§ Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and to be printed; then (Standing Order No. XXXIX. having been suspended) moved that the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Selborne.)
§ EARL SPENCERMy Lords, I am not sure whether there is any precedent for a debate arising within a few hours of the prorogation of Parliament in this House, but I feel I must say something on this very important Bill. Two nights ago several noble Lords made a strong protest against the treatment by His Majesty's Government of this House of Parliament with regard to the bringing up of important measures within a few hours of Parliament being prorogued. The Factory Bill was a very important measure which your Lordships had to pass or reject on the spot. The present Bill and the Military Works Bill raise to an even greater extent the same principle. Here are two Bills which have not even been printed in this House, that have not been put down on the Notice Paper, and yet your Lordships are obliged to pass these Bills or reject them. No one, of course, proposes to reject them. Yet these two Bills alone involve an expenditure of over twelve millions sterling. I cannot help thinking that this is part and parcel of the general procedure now in Parliament. I venture to say that what has happened lately in Parliament, and what has grown lately very much indeed—namely, the practice of voting huge sums of money without any discussion—is very serious, and may lead to results which may affect the position of this House. I believe that during the present Parliament sixty-seven millions of money 1279 have been voted without discussion. Nothing will make me believe that out of those sixty-seven millions there were not some important Votes which deserved the full attention of Parliament. It was only a few weeks ago that I called attention to what happened in connection with some naval works at Gibraltar. When the noble Viscount Lord Goschen was at the head of the Admiralty, the plans which had been laid down when I was First Lord for the construction of a dock at Gibraltar were altered, and a further two or three millions added to the expenditure without a single word being said on the subject. This practice has been going on at an increasing rate. I do not say that the Government do this deliberately and in order to avoid discussion, but they so arrange the business, or under their management the business is so arranged, that it comes to the same thing, and ample time for discussion is not given to important matters. I think that this is a very serious thing.
The grand old traditions of Parliament are seriously endangered when the right of the House of Commons to deal with and to criticise expenditure is eaten into by the system of procedure in another place. Practically Parliament becomes merely a register office for the decrees of a Government with a large majority in both Houses. This serious state of things calls for a remedy not only in Parliament, but in the country as well, because those who take a pride in Parliament cannot allow this state of things to continue. What will that remedy be? It will in all probability take the form of a devolution more or less of the powers of Parliament and the giving of those powers to another assembly. With reference to this Bill, I believe that the noble Earl did not intend that it should be brought in at so late a period of the session. The noble Earl in his Memorandum indicated that it would "shortly be introduced," and this was on 1st March. It was not, however, until 2nd August that the measure was brought forward; and I should like to hear the reason for what I think is a mischievous delay. I remember the time when a measure of this kind was considered and actually carried before the close of March. I do not know of 1280 anything which required that the present measure should be brought before your attention so late in the session. I am not qualified to play "a game of Bowles" with the noble Earl, and therefore I shall not deal with Gibraltar. We have had a very satisfactory discussion in this House on that subject. The amount involved in the Bill reaches the total of £6,157,000. There are two important items which I should have been glad if there had been an opportunity of discussing. One refers to the Malta breakwater. I quite understand that some work is necessary there, but how it is to be done, and in what way it is to be done, we do not know. There is next the important question of coaling facilities for the Navy. That is an important matter, and I should desire full discussion upon it. That I or my friends desire to prevent Votes being taken I deny, but we feel strongly on the point of the small notice which has been given.
I feel considerable interest in the additional works at Hong Kong, a subject which engaged my attention before I left the Admiralty. Before we left office a representation was made as to what was proposed to be done in the naval yard there. As everyone knows, Hong Kong is situated on a very narrow plateau, and a desire was expressed on the part of the colony to make a very great improvement by the construction of a large esplanade on the sea front, which would be of enormous benefit to the colony. But the naval yard prevents that being done. When I was at the Admiralty a discussion arose as to whether the Admiralty should allow the colony to carry on their work along the sea-front, and I thought it was desirable, if possible, to arrange this. There has always been a question of transferring the dockyard to Kau-lung, on the mainland, but, though there were certain naval experts in favour of it, there were objections on strategical grounds to the transference. On my visit to Hong Kong I was struck by the narrow and confined space where the naval yard is situated. What struck me most was the great importance of acquiring a position on the mainland. When I came home I made private representations to the Government, 1281 both at the Admiralty and elsewhere, and pressed upon them how important it was that we should come to terms with China for the territory that commands this position. I am happy to say, though I am sure it was not owing to my action, but in consequence of the strong grounds there were in favour of this course, that not very long afterwards the Government negotiated with China and obtained this important concession. Therefore, the strategical objections which there were to placing the dockyard on the mainland have almost disappeared. I venture to hope that even now there may be an opportunity of reconsidering the decision of the Admiralty on this subject. It is true that some of the work has been done, and that a considerable portion of land has been reclaimed from the sea, which has increased the space in the dockyard, but I still maintain that there is not sufficient space there for the future requirements of the Fleet. At the present time the position of Hong Kong as a naval station has increased enormously in importance in the last few years through the necessity of having a strong fleet in Chinese waters. I there lore think it is of the utmost importance that, whatever is done at Hong Kong, any naval works undertaken ought to be constructed at a place where, if necessary, considerable expansion in the future can be made. I have always thought that, directly the strategical reasons against Kau-lung were overcome, Kau-lung was the proper place for our dockyard. I hope the noble Earl will consider this point about the Hong Kong dockyard, upon which I feel very strongly. It is most desirable that our naval power in the East should be supported by the most convenient docks, with such accommodation for future requirements as will hardly be given by the works now proposed.
§ *THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (The Earl of SELBORNE)My Lords, the noble Earl commenced his observations by pointing out the inconvenience of having to consider a Bill of this character under the present somewhat peculiar circumstances; but I do not think the case can be very well compared with that to which he also 1282 alluded—namely, the Factory Bill—because it was necessary that this Bill, from it character, should originate in another place. It could not emanate from your Lordships' House. I agree that that is no reason why the House should not discuss the Bill on its merits; and I sincerely regret that your Lordships have not had an earlier opportunity of dealing with the very important works authorised by the Bill. I entirely share the view that such a Bill ought to be subjected to most careful scrutiny, because, unless Parliament thoroughly understands the object of the Bill, the system has not the secure foundation of parliamentary approval which is to be desired. These Works Bills, recurring as they do from year to year, or as has more recently been the case biennially, undoubtedly commit the public to the expenditure of large sums of money, and it is for the Board of Admiralty to prove that such expenditure is necessary for the naval service. But I wish to point out that there would not have been anything like the present necessity for large expenditure on naval works all over the world, if such works had not been systematically neglected for many years. Not only have the present Board of Admiralty to meet the requirements of a largely increased Navy, and to utilise for the services of the country new inventions, but they have the very serious and deplorable arrears of many years to make up. When Lord Welby recently delivered an impressive speech warning Parliament and the country against the growth of military and naval expenditure, and looking back to the halcyon days of economy, he forgot to warn the country also that it was because economy had been unduly pressed and the needs of the Navy neglected that the present large expenditure has become inevitable. The noble Earl also protested against the way in which the new Supply rule in another place operated to shut out the discussion of many important subjects. Without attempting to criticise the discretion of the other House in the arrangement of its business, I must emphatically record my opinion that ample days were allotted for the discussion of Supply, and of all subjects of real public interest. It was because 1283 time was devoted to the discussion of subjects of limited public interest that at the last some Votes which in the public interest should have been discussed passed without discussion. I cannot refrain from alluding to a case which came under my special notice. One day was to have been devoted to the subject of naval construction; but the whole of the time was occupied in a discussion, not of the shipbuilding programme or the needs of the Navy, but of the accident to the royal yacht. That is a subject which Parliament, of course, ought rigorously to scrutinise, but it is impossible to compare it in importance to the expenditure of £9,000,000 on naval construction.
The noble Earl asked for information on the subject of the Malta breakwater and the coaling facilities for the Fleet. The breakwater is necessary for two reasons. In the first place it is necessary to acquire within the harbour of Valetta more space for the increasing requirements of the Navy. At present, under certain winds, a considerable portion of the harbour is not available for the use of ships of war. To enable the whole extent of the harbour to be utilised in all weathers, a breakwater is necessary. Besides, under the conditions of modern naval warfare, when the torpedo is expected to play such a serious part, it is absolutely necessary that a harbour in which ships of war will refit, coal, and repair, should be immune from torpedo attacks. If, while the processes of repair continued, the ships had to be in a constant state of watchfulness, the work would be interrupted, and the crews would not get that rest which at such times they would seriously need. Coaling facilities, as was explained in another place in a very able speech by one of my colleagues, are to be provided at the main home ports, at Gibraltar, at Malta, and at Hong Kong. If the money provided by Parliament is not sufficient for its completion, no scheme will be begun. That is to say, we will not begin any scheme which cannot be completed out of the money granted in this Bill. We will not come to Parliament and ask for more money on the ground that without it the money already spent will be wasted. Wherever operations are begun, they will be completed; 1284 and if anything is omitted it will be the whole scheme at some one place. But I hope that the money will enable the Admiralty to carry out the work at the important places where it is urgently required, because in time of war it will be obvious to the House that the rapid coaling of the Fleet may make the whole difference at a critical moment. However, I do not say that it is certain that the money provided will be sufficient to enable us to complete all the works at the places named. If, guided by the principles I have mentioned, we find that more money is required, we shall lay the case clearly before Parliament.
I now pass to the question of Hong Kong, and I will endeavour to put before the noble Earl and the House how that matter strikes us from the Admiralty point of view. The necessity for a dockyard and docks is, I think, denied by no one, and the noble Earl laid great stress on the increasing importance of the China station. Up to a recent period the possibility of further extension was confined to an area of four and three-quarter acres, but by the present arrangement, partly owing to the reclamation of land, and partly owing to the acquisition of land from the War Office, we have at our disposal over thirty-four and three-quarter acres. I do not for a moment deny what the noble Earl has said, that it would add considerably to the amenities of the colony if the naval yard was removed and the land made available for the extension of the embankment or for more housing accommodation, but it is the business of the Admiralty to consider the matter from the point of view of the Navy, and of their responsibility to Parliament for the Navy. If we were to accept the suggestion that the work contemplated at Hong Kong should be abandoned and the whole of the new establishment transferred to the Kau-lung side, it must, in the first place, involve great delay. The whole scheme would have to be reconsidered, and the provision of the accommodation required would undoubtedly be delayed several years. But such a course would not only involve great and serious delay; it would also involve a large additional expense in dredging and in the erection of land fortifications. The dockyard on 1285 the island is protected by all the fortifications and military strength of the island. But if you transfer your naval base to the mainland you cannot leave it without the protection of forts, for it is conceivable that in certain circumstances it might be attacked from the land side. You would then have to provide complete protection by fortifications on the land side. So that, in addition to the delay, and in addition to any change in the Estimate rendered necessary by the change, you would have the cost of dredging and of the necessary fortifications. If I and my colleagues were convinced that the land available on the island was not sufficient for the present and the immediate future needs of the Navy, such additional expenditure on the other side would have to be faced. But we believe that the establishment proposed will for some time to come, at all events, be sufficient and adequate for the needs of the Navy, and we do not think that we are justified, in view of the very heavy calls on the public Exchequer in connection with naval works at other places, in asking Parliament to incur the great additional expenditure which would be necessitated by the transference to the mainland, especially when we know that we should have to pay as the price a great delay in the provision for the Navy of the works required on the China station. If the colony thought this matter of such importance to them, and the site of such immense prospective value to them, they would undoubtedly have made an offer which would, at any rate, have been able to have been considered on the basis that the taxpayers of this country would have to bear no additional expense by the transfer. We have had communications from the Colonial Government, but no such offer has been made. I should naturally, at all times, wish to reconcile to the utmost possible extent the interests of the Navy with those of the colony, and the interests of the colony with those of the Navy, and any proposal of a really sufficiently wide character that was made to us would receive our very careful consideration; but, at the same time, I do not say, nor do I wish to be understood to pledge myself for one moment, that if such a proposal were made we would be willing 1286 to incur the postponement of the creation of these works and the provision of these docks for the Navy which might be involved in the change. All I mean to convey by the remarks I have just made is that anything the Colonial Government propose will be carefully and considerately dealt with. But I do not think the colony is likely to be in a position to make a financial offer which would meet the objections I have briefly sketched out. I hope I have answered the points which the noble Earl brought before the House.
§ LORD TWEEDMOUTHMy Lords, I do not intend to go into the details of the Bill now before your Lordships, but I rise to add a very few sentences to those which fell from my noble friend beside me on the question of the general policy which has been adopted by the Government with regard to these important Bills both in this and the other House. That is a subject which the noble Earl has rather given the go-by to in his answer. I do not think he has at all met the argument of my noble friend. I claim to be able to speak on this subject with some knowledge, for during a considerable time I was myself personally responsible for the arrangement of the order of business in the other House from day to day, and that at a time when the Government of the day had not the advantage of the present Government, and at a time of great stress—namely, during that memorable session which lasted from January, 1893, to March, 1894. We were then in a very tight place. We had a very small majority—about one quarter of that which the present Government have at their command—and, though we had not the same powers of dealing with Estimates and of closing discussions, yet, if we had attempted to deal with the business of the country in the way in which that business has been dealt with during the last four or five weeks, it would not have been tolerated for one moment. If the Liberal Government of which I was a member had sent up important Bills to be considered by your Lordships' House two days before the prorogation, your Lordships would not have stood it, but would have sent the Bills to "kingdom come" without any ceremony. Take 1287 the two important measures which we have before us to-day, the Military Works Bill and the Naval Works Bill. The noble Earl the First Lord of the Admiralty, when he did deal with the question, hardly met the point of my noble friend. Lord Spencer's point was that these Bills ought to have been introduced earlier in the session, so that both Houses of Parliament could have discussed the policy of the Bills. The noble Earl opposite put forward the plea that the economy of past times had involved the large sums asked for now. Even granting that that is so, the very largeness of the sums required makes it advisable that the Bills should have been introduced earlier in the session, when they could have received adequate discussion. As to the Naval Works Bill, it was introduced for the first time on 2nd August, and your Lordships are now asked to accept it and pass it through all its stages on 17th August. That seems to me a hardly reasonable proceeding. Including the Military Works Bill, £13,000,000 will be passed without any discussion in either House. The noble Earl said it was absolutely impossible that this Bill could have been discussed in this House at an earlier period, because it was necessary that it should be introduced in the other House. I doubt whether there is any absolute necessity for that course.
§ *THE EARL OF SELBORNEThere is a resolution to that effect.
§ LORD TWEEDMOUTHI had forgotten the resolution. It would, however, have been perfectly possible to have proposed certain resolutions to this House showing what was the policy of the Government, and to have allowed the policy of the Bills to be discussed in your Lordships' House. I think it will be admitted that this House is particularly qualified to discuss the Naval Works Bill, for, in addition to the noble Earl, there are four former First Lords, all of whom are distinguished for the close attention they have given to naval affairs. It does seem to me, therefore, that if the Bill, could not have been introduced earlier we might have been given an opportunity to discuss the policy. I protest against the way in which Parliament and the 1288 country have been treated in this matter. Surely the House of Lords, which is considered by the Conservative party to be an integral part of the constitution, deserves to be treated better by a Conservative Government and more closely consulted than it has been during the present session. Noble Lords opposite have no reason to be dissatisfied with the way in which public matters have been, treated from this side of the House. The small body of men who follow my noble friend beside me are always ready to apply their minds to the measures put forward, and to deal with them apart from party politics. This is a matter into which party politics do not enter, and under the circumstances I feel that I have a right to protest.
§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND (Lord ASHBOURNE)My Lords, no one has suggested that the noble Lords on the other side have done anything, unfair during the session. The noble Lord who has just spoken has given us some counsels of perfection, and has drawn a contrast, much in his own favour, between the management of business now and when in 1893 he had to do with the business of the House of Commons. He says there never was such such a time as when he was answerable for the arrangements of Bills. Without going into that, I would remind the noble Lord that the House of Commons were not in 1893 confronted with the difficulties which have met the business there during the present session. There was no obstruction, no unduly-prolonged speech.
§ LORD TWEEDMOUTHThe debate on the Home Rule Bill was prolonged.
§ LORD ASHBOURNEWe should, in comparing now with 1893, have a due regard to the logic of facts. Everyone knows the business which had to be faced this session in the House of Commons by the Government—business of the highest importance, which those who consider the circumstances must recognise was fairly and well done. I should have been glad if this Bill had come up earlier, but the noble Earl was quite entitled to make a speech on the subject.
§ EARL SPENCERAs it is not likely that the House will go into Committee on this Bill, may I ask now for an explanation of a discrepancy between the noble Earl's statement and the schedule to the Bill? I notice on page 15 of the noble Earl's statement that the dredging at Chatham is said to have been finished, yet more money is being asked for in the schedule for the dredging of the Medway. When we were in office we had hope that the dredging of the Medway had come to completion.
§ *THE EARL OF SELBORNEI am afraid the original programme for deepening harbours and approaches will by no means meet all that is needed by the Navy and the great size of the ships. Some parts of the channel of the Medway are so narrow that ships cannot turn, and there are occasions on which ships cannot go up at all. This would result in risk to great and valuable ships, which might be stranded by the turn of the tide. Therefore it has been found necessary to give increased facilities with regard to Chatham.
§ On Question, agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly; Committee negatived; Bill read 3a, and passed. (No. 212.)