A rather serious debate was raised by the Gladstonians on
Monday, on the Naval Estimates, their complaint being that the Government was pledging the votes of future years, which was unconstitutional. This, as Mr. Gosthen showed, was really an attack on. the Naval Defence Act of 1889, which sanctioned this very thing as essential to a continuous- and thoroughly explained policy of shipbuilding. Parliament would always have a right to repeal that Act, but could not, while it was unrepealed, object to Government acting under it, especially, remarked Mr. Balfour, as such action was un- avoidable, ships taking more than a year to build. The answer is a little hollow, as Parliament could vote money for finishing ships just as easily as for laying them down ; but there are two final objections to that course. Unless Parlia- ment pledges itself, and so terminates its own vacillations, a. consistent scheme is impossible, and, moreover, money voted. " at twice," always exceeds in amount money voted to begin and finish with. Nothing costs so much as a house built piecemeal, and the total cost of a much-repaired ship would. startle any builder.
Previous page
