weekly paper which in other days harmlessly devoted itself to the psychology of dogs and the theology of women, and which had now turned its attention less harmlessly to naval affairs. MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN (Worcestershire, E.) hoped that before the debate closed the right hon. Gentleman would give the Committee some more information in regard to the question of cruisers. It was not an adequate answer to the inquiries that had been made to say that cruisers were not being built now because they were not required this year. Was it true that cruisers were being built by foreign governments? The hon. Member for King's Lynn, who was an expert, had given the Committee the information that foreign Powers were building fast and powerful cruisers, and he pressed the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Admiralty to give a more reasoned explanation of the attitude of the Admiralty in not laying down any fresh had been mooted, quite informally as yet, by several of the other departments of the Government-the Foreign Office, the Colonial Office, and the India Office. He was not aware of that when asked a question on the subject the other day. The belief, in fact the assertion, of the Admiralty was that all demands of the departments had up to this time been adequately met. That was part of the answer he gave to the question the other day. He was told that in point of fact there had been a larger showing of the flag, and by larger ships, than ever took place under the old system. But whether that was so or not, whether that was sufficient or not, the question of showing the flag had been raised, although only informally on the part, he thought, of all the great departments interested in it, and the Admiralty in answer had expressed entire willingness to consider the best means of meeting those demands. He fancied that the immediate result would be the appointment of a Departmental Conference or Committee to consider the whole question. He had answered cruisers. He hoped the right hon.. to the best of his ability the five questions put to him by the right hon. Gentleman. He only wished to refer to one personal matter to which the right hon. Gentleman had drawn attention. He had spoken of the attacks which had been made on his distinguished friend Sir John Fisher. As to the comment made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dover on what he had said with reference to the rancorous Press campaign, he wished to say that when he spoke of that matter he was not thinking of the attacks on the Admiralty as a corporation, nor was he by any means thinking of the attacks on the Government as a whole, or on individual members of the Government. What he had in his mind was a perfectly villainous sentence-an atrocious sentence levelled at the Sea Lords at the beginning of the campaign and imputing dishonourable motives to them. That was the sort of language he had in his mind. He would have sent for the paper if he had known that the matter was to be referred to. He was quite sure that if he showed the paper to the right hon. Gentleman he would at once say that he could by no means defend that kind of warfare. One daily paper had distinguished itself, and also a was Gentleman in his reply would also deal If there it had been withdrawn from the Mediterranean Fleet, and that it would be as expensive as a sea-going fleet, except as regarded coal consumption. He believed that that was true, and that the saving of coal would be very small compared with that of a sea-going fleet. The question was whether they would not sacrifice more in efficiency than they would save in money He had spent five years at the Admiralty and he remembered a well-known Admiral who said that he never would be a party to refusing expenditure on coal, because that expenditure was the measure of the preparation of the Fleet for war. Was the saving which the Admiralty proposed to make on coal worth the having? He, himself, thought that they were paying too high a price for it; and that was a point which the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Admiralty had not dwelt upon at all. *THE CIVIL LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. LAMBERT, Devonshire, South Molton) said that the reason why the Admiralty were not laying down cruisers was that they had got three great cruisers of the " Invincible" class building, and the Board of Admiralty, having surveyed the building programme of foreign Powers, saw no necessity for laying down more at present. MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN asked if that was sufficient as against the programme the foreign Powers were now laying down. *MR. LAMBERT said that with regard to the programmes which the foreign Powers had decided upon, the Admiralty felt that it would be sufficient to consider what they proposed to do during the next three or four years. They were not contemplating what might happen in 1920. They had at the present moment several cruisers, which would meet the situation. With regard to docks, there were five Government docks in the country, capable of taking the largest type of vessels. There was also a good number of private docks. Of the five Government docks there were four (including a lock) at Keyham, and one at Portsmouth. In regard to Rosyth, that question was very explicitly dealt Mr. Austen Chamberlain. with in the statement of the First Lord of the Admiralty. They were expending £10,000 in completing the preliminary plans and investigations which were necessary before the work there could be proceeded with. The engineers who were there would remain for the present. The matter was a very difficult one, and, as the Committee would see, it was essential that they should proceed with caution. There was another question about the Home Fleet, which required clearing up. The Leader of the Opposition had said they were only giving seven-tenths of seagoing time to the Home Fleet, and he referred to the Nore Division. The Nore Division was to include six battleships, six cruisers, and forty-eight destroyers fully manned. The explanation of the remark of the right hon. Gentleman was that that squadron, being the Home Fleet, would not leave Home waters, and therefore would not be at sea as much as the Channel and Atlantic Fleets. The Channel Fleet went the other day to Lagos, and if the Home Fleet manoeuvred in Home waters they would not be at sea as long as the Channel Fleet. But in reality it was intended that the Home Fleet should be as efficient as any seagoing fleet in the Empire. He thought he need not say anything about the suggestion made by the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite that they should have a Naval Lord signing a statement made by the First Lord of the Admiralty. That was sufficiently dealt with by the Leader of the Opposition. Of course they desired at the Board of Admiralty to take full responsibility and not to single out. any particular member, however distinguished he might be, for special responsibility. That was a sound constitutional doctrine which would certainly be followed by the present Board. He might say in passing that he was very glad indeed to hear from the hon. and gallant Member, who was an expert in these matters, a warm commendation of the proposed system of training officers. Such commendation coming from the hon. and gallant Gentleman would be a great encouragement to the Board of Admiralty. His hon. friend the Member for Lowestoft had raised the question of docking the ships. They were usually docked once a year, but the torpedo boat destroyers and such like craft were docked every six months. The whole question however was being gone into very carefully, and if necessary the big ships would be docked oftener. He could have said a great deal about the Press campaign and the regrettable change of policy, as the right hon. Member for Dover called it, in founding the Home Fleet, but he would only say that the change was suggested to the Government by their skilled advisers. MR. WYNDHAM said he had specially guarded himself from expressing an opinion on the strategic distribution of the Fleet. But under the old system, besides the sea-going fleet of thirty-two battleships, which was the same number as at present (including the six at the Nore), there were fourteen battleships in the second line with nucleus crews, bound to be at sea for a certain stated time every year, and ready to go to sea in twenty-four hours; but under the new system, if they added the Nore squadron to the seagoing line they had only seven battleships in anything like an immediate state of preparation for the Reserve. That gave an apparent diminution of the Reserve, which had not been fully explained. He would like to know what there was in the Special Commission ships which made the seven ships in the Home Fleet (not including the six at the Nore) as good as the fourteen battleships which were in the old Special ships had no crews at all, and that was one of the advantages that they derived from the Home Fleet. *SIR J. BRUNNER (Cheshire, Northwich) seconded the Motion of the hon. Member for Falkirk Burghs. He did not propose to go into details or figures, for he was much impressed by what fell from the right hon. Member for Dover when he warned those who were not experts against entering upon details. He had at all times great regard for the advice of the right hon. Gentleman, and he had a greater regard for that advice since he had witnessed the gallant struggle made by the right hon. Gentleman's Leader with those details. He heard a night or two ago a chance scrap of conversation between two Members of the House who were talking together on their way to the Liberal lobby. One of them said, "These fellows care nothing about the Navy if they can only keep their taxes down." For himself he was not concerned at the moment about keeping his taxes down, and he did not think that he could have any hope of doing so in this Radical House of Commons. He had witnessed some scenes in the precincts of the House which were scandalous because of the unholy joy expressed by his nearest and dearest friends when they talked of their hope of hitting him by means of a graduated income-tax. His only chance was to wait until the next Tory Government came in when they would go in for broadening the basis of taxation, which to his mind meant MR. LAMBERT said that, of course, he did not intend to suggest that the forma-making the poor pay more in order that less. pay tion of the Home Fleet had added battle-not to reduce his taxes, but to have the His object was ships to the Navy. But they had not taken not to reduce his taxes, but to have the money raised by taxation better spent. seven battleships from the Navy. The There was so much to be done for the Admiralty had decided to distribute the Fleet in the most strategic manner. They must be the best judges, and they had the sole responsibility for the distribution of the Fleet. With regard to the right hon. Gentleman's question about the fleet in Special Reserve, the Reserve. First Lord's statement said "Certain vessels of older date had hitherto been described as in Special Reserve. In future such vessels will be kept fit for service, and provided with crews sufficient to keep the machinery in good order, and the ships ready for the duty required of them." That, of course, was a great improvement on the old system when those the rich should people of the United Kingdom at the common cost that there was nothing to hope for in the way of reduction of taxation except through the gradual growth of income through the increase of population itself. His object was to aid and support as far as he could the Prime Minister in his wish expressed in a neverto-be-forgotten speech in December, 1905, when he held before them the idea that our country should be at the head of a league of peace. In his opinion never had a Ministry started with a loftier aim, and he thanked the Prime Minister from the bottom of his heart for that declaration. He asked the Committe to lay down, however, that the Navy Estimates were not in consonance with that declaration of the Prime Minister. For many years both great Parties, indeed all Parties in this House, had been agreed that our Navy should be sustained on a two-Power standard, but the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dover had spoken of making a plain British statement which he appeared to think would appeal to plain British intellects. He thought the right hon. Gentleman ought to take the warning that had been addressed many times to theologians and which should also be addressed to politicians, and that was not to use words in a nonnatural sense. The right hon. Gentleman had talked about equality with a margin, but the plain British intellect did not understand a two-Power standdard which meant a Navy with a margin of 30 or 50 or 80 per cent. above the combined fleets of any two other nations. The two-Power standard met with universal consent both in this House and out of it. To our great national misfortune that standard had been more and more widely departed from, mainly under the guidance of the present Leader of the Opposition. He at any rate claimed to press the view that all expenditure beyond the two-Power standard was worse than waste. If the two-Power standard was the ideal of patriots in days gone by, why should it not be so now? Let the Committee consider for a moment the changes that had taken place since 1895. Japan, the next great naval Power, was our ally. France, the next, was our friend, and all he would say about Russia was that our relations with her were better than they used to be. That they might be still better was a prayer to which he said "Amen" with all his heart. He thought our Navy was infinitely larger than was necessary for a two-Power standard and his dearest wish was to go back to that standard. He read these Estimates with a bitter regret which had not been lessened by the promise to strike off one "Dreadnought" if that proposal met with a favourable response at The Hague Conference. He still hoped his right hon. friend would enlarge that offer. As he read the figures of a twoPower standard and the figures given by the Financial Secre' ary in describing the Sir J. Brunner. Navy we should have three years hence there was a margin far larger than was represented by the striking off of one "Dreadnought." He asked his right hon. friend frankly to offer to The Hague Conference to come down to the two-Power standard. Such an offer would satisfy all the nations of the world of our sincerity. He was afraid that not until that offer had been made would the right hon. Gentleman have done all that he could do in the matter. If he made that offer he would at one stroke put the country in the proud position he claimed for it in the speech delivered fifteen months ago and earn the gratitude, not only of every living subject of the Empire, but of generations to come. MR. JENKINS (Chatham) said he could not follow the recommendations of the Government in so far as they appertained to the reduction of men in the Navy. To reduce strength by 1,000 men was a serious proposal. The Admiralty should have given in their Memorandum such information as would have enabled the Committee to form an estimate as to whether the British Navy was or was not under-manned. Speaking from the Labour Benches he was glad to have the Prime Minister's assurance that it was the intention of the Government to keep to the two-Power standard. He was in sympathy with the whole of the arguments from Conservative Members in reference to this matter. It was not a political question. He only regretted that so little time was available for the discussion of this Vote., In alluding to the fact that the Admiralty had considered it wise to build vessels of such huge size as the "Dreadnought,” he asked why there were only two naval bases where there were dry docks available for such ships. In his opinion every naval base should have a dry dock large enough to take our largest vessels. He appealed to the Secretary to the Admiralty to be careful in reducing the number of men. He urged him to proceed slowly in that direction. He reminded the right hon. Gentleman that they had been told in a few years they would have many ships built. Trade was bad and at present they could build a ship without paying overtime. The 1,000 men who were going to be dismissed must have some place to lay their heads. He believed there should be some reform, but he did not believe in a reform which would bring disaster on a large number of families. This session and last theHouse had been dealing with the question of the unemployed. The President of the Local Government Board was not yet ready with his Bill. But the problem must be faced, and he held by the dismissals that had taken place in the Royal Dockyards during the last four or five years homes had been devastated by the effort to effect cheapness. That was false economy, especially when they had such excellent testimony from the Secretary to the Admiralty as to the superior character of the work in the building of the "Dreadnought." He believed in the nationalising of undertakings; indeed, the Government dockyards could build as successfully as private firms, and it would be a cheaper policy to give their work to the dockyards than to place it with private contractors. The work would be done quite as efficiently and more economically. He was prepared to say that on six battleships £270,000 could have been saved, if they had been built in the Royal dockyards, compared with the cost of building them in private yards. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would see his way, in times of peace and when he had the means at his disposal, to prepare for any emergency which might arise from any difficulty with foreign nations or from the boom of trade which the President of the Board of Trade said they were to have by-and-bye. As to the grievances from which British naval men suffered, he wished to draw attention to a class who were indispensable. They were told by Lord Tweedmouth that they had not a sufficient number of stokers for the British Navy. What about the stoker? He was a man who worked down in the depths of the ship in a temperature of from 170 to 180 degrees. What were the conditions of his labour? It would astound the Commi tee to learn that he got the very moderate sum of 1s. 8d. a day on entering His Majesty's Navy. No wonder the Navy was undermanned so far as stokers were concerned. He would hesitate a long while before he would accept a position of that character, when work was to be done in such conditions. VOL. CLXX. [FOURTH SERIES.] While the people of the nation were at ease and sleeping sweetly, men were giving their services at 1s. 8d. a day, pay which was increased to 1s. 9d., then to 2s., then to 2s. 3d., and so forth. A stoker on a tramp steamer got £4 a month with his food provided, and with no such grave restrictions upon him as were imposed in the Navy; nor was he so long away from his home as the naval stoker, who had to work in a huge and complicated machine for £2 10s. a month. He wondered that the Admiralty did not consider the position of the stokers. He felt it incumbent upon him to thank the Secretary to the Admiralty for what he had done in reference to the dockyards, where the principle had been recognised that when the Admiralty were visiting the dockyards, the representives of the men might go to them with their petitions and place their case before them. Was it too much to ask that the right hon. Gentleman would allow the stokers to place their case before the Admiralty? It was evident that the position of the stokers had not been represented to the Board by the highest officers of the Fleets. If it had, he would hold а very poor opinion of the Board of Admiralty which allowed such a condition of things to remain unaltered. He ventured to hope that the right hon. Gentleman would agree that the various grades should be enabled to present their case in a manner similar to that which was allowed in the case of the dockyard men. Another class of men, whose position was a little higher than that of the stokers from the monetary point of view, were the naval writers. That class had received no advances, so far as their conditions of service were concerned, since 1867, and when one read of the way in which they were paid it really stirred one to the core. He found that the third-class third-class writers, entering at the age of eighteen years, well-educated and with great responsibilities, were paid 2s. a day and rated as able seamen. In the second year they received 3s. per day; after five years, 4s. a day; and after twentytwo years service, 5s. 6d. a day, for practically the position of an accountant on board the ship. That, in his opinion, was a disgrace to the Board of Admiralty, seeing that they knew and would not 20 |