a dead weight of over For instance, there are the automatic will bear increases, due to transactions which have £1,250,000 annually on account of taken place in the past, over which we have no control and which we must meet. The increase in the special annuities will be £120,000, the increase due to the incidence of the Cunard subsidy will be £90,000, the increase due to pensions for officers and men will be £39,000, and the increase in ordinary pay will be £140,000. All these are inevitable automatic increases. The amount of the whole will be £389,000. I think I may be allowed to allude to the fact that this year, as compared with last year, we suffer by not having the sum obtained from the sales of old ships and stores that was available last yearnamely, £135,000-by all these automatic increases, and by the falling off of appropriations in aid. All of that implies a saving in other Votes. Adding these savings to the normal reduction of £450,000, I arrive at the total reduction, as compared with last year's Estimates, of nearly £2,000,000. past expenditure unless these payments are transferred to the National Debt. It is immaterial to the country how the money is paid, but in comparing the Navy Estimate for this year with other years it gives a distorted view of the cost if the current Estimates are burdened with a large sum expended in former years. To sum up, the net result is that we have a nominal reduction of £500,000 and, according to my calculation, we have an actual reduction of £1,500,000; and we have a real saving of about £2,000,000. The House will ask, where has this saving been? It has taken place in Votes 8 and 9, in the new construction part of those Votes. Taking the provision for new construction in Vote 8 and adding the corresponding provision in Vote 9, the total of these figures in last year's Estimates was was £10,859,500. In the present year's Estimates the total is only £9,227,000. The reduction on this head amounts, according to my figures, to £1,632,500. It is nearly nine years since the provision for new construction in the Navy Estimates was so low as it is this year. Inasmuch as these reductions relate to new construction, and new construction carries with it all other Votes in the long run, if these reductions can only be maintained they give promise of other reductions in the future, and we hope to see, not automatic increases, but automatic decreases. That brings me to the second head on which I wish to address the House, and that But there is another point of view from which I should like to approach naval expenditure. I think the House ought to be told every year what is the gross aggregate amount of money of all kinds that it is proposed to spend on the naval service in the coming year. The calculation I made is founded on this principle. I take the gross Estimates, including the appropriations in aid, the expenditure on loans for naval services and on other Votes, and I deduct, as I am bound to do, the amount of the annuity which has already been spent. The gross aggregate expenditure on this is shipbuilding, and more particularly account last year was £36,000,000. The corresponding figures for the present year, calculated on the same basis, is £33,500,000. I may be permitted to go one step further. Three years ago the House was asked for £42,600,000. That is comparing Estimate with Estimate. I ought, however, to say that the expenditure on loans in that year did not reach by a million the estimated sum. Allow ing for that, the real reduction, compared with three years ago, is £8,000,000. I will add a word about the special annuity. This year, as I have said, it amounts to £1,214,000, and next year it will be more. The time is coming when we shall cease all further borrowing of money, but the Navy Estimates Mr. Edmund Robertson. the new programme which we are proposing for the coming year. That is an old story which was given away by myself in the month of July last year. I do not think it is necessary to dwell on it. The main fact is that we are going to add two Dreadnoughts and possibly three; one fast unarmoured cruiser, five ocean-going destroyers, twelve first-class torpedo-boats, and twelve submarine boats. It is usual for the House not to dwell on Vote 8 at this period of the session, but to postpone that Vote until a later period of the session. May I say that I hope an opportunity will be given to Members of the House to see for themselves the existing Dreadnought and several other vessels in which they may be interested in connection with a forthcoming visit of the Colonial Premiers. The Colonial Premiers will go to Portsmouth on Friday, 3rd May, to make their inspection, and we hope a large number of Members of this House will accompany them. and numbers; and if you play that little Kriegspiel, I think you will come to the conclusion that I have-namely, that in respect of battleships we have a wellassured superiority over the two, and in respect of cruisers we have a still greater superiority. I would strongly recommend those who have not already done so to Although it is usual to postpone read the articles contributed to The Times discussion upon details at this stage, there newspaper recently by a distinguished is one governing question I have no wish friend and former colleague of mine, Sir to evade. It may fairly be asked, "Is William White, the late Chief Constructor your provision adequate?" Or, to put it to the Admiralty, a man whose authority in the usual formula, "Are we maintain- on this subject is almost without rival. ing the two-Power standard?" I have I would direct special attention to his watched the growth of the two-Power estimates of the value of our warship standard for a great many years. Origin- building capacities, both public and ally the two-Power standard meant two private. Another point of illustration I specified European Powers. It was not have derived from a Return giving the a standard in the abstract-a mere expenditure on new construction of all chimera bombinans гп vacuo-it was the great naval Powers for the last ten a concrete thing; but at the best years. The two-Power standard ceases it was only a rule of thumb- a to be applicable. For instance, France a rough and ready test. There may be and Germany together are a long way conceivable circumstances in which a below the United Kingdom, so I have two-Power standard might be too much, thrown in a third European Power which and there may be imaginable circum- used to be almost a leading Powerstances in which a three-Power standard namely, Russia. This is the result. In would be too little. What the standard ten years, France, Russia and Germany should be is, in its essence, a political all put together have added by new conquestion, not a Party question, but a struction to their navy tonnage to the question for Parliaments. Whether a extent of 1,108,280; Great Britain in the given standard is maintained is not a same period added 1,132,205 tons. This political, but a scientific, technical, and is what some people call "a cheap Navy." naval question upon which the Admiralty So it is. It is cheaper than any other of the day may justly claim to have a navy. Taking the figures given in conclusive voice. I am here on the part the Thomasson Return, we find that, of the Admiralty to say that, in their while Russia built her new construcopinion, the two-Power standard will be tion at a cost of £93 5s. per ton, adequately maintained with the pro- Germany at a cost of £97 8s, and gramme of shipbuilding which we are France at a cost of £124 6s. per ton, bringing forward to-day. Knowing that Great Britain pays only £88 per ton. this is a delicate subject, perhaps I In that sense we have a cheap Navy. ought to stop here. It is one of the It might be said, "That is all very well embarrassments of my position that I for old-type ships, but you are forgetting cannot say exactly what I know or think. the Dreadnought.'" I will meet that There is always great danger of mis point in this way. Take as new types understanding at home and still greater the "Dreadnought" and her contempodanger of misapprehension abroad. raries--those ships still on the stocksTherefore I have to be cautious. Bearing the two "Lord Nelsons" and the three in mind these things, I may, I think, "Invincibles," and as old ships all ships allude to one or two points not by way before the "Dreadnonght." As regards of argument, but by way of illustration. old ships, there is no difference of opinion Let any hon. Member arrange the fleet that we have a superiority over France of France and Germany alongside the and Germany combined. Neither France fleets of Great Britain. I take France nor Germany possess the equal of any and Germany because that is the most one of our eight "King Edward" class or uninvidious combination that can be our six "Warrior" cruisers. As to new made. I invite you to do that, having types, we have one 66 Dreadnought " regard to the age, the size, the armaments, ready, a "Lord Nelson" and her sister as ship, the "Agamemnon," completing, Selborne also in another place spoke in the same sense. In effect he said that if Parliament or the Press proposed to tie the hands of the Admiralty in distributing His Majesty's ships, he for one would cease to be responsible for the Navy. I hope it will not be considered unbecoming of me to express the great satisfaction and pleasure I have felt at the patriotic attitude adopted by hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite, especially by those who have been responsible for naval administration in the past. The Home Fleet as now composed is in effect the culmination of a long series of the dealings with redistribution in the Navy. I will ask the House to follow me in attempting to trace its genesis-in considering what I believe are the three stages in its evolution. We must carry our minds back first of all to the period previous to 1904. The second stage is that of the great reforms introduced by the right hon. Gentleman opposite in 1904; and the third stage is the present. What was the state of things before 1904, again thinking of battleships? The British Navy fell then into two categories, one consisting of ships in commission and the other of ships in reserve. The ships in commission had full crews, those in reserve had no crews at all. The ships in commission were scattered over the great outlying fleets and in considerable numbers. The China Fleet had five battleships. The ships in reserve were either the dockyard reserve, which means ships undergoing repairs and not nearly ready for use, or ships in reserve which were in practice nearly ready for use, but which, in point of fact, were never used. Then, in 1904, came the great changes introduced by the right hon. Gentleman opposite. I will not go into them in detail, but the essence of the thing was that ships fell into two categories. There were the ships in full commission scattered over the great outlying fleets-still five battleships in China common sense. The only other subject upon which I wish to say a few words is still more delicate-it is the constitution of the Home Fleet. I cannot ignore the rancorous Press campaign which raged for a time against the Home Fleet; but the less said about it the better. This is almost the first occasion on which the distribution of the Fleet has engaged the attention of Parliament. I remember one other occasion, and that was at the time of the Mediterranean scare. The right hon. Gentlemen opposite were in office when that scare was engineered by very nearly the same people, or the same sort of people, as are engaged in this campaign against us. Speaking on behalf of the Liberal Opposition of that day, I declined emphatically to take any part in the attempt then made to wrest from the Admiralty the disposition and control of His Majesty's ships. Lord Mr. Edmund Robertson. and with full crews. The second category consisted of ships in commission in reserve, divided into three divisions over the three ports, having some new features of remarkable importance and strength. First of all, the nucleus-crew system was introduced; that meant putting ships in reserve with two-fifths of the ordinary crew. The second element, which led directly to the new proposals, was the emergency battleships and cruisers, of which the personnel had been great change that took place in 1904. I fully provided. There were two battle- have been giving a history of the facts ships or cruisers in each of the three which led up to the constitution of the ports. Then there was the concentration Home Fleet, and I must show the House its at home, and the special reserve. I am future. We are dealing only with the told that in 1904 the Admiralty came to first phase of the Home Fleet. There are the conclusion that the strength of the other phases, and I am informed by the sea-going fleets was greater than strate- responsible officers that the organisation gical necessities required. Under the of the Home Fleet will not be complete system established by the great reforms until May, 1908. So that is only the of 1904, however, when the Atlantic and first stage of the Home Fleet. I submit Channel Fleets were away from home, on that statement the House would be there were no fully-manned ships in home, satisfied that the constitution of the Home waters. The great developments which the Fleet is not proposed by us, but that it Admiralty have made during the last six follows not only in chronological, but also months have been fully described in the in logical, sequence upon the reforms which memorandum submitted by my noble, took place in 1904. At all events it is friend the First Lord of the Admiralty. put forward by the Admiralty as being, in The great outlying fleets will be reduced in their opinion, the best for the redistribustrength, not below what they ought to tion of ships and men in the Navy. The be, but below what they have been up to chief feature, obviously, is the concentrathe present. The China battleship feet tion of strength in home waters, and its was brought home a short time ago. chief result will be the additional Having in hand these redundant vessels security of the people of these islands of the larger fleets, and having ships against what I believe is their only in commission in reserve, what the danger, and that, I hope, not a serious Admiralty has done is to amalgamate the one, viz., that of sudden raid. It may remaining divisions into one home be an imaginary danger, but I would division-an amalgamation of all the forces not engaged in the sea-going fleets into one whole. There is the Nore division, consisting of six battleships, six cruisers, forty-eight destroyers, and all the attendant small craft, fully manned. Then those which are not fully manned, and which remain at Portsmouth and Devonport under the nucleus-crew system, will have their crews strengthened. In some of the ships the nucleus will be raised from two-fifths to threefifths, and there will be a supply on a sliding scale of nucleus crews. Then, instead of the special reserve ships, which were of very doubtful utility, provision is made that special-service ships, meaning thereby ships available in time of war for special duties, shall be ready at four days notice if required. MR. ARTHUR LEE: Is the right hon. Gentleman referring to the Royal Sovereign" class? *MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: Yes, that class would be included, no doubt. This new category of vessels for special service takes the place of what was called the special reserve. I submit that the whole of these proposals are the logical development and consequence of the VOL. CLXX. [FOURTH SERIES.] not enter on that question; still, whether imaginary or not, I think the people of these islands have some right to consideration on that point. I will only add that the other fleets are not reduced, in the opinion of the Admiralty advisers, below the strength proper to the situation at the present moment. The Channel Fleet, in particular, I am told, is essentially stronger than it has been since 1905. Speaking generally, all the fleets will be kept up to strength by the system of reliefs which will be established from the ships of the Home Fleet. It was argued at one time, with a certain show of force, that by moving a certain number of battleships and cruisers from what are called the sea-going fleets, and putting them into the Home Fleet, we were reducing what is called the sea-time-the amount of time of the fleet in practice at sea. As to that I have been careful to obtain correct official figures. I asked my advisers for a comparison between the sea-time of the Home Fleet and that of the other fleets, at the present time and some years ago; and also, if possible, between the seatime of our own fleet and that of a foreign fleet. I am told that a typical sea-going fleet, like the Mediterranean Fleet, now spends about 40 per cent. 2 A more time at sea than it did six years ago. That is proved by the actual hours under way. The Home Fleet, including the nucleus crew ships, will now be at sea about 70 per cent. of the time spent at sea by the sea-going fleets; therefore their sea service will be on a par with that of the sea-going fleets six years ago. Although a certain *MR. ARTHUR LEE (Hampshire, Fareham) said he did not propose to go into detail wi h regard to the financial aspect of the question, because the late Chancellor of the Exchequer would be able to deal with it more completely. The right hon. Gentleman had taken credit for the fact that the Shipbuilding Vote, which practically determined the number of vessels have been withdrawn magnitude of the rest of the Estimates, from the Channel, Mediterranean, and Atlantic Fleets and attached to the Home now stood lower than it had done at Fleet, yet on the whole the work of both any time during the last nine years. officers and men at sea has increased. But he had altogether left out of The large number of men formerly in account the abnormal good fortune the barracks and training establishments, which the Government had enjoyed from the practical suspension of foreign who get no sea work at all, have now been put into the Home Fleet, where shipbuilding programmes through causes they will get 70 per cent. of the sea which were well known to the right hon. work to be got in the other fleets. A Gentleman, and which could not be comparison may be made with a foreign expected to be permanent. He was navy. I have taken one, the name of most anxious to avoid anything like which, however, I prefer not to give. Party or captious criticism, but there were The result is that their sea-time stands certain portions of the Government to ours as one to 3-25. That, I think, is policy which it was difficult to understand, a sufficient answer to the apprehension which had not yet been clearly explained, that we are ruining the Navy by and which in the absence of further establishing a Home Fleet. The only explanation were bound to call forth other criticism which seems to have had severe criticism from many quarters. any effect on the public mind is one by He did not propose on this occasion to which it is implied that it is to be an deal with two most important questions, insufficient and undermanned Home namely, naval works and the abrupt Fleet. The idea seems to be that all the termination of the system of building ships and men of the Navy should be under loans and the shipbuilding proengaged in constant sea practice in the gramme. Those were points which would same way as the sea-going fleet. If all be dealt with better on Vote 10 and the ships of the Navy were fully manned, on the Shipbuilding Vote itself later on in order to have the same amount of sea in the session. Often the estimates of the practice as the sea-going fleet, that Government at this period did not agree would mean an addition to the Navy with what was actually proposed in the Estimates of £4,000,000 a year. It has also been represented that we are making Shipbuilding Vote, and so he would reserve his detailed criticism upon those these changes in order to cheapen the Navy. I wish I could give the House an the programme agreed with what was points. Speaking generally, however, assurance that there will be savings. I hope there may be some, but I fear they forecast last year. The Opposition made will not be considerable. At any rate I their protest then against the reduction have not been able to get any reliable from the Cawdor standard, and it was figures as to the probable financial useless for him to repeat that protest. But since then a new fact had arisen in result of the changes which we propose. I have now explained the finances of the the loss of the "Montagu." At the Navy, the shipbuilding programme, and time the Shipbuilding Vote was introthe distribution of the Fleet, the three duced last year there were hopes that matters which govern naval policy; and I tha vessel would be saved, but they have only to thank the House for the kind now knew that it had been lost, and indulgence with which it has heard me. therefore the Government had really sanctioned the striking off of two battleships from the shipbuilding programme, because in the normal case the 'Montagu" would have to be replaced. Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair." Mr. Eumund Robertson. |