ページの画像
PDF
ePub

Parliament and the Government. This were adopted by other Powers, they had was rather a usurpation by the Board of no choice but to take them into account. Admiralty of the responsibility constitu- That was the unbroken story. We built, tionally attaching to the Government. and then others Powers with which we In all technical and professional matters, matched ourselves followed suit. Next the opinions of the Board of Admiralty year the Government would come forshould have the greatest weight; but the ward and use the fact that they had Government had to take into considera- indulged in an increase as a reason tion other matters with which the for further construction. They would professional members of the Board of cite it as a reason for 8 further Admiralty had nothing to do. In the advance; and so things went on. first place, the Government had to What was wanted was to try to stop this consider what they knew of the disposi- absurd and ruinous rivalry. The right tion and intentions of this country hon. Gentleman said that our Navy towards other countries, and of other existed for defensive purposes. Other countries among themselves and towards States could say the same of their us. They must know all that in a much navies; they existed for offensive and more deep and intimate sense than would defensive purposes. But do not let us be conveyed by the courteous phrases be so insincere with ourselves as to conusually employed in the King's Speech. ceal from ourselves the fact that this was Then the Government were also ac- the case. Undoubtedly we had a posiquainted with the financial position of tion in the world which required us, the country. They knew whether the beyond the requirements of any other country could afford all that the pro- country, to maintain our Navy in a full fessional advisers wished to see provided, state of efficiency; but were we to go on and on these grounds he declined to with this game, this constant race in accept the doctrine that the Board of armaments, without any hope of reducing Admiralty was responsible to the House them? The proposal of his hon. friend of Commons. It was the Government must commend itself to every reasonable that was responsible. From this point man-namely, that an effort should be of view as well as others he regretted the made to bring other nations into counsel absence of the Prime Minister, because in the matter in order to see whether we the right hon. Gentleman could have told could not come to an understanding to the House better than anyone else what save both them and us from the sacrifices was the view on this question of the that were evidently in front of all? The Cabinet at large, and he could have given right hon. Gentleman said that the an authoritative statement as to what Government had already done this, that might be called the naval policy of the Ministers in both Houses had made Government. The House was quite at certain statements which expressed our sea with regard to naval policy. A great willingness to the world. The late Chandeal had been said about a two-Power cellor of the Exchequer said last year standard. The investigations which he that he hoped there would be some sort had made of the figures pointed rather to of reasonable agreement between the the standard of this country being a Powers. Other Powers had said the three-Power standard. But, in any case, same thing, and France had gone further. the fact remained that according to the The Finance Minister in France had accounts now presented we were simply warned his countrymen of the extreme drifting-simply playing a game of limit of the sacrifices that could be follow-my leader, infused with a strong imposed upon them, both for land and dash of that other game "beggar-my- sea services, and on 23rd November M. neighbour." Delcassé spoke about the good relations which happily existed between most of the nations and the desire for an agreement on questions that divided them. In discussing a Motion like this, that France should take the initiative in suggesting a reduction of armaments to other

The statement of the First Lord said that the Board asked for nothing which they did not believe to be necessary; that they had avoided giving any stimulus to the expansion of armaments by the formulation of large programmes, but that when such programmes Sir II. Campbell-Bannerman.

Powers, M. Delcassé said: "France has no need to speak to the nations; she has acted for several years so that her naval and military estimates have been slightly lower." The Secretary for War laughed

MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: I said they were reduced by £400.

64

SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN said that, whatever the reduction was, the estimates were "slightly lower," and France did not increase them by £2,500,000. M. Delcassé had shown again and again what a friend of this country he was, always in subordination to his friendship and loyalty for his own country. "Other nations," M. Delcassé added, can follow her example; acts are worth more than icle words." He agreed that some of the words let fall by the right hon. Gentleman were of a satisfactory nature; but no mere repetition of what Lord Salisbury said in the House of Lords and the Prime Minister said in the House of Commons on previous occasions, which were little more than the obiter dicta of individual Ministers, could be held to take the place of the opinion of the Cabinet. They would never do any good unless they showed that they were in earnest and were sincere. He therefore regretted that the Government had not seen their way to take the moderate, reasonable, and wise step proposed in the Amendment. He would certainly support the Amendment as a demonstration of the wish which he believed to be general in this House. If the Amendment was agreed to by the House he believed that it would express the general opinion of the House better than the negative attitude which the Government seem to think sufficient.

Bench at the present' time had been lately at the War Office or the Admiralty. After the ruling given by Mr. Speaker he felt himself in a difficulty in this debate es he was debarred in consequence from entering into and referring to the absurd relations of the Colonies with reference to the enormous expenditure which this House was asked to undertake from time to time in respect to the Navy. The terms of the Resolution of the hon. Members were to call attention to the continual increase in the charges for naval expenditure; and to move

"That, in view of the heavy burdens placed upon the people of the country by this increasing expenditure

no

In this relation the expenditure must be taken to include Ireland as well as England, and from that point of view he must repeat the protest he had made year after year so long as he had been in this House. From an Irish point of view he protested against this expenditure. The people of Ireland derived advantage from it. They found it difficult even to get the service of a gunboat to protect their fisheries, nor did they derive any benefit in the shape of wages in their shipbuilding yards. In the words of the right hon. Gentleman, the Leader of the Opposition, "Where was this game going to end?" He knew there were Members of the House who did not regard an increase of £2,000,000 on the last year's Estimates as a matter of much importance, but others who had listened to such statements as had been made from the Treasury Bench after year year, regarded it in quite a different light. Not so many years ago the Naval Estimates were little more than half what they were at present, and year after year there had been the same story of millions added to the expenditure, and it was time for somebody to ask the question, "Where is this expenditure going to stop or when the limit will be reached?" What had been the result of all this expenditure? Were they any safer or more sure that if they were attacked they were any more secure in their defence? They saw only the other day how in the course of an hour, with a run of ill luck, £2,000,000 or £3,000,000 or £4,000,000 in ships might be destroyed.

MR. WILLIAM REDMOND said the Secretary of State for War no doubt felt bound to take part in this discussion owing to the office he filled at the Admiralty before he occupied his present position at the War Office. The right hon. Gentleman had twitted the House with what he termed amateur criticism, but the word amateur might, in his opinion, also be applied to the administration of the War Office and the Admiralty at the present time, having regard to the fact that all the hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on the Treasury the English point of view, though not

From

young men.

from his point of view, it was inadvisable to spend money in the reckless way in which it was spent, in the hope of being able to produce a Fleet which would dominate all the other Fleets of the world. However, if the people of this country allowed themselves to be led into a state of ruin by the young men who had now got charge of the Army and Navy Departments, all he could say was that the look-out would be bad for this country. He was in the position of protesting against this expenditure on behalf of people who were taxed against their will, but if he were the representative of the English taxpayer he would be exceedingly sorry to find the Army and Navy Departments controlled by a number of gentlemen whose personal excellence he would be the last in the world to call in question, but who were, to say the least of it, a lot of inexperienced In regard to the young man representing the Admiralty, he dared say that in the course of half-a-dozen years or so he would develop into a firstrate Government departmental official, but he might be allowed to ask without offence What did the hon. Gentleman know about the Navy when he had just arrived in his present office? He did not mean any disrespect when he said that one might take anyone from the lobby outside, a policeman for choice, and put him there. He had not the slightest intention of being disrespectful to the hon. Gentleman. He considered that the system which allowed any inexperienced Member of this House. to be promoted as the representative of a great Department was not right. He did not think it was business. If this extraordinary expenditure was to be undertaken it ought to be administered by men of knowledge and experience of the Departments. Nobody could say that he was wanting in respect, or personally offensive when he alleged that these qualities could not be possessed by the young men who had been promoted for one reason or another, without going through any probationary course at all, so far as one could judge. These reflections would not have come to his mind had it not been for the statement of the Secretary of State for War that the criticism was amateurish. In Mr. William Redmond,

regard to amateurishness the less he said the better. It was not business that they should not have in this House the head of the Navy Department. There was an expenditure propcsed of £36,500,000 on the Navy at a time when peace was supposed to prevail, and when everybody was led to believe that there would be a great curtailment of expenditure both in the Navy and Army. With the other items referred to by the hon. Member for Dundee the expenditure was brought up to £42,000,000. Why was not the head of the Department in this House? He did not speak in terms of disrespect of the First Lord of the Admiralty because he happened to be a Peer. It was not his fault, but the head of the Navy ought to be here.

*MR. SPEAKER: I would remind the hon. Member that the question before the House is the Amendment. The question whether the First Lord of the Admiralty should be in this House or the other does not arise on this Amendment.

MR. WILLIAM REDMOND said he bowed to that ruling. He had not the slightest desire to travel outside of the The references he was Amendment. making were references he had made year after year.

*MR. SPEAKER: Not on the same Amendment.

MR. WILLIAM REDMOND said there were other occasions on which he made them. He would not refer to that matter further at the present time, but he had no doubt there would be an opportunity of taking notice of something that would not be tolerated in any business firm, namely, that the officer responsible for the expenditure was not present. The Secretary of State for War had stated somewhat petulantly that the communication asked for in the Amendment had been made over and over again. There was no need for petulance in these matters. ventured to assert, without the slightest fear of contradiction, that no such communication had been entered into with any foreign Power. He wanted to know why such communications should not be

He

of this cost, which was of no use to the Irish people now, or at any other time. Question put.

entered into. Whether they believed in the bona fides of foreign Powers or not there could be no objection to asking for an interchange of opinion in this matter. He protested on behalf of the Irish taxpayers, against having to pay a farthing 122.

The House divided:-Ayes, 174; Noes, (Division List No. 30.)

[blocks in formation]

AYES.

Forster, Henry William
Foster, Philip S (Warwick,S W.
Fyler, John Arthur
Galloway, William Johnson
Gardner, Ernest
Garfit, William
Gibbs, Hon. A. G. H.
Gore Hon S. F. Ormsby-(Linc.)
Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon
Goschen, Hon. George Joachim
Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)
Gretton, John

Gall, Edward Marshall
Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.
Hamilton Rt Hn Ld G. (Midd'x
Hare, Thomas Leigh
Harris, F. Leverton (Tynem'th
Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.
Hay, Hon. Claude George

Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn Heath, James (Staffords. N. W.

Brassey, Albert

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John
Bull, William James
Butcher, John George
Campbell Rt. Hn. J A (Glasgow
Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.
Cautley, Henry Strother
Cavendish, V.Č.W. (Derbyshire
Cayzer, Sir Charles William
Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn.J.A(Worc.
Chapman, Edward
Charrington, Spencer
Clare, Octavius Leigh
Clive, Captain Percy A.
Coates, Edward Feetham

Heaton, John Henniker
Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.
Hogg, Lindsay
Hope,J F. (Sheffield, Brightside
Houston, Robert Paterson
Howard,John( Kent, Faversham
Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil
Hudson, George Bickersteth
Hunt, Rowland
Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton
Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)
Kenyon-Slaney Col. W. (Salop.
Keswick, William
Kimber, Henry

Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow) Lawrence, Sir Joseph(Monm'th) Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool) Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse Lawson, John Grant(Yorks N.R Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole Lee, Arthur H (Hants, Fareham Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage Cripps, Charles Alfred Leveson-Gower, Frederick N S Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile Lockwood, Lieut. Col. A. R. Dalkeith, Earl of Long, Col. Charles W.(Evesham Dalrymple, Sir Charles Long, Rt. Hon. Walter(Bristol,S) Davenport, William Bromley Lonsdale, John Brownlee Dewar, Sir TR (Tower Hamlets Lowe, Francis William Dickson, Charles Scott Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale) Dimsdale, Rt Hon Sir Joseph C. Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft) Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph Lucas, Reginald J (Portsmouth) Dixon-Hartland Sir Fred Dixon Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers Macdona, John Cumming Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin MacIver, David (Liverpool) Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir William Hart Maconochie, A. W. Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool) Fergusson, Rt Hn. Sir J (Manc'r M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire) Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst Majendie, James A. H. Finch, Rt. Hon. George H. Malcolm, Ian Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne Martin, Richard Biddulph Fison, Frederick William Milner, Rt. Hon. Sir Federick G. Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon Milvain, Thomas

[ocr errors]

Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)
Morgan, David J. (Walthamstow
Morrell, George Herbert
Morrison, James Archibald
Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer
Murray, Rt. Hn.A.Graham (Bute
Myers, William Henry
Nicholson, William Graham
Percy, Earl

Plummer, Walter R.
Powell, Sir Francis Sharp
Pretyman, Ernest George
Purvis, Robert
Pym, C. Guy
Ratcliff, R. F.

Reid, James (Greenock)
Richards, Henry Charles
Ridley, Hon. M.W.(Stalybridge
Ritchie, Rt Hon Chas. Thomson
Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye
Round, Rt. Hon. James
Royds, Clement Molyneux
Rutherford, John (Lancashire)
Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)
Seely, Maj.J.E.B.(Isle of Wight
Sharpe, William Edward T.
Skewes-Cox, Thomas
Sloan, Thomas Henry
Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)
Smith, James Parker (Lanarks)
Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Lancs)
Stock, James Henry
Stone, Sir Benjamin
Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley
Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)
Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)
Thornton, Percy M.
Tritton, Charles Ernest
Tuff, Charles
Valentia, Viscount
Walker, Col. William Hall
Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H.
Wanklyn, James Leslie
Warde, Colonel C. E.
Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd
Wilson-Todd, Sir W H. (Yorks)
Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R. (Bath)
Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm
Wrightson, Sir Thomas
Wylie, Alexander
Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George
Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.
Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

TELLERS FOR THE AYES-Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes.

[blocks in formation]

Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)
Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John
Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton
Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

Asquith, Rt Hn. Herbert Henry Hayden, John Patrick
Barry, E. (Cork, S.)
Blake, Edward

Boland, John

Brown, George M. (Edinburgh)
Bryce, Rt. Hon. James
Burke, E. Haviland
Burt, Thomas

Caldwell, James

Cameron, Robert

Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)
Campbell-Bannerman Sir H.
Causton, Richard Knight
Condon, Thomas Joseph

Crean, Eugene

Cremer, William Randal
Cullinan, J.

Dalziel, James Henry
Davis, Alfred (Carmarthen)
Delany, William

Devlin, Charles Ramsay(Galway
Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.)
Donelan, Captain A.
Doogan, P. C.

Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark.)
Duncan, J. Hastings
Dunn, Sir William
Elibank, Master of
Emmott, Alfred

Evans,Sir Francis H. Maidstone
Eve, Harry Trelawney

Farquharson, Dr. Robert
Farrell, James Patrick

Fenwick, Charles

Hayter Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.
Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.
Holland, Sir William Henry
Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.
Johnson, John (Gateshead)
Joyce, Michael
Kilbride, Denis
Kitson, Sir James
Labouchere, Henry
Lambert, George
Leng, Sir John
Lough, Thomas
Lundon, W.

MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.
Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.
MacVeagh, Jeremiah

M'Arthur, William (Cornwell)
M'Crae, George
M'Hugh, Patrick A.
M'Kean, John
M'Kenna, Reginald
M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)
Mooney, John J.
Nannetti, Joseph P.
Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)
O'Brien, James F. X. (Cork)
O'Brien, Kendal(TipperaryMid)
O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)
O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.)
O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W)
O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)
O'Dowd, John

O'Kelly James (Roscommon N)

Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith) O'Malley, William

Ffrench, Peter

[blocks in formation]

O'Mara, James
O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Palmer, Sir Charles M (Durham

[blocks in formation]

Partington, Oswald
Paulton, James Mellor
Power, Patrick Joseph
Rea, Russell
Reddy, M.

Redmond John E (Waterford)
Redmond, William (Clare)
Rickett, J. Compton
Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)
Robson, William (Snowdon)
Roche, John
Russell, T. W.

Samuel, Herbert L.(Cleveland)

Schwann, Charles E.

Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

Sheehy, David

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)
Slack, John Bamford
Soames, Arthur Wellesley
Spencer, Rt. Hn.C.R(Northants)
Sullivan, Donal

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)
Tennant, Harold John
Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen E.)
Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr
Toulmin, George
Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Wallace, 'Robert

Walton, John Lawson (Leeds S)
Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)
Wason, John Cathcart(Orkney)
White, Luke (York, E. R.)
Whiteley, George (York, W.R.)
Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)
Whittaker, Thomas Palmer
Wilson, John (Falkirk)
Young, Samuel

TFLLERS FOR THE NOES-
Mr. Herbert Roberts and
Mr. Buchanan.

last year to be built in private yards, he noticed from the Memorandum of the First Lord that they had been undertaken in Government yards. Under those circumstances he thought private yards had some reason to complain of the action of the Government. The number of shipbuilders who were qualified to build battleships was limited, and when it was announced that three battleships were to be put out to contract in one year, naturally some of those shipbuilders expected to execute part of the orders. The reason for the change appeared to be that the work in the Government yards had been got through at a greater rate than was expected, but it was rather hard that the private shipbuilding yards should suffer owing to a want of foresight on the part of the Government. He quite appreciated the argument that the change was necessary in order to keep the hands in the Government yards

« 前へ次へ »