of this country and abroad. For the past eighteen years they were supposed to have maintained the two-Power standard, and by that it had always been understood they meant superiority over the joint navies of any two-Powers. There was an admirable definition of it in the Amendment put down by the hon. Member for King's Lynn. He hoped that Amendment would be pressed to a division if no assurance was given on the subject by the Government. That view of the two-Power standard was never challenged by any Party or Government in this House until last July. The Prime Minister himself held the view up to a short time ago that our Navy should be equal to that of any two other Powers. In a speech which the right hon. Gentleman made a few years ago he said

that

"He accepted the doctrine that our Fleet should equal any other two Fleets in the world."

But that was not what the Secretary to the Admiralty had said to-day, nor was it what the Prime Minister said in July last. The right hon. Gentleman used language then which caused considerable anxiety among the friends of the Navy. The right hon. Gentleman said

"When you talk of the two-Power standard, after all you cannot keep out of your mind who the two Powers are.

and he added

"I do not object to the two-Power standard as a rough guide, but this is a two-Power standard of almost a preposterous kind."

out

to

as our maximum strength also; but let
us not make ourselves ridiculous in
the eyes of the world by going before
the Conference with the bait of one
Dreadnought" which might be
dropped if other Powers cut
something else, as if we were putting
out a piece of toasted cheese
catch unwary mice. The other Powers
were not unwary, and they would not
be fooled in tha way. He hoped the
Prime Minister, when at the Conference
he held out that bait to the other
Powers, would be able to obtain some
result
in
suspending shipbuilding.
He expressed that hope quite as strongly
as the right hon. Gentleman could, but
he did not believe that any such thing
was possible.

Now he came to what he might call the domestic side of the problem, wi h which the Secretary to the Admiralty had dealt at considerable length, namely, the distribution of the existing fleets. So far as that distribution was merely strategic he need hardly say that he would make no observations upon it. That must be left to the sole discretion of the Sea Lords, and possibly the Defence Committee. But in this case the redistribution had involved serious reductions in the seagoing fleets, and particularly the Channel Fleet, which had been reduced from seventeen battleships to fourteen, and from six cruisers to four. There had been corresponding reductions in the Mediterranean and Atlantic Fleets. What were the new circumstances which had arisen since last year to justify those reductions in the sea-going fleets? The right hon. Gentleman spoke of certain "redundant ships in those fleets, but he did not explain why they were redundant.

That was in comple e contradiction of his previous utterance on the subject. It was an entirely new definition of the two-Power standard, and introduced into it the fatal elements of uncertainty, fluctuation, and dependence on diplomacy. He hoped that the Government would MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: What find it possible to make a definite declara- I meant to say was that as to the tion that they would stand by the two-strategical question the Admiralty have Power standard as always hitherto for some time been of opinion that the understood by the House. Surely it sea-going fleets strongwould be safer and simpler if we stronger than the strategical wants of were to stick to the old, ha'lowed the day demanded. and well understood definition of that standard. Surely it would be more honest if we went before The Hague Conference saying that we regarded the two-Power standard as our minimum strength, and, if the Government liked, Mr. Arthur Lee.

were too

*MR. LEE said that was a policy which he never heard of when he was at the Board of Admiralty. It might have been arrived at since. At any rate, the naval strength of our chief rivals had

afloat would

contend that the Home Fleet as at present constituted would possibly be equal in efficiency to the sea-going fleets. The Commander-in-Chief lived ashore, and he would like to ask Sir Arthur Wilson whether that was the proper place for the Commanderin-chief of a fighting fleet. In passing he would like to express the satisfaction of those who had been

not been reduced in past years. He did not say that they had been greatly increased but, during the last year, two battleships of the "Deutsch land" class had been added to the active fleet of the German Navy. The Admiralty might have good reasons for these reductions, but he thought the right hon. Gentleman ought to tell the House what they were. That brought them to the whole question of secrecy. at the Admiralty at the promotion He supported the right hon. Gentleman of that gallant officer, thus securing last year in his desire to keep con- his service to the country on the fidential the designs of new ships. But active list for another five years. there was a point at which secrecy and Could the right hon. Gentleman proreticence could become positively harm- duce any competent expert who would ful to the Admiralty and the country admit that any fleet was really efficient at large. He thought that on the matter for active naval warfare unless it was of hese reductions they should have a constantly exercised at sea, and unless the full statement. The right hon. Gentleman captains of the various ships knew the capahad also dealt with the vexed question of bilities of each other and of the different the Home Fleet. He had stated that the ships in the squadron? The right hon. Admiralty had been subjected to a "ran- Gentleman had told the House that this corous Press" campaign which often was fleet was to be at sea 70 per cent. of the not well informed. He did not wish time spent at sea by the other seagoing himself to engage in it. He thought it fleets. Surely that was an admission of its had been largely owing to misunder- inferiority. The Nore division, which had had been largely owing to misunder- been described as an emergency division, standings, which had been increased by should at any rate be kept up to the the unofficial defenders of the Admiralty; standard of efficiency of the Channel and who in many cases had merely deepened other Fleets. But he now understood that the obscurity and made. confusion the intention of the Admiralty was that worse confounded." If explanations the Home Fleet should really be in the were needed, would it not have been nature of a reserve, and that it was merely better that the Admiralty should make the old Reserve Fleet renamed and rethem officially, rather than inspire un- arranged. He understood from the right official defenders outside to carry out the hon. Gentleman that it was not intended task-a task for which very often they to compare in war efficiency with the seawere incompetent, and in the pursuit of going fleets. He thought it was imwhich, with the best intentions, they often portant that that point should be made showed a great deal more zeal than absolutely clear to the country, so that knowledge. The points under con- there should be no reliance placed upon it troversy had really never been made as a first line in case of emergency. clear by the Admiralty, and he thought Another matter which the right hon. that a great deal of the criticism had Gentleman did not make clear, although it consequently been justified. The Ad- was referred to in the statement of the miralty had never made clear whether First Lord, was that a large portion of the the Home Fleet was to be the first line Home Fleet was not available, and could of defence or the reserve. The right not be available, for a long time to come, as hon. Gentleman had cleared up that it was to undergo large repairs and refits. point to a large extent this afternoon. It That was a matter which should have been had been hastily concluded in made clear when the right hon. Gentlequarters that the Home Fleet was in- man was talking of the present strength tended as the first line of defence. He of those fleets. The point that many of did not think any competent authority those friendly to the Admiralty could not would have defended the keeping of the understand was why the newest and best first line of defence on the nucleus crew ships were to be drafted, as completed, basis. The reasons were obvious. He to the Home Fleet, instead of to the seadid not think that any responsible officer going Channel Fleet. Surely the best

66

many

ships ought to be concentrated in the first building submarines as had been originfighting line. It was this strange policy ally intended. The report made by the of placing the best ships in the reserve First Lord regarding the health of that had led to the greater portion cadets at Osborne College was a very of the criticism which the right serious matter, affecting as it did the hon. Gentleman said had largely arisen whole rising generation of naval officers. from misunderstandings. He feared that It was significant that no similar epithe Admiralty, in their anxiety to get the demics had occurred at the sister college fullest credit for creating the Home Fleet, at Dartmouth. The epidemics consisted had been trying to represent it as both a of only two kinds, and he had heard it first line and a reserve. But there was stated that they were due to the same this danger in connection with the creation cause, the disintegration into fine dust of of the Home Fleet, that it might encourage the surface of the uralite, of which the the more frequent absence of the Channel buildings were made. He would be Fleet from home waters for diplomatic very glad if the Civil Lord could give reasons. Only the other day Lord Lovat elicited the disquieting statement that there was not a single battleship in full commission in British waters or within three days of British waters at that time. He certainly hoped the establishment of the Home Fleet would not lead the Admiralty to yield to diplomatic or other pressure to allow the Channel Fleet to be kept at a distance from home waters in view of the possibility which always existed of an unexpected raid against this country. The whole secret of naval success, as shown by the recent war in the Far East, was to strike sudden and unexpected blows. Surely that lesson was well understood by all our naval rivals, and particularly by those who were inferior to us in strength and could only possibly achieve success by such means. He had talked this question over with many sea officers outside the Admiralty. While they had nothing but praise for the improvement effected by the reorganisation of the Reserve Fleet, they were unanimous, as far as he could judge, in the opinion that the newest and best ships ought to be drafted into the Channel Fleet and that as many of the newest and best ships as possible should be concentrated under our chief fighting admiral. The first line should consist of the best ships, which should be kept in front of the Reserve Fleet; the second line should consist of second best ships and be kept behind. There were one or two other points to which he wished to draw attention. As to the laying down of a fast unarmoured cruiser in Pembroke Dockyard, he thought it had been under stood that the laying down of this class of ship had been abandoned for good. If the real purpose were to delay the demise of a moribund dockyard, he did not see why that could not be as well fulfilled by Mr. Arthur Lee.

the House some information on that subject. Surely in the interests of the cadets and of the public it would be better to rebuild the premises with brick, if necessary, rather than to construct a large new infectious hospital. Another point raised by the First Lord in his statement was the excessive cost to parents of the courses of tuition at Osborne. He confessed that he was astonished to see a practical appeal by the First Lord to private charity to make it possible for cadets coming from the poorer classes to go to Osborne. If the Government thought it desirable that in future officers should be obtained from a great number of classes they ought to reduce the fees at Osborne, instead of suggesting that the cost should be borne by some one else. And yet they actually proposed that local authorities should undertake to pay fees for naval cadets from their districts; in other words, that these cadets should be put on the rates. He did not think such a suggestion was worthy of a great Department. He hoped for a clear declaration from the Government of what they officially understood by the two-Power standard. They ought to know that before they considered the question of going to The Hague Conference with a reduction of our programme.

THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Sir H. CAMPBELL BANNERMAN,Stirling Burghs): I intervene only for a few moments owing to the very pointed reference the hon. Member who has just sat down made to me at the beginning of his speech. I wish, before dealing with what he said, to express my admiration of the way in which my right hon. friend has introduced these Estimates. I

remember a very experienced and observant public servant, part of whose duty it was to be present on these occasions either for the Army or the Navy, who told me once that he had never heard a speech made on either of those classes of Estimates that was not immediately pronounced from the opposite side of the House to be a most lucid statement. "Lucid" is supposed to be the regulation compliment. My right hon. friend was more than lucid; he was thoroughly businesslike; there was less make-weight in his speech, I think, than in any speech to which I have listened. It was really a model of Parliamentary oratory, if oratory is the proper word to employ. The hon. Member who has just spoken plunged into the question of The Hague Conference and the international policy of this country. I do not know whether the hon. Member can be taken as representing the policy or opinion of the Front Bench opposite. I am sorry if it is so. To choose him for that purpose was, I think a little extraordinary, because I remember only a year or two ago the hon. Member made one of the most indiscreet and improper speeches. [OPPOSI TION cries of "Oh."]. I withdraw the word "improper"; I say incorrect.

I said last year was pretty much to this effect, to deprecate a too slavish use of a useful phrase such as this, which I entirely accepted myself. Supposing we were at any time to be in close alliance with the two-Powers with the largest navies-however close that alliance may be, however almost inconceivable it would be that we were to be on bad termsshould we still rigidly adhere to this two-Power standard [OPPOSITION cries of "Yes"] and go on putting down ship for ship if one or other of these Powers went on building? We have not arrived at that stage of things yet. When we do arrive at it I think there will be a good deal of difference of opinion on the subject. Generally speaking, I agree with the two-Power standard, as I said last year, as a roughand-ready method by which we test our naval strength. But then the hon. Member is full of regret that we have gone as far as we have and that I in particular have gone as far as I have gone in commending to the world a cessation of this rivalry of armaments, which I believe to be an insufferable burden. He regards it as ridiculous to attempt to get any hearing for such a strange doctrine at The Hague Conference. The Hague Conference may be said to be the inven*MR. ARTHUR LEE: Incorrectly re- was the very first subject brought before tion of the Emperor of Russia, and what ported, yes.

can

The Hague Conference, and what was the main topic which was the justification. for calling it together? It was this very question of reducing the rate of extravagant military expenditure among the Powers. I do not believe that what was a proper and indeed the main topic of discussion on that occasion can be altogether ridiculous and out of place five years afterwards, when the world has, I hope, grown, rather than fallen off, in wisdom. I can assure the hon. Member that I have said nothing on the subject calculated to give offence to any one. The hon. Gentleman said that I spoke of the British Navy as being instituted for purposes of peace. He declared that others could say the same, and said "Why even the German Emperor professes to be a friend of peace."

SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: That was the hon. Gentleman's mis fortune. As it was reported it was a most provoking speech towards a great European Power with whom we were on good terms and still remain on good terms, and I remember I asked at the time whether the head of the Government had yet rebuked him. At all events he calls upon me, and in the first place he brings up the old story of the two-Power standard. I am entirely in favour of the two-Power standard, but we must not think that we are either doing enough or two much in talking about the two-Power standard. My hon. friend has proved that we are far beyond the two-Power standard. He has proved that we are perfectly safe from any infringement of that test for the next three and a half *MR. LEE: I said nothing of the years. Therefore, for us to spend our time in an academic discussion whether kind. I quoted from a telegram from the the two-Power standard is a good thing German Navy League to the German or a bad thing seems rather foolish. What Emperor.