MR. LOUGH: I don't believe in fire. *MR. PRETYMAN said that if the hon. Member's premises were burnt down, he thought he would be in favour of fire insurance after that. MR. YERBURGH (Chester) asked if a saving could not be effected in regard to the ships which would have to be laid aside in the event of war and their crews transferred. Admiralty for the size of the Esti- insurance. point, and it was not the one from which effected. *MR. PRETYMAN admitted that there which would be perfectly useless in time were still a certain number of sloops of war; but those ships were doing duty absolutely necessary in time of peace, though it might be possible at some future period to design vessels which would serve some purpose in war better than the sloops referred to could. The second method of reducing expenditure to which he had referred would be if a responsible Government should be able to go to the country and say that their expert advisers informed them that we could MR. LOUGH: Make a reduction of maintain the two-Power standard with £5,000,000. *MR. PRETYMAN said there were only two ways in which a large economy could be carried out First, if a responsible Government were, under the authority of the country, to say that the two-Power standard should no longer be adopted. But he believed that if there was one thing which the country was determined upon it was that the Navy should be adequate to the Navies of any other two Powers. If this country were to be engaged in a struggle for existence and the Navy was not prepared, then the country would bitterly rue any false economy. If it were true that they were not so prosperous as about four or five years ago, he did not see any adequate reason why the Navy Estimates should be reduced. To cut down the Navy fewer ships and less equipment. He did not believe the country would ever accept any amateur opinion upon the point. The country itself and the House were fully competent to judge whether or not the two-Power standard was sufficient, and that was a question easily understood. MR. LOUGH: But you are going entirely beyond the two-Power standard. *MR. PRETYMAN said he did not admit that we were now going beyond the two-Power standard. He did not think the country would ever accept any opinion, as to what was or what was not sufficient in regard to the strength of the Navy, unless it was backed up by the opinion of the experts at the Admiralty. The hon. Member for Portsmouth had asked a Question about the secondary armaments of the battleships of anxious for economy, and that the English the "King Edward VII." class, which Members had not suggested any means were equipped with 6-inch guns, of effecting economy in the Navy Estimate, four 12-inch guns, and four 9.2 in fact they had said that they were guns. His hon. friend was of the opinion anxious to have a strong Navy. He did that the Admiralty might put in a larger not care whether they had a strong or a number of 6-inch guns. The 6-inch guns weak Navy, but he thought an easy way which were being mounted in the ships of for economising would be to adopt the the "King Edward VII." class were a very policy suggested to the Russian Governpowerful gun, and enormously superior to ment by Lord Salisbury in regard to the the 6-inch gun at present in the service, building of battleships. Some of the and it would not be possible to replace Russian battleships had been disabled in them with 75 guns without a complete Port Arthur, and therefore he did not see re-design of the ships. With regard to the why this country should go on building officers of the Royal Naval Reserve, a more battleships at the present time very large proportion of them were now Although two Chilian battleships had been going through training, and many of them bought, the naval programme had only had already received it. There were been reduced by one battleship. He sug 1,550 officers of the Royal Naval Reserve gested to the Secretary to the Admiralty, all told. He thought he had now dealt in these very difficult times, when they with all the principal Questions which had were not advancing in prosperity or anybeen raised in the debate, but if any thing else, and when Ireland was suffering minor points had been omitted he hoped from very severe agricultural depression the House would allow him to reply to that £1,000,000 saving upon a battleship them in Committee. would be very acceptable both to this country and to Ireland. He would therefore suggest that the Admiralty should only put two battleships down next year MR. O'MARA said he wished to thank the Secretary to the Admiralty for the fulness with which he had answered the various Questions which had been put to him. He wished, however, to say that to those representing Ireland those answers were not satis factory, more particularly in regard to the amount of money spent. He thought if instead of three. They had heard a lot about the had been told that the colonial trade Colonies during the recess, and they with the help of the Navy. The hon. could only be carried on in time of war Gentleman opposite had told them that the Navy was a sort of fire insurance upon their trade and he was quite right. When he looked at this question from the point of view of Ireland, he could not help asking where was the oversea trade of Ireland? Foreign ships that came to Ireland were very few indeed and the oversea trade was very small, and for Ireland to pay £2,000,000, which was her proportion of the expenses of the Navy every year, was an insurance from Ireland which was an exceedingly large amount. In Canada the population was pretty nearly double what it was in Ireland Ireland returned Conservatives and Liberals to the House of Commons more money out of the Naval Estimates would be spent in Ireland. With regard to the fisheries off the coast of Ireland, he understood the hon. Member to promise that outside of the three-mile limit the fisheries would be carefully guarded. He inferred that that was the reply which had been given them, and he understood that in future a couple of gunboats would be put there to protect the Irish fisheries outside the three-mile limit. The hon. Member representing the Admiralty had stated that they were all [Cries of "No, no."] There were over to be highly recommended. But what good did that do to Ireland where they shared not the honours of Imperialism, but only in paying the taxes. The people of Ireland every year were getting poorer and poorer, and population was decreasing, and he should be a very unworthy representative of an Irish constituency if he did not protest and vote against this enormous increase in the Navy Estimates. *MR. AINSWORTH (Argyllshire) said the hon. Member who had just spoken was The under a misapprehension as to Scotland being better off than Ireland in regard to the protection of her fisheries. patrolling done off the coast of Scotland was done by three boats, not of a very first-class character, which were paid for by the Fishery Board. 6,000,000 people in Canada, and over their fellow subjects in those Colonies 4,000,000 in Ireland. He understood who had made those good bargains, were that an application had been made to Canada for a contribution towards the Navy and that it had been refused. He would like the Secretary to the Admiralty to state if that was the case. He thought Canada ought to contribute something towards this fire insurance upon her trade, but Canada he understood had absolutely refused to share any of the responsibilities of Empire. Canada claimed all the advantages of Imperalism, but when they were asked to subscribe a few pounds to the Navy, towards the cost of which the people of Ireland had to put theirs hands deeply into their pockets, they refused to give a single cent. Why had Australia given an increased subvention to the Navy? Was it purely for the love of the mother country? Australia had agreed to pay £200,000 a year in future towards the Navy Estimates, but for this she got a quid pro quo in the sending of extra vessels to guard her fisheries. An agreement had just been concluded with Australia under which she would get eight cruisers permanently in Australian waters for the protection of her trade for the payment of £200,000, a sum which would not build a single thirdclass cruiser. He congratulated Australia upon her astute move, for the Imperialism she had displayed was a very good business asset. The Imperialism which Ireland had got cost them £2,000,000 per annum and they could not get even a torpedo boat or a submarine boat to look after their fisheries. Cape Colony contributed £50,000 and Natal £35,000 towards the Royal Navy, but did any hon. Member believe that this money had been subscribed without those Colonies seeing that they got a quid pro quo in return? He thought the business-like qualities of *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! I am afraid in that case the subject will not be relevant to the Navy Estimates. *MR. AINSWORTH said the Secretary to the Admiralty had referred to the difficulty of finding any proper means of effecting economy in the Navy Estimates. The rule seemed to be that, as far as battleships were concerned, this country was bound to have as many as any other two Powers put together and as many cruisers as they might consider necessary in order to guard our commerce. When they got upon commercial questions their ideas were naturally drawn to other topics. Take for instance the trade of America. Supposing that trade was doubled was that any reason why the number of cruisers should be increased. He contended that so long as we had free imports it would be to the interest of other nations to protect our commerce, and that there- Rule governing Colony, and that the fore it was not necessary for us to spend Canadian Government insisted upon these vast sums on our Navy. The spending money for this purpose Secretary to the Admiralty had drawn themselves. MR. PRETYMAN said it was not the practice to use money voted for naval purposes for the protection of fisheries, and gunboats were not built for that purpose. to the Admiralty upon a mere historic point. The hon. Member had made the MR. FLAVIN (Kerry, N.) said the Secretary to the Admiralty had referred MR. SWIFT MACNEILL (Donegal, S.) them to the Board of Agriculture in said he wished to correct the Secretary regard to the use of a gunboat. If the Board of Agriculture applied for the use of a gunboat would the Secretary to the Admiralty give a guarantee that the application would be acceded to in order that Irish fisheries might be properly protected? MR. CHARLES DEVLIN (Galway) said he should like it made clear whether Canada did or did not contribute to the Navy. He understood that the reason given by Canada for not contributing to the Navy was that she was a Home excuse that Canada did not contribute to the Navy because she was not represented in the Imperial Parliament. MR. PRETYMAN: No, I was asked a specific Question, and I gave a specific answer. MR. SWIFT MACNEILL said that was the hon. Member's specific excuse to a specific statement. He reminded the House that when Ireland had an Irish Parliament, the first thing they did was to make a very large contribution towards the Imperial Navy which was intended to protect Irish trade, but Ireland had not got any trade now. MR. WILLIAM REDMOND said he wished to give the Secretary to the Admiralty notice that in Committee he would take every opportunity of calling attention to the monstrously absurd situation with respect to the Colonies. It was too ridiculous to say that these immense communities, many of them extremely wealthy, should be merely called upon to pay what, in view of the Estimates generally, was a paltry sum, Britain were obliged to pay millions. He would suggest in Committee that some attempt should be made to alter this. It was perfect nonsense to talk about thinking and speaking Imperially while they were allowing the Colonies to escape with a perfectly ridiculous contribution. They had had a mission to South Africa, and perhaps the same statesman would be willing to undertake a similar mission to Australia with the idea of inducing the people there to help the mother country by putting down a little hard cash, which seemed to be the last thing they were inclined to do. The House divided:-Ayes, 144; Noes, while the people of Ireland and Great 70. (Division List No. 31.) Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel Churchill, Winston Spencer AYES. Dickson, Charles Scott Greville, Hon. Ronald Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm. Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead) Lowther, C. (Cumb. Eskdale) Plummer, Walter. R. |