Motion made, and Question proposed, "That 127,100 men and boys be employed for the said Services. (Mr. O'Mara.) what appeared to be, from an Admiralty that the Vote be reduced by the net point of view and from a financial point increase in the number this year of 4,000 of view, a most imprudent course. They men. proceeded to lay down ships in accordance with the design of the "King Edward" class which they themselves admitted was not up to the best modern ideas and which would in all probability be superseded by a superior type in a a few years. On the face of it, surely that was not a wise policy. The "King Edward" was a most expensive type of battleship, and one which in the opinion of the experts would not, in a few years, be the best type available, yet we were going to spend no less than £4,500,000 in laying down and building three battleships of that type. In view of all that had been said, it was surely only common prudence to postpone the construction of those ships until we knew what was the best type to lay down. MR. O'MARA (Kilkenny, S.) expressed his surprise that none of the advocates of economy who had addressed the House on this question had had the courage to move a reduction of the Vote. This, perhaps, was not the best Vote on which to move a reduction, because the increase of men in the Navy was auto Instead of SIR WALTER FOSTER (Derbyshire, Ilkeston) said he had hoped after the action of the Admiralty in purchasing battleships of a foreign Power that there would have been a corresponding decrease in the Estimates of this year. that not only were Supplementary EstiEstimates generally were larger than mates required for the Navy but the they had been for many years and at a time unfavourable for large expenditure. Practically the amount was double what it was when he first be came a Member of that House. The Prime Minister had laid down a doctrine that the fleets of other Powers were aggressive instruments while ours were defensive. In his opinion that doctrine looked into the facts, and certainly wa could not be justified by anyone who Naval Estimates of this year. He exno justification for an increase of the pressed his disappointment at the amount of money required for this year. There was nothing in our relations with other We stood better Powers to justify it. matic on the new construction, nevertheless he proposed, before he sat down, to move a reduction of it. Neither the Prime Minister nor the Secretary to the now than we had stood in any year durAdmiralty had satisfied him that the two-ing the last ten or twelve years, since Power standard had been adhered to. Lord Spencer commenced to strengthened It seemed to him, whether it was regarded the Fleet. That policy had been followed from the point of view of finance or of by successive Boards of Admiralty until numbers of ships we more nearly those who had any wish for economy approached the three-Power standard, should now cry "Hålt." But he particuand, while the Prime Minister assured larly wished to refer to an incident, which the Committee that these Estimates were he mentioned, when the Fleet was in St. moderate and absolutely necessary for Andrews Bay. As that matter reflected the safety of the Empire, hon. Members on the officers and men of one of the ships who had listened to the debate knew he thought it only right that the Secretary perfectly well that there had been no of the Admiralty should be given an definite statement demonstrating the opportunity to give the facts of this necessity for these enormous and ex- regrettable incident. No one would be more travagant Estimates. He was entirely pleased than he if the incident proved not opposed to this heavy burden being to be so grave as he represented, because placed upon his country. Ireland had he did not wish to cast unnecessary blame no use for this Navy and he did not think upon those to whom they looked with this enormous increase was warranted pride. by what foreign countries were doing. It was only a provocation and a challenge to other countries to follow this extravagant example. He begged to move MR. HARWOOD (Bolton) asked the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he could see his way to widen the sphere of nomination for the entrance of cadets into the Navy. Several times in past years he had called attention to the unfairness of the system of nomination, and, in his opinion, that unfairness would be greatly intensified under the new plan. There was a danger that officers would become a narrow caste. They came from a very narrow basis under the old plan, but he feared the basis would be much narrower now when the nominations would be fewer. This was very unfair to other classes of the people, and would dry up the vigour and freshness of the class of naval officer. It had been admitted during the debate that more and more our ships of war were becoming floating factories, and, therefore, what was wanted was mechanical genius and skill. These qualities could be found in Lancashire, but under the system of nomination they would remain unutilised. Young men living in that and other parts of the country should be given a fair chance, but to prevent them from entering the Navy would be unfair and unwise. If the prosperity of this country depended upon the Navy it should be our object to draw to it all the talent possible. What were battleships worth if they were not properly handled? As patriots it was their duty to protest against any narrow ing of the area from which naval officers were drawn and not deprive the Navy of a service so much required. *MR. PRETYMAN, in reply, said the criticism of the hon. Member was founded upon an insufficient knowledge of the facts. So far from being narrowed, the area of original nomination was very greatly widened. Under the old scheme nomination given by the First Lord entitled the recipient to sit for the competitive examination, and it was therefore necessary that the First Lord should exercise some care as to whom he nominated. But now an application for a nomination was granted on a very much wider basis, because the recipient would come before a committee of inspection, who were not all naval men, and it was on their report that the First Lord would make the decision. That was really one of the great advantages of the new system. Every boy would have an equal chance. In answer to the hon. Member for Ilkeston the previous week with regard to the "Sutlej's" launch, he had made inquiries into the facts, which generally were as had been stated by the hon. Member, but there was considerable difference in detail. The launch of the "Sutlej" ran ashore in St. Andrews Bay at two o'clock in the morning, on a very bad reef of rocks, and her bottom was nearly torn out. She had ten or twelve holes in her, and one gentleman had written to him saying he had put his head and shoulders through one of them. She was sold at public auction for £104, and the people who bought her were lucky enough to get her off, after spending a considerable FOSTER: What was her original price?] sum upon her, for £350. [Sir WALTER Her original price was £2,500. He did of the serious nature that had been not think, therefore, that the facts were suggested. MR. WILLIAM REDMOND (Clare, E.) said he rose solely to follow his usual practice and protest against the expenditure on these Naval Estimates. He pointed out that the House had to discuss these Estimates in the absence of the Gentleman who should be personally responsible for them to this Committee, and he was perfectly certain no business house could be conducted successfully for twelve months if, at the annual general meeting, the finances were discussed in the absence of the person responsible for the conduct of the business. While Great Britain and Ireland were called upon to vote enormous sums in order to protect the trade, not of Great Britain and Ireland alone, but of the Empire as a whole, the rest of the Empire contributed practically nothing. It had been stated that the Navy was for the protection of the trade not of the United Kingdom but of the Empire. From the British point of view that was perfectly true. The British Empire was world-wide; its naval stations were dotted all over the globe; and its ships were in all the waters of the world for the protection of the trade of the Empire. From the British point of view it was perfectly right and proper to have Navy for that purpose, but if that was the reason for its existence, was it common justice that the unfortunate taxpayers of Ireland, a country with no sea-going trade worth speaking of, should be called upon to pay to the fullest extent while the other portions of the Empire paid practically nothing? Such an arrange- monstrously unjust. Then Cape Colony ment was altogether one sided and unjust. contributed £50,000, Natal £35,000, No one wished better to the self-govern- while Newfoundland said, "We will give ing Dependencies of the Empire than he £3,000 a year, and you must let us have did, but it was necessary to consider one's the use of the whole Navy if necessary." interests at home, and when the people [An HON. MEMBER: What about of Ireland were asked to bear their share Canada ?] Canada looked towards the of these increased Estimates, they were United States, and everybody knew that entitled to demand the reason why the if there was any trouble that colony self-governing Colonies secured all the would at once become incorporated. At protection they required without paying least, that was his view of it. These anything in return. figures were very picturesque. They reminded him very much of the cheap Towards the £42,000,000 required this flags which were hung out on festive year, the Australian Commonwealth had occasions to show unity, brotherhood, agreed to contribute £200,000. He would and good feeling. Here was a national make the Government an offer. On one festival for the British Empire. condition he would agree to let these Esti- The English, Scotch, Irish, and Welsh had mates go through without a word spoken hung out flags up to £41,500,000, and the or question asked, without an adverse Australians had hung out a flag for vote or any hindrance whatever, and the £200,000. It would be infinitely more condition was that the people of Ireland dignified, and more in keeping with the should be put in the same position as the spirit of independence which Englishmen people of the Australian Commonwealth were supposed to cherish, if the British in this matter. Would the Government people said that they would bear the extake £200,000 from Ireland as a set-off pense themselves if the Colonies were not for any advantages she might derive prepared to make a more reasonable, from the Navy? The population of fair, and proportionate contribution. Ireland was little greater than that of The figures were simply a mockery of the Australia, but the Commonwealth was idea of Imperialism. They only went to infinitely better able than Ireland to bear prove that there was no real unity in the a proper share of the burden. But what matter. The people of this country were did Australia get in return for her talked to, and lectured to, over and over £200,000? It was not sufficient that again, about Imperialism, Imperial unity, Great Britain should undertake to defend and thinking Imperially, but it all came her coasts if attacked, there was to be down to this they had to pay in permanently stationed in Australian Ireland for all this highfaluting waters a whole fleet. It might be said while the people in distant parts that the Australian people would not of the Empire got the advantages. pay the that more, and present He had no ill-feeling towards the great contribution was secured only with self-governing Colonies, but was great difficulty. That, no doubt, unreasonable, in the face of these facts and was perfectly true, but the fact re- figures, that Irishmen should come there mained that the sum was altogether and protest that they were being unfairly insufficient, and it would be much better treated in regard to the expense of the if the Government told the Australian Navy? people to build a Navy for themselves and to look after their own interests as best they could. He could understand such a position being taken up, but he could not understand such an arrangement as now existed being entered into. The idea of Ireland being in danger of attack from any foreign Power was farcical and absurd. He did not blame the Australians. They were perfectly right in trying to get as much for as little as possible, but from the Irish point of view the arrangement was it was The naval expenditure, according to an answer to a Question put by the hon. Member for Exeter, for 1900-1 £32,131,062; for 1901-2, £33,726,491; for 1902-3, £34,201,994, and the estimated expenditure for 1903-4 was £39,221,000, and for 1904-5, £42,001,400. He was surprised that there was so little protest in the House against the extraordinary increase in the naval expenditure. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bristol and some others had spoken of it in misgiving tones, but nothing like a real protest had been made. The way to check it was for everyone who believed it to be wasteful and extravagant to register his vote against the proposals of the Government. He conceived it to be the duty of the Irish representatives to enter their protest in every conceivable way. He asked the Secretary to the Treasury to say what return Ireland got for this expenditure. If it were all spent in Ireland he would still object to it because he thought it was a bad way of spending money. There were dockyards and naval works in England and the greater portion of the £42,000,000 would be circulated in this country, but he ventured to say that not a brass farthing of the money would ever find its way into the constituency he represented. If the Irish people were obliged to pay a large portion of the upkeep of this enormous military and naval power their representatives were at least entitled to exercise their right of protest against it as strongly as they possibly could. He believed the two-Power standard was an untrue standard. The more the British Government spent the more people on the Continent would spend. He believed that a policy founded on justice and integrity would do a great deal more to secure this country against attack than the policy of the braggart with the big purse and the great sword who was always threatening his neighbours. He asked the Secretary to the Treasury to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, before next year, it would be possible, in theinterest of Imperialism, to place Ireland, in regard to this matter, upon the same footing as the Commonwealth of Australia. The population of Ireland was going down and their wealth was not increasing, but the claims upon their purse for the Navy and Army were always increasing. It would be reasonable to make a bargain with Ireland over this matter. Let the Government take so much, if they must take something, but do not increase the amount every year. If the First Lord of the Admiralty agreed to accept £200,000 from Ireland it might convert the Irish people to a true sense of Imperialism, and that would be a great matter. It would have the effect of facilitating the progress of the Naval Votes through this House and relieve the Secretary to the Treasury from what he considered to be the agony of the protests from the Irish Benches on this matter. It would secure the complete absence of the Irish Members from the debates on occasions like the present. If something could not be done and if he did not hear from the hon. Gentleman, he could only say that all through these Estimates, on every single Vote, he would take an opportunity of opposing what he seriously considered a grave scandal and injustice to the Irish people. He gave notice to the Secretary to the Treasury that when the Committee came to Vote 12, which contained the salaries of the First Lord and other officials at the Admiralty, he should review and renew all the protests he had made on this matter. MR. FLAVIN (Kerry, N.) said the Committee was entitled to some reply to the speech of the hon. Member for Ĉlare. MR. PRETYMAN said he did not think a reply was necessary, because the matter had been fully dealt with in the general discussion. The hon. Member for Clare made a great mistake in saying that he listened to his remarks with agony. He thought the hon. Gentleman would see that the principle he advocated, that any Member should obtain remission of taxation for his constituents by asking for it, would prolong debates, and land the country in serious financial difficulties. The House and the country were generally prepared to grant this money, and he hoped a division would now be taken. MR. O'MARA said that the tone in which the Irish Members had been replied to was really too much. He did not threaten the officials on the Government Bench, but he would take his share in examining and criticising these Votes at any length required. He would not let a single farthing be voted unless Ireland was put in the privileged position of the self-governing Colonies, which enjoyed the protection of the Navy but did not pay for it. Canada did not pay a single red cent for the North American Squadron. The Cape of Good Hope only contributed £50,000 to the Navy while £5,000,000 had been spent on Simons Town Harbour, and a special squadron was retained at the Cape for the safety of the South African Colonies. Then the Australian Colonies only contributed £200,000 out of the £42,000,000 spent on the Fleet. Ireland was a poor country, with no sea-borne trade, compared with all these self-governing Colonies, where the population was prosperous, an increasing amount of land was being brought into cultivation, and railways were being extended. In Ireland land was going out of cultivation, the population was going down, the people were becoming poorer, and yet they had to pay £3,000,000 a year towards the Navy from which they did not derive a single benefit. He did not believe that 75 per cent. of the people of the county he represented had ever seen a ship of war, and would not care a bit if all the Navy was sunk to the bottom of the sea to-morrow. Ireland did not even get a gunboat for the protection of her fisheries, while Australia had one first class cruiser, two second class cruisers, three third class cruisers, and four sloops for the protection of her trade. He should continue to press the claims of Ireland to special exempion in regard to this Vote. that were so then the Estimates should be only £30,000,000 instead of £42,000,000. He asked the attention of the Civil Lord of the Admiralty to the question of protecting Irish fisheries. Why had the request of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries for the use of a gunboat to protect the Irish fisheries not been granted? MR. PRETYMAN said that there were two gunboats and the coastguard cruisers available for that purpose. MR. FLAVIN said he was not prepared to accept the explanation. [MINISTERIAL laughter.] Hon. Gentlemen might laugh, but he asked how many of them had gɔne out on an Irish smack off the Irish coast and fished for mackerel or herring? A very large majority of the boats which came to the Irish coast for fish were foreign. Mr. PRETYMAN rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put." Question put, "That the Question be now put." MR. FLAVIN said that the right hon. Gentleman had stated that the Navy was equal to the two-Power standard; but if Noes, 131. Agg-Gardner, James Tynte Allhusen, Augustus Henry Eden AYES. The Committee divided: Ayes, 224; (Division List, No. 32.) Bousfield, William Robert Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John Cust, Henry John C. |