I am happy to say that it will not be necessary for me to take up the time of the House by moving the Instruction which I have on the Paper, as the promoters of the Bill have agreed to insert a clause granting the rights which we have requested them to grant from the very beginning. On that understanding we have agreed to leave the matter to the Committee, which will insert a clause securing to the counties of Kerry and Limerick the rights they have been contending for.

I beg also to withdraw the Instruction which stands in my name, and I am content that the clause agreed upon between the Member for East Kerry and the promoters of the Bill shall also apply to Limerick, the ratepayers of which are anxious to have secured to them the Tights granted to them under the Act of 1873, at the date of the passing of which it was not contemplated that the line should be sold, as now proposed.

On behalf of the promoters of the Bill, I offer no objection to the course now proposed.

There is no necessity to withdraw the Instructions. It is sufficient that the hon. Members do not move them.

PRIVATE BILLS [Lords] (STANDING ORDERS NOT PREVIOUSLY INQUIRED INTO COMPLIED WITH)

laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bills, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, and which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, viz.:—

Cardiff Railway Bill [Lords].

Dover Gas Bill [Lords].

Lowestoft Corporation Bill [Lords].

Ordered, That the Bills be read a second time.

PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS [Lords] (STANDING ORDERS APPLICABLE THERETO COMPLIED WITH)

laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders which are applicable thereto have been complied with, viz.:—

Education Board Provisional Order Confirmation (London) Bill [Lords].

Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time upon Monday next.

COWES FERRY BILL [Lords]

King's Consent signified; Bill read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.

KING'S NORTON AND NORTHFIELD URBAN DISTRICT TRAMWAYS BILL [Lords]

As amended, considered; Amendments made; Bill to be read the third time.

London United Tramways Bill

Ordered, That Standing Order 243 be suspended, and that the Bill be now read the third time.—( Mr. Caldwell. )

King's Consent signified; Bill read the third time, and passed.

ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 1) BILL

Lords' Amendments considered, and agreed to.

ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 6) BILL [Lords]

Reported, without amendment [Provisional Orders confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.

Bill to be read the third time upon Monday next.

ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 10) BILL [Lords]

Reported, without amendment [Provisional Orders confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.

Bill to be read the third time upon Monday next.

GAS AND WATER ORDERS CONFIRMATION BILL [Lords]

Reported, without amendment [Provisional Orders confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.

Bill to be read the third time upon Monday next.

Dublin, Wicklow, and Wexford Railway (New Ross and Waterford Extension)

Reported, with an Amendment; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

Belfast and Northern Counties Railway Bill

WIGAN CORPORATION TRAMWAYS, ETC., BILL [Lords]

Reported, with Amendments; Reports to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

BRISTOL CORPORATION CEMETERY BILL [Lords]

Reported, without amendment; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

Bill to be read the third time.

LONDON, BRIGHTON AND SOUTH COAST RAILWAY BILL [Lords]

Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

Derby Corporation Bill

Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

TRAMWAYS ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 2) BILL

Copy ordered "of Memorandum stating the nature of the Proposals contained in the Provisional Orders included in the Tramways Orders Confirmation (No. 2) Bill."—( Mr. Gerald Balfour. )

reported from the Committee on Group N of Private Bills, That the parties opposing the Local Government Provisional Orders (Housing of the Working Classes (No. 2) Bill had stated that the evidence of Mr. Edward Overend Simpson, of Leeds, solicitor, was essential to their case; and it having been proved that his attendance could not be procured without the intervention of the House, he had been instructed to move that the said Edward Overend Simpson do attend the said Committee upon Tuesday next, at half-past ten of the clock.

Ordered, That Edward Overend Simpson do attend the Committee on Group N of Private Bills upon Tuesday next, at half past ten of the clock.

reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Members from the Standing Committee on Law, and Courts of Justice, and Legal Procedure:—Mr. Clancy and Mr. Jordan; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. Nannetti and Mr. Murnaghan.

Report to lie upon the Table.

I propose, with the permission of the Committee, to adopt a course which I think has been usual on the introduction of the Shipbuilding Vote, on Vote 8, and to make a statement which I hope may be of some service to the Committee in discussing this important matter. I understand that some hon. Members were rather disappointed that I did not take an earlier opportunity of making this statement. My excuse must be that, in the first place, the incidents of the debate on the last occasion were of such a peculiar character that I should have been compelled to make my statement to my hon. friend the Member for Dundee alone at the conclusion of the dinner hour. But there was a more serious reason. At that time I was not in a position to give to the House the information which I think will be of interest to it, and which it has a right to demand, because the details which I have now were not then at my disposal. The curiosity of the House is legitimately occupied with the manner in which the large Vote which is to be taken in this and future years for new construction is to be expended. I need not, I think, beat about the bush, but will at once proceed to show how we propose to distribute the new ships which it is the intention of the Admiralty to lay down in the new programme. First, of course, I come to the battleships. There has been for a long time in this House a certain amount of controversy with regard to the character of the battleships which were being built in this country. There were some who felt that, in view of the progress which has been made by other nations in the matter of distribution of armour, there were changes which it was desirable should be made in the direction of giving larger offensive and larger defensive power to our battleships. There never had been a time when that feeling had not found expression at the Admiralty, and once more the Admiralty intend to take a step in advance, and to produce a ship which it is believed will be superior to any battleship we have yet produced. The new battleships are to be vessels of approximately 16,500 tons displacement. They are to have a length 23 ft. greater than the "Formidable" class; the indicated horse-power will be 18,000; and it is hoped that they will realise on a trial of eight hours continuous steaming 18½ knots speed. The protection, which in general character is similar to that of ships of the "London" class, will comprise an armour belt from the lower protected deck to a small height above the water-line of 9 in., and thence from the main deck with a thickness of 8 in.; and this will be continued over the whole length between the barbette and the heavy guns. A peculiar feature will be introduced in these ships which has never been introduced in any recent battleship in the Navy. The plan of placing the 6-in. guns in separate casemates will be abandoned, and the plan already adopted in a ship built in this country, but not for the Government, will be followed. The ten 6-in. guns will be enclosed in a battery with 7-in. armour, and this battery will be divided by traverses to diminish the effect of any shell which may succeed in penetrating the 7-in. armour. The peculiarity of these ships which distinguishes them from their predecessors is that they will have a new feature in their armament. It is proposed to add to the four 12-in. guns now forming the normal armament of first-class battleships of the world four 9·2-in. guns. These, as hon. Members, acquainted with the subject know, are guns of very great power, which as yet have not been introduced in the secondary armament of any first-class battleship. These guns will be very well protected. They will be mounted on mountings similar to those placed in the "Cressy" class, and which, after careful tests, have been found to be the most trustworthy class of mounting. They will be protected by 6-in. to 7-in. armour, and two of them will have a forward fire and two of them will fire directly aft. They will be well protected. The result will be that these ships will get a forward fire of two 12-in. guns, two of 9·2 in., and two 6-in. guns, and the aft fire will be of the same formidable character. I think these ships will compare most favourably with any ships which, as far as we know, are being built for any European Powers, and we shall have great reason to be satisfied if they realise our expectations, as we hope they will. I know there is a prevalent feeling that the protection of our ships should be prolonged, and it has been decided that the armour protection forward shall extend three inches instead of two. Before I leave this question I may make, a statement which I believe will be of some interest to the House. Sometimes I hear it asked, "What's in a name?" I am one of those who think there is a, good deal in a name. It has been decided to give to these three great battleships names which, I think, will be appreciated. One of them will be called by the name of the Sovereign—the "King Edward." The other two ships will commemorate the great support rendered to His Majesty and to this country by two great branches of our kindred race. The other day there was celebrated the birth of the great Commonwealth of Australia, and only a day or two ago we celebrated the birthday of the great Dominion of Canada; and it was felt not an inappropriate method of recognising in our great naval service the military help rendered by those two branches of our community by naming the new ships the "Dominion" and the "Commonwealth." Certain names in our Navy have been jealously and rightly regarded by our sailors who have shown a not unnatural preference for preserving the brilliant names associated j with the glory of our Navy in the past, and I think it is matter for congratulation that these great communities are now associated with the Royal Navy. I have little doubt that, if occasion should arise, the "Dominion" and the "Commonwealth" will add to the lustre and the fame gained by the "Vanguard" and the "Victory" in days gone by.

The next item of construction is the cruisers. It is proposed to lay down six armoured cruisers. I ask leave to postpone the exact details as to measurement, because there may be possibly some change. I will, however, undertake to give the exact details as soon as I can. But in these cruisers there has been a departure. After careful consideration the Admiralty has thought it right to depart from the original programme, and the idea of building another vessel of the "Drake" class has been abandoned for the present in favour of making six vessels of the "Monmouth" class. The six cruisers will be in all material respects except one identical with the ships of the "Monmouth" class. These are vessels of 9,800 tons, 22,000 indicated horsepower, and 23-knot speed. The one difference will be the introduction of heavier armament. The ships of the "Monmouth" class carry forward and aft two pairs of 6in. guns. In the new ships we propose to place instead of two 6in. guns a single 7·5in. gun. I may remind hon. Members that the difference between the 6 and the 7·5 guns is not to be measured by the difference between 6 and 7½, but by the squares and diameters of these dimensions, and there is consequently a material increase in the power of the 7·5in. gun as compared with the 6in. gun. We believe that these cruisers will be fully able to take their part in competition with any cruisers we-have reason to believe are likely to be brought against them. Lastly, with regard to the destroyers. The ten destroyers we propose to build are similar to the 30-knot destroyers of the latest type, but a wise departure is to be made in one respect. The 30-knot destroyer has a speed which, in my opinion and in the opinion of all those who make themselves acquainted with the life history of these boats, is very much a fancy speed. They have run this speed at the original trial at light draught, but when loaded to full draught these boats and others have been reduced by three or four knots from the ideal speed. It is proposed to make the new boats stronger in their general construction. We hope that they may be able to carry a larger supply of coal, and at the same time to ensure that they will run up to their full working load draught at the actual speed. If there are any details with regard to the ships which I have left unstated, and hon. Members will ask me for any information they require, I shall be glad to give it.

There have been one or two other variations in our shipbuilding programme. Early in the session I was able to announce that a certain number of additional ironclad ships of no serious value have been struck off the effective-list of the Navy, and that process of judicious pruning has now been carried a little further. The Admiralty has decided to abandon the contemplated repairs on no fewer than eight small vessels, which we have reason to believe are of comparatively small value in time of peace, and of no value at all in time of war; and we hope that the sums which would otherwise have been devoted to these ships may be profitably devoted to other purposes. I need hardly say that the new ships we propose to build will be equipped in all respects in the most perfect mariner which knowledge or scientific possibilities suggest. They will receive all those accessories of which we have heard a good deal lately. They will he provided with the latest and most effective guns, and will carry the most improved ammunition. Their guns will be provided with the cordite charges and with the telescopic sights. They will be provided with electric hoists, and their torpedoes will receive the gyroscope. I think hon. Members hardly remember the scale on which the British Navy is maintained. They seem to think that by waving a wand you get suddenly in the British Navy appliances of enormous value and proved fitness. That is not so, however. It is not possible. But as I pointed out only a day or two ago, there has been absolutely no hesitancy on the part of the Admiralty to adopt every suggestion which has been made and which has been approved by our technical advisers for the addition of any appliances which we believe tend to enhance the efficiency of the Fleet. It may be that we have been slow in making our preliminary experiments, but I believe that we have gained and not lost by the thoroughness and minuteness of our experiments, and I am certain that, when once the experiments were concluded, the Admiralty has lost no time in furnishing the article. We have been told that the charges of some of the guns for the ships were not what they ought to be. What are the facts? Cordite is a comparatively new propellant. As soon as cordite was adopted charges were worked out for every gun in the service; but, naturally, charges were first worked out for those guns most useful in the service. But some of the guns were not designed for cordite; they were the old type of gun, and designed for black powder charges, and consequently their chambers were too large for the small cordite charge. A large number of experiments were immediately made to adapt cordite to those guns, and as soon as the experiments were completed, and it was found to be possible to do so, we began to supply cordite charges for those guns. We began, and I think wisely, with the ships at home. We had to choose between furnishing the ships at home with the new charges or withdrawing ships from the active list for three months while we adapted the chambers of their guns to these charges. We preferred the former alternative, but there will be no difficulty, as soon as we think it desirable to withdraw those ships, to make the necessary alterations on them also. Events in China have postponed that matter slightly, but there has been no delay in the supply of those charges, and any indictment against the Admiralty on that head must, I think, be held to have failed. There has been a similar complaint in regard to projectiles we are supplying. That complaint also is not, I think, well founded. We are supplying to every one of the new ships armour-piercing shells. An armour-piercing shell is rather an expensive and complicated creature. It costs 1s. a pound, it is exceedingly peculiar in its structural qualities, and it is necessary to keep them when made for three months in order to see that the metal will not disintegrate, which from its nature it is liable to do. Still, we have been making these shells with the greatest possible promptitude. They have been made for the whole of the ships carrying 12 in. guns and some of the ships carrying 13·5 guns, and they are being made for the remainder. But, as we have over three hundred ships in commission—probably more battleships in commission than the whole navy of France—it will be realised that to carry out this costly manufacture at the speed which some Members appear to think desirable is practically impossible. What could be done has been done, and never for one moment has the Admiralty stinted money to provide the ships with the most perfect appliances, Then there is the gyroscope. One hon. Gentleman told me he had never seen a I gyroscope. It is an exceedingly complicated and beautiful appliance. It is based on the principle that a rapidly revolving object will tend to preserve the direction in which it originally started. Certain small wheels upon a heavy perimeter are made through the action of a spring to revolve with the greatest rapidity.

Like a boy's top.

As my right hon. friend reminds me—like a boy's top, and the moment there is any variation in the relative position of the torpedo and the gyroscope, then through the instrumentality of these small wheels the torpedo is brought back to its proper direction. I venture to think that I have made it clear that it is a thing which, from its nature and complicated mechanism, you cannot get by sending round the corner. Having got it, great care must be taken to thoroughly test it, because if it is not accurate it becomes a danger to ourselves. When tested it has to be introduced after considerable skilled labour into the rear of the torpedo, which was not originally constructed to take it. This is a long process, but still it has been carried out with unremitting zeal, and a great many vessels are supplied with them, and I can assure the hon. Member, from all the details which come before me every day, that there has been no relaxation in the effort to provide all torpedoes with this necessary and desirable accomplishment. The question of electric hoists has also been referred to. We have already ordered a considerable number of those electric hoists, which were first introduced in an imperfect form into the "Powerful," "Terrible," and "Centurion." They are being put in their perfect form into the new battleships and cruisers. We are ordering a large number of the new hoists, and we hope to introduce them into many of the ships which are at present completing for sea and some of the ships already at sea. Here, again, there has been a new departure, which has been made after proper inquiry, and the result will be to give to the Navy a perfect appliance as soon as manufacturing possibilities allow us to secure them. I have merely mentioned these matters in order to make it clear that neither in respect of the new ships nor the old ships have we neglected to do what we could in the way of providing equipment. It will, of course, he necessary when we introduce these new ships, and when we provide the old ships with this new equipment, to have adequate storage, otherwise the deterioration of these ships and the possibility of having to repair them at great expense would render any reductions useless. I am not going to anticipate any discussion upon the Vote which will come before the Committee upon that matter. I will just say that the five or six new docks which we hope to have available for the large battleships and Cruisers in the Mediterranean will enormously ameliorate the situation; and when we have completed the breakwater at Valetta, in Malta, for which money will be asked, we shall have enormously improved our powers of protecting and docking these new ships in the Mediterranean. There are included in our programme certain auxiliary ships, and I may venture to point out to the hon. Member who has criticised our programme, that he might give us credit for good intentions in so far as these were illustrated by actual performances. We have been reproached for not having a hospital ship. We have now a hospital ship, and a well-equipped one, which has been added to the Navy by the generosity of a private individual who has been able, to a certain extent, to administer funds provided by a great friendly nation. The "Maine" will now take her position in the Mediterranean, and it will be found of enormous value for taking the sick and providing for better accommodation than can be provided in the crowded hospitals of Valetta and Gibraltar. We have provided in these Votes for a large amount of equipment for hospital ships in the event of war; but, in the opinion of the Admiralty, the equipment of hospital ships is one of those things which may, without disadvantage, be postponed until the probability or even the certainty of war. It would not be to the advantage of the Navy, and it would be to the disadvantage of reasonable economy, to equip more of these ships in time of peace than are needed for peace time. We have, I think, been reproached unfairly. We have also taken in these Estimates money for a repairing ship. That ship is in an advanced state of completion, and will. I hope, be shortly ready for sea. The "Vulcan," a very fine and well-equipped ship, is already doing admirable service in the Mediterranean, and the "Hecla," which has long been performing this duty, has been recommissioned to go out again. Provision will also be made in j the repairing ships for carrying a limited quantity of ammunition; but naval opinion is not as unanimous upon the question of the desirability in peace time of specialising ships for this purpose as appears to be supposed in some quarters. That is a matter on which I do not express an opinion. We have taken £80,000 for the purchase or construction of coaling vessels, and, in addition to this, we have no less than seven chartered colliers regularly running at home and abroad for the coaling of the Fleet. It is thought by some that it might be better to build our own colliers for the purpose. There are two opinions about that, and I am much inclined to believe that the view of the Admiralty is the correct one. We get the services of these chartered colliers for the whole time we require them and in the places where we require them. If an estimate were framed for the construction of a collier it might easily happen, as has happened with almost every other class of ship, that in a short time this ship would be superseded by some other vessel. We believe that it is probable, if the practice of chartering colliers is continued and generally recognised as one of the demands likely to be made upon the mercantile marine, that owners will adjust their colliers to our requirements, and will, in their interest and ours, provide a class of vessels which would in every way be suitable for our requirements. Meanwhile we have issued advertisements for tenders for five small steam colliers and four steam launches for local coaling services, and we are fitting a certain number of coal barges with the Temperley transmitters which are so invaluable in getting coal on board ships not lying alongside a wharf.

I now come to another point. There is one ship we have not produced at present, a distilling ship. Experiments were made during the last manœuvres as to what were the requirements of a distilling ship, and those experiments proved that the distilling ship we used for the purpose of the manœuvres was most unsuitable. The experience then gained has been utilised for the preparation of a new distilling ship which is about to be added to the, strength of the Navy and which we believe to be much better. We have been reproached in this House with having no mode of supplying fresh water to ships. That is a mistake. In addition there is a powerful distilling apparatus at every station where it is not possible to obtain a proper supply of fresh water. The ship of which I have spoken is a valuable addition to the distilling plant we already have. It is a mistake to suppose that we have been so blind to the requirements of a modern navy as not to supply distilling plant for the purposes of the Fleet. One great invention which has been made recently is that of wireless telegraphy. We have provided the Marconi apparatus for a large number of ships, but not for all. We have issued orders that every battleship, first-class cruiser, and second-class cruiser as she comes to be repaired shall be fitted with Marconi's wireless telegraph installation. We have been purchasing the whole of the component parts for those installations. They will be put in as those ships come in for repairs, whenever the ships do not already possess them. Another ground of complaint has been the absence of refrigerating plant. We are putting refrigerating plant in some of our ships ourselves, but the main question was that we had no refrigerating plant to place upon our ships, and we have entered into arrangements for obtaining large storage houses for refrigerating purposes; both at Malta and Gibraltar we have erected large storehouses for keeping a supply of refrigerated meat. We have not been blind to these necessities. We have recognised them as soon as they arose, and I say without hesitation that we have been dealing with them with the greatest rapidity that was possible under the circumstances. I will say a word on another matter. This is a very large Vote—for over nine millions sterling. It is an increase of £543,000 on the Vote of last year—I should have mentioned in connection with the last subject the fact that we have already taken steps to acquire a torpedo depot for the Mediterranean.

Here I must make one avowal. I have never been able to understand the infinite delay in construction. I believe that we have not got for a considerable number of years the number of ships that we ought to have got, nor have I been able to find that there is any one year when we could truthfully say we have caught up the arrears.

I do not quite understand the hon. Gentleman's reference to a Vote of £9,000,000.

I was referring to the naval construction. I have never been able to ascertain that we have caught up our arrears. I believe this estimate shows a bona fide attempt to overcome this difficulty, because it is largely in excess of previous Estimates. But we must not shut our eyes to the fact that there has been congestion in the shipbuilding yards, and that when you have fallen into arrear it is exceedingly difficult to get out of it. We are making an endeavour, which I believe will be successful, to overcome the difficulty. We are doing all that is in our power to this end, and I believe we shall meet with success. Manufacturing establishments are now able to bring into service greatly increased plant and efficiency. We have evidence that we are now returning, after the disturbance caused by the engineering strike, to that normal and happy state of shipbuilding which we are so proud to have been able to exhibit in former years. It has already been stated in this House that the Admiralty are well aware of the importance of this question of arrears in shipbuilding, and they have shown their sense of its importance by appointing a Committee which, so far as the two hon. Members who are independent of Admiralty administration are concerned, is very well equipped. A Committee which includes two such independent and competent members as Sir Thomas Sutherland and Sir Francis Evans is very well equipped, and if a Committee with their assistance does not get to the bottom of the problem, it will be because there is not a bottom to get at—that there is no problem at all. We have made it our object to ask every con tractor who has contracted on any scale for the Navy to come forward and state in his own words and way exactly where he feels that he has been dealt with in a way prejudicial to the conduct of his business. We all desire greater rapidity and efficiency of construction, and we have placed at the disposal of the members of the Committee all the information they have asked for with regard to the departmental arrangements and methods of conducting business at the Admiralty. It has been complained that the Committee has not reported. When you have upon it a director of the Suez Canal and a director of the P. and O., you cannot expect the Committee to report in a day. These two gentlemen have given most assiduous and valuable services to this Committee; we have had many sittings, and certainly it will not be from any want of goodwill on their part if we are not able at a comparatively early date to arrive at the conclusion of our labours. But, as I say, we have evidence that this dead weight is being removed. Two firms alone, I believe, have laid down plant to the extent of a million sterling for the construction of armour, and another great firm—Armstrong's—have entered the market of armour manufacture. In the matter of guns we have reason to hope that the ships which are being built are progressing satisfactorily. No doubt there have been cases recently where guns have been delayed, but the ships have not been delayed on account of the guns, because they have been delayed still longer on account of other causes. But whether that is so or not, this I do know, that we have now reached such a position with regard to the manufacture of guns that we are able to supply with perfect ease all the ships by the time they are ready, or are anticipated to be ready, to receive them. We have added to the strength of the Fleet this year four very admirable battleships—the "Albion," the "Formidable," the "Implacable," and the "Irresistible." A large number of other battleships are coming on this year, and during the next year we hope to have nearly the whole of the remainder of the ships of the class represented during 1892-93 by the "Duncan" and the "Cornwallis." The position in regard to cruisers is also becoming satisfactory. The "Cressy," which has been delayed by an untoward accident, but is otherwise ready; the "Aboukir" and the "Sutlej" are ready; and I hope before long the "Euryalus" and the "Hogue" will also be added to our effective list. During the course of next year or the early part of the year following we hope to have added four very powerful armoured cruisers to our list. The "Kent" and the "Mon-mouth" and other ships of that class are making progress, and will be effective for the service of the Navy during the next year and the year following. When we have added those ships we shall have no fewer than twenty first-class armoured cruisers, independently of those which we are now laying down and propose to lay down under this Vote.

I do not propose to say more than a word with regard to a subject which I know will be raised—the subject of boilers. As I have been the mouthpiece of the policy of the Admiralty on a previous occasion, I think it my duty to explain to what extent and on what ground that policy has been followed since I made a declaration on the subject. Everybody is familiar with the report of the Boiler Committee, and their recommendation in favour of removing Belleville boilers from all our new ships when it could be done without seriously endangering the rapid completion of those ships. The work on all the ships then not in a forward condition was immediately stopped in order to as certain to which of the ships those conditions would apply. I made a statement to the House with regard to eight vessels which we believed could be with advantage with drawn from the list. I need hardly say that, having come to that decision, we had to make more detailed inquiry from contractors to ascertain what time would be involved in regard to each ship; and as a result we have had somewhat to modify our original decision. I regret that. I wish we could have carried out in its entirety the recommendation that the boilers should be removed; but we could not so carry it out without seriously delaying some of the ships, and I think in that respect the action of the Admiralty will be justified. We have now withdrawn from the list four ships which were originally mentioned, and which will now be proceeded with with Belleville boilers as originally intended. On the other hand, we have, since I addressed the House the other day, come to a decision with regard to the ship which was then in doubt—the "Cornwall"—and from that ship we shall remove the Belleville boilers and replace them with others.

asked how much time would have been lost as regarded the four ships as to which a decision had been taken.

The length of time would have been very great. We could get no guarantee of time with regard to one of those ships, and as to the other ships, the contractors say they cannot tell yet what the delay n time would be. But there is no doubt—the hon. Member may take it from me, I am informed by the responsible advisers of the Admiralty—that the delay would do very great if these ships were altered it the stage of construction which they have now reached and replaced with boilers of another type.

Would it be as much as six months?

Oh, certainly. The "Hermes" was a ship which was originally contemplated as one which would not be deprived of her Belleville boilers, but we have come to the decision to take the boilers out of that ship and replace them by another kind of boiler, and I believe the result will be most satisfactory. It has often been pointed out that the trials have not been satisfactory, because they have not been scientific—that there has not been a comparison of similar things under similar circumstances, that they have been only approximations, and that we have made allowances for different ships which were supposed to represent the actual differences between the character of the engines or the differences in their hulls. But here we shall now have two identical ships, the "Hermes" and the "Hyacinth," the one with the Belleville water-tube boilers and the other with Babcock and Willcox boilers, both built at the same time, and only differentiated by their boilers. We shall have similar experiments with regard to the "Medea" and the "Medusa," also similar ships, but provided with two different kinds of water-tube boilers. There are other things I should have liked to say with regard to the boiler question, but perhaps I may say them in reply to remarks which I know will be made. This I will say—that I know there is an absolute determination on the part of the Admiralty to exhaust all that experiments, at any rate, can do to enable them to arrive at a concluison which will result in giving the very best type of boiler to His Majesty's ships.

^* asked whether the Boiler Committee were now controlling the boilers of the Navy or whether the Admiralty were.

The Admiralty is in actual control of the boilers of all His Majesty's ships. There is this one exception, which I think I am bound to state. The Boiler Committee, the consitution of which is well known, has been deliberately entrusted by the Admiralty with the work of making experiments with these two ships, the "Medea" and the "Medusa," which have been placed (subject, of course, to the general regulations of the Admiralty) at the disposal of that Committee by the Admiralty for the purpose of making those experiments. It has been suggested that we were ill-advised in putting in water-tube boilers at all. I cannot stand up in this House and maintain a proposition which appears to me to be contradicted by the experience of every Admiralty throughout the world. We find not only that there is no intention to abandon the water-tube boiler, but that, on the contrary, there is every evidence of pressing forward the installation of these boilers. Steps have been taken by the German navy for installing a combination of water-tube and cylindrical boilers in some of their battleships. I have just been reading the account of the German Navy Department of their boilers, and this is stated to be very wisely, a tentative measure, which, it is hoped, will be abandoned if they can find a water-tube boiler which will be, in all respects, perfectly satisfactory. But that experiment is being made. It is a most interesting and a most valuable one, and I could not speak on this matter without noting it. My hon. friend the Member for King's Lynn, in an interpellation the other day, referred to the water-tube boilers in destroyers. I ventured to interrupt him—I hope not discourteously—and the object of my interruption was this. The whole of our destroyers, as everybody knows, and no one better, perhaps, than my hon. friend, are and always have been—with excepttions in the past so unimportant that they need scarcely be mentioned, and with no exceptions in the present—fitted with small water-tube boilers. There is no question of any other kind of boiler in them. The locomotive type of boiler was tried in two or three ships, and has long since been abandoned. What I ventured rather to interject was that the interpellation of my hon. friend the Member for King's Lynn, who knows these matters very well, was one which, in my opinion, was calculated to suggest to the House that the question involved with regard to the whole of our destroyers was in some way bound up with the very important question which has engaged the attention of the House with respect to the large water-tube boilers for big ships. It is very undesirable that the friends and relatives of the men who are engaged in these ships should be put to unnecessary alarm and made to believe that danger exists where it does not exist. I ventured to say then, on my own initiative and authority, that the small water-tube boiler—I did not say the Thorny-croft boiler but the small water-tube boiler—was a particularly safe type. I went to my office and found on the table a report of the German Admiralty dealing with this subject, in which that precise proposition was stated and enforced; and I was anxious, therefore, to correct an impression, which, coming from the hon. Member for King's Lynn, who knows the Navy, might, with, I am sure, no intention on his part, have caused alarm.

Might I be allowed to explain that I have never objected to the water-tube boiler? My objection has been to the Belleville boiler, and to that alone.

I only wanted to explain why I objected to the interjection, which, I thought, was calculated to cause needless alarm. I have made a speech full of details, perhaps of technical details, but I imagine that my task is to make a statement on all those points on which the Committee is entitled to full information before they commence what is, after all, the business of the Committee—the discussion by competent Members of the House of these great questions. There are many things I have left unsaid which I ought to have said, and which no doubt I shall be reminded of in the discussion, and I shall do my best to reply to them as the points are raised.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £5,306,500, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of the Materiel for Shipbuilding, Repairs, Maintenance, etc., including the cost of Establishments of Dockyards and Naval Yards at Home and Abroad, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1902."

I do not propose to enter in detail into the various highly technical questions which arise out of the hon. Gentleman's statement. I think the hon. Gentleman has been rather unfairly criticised in and out of the House because he did not on the last occasion make a general statement when this Vote was introduced. He has explained the circumstances under which the discussion of this Vote began, and I remember them well. I certainly suggested that the hon. Gentleman should make a statement then, but he allowed me to proceed with the statement I had to make, and that, as it happened, led to a discussion which lasted the whole evening. I have had some suspicion of my right hon. friend the Member for the Forest of Dean in connection with this point. The right hon. Gentleman has complained that there has not been a general statement. To the best of my recollection, general statements on this Vote have not been the invariable practice in the past, but they have been made in recent years by the late First Lord of the Admiralty, Lord Goschen. Why was it necessary for him to make these general statements? It was for a reason which I am only too glad to know does not exist on this occasion. The late First Lord had to make a general statement at this time of the year because he usually had to introduce Supplementary Estimates, and I have a suspicion that my right hon. friend's desire for a general statement was not so much for the speech as for a Supplementary Estimate.

^* : On some points—yes.

I am extremely glad that the Secretary to the Admiralty closed his observations without even a hint of any Supplementary Estimates, because the practice of the last Administration with respect to Supplementary Estimates was one not to be followed. It is the duty of the Admiralty, as of other Departments, to decide at the beginning of the financial year the demands it intends to make, so that we may know the financial necessities that we have to meet.

I am not going to discuss the technical points in the hon. Gentleman's statement, because there sits beside me an hon. Member (the hon. Member for Cardiff) who is much more competent to deal with questions concerning new ships and cruisers, and, no doubt, the hon. Member for Gates head will also have something to say. But there is one essential matter in connection with battleships about which we have had no information. We have been told that the tonnage of the new ship is to be 16,500, but we have not been told the cost. There is no estimate of the total cost in the Navy Estimates this year, but by this time doubtless the designs have been so far completed that the hon. Gentleman will be able to tell us in his reply what is to be the full cost of the new battleship which he has described. We shall probably require the same information with regard to the new cruisers. That is about all I feel justified in asking as to these larger matters.

Another point upon which further information will be desired is the question of submarines. I do not know whether there is anything more to tell, but, if so, the Committee will be very anxious to hear it. I understand, from what appears in the press, that the Admiralty have adopted the submarine only experimentally, and that they have discovered a kind of "anti-submarine," or submarine destroyer. Perhaps, without pressing too curiously into the secrets of the Admiralty, we might have some information upon that point. A great part of the speech of the hon. Gentleman appeared to be a reply to a part of the complaint of the hon. Member for Chester in the debate the other day, when a proposal was put forward to control from this House the problem of the distribution of the Fleet. I recognise fully the correctness of the hon. Gentleman's reply on that point. I am glad the hon. Member told us about the gyroscope. As to the question of boilers, I must necessarily leave that matter to my hon. friend the Member for Gateshead. I have often differed with him upon this matter, but I should like to wait for his statement before dealing with the question. The change of policy announced to-night was expected by those who have read the astonishing report of the Boilers Committee, but no Admiralty could act upon that Report without getting into great difficulty. I propose to mention very briefly one or two matters about which further information is necessary. I am sorry to have to return to the important question of the royal yacht. A statement has appeared in the newspapers with regard to it which makes it absolutely necessary that something more should be said. I am sorry that the First Lord has disappeared from the House, because he took a great interest in this question. I should like to have asked him if he had seen the report in the papers to the effect that an inquiry has actually been held by the Admiralty into this matter, and that certain officials have been censured. The hon. Gentleman has no doubt seen that statement, and I should like to know whether it is well founded, whether such an inquiry has been held, and whether the results are as stated; and if they are, why has that information which was denied to this House when the matter was properly under discussion, first seen the light in the columns of a morning newspaper? Upon all these points I think we are entitled to some explanation, and I have no doubt the hon. Gentleman will give us some answer. My hon. friend the Member for Cardiff a few days ago very properly entered his protest against the unbecoming criticism passed by an admiral in the Fleet, commenting in improper terms upon the debate which took place in the House upon that subject, and I associate myself entirely with my hon. friend upon that point. The question of the royal yacht was brought before the House by the Public Accounts Committee, with the result which we all know. There is a matter relevant to this Vote which is also mentioned in the Report of the Public Accounts Committee—I mean the very serious statement made by the Committee about the "Dreadnought's" fittings and repairs. Altogether a sum of £99,500 has been spent upon her. No estimate of the proposed fittings and repairs was at any rate submitted to the Admiralty, for the column in the statement was left blank, and the details were not complete. The Committee suggest that in all cases before determining upon the policy of refitting ships, a very careful estimate should be made and considered by the Admiralty, and presented to Parliament at the earliest opportunity. I hope the hon. Gentleman will have something to say by way of explanation, and that he will be able to give us some assurance that the suggestion made by his colleagues will be carried out.

There is one other matter which I should not be in order in referring to in detail, but I feel bound to allude to it. I refer to the letter written by an officer, out of which a great deal of this movement has arisen, and which has not yet been explained. I think the Committee is entitled to know whether the Admiralty are going to call upon that gallant officer for the explanation which is necessary. I do hope the hon. Gentleman will be able to give us some satisfactory answer upon that point. The next matter with which I will trouble the Committee is the suggestion to name two of the new vessels after the Dominion of Canada and the Commonwealth of Australia, in grateful appreciation of the military aid rendered by the colonies in the course of this war. I hope those names will have a larger and more relative meaning. I hope it is a sagacious and prudent step which the Admiralty is taking by way of suggesting to the colonies that they ought to contribute something more than a mere name to the Navy Estimates. This is a matter which is directly relevant to this Vote. There is a small appropriation in aid for Australia, but I had hoped that, by this time, there might have been a larger appropriation from all our self-governing colonies. We have to provide not merely for the naval defence of these islands, but also for the defence of our self-governing colonies. The 40,000,000 who live in these islands pay for the whole defence of the Empire, while the 10,000,000 who live outside these islands pay nothing. If the self-governing colonies paid their proper share they would be contributing some £4,000,000 or £5,000,000 annually towards our Navy Estimates alone. This is the most Imperial of all our Votes. You may talk about giving colonial titles to the King, but, after all, it is the Navy which has to serve all parts of the British Empire. I do hope that the hon. Gentleman will be able to tell us that the personal sympathy which he himself expressed when this question was last before Parliament is going to end in something like definite action. I hope that the complimentary titles given to these new battleships are only the beginning of a suggestion to Canada and Australia and other colonies that they should follow the example set without compulsion by the Cape Parliament, and make a substantial contribution towards the Navy which serves their purpose just as thoroughly as any other portion of the Empire. We have not yet been told what that Australasian agreement is, and I want to know what is our present position in regard to it. The hon. Gentleman has spoken of the delay which has taken place in the construction of ships. I have never been slow to recognise the necessity of making adequate additions to the naval defences of the Empire, nor have I been slow to censure the Admiralty for the delays which have taken place. While the hon. Member for Antrim was in office there were great delays in the construction of ships. One reason assigned for these delays is the engineers' strike, and another reason given by the Public Accounts Committee is the failure of the late Admiralty Board to apply the penalty clauses in their contract. Again and again this question has been raised. Now the Committee of which the hon. Gentleman is a member is going to sit upon this question and inquire into the subject of the enforcement of penalties. I will a wait with patience for the Report of that Committee. I also wish to ask if the hon. Gentleman can tell us anything at all about the long delay in the new form of contract, which surely must be finished by this time.

It is j ready, and will be issued as an unopposed Return.

There is one thing in particular which the public and the House understand in regard to the Fleet, and that is the cash, measurement, and can the Financial Secretary to the Admiralty tell us how much of the money voted in the last five years has not been spent. I ask this question because one of the rather alarming statements for which the hon. Member for Chester is more or less responsible is that £4,500,000 which Parliament has. voted for shipbuilding has not been spent at all. I hope the Secretary to the Admiralty will tell us whether that is substantially true or not. I will only say in conclusion that I recognise the perfect courtesy and great ability shown by the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Admiralty, and I heartily congratulate him upon the perfectly clear statement, he has made to the House.

congratulated the Secretary to the Admiralty upon the clear and distinct statement he had made to the House. Far from, criticising the details into which he had gone, he thought every Member of the Committee would feel grateful to his hon. friend for the amount of information he had given. He was perfectly certain that hon. Members would not regret having now grasped the principle of the gyroscope. There were, however, one or two statements which the Secretary to the Admiralty had made which he desired to take the opportunity of criticising and which he must ask him to explain more fully. The hon. and learned Gentleman who had just spoken alluded to the arrears of shipbuilding in the last Administration. He could not recall a single occasion on which his noble friend who was then First Lord of the Admiralty ever attempted to minimise what, in his opinion, was a condition of things which he extremely regretted. He did not say that those delays were disastrous, because he should be able to prove that, great as were the delays in the rate of shipbuilding in this country, the comparative strength of our Navy compared with other countries had not diminished so much as some alarmists would imagine, nor had we fallen behind the comparative standard which had been adopted by the House and the naval administration. But his noble friend never attempted in his Naval Estimates anything so silly as to make up the amount of his arrears for the previous years. He limited himself to laying before Parliament a Vote for new construction, which he was advised could be safely performed within the financial year. Whatever might have been the causes of the delays, whatever contributed to the fact that new construction did not reach the figure at which the early years of Lord Goschen's administration placed it, it was an undeniable fact that, as year by year went by and the Department got farther away from the effects of the strike, the new construction increased with rapidity, and eventually reached the figure at which Lord Goschen placed it in his last Estimates.

There seemed be a delusion in the public mind that in recent years the rate of shipbuilding had fallen far behind what was the normal period, when ships were constructed, say, six or seven years ago. Public attention had fastened on a period of two years as the rate at which our ships were built. That, however, was under the rate at which the "Majestic" and the "Magnificent" were built. The rate of twenty-four months on both those ships was admitted by the hon. Gentleman opposite to have been only arrived at by concentrating on them the whole force of the two dockyards in which they were built. The amount taken for new construction in 1894–5 was something like half of the normal rate expended on new construction for the last three or four years. Reference to the dockyard accounts would show that the whole—certainly an abnormal amount—of the sum voted for shipbuilding was devoted to pressing on those two ships to the exclusion of other ships laid down before them. The Admiralty might have had most excellent reasons for doing that, but the rate was not a normal but an abnormal rate, never reached in this country before or since. The remaining vessels of the "Majestic" class took thirty-five months to complete, the "Ocean" took three years, the "Canopus" two years and eleven months, and the "Goliath" three years and five months. That rate was not unsatisfactory having regard to the state of things existing in the country, which, to a certain extent, unhinged the machinery of the chief industrial centres. It was even more favourable when compared with the French rate of shipbuild- ing. There were people who assumed, without having any authentic sources of information, that France exceeded this country in rate of shipbuilding, and gentlemen wrote letters to the press on the gross enormities of the naval administration of this country. But the French had not yet touched the rate of the last four or five years in English shipbuilding. One French battleship was not completed under three years and nine months, and a French armed cruiser which was included in the programme of 1896 was only launched in 1900, and is not expected to be ready, according to the reporter on the Naval Budget, until 1903.

He desired to know what was the rate at which the hon. Gentleman now proposed to build his ships, and how much quicker he proposed to build them than the normal rate in this country, with the exception of the two particular battleships he had mentioned. There was another point to which he wished to call his attention. The hon. Gentleman had stated that the delays in guns which had retarded certain ships had been overcome. His hon. friend was not able to give any details on which he based that statement. This was one of the most serious reflections upon the administration of Lord Goschen that could possibly be made, and he was bound to say that he did not think his hon. friend was justified in making a statement of that kind unless he was prepared to substantiate it on the spot. He had never heard of a single ship having been delayed for a second by the fact that her guns were not ready for her during Lord Goschen's administration.

I said there had been very great delays in gun-mountings and delays in the guns. But I am not prepared to say that the guns themselves delayed the ships.

said that was a very different thing. The explanation of his hon. friend threw a totally different light on his statement. What his hon. friend said now was that the guns were not delivered up to contract time. That was perfectly true, and he thought his recollection was perfectly accurate that certain fines were inflicted on the makers. But it was perfectly certain that no ship was delayed for a second, or was even approximately near being delayed, by reason of the delay of the guns. It had always struck him as an extraordinary fact that he had heard a great deal of these delays since his noble friend went out of office, but when his noble friend was in the House, and was prepared to defend his administration, on no single occasion was he attacked, nor was a direct specific charge made about delays, and, in point of fact, the Committee were never divided. It would be only fair to his noble friend that those who were now carping at his administration on account of those delays should have brought specific instances in which to substantiate their case.

I never thought of bringing any charge against the Admiralty administration. I said there were arrears, and great arrears, but I never said that the administration was responsible.

said he was not now alluding to his hon. friend in the least, but there had been constant allusions to what could not be interpreted in any other way than the laches of Lord Goschen in his administration. But none of his critics were prepared to come forward with any specific case. It was very easy to make a general charge against an administration that they were responsible for delays, but no specific case had been established. He felt confident that when the Committee which had been appointed had reported, his noble friend would look with confidence to what their views would be on the question. The hon. Gentleman who had just spoken had attributed the delays to the fact that penalties were not inflicted on the contractors. If there was any substance in that charge, the fact that for five years the Admiralty had abstained, according to the hon. Gentleman, from inflicting penalties on contractors would have led those contractors to be more negligent of Admiralty work. But, far from the fact of the non-infliction of penalties having encouraged the Admiralty contractors to grow lax in their work, every year there had been a larger amount of new construction carried out by those contractors, and he understood from some figures which the Secretary to the Admiralty gave him that in the last financial year the new construction was practically doubled. He did not believe that there was any member of the Committee who really knew anything about shipbuilding; who could for a moment suppose that it was to the advantage of the contractor to keep a battleship or cruiser on his stocks longer than was necessary. There were some figures which he thought were more reassuring on that point than some of the advisers of the naval administration would have believed was the condition of the naval forces. An important Return had been laid before Parliament showing the comparative strength of the fleets of the world, and ho found on analysing that Return that the position of the United Kingdom was not in an unsatisfactory position. Taking the battleships built in and since 1891, he found the United Kingdom had at the present moment 24, France and Russia 21, or France and Germany—another combination—25. If they took the battleships launched in and since 1882—which included not quite such modern ships—the United Kingdom stood at 36; France and Russia at 37, or one more, showing that the rate of construction had been in favour of the United Kingdom as against that combination. If they took the battleships launched since 1865—the oldest date in the Return—the position of the United Kingdom in regard to battleships was 50 as against 43 of France and. Russia, When they included those which were in the various programmes of the different countries that were building, the position was still better. Taking the modern ships launched since 1891 and those which were building, the position of England was 40 as against the 36 of France and Russia. Since 1882—the second period he had taken—the position of England was 52 as against 52 for France and Russia. Including the oldest class of battleships in this Return, the position of the United Kingdom was 66 as against 58 for France and Russia. That gave a majority of eight, which was an important figure, because it enabled the navy to discard all those older ships which had been so often attacked in the House, and to present the relative number of 58 British ships, which were absolutely equal if not stronger than the 58 ships of France and Russia.

In view of what was so often said about the extraordinary weakness of the United Kingdom at present, it was curious to turn to the views which our rivals took of our naval strength. He would direct the attention of the Committee to what had been said by almost the highest official naval authority in France. The reporter on the Naval Budget to the Chamber of Deputies in October last presented an exhaustive historical sketch of the French naval system from 1872, and went into the fullest details as to the present naval strength of France, and the problem which that country, as a great European nation, should attempt to meet in its naval construction. The views of the reporter were not the views of a mere layman or a politician, because he had before him the whole of the expert knowledge of the French Navy. His report showed from what he said, and, above all, what he did not say, that he was in full possession of the opinions of those responsible for the French Navy at the present moment. What was the statement he laid before the Chamber of Deputies with reference to the relative strength of France and England? He said that the naval strength of England was actually equal to two and a half times that of France. He went on to say, what was more important, in view of the alarming assertions which were made, that the present rate of new construction was not at all equal to the needs of the United Kingdom—

He desired now to call attention to the position of affairs in the Mediter- ranean, which had been so adversely criticised. The British Fleet in the Mediterranean was said to be in such a state of hopeless inefficiency that the only thing which Sir John Fisher could do on a declaration of war would be to retire into Malta Harbour; but the French Fleet in the Mediterranean was inferior to ours. The French Fleet consisted of six battleships only; we had ten without counting the "Devastation." The remarks of the Secretary to the Admiralty had, he thought, been somewhat misapprehended. The hon. Gentleman had frankly admitted that there were certain accessories which the Mediterranean Fleet did not possess, but, while that was a matter which ought to be remedied at once, the Committee should not forget that the French Fleet had not got these accessories either, and that so far as that went the French Fleet was no better off than we were; and, when one came to consider the combined French forces now in the Mediterranean, that ought not to create this extraordinary dismay in the mind of the public, any more than it ought to create any dismay to our neighbours if we put an extraordinarily powerful fleet into the Channel during a certain time of the year for the purpose of the autumn manœuvres. M. Revenant in his report called attention to the fact that every year the French had indulged in every type of battleship, and he proceeded to make a most significant statement. He said— should press on new construction, which no one in the Committee would wish to see relaxed, the condition of affairs at the present moment was not of that disastrous character which the critics of the Government would have them believe. The standard of strength which the Admiralty had set itself had been maintained effectively, notwithstanding the difficulties that had resulted through the trade conflicts of the last few years. Our strength in battleships and armoured cruisers was equivalent to the strength of the navies of any two naval Powers, and we should have little cause to fear the threats of any foreign State. The Admiralty had, he believed, pursued the right line in confining their main shipbuilding programme to battleships and to armoured cruisers. He thought they had adopted the best type of armoured cruisers, and it must be a matter of sincere congratulation to be told that the rate of construction was rapidly improving, and that so far as one of the most important features in our ship construction was concerned—the rate of armour-plate construction—the armour-plate makers were in a position to cope with all the needs of the Admiralty, even if those needs extended further than in recent years. He apologised for detaining the Committee at such length, but said he felt sure that his hon. friend the Secretary to the Admiralty would feel that he could not, having worked by the side of Lord Goschen for so long, be silent in this Committee when such serious charges were made.

^* said he was pleased to hear the statement of the Secretary to the Admiralty as to construction, and the statement that it was proposed to have hospital ships and distilling ships, and some new type of colliers to supply the ships with coal. Such things were very necessary for the Fleet. With regard to the ships to be built, the hon. Gentleman mentioned three of 18,000 horse power and a speed of 18½ knots. He was glad to find that the officials were reducing the speed, the result of which would be to get safer models to work with. The hon. Gentleman had not mentioned what kind of boiler was to be put into these ships, but perhaps that would come later. The hon. Gentleman had also mentioned six cruisers, of 9,800 tons displacement, which he said were intended to make 23 knots, That was an enormous speed, and it would be interesting to know what type of boiler was to be used in those. He had always been in favour of plenty of battleships and plenty of cruisers, but he liked those ships to be safe in every sense, especially in the engine and firing rooms, and no doubt by and bye the Committee would get to know from the hon. Gentleman what boilers were to be put into these vessels. There were one or two facts to which he would like to draw attention which might assist the hon. Gentleman to take care that these cruisers should be as perfect as possible. The value of a warship depended upon its offensive powers and upon its speed. The "Cressy" was supposed to be the most modern cruiser which we had. She had a displacement of 12,000 tons, yet with such an enormous displacement she only fired 1,960 lbs. As against the "Cressy" he would take the "Rossia," a Russian vessel with a displacement of 12,100 tons. The "Rossia" was an old cruiser, yet she discharged 2,600 lbs. Why was it that we built ships of the same displacement as those of other nations, and yet they were lighter armed? Let them compare the United States cruiser "Brooklyn" with the "Cressy." The "Brooklyn" was 9,215 tons displacement as against the "Cressy's" 12,000 tons, and therefore was a smaller ship, yet she fired a 2,720 lb. shot as against 1,960 lb. of ''Cressy." Such a thing ought to make the Admiralty pause. But that was not all. Let them take the "Arrogant" type of boat. The "Olympia," an American cruiser similar to the British cruiser "Arrogant," fired 1,600 lb. of shot to 670 lb. fired by the "Arrogant." He would take the class of cruiser we had been building lately, such as the "Pactolus." With 2,135 tons displacement, she only fired 200 lb. of shot. In the "Hermes" class we had 5,600 tons of displacement, but the weight of shot fired was only 1,100 lb. That was the modern cruiser. He would turn to the cruiser of ten, twelve, or fifteen years ago, having the old-fashioned cylindrical boiler. The "Edgar" class had 7,350 tons of displacement and a 20-knot speed, and fired 1,760 lb. The "Imperieuse," with 8,400 tons of displacement and ordinary boilers, fired 2,520 lb. The modern "Diadem," with 11,000 tons of displacement and water-tube boilers, fired only 1,600 lb. He wanted to know why these vessels were under-gunned. There was the old "Immortalité," which could fire 1,750 lb. of metal. Compare that with the ''Diadem'' He did not know upon what system the Admiralty was working, but when he compared our cruisers with the cruisers of other countries he found that our cruisers were built wrongly. He hoped the hon. Gentleman, who he knew was longing to take up these matters with all the earnestness and enthusiasm he possessed, would go to the bottom of the question, and not mind the so-called experts. They would mislead him, and we should be getting ships that were not satisfactory. What was the use of hiding the truth and minimising facts? The "Vengeance" the other day, a brand-new ship, coming from Barrow, was found not to have a single water-tube boiler in her that was not leaking. The "Powerful," after service in which he did not believe she was under steam nine months, required repairs costing nearly £70,000. What a hollow mockery such engineering was! On the day when the House plunged into the provision of water-tube boilers without a proper test it shook the foundations of the British Navy, and brought upon themselves this unhappy position. Ships with cylindrical boilers were superior to those with water-tubes as regards safety, economy, and the smaller complement of men required to work them—an important consideration in view of the difficulty of getting men. The Navy was now short of firemen and stokers to the extent of 12,000 men, and when the ships were manned for the last manœuvres there were only six firemen left in reserve at Chatham. They could not get firemen or engine-room artificers, and yet in the face of all these facts they were using a type of boiler which required 40 per cent, more men to attend to it than the old cylindrical boiler. The water-tube ships involved a maximum of danger and terror for the men in the engine-room, and in war the state of things would be terrible. These unhappy men never knew even for a moment when a tube would not burst and scald them to death. Only recently there had been an explosion on the "Daring," when two men were killed and others were scalded. In that case the coroner's jury had almost accused the Admiralty of manslaughter. Our Fleet should be the first and finest in the world. Time had borne out his contention that there was not a water-tube boiler that was not bound to come to grief at the most unexpected moment, he therefore begged the hon. Gentleman to halt in this policy of water-tube boilers, and spend the money in putting in proper cylindrical boilers. He did not know why the Admiralty should be so blind, so diametrically opposed, to the first interests of the Empire. If they put water-tube boilers into their new battleships and cruisers they would be simply flinging away, squandering, the nation's money, and in war time, when the Admiralty would want ships to keep the sea day and night, to chase the enemy all over the world, and to protect the mercantile marine in any part of the world, they would find themselves unable to do it. He appealed to the Secretary to the Admiralty to take this matter into his serious consideration and not to listen to the so-called experts who advised his predecessors and who would have him continue these water-tube boilers. The hon. Gentleman should put such steam generators into the new battleships and cruisers as would give the men and the country confidence, and not only be a credit to the Admiralty and to the men in all departments of the service, but also uphold in every part of the world the glory of the British Empire.

^* said that the hon. Member who had just spoken had addressed the Committee upon two subjects, in regard to each of which the Secretary of the Admiralty, before he took office, shared, not, indeed, the arguments by which they had been supported, but the hon. Member's ideas themselves; but just as with regard to boilers the Secretary to the Admiralty, in his present responsible position, could not do otherwise than anyone in his place must do—namely, consult the highest expert opinion and follow it—so in the other matter of the under-gunning of the cruisers. That was a matter which the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Gateshead had year by year brought before the House, and no doubt there was much to be said for their contention. The particular argument with which the hon. Member had to-day supported his contention, however, was not in itself a sufficient argument, because on the basis of merely taking the weight of metal in a single discharge, quick-firing guns and guns of a very antiquated type were put on the same footing. Recent cruisers had not been able to get their high speed and at the same time to carry a sufficient armament, and, therefore, he was very glad to hear that portion of the announcement of the Government in which it was stated that that point had now been met, and that the armament of the new cruisers was to be very much superior to that of the cruisers recently built.

He had been somewhat criticised by the hon. Member for Dundee for having on a previous occasion pressed for the adjournment of the debate because the Committee had not had the usual statement from the Admiralty, and, notwithstanding the remarks of the hon. Member, he thought the Committee generally were inclined to support the contention he then put forward. A very interesting statement had now been made, a portion of which might certainly have been given on the former occasion. The Secretary to the Admiralty himself had invited the Committee to expect such a statement, because on 18th March, when the principal debate of the year on the Navy Estimates took place, the hon. Gentleman left many large questions for further exposition, he admitted frankly that the arrears were deplorable, and then used these words— construction. "New construction," as was well known to most Members of the Committee who took an interest in these questions, but not equally known to all, was a technical term. For actual new construction—that was, the laying down of new ships, the programme of the present year—the total amount asked for, as he understood it, was only £500,000; the remainder of the enormous Vote before the Committee being, for the completion of programmes of previous years. Therefore, out of that £500,000, all the ships discussed in the hon. Gentleman's statement and in the recent debate had to be begun, and the Committee could easily see what a very small beginning it must be. The Secretary to the Admiralty had stated that the reserve of guns was being provided on a larger scale than had been thought sufficient in the past. In the course of an exchange of remarks between the present and the late Secretaries to the Admiralty the present Secretary claimed that there had not recently been a delay in guns. But the total number of guns provided had been only one extra on every four, and that he (the right hon. Gentleman) had frequently maintained was not a sufficient reserve in the present condition of gunnery and in view of the extraordinary effect produced on guns, by cordite powder. With regard to the new construction, as this £500,000 had to be divided among the three large battleships, the six cruisers, the ten destroyers, and the submarines which had been mentioned, he feared that very little work would be done during the present year.

In connection with the three battleships—the technical details of which he would not attempt to discuss, because he was one of those who were forced to accept authority on these matters—the interesting announcement had been made that two of them were to be named after the Commonwealth of Australia and the Dominion of Canada, and the sacrifices of those colonies in connection with the present war had been alluded to. But the one colony which had really made enormous sacrifices in both men and money was not covered by either designation. New Zealand had sent enormously more men in proportion to her size and population than any other colony, and she had also contributed a very large sum of money in the payment she had given to her troops. Therefore, if the policy of conciliating the colonies by the use of their names was to be followed, while the names of the Dominion and the Commonwealth carried weight throughout the world, that of New Zealand ought not to be forgotten.

With regard to the new programme, the ten destroyers, which were no increase on the programmes of previous recent years, could not make up for the deficiency of destroyers—a matter which had been the subject of recent attention in the country and of debate in the House. All Members now agreed theoretically, and he hoped he agreed practically, with the hon. Member for Dundee with regard to the undesirability of Supplementary Estimates. If possible, the requirements of a Department should be put before the Government early in the autumn, and the Estimates placed before the House at the beginning of the year should be the Estimates for the year. Still, there were marked occasions in the time of the late First Lord of the Admiralty when it was thought necessary to come to the Committee with statements which caused grave alarm as to the necessity for further programmes in July. One of the matters of most regret in connection with the Navy was that the country was still without many of the ships provided for on those occasions; they were cheerfully voted in a hurry, but were not yet completed, although the foreign ships to which they were intended to be an answer had long since been completed. In his opinion it was a disgrace to the country that ships laid down subsequently to our own had been completed in this country for foreign Governments, while our own ships were not yet commissioned. None of the reasons which had been given were sufficient to account for such a fact; it continued to be an unexplained and unaccounted-for delay. He had hoped that on the present occasion, if they were not to have any large Supplementary Estimates, they would at any rate have had a certain supplementary programme with regard to two of the matters which had been the subject of recent debate. From all the returns it appeared that we were falling into arrear in the destroyer class. It might have been assumed that the policy of the Admiralty was not to encourage destroyers so much as to encourage the attaching of cruisers to fleets; but they had seen Russia pursuing the opposite policy, and building a large number of destroyers and "destroyer-destroyers," and the Admiralty themselves had admitted the deficiency of destroyers. They had stated that they were taking steps to make up that deficiency, but no signs of those steps could be seen in the Estimates before the Committee. So, too, with regard to Fleet auxiliaries, although this was a somewhat disputable matter. The Secretary to the Admiralty took the view that it was not necessary to build the Fleet auxiliaries, that it was possible in regard to most classes to hire them or to take them up on the outbreak of war. In all these matters he (the right hon. Gentleman), believed that the present First Lord of the Admiralty did not incline so much to "programmes" as the late First Lord; he attached greater importance to being able to make rapid changes in designs, from moment to moment, and in the classes of ships, than programmes would admit of. He hoped that that belief was not well founded, because if that was the tendency of the present Board of Admiralty, the fear was that they would find themselves delivered over bound hand and foot to the weight exercised by the War Office in the Cabinet in framing the Estimates for the year. If each case was to be considered on its merits, without a programme, when the Estimates were framed the Admiralty would suffer with a strong man at the War Office. Another reason in favour of programmes was that contractors would not continue to extend their plant to create the new kinds of armour if changes occurred every year. They required to have an assurance in advance of the general lines of Admiralty policy. If contractors were exposed to the possibility of a cold fit or of a complete change in the class of ships, affecting the kinds of armour required, or if they feared they would be left in the lurch, they would not make the necessary prudent sacrifices of capital in advance which were required if this country was to keep pace with other Powers. Although these matters might sound like commonplaces, they had to be borne, in mind. In the present war they had seen how willing the people were to pour out money like water during war, but how much had to be poured out during war which might have been avoided by careful and prudent preparation in time of peace.

On the question of destroyers, the Secretary to the Admiralty in a recent speech had said—

pointed out that the calculation of the French themselves was that in 1907 the number of destroyers of France and Russia combined would be 102, while the number of English destroyers in 1904, or three years earlier, would be 104.

^* said he attached very little importance to the estimate of the figures for 1907; he preferred to take the figures for a definite and tangible period in regard to what had actually been done than any calculation in connection with the future. He did not suggest that France had the same number of destroyers, or anything like it, that this country had. Her previous policy had not been to build destroyers at all, and the same was the case with regard to Russia. Their previous policy had been to have torpedo boats. Our destroyers were the answer to the French flotilla of torpedo boats. The French had only recently taken to building destroyers, and the Russians now, in addition to building destroyers very rapidly, were also building counter-destroyers. He merely mentioned these facts to show that during the last year and a half this country had been distinctly losing ground in this matter.

As to fleet auxiliaries, they had been alluded to by the Secretary to the Admiralty in these words— what proportion, and of what classes? The hon. Gentleman had also mentioned that the ''Hecla" was to be re-commissioned, and he had alluded to the "prescience" of the Admiralty in this matter. It was tardy repentance rather than prescience. The "Hecla" was bought—not built—in 1878, and to re-commission that ship now seemed to point to the fact that the Admiralty had suddenly come to the conclusion that there was something in the agitation on this point, and that they were behindhand in the provision of fleet auxiliaries. In the last Return laid before the House by the Admiralty there were only two such ships mentioned as being in the British Navy, namely, the "Vulcan" and the "Hecla," and at the time that return was presented in March last, there was no ship put down as building. Therefore, although the Secretary to the Admiralty claimed that his Department had taken action even before a particular leader appeared in The Times , it was evident that the Admiralty had required a great deal of pressure for many years before it moved in the matter of fleet auxiliaries. Many allusions to the past history of this matter would be found in "Brassey's Annual" and by putting "Brassey's Annual" and The Times leaders together, it would be found that on the 28th July, 1898, the attention of the Admiralty was most markedly called to the deficiencies in all these classes of fleet auxiliaries. The action the Admiralty were now taking seemed to show that public opinion and pressure from outside had had their effect.

was understood to say that it was not to be assumed that the Admiralty had made no efforts to hire such ships.

^* said that that exactly proved his case, because his argument was that these ships, or a considerable proportion of them, could be far better built than hired. That view, as far as he could judge from the best opinions he had been able to obtain from those skilled in such matters, applied also to the hospital ships themselves. The hon. Gentleman had announced that the Admiralty did not intend to build hospital ships, that they had one which had been given to them, and that they looked forward to hiring their other hospital ships when war broke out. The opinion of the highest authorities was that hospital ships ought to be specially built, that the ventilation and other requirements were far better and more cheaply provided for in ships specially built than in ships merely hired for the purpose. It was necessary to attach these hospital ships in considerable numbers to the squadrons even in time of peace, for the whole conditions of the treatment of the sick at sea had changed. The absence of wood in the construction of ships had rendered more difficult the treatment of the sick on board, particularly in regard to ventilation in hot climates. He believed it was the opinion of the highest authorities that they would have to come to the system of accompanying their ships in times of peace with hospital ships, on which the bulk of the medical staff would reside, and to which the whole of the wounded must be removed in time of war. Having mentioned this matter of auxiliaries, he should like to ask the Committee to consider the points raised by the right hon. Member for South Antrim in his comparison of the fighting ships of the various fleets. The right hon. Member took up the line in defence of the late Board of Admiralty that in recent years the balance of building had been in their favour. He asked the Committee to consider these two last returns in regard to their bearing upon this question. He frankly admitted that numbers were not everything. He interrupted the right hon. Gentleman in his statement with regard to the number of French ships in the Mediterranean as compared with their own. He did not attach much importance to this matter, and all he wished to say was that the statement made to the effect that the French had fourteen battleships to our ten in the Mediterranean was not a complete statement, for it did not include the Northern Fleet.

The right hon. Member for South Antrim had quoted from the last French report, which he had read carefully, as well as two important debates in the French Chamber. The right hon. Member seemed to have quoted from that report everything that told in his favour, and he had left out everything that told the other way. One statement in that report was very disquieting indeed. He would not refer to the question of the guns, but he wished to point out that the French had always maintained that they were superior to England in guns and gunnery, and that the speeds of their ships were real speeds, while ours were not. In the report from which the right hon. Member for South Antrim was quoting the French maintained that there were such weaknesses in English battleships that the French armoured cruisers could be put in line of battle against them with every chance of beating them. This was confirmed by a most interesting scientific argument in Brassey's Naval Annual, which described an imaginary battle between one of the newest Japanese cruisers built in this country and one of our battleships, and it showed that the lightly-armed Japanese cruiser would be able to beat such a battleship. He did not think that they ought to discuss the French report without remembering facts like that, and without remembering that English ships were being described as "artillery museums." Taking the last two Reports which were before the House, he found that in the period between August, 1899, and March, 1901, France commissioned one battleship, Russia commissioned three, and Germany one, making a total of five; while during the same period England commissioned three battleships of the "Canopus" class. As he had said before, numbers were not everything, but in this particular case the French and Russian ships were bigger than the English ships, carried heavier arms, and were stronger in every way. During that period, according to the Admiralty Return, Russia launched three battleships (according to Brassey four), Germany launched two, making a total of five, according to the Admiralty, and six according to Brassey; and against this total England launched only two. In other words, England commissioned or launched five battleships during that period as against ten or eleven commissioned or launched by the three Powers he had named. He thought that was very unsatisfactory. As regarded armoured cruisers, Russia commissioned one, France launched four, Russia launched one, and Germany launched one, making a total of six, and during that period England did not commission or launch any armoured cruisers at all. Now they were endeavouring to rapidly complete and commission the armoured cruisers which had been so much delayed. As regarded mere building, the right hon. Member opposite suggested that other Powers were also very slow. That was perfectly true of France, but it was not true of Russia. If the right hon. Member looked at the returns of the latest Russian ships he would find that they had attained a rate of construction which England had ceased to attain in this country, except in regard to the ships built in private yards for Japan. It had been done here by private firms building ships for the Japanese Government, who had attained the same speed as that attained in that building of the Russian ships. But this speed had not been attained upon Admiralty ships. Russia had also launched a very large number of fast protected cruisers over 6,000 tons. She had launched five, and commissioned one faster than contract, and others were fast building. She was, as he had shown, having destroyers built more rapidly than England. Of course it was very easy to puzzle those who did not look carefully into the figures for themselves.

In the last Returns which had been laid before the House, although the present Board of Admiralty had taken credit for striking deadheads off the list, he did not think that they should be satisfied with all the ships which had been put down in the last Returns. The right hon. Member for South Antrim believed in the French returns. He did not know whether he was aware that England counted eleven battleships in this last revised list of the Admiralty which the French return struck off our list. Even after all the ships mentioned by the present Secretary to the Admiralty had been struck off they were still counting as British battleships eleven ships, after all the derelicts had been struck off, which the reporter of the French budget put aside as not worth counting. He thought this process of striking inefficient ships off the list ought to be carried still further than it was. He might add that, although the reporter of the French budget struck eleven battleships off our list, he still left upon our list two ships armed with muzzle-loading guns—the "Ajax" and the "Agamemnon." He should not have been astonished if the reporter had struck off thirteen from our list, including the ships built in 1876. On the other hand, the British Admiralty pruned the French, list as they did not prune their own, and they had struck some French battleships off because they dated from the year 1876, although they were counting in their own lists ships of that date. With regard to the combination of fleets, he had always frankly told the House that he did not think the standard of two Powers was sufficient, although he believed it gave a certain security if it was strictly maintained, because the maintaining of a two-Power standard made it unlikely that three Powers would make war against them. With regard to cruisers they were the most unsatisfactory, because it was only the very latest that were efficient. The newest cruisers, for example, built for Japan were much superior to any other cruisers, and it was a credit to us that those cruisers should have been built in this country, but unfortunate that the cruisers of our own Admiralty should not have been commissioned.

The only general remark he would make in regard to the question of the standard programme which should be adopted for future years was that they could not put the German policy entirely out of their calculation. He wished to speak with all respect of the German Emperor, and he was not counting him as an enemy. He believed in the principle of fixed and settled peace, and he did not believe that war with European Powers was probable. But when they were counting possible combinations of the future, with which their programmes must deal in order to ensure the safety of the Empire and incidentally ensure peace, they could not put Germany entirely aside. It seemed almost impossible to imagine that England would be attacked by two Powers, or that they should find themselves in conflict with two Powers, but after the recent speech of the Kaiser he did not think it was possible to put the German nation out of view. They had to consider this question in connection with the weighty armaments which German policy had recently provided, and they could not in their minds consider it without relation to their defensive military policy. He hoped that the present Board of Admiralty and the present First Lord of the Admiralty might be strong enough to hold their own against the policy of merely defensive military expenditure. They had been told that this country naturally would remain, in a position of isolation. He thought all those who used to hold a view favourable to alliance with a military Power had given it up. They must look upon England as likely to stand alone and make such arrangements as they could. The only natural policy of such a Power geographically situated as we were was to be all powerful at sea, and not to attend mainly to defensive military preparations on shore.

said the Secretary to the Admiralty had explained many scientific and technical details which were of extreme interest to the Committee. After what had fallen from the right hon. Baronet opposite, he thought the Committee would agree that the two-Power standard which had hitherto existed, and which had been considered satisfactory in regard to the Navy, was not now a sufficient standard for the protection of their shores. At the time when that standard was set up the condition of the fleets of the world was very different indeed from what it was at the present time. Then France and Russia were the most active naval Powers, but since that time three new claimants for naval prominence had arisen. They had now to consider the United States, which was developing shipbuilding of their own in a manner that English shipbuilders never contemplated as possible. Then there was Japan ordering vessels, which, as had already been stated, had been built, finished, and equipped whilst their own vessels had been standing unfinished in British shipbuilding yards. They had now in the Japanese fleet a navy almost of first-class rank. He remembered twenty-five years ago that his hon. friend the Member for Cardiff designed the very first ship which the Japanese Government ever possessed. He remembered at that time that Japanese seamen were so little experienced that, under the advice of his hon. friend, British sailors and officers were employed to manage those ships. That was the state of the personnel of the fleet in Japan twentyfive years ago; but what was the state of things to-day? Japan now possessed battleships of the very first class. She had cruisers so powerful and so well armed that many experts had stated that they were capable of meeting our own battleships. The German naval expenditure had gone up from £3,500,000 to £9,000,000 per annum. Those great changes in regard to the fleets of the United States, Japan, and Germany, taken alongside the continued activity of France and Russia, ought to make this country consider whether or not the standard set up at present was a sufficient one. He ventured to appeal to the Admiralty to take this matter into consideration, and if they came to the conclusion that a three-Power standard was necessary in the future, he felt sure that that decision would be welcomed and accepted with unanimity by the people of this country. He thought we ought to have a fleet sufficiently strong to meet the fleets of any three Powers which could possibly combine against us.

Allusion had been made to the question of auxiliaries, and there could be no doubt whatever that a great cry had come from one part of our Fleet for additional auxiliaries. His hon. friend had stated more than once that auxiliaries could be got up and utilised at short notice, but in his opinion they ought to be prepared beforehand for all emergencies. He desired to support what had been said by the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean in regard to hospital ships. They had heard many outcries against the provision made for the sick and wounded in South Africa. He hoped it would not be the case that when a naval war broke out they would have the same outcry as regarded the hospital ships attached to the fleet. He would refer to the other class of auxiliaries to which allusion had been made—torpedo-boat destroyers. The destroyers to be added during the current financial year were entirely insufficient for the purpose for which they were intended. The Secretary to the Admiralty had referred to the congestion in the past in the shipbuilding trade. He had excused the late Secretary to the Admiralty and also the former Board of Admiralty in connection with the arrears-of naval construction—arrears which were estimated at £4,500,000 during the last three years. That sum was intended to be spent, but never was spent, and the Navy was lacking at the present time to that extent. Speaking; from the personal experience of his everyday work he could state that there was no doubt a large amount of congestion in the last four years in the shipbuilding yards throughout the country, but it was the shipowner or the representative of the naval fleet who was most skilful, energetic, and pushing who got his ships-delivered whilst others did not. The Japanese had their ships delivered, not only on the Tyne, but the Thames and elsewhere, whilst we had been waiting. The late Board of Admiralty did in regard to these torpedo-boat destroyers initiate a new policy of very great value to the country. That policy was challenged in this House, but he ventured to think that reasons of State justified it. What was it? It was the taking of the drawings of the torpedo-boat destroyers, which had been to a certain degree held as trade secrets, and the property of one or two firms skilled in the building of destroyers, and, under a clause in the contract, showing the drawings to other builders in the country for the purpose of enabling them to build ships upon designs drawn as the result of experience by private firms. There were many reasons which might be urged, but which he declined to urge, against such a course-as that. He believed then, as he did now, that such a course was justified. He desired now to urge that the course adopted four or five years ago by the late Board of Admiralty should not merely be confirmed but extended by the present Board. The ten destroyers, on the programme fell short by at least twenty of what ought to be the addition to that class of vessels. We required thirty more destroyers before we properly satisfied the demands of the Mediterranean and elsewhere. He would put this suggestion before the Secretary to-the Admiralty. There were at least thirty shipbuilding yards throughout the country that were not engaged with any serious Admiralty work—yards of a comparatively humble character, which were occupied in building cargo ships, colliers, and other vessels of that kind, as well as building high-class mercantile vessels and passenger ships. There were twenty or thirty yards which might be added to the Admiralty list of possible contractors who were capable of turning out within a year or eighteen months the necessary additional destroyers upon drawings which might be furnished to them by the Admiralty.

The congestion which had been referred to was largely limited to the ordinary shipyards on the present Admiralty list, and it was by extending the list that they would get out of the difficulty. He believed his hon. friend would look upon that suggestion as something at all events that deserved consideration. He knew from his daily experience that he was not recommending a vain or chimerical idea. It was a matter of disappointment—he hoped only of a temporary character—that there was not a Supplementary Estimate. He believed a Supplementary Estimate must come. If it did not they would be told next year that the Admiralty, acting in conjunction with the Treasury, had ordered certain additional vessels, and Parliament would be asked to sanction what they had done. He did not care whether his suggestion was accepted or not, so long as they found the Admiralty showing the necessary activity in the construction of new ships. He hoped the present deep-seated feeling in the country on this subject would lead to such steps being taken as would leave no doubt about the supremacy of the British Navy, and further that this discussion would show to his hon. friend that any reasonable policy for the expansion of the Navy which he might desire to recommend to the Admiralty would be accepted by the House and supported by the country.

Referring to the question of boilers, he said the gentlemen forming the Committee appointed by the Admiralty to report on the subject were entirely suitable for the work entrusted to them. In their Interim Report they recommended that Belleville boilers should not be fitted in ships recently ordered where the work done was not too far advanced. They had been told that there were eight ships which were considered by the Admiralty to come under that category. Now they were told that four only of these ships were to have these boilers rejected from their design. He had pressed his hon. friend to say how long the other four vessels would be interrupted as regards construction if the change had been made in the type of boilers, but he had got no satisfactory information. Surely some idea could be given of how long the construction of the vessels would be prolonged if the change had taken place. He contended that no reasonable additional time and no amount of money justified the Admiralty in retaining in those ships boilers which had been provisionally condemned by the-Committee. He felt a disappointment which he did not expect to feel on this matter. When a Committee representing the highest engineering talent in the country recommended the change, the least the Admiralty could have done would have been to act on the recommendation, unless the severest pressure with regard to time rendered another course necessary.

said the course taken by the Admiralty was taken on the advice of the president of the Boilers Committee.

said I his hon. friend had laid stress upon the fact that he got the recommendation from the president. Was it a recommendation from the whole Committee? There was no subject which came before the House for discussion of greater importance than the efficiency of the Fleet of this country.

^* said he could not help observing that there was a very substantial incongruity in the speeches of hon. Members who had taken part in the debate. In one part of their speeches they urged the Government to proceed with the building of ships, and in another part they reproached the Admiralty for not having stopped four of the most important ships for a period of six or twelve months in order to leave out boilers of which the Admiralty had had experience in every part of the world, and to substitute for them boilers of which they had little or no experience at all.

^* said his suggestion was that some type of cylindrical boiler should be introduced.

^* said he took it to be simply impossible for the Admiralty to revert to the use in the Royal Navy of cylindrical boilers. [An HON. MEMBER: Why?] For the reason that they were very much heavier and carried so much more water than other boilers. His hon. friend the Member for Gates-head spoke with almost pathetic fervour over the matter, and made appeals of a touching kind to the Secretary to the Admiralty. He spoke of the accidents which had occurred to some of the water-tube boilers, one being a recent case where a couple of men were killed. But neither he nor the hon. Member for the Shipley Division said anything of the manifold accidents in the British Navy with ordinary cylindrical boilers. A most awful accident occurred on board the "Thunderer," and everybody knew that there had been many other cases. If the Boilers Committee had advised a return to cylindrical boilers he could better understand the position of his hon. friends, but that was not what the Committee recommended. His recollection of the report was that the Committee simply advised the substitution of some other boilers of which the very gentlemen who composed the Committee had never had any experience at all. Although he was not accustomed to put undue trust in the action of the Admiralty on all occasions, he thought they might be very well left to deal with this matter. His hon. friend was anxious because Belleville boilers were going to be put in, while he himself was equally anxious about the others that were going to be put in, as they were all experimental. Consequently the whole thing resolved itself into this—Are we to go back to the old style of boilers or not? When emotional references were made to accidents, he must point out that these ships were built for war, and that the cylindrical boilers contained about three times the volume of water which the water-tube boilers carried, and anyone could easily see that if a shell entered one of those boilers the consequence would be disaster of the most unlimited kind. On these grounds he could not understand why they should be asked to leap out of the frying-pan into the fire. The hon. Member for Gateshead was making exactly the same kind of appeal now which he made in 1893, and endeavouring to create the utmost alarm and consternation throughout His Majesty's service. Experience since 1894 had entirely disposed of these alarms. There had been a few accidents, but no; such terrible ones as were predicted. There were in the manufactories of England boiler accidents continually occurring where the difficulties were not the same as on board ship. Although he was no great advocate for the Belleville boilers, he ventured to put in a word against the system of spreading distrust of boilers which were working with great efficiency and satisfaction in every part of the globe in the British Navy and also in other navies.

The characteristic feature of the Vote they were now discussing was its magnitude, and he could well understand the feeling of some hon. Members on the Opposition side of the House when they saw Estimates of such magnitude followed up by appeals to the Government to bring in Supplementary Estimates. He for one claimed to be, as he had always been, as great an economist in the matter as any one in the House, but his views of economy were not quite identical with those of some others. There were many branches of the public service in which economy might be exercised without involving any national danger at all. But, in respect of the Navy, any undue economy promised sooner or later the greatest disaster. If we spent too much on the Navy we were still in the advantageous position that if we got into difficulty, everyone would thank God we committed that over-expenditure. It was a means of insurance on which we should rely with the greatest satisfaction. If we had spent millions on ships in recent years, it was because in former years we spent millions on ships which we found we could not trust. He asked the Secretary to the Admiralty whether any inquiry had been made into the cause of the miscalculation of the cost of the building g and alterations to the royal yacht, and whether there was any truth in a Report on the subject which appeared in the press.

An inquiry has been made at the Admiralty with the object of putting the responsibility on the proper persons, and those persons have been dealt with by the Admiralty. With regard to the Report in the newspapers to-day, it is incorrect in many particulars, and in some particulars false. I can come to no other conclusion than that it was dishonestly taken from the Admiralty during the earlier stage of the proceedings of the Board of Admiralty. The Report of the action of the Admiralty will, in due time, be communicated to the House. It does not correspond with, but is similar to, the document which has been stolen.

^* said the publication of the Report would allay public anxiety. The Admiralty had done the right thing in seeking out the causes of the miscalculation with regard to the royal yacht. He was willing to believe they had done that efficiently and were fully alive to the desirability of keeping watch and ward with regard to other ships. A great deal had been said about the infliction of penalties in connection with Admiralty contracts. He very much doubted, in view of the inquiry which he made while he was at the Admiralty, whether the Admiralty would ever be successful in getting penalties inflicted on contractors except in some very exceptional cases. They might give out a contract for a ship, the builder might do his best to construct it, but if they did not supply him at an early stage with the fullest information, and if they left anything undefined, the builder was delayed. He questioned whether the practice of the Admiralty was such as would enable any contractor to go steadily through with the work on the ship from beginning to end without interference and alteration. His experience had been that the great cause of delay was that the Admiralty had taken on themselves the manufacture of the whole of the armour for the ships, and that the contractor could not get the armour in time.

said that the Admiralty did not manufacture the armour.

^* said that at any rate the Admiralty had undertaken to have the armour manufactured outside the contract for the ship. If the Admiralty undertook to supply the contractor with the armour for the ship they should take very good care that the armour was ready when the shipbuilder needed it. The hon. Member for Shipley had made reference to the capability of private yards supplying destroyers. He knew of one of the most highly competent firms in England, which had the very best machinery, with the most recent improved electric power, but which had not had a single order for a destroyer, although the Admiralty admitted that they were much in need of destroyers. In regard to auxiliaries, he was much more inclined to the views of the Secretary to the Admiralty than to those of the right hon. the Member for the Forest of Dean. It seemed to him that in regard to these auxiliary vessels it would be an improper thing for the Admiralty to commit themselves to a large expenditure of public money unless the occasion was of great importance. Some working arrangement should be entered into with the great lines by which a very large number of auxiliary vessels might be brought into the fleet when required, and to that end one vessel of each type should be built by the Admiralty and used as an example as to the form in which the shipping firms should fit their vessels when a naval war arose. The right hon. Baronet had made some remarks in regard to first-class cruisers, and had cited the case of the cruisers which had recently been added to the Japanese fleet. He must confess that he could not tell the difference between a battleship and an armoured cruiser, and he did not know how the distinction was now to be drawn. Of course, they could call a ship by any name they pleased, but, so far as he understood, those first-class armoured cruisers were battleships of very considerable power, and would be so considered when the navies of the world were taken into view. He did not know whether hon. Members had looked into the manner in which the Estimates had been prepared, but they did seem to him past all understanding. The system was very pernicious, and had been practised for a good many years past. Ships were put down on the programme which were only to begin to come into existence during the financial year; but surely they could not say that, when they had spent £40,000 on a ship that was to cost over £1,300,000, any substantial progress had been made with that ship. He was, however, very pleased to recognise what had been done in regard to new ships. He never ventured to criticise His Majesty's ships unless he considered them very bad. There was one point in regard to the armour. It was stated to be of a certain thickness and depth, but he should like to know how far it would extend along the water-line. Then he thought that the electric hoists, which went down in close proximity to the magazines, might prove dangerous. He had seen electrical discharges from these hoists, and precautions ought to be taken against explosions. hough he would not go so far as an old admiral who had barrels of water placed in the magazines of ships while they were building as a precaution against explosion. One other remark he wished to make before he sat down. He thought that a great deal ought to be. done, more than at present, in the way of preparatory work. Take the case of destroyers and other similar classes of craft. If that preparatory work were done there would not only be economy, but when an extension of naval power was desired it could be accomplished in a third of the time necessary at present. In conclusion, he hoped the Secretary to the Admiralty would forgive him for saying that too often the most ardent, the most searching, the most capable, the most strenuous reformers which the House had produced before they had been two months in office came down to the House and made a couleur de rose statement; but he believed that on the present occasion—and it would be a satisfaction to the Committee to agree with with him—the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Admiralty would use his best endeavours to give effect to those views he had given expression to while he sat below the gangway, and that he would do his work thoroughly and well.

[MR. HENRY HOBHOUSE (Somersetshire, E.) in the Chair.]

^* (Roscommon, N.) said that the question of the Navy was the question of the Empire, but yet the Empire did not pay for it. He wished to know whether the Government would consider the desirability of asking the colonies to contribute to the defence of the Empire. They were very rich in jingo speeches, but they did not. contribute a penny towards maintaining the Empire which they were so proud of, although the Navy was to them of the greatest importance. Australia, which was in a position of peculiar danger, did not contribute anything, and neither did India, although the trade of India was sixty-one millions a year, and of Australia fifty-five millions. Canada, with a trade of twenty-eight millions, contributed nothing, neither did South Africa, with a trade of seventeen millions; but Ireland, which did not derive any benefit at all, from the Navy, had to pay its share every year. Even Irish butter would not be bought to feed the men of the Navy. England, with a trade of 800 millions, could well afford to maintain the Navy herself, especially as almost every penny of naval expenditure was spent in England, not a penny being spent in Ireland that could possibly be spent, elsewhere.

The hon. Gentleman is now dealing with the question of contributors to the Navy. This is the Vote for naval construction, and the discussion must be confined to that.

^* said he only desired to say that while the trade of Ireland was only 1'5 per cent, of the trade of the United Kingdom, she had to contribute one-twelfth of the expense of the Navy. After all the millions that had been expended during the last fifteen years the relative strength of England in the naval world was not better; on the contrary, it was less than it was when the first naval programme was introduced. Then the military Powers of the Continent did not possess fleets, and their power of naval construction was very limited. England challenged the world with reference to the command of the seas, and the world had answered her, with the result that she had now lost that command, and had lost it for ever. No amount of money would enable England to dominate the world, because the world would not allow itself to be dominated.

^* said that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Antrim had brought up once more the question of the Mediterranean Fleet.

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

^* said that with reference to the recent scare the country did not appear to realise that the annual manœuvres were now being carried out by the French fleet in the Mediterranean, and that every sea-going battleship of the French Northern Fleet had been brought down to the Mediterranean. Looking at the position fairly and squarely, it would be found that the most France and Russia—provided the Russian Fleet was allowed to pass through the Dardanelles—could do was to oppose sixteen ships against eleven ships of the English Navy, assuming that the magnificent Channel Fleet was not allowed to combine with the Mediterranean Fleet. The French ships in the Mediterranean were some of them laid down in the seventies, and although they had been since reconstructed they were much smaller than the " Royal Sovereign " class. He admitted that we were short of armoured cruisers in the Mediterranean, and that we had only two first class cruisers and not a single armoured cruiser in the Mediterranean at the present moment. He pointed out that the six battleships sent to Japan had proved that the private yards of England were capable of turning out some of the finest battleships of the world. He regretted that those ships were allowed to go away from this country at a moment when we were so short of battleships, but at the same time he had such absolute confidence in the promise of his hon. friend the Secretary to the Admiralty that he felt sure that the "Implacable" and the "London" and others would soon be able to relieve the ships in the Mediterranean. Another question to which he would draw attention was that of submarine boats. It was a very serious question, because it must be apparent to anyone from what the French submarines have done lately that for a battleship to blockade a port was impossible. When they read in The Times that a submarine boat had been able to go under the whole of the French squadron and torpedo one of the best French battleships of that squadron it must make the Admiralty tremble, and he was delighted to hear that they meant to build a number of these boats. With regard to second and third-class cruisers, he did not think they were efficient in point of speed. This country had been content hitherto with cruisers of a speed of twenty knots, but having regard to the fact that other nations had now built a much faster type, he contended that the Admiralty should endeavour to increase their efficiency by building a class of boats with a greater speed than twenty knots. He thought that the blockade of a port would be more effectively carried out by fast cruisers than by heavy battleships. But from the confidence he had in the Admiralty, and the way they were now carrying on these works, and the promise which his hon. friend the Secretary to the Admiralty had conveyed to the Committee this evening, he thought there was no reason to doubt that we should always remain masters of the sea.

said it had been admitted that in spite of the money expended upon it the Navy was almost in as rotten a condition as the Army was just before the war in South Africa. It was short of cruisers and short of battleships, and, as the Committee had been informed, if the Russian fleet came through the Dardanelles (and it would come whenever there was any necessity for its doing so) and joined the French fleet, the combined forces would greatly outnumber our Fleet. The Committee was now asked to vote a sum of £31,000,000 for the Navy. He would like to know what had become of the enormous sums which had been voted in recent years, when at the end of all this enormous and wasteful expenditure the supporters of the Government admitted that they were short of battleships and cruisers. It had been proved by the hon. Member for Gateshead that the boilers in most of our ships were useless for all practical purposes, and that in vessels which cost millions of money this class of boilers was put in. Argument had been offered to show that the arming of cruisers was entirely defective, that our cruisers were armed with weapons almost as useless as those which this country sent out to South Africa at the commencement of the war. In comparison with the cruisers of other nations the cruisers of this country were armed with absolute pop-guns. If this was so, or if we used boilers which could not steam, as was proved by the lion. Member for Gateshead, he wondered where this country would be when it came to a struggle with a Continental nation. Directly water-tube boilers were put into our ships and tested, the result was daily explosions, to the risk of the lives and limbs of the men. The explosion on the "Diadem" was an instance of that, and was in itself an ample justification for the way in which the hon. Member for Gateshead had attacked the Navy in this regard.

Then, he would like to know how the ships were designed. Money had been lavished on the royal yacht, which he believed had been designed by the present Naval Constructor to the Admiralty; but when that vessel was tested it was found that it could not stand upright in a rough sea. The very vessels upon which this country staked its existence could not steam up to the limit of speed for which they were designed. They were unreliable, and owing to the kind of boilers put into them they required 30 or 40 per cent, more men than were required for similar positions in foreign navies. These were matters which should be explained by the Secretary to the Admiralty. The hon. Gentleman had been, before his promotion, one of the strongest critics of the Government on this matter; he had now ceased to become a critic, and had since his elevation to a seat on the Treasury Bench become like the bee which, having lit upon a flower, had ceased to hum. Some explanation should be given of all these matters. He believed that if these war- ships were given a severe test in very rough weather they would all be like the new royal yacht, and could not be depended upon for a moment. He had no personal interest either way; whether the Navy was good or bad affected him very little, and he had only taken this opportunity of pointing out the defects of it in the same way as he had taken an opportunity at the commencement of the war in the Transvaal to point out the badness of the powder and the inferiority of the guns supplied then. It was very important that it should be known by the country that they were depending upon a Navy which, when inquiry was made into the matter, proved to be as unreliable, as the War Office had proved itself to be at the commencement of the Transvaal War. The Committee was also entitled to have some information from the Secretary to the Admiralty as to what the Admiralty were going to do in the way of submarine vessels. He supposed the Admiralty was doing something, but they had maintained an attitude of mysterious silence upon that matter. Such a policy was not fair to-the House, though, so far as foreign nations were concerned, he had no doubt they were quite as well informed as to what the Admiralty were doing as was the Admiralty itself. The hon. Member opposite had pointed out that in the recent French experiments with submarine ships it had been proved that a battleship was practically helpless against their attack. The hon. Member said that such a thing was calculated to make the British people tremble. That was no doubt the case, and he hoped that when that trembling fit had proceeded a little further they would be less. bellicose and more disposed to live at peace with their neighbours, and to give to Ireland that independence she had claimed so long.

He protested against this Vote on another ground. No explanation had been forthcoming as to how the money voted in previous years had been disposed of. The hon. Member for North Roscommon had pointed out that the shipbuilding programme was started sixteen years ago for the purpose of obtaining-supreme command of the sea. That programme, instead of having that effect, had only succeeded in making other nations build in rivalry to the British. He thought that the whole matter ought to be investigated by an honest Committee, which ought to have power to inquire into the proceedings of the Admiralty, but no doubt it would be useless to appoint a Committee to deal with such a scandal. All this enormous expenditure was not swallowed up in construction; he was afraid that some of it had stuck to the palms of those who were supposed to spend it. There had been no real efficiency in the Navy for years. It was the practice to keep the fleet in the home ports during the greater part of the year; they were only sent out to sea for the autumn manœuvres, at a time when no really heavy weather could be expected—with the result, as he had been told, that it was one of the laughing matters on the boats running from Holyhead and Kingstown that the sailors of the Navy could not go out without getting sea-sick. The French adopted an altogether different policy. They kept their vessels at sea in all weathers and at all seasons of the year, with the result that their men became practical seamen. England would do well to dispense with the service of statesmen of the stamp of the Colonial Secretary, lest, through indiscretions of the tongue, this country should be landed into a naval struggle with France or Germany, when the weaknesses of her Navy would be revealed. Of the money asked for in the present Estimates, Ireland would have to pay £2,500,000, although her trade was only £11,000,000.

I called another hon. Member to order for pursuing the line of argument the hon. Member is now pursuing. I must, therefore, ask the hon. Member to make his remarks more strictly relevant to the Vote.

thought that, in discussing the Vote, he was entitled to complain that Ireland did not get value for its contribution. He thought the point ruled out of order in the case of the hon. Member for North Roscommon was with regard to the contribution from the colonies.

What I directed the attention of the hon. Member for North Roscommon to, and what I direct the hon. Member's attention to now is the impropriety, when discussing the Construction Vote, of dwelling on the exact contribution made by Ireland. That is a question of financial relations, not of the construction of vessels.

said that no doubt under any circumstances Ireland would require naval protection for various purposes, but his contention was that, admitting that necessity, Canada and Australia, who also obtained naval protection, should contribute towards the cost as. well as Ireland.