§
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £4,126,500, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Naval Armaments, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1923, in addition to a sum of £938,000 to be allocated for this purpose from the sum of £12,000,000 voted on account of Navy Services generally.
§ Sir D. MACLEANI beg to move,
That Sub-head G [Projectiles and Ammunition] be reduced by £10,000.This Vote is for Naval armaments, and on Subhead G—Projectiles and Ammunition—I desire to refer to the comments of the Geddes Committee. It will be observed that the Item is for no less a sum than £1,255,800. That, of course, is a reduction as compared with last year, but, even as it stands, it is subject to 2040 this comment, which the Geddes Committee made:As regards projectiles and ammunition, estimated to cost £1,800,000, the largest item is for the manufacture of shell for the larger guns of capital ships. The expenditure under this head alone accounts for some £800,000. It is admitted that of this type of shell the ships already hold one complete 'outfit' on board, and there is half an 'outfit' ashore. This means that half an 'outfit' is still required to complete the authorised reserve. The Admiralty propose practically to complete this reserve during the coming financial year, but having regard to the existing stick of this particular ammunition we are of opinion that the completion of the full establishment could be spread over a longer period.Then they make a comment on what happened during the War. They say:We are informed that in the four years of the War the Navy fired only half an outfit out of the three outfits which were then authorised. At this rate of expenditure the two and a half outfits which remain are equivalent to 20 years' consumption on the basis of the late War, and yet it is proposed to spend close on £2,000,000 on ammunition alone.I want to know what explanation there can be on the grounds of economy or of the necessary protection of the country. There cannot be any fresh grant of ammunition for the new classes of guns, except, I suppose, on the "Hood," and therefore it leaves the subject very much open to comment, and requiring an explanation, when such a clear-cut and definite statement and recommendation as that is made.
§ Viscount CURZONI am not sure whether the right hon. Gentleman who has moved this reduction really appreciates the extreme importance of this matter. He has asked why there is an increase on this Vote, and I should like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether it is not a fact that a good deal of the increase may be accounted for by the necessity for getting ahead with the ammunition for the new ships that are to be laid down? They are equipped with 16-inch guns, as against 15-inch guns.
§ Sir D. MACLEANThey have two years.
§ Viscount CURZONYes, but I hope the shells provided for the Fleet now are a great improvement on the type that we had before, with the new explosive and so on. I do not know whether the Geddes Committee really took all these facts into consideration. I hope the Parliamentary 2041 Secretary will be able to say, in replying to the criticisms which have been advanced by the right hon. Gentleman, whether the Geddes Committee had before them, when they made their recommendation, the necessity of changing practically the entire big-gun ammunition of the Fleet in order to provide for the new pattern shell, filled with the new type of explosive now supplied to the Fleet as a whole. I think a full statement on that point might clear up a certain amount of the opposition to this Vote.
§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYI am sure the Parliamentary Secretary will be glad of another moment to look at his notes, and I might also ask him a question as well. Would it not have been better to economise a little on ammunition for the next two years—and this is in reply to my Noble Friend also—because the last word in projectiles has not been said at all? If hon. Members will look at this item, they will notice that no loss a sum than £13,000 odd is asked for for experimental purposes. The recent improvements in projectiles and explosives have been very great indeed, and we are still on the curve of fresh research and discovery in regard to ammunition. That being the case, of course, we ought to hold our hands and not expend great amounts on ammunition for these new ships. We have plenty of ammunition to go on with, even plenty of 16-inch ammunition—
§ Viscount CURZONWill the hon. and gallant Gentleman say on what ships 16-inch guns are mounted?
§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYIn any case, we have plenty of ammunition for the four ships projected and started last year, the building of which was stopped. I think there is a case for holding our hands here. The same thing applies to the whole of the new construction on which the Admiralty are embarking, at the beginning instead of the end of the eight years' naval holiday that Washington provided.
§ Mr. AMERYThe right hon. Member for Peebles (Sir D. Maclean) complained of the very small reduction of this Vote. At first sight it seems to be a reduction of a mere £600 on a vote of £1,900,000. A reduction of something like 35 per cent. is not in itself an inconsiderable reduction 2042 unless you assume that last year's Vote was grossly and hopelessly extravagant.
§ Sir D. MACLEANSo it was.
§ Mr. AMERYI think I can explain the matter in very few words. The right hon. Gentleman said it had been pointed out by the Geddes Committee that in four years of the Great War we had only consumed half the ammunition. What happened was that during the four years there was only one large fleet engagement and that was not very prolonged. It might very easily happen in another war that more ammunition might be fired in the first fortnight than was the case in those four years. With regard to the point put by the Noble Lord the Member for South Battersea (Viscount Curzon), it is quite true that as the result of experience we had constructed an entirely different type of shell and we are slowly beginning to build up that new type, but the provision of that new type accounts for only a comparatively small portion of this Vote. The Vote this year is £1,250,000.
The normal practice consumption of the Navy costs £1,250,000. It may seen a very large figure, but practice is absolutely essential to success in battle. One successful broadside may sink an enemy ship and turn the whole scale of a battle. Nobody with any knowledge of the subject would venture to suggest that you should cut down the practice firing of the Navy. How can we keep within £1,250,000, not only for practice firing, but for gradual provision for the rearmament of the whole fleet with two outfits of new shells and the provision of £421,000 for the ammunition of the 16-inch guns, and the two new capital ships? We are only enabled to do so by, as the hon. and gallant Member for Hull suggested, using up old stocks of ammunition, and not spending more than £350,000 at the outside in new expenditure upon shells for practice firing, but drawing the greater part of our shells from existing stores.
Captain BENNWere these facts, which the right hon. Gentleman has just brought before the Committee, in justification for a figure in excess of what the Geddes Committee recommended, brought to the notice of the Geddes Committee?
§ Captain W. BENNThen we have the Geddes Committee set up with a great fanfare of trumpets to cut down the expenses of the country. Certain facts were presented to the Committee, which was presided over by an ex-First Lord of the Admiralty. The Committee recommended
§ Resolutions to be reported To-morrow.
2044§ a reduction, and the Government does not carry it out. That being so, I shall vote with confidence for the reduction.
§ Question put, "That Sub-head G be reduced by £10,000."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 43; Noes, 144.
2043| Division No. 228.] | AYES. | [10.58 p.m. |
| Acland, Rt. Hon. Francis D. | Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton) | Roberts, Frederick O. (W. Bromwich) |
| Banton, George | Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent) | Robertson, John |
| Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.) | Hayward, Evan | Rose, Frank H. |
| Barton, Sir William (Oldham) | Hirst, G. H. | Sexton, James |
| Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith) | Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) | Swan, J. E. |
| Birchall, J. Dearman | Kennedy, Thomas | Thomas, Brig,-Gen. Sir O. (Anglesey) |
| Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W. | Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M. | Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West) |
| Bromfield, William | Lawson, John James | Waterson, A. E. |
| Carter, W. (Nottingham, Mansfield) | Lunn, William | Watts-Morgan. Lieut.-Col. D. |
| Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock) | Maclean, Rt. Hn. Sir D.(Midlothian) | Wilson. James (Dudley) |
| Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton) | MacVeagh, Jeremiah | Wintringham, Margaret |
| Edwards, G. (Norfolk, South) | Malone, C. L. (Leyton, E.) | Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.) |
| Galbraith, Samuel | Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness & Ross) | |
| Gillis. William | Naylor, Thomas Ellis | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— |
| Guest, J. (York, W. R., Hemsworth) | Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring) | Mr. Penry Williams and Mr. Hogge. |
| NOES. | ||
| Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte | Gee, Captain Robert | Moreing, Captain Algernon H. |
| Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S. | Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham | Nall, Major Joseph |
| Armstrong, Henry Bruce | Gilbert, James Daniel | Neal, Arthur |
| Atkey, A. R. | Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel Sir John | Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter) |
| Baird, Sir John Lawrence | Gray, Major Ernest (Accrington) | Newton. Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge) |
| Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley | Green, Albert (Derby) | Nicholson, Brig.-Gen. J. (Westminster) |
| Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G. | Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.) | Nicholson, Reginald (Doncaster) |
| Barlow, Sir Montague | Grenfell, Edward Charles | Norris, Colonel Sir Henry G. |
| Barnston, Major Harry | Gretton, Colonel John | Norton-Griffiths, Lieut.-Col. Sir John |
| Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes) | Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. Frederick E. | Parker, James |
| Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W. | Hallwood, Augustine | Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike |
| Bennett, Sir Thomas Jewell | Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry | Pollock, Rt. Hon. Sir Ernest Murray |
| Bird, Sir William B. M. (Chichester) | Harmsworth, C. B. (Bedford, Luton) | Pratt, John William |
| Borwick, Major G. O. | Henderson, Lt.-Col. V. L. (Tradeston) | Pretyman, Rt. Hon. Ernest G. |
| Bowyer, Captain G. W. E. | Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford) | Purchase, H. G. |
| Bramsdon, Sir Thomas | Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank | Raw, Lieutenant-Colonel Dr. N. |
| Breese, Major Charles E. | Hills, Major John Waller | Remer, J. R. |
| Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive | Hinds, John | Richardson, Sir Alex. (Gravesend) |
| Brittain, Sir Harry | Hood, Sir Joseph | Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford) |
| Brown, Major D. C. | Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley) | Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor) |
| Brown, Brig.-Gen. Clifton (Newbury) | Houfton, John Plowright | Roundell, Colonel R. F. |
| Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A. | Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Ayimer | Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert Arthur |
| Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Birm., W.) | Inskip, Thomas Walker H. | Shaw, William T. (Forfar) |
| Chamberlain, N. (Birm., Ladywood) | James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert | Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T.) |
| Churchman, Sir Arthur | Jephcott, A. R. | Smith, Sir Allan M. (Croydon, South) |
| Clough, Sir Robert | Jodrell, Neville Paul | Smith, Sir Harold (Warrington) |
| Coats, Sir Stuart | Jones, Sir Evan (Pembroke) | Stanley, Major Hon. G. (Preston) |
| Colfox, Major Wm- Phillips | Jones. Henry Haydn (Merioneth) | Stephenson, Lieut.-Colonel H. K. |
| Conway, Sir W. Martin | Kellaway, Rt. Hon. Fredk. George | Sturrock, J. Leng |
| Coote, Colin Reith (Isle of Ely) | Kidd, James | Sugden, W. H. |
| Cory, Sir J. H. (Cardiff, South) | King, Captain Henry Douglas | Sutherland, Sir William |
| Cowan, Sir H. (Aberdeen and Kinc.) | Lane-Fox, G. R. | Taylor, J. |
| Curzon, Captain Viscount | Larmor, Sir Joseph | Thomas, Sir Robert J. (Wrexham) |
| Davidson, J. C. C. (Hemel Hempstead) | Lloyd. George Butler | Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South) |
| Davies, Thomas (Cirencester) | Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green) | Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (Maryhill) |
| Dawson, Sir Philip | Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (H'tingd'n) | Townley, Maximilian G. |
| Dewhurst, Lieut.-Commander Harry | Lowther, Maj.-Gen. Sir C. (Penrith) | Tryon, Major George Clement |
| Doyle, N. Grattan | Loyd, Arthur Thomas (Abingdon) | Wallace, J. |
| Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon) | Mackinder, Sir H. J. (Camlachie) | Walters, Rt. Hon. Sir John Tudor |
| Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M. | McLaren, Robert (Lanark, Northern) | Waring, Major Walter |
| Falcon, Captain Michael | M'Lean, Lieut.-Col. Charles W. W. | Weston, Colonel John Wakefield |
| Falie, Major Sir Bertram Godfray | Mallalieu, Frederick William | Windsor, Viscount |
| Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L. | Mason, Robert | Wise, Frederick |
| FitzRoy, Captain Hon. Edward A. | Meysey-Thompson, Lieut.-Col. E. C. | Wood. Hon. Edward F. L. (Ripon) |
| Foot, Isaac | Mitchell, Sir William Lane | Wood, Major Sir S. Hill- (High Peak) |
| Ford, Patrick Johnston | Molson, Major John Elsdale | |
| Forrest, Walter | Moore, Major-General Sir Newton J. | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— |
| Fraser, Major Sir Keith | Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C. | Colonel Leslie Wilson and Mr |
| Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E. | Morden, Col. W. Grant | Dudley Ward. |
| Ganzoni, Sir John |
Original Question put, and agreed to.
§ Committee to sit again To-morrow.