§ Order read, for resuming adjourned debate on Main Question [29th February],"That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
§ Main Question again proposed.
§ * ME. J. F. HOPE (Sheffield, Brightside)
said there were one or two matters he desired to call attention to before Mr. Speaker left the Chair. With regard to the three battleships which were voted 1316 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 1317 together, but, even so, a compromise might have been arranged whereby two of the ships might have been given out as proposed to the private yards, because it must not be lost sight of that they too had to keep their hands together. The position of the manufacturers was affected in more ways then one because these private contractors were at the same time manufacturers of armour plate. And in this regard they were entitled to expect a large share of the orders having regard to the fact that some three or four years ago pressure was brought to bear on the armour-plate manufacturers to increase their productions. Thus Sheffield manufacturers increased their production by 10,000 tons each and yet the programme of the year would not come up to a third of their capacity. He also understood that the amount of repairs given to private yards in the future would be considerably less then in the past, but he certainly hoped having regard to the pressure put on these contractors in the past that the Admiralty would strain a point in their favour in that matter. It might be so that, in these matters, the national interest came first. That was no doubt true, but was all being done in the national interest that shuold be. Were some of the old battleships such as the "Majestic" and "Royal Sovereign" class and the "Centurion" and "Barfleur" class adequately protected in armour? He understood that at modern trials the armour-piercing shells were such as to prove that the armour of those vessels was far from adequate. There were other classes of ships which needed not only re-armouring but re-arming as well. With regard to the general question as to whether the strength of the Navy was the two-Power standard, he could only say that according to the figures in Brasseys Annual we had hardly reached that standard. According to that work the combined force of France and Germany were seventy-seven as against sixty-two. Of course all these calculations were difficult to harmonise, but so far as the mere statement as to the numbers was concerned, he believed that those figures were fairly accurate. So far as he was concerned the criticism he would make was not that the present Estimates were too large but rather that they were too small. He quite admitted that he did not approach this matter with an entirely unbiassed view, but if his 1318 criticisms were sound his personal leanings he submitted did not affect the question.
§ * MR. KEARLEY (Devonport)
said that the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down had taken exception to the fact that certain battleships that were to have been built by contract had been placed in Government yards. It must necessarily be the policy of the Government to give work to its own yards when they were short of employment. There was no doubt the Government cut the matter too fine last year with regard to the matter of laying down new ships. It was pointed out then that unless they did lay down some ships in their own yards there would either be a large discharge or other work would have to be found. At the moment they appeared to have had the belief there was ample work, but it turned out differently, and of course they were right in seeing that their own yards, which would have no other opportunity of getting work like private yards, were duly employed. With regard to the "Prince of Wales" battleship, he had asked whether it was the fact that one of the armour plates had developed serious defects, and the answer was that the defects were not as serious as he suggested. His information was to the effect that the fissure was so serious that a man was able to put his finger in, and that pieces 22 inches in length, 6 inches wide and three-eighths of an inch in thickness had blown off. There was something chemically wrong with these plates. He knew the Admiralty had investigated this matter, and no doubt a report had been made. It would be of great interest to the House to have an explanation from his hon. friend as to the cause of this serious defect. He wanted to know what steps the Admiralty had taken with the contractor to compel him to make good not only the plates themselves but the loss that might be occasioned to the Admiralty. They had been told that the Admiralty had decided to take steps to cease the manufacture of certain commodities that were supplied to the Fleet by way of victualling, that they had decided to discontinue the manufacture of flour, oatmeal, etc., but they had decided to continue the manufacture of 1319 biscuit and cocoa. With regard to cocoa he had nothing to say, but with regard to biscuit he made a definite statement that the Admiralty were producing in their own factories biscuits at a cost of 40 per cent. more than they could be obtained in the open market. The hon. Gentleman shook his head, but that was his assertion after examination and inquiry.
For the first time for twenty years in these Estimates there was a notification by the Admiralty that all the money voted last year would have been spent and earned by the contractors and the Government yards before the end of the financial year. For ten years they had been met every year with the fact that the money voted during the preceding year had not been spent. There had been all sorts of explanations of this. As regarded contract-built ships, the Admiralty had adopted the system he was the first to suggest, that ships built by private firms should be absolutely completed there and not brought round to the Government yards to be overhauled, which resulted in time and money being spent on them there. It was encouraging to find the good business results the Admiralty had achieved from having the ships thoroughly completed in the contractors' yards. He had advocated in past years that ships built by contract and requiring repairs should be sent back to the contractor who built them. It must be obvious there was an advantage in that. The contractor knew all about his ship and he naturally took an interest in it. He believed if that system were adopted as far as possible they would get better work, a longer life to the ship, and that there would be an economy to the State. Another point was that the Admiralty ought to take some further action to get an estimate of the cost of repairs before they proceeded to put the ships into the hands of the contractors for repairs. He was certain the present system was most extravagant. He never would believe it was not possible to get an approximate estimate in advance.
He was glad to notice in the First Lord's statement that gunnery continued steadily to improve. He thought that was mainly due to the Parliamentary 1320 and Press discussion which had taken place. The primary object of the Fleet was to shoot well, and the result of the encouragement given by the Admiralty to the men was that there was a keen interest not only in the Navy, but through the nation in the results of the target practice and rapid firing and hitting. It would be of interest to know what ships shot badly, and he did not see the objection to publishing the results in the fullest possible detail. We got to know the records of the shooting of other nations, and if we advertised the fact that ours was the best shooting nation in the world it was not likely to do us any harm. He agreed that the practice should be in accordance with the conditions prevailing in time of war; it was in that direction we ought to excel. Every endeavour ought to be made to improve the material the men had to use, and especially was that the case in the matter of sighting. Had the Admiralty given that attention to this matter of the sighting of the guns which its importance deserved? What were the facts in connection with the "Centurion"? That ship returned from the China Station last year for the purpose of a thorough overhaul and refit. She was just on the point of being sent back to the China Station when rumours began to be circulated that the sighting of her 10-in. guns was imperfect. The Admiralty must take a great amount of responsibility in this matter; they could not pretend that they were in ignorance. It was generally known that the Gunnery School at Whale Island made representations on the point. Everybody knew, also, that when a ship came home to refit, the captain had the responsibility of making a full report with a full list of all requirements necessary to make his ship up to date and efficient. Did the captain fail in that respect? Undoubtedly not. The captain made representations to the Admiralty that the sighting was defective, and yet this ship had gone away to China with its gun sighting defective.
§ * MR. KEARLEY
said the sighting was admittedly imperfect at any rite. Lord 1321 Selborne the other day gave some explanation as to what happened. In the first place, he said that, as part of the refit a new sighting installation had been entrusted to the Messrs. Armstrong; and in the second place, that it could not be completed owing to want of time. That appeared to be very plausible on the surface; but either the Admiralty did not act on the information supplied by the captain at the earliest possible moment, in which event they were dilatory in an important case of sighting ten-inch guns, in which there ought to have been no delay; or, if the Admiralty said they had not been dilatory, they asked the House to believe that the Messrs. Armstrong, one of the greatest shipbuilding firms in the world, with an unlimited number of hands, and all other facilities at their command, were not capable of installing a new and satisfactory system of sighting in the "Centurion" in a period of four months.
§ * MR. KEARLEY
said that if it were so it seemed to him astounding. This was so important a matter that the Admiralty would do well at once to appoint a Committee of Inquiry composed of the best gunnery experts, and the best shipbuilders in the country. He did not believe that it was impossible to get a proper sighting equipment installed in the four months the ship was at home. The Admiralty were not free from responsibility because, when the Messrs. Armstrong had failed, they had not hesitated to send this ship back to her station in a defective state. His hon. friend might reply that the "Centurion" was efficient with the old sighting apparatus; but everybody knew that the old system of sighting was quite out of date, and knocked off at least 50 per cent. of efficiency as regarded accuracy and rapidity of firing, compared with the system installed in ships built within the last two or there years. It seemed to him strange that the Admiralty should have been in such a desperate hurry to send the ship back to the China Station with the old sighting. The "Centurion" was not an isolated case. He was told that there were many ships in the Navy at the present moment with sighting equipment which was seriously 1322 defective. He had only one other word to say on the subject of gunnery. He had urged over and over again that the Admiralty ought to give further encouragement to the men to stimulate them in shooting. He suggested that larger prizes should be given for accurate and rapid shooting. The best man in the Navy secured for the best shooting of a 12-in. gun, which fired an 800lb. shot, the magnificent sum, under the improved conditions of payment, of £3, accompanied by a silver medal. A man went to Bisley and fired an ounce bullet at a target and received £250 in money and a gold medal. The Admiralty seemed to overlook the fact that what honour was to the officer, money was to the men. It was a, question of bread and butter to them. He had come in contact with a great number of men Of the lower deck, and they were all in favour of large money inducements being given to the very best shooting men. There should be a naval Bisley every year, although he knew that certain objections might be stated against it—that there were variations in weather and light in different parts of the world, and that therefore it was impossible that the competitions could be carried out under fairly similar conditions. But he was told that whenever prize firing was engaged in. the state of the weather must be such that an open boat could be lowered and lay to so as to be able, as required, to make the necessary repairs to the target and to his mind that fact showed that the competition could be carried on under fairly similar conditions.
§ SIR FORTESCUE FLANNERY (Yorkshire, Shipley)
said he wished to identify himself with the compliment which had been paid to the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Admiralty on the very lucid, although lengthy, statement he had made on the Navy Estimates The distinguishing feature of the Estimates was the large sum of money required. The contrast between past years and the present was so marked that to-day we had a peace Estimate larger than any presented in time of war. That was a very remarkable circumstance, even more remarkable than the fact that these Estimates were £2,500,000 larger than those of last year. The two questions 1323 which the country would ask upon such enormous Estimates were—first, was this vast expenditure necessary; and second, was the country getting value for the money? He thought, and especially after the very specific statement made by the right hon. Gentleman in the responsible position of Secretary of State for War, that there was nothing provocative in the Estimates as they stood, nothing to challenge a response by any foreign Power. The country had recently heard with comparative equanimity of the state of appalling inefficiency of the Army because it was generally fully persuaded that the Navy was not only large but also efficient. The two-Power standard had been recognised as necessary even by the hon. Member for Denbigh. But, in making this comparison, American as well as German preparations could not altogether be neglected. It is true that the possibility of war with America was quite remote; he hoped that it was practically non-existent; but however friendly a Power might be, it was our duty to take into account- all the naval preparations of that Power, which he noticed proposed to spend £100,000 on experiments with submarines. Reference had been made by the Secretary to the Admiralty to the Memorandum of the First Lord of the Admiralty. That was a very remarkable document, for there was scarcely a topic connected with naval preparations that was not dealt with in it in an exhaustive manner. In regard to the Chilian battleships, the hon. Member for Cardiff had said with characteristic modesty that these ships, designed by himself, were the best at the present time in the British Navy. He could hardly go so far as that, but he held that, considering their limited displacement and tonnage, there were no battleships superior to them, and their acquisition by the Admiralty was one on which the Board might be congratulated. If the rumours as to the circumstances surrounding that acquisition were correct, then the whole country owed a deep debt of gratitude to Lord Selborne for the personal steps which he took to secure these vessels at a moment of emergency, when they might have otherwise been lost to the service of Great Britain, and perhaps one day have been ranged against us.
1324 The hon. Member for Devonport had referred to the manner in which criticisms in the House had been accepted by the Admiralty. He ventured to say that the speech of the Secretary to the Admiralty and the Memorandum of the First Lord teemed with proofs of the success of criticisms in this House of naval details. He remembered that the criticisms of the late Sir W. Allan and other friends had been accepted by the Admiralty, and were now doing good and useful service in naval preparations. Take the question of sea trials of the marine boilers. These were now common, and the comparative results obtained were most valuable. That was a right policy, and so long as the Admiralty adopted the testing of novelties at sea they would meet with approval from practical men in the House. He maintained that the Boiler Commission, which was at first intended to be a temporary expedient, should be made a permanent board of advice to the Admiralty. There could be nothing possibly better than that the experience of men of high standing in the mercantile marine should be at the disposal of the Admiralty. Then the increase of the Navy Intelligence Department was also an improvement that had been the result of long and frequent debate and suggestion in this House. The Admiralty were moving in a right direction when they appointed naval attachés in all the great European capitals who would obtain intelligence regarding all foreign Navies. The drastic regulations for the compulsory retirement of captains was the result of representations in this House. The result of these regulations would be to obtain not only a large reserve of admirals, rear-admirals and captains, but] also to have the rear-admirals very much longer than they had ever been before, capable of taking command in the years when their vigour was at its best, and their experience sufficiently matured. That improvement had been carried out without any violent change of system or anything leading to injustice to individuals. It was also very satisfactory to find that the system of recruiting and training younger officers was working out in a way which the Admiralty considered satisfactory. "Water babies," as they 1325 were called, were entered now in considerable numbers, and there was every expectation on the part of those who had practical knowledge of the subject that the system would work satisfactorily. He had no doubt that experience would show that, even if changes in detail were necessary, the system was on the whole the right one for providing officers for the Fleet. He expressed approval of the training of boys in gunnery and other matters instead of masts, yards, and spars, there being no object to be gained by training young bluejackets in the obsolete system of navigation by sailing. Now they were really taught, as the officers were taught, what was necessary for practical use. The increase of the personnel was stated to be 4,000, but it was really more, because 1,240 boys had been done away with and men substituted. He did not know how the Admiralty proposed to provide for the future train-in? of blue jackets when so large a proportion of boys had been abolished, but perhaps the Secretary to the Admiralty would be able to give an explanation. It might be that the great increase in the Reserve made it unnecessary to train so many boys, and that, therefore, the personnel of the Fleet could be kept more efficient.
Another matter of the utmost import- I once was the association of the Colonies and the colonial sailor-men with the British Fleet. That was clearly at work, according to the statement of the First Lord, both in Australia and New Zealand, where the Colonial Parliaments had accepted the overtures of the mother country, but he noticed with regret that there was no mention of Newfoundland, which had a large reserve of sailors who might be utilised in the same way. Reference had been made to the rapid rate of construction in the dockyards. Credit must also be given to the improved system of organisation in the dockyards which had been introduced by the present Director of Naval Dockyards, Sir James Williamson. Whatever the cause it was satisfactory to find that the great reform urged upon the Admiralty over and over again of allowing private contractors to finish their ships in preference to Bending them to the dockyards to be changed and pulled to pieces, was not only working 1326 well with regard to the ships built by contract, but also because it left the dockyards to their own proper work of building their own ships. The Leader of the Opposition had expressed the opinion that the £2,500,000 increase in the Estimates ought not to be associated with any idea that the Budget would not be a favourable one. What had the Budget to do with the safety of the country? He believed that the Estimates, large as they wore, were absolutely necessary, and would be regarded by the country as reasonable in all the circumstances of the case.
§ * MR. LOUGH
said he could not help thinking that the compliments which the hon. Member for the Shipley Division had paid to the present Board of Admiralty, and also to past Boards, and some of the detailed criticism, might have been reserved for the Committee stage on the Estimates. At this particular stage hon. Members who did not represent dockyard constituencies, or any trade interest, might be given the opportunity of dealing with the question of the Navy from the standpoint of the country. The hon. Member for Tynemouth quoted something which he himself said twelve months ago when the Estimates were under discussion. The hon. Member repeated what he said with fair accuracy, but he entirely lost the point of his argument. What he did a year ago was to point out that between 1860 and 1885 there was no rise practically in the Navy Estimates, though these twenty-five years represented the period of the greatest commercial progress this country had ever seen. We did not add £1,000,000 to the cost of the Navy during that time. He pointed out further that in the succeeding period we had doubled, trebled, and quadrupled the cost of the Navy, though our commerce had not increased more than £1 per head. His point was that a strong Navy did not necessarily give us good commercial results. The Secretary to the Admiralty had stated that afternoon that the safety of our commerce depended entirely on the Navy in time of war. He would remind the House that we passed through critical times in the twenty-five years to which he had alluded, but 1327 our commerce flourished all the time. There was the American Civil War accompanied by circumstances of great irritation against this country, and the great conflict between France and Germany, but our trade flourished all the time. Why was the country so prosperous? It was because there were gentlemen on the Treasury Bench who did not suggest the expenditure of another £1,000,000 on the Navy, and who appreciated that the real soiree of successful commerce was national wealth and well being. His hon. friend the Member for the Shipley Division asked what the Budget had to do with the matter if the safety of the country was at stake. But was safety secured by this huge expenditure? Be failed to see how such a policy could be described as safe, if the country was being bled white by a reckless Government which asked for more than there was any necessity for. The House was greatly indebted to the hon. Member for Dundee for pointing out definitely what, the Estimate exactly meant. The hon. Member put it moderately when he stated the sum was £42,000,000. He did not think-there had ever been a period in the history of the country when such a huge payment could be so ill afforded as at present. The House would not realise that all this meant unless they tried to bring home to their minds the other burdens of the people at the present time. The whole burden estimated for by the Chancellor of the Exchequer for Imperial purposes was £144,000,000, but this great sum did not include expenditure on capital account, so that the total amount of expenditure was £155,000,000. That was only one part of the burden that rested upon the people. He was informed that the burden of the rates amounted to £105,000,000 in 1902.
§ * MR. SPEAKER
The hon. Member must remember that at present he can only discuss questions relating to the Navy Estimates.
§ MR. LOUGH
said he would obey that ruling. He only wished to point out in a sentence that the total expenditure of the country was £260,000,000. He presumed he would be allowed to say that any 1328 proposal to increase this largo amount was a serious responsibility for any Government to undertake. The Government were totally ignorant of the feeling of the country with regard to thus matter. [Cries of "Oh."] He was arguing that point. Hon. Members who had backed up this Government in all their extravagance might feel that the nation was perfectly satisfied with any burden put upon it. But surely he was at liberty to take another view ! The Government had displayed no appreciation of the feeling of the country with regard to the serious burdens thrown upon it at the present time. Every man out of doors expressed the same opinion. The great national securities had fallen to a point never touched before since the wars of 1815, and there was every indication in the commercial world of great depression. Wages had decreased, the savings in savings banks had diminished and simultaneously the price of bread and other great articles of consumption were going up. All this was owing to the vast expenditure of the Government, of which the Navy Estimates formed the I largest item. The people of this country I were suffering in a hundred ways of which hon. Members opposite did not I appear to have the slightest knowledge. Yet the Government took no account of those things and were steadily increasing the expenditure. The state of Ireland was perfectly shocking, the agricultural depression was particularly severe there. The wet season had affected all the crops on which the subsistence of the people depended, and in view of that surely the Government might have postponed many increased demands until they were in a better position to meet them.
The explanations given by the Government on this occasion had been marked by an entirely novel feature. They had now adopted a new standard of naval power different from the two-Power standard. For three or four years past hon. Members had unsuccessfully tried to elicit from the Government what standard they were aiming at. but had never been able to get any candid admissions. Now the cat had been let out of the bag, and they had had a statement of extreme significance. The two-Power standard was no longer to be applied to the general expenditure on the Navy—it was only to apply to battleships, 1329 and not to cruisers, torpedo boats, and other vessels. This was a most important departure. The Secretary to the Admiralty had indistinctly alluded to the new standard as a sort of insurance on our commerce. He wanted to know what the rate of insurance was, and was there to be any definite relation between the expenditure and the alleged increase of commerce to which attention had been drawn. They had in recent years heard members of the Navy League speak of the naval expenditure being proportionate to the whole commerce of the country. What were the views of the Government on that point? Would the Secretary to the Admiralty define the position a little more closely and tell them to what extent he proposed to go. He had stated the whole value of our commerce at £1,200,100,000, and had said that on such a vast trade we could well afford to pay insurance. He seemed to suggest that we should make the Navy strong enough to convoy our merchant ships to all parts of the world in time of war so that there could be no interference with commerce at all. That was a most absurd idea. Convoying would not be practicable at all to any considerable extent. This, at any rate, represented a startling change in their ideas as to what the strength of the Navy should be. A fundamental change was being made to the Navy standard, and the House was entitled to further explanations. In 1883 our naval expenditure represented 10.4 millions while the two greatest naval Powers on the Continent spent £14,000,000, in 1893 we spent 14.3 millions against their £18,000,000, but last year we spent 34.5 millions, while they only expended £25,000,000, so that we far exceeded their standard. These figures prove that ten and twenty rears ago we had a perfectly clear idea of what the two-Power standard meant. It meant that the total expenditure of this country should be a little less than that of the two next countries with the largest navies, but during the last few years this interpretation has been entirely abandoned. How much further did the Government propose to go? What did the new standard which they had invented mean? One hon. Member had told them that it would involve the building of 160 new first class cruisers. Did the Government 1330 assent to that? Surely they ought to have a more complete definition of the new standard.
The Estimates filled him with alarm. The country was never so ill-equipped to bear so heavy a burden. Ho had put down an Amendment which he knew, by the Rules of the House, that he could not take the opinion of hon. Members upon. It directed attention to one particular form of extravagant expenditure—that was the expenditure on capital account in the Estimates. A Committee was appointed a year ago to deal with the question of national expenditure, and it made a Report showing how the growth of the expenditure on capital account had increased from £40,000 in 1883 to 9.4 millions in the current year. Tins constituted one of the most serious sources of extravagance in the administration of the affairs of the country. Expenditure on capital account meant that instead of paying for the service of the year out of the taxes of the year according to old financial traditions, recourse was hud to borrowing. He might mention that in connection with the Navy there was no expenditure on capital account in 1883, but in 1893 1.4 millions was spent on that account and this year the total was 4.1 millions. That was an extraordinary and alarming growth, and unfortunately every public Department was going on the same lines, even the Post Office had spent £600,000 on capital account. This growth of expenditure was creating difficulties; the borrowing was coming home to roost; the interest was becoming heavy, and the Government were feeling the difficulties of a system under which there could be no clear statement of annual expenditure, and economical finance was prejudiced. Let the Secretary to the Admiralty inaugurate his period of office by putting a check on this bad system of borrowing money for naval work so that if the nation were extravagant it might at least pay its way.
§ * MR. REGINALD LUCAS
said the hon. Member for West Islington had stated that the people of this country were averse to expenditure on the 1331 Navy. If he meant it us a matter on which he was prepared to take the decision of the country, he ventured to say that any Member on the Government side of the House, if the issue of an election were limited to that, was, to use a vulgarism "prepared to take him on." However much the country and House disliked large figures, they approached this matter of the Navy as one of necessity, and as one that had to be faced. There was one matter which he desired to suggest to the Secretary to the Admiralty. It was a matter of general importance in their naval system, and that was the use of electricity on ships of war. Last summer he was on board one of His Majesty's ships of war, and was struck by the absence of electric appliances. There was no telephone aboard, and during hot weather the only cooling apparatus was a system of pumping of air by steam engines, which made it hot air. The same afternoon he went on board an American flag-ship, and the whole vessel was supplied with electric appliances and apparatus, which made it very cool and very agreeable. It might be that in our Navy electricity was not used because it was thought to be dangerous; but perhaps the hon. Gentleman would tell him whether there was any well-considered plan upon which they acted. Another matter which he thought should be cleared up had relation to the officers of the Royal Naval Reserve. He had seen it stated in a newspaper that no less than 340 lieutenants in the Royal Naval Reserve had absolutely no qualifications for that rank beyond the fact that they had done their drills on one of the stationary drill ships. He did not make that statement with any intention to throw aspersions on the efficiency of the officers; but he mentioned it because it had been stated in a public newspaper, and he thought it desirable that some notice should be taken of it in the House. One of the most important matters, he apprehended, in the supply of their naval needs was the question of the supply of stokers. It was satisfactory to revert to the Statement of the First Lord of the Admiralty that, as far as the Royal Fleet Reserve went, it was certain that the whole number 1332 of 625 stokers would have been enlisted before the end of the present financial year The question of stokers was a most important one, and it was satisfactory to know that the calculations of the Government were working out so well.
Of late years many Members had adversely criticised the shooting in the Navy, and it became a duty, therefore, as well as a pleasure, to make public acknowledgment of the improvement that had taken place. He thought praise was due to Lord Charles Beresford for what he had achieved in his own squadron, and as far as he was able to judge a similar improvement was noticeable in the Mediterranean Fleet and throughout the Navy generally. Incidentally he thought they should recognise a very creditable piece of seamanship recorded last autumn in the squadron under the command of Lord Charles Beresford in the case of His Majesty's ship "Prince George." He saw that vessel in dock, and even a landsman could recognise the imminent peril in which the ship was placed and appreciate the extraordinary state of efficiency in which the crew must have been to have avoided disaster. He thought Parliament ought to be ready to recognise such obvious efficiency. Another point in regard to which he was not so sure they might rest contented was in the matter of guns. This question was raised last year principally in connection with the "County" class of cruisers. In the newer ships of that class bigger guns had been put in, but as he read the present Minute the secondary armament of our newest battleships was not as good, or as big, or as efficient as that which was being put in the newest battleships of the German Navy. In the new German ships, of which one was laid down last year and two were to be laid down this year, the smallest calibre of gun, 6.7, had been increased to 8.2, whereas in our "King Edward" class beyond our 9-in. guns we had nothing but 6-in. He did not say this was wrong, but he thought it would be satisfactory if the Secretary to the Admiralty would give the House some information and tell them whether the Admiralty were satisfied that the requirements of the situation were being met. The Member for Shipley was inclined to find fault with the dockyard Members for raising 1333 dockyard questions. If he were a dockyard Member he would have more sympathy with them.
He must be permitted to refer to one point which was in the Memorandum. The scale of pensions for the widows of seamen killed or drowned on duty had been raised and now corresponded to that for which provision was made from naval funds for widows of men killed in warlike operations. He did not propose to enlarge on that question now as he did last year. Without going into the matter he desired to ask, as had often been done before, whether the Admiralty had any intention of taking over the whole of this charge. Reference had been made to the dockyard question. There were many points which it seemed to be his duty to bring before the House, but for obvious reasons he could not do so. He suggested that what had been done in previous years should again be done, viz. that there should be a private conference between the representatives of the Admiralty and the Members particularly concerned. The points at issue could then be threshed out more effectively than in open debate, and the time and attention of the House generally would not be taken up by these matters of purely Departmental concern.
§ MR. POWER (Waterford, E.)
thought it was time to ask when this gigantic expenditure was going to cease. About ten years ago the Navy Estimates were £19,000,000; they were now £36,000,000. He contended that the rate of increase was greater than was required to keep up to the two-Power standard. It had been said that it was difficult for England to bear the heavy burden of taxation necessitated by the enormous expenditure, but the argument applied with ten-fold force to Ireland, it being a purely agricultural country, and having to bear a share of the burden much greater than her proper proportion. England and her colonies were greatly interested in the protection of their commerce, but Ireland had no commerce to protect, and she received absolutely no benefit from all this expenditure. Large sums out of the money voted for the Navy were expended at Woolwich, Portsmouth, and similar places, 1334 but Ireland received practically nothing. In this as in all oilier respects she was treated in the most niggardly and cheeseparing way. For years her representatives had asked for a couple of gunboats for the protection of her fisheries, and, although such boats had been provided for the Scotch fisheries, Ireland had had to go without, so far as the Admiralty were concerned, and the cost of patrolling the coasts had had to be borne by the Irish Fisheries Board. It was probably not much use calling attention to particular cases, but as an illustration of the manner in which Ireland was treated by the Admiralty he would refer to one instance. At Tramore, in county Water-ford, a large number of men had joined the Royal Naval Reserve. They were physically a fine body of men, and the Admiralty had been asked again and again to give the local authority some little assistance in the construction of a pier to facilitate landing and so on. The present Secretary of State for War, after inquiring into the matter, said the work was not absolutely necessary. Works, without being absolutely necessary, were often highly desirable, and even from the naval point of view the construction of this pier would have resulted in much good to the service in which the Admiralty were interested. This was a small matter from an Imperial point of view, but it was of considerable importance to the people concerned, and it was an exemplification of the beggarly way in which Ireland was treated in connection with the naval expenditure. Much was not asked, but it was desired that local effort should be supplemented, and doubtless, if the pier was constructed, the Admiralty would not hesitate to take advantage of the work towards the construction of which they had not had the decency to contribute.
§ * MR. PRETYMAN
said it was only by leave of the House he could again speak, but it would probably be to the general convenience that he should answer certain Questions which had been addressed to him. He assured the hon. Member for East Waterford that it was the desire of the Admiralty to spend proportionally as much money in Ireland as in the rest of the United Kingdom so far as the interests of the Navy would allow. The Admiralty 1335 fully sympathised with the attitude taken up by the hon. Member with regard to the pier at Tramore and the provision of a gunboat for the protection of fisheries, but such matters could not be dealt with out of naval funds. In no case did the Admiralty expend money on the construction of private piers. If, however, piers were constructed in private or public harbours by private money there were occasions when the Admiralty paid for the use of them, and in that way assisted the local authorities. Nor did the Admiralty supply boats for the protection of fisheries within the three-mile limit. That was the duty of the Fisheries Board, to whom hon. Members should direct their application. As to the expenditure of Navy funds on construction and repairs, a considerable sum was spent in the North of Ireland, and a not inconsiderable amount at Haulbowline, while during the past year three ships had been sent to the Channel Docks situated in the neighbourhood of Cork.
With regard to the complaint that three new ships had been laid down in dockyards instead of in private yards, it was of course the fact that the armour would be constructed by private firms whether the ships were constructed in the Government yards or in private yards. The total of new construction for 1904–5 sent to private yards would exceed that of the past year by something like £1,000,000, so that private yards might expect to obtain a full share of the work. The hon. Member for Devonport had referred to two matters—the armour-plate of the "Prince of Wales" and the sighting of the "Centurion's" guns. The armour-plate of the "Prince of Wales" was a 12-inch plats, and at present there was a crack and scaling of the surface of the plate to the depth of ⅜-inch. It was impossible to doctor a plate, so that either the plate must remain in situ or be removed altogether and be replaced, and as the latter was a very expensive business involving great delay in the completion of the vessel, it ought not to be undertaken unless it was absolutely necessary. At present the defects did not justify the removal of the plate, but if they developed so as to endanger the security of the guns, action would be taken and the 1336 contractors would be held responsible. The cause of the defect was obscure, as the plate had been manufactured by the processes which had been uniformly successful in other cases. As to the "Centurion's" sights, these were turret sights attached to the mountings and not to the guns. The point of greatest importance in a sight was that it should be accurately attached, and that was where the "Centurion's" sights had always been defective, owing not to any defect in the sight itself, but to the character of the gun-mounting, which was now obsolete. In these particular mountings the attachment had to run in and out with the gun, with the result that the attachment was extraordinarily difficult and it had never been thoroughly satisfactory. The "Centurion," however, made a very fair average practice on her two commissions; but on her return, the Admiralty, instead of neglecting the question, did what was possible to repair the defects. Messrs. Armstrong were commissioned to devise a satisfactory attachment for this particular mounting. After a few months Armstrongs, with the assistance and advice of the gunnery experts of the Admiralty, produced an attachment which was an improvement on the old one, with which fair shooting had previously been made. That was the attachment with which with the "Centurion" had gone out, but it was not perfect; and he could not hold out hope that it would be possible to make an absolutely perfect attachment for that form of mounting. As very fair shooting was made with the old attachment and this was a better one, he did not think there was any very serious defect to be apprehended. The attachment not being absolutely perfect required that in laying the gun the last motion should be one of elevation. It, of course, needed a little handling on the part of the men; but the practice made with the gun was little inferior to that made with the other guns. The Admiralty had done all they could in the particular circumstances of the case, and Armstrongs had been asked to make a further attempt to secure a better attachment to the gun.
In reply to the question put by the hon. Member for the Shipley division, the reduction in the number of boys to be 1337 entered next year was because the rate of increase in men for the personnel of the Navy would now be reduced. They now entered boys only to make good the ordinary wastage, and to some extent the reduction had become possible owing to the strengthening of the Reserves.
Hon. Members who criticised the Admiralty for the size of the Estimates approached the question solely from a financial point of view. The hon. Member for West Islington practically admitted that that was the only point of view from which he had attempted to consider or to study this question. He assured the hon. Member that had his approached the question not only from the financial, but also from the naval side as well, and had he devoted the same study to the naval side, he believed he would have taken the same view as the Admiralty that although the increases were large, not one of them was unnecessary. Although there had been much criticism which was fully justified from a purely financial standpoint, he wished to remind the House that that was not the only standpoint, and it was not the one from which the Admiralty looked at these Estimates. From no single hon. Member who had addressed the House on these Estimates had they received any suggestion by which any particular economy could be effected.
§ * 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 1338 Estimates now would be doing something on the same principle as if a large commercial firm were to say, "We have had a bad year, and we will not pay our fire insurance this year." Was it conceivable that any business could be conducted on those principles?
§ * 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.
§ * MR. PRETYMAN
admitted that there were still a certain number of sloops which would be perfectly useless in time 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 maintain the two-Power standard with 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. 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 1339 armaments of the battleships of the "King Edward VII." class, which were equipped with 6-inch guns, four 12-inch guns, and four 9.2 guns. His hon. friend was of the opinion that the Admiralty might put in a larger number of 6-inch guns. The 6-inch guns which were being mounted in the ships of the "King Edward VII." class were a very powerful gun, and enormously superior to the 6-inch gun at present in the service, and it would not be possible to replace them with 7.5 guns without a complete re-design of the ships. With regard to the officers of the Royal Naval Reserve, a very large proportion of them were now going through training, and many of them had already received it. There were 1,550 officers of the Royal Naval Reserve all told. He thought he had now dealt with all the principal Questions which had been raised in the debate, but if any minor points had been omitted he hoped the House would allow him to reply to them in Committee.
§ 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 satisfactory, more particularly in regard to the amount of money spent. He thought if 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 1340 anxious for economy, and that the English Members had not suggested any means of effecting economy in the Navy Estimate, in fact they had said that they were anxious to have a strong Navy. He did not care whether they had a strong or a weak Navy, but he thought an easy way for economising would be to adopt the policy suggested to the Russian Government by Lord Salisbury in regard to the building of battleships. Some of the Russian battleships had been disabled in Port Arthur, and therefore he did not see why this country should go on building more battleships at the present time Although two Chilian battleships had been bought, the naval programme had only been reduced by one battleship. He suggested to the Secretary to the Admiralty, in these very difficult times, when they were not advancing in prosperity or anything else, and when Ireland was suffering from very severe agricultural depression that £1,000,000 saving upon a battleship 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 instead of three.
They had heard a lot about the Colonies during the recess, and they had been told that the colonial trade could only be carried on in time of war with the help of the Navy. The hon. Gentleman opposite had told them that the Navy was a sort of fire insurance up-on 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 [Cries of "No, no."] There were over 1341 6,000,000 people in Canada, and over 4,000,000 in Ireland. He understood 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 lire 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 third-class 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 1342 their fellow subjects in those Colonies who had made those good bargains, were 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 under a misapprehension as to Scotland being better off than Ireland in regard to the protection of her fisheries. The 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.
§ * 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 1343 to protect our commerce, and that therefore it was not necessary for us to spend these vast sums on our Navy. The Secretary to the Admiralty had drawn an analogy between a business firm insuring against fire and the Navy Estimates, but he should like to remind the hon. Member that in business no fire insurance company would allow a man to insure his property above its proper value. He wished to know whether in the future there was any possibility of the Secretary to the Admiralty realising that he was proposing now to spend more than he would get. If he might follow out the analogy of fire insurance there was one way of lessening the amount paid to an insurance company, and that was to provide against the risk of fire in other ways. If they did that they would find that the fire insurance company would not ask so high a premium as they had done before. He thought the Motion which had been moved would put it into the power of the Admiralty to decrease the risk without increasing the cost to the country.
§ MR. FLAVIN (Kerry, N.)
said the Secretary to the Admiralty had referred them to the Board of Agriculture in 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 1344 Rule governing Colony, and that the Canadian Government insisted upon spending money for this purpose themselves.
§ MR. PRETYMAN
said the answer to that Question would be that Canada was not represented in this House. With regard to the Question put by the hon. Member for North Kerry he could not give any such undertaking. What he had said was that it was the duty of the Board of Agriculture to provide for the protection of the fisheries of Ireland within the three-mile limit.
§ 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.
§ MR. SWIFT MACNEILL (Donegal, S.)
said he wished to correct the Secretary to the Admiralty upon a mere historic point. The hon. Member had made the excuse that Canada did not contribute to the Navy because she was not represented in the Imperial Parliament.
§ 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 1345 Parliament, the first tiling 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 gum, while the people of Ireland and Great
§ 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, 70. (Division List No. 31.)1347
|Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel||Dickson, Charles Scott||Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton|
|Arnold-Forster Rt. Hn. Hugh O.||Dimsdale, Rt. Hn. Sir Joseph C||Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)|
|Arrol, Sir William||Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph||Kenyon Slaney, Col. W. (Salop|
|Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John||Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers||Keswick, William|
|Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy||Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin||Kimber, Henry|
|Bailey, James (Walworth)||Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir William Hart|
|Bain, Colonel James Robert||Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst||Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.|
|Balcarres, Lord||Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.||Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)|
|Balfour, Cap. C. B. (Hornsey)||Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne||Lawrence, Sir Joseph (Monm'th)|
|Balfour Rt. Hn. Gerald W Leeds||Flannery, Sir Fortescue||Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)|
|Banbury, Sir Federick George||Flower, Sir Ernest||Lawson, Jn. Grant (Yorks, N. R.|
|Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.||Forster, Henry William||Lee, Arthur H (Hants. Fareham|
|Bignold, Arthur||Foster, Philip S. (Warwick, S. W.||Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)|
|Bigwood, James||Fyler, John Arthur-||Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage|
|Bond, Edward||Galloway, William Johnson||Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol, S.)|
|Brassey, Albert||Gardner, Ernest||Lonsdale, John Brownlee|
|Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John||Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick||Lowther, C. (Cumb. Eskdale)|
|Butcher, John George||Gordon, Hn. J. E. (Elgin & Nairn)||Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)|
|Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw.||Gordon, Maj. E. (T'r Hamlets)||Lucas, Reginald J (Portsmouth|
|Cavendish VCW. (Derbyshire)||Gore, Hon S. F. Ormsby-(Linc)||Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred|
|Chamberlain Rt. Hn. J. A. (Wore.||Gray, Ernest (West Ham)||Maconochie, A. W.|
|Chapman, Edward||Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury||M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)|
|Churchill, Winston Spencer||Grenfell, William Henry||M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)|
|Olive, Captain Percy A.||Gretton, John||Majendie, James A. H.|
|Coates, Edward Feetham||Greville, Hon. Ronald||Martin, Richard Biddulph|
|Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.||Hare, Thomas Leigh||Melville, Beresford Valentine|
|Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse||Harris, F. Leverton (Tynem'th)||Milvain, Thomas|
|Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole||Harris, Dr. Fredk. R. (Dulwich)||Morgan, David J. Walthamstow|
|Compton, Lord Alwyne||Heath, A. Howard (Hanley)||Morrison, James Archibald|
|Cook, Sir Frederiek Lucas||Heath, James (Staffords., N. W.||Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer|
|Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge||Heaton, John Henniker||Muntz, Sir Philip A.|
|Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile||Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.||Murray, Rt. Hn. A. Graham (Bute|
|Oust, Henry John C.||Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside||Nicholson, William Graham|
|Dalkeith, Earl of||Houston, Robert Paterson||Peel, Hn. Wm. Robert Wellesley|
|Dalrymple, Sir Charles||Howard, Jn. (Kent, Faversham||Percy, Earl|
|Davenport, William Bromley||Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil||Plummer, Walter, R.|
|Dickinson, Robert Edmond||Hunt, Rowland||Powell, Sir Francis Sharp|
|Pretyman, Ernest George||Seely, Maj. J E B (Isle of Wight||Walker, Col. William Hall|
|Purvis, Robert||Sharpe, William Edward T.||Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H.|
|Randles, John S.||Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)||Warde, Colonel C. E.|
|Rasch, Sir Frederick Carne||Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)||Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E R. (Bath)|
|Reid, James (Greenock)||Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Lancs.)||Wylie, Alexander|
|Ridley, Hon. M. W. (Stalybridge||Stock, James Henry||Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George|
|Ridley, S Forde (Bethnal Green||Stone, Sir Benjamin||Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong|
|Round, Rt. Hon. James||Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)|
|Runciman, Walter||Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)|
|Rutherford, John (Lancashire)||Thornton, Percy M.||TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes.|
|Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)||Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.|
|Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford||Tuff, Charles|
|Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos. Myles||Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward|
|Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)||Hayden, John Patrick||Power, Patrick Joseph|
|Ainsworth, John Stirling||Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.||Priestley, Arthur|
|Allen, Charles P.||Henderson, Arthur (Durham)||Reddy, M.|
|Barry, E. (Cork, S.)||Holland, Sir William Henry||Redmond, John E. (Waterford)|
|Boland, John||Johnson, John (Gateshead)||Redmond, William (Clare)|
|Brigg, John||Joyce, Michael||Roche, John|
|Burke, E. Haviland||Kilbride, Denis||Rose, Charles Day|
|Caldwell, James||Lundon, W.||Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)|
|Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)||MacNeill, John Gordon Swift||Shackleton, David James|
|Condon, Thomas Joseph||MacVeagh, Jeremiah||Sheehan, Daniel, Daniel|
|Crean, Eugene||M'Crae, George||Sheehy, David|
|Cremer, William Randal||M'Hugh, Patrick A.||Slack, John Bamford|
|Cullinan, J.||M'Kean, John||Sullivan, Donal|
|Delany, William||M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)||Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)|
|Devlin, Charles Ramsay (Galway||Mooney, John J.||Thomas David Alfred (Merthyr|
|Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.)||Nannetti, Joseph P.||Toulmin, George|
|Doogan, P. C.||Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)||Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)|
|Farrell, James Patrick||O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid||White, Luke (York, E. R.)|
|Ffrench, Peter||O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.||Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)|
|Flavin, Michael Joseph||O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)||Whittaker, Thomas Palmer|
|Flynn, James Christopher||O'Dowd, John|
|Fuller, J. M. F.||O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.||TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Captain Donelan and Mr. Patrick O'Brien.|
|Gilhooly, James||O'Malley, William|
|Griffith, Ellis J.||O'Mara, James|
|Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton||O'Shaughnessy, P. J.|