Boland, John Brigg, John Brown, George M. (Edinburgh) Campbell, John (Armagh, S.) Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark) Flavin, Michael Joseph Jones, D. Brynmor (Swansea) Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall) Lyell, Charles Henry M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North) Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen) Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.) Murphy, John Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (Manch'r Blundell, Colonel Henry Nannetti, Joseph P. Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South) NOES. Davenport, William Bromley- | Dickinson, Robert Edmond Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir William Hart Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick Reddy, M. Redmond, John E. (Waterfora) Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion) Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland) Shackleton, David James Sheehan, Daniel Daniel Sheehy, David Shipman, Dr. John G. Spencer, Rt. Hn. C. R(Northants Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe) TELLERS FOR THE AYES-Mr. Courtenay Warner and Mr. Dalziel. Hay, Hon. Claude George Heath, Arthur Howard(Hanley Heath, James (Staffords, N.W. Henderson, Sir A.(Stafford, W.) Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T. Hickman, Sir Alfred Hope, J. F.(Sheffield, Brightside King, Sir Henry Seymour Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm. Martin, Richard Biddulph Maxwell, W.J.H (Dumfriesshire Morrison, James Archibald Platt-Higgins, Frederick Pym, C. Guy Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne Ridley, Hon. M. W.(Stalybridge Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Lancs.) Original Question again proposed. the Tuff, Charles TELLERS FOR THE NOES- the gallant Admiral who had fallen. Though they did not yet know all the facts, they did know that one of the Russian ships was sunk by one of her own submarine mines. Surely, then, it was time for us to wake up to the importance of this question and the policy of submarine mines, first, as regards its applicability on an extensive scale to British ports; and second, of the necessity of having them in the hands, not of soldiers, but of men who had received a naval training. *SIR JOHN COLOMB said that cost of submarine services charged on this Vote amounted this year to £73,000, which shewed a reduction on last year of £37,700. He welcomed that reduction, if it were an indication of a change of policy with regard to submarine mines in the hands of soldiers. He felt very strongly on this question of submarine mines. The whole policy of submarine mines was to close ports. That might be a good policy for a weak nation, but not for a great sea Empire like ours, whose policy should be to keep our ports open. It had been plainly shown during peace operations that soldiers, knowing nothing of ships, were not the people to handle such weapons as submarine mines. He remembered a story told by Lord Charles Beresford that he once got a message from a military officer saying, "For God's sake take your ship out of that position, because it is on the top of one of my submarine mines." In this connection he could not help referring to events passing in the Far East, and expressing the sympathy they all felt for the gallant men who had suffered a great disaster, and the duties which had to be carried out SIR CHARLES DILKE said that his right hon. and gallant friend seemed to think that they might be faced with the fact that in the event of war the British Army would be the gravest enemy of the British Navy. The difficulty of soldiers recognising their own ships was known to all sailors. It was almost impossible to teach the soldiers not only in this country, but in other countries, to distinguish the ships of their own fleet from foreign ships. The question, however, was one obviously of the greatest difficulty. There was a tendency at the present time to rely on mining for the defence of ports, but he agreed that on water would probably be better con- defences were controlled by the Army, ducted by men trained to the sea than and to which access was imperatively by the Royal Engineers, and he was sure demanded at any hour of the night or that the Secretary for War, who had day by the ships of the Navy. His view been connected with both services, would was that a solution would ultimately be give the question his earnest attention. found by an arrangement in the direction he had indicated, that the defence of maritime ports would be in the hands of the maritime authority, who alone could work in full sympathy with naval commanders and be acquainted with tides and other matters in relation to seamanship and naval requirements, while the defence of fortresses qua fortresses would be left in the hands of the Army. If he had been betrayed into speaking his mind openly on this question, he hoped his words would not be interpreted into a statement that the question was in a state when such an arrangement could be adopted; but he hoped consideration might result in an arrangement more satisfactory to his hon. and gallant friend than the one which was so distasteful to him and which was so little based on the true theory and practice of war. *MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER said he would answer the question at once. This was one of the most important questions touched upon that evening. The reduction of the Vote was the result of the suspension of the policy hitherto prevailing, and was in consequence of the decision arrived at that the matter should be investigated before the system was indefinitely prolonged. He did not think, however, that the right hon. Gentleman was justified in saying that in the event of war the British Army might prove the greatest enemy of the British Navy. If there was a danger, he thought that it was more likely to be created by the Navy than by the Army. On behalf of the Department he could say that nothing would be more congenial to the views of the War Office than that it should be divested of the duty of controlling the naval defence of strictly naval ports. The subject was one of great difficulty, and it could only be satisfactorily solved by an agreement between the two services, which was likely to be effected through the Committee of Defence. As to the mixed defence of a maritime port, he had in his mind many specific instances of ports which in war must be used principally by the Navy, and he drew a distinction between these ports and other commercial ports occasionally used by the ships of the Navy." That a sum, not exceeding £1,918,000, He believed that the chances of confusion be granted to His Majesty, to defray were very great in ports where the shore the Charge for the Staff for Engineer defences and the maritime submarine Services, and Expenditure for Royal SIR WILFRID LAWSON (Cornwal Camborne) asked if it was intended to ask for any more money for the Somaliland expedition? *MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER said none was asked for in this Vote. Question put, and agreed to Resolution to be reported. Motion made, and Question proposed, State had buried, or had pronounced a funeral oration over, six Army Corps. What an extraordinary contrast to the important debates which ushered them into existence! He questioned whether the subject would have been so treated. had the right hon. Gentleman's colleague, the late Secretary of State for War, been sitting in his usual place. The whole scheme was now dismissed in a contemptuous fashion. Its author had been contemptuously discarded for the present Secretary of State, and it only remained to be seen how long the new system would last. These eight divisions might be set aside the day after tomorrow, and they would have new Estimates in a new form, new works promoted on a new scale, and the country committed to more barracks as it was committed to the late scheme. He wished to call attention to the large item for the Engineer staff. So far as he understood, they were mainly Engineer officers in civil or quasi-civil employment whose services ought to be borne on the Votes for other departments. *COLONEL WELBY commented on the item for window blinds for officers' quarters. He said it was apparently an enormous sum, the expenditure of which was to be spread over four years, and he would like to know if officers themselves would have to provide renewals when the blinds were worn out. He pointed out that this item of £48,000 should show those who were in favour of providing officers with furniture, how great the cost to the country of that system was. MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSE said MR. LAMBERT (Devonshire, South that in a single sentence the Secretary of Molton) asked whether the Secretary for War could state that all expenditure for careful inquiry made into the matters construction under the Army Corps he mentioned. system had been stopped and whether any other expenditure would be incurred in putting the new scheme in force. MR. WHITLEY asked if any contracts had been entered into in connection with the Army Corps scheme which had been so suddenly stopped. MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER said that the hon. Member might understand that. MR. WHITLEY said he thought it was rather curious that the sudden stopping of the Army Corps scheme should have been announced to the House in such an informal manner. There was on the Table of the House a Resolution affirming *MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER said he entirely declined to accept the description given by the hon. Member for East Bristol of what he had just said. He was guilty of no discourtesy. He was asked a plain and simple Question and he had given a plain and simple answer, and he thought the hon. Member might have spared] him such a reflection. With regard to the barracks on Salisbury Plain, he had stopped the construction of any further infantry barracks there, in the most solemn manner that it was and also at Stobs in Scotland. He desirable to have the Army Corps thought it it was undesirable, except system. on grounds of the strictest military necessity, to quarter troops in these unattractive localities. With regard to the question of the hon. Member for South Molton, he thought there had been no cost incurred in connection with the Army Corps scheme which would become a bad debt; that was to say, no cost had been incurred which would not be use fully employed under any system which might be decided on. He could assure the hon. Member that his alarm, lest the adoption of a new system should create a new cost which would outweigh the economy likely to be effected, was unfounded. Unless all his calculations were mistaken the result of the economy would be substantial. He would take into consideration the remarks of his hon. and gallant friend the Member for Taunton, and if his hon. and gallant friend would put down a Question he would have He would, therefore, suggest that the Government should take formal action to rescind that Resolution. He desired to direct attention to the increase in Item A. for Engineers in North China. Did it indicate that a new development of policy in that country was being adopted? If so, some information should be given to the House on the subject. He would move a reduction of the item by £100. Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Item A (Salaries, etc., of the Staff for Engineer Services) be reduced by £100." (Mr. Whitley.) MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER said that Great Britain, like other Powers, was retaining a certain number of troops in China, and associated with them were some Engineer officers, who naturally came under this Vote. Question put. |