alliances of that kind as being a cause for the reduction of our armaments. expressed the opinion that we should be much more formidable in war if, instead of following the present policy which resulted in these swollen Estimates, we reduced expenditure and strengthened the spirit and promoted the real greatness of our people. His right hon. friend had said that he regarded Vote 8 as the Vote that really determined all the other Votes. He found that a little difficult to follow, but he was quite willing for the moment to accept this view, and when they came to discuss Vote 8 he would move a reduction upon it. In the meantime he would like an assurance from the right hon. Gentleman on two points. The first was that the shipbuilding programme would not be proceeded with until the Committee had had an opportunity of expressing an opinion on it; and the second was that that opportunity should be given before the meeting of the Colonial Conference. If he received those two assurances he would not press his Motion to a division. He begged to move. Motion made, and Question proposed, "That 120,000 officers, seamen, and boys be employed for the said Services."-(Mr. Murray Macdonald.) MR. A. J. BALFOUR (City of London) with a view of concentrating attention upon certain questions which he particularly desired the Secretary of the Admiralty to reply to when he came to make his second statement on the Estimates of which he was in charge. He, therefore, would absolve himself and he hoped the Committee would absolve him from any examination of the particular reduction just moved. He would, however, make this comment upon the hon. Member's speech. The hon. Member appeared to attach no value to the friendship of or alliances with foreign nations unless those friendships alliances immediately produced an effect in diminishing the Estimates laid on the Table on the House. or *MR. MURRAY MACDONALD: I do not like to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, but I do attach great importance to those alliances, but it has hitherto been the policy of this country to regard all Mr. Murray Macdonald. MR. A. J. BALFOUR thought the hon. Gentleman would see that that was a singularly misleading and untruthful way of looking at questions of foreign policy. It had a double disadvantage whether they looked at it from the side of the gain of a foreign alliance or the side of the security of the Empire. In the first place, the hon. Gentleman was going to effect this result. He openly avowed that the end to be gained by the alliance was the reduction of that effective force the possession of which was the real reason, of course, that the foreign nation desired The hon. Gentleman looked forward to a period our co-operation. when the Government was not going to rely on a Fleet and an Army but on the spirit of the people. Well, he had always regarded an Army and a Navy as the spirit of the people in an organised and effective form. If they did not organise it he could assure the hon. Gentleman that the spirit of the people, however admirable and patriotic, and he hoped it would be both, would never have any value for the defence of these shores. Nor would it give the smallest inducement to any other nation to think that their weakness would be any in way protected from agression by our assistance. but to the Sea Lords, the professional that we should have docks of a size to advisers constituting that Board. For take in the new vessels-docks not his part he greatly regretted all such merely here and there, but in as large references. It was quite true that there numbers as we could command, and was at the head of the Naval Board, at in situations where they could be conthis moment, an Admiral of great genius veniently made use of after, say, a naval and original powers, whose services to the action. He understood the Government country, in his judgment, had been very proposed to mark time in regard to the great indeed; but they had not got to new works at the Firth of Forth, where deal with either the Sea Lords at the there were to be new docks capable Admiralty, or any particular Sea Lord; of accommodating the biggest battleit was the Government, and the Govern- ships, and of immediately supplying ment alone, who were responsible for the them with the necessary repairs. If there naval policy of the country. The late should be a battle in the North Sea, in Government were responsible for the which the Channel Fleet were engaged, Estimates as long as they were in power, say off Newcastle or off the Forth, where and that responsibility had been trans- were the nearest docks in which our ferred in toto to their successors in office, vessels could be fitted, and how many who, in his opinion, could not shelter such docks were there ? He was themselves under the authority of the referring, of course, to the biggest ships, Sea Lords, except in purely technical the new and biggest type of ship, for matters. Nor ought any attack upon the which this special accommodation was naval policy of the country to be directed more particularly required. And such against the Sea Lords; it should be docks as we had, were they always directed against those, and those only, available for the purposes for which they who were really responsible to this House. were required? He was informed that That, he believed, to be a sound constitu- the two docks of adequate size at Portstional doctrine. There was one omission mouth were not always available for of considerable importance in the state- repairing ships, because they could not ment of the right hon. Gentleman in be used at all states of the tide, and on charge of the Estimates, which might have all occasions. In connection with that been unintentional, but which he thought question, perhaps the right hon. Gentleit would be desirable he should fill up man would refer to the reduced Estimate when he came to it again-he referred to for loan works. If the reduction was the question of cruisers. There was no due to the fact that we were abstaining reference in the Estimates to any cruiser, from building these new docks, which except a single unarmoured cruiser, were really a vital necessity for the probably to be used in connection with accommodation of our fleet, it was a torpedo destroyers. If that was so, if policy the Government would do well there was no provision of cruisers for the to reconsider. The hon. and gallant protection of commerce, or as an integral Member for King's Lynn had made an part of a fleet in being, it was a explicit statement that the Germans singular omission, and he thought had in full commission a larger fleet of justification of it ought to be given destroyers in home waters than we had in a very explicit form. A second in full commission in home waters. question related to docks for the That had given him rather a disagreeable accommodation of and for repairing the surprise, and he would like to have the new and very large ships now in the Admiralty view upon it. With regard process of creation. In 1904 the Ad- to the Home Fleet at the Nore, he undermiralty inaugurated a new system under stood the policy of the Government to which they found themselves the happy be this. They started with arranging possessors of a great deal more harbour their ships in two series, constituting the accommodation than they previously first and second lines of defence. The required, in proportion to the vessels first line of defence was of sea-going they had to accommodate. But the ships with full crews, ready in every increased size of our ships now carried respect to meet an enemy and constantly with it some necessary cost on the other practising in blue water. The second side, because it was absolutely necessary line was manned with nucleus crews, and it was truly believed that they could be made fit for sea in a relatively short space of time. But the fact that these nucleus crews were always on board, and went out and practised, made them far more effective and more to be relied upon than was the case under the old system, which required entirely new crews in case of emergency. That plan of the Admiralty was started by the late Government and continued by the present Government. But the present Government had introduced a modification of the second line, and it was on that modification and development of the second line that he desired to have a little further information than they possessed at present. The advantage of having only a nucleus crew of two-fifths was of course a financial advantage. It was much cheaper to have the ships in harbour, practising occasionally only with crews of twofifths, than if they were at sea with their full complement. The Government had gradually been forced, with regard to some of the best ships, to increase that nucleus until the word "nucleus" became wholly inaccurate. Twelve cruisers had got their full crews. They had risen out of the nucleus crew state, gradually, until they had now a crew as large as if they belonged to one of the sea-going fleets, and had all the advantages which naturally accrued from practising in blue water. Therefore, he supposed, as far as wages and food were concerned, and in short everything except coal, these twelve ships with full crews must be as costly as if they belonged to the sea-going Fleet. If they were as costly, were they as efficient? As he understood the right hon. Gentleman, they were not so efficient as they would be if they went to sea. He did not use that expression? What he said was that they had 70 per cent. of the practice of the sea-going fleets. As efficiency depended SO much upon practice, if it was said a force had seventenths of the practice another force had, it was not an unfair inference that there was seven-tenths of the efficiency. If ships were equal in material strength and turn of speed, it would naturally be supposed that with sea-going ships having 30 per cent. more practice there would be 30 per cent. more efficiency. Mr. A. J. Balfour. If anything like that were true-he was not arguing upon the mathematical accuracy of the figures-was it a wise or prudent course to have these ships, which were not exactly in the first line and not exactly in the Reserve. but had their full crews and were almost as costly as the first line? It might be capable of explanation, but it had not been explained, and he believed it was because the public had not understood the Government view that so much excitement was aroused during the winter and the early months of the present year, and which he hoped a full discussion of these Estimates would allay. An hon. Gentleman opposite had been very indignant at attacks made upon the Admiralty, but the Commit ee would in justice allow that the Opposition had done nothing to embarrass the Government or pour upon them undeserved or unnecessary criticism. An explanation was required of what seemed to be a new anomaly. Formerly there was a sea-going Fleet and a Reserve Fleet, and now there was added something which was almost as expensive as a seagoing Fleet and yet had not the efficiency of the sea-going Fleet, and he desired to know what justification the Government had for introducing that new element, which was in neither the first nor the second line of defence, but which was attended by the inconveniences inevitably attaching to both categories. The only other point was one upon which he raised a question on Tuesday, whether anything was being done to show our flag under the new naval system in distant ports or on the coasts of barbarous or semicivilised countries in some such manner as obtained before the recent reforms. Those reforms were carried out in the direction of economy, and he believed in the direction of fighting efficiency, but they carried with them corresponding weakness so far as diplomatic efficiency was concerned, and he wished to know if the Government were considering that matter or had any statement to make on it. MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: Patrolling? MR. A. J. BALFOUR said what he meant was this. In the old days we had an immense number of ships not very effective as fighting machines and not be a sufficient answer to say that there were no new cruisers in this year's programme for the same reason that there were no new cruisers in last year's programme. MR. A. J. BALFOUR said he would have thought that the omission last year would have been an additional reason for including the item in the present year. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to treat the question in a controversial sense. very effective as cruisers, for they were deficient in speed, they were not good for war, and from that point of view were rightly got rid of. But those ships were eminently convenient and very useful when the Foreign Office wanted to show our flag in some quarter of the globe or off a Crown Colony desiring help in a local emergency. There used to be a large number of those ships, but they had been destroyed and nothing had been put in their place. Now that we had only efficient fighting ships, all we could do was to send one of those, although not re- *MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON said quired for naval warfare in the sense he did not wish to import any conunderstood in connection with a contest troversial feeling. So far as he underbetween civilised Powers. He would not stood the question, no new cruisers were suggest a return to the old system, but proposed because the Admiralty were it would seem that we must submit to advised they were not necessary. Seven some slight expenditure which would not armoured cruisers were in course of add to our fighting efficiency, but which construction, and there was no new would conduce to peace and good govern-demand except for an unarmoured cruiser ment in distant parts of the Empire and to act as mother ship to destroyers. be a security against small risings and At the moment, without consulting his small difficulties and have the effect of colleagues, he could not add to the inmaking the power of the Empire under- formation on this subject already given stood by far distant communities who to the House. The question of repairing otherwise might infer, never seeing our accommodation he would not now go flag, that we were not prepared to into, but would be quite prepared support our interests in those waters. to deal with it later. As to how many The Admiralty must have been con- docks were capable of taking the "Dreadsidering that difficulty, and he would nought," he could not say without be grateful not for a full statement consulting his professional advisers; on the point, but for any indication he would deal with it later on. The of the views of the Government upon it. question of works he postponed to Vote He put these questions, not now arguing 10. The reductions came about by upon the Government policy, and per- revision and reduction of items and haps the Secretary to the Admiralty postponement of others, the burden of would give the views of the Government which would fall on future years. An upon them. explanation would be more convenient in connection with the naval works policy. Vote 10 would be taken upon a day-not too late to suit the convenience of hon. Members opposite. Upon the subject of German destroyers, he did not hear the statement of the hon. Member for King's Lynn, and was not, therefore, prepared to say if it was correct or not. *MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON said he would gladly accede to the request of the right hon. Gentleman, though it would be admitted that he could not be expected to give full answers to all the questions without notice. If he failed to give all the information desired, he would supplement his answers on a later day. The first question of the right hon. Gentleman was, "Why were no cruisers included in this year's Estimates?" He might ask the right hon. Gentleman in return, "Why were there no cruisers in last year's Estimates, which the late Government drow up?" He thought it would MR. BELLAIRS said he was referring to the exact state of affairs last December when he said there were more destroyers in full commission in home waters for the Germans than there were in this country. *MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON said that while adequate recognition had been given to the sound constitutional doctrine man had said rightly that so far as laid down many times in this House that the Nore Division was concerned, and so the distribution of the Fleet was for far as the fully-manned ships were conthe Admiralty, and for the Admiralty cerned, the result must be that there could alone, and that their reasons could be no saving on Vote 1. That, he thought, not always be divulged, because they might be taken for granted. He thought were diplomatic and strategical, a great the right hon. Gentleman had correctly deal had been said already by way of indicated that the only quarter in which criticism and by way of interrogatory a saving might be expected was in coal which was only veiled criticism about the consumption. He had tried, but had not constitution of the Home Fleet. The been able to satisfy himself what the particular point raised by the right hon. amount of that hypothetical or possible Gentleman appeared to be this. He said saving might be. The right hon. Gentlethat the Home Fleet was only to have 70 man had adverted to the fact that two or per cent. of the sea time of what were called three years ago a great scrapping took the sea-going fleets. Of course they were place under his own auspices. The result all sea-going fleets in a sense, and none had been that if the efficiency of the of them were sea-going in a sense. They British Navy had been triplicated, as the were not always at sea. They spent right hon. Gentleman said it was, for war a great deal of time in harbour. He did purposes, it had also been, accordingly not suppose that the Mediterranean Fleet to him, weakened for certain peace puron the average spent more than 125 days poses. He had asked what they were at sea in the year, and ten years ago the going to do. Well, the policy of scrapaverage was about seventy-five days a ping the Navy was the right hon. Gentleyear. At any rate, the fact was that the man's policy-he was not challenging or new Home Fleet in all its branches would denouncing it and he would have have about 70 per cent. of the sea time of thought that with his present views he the other Fleets which were, properly or might have been expected to have an improperly, called sea-going. It would answer ready, and if he had an answer have more sea time than some of the ready he was sure he would have sugsea-going Fleets of four or five years ago. gested to him what he ought to recomThe right hon. Gentleman asked whether, mend the Admiralty to do. if the Home Fleet ships were only to have 70 per cent. of the sea time of the rest of the Fleet, there would not be a chance of their having only 70 per cent. of their efficiency. He did not know how that would work out as a rule of three sum. The assumption underlying it was that the only element to be taken into consideration was that of sea time. He would not admit until he had better proof that a Fleet which had 70 per cent. of the other's sea time had only 70 per cent. of the other's efficiency. That was only a partial view of the case. What he had to say in answer to the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion was that the Home Fleet, consisting of the powerful Nore Division at the head and with the two other divisions behind it, and with the amount of sea time it would have, taken in conjunction with the sea-going fleets, would result in the production of a Navy as a whole much stronger and more efficient and having on the average more sea-time than the Navy before this new development. The right hon. GentleMr. Edmund Robertson. MR. A. J. BALFOUR said he might remind the right hon. Gentleman and the Committee that he said the other day that this very problem was under consideration when the late Government left office, and it would no doubt have been dealt with. had they remained in office. When they made an enormous change in their system, as they did in 1904-5, it had collateral consequences all of which were not necessarily foreseen at the time, and they met them as the necessities showed themselves. All he asked was how the Government were meeting them. MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON said he was not trying to pick a quarrel with the right hon. Gentlemen's question, and he only sought to answer it in the spirit in which it had been asked. The right hon. Gentleman had asked how they were going to supply the places of those small ships which formerly performed police duties in outlying portions of the Empire. The fact he believed to be this. The question |