"I want to see the British Navy still stronger than it is, a fighting instrument always ready to strike, for then it is almost certain it will not be called upon to strike."

The righ hon. Gentleman went down to Brighton on 8th December, 1906, and in a speech he delivered there said

"The expenditure on our Navy might be set against those foreign Powers who laid out their resources in taking two years of the best period of the lives of their young men for compulsory service."

of

war.

The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs speaking at the Eighty Club, in 1905, found fault with the late Government for having reduced the naval expenditure when they ought to have begun with the Army Estimates. Since that time there had been a further large reduction in the Naval expenditure. In all his election speeches he had urged that economies should be effected on the Army and not on the Navy. The last general election was fought on the cheap loaf, and he indulged in the usual literature about the big and little loaf, but did any hon. Member lead his constituents to believe that by that cry he meant a cheap loaf in time peace and a famine loaf in war? What the electors wanted was a big loaf all the year round, both in peace and He adopted, at the last election, the motto of "Peace, Retrenchment, and Reform," but he failed to see how they could secure peace without a strong Navy, and the more the Government reduced the naval margin of supremacy the more would every alarmist force them to provide home defences such as Cobden inveighed against in vain, and to incur greater expenditure. Before 1900 this country built in excess of requirements, but since the South African War we had been under-building. Since the South African war we had built thirteen fewer battleships than America and Germany combined. The hon. Member for Falkirk Burghs who made a number of comparisons, had carefully and skilfully avoided making any mention of the ships which were building. Obviously, in discussing a shipbuilding programme, it was necessary to consider what would be the position three years hence and not merely the Mr. Bellairs.

to be on a

the fourteen years prior to the South African War. Since we wasted a large amount of money on that war we had laid down nine fewer ships than France and Germany. The ships we built then were becoming obsolete in their style of armour, which was not carried along the The water line at the bow and stern. French and German ships were all armoured on the water line. He did not think any naval officer would like, during an engagement, ship which was not so armoured. He knew it was the usual course to describe those who advocated expenditure on armaments as Jingoes. [An HON. MEMBER: Quite right."] An hon. Member agreed. Those who boasted in the words of the Jingo song, "We've got the ships," were the hon. Members who wanted to cut down the Navy. He and his friends merely drew the attention of the country to the danger of the policy that was being adopted. He did not for a moment say that the present naval programme would involve the country in absolute danger, but it would involve the Liberal Party in a very much increased expenditure next year. They were only postponing the expenditure. Would hon. Members, who said that money was wanted for social reforms, state plainly that the Navy would never get back the money, because it would all be given to old-age pensions and other schemes? Nobody hoped to save £25,000,000 on the Navy. He begged to move.

MR. COWAN (Surrey, Guildford), in seconding the Motion, said it was essential that the House should make the declaration it contained in order that the position of the House of Commons and of the Government might be clearly defined. The strength of the Navy was not a Party question. It was not a question for experts only. Experts, he feared, only bewildered plain people by drawing the most varying conclusions from the same set of facts. The decisions of experts must be followed as to details in regard to such matters as the sort of ships which ought to be built and the disposition of the Fleets. But the relative strength of our Navy to the navies of other Powers was a political and not

a technical question. Therefore he ventured to say something about it because it was one on which every Member of the House was, he thought, bound to have an opinion. It seemed obvious that there ought to be some standard of naval strength. He came to the House pledged to support the Government in maintaining our absolute naval supremacy. He readily admitted that our Naval force at the present time was ample in every way. He accepted the almost unvarying testimony of experts on that point. The position of the Prime Minister had been misrepresented. It had been stated that the right hon. Gentleman repudiated the two-Power standard, and it was believed that, in going into The Hague Conference shortly, the Government contemplated agreeing to drastic reductions in our forces. It did not depend on the action of other Powers, even if they were wise enough to accept the advice of our Prime Minister. We would not go into the Conference, proclaiming, as an hon. Gentleman on the other side of the House had suggested, that we intended to adhere to the twoPower standard. That was a matter for ourselves alone. We would go into the Conference with an enormous preponderance of naval power, and we would claim that all reductions made by other Powers should be proportionate. The Leader of the Opposition had referred to the fact that while we were going to the other Powers and saying that we had reduced our naval and military expenditure so much, we at the same time had not reduced the fighting power or efficiency of the forces. The right hon. Gentleman represented that to be insincere. If we had reduced expenditure on armaments and increased their efficiency, it was because that, under successive Governments, and especially the late Government, we had been wasting money and not getting value for it. Were they to be told that other Powers would not believe us when we said that we were prepared to make other reductions in the same proportion? He believed that other nations would not distrust us in that way. It was quite a mistake to say that, because to-day we were on terms of friendship with particular Powers, we could leave them out of sight in our calculations.

We had formed friendships with the great French nation before now, but those friendships had evaporated and been succeeded by very regrettable relations. Once more the relations of the two countries were all that could be desired, but who would say it was impossible that those relations should change? And So with all naval Powers. We were bound to consider that every friend might become an enemy and every enemy a friend. Therefore, to make our preparations as if the friendly relations of to-day were always to continue was to gamble with the national safety. The Labour Party opposite, when they protested against the money spent on national defence in order that large funds might be available for social reform, failed to realise that what was involved in this matter was nothing less than the question of the destruction of our commerce and the reduction of our working-class population to destitution.

Amendment proposed

To leave out from the word That,' to the end of the Question, in order to add the affirms its adherence words this House to the two-Power standard of naval strength, as defined by successive Cabinets to mean that

the annual shipbuilding programme should be framed so as to give the British Navy a margin of superiority over the two strongest

naval Powers in the number of efficient armoured ships intended to be used as battleships, together with such a superiority in the number of efficient cruisers as will enable them adequately to perform their work as scouts, look-out vessels, and commerce defenders in a war with the two strongest naval Powers.' "—(Mr. Bellairs.)

Question proposed, "That the words. proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN : My hon. friend the Member for King's Lynn rose to move this Amendment just after my right hon. friend in charge of the Estimates had appealed to the House to allow the Speaker to leave the Chair in order that the discussion might be continued in Committee. That is the usual course on such an occasion, and I feel that the appeal of my right hon. friend was a most reasonable one. In Committee there will be no restriction whatever on the opportunity for discussion; in fact there are more facilities

then for full discussion of these Estimates and on naval policy generally than with the Speaker in the chair. I do not see what my hon. friend has gained by resisting the appeal of my right hon. friend, an appeal which appeared to be generally approved in every quarter of the House. He has made a most interesting speech, being a man peculiarly well informed on all these subjects. He has quoted a number of speeches of members of the Government; I do not know whether he honoured me in that way, but I do not invite him to do so. That could have been done in Committee. The only thing that could not have been done in Committee is to move an Amendment to the Motion that the Speaker leave the Chair on the Navy Estimates. Such an Amendment is a Motion of want of confidence in the Government. Even if the Government agreed with its terms, and they do entirely agree with its spirit, they would be obliged to resist it, because it is their duty to forward the business of the House. I do not think my hon. friend has apprehended what would be the effect of his Motion, and I appeal to him to be content with the speech he has made and to withdraw his Resolution. The hon. Gentleman has put his view before the House, and he can do so again more fully if he choose in Committee.

MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN (Worcestershire, E.): I regret very much that the Prime Minister should have treated this Motion in the manner he has done. I venture to dissent from the view that the Amendment must be regarded as a vote of want of confidence in the Government. Surely it is possible for the Government, without prolonging debate, to place on record this considered opinion of the House, and then at once set up again the Motion that the Speaker leave the Chair. I cannot believe the debate will be shortened by rejecting a Motion of this kind when once it has been placed formally before the House and we are entitled to express an opinion upon it. It would be a grievous thing if a Motion of this kind became a subject of division in the House when in substance we are all agreed. I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to accept the Amend

ment.

Sir H. Campbell-Bannerman.

*CAPTAIN HERVEY (Bury St. Edmunds) said it was well known in the House that he was an upholder of the two-Power standard as understood by naval men, and as would be put forward by the Lords of the Admiralty had they the chance of expressing their opinion in the House. He was sorry that the Prime Minister had last session thrown any doubt on our position in this matter. The right hon. Gentleman had stated that he believed in the two-Power . standard in spirit, but what naval men wanted was a two-Power standard in ships and men. The Prime Minister had given them a two-Power standard in neither ships nor men in any of his speeches. He had in the Estimates cut down the Shipbuilding Vote and, what was infinitely worse, had reduced the number of men by 1,000. The twoPower standard must be a twoPower standard of ships properly manned by efficient men. He thought the Amendment ought to be supported unless the Prime Minister would agree not only in spirit but in practice to the two-Power standard.

MR. BELLAIRS said that in answer to the appeal of the Prime Minister he would ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Main Question again proposed.

MR. SAMUEL ROBERTS (Sheffield, Ecclesall) said he wou'd like to make a few remarks in regard to the two-Power standard. He thought that the debate had been most useful, because it had displayed the anxiety which had been caused by the statements of the Prime Minister last July and of the Secretary to the Admiralty that afternoon, in which they had seemed to wish to put a different construction on the two-Power standard from that generally held. They had heard some speeches that afternoon which would not meet with much popularity in the country; and he could quote many speeches made by hon. Gentlemen opposite showing that they would not welcome the reduction of expenditure on the Navy. The Secretary for War said in 1902 that the country

could not afford to diminish the Estimate, which amounted to only 3 per cent. of the estimated value of our commerce, and the hon. Member for Cardiff said in 1905, when the Estimates were more than now, that he did not desire any decrease in the expenditure on the Navy. The question was whether they were keeping up the two-Power standard of the new type. All were agreed that the change to the new type had altered the position. They could not tell until war actually took place as to what effect these big vessels would have in a sea battle, or whether they would be put out of action by a former class of vessels. If that were the case it was all-important that the two-Power standard should be kept up. A most interesting article had appeared in The Times that morning as to ship building. He had gone carefully into the figures as to the number of ships which were being built by Japan, the United States, France, Germany, and England. All the vessels mentioned were larger than the "Dreadnought," some of them much larger. Japan would have four of the new type, the United States four, France six, Germany five, and we should have six. Our position would consequently fall below the two-Power standard with regard to those large vessels. There was no doubt the lesson taught by the experience of the RussoJapanese War was that it was the large battleships and the large guns with the long range which gave Admiral Togo the great advantage of being able to keep the Russian Navy inside Port Arthur. He was therefore glad to see that the Prime Minister had modified the opinion which he expressed last year. [Sir H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN dissented. He noticed the Prime Minister shook his head, but in July last he told them that it was preposterous to adhere to the old ideas of the two-Power standard, and said they must have regard to the conditions which prevailed from time to time. In his opinion, it would be ridiculous if that principle were admitted. They all knew that friendships and alliances came about between Powers and individuals one day and disappeared the next, and that, although our relations with a foreign Power might be all right for the time being, they might easily be disturbed. It would be absurd, therefore, to base

our Fleet upon the circumstances which existed at a particular time. He desired to call attention to the proportion of ships to be built under contract as compared with those which were to be built in the Royal dockyards. He found that in the last few years the proportion of ships which had been given. out to contract was much smaller than formerly, and that the proportion built in the Royal dockyards was much larger. This year it was proposed to lay down two ships of the "Dreadnought" type, and one more if The Hague Conference was not successful. Two of those ships were to be laid down in the Royal dockyards and one alone was to go to private contractors. He thought that was hardly a fair proportion. It had to be remembered that the private yards were a great national asset. They were built for the purpose of providing ships when the nation wanted them, and it would be a great mis. fortune to discourage the expenditure of capital upon them. The number of ships given out to private contract as contrasted with the number of ships built in the dockyards had of late years very much decreased, and he appealed to the Admiralty to take care that orders were dealt out with even-handed justice as between the Royal dockyards and the private yards. Finally, he wished to impress upon the House the great importance of not making this question of the supremacy of the Fleet a Party question, because our very exis:ence depended upon it. Our vast Empire extended all over the world, and we occupied one-fourth of the land in the world. Seventy-five per cent. of our bread stuffs and 40 per cent. of our meat had to be imported, and our mercantile marine equalled in tonnage that of all the rest of the world put together. Then, again, quite apart from protecting our commerce, a strong Navy was a mos effective weapon in war. There was no doubt that our Navy kept "hands off" during the South African War, and it had been proved over and over again in history that the country which had won in any conflict was that one which had a strong Navy. He had great pleasure in supporting the view expressed by the Prime Minister, but congratulated the hon. Member for King's Lynn, although he had withdrawn his Amendment, on having