£300,000 on dredging, much of which | necessarily to put in a great deal of must necessarily be work of ephemeral work and material to advance the effect. If Pembroke were omitted from interior fitting of the ship before it this Bill, it would be in an inferior posi- left Pembroke. Those workmen, and tion to the other dockyards. Devonport, the material they used, had to be ferried Portsmouth and Chatham were to be back and forward from the yard over placed in a better position than before, the intervening distance to Hobbs' Point but absolutely nothing was to be done in launches and boats, and if a man for Pembroke. The consequence of forgot a tool or some necessary material, pursuing a policy of this kind in the or if the need of either suddenly arose, case of Pembroke would be to make it he had to be taken back in a launch or more and more inferior to the other boat to the yard to get it. Heavy dockyards. This practically meant, as boilers and other machinery had to be the Secretary for India stated last year, brought in lighters and landed on the the extinction of Pembroke. He had dockyard ground, and then they were the noble Lord's authority for saying re-embarked on the lighters and taken to that, of the four great naval dockyards Hobbs' Point and re-landed. All this in the country, only three could build loss of time and money, and the transfer ships of the largest dimensions, and of of machinery, would be saved if a jetty these Pembroke was one; and yet, while were constructed at Hobbs' Point. It improvements were, in the interests of had been calculated that the saving in economy and efficiency, required at money and in time would amount to Pembroke, and while large and per- £10,000 for the work to be done on one manent additions were being made to vessel only of the largest size. The jetty the Navy, nothing was being done for would also, if constructed, be very useful the improvement of Pembroke. What for coaling purposes for Her Majesty's was required in that dockyard was ships. In time of war the resources of a large dry dock, a jetty, and a the three great dockyards in the south of powerful pair of shear legs. It was England would be strained to the uttertrue that the jetty and shear legs most, while those of Pembroke could be might be constructed for £100,000; they concentrated upon shipbuilding. might even be constructed for less, but a vessels, moreover, could be completed dry dock was required for the purpose of there, and the risks incidental to towage fitting and finishing vessels which have and convoy to Devonport in time of war now to be taken to Devonport to be would be avoided. The dockyard would completed, and the whole work could not be then able to undertake the repair of be done for less than £150,000. This every vessel that came to the harbour. was just 1 per cent. of the amount On every point he had mentioned he applied to naval works by the present could quote the authority of the SecreBill. Their demand, he thought, was tary for India, who went into the case the most reasonable that had ever been thoroughly ten years ago. He had put forward in connection with any received a deputation upon the subject, Measure. At Pembroke only one part of and had expressed his concurrence in the the work required in connection with necessity for the works, and he stated the construction of a ship could now be that he had always considered that Pemperformed, namely, the commencement, broke had a primary claim for the which included all work up to the additional expenditure that would be launching of the vessel. All the neces- required. All the neces- required. His opinion was supported by sary work up to the launch could be done that of other prominent naval authoriat the dockyard, but when the vessel ties in the House. The hon. Member was launched, she could not be brought for Kirkdale had stated that all naval alongside, but had to be towed to a authorities agreed that, for the purpose point three-quarters of a mile out of the of construction, finishing and repairing precincts of the yard, to a jetty called of vessels Pembroke Dock was of the Hobbs' Point. The vessel there had to highest importance, and while condemnbe moored and re-moored at every turn of ing emphatically the policy of the Govthe tide, which rose and fell a consider- ernment which concentrated all their able distance. Fitters of ironwork, efforts on Portsmouth, Devonport, and carpenters, and other artificers had Chatham, he drew attention to the

The

most act in accordance with the letter and the spirit of the line they had taken when in opposition, and that they would not utterly neglect or leave to the mercy of Parliament in a future year this dockyard, situated in the finest harbour on this island, with adequate protection from torpedo attacks, and with unlimited possibilities of usefulness for the purpose of offence and defence in time of war. THE CIVIL LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN,

were

importance of Pembroke as a important strategical point as a protection for the commerce of the Mersey, the Clyde, and the Bristol Channel. The hon. Member for Belfast had supported the policy of treating Pembroke Dock fairly. The hon. Member for the Eastbourne Division of Sussex had urged the strategic importance of Pembroke Dock, and had stated that naval opinion was agreed on the duty of the Government with regard to Pembroke. The power, he said, was with the Gov- Worcestershire, E.) hoped that when the ernment of the day, who ought not to hon. Member opposite had heard the exshrink from what they knew to be right. planation of the Government he would The Board of Admiralty only last not think it necessary to press the year investigated the question on the Amendment to a Division. The hon. spot, and announced that they intended Member, he thought, was under some to build a jetty at Pembroke Dock and misapprehension as to the intentions of do away with the present incon- the Government, and as to what would venient and expensive arrangements of be attained by the proposals of the Hobbs' Point. The hon. Member for Admiralty. The hon. Member said that King's Lynn gave his voice and his vote the Government were placing Pembroke on the same side. It might be urged in an inferior position by not including that this amount would be provided for it in the Naval Works Bill. He proin the Estimates for next year, but what tested against the idea that works guarantee had they that the House of carried out under Vote 10 of the Commons would sanction it? The House Estimates in the ordinary way and the country were in a hot fit now supposed to be less important than about naval expenditure; in a year's works carried out under the Naval time the reaction might come, a cold fit Works Bill. The Admiralty would might supervene, with results that would have come to Parliament at once with be disastrous to Pembroke Dock. He a proposal for the construction of the for one thought that we were spending a jetty had it not been that after the great deal too much upon our naval present Government took office grave works, but the Government had the doubts were raised as to the expediency power to carry the expenditure of this of the Scheme which had been discussed money, and it was the business of the in that House. It would have been foolish country to see that it was properly allo- for the Admiralty to go forward with a cated. He hoped hon. Members who scheme intended to benefit Pembroke had voted not merely for the insertion when these doubts had been expressed of the amount in the Estimate for a future about its expediency. But a Committee year, for that was promised last year, was appointed to consider the Scheme, but who had voted for the insertion and it had reported, and the Admiralty of a specific amount to be expended on were now in a position to say that the Pembroke in the Naval Works Bill last construction of the jetty was possible year, would be consistent with the vote and would benefit Pembroke. They they then gave, and do justice to Pem- were not, however, in a position to inbroke. They voted for a grant to Pem- clude an Estimate for the purpose in the broke when the House only proposed to Naval Works Bill, for they could not say spend eight and a half millions on what the construction of the jetty would naval works; now it proposed to spend cost. They had, however, taken in Vote 10 fourteen millions on the same object; of the Estimates for the coming financial and to leave Pembroke Dock absolutely year a sum of money for improvements out in the cold, so far as the provisions at Pembroke Dockyard, and they would of the Bill were concerned, would spend it on the commencement of this be, he thought, a piece of injustice work, and his right hon. Friend would which no one could extenuate. He be prepared, when they came to Parliatherefore hoped the Government would ment next year with a Bill to continue Mr. Herbert Lewis.

take part in an engagement? Vessels, if they left Pembroke unable to take part in a naval engagement, would be useless, for they would not be in a position to defend themselves. The hon. Member protested against his statement that Pembroke was placed in an inferior position by not being included in the Naval Works Bill. He had made that statement, not upon his own authority, but upon the authority of the Secretary of State for India, who said last year—

the present one, to include in it pro- would be completed there with the vision for the completion of the exception of certain small fittings. jetty. The hon. Member for the Flint MR. HERBERT LEWIS asked, Boroughs desired that it should be no whether the ships would be ready to longer necessary to take ships away from Pembroke as soon as they were launched, and that it should be possible to complete them at Pembroke as they were completed at other places. This jetty, he thought, would supply what the hon. Member wanted. He was advised that if the jetty was constructed, it would be possible to bring ships alongside, and, practically to complete them at Pembroke, at any rate, to complete them up to the point which was reached by contractors MR. HERBERT LEWIS regretted that more satisfactory reply had not been given. The noble Lord the Secretary of State for India, who had been First Lord of the Admiralty, last year deliberately moved the inclusion of Pembroke in the Naval Works Bill. The hon. Member had not replied to his argument that that course was the right course to have taken then. Still more was it the right course to pursue now. The hon. Member said that the Admiralty had at one time grave doubts as to the expediency of constructing the jetty, but the present Secretary of State for India had gone into the question before, and had come to the conclusion that it was expedient.

a

MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN said, that information was put before the present Board of Admiralty, which was not in the possession of his right hon. Friend and the late Board of Admiralty. It was that information which gave rise to the doubt which was not a spontaneous growth in the minds of the Members of the present Board.

MR. HERBERT LEWIS said that, as the doubt had been removed, it would appear that the Admiralty had listened to some cock-and-bull story. The Admiralty ought to censure the parties who supplied the information that caused the doubt. He wished to draw the attention of the hon. Member to this point, that in time of war, unless vessels could be actually completed at Pembroke, they would have to be conveyed round to Devonport to be finished.

"Nobody could deny that Pembroke was placed in a very inferior position as compared with other dockyards. Under this Bill (the Bill providing only for an expenditure of eight and a half millions), Devonport, Portsmouth, and Chatham would be in a better position than before, while Pembroke remained where it was."

If that was the case under a Bill providing for the expenditure of £8,500,000 how much more would it be the case under a Bill which provided for the expenditure of £14,000,000? While the manner of the reply of the hon. Gentleman the Civil Lord of the Admiralty was everything that could be desired, the reply itself was entirely at variance with the attitude taken up by the Opposition last year.

SIR JOHN COLOMB said, he had every sympathy with the claims put forward on behalf of Pembroke. The place was one of great importance, and in the past it had been too much neglected. But he did not see how they were to get more than had been promised by the Civil Lord. While the hon. Gentleman was speaking the hon. Member for the Flint Boroughs was engaged in conversation with the hon. Member for Northampton, and therefore he missed the very cream of that statement. The Admiralty had said they recognised the extreme importance of putting Pembroke in such a position that ships could be completed for sea there, and under such circumstances he did not think hon. Members would do their cause much good by pressing the matter to a

MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN Division. explained that he had said that the THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIjetty at Pembroke would render the RALTY denied that there had been completion of vessels possible. They any breach of faith. The Admiralty VOL. XXXIX. [FOURTH SERIES.]

L

THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY said, his noble Friend the Secretary of State for India treated Pembroke as a finishing yard. Ships could be finished almost to the last stage.

proposed to carry out exactly what was there? If not, the object which the suggested last year. A jetty was then noble Lord professed to have in view proposed, and now one upon an enlarged had not been carried out. plan was to be constructed. The work could not be put into the Bill now, because they could not increase the total amount, but they would meet the wishes of the Opposition last year, including the hon. gentleman himself, by putting it in the Bill after this financial year was ended. It was inevitable, for the sake of the other items which were at present in the Bill, that this one must be brought in.

MR. LLOYD-GEORGE was sorry if he appeared to be too expressively persistent, but he was simply making the demand which the noble Lord made last year. The right hon. Gentleman was labouring under a misapprehension. The noble Lord's demand was not confined to

*LIEUTENANT-GENERAL LAURIE said, the Admiralty had accepted the principle that Pembroke should be made a finish-converting Pembroke into a building ing yard, and they proposed to place a yard, for he said :jetty there as the first step. That being the case, after all the House had heard he appealed to them whether he had not every reason to be satisfied.

MR. D. LLOYD-GEORGE (Carnavon District) agreed that the First made Lord of the Admiralty had a very substantial concession to Pembroke, but still what he promised fell short of the demand made last year by the present Secretary of State for India. The noble Lord's first point was that it ought not to be left to the Estimates for the year to make provision for a permanent jetty. The right hon. Gentleman had made a fair answer. He had said he was prepared to go as far as possible in the current year's expenditure, but next year he would include it in the naval works. On that point the answer was satisfactory. But, with regard to the second point of the noble Lord, he could not accept the reply given as a complete one. Last year, the noble Lord said:

"At Pembroke only one part of the work required in connection with the construction of a ship could be performed- namely, the commencement, which included all work up to the launching. There were two other stages, the advancement and the final completion."

That was the whole point at issue. Would the work to be undertaken by the Government in future include those two stages? He understood from the Civil Lord that there was, at any rate, one important part of the work that could not be done at Pembroke. Suppose a ship turned in there for the purpose of repairs after a naval engagement, would it be possible to complete the repairs First Lord of the Admiralty.

"It seemed to him essential, therefore, that Pembroke should be included in the Bill. It

had the finest harbour, he supposed, in the United Kingdom, and that being so, surely it was advisable that the naval dockyard there should be so constituted that in time of war it would be in a position to undertake the repair of every vessel that had to come into the harbour."

The right hon. Gentleman surely could not complain of them if they made exactly the demand which his colleague and predecessor, the noble Lord, pressed on the Government by dividing the House.

The

THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY: We divided on the jetty. MR. LLOYD-GEORGE begged the right hon. Gentleman's pardon. noble Lord said Pembroke had the finest harbour in the United Kingdom, and it ought to be in a position to repair every vessel that came there. They were, therefore, making the identical demand that the noble Lord made.

THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY said, that last year they divided on the sum of £60,000 for a jetty. Now the Government proposed to spend £99,000. Pembroke would be included in any large proposals, but beyond that they could not go at present.

MR. HERBERT LEWIS said, they were asking for one per cent. only for this great and important dockyard, and the right hon. Gentleman said they should not fasten on any particular part of the Vote, but what had the Member for Kirkdale said? That for the purpose of construction, finishing and repairing,

Pembroke was of the highest importance. ought to have ready at hand for any One would have thought that where they emergency. It was all very well in the were going to spend 14 millions they olden days to build ships in the south, would have done everything possible for when ships were built of oak, because Pembroke. They were making a modest there was plenty of timber in the south, and reasonable demand, and unless the but nowadays no merchant ships were right hon. Gentleman saw his way to built in the south of England but in the granting the small amount they de- north, and the ships for our navy ought manded he should go to a Division. therefore, to be built in the north. If that were done several ships could be repaired at the same time, because the skilled men who were employed on merchant shipbuilding could be turned

MR. LLOYD-GEORGE said, he had simply quoted the words used by the noble Lord (Hamilton) :

"That the naval dockyard"-Pembroke-on to the work. "should be so constituted that in time of war it would be capable of undertaking the repair of every vessel that came into the harbour."

*THE CHAIRMAN said, the Amendment was in line 21, column 5 to omit £500,000, in order to insert £400,000. The question was that £500,000 stand part of the Bill.

share of this expenditure, as it was more sheltered from attack?

["Hear, hear!"] It was very convenient at that time to say that; there was an election coming on-[cheers]—and it MR. W. FIELD asked if he would be was necessary to appeal to the electors in order in endeavouring to show that of the Pembroke Docks. The appeal Haulbowline was entitled to a certain was made, and every advantage was taken of it, and the seat was won. He thought that under the circumstances the noble Lord should have been in his place. The whole point was that Pembroke must be put on the same footing as Devonport? Was that done?

The Committee Divided:-Ayes, 52; Noes, 183.-(Division List, No. 70.)

DR. CLARK (Caithness) proposed, in page 4, line 21, col. 5, to reduce the sum of £500,000 allotted to the extension of Keyham Harbour by £100,000. Last year the House had voted a large sum for the extension of Devonport Dock, and now they were asked to vote a million and a quarter in addition to the sum obtained last year. Out of the 14 millions asked for these purposes, it was proposed to spend about nine millions in the south of England.

*THE CHAIRMAN said, he had already ruled that if a Motion was made to diminish the sum allotted to a particular work the Debate must be confined to that sum in respect of that work.

DR. CLARK said, he did not think this extension was required, or that the south of England was the proper place for shipbuilding or repairing. It was far away from the sources from which raw material came, from iron and coal, and they had not in that part of England that class of skilled labour which they

*THE CHAIRMAN ruled that this would not be in order.

MR. W. REDMOND asked if it would be in order to move that the word Keyham be omitted in order to insert the word Haulbowline?

*THE CHAIRMAN: No, we have now reached the figure £500,000.

MR. J. CALDWELL (Lanark, Mid.) supported the Amendment. Keyham harbour was a most indefensible harbour, there were not sufficient batteries there to safeguard ships which might be lying outside waiting their turn to get into dock. It would be necessary, therefore, if the harbour were extended to improve the defences of the harbour. It was very inconvenient to have all our dockyards on the south of England, which necessitated an enormous amount of money for the cost of the carriage of raw material from the north.

MR. MACARTNEY: Where would you put your dockyard?

MR. CALDWELL said the Chairman did not allow him to state that. With regard to labour, it had been pointed out that in time of peace all repairs could be carried out in the Government dockyards, but what would be the case in the time of war? In time of war the Government would find themselves unable to procure the services of skilled shipwrights. If the Government