of testing them up to the present moment. Only to-day I asked my right hon. Friend whether one statement he made on 16th March last was correct, namely, that Germany would have seventeen "Dreadnoughts" completed by April, 1912. I have the statement of the right hon. Gentleman here, and I will give it:— The German law provided for four more ships to be laid down in 1910–11. If the construction of these ships were to be accelerated. I understand that four ships of the 1909–10 programme would be completed by April 1912, and at that date Germany would have seventeen 'Dreadnoughts.' I admit all the qualifications, but my right hon. Friend did go that far, and he was succeeded in the debate later by the Prime Minister, who also used words which indicate that the Government assumed that Germany would have seventeen "Dreadnoughts" in April, 1912. I can quote the Prime Minister's words. He said:— Our estimate is that by March, 1912, the Germans will have seventeen. Those are the words of the Prime Minister, who is even a better authority than my right hon. Friend. There is no disrespect to my right hon. Friend in that statement I am sure. When they had finished these statements they were taken up by hon. Gentlemen opposite, and I am always suspicious when I see this conspiracy between the two Front Benches. The Leader of the Opposition was present, and he produced a table of statistics which made all the Government had said pale into insignificance. He told us that in 1910, that is this year, Germany would have thirteen "Dreadnoughts" to the ten we should have. I believe the truth is that Germany has only two now, and can possibly only have five at any time this year. They were, the right hon. Gentleman said, to have seventeen in July, 1910, twenty-one in April, 1912, and twenty-five by August, 1912. Then the right hon. Gentleman, simply trembling with emotion, said he felt compelled to take a course which politicians and statesmen of this House for generations had declined to take, and this was his prelude to a 916 warm attack upon what I venture to think is a friendly Power of Europe, and all the time he was prompted by the hon. Member for Fareham (Mr. Lee), who I am glad to say is present and whom we hold responsible for all the right hon. Gentleman then said. The statement from the Front Opposition Bench was that Germany was to have twenty-one "Dreadnoughts" in April, 1912, and the Government rather favoured the idea that there might be seventeen. I can quote many statements in support of that. The Secretary to the Treasury, for instance, at Croydon frightened his audience and made their hair stand on end by alluding to the danger zone, and admitting that Germany would have seventeen "Dreadnoughts" in 1912. We have a little pious book, called the "Liberal Magazine," sent to us every twelve months, and in this magazine the statement appears in black and white on the authority I have already quoted. It was to meet this contingent liability on the part of Germany that these four ships were provided by the Government. They said that if this goes on we must do our duty to our country, and we must lay down the additional ships, regardless of expense.
That is a very brief sketch of what occurred here on 16th March, 1909, a year ago. A great deal of water has flowed under the bridge since then, and the question I have to ask myself constantly is this: Have the alarmist statements we heard then been justified by the facts? As a matter of fact, everyone of them has been scattered to the winds. In the first place, Germany has gone out of her way to assure us not only by the mouth of the head of the German Admiralty, but by the mouth of the Ambassador himself that the intentions of Germany have been quite misunderstood. There is nothing discourteous in that. It was at least a civil and kindly word to say, and I do not think any man should make light of assurances given in connection with a great matter of that kind. But we have gone further. I ventured to ask my right hon. Friend to-day whether the Admiralty say now there will be seventeen German "Dreadnoughts" in 1912. No, he could not state that the Admiralty think so, and I think my right hon. Friend will forgive me if I say that, if he had shown a little more disposition to meet me, he would have gone the length of saying that so far as the Admiralty had an opinion upon the subject they did not think there would be 917 seventeen German "Dreadnoughts" in 1912. He does not make any admission on that point now, and I will only say I do not value the authority of my right hon. Friend's advisers at the Admiralty on what they have told us in the past, and their story seems to have no foundation at present. I would rather pin myself to what the right hon. Gentleman says, and that is that there are only thirteen German "Dreadnoughts" in view. The Germans have never completed a "Dreadnought" in less than thirty-six months.

§ Mr. McKENNA
My right hon. Friend is entirely wrong. Two German vessels of the "Dreadnought" type were laid down in August, 1907 and commissioned in October, 1909.

§ Mr. LOUGH
My right hon. Friend has not given me quite a complete answer, but, of course, he has much better information than I have, and I will not be led into a quarrel with him on any terms. I am going to make the best case I can for the pacific intentions of Germany, and for what is my case, namely, that there is no need for us to spill out millions. That is all my case, and I may make a slip of a fact or two. I have taken a great deal of trouble, and I will tell the right hon. Gentleman my authority. There was a most interesting article published in "The Times" a few days since, and according to that article, I am still under the impression that, from the date of the first order till the commissioning of the ship, Germany has not produced any "Dreadnoughts" in less than thirty-six months; at any rate, they cannot produce them so rapidly as we can. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I think they cannot, although there are hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House who want to run down their own country. My case is that we can do them as quick as anybody can, and quicker. That being so, we have to ask ourselves whether these stories we have heard about Germany have been true or false. As a matter of fact, the whole case of the Opposition has been exploded. There is nothing now of the twenty-five and nothing now of the twenty-one. Even the seventeen have not all appeared above the horizon. We have nothing to deal with beyond a possible thirteen German "Dreadnoughts" in 1912. These facts became apparent to the Government in the autumn of last year, and yet, notwithstanding this certain knowledge which came to them, they have put on full steam 918 and have brought in this Estimate for another £1,000,000, in addition to the large Estimates they had at the beginning of the year.
A great deal was made by my right hon. Friend in his speech of 16th March and by the wretched pamphlets which have been scattered over the country of the huge preparations which have been made, especially at Krupp's works, for producing the ships with great secrecy and speed. We have had an answer on this point. We have had the number of employés at these works, and we have found no increase whatever. We heard there had been an increase of 28,000 men in Krupp's works, but we found there are only a few more than 28,000 men altogether employed there. I mention these things to show that, whatever case was made about acceleration or the number of ships, has been blown to the winds. Yet we are pressing on; we are spending every penny and accelerating the ships, and bringing in these huge and inflated Estimates. I say that under those circumstances this Committee would not do its duty to the country unless it investigated this Estimate very closely. The Estimate should reduce the Estimates for next year, but I understand that, in spite of this large sum now provided, there will be many millions more in the coming Estimates. The increases we have had to provide in this House are very substantial, and it appears to me that no case whatever has been made out for the large demand the Government has made upon us. We may be asked what course might have been taken to avoid the expenditure. Well, I think we might have gone a great deal more slowly than we did go. There has been an idea circulated lately that we had to spend so much this year, and hurry up very much faster now and spend a great deal more next year because our Navy was in a bad condition. I do not think there is a shred of foundation for that idea. I believe that during the last five or six years there has been almost a re-creation of the British Navy.

§ The CHAIRMAN
The right hon. Gentleman is going too far. This Vote is confined to the acceleration of the programme and items of the expenditure entailed thereby.

§ Mr. LOUGH
I felt that to be so and I therefore put it interrogatively. I have no desire to go one inch outside the bounds of strict order. We always carry on our 919 Debates best if we keep within the compass of the ruling of the Chair. I was only trying to make out that the circumstances were such that there was no need to have spent all this money at this time, and, if it is not still out of order, I would like to say how glad I would have been to have seen some courteous response to the explanations which we are told have been given to us by Germany.

§ The CHAIRMAN
I do not think that question arises. The right hon. Gentleman is travelling beyond the Supplementary Estimates.

§ Mr. LOUGH
I will leave it there. I think I have explained my point. The Supplementary Estimate is very large. It surely cannot be out of order to say that. It has added a greatly increased expenditure, and I think no reason has been given to this House by the Government or any of their allies for plunging into this outlay. As a means of expressing my opinion, and expressing it in a manner which will not imperil the safety of the Government, because they have so many supporters on all matters of extravagance, especially connected with the Navy, I will move a reduction of the Vote by £100.

§ Mr. DILLON
On a point of Order. May I ask whether we are not entitled on this Vote to debate the necessity for the four contingent "Dreadnoughts"?

§ The CHAIRMAN
I have looked into that matter very carefully, and, having regard to previous rulings on Supplementary Estimates, I think that question was settle in Debate on 26th July. The point in order here is as to the acceleration of the programme, and the reason why we are spending extra money in this year for "Dreadnoughts." The general Debate must take place on the Estimates for next year.

§ Mr. DILLON
But are we not entitled to debate the reasons why the programme has been accelerated?

§ The CHAIRMAN
Yes, I think that comes in.

§ Lord CHARLES BERESFORD
It will be very difficult for me, so full of naval information as I am, to confine myself within the rules of order with regard to this Supplementary Estimate, but there are one or two questions raised by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Islington which I think I can answer. 920 The right hon. Gentleman asks what is the reason for this Estimate. My reply is that the reasons are to be found in the statements made by right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Bench who started the scare—perhaps I ought not to say the scare—I do not agree that that is a proper word. They told us the truth last March, that this country had arrived at a crisis in its history on naval procedure in connection with the shipbuilding being carried on by a neighbouring country. In speaking of that neighbouring country, I think it would be well for us all, no matter to what party we belong, to refer to it with dignity and not to say anything of an irritating character, for, after all, that country is only doing what it has a perfect right to do, however many "Dreadnoughts" it may build. The Chancellor of the Exchequer smiles. I think that the right hon. Gentleman himself has been guilty of using language towards that country which was very likely to create irritation there.

§ The CHAIRMAN
The Noble Lord is now going outside the subject of the Supplementary Estimate.

§ Lord CHARLES BERESFORD
Following the tack of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Islington, I will endeavour to keep within order, and I will undertake to deal with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, if he will allow me, on another occasion. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Islington has complained that this Vote shows a 40 per cent. increase over the Estimate of last year.

§ Mr. LOUGH
Forty per cent. increase on the increase of the Estimate of last year.

§ Lord CHARLES BERESFORD
The increase of last year over the year before?

§ Mr. LOUGH
Yes.

§ Lord CHARLES BERESFORD
Very well, but what will the right hon. Gentleman say when the Government produce their Estimates for this next year, Estimates brought about by the statements made on the Treasury Bench, corroborated by statements on these benches, and by men like myself. Although we are dubbed "scaremongers" and "panicmongers," I am sure hon. Gentlemen will give us credit for saying what we think in the interest of the defence of the country. There surely is nobody below the Gangway—I may not be quite sure about my own countrymen— 921 but there can be nobody who wants to see the old flag come down, although we go different ways to work in order to keep it up. The right hon. Gentleman, the Member for West Islington, asked how it was we had been dragged into this expenditure. I will tell him exactly how it was. It was the advertisement with regard to the "Dreadnought" and nothing else. Is that out of Order?

§ The CHAIRMAN
These questions of Order are always difficult to answer. I think it is out of Order because we decided last July that we were to have four more "Dreadnoughts" built. That settled practically the type of ship, and the Government have not departed from that type of ship. I, therefore, consider the matter settled. The Supplementary Estimate simply asks for money owing to the acceleration of the programme.

§ Lord CHARLES BERESFORD
Would it be wrong for me to point out why it is that this Supplementary Estimate is necessary?

§ The CHAIRMAN
I think that would be in Order.

§ Lord CHARLES BERESFORD
When the "Dreadnought" was built there was no advertisement of her, but, after she had been built, there was an advertisement held up to all the nations of the world, and particularly to Germany, saying that the new ship could sink the whole of their fleets. It is that advertisement which has run us into this enormous expenditure of money—an expenditure which will go up to £60,000,000. [An HON. MEMBER: "Who said it?"] I am not going into personalities. It was said by people connected with the Admiralty, and nobody on the Front Bench will deny that it was said, and the result of these very arrogant statements is that this country will have to pay £60,000,000 extra, and we shall not get out of it any cheaper.

§ The CHAIRMAN
I am very sorry to interrupt the Noble Lord. He is really discussing the question whether the "Dreadnought" is the best type of ship, whereas he should discuss the narrower question of the acceleration of the programme.

§ Mr. GIBSON BOWLES
I understood you to say, Mr. Chairman, that the question of ordering the four extra "Dreadnoughts" was settled last July. I regret I was not then in the House. That was a 922 matter beyond my control. But I believe I am right in saying that no Estimate was taken for the four "Dreadnoughts," and that being so, I submit that this is the original Estimate, and, while on the Supplementary Estimate, it is not allowable to deal with the principle of the Vote, This, I submit, is, in effect, an original Vote, and, therefore, we are entitled to deal with the whole principle involved.

§ The CHAIRMAN
That is the ordinary rule, but in this particular case there was a Debate on this particular question last July, and I consider that that settles the principle.

§ Mr. GIBSON BOWLES
But if there was no Estimate, then I submit that this must be treated as the original Estimate on which the question of principle can be raised.

§ The CHAIRMAN
That is exactly the point I have decided. I have considered the matter carefully, and I rule that it has been settled. I admit the circumstances are unusual.

§ Lord CHARLES BERESFORD
I hope I shall be in Order in referring to a statement by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Islington in which he said that he calculated that Germany would only have a certain number of "Dreadnoughts" at a particular time. I think he was totally incorrect. If we turn to what was said in the very alarming speech made by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs it was there calculated that Germany could, by acceleration, have twenty-three "Dreadnoughts" by 1913–14, and this speech to which I am referring produced so much anxiety that the very next day our Colonies telegraphed over to say that they would help us in any way they could, because the crisis was so apparent from the speeches made by responsible Ministers of the Crown. The fact that Germany, according to the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, can have twenty-three "Dreadnoughts" by 1913–14 answers the question of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Islington.

§ Mr. LOUGH
On that I can form my own judgment.

§ Lord CHARLES BERESFORD
It may be a very good judgment, but it may not be correct. I agree with the hon. Member for the Fareham Division of Hampshire that the only fault we can find with this Supplementary Estimate is that it is not nearly enough. In view of the fact 923 that what the Secretary for Foreign Affairs said last March was correct, I con tend that the Estimate is not nearly enough for the crisis then pointed out. I quite understand the desire of hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway for economy—I perfectly sympathise with that desire—but I want the country de fended first. What has happened is this: The Empire has really been forced into its present condition by respect for authority. It does believe in authority, and it believes also that that authority has been telling us matters of fact for the last four years. When a man like myself or those who think with him gets up and tells the truth, it is the tendency of public opinion to believe that authority is correct; but how can the statements that are made now be regarded as true after those made last March, which gave rise to all the anxiety and started the scare in this country? It must be borne in mind that our side did not start the scare—it was the Government who did so—and how can the Government come down to this House, as the Prime Minister did the other day, and say, although the circum stances are precisely the same, the Fleet is now unassailable, and will be so in the future? And how, on top of that, are you going to justify the producing of Estimates for £6,000,000 or £8,000,000 more expenditure? How are hon. Members opposite going to swallow those two statements? That is what we want to know when the Estimates come forward, and we really can discuss them. How can it be said that, while you were in a crisis last March and you were perfectly safe on the eve of the election, and it is now necessary to bring forward this extra sum for the House to vote in three or four weeks—

§ The CHAIRMAN
The hon. Member is not in order in discussing the Navy Estimates. This is only a Supplementary Estimate, and he must make his remarks upon that.

§ Lord CHARLES BERESFORD
I am very sorry that I have transgressed again, Sir, but I am so keen on this subject. I will go on to deal with the question which the right hon. Gentleman was asked about these torpedo-boat destroyers. Can he inform us whether it will be possible to turn out our destroyers as quickly as Germany does? As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the Germans turn out their destroyers in about eight or nine months, and our average is about nineteen. And 924 what they can do we can do. In their case, directly the money is voted in Germany, they begin work at once; but we have an extraordinary system of putting down the money and commencing next year. For instance, the twenty boats that were voted last year have only just been laid down, and some of them have not been laid down. Some of them were laid down in December and some in January. But out of twenty boats some of them are not laid down yet. Why cannot we commence as soon as we get the money, as the Germans do?

§ Mr. McKENNA
The Noble Lord is quite wrong on that point.

§ Lord CHARLES BERESFORD
Which point?

§ Mr. McKENNA
The point that the twenty destroyers of this year's programme have not been laid down. They have all been laid down.

§ Lord CHARLES BERESFORD
When?

§ Mr. McKENNA
They were ordered from the contractors last September or October for delivery eighteen months from that date. They will be delivered in March of next year.

§ Lord CHARLES BERESFORD
Yes, I am wrong in a few weeks. The money was voted last March, and the right hon. Gentleman says that they were not laid down till October—that is my point.

§ Mr. McKENNA
No, that is not the Noble Lord's point.

§ Lord CHARLES BERESFORD
Yes, it was.

§ Mr. McKENNA
The Noble Lord within the hearing of this Committee said that the destroyers in this year's programme were not yet laid down. It was on that point that I rose to contradict him, and I beg that the Noble Lord will strictly confine himself to the actual statements that were made.

§ Lord CHARLES BERESFORD
My point was this: Although I may have been incorrect in saying that they were not yet laid down—the right hon. Gentleman knows more about that than I do—my point was this—and I am sorry that I did not put it clearer—we take our money in March, and we do not begin till October or November, and we go sometimes up to the following March before we lay down our vessels. Is not that so?

§ Mr. McKENNA
Sometimes.

§ Lord CHARLES BERESFORD
The right hon. Gentleman has not improved matters, but I will put it to him that I do not think it is business.

§ Mr. McKENNA
The Germans do exactly the same.

§ Lord CHARLES BERESFORD
No; the Germans finish their boats in eight or nine months, and we take nineteen.

§ Mr. McKENNA
No.

§ Lord CHARLES BERESFORD
Well, I will give the right hon. Gentleman a' list to-morrow. I know the boats.

§ Mr. McKENNA
The Germans do exactly the same.

§ Lord CHARLES BERESFORD
No, they do not do exactly the same, because they finish in eight or nine months, and we finish them in nineteen. It is no use the right hon. Gentleman shaking his head; it is so. I will also inform the right hon. Gentleman of this, and I think he will agree with me that these two boats that were bought out of some of this money from the Supplementary Estimates were not a good purchase. I know there is a difference of opinion about that, but I have tried these boats over and over again. At present we have ready only thirty-two of the River class and twelve of the Tribal class which are suitable for the North Sea, but not one of the 30-knotters are suitable for the North Sea, and not one of the 27-knotters are either. I have tried them over and over again, and they are not suited for the simple reason that they are not big enough. They are only 400 tons instead of 750, or 1,000 as the new boats are which you are building. The point is this, that these boats are your great weakness, and what I complain of is that your Supplementary Estimate was not very much larger. You created the scare last March, and my complaint is that your Supplementary Estimate is not larger for that class of vessel, and that you know perfectly well.

§ Mr. McKENNA
Which class of vessel?

§ Lord CHARLES BERESFORD
The torpedo-boat destroyers.

§ Mr. McKENNA
This is the class of vessel which the Noble Lord says is unsuited for its work, and he referred to two destroyers we have bought. What class of vessel does he believe these two destroyers belong to? I have already stated 926 that they are two of the new River Class, and the Noble Lord seems to assume that they are of the old 30-knotter class. They are not.

§ Lord CHARLES BERESFORD
I have never said so. It is very difficult for a simple-minded seaman to get round a lawyer, but if you give him time he always manages it. I complained that there were not more of these built. The two boats built were the old River Class not the Tribal Class. My point is that looking to war, which is the only thing we never think about, when we spend all this money—looking to war you have very few vessels suitable to the North Sea, and you ought to have a great many more provided for in this Supplementary Estimate. I cannot deal further with that point now, but I will deal with it when we get into the Navy Estimates. There is, however, another point I wish to put to the right hon. Gentleman. I want to protest altogether against any of these new ships for which you are giving this money being actuated, or their guns or machinery actuated by electricity, and I want to give my reasons why. I will take the "Invincible"—

§ Mr. McKENNA
Can I save the Noble Lord any trouble by saying that they are not going to be actuated by electricity?

§ Lord CHARLES BERESFORD
You save me a considerable amount of trouble, and from dwelling upon the extraordinary failure of the "Invincible." I am afraid, however, I am not in order again, Mr. Chairman, so I will not touch upon the question of the "Invincible," but I must ask the right hon. Gentleman, and I think the right hon. Gentleman below me has asked him the same question, if this £50,000 wages involves a reduction of amount? I would also ask him as to whether recruiting has been stopped? I gather that it has not, but he will remember that it was stopped suddenly in 1907 by order. Another point is, are the Colonial Reserves in Australia included in any reduction, or do they come in in any way?

§ Mr. McKENNA
There is no reduction.

§ Lord CHARLES BERESFORD
Will the right hon. Gentleman explain to me what the items of Sub-head G £59,000, and Sub-head L £11,000, consist of. They amount together to £70,000, and I should like an explanation of them, and also of the Sub-head dealing with £38,000. I should like to know why the sums are introduced into Supplementary Estimates. 927 There is a great deal more I should like to bring forward, but I am afraid it will not be in order, so I will wait till the Navy Estimates are before the House. I hope, however, the right hon. Gentleman will kindly answer my questions.

§ Mr. G. N. BARNES
I rise to say I shall give my humble support for what it is worth to my right hon. Friend the Member for West Islington (Mr. Lough), and shall certainly vote with him if he goes to a Division on this Vote. I do so because, of the £689,000 asked for by this Vote, £457,000 of that money is in respect of the four additional "Dreadnoughts." Inasmuch as I think that that expenditure has been incurred because of statements which I believe to be untrue and unwarranted, I am not going to vote for this additional expenditure arising therefrom. The ground has been pretty well covered by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Islington in regard to the acceleration, or alleged acceleration, of the German programme. I think the scare has been utterly discredited so far as that part of the matter is concerned. So far as I can see, as a matter of fact, the German programme laid down in 1900 has been acted on since that time, except that on two occasions there have been changes in that programme consequent upon newer ideas and later facts in regard to the life time of ships. I shall say no more about that, but I want to refer to other points, as I am sure the scare last year was really on the acceleration of the German programme, and the alleged increase in the number of men employed by Messrs. Krupp, who, it was said, had been subsidised by the German Government. I remember the statement was made by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Fareham (Mr. A. Lee) on 17th March of last year. He said his conviction—

§ Mr. ARTHUR LEE
I rise to a point of Order. The hon. Gentleman is proceeding to subjects which are extremely interesting, and about which I shall be glad to make a reply, but I should like to know whether the statement I made last Session as to Krupp's works would be in order on this Vote?

§ The CHAIRMAN
What is in order is anything that turns upon the acceleration of the German programme affecting our own programme. Some remarks have already been made with regard to Krupp's, and I will not stop the hon. Member.

§ Mr. BARNES
I gather that I am justified in referring to certain statements which were made on which our increased expenditure was partially based, and included in those statements was the one that Messrs. Krupp's were employing on the 17th of last March, or some time immediately prior to that date, 38,000 more men than they had employed the year before. That is a perfectly plain straightforward statement which is recorded in the OFFICIAL REPORT, and it was on that statement very largely that we have been landed in this additional expenditure for "Dreadnoughts," and for which we are asked to pay an additional sum of £457,000. I say there is absolutely no shred of justification for any such statement. I have figures which I copied from Kuhlow's "Trade Report," issued in Berlin, and I had the figures from other sources last year. I find that in 1907 there was a total of 64,353 men employed by Messrs. Krupp's, of whom 35,475 were employed at Essen, which is the place where men are employed in the sort of work we are now discussing. On 1st January, 1909, which I suppose was the date the hon. Gentleman had in his mind when speaking, there were employed at Krupp's 63,191 men, or 1,162 fewer than the total number of men employed in 1907, and there were in Essen last year 34,917 men, or actually 558 men fewer employed in the construction of war material instead of, as has been stated, and has never yet been withdrawn, 38,000 more than there had been the year before. I want to read now a letter which, I think, fairly well clinches this particular point, which is taken from "The Times," and it contains a statement made by the chairman of Krupp's works, written on 23rd December, 1909. He says: It can only confirm your supposition that there is not a word of truth in the statement that we have recently taken on 38,00ft new hands at our works at Essen. That represents about the whole number of our employés here. During the last three months there has been no addition to the staff, which remains numerically practically what it was in 1906–7. This is the sort of statement by which this country has been launched not into an expenditure of £457,000–that is only a little bit on account—but an expenditure of £8,000,000 of money, and I should be wanting in my duty and false to my trust to my Constituents, as well as to my class, if I sat here and allowed this Vote to go without at all events my emphatic protest. We want the money for other purposes. We have heard a good deal about old age pensions and the pauper disqualification. 929 Not a single man on the Front Bench has justified it. All they have said is, "We cannot afford to give the paupers this pension, we cannot afford to do many other things, because we want the money, and because we want this money for national defence." I protest against hon. Gentlemen opposite claiming any monopoly of the desire for national defence. I am as eager as any of them for national defence. I want to have our Navy sufficiently strong for all legitimate purposes, but I protest emphatically against these statements, coming from whatever source they may, and I specially emphatically protest and deplore them coming from either one of those Front Benches, which has the effect of inflating these Navy Votes, and therefore of depriving us of the opportunity of giving pensions on that generous and liberal scale that I believe nine men out of ten in this House would like to give. It is because I think there was no justification for that scare upon which this inflated Estimate was based, and because we want the money for other purposes, that I shall certainly vote with my right hon. Friend.

§ Mr. J. D. REES
I trust I may be forgiven for intervening amongst Admirals and Ministers, my only excuse really being that in the last Parliament I acted as Secretary for a group, which is now unfortunately scattered, which was busily occupied in combating views such as we have just heard from the hon. Member (Mr. Barnes). I understand the First Lord to say that the "Dreadnoughts" which are now being built will be ready in twenty-seven months. The Prime Minister last year confessed that the confident assurance given in April, 1908, that it would take the Germans thirty months to build a "Dreadnought," whereas we could build one in twenty-four, has been falsified by the event. But I do not know if the House is to take it that the building of a "Dreadnought" in England now takes twenty-seven months. If so, it appears to me to be a new departure, and to bear directly upon these Supplementary Estimates. Then a statement has been made in one or two quarters to the effect that there is no proof that the Germans will accelerate or may accelerate their programme. I may quote the words of General Gädke, one of the great naval authorities in Germany. He said that the sixteen capital ships can be completed by the beginning of 1912, and that the promises not to accelerate construction any further before 1912 are only acknowledgments of the fact that no more 930 money can be got out of the Reichstag. That seems to me to be a very material point, and when hon. Members say there is no proof that the Germans are accelerating their programme, it is relevant and legitimate to refer to the statement made by one of their own great experts, who absolutely ridicules the idea that they can be confined to any particular rate of progress or that anything in the world will affect that rate of progress except absolute inability to get more money from their Parliament to carry it on.
Then some doubt has been thrown upon the relative position as it will be in 1912 in regard to first-class capital ships. I believe these figures have not been disputed. In March, 1911, Great Britain will have twelve "Dreadnoughts" and Germany nine—a margin of three over the strength of a single Power. In April or May we shall have twelve and Germany will have eleven—a margin of one. In July the margin will stand also at one. In November they will have sixteen to thirteen, and in March it will be either sixteen to thirteen or twenty to seventeen, leaving in either case a margin of three, and no more, above a single Power. I submit that these figures dispose of the contention that the shipbuilding programme is the outward and visible sign of a policy of aggression and of military aggrandisement on the part of the Front Bench and this Government, which I submit is the last thing that anyone would possibly accuse this Government of, especially when it is remembered that it was in the effort to meet what was supposed to be a desire showed elsewhere for the limitation of armaments that the country fell behind, so as to make it necessary to put on these extra four contingent ships and to endeavour to recover the superiority which, if we had not lost, we were, at any rate, in considerable danger of losing. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Lough) expressed in the outset his desire to help the Government. It is possible the Government may say Non tali auxilio. But the right hon. Gentleman on another occasion said he did not think we need take thought for to-morrow in regard to battleships, which makes me extremely glad that all Privy Councillors are not consulted upon all occasions. He said that the increases last year were very much disliked. When the matter was last put to the vote there was an organisation led by the hon. Member for Falkirk Boroughs (Mr. Murray Macdonald) in favour of reduction.

§ The CHAIRMAN
The hon. Member is now discussing "Dreadnoughts." He should make his remarks relevant to the Supplementary Vote.

§ Mr. REES
The speech of the German Ambassador did not bear the construction which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Islington put upon it, but we were told, and equally truly, I have no doubt, that the German fleet was no more intended for aggression than ours is, but that the Germans were following the example of all great commercial nations in safeguarding their existence. I cannot see anything in that speech which would make this Supplementary Estimate superfluous or beyond the necessities of the case, and if it is regrettable to see expenditure increased in this way, surely, on the other hand, it must be remembered that, as the amount of goods to be insured increases, the amount paid for insurance must increase, that at present the total cost of the insurance of all the British capital in the world is about 3 per cent., and that as capital increases so the insurance must also increase. In every great and progressive State there must be an increase of the defences as that which has to be defended increases, and when that ceases to be the case the State is already upon the down grade.
8.0 P.M.
The Noble Lord opposite, I think, understated the case as put by Ministers. I understood the Foreign Secretary to state that when the German programme was complete they would have no fewer than thirty-three "Dreadnoughts," and were working up to that standard. The Noble Lord also referred to the question of the German votes for shipbuilding; but they have this enormous advantage over us, that their votes do not lapse at the end of the financial year. What is not spent is carried forward, and what in the intention of Parliament is voted for the defence of the country is never lost for that purpose. What is considered necessary in one Parliament is necessary in another. And as they work upon a programme, wisely extending over a series of years, the difficulties which result in this country, and the enormous injury to labour in the closing and reduction of establishments and dockyards—everyone on the Labour Benches objects when they affect his own constituency; they are all in favour of reductions, but individually they protest against them—are not experienced, because, though they work on a programme, their votes also are 932 interchangeable. They can change them from one head to another, as is required, and I regret that that is not the case here. I wish that, instead of having this Supplemental Estimate put in the manner in which it is, the Votes could be carried on and the business of the Navy managed in this country in the way it is in Germany. The hon. Member (Mr. Barnes) referred to the number of men engaged in Krupps works as a proof that there was no need for the addition of these ships which led to this Supplemental Vote, thereby, as I understand, trespassing upon the ruling of the Chair. Since he called in question the necessity for these ships which you have ruled cannot be discussed on this Estimate, may I say that Krupps is not the only shipbuilding firm in Germany, though it is the greatest in the world. Ships can be built there from keel to pennant in one yard, and not, as here, piecemeal in different places. It is not the case that these contingent ships were sanctioned because it was stated that there were extra men engaged in Krupps works, but because it was considered that it was absolutely necessary—

§ The CHAIRMAN
The hon. Member is talking of the ordering of these ships. That is not the question. The only question is the expenditure for this year. I have already warned the hon. Member, and I must warn him again, to confine his remarks to that subject.

§ Mr. REES
My hon. Friend the Member for the Blackfriars Division said he wanted money for social reform, and that he was eager for national defence. I heartily accept that from him, but I would point out that neither he nor I, nor any lay Member, is in a position to judge what is necessary for national defence, and that all of us should accept the conclusions on that score of the technical advisers of the Admiralty, and, as I do for the present, the representatives of the Admiralty in this House.

§ Mr. LOUGH
Perhaps it would meet the general convenience if I were to say that owing to the extreme difficulties which have been placed on us by the restriction of the discussion, we do not feel that we are able to do justice to the case, as we should have done in other circumstances. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

§ Mr. PAGE CROFT
I wish to ask a question. In regard to the four contingent "Dreadnoughts," I should like to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if he can inform the Committee what was the actual reason why these four contingent "Dreadnoughts" were laid down. It will be remembered that the "Dreadnoughts" were promised because of the probability of four "Dreadnoughts" for Austria being laid down. I should like to know whether the four contingent "Dreadnoughts" were laid down because of the acceleration in the German programme?

§ The SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara)
I will make one general comment arising out of the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for the Blackfriars Division (Mr. Barnes). Of course, we all regret having to come to the House for this large additional sum. I have no desire, and I do not suppose anybody else has any desire, to build "Dreadnoughts" for the mere morbid pleasure of building them; but we must make national security amply safe, and if there is any doubt about the matter at all, the benefit of that doubt must be on the side of national safety. Having made that general remark, I pass on to deal with the questions which have been raised. The hon. Member for Fareham (Mr. Arthur Lee) and the Noble Lord the Member for Portsmouth (Lord Charles Beresford) asked in regard to these surpluses which we are applying in mitigation of the Supplementary Vote, and they were anxious as to whether in the application of these surpluses we might not be doing less than justice to the work under taken in the original Votes. In regard to the surplus of £33,000, on Sub-head B, that is in respect of auxiliary machinery—

§ Mr. ARTHUR LEE
For the four ships.

§ Dr. MACNAMARA
It has nothing to do with the four ships. It is on auxiliary machinery generally. The Estimate originally for this purpose was £170,968. Of that sum we take £33,000, making the revised Estimate £137,968. The explanation of that is that we have come to certain decisions to modify what we originally proposed in regard to alterations on auxiliary machinery for ships, and I can confidently say that in no way do these modifications of the original decisions affect the fighting efficiency of the ships. In addition to that, there has been failure on the part of contractors to earn the amount anticipated when the original Estimates were set 934 down. On Vote 9 G. we now anticipate £59,000 surplus. The hon. Member for Fareham and the Noble Lord the Member for Portsmouth asked particularly as to that. Well, it is chiefly due to the progress of projectiles particularly, the trade supply being less than was anticipated. The surplus on Vote L, amounting to £11,000, is due to the fact that the shipments to and from foreign stations were not so great as originally anticipated when the Estimate was made.

§ Mr. ARTHUR LEE
I understand the hon. Gentleman to say that there was a short supply of projectiles and that the surplus is due to failure on the part of the trade to supply the goods ordered by the Admiralty.

§ Dr. MACNAMARA
The progress was not so great as when the Estimate was originally prepared in regard to projectiles.

§ Mr. ARTHUR LEE
Then you are short of what you expected to have.

§ Dr. MACNAMARA
There is another answer. The Estimate would have to be made fifteen or eighteen months before the close of the financial year to which it referred, and although the forecast might not have been closely accurate, I cannot admit for a moment that we are short of what the necessities of the case require. On page 3 of the Supplementary Estimate there is an item of £38,900 on the Works Vote, and there is an item of £177,000 surplus on the new Works Vote. These sums are largely at our disposal because of slower progress having been made than was anticipated in contract work.

§ Mr. ARTHUR LEE
I think the hon. Gentleman has hardly sufficiently dealt with the surplus on the Works Votes. He knows that some works have been unaccountably delayed—for instance, the works at Portsmouth—and the reason is freely stated to be that money is not forthcoming from the Admiralty.

§ Dr. MACNAMARA
I cannot admit that. I have in my hand details of the work on which the surplus arises. I was really paraphrasing this detailed statement which I have had prepared when I said that this surplus was chiefly because of the slower progress being made than was anticipated on the contract work.

§ Mr. ARTHUR LEE
My question is, who is responsible for this progress not having been made? Surely it rests mainly on the Admiralty?

§ Dr. MACNAMARA
When the contract is signed the work proceeds, and if the contractor does not earn what we forecasted he might have earned, then we are in a position to transfer the surplus to some other Vote in the Estimates.

§ Lord CHARLES BERESFORD
made a remark which was inaudible in the Gallery.

§ Dr. MACNAMARA
Take the case of Rosyth. We offer a bonus for expedition, and we impose penalties for delay. There have been delays, of course, in respect of which neither party can take credit. It will be observed from the Supplementary Estimate that we are taking the opportunity to make a commencement with two urgent works of considerable magnitude. We are making provision for a new Destroyer dock at Plymouth, and for a suction dredger, in order to provide accommodation for a floating dock. With regard to Vote A and 1, questions were asked as to why we have been able to transfer a £50,000 surplus on that Vote. I can assure hon. Gentlemen opposite that there is no reduction of personnel. The £50,000 is now at our disposal because of new schemes with various conditions of pay. These changes during the course of the year made it very difficult indeed to forecast with any degree of accuracy the expenditure for such a very large body of men. The Estimate has to be prepared fifteen months ahead of the close of the year in which the money is spent, and when I state that £50,000 is only.8 variation from the original Estimate, having regard to the number of men and the schemes in operation, it will be seen that it is not a serious variation, and in any case it does not represent a reduction of any kind whatever in personnel. With regard to destroyers, we bought two of the River class, and they are useful boats. I gathered from what was said by the hon. Gentleman opposite that naval opinion is divided as to their usefulness for the purpose we have in view. I do not think I need follow my hon. Friend the Member for Islington (Mr. Lough) into his general exposition of naval policy. The proper time it seems to me will be the week after next, when we submit to the Committee the Navy Estimates for the year 1910–11.
I do not know that I should be in order in going into the question of the superiority of the "Dreadnought" type of battleship, on which the Noble Lord has put some views to the Committee. I only 936 know that so far as I am concerned, inquiring with such care as a layman can apply, that it seems to me that the "Dreadnought" was in any case inevitable; and the best test of this is that after examining the type with very great care, and for a considerable period, other countries have found it necessary to take up that type. And I believe I am right in saying that at least on one occasion the Noble Lord himself passed some eulogistic comments on the "Dreadnought" type of battleship. The Noble Lord is doubtful as to whether this Supplementary Estimate is enough.

§ Lord CHARLES BERESFORD
Yes.

§ Dr. MACNAMARA
I remember on one occasion he unfolded a programme before the London Chamber of Commerce.

§ Lord CHARLES BERESFORD
I stick to it still.

§ Dr. MACNAMARA
They promptly told the Noble Lord that that was not enough. The Noble Lord wrote a letter to "The Times" the next day. It appears he had been criticised.

§ Lord CHARLES BERESFORD
Those are the wild men.

§ Dr. MACNAMARA
One of the wild men is sitting right in front of the Noble Lord.

§ Lord CHARLES BERESFORD
Certainly not.

§ Dr. MACNAMARA
Yes, one of these who think that we should lay down two keels to one in "Dreadnoughts."

§ Mr. ARTHUR LEE
The hon. Gentleman is entitled to make any suggestions he likes. I have never said anything of the kind. But I am in favour of maintaining the two-Power standard in the fullest sense.

§ Dr. MACNAMARA
I certainly understood that the hon. Gentleman was in favour of laying down two keels to one laid down by Germany.

§ Mr. ARTHUR LEE
If the hon. Gentleman will take the trouble to read any public writings of mine which have appeared during the last year on the subject he will find that I did nothing of the kind.

§ Dr. MACNAMARA
That was my impression. The Noble Lord prepared a programme which I gather was not considered quite enough. He said, "I do not want my countrymen to pay for some- 937 thing which is not visible," and he goes on to conclude in this letter to "The Times" that these figures, the cost of his programme, suggest the necessity of caution, and that they should look not to indefinite contingencies which can be provided against when they materialise, but to a definite and actually existing state of things. I venture to go the length of saying that is the basis on which the Supplementary Estimate is prepared, and therefore the Noble Lord need have no anxiety as to its not being sufficient for the work for which we are responsible. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Fareham challenged the arithmetic of the estimate. The original Estimate for Vote 10, Sub-head B, as he will see, was £1,204,420. Then we transfer to Sub-head M new suction dredger, £34,000. We appropriate in aid of Supplementary Estimate generally £177,000. Those two together make it £211,000. And if he will subtract those from the original Estimate and then add the £100 token vote, he gets £993,520, which is the figure given as the revised Estimate.

§ Mr. ARTHUR LEE
I think the hon. Gentleman will admit that, on the face of the Estimate, that does not appear. His Estimate should be presented to the House of Commons, who are not experts, in a form in which it can be understood. I do not pretend to understand his explanation.

§ Dr. MACNAMARA
I am very sorry for that, but they are presented in a form which makes that calculation, if the hon. Gentleman will follow us, absolutely simple.

§ Mr. ARTHUR LEE
If you will explain it.

§ Dr. MACNAMARA
I have done my best, and cannot do any more.

§ Mr. ARTHUR LEE
Why is the £34,000 to be taken, and not the £5,000 upon similar services?

§ Dr. MACNAMARA
That is Sub-head M and the other is Part 1 B. There are other questions which the Committee would wish to discuss, but I venture to suggest that the time for doing so is when the Estimates for 1910–11 are submitted. The hon. Gentle man asked whether I could issue the Estimate to Members a little earlier than usual so as to allow them a somewhat longer interval. I am afraid I cannot promise owing to the exigencies of printing that they shall be issued before Thursday (to- 938 morrow) evening week; and we must keep to the time, which will be the following Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday, the 14th, 15th, and 16th, for the discussion of the Estimates. Therefore, perhaps, hon. and right hon. Gentlemen will do the best they can between the 10th and the 14th in studying the Estimate. It would be physically impossible to undertake to issue the Estimate carlier.
The hon. Member for Christchurch asked about the second four ships. We stated on the face of the Estimates for 1909–10 the conditions as to the powers we took to collect material and the circumstances under which we could carry them out. On 26th July of last year the First Lord said, "after very anxious and careful examination of the conditions of shipbuilding in foreign countries the Government have come to the conclusion that it is desirable to take all the necessary steps to insure that the second four ships in this year's programme should be completed by March, 1912. They propose to take all the necessary steps," and so on; and he went on to say that if we liquidated any liability incurred before 31st March we would come here as we have done now and submit an Estimate for the purpose of meeting that liability.

§ Mr. PAGE CROFT
My question was why these four contingent ships were laid down. We were informed by the Prime Minister, on July 26th, that the ships were going to be laid down on account of the Italian and Austrian programme of four "Dreadnoughts" each.

§ Dr. MACNAMARA
The First Lord said, "After very anxious and careful examination of the conditions of shipbuilding in foreign countries," and he goes on to say that the Government have come to the conclusion that these ships should be laid down.

§ Lord CHARLES BERESFORD
I am not finding the least fault with laying them down. They should have been laid down last year. But the point is this: The Prime Minister gave as his reason that the four would be necessary on account of German acceleration, whereas the First Lord of the Admiralty gave as the reason that the Italians were building four last year, and that Austria was commencing four. As a matter of fact, Italy has only commenced one, and Austria has not commenced any at all. I am not finding fault with the Supplementary Estimate for building the "Dreadnought," but the 939 reasons given are totally contrary. What my hon. Friend wanted to know is which reason is correct. It is really because of German acceleration.

Mr. E. KELLY
As an Irish Member I find myself as a voice crying in the wilder ness, for I look around and see nothing but empty benches. Still it occurs to me that Irish Members ought seriously to consider whether they ought not to support with might and main all increased Votes for the nation. Of course, we know that not a plank will be bought in Ireland and not a single Irishman will be employed, but still we are aware that an Irish industry is being attacked and that an Irish industry needs defence. I refer to the injury done to steam trawling, to the spawning beds off the Irish coast; and it occurs to me that when we have reached the full level of the two-Power standard, and when we have two war vessels to one of all the other countries of the world, that possibly the Admiralty will be able to spare one of those coast boats or river boats to preserve the Irish spawning beds from destruction by the steam trawlers. You would then do some thing which has not been done up to the present time on behalf of a valuable industry. Anyone strolling along the sea shore—

§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Mr. Whitley)
The hon. Member is introducing a question which does not concern the Supplementary Estimate. He is raising a matter of policy, which can only come on when the main Estimate is brought forward, the week after next.

Mr. KELLY
I bow to your ruling, Sir. I will be sure to raise the question on the Naval Estimates.

Vote 8.—Shipbuilding, Repairs Maintenance, etc. (Section III. Contract Work)	£830,000
Vote 9.—Naval Armaments	86,000
Vote 10.—Works, Buildings, and Repairs, etc.	100
	£916,100
Less other Surpluses	227,000
	£689,100