Mr. Balfour's reply was thoroughly sound. It treated the whole
matter with becoming seriousness, but without any in- dications of sensationalism or panic. It was ridiculous to accuse the Government of want of knowledge. Though they had no knowledge conveyed through official channels, they had obtained a great deal of private information, but it was given under the seal of secrecy, and could not be divulged without a breach of faith. The subject was divided into two divisions. There was the Admiralty question of the subsi- dised cruisers, and there was the general question of our hold upon the carrying trade. As to the cruisers, the House had already been informed that we had a lien on them for three years—the original term of the contract with the Admiralty— and "at the end of the three years it is by no means certain, perhaps it is even by no means probable, that these ships will change their flag." "We have thus secured our position for three years, and in those three years I think the Government will be very much to blame if they cannot find some means of adequately providing for the cruiser force of the country." As to the general question, it was clear that the utmost care and consideration was required. Only two suggestions had as yet been made, — a universal bounty on shipping, and the revival of the Navigation Acts. But a debate on the adjournment of the House was not the occasion to deal with issues so tremendous and so complicated. They could not be decided on off-hand.
Previous page
