House of Commons
Thursday, March 18, 1909
Oral Answers to Questions
Questions
Hankow-Canton Railway
asked whether His Majesty's Government had received official notification of an agreement between China and Germany providing for the loan to China of £3,000,000 for the purpose of constructing the Hankow-Canton Railway; did China undertake to give Great Britain the right to subscribe the loan on terms equally advantageous to any offer she might receive from Foreign Countries; and, if so, had China complied with the conditions of the agreement?
I have nothing to add to the answer given to the hon. Member for Mid-Armagh on the 15th inst., to the effect that negotiations with regard to the loan for this railway are still proceeding, and meanwhile I think it is better not to make any statement on the subject.
Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake to furnish any information he can as early as possible?
Our position is that the conditions into which the Chinese Government have entered should be kept. With regard to the exact position of the negotiations, I can really say nothing until some decisive point is reached.
Russian Troops at Teheran
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he had received any information to the effect that the guards of the Russian Consulates were to be increased and Russian troops to be sent to keep order as Teheran; and what steps the British Government intended to take in the matter?
With regard to the guards at the Russian Consulates in Persia, I am giving such information as I possess on the subject in reply to a question by the hon. Member for the Darwen Division. I have received no. confirmation of the rumoured dispatch of Russian troops to Teheran. With regard to the last part of the question, the disturbed zone being near the Russian frontier and remote from the sea, His Majesty's Government are not taking action in the matter.
Congo Free State (Annexation)
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether a reply bad been received from the Belgian Government to his despatch of November-last regarding the annexation of the Congo Free State; and, if so, when could he communicate the purport of such reply to Parliament?
The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. I cannot say till the reply has been considered when it will be presented to Parliament.
Considering the importance of this reply, might I urge the right hon. Gentleman to lay it before Parliament as early as possible?
Yes, certainly, I will lay it as soon as possible; but precisely because of its importance it is desirable that some consideration should be given' to it. Until the reply has been considered, I cannot say whether it would-be better to present it at once, or to make our reply to it and present the two together.
Russia and Persia
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he could give the House any information as to the reported movement of Russian troops into Persian territory, and also of Russian; gunboats into Persian ports?
I have received information from the Russian Government that in view of the disturbed state of affairs in the neighbourhood of the Russian frontier and at Resht, it is intended to increase the Russian Consular Guard at that town by a half-squadron of Cossacks, for the protection of the lives-and property of Russian subjects and other Europeans. The merchant vessel on which the Cossacks are to be conveyed is to be escorted by a warship on the Caspian Sea. The Russian Consul will, I am informed, continue to hold himself aloof from all intervention in the struggle between the Nationalists and Royalists in that district.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs when the papers on the affairs of Persia would be laid; up to what date papers would be published; and whether he had yet ascertained whether the Russian Government had any objection to the publication of the Memorandum addressed by them to the British Government on the affairs of Persia?
I hope to be able to lay a portion of the Persian correspondence before Easter, but the papers are so bulky and the pressure of work has been so great, that it will be impracticable to publish the more recent correspondence until after Easter. The Russian Memorandum to which the hon. Member refers will be included in the later publication if the Russian Government raise no objection.
asked whether the Russian officers in Teheran were still in the service of the Shah of Persia; and whether any danger to their lives would be considered by the Russian Government to be a justification for intervention in the internal affairs of Persia?
The reply to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the second part, I am not in a position to say what would be considered by the Russian Government to be a justification for intervention in Persia.
Has the right hon. Gentleman any reason to suppose that the action of these Russian officers in the Shah's service has been other than useful in preserving order during the crisis at Teheran?
I have not heard any complaint of the Russian officers in recent months.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he had any official information of the despatch by Russia of troops to Teheran, and, if so, as to the route which they would follow; were those troops being sent to protect the lives of the Russian officers in that capital; and, in view of the fact that the recent acts of those officers in relation to the internal affairs of Persia had caused resentment among the populace, would he, in the interests of the European community, make friendly representations to the Russian Government for their removal?
The reply to the first part of the question is in the negative. As regards the last part, I do not think I should further the object which the hon. Member apparently desires by replying to his question in the affirmative.
asked whether, any joint representations had been made by His Majesty's Government and that of Russia to the Shah of Persia to the effect that His Majesty should redeem his pledge to restore the constitution, and thus bring the present disorders to an end?
As I have previously stated in the House, joint representations have more than once been made by His Majesty's Government and the Russian Government to the effect that His Majesty the Shah should redeem his pledge to restore the constitution?
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any fears were entertained for the safety of Europeans in Teheran, in view of the recent excesses of the royalist soldiery; and would he consider the strengthening of the guard at the British Legation by the despatch of a reinforcement through the port of Baghdad, with the permission of the Turkish Government, or through Persian territory?
The most recent information received does not indicate any exceptional danger in Teheran at the present moment to the safety of Europeans, beyond the risks usual in any place where disorders are prevalent. As regards the second part of the question, I have received no information from His Majesty's Minister to the effect that the despatch of a reinforcement to the Legation guard would be either necessary or desirable.
Can the right hon. Gentleman say what Consulates the Russian Government propose to protect by the despatch of half a squadron of Cossacks?
reply was inaudible in the Press Gallery.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the facts that European interests had been sedulously safeguarded by the constitutional party in Persia, and that that party was now in possession of considerable districts of Persia, he would oppose any act of intervention by a Foreign Power which would make it difficult for the constitutional party to maintain their present control over the revolutionary movement?
I cannot give a reply which would deprive His Majesty's Government of their freedom to decide what course they would take under circumstances which I hope will not arise.
May I ask which party can be properly described as the Constitutional in Persia—those who favour the constitution of the day before yesterday, or those who favour that of 25 centuries ago?
European Conference (Scope of Operations)
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether His Majesty's Government have given their adhesion to the view that the proposed European Conference, if summoned, should confine itself to ratifying agreements already arrived at between the States affected by the recent infractions of the Treaty of Berlin; and could he inform the House of the grounds upon which the present dispute between Austria, Hungary, and Servia, arising out of the annexation of Bosnia, cannot be referred to the Conference for settlement?
His Majesty's Government have always held that preliminary agreement as to the questions in dispute should be arrived at between all the Powers before a Conference is summoned. Negotiations are still in progress, and I am unable to give further information at present.
Robbery of British Subject at Tabriz
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he had any official information showing that Mr. Brown, a British subject and the chief of the telegraphists of the Indo-European Company at Tabriz, had been robbed and insulted by the royalist soldiery while attempting to repair the wires which they had cut; and, if so, what steps His Majesty's Government had taken in the matter?
I have received no information on this subject, but will inquire.
Farm for Evicted Tenant (Denis Cronin)
asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if he can say whether the Estates Commissioners have yet acquired a suitable holding in lieu of his evicted farm for Denis Cronin, of Ballingarry, in the county of Limerick, representative of his mother, Catherine Cronin, deceased; whether he is aware that, over 12 months ago, they referred this case to one of their inspectors for consideration in connection with an allotment of untenanted land; and, as Cronin has not yet obtained it, will they provide for him without further delay?
The Estates Commissioners have noted Cronin's name for consideration in connection with the allotment of lands in respect of which they have instituted proceedings under the Evicted Tenants Act. The lands have not yet been acquired.
Evicted Tenants Reinstated (Limerick)
asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if he can say of the 98 cases of evicted tenants reinstated by the landlords in the county of Limerick since the passing of the Land Act of 1903 all of them were inquired into by the Estates Commissioners' inspectors, with the view to ascertaining whether they have been reinstated on fair terms so that they can in future pay their annuities; and whether they have all received grants or advances to enable them to work their farms themselves instead of having to let them for grazing?
Of these tenants 47 were reinstated at prices suggested by the Estates Commissioners after inspection. The holdings of the remainder have been inspected or will be inspected when the estates on which they are situate are being dealt with by the Commissioners. The quarterly returns published under Section 3 of the Evicted Tenants Act contain particulars of the grants made to evicted tenants.
May I ask what grants have been made to the tenants?
I do not know at present what grants have been made in individual cases. They obtain grants when necessary in order to enable them to work the farms.
School Inspection Expenses (Ireland)
asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether any augmentation of the grant to the Intermediate Education Board was in contemplation to meet the additional expenses of inspection, so as to obviate any reduction of the school grants?
The answer is in-the negative. The Commissioners of Intermediate Education inform me that they have provided by reinvestment and otherwise for such an increase in their income, provided their receipts from local taxation remain unaltered, and such a reduction in their expenditure, as will, they hope, enable them to distribute each year as school grants an amount similar to that distributed during the last four years.
Constable Goldrick (Grant)
asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he is now in a position to state what amount will be awarded out of the public funds to the relatives of the late Constable Goldrick?
:A grant of £l00has been made to the father of the late Constable Goldrick.
Intermediate School Inspectors (Ireland)
asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he can name the intermediate school inspectors for Ireland?
As the appointments of inspectors are not yet completed, I am not in a position to mention any names.
Basis of Education Grants (Ireland)
asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether legislation will be required before the Intermediate Education Board can substitute inspection for examination as the basis for the payment of grants?
I understand that the legal members of the Intermediate Education Board are of opinion that legislation would be necessary before the Board could substitute inspection for examination as the sole basis for the payment of the school grant. Under the Intermediate Education Act, 1900, inspection can be taken into account as one of the bases of distribution.
Administration of Law in Ireland (Action of Magistrates)
asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether his attention has been directed to the affidavit of County Inspector Holmes, read at the Sligo assizes on the 10th instant, with reference to the charge against 17 men of intimidating Protestant farmers in the Riverstown district who had refused to join the United Irish League or subscribe to its funds; and whether, now that if he is aware that the magistrates constituting the majority of the bench who refused informations in this case are, and were then, prominently identified with the United Irish League, he will cause the conduct of these justices to be brought again under the notice of the Lord Chancellor?
The 17 men referred to in the question have now been returned for trial. The case is therefore sub judice, and I cannot discuss it, or the action of the magistrates who were concerned in its initial stage.
Fuller Estate (King's County)
asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if he can say whether the Estates Commissioners have made any offer to the Land Judge for the purchase of the Fuller Estate, King's County; whether the Land Judge has taken any steps in regard to the sale of this estate; and whether, in either event, the threatened proceedings in bankruptcy against some of the principal tenants will be stayed pending a satisfactory settlement by purchase?
I am informed by the Registrar to the Land Judge that there are no proceedings for the sale of this estate pending in the Land Judge's Court.
Magennis Estate (North Antrim)
asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if he is aware that fair rents were fixed on the Magennis estate, in North Antrim, by the Land Commission on the basis that bog-plots would be given to the tenants at a certain rate, and at this rate bog-plots were given to the tenants until the death of Major-General Magennis, the landlord, in 1907; if he is aware that since the death of Major-General Magennis the rents of these bog-plots have been trebled and quadrupled, a thing which presses hardly on the tenants after these bad seasons; and will he introduce a clause in the Land Bill to prevent landlords putting such rents on bog-plots during a statutory term?
So far as the Land Commission have been able to examine the fair rent files of this estate, it does not appear that the rents were fixed on the basis stated. The Commissioners cannot say whether the bog rents have been raised since the death of Major-General Magennis. I am not at present aware of any necessity for the legislation suggested, but I will look into the matter.
Law Charges, etc. (Ireland)
asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if he will ex- plain the increase in the Estimates for Law Charges and Criminal Prosecutions, Ireland (Class 3, Vote 15), and particularly the reasons why the item of fees to the Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General shows an increase of £ and the item of fees to counsel other than the Law Officers for taking Crown prosecutions, etc., shows an increase of £1,200 as compared with last year's Estimates?
The Law Charge Vote for the coming year shows an increase of £2,165 over that for the current year. This total includes, besides the two items mentioned in the question, an increase of £265 under the sub-head Crown Solicitors, and an increase of £200 for defence of public officials. The former is due to an addition to the clerical allowances of the Treasury Solicitor in Ireland, the latter is based on current expenditure, the sub-head being one which it is difficult to estimate with accuracy. The increased estimate for tees to Law Officers is based on current expenditure, and is due to an increase in the number of prosecutions. The estimate of £l,000 under this sub-head has been exceeded in each of the last four years. The increase in fees to counsel is due to a possible increase in the number of prosecutions having regard to the expenditure in 1907–8.
Rosse Estate, King's County (Mrs. Rose Egan)
asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he was aware that, although he stated early in the last Session that the case of Mrs. Rose Egan, an evicted tenant from the Rosse estate, near Ferbane, in the King's County, was under the Estates Commissioners' consideration and that she would shortly be reinstated, nothing has yet been done; and whether, in view of the approach of the sowing-time, he will use his influence to have her case speedily attended to?
As I stated in my reply to a question asked by the hon. Member on 2nd December last, the Estates Comsioners have informed the owner of the price which they are willing to advance for the evicted farm provided the evicted tenant is reinstated and signs a purchase agreement. No purchase agreement has since been lodged by the owner.
Tuberculosis (Ireland) Act, 1908
asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he could state the number of local authorities in Ireland which have put into operation The Tuberculosis (Ireland) Act, 1908?
The hon. and gallant Member's question is premature. The Act does not come into operation until the 1st July next.
Irish Industries (Report for Circulation)
asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if he has received copies of the daily consular and trade reports of the United States of America; will he say whether, in view of the advantages which the circulation of similar Irish reports would confer on Ireland and Irish traders, he will direct one of the Boards under his control to collect the necessary information, that commercial reports of the markets affecting the various Irish industries may be available for those concerned; or will he consider the advisability of securing a duplicate of the American daily trade reports for circulation in Ireland?
I understand that the materials for the reports in question are supplied by the Foreign Consuls of the United States. I have no means of obtaining similar information with regard to foreign markets affecting Irish industries, but the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction are willing to have a duplicate copy of the United States Report kept in their office for reference.
Robinson Estate (Roscommon)
asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether part of the untenanted land and part of the deep bog on the Robinson estate, county Roscommon, has been recently disposed of by the landlord to a Customs' pensioner, whereas both are badly required to meet the needs of the agricultural population already on the estate; and whether the Estates Commissioners have taken, or propose to take, any steps to safeguard the people's interests in the matter?
The Estates Commissioners have received a communication from certain tenants on this estate to the effect stated in the question. The estate is not pending for sale before them, and they have no power to interfere with regard to it.
Wireless Telegraphy (India)
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether any stations in India are united by Marconi wireless telegraphy?
There are at present four wireless telegraphy stations in India, but none is equipped with the Marconi system.
Queen Victoria's Statue at Nagpore
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether among those concerned in the desecration of Queen Victoria's statue at Nagpore were several persons belonging to the local agricultural college, at which much seditious literature was found; whether the students from this college, after passing into the service of Government, are sent to spend their lives in rural districts amongst landowners and cultivators; and whether, in view of the danger that the loyalty of this, the most important class in India, is likely to be debauched by the ex-students of such a college, the Government proposes to take special steps to repress the spread of sedition in this and in other educational institutions?
The two persons convicted in connection with the offence mentioned were a student and an ex-student, respectively, of the local agricultural college. The Government of India will no doubt take whatever steps are practicable to check the spread of seditious propaganda from such institutions.
Opium Cultivation in India
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether, in view of the fact that the Indian peasant pays the bill, the Government will exact the clearest and most irrefutable proof that China is pari passu with India reducing her opium cultivation, before India is called upon, to the prejudice of her own revenue and her own taxpayers, to make reductions which, in the absence of such proof, may only result in transferring business from Indian to Chinese growers of the drug?
The present arrangement for the progressive restriction of the export of opium from India holds good till the end of 1910. The Chinese Government are aware that the extension of the arrangement will depend on satisfactory evidence being given that production of opium has been correspondingly reduced in China.
May we hope that there will be some evidence besides that of the Chinese officials' assurance on that behalf?
We will take care that that matter is considered.
May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman is aware that the Indian peasant is most averse to the cultivation of opium and would abandon it but for the advance given by the Government to promote its cultivation?
I am not sure whether I can take that on the assurance of my hon. Friend.
Indian Councils (Correspondence)
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether, in view of the fact that the Government have introduced the Indian Councils Bill in another place, he will lay the correspondence which has passed on the subject between the Secretary of State and the Government of India, and between the latter and the governors, lieutenant-governors, and chief commissioners of provinces, before the Bill comes down for discussion in this House?
A very large amount of correspondence between the Secretary of State in Council and the Governor-General in Council, and between the Governor-General in Council and the local Governments, has already been laid upon the Table of the House, and gives full information as to the general intentions with which the Indian Councils Bill has been framed. The Secretary of State has announced many of the decisions arrived at. Details of the regulations are still under consideration and discussion, and the Secretary of State cannot undertake to publish the correspondence relating to them.
Cook Island Incident
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has now received any report of the incident of the hauling down of the British flag at Cook Island, to which his attention was recently called; and whether he can make any statement with regard to it?
His Majesty's Government have learnt by telegraph that His Majesty's ship "Cambrian" conveyed the Commissioner of the Cook Islands to two islands of the group where disturbances had taken place, that the Union Jack was rehoisted, and order restored without any bloodshed, the ringleaders being arrested. The fuller report by mail cannot be expected for some weeks.
Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman furnish me with such part of the Report as he thinks it proper to give when it arrives?
Certainly, I shall be glad to give you the fullest information on the subject when I receive it.
Ekoi District (Import of Arms)
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, notwithstanding the protocol of the Powers signed in July last, under which the Ekoi district is exempted from the prohibition to import arms and ammunition, the Ekoi tribe on our side are still forbidden to possess arms and ammunition; if they are forbidden, will he state the reason; and whether the German authorities across the frontier have forbidden their Ekoi people to possess arms and ammunition and enforce the prohibition?
As I stated in reply to my hon. Friend's question on Monday, the Ekoi district is included in the specified area within which the importation of arms and ammunition has been suspended. The restrictions apply equally to the Ekoi people on the German side of the frontier, and I know of no reason for supposing that they have not been enforced by the authorities there.
May I ask whether, seeing that the local authorities are of opinion that the restriction is not being enforced on the German side, he will cause inquiry to be made to see if it is the fact?
My hon. Friend seems to have information which is not in my possession. I think it is probable that for once my information is superior to his.
South Africa Act
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the draft South Africa Act or any part of it has received the approval in advance of His Majesty's Government; whether certain of its sections, as they stand, have the effect of disfranchising a large class of the coloured population, especially in Natal; and whether His Majesty's Government will take precautions to protect those who at present stand enfranchised, whether they exercise the privilege or not, from being deprived of it?
His Majesty's Government have not at present expressed approval of the draft Bill in whole or in part. I would point out that Clause 35 provides that if the South African Parliament should alter the existing qualifications of voters which are preserved by Section 36 no person who is actually at the time registered as a voter shall be removed from the register by reason only of any disqualification based on race or colour.
May I ask whether the attention of the hon. Gentleman has been drawn to the fact that the declaration given by the Commission implied that the Government had given its consent in general terms?
Oh, no, Sir. It is not the case that they expressed approval or disapproval. The matter is of course one of very great importance. If the hon. Member wishes for further information I should be much obliged if he will put down a question.
Can the hon. Gentleman give us any idea when it will be possible for the House of Commons to consider the draft Constitution; and whether in the interval the House may rely on the Government watching with great jealousy the great interests of the natives?
It is a draft only. The Parliaments of South Africa meet on the 30th of this month to discuss it, and one cannot usefully make any statement until they themselves have seen the draft.
Unemployed (Scotland)
asked the Lord-Advocate whether he can furnish the number of unemployed at present under the distress committees in Edinburgh, Glasgow, and Dundee?
The number of unemployed on the relief works registers of the distress committees at the present time is given as follows:—
May I ask how many of these men have been given work? What proportion have been given work?
No, Sir; I cannot answer that question.
Legal Procedure (Scotland)
asked the Lord Advocate whether, in order to avoid the inconvenience, delay, and expense entailed by the present system of legal procedure in Scotland, lie will consider the advisability of setting up a branch of the Court of Session in the West of Scotland to deal at least with commercial cases arising in that part of Scotland?
After having conferred with my Noble Friend the Secretary for Scotland, I am of opinion that such inconvenience, delay and expense as may be caused to litigants in the West of Scotland, owing to the fact that the Court of Session holds its sittings in Edinburgh, are not sufficient to justify judicial changes of the importance and magnitude involved in the proposal of my hon. Friend.
Indian Councils Bill
asked the Prime Minister whether he is in a position to state when the second reading of the Indian Councils Bill will be taken?
I am anxious to take the second reading before the Easter recess, but I cannot yet name a definite date.
Granite
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he has any statistics as to the existence of royalties in the Aberdeenshire granite quarries, and as to the proportion which rent bears to the expenditure on wages and machinery in determining the cost of the granite produced?
The answer to the hon. Member's question is in the negative.
May I ask whether information has not been sent to the right hon. Gentleman's Department by those concerned showing that the element of rent amounts to an infinitesimal part of the cost of production?
I will inquire. I have no personal knowledge of the matter.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, m the Admiralty contract now being executed by Messrs. Freeman, at Portsmouth, he specified for British granite; and, if so, why he did so if granite of a not inferior quality could be obtained from Norway at a lower price?
I have nothing to add to the answer given to the hon. Member for Stepney on 1st March.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty what experiments have been made and what information has been collected by the Admiralty with a view to ascertaining the comparative merits of British and Norwegian granites; and what was the result of such experiments and information as to their respective merits for heavy dock work?
Experiments are being made, and information collected, as to the comparative merits of British and Norwegian granite, but these investigations are not yet concluded.
In view of the great public interest taken in this matter, will the official inquiry be made public?
I cannot give an undertaking on that point.
Will the experiments be made in the ordinary way?
We have had long experience of Norwegian granite at the Admiralty, and are thoroughly convinced of its general merits.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether his attention has been called to the report of the British consul for Gothenburg for the year 1907 to the effect that the wages paid to granite workers in Norway are so low that they can even undersell their Swedish competitors; and, if so, whether he will consider the advisability of extending the Fair Wages Clause in Admiralty contracts to prevent such labour competing with British trade unionists.
The answer to both parts of the hon. Gentleman's question is in the negative.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, in the case of the Haulbowline contract, the granite specification was for stone from the lower beds of the quarries; whether he can state if the Norwegian granite actually supplied in fulfilment of this contract was governed by the same qualification; and what steps were taken to ensure that granite only from the lower beds of the quarries were used?
The reply to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. So long as the granite from Norway comes up to an approved sample referred to in the contract particulars for the work, it would be accepted.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty what proportion of the Granite used at Keyham was obtained from foreign countries?
One-third of the total quantity of granite used at Keyham was obtained from Norway.
Torpedo Works, Fort Matilda
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if any, and, if so, what, arrangements are being made to house the workmen who will be transferred from Woolwich to the new torpedo works at Fort Matilda; and whether a deputation of the workers who have visited the housing accommodation now provided on the spot have expressed discontent with the prevailing tenement system and have also expressed a desire for the provision of cottage homes?
The new torpedo works at Greenock are being erected in the vicinity of populous towns, and it has not been considered necessary to make any special provision for housing the workmen. The deputation referred to have not yet represented their views to the Admiralty, but facilities for this will be afforded.
Battleship Construction
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he will state in what form he intends to ask the approval of the House for the proposal to entrust Ministers with power to make preparation for the rapid construction of four additional battleships to be laid down on the 1st April, 1910, the collection of guns, gun-mounting armours, and other war material, as mentioned in his explanatory statement?
The approval of the House was asked by my introduction of the Naval Estimates.
Does my right hon. Friend mean that the Admiralty will consider itself at liberty to spend money on this purpose without any specific vote of the House?
Yes, Sir. If His Majesty's Government come to the conclusion that it is necessary to give these orders in advance they propose to authorise the Admiralty to do so.
What sum of money is taken in the Estimates? I cannot find any.
No sum is taken in the Estimates, and for the obvious reason that it is impossible at this moment to forecast what sum or whether any sum will be necessary for the purpose.
Under what Vote of the House will the Government consider themselves entitled to spend money? Are we to understand the answer of the right hon. Gentleman as indicating that by the passing of the present year's Estimates we are giving him a blank cheque as to the future?
Not a blank cheque in the ordinary acceptance of the word. The circumstances are fully set out in the Note to the Estimates, which indicates that under certain circumstances the Government may find it necessary to give orders in advance. No money will be paid in respect of any orders except with the prior sanction of this House.
Are we to understand that by passing the Estimates of this year we are to be held to be justified or authorise the Government to incur any liability which they may think desirable?
Not any liability, but the specific liability referred to in the Estimates.
How much?
The amount of money cannot be specified. If it could be specified it would have been indicated in the Estimates. The procedure taken by the Government, although the particular form may be novel, is very usual. Only two years ago, with regard to the expenditure on cooling machinery, precisely the same method was adopted, with this exception, that instead of appearing as a Note to the Estimate a communication was simply made by the Financial Secretary in a speech at this Table.
I wish to—
Order, order. This debate may be continued when Vote A is under discussion.
Alleged Assault (Glasgow)
asked the Lord-Advocate whether he could state the names of the witnesses for the prosecution who were examined by the Procurator Fiscal in the charge of alleged assault against a constable in Glasgow; whether he was aware that the accused admitted his guilt in the presence of the Lord Provost of the city; and what further action he proposed taking in the matter?
The Procurator Fiscal examined all the witnesses whose names were submitted to him by the complainer's agent, who can no doubt supply them to the hon. Member. I am not aware that the accused constable made the alleged confession, and, as I adhere to the views expressed in my answer of the 4th inst., I do not propose taking any action in the matter.
Do I understand that the complainant's witnesses were examined?
Yes, they were examined by the Procurator Fiscal.
Mines and Torpedoes (Firth of Forth)
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether all the mines and torpedoes recently used in the Firth of Forth had been recovered?
No torpedoes were lost in the Firth of Forth during recent exercises. Six old mine cases were not recovered and one mine case was lost through breaking adrift in bad weather.
Could the right hon. Gentleman say whether any of them were charged?
I could not say whether or not they were charged; but even if they were charged there is no danger.
Small Holdings Act (Wales)
asked the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether the Government proposes to appoint Commissioners to carry out the Small Holdings Act in Wales, and, if so, how many; and whether Welshmen will be appointed?
One Welsh-speaking inspector—Mr. John Owen—is already at work in Wales, and it is proposed to appoint another at an early date.
Will he be able to speak Welsh?
Yes.
asked the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether any county councils, and, if so, which, had submitted to the Board orders for the compulsory acquisition of land; and whether the Board have as yet confirmed any such orders?
Cambridge, Hunts, Soke of Peterborough, Devon, Leicester, Warwick, Dorset, Norfolk, Monmouth, Gloucester, Northampton, Salop and Carmarthen have submitted compulsory orders. Seven orders have been confirmed.
Trawling in Irish Waters
asked the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland) how many prosecutions have been instituted by the Department against British and Foreign-owned vessels, respectively, during the past two years, for breach of the regulations prohibiting trawling in Irish waters outside the three-mile limit; and whether the Department will withdraw those regulations which protect Foreign-owned vessels against British competition?
Two of the cases prosecuted by the Department for illegal steam trawling within the past two-years were for offences committed, in the opinion of the Department, in extra-territorial waters. The skipper in each of these two cases was a British subject. No similar prosecution of a foreigner took place. The Department do not propose to withdraw the regulations referred to in the question.
Will the right hon. Gentleman say what useful purpose is served in prosecuting British subjects and allowing foreigners to fish?
It does not appear that any foreigners transgressed the law.
Will the right hon. Gentleman answer my question, which is What useful purpose is served in prosecuting British subjects and allowing foreigners—
Order, order. The hon. Member has had an answer.
Unemployed Trades Unionists (Scotland)
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can furnish any information as to the number of unemployed among trades unionists at present in Edinburgh, Glasgow, and Dundee respectively.
The Returns of unemployment received by the Board of Trade from trade unions do not cover the whole body of trade unionists, and are not equally representative of all districts. Moreover, some of these Returns do not distinguish districts. I am consequently not in a position to give the information desired.
Can the right hon. Gentleman give me any figures at all?
I can give no figures that afford any accurate guide.
Railway Communication Chains
asked the President of the Board of Trade, with reference to the recent outrage on the Midland Railway between Grindleford and Dore and Totley stations, if he is aware that Mr. Blackwell, the assaulted person, pulled the communication chain two minutes after leaving Grindleford station, and that the train travelled three and a half miles before stopping at Dore and Totley station; that Mr. Blackwell was informed by the guard that the latter noticed that the brakes were on, but he thought that this was caused by the driver being pulled up by the signals being against him, so that Mr. Blackwell failed in his endeavour to communicate his need for help to the conductors of the train; that officials of the Midland Railway have called upon Mr. Blackwell, expressing to him their opinion that he was not attacked and that they could not believe any of his statements; if he is aware that Mr. Blackwell is badly bruised and cut and is in the doctor's care; that Mr. Blackwell's firm have taken the matter up with the general manager of the Midland Railway, but have not yet had a reply to their representations; and what action he intends to take in these circumstances?
I have asked for the observations of the railway company upon the points raised in my hon. Friend's question, and I will communicate with him on receipt of their reply.
Railway Agreement (Reduction of Competitive Service)
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has seen the agreement for the reduction of competitive services entered into between the London and North-Western and the Midland Railway Companies during last year; and, if so, whether he can lay a copy of it upon the Table of the House?
There is no obligation on the companies to deposit the agreement referred to at the Board of Trade, and I am consequently not in a position to lay a copy on the Table of the House.
Is it a fact that they entered into this agreement to vary the powers given them by this House without coming to the House for leave to do so?
Would the right hon. Gentleman also give me an answer to the first part of my question, whether he has seen the agreement?
The Board of Trade itself receives from the railway companies a great deal more information than our statutory authority gives us a right to exact, and it is very properly treated as confidential.
Will the right hon. Gentleman consider whether it ought not to be laid before this House when it is so far-reaching and important?
I have not made any statement to the House in regard to this agreement at all. I have carefully refrained from doing so. Any information that I may have is not information that arises from statutory powers. It may be of great advantage to the Board of Trade to have upon this sort of matter information beyond that which the law requires the companies to give, and, therefore, we ought not to do anything to interrupt this satisfactory state of things.
May I ask whether the powers given by the Act have been varied by these two companies?
I cannot answer a question on such a complicated matter as railway agreements without notice.
Would the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of inserting on behalf of the Board of Trade in future railway Bills provision that such agreements should be laid before Parliament?
I do not think that is desirable.
Quarrying Industry in Norway (Standard of Wages)
asked the President of the Board of Trade what is the standard rate of wages and hours of work in the quarrying industry in Norway and the United Kingdom?
The usual earnings in a full week of quarriers in Aberdeen are about 25s. to 26s. for a week of about 56 or 57 hours. I have no figures on a comparable basis as to the earnings in Norwegian quarries.
Will the right hon. Gentleman get the figures for Norway?
I will consider that. I am not able to say until I know what would be the process by which they may be obtained and what would be the expense.
Will the right hon. Gentleman give us the figures, so that the House may judge whether they are of a comparable basis?
I shall be very glad indeed to give the House any Board of Trade figures which they may require with regard to this or any other matter, but, of course, I should have to state how far they are comparable.
Railway Conciliation Board System
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that the Great Southern and Western Railway Company (Ireland) and their men have accepted the conciliation board system of 1907; that the sectional and central boards' representatives have been appointed, and the men's claims presented in the usual way through the head of the respective departments; whether he is aware that the company refuse to allow such conciliation boards to operate unless approached by petition to do so; and what steps, if any, he is taking in the matter?
The difficulty to which the hon. Member refers has been brought to the notice of the Board of Trade by the employés' secretary, and also by my hon. Friend the Member for Derby. A suggestion has been made to meet the point, which I trust will prove to be satisfactory.
French Tariff (Board of Trade Report)
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in accordance with the precedent of the German tariff, he will publish the Report of the Advisory Committee of the Board of Trade on Commercial Intelligence on the proposed French tariff?
I do not think it would be desirable at present to publish the report in question.
Could any Member of the House see the report if be called to the Board of Trade?
No, Sir.
United States (Cost of living)
asked the President of the Board of Trade if it is the intention to publish a report of the cost of living, etc., in the United States on lines similar to the reports on Germany and France?
Yes, Sir; the investigation is now in progress, but it may be some considerable time before the report can be presented.
Will the question of wages be included as well?
I think so. The idea is, as far as possible, to give a perfectly comprehensive report.
Imported Cotton Manufactures
asked the President of the Board of Trade what was the value of the cotton manufactures exported from the United Kingdom to France, and the value of the cotton manufactures imported into the United Kingdom from France during each of the last three years?
I will have a statement giving the information desired by the hon. Member printed with the Votes.
Lancashire and French Cotton Mills (Hours of Work)
asked the President of the Board of Trade what are the average hours of work per day of the men and women employed in the cotton mills in Lancashire when they are running full time; and what are the average hours of work of men and women employed in cotton mills in France?
The full-time hours of labour of men and women employed in the cotton mills in Lancashire are 10 per day, except on Saturdays, when the hours worked are 5½. In France the full-time hours of labour of men and women in cotton mills are 10 per day, including Saturdays. The number of hours worked per week are thus 55½ in Lancashire and 60 in France.
Premature Burial
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the case of the supposed premature burial of James Blood, at Leigh, North Staffordshire, on 4th March last; whether he has directed any inquiries to be made concerning this case; if so, what is the result of such inquiries or, in the alternative, if he will cause inquiries to be made?
The matter is not one as to which the Secretary of State has, properly speaking, any jurisdiction; but he is making such inquiries as are possible to ascertain what took place.
The Tottenham Murders
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will state the amount of compensation to be awarded to the 14 persons who received bullet wounds at the hands of the alien murderers, Jacob and Hefeld, and to the parents of the child who was killed on the same occasion?
The amounts cannot be stated until the local committee who are administering the fund have completed their investigation of the cases and made their awards.
When will the report be available, and what are the conditions?
I cannot say when the local committee will be able to report finally. They are not under the authority of the Secretary of State. The funds consist partly of sums collected by subscriptions and of a grant of £100 from the Royal Bounty Fund.
British-and Foreign-Made Canvas
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the £5,314 15s. 5d. given in command Paper 10 was expended in the purchase of 116,400 yards of 52-inch brown canvas, or whether a larger quantity was purchased with this sum of £5,314 15s. 5d., if so, where all the canvas represented by £5,314 15s. 5d. was manufactured; and what is the difference in price between British-made and foreign-made canvas?
The Secretary of State is informed by the Prison Commissioners that the sum of £5,314 15s. 5d. was expended in the purchase of 116,400 yards of 52-inch brown and 52-inch striped canvas. This material was manufactured in France. The principal item was 52-inch brown canvas (about 100,000 yards), the bulk of which was purchased at 4-10d. per yard less than the lowest tender received from any British firm, representing a difference in value of about £160.
Do I understand from the reply that the whole of this £5,000 will be spent?
Yes. Of course, this £5,000 does not represent the whole of the purchases of the Prisons Department. Nine-tenths are purchases directly from British firms.
Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether these purchases from British firms are manufactured in the United Kingdom or whether these firms were merely agents?
There is another question upon the Paper upon that subject.
Court of Criminal Appeal (Sentence for Begging Reduced)
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his attention has been called to a sentence of three months' imprisonment with hard labour passed by Mr. Justice Darling on 12th March on an ex-soldier named Edwards or Lane for the offence of playing a musical instrument in the street and asking for alms; and whether, in consideration of his excellent character whilst in the Army and the fact that he is disabled through paralysis, he will order his release?
The case is one where the Court of Criminal Appeal, in a judgment delivered by Mr. Justice Darling, reduced the sentence from nine months to three. The Secretary of State doubts if in such a case he can properly interfere further; but he is making inquiry as to the facts, and will let my hon. Friend know the result.
May I ask whether, so far as the Home Office is aware, the only offence of which this poor man was guilty was playing a musical instrument and asking for alms?
This man has been repeatedly convicted for a long series of years of persistent begging.
For begging, and the man got three months hard labour for asking for alms
Constables Killed on Duty
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the case of a police constable at Folkestone who was killed by a motor car running into and overturning a stationary cab near to which the constable was standing on duty; what pension this constable's dependents will receive; whether any public subscription has been raised to aid them; and what steps he proposes to take in the circumstances?
, who replied, said: The Secretary of State's attention has not previously been called to this matter. On making inquiry he is informed that the deceased constable has left a widow, who will receive a pension of £15 from the local Police pension fund, but that he has left no children. No public subscription has been raised, but a claim for compensation will be made on the owners of the motor car. The Secretary of State has no power to take any steps under the existing law, but he has already indicated his view that the law should be amended.
May I inquire whether there will be a prosecution against those responsible for the motor car?
I really cannot say.
Will he inquire?
Yes.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been directed to the case of a police-constable at Leeds who was recently killed whilst on duty at fire drill by being knocked from the top of a ladder by a jet of water thrown up by a steam fire appliance; whether, in consequence of his having been killed whilst on duty, his case comes within the Police Act and his widow and children can only receive 5s. 9d. per week pension so long as the widow does not remarry; whether any public subscription has been raised to aid this widow and her young children; and whether he proposes to take any steps to ensure adequate provision being made for this constable's dependants?
The Secretary of State finds on inquiry of the Chief Constable that the deceased constable leaves a widow, who will receive a pension of £15, and three children, who will receive allowances of £2 10s. each, making a total of £22 10s. a year, or 8s. 8d. a week. He was insured in various benefit societies, from which his widow will receive a very substantial sum. It does not appear that any public subscription has been started on her behalf. The last head of the question has already been answered.
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this man was one of the constituents of the Home Secretary?
Mail Bag Canvas
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will take steps to ascertain how many of the 680,000 yards of 52-inch mail-bag canvas ordered from British firms established in the United Kingdom are to be manufactured in the United Kingdom; and, if not manufactured in the United Kingdom, what steps he has taken to ensure that those engaged in the manufacture of this canvas abroad do not work for less wages and for longer hours than permitted by the fair wages clause when canvas is manufactured to the order of His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom?
The Secretary of State is communicating with the Prison Commissioners on this point, and perhaps the hon. Member will kindly defer his question for a few days.
Coinage Offences
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the statement made in the introduction to the Criminal Statistics for 1907, that the offence of coining appears to be seldom committed by professional criminals, and that it appears probable that the offence is in some cases the desperate resource of a skilled workman out of employment; and whether, in these circumstances, he will review the 16 sentences of penal servitude passed for this offence in 1907, with a view to the mitigation of the sentence in suitable cases?
The remark in the Criminal Statistics referred to relates to 30 persons convicted of coinage offences, 14 of whom were not sentenced to penal servitude. The Secretary of State will, of course, consider any representations that may be made to him on behalf of any of the convicts to whom my hon. Friend refers, but he has at present no reason to suppose that in passing sentence on them the Courts failed to give due weight to any extenuating circum- stances that may have existed. The offence of coining is a very grave one; and in 13 out of the sixteen cases referred to the convict had a long record of previous convictions, while in the other three oases there was a combination of coiners for the manufacture of counterfeit coin.
Long Term Prisoners (Total Abstainers)
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has any official record as to what proportion of prisoners serving long terms of imprisonment are total abstainers?
During the term of their detention, unless the medical officer orders otherwise, all prisoners are total abstainers. As to their previous records in this respect there is no official information, nor is it possible to collect any facts likely to be reliable.
Tea-room Girls (Hours of Work)
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he proposes to take any steps for the protection of young women and girls who are employed in tea-rooms, run by a firm announcing themselves by special appointment, for 12 consecutive hours daily, with no provision or allowance for meals and meal times?
There is no power to intervene under the law as it stands at present, but the question of the hours of employment in places of this kind will be considered in connection with the Government Shop Hours Bill.
Prisons (Women Inspectors)
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many women inspectors of prisons there are; how many prison medical officers are women; and whether, in view of the proportion of women prisoners, he will consider the appointment of additional qualified women to act in each of the capacities mentioned?
There is one woman inspector, who is well able to discharge all the duties of an inspector in relation to prisons where women are detained. None of the prison medical officers are women, but the woman inspector has medical qualifications.
Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the latter part of the question—whether the Home Secretary will consider the appointment of addi- tional qualified women to act in each of the capacities mentioned?
So far as women inspectors are concerned I have already stated that one woman inspector is well able to perform the duties that devolve upon her in that respect, and a further increase of the staff is not necessary. With, regard to women medical officers of prisons, the point will be considered.
Children Born in Prison
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he can state the number of children born in prisons in the United Kingdom in each of the years 1906, 1907, and 1908?
The information for which the hon. Member asks is not in the Secretary of State's possession. If he has some useful public object in view in desiring it, and will so inform my right hon. Friend, the latter will certainly consider the question of taking steps to have it collected.
Jury Panels (Ireland)
asked the Attorney-General for Ireland whether he will say if the public can obtain copies of jury panels; if so, is there a fixed price for printed copies of such jury panels, and what is the price; and what was the amount received in Ireland in the year ended 31st December, 1908, for copies of jury panels, who received the money, and to what purpose has it been allocated?
Any member of the public can obtain from the Sheriff copies of the jury panel on payment for the first copy of 2s. 6d., and for each additional copy Is. The Irish Government have no means of ascertaining the amounts received by the Sheriffs for copies of panels. These fees become the personal property of the Sheriffs.
Godfrey Ermen Memorial School, Eccles
asked the President of the Board of Education whether his attention has been called to a resolution which was passed by the borough of Eccles Education Committee on l*7th February, 1909, directing the immediate transfer of 16 children, all of whom were under seven years of age on 1st July last, from the infants' department to the mixed department of the Godfrey Ermen Memorial School; and, if so, whether a local education authority has any power to compel the managers of a non-provided school to transfer children from the infants' department to the mixed department in the middle of the school year, when, in the opinion of the head master and the head mistress of the school, such children are not from an educational point of view eligible for such promotion?
I have received no information as to the resolution referred to, but I will cause inquiries to be made.
Boys' Brigades
asked the President of the Board of Education whether, in view of the fact that the institution of boys' brigades has done so much for the moral and physical improvement of the boys wherever they have been formed, he can see his way to encourage the formation of these brigades in the schools under his control?
I think the Board would be travelling outside its province in adopting the bon. Member's suggestion.
Royal Parks (Motor Cars)
asked the First Commissioner of Works whether he will consider the advisability in the public interest of altering the regulations regarding the Royal parks in order to permit members of the medical profession to pass through during the prohibited hours in motor cars, whether petrol or electric driven; and whether special permits for this purpose could be issued?
Hyde Park is the only Royal park closed to petrol-driven motors during three hours of the afternoon for the three months May to July. As the speed of motors in the parks is limited to 10 miles, whilst the street limit is 20 miles, members of the medical profession in a hurry to reach their patients and to avoid penalties would be well advised during these and all other months to avoid the parks and stick to the streets.
Royal Irish Fusiliers (Sergeant-Majors)
asked whether one sergeant-major is sufficient for the work of the Royal Irish Fusiliers depot at Armagh; if he is aware that three sergeant-majors have been attached to the depot, of whom one has been absent from duty on full pay for upwards of five months; were the warrant officers' quarters in the Armagh barracks vacant from September, 1908, until 10th March, 1909; is he aware that the senior sergeant-major has over 23 years' continuous service, including upwards of seven years' service as warrant-officer; and whether, under Article 713A of the Royal Warrant for Pay and Promotion, the senior sergeant-major is entitled to retire on the full warrant-officer's pension of that service?
As I have already informed the hon. Member, there are three sergeant-majors present at the headquartrs of the 3rd Battalion Royal Irish Fusiliers at Armagh, of whom two are supernumerary to establishment. None of these sergeant-majors has been absent from duty for more than six weeks during the last few months. The warrant-officer's quarter has been in occupation throughout the period mentioned in the question. The senior sergeant-major has 22 years 140 days service, including over seven years as warrant-officer. This sergeant-major is entitled to retire on the pension for which his service qualifies him under Article 714 of the Royal Warrant for Pay, etc. The maximum pension of a warrant-officer can only be drawn after 30 years' service.
Army Horses
asked if agricultural societies wishing to take advantage of the prizes for horses suitable for the Army should apply to the War Office; and if this also applies to Ireland?
The reply to both questions is in the affirmative.
Will the right hon. Gentleman say from what fund money will be taken for these prizes, and what is the maximum amount the right hon. Gentleman has at his disposal?
We have a certain amount of money at the War Office, and if the hon. Member will put down a question I will give him any details I have.
Untenanted Lands (County Cavan)
asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he has received Resolutions from Thomas O'Reilly, Esq., C.C., passed at a meeting held at Greaghraghan, county Cavan, demanding that the following untenanted lands be acquired for the evicted tenants and landless men of the district—viz., Rosehill Farm, Drumlane Farm, Clowney, Rinn, Deramfield, Ture, Slievebrickan, Macken, and Stranadara; will he say what proceedings have been taken in respect of these lands; and what are the prospects that they will be available for distribution, and when?
Copies of the resolutions referred to were received by the Estates Commissioners on the 13th instant. Proceedings for the acquisition of the lands of Rosehill under the Evicted Tenants Act had already been instituted, but the Commissioners cannot say when the lands will be vested in them. It has been judicially decided that the lands of Rinn and Deramfield cannot be acquired under the Act. The Commissioners will consider the question of acquiring the other lands mentioned.
Machinery (Exported)
asked how much of the machinery exported from this country to Norway and Sweden, during the last two years for which figures are available, was for use in stone quarries or in connection with similar enterprises?
Machinery for use in stone quarries is not separately distinguished in the Official Export List, and I am consequently not in a postion to give the figures desired by my hon. Friend.
Business of the House
May I ask the Prime Minister when he proposes to take Vote 8 of the Naval Estimates?
I cannot fix the date at present.
It will not be taken within the next two days?
No.
Perhaps I might ask two questions relating to public business. One is how the right hon. Gentleman proposes to allocate the time next week, and the other is in regard to the question I put to him yesterday about Vote 10. As I understood the situation yesterday, it was that the Government were very anxious to get the Committee stage of Vote 8 in order to proceed with some small immediately necessary works. I made the suggestion that if that really was in the public interest no opposition would be offered, but that on the Report stage the Government might give us a fuller opportunity of discussing the large question involved in the Vote for Public Works.
I think I can answer both the right hon. Gentleman's questions. As regards next week, on Monday, the 22nd, we hope to obtain Votes A and 1 and non-effective Navy Votes by eight o'clock, so as to give the House the opportunity of discussing Vote 10 on the points I mentioned yesterday, and after 11 o'clock to take Ways and Means in Committee. On Tuesday, the 23rd, we intend to take the Report of Navy Votes A and 1 and some non-effective Votes—we do not propose to ask for the Report stage of Vote 10, and there will be a further opportunity of discussing, that—secondly, the Report of the outstanding Supplementary Estimates. On Wednesday, Report of the Vote on Account, and after 11 o'clock Report of Ways and Means and the introduction of the Consolidated Fund Bill; and on Thursday the second reading of the Consolidated Fund Bill and the Army Annual Bill. To secure the necessary sequence of financial business we shall be obliged to ask the House to suspend the 11 o'clock rule on Monday and Tuesday. I may add that we hope the House will agree on Friday to allow the purely formal stage of the Consolidated Fund Bill in Committee to be taken after five o'clock, and thus enable the third reading to be taken on the following Monday, and the Royal Assent to be obtained on Tuesday, the 30th.
With regard to the statement of the right hon. Gentleman, I do not think he ought to count upon getting Votes A and 1 by eight o'clock on Monday. I do not say it is impossible, but he is well aware of the immense and growing interest in the Votes in the House and outside, and we must not be taken as being consenting parties to the termination of the discussion at so early an hour.
Presentation of Bills
The following Bills were presented and read a first time:—
Mr. GILL—Road Traffic—Bill to provide for the regulation of Road Traffic. (To be read a second time 25th March.)
Sir Charles McLaken—Rats (Destruction).—Bill to provide for the destruction of rats. (To be read a second time 23rd March.)
Mr. SNOWDEN — Enfranchisement of Women.—Bill to confer the Parliamentary Franchise on Women. (To be read a second time 22nd March.)
Supply
CONSIDERED IN COMMITTEE.
Third Allotted Day
Navy Estimates, 1909–10. (Progress.)
(IN THE COMMITTEE.)
[Mr. EMMOTT in the chair.]
Question proposed: "That 128,000 officers, seamen, and boys be employed in the sea and coastguard service in the year ending the 31st day of March, 1910, including 17,719 Royal Marines. (Vote A, page 10.)
The Naval debate in which the House has been engaged in the last day or two has been -one of singular interest and very unusual concentration. So grave have been the issues which were raised by the speeches of the Leader of the Opposition and of right hon. Gentlemen opposite that the attention of the House was occupied exclusively with one particular problem of naval administration and naval efficiency, to the exclusion of all the other important questions which are naturally raised by these Votes. In resuming the discussion in Supply I do not propose to deal with these many and important questions. That they are important no one will deny. That they need discussion I think no one will question. The adequacy of the provision made by the Government in respect of naval construction, other than capital ships, and the present constitution and administration of the Admiralty Board, are questions of the first importance. These and other matters must be raised and dealt with before the House parts with its control over these Votes, but we have not yet exhausted the graver and the more urgent questions raised in the previous discussions, and it is to that question, not exactly in the same form but substantially to the same problem, that I propose to address my observations.
The Committee, I am sure, is still under the impression of the gravity of the situation revealed by the speeches which were made on the opening of the Navy Estimates. That situation came as a surprise and a shock to the great majority of Members, no less than to the public outside, and I am bound to say for myself and for my friends, and I believe in this matter we are expressing the feelings of the great mass of our countrymen outside, irrespec- tive of party, that the statements and assurances of the Government have not relieved our anxiety nor convinced us that the necessary steps are being taken to maintain our naval supremacy. There are differences between the Government and ourselves as to what is possible, as to what is probable, and as to what may be reasonably expended. On what do these differences turn? The Government are confident that there will be no further acceleration of the German programme. I wish we could share their confidence. A year ago they were equally confident that there would be and could be no acceleration at all. What guarantee have we, what guarantee have they that their judgment and information are better to-day than they were a year ago, or that they may not be living in a fool's paradise to-day, just as they have had to admit they were in a fool's paradise last year? The second difference turns on the time which it is reasonably safe to allow for the completion of four ships admittedly begun in November last—one of them laid down in November last, for which admittedly the collection of materials had begun before that time, two others not laid down, but all three of them having preparations made for their construction by the collection of materials prior to their laying down, which is so much more important a factor in considering the date of completion than is the actual date on which the keel is laid down. We have been told that of these four ships two cannot be completed until April, 1911, and the other two cannot be completed until the August of that year. They allow two years and five months for the first, two from the date of the laying down of the first, not from the date of beginning the collection of the materials.
I did not say it was laid down in November.
When was it laid down? The First Lord either does not know or does not think it proper to state. I think the fair inference is that he does not know, because, after all, we have had to debate this question with so much frankness in this House that a reticence which might be desirable in other circumstances is wholly out of place on the present occasion, if he had the information in his possession. However, I qualify my statement in order to bring myself into exact harmony with what the First Lord of the Admiralty has now stated. The Government have declared that Germany cannot complete two ships, preparations for laying down which were begun in or before November last, in a shorter period than two years and five months, and that two other ships cannot be completed in less time than two years nine months. They are confident. How can we have such confidence? How can they ask us or the country to accept their statements? The right hon. Gentleman speaking on the advice of the First Lord of the Admiralty and of the Board of Admiralty was equally confident last year that Germany could not build in less than two years, in spite of the warning which the right hon. Gentleman had received from the German Minister of Marine. The right hon. Gentleman knew the business of the German Navy better than the German Minister of Marine. The right hon. Gentleman was equally confident last year. He has been proved to be wrong, and he has admitted with perfect frankness that he was wrong.
What is meant by "been proved to be wrong "?
The right hon. Gentleman, having before him the statement of the German Minister of Marine that they could build as quickly as we could, announced in this House, as a governing factor in the consideration of the naval problem by the House, that they could not build in less than 30 months. The right hon. Gentleman came down two days ago and admitted that he was wrong, and that they could build as fast as we could. And now, for what reason I cannot conceive, for some theoretical belief about the capacity of German industry to produce a certain output in a given time, he goes back upon his admission of the other day, and claims that it would be safe for us to count upon these ships taking two years and five months or two years and nine months.
My statement was perfectly accurate at the time it was made. It described the then state of things. My subsequent admission related to a hypothesis as regards the future, which had regard to things which have since happened, but which were not then in existence.
Observe what follows from the right hon. Gentleman's statement. He is still of opinion that he knows better, or that he knew better, and was better informed about the capacity of the German output than the German Minister of Marine. The German Minis- ter of Marine made a perfectly definite statement. The right hon. Gentleman positively contradicts it, and prefers his own opinion; but in forming his opinion the right hon. Gentleman acted upon a hypothesis, and that hypothesis was wrong, and the serious nature of our position results from the fact that he acted upon a hypothesis which was wrong. They now ask us to act upon another hypothesis. What security have we that that is not wrong also? Exactly the same security that we had for the last opinion of the right hon. Gentleman—the advice of advisers who have been proved to be wrong in the past, and may be wrong again. Put them as low as he likes, these assumptions of His Majesty's Ministers are too slight a basis on which to found the security of the British Empire. "If we are wrong," said the right hon. Gentleman, "we yet have time to correct our mistakes; we can lay down more ships." If we are wrong the time has already passed for enforcing the theory that we should have confidence in this assurance, in which they are already proved to be wrong, that they would take the necessary steps. If in last November, when they found themselves wrong, when Parliament was sitting for other business, and they had no necessity to call it specially together, they had at once asked us to authorise them to collect material in order that they might forward the work of construction, we should have had more confidence. Only a little while ago we were told by a very distinguished member of the Board of Admiralty that we might all go home and sleep peacefully in our beds. We should sleep a little more peacefully if the Government had not been lulled by its own words and had not been itself caught napping. In our opinion the Government have not recognised the gravity of the situation in which the country is placed. Their programme is inadequate to the necessities of the case, and the delay which they allow in the commencement of new construction is wholly out of place in the circumstances in which we stand. But suppose that we are mistaken. Observe that even then all the Government's calculations rest upon the narrowest margin of security both as regards the number of ships and the time at which they are to be laid down and completed. No allowance is made for any error in their calculations, there is no margin to safeguard us should we have great labour disputes and should our building programme be interfered with again in the future as it has been in the past by strikes, lock-outs, or other labour troubles. Let me say that much as we all hope that disturbances of that kind will not occur in this country, and above all in industries upon the efficiency and expedition of which our defence depends, they are much more likely to occur in this country than in Germany. Just as there is no margin of time allowed for labour disturbances or other impediments in the way of the completion of our naval programme, neither is there any margin allowed for accidents or any other contingencies.
Ships of all nations are liable to accidents. Our Navy, which we rightly believe to be as efficient as any other navy in the world, always will be liable to accident, and this liability increases just to the extent to which the efficiency of your training is carried on, and the fleet has applied to it in peace time the stress of such tests as war would bring. There is no margin possible in the Government's calculation. There are grave features to which I wish to draw the attention of the Government and the Committee. There are from time to time in the world ships afloat, or very nearly completed, which have been built to the order of a Power which no longer requires them, and which Power is ready to sell them. Sometimes such ships are built as a speculation by some firm whose yard would otherwise be unemployed. Those floating ships may be bought by nations with whose naval forces we have to reckon, and they at once disturb the naval power. To meet such a contingency you have no margin.
The First Lord of the Admiralty told us the other day that Germany had so developed her battleship building industry in all its branches that it was now in a position to turn out as great an output in battleships as we are ourselves. Hitherto we have been accustomed to building battleships not only for ourselves but largely for other Powers. If Germany now has a capacity of output equal to our own, and if she does not need to employ the whole of it for her own purposes, those yards will be available, and may probably be used, for seeking and obtaining tenders for building for other foreign Powers, and if Germany has ships being built for other foreign Powers it will be within the power of Germany at any moment, should it appear to be wise for her to do so, to lay her hands upon those ships and refuse to allow them to leave her port. She could then add those ships to her own navy instead of the navy for which they were being built. For all these contingencies, which are real, imminent, and threatening, the Government have provided no margin of security, and they are working on the narrowest basis even if all their calculations are right.
I regret that in the debates we have had, although we have urged our arguments with all the force we could, we have failed to carry conviction to the Government as to the seriousness of the position, and they have shown no disposition to hasten or increase their programme of new construction. The whole of our argument has been based upon a one-Power standard, and even on that basis the position is unsatisfactory. I may say that we shall press that view on the Government on every opportunity we can find. I cannot hope that what I have said to-day will have altered the opinion of His Majesty's Ministers on that point, or that it will carry us any further than the arguments that have been used by my hon. and right hon. Friends. For the first time in our history we have had a two days' naval debate wholly occupied with the question of whether we are maintaining a one-Power standard or not; and yet it is the common policy and the avowed and declared intention of both sides of this House that our naval standard should not be a one-Power but a two-Power standard. It is to that aspect of the question that I now propose to address myself. I hope we may still be able to convince the Government—leaving for the moment the question of a single Power—that their programme fails to fulfil their expressed determination to maintain the two-power standard. There is no doubt about that intention, because the Prime Minister expressed it in the clearest terms on behalf of the Government. He stated clearly that he accepted the two-Power standard as meaning a margin of 10 per cent, over the combined forces of the next two strongest naval powers. Of course, the right hon. Gentleman meant whoever they might be, wherever they might be situated, and under all foreseeable circumstances. Nothing could be more explicit and satisfactory if the action of the Government fulfilled it either in the spirit or in the letter.
For the purposes of my argument today, and in the hope of carrying conviction even to the mind of the Government, I am going to take the figures the Government have given, and pursue my argument on the assumption that those figures are absolutely correct. It has been an unfortunate necessity of the discussion of the last two days that we have been concerned only with a single Power, and necessarily we have been somewhat invidious, and feel that we have been treading upon delicate ground. Whilst we feel that we are entitled, and, in fact, bound, to discuss these matters with frankness, it is an unfortunate thing that the whole discussion should be bound to turn upon the policy of one single foreign Power. It is one of the merits of the two-Power standard as defined by the Prime Minister, that no such invidiousness attaches to it. No Powers are named, no particular Powers are singled out as our possible rivals or probable foes, but the two largest Powers, whoever they may be at any moment, are selected as our standard of comparison, and their combined navies is the number of capital ships which the Prime Minister declares we ought to possess.
What is the position as stated by the Government? In March, 1911, Great Britain will have 12 "Dreadnoughts," using the word as hitherto used in these debates, and Germany will have nine; that gives us a margin of three over the strength of a single power In April or May we shall still have 12 "Dreadnoughts" and Germany will have 11, which gives us a margin of one over a single Power. In July the numbers will be 14 to 13, which still gives us a margin of only one. In November it will be 16 to 13, a margin once again of three, but only three above a single Power. After March, 1912, according to the Government the figures will still be 16 to 13, or 20 to 17, leaving in either case a margin of three, and no more, above a single Power. We do not know what the programme or capacity of some other Power may be in the period which I have mentioned, or at any rate during the latter part of that period. I will not undertake the invidious task of selecting who is going to have the next biggest navy in that time, but I make this statement, which I think the First Lord of the Admiralty will not challenge, that in March, 1911, we shall have a margin of three "Dreadnoughts" over a single Power. I am basing my calculations entirely upon the admitted figures of the Government, which, for the sake of my argument, I accept. When we have a margin of three over one Power the next strongest naval Power will have not less than four "Dreadnoughts." When we have a margin of one from April to November, the next strongest Power will have at least four. When we have in November, or in March of the following year, in November, 1911, or March, 1912, when our margin over one-Power is three, the next strongest power—whatever it may be—will have no less than six, and may have more. Where is the two-Power standard?
What about other ships?
I have been dealing with "Dreadnoughts." Just let me summarise the position. We shall not have at any point in that period a force of "Dreadnoughts" equal to the next two standard Powers, whatever they may be, without taking the 10 per cent, which is embodied in the Prime Minister's statement. But then, says the hon. Gentleman, when you are comparing "Dreadnoughts," the comparison must be in "Dreadnoughts", but when you are comparing with the rest of the world, you must count all our other battleships on the active list. Now, that was possibly—
When did the Government say that?
The Secretary to the Admiralty and the Prime Minister confined their arguments to that. The right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister, in answering the Leader of the Opposition last year, I think at the end of March, expressly admitted that we must maintain the superiority in "Dreadnoughts," irrespective of our other battleships. That is exactly what I said. Then the right hon. Gentleman interrupted me to ask when the Government said that, and now the right hon. Gentleman triumphantly says that they did say it in regard to them.
When mentioning "Dreadnoughts" alone.
In their speeches, in the very specific statement of the Prime Minister—but I am really sorry to have been drawn into an unnecessary controversy with the right hon. Gentleman, because I think as my argument proceeds, what my case in regard to these ships, to the number of "Dreadnoughts," is, will appear. I do not for a moment pretend that I have knowledge or authority to judge of the relative fighting value, or the principles upon which the "Dreadnoughts" are primarily considered. I am well aware that in naval circles, amongst naval officers, there is a considerable difference of opinion as to the extent the "Dreadnoughts" are superior to previous ships. I do not know the assumption on which our Admiralty went when they laid them down, but I do know that they thought them incomparably superior to anything afloat. I do know the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty, speaking only two days ago, described the fighting capacity of a "Dreadnought" as greatly superior to that of any of the earlier ships. Under these circumstances we cannot attach a great importance to the earlier ships, even while they are still allowed to be put in the line. That is not, however the most serious feature of the case. What the Government will not do is—narrowly viewing the present—to look forward to the future which is bare before them if only they will take account of it. I say the Government will not, they do not. The First Lord of the Admiralty stated most clearly in his speech what has been the effect of the "Dreadnought" upon previous ships. It has not rendered them obsolete, many of them would give a good account of themselves in the line of battle for many years to come; but although they are not rendered obsolete, their life has been rendered shorter. He said:—
"We have, then, in making our comparisons for 1912, to reckon only such ships as will then be on the active list with no more than 70 men on board, and ships in dockyard hands."
Yes, such ships as will then be on the active list—having regard to the new construction of foreign powers, which will have to be met. But here is really the important—the crucial question, and though the quotation is a little long I shall ask the Committee to allow me to read it through:—
"It is obviously essential that we should not fall behind in the most powerful type of battleship. There will come a day when by an almost automatic process all ships of an earlier type than the 'Dreadnought' will be relegated to the scrap heap. The maintenance of our superiority then will depend upon our superiority in 'Dreadnoughts' alone. I have given reasons' for believing that the German power of constructing this particular type of ship is at this time almost if not fully equal to our own, owing to their rapid development during the last 18 months: and we cannot be sure of etaining our superiority of the sea if we ever allow ourselves to fall behind in this newest and best class of ship"
That is my case. The Government give us a bare margin—on their own figures—which we believe to be entirely the work of their own imagination, and to be entirely incorrect. The Government gave this bare margin of this newest and best type over the next Power; and they will not have, in a short course of time, even here the barest equality, let alone the 10 per cent, margin over the next two Powers in regard to this newest and best type of ship. That, I say, is my case. You have to look forward to the time when all your vessels will be scrapped. You have to look forward to the time when, as the First Lord says, the "Dreadnoughts" and nothing but "Dreadnoughts" will count; and unless year by year, almost month by month, we march as other countries march, and keep abreast of them, we shall have fallen behind in the newest and best class of ships—we shall have lost the superiority which the right hon. Gentleman says can only be maintained by superiority in that class of ship. When the two-Power standard is gone our naval supremacy is jeopardised, and" all the efforts which have been devoted to building up our great Navy, to put it beyond rivalry, are, by a year or two's neglect rendered futile and useless—after this Government have left office, when other men are responsible for the dangers which the country has to meet, and with the Army and Navy crippled by their failure in time to do that which anybody can see on their own principles and in compliance with their own pledges it is now their urgent and bounden duty to do.
I had wished when closured to reply to many of the things which were said during the course of the debate, and one thing that struck me more than another was the speeches, chiefly from a fraction, which were a medley of the watchwords of peace, retrenchment and reform. No less than six speeches dealt with the old watchwords of "Peace, retrenchment and reform." I think that peace is a watchword that can be adopted equally by the others concerned, and with much better effect. If anything is more certain than another it is that practically the ninety-five years of maritime peace we have had have been due to the Navy. As for retrenchment, it has been pointed out in the course of the debate very ably by the Secretary to the Admiralty that if it were not for the Navy we should have conscription, and the War Office have told us that it would cost from £20,000,000 to £30,000,000. This country has 43,000 miles of coast line, and in time of war the Government would have to garrison all the ports. Then as regards reform, the free speech that we enjoy in this House is largely, if not entirely, due to the defence of the Navy. If you were to take any period of the country in the past, when we have had breathing time for the passing of reforms, it has been because the Navy has enabled us to have peace.
I turn from the watchwords to talk about the pledges to cut down. I do not know what those pledges were. I do not know that pledges were given by the Liberal party before the election. I have never come across them. I have come across most specific speeches, which I could read to the House, which were made before the General Election. The speaker said: "We will not cut down." I remember that during the General Election the Secretary of State for War went into the City of London, and he said he had a mandate from the Prime Minister. That mandate represented the opinion of the Cabinet. If it were necessary, he said, if he thought it necessary to increase the Estimates on the Army, he had the mandate of the Prime Minister to increase the Estimates. That speech was delivered to reassure the people in the country, because there was a cry from the Liberal party to cut down armaments. It was perfectly clear that as regarded the Liberal Imperialists in the Cabinet—and they were stated to be predominant—that they had no intention whatever of cutting down the Navy. In the course of debate there was some speeches delivered from the Labour Benches. One of the speeches, if I may say so without offence, was a plea for the application of the principles of the "Sermon on the Mount" to the domain of foreign policy. I look forward very hopefully to the hon. Member who made that speech applying those principles to the domain of labour disputes.
As for principles, there have been two principles run in this debate, by a party which ran away from their resolution. One principle is the principle of disarmament. I should like to know what measure of success that principle has received during the last three years. Ever since we commenced setting the example to talk about disarmament there has been an increase going on in armaments abroad. In my humble opinion nothing has contributed more to the growth of armaments than the talk about disarmament. The second principle is that of economy. It has been run to death. It reminds one-of what the late Lord Randolph Churchill said with reference to the Liberal party: "That they were always, prevented from governing by what they called their principles, and in the process of governing committed suicide." Running this principle of economy to death has very nearly landed the party in that position, together with the Cabinet's disputes, about which we have read during the last few weeks in every single paper in the country. The third line of attack is that of prophecy. Hon. Members' main forecast was that they know from the state of foreign relations that such and such Powers cannot be ready before 1912. Would anyone have told us recently that Austria would be the one next to disturb the peace of the world? I do not think so. Having made a special study of the forecasts of great statesmen in our past history and collected them, I have arrived at the conclusion that you can number on your fingers the intelligent forecasts for about three years ahead in our international relations. Just before 1859, when we had one of the greatest scares, a somewhat striking parallel to that which we have now over "Dreadnoughts," Mr. Disraeli made a speech in 1858 in which he said:—
I pointed out that the expenditure then was £15,000,000, and Mr. Gladstone resigned rather than consent to an increase of three millions, and prophesied what would happen. It is now £35,000,000, and it will soon be £45,000,000 if the present policy is pursued.
Within a few years of 1894 we had Fashoda, and that increased expenditure saved the country from war. After Fashoda we had the South African War, and it was our Navy which saved the country from a combination of the Powers. The hon. Gentleman used the phrase that the Government are "playing into the hands of the Navy League."["Hear, hear."] I do not put it in that way. I say they both sat down to do a sum in arithmetic of "Dreadnoughts," and they both arrived at the same conclusion; but the Government have refused to put the four additional "Dreadnoughts" into their programme as has been asked by the Front Opposition Bench. Although these were the conclusions what we got were these idle fears about the rise of expenditure. The hon. Member for East Mayo referred to Germany. There have been a good many apologies for referring to Germany. Really, I do not know why we should not make comparisons with Germany. In the past we used to make extensive comparisons with France. In Germany, all through their debates, references have been made to England; and I have here a diagram issued to the German Parliament and signed by the German Emperor himself, the whole of which is directed to comparisons between England and Germany. There is no other nation mentioned but England, and the document gives the exact distribution of ships and everything. When we are asked whether we are going to war with Germany, my answer is that the object of increasing our Navy is to prevent a war with Germany.
We cannot lose sight of the fact that Germany has undertaken three aggressive wars within the last 50 years. The German Empire was founded in blood, was consolidated in blood, and was extended by blood. We know that the prevailing sentiment of the German people is hostile to this country. ["No, no."] If hon. Members say "No," I will read the diplomatist's interview with the German Emperor himself in the "Daily Telegraph" of 23rd October, 1908, in which he said: "The prevailing sentiment among large sections of the middle and lower classes of my own people is not friendly to England." If anybody's opinion ought to be accepted by the Labour party and by hon. Members below the Gangway, it ought to be the opinion of the great German Socialist leader, Herr Bebel. In the German Parliament he has protested, year in and year out, against the increase of German armaments and against the idea of aiming at upsetting the Naval supremacy of England, and he has always said that it would be quite useless, because England could always lay down two ships to Germany's one. [An HON. MEMBER: "He is wrong there."] My hon. Friend says he is wrong there. Who proved him to be wrong? The Government have now been in office three years, and I will show them what they have done during these three years. It is what I have been protesting against and what my hon. Friends associated with me have been protesting against during all that time. It has now been established in debate, and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Worcestershire has rubbed it in again, that four ships of the 1909 programme have been ordered and commenced in Germany. I will include these ships. I am going to make a new comparison. Including everything this Government have provided altogether—that is ordered and commenced— eight armoured ships of the combined tonnage of 152,550 tons. The Germans have provided for 14 armoured ships of 260,000 tons. We have also lost the "Montagu," but I give up that vessel and do not include it; but there still remains the fact that the Germans have provided for ordering up to now 75 per cent, more in the same three years than the British Government have done. Next month the Government propose to put in orders for armaments, mountings, and guns for two more ships; but that will still leave the Germans 40 per cent, in advance of what the Government have done. A number of figures have been quoted in the House, some of them being undoubtedly erroneous. The hon. Member for Barnard Castle, Chairman of the Labour party, quoted the figures of ten years' expenditure, but he omitted to mention what the appendix carefully told him, that £34,000,000 should be deducted from the British expenditure. I merely mention to show the class of figures which we are given when people are inveighing against this huge increase of expenditure that they talk about. When we have lumped together the figures for ten years, as the hon. Member did, consideration should be given to the amount applied for depreciation in respect of an earlier period when we had a higher percentage of ships compared with Germany. Ships deteriorate like men and machinery. Take the history of the last five years, from 1904–5. We decreased, according to the Navy Estimates, by £5,500,000 per annum in our expenditure. Since then Germany has increased by £9,250,000. The relative increase for Germany is £14,750,000 per annum. Take the new construction and armaments, given only in "Dreadnoughts." The British decrease in the same period in new construction and armaments is equal to one and a half "Dreadnoughts" per annum. The German increase amounts to over three "Dreadnoughts" per annum. The relative gain, therefore, is four and a half "Dreadnoughts" per annum. For the purpose of this comparison I assume that the "Dreadnoughts" cost £2,000,000 each. I believe it is the fact, though I have not the exact figures before me, that our expenditure for new construction and armaments this year is less than that of Germany. Perhaps the Secretary to the Admiralty will inform me on that point.
The debate in this House has alarmed the country. It is impossible to open a newspaper without seeing nearly a page devoted to the alarm felt throughout the country. That alarm throughout the country is not merely founded on what the Leader of the Opposition said, but it is founded on the admissions of the First Lord of the Admiralty and of the Prime Minister. Of course I cannot say whether the figures of the Leader of the Opposition are correct; but everything I have heard, and the admissions which the Government have made, and the capacity of the German output, points to the inference that it is possible for Germany to increase at the rate the right hon. Gentleman suggested—at any rate, as regards the figures he gave for 1911–12. I am sceptical about the December, 1910, figures. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Worcestershire very rightly pointed out that we are going to lay down on 1st April next year four additional "Dreadnoughts," and the Government reckons that they will be absolutely ready for commission on 1st April, 1912, and they say that within six months of our ships being delayed by strikes. Take some of the admissions "which the Government have made with reference to ships. The order for the "Lord Nelson" was placed in October, 1904, and she was not completed until 5th January, 1909, a period of over four years, not two years. The order for the "Defence" was placed in November, 1904, and the material began to arrive at Pembroke at that time, but she has only recently been finished. I acknowledge that the Admiralty purposely delayed her in order to provide work for Pembroke Dockyard. I have asked the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty whether there was any precedent for that, and he replied, "No." The "Invincible" and the "Inflexible" were ordered in November, 1905, and they are both coming into commission this year. The right hon. Gentleman has admitted that the "Temeraire" was delayed six months. With regard to German rate of shipbuilding, I do not understand why the Government were taken by surprise last autumn. I read a paragraph in the newspapers over a year or two ago about the shipyards laying down extensive plant. That ought to have warned them, at any rate, to be ready to act. In October, 1907, the Admiralty had the Votes of the German Parliament in their hands, and they knew then that the first instalment of battleships had gone up for 1908 from £274,000 per year to £479,000, or 75 per cent.
Surely that pointed to a very large increase in the rate of construction. In October, 1908, they knew the second instalment for battleships had gone up 33 per cent., and that the first instalments for large cruisers had gone up 95 per cent. Then there is another item, and that is, the first instalment for German armoured cruisers this financial year we are now in is exactly the same as for battleships. If those are going to be real battleships I think there may be a very dangerous situation. I would like to point out that the design of the "Dreadnought" in this country involves turbines, and of so-called "Dreadnoughts" in Germany involves engines precisely similar to every other German battleship. I do not believe the turbine battleships have ever been tried properly in conjunction with other battleships. The "Dreadnought" has never been exercised with the Channel Fleet under the admiral who would have her under command in war.
Another factor is that of armaments of the "Dreadnoughts." We know that the British type of ship has a big gun, a 12-inch, no supplementary guns for battle purposes, only small guns for repelling a torpedo attack. The Germans have 130 lb. 6.7-inch guns, more effective than the 6-inch—the guns which played such havoc in the Japanese and Russian war. I would like the right hon. Gentleman when he replies to inform us whether he has any information as to what the armaments of the German battleship is, because it is a very important point. It derives special importance from the fact that the weather conditions in the North Sea are such that, generally speaking—I will not pretend to know the exact figure—actions would have to be fought within 4,000 or 5,000 yards, owing to the climatic conditions and mist. The whole idea of "Dreadnoughts" is firing at long range with big guns. Firing inside 5,000 yards those 6.7-inch guns, firing at six per minute, must create considerable havoc on board our ships. The Prime Minister in the course of this debate said:— Powers. Later on he said of the Bill introduced:—
In conclusion I would remind the Committee of what the Secretary of the Admiralty said in reference to the constitution of the Navy under the Articles of War. He pointed to the Articles of War and quoted these words as applying to the Navy:—
The most interesting speech of the hon. Member who has just concluded will only serve to increase the anxiety felt by every Member of this House on the great question that is to be decided by this House as to what is necessary in the way of Navy construction to ensure the safety of the country. We have been reduced in this debate to the miserable necessity of haggling with the Government as to whether in the programme which they propose before this House they will have a margin at a particular date of three ships over the German construction, even supposing everything goes well in their programme of new construction. We have also to consider whether on a two or three months' difference we shall have an equal number of ships, when those we have every right to anticipate the German programme will be capable of producing, proceeding with regularity, decision, and despatch.
And the Government say in a foot-note to the Estimates that they are prepared, if their information is wrong and the House will allow them, to order material for fittings and gun-mountings of four ships to be laid down on 1st April next year. Why are not those four ships included in the programme of this year? Why do not the Government take power, as in 1906, to lay down those four extra ships? This proposal is unprecedented, and I think it is unconstitutional. If they dared to come down to the House without that foot-note, they know—from the whole course of this debate—that it would have been absolute destruction, and they would have destroyed their position instantaneously with the people in this country. What do they mean by that? There has been no explanation. We are now asked to trust the information and suggestions which have already misled the Admiralty and the country. We have no guarantee that their information will be any more correct in the future than it has been in the past.
On this question of the speeding-up of German construction, it is common knowledge to many of us who had not access to the official information. It is inexcusable that the Admiralty should be ignorant of the construction of an increased number of slipways, which is a matter of common observation to anyone who knows the German ports. Those slipways have connection with the water, they have to run down to the sea. Anyone passing along the shore in a rowing-boat could see the work in those great works. Many of us knew material was ordered, and that preparations were being made for some effort in the shipbuilding Programme. The Admiralty and the Government shut their eyes to these preparations and well-known plans. They come down here to say to the best of their opinion their programme is sufficient, and ask us to put our trust in them. I think this is no party question. It is far beyond any consideration of party; this consideration of the safety of the country. I believe that hon. Members on the other side are as anxious as we are about that, and I believe if to a majority of them the question was put plainly and fairly that they would insist on any expenditure which would place the naval supremacy of this country beyond dispute. The whole course of this debate has shown that it is that vital factor in our naval supremacy and national safety which is in dispute, and the Government have not yet been able to return any satisfactory answer. They have apparently abandoned once and for all the two-Power standard. It has been shown conclusively that they are building scarcely up to a one-Power standard. The ships laid down by this Government have not been up to a one-Power standard; and, as the vessels laid down by preceding Governments are rapidly growing old—more rapidly than in normal circumstances—the day will soon come when we shall have to make enormous efforts, involving tremendous expenditure, perhaps to lay down eight or even twelve "Dreadnoughts" in a single year, in order to make good the deficiency which is accumulating at the present time. If they are going to satisfy the House and the country, the Government must return some answer as to what they mean to do in regard to the four additional "Dreadnoughts." They are bound to put the question of our naval supremacy beyond dispute, and to declare to the people of this country and to foreign Governments that, whatever party may be in power, the British people are determined to maintain their supremacy on the sea, and to lay down ship for ship on the two-Power standard.
I do not wish to go into the question of how we have reached the present position, or of how this maladministration has been brought about. It is not a party question, as the first steps were taken under a preceding Government; but this Government, at any rate, have not corrected the evil; they have accentuated it. The question of administration, the allotment of business at the Admiralty, lies at the root of the whole matter. If there had been the old well-proved organisation at the Admiralty, these faults would not have been committed. How much reliance can be placed on the assurances the Government have given us, following their technical advisers, may be judged by the many changes in Admiralty policy during the last few years. The Board of Admiralty itself, except for the First Sea Lord, has been absolutely changed. Since 1904 there have been four First Lords, and the policy has changed almost as rapidly as the personnel of the administration. The Board of Admiralty sanctioned, I suppose, the Cawdor Memorandum, which laid down four battleships a year as the minimum programme of construction necessary to ensure the national safety. Four battleships were proposed in the Estimates to which this Government succeeded in 1906, but they proceeded with three only. The next year the same Board produced Estimates for laying down two ships, with a third contingent on the result of the Hague Conference. We all knew what the result of that Conference would be; and the third ship was laid down, though late. In the financial year just closing two ships were laid down; and now, having lost three years' construction, the Government have to go back to the Cawdor Memorandum and propose four battleships. By a footnote to the Estimates they acknowledge the Cawdor Memorandum. There has been no continuity of policy, and this lack of continuity of policy is the direct cause of the panic, alarm, and competition with which we are faced to-day. The only possible principle of naval construction for this country is to lay down ships steadily and regularly, and to proceed with them punctually until they are completed. That is not the principle which this Administration have followed. They have done great harm to our naval position by their undecided and ill-thought-out policy.
Take the question of cruisers. The Board of Admiralty advocated the idea that enormous cruisers, of great speed and gun-power, were the correct thing; and that lightly armoured vessels, of lower speed and less gun-power, were not adequate for the needs of the British Navy. They spent enormous sums in building these great cruisers, and then incidents in the war in the Far East caused them to change their views to some extent, with the result that they are now asking for money to build cruisers of moderate size, not heavily armoured nor of undue gun-power. They may be perfectly right. If naval manœuvres teach anything, those of last year show the great danger the Navy may run if it has to depend for observations and scouting on the enormous cruisers which must necessarily form so large a part of the fighting force of the fleet to which they are attached. One fleet to which these great cruisers were attached sent them to perform the ordinary scouting duties and to discover the position of the enemy. The enemy took precautions, and captured them one by one, and when the time came for the general action the admiral who had been forced to rely on these vessels for scouting purposes found he had lost so large a part of the fighting force of his fleet that he was unable to succeed in the operation which he attempted. This question of cruisers has never been carefully thought out; there has been no continuity of policy. An enormous number of vessels which might have been of great use for scouting purposes were "scrapped," thrown away, and all reliance placed on the modern vessels. That policy has been abandoned, and the Admiralty have gone back to the old method of having lightly-armoured vessels to discharge the duties of being the eyes and ears of the fleet to which they are attached.
Then there is the question of nucleus crews. Anyone who has followed the question will know that there has been no continuity of policy under that head. The nucleus crew system produced a great change in the organisation of the fleet; that reorganisation has not endured; it has been changed from year to year with every succeeding Memorandum of the First Lord of the day. Then there is the Intelligence Department, upon which, according to the Government, so greatly depends the national safety. The Intelligence Department must have woefully failed the Government during the past 12 months, or else Ministers have wilfully shut their ears to their promptings. All these questions want looking into, and I think the time is opportune to press for an inquiry into them. It is essential that these matters should be referred to, because by the Intelligence Department the naval policy is governed, and upon it the future safety of the country depends.
In conclusion I desire to urge the Government to come out into the open and make some declaration as to what they intend to do, and if these four ships are not to be laid down, to give some reason why part, at any rate, of the expenditure is not to be undertaken this year. This is not a party question. The debate has shown that the House and the country are unanimous in the matter; and I am sure that if the Government take a bold and, as we think, patriotic course, and grasp the situation firmly, they will have the support of the country, of the great majority of their own party, and certainly of the Members on these Benches.
When my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, in his most interesting speech on Tuesday afternoon, addressed a general appeal to the House, I had some hopes that it would be responded to in a very different spirit from that which has obtained. The Prime Minister said he desired that this question should not be treated from a party point of view. I think that was said with extraordinary generosity on the part of the Leader of such a mighty party as the Prime Minister has got behind him in this House. What has been the result? The result has been that the Government have been subjected to a most embittered and unfair attack from the Opposition Benches ever since the debate opened. It was evident from the speech which he made on the Estimates that the Government had gone a long way to meet the susceptibilities of hon. Gentlemen opposite. [OPPOSITION indications of dissent.] I say gone a long way to meet their susceptibilities in money and in ships, and if you like in men. What has been the result of this attempt to square the Opposition? The result has been most humiliating, I venture to say, to the Government. Commencing with the Leader of the Opposition there were three or four spokesmen on the Front Bench opposite who, instead of making a generous response to the Prime Minister, made a most embittered attack on the policy which has been adumbrated by the Government. There is a moral to be drawn from this. I would recommend the Government to depend on their own followers and party, and to think less of appealing to the susceptibilities of hon. Gentlemen opposite. We have had a most remarkable debate, and I agree as much as anybody about the immense sensation brought about by what took place in this House on Tuesday. But it has been a debate of a most lamentable character.
My right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty, at a meeting which he addressed, referred to the alarm which was felt in connection with this matter, and he told the party to wait until he had made his speech. They did wait, and undoubtedly if the object of my right hon. Friend had been to produce a sensation with his speech he absolutely succeeded. He has produced one of the greatest sensations, assisted by the Opposition, that has taken place in this Parliament or in the country, at any rate, in my time. And not only has he produced a sensation, but a panic, which I hope every day now passing is helping to put at rest. But at first it was a most skilfully-constructed panic, and what did it rest upon? It rested upon the statement made by my right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty. He made his statement with tremendous ingenuity. It was a simple statement concentrated on one point, and it was a statement of the most alarming character. He suggested that there was only one kind of battleship worth considering for this country.
Will my right hon. Friend quote the words which I actually used?
I have got them all here, but I wish to spare him and the Committee the reading of them, because there has been so much reading of long quotations. I must say that after a careful study of the words my interpretation of them is not very far wrong, but I will modify it a little if it will please my right hon. Friend. He spoke of the life of a ship shortening and the value decreasing, and he attached immense importance to one type of ship. His main statement was that in 1912 Germany would have 17 of these ships, and he showed that we would have a slight superiority, but not a great superiority. The alarming statement was that Germany would have 17 while we would only have 20. Well, the moment he framed his speech in this way the Opposition saw their chance, and the Leader of the Opposition, with that Parliamentary skill which I always admire, pounced upon the Government. The right hon. Gentleman said that Germany will have not 17 but 21 ships, and that they will have an absolute superiority. He crossed the t's and dotted the i's of everything my right hon. Friend said, and he spoke as if this country was in danger of its very existence, and as if our naval supremacy had gone for ever. In doing this he was pushing a little further the argument which my right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty had used. The panic spread. One after another of the speakers on the Front Bench rose on that day which should have belonged to private members. It was used by hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Benches to such an extent that private members could hardly get in a word. Never did I see a panic so skilfully constructed or spread so fast as this was after the two speeches to which I have referred. It was in vain for the Prime Minister to endeavour to pour oil on the troubled waters. The Opposition would not be satisfied. Now, what has happened? My hon. Friend who was going to move an amendment suggesting that the Liberal principles of peace and economy should be upheld was persuaded not to move it, and every newspaper in the country commented on the tremendous sensation which had been caused in the House. What has happened is just what I expected. It has turned out in two days that the whole thing is a mare's nest, and that there never was any reason for any scare whatever. Instead of 17 German, ships, we have now on the highest authority a statement that there will be 13. [An HON. MEMBER: "German authority."] Never mind, I will come to that in a moment. Instead of the 13 being finished in March, they are not to be finished until the Autumn. You may ask on what authority this rests. It rests on the highest authority we can have. Let those gentlemen in the House who please say that foreign Ministers when speaking to their Parliaments are telling lies, or let them insinuate it if they please—I will not follow them. I say that every sentiment of civilisation induces us to accept statements of an official character when so made until they are proved to be false. Has anything been proved to be false? Nothing of the kind. All we had heard is as to ships which had been laid down. What do I care about ships laid down? The only ship I fear is the ship on the sea. I will give an example of the kind of statements that have been made. I see opposite my hon. friend the Member for Chelmsford, whom I am glad to see back amongst us for every reason except his principles. He was dealing with this question, and with a voice trembling with emotion as he beat the box, he asked if it was true that Germany has 13 built or building while we had only 12. I will tell you how it is in regard to the question of ships built or building. Germany has not got one of these ships built. Germany will not have one built until the Autumn. Germany has not a "Dreadnought" on the seas. We have a whole Fleet. We have had one on the seas for 22 months. It has steamed 24,000 miles, and we have four in the water, and a fortnight hence we will have five in the water—a, proud fleet sailing up and down the seas. Germany has not four in the water, and the inference of my hon. Friend was that we were in a worse position than Germany—we with our ships on the sea and Germany with her ships on the stocks. We are all right for the year 1909. This is only March, and we have ten months' life before us. That was not admitted on the first day. Now take the next year. It is admitted that we are all right for 1910. Well, we have two years' existence before us. In fact now no one says that very much can happen in 1911, so we are all right for three years in advance. We might remember the Scripture advice, "Take no thought for the morrow," seeing that we have three years ahead of us. We have an assurance that we are all right for 1912, and I say, therefore, that the whole groundwork of this scare has vanished. It is the worst constructed scooped turnip with a candle in it I ever saw set up to cause a scare. Now, I will mention one charge that has been made against my right hon. Friend to show how unfair have been the arguments all through. Some people have accused the Government as if they were criminals, because they have not asked more money for the Navy. In the Navy Estimates for the year 1905–6 produced by the Conservatives themselves there was a far greater reduction than in the Estimates produced by this Government since they came into office. Both parties have been pledged to a policy of reducing the Navy Estimates. The Conservatives commenced it, and the Liberals pledged themselves to it at the election. These are the words of the Prime Minister:
Having got rid of the scare, I hope I may be allowed to say a few words on the main question. I wish to speak concerning some things which I would have called attention to even if this extra- ordinary bogey had not been started to the great detriment, as I think, of the interests of the country. I desire to protest against two or three things specially in connection with these Estimates. I protest against the delay in introducing them. On 16th February we had a statement made in the House that there was to be a large increase in the Navy Estimates. That was a most startling statement for Liberals. The Estimates were not opened here until 16th March, and seeing that they have to be voted within a fortnight, I suggest that the Government did not treat their own party and the country fairly by keeping back the Estimates. We ought to have had them earlier in order that we might have time to consider the momentous questions which have been raised. I want to protest against another thing. These Estimates contain not only numberless figures which are to be sanctioned, but they refer to the fact that a further outlay is to be considered as having been passed. That is a great extension of the constitutional practice. No Minister has made it before, and every man in this House will resist the Estimates being passed until they are discussed. I join with hon. Gentlemen opposite on that point, and I insist that we must discuss the whole question of the Vote. There is no constitutional precedent for this large demand. The Government are making an indefinite claim to spend money without having got the Vote. I protest against that.
I have made my demands on the First Lord. I want now to make slight demands on some other Members of the Cabinet. The only excuse for the delay of the Estimates was, I suspect, that some discussion was taking place in the Cabinet. If that be so, Ministers should have had discussion in the Cabinet earlier. I am disappointed with the results of the economists in the Ministry. I see no improvement in the Estimates. I had a shrewd suspicion that there would be an increase, and we have got it. The present situation reminds me of 1894, a date which has already been mentioned in these debates. In that year the increase on these Estimates was three millions of money. We have had a most interesting description of what took place then. The historian tells us that a colleague who had been 62 years one of the heads of the Liberal party protested against the proposal to increase the Navy Estimate in a time of peace. He said:
Did the increased building of ships stimulate the growth or these principles to which Liberalism is attached? Why, in ten years afterwards we had an outbreak of Protectionism. Every cause which was opposed by Liberalism was strengthened, and in 1895 it suffered one of the severest defeats in its history. Since 1904 we began another epoch. During that time each Government diminished the Navy Estimates. The country has since been appealed to on that policy. Both parties were in favour of reduction of expenditure, but the Liberal party in that respect was the stronger of the two. I have quoted the words of the Prime Minister on that policy, and I could quote even stronger words from our dear departed leader, the late Prime Minister. What was the result? There was such a display of strength in the country in favour of that policy that the party was returned to power by an overwhelming majority. [An Opposition Member: "Another mandate."] Never mind, never mind. Hon. Gentlemen opposite will not take in the lesson as I like to give it them.
What has happened? In the last four years we have diminished the expenditure by 49 millions as compared with the total expenditure on the Estimates of 1903–4. That has been a most popular policy in the country. If you speak to anybody interested in the financial situation they will say it was absolutely essential that expenditure should be reduced. The Government and the Admiralty have reversed the Liberal policy—a policy which both parties have followed during the last four years. It is a most serious thing for the Liberal party to do, and the House ought to consider it seriously. I do not like to be described as a Little Navy man. I am in favour of a strong Navy. I have always said that I am in favour of a very strong Navy for this country, for I believe it is essential to the interests and the life of the nation. But there is reason in all things. With an annual expenditure of thirty-three or thirty-four millions surely you can easily make a reduction of two or three million, and yet have a mighty Navy? I want a reduction as much as the Government can give us, and the Government was pledged to reduction at the General Election. I am totally dissatisfied with the result. What is the reason? The reasons are of a precautionary character. But there is no danger to-day or to-morrow, and yet we are taking precautions. During the last four years we have seen what progress has been made in agreements between nations. A mighty progress has been made. There was the agreement between Germany and France about Morocco—a marvellous achievement of diplomacy; the agreement between the United States and Japan; the agreement between ourselves and Russia; and finally the agreement between ourselves and Germany. The Government has taken a most serious step by disturbing the peaceful progress that was going on in the settlement of International dispute. A great deal is said about the natural hostility of the German to this country. I deplore every word that is said on that subject, and in that direction. There is no reason for unfriendliness between the German people and this country. The German nation has not taken a single step of an unfriendly character to this country. According to the statement of the Prime Minister on Tuesday not only is there no reason for any hostility, but at the present time the German people have given abundant evidence of their friendliness towards this country. The great ruler of that Empire has now been 21 years on the throne, and no Englishman can point to a single unfriendly act on his part towards this country in those 21 years. [An HON. MEMBER: "The Kruger telegram."] Oh no, I will not go into that. I said that the Emperor had not been guilty of any unfriendly act to this country. The German people are of the same stock and kindred as ourselves. Their ideals are largely the same as ours, and the policy which any Government in this country ought to take is to cement a friendly feeling between the two nations. I deplore the speech of the First Lord which he delivered the other night. Here in this House this afternoon the statement of the German Minister would hardly be believed. Yet I cannot believe that any hon. Gentleman opposite is of opinion that the slightest discrepancy has been made. The Prime Minister told us that the Government had received an emphatic assurance that Germany would not accelerate her programme. [An HON. MEMBER: "No."] Well, a declaration. Who knows but that we ourselves may give them cause to accelerate that progress? If we accelerate who knows but that we may suffer in another direction from an evil we ourselves deplore. Therefore we should pay more attention to the statement made in the German Parliament yesterday. But to return to the point I was making, I repeat I am not in favour of a small Navy. For something like £31,000,000 or £30,000,000—I am gradually getting it down to £25,000,000, but I do not see any chance of going below £25,000,000—it seems to me with the mighty power we have and the great experience we possess in this country we could easily produce a Navy that would keep the country safe in every emergency. I see no reason why the Government should abandon the pledges they gave to the Constituencies at the General Election. I quoted the Prime Minister and the late Prime Minister, and what I suggest is that the Government should pay more attention to their own pledges and to the opinions of their followers sitting behind them than go searching amongst the Opposition for support. Their followers are strong enough to carry them through every difficulty, and the appeal I make to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, is this, that he should stick to peace, retrenchment, and reform, and the Liberal party will always carry him through.
I am sure that I, at least, am not open to the reproach that was made by the right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken about us, who sit on this side of the House, that we did not take the lesson he wished us to take in the simple way in which he gives it. I always make a point of doing that, and, as a rule, I am bound to say that lesson is simple enough to enable anyone to understand it. To-day, however, there is an exception. So long as the right hon. Gentleman stuck to the earlier part of his subject, and denounced expenditure on the Navy, I understood him; but when he went on to say that a navy costing the amount in the Estimates is an abomination, but a navy costing £21,000,000 is something to be admired, I was at a loss to understand him. The Navy is kept for one purpose, and for one purpose only, and that purpose is to enable us to be successful in war. If it does not attain that object, what is the use of having a navy at all? And it seemed to me, with all due deference to the right hon. Gentleman, that in the line he assumed he is straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel. Then the right hon. Gentleman, I must say, has shown recently an amount of disrespect to the Gentlemen who sit upon the Government Bench which I think is excessive. He told us, for instance, this afternoon, that this whole scare—a scare produced by the statement of the Prime Minister, which made an impression upon this House that I have never seen before—that that was entirely a mare's nest. If that is true, what is the inference? That it was made for the express purpose of desiring the opposition of the right hon. Gentleman and those who think with him. That is a charge that I certainly did not make against the Prime Minister.
I feel I owe the House an apology for rising to speak on this subject, because I cannot make any claim to be a naval expert. It seems, however, that this question has now passed out of the hands of the experts, and that it is one for the House of Commons and the country to settle. I think this debate is by far the most impressive which has taken place in the House of Commons since I became a Member. Two considerations emerge from this debate. The first of those is: Has the Government allowed the country to drift into a position in which our national security is in danger? In other words, are we now in a position from which no effort that we could possibly make at this moment can prevent us from being faced with an inevitable period in front of us when it is no exaggeration, but is at least possible, that we might be engaged in a struggle, not against a combi- nation of naval Powers, but against one naval Power, and not come out of that struggle successfully? And the second and more important is this: Are the Government now doing everything that is in their power to retrieve the position? As. regards the first of these considerations, I can hardly believe there is any impartial Member of this House who has listened to this debate who does not realise that we are in a position at all events of some danger. Let me try to bring clearly to issue some of the subjects which have been so frequently discussed during the last few days. There was a most remarkable discrepancy as between the statement as to the comparative strength of Germany and the United Kingdom in the statements of the Leader of the Opposition and in the statement of the Prime Minister. My right hon. Friend pointed out that in the year 1910 we should have 10 "Dreadnoughts" and Germany 13. The Prime Minister said that in the year 1910 we would have 10 "Dreadnoughts" and Germany would only have five. Well, surely there must be some means of clearing up this extraordinary discrepancy. As regards four of them, there is not only a discrepancy between my right hon. Friend and the Prime Minister, but between the Prime Minister and the First Lord of the Admiralty. The Prime Minister asserted that four German ships laid down as part of last year's programme will be ready in 1910. The Secretary to the Admiralty said the same thing. But the First Lord told us that his expectation' was that these four ships would be ready in the autumn of 1910. Therefore the difference is already reduced, and we are in this position, that by the admission of the Government we should have 10 and Germany nine, but there remains the further difference of the four. My right hon. Friend suggested that there would be 13. The First Lord, as well as the Prime Minister, thought that was impossible. I want to ask the House to use their common sense and consider whether it is not merely possible, but whether it is not probable. On what assumption does the First Lord go? I suppose it is under the assumption that our ships will be completed in time. He supposes that, and that the German ships will not be completed in an equally short time. Undoubtedly if you take the facts and leave assumption alone the facts are that four German ships were laid down last year just as ours. Then he counts upon our a being completed in 1910, and he says that. Germans cannot complete theirs at the end of 1910. That statement was made very shortly after the right hon. Gentleman told us that the rate of construction in Germany was at least as rapid as in this country.
Almost, if not quite.
I am bound to say, since the right hon. Gentleman interrupted me, that it seems to me a pity that he indulged in a little straw-splitting as to the beginning of these German ships. I do not mean to say that in any reproachful way. In answer to one of the interruptions from this side of the House he made this statement, that he could not give any expression of opinion as to whether any of these ships had been laid down or not.
Will the right hon Gentleman kindly read the words?
Yes. He interrupted my right hon. Friend when speaking—page 951 of the Report of our Debates—and he said I would not like to express any decided opinion as to whether any of them have or have not been laid down, but that they will be declared officially laid down on 1st April.
But, as I said, I really did not mean to make this matter a reproach. I know perfectly well how lightly these things are said, but I think it is a very serious matter, and he should have taken the House of Commons entirely into his confidence. The whole idea of suggesting that there is a difference as to whether the ships were laid down or not if they are actually commenced is entirely wrong. I have no expert knowledge of shipbuilding, but I lived in a shipbuilding centre all my life, and it is common knowledge that if a particular ship is being built, and an order is received for another ship, the builders collect the material while the first is in the stocks, and the fact that there is some delay in putting the second ship on the stocks will not cause the slightest delay in the end. The position is therefore that Germany began last year four ships, as we did; that the Government say we will have four ships built in two years and Germany will not. They have no grounds whatever for that statement. It is probable that the supposition of my right hon. Friend is right, and that by 1910 we will have 10 ships only, while Germany will have 13. The Prime Minister was rather indignant with my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford because he suggested that while the right hon. Gentleman spoke of a two-Power standard, he was not speaking of a one-Power standard, and the Prime Minister called attention to the fact that we had other ships besides "Dreadnoughts." I do not understand where that contention places us. As a matter of common sense, it seems to me the position is this: Either "Dreadnoughts" are a complete waste of money—and that is not probable—or other nations would not have built them at considerable expenditure if they were absolutely useless as particular types of ships. It seems to me that the position is not unlike that of a battery of artillery with long-range guns seeking to face a battery of artillery with short-range guns, a position in which we found ourselves at the time of the late South African war, when our guns at that time were almost absolutely useless. I do not say the position is the same here. The hon. Gentleman the Member for King's Lynn pointed out one fact, that the climatic conditions may be such that they cannot fight at long range; but on the assumption that the day is clear, and you could fight at long range, then it seems to me the whole idea of the "Dreadnought" is wrong, or else they will outclass the whole of the other ships before these other ships can get within firing distance. That seems to me common sense, but I have better ground. If "Dreadnoughts" are not actually an addition to the fighting strength of the Navy what is the meaning of the Prime Minister coming down and making the statement he did? If it is a fact, in spite of these "Dreadnoughts," we still have the two-Power standard, what was the sense of making a speech which filled the whole country with alarm? But I prove my case still more strongly by the words of the First Lord of the Admiralty. He said in these words:— created. That is the position into which we have been led under the present Government, that it is at least possible that we have to depend for our safety on this new type of ship, and it is certain that if we have we shall be in a position of inferiority as regards one nation, not to speak of two nations, who may be brought against us.
What is the excuse or justification which the Government have given for being in that position. I think it is very extraordinary. The Prime Minister was very frank. He said, in effect, "I made certain estimates last year; I made them with good cause, but I find that these estimates are entirely wrong, and sudden and unexpected developments have entirely upset our calculations." If there are any hon. Members who admire Carlyle and read his works they will remember that there is a passage in which he said: "To the blind all things are sudden." That is the kind of suddenness which has overtaken His Maejsty's Government. They were sudden, although they were not unexpected to anyone else. The actual figures were given by the Navy League, and the knowledge was common knowledge that the right hon. Gentleman on that Bench had not eyes to see. What was this unexpected development? The Prime Minister said he reagrded the German programme as a paper programme, and he did not think they could live up to it. Well, he and his colleagues were some of the few people who did not think they could live up to it, but throughout these debates almost everyone else pointed out, and even I myself—though I have taken very little part in these discussions —pointed out that in all the previous German naval programmes the dates had been anticipated, and not postponed, and we pointed out that, judging by the past instead of looking for postponement, they had every right to expect acceleration. That is the first unexpected development. What is the second?
The second unexpected development was that they were not aware that the Germans had begun to anticipate their programme, and they did not know what was the capacity of Germany for building these ships. Is there an Intelligence Department in the Admiralty? If there is what is it for? Is there any fact that is more vital for an Intelligence Department to know than the possibilities of construction on the part of a rival Power? At the very time—and they did not need to go to the Intelligence Department to know it—at the very time they were basing their calculations on that ignorance they knew, or ought to have known, that six months before the head of the German Navy in the German Parliament had said that they could build ships faster than we could build them in England. The Prime Minister seemed astonished when he heard that statement made by hon. Friend and asked him to read it. The hon. Member read out what I have stated, and the Prime Minister said, "Is that all?" Is it not enough? They had based their calculations on the idea that they could not build as quickly as we could, and yet the German Minister, whose words were being quoted yesterday as gospel, is the Minister who said they could build as quickly as we could.
They did not know that these vessels were being accelerated? Again, where was the Intelligence Department? I say without any possibility of contradiction that any Intelligence Department which was worth anything could not have had the slightest difficulty in finding out. In addition to the fact pointed out by the hon. Member for King's Lynn, that there are thousands and thousands of persons employed in these dockyards, the moment the orders were given out for guns and ships a whole stream of people interested in various industries are set in motion, and the men will know that something is happening. I speak again from my own experience. People who place orders for ships in a dull time no doubt keep it secret in the interests of the shipbuilders, so that the market for materials shall not be raised against them, but the moment the orders are given out it is utterly impossible that it can be kept secret for more than a week at the outside.
The hon. Member said that our Intelligence Department failed to know when the orders were given, but how soon did we know it?
I should have thought the right hon. Gentleman would know.
When were the orders given out, and how soon did we know of them?
They have not told us.
Oh, yes, they have told us when they found out.
I have stated that the orders were given last October.
When were they given?
They were given last October or November, and we knew of it in the month of November.
The right hon. Gentleman will remember that I am speaking now of my recollection of the Prime Minister's speech. My recollection of that speech was that one of the reasons given for the sudden development was that they did not know what was being done. If Le says I am wrong, I will not press the matter, as I have not time to turn it up.
The Prime Minister said that we did not know at the time the Estimates were introduced last year—that is in February, 1908—what anticipation was going to take place in the month of November, 1908. He said he did not know, and he could not know.
That, of course, is perfectly true. My recollection is that the excuse of the Prime Minister went further but I lay that aside. I will accept the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman that he knew admittedly in November or October.
No.
Well, it took place in October, and he knew in November. Therefore, they knew in November that the position was just as serious as they know it to be to-day. The House of Commons was sitting. There was no more difficulty in coming down and making the statement which was made on Tuesday then, than there was in making it on Tuesday. By doing so they would have saved four months of time, which perhaps we can never recover. Why did they not do that? They were busy about the dominating issue. By their own admission they knew of the seriousness of the present position. Was there ever such a case of fiddling when Rome was burning, and if I may say so, although it is not absolutely relevant to the subject we are discussing, I may point out another subject in connection with these orders. At the same time they were fooling about giving relief to the unemployed, they knew that these orders would have to be placed this year. They knew also that unemployment was terribly bad last winter, and they knew that if they had placed these orders then it would have given immense relief to an immense amount of people in the country. And they did not do it. I say that I have tried, and I think I have at all events gone some way in proving that the Government have allowed the position to drift into one of serious risk, or possibility of risk, so far as this country is concerned. More than that—I do not want to use unnecessarily strong language—but I do say, and I do believe, that the condemnation which the Prime Minister himself said would be deserved by any Government which, for the sake of party exigencies—for the sake of soothing the susceptibilities of the Little Navy people for instance—omitted to take the precautions which were necessary, has been deserved. The next consideration that I wish the House to allow me to dwell upon for a moment is, are the Government doing now everything that they ought to do to make sure that our position is safe and that it is possible to recover lost ground when the time comes for placing orders for new ships. The Secretary to the Admiralty made yesterday a speech with the tone of which I have nothing to complain. I knew that if there was a case the hon. Gentleman would make it, but when he finished his speech I knew that there was no case. He took the autumn of the year 1911, a period when it is still possible for us to recover lost ground. The hon. Gentleman said that our position then will be 16 ships for us and 13 for Germany. That, he said, was the worst possible position. Well, I am sure he knows that that was the best possible position for us. Admittedly, we cannot be in a better position by their own admission.
I said it could not be worse.
He said it could not be worse, and I say he should have said it could not be better, and that is his own admission.
No.
I say it is the admission of the figures which is more important than the words. We can have 16 and the Germans 13. But how does he know that the Germans are not going to lay down ships this year which will be ready as soon as ours. It seems to me a most grotesque assumption to suppose that the Germans, having accelerated their whole programme for about a year, they are going to stop and go back to their original programme.
They have said they will only have 13.
I am not going to say anything on that subject, but I think the House will understand that in a case of that kind we have not to consider what a Power with whom we may possibly be at war says, but what it will do. [Loud cries of "Oh! "and" No."] It is not my fault if I make that remark. [Renewed cries of "Oh!" and of "Order, Byles."]
rose in his place, amidst some cries of "Order."
The hon. Member has no right to interrupt.
I was only going to say that it was not my fault that I made that remark; it was forced upon me. I come back to the position in which we shall possibly be placed in 1911. I say it is absurd to suppose that the Germans are going to stop acceleration now. It is absurd for every reason, and, may I give one reason which will show it is absurd to every business man? My hon. Friend the Member for Fareham pointed out yesterday the enormous development which had taken place in Krupp's factory. Their power and capacity in the last twelve months has increased to an extent which is hardly credible. Does anyone engaged in business, who realises that Krupp's is a private firm working for profit, think they would incur the immense capital expenditure involved in these appliances unless they knew there was going to be a continuance of orders at the same rate? Nothing is more certain to my mind than this: that the development of the German naval programme will be limited, and limited only by the capability of Krupp's and other firms of the same kind to turn out the materials fast enough. We have been told they can turn out ships as quickly as we can. What is to hinder them from laying down four ships this year just as they laid down eight ships last year? If they do, instead of the position being at the end of 1911 that we shall have 16 and they 13, it will be that they will have 17 and we shall have 16. I think we have a right to ask the Government, in view of the serious nature of the position which they themselves admit, are they doing all that the country has a right to expect from them? By their own admission, they are only keeping ahead, and no more than ahead, of Germany in this matter. They have been entirely mistaken last year in their forecast as to what would happen. Have we any guarantee that they are not equally mistaken now? Have we any gua- rantee that, instead of our programme being fulfilled and the Germans falling behind, we may not have strikes or something of that kind, which will have the opposite effect, that the Germans will be hastened and ours will be delayed? Surely the very least that the Government can do is to take these additional four ships out of the nebulous state in which they now are and put them on the Estimates, and not only put them on the Estimates, but make sure that they are built as quickly as the facilities of this country will enable them. I will take part of the speech of the Secretary to the Admiralty which will give another reason. He said with great truth that the great provocative of war is not the strength of the fleet. We are engaged now in a struggle which is not war, I am thankful to say, but which is a very serious struggle of armaments. Does not the same principle apply? Does he not believe that, if we show these foreign Powers that we are in earnest, and that we are going at any cost to keep our supremacy, that will tend to lessen the rivalry of armaments?
I should like to say a word on the general position of this country. I was struck in reading to-day a letter in the newspapers by Lord Rosebery, because it seemed to me he expressed the "opinion which is now the opinion of nine out of ten men in this country. He said, and I think he is right, whatever the Government may do, now that attention is called to it, the country will have an adequate Navy. He went on to say that this debate had given him the impression, or confirmed the conclusion to which he had already come, that it was impossible for us to be absolutely secure against invasion, and that we ought to have an adequate Territorial Army in case of necessity to defend ourselves. This is the point I wish to make in connection with that. The position is far more serious than can be got over by any Territorial Army. As a nation we are in a postion in which no nation of our strength ever stood before. Suppose we had the best Army in the world, what is the use of it if you cannot feed it? I do not say that with any reference to Tariff Reform. On the contrary, I have always said, and always believed, and I believe it now, that the protection of agriculture in that sense is past, that the time for it has gone. But does not that make our position far more serious? Does it not show that we must have a Navy at all costs and all risks to secure not only our national greatness but our national existence? We all feel that. When the Government admit it I ask them is it enough for them to do what they are doing, for the Prime Minister, the First Lord of the Admiralty, the Secretary to the Admiralty, to get up and say, "What we ask is the minimum which is required by the necessities of the country"? If our existence, if our whole position depends on the position of the Navy, surely we want something more than a minimum. We want a margin of safety, and that margin the Government are not giving.
At any other time and upon any other subject I am afraid, human nature being what it is, I should have been tempted to follow the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken in somewhat the same tone and temper as those in which he has just addressed the House. But he will forgive me, I hope, if at this moment, speaking on this subject, I endeavour to avoid all controversial matter, and simply explain to the House how the situation stands so far as I have not already done so, and to clear up any quite reasonable misunderstanding which I know to be in the mind of the Leader of the Opposition. I do not think the hon. Gentleman was quite fair to me in charging me with straw-splitting. I certainly endeavoured to state most absolutely and fully all the information of which I could be certain to the House last Tuesday. I find I said in the most express and emphatic form precisely what we knew about the four ships of the 1909–10 programme, diminishing not one iota of our knowledge, nor stating what we did not know.
I said I did not charge the hon. Gentleman with intentionally misrepresenting, but he has not touched the point which I referred to in the first interruption. The First Lord led us to believe he had no knowledge. Later on he showed us he had.
In what the hon. Gentleman calls the first interruption I cannot accept as strictly accurate what is here an abridged Report. But if he will turn two or three pages further on, if he wished to be candid in the statement of the matter, he had an exact account from me of each of the four ships, and I do not think, when in the course of a single debate he gets the fullest information, it is quite fair to charge me with straw splitting.
I apologise to him now for having interrupted him in another part of his speech. He spoke with some asperity of the Intelligence Department of the Admiralty, and I could not refrain from interrupting at that moment to show that his aspersion was entirely without foundation. This construction only took place in the autumn of last year, and it was known to the Intelligence Department almost within a week or two of its having occurred. Therefore naval officers who are carrying out their business extremely well ought not to be subjected to such criticism from the benches opposite. I think there is a little confusion upon the subject of the power of construction in Germany. I spoke of it on Tuesday as almost, if not fully, equal to our own. I stated, I think, the fact that our great contractors will have to look to it if we are to retain our supremacy in rapidity and volume of construction. I never said in this country we could lay down eight ships in the course of two months and complete them in two years. We could not do anything like it, and neither could Germany. That is my opinion. I have certain information as to what their power of construction is, and I do not believe they can complete eight ships, all commenced within a period of two or three months, and complete them in two years, or even in three.
Do I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say the German Government have commenced eight ships within a period of two or three months?
No. I am speaking now of the ships in respect of which work was commenced in the year 1908. Of these ships we know that four were laid down in the 1908–9 programme—I think in November, and in the preceding month or in the same month orders were given as we believe, at any rate, work was undertaken by contractors, who were going to receive the orders in respect of four more ships. What I say is that these eight ships could not possibly all be completed by December, 1910, being all commenced, or approximately commenced, within one year—could not all be completed within two years nor two years and two months, nor, I believe, in three years. That is the distinction which must be drawn when we are talking of completing a ship in two years. We expect to complete the two ships of the current year's programme in two years, because only two ships were laid down at that time—in January and February of this year—and we expect to have them completed by February, 1911, and at that time we do not expect the Germans will have more than nine ships completed. They will have two more coming on immediately for completion, to be completed, I think, about April, 1911. The last two I do not think will be completed until August; 1911. That is. the best information which we are able to give upon the subject, and I would ask the House to accept this statement, inasmuch as the fullest information has been given to the House, and I really can assure the Leader of the Opposition that I believe the information which he has received, which was also known to us, has been examined and verified or rejected as far as we are able to do so, and the conclusion that we have come to as to what can possibly be done is the conclusion which I have stated, that is to say, that the Germans may have completed not sooner than August, 1911, 13 of these large ships. The hon. Gentleman asks why, if we knew of the construction in November last, the Government did not at once come to the House of Commons and ask for a Vote for further expenditure. Here, again, both the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Rutland are under a complete misapprehension as to what is the desirable thing to do in naval construction. The desirable thing is not to lay down ships before W3 need them. "Supposing," the hon. Member for Rutland said, "we had lost four ships in three years by not following what he described as the Cawdor programme laying down four ships each year." I absolutely deny that we have lost anything, and I will go further, and say, even with the full information I have now as to what has actually happened, I am glad we have not laid down four ships. What is the result? The ships that we shall lay down now—I do not wish to be tied to a precise figure—we believe to be something like 30 per cent, superior to the "Dreadnought." Last year's programme was to provide us with safety up to the year 1911. I am speaking now of battleships laid down this year. I will not say they are 30 per cent, better than the "Superb," but they are considerably better.
There is another misapprehension, a complete misunderstanding, which I may clear up. There are two things which we have to bear in mind—safety for the moment, covering all the time directly dealt with by the programme under consideration, and safety for the time beyond the period of the existing programme. Last year we had to provide for safety down to the end of March, 1910. Suppose that the worst fears of the Leader of the Opposition were true, and that Germany would have at that time 13 of these "Dreadnoughts" and we could only have 12, by March, 1911, we should still at that date be overwhelmingly superior to Germany. That is the first point to take into consideration. The hon. Gentleman talks of December, 1910, as being a danger point. But even if they were to have three more "Dreadnoughts" by March, 1611, we should still be overwhelmingly superior. The danger point would not be in March, 1911, but in future years, when they had started with superior numbers and a superior type of ship. Let us keep the two ideas quite distinct. Up to March,. 1911, the existing programme, not including the programme now before the House, but the programme of 1908–09, was sufficient to give us absolute security.
New things have happened. We have got to look forward to a future in which it is possible for another Power, owing to the development of its powers of construction to produce "Dreadnoughts" almost, if not quite, as rapidly as we can. How do we meet that? We meet it in the first, place by the immediate construction of a greatly superior "Dreadnought," four in number, in July and November; and we go further, and ask the House of Commons to give us the necessary orders to enable us to complete four more of these greatly superior types by March, 1912, and we are thereby assured of the superiority in numbers of this particular type of ship, which gives us a good start for the future, and much more than that, I believe, a ship greatly superior to any ship we have got afloat at the present time. We cannot say what new inventions may be made by other Powers; we cannot know. But, inasmuch as other countries so far have been good enough to copy us, we assume that our latest and most improved type of ship will be the best type of ship afloat. As a result of this, what they call dangerous delay, when these ships are built we shall have four ships in commission greatly superior to the "Dreadnoughts" or "Superbs" instead of having "Dreadnoughts" or "Superbs" in commission. Consequently, in the financial year 1911-12' our fleet will be much stronger than if we had gone upon the lines of building four battleships each year. So much, for the moment, of this programme. Then how about the future? I have no doubt that our contractors, who have never been behind any contractors in the world, will be fully able in the course of the next six or eight months to cope with any requirements which the Admiralty may call upon them to meet. We are secure in every type of ship down to the end of March, 1912. Before this time next year I have no doubt that our power of construction will be once again the first in the world.
What have we got to fear? We shall have a superiority in what I believe to be a superior type of ship in March, 1912, and I believe we shall have a power of construction then greater than Germany now possesses. That surely is enough, or ought to be enough, to enable us once again to be satisfied that Great Britain will be able to retain its full supremacy of the sea. I have given this explanation as a mere explanation of facts, and not in any way to score a point off the hon. Gentleman opposite, and I hope that it will be accepted by him as an explanation of the actual policy of the Admiralty of the present day, and on the faith of which the Admiralty are satisfied that this programme does secure the safety of the country. My right hon. Friend the Member for Islington made a speech which I confess in its opening portion somewhat startled me by his use of the phrase "carefully constructed panic." I can assure him, speaking for myself, that nothing was further from our thoughts in the speeches that we made. If at first he seemed to charge us with having intentionally come down with a skilfully arranged panic I was quite relieved in my mind afterwards from the tone of my right hon. Friend's speech to observe that he was using language in it in an exaggerated sense, and to understand that he did not wish to be taken quite seriously in these observations.
May I say that I expressly detached the Prime Minister from any expression of that kind.
My right hon. Friend will forgive me if after my long intercourse with him I decline even to take that observation seriously. He asked if the Government proposed to lay before the House any specific Vote dealing with the four ships for which special powers are asked. I quite understand that my right hon. Friend should have asked the question, and I admit at once to the House that this particular form of procedure is unusual, but I would ask the Committee to agree that the whole circumstances are unusual. We have to deal with the naval programmes of foreign Powers, and it is very unusual for the House of Commons to find itself obliged to take so closely and so accurately into account what is being done by other friendly nations, and circumstances are now of a kind the Government think to justify them in asking the House to give us powers which leave the Government greater latitude than would be given if the special Vote were taken. It does not affect in the very least the power of the House over the finance of these ships. No money can or will be paid without a Vote of the House. If further it is proposed to expend any money the House would have to give authority. But what is asked for now is authority to give the necessary orders.
Has not the right hon. Gentleman that authority already?
We have got the authority in one sense. The Executive can always give orders, but it cannot give orders pledging the credit to pay for these orders without informing Parliament first. The Government do foresee circumstances which may necessitate having to give these orders, and, therefore, they inform Parliament at the earliest moment of this fact. No money will necessarily be expended, but if the money is expended a Supplementary Estimate would be introduced, and Parliament would have a full opportunity of sanctioning it or refusing to sanction it; but if the Estimates are taken in the present form Parliament would feel itself as much bound to carry out the liabilities undertaken by the Executive as it would be in any of the cases in which notice is given to them. May I remind the House of a precedent for the purpose which is not later than two years ago. At that time—in the month of July, I think it was—it was discovered that cordite was liable to rapid depreciation, and the Board of Admiralty came to the conclusion that it was necessary immediately to undertake considerable expenditure amounting to half a million in supplying the ships with cooling magazines. The Financial Secretary came down to the Committee of the House, and although there was no Estimate or Vote upon the subject, he informed the House that the Board of Admiralty had decided that this would be necessary, and that the work of providing cooling machinery would be begun; and no doubt if the money had been necessary the Board of Admiralty would have introduced a Supplementary Estimate in the ensuing spring to meet the cost. But Parliament being informed, was content to accept the statement, and orders were given for the cooling machinery, and I think, as a matter of fact, £200,000 was spent upon it in the year in which Parliament sanctioned by its assent the action of the Admiralty. As the hon. Member has truly said, the Government have always got the power to give any orders they please. But they cannot pay for the orders. They must have Parliamentary sanction. Before we pay for these orders Parliamentary sanction would be asked, and I trust would be given. That is the fullest explanation I can give to my hon. Friend.
I am afraid that Parliament was unconscious two years ago of exactly what it was doing. You will have to have it done in a more constitutional way I think now.
I think it is a perfectly constitutional way. Parliament was informed at the earliest possible moment of what the possible intentions of the Government may be in view of the circumstances which they foresee as possible or probable some years hence. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Worcestershire charged the Admiralty with having been caught napping. I am not quite clear in my mind in respect of the particular mode in which the Admiralty were caught napping, or as to what time they were caught napping. The Committee will understand that inasmuch as I only went to the Admiralty in April last I am not included in the charge; therefore such defence as I can give is a purely impersonal one. I am bound to say after the closest inquiry and the most careful examination I am unable to discover any evidence that the present and the late Board of Admiralty have at any time been caught napping. We have been very well informed. Neither this nor any Board of Admiralty can foresee what may possibly happen this time next year or two years hence. I imagine the right hon. Gentleman when he says we were caught napping must have had in his mind that we were unaware of some circumstances happening at the time it did happen, and not that we were aware that it would happen six or eight months later. I am unable to find any justification for the charge which the right hon. Gentleman has made. The right hon. Gentleman has covered very similar ground to the hon. Member for Dulwich, and I do not think it would be necessary for me to go over all the points in his speech.
Do you propose to say anything about the two-Power standard?
That was dealt with by the Prime Minister on Tuesday in the most lucid and, I think, in the completest manner, and I have nothing to add to what he said. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that our security at the date to which this programme applies—namely, 1912—is absolute and complete, and I think he ought to accept that as a sufficient statement. My hon. Friend the Member for King's Lynn put a question to me with regard to the German guns and mountings in their new ships, and he informed the House that the Germans kept large reserves of gun-mountings. I think my hon. Friend must have been misinformed on this subject. I cannot conceive that the Germans would have large reserves of mountings for 11-inch guns when the mountings for the new ships are for 12-inch guns. It is a new type of mounting, and I am fairly confident that they have no reserve for these mountings at all. The new ships will be mounted with 12-inch guns of a slightly different type to our own, but I do not think it is desirable that I should go into a descriptive ac count of the guns of a friendly Power. The hon. Member referred to the length of time occupied in the building of the "Lord Nelson" and the "Defence," and argued from those two ships that the Board of Admiralty could not be trusted to complete the ships within the period stated. My hon. Friend knows as well as anybody that to take individual ships, with regard to which there has been special and particular delays, and continuously quote them as examples of the ordinary rate of construction by the Admiralty, is not a fair method of argument.
I simply pointed out to the Committee that there had been a number of failures, and that the Admiralty in four particular ships were counting absolutely on building them in two years from the date of laying them down, namely, 10th April, 1910, and completing them by 1912. I cited not only the "Lord Nelson" and the "Defence" but two of the "Invincible" class as having taken from three to four years.
My hon. Friend knows the reasons for these delays in every case. Take for example the "Invincibles." They were a new type of ship. Surely he knows that delays constantly occur owing to the Admiralty asking for changes in this or that particular part of the ship as designs are improved. Why should we hurry up when we can by a delay of perhaps two or three months get a much better type of ship? That is my answer to the charge of general delays to which the hon. Member has referred. When he comes to a ship like the "Defence" the hon. Member knows as well as I do that it has to be sent from Pembroke to be docked elsewhere, and that is the cause of a very great delay. Knowing these facts, and knowing that the Committee in general do not know these facts, it is not fair for the hon. Member to continually quote these ships as examples. I beg my hon. Friend in future to be absolutely candid in criticising the Board of Admiralty and state to the Committee all his information, and not criticise, as I think unfairly, old brother officers of his. [OPPOSITION cries of "Oh, oh!" and "Parliamentary privilege."] It is not fair to criticise them without stating all the facts in his possession. I am sorry to have to say this, but it must be understood that I, a civilian, have to defend here a number of naval officers who are directly responsible for the technical work to me. I have to defend them here. I accept full responsibility, of course, for everything done at the Admiralty, but there is no doubt that the form criticism constantly takes is intended to convey a slur upon particular naval officers. [OPPOSITION cries of "No, no."] At any rate, that is the form some of the criticism takes. Therefore, I beg the Committee to accept this assurance from me: that, so far as my experience goes, the official work done at the Board of Admiralty is as efficient— I see an ex-Member of the Board of Admiralty opposite, and I am sure he will agree with me—as any official work is done in this country. I can confidently recommend the Committee to rest their security with absolute confidence in the Board of Admiralty that they will provide a Navy which will give security to this country, and that the present Estimates presented to this Committee will effect that purpose.
Before the House finishes this Vote I may have to ask the indulgence of the House to survey the very serious situation in which I think we are, and to consider at leisure the case which the right hon. Gentleman has put before us. I only rise now to make one observation and to ask one question. My observation relates to the closing remarks of the right hon. Gentleman. Sir, in my opinion, no attack in this House ought to be made upon anybody but the Government. No attack ought to be made upon those who advise the Government. I entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman there, but I think that carries as a correlative that the Government should not shelter themselves too assiduously behind the opinions of their expert advisers. I have the greatest admiration for the very able and distinguished men at the Admiralty, and, indeed, for the whole of the service of which they are the professional heads at the present time. But when their authority is quoted in the way the Government seem sometimes inclined to quote it, we have a right to ask whether in truth those gentlemen have had everything they have asked for, whether the Government can really say they have never bargained with them, or suggested diminutions in this or in that Vote; and whether they have ever put any check whatever on the demands of the Department. I think very likely they have done so. I think most Governments have very likely done so, both in regard to the Army and the Navy. Until we can cross-examine the official experts who have, in certain respects, probably been overruled, we cannot tell whether those matters are vital or not. Because the Board of Admiralty do not resign in a body, it is not right that they should be claimed by the Government as the persons really responsible for the policy which the Government have adopted. That is my first observation. I think if the Prime Minister had been here he would have seen that my comment was really suggested by what fell from the right hon. Gentleman, and it is not unfair.
I am not complaining. I entirely accept what the right hon. Gentleman says.
I beg pardon. The question I have to put deals with the actual policy the Government are pursuing. If anyone will cast his mind back to the speech of the Prime Minister on Tuesday—I think the Prime Minister himself will admit this—he will find that he talked throughout that speech as if the four ships to be laid down on the 1st of April, 1910, were ships absolutely determined upon—that that was part of a fixed policy, which we think an inadequate policy, but still it was the fixed policy of the Admiralty. We are not satisfied with it. The form of the Estimates, and the form of the speech of the First Lord of the Admiralty in introducing the Estimates, indicated that those four ships were to be laid down on the 1st of April, 1910. The speech of the Prime Minister seemed to be far more absolute and dogmatic in character, and he seemed perfectly clear that the ships were to be laid down. Now the First Lord of the Admiralty gets up and makes a second speech, and refers to the attitude of doubt which is writ large on the face of the Estimates, although it was quite absent from the speech of the Prime Minister. We now understand that it is really a very questionable point whether these ships are to be laid down at all, whether the material is to be collected, and whether the expenditure will be incurred. I would venture to suggest that we must still discuss before this Vote leaves the House whether, even with these four ships, we are in the position of safety claimed by the Government. I think it is time for the Government to say specifically that, at all events, the maximum contemplated in their Estimates is the thing that is going to be done. There should be no doubt or hesitation about the four ships on 1st April, 1910, or that in 1909 the Government mean to make all the preparations preliminary to laying them down. That is the tenor of the whole debate. That is the tenor of the observations of the Prime Minister. I do not think the First Lord of the Admiralty has helped the course of this debate by putting all this in question, and I venture to ask the Prime Minister most respectfully to state now, before we finally depart from this question on Vote A and Vote 1, specifically, whether he has any doubt in his own mind that these ships will be laid down on 1st April; whether he has any doubt that all the material will be collected in 1909 for them; whether he has any doubt that the money which ought to be expended in the next financial year on these four ships will be forthcoming; and whether he will not abandon this policy of doubt and hesitation which tends to make even worse a situation which we still think is full of the gravest peril for the future?
Reference has been made to myself, but there is no discrepancy in the language of the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty and myself, and there is certainly no discrepancy in intention. Perhaps, as the right hon. Gentleman has quoted my speech, I may be permitted to quote the words as they appeared in the "Parliamentary Debates," column 960—which I have not revised, and which are substantially accurate:—
I want to make that perfectly clear, in order that the two matters, which are quite distinct for the moment, and so far as the present connection is concerned quite distinct from one another, should be kept so That is this construction of "Dreadnoughts" and the maintenance of the two-Power standard. They ought to be kept distinct in the minds of the House and of the country. I refer to this parenthetically and explanatory of what I said. I do not at this moment—it would not be right or within my duty—forecast whether or not the whole of these four ships will be laid down on 1st April next. I do not think it will be right to speculate on the particular statement which we have read in the newspapers—as to which I say nothing, except that it filled me with a good deal of surprise. I wait further reports and fuller explanations in regard to it. I do not think it would be right at the present moment to assume that the contingency I laid down in the sentence just quoted is a contingency that will naturally and inevitably arise. I should hope it does not. If it does—I do not express any probability one way or another—we have made provision, we have taken powers in these Estimates—ample power to meet it, and to meet it in advance, and so make ample provision for the safety of the nation.
The whole of this debate has turned, not on the two-Power standard; not on the one-Power standard even—so it seems to me—for little or no attention has yet been paid to the part that Austria is likely to play. But there is an advantage which would accrue from considering a programme, rather of two years than of one year only. We are at present entirely left in the dark as to whether these four ships contemplated to be laid down in April of next year ought to be considered the programme of that year, or whether they are to be supplemented by other two or four ships. I think a very large section of this House regards it as certainly necessary that during two years we shall lay down 12 ships, and if so will not the payment of eight out of these 12 ships fall in the fiscal year 1910–11, and land us in far greater and difficult pressure next year than even we are in at the present moment? Is it not desirable rather to contemplate the requirements so far as it is possible for the two years together, so as to effect that economy in shipbuilding whch alone can be attained by some regularity in the rate, and if ten or twelve ships have to be laid down during the next two years to arrange, as far as possible to lay them down at regular intervals, so the work shall be as continuous as it possibly may.
The First Lord of the Admiralty the other day mentioned that, of course, the old fleet, the older type of ships, were, and still are, of considerable value. In that I agree. It seems to me that these ships must be of considerable value. It is a fact that we have at the present time, including the programme of this year, which is decided upon, something like 104 battleships and armoured cruisers on the active list. That balances about 102 ships of a similar class of the next two-standard Powers. I only refer to this for this reason —taking these older ships into account, it does appear that although we are weaker than the two Powers in battleships, we appear to be stronger in armoured cruisers. Is it not possible to gain some little, some definite, estimate as to what the value of these old ships are in terms of "Dreadnoughts"? Is it not possible to give some expert opinion as to what is their comparative value compared with "Dreadnoughts"? Though fewer in guns, the guns are of the same type, as witness the "King Edward," which has guns equal in calibre and range with these. It is evident that there is a comparative value between the two, taking their guns and armaments alone. When we come to the point which has been raised by the hon. Member for West Lynn, that it is estimated by naval men that on a great number of occasions these big guns, owing to the fighting conditions, will not be used at a very full range, we have this fact—that under such conditions smaller guns will come in as an important factor in these ships. That being so, it seems to me that these ships, the immediate pre-"Dreadnought" type, must certainly have a value, and one which might be estimated with some degree of accuracy. Of course the assumption seems to have been made all along that the "Dreadnoughts" are ultimately to be the only ships which will count at all. I quite agree that in the course of a few years that must necessarily be so, for we have already learnt this afternoon from the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty that already development of the "Dreadnought" type have placed a distance of 30 per cent, between them and this class of vessel, and of course that shows that, so far from there being any finality at all, not only are these "Dreadnoughts" destined to change and change rapidly, but they must either take the direction of becoming distinctly bigger or more powerful, or probably of being superseded by a new type of ship altogether. Possibly this will be a ship in which armour gives place to greater gun-power. I know that opinion has been divided upon that subject. It is quite possible that the new type of ship in which armour gives place to gun-power and staying-power may in course of time create a difference as wide between them and the present type of vessel as between the "Dreadnought" and the pre-"Dreadnought" type.
I agree with the views which have been put forward that the state of affairs is a grave one— that our sea power has been challenged, and the challenger has shown a remarkable capacity for shipbuilding upon a large scale—an unexpectedly large capacity for shipbuilding on a large scale. That must inevitably create a very serious situation. At the same time, although we have heard there is no intention to bring a party tone into the discussion, I think that there are some tendencies in that direction, and I think that is unfortunate, for nothing would do more to encourage the exertions of any possible foe abroad than to attempt to discredit unnecessarily the Government at home. I do not think any discredit attaches to the Government for their extraordinary progress in peaceable directions. I do not know of any more extraordinary progress than that which has been made by the Germans in their shipbuilding. My hon. Friend objected to the provision made by the Government of four extra "Dreadnoughts." I think they are a good part of the Government programme, and if they had proposed to proceed with them forthwith they would have been a very large addition to our naval strength. It may be that the increase of the number from four to eight would prove to be unnecessary, though I am not sure it will prove unnecessary. Whether the Government may be trusted to take the necessary steps to provide gun mountings and so forth for the additional four ships must be a matter of opinion or a matter of confidence. It is not every Government, perhaps, that could have been trusted in a matter of this kind. There have been Prime Ministers who would not have so readily or so unreservedly adopted the two-Power standard as the present Prime Minister, and I am quite sure of one thing, and it is that having adopted the standard no Prime Minister would go back upon it. For my part, I have every confidence that the Government will proceed to the preparation of these four "Dreadnoughts" whenever it becomes necessary. I am also sure, from what we have heard in the course of these debates, that the Government pro- gramme is a minimum one, and not much harm would be done if the whole of the eight ships were proceeded with. Still, I am content to trust to the Government, because I am sure that in case of need they would make the necessary preparations for the construction of the four additional vessels.
I think public opinion is rather in favour of eight "Dreadnoughts," not because there is any panic, but because, before these debates had begun, we had no idea of what was the shipbuilding capacity of Germany. We do not know even at the present moment what her progress in naval works has been. In regard to this coountry we know that Rosyth has hardly yet been begun, and if the works on the other side of the North Sea, at Heligoland, on the coast, and on the Kiel Canal, are pressed forward we will realise what is our backwardness in respect of Rosyth. This has a direct connection with the question of strategy, and the point which I make here is that the progress of Germany in naval works compared with our progress at Rosyth might, as a matter of strategy, mean the equivalent of the strength of one or two "Dreadnoughts" in case of war. Between 1910 and 1912 the difference between us and Germany in the number of first-class ships, without reckoning the great fleet which we have behind our "Dreadnoughts," will be small. In regard to the "Dreadnought" class we are not at anything like the two-Power standard, and it seems to me that it would be rather in the nature of a struggle to maintain the one-Power standard. If necessary, the Government might be prepared to expedite these four extra ships before 1st April—that is to say, the preparation for them might be expedited before 1st April. In regard to our capacity for carrying out the preparation of gun-mountings and those parts of the ship which take the longest time, I am not sure whether any information can be given on that point, or whether it would be desirable to afford it. I am certain, however, that it is not a matter which can have escaped the attention of the Government. As to the number of slips on which vessels can be built, I doubt if there is much danger at the present time; but it is very desirable that there should be no question as to the provision for gun-mountings and other parts of vessels being put on such a scale as would afford ample security. It is, of course, understood that the undertaking of four extra "Dreadnoughts" has no bearing on the naval programme for the following year, because in the following year, if necessity required it, the country would be quite as ready to lay down eight ships again as it would be ready to lay them down now. We are told that the social programme may be delayed by the expenditure on the fleet. No doubt efforts in that direction will be hampered, but I am convinced that there are not many who think that there is much hope of realising any social programme if it were to be carried out at the expense of our security on the sea. With the loss of our supremacy on the sea there would certainly be little hope of the realisation of any social programme. The greatest drawback we could have would be insecurity on the sea. Doubts are sometimes thrown upon our fighting power, and not only upon our fighting power, but on our fighting spirit. Whether through the enervating effects of unemployment, through luxury, through self-indulgence, or a weakened self-reliance, it is thought that we should not pursue a war with the same determination as we have evinced in the past. But the world may rest assured that it is not in our day that the British people will relinquish their sea power, and whoever wishes to wrest it from our hands will have to take it by force. The truest form of security we can have is the provision for the maintenance of our sea power. It would have been well, perhaps, in view of the extension of German shipbuilding capacity and the uncertainty which to some extent exists and must exist, if the Government had taken on these extra ships. I admit there are differences of opinion about the two-Power standard and how it is to be maintained. A distinction is drawn between "Dread-noughts" and other vessels, but we should have an ample margin in ships of the first class in maintaining the two-Power standard. There is necessarily uncertainty as to what the margin is, because we really do not know how quickly vessels can be turned out by Germany. To secure ourselves against that, it might have been as well to put the extra ships in this year's programme. I admit there are advantages in the scheme proposed by the Government, and I am prepared to accept their proposals, but on this condition, that they will expedite, even before 1st April, the laying down of one or two or three or four of the extra ships if it should be deemed by their naval advisers desirable that this should be done.
I agree with the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down, but I do not share the confidence in the possibility of Governmental action which he appears to enjoy. Hon. Members who addressed the House yesterday did not move the Amendments which they had on the Paper, but they expressed their opinions with regard to them. The hon. Member for Rochdale and the right hon. Member for the Northwich Division both expressed sentiments with many of which I am personally in entire agreement. Both asked us to consider international amity, and both talked about the comity of nations. I entirely agree with them as to the value of those principles; but the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Northwich and the hon. Gentleman the Member for Rochdale should really reflect that we are dealing not with friendships in the world as we should like to see it, but with the facts of the world as it is, and really their speeches were based on assumptions which are entirely different from the assumptions of the vast majority of the Members of this House, and I am quite certain of the vast majority of the people of the country. Both their speeches were put on what I may call a commercial basis. The hon. Member for Rochdale spoke of the commercial loss involved in building a battleship and getting a little for it as scrap iron. The Member for Northwich said we should encourage people to think in money and not in battleships. The right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Rochdale take the view apparently that when we are voting for new construction we ought to keep one eye on the Budget. That is a view which I am sure is not shared by the majority of Members in this House, nor by the majority of people in the country. The true view, when we are voting for new construction, is not to keep one eye on the Budget, but to keep both eyes on the maintenance of our security and supremacy on the sea. The hon. Member for Mayo said that measuring our strength with one Power would be regarded as a menace to Germany. The reports we have received today show it has not so been regarded, and anyone who knows Germany knows it would not be so regarded, because if there is one thing which has always been clear about German intentions it is, as the Prime Minister said, that they have determined to pursue the even tenour of their way, and the course which they have mapped out, regardless, as the right hon. Gentleman said, of what we do. The Member for Mayo took objection, and some other Members, the Member for Stoke, to Members who said, "Look at those German ships—what are they for?" I agree to a certain extent. It is not necessary either to look at the nation which has built the ships or to look at any ulterior object. It is not a question of German ships or what are they for. It is simply a question there are the ships. The Member for Mayo spoke of the difficulties of the two-Power standard.
He quoted from the expression of opinion of the Navy League that it is desirable to build seven ships at least this year in order to uphold the two-Power standard and 14 in the next two years. The Member for Mayo says it is ridiculous and that you may have Germany and America as the two Powers. He says America is to be considered, and is a very grave consideration. It does not matter if you are taking the two-Power standard whether it is Germany and America, France and Japan, Siam and any other country, the whole point of the two-Power standard rests as a calculation not on international policy, but it is a matter of arithmetic, and seeing that it is so and that nothing but arithmetic is involved, I venture to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty for a little further information about some figures which they have been good enough to give. We had to-day a new statement, at least I think new to most of the House, from the First Lord of the Admiralty with regard to exact details, some suggested details of the new programme, because the right hon. Gentleman was being asked the very natural question: "Why, if you had this information about the change in German policy which falsified the whole assumption on which your previous policy was based why did you not begin to lay down in November." In answer to that the right hon. Gentleman says: "We have made great improvements in design, we have got a ship 30 per cent, superior to the existing 'Dreadnought' type." Does he really suggest that this 30 per cent, improvement has been effected between November and March, and that it is the creation of three months, or 10 per cent. per month in the brain of the designer?
The question still remains, "Why, if you knew of this change in policy, why was not the ship laid down in November last?" With regard to the actual figures I should like a little detail to make them quite clear. In the summer of 1911, from March until July, from the right hon. Gentleman's figures we shall have 12 of that "Dreadnought" type of ships and Germany 11 in May. Germany will get 11 in May—may possibly have. The next set of figures goes on to assume that in August we shall have received an accretion of two, bringing us to 14. Germany will have received an accretion of two also, bringing her to 13, that is 13 to 14, and 12 to 11. I ask about this accretion of two ships to Germany. Those are the two ships which are to be officially laid down, so-called, in April. That means if they are not ready until August two years and four months are allowed for their building. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary if he allows two years and four months for two German ships, for which materials have been collected ever since November, and which are officially laid down in April, for that date for that accretion, why does he only allow for the ships which are to meet them two years? If you allow the same period in both cases there will obviously be a period in May and June, 1911, when the figures will actually stand 13 to 12 in favour of Germany, and if you allow the two years and four months there will be in September and October, 1911, 13 to 12. I only ask that, and perhaps later on we shall get information as to those exact details. Even taking the Admiralty figures as they stand, 12 to 11 and 14 to 13, is it not a rathar narrow margin of security? The right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Worcestershire has already pointed out that there are perils beyond human control, and there are perils which arise from human action. There are strikes, labour disputes, and there is the shadow around these islands of a margin of one which may through any chance disappear. It is a slender margin on which to reckon the entire security in this which is to be the predominant type of ship. I say that because we shall be asked what about the other ships?
I notice the First Lord of the Admiralty spoke of the supersession of those ships. I do not know, being a person of very limited intelligence, that I would be entirely disposed to agree with him as to the absolute supersession by a ship of the "Dreadnought" type of ship like the "Lord Nelson" or "Agamemnon." So fas as gun-fire goes, and, after all, gun-fire is 70 per cent. of the fighting efficiency of the battleship, I think there is still good reason to talk about what becomes of the vessels. What I do object to is this, and what I dissent from very strongly, is the First Lord of the Admiralty speaks as if the supersession of other vessels were to be an entirely mechanical process. He says when 12 "Dreadnoughts" come in 12 old ships go out. You never progress towards national security by a step of that kind. The reason the First Lord makes that assertion is to my mind one of the most startling reasons you could imagine. What is the reason? He says otherwise if you do not make that assumption it means an increase in personnel. That is just where his view as to supersession is so serious. He used the imagery of a machine, and spoke of those immense vessels as being machines with an output of fighting capacity, but the right hon. Gentleman forgot that in order to get an output from any machine you require power, and he forgot that in the case of those vessels the power is men and stores.
I think it is about time we had some information as to how we stand in personnel and in stores. Because if the statement of the First Lord is to be taken as it is put down in these debates that it is necessary at the entrance of one British vessel that another vessel passes out, and for the reason for which he stated that otherwise it meant an increase in personnel, then the position requires very serious examination and looking into. It is a very serious matter if personnel is to be taken as the dictating factor in our position. I say there are many serious factors as to the obsolete vessels and battleships, and I say that not the least is the condition of battleships of a similar type in other navies. Those are conditions which are far more important in determining the fighting value of ships than are considerations of personnel.
When I come to the question of stores I can only say this: I suppose never before in a Memorandum presented to Parliament by the First Lord has there been anything seen in regard to the stores as there is in this Memorandum. We are told—I have not the paper before me—that we have been living for the last three years on accretions of revenue derived from the sale of surplus stores. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether it is not the fact that at this moment there are stores—I do not say war stores—in which the Admiralty are notoriously short. In this question of stores I think you have no statutory reserve. It is not like the case of the Army, and therefore it is very important indeed that we should have before this debate closes a statement as to how exactly we stand with regard to those stores. The only other question is with regard to the Home fleet. The hon. Gentleman spoke of the First Division and the Second Division. As the Committee will remember, only quite recently it was an order of the Admiralty that a ship absent for serious repairs from the Home fleet would be replaced by another vessel. That order was more honoured in the breach than the observance, and it was withdrawn from the Orders last year. Is that order going to be re-enacted? Are we to have any guarantee from the Admiralty that that is to be the sea strength of these two divisions? Are we to have any guarantee that when any vessel is absent for repairs—not necessarily heavy repairs, but even if only for a comparatively short refit—that her place will be taken by another? That is a point upon which I think we ought to have some information.
So far the building programme of the Government has rested upon assumptions which experience has proved to be unwarranted. The first is the assumption as to the relative time which would be occupied in building. Not only had they the prophesies or statements of the German Admiral, to whom reference has been made, to rely upon, but they had actual experience. Last year, when the "Nassau" was finished, they were told repeatedly, in this House and elsewhere, the length of time she had been building. The time occupied by the building of that vessel, showing in how short a period a vessel of that size could be completed, ought to have warned the Government, and possibly did warn them, that the superiority which we had enjoyed in the past in the rate of completion was not one that we were likely to hold much longer.
Did you say the "Nassau" was completed?
I meant launched—the period between laying the keel and launching. The other assumption is even more grave, because it is the one on which the Prime Minister said that the whole of the policy of the Government so far had been based, namely, that the Germans intended to adhere to their programme as if it had been a statutory programme, and that he could not have presumed any anticipation. But anticipation has occurred. We have had to admit it, and to recast our programme. I do not think it is recast sufficiently. I agree with the hon. Member for Leith Burghs that what the Government ought to do, from both the financial and the strategic point of view, is to lay down the eight battleships in this year's Estimates. We have had to recast our programme, and now we are told that we are to make fresh assumptions on what the Prime Minister calls "declarations of intention" by Germany. It is always a delicate matter, even for the humblest and most unofficial Member of this House, to say anything on a point like this. But, after all, the Prime Minister has distinctly said that these declarations of intention are things which, without the possibility of any imputation of bad faith, can and may be changed. If that is so, what right have we, the Government, or the country to build upon them at all? They are declarations of intentions—not an understanding, still less a pledge; and great as is my belief in the honour, statesmanship, and purpose of Germany—and it is impossible to view the naval history of Germany during the last few years without a tribute of admiration for the way in which, perfectly regardless of the intentions of any other country, she has pursued her own steady course, building up her policy and following out her own line—I can only press upon the Admiralty that declarations of intention are not things upon which we can rely. Even if they could be put higher than that, even if they were I had almost said a pledge, I could only repeat what Gratton told the House of Commons 100 years ago:—
"If the security of one country depends upon the honour of another, the latter may have much honour but the former can have no security."
:I desire to call attention to what, in my opinion, is a very serious condition of affairs, so far as Admiralty administration is concerned, and I do so in no hostile spirit to the Government. But in listening very carefully to the speech of the First Lord I was astonished when, having enumerated the reasons why the Admiralty had prepared such an extensive programme—to which I take no exception, as I recorded my vote in favour of the Government last night—these observations fell from the lips of the right hon. Gentleman:—
"I think we may stop here to pay a tribute to the extraordinary growth in the power of constructing ships of the largest size in Germany. Two years ago, I believe, there were in that country, with the possible exception of one or two slips in private yards, no slips capable of carrying a 'Dreadnought.'"
That to me is a serious indictment of Admiralty administration. Furthermore, the right hon. Gentleman appeared to be rather uncertain as to the speed at which German ships were being built. Four "Dreadnoughts" have been referred to. I want to know where is our Intelligence Department? Would it be possible to construct in this country 17 slipways and a number of "Dreadnoughts" without it being known abroad? There is no foreign Power but knows every ship that is laid down in our private and Government dockyards, and they know also our capabilities so far as slipways are concerned. The astounding fact is that in two years, according to the First Lord, the Germans have laid down 14 slips upon which they can build "Dreadnoughts," and three other slips are in course of construction. That exactly fits the position so far as this country is concerned, because, replying to a question yesterday as to the number of slipways available in this country for the construction of "Dreadnoughts," the right hon. Gentleman said that we had 17, and that these included' both private and dockyard slipways. So that Germany is on an equality with us so far as slipways are concerned. I then asked whether the slipway at Chatham was included in the list, and the right hon. Gentleman replied in the affirmative. I shall have something to say on that later. I want to know whether the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to assure the House that the whole of the 17 slipways enumerated yesterday are available at all times for the Admiralty to lay down ships? I suggest that for the large liners that we have in this country the slipways are constantly in use. You cannot build a "Lusitania" or a "Mauretania" on a short slipway, and I suggest that these are the slipways referred to in the right hon. Gentleman's reply yesterday. That, to me, is certainly a very serious matter, and I trust that the Admiralty will look into it. I should like to know when they came into possession of the fact. What was the earliest date at which they knew that these 14 slipways were being built in Germany? I wish to call attention to the fact that so far as slips were concerned the right hon. Gentleman himself felt in a sort of quandary when replying to the very pertinent questions which were addressed to him on this subject. It seems to me that this matter requires a great deal of overhauling. The Intelligence Department must necessarily put themselves in a position to get the whole of the available information, equally and in common with every foreign nation. You will find that almost any week Germans and French and representatives of other nationalities are taken round our Royal dockyards and allowed to survey them in every respect. I want to know from the right hon. Gentleman whether foreign nations reciprocate. Have we the same facilities in their dockyards? If not, I think this question must be grappled with in a speedy and serious manner.
Are not private slipways at liberty?
I explained a moment ago that was impossible to say within two or three years whether a private slipway was available for building purposes such as the Admiralty would require for "Dreadnoughts." Another important question is this: The right hon. Gentleman said there will come a day when by almost automatic process all ships of an earlier type than the "Dreadnoughts" will be relegated to the scrap-heap. Surely that is an important question. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the fact that a vessel could not be fitted out at Pembroke, and that time would be taken in bringing the ship to the destination where you have all the facilities at your disposal at the present time. What are they going to do where slipways are not available for the building of a "Dreadnought," and where your dry docks are not available to receive them? This, I think, is a very pertinent question to put to the right hon. Gentleman. I raised it in 1907, and I divided the House when in Committee on the necessity of having in every naval base a dry dock which would be sufficiently large to cope with our requirements. We are not in that position at the present time. I am not going to enter into any argument about the time in which a ship can be constructed. Let me say, and I am speaking from personal knowledge, that there is no nation under the sun which in my opinion can compete with Britishers in shipbuilding so far as quantity or superiority is concerned. As a matter of fact, we could build a "Dreadnought," so far as the main structure is concerned, and launch her as quickly as any other nation. There is no necessity to be in any wise disturbed in regard to the time taken in building a ship. At present there are 20 per cent, of the shipbuilding trades out of work or working short time. These men would readily and easily construct a ship in a very short space of time.
I wish to pursue this subject a little I further and refer to the question of dry dock accommodation. In the Memorandum of the First Lord there is a suggestion that two floating docks should be constructed. Floting docks for what purpose? In the course of a short dialogue which took place in the debate yesterday the right hon. Gentleman stated that these were to be two small floating docks. For what class of ships are two small floating u docks to be used? Of course, I am aware that the right hon. Gentleman is advised by the Board of Admiralty, but I have had some personal experience in regard to floating docks. I myself went through the construction of n a floating dock, and I was for is some time in charge of one. I venture to say to the right hon. Gentleman that there is no private shipowner in this country who would build a floating dock if he could get sufficient land to build a structure which would last for ever. The right hon. Gentleman said that a floating dock was cheap, but the same might be said of other works. If cheapness is the consideration, you could have built the Local Government Board offices and the War Office with bricks instead of stone, and you could build Rosyth Docks with c bricks instead of granite. On the question of expense, I think it would be a waste of money on the part of the Admiralty to enter upon an expedient of that character when you have naval bases inland, up your rivers, where you can have docks of stability and where you could repair your ships. Let me remind the right hon. Gentleman that the floating docks you require are not for the purpose of docking small tramp vessels. You are going to dock a vessel of 20,000 tons weight. Those who are conversant with the repairing of ships know that it would be almost a matter of physical impossibility to take the bottom of one of these ships out if placed in a floating dock. We have dry-docks at the present time in our naval bases. At the time they were constructed they could have been made sufficiently wide to receive large ships, but it is because we have had brought to our knowledge the fact that 14 have been built in Germany that we have had our eyes opened and been obliged to consider this question. I venture to suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that he should withdraw from the idea referred to the Memorandum of constructing what, in my opinion, would be useless floating docks, involving a wasteful expenditure. I want to say a word or two concerning the statement of the right hon. Gentleman so far as the distribution of work is concerned. No doubt it may be said that because I have the honour to represent a naval Constituency I am speaking on behalf and in the interests of that Constituency. [Several Hon. Members: "No, no."] I am quite prepared to take any responsibility in this direction which may devolve upon me. We are here representing the various Constituencies of the country, and the aims and aspirations of those Constituencies, so far, of course, as they are consistent with the welfare of the country at large. It is suggested that two "Dreadnoughts" are to be built by contract. This is the up-to-date arrangement. It is also suggested that four cruisers and 20 destroyers and other small craft are to be built in a similar way. It is said that the dockyards are to build two "Dreadnoughts" and two armoured cruisers. I have heard so much of late about granite that I am almost tired of the question. The right hon. Gentleman has said that the reason why Norwegian granite has been supplied to us is because the Admiralty would save £30,000. If you take the battleships of the "King Edward VII." class, what do you find? We have had three vessels built by contract, and the average cost of these ships works out at £900,733, while two ships that were built in the dockyards cost only £889,200. These are instructive figures, if you are going for economy, and the Government should economise in this direction. I have to make, however, an even more marvellous statement. I am speaking of the "Devonshire" class of ships. One of these ships built in the dockyard cost £350,851. [An Hon. Member: "Which dockyard?"] Chatham Dockyard. But five other ships that were built by contract average £495,299. If those five ships had been built at the same rate as the one built in the dockyard there would have been a saving to this country of £222,240. Why allow a quarter of a million of money to be wasted in this way when you have yourselves the facilities at your disposal to build and equip these ships? The right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Worcester said a great deal of delay might be caused by labour disputes. You have no disputes in your dockyards. If you pay your men on the trades union scale I do not think you will get any dispute in His Majesty's dockyards. I suggested last year to the right hon. Gentleman to consider the advisability of laying down a cruiser in a dockyard. I understood from his answer that a vessel would be built at Chatham, but afterwards the right hon. Gentleman said he did not intend to imply that. At the same time I was complimented by hon. Members for having extracted a pledge from the right hon. Gentleman in favour of Chatham, but my hopes were blighted when I discovered that the building of the vessel had gone elsewhere. As regards the present programme I hope the right hon. Gentleman will consider the suggestions which I have made. The designs are not yet given out. The plans for these ships are not complete. The right hon. Gentleman is desirous of saving money. If you take Norwegian granite because you can save £30,000, build these huge vessels as I suggest, and you will save many more thousands. You should favour the dockyard men. They have been trained in the technical art and science of shipbuilding. They are men who have supervised ships built by private contracts. They will serve your purpose, and therefore the purpose of the nation. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will give heed to my observations, and I venture to hope that greater care will be exercised in his great Department so far as the Intelligence Department is concerned, and that we shall be put on an equal footing with other Powers.
I feel I will have to criticise my right hon. Friend, because, unfortunately, I have not got a dockyard in my Constituency. I feel the right hon. Gentleman will find it quite impossible to resist the blandishments of the hon. Member who has just spoken. This has been a very eventful week in the history of this Parliament and this country. We came to the House on Tuesday last every one of us with certain views about the British Navy. I think we were imbued with the idea that that Navy was absolutely above challenge, not only upon the distant seas of the world, but in the home waters as well. I am afraid my right hon. Friend the First Lord and his colleagues on the Treasury Bench must make themselves answerable in some degree, at all events, if our views have changed very fundamentally in the last two or three days. If I may, I should like to bring the recollection of the Committee back to some of the outstanding admissions made from the Treasury Bench. We have first had the admission that the German shipbuilding programme is not a paper programme, but one perfectly capable of being anticipated by the German nation. We then have the novel admission that we no longer retain superiority in regard to the quick building of ships, and we had another admission in regard to the number of slipways existing in Germany and in this country. But there was one admission made by my right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty, and it was more important than all those admissions put together. I do not wish to read into anything he said a stronger impression than he meant to convey, but he said that the existence of this new type of ship threw into a secondary class, at all events, the pre-existing battleships.
There is not the slightest doubt but what has taken place in this House has not only made a profound impression in every corner of the House itself but throughout the whole country. I should like to refer to the very remarkable speech made by the hon. Member for Stoke, because I think that speech admirably reflects what the people of this country are thinking. The hon. Member expressed great surprise in regard to a particular country; and we all feel, that even inferentially pointing to one foreign country, we do so under circumstances of great delicacy. My hon. Friend pointed to one very important fact, and asked one very leading question—viz., Why a land Power possessed of the greatest army in the world was challenging the greatest sea-Power in the world in its home waters. And he suggested that if we on our part were to begin to build up a great conscript army that fact might lead to some anxiety and uneasiness on the Continent; but we have a military power which is most modest. Indeed, I often think in this House we do not take our own Army schemes seriously enough. But we do, and we must, stake everything upon our Navy. I am not an alarmist. I often read in the newspapers and hear expressions of opinion in regard to foreign Powers which excite nothing in me but ridicule and disapprobation. I am far from being what is called a Teutophobe. I wish very heartily we could avoid as far as possible all references and all comparison with that great military Power which, above all things, we should never forget is our greatest customer, and I go further and say, that which is a very unorthodox thing for a member of the Navy League —I have never been a hard-and-fast believer in what is called the two-Power standard. I have not been willing to sterilise my mind by the repetition of phrases but I believe in the two-Power standard in the North Sea. That is to my mind far more important than a vague general two-Power standard all over the world. Indeed, I go so far as to agree with the hon. Member for East Mayo that circumstances may arise in which it would be absolutely impossible for us to maintain what is hitherto known as the two-Power standard.
Now, there has been a great deal of discussion in regard to the dates of building ships, and a great part of the time of this House has been occupied in discussing whether Germany shall antedate us or we shall antedate Germany. I do not feel any very great interest in these calculations, and my knowledge on these technical matters is not sufficient to allow me to pursue them. I take the Prime Minister's figures alone, and I consider they go close enough. He said in 1911 we shall have 16 "Dreadnoughts" and the Germans 13. In 1912 we shall have 20 "Dreadnoughts" and the Germans may have 17, and judging by their previous activity it is extremely likely they will have 17 "Dreadnoughts." I would like the Committee to consider very seriously what that means. I see the greatest military power in process of creating what the right hon. Gentleman has described as what may perhaps be the greatest fleet in the world. I say what has perhaps made the greatest impression upon this side of the House is the anticipation of shipbuilding on the part of the Germans. I venture to think we have no reason and no right to question the right of any Power to build ships at any moment, but what did impress us was that this operation should have been possible in conditions so secret as to escape for some time at all events the immediate knowledge of the Board of Admiralty. Now, these "Dreadnoughts" are not in tended for Colonial defence, nor are they intended, so far as I know, for protection of commerce, because I understand the "Dreadnought" type of ship is not eminently suited for such protection. Ships of a much lighter power and quick speed are all that is required for that purpose as far as I understand it. I speak as one wholly ignorant of naval matters, but I give it as my view that these ships are intended to take their place in the line of battle in the North Sea. There is one consideration which has not been referred to before in this House. At one time our neighbours considered themselves in a state of more danger in these waters on account of the great naval power of France. Now it is absolutely notorious—I hope I am referring to it with delicacy—that that great country has fallen behind in the race for naval power. That consideration alone, one would have thought, would have tended to the relaxation of the building programme on the part of Germany; and when we compare the British Navy and its responsibilities with the navy of any other Power in the world, we are not comparing like with like.
There is no Power in the world that requires a Navy such as ours, or depends for its existence so much on its navy. I would impress upon my hon. Friends who are inclined to criticise the Government for asking for a larger sum of money this year the enormous responsibilities of the British Navy. We have to protect the shores of these islands; we have to safeguard the food supply of the whole of our population; we have to protect the largest maritime commerce in the world; we have to protect the largest and most scattered Empire in the world. Another matter which I need not devote any length of time in discussing is that we have to maintain something like the balance of power in Europe. There is one thing perfectly certain, that whatever may be thought by some of us in this House about the British Navy and its relative strength, there are many of the smaller nations in Europe who rejoice in what they believe to be the overwhelming superiority of the British Navy. It is a very curious fact, in this connection, that so many of my hon. Friends whose demands in regard to some of those smaller States, and in regard to our foreign policy and in reference to the slave trade, are greater than those who call themselves "Imperialists"—that those hon. Friends of mine are the people who, on such an occasion as this call loudly for reduction. I hope my right hon. Friend will not object if I put to him a very straight question, which has already been put by my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Lanark, and that is: if he can express in definite language what is the relative fighting power of these pre "Dreadnought" ships. It may be a difficult thing to express in a definition, but I think it would have a reassuring and comforting effect upon the country, and in this House, if my right hon. Friend could assure us that this magnificent fleet— this pre-"Dreadnought" fleet—are really capable of holding their own in the line of battle with the "Dreadnought" class. We have in the pre-"Dreadnought" class the most magnificent fleet that has ever been seen upon the seas, and it is in some respects due to what the right hon. Gentleman said the other day we have misgivings now as to the relative value of these great fighting ships to which I have referred.
I am sure that it will have a very good effect on this House and in the country if my right hon. Friend could reassure us in this regard, and if he cannot, then I for one have no hesitation in saying that we ought in this year to lay down eight "Dreadnoughts." I have not the slightest hesitation in saying that, so seriously alarmed has the country been, as I believe, by the speeches which were made in this House that even if it is only to allay that alarm, I think it would be incumbent upon the Government to make an extra move in the matter of shipbuilding this year. I am perfectly certain that the country has been profoundly disturbed by the speeches which have been made, and I should like to think this: that when the Chancellor of the Exchequer presents his Bill in this House, hon. Gentlemen opposite, who agree with me in thinking our shipbuilding Vote this year ought to be a large one, will agree to the extra taxation which the right hon. Gentleman may feel it necessary to impose. Like the hon. Member for Sleaford, I wish it were possible to have a specific tax upon the rich people of this country for this very purpose. I hope my right hon. Friend will find it convenient to answer the question I put him as to the relative fighting strength of these pre-"Dreadnought" ships.
I shall not attempt to speak as a naval expert, as I am not anything of the kind; but what I say will be from the point of view of a business man—one of many business men in this country who have been profoundly disquieted and moved, in common with the great majority of the people of this country, by the disclosures made in the momentous speeches that we heard the day before yesterday. I am never particularly fond of party politics—although I am a strong party politician—and on this occasion the last thing that I desire to do is to approach a question of this kind from the point of view of party politics. If I have anything to say which casts reflections upon those who hold the reins of office at the present time, it will not be because they differ from me in their poli- tical opinions, but because they differ from me in my view of the course which they ought to have taken with regard to the naval policy of this country. There is nothing that can bring before the country more clearly the fact that this is not a party question than the momentous letter —if I may apply such an epithet—of Mr. Frederic Harrison in "The Times" of today. Mr. Frederic Harrison, as everybody knows, is not a Conservative, but a man of extremely advanced views, and not an Imperialist. Within the four corners of that letter you find the views of a man who knows the subject on which he is writing, pointing to the fact that within no long distance of time, but only a few years, this country, unless it wakes up, may be fighting for its very existence, not as an Empire, but as a nation. Many thoughts come up to the mind since the day before yesterday. What has become of the Blue Water school? We used to be told on both sides of the House that according to the doctrines of the Blue Water school not a dinghy could be landed on these shores. The bottom has been knocked out of the dinghy theory in this debate, although it has not been specifically referred to. The Blue Water school has been dealt a fatal blow. The Navy in 1912 can no longer safely be counted upon in all circumstances to defend these shores. What has become of the two-Power standard and the two-Power standard in "Dreadnoughts," because we have been told over and over again inside the House and out of it that we have to think in "Dreadnoughts" and that we have to measure the two-Power standard by "Dreadnoughts." Nine out of ten men in the House, and I believe 10 out of 10 outside it believe that the Prime Minister, when he employed the expression capital ships, meant the ships of the "Dreadnought" and "Invincible" class. ["No, no."] I received a great shock yesterday when the Prime Minister said:—
"The two-Power standard is not measured in terms of 'Dreadnoughts' alone. We must take into account, as the right hon. Gentleman very well knows, the whole of these other ships which my right hon. Friend enumerates."
Yes, but the First Lord of the Admiralty the day before said we had, in making our comparisons for 1912, to reckon only the ships of the "Dreadnought" and the "Invincible" class. The whole gist of that portion of his speech goes upon the hypothesis that as more and more of the monsters are built more and more of the smaller ships will drop out, and eventually the Navy of this country will be composed, largely speaking, of the monsters, and it will be monster against monster.
I want to point out that the reference the hon. Member has made to the speech of the First Lord of the Admiralty—I know he does not want to do him an injustice, but the First Lord prefaced his remarks with the words "there will come a day when."
Yes, 1912.
No, no.
Yes. At any rate, no bones will be broken. This is. only the view I take of the matter. I am profoundly alarmed to find that what we are aiming at, and what I thought we had got, was not a two-Power standard in "Dreadnoughts," but a two-Power standard all told. The two-Power standard in the big ships, if it ever existed, has gone. It went out in the discussion of two days ago. Another discomforting thought is the optimism of the Front Bench a year ago. What did the Prime Minister say on the reduction of armaments debate just a year ago?
How about our personnel? During the last five years, while our personnel has been decreasing, that of Germany and America has been increasing at a very material rate. The First Lord two days ago gave a reason against the increase of the personnel which struck me, at any rate, with profound astonishment. He said:—
After all, the past is the past, and I suppose in one way the dead must bury their dead. What are the Government going to do? What is the programme for this next year? Are we going to have four "Dreadnoughts" or eight? There ought to be no doubt about it. You have a majority in the House, but you have not a majority in the country on this question. If you palter with this question the country will sweep you away like flies upon a windowpane. The Division Lobbies told us something. The country does not intend to have any trifling with this matter. How about these four extra "Dreadnoughts"? The hon. Member for Rochdale, who withdrew his Motion, talked about them as phantoms. The country will want to know before this debate is over whether they are phantoms or realities, and they will want to know whether the Government are thimble-rigging in this matter. [An HON. MEMBER: "What is that?"] Thimble-rigging is trying to solve the puzzle whether a pea is or is not under a thimble. The hon. Member for Rochdale asks the Government to lift up the thimble, and says that there will be no pea there. The four "Dreadnoughts" will not be there. [An HON. MEMBER: "They could not be."] This is not a matter for laughter. There is no disguising that these ships are only problematical. There was no promise given that they would be built. On the other hand, the Big Englanders—and there are a good many of them on the other side of the House—are asking the right hon. Gentleman to say definitely whether we are going to have these, four extra ships or not. In their case the Government will lift the thimble and the pea will be there. That is what I mean by thimble- rigging. If they mean to build these ships why do not they put them in the Estimates? Why are they departing from the usual course in this matter and adopting a course which, in the view of Members not only on this side of the House but even of some on theirs, is not only unusual but unconstitutional?
We say, and the country say, that these ship shall be in next year's programme. It does not follow that there need be any great expenditure on them then, but we have got to know where we are. The country does not know where we are, and therefore I will tell you, and there should be no doubt upon this matter, eight "Dreadnoughts" should be the minimum if we are playing for safety in 1912. The best that can happen for us is that we shall then have 20 "Dreadnoughts" and Germany 17—that is the best if we provide eight next year. But, according to the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, if Germany accelerates her programme in the future as she has done in the past, she can have not only 17 by the end of 1912 but 21. So the best that can happen to Germany is that she may have 21. What may happen to us if we only get four next year instead of eight is that we shall have 17. That is an intolerable position for this country to be in. It is an open secret that there are immense financial difficulties ahead and that there will be a large deficit to be met on the next budget; and therefore to have the naval programme that the country demands is a matter that is extremely difficult of attainment, because the money is not there.
What ought a Government situated as you are to do in these circumstances, with this tremendous naval problem staring you in the face? I have no doubt at all that you ought to adopt a "Dreadnought" policy based on a loan, and I say that as a business man who knows perfectly well the difference between paying out of revenue and paying out of capital. I believe in paying out of revenue. You know where you are. But there come exceptional times, both for men, for businesses and for nations, when you have got to depart from your hard-and-fast rule, and you have got to adopt exceptional courses. We are in presence of one of these combinations of circumstances which warrants, which almost necessitates, us in departing from the usual rule. I was looking up "Hansard" two or three days ago, and I saw many denunciations by occupants of the present Government Front Bench of the policy of shipbuilding or of naval works under a system of loans. But the words of politicians do not count for so very much. Like the dishes of a French chef, they are very often intended to be eaten. I do not care what you have said in the past. I want the Government, party politics apart, to forget what they have said in "Hansard," to burn their "Hansards" if they like, and adopt a strong financial policy in the circumstances in which we find ourselves. The chief reason why you are not having eight "Dreadnoughts" in next year's Estimates is that the Government would not find the money for any such programme as I believe to be the proper programme for this country. I should have liked to have a programme of "Dreadnoughts" extending over the next four or five years. [An HON. MEMBER: "Fifty."] I do not think it is a matter to be laughed at. The country does not think it a matter to be laughed at. What would give me, and give to the country, the greatest possible confidence is that the Government would come down with a strong "Dreadnought" programme based upon a loan. It would find the City with them, and the great financial interests of the country with them, because then they would be doing what Germany is doing, and assuring the supremacy of our position.
We should be founding ourselves upon a fixed naval programme, which would not be altered by the breath of public opinion. That is the only way in which we shall find safety. Otherwise you will go faltering along this path, not being able to make up your minds whether to have four, five, six, seven or eight "Dreadnoughts." I was not satisfied by the pronouncement made by the Prime Minister because he has left the matter in doubt. He says if circumstances arise the work will be proceeded with in regard to these "Dreadnoughts." We want no "ifs" and "ands." We want to know exactly where we are. The words of Lord Randolph Churchill are just as good to-day as when they were uttered. He said:— that point of view that I appeal to the Government to strengthen their backs, and give the country what it is intent upon having, that is, eight "Dreadnoughts" put for certain upon the programme next year.
The hon. Member who has just sat down, in his jocular speech used the term "Little Englander" as a term of reproach. England is the finest country in the world, and it is the country to which a majority of the Members of this House belong. We love Little England; we were born and brought up in Little England; and what little service we have done has been done for Little England. We have nothing but contempt for those who foul their own nest by using the term "Little Englander" as a reproach. We regret the necessity of keeping up an Estimate about half as much again as that which was thought necessary by hon. Members opposite when in office.
I would like to ask who is going to pay for this great increase? Hon. Members talk about their patriotism and their willingness to shed their blood, but are hon. Members of this House going to pay for this increase? Last year the Old Age Pensions Bill was rushed through this House, and consequently there are a great many imperfections in it which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has promised to remove. The worst of them was the poor law disqualifications, which excluded from the benefits of the Act some of the poorest of the poor. I am afraid this increase in the Navy Estimates will swallow up the sum which would otherwise have been available for removing that disqualification. We all feel that it will be impossible to remove that disqualification this year, and the result will be that it will be the poorest of the poor who will really have to pay for this increase in the Navy Estimates. I admit that the Government honestly believed that they cannot carry out their policy of retrenchment in regard to naval and military armaments upon which they came into office. I am not so sure that when a Government is unable to carry out the policy for which it was returned it ought to remain in office. We have heard a good deal about invasion, but I doubt whether any hon. Members in their heart of hearts are afraid of an invasion. One hon. Member said he could not sleep for fear of an invasion, but I have never understood that peculiar form of cowardice which is always looking for a burglar under your bed. If I am prevented from sleeping it is not from fear of an invasion, but from the knowledge of the misery which will be caused by diverting this money from the relief of the poor and the suffering. Hon. Members never seem to realise that if it is proved that all those vessels which we built a very few years ago are becoming obsolete, the "Dreadnoughts" may be in the same position a few years hence. I am glad that hon. members opposite gave me an opportunity of voting against this increase in the Navy Estimates. It would have been very easy for me to pose as a patriot, but by the vote I gave I think I shall earn the gratitude of those who, because of their poverty, have been deprived of a vote. I hope that as long as I remain of this House I shall always vote in favour of helping those who are poor.
In the course of this debate an hon. Member has stated that Liberal Imperialism has now got into the saddle. I regret that the hon. Member who made that statement was not present when the hon. Member spoke from above the Gangway on this side of the House, because I rather think he would have seen where Liberal Imperialism will lead us to. Some hon. Member ventured to throw out a gibe at my hon. Friend the representative for Barnard Castle, because, he said, the hon. Member had last night approached this question from the point of view of the "Sermon on the Mount." In spite of that gibe I join with my hon. Friend the Member for Barnard Castle in approaching this question from a similar point of view, and with a desire for international fellowship and goodwill. Let me quote the words of the Prime Minister, words that were spoken in April, 1906. I do not quote them, or put them forward, in any sense in a recriminatory way, but simply as a humble individual getting behind a great personality, who has expressed what I believe perhaps better than I can do it myself. Speaking in this House the Prime Minister said:— some steps towards the reduction—but we have not had those steps which might have been characterised by the term there mentioned as "substantial reduction." For my part, I think we are rather in a peculiar position. I do not in that position say how we shall vote on this particular Vote. But the point I desire is, to have even faster steps taken in the way of reduction than even now. I am here to express my opinion, and the opinion of those I represent. I want to say emphatically but temperately that I am not taking the words of the hon. Members above the gangway as to the feeling of the country in this matter. They are the very opposite to the Prime Minister, and I think they were fairly well evidenced this afternoon when the Member for East Mayo interjected an observation while the Member for King's Lynn was speaking, that the expenditure might possibly get up to £45,000,000. Hon. Members above the Gangway shouted "And a good job too." It was not qualified, it was a simple interjection thrown into the Chamber. It seems to me that it fairly well expressed the spirit of the lengthy speeches which have been given to us from above the Gangway during the last few days. We differ absolutely and entirely from that sentiment. For my part I say "A bad job" instead of a good job.
We object to this expenditure because it is uneconomic and non-productive. Of course I know that it may be shown—that it is shown—that our commerce requires protection. Leaving that aside for a moment, it might be said that in so far as the expenditure is in excess of legitimate requirements it is uneconomic and unproductive. We oppose it for that reason. I would like to remind hon. Members of the discussion we had in this House on the unemployed question during the last month or two, indeed for the last two or three years; that we constantly had it thrown up in regard to schemes of relief for the unemployed, that those schemes were not economic. Many hon. Members thought that was quite, sufficient argument against the expenditure suggested.
My second point is—and I think it is a very strong one—and it has been borne in upon me during the last hour or two even stronger than before—that this expenditure is to be in the interests not only of the country, but more possibly in the interests of many in this House. I think of the example of the hon. Member for Burnley, who ran the chance of losing, and certainly risked his seat, and lost it ultimately, because he did not agree with, and said he did not agree with, expenditure of this character. He represented a Constituency that lived upon it. That is an exception that proves the rule. And it has been borne in upon me since I came into this House on more than one occasion that those who represent dockyards, and those who represent Constituencies where Government money is spent, are, at all events, open to the temptation of encouraging expenditure of that money whether it be necessary or not. Therefore I am against it on that ground.
I am glad to support my hon. friend the Member for Barnard Castle in the view he took last night in a speech, I venture to say, of great power and deep conviction. I believe expenditure of this sort is a grievous burden upon the peoples of the world. Of course, we may hear that we are here representing not the people of the world but the people of this country. It may be unpalatable to Gentlemen in this House, but nevertheless it is a fact that we upon these benches, at all events, are something more than a mere group representing a section of the people of this country. We are more or less in alliance with the peoples of other countries, and whether hon. Gentlemen in this House like it or not, at all events it is my duty to state, and I put it plainly and as frankly as possible, that we have regard not only to the people of this country whom we directly represent, but to the peoples of other countries as well. [OPPOSITION cries of "Oh, oh."] Well, it is a most monstrous doctrine to some Gentlemen above the Gangway, but that is the position at all events, and we are not alone in this country in that position, for it is taken up by the organised labour forces of other countries to an increasing extent. They are doing what they can to stop the increase of the Army, and of expenditure of that sort, and they are getting stronger in those countries. And as we are getting strong in these countries, we will succeed in stopping such expenditure. May I remind hon. Members that the German Labour party has opposed every single step taken towards those immense credits which have been asked for in the German Parliament, and we are going to help them. Therefore, that is shortly my reason why I am in favour of less excessive expenditure on the Army and Navy. Now, dealing with our own position, and having regard to our own country, let me say I do not take the view that expenditure on the Navy is necessarily a hindrance to social reform because if the figures that have been submitted here from time to time by the hon. Member who represents North Paddington, for instance, mean anything, and if the Board of Inland Revenue Returns can be taken at their face value, I think they show that there is ample wealth in thin country, ample taxable wealth to cover the cost of the naval increase now proposed, and to do a great deal more in social reform. Moreover, there is another form of social reform which, to my mind, is the best of all. That is the opening of opportunities of labour where the well-being of the country can be even more considerably increased.
I believe that in so far as we are involved in this devil's chain of circumstances, and having regard to the growing expenditure in Germany and elsewhere, it is wholly due to the example we have set to the people of other countries. My hon. Friend the Member for Barnard Castle gave figures last night which I am going to repeat, because they have been challenged this afternoon. He has verified those figures, which can be quoted if necessary. What he said was, that during the decade ending this year or next year, I am not sure which, but that during ten years at all events, this country spent the sum of £318,647,000, that Germany has spent £107,927,000, and France £125,000,000 or thereabouts, so that this country has actually spent more than France and Germany combined to the extent of £84,000,000. That statement was challenged this afternoon, and I repeat it across the floor of the House, because I find it is absolutely true, and is borne out by the special statement of the Admiralty. I go further, and I might lump in with the others the case of Italy, and still they would be under the expenditure of this country alone during a decade. I wish to quote a figure from the Cobden Club, a source which no doubt is suspect to some hon. Gentlemen, but it is a figure which I believe to be correct because it is quoted from the Official Returns. I find that during 20 years from 1884 to 1904 this country quadrupled the expenditure of the Navy, which rose from £10,800,000 to rather more than £40,000,000, whereas in France in that time they less than doubled their expenditure; Russian increased only by three times; and if we take 1904, the last year of the period I have named, the expenditure of this country on the Navy was actually £6,000,000 in excess of France, Russia, and Germany together. Having regard to these figures, I say it is absolutely true that this country has led the world in regard to these immense sums of money spent on naval armaments, and if we are in trouble now we have only got ourselves to thank. But, as a result of all this, I believe that this country has still a Navy which is at least up to the two-Power standard and in some respects to a three-Power stand-dard. I believe, having regard to our financial stability and when we remember the troubles which the Germans have as to how to raise the money required, it might almost be said that we are equal to a four-Power standard. Of course, I cannot support that statement if the standard is to apply merely to vessels of the "Dreadnought" description. It is quite clear that once you launch yourselves on that principle, then we are in Queer-street. In reply to the Prime Minister we have heard a good many speeches, and a good many figures thrown across the floor this afternoon, but I think it may be said that in 1911, which seems to be the critical year according to both sides of the House, we should not be up to the two-Power standard so far as "Dreadnoughts" alone are concerned. In fact there seems to be a concensus of opinion that we shall have very little more than Germany in the way of "Dreadnoughts." But that does not cover the point. As a matter of fact these "Dreadnoughts," so far as I can ascertain—and I have made some inquiry into the matter from those who ought to know—I believe that almost half their time, in places where battles are likely to be fought, if at all, these vessels could not get into action at all. If they are going to get into action it must be, at all events, at a range of not less than 5,000 or 6,000 yards, though I believe they could carry a good deal further than that. There is not one day out of the two the whole year, I suppose, in the North Sea, in which they would be able to locate the enemy at more than half that distance; so that as a matter of fact we are not wholly dependent on "Dreadnoughts," and having regard to all other forms of naval warfare I should think we are in excess on other Powers, not only by the two-standard, but by a good deal more than that. How are we going to maintain this; and have hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House taken sufficiently seriously into their mind all the possibilities of the situation, and of trying to maintain this two-Power standard, or whatever it may be? There are 60 millions of population in Germany, and in America there is a population of 100,000,000, or nearly that number, so that we have a population in the two countries of 150 millions or 160 millions, while we have got 42 millions or 43 millions. Both the other countries are growing a good deal more rapidly than we are, and therefore it seems to me we shall be absolutely driven by the logic of events, if hon. Gentlemen will not accept the position which we take up, in trying at all events to get some way out of this constant danger and to obtain some relief from the immense expenditure involved by the maintenance of the two-Power standard, in the face of those great Powers with their growing populations. I believe that there is a way out by the method that has been discussed more than once since I have been in this House, and that is by exempting merchant ships at sea from seizure during wartime. Sometimes it is said that belligerent Powers might agree to such a course in mere paper agreements, to break them afterwards in the event of war, and that therefore we cannot lay ourselves open to that risk. But surely, if an agreement were made as a matter of international law, no country, however powerful, would try and get out of an agreement, and it seems to me, therefore, that there is nothing in that argument. I heard a speech last year of the right hon. Gentleman the Foreign Secretary covering this ground, and I tried to follow as well as I could his argument in favour of the maintenance of the seizure of merchant ships. So far as I remember, the two main lines of argument followed in that speech were these. First of all, he said there must be some object in war, and, at all events, when the war was entered into, it was to the interest of everybody to get it terminated as speedily and humanely as possible. He put it that our great Navy, in the event of war, would enable us to divert the food supplies of other countries with whom we might be fighting, and he said that would be a more humane and more speedy way of terminating the war than otherwise, and that we could not deprive ourselves of that weapon. It seems to me that is not very conclusive. So far as I know, war has not been terminated in that way, as a rule. On the contrary, it has been terminated by fighting, crude though that method may be. The second line of argument adopted by the right hon. Gentleman was that we would be depriving ourselves of our most effective arm—that is to say, the Navy, and that our Army was relatively weak compared with other armies.
I believe a quarter of a million men were sent to South Africa without apparent difficulty, and we transported our Army into Russia. I see nothing in the present position that would prevent us doing the same. I conclude as I began by stating that we on these benches are desirous of the reducing of this enormous expenditure on the Navy, not because as a policy we do not believe there is sufficient for the Navy and social reform as well, but because we believe the expenditure is leading to international unrest and ill-will, that it simply encourages other nations to do the same as we are doing, and that therefore there is no finality in it at all. The more we spend the more they spend, and the more they spend the more we spend. I am not saying we are any more responsible than they, but I do say that we have reached a point at which it is impossible for this country to go in the future as it has in times gone by, or otherwise we shall be simply imposing on ourselves an intolerable burden, and, moreover, we shall be spending money, not only wasting it, but in such a way as to increase the danger, the natural friction and ill-will, and possibly and probably if we go on in this way it seems to me we shall find ourselves in trouble one day, and will not know what it is all about. My mind goes back to the time of the Russian war, when this country was living in an atmosphere of ill-will and suspicion the same as the last few years. At that time Russia was the enemy, and one fine day this country found itself at war with Russia. Nobody was able then or since to explain what it was about. We on this side of the House want to do our little bit to prevent such a catastrophe arising again. I believe in so doing we are not only acting in the interests of those we directly represent, but of the country and of every section of our fellow-citizens from one end of the land to the other.
The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down always with moderation and eloquence presents from an interesting point of view social and political questions to the House, and, although with conclusions which he came to I cannot find myself in entire agreement, with many of the arguments by which he backed up those conclusions I find myself in the closest association. He said that the cost of the armaments had reached such a pitch that it is a matter of the very gravest consideration for all parties in the State, and that any increase in the cost is also a matter of the gravest consideration. He also presented an interesting point of view when he told the House, as representing portion of the democracy of this country, he and his colleagues would do what they could in the future with the democracies of other countries to bring about closer relationships with those countries. With that I entirely agree. I believe myself the nearer relationships of foreign countries one with another will be brought about perhaps in a more effective manner by the inter-relationships of democracies than by any other inter-relationships that could be conceived. I can say to my hon. Friends go on with that work as far as and as energetically as you can you will be doing a great service to this country and humanity at large.
But we have got to face the facts as they present themselves. This debate with which we have been occupied has, in one sense, been quite unique, because I think for the first time in the memory of any Member of this House we have had open discussion on both sides of the House, and by all sections, relating to the minute position from the point of view of defence of ourselves and a foreign Power, and that foreign Power being a friendly Power. I hope to see at no distant date in that other country to which we have alluded so often a reform Bill carried which will place the electorate of that country on a somewhat similar basis to the electorate of this country, because I believe that will be the most effective means of producing international peace, and of immediately supporting a reduction of armaments. Until that takes place, we have got to see what other countries are doing, and I am afraid, however much we may dislike it, and however much it may cost, we must do the same.
We have had three days' debate, and are to have still another day. I welcome this open, full debate on this most important of international subjects for this reason, that I think as the result of the speeches that have taken place we may say that the atmosphere has largely been cleared. We may say information has been elicited which was much needed by many Members on this side, certainly before the debate began, that many doubts have been removed, and that certain prejudices that may have been on this side of the House and the other have been laid low. The outcome of this debate up to now has been an outcome that I do not think will be confined to the Members of this House, but extended to the country, for the great majority of the sober-minded people of the country, and, after all, our political and national affairs are in the end conducted by the sober-minded people of the country, they will be satisfied with the proposals which have been made by His Majesty's Government, and they will also be satisfied that the naval construction has been properly and prudently unfolded by the Government.
What are the main features that stand out in this debate? It is, as has been often said by Members in former criticism, and by Members opposite, that the two-Power standard has been superseded as regards these matters by a "Dreadnought" standard. This undoubtedly new policy of the "Dreadnought" standard is a turning point in our naval administration and policy in the country. We cannot fail to realise its enormous importance, because we cannot fail to realise at the same time the immense uncertainty attaching to the operations of those great ships when they may be brought against one another in a naval war. From what is known of them, they will provide an entirely new factor in naval warfare, a factor that was unknown before they were invented. I should like once more to emphasise what has been said more than once in this debate, that I think we are thinking too much in "Dreadnoughts," and have been thinking too much in "Dreadnoughts" in this debate. Their importance and their novelty is running a great danger of our discussing them, and of thinking of them, not as an integral part of the Navy, but as if they comprised the whole Navy and there was nothing else. Really, anyone listening to this debate during these two days would come to believe that any future naval engagements would be conducted exclusively between those great "Dreadnoughts" and nothing else. If that were the case, and we were dependent exclusively upon "Dreadnoughts" for our defence and marine transport, the situation would be extremely critical, and one most serious for this country, whose whole position in the world rests upon naval ascendancy. But we have behind us something besides "Dreadnoughts." We have a preponderating array of first-class battleships. Gentlemen in the Navy, competent to judge, have told us that a battleship of the "Nelson" type may be—they are not prepared to say they are not—just as effective in naval warfare as the "Dreadnought" itself. We have competent naval officers to-day who would as soon fight a battleship of the "Nelson" type as they would a "Dreadnought." Then what about our torpedo boats and destroyers? They again create the utmost uncertainty in regard to future naval warfare. We do not know but what the torpedo boat or destroyer will be the most effective factor, and put out of action "Dreadnoughts" to whatever extent they form the hostile fleet. In all these cases, whether in the aggregate or individually, we have not only preponderating power, but are more than up to the two-Power standard, plus 10 per cent., which has been laid down. [An HON. MEMBER: "In torpedoes?"] Yes. I think I am accurate.
Now let me revert to the main point of the discussion, namely, the "Dreadnought." We have had from the benches opposite a series of pessimistic speeches, and some, if I may say so, of a very mischievous character. The Leader of the Opposition appeared before us in his most pessimistic mood. He seemed to have been utterly unable to understand the extremely lucid statement of the First Lord, and as a result was able to produce only such a concatenation of figures during the next four years that he left the House in entire confusion. Then we had the hon. Member for Fareham. In matters of Imperial defence I think the hon. Member really suffers from chronic dyspepsia. It does not matter whether it is military or naval affairs, the hon. Member is always in the most gloomy and miserable mood, and he certainly excelled himself in his interesting and eloquent speech yesterday. There was also the hon. Member for Chelmsford, whose speech was interesting because he produced such an extraordinary arithmetical calculation, that he seemed to estimate that during the next four years the German Navy in the matter of "Dreadnoughts" would exceed our own. But the estimates made by these hon. Gentlemen are on such remote hypotheses that really they hardly need to be seriously considered. The argument was again and again advanced by hon. Gentlemen opposite that if Germany does so-and-so—if Germany accelerates in such-and-such-a-way—then we shall be in a hopelessly unequal position; but in reply to that we have this specific statement of the Prime Minister himself, that he has received an assurance from the German Government that acceleration beyond their fixed programme of to-day is not to be made, and in confirmation of that we have the public official statement of the Minister for the Admiralty in the Reichstag yesterday, who laid down perfectly clearly the number of "Dreadnoughts" that will be constructed and floated during the next four years. What is the exact position which must appear perfectly clear to any plain man as the result of that official statement made from the front bench? It is that Germany, under present conditions, will have and can have no more than nine "Dreadnoughts" by April, 1911, while we shall have 12. In March, 1912, the critical year, as has often been said in these debates, Germany, under present conditions, can have no more than 13, while England will have 16.
The Prime Minister said 17.
I am taking the figures from the Official Report of the Parliamentary Debates. We were told by the Opposition, and it is perfectly true, that the assurance given is not a binding one, and that it is conceivable, though I believe very improbable, that Germany will lay down more ships. The Government have taken proper precautions against the laying down of more ships. If more ships are laid down by Germany, four more will be laid down by His Majesty's Government on behalf of Great Britain, and proper provision has been made to enable the Government to construct more.
The Prime Minister said: Our Estimate is that the Germans by that time, 1912, may have 17.
They may have 17. They may lay down four more. The Government have come with the specific proposal that, in the event of that taking place, they should have power to be in a position by the 1st of April next year to lay down four more ships to make up for us the proper proportion as against 17, so that under no conceivable circumstances can England be less than three in advance of Germany in regard to "Dreadnoughts." If this very improbable hypothesis were to take place, and four more were laid down, and the scheme was accelerated this year, well, then, the Government is to have full power under the proposal now made to lay down four more, and make the total 20 for ourselves as against 17 for Germany. [An HON. MEMBER: "Is that the two-Power standard?"] There is a good illustration of the hopeless condition of mind of hon. Gentlemen opposite. Is it conceivable that we can compete upon a two-Power standard with "Dreadnoughts" alone? I should like very much to see the Opposition coming down to this House and venturing to propose that "Dreadnoughts" should be constructed for this country to make us equal to Germany and the United States in that class of ship. Of course, were all the battleships included, we have the two-Power standard, plus the 10 per cent. The Government have to provide for this remote contingency which we are discussing, and they ask Parliament to provide them with a power of a very novel and unusual character, which is that they may commence the construction of four more ships. Under ordinary circumstances I think that the House would be very jealous of granting that power. It is a very unusual and, I think, a very unexpected one. The circumstances are unprecedented. I should prefer the authorisation of a loan. You are dealing with an entire novel condition of affairs. I think that the proposal of the Government is a perfectly wise one. It is that these ships will not be built if there is no necessity for them. If the Germans accelerate their building scheme and lay down four more "Dreadnoughts," then I think it is only right that our Government should have this additional power.
We can leave that to their discretion. They can use that power or not; but we must rely on them to unhesitatingly use it if they find themselves obliged to do so. One more word, and I will conclude. This debate has been very profitable, because it has opened the eyes of hon. Members, especially on this side of the House, to a knowledge on this subject which was probably not known to them before; and it has made us all realise more and more the necessity, however reluctant we may be, to remove sentiment and face facts. The Liberal party, I venture to say, is as patriotic and is as much an Imperial party as any other party in the State. I should be sorry to see any suspicion in the minds of the electors of this country that the Liberal Government were reluctant to maintain the first defence of the country and keep it in a pre-eminent and predominant position. Our forefathers created it, and it is our duty, and the Government's, to ensure the safety of these islands. The safety of these islands depends upon a strong and powerful Navy, and I think we can rely upon the Government to do all that is necessary to ensure that safety.
I think that the question of the construction of capital ships has been discussed fully on both sides. The figures are so plain and the position so plain that the country is, I think, able to understand the question. I wish to refer to one or two matters which are akin to the question which has taken up so much time. In regard to these minor matters—no, I will not say minor, but subsidiary—there lies an especial responsibility on the Board of Admiralty, and for this reason, that in regard to the construction of ships, and particularly of battleships, the attention of the country has directly centred upon the matter—the people have materials, for forming their own judgment, and, as happened in this case, if the House and the country is of opinion that the standard adopted is not sufficient to our needs, they should give expression to that opinion and give effect to it. But in regard to subsidiary matters in regard to the details of ammunition, the details of armament, and the details of equipment, it is impossible by question and answer across the floor of this House, or in any debate, to obtain accurate information, nor, indeed, is it desirable that the House should obtain accurate information, because, if we insist on having from the Board of Admiralty accurate and detailed information as to matters of equipment and such matters, the answers we receive are often of more interest to our competitors than they are to hon. Members. I know that well enough not to put such questions, but I think hon. Gentlemen opposite will agree with me that that being so, and that that being generally agreed upon by both sides of the House, there is an absolute and definite responsibility upon the Board of Admiralty to keep us in all these matters up to the highest pitch of efficiency. In my opinion the House has got to insist upon that responsibility, and in insisting upon it, and emphasising it. I believe we are doing more to secure it than we should be doing by question and answer across the floor of this House to extract details such as those to which I have referred. But having said that, I think there are matters which are within the general cognisance of the House and the country as to which a few questions may be asked and answered. There is one matter which has been the subject of a good deal of consideration, and which is largely public property, that is dock accommodation, which directly bears upon the questions we have been discussing, especially in regard to ships of the "Dreadnought" and "Invincible" type. It is obviously useless, or, at all events, insufficient for fighting purposes, to have a large number of ships whose possible battle ground is the North Sea, when we have at present only one dock, and that a private dock, in the North Sea capable of accommodating a "Dreadnought," and when at Portsmouth a large sum of money is being spent—£2,000,000, I think—in order that the dock there should accommodate ships of the "Dreadnought" class. I think it will be something like two years before the dock accommodation will be completed. Therefore it is true to say that, with the exception of one private dock on the Tyne, the nearest naval dock accommodation for a disabled ship of the "Dreadnought" class in the North Sea is at Keyham. Portsmouth is not satisfactory, and is not available for a wounded ship. You cannot take a wounded "Dreadnought" into Portsmouth basins, and therefore the position is unsatisfactory. It will take two years, and then there will not be sufficient accommodation at Portsmouth, or anything like it, for the number of "Dreadnoughts" that we shall have afloat, and for a great fleet in the North Sea to depend for its repairing base and the frequent cleaning of ships' bottoms, which is necessary, upon Keyham as a strategical base, must be a most unsatisfactory position, and one which must be engaging the very closest attention of the Admiralty. Kosyth was projected mainly to meet that very contingency, and had the work at Bosyth been carried on as was intended, immediately after the designs were prepared—which I believe differ very little from the present designs—and which were prepared when I was at the Board of Admiralty, we should have Rosyth half constructed, whereas we are told now that the most favourable thing that we can hope for is about a seven years wait for Rosyth to be ready. That is a most unsatisfactory position. I acknowledge with gratitude the kindly expressions towards the late Board of Admiralty about the plans and the scheme which was constructed, and these remarks go far to efface the recollection I have of the extraordinary and bitter attacks which were made on the Board of Admiralty for adopting that policy. I am glad to see that the present Board of Admiralty are aware that that is a policy based upon the interests of the country.
In regard to docks, the First Lord referred to floating docks. I should like to say one word about that as to our ships of the "Dreadnought" class. We have had from a very high authority on this side of the House, the hon. Member for Newcastle, some remarks favourable to large floating docks. I would say that, as far as the information at my disposal goes, floating docks are extremely valuable for small vessels, but for large ships of the "Dreadnought" class in tidal waters they are, to say the least, a highly dangerous experiment. You get a ship weighing 20,000 tons, and you put that ship in a floating dock weighing 10,000 tons, perhaps. You have a mass there of 30,000 tons, which is to be moored in a tideway with a rise and fall of 18 feet. May I ask anybody in his senses what would be the minimum amount of wind pressure on 30,000 tons moving very slowly? You must give it scope. Can you moor any ship or dock, or anything else, in a tideway with a rise and fall of 18 feet without giving it considerable scope. There is great danger. The wind pressure is enormous. You require 50 feet depth of water, and you cannot find that except where there is considerable exposure of wind and drift. Therefore, there is great danger in that direction. If you desire to construct a basin for a floating dock in an enclosed area, where you will obtain shelter from the wind, and where you will not run these dangers, there is very nearly as much expense in constructing it as a dry dock. There is another point, and that is that although the floating dock has, I admit, many advantages, although it is cheaper and quicker to construct in the first instance than a graving dock, it is infinitely more costly in repairs, and its life is infinitely shorter, and if you take the cost of a floating dock over a long period of years as compared with the cost of a graving dock I very much doubt if the advantage does not lie with the graving dock. But of course the graving dock is of a fixed size which cannot be altered without very great expense, whereas, of course, the floating dock has the advantage that a long ship can project out with both ends. I am perfectly aware of these advantages, but a very eminent engineer, who has made a great study of the question, in speaking of this matter to me once, said—
With regard to destroyers, the hon. Gentleman opposite and the First Lord cheered the hon. Member for Wiltshire when he said that we had in every sense of the word at this moment a two-Power standard in destroyers. I do not think the representatives of the Board of Admiralty will maintain that position. The hon. Member is well aware that in destroyers you cannot be satisfied with counting noses. Destroyers of nine or ten years of age are of little value for ocean work. There is no ship in the world which wears out so quickly as the destroyer, and it will be within the recollection of all who were in the last Parliament that there were debates in the House, and there was a great deal of discussion and consideration at the Admiralty, resulting in the construction of what is now known as the "River" class of destroyers, and the ground of that discussion was that the destroyers which we then possessed, and which comprised in fact practically all of the River class, were found to be so slight in construction that we actually lost two of them, the "Cobra" and the "Viper." One actually broke in two, owing to the slightness of her construction, and the other was lost for a similar reason, and the consequence of that was that it was considered necessary from that time to construct a much stouter and stronger class of destroyer. These vessels, which it was considered necessary to replace them, have not got stronger since, and the machinery of these vessels is in no sense as efficient as it was. The difficulty in comparing the destroyers that we possess with the destroyers possessed by Germany or any other country is that we cannot give full value to those destroyers which were put in commission, certainly before 1900, and we really cannot give full weight to any which were constructed prior to the construction of the River class. Admitting that premiss, how do we stand? We have 34 River class destroyers. We have in addition 36 others under 10 years old. But these 36 are of a class after it. They are the best of them. I do not say for a moment that they are useless or that they could not give an account of themselves in war, but they are not as strong as they should be, and they are not entirely up to date. The River class average 550 tons. Those 36 to which I have referred are from 350 to 450 or 550 tons, and they are armed for the most part with one 12-pounder and five 6-pounders. We have also besides the 34 River class and the 36 to which I have referred, 16 building, and we have also the very powerful and developed class of oil-burning destroyers—13. They are not all quite complete, but they are practically complete, and very soon they will all be in service. They are all powerful vessels. One, the "Swift," is 1,800 tons, with 30,000 horse-power. Others vary from 800 to 900 tons. They are powerful vessels, burning oil, and there are 13 of these. Germany has under 10 years old 53 destroyers built, and all these 53 destroyers are rather of the type of our River class. Germany began to build stronger destroyers from the first than we did. She recognised, as we have recognised now, that a nominal speed is a very different thing from sea speed, and that a destroyer which can do 30 knots in smooth water is of less use for the purpose of war and has less real speed than a stronger destroyer with a nominal speed of 25, 26, or 27 knots. When the 30-knot boat is brought down to 18 or 19 or less because of her weakness when she encounters anything like a sea, the stronger boat can maintain a speed of 25 knots in all weather. That is the principle upon which the River boats were constructed. Germany has 53 of such destroyers. She has 27 building. Further than that, nearly all of these destroyers are armed with a 23-pounder gun, against a 12-pounder gun on ours. Therefore I do hot think that on these figures we have anything more than a bare superiority over Germany alone in its efficient class of destroyers.
Would the hon Member say whether the 34 and the 36 destroyers are fit for North Sea work?
The whole of the River class, 34 of which are built, are absolutely fitted for North Sea work in all conditions. With regard to the 36 .others under 10 years old, I think I am justified in saying that they are good for ordinary work and weather, but the machinery is more likely to break down, and they lose speed in a. head sea. They are certainly not of equal value to our own later vessels, or the 53-German destroyers to which I have referred. The Admiralty are proposing to-lay down 20 more destroyers. I do not know whether I heard it verbally or not, but I think I heard that there was an understanding that 24 were to be laid' down, and I believe 24 is the German annual programme. At any rate, 24 were laid down in the German programme of 1908, and another 24 in 1909. I am not certain as to these figures, and perhaps the Secretary to the Admiralty will give us information on this point which will be more accurate than mine. If Germany is going to lay down 24 destroyers, I do not think we can afford to lay down less. I certainly think that the 20 destroyers we propose to lay down could with advantage be increased to 24.
I should like to say a word or two about the change in the fuel. It is a very important question whether a destroyer should burn oil or coal. It is a very difficult question, and I know the Admiralty has decided in regard to 16 boats to return to the use of coal instead of oil. Of course, I know there are reasons for this. Oil is not suited for cruising speed, and vessels of this size offer a large mark to the enemy. Invisibility is a very important quality with a destroyer. I admit that cruising speed is important, and that you cannot instal both oil and coal alternately in a vessel of this size, and therefore you are restricted to either oil or coal. But although coal has an advantage for cruising purposes, there is no question that in action, when a destroyer has to exercise her full speed for a considerable number of hours, oil gives her an inestimable advantage. I know that the Admiralty have to cast their eye over We whole horizon, and they have to consider the matter in its widest aspect. They have to give due weight to the radius of action and to efficiency in action, and I do not doubt that they have come to a wise decision. I think the advantage which oil gives in action is a matter of very great importance, and I hope that every endeavour will be made at the Admiralty to continue those valuable experiments with oil which gave us oil fuel in the first instance, that they will be pushed forward, that the necessary money will be spent in order to get over the difficulty of the burning of oil at slow speeds, because then we shall gain an enormous advantage by being able to construct destroyers in future which will burn oil. The question—I do not wish to go into it now—is a very important one, the supply of oil fuel. It is a matter which I believe is engaging the attention of the Admiralty. I do not think they can take too much pains about it. There is also the question of the coastguard. I look with great alarm on any proposals to abolish the coastguard. I gather from what has been said by the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty that there is no present intention to abolish the coastguard. But, at any rate, they have been reduced, and are being reduced. I regard the coastguard as having an enormous value from several points of view. They are of obvious advantage to naval recruiting. The way in which the presence of the coastguard who line our coasts binds the Navy to our general population and brings it home to the people is very valuable. It is also very valuable from the point of view of a second avenue, and a most important one, for the personnel of the Navy who do not obtain promotion to warrant rank. In the coastguard they can be happily married and live at home while still being a sort of reserve for the country. Every boy who starts his career in the Navy knows that he has prospect before him if he develops ability to get promotion to warrant rank, or even to the position of commissioned officer. If, on the other hand, he fails in obtaining that position, there is the coastguard which he may enter. With regard to one other small point I notice in a preliminary statement which was issued in regard to the redistribution of the fleet—it reported to be an official document—the expression "main fleet" was used. I am glad to notice that in the reference in the First Lord's statement, and in the official statements which are now issued, that term has been dropped, and we have gone back to the "Home fleet." It referred to the concentration of the ships, the newly concentrated fleet as the "main fleet." A more unfortunate designation could not possibly be conceived. If there is one principle of Naval strategy more than another laid down by Lord Selborne, it is
I do not think the designation would mislead the Admiralty. They know better, but it would go very far to mislead the country on a very important issue of naval strategy. I rejoice that the term—which I am sure slipped in quite unawares—has been removed, and that we know that the term "Home fleet," which is a geographical term, as I hope all designations of our fleet always will be, merely signifies that geographical distribution at the moment; and that no adjective will ever be used which will ever be other than geographical, or will in any case stereotype the distribution of the fleet at any particular moment. For it must always be subject to alteration according to the necessities of the Empire at the time of distribution.
I am very glad at once to answer the question put to me by the hon. Member, whose admirable work at the Board of Admiralty I constantly come across now that I hold the place which he held before me. As to the docks capable of taking "Dreadnoughts," there are five naval docks. There are two building, and Rosyth—
What sea? I spoke of the North Sea.
Rosyth Dock will, I hope, be available—
There is at this moment on the Humber under construction a great basin where unparalleled facilities of access can be obtained—I believe with a depth of 40ft. at low water. An entrance to that basin would be quite easy of arrangement, and I imagine that with this basin you could have within two years a dry dock constructed which would be at a central point on the North Sea. I call the hon. Gentleman's attention to that point, in order to see whether the Admiralty will not take into serious consideration the possibility which is now open to them at this basin, now actually under construction, of obtaining within two years a dry dock large enough to accommodate any vessel that could possibly be constructed.
I am glad the hon. Member called my attention to that matter, which has, I think, been under the consideration of the Board of Admiralty. I repeat that we have five naval docks, two more building, and we are building at Rosyth a dock and a lock. In addition to that, we have seven Commercial Docks, capable of taking a "Dreadnought"; another so capable, but not able to take some improved "Dreadnoughts," and there is a dock which will take a "Dreadnought" in certain conditions of the tide. Another dock is building at Belfast. In regard to floating docks, I refer the hon. Gentleman to the statement of the First Lord of the Admiralty to the effect that the Board are giving careful attention to the subject of constructing floating docks. In regard to destroyers, I think it is the first time we have ever heard them included in the two-Power standard. The two-Power standard seems to be varying.
I only referred to that because an hon. Gentleman opposite cheered, and I thought it was claimed by the hon. Member.
First we have a two-Power standard as to Capital ships, then as to "Dreadnoughts," and then as to Destroyers.
I compared with Germany alone.
All I can say is we have 91 destroyers of 12 years of age and under. I omit 36 Coastal Torpedo Boats, though they are as good as the old 27-knot Destroyers. We have an additional 41 between 12 and 14 years of age, 14 between 14 and 15 years, and four between 15 and 16 years. I observe in the pronouncement on the Navy Estimates, signed by the President of the Navy League and others, the concluding words are:—
"With the cruiser and destroyer programme the Navy League have no fault to find."
If we satisfy the Navy League I should almost think that we might have satisfied the hon. Gentleman opposite.
May I ask about those 91 destroyers? How many of them correspond to the 53 which the Germans have?
I would not like to answer that off-hand. Then the right hon. Gentleman spoke of the future of the coastguards—rather a biggish problem. I do not know that I can do more than make a comment or two upon it. As he knows, the existing coastguard service was transferred from the Customs to the Admiralty in 1856 to make better provision for the defence of the coasts of the realm and for the more ready manning of His Majesty's Navy in case of war or emergency, and for the protection of the revenue. I may say that at that time there was a fair amount of smuggling, particularly near the Continent. I rather imagine on the transfer the force was organised mainly with a view to the protection of the revenue. In their ordinary work of patrolling the coast for the protection of revenue the coastguards have from time to time undoubtedly rendered most admirable services in the matter of watching the coast, and further, as lifeboat and life-saving apparatus have been gradually established, they have always been ready to lend a hand. But I must say that through the whole of this matter in the question of life-saving they have acted as volunteers, just like any other volunteers might. I think that ought to be clearly understood.
In view of the altered circumstances since 1856, when they were transferred, a Departmental Conference went into the whole matter quite recently. A number of recommendations were put forward. Now on those recommendations no final decision has been arrived at for the purpose of carrying them out or otherwise; but, as he knows from the memorandum of the First Lord, a number of stations not required for the protection of the revenue, and on which no life-saving apparatus or lifeboats were supplied, have been closed. We have definitely undertaken not to close for the present any station at which there is a life-saving apparatus, and it is further understood that before any organic change in the constitution of this force can be effected it would be necessary to bring the matter before Parliament in the shape of a Bill. And there I leave the matter. We are considering the question of longer guards and patrols, which have been rendered necessary in some cases by reductions which have already taken place to see whether anything could be done in that direction.
There were questions put by my hon. Friend the Member for Leith and the hon. Member for York, who expressed considerable anxiety and were solicitous about the four contingent ships in this Estimate. The hon. Gentleman the Member for York I did not quite follow him, but, as I gather, hoped that there would be no thimblerigging about them. I really do not understand what that means. I am learning naval terms as fast as I can, but I have not met this term in this connection. I can only rehearse what is set forth on the face of the Estimate:—
The hon. Member for Mid Lanark was anxious about the position in which we should find ourselves from March, 1911, to the end of the year. At the close of 1910 we should have 10 "Dreadnoughts," and, as I think, taking the most gloomy view, Germany will have nine. I have already admitted that if that were the case, there would be a very narrow margin. But in connection with that narrow margin you must not overlook the 40 pre "Dreadnought" battleships all under 20 years of age at the end of 1912. In March, 1911, we should have 12 "Dreadnoughts," and it is possible that Germany may have nine. Shortly after, it may be in a month or two, one or two of the German 1909–10 ships may come in. That is to say, in that event—which I think is a remote contingency— we should have 12 and the Germans 11. Then in July, 1911, our two July ships of the 1909–10 programme come in; that would give us 14. In November, 1911, the two November ships come in; that would give us 16, and, in my opinion, an absolutely outside number of 13 for Germany. It is said that that is a very narrow margin. I agree. But I also agree with the hon. Member for the Chippenham Division that we really must not overlook that magnificent pre-"Dreadnought" flotilla of 40 battleships, every one of which, as I have said, will be under 20 years of age in 1912. It has been suggested that one point against these ships is that their armament is of such a character as would be useless against the armament of a ship of the "Dreadnought" type. All I have to say about that is this: 38 of those 40 ships are armed with 12-inch guns. If you take the whole of the guns in those 49 ships there are over 150 12-inch guns, and additional armament represented by four 10-inch guns, over 50 9.2 guns, 28 7.5 guns, and over 400 6-inch guns. I think that in calculating the situation in which we find ourselves at this critical period, as I understand it to be, we are bound to take these ships and their possibilities into account. My hon. Friend asked particularly what is the personnel, and how does it compare with the personnel of the German Navy. We have on the active service list in the estimates 128,000 men. The German estimate of active service ranks and ratings-is 54,000; the French, 57,000; and the United States, 50,700. These two countries, except the States, have reserves, and the States have no reserves of men at the present time. It is put to me that when we keep increasing the displacement size of ships, how do we get on practically with the same personnel? It is one of the beauties of the "Dreadnought" type, I think, that while you have greater fighting efficiency, uniformity of armaments, uniformity of ammunition, gear, and gun-mountings, you enhance the value of the individual unit of the personnel, with this result: that, roughly, I think I may maintain that the personnel of a "Dreadnought" is 100 less than that of the "King Edward" type, and yet it is patent to everyone who has looked into the matter that a "Dreadnought" is a very much more effective ship. That is the answer to the question how, with a higher displacement, we are able to retain the present personnel without increase.
How do you propose to make up for loss in war?
So far as I am concerned, I trust war won't arise. But as I have already said, we have a very substantial reserve of about 50,000 men. I have been asked also what is being done in the matter of stores, and what assurance there is that an ample reserve is being maintained. In the Estimate under Vote 2 it will be seen that we have increased the victualling by £130,400 upon last year, that is to say there is a gross estimate of £2,985,631, as against £2,862,071, and the explanation and reason for that is given in the First Lord's statement as follows:— of the Mechanician Class sets the Artificers free. When a vessel comes to a big refit, she will be taken out of the station and put in the dockyard. All I can say is that if the ship were taken from her proper position for any length of time we hope the exigencies of the moment would enable us to replace her by one of the ships in commission in reserve with a nucleus crew. I come back to the speech of the Member for York. He did manage to convey in a non-partisan speech a good deal of partisan spirit. He told us that the Navy in 1912 could no longer be looked upon as able to defend our shores. I do not know whether that view is shared by any other hon. Member.
I should like to assure him that it is our duty to safeguard the national interests and to ensure the safety of the country. That is our duty, and it is our intention to do it. I have no doubt whatever that our proposals will do that. I am getting a little tired of being told that we have betrayed our country. Patriotism is the monopoly of no party. It will be a bad thing if it ever does become the monopoly of any party. I do not think the hon. Member for York loves his country any more than I do. The safety, well-being, and comfort of the nation are more to me than mere partisan consideration, and it is in that view that I have put my name on these Estimates.
I am not accusing the hon. Gentleman of being a partisan before a lover of his country. I do not accuse him and his friends of betraying his country. I am going to show, however, that if they have not betrayed the country they have neglected the necessary means of protecting the country.
I wish to say a word in reply to the speech delivered a little earlier in the afternoon by the hon. Member for the Blackfriars Division of Glasgow. The hon. Member told us, in all sincerity I am sure, that he put his trust in the brotherhood of men, and that he and his confreres were in communication with the workmen abroad, and that they were doing their best to lead to peace between nations. That is a very praiseworthy endeavour, but it is not safe to put too much trust in the brotherhood for keeping peace. May I remind the hon. Member of the saying of Cromwell:—
I am sure the hon. Member does not want to misrepresent what I said. I very plainly and explicitly stated I was in favour of a Navy sufficiently strong for our purposes—
I am sorry if I misrepresented the hon. Member, but I heard him say he was working in conjunction with the workmen of other countries with a view to keeping peace. May I refer the hon. Member to the recent speech of President Taft, and also to the speeches of ex-President Roosevelt—these men who were both in turn returned to office by enormous majorities by the public of the United States—in which they told us that the building of fleets are the best guarantee for peace. I also would remind the hon. Gentleman and all Labour members of a fact that perhaps they have lost sight of. A few years ago, during the last Parliament, the question of the food supply in time of war occupied a very prominent position, and at that time the trades councils of the country put forward their views in regard to the matter. I have here a resolution passed by 120 trades councils of the United Kingdom, in which they express the opinion that if this country was involved in a great European war bread would rise to famine prices, and that the immediate effect of such a rise in the price of bread would be to inflict misery and semi-starvation upon the working classes of the country. I would like also to call attention to a resolution passed by the great corn merchants of the City of London upon the same subject, in which they state that if Great Britain should be involved in a great European war. foodstuffs would rise to famine prices. As long ago as 1706 a very similar state of affairs arose to that which we are discussing at the present time. In 1706 Holland was a great naval Power, and at that time Holland threatened the supremacy of this country, and we passed what were called the Acts of Navigation. Adam Smith, to whom our Free Trade friends often refer us, dealt with these Acts, and said they were as wise as if they had been dictated by the most deliberate wisdom. I have said this as a preliminary to some remarks I am going to make as to how I think the present Government has neglected to safeguard the interests of this country from invasion.
We have had from the right hon. Gentleman the statement that we have not in this country built a certain number of ships because we have not sufficient slips—what he calls "Dreadnought" slips to build this vessel on. May I call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman for a moment while I ask him what he means by "Dreadnought" slips? He tells us that we have 17 of these slips in the country, but I have no hesitation in saying that at the present moment instead of 17 we have at least 50 which with very little preparation could be used in the building of these ships. The right hon. Gentleman smiles, but I speak on the highest authority, and I say we have at the present moment 50 slips1 in the shipbuilding yards of this country which with very little preparation could be made fit for "Dreadnought" ships. What is the meaning of a "Dreadnought" slip? It simply means that owing to the shorter length of the warship as compared with the mercantile ship you have to have a greater weight upon a smaller area to bear that weight. In order to have that it is necessary to drive piles into the ground and carry them to the necessary depths. That is all. A shipbuilder told me to-day that he had never built warships, but he had the necessary plant to build "Dreadnoughts," and it would only take six or nine months to prepare slips to carry the weight of the "Dreadnoughts." That shows that I am right in saying that, if the orders were given out for these "Dreadnoughts," instead of 17 slips we have at least 50. Therefore, there is not the slightest excuse for not giving orders for these vessels because we have not the necessary slips to build them.
It never has been a question of slips. I have said so over and over again. There are abundant slips.
I am extremely glad to hear it, but yesterday or the day before the right hon. Gentleman argued that we had only 17, and that there were two more which could be made available.
No; I was asked how many slips there were in this country at this moment capable of carrying "Dreadnoughts," and I answered that question, 17, and 17 is a fully abundant number.
Seventeen may be in the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman a sufficient number, but I maintain that if we have 50 it is much better in case we wish to build the ships. For instance, I believe the Government told us in their Memorandum that owing to the exceptionally depressed condition of shipbuilding they are able to place their contracts at a very cheap rate; but if there are 50 slips, possibly belonging to 12 or 15 shipbuilders, compared with 17 belonging to two or three, you are much more likely to get cheap ships built by contract if you have more shipbuilders competing. We have ample facilities to build ships at a far greater rate and far more of them than Germany is able to do. To enable us to do that, however, the Admiralty will have to adopt a very different policy from that which they are adopting at the present time. If they wish to have these slips available they ought to encourage the shipbuilder to prepare the slips. When he has prepared them they ought to give a larger share of the ships that they want built out by contract than they are giving at the present time, and they ought to adopt the same principle that the Germans adopt so successfully. I was told by a very great manufacturer of armour plate two or three days ago: "We are treated differently from the way in which the Germans are treated. We can build the ships as quickly as they can, or quicker. We receive an order which occupies us six months. We prepare plates and so on, and when we have done that perhaps no other order comes our way for a considerable time. The result is that the machinery is idle and our men are not employed." In Germany the reason they are able to build ships so quickly is that instead of leaving the works idle at the end of six months they keep them going continuously preparing the armour plates and armaments, and materials necessary for the ships, with the result that when they actually lay them down they can turn them out much more rapidly than we can. If we would only give encouragement, as we ought to give, to our great manufacturers depend upon it we would cease to hear any alarm expressed at the rapidity of the building of warships in Germany. We have far greater facilities than they have. We have the coal and the iron at the very doors of our rivers. In Germany they have to carry the coal and the iron hundreds of miles by water before they reach the shipyard. We want a better arrangement for the placing of orders and for building ships. If we had this matter looked at from an independent point of view, not only from the point of view of to-day—the point of view that we are not likely to have war—but rather look at it from the point of view that we are going to have war, and prepare for it we would not have such panics as the country is suffering from now. Undoubtedly the country is suffering from a panic. It has not been raised upon this side of the House, but upon that side. We had no idea until we heard the speech of the right hon. Gentleman of the serious state into which our Navy had been allowed to drift. It is not our side that ought to be blamed but the right hon. Gentleman and his supporters.
And, it being Eleven of the clock, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
Committee report progress. To sit again upon Monday next.
The House adjourned at three minutes after Eleven o'clock.