PAY, ETC., OF THE ARMY (VOTE 1).

HC Deb 05 June 1913 vol 53 cc1058-178

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £8,623,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of the Pay, etc., of His Majesty's Army (including Army Reserve) at Home and Abroad (exclusive of India), which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1914."

The CHAIRMAN

The Committee will recollect, no doubt, that when Vote A was taken on 20th March, under rather special circumstances, a request was made to the Chair that when we came to Vote 1 an unusual width of debate might be allowed. That was assented to by the Chair. I remind the Committee of the circumstances now in order that it may appear on the records that this is an unusual width, the general rule being that on Vote 1 the Debate is confined to matters pertinent to the Debate itself.

Mr. CROOKS

Will it be possible to raise the question of the Army workshops on this Vote?

The CHAIRMAN

Any matter which is usually in order on Vote A—that is, anything reasonably connected with the efficiency of the Army—will be in order.

Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS

I rise for the purpose of dealing with the question of aviation. The time has come when we should once and for all get the exact facts in regard to the position of aviation in this country. I want to explain exactly my position in the matter, because of the statement made by the Secretary of State on the last occasion when we were discussing this matter. I made some suggestions as to the number of aeroplanes possessed by the Royal Army Flying Corps. The right hon. Gentleman very strongly took exception to my statements, and wound up by saying— I say, on my full responsibility as a Minister, that we have got 101 aeroplanes which are flying. I understand the hon. Gentleman to say that that is not true. That is a very unusual statement to make. Subsequently, in answer to a question, the right hon. Gentleman expressed very strongly his opinion that I ought not to question his figures, and that when he makes a statement on his responsibility as a Minister there is an end of the matter, and that it is impossible for him to say anything which will satisfy me on this question. I, in my position as a Member of this House, have exactly the same responsibility as any other Member. The right hon. Gentleman and I occupy exactly the same position here as representatives of constituencies. We are appointed by constituencies to represent certain views before the House. While he puts before the House certain facts on his responsibility as a Minister, I put certain facts and statements upon my responsibility as a Member of Parliament. While it is quite impossible for the right hon. Gentleman to know everything regarding the actual details, and while I agree that the statements he makes must be made on the best information he can get, equally the statements I have made and the questions I have put have been made and put on the best information I have been able to obtain, and the statements I shall make this afternoon will be made on the best information I have been able to get. I put the statements before the House with a full sense of my own personal responsibility in the matter. There is very great public anxiety in regard to this matter. It is not a mere scare raised by myself or any other Member of the House. The whole flying world, and every Member of the Flying Corps itself, or many of them, could tell the House that they are anxious as to the position of affairs. The flying Press is most anxious, and the public Press unconnected with the flying world is equally anxious. They are anxious because the right hon. Gentleman has not made a full and complete disclosure of our position with regard to the aeroplanes which the Royal Flying Corps possess at the present moment. The scare, if it be a scare, can be got rid of in five minutes by the production of full information. It will not be sufficient for the right hon. Gentleman to get up and say, "I have 100 flying machines." That I do not accept, and I do not think the public will accept it. What we want to know is where they are, what flying they are capable of, and whether the Royal Flying Corps is fully up to the proper strength. The right hon. Gentleman stated on 4th March, 1912— Both the Army and Navy Wing of the Air Corps; will be always on a war footing, and the peace and war establishment will be the same. That is what I want to pin the right hon. Gentleman down to in regard to these particular squadrons. A war footing means, as I take it, that every squadron will be as ready as every battery of Artillery on a war footing—that it will be ready with machines, transports, officers, and reserves. You cannot regard a battery of Artillery as on a war footing if it is 25 per cent down, and if its transport is not efficient. Only those batteries are on a war footing which are complete and ready to start to-morrow morning. We want to know whether the right hon. Gentleman's Flying Squadrons are on a war footing to-day. On 19th March last he told us that we had 101 aeroplanes, and when I challenged him with respect to that statement on 24th March he admitted that there were only eighty-six of these machines up to the very moderate standard I suggested. I asked him if these 101 machines could rise 3,000 feet, fly 50 miles an hour, continue up for three hours, and be ready to go to war next morning. That is a very moderate estimate of the qualities of an aeroplane, and I have been told on all hands that I was far too moderate in my statement of what constituted an efficient aeroplane. The right hon. Gentleman came down to the House after telephoning to the officials—he could not answer the question himself and had to get information from the officials—and reduced the number from 101 to eighty-six. He promised that by the end of March there would be 127 machines, of which 110 would be efficient, and that by 31st May there would be 148 machines, of which 130 would be up to the standard I suggested. He added that possibly the supply might be accelerated. He told us that it was not easy to get machines owing to the difficulty of getting supplies. I shall deal with the question of the difficulty of getting supplies in a moment, because I have taken upon myself to communicate with practically all the aeroplane manufacturers in this country, certainly the principal ones, and I shall be prepared to give the House their answer.

When the right hon. Gentleman gave the pledge as to eighty-six of the machines being efficient and ready to go to war, I interrupted him in order to make clear that they were efficient. My suggestion was that they should be ready to start for war within a reasonable time. "Oh, yes," he said, "The eighty are ready to go." We were entitled to put question after question on the subject. We have been put off with answers of different kinds. Now we are entitled to ask the right hon. Gentleman definitely whether these eighty or 120 machines are ready to go to war to-day. I began to ask my questions soon after that statement was made in March, but he declined to say how many were biplanes and how many were monoplanes. When my hon. Friend the Member for East Antrim on 15th April asked him how many of the 101 aeroplanes had been flown across country, the reply was— With the exception of two instructional machines at the Central Flying School, all the biplanes of the Royal Flying Corps have been flown across country since 1st September, 1912. None of the monoplanes have been flown since the accidents which occurred in the early part of September. A certain number of them were flown across country between 1st September and that date, but there are no detailed records,"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th April, 1912, col. 1720.] That again gave no information. On 23rd April I again inquired as to how many were ready to start for war, how many had been delivered since 19th March, and I asked also for various other particulars. The answer was that it was not in the public interest to give the information asked. He would not tell us how many of the whole machines which had flown across country were biplanes and how many monoplanes. That is very unfair. It is putting upon us the almost impossible task of finding out for ourselves, and I do not think that is treating the House of Commons quite fairly in the matter. I asked what monoplanes were ready to fly, and whether the officers were allowed to fly Nieuport machines. He referred me to the answer he gave on 13th March. On referring to it, I found it was no reply at all.

I have here a whole bundle of questions put during the last few months to the right hon. Gentleman by myself and other hon. Gentlemen, and the whole of the answers are very ingeniously worded. I suppose Ministers are entitled to adopt ingenious methods when evading questions in regard to matters upon which we desire to get information. I then turned to the Memorandum. He told us in that document that it was decided to begin the organisation of the Royal Flying Corps by one airship squadron and three aeroplane squadrons in 1912–13. The fifth and sixth squadrons were to be raised this year. The right hon. Gentleman said he looked forward confidently to the establishment on a permanent basis during 1913–14 of six out of the eight units required to complete our Expeditionary Force. That would need 60 machines, plus 30 spare machines. That would make 90 machines. I personally would be inclined to say that it would be absolutely necessary to have 60 spare machines. That would bring the total up to 120 machines ready to go to war and always on a war footing. The minimum speed should be 55 miles an hour, the carrying capacity 350 lbs., in addition to fuel for four and a half hours, three hours' flight at a height of 4,500 ft. with the load mentioned, and a climbing speed of 200 ft. per minute. When one of my hon. Friends asked the right hon. Gentleman, a few weeks ago, how many machines would fulfil these conditions, he replied, "That is not a test at all." But these are the right hon. Gentleman's own figures; these are the exact conditions which were laid down by the Board eighteen months ago for the competitions for military aeroplanes, and upon which the military aeroplanes competed at Salisbury Plain last August. Therefore, I venture to suggest that they are not only not too high, but that they are too low, if anything, because they are eighteen months old. France, Germany, Italy, and America have been going forward during that time enormously in the science of aviation, yet the right hon. Gentleman will not tell us how many machines he has which will fulfil those tests. I am afraid it will be found that a very small number of his 120 machines could fulfil anything like those tests at the present moment.

The question of repairs is very vital, having regard to the accidents which have taken place during the last few weeks. In every other country in the world the Army Flying Corps has got mechanics of its own, but in no other country in the world do those mechanics execute vital repairs to machines. In France and Germany, when a machine is badly damaged, it is not repaired by the ordinary Army mechanic it is sent back to the maker, who alone can tune up properly these extraordinarily tender and nice machines. Here the Army mechanic tackles monoplanes and biplanes and every variety of different makes. I asked the right hon. Gentleman two months ago whether he would not entertain the desirability, certainly for the next few years, of sending these machines back periodically as they are sent back in foreign countries, even if there is no accident at all, to the makers for a complete overhauling and a complete refitting. Everybody knows who drives a motor car that after a certain number of miles have been run, we invariably send them back to the maker, if we are wise, at all events, for a thorough overhauling. We do not give it to the first jobbing artisan we can find. We send the Renaud to the Renaud, and the Daimler to the Daimler, and so on, because they alone know exactly how the engine is geared and how the different parts ought to be tuned up to the highest pitch of efficiency. If this is necessary for a motor car, it is still more necessary in the case of the machines on which our young soldiers risk their lives day after day. The result of the Government policy is apparent in the recent accidents. The right hon. Gentleman told us two months ago that in the B.E. machine evolved by the Royal Army Factory we have the best aeroplane in the world and we have several of them. We have evolved in it a type which is far superior to that in the possession of any nation in the world. The right hon. Gentleman rather foreshadowed that other nations might smile; I think that they have been smiling for the last few months. I think it is an unfortunate thing that the Secretary of State, who is responsible for the well being of our Army, should come down to this House and boast that we have evolved a machine which is far superior to anything in the world. It is known by flying men on the Continent as well as here that though it is a good machine in many respects, and I am not criticising it, it certainly is not superior to any other machine in the world, and this machine has already had some bad accidents. One of them, I think, caused the accident to Lieutenant de Havilland, and one of them caused the accident to Lieutenant Rogers-Harrison. The Royal Aero Club, which has been given a semi-official position in regard to flying at present which is recognised by the Government, has a technical Committee which goes down to examine into fatal accidents. This Committee examined into this accident with its technical experts, and this is its report upon the right hon. Gentleman's machine. This was not a B.E. machine, but a Cody machine. This was a machine which was flown a great deal during the last two years; it was built in 1011. Here is the report which I think the right hon. Gentleman cannot get out of. The committee is of opinion that the aircraft has structurally deteriorated from one cause or another since it was originally built in 1911— This Committee is a perfectly independent body. It has no hostility to the right hon. Gentleman, and indeed it entertained him to dinner not very long ago— and that its condition at the time of the flight was precarious. What is to be thought of the action of the Government in sending a young lieutenant up in a machine whose condition was precarious? The elevator was not designed with a view to.… In view of the fact that aircraft are built of perishable material, the Committee strongly recommends that those which have been in existence for some time, whether they have been in use or not, should undergo periodical examination, both as regards their framework and their fabric with a view to ascertaining to what extent deterioration has taken place, and that the condition of the aircraft generally be reported at the time. Nothing of the kind seems to have taken place with regard to this machine. You cannot have a stronger condemnation of the manner in which repairs are carried out than this. Then take the death of Lieutenant Arthur recently when flying one of the perfect B.E. machines. It was flown and controlled by, I think, Major Burke, at Montrose, a few weeks ago. Some days after it was taken out and controlled by Lieutenant Arthur. I want to be perfectly frank in reference to the statements which I am going to make now. I will not state anything on my own responsibility unless I have investigated it. I do not vouch for them, but there are rumours going about of a very serious nature round about Farnborough and Aldershot to the effect that that machine was known to be in a bad condition before it was sent to Montrose.

The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Colonel Seely)

This is a very serious matter. It is the first that I have heard of the rumours. I should be glad if the hon. Gentleman would state on what he bases those rumours?

Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS

I think that the right hon. Gentleman is entitled to ask that question. I base those rumours upon the report which has been made to me by two gentlemen.

Colonel SEELY

By whom?

Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS

Wait a minute. I have said that I would not state anything on my own responsibility unless I had investigated it, and I prefaced this remark particularly by saying that this was rumour, and I did not guarantee its accuracy. I am a Member of Parliament, and when I hear that rumours of this kind are flying about, am I not to give the right hon. Gentleman an opportunity of denying them because I cannot guarantee their accuracy? I stated perfectly clearly that I did not guarantee their accuracy, but the rumours are there. I do guarantee that, and I think that that is sufficient.

Colonel SEELY

Is the position that you do not scruple to talk about rumours without mentioning the names of the persons from whom you heard them? I must ask the hon. Gentleman to give me the name of any responsible source for these rumours. What does he mean by making allegations without giving me any opportunity to investigate them?

4.0 P.M.

Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS

4.0 p.m. At present I will not give any names. The right hon. Gentleman may smile. I am about, in a moment, to tell him all I know about them. I sent two gentlemen, one of whom is a retired Army officer, down to Farnborough this week. I asked them personally to report on this matter, and I interviewed them before they went. They came back to me and assured me that there are rumours of this kind. The right hon. Gentleman may say that I ought to give him more information, but the choice lies between giving him the names of these people, which I am not prepared to do, and saying nothing whatever about the rumours, which tie right hon. Gentleman would know nothing about. I stated that I have been informed that there are rumours, and if I have been wrongly informed, and it is shown that I have been wrongly informed, I will at once express my regret for having mentioned those rumours. The right hon. Gentleman will perfectly understand that I do not guarantee their truth; I merely say that those rumours exist, but I do not guarantee their accuracy. The right hon. Gentleman has a right to know that there are those rumours, and he can investigate them. There is one very simple point in connection with this particular subject to which I wish to call attention. The hon. Member for Montrose Burghs (Mr. Robert Harcourt) put a question to the right hon. Gentleman, who in his answer dealt with this particular machine. The question was put on the 2nd June, and in his answer the Secretary for War, to his own satisfaction, explained that it was an accident, but I will call attention to a very simple phrase in his answer, which was given only two days ago. The right hon. Gentleman said, in reply to the hon. Member's question— The right upper wing tip broke upwards during a right hand spiral, causing the aeroplane to swing to the right. The wood of the rear of the wing tip, which was covered by the fabric where the damage probably started, had been repaired at some time, but it has not yet been possible to discover when and where this repair w as carried out. The right hon. Gentleman has 120 machines. I will take a business which is' carried on in London, the business of a company which has over 2,000 motor omnibuses, and I can give him a record of every single overhauling and every single repair in respect to every one of those omnibuses, and the nature of each repair could be investigated in ten minutes. Here the right hon.' Gentleman has at his disposal the whole staff of the War Office, and has only 120 machines, machines of a vitally dangerous character to deal with. The right hon. Gentleman admits that there was a repair of the woodwork of the machine to which I have referred at a vital point, yet there is no record of it; he cannot find any record of where that repair was done. What an admission in regard to the organisation of the Royal Flying Corps! The right hon. Gentleman told us in March of this year that there was a difficulty in getting engines, but added that he was taking actve steps to have that weakness removed. On the 19th March he offered a prize of £1,000 for the details of a good engine, and he added, "The details of that competition are at this moment being settled by a sub-committee of the Air Committee, of which I am chairman." Ten weeks have elapsed, and nothing has been heard of those details. I should like to know where the details are to-day. The whole of the engine manufacturers are awaiting the details in order to go into the competition. The right hon. Gentleman says he cannot get engines, and to this day these precious details of the competition are not forthcoming. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman is too busy or whether the Committee has gone to sleep. To-day there is not a single machine in the Royal Flying Corps driven by a British engine. What is to happen at war time? We have got 120 machines driven by foreign engines of various kinds, and some of which have been smashed up at different places. In time of war how will you be able to get engines First of all, you could not get them from France or from America, so that, above all things in the world, we must have a British industry created in order to provide engines for aircraft.

Colonel SEELY

Hear, hear.

Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS

The right hon. Gentleman cheers my remarks and goes to sleep on the details. Let me come to the question of the supply of machines, and perhaps here, again, the right hon. Gentleman will be angry with me because I do not give the names. I have here letters written to me by a number of companies who manufacture aeroplanes. One letter, dated the 28th April, states:— Were we given an order for fifty machines we could turn them out at the rate of one machine per week. This would mean increasing our present staff about 50 per cent; but an order of the above dimensions would be sufficient guarantee for our going to the necessary outlay. The trouble in the past has been that machines were only ordered in twos and threes and consequently we have not had sufficient work in view to keep on a large staff. Another company replied— In the event of our being given an order for twenty-five or fifty machines of the same type, we could at this moment turn them out at the rate of one a week; and should there be any real prospect of such orders coming through, we would be in a position within six months to turn them out at the rate of five a week. In another case the company, in a reply dated the 29th April, said:— We are just laying down some more machinery to enable us to deal with large Government orders for aeroplanes, and when this machinery is in working order, as it will be in about three weeks or a month, we shall be able to turn out Government machines at the rate of one a week. Another company wrote:— With reference to your letter of the 2fith inst. inquiring how long we would take to manufacture twenty-five or fifty aeroplanes should the Government require them, the answer entirely depends upon the size and type of machine and also the nature of the engine specified. The ordinary rate at which we can turn out aeroplanes of a standard engine and design is about two a fortnight commencing three months after date of order. Another letter states:— We have in hand about forty aeroplanes for various governments. This firm supplies aeroplanes all over the world, except to the English. Another company write that they are ready to turn out 200 aeroplanes and are in a position to increase the output to 300 per annum.

Colonel SEELY

Will the hon. and learned Gentleman tell me how many firms he wrote to?

Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS

I wrote to eight firms, of some of them I could give the names, and there are only two who deliberately ask that their names should not be stated, and I see they are the names of companies who have orders from the right hon. Gentleman. I do not know that there would be any objection to the other names being known. Everybody knows that there are not more than eight first-class manufacturers of aeroplanes, and it is easy to gather the names of the firms who are prepared to deliver at the rate of one a week if they receive decent orders. But if the right hon. Gentleman dribbles out orders for twos and threes he cannot expect the manufacturer to lay down sufficient plant for a rapid output. If he gives orders for twenty-five or fifty at a time he will have no difficulty in getting machines. Of the 126 machines the right hon. Gentleman admitted that thirty-one are undergoing repair. That leaves ninety-five ready to go into battle to-morrow morning. It is all very well for the right hon. Gentleman to say that it is not in accordance with public policy to say how many machines he is going to have, but I submit that we are entitled to know where he is getting the machines, and whether they are biplanes or monoplanes, and whether they are English or foreign. We get particulars of our torpedo boats, and we get particulars of guns, but every time we ask fir information on this subject we are told that it is not in accordance with the public interest to give it. I am going, however, to give the figures. There are ninety-five machines at the disposal of the various squadrons, and which we are told are on a war footing, but of the ninety-five the machines of certain of the squadrons are hopelessly in the air.

Mr. LEE

Not in the air.

Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS

My hon. Friend says they are not in the air. That is true, but I submit that they are not in the air in another sense. The right hon. Gentleman has informed us that he had four squadrons on a war footing a year ago. No. 1 squadron has one airship and three little machines—the "Beta," which is too small for war; the "Gamma," which is not much better; and the "Delta," which was a failure from the start, and has never done any prolonged flight. In regard to No. 2 squadron at Montrose, five machines were sent up early this year. Since then they have never all been in tying order, and there have rarely been more than two or three fit to fly, and sometimes all of them have been out of order. There are eight or nine officers of that squadron. Their machines have been overworked, they have been used for training, and it is idle and unfair and cruel to put an officer in peril of his life by sending him to fly a long distance across country in a machine which has been used by beginners to learn to fly, and has consequently been knocked about. A fortnight ago four more "B.E." biplanes were sent to Montrose, one of which smashed up, as I have already stated. That leaves eight machines at Montrose, of which six are in flying order. As to No. 3 Squadron at Salisbury Plain, the equipment last week was as follows: Two "B.E." biplanes built experimentally last July, but which need overhauling and are dangerous. They are not machines that the right hon. Gentleman himself would like to go up on. There are four Maurice Farman's biplanes, two of which are without engines and need overhauling by the makers, and not by the Army mechanics; four Henry Farman biplanes, one of which is without an engine, being under repair; one Avro biplane of 60 h.-p., a useful machine, but not very powerful. There are thus eleven machines, of which nine are able to fly, but are really not first-rate modern machines, and not one can compare with the high-class machines of France or Germany. The right hon. Gentleman knows that perfectly well.

Colonel SEELY

dissented.

Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS

Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will tell us when he comes to reply what the machines can do. I have not got the figures with regard to the Farnborough Squadron. Unfortunately, my Friend went on the King's birthday, and he found it difficult to get exact information at Farnborough. When the Army is out for review, it puts its best face in front. It turns out horses and Artillery as quickly as it can. They had a review; the King went down to Farnborough three weeks ago. They turned out seventeen aeroplanes. That was all that this flying squadron could do. Eight of those were brought over from Larkhill, and were not Farnborough machines at all. Again, on the King's birthday, two days ago, there were twelve machines. This was at the review, where there is the beautiful business of saluting the Flag and so forth, which we all admire so much. For that they could only put up twelve machines, and then had to send to Lark-hill to get four of those machines. Where were the flying squadrons, each of which ought to have at least twelve machines? They have Montrose with six, Larkhill with eight, Farnborough with eight, a total of twenty-two. Of those twenty-two eight are Maurice Farman's, which do not fly at more than fifty-two miles an hour, three or four are Henry Farman's, which cannot do more than sixty miles an hour, and eight are "B" biplanes, which machines, after their recent performance, are somewhat under a ban. When those accidents occurred to monoplanes a few months ago the right hon. Gentleman barred monoplanes. I should think he would probably pause before sending any more Army officers up in them. The right hon. Gentleman can easily upset all my words, not by producing documents but by producing the machines. Machines cannot be hidden. These things are known to flying men all over the country, to civilian flyers and to manufacturers alike. Let the right hon. Gentleman produce, not 120, let him produce ninety; let him produce eighty machines which can efficiently fly, and I will make him the most profound apology which has even been made in this House.

Colonel SEELY

Does the right hon. Gentleman adhere to that? If so, I will arrange to start to-morrow.

Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS

I am delighted that the right hon. Gentleman accepts my challenge. He seems to think we have some personal hostility to him. Nothing of the kind. I have no interest in the business of aeroplanes. My sole interest is a desire to see we have got what we have paid for. The right hon. Gentleman no doubt will allow a Committee of this House to view these machines. He said a little time ago that I was not a responsible Member of the House, but if he will really produce these machines, and let us see them fly for three hours, and satisfy us, I will not be backward in the apology I will make to the right hon. Gentleman. Perhaps I may have to make another apology to him, but I will deal with one more question, the question of that extraordinary order given by him at the end of March, 1913. He then gave an order by telegram or telephone to an aeroplane manufactory. I am quoting now from the "Daily Telegraph." The idea was that the right hon. Gentleman wanted to get as many machines as he could, and he offered to buy from this manufacturer all his machines, new or old, monoplanes and biplanes, tested or untested. According to the "Daily Telegraph" he got one good machine, a Henry Farman, one Henry Farman biplane of more than doubtful value, one old Nieuport monoplane that was able to fly in the Gordon-Bennett race three years ago and incorporating every fault criticised by the monoplane committee, one English-built biplane which had only been flown two or three times, one old 50-horse power biplane which had been used for training pupils for two years past. That statement has been repeated in another newspaper, the "Observer." I knew it all at the time. I was so disgusted and so ashamed that I would not even put these facts in a question before the House. I felt that if they were facts they were so detrimental to the management of the Royal Flying Corps that I would not make myself responsible for them. I only make myself responsible for them to-day to the extent that they were in the public Press, in a newspaper of integrity like the "Daily Telegraph," which charged the right hon. Gentleman with trying to find anything he could get hold of in order to be able to complete the numbers he required. I apologise for having taken up so much time, but my remarks necessarily have dealt with details. It is only in regard to details that we can thrash out this matter. The information I have been able to gather is, that we have not got these machines. I have been forced against my wish to dispute the right hon. Gentleman's statements time after time. I still believe my facts and figures are true, but if he will produce these machines and let the House of Commons or a Committee of the House see them fly, I shall be one of the first to congratulate him.

Mr. SANDYS

I cannot think the situation is satisfactory at the present time. There is one fact on which I should like to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman, that is that he is going, as I understand, to withdraw from that foolish attitude which he has taken up for some time past of withholding information on this question from the House. I hope the invitation which he has extended to my hon. Friend for a personal investigation into the numbers and conditions of machines which are at the disposal of the War Department, he will extend a little further to a Committee of a few Members of this House, so that some others of us may have an opportunity of seeing the state of things as well as the hon. Gentleman.

Colonel SEELY

The hon. Gentleman must understand it is undesirable to have a Committee going round seeing all our aeroplanes, some of which, although he does not seem contented with them, we do not wish anyone to know about. What the hon. Gentleman said was that if he could see eighty efficient aeroplanes, he would make me an ample apology. In order that all this mass of suspicion can be cleared, I will arrange for that. If the hon. Gentleman wants to accompany him, by all means, but a Commission of Inquiry, certainly not.

Mr. SANDYS

But it is not a personal matter between the hon. Member for Brentford and the Secretary of State for War; it is a national question. We have been endeavouring for some time past to elicit from the right hon. Gentleman what really is the condition of this country with regard to aeroplanes. The right hon. Gentleman for some reason or another, has for some time past, refused to give us that information. Now that I see he has changed his policy, it is not fair that he should regard it merely as a personal question between himself and the hon. Member for Brentford. He should take the House into his confidence, and if he cannot give the information to the whole House, at any rate allow a representative Committee to be appointed, to go into the whole question. We should then be more satisfied than we are at the present time. After a speech which dealt so fully with the question as did that of the hon. Member for Brentford, it is not necessary to say much further; but personally I feel a great dissatisfaction at the large number of accidents which have occurred to Members of the Royal Flying Corps during the last year. I believe that there have been during the last year five fatal accidents, in which eight lives have been lost, and it has been calculated, a calculation which was not disputed, that that represented over 10 per cent. of the number of qualified flyers in the Royal Flying Corps. These accidents occurred also in spite of the fact that during a considerable portion of the time, twenty-eight monoplanes, according to the right hon. Gentleman's statement, were put upon one side, because they were not considered safe for employment.

Colonel SEELY

Before the accidents.

Mr. SANDYS

Yes, but during the later period, these twenty-eight were not in use. The state of things appears to me very unsatisfactory, because I understand these machines are going to be used in time of war. I think the right hon. Gentleman once said that they would be available for use in time of war, although he considered they were dangerous.

Colonel SEELY

I shall explain that later.

Mr. SANDYS

Unless the right hon. Gentleman gives a satisfactory explanation, I think it is a most unsatisfactory situation to have these machines employed in time of war when our officers have not had an opportunity of practising upon them in time of peace. With regard to the accident to Lieutenant Rogers Harrison and the report of the Royal Aero Club Committee, to which my hon. Friend has already alluded, I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be able to give a proper explanation of the grounds on which that report was based. Until he does so, I think the situation is extremely unsatisfactory. Speaking generally on this question of aviation, I do hope that the right hon. Gentleman and his military advisers are now beginning to realise the extreme gravity of the situation to this country. The employment of aircraft for naval and military purposes cannot, it seems to me, be denied to be one of the most remarkable and striking features of naval and military development. In every country in the world the naval and military authorities are fully aware that the introduction of aviation is going to make most far-reaching changes in naval and military strategy, and of all the countries in the world the position of this country is one that makes the matter one of the greatest importance. The past history of this country, our constitutional development, our social progress, and our world-wide Imperial responsibility, make this question one of the greatest importance to us. The dominating factor in the situation is that we are an island Power separated from the rest of Europe by a strip of water. Now, however, we have to remember that the situation has entirely changed. We enter into this question on an equality with other European Powers. I do hope the right hon. Gentleman and his Friends will realise that something on a far larger scale must be done than anything which has been attempted up to the present, and that he will remember that half measures are no longer possible, and give us an aviation service which will really provide adequately for the safety and security of the country. There is one other question upon which I should like to say a few words, that is the subject of a Territorial Army. I had an opportunity, as the right hon. Gentleman will recollect, of making some remarks on this question a few weeks ago. I have certainly had no occasion to change the opinion which I expressed at that time, except this, that the situation with regard to the number of the Terriorial Force is, it seems to me, considerably worse than it was on April 11th, when I had an opportunity of making some criticisms with regard to the numbers.

The criticisms which I made then were based upon the figures which the right hon. Gentleman gave us in the Army Estimates, which show a decrease of 10,756 officers and men. Since then there has been a proportionate decrease of 14,000' men. The figures at the present time, compared with the position twelve months ago, show a decrease of 24,125 officers and men. In this connection I could not help being rather amused on reading an account of the speech which was made by the Lord Chancellor in the House of Lords a few days ago, when he stated that there had been an increase of nearly 15,000 men over the numbers of last year. That statement must have given great satisfaction to the right hon. Gentleman. It was reminiscent of some of the best efforts of the Lord Chancellor when he was making Army Estimates to this House, and dealing with the numbers of the Territorial Force. Apart from the calculation of the Lord Chancellor, what has occurred during the last few weeks has made it perfectly clear that those who criticised the position from this side of the House were right, and the right hon. Gentleman's statement that the voluntary system is going to give us all the men we require was absolutely and completely wrong. What is the right hon. Gentleman going to do on this urgent question of the numbers of the Territorial Force? I think I shall probably be right in saying that the right hon. Gentleman is going to 'do nothing at all. I understand that, under the auspices of the Eighty Club, he is to take part in a very interesting debate with Field-Marshal Earl Roberts. The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head. I suppose that we are to understand that that interesting discussion is not to take place.

I admit that the right hon. Gentleman is in a position of peculiar difficulty with regard to the Territorial Army. After his very generous speech, so far as I am personally concerned, in which he replied to me when I last spoke on this question, I should be the very last to desire to add to his present embarrassments. His position is very difficult for several reasons. First of all, he is called upon to administer a scheme for which he was in no way responsible, but which, in my opinion, has never been on a sound or practical basis. The author of the scheme was able with considerable success, for two or three years, to cover up the failure in a cloud of loquacious explanations. But when the bubble was on the point of bursting, and he found that he could no longer conceal the failure of his scheme, he adroitly transferred himself to a more serene and secure position in another place, leaving the right hon. Gentleman to face the music. It is with considerable anxiety I learn that the statesman who was responsible for the, Territorial Force is now going to devote his attention to reorganising our national system of education. Another difficulty experienced by the right hon. Gentleman is the somewhat remarkable attitude of his own Friends on military questions. His supporters lose no opportunity of denouncing what is often described as the curse of militarism, that is to say, enthusiasm for the soldier's calling, and the encouragement of the military spirit is to them absolutely intolerable. This is the view which they hold, whilst apparently at the same time supporting the principle of voluntary military service. It must be perfectly evident that these, two points of view are mutually inconsistent. You cannot always be denouncing militarism and the military spirit, and at the same time expect young men to come forward in overwhelming numbers to undertake a task which, if not absolutely discreditable, is at any rate viewed with unconcealed disapproval by a large number of public men. If you want the voluntary system to be a success and to obtain the large numbers required to bring the Force up to its establishment, you can only do it by arousing throughout the length and breadth of the country the very strong spirit of enthusiasm for military matters which it is the policy of the right hon. Gentleman's friends to discourage.

The right hon. Gentleman appears to have got into his present difficulty largely because, on the occasion to which I have referred, he rather bluntly placed before the House the two alternatives which he very truly said had to be faced. In effect, he stated that if the voluntary system fails you will have to consider the principle of compulsion. That is what has caused so much trouble since. It is one of those self-evident truths which always appear to be peculiarly objectionable to hon. Members opposite, who like to persuade themselves and their Friends that there is some third course available by which these inevitable alternatives can be avoided. If the Territorial Army in certain numbers is necessary for the security of the country and you cannot get those numbers by the voluntary system, obviously you will have to adopt the principle of compulsion. What are the numbers of the Territorial Force that are actually necessary for the security of the country? When the Force first came into existence, the Under-Secretary of State for War, in the House of Lords, replying to Lord Newton, said:— The numbers fixed for the Territorial Force are 11,855 officers and 302,195 non-commissioned officers and men. When the Army Estimates were discussed last year the Force was 50,000 men short of those numbers, but the General Staff, according to the right hon. Gentleman, were quite satisfied with the situation in April the shortage of men had increased to over 60,000, and again the right hon. Gentleman stated that the General Staff were quite satisfied with the position. The attitude taken up by the General Staff, as interpreted by the right hon. Gentleman, is difficult to understand, unless one fully appreciates the principle upon which these decisions are arrived at. There are two methods by which the adequacy or inadequacy of the Territorial Army is determined. The first has the merit of complete simplicity. If you adopt this formula it does not matter what are the numbers of the Territorial Army, or what are the numbers of the invading force. The country is always safe so long as you apply the formula which has been a favourite one with the right hon. Gentleman in past times, namely, that the Territorial Army is capable of dealing with any invading force of any number so long as the Navy guarantees that such a force will never be allowed to land. There is another formula which is equally ingenious, but has the disadvantage of being a little more complicated. It is summed up in the words, "Cut your invader to suit your Territorial." The numbers and composition of the invading force are automatically adjusted to correspond with the numbers of the Territorial Army. We had a good example of the working of this principle a few weeks ago, when, in order to meet the recent decrease in the numbers of the Territorial Army, the General Staff decided that under the circumstances it was necessary to deprive the invading force of its Cavalry and Artillery. By that simple method the whole matter was put right and the inequality immediately adjusted. I understand that any further reduction in the Territorial Army will be met in the same way, so that whatever happens the country is quite safe.

Under these circumstances there is another point to be considered. We on this side of the House are just as much opposed to unnecessary expenditure upon military matters as some of the right hon. Gentleman's Friends. We believe that the money can be dealt with in a much better way. In my opinion the best way would be to leave it in the pockets of the taxpayer. But if this method of reasoning is to prevail, and the General Staff are quite satisfied that the Territorial Army is able to fulfil all the conditions necessary for the defence of the country, although it is 24,000 men less than last year, and every one of the Territorials costs about £12 a year, it follows that the right hon. Gentleman was responsible for an expenditure of over £250,000 which was not necessary for the safety and security of the country. In order to avoid this unnecessary expenditure the right hon. Gentleman should take the earliest opportunity of ascertaining from the General Staff how many men are required for the Territorial Army to provide for the safety of the country, so that as soon as possible the number may be reduced to that figure and the difference in expenditure saved. The right hon. Gentleman will probably say that that argument is unsound. I think it is. But if it is unsound, equally unsound are all those statements which the right hon. Gentleman has brought forward with reference to the adequacy of the Territorial Army for the defence of the country under existing conditions. Personally, I attach rather more importance to observations made by distinguished naval and military officers when they were speaking for themselves and not through the mouth of the right hon. Gentleman. Sir John French, speaking at the annual dinner of the London Chamber of Commerce, on 24th April, said:— At present the numbers in the Regular Army and the numbers and efficiency in the Territorial Force are governed and bounded by the limits of voluntary effort. I think there can be no doubt that with Europe, and indeed the world, in its present temper our responsibilities are more likely to increase than to decrease. We of the General staff are doing our best to Lind an adequate solution for these great Imperial problems. After that I would remind the right hon. Gentleman of a speech made a few days later at the Union Jack Club by Admiral Prince Louis of Battenberg, in which— He trusted that one great truth would always lie remembered, that neither Service could dispense with the other. There were people who went about saying that if war comes the Fleet alone is quite enough to keep anybody from coining near the shores of this island Kingdom. There could be no more foolish or mischievous statement. The Fleet alone could not do it. In view of that speech, coupled with other speeches made by distinguished admirals, common sense shows us that for the safety and security of this country a Territorial Army, adequate in numbers and training for the protection of this country after the departure of the Expeditionary Force, is absolutely essential. It is perfectly obvious that we cannot get the full value of the millions of money which we pour out upon our Fleet unless we relieve the Fleet from the necessity of continually patrolling our shores to protect them from the possibility of invasion. It is the right hon. Gentleman's duty to arouse our fellow countrymen and inspire in them not the spirit of militarism about which his Friends so often speak, but to make them realise that it is their duty as citizens to take a personal share in the defence of the country, and to make them realise that we cannot depend entirely upon the Navy for our protection. I was reading the other day some words of Lord Nelson which struck me as particularly apposite in the existing circumstances. When Nelson sailed away with the British Fleet to the West Indies in pursuit of the enemy, his message to the people of this country was not that they should sleep quietly in their beds, but—"I leave the protection of these Islands to the valour of my countrymen." That is a sentiment which I think the right hon. Gentleman should impress upon the people of this country. I sincerely hope that he will be able to give us some indication of what definite and practical steps he proposes to take in order to bring the Territorial Force up to the numbers necessary for our safety and security.

Sir HENRY DALZIEL

I desire to intervene for the very few minutes in order to elicit a little information on one or two points in connection with the Flying Corps. In the first place, I would say that I do not think the right hon. Gentleman can be surprised if there is some little criticism of the general arrangements in connection with what has been done for aviation during the last few years. He, of course, is not entirely responsible for what has taken place in the past. We must only hold him responsible since he became Secretary of State for War. But when we remember the colossal blunder, the foolish mistake, and the great and extravagant waste of money that we witnessed in the purchase of the Clement-Bayard airship—;28,000, I believe—a purchase which has been admitted since to be absolutely of no service whatever, and now I understand the machine has been scrapped—

Mr. A. LEE

That was only because the War Office would not try the ship. The ship was serviceable.

Sir H. DALZIEL

The hon. Gentleman says that the War Office would not try the ship. Do we understand that 28,000 was sanctioned to be spent without the ship being tried?

Mr. LEE

I am sorry to interrupt, bet the right hon. Gentleman has been misinformed. In the first place, the entire amount paid by the War Office was only £12,500.

Sir H. DALZIEL

I was speaking of the thing altogether.

Mr. LEE

And the ship not only had been tried, but had taken an active part in the French manœuvres; had then sailed over from France to this country, and had been taken over by the War Office. The War Office never took the trouble to try the airship.

Sir H. DALZIEL

We know that the Government did not actually pay that amount of money, but if it had not been for the action of the Government the total amount would not have been spent on the purchase, and therefore would not have been lost. That Purchase was made presumably after full investigation by the War Office, with all their experts, with full time and opportunity to look into the matter, and they now admit that there was a colossal blunder made on their part so far as the ship is concerned, and it has been scrapped. Public money has been lost and private money lost, and the thing is useless. The hon. Gentleman opposite had a good deal of responsibility in regard to the matter. The advice given at the time, I am certain, led one, if not the country, to believe that the proposal was a sound one. It shows to me that I can neither believe amateurs or experts in regard to the purchase of some machines, because here is a case where the Government entirely made a mistake. They took the machine. It was never fully tested. They got it delivered to them, and the amount was entirely lost. It does not matter what the date was. It shows to me that the officials at the War Office at some period have not been as good as they ought to have been. I hope the right hon. Gentleman wills as soon as possible and as far as possible, improve that. It does not matter whether or not it was a long time ago. It is no excuse to the taxpayers of this country to say that the Government some time ago wasted a great deal of money without adequate return, unless at the same time they can assure the taxpayers and this House that there has been a complete change of policy, and that everything that is possible to be done at the present time is being done in order to repair the mistakes made.

So much for the justification of some of the criticism of the aviation arrangements in connection with the War Office. I had no communication whatever before his speech with the hon. Gentleman 'who introduced this Debate, but it is only fair to him to say—and I say it with the fullest sense of responsibility, because I happen to be in a position to obtain some information with regard to one or two matters—I say on my responsibility as a Member for over twenty years of this House—that it is useless to deny that there does exist very grave doubt as to whether a recent accident ought not to have been avoided. I say that on my own responsibility. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to see in the first place that all machines that are ordered to fly are properly tested, that there is no shadow of doubt as to their capacity, that the man who is flying the machine has complete confidence in his machine. I say with some knowledge that that is not the case to-day. The right hon. Gentleman will not answer me by saying "Nay, nay." I am not going to give any names as authority for what I say. When I say what I do, I say it on my own responsibility, and as a humble judge of the value of information, and he may take it from me that it is correct that the feeling I have indicated exists in the Flying Corps. I think there is, therefore, great reason for action in regard to this matter. I think the right hon. Gentleman should not have an ordinary testing committee, but that he should have a special testing committee with regard to this matter; a testing committee which would give the fullest confidence to members of the Flying Corps. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman, "Has he any explanation to make as to the larger proportion of fatal accidents in this country to any other country in the world?"

Colonel SEELY

Yes.

Sir H. DALZIEL

He will doubtless give us that explanation during the course of the Debate, because we ought to be gaining by the experience of other countries. We were late in the field, and therefore we ought to have gained knowledge by the preliminary mistakes of others. The present position of this matter, it seems to me, requires some explanation. I think tile feeling general, from what I have been able to ascertain, is this: that in the great majority of fatal accidents that have taken place during the last year or two it has been the fault of the machine and not of the driver. I think that view prevails very largely indeed. I should like also to ask some information on one or two other points. How many machines did the War Office purchase from Mr. Grahame White, what was the age of them, and what was the amount paid for them? Further, I would like to ask what have these machines been doing since they were purchased? Have they been flown by any experienced officer? What are they accounted equal to at the present time? As I understand, Mr. Grahame White used them for teaching purposes. Have they been used for that purpose since their purchase? Where are they now? Is it intended to ask any responsible officer to fly them? I have also here a complaint, a very small point I admit, but it is an important one to the members of the Flying Corps. I have mentioned this matter to my right hon. Friend. The members of the Flying Corps do not receive their salary as promptly as they ought to do. Sometimes a very considerable time is allowed to go and the salary is greatly in arrear. The right hon. Gentleman will be able to know from investigation whether or not that is the case. If it is as I have stated, it has, I feel sure, only to be mentioned to him in order that the matter should be put right.

Colonel YATE

The point I would like to raise is not so much a question of the actual flying machine that we have been talking about, but the manner in which the Army Flying Corps has been provided for in the Estimates under Vote 1, which we are now discussing. The House will remember, though it is some time ago since the Debate, that the right hon. Gentleman, the Member for Leith Burghs, told us that the War Secretary appeared to be obsessed by the idea lest the Estimate of £28,500,000 should ever be exceeded for the Army, and he went on to advance the view that if new and extra services were required we ought to have new and extra Estimates for them. In that view I most cordially join. He said, "If we want more money for aviation we must not be told to take it out of the Artillery." That is exactly the very thing that the Secretary of State has done to provide for the Aviation Corps. Other arms of the Service have been cut down to provide for aviation. I remember reading the "Morning Post" which described the success of the Secretary of State in concealing the fact that he was breaking up six batteries of Artillery as "a stroke of genius." That was the expression used, and that seems to me, looking over the Estimates, the way in which the Aviation Department has been provided for.

Let us look at Vote A, page 12. We find there the Artillery is reduced by 923 men, the Infantry by 214, the Cavalry by 38, the Army Service Corps by 170, and the Royal Army Medical Corps by 106, a total of 1,450 men, and that reduction has been made to provide for a Flying Corps of 1,005 men. Now turn to the present Estimates under Vote 1, Section C, page 28. I see there that the Flying Corps has been provided for by the sum of £47,000 for the pay of the men, £14,300 for the flying pay of the officers, and £27,400 for the flying pay of the men, a total of £88,700. To balance that, we see again a reduction in the Artillery of £11,500, in the Infantry of £34,500, £6,000 in the Army Service Corps, £2,600 in the Royal Army Medical Corps, and £3,800 in the Army Pay Department: a total of £58,400 towards providing £88,700. Look again (page 28) in the proficiency pay of the Army. The Cavalry is reduced by £1,500, the Artillery by £1,000, the Engineers by £8,000, the Army Service Corps by £2,500, the Royal Army Medical Corps by £1,500, the Veterinary Corps by £100, and the Ordnance by £1,000: a total of £17,000. There is thus the provision of £75,000 by reduction alone for the Army Flying Corps. Even the men's messing allowances are cut down. To provide for men's messing allowances for the Flying Corps of £3,200, you find the Artillery cut down £500, the Royal Army Medical Corps £300, the Army Service Corps £500, the Army Pay Department £200: a total of £1,500. No explanation of all this has been given. There is the provision of £1,600 for the officers' mess allowance of the Flying Corps, and you will find a corresponding reduction in the Artillery, which is cut down by £300, the Engineers by £100, the Infantry by £600, and the Army Service Corps by £100: a total of £1,100. By comparing the Estimates of this year with those of last year in Vote 1, page 28, we see the balance on the reduction, and we see that to meet the expense of £115,500 for the Flying Corps, there is a reduction of no less than £86,300 in the Services generally. The Cavalry is reduced by £800, the Infantry by £35,000, the Artillery by £26,500, the Army Service Corps by £9,400, the Engineers by £4,500, the Ordnance by £700, the Army Pay Department by £5,000, the Royal Army Medical Corps by £4,400: a total of £86,300. No explanation has been given of this. Nothing has been shown as to how far these corps are now suffering by the serious reductions which have been enforced upon them. I think the most serious of all is the reduction in the Artillery. The Member for Leith Burghs said on the occasion to which I refer: "The House ought to be very jealous of allowing any diminution in the strength of the Artillery." I think all here will most thoroughly agree with him in that.

5.0 P.M.

I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman to give me now the proportion of guns per thousand men. What is it to be in the future? Up till now we have had a proportion of 5.94 guns per thousand men in our Expeditionary Force, and a proportion of 3.71 in our Territorial Force. In the French Army the proportion is 5 per thousand, and in the German Army is 6.1 per thousand. In our small Army it ought to be 7 per thousand—extra strong. Our Territorial Army has only 3.71 per cent., and inferior guns at that. I would like the right hon. Gentleman to give us a definite statement, signed by the members of the Army Council, as to what in their opinion a proper proportion of guns per thousand men should be for both our Regular Army, our Expeditionary Force, and our Territorial Force. The Secretary of State has reduced six batteries of regular Artillery that would have been available for use with the Territorials, and I protest against that in the strongest possible manner. I will not go into the question of horses, but I find that the Secretary of State has made no mention of the Mounted Infantry. I asked him about it, and I believe only 400 men are to be trained this year. I would like to know, is the Mounted Infantry Force to be kept as a permanent unit or not? If it is, it ought to be put upon a permanent basis. All soldiers will tell you that to take scratch men and horses, and to distribute them all over the country, and summon them to start away as Mounted Infantry at a few days' notice, as an advance corps, is a most dangerous thing. I suggest that some special corps, like the Rifle Brigade, should be turned into Mounted Infantry, with an establishment of men and officers who know each other and are ready to work together at any moment.

The next question I would like to say a word about is officers' pay. The right hon. Gentleman has promised an increase, and we all welcome it, but why should not it be given at once this year instead of waiting until the 1st of January next? There is an old saying, bis dat qui cito dat, he who gives quickly, gives twice. The right hon. Gentleman in this instance is not giving quickly. Why should not this pay be given from the 1st April this year? I can only presume he is waiting until he can reduce some other portion of the Army to meet this extra cost of pay for the officers. I do not think that is the way the country would like the thing to be done. The country wants to see these officers get proper wages. The labourer is worthy of his hire, and this kind of a system will have a bad effect. I should also like to know why is the rank of second lieutenant to be done away with? The second lieutenant at the present time is more or less a prabationer. He has to be reported on at the end of three years by three senior officers as to whether he should be retained in the Service or not. I think no good reason has been given for the abolition of that rank. The increase of pay to captains after twelve years' service is right and we all welcome it, and I ask that the promotion from lieutenant to captain in the Royal Garrison Artillery as well as in all other branches of the Service, should be given at the end of twelve years, and not thirteen years. A boy as a, rule enters the Service at eighteen years of age. At the end of twelve years' service he is thirty, and every officer in the Army ought to be able to attain the rank of captain at thirty years of age. The right hon. Gentleman, I know, has given the stipulation that officers shall be promoted in the Garrison Artillery at the end of thirteen years, but I say they should be so promoted at the end of twelve years.

Again, I cannot understand why a major should have to wait for the completion of twenty-four years' service before getting an increase. I ask that a major should be given 16s. a day on promotion to major, with an increase of 2s., or 18s. a day after the completion of two years' service in that rank. One of the great grievances of the Service is that when a major leaves his regiment and goes away to staff employment he is not seconded and a captain promoted. If a captain is taken away he is seconded and a subaltern is promoted. Why, in the case of a major, is not the captain promoted? I presume it is in order to save a little money at the expense of that unfortunate individual. If the major was seconded and a captain promoted in his place, the same as in others, it would be more satisfactory. Another grievance is this: Majors on the staff should not come back to the direct command of their regiments. When a man is away for several years from his regiment he loses touch with it and with the regimental officers. All regimental officers think it a very great hardship that a major serving on the staff should be promoted direct. I believe up to 1903 it was the rule that when it came to a man's turn to be second in command he either had to take it or give up his chance of command. That was a good rule, and the abolition of that rule had a bad effect on the Service. Every man should return to his regiment for a year or two at the least before taking up the command. If the right hon. Gentleman will take the opinion of officers serving regimentally, he will find there is a strong feeling upon this matter.

I should like to thank the right hon. Gentleman for increasing the outfit allowance to officers in the Territorial Force. There is one addition I would like him to make and that is that there ought to be a small allowance, say, of £5 every five years, granted to Territorial officers for the upkeep of their uniform. The more a man works the more he wears out his uniform, some portion of which has to be continually replaced. I beg the Under-Secretary to think over this, and to see that some' maintenance allowance should be granted to officers of the Territorial Force. I should be glad if the right hon. Gentleman would take some steps to see that officers throughout the Service should obtain their uniforms at cost price. We know the exorbitant prices they have to, pay now, and I ask that some arrangement might be made by the War Office so that officers could obtain the different articles of their uniform at cost price, either front the Government or through some establishment with which the War Office should make arrangements. They ought to try to reduce the expense of the officers, and I think that the cost and maintenance of their uniforms by officers is one of the most serious items they have to consider. I do hope that something will be done in this matter. Then with regard to the allowances made to an officer. He is given certain allowances, not one of which covers his expenses. These allowances are not sufficient for the purpose. For instance, the allowance given on a change of quarters is quite insufficient, and every officer has to contribute himself towards those allowances, because the amount allowed is not at all sufficient. You see that in every bill given in by the quartermasters. I have asked the right hon. Gentleman several times to appoint a small committee of commanding officers to inquire into these questions, but I have never been able to get anything done. Look at the cost to a Territorial adjutant or to any officer sent away from his regiment.

The other day we were told that the Territorial adjutants employed upon the census operation were given proper travelling allowances. I should like to ask the, right hon. Gentleman what he considers is a proper allowance. We have heard it stated in the House in the last few days that insurance officials, factory inspectors, and all men of that sort are given £1 a day, but the highest allowance for an officer is 15s. a day. How can the expenses of an officer be less than the expenses of a factory inspector? Oil all these matters the unfortunate officer is cut down in every possible way. He is allowed 1s a day for a, servant. It is impossible for him to get a servant for that amount; he is allowed 19s. a week for the keep of a horse. Could any man get a horse kept in a livery stable for less than 25s? The Government admit the impossibility of this in the case of Staff College men. They get an allowance of £60 a year, or 3s. 3d. a day for a servant. Why not give the same allowance to Territorial adjutants and all other officers who have to be absent from their regiments? They are allowed 2s. 3d. a day for lodging. How can an officer get a lodging for that amount? And they are allowed 1d. a day for fuel and light. Who could provide these things at that price? The most extraordinary thing of all is he is allowed a penny a week for medical attendance. Fancy-, a penny a week for medical attendance! I say all these things should be taken into consideration. I have raised this question from time to time, because the mean treatment of the officers is certainly detrimental to the Army and make men not so anxious as they used to be to enter the Service. How do matters stand with regard to accommodation to married officers? Only yesterday the right hon. Gentleman told us he had purchased the huts at Tidworth, which had been erected for workmen, and had converted them into houses for married officers, and was charging £50 a year for these as married quarters for officers. Surely he should do something to provide proper quarters, instead of turning old workmen's huts into residences for married officers and charging £50 a year for them!

With reference to staff appointments and other matters that come up on Vote 1, which we are discussing to-day, I would like to point out to the right hon. Gentleman the different treatment he is giving to officers of the Indian Army and officers of the English Army. Staff appointments in China, the Straits Settlements, Mauritius, and other parts ought to be given half and half to British officers and Indian officers. In China the majority of the troops are Indian, yet not a single staff appointment is' given to the Indian Army. Everything is kept for the patronage of the Government at home and the War Office. I ask that in all these appointments where Indian troops are employed there should be a fair division of the staff between the officers of the Indian Army and the English Army. I think the right hon. Gentleman will see that that is fair. As regards the arrangements for Reserve pay, I would again press the right hon. Gentleman to pay the Reservists their sixpence a day in the same ways as old age pensions are paid. I have raised this question several times. The granting of a lump sum of £2 5s. to a man means that the Money does not get to the man's wife and family, and because of this amount of money reaching the man in a lump it very often happens it is not well spent, and that employers say they will not have anything more to do with army men. I ask that this question may be seriously considered. The right hon. Gentleman, speaking in the Debate the other night, talked of the Territorial force on the bases of the Balfour standard. May I point out that many things have happened since the Balfour standard was brought in, and we have now an entirely different question to consider? We do not know what the possibilities may be. We may have airships coming over with explosive bombs and we may have the whole of our harbours blown up, and the whole of our Navy rendered hors de combat for a time. I will not now go into the question of the Territorial Force, but I do say that when the right hon. Gentleman, in his speech the other day, asserted that the smaller the number of men we mobilised in time of war the better will be our chance of success, we cannot accept that dictum without some explanation. I trust the right hon. Gentleman will be able to state what is the proportion of well-trained men we shall have available to repel an invasion. I remember Lord Haldane speaking at Leicester at a meeting at which I was present, and he told us that fourteen divisions of the Territorial Army were to be told off to guard the coast, and so many others would form the central force to maintain the link with the Regular Army. I would like to know what the strength of our trained men will be, and I hope the Secretary for War will give us an explanation upon that point. Finally, I would like to ask a question with reference to the employment of old soldiers. The Prime Minister stated that he approved of 50 per cent. of the Government appointments which were now being reserved by the Post Office and the Home Office, etc. for old soldiers, and that all the local bodies and municipal bodies should be asked to apply that system. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to arrange with the President of the Local Government Board to circularise local bodies, pointing out that this scheme has the Prime Minister's approval, and in that way to try to get their co-Operation.

Mr. ROBERT HARCOURT

I was in Committee when the hon. Member for Brentford spoke on the Navy Estimates and alluded to the aviation fatality at Montrose. I understand that the hon. Member dealt with an answer which the 'Secretary for War gave to a question which I put on Monday last, and I wish to refer to the answer because it summarises a -point which interests me and my Constituents, and we are not experts in this matter. My right hon. Friend said:— The wood of the rear of the wing tip, which was covered by the fabric where the damage probably started, had been repaired at some time, but it has not yet been possible to discover when and where this repair was carried out Then the answer goes on:— The machine was carefully examined before the flight on 27th May, and reported all correct. To the uninstructed person this sentence seems to me to require a little explanation. The machine was repaired and carefully examined, and the examination revealed the fact that the wood of the rear of the wing tip had been repaired. The examination of the machine before the flight on the '27th May could not have been very complete, because it was found that the wing tip was covered by the fabric, and the final examination prior to the fatality occurring was rendered ineffective by the action of the persons responsible for repairing the woodwork and covering it with felt. I am sure that is a point which the right hon. Gentleman will carefully consider, and I ask him whether any inquiry -has been made into the practice of repairing the woodwork in this way.

Mr. LEE

Before coming to the more general subject I wish to say a few words on the question of aerial defence, which has been extensively referred to on both sides of the House. I should like, first of all, to say that I listened with a good deal of pleasure to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir H. Dalziel), because it was obviously a fair speech coming from a supporter of the Government, and I did not in the least resent the personal references he made to myself in connection with the matter of airships. I do not want to refer to that matter now, because my interruption explained the position from my point of view. I think the right hon. Gentleman's speech was helpful, because it must have made the Secretary for War realise that the criticisms which have been showered upon him in connection with his aerial defence policy are not mere party criticisms from this side of the House, and that there is real and legitimate ground for objection and for very serious criticism. When the Secretary for War introduced the Estimates and unfolded his plans in March, he expressed the belief or the hope that the country would be more satisfied with the provision that the Government were making for aerial defence. I think that probably by now he is disillusioned with regard to that particular hope. Further, I would say that the programme which he then outlined has been recognised on all hands as being quite inadequate to our needs. I do not desire to press that argument at the moment, but I wish to demonstrate to the Committee, that even the exiguous programme which the right hon. Gentleman put forward has not been and is not being made a reality by himself and the War Office. Admittedly his programme applies only to the Expeditionary Force, and that is a circumstance which I think requires an explanation. The right hon. Gentleman has set up a standard that the Expeditionary Force requires eight squadrons of aeroplanes quite apart from airships, if it goes to war. That was the standard which the Secretary for War himself set up. He told us on a previous occasion that our Army was the best equipped of any army in the world, with all the necessities of modern warfare, and yet of the eight aeroplane squadrons which he admits are necessary at the present time he professes to have provided only three. We know now that even those three are by no means complete, and the right hon. Gentleman only professes to provide five altogether by the end of the present financial year. He does not even claim that he will provide the whole of the eight squadrons until some future Estimate, probably at the end of the year after next.

That is a very serious situation for our Expeditionary Force to find itself in, because it is a force which is supposed to be ready for war at a moment's notice. It is admitted that we require eight squadrons of aeroplanes fitted for the purposes of modern warfare, and yet the right hon. Gentleman is making no provision at the present time to provide those necessary squadrons. If war had broken out within the last few months, as indeed it might have done, our Expeditionary Force would have been without the standard of aerial equipment which the right hon. Gentleman has declared to be necessary. I think it is due to the House and to the country that the Secretary for War should give same proper explanation for the delay which has occurred, and in the absence of any explanation of his inability to supply these squadrons. I think we have a right to demand that the whole eight should be supplied at once. That relates only to the Expeditionary Force. Even if those eight squadrons were provided, we have no suggestion whatever as to the aerial equipment for our Home Defence Army. That has not even been foreshadowed in the dim and distant future. The result is, if unhappily we were at war, and our Home Defence Army was called into operation, which heaven forbid, it would be provided with absolutely no kind of aerial equipment whatever, and the Territorial Force, in addition to all its other obvious disadvantages, would have to be wandering about blindfolded and practically groping for the enemy, whilst every movement and position of the defending force would be exposed to the vigilance and all-seeing eyes of the enemy's aerial service. I think the right hon. Gentleman should also explain to us why nothing is being done in that direction. I do not want to go unduly into details, because the question has been very exhaustively dealt -with by my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford (Mr. Joynson-Hicks), but I do hope that to-day we may have this mystery as to the number of defective aeroplanes cleared up.

The Secretary for War appeared always to resent any inquisitiveness on cur part with regard to this question, and he still more resents any doubt we may feel and have expressed with regard to the figures. May I point out that the right hon. Gentleman himself is largely responsible, because he has given such amazingly different figures on different occasions that we really do not know what to believe. On 24th March, the last occasion on which we had a Debate on this subject, the right hon. Gentleman told us no less than three times that he expected by 31st May we should have available 148 machines. Here we are on 5th June, and even on the right hon. Gentleman's own showing we have only got ninety-five—that is 126 minus thirty-one, which are not available. Of course, my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford (Mr. Joynson-Hicks) has expressed very grave doubts, and he has given his reason and figures for believing that the number of ninety-five is not accurate. I frankly admit that I am not in a position to state how many aeroplanes there are. In the absence of official figures, it requires an amount of investigation which a private Member of this House is really not in a position very often to carry out. The right hon. Gentleman, as I understand, has accepted a definite challenge made by my hon. Friend that he should produce for inspection the actual number of machines which are able to fly, instead of producing a mere paper return, which, after all, means very little. I know that paper returns are produced with the very best intentions, but everybody knows that you can really judge nothing in a matter of this kind from a paper return. Therefore I am, personally, exceedingly glad that the right hon. Gentleman has accepted this challenge.

I do not want to press for a formal Committee of this House to make the investigation. I am sure my hon. Friend will be perfectly satisfied if one or two of his Friends who are interested in the matter are allowed to accompany him. You may call it as informal as you please. All my hon. Friend wishes is to be satisfied of the facts, and he has stated that if he is satisfied he will offer a handsome apology to the right hon. Gentleman. I have made no challenge nor have I made any statement as to the right hon. Gentleman's accuracy, though I have very grave reason to doubt the real numbers that he gave us. I think probably he himself would not stand by them now, but we will wait and see. I am offering the right hon. Gentleman no challenge nor am I promising to make him any apology. He must make the best of that. In the meantime, I say that he himself has been very largely to blame for these misunderstandings. Whenever he has had anything to tell us that he thought would redound to the credit of his Department, he has been openness itself in giving us details, but whenever a question has come up where we have been, perhaps quite unjustly, suspicious, then down has come the veil of official secrecy, and we have been told that it was a matter in which it was not in the public interest to give the information. He must excuse me for saying, from some experience now of watching Governments drawn from both sides, that whenever a Minister begins to talk about giving information not being in the interests of the public service I am always a little bit inclined to think the information would be inconvenient politic- ally as well as undesirable in the interests of the country. We will, however, judge of his information when it is produced.

The right hon. Gentleman is apparently perfectly satisfied with his three little airships. I am not going to contest the opinion of his advisers that the three small airships are sufficient equipment in airships for the Expeditionary Force. I understand that from him, and I am prepared to accept it, but where are his reserves of airships? He must know that of all craft that proceed either on the water, under it, or over it, airships are surely the most delicate and the most fragile, and in war there must be an enormous wastage and a great number of casualties, but as far as we know, the right hon. Gentleman is making no provision whatever for an adequate supply of vessels of this kind. His plea for not having more aeroplanes is that it is impossible to get them delivered from the makers. Of course, it is impossible, as was pointed out by my hon. Friend, to get delivery from private manufacturers if you do not give private manufacturers any kind of reasonable encouragement to invest their capital in this enterprise. The discouragement of our British manufacturers by the Government has been persistent. We have had another more striking example of that to-day in the recent prohibition, as I understand it, by the Government of a very interesting, and I think very valuable competition which was instituted by a newspaper, the "Daily Mail," in order to develop the hydroplane or waterplane, or whatever it is to be called. It would, in the absence of Government encouragement obviously have been of very great encouragement to the manufacturers of these machines, but now we are informed that the Government, acting through the Home Office, has placed an absolute ban on this competition, with the result, of course, that it, cannot take place.

In the meantime, the manufacturers of these machines are thrown back. There is no incentive given to them and no opportunity offered them to produce new and better types of a machine which is obviously peculiarly suitable to the needs of this country. I do think that the Government ought to give some explanation of their reasons for placing their veto upon this very interesting and useful proposal. I realise that it might involve a technical breach of the Aerial Navigation Act, which was passed last Session. Personally, I do not believe that Act is of the very slightest value if you are dealing with an enemy, because, obviously, they would ignore it. It may have some effect if you are dealing with tourists, and it may have been necessary, but surely this is a case where there should be some relaxation of the letter of the law. I cannot understand why the Government should have put its veto down in this matter. Do they wish to discourage civilian flying altogether in this country? Do they wish to have an absolute monopoly? If so, it will be the only country in the world where the Government has a monopoly, and we shall fall far further behind than we are now in the development of this new branch of science. The Home Secretary probably acted in consultation with the War Office, and perhaps the right hon. Gentleman may be able to tell us why it has been necessary to place a ban upon this competition. It certainly seems to me, when we are far behind, as we are, in these matters, that no effort to recover our lost ground, whether made by civilians or anyone else, ought to be either frowned upon or impeded. I therefore hone that the right hon. Gentleman will tell us what is at the back of the whole thing.

I pass away from that and come to more general questions of Army policy. I would remind the right hon. Gentleman that we are still waiting for some clear and intelligible statement by him with regard to that section of military policy which concerns our Home defence. I am aware that in March the right hon. Gentleman explained to us how a serious invasion of this country was now an absolute impossibility. Apparently, it is so because he said so; but he then proceeded to tell us that he had a very interesting announcement to make to the House, which was that this whole question of the possibility of invasion was to be inquired into again by the Committee of Imperial Defence. He first of all told us that there could be no question of invasion, and he then said that the Committee of Imperial Defence was going to take the whole matter up and inquire into it again, although apparently it is in his eyes a chose jugée and that they have nothing to do but to ratify his decision on this point. Meanwhile, what is the position in which we find ourselves? It has been officially admitted by the right hon. Gentleman in the course of these Debates that the whole of our Expeditionary Force is not only essentially designed for the purpose, but might be called upon at any time to leave these shores and go abroad for some purpose or another. We, of course, entirely agree that is so, although we might very well express grave doubts whether the Expeditionary Force is large enough for the purpose or is in all respects fitted for the work it will have to perform. I will, however, leave that aside for the moment and return to the fear which we feel that under existing conditions there is great risk that the Expeditionary Force, whether it is large enough or whether it is fitted for its duties in other respects, may be tied to these shores and paralysed by the absence of any proper Home defence force. We raised this point before, and we have never had any kind or serious reply from the right hon. Gentleman. He has never told us since he has been Secretary of State what effective fighting force will remain in these Islands after the departure of the Expeditionary Force. He has never given us the facts about that, and they are absolutely material to the situation, not only in order to satisfy the experts, but for the purpose of quieting and reassuring public opinion in the case of a sudden emergency.

We, of course, all read the Report of the Norfolk Commission which inquired into this very question after the South African war. That Report stated that 400,000 would be required for the defence of these Islands after the Expeditionary Force had left. Since those days it cannot be denied that our position relatively to other Continental countries has become worse. Their armies and navies are greater, proportionately, than they were then, and the aerial service has been developed. Altogether, if 400,000 were necessary then, it is quite clear, even to the non-expert, that a larger number must be necessary now. I think we ought to be told how many in the opinion of the Government are required and of what quality and training. In the absence of more precise information, our view is that at least 500,000 or 600,000 men must be required, and it is clear that we have not half that number who are effective. Apart from the question of policy, there is no disputing the numbers. I have not the latest figures before me, but the Territorial Force is well over 50.000 men short of the establishment, and it has no Reserves. It is a dwindling force, and only a portion, and not a very large portion, of it is efficient even judged by the Government's standard of training, which we do not consider is in any case Sufficient. Then the Special Reserve is really becoming almost a farce. It is something like 25,000 short of its strength. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman denies these serious deficiencies, but in the last speech he made on the subject he said that the Territorial Force, after all, was only 16 per cent. short, and that was not so very serious. If the situation really became serious then, of course, the Government would act. He reminds me of a very delightful and entertaining character in a farce, which hon. Members have perhaps seen, called "A Pantomime Rehearsal." There is a stage manager who, whenever things goes wrong, says," Oh, but it will be all right on the night." Now, whenever we raise questions of this kind, the right hon. Gentleman seeks to alleviate our anxiety and to quieten our fears by what I can only call fantastic assurances which have completely shaken our confidence in his ability even to grasp the serious problem with which he has to deal. My hon. Friend who spoke last referred to that extraordinary statement which the right hon. Gentleman made in the course of the Debate in March, when he was dealing with the question of numbers available. He told us that the smaller the number we actually mobilised, the better would be our chance of success. I ventured to smile when the right hon. Gentleman enunciated that opinion, and I was very severely reproved by him for so doing. He suggested I never thought of these matters. If the right hon. Gentleman will explain with regard to this particular point, and if the right hon. Gentleman can really give us any intelligible explanation how it is that the smaller the number of men actually mobilised the better our chance of success then, in an era of promised apologies, I shall certainly be prepared to withdraw my smile. But I do think it is due to the Committee and to himself that he should give us that explanation. There is another one of his statements the other day, and which he said he was prepared to repeat. It was that one volunteer is better than ten pressed men. That statement means, if it means anything, that one soldier who joins on voluntary enlistment is worth ten soldiers who are conscripts. The real meaning of it, putting aside his own interest in the Territorial Army, and the only explanation of his theory is that one British Regular is the equal of ten Continental Regular soldiers who had enlisted by a system of conscription. Therefore, 7,000 British Regulars are equal to 70,000 Continental invaders. If that be true, it would make us very comfortable in this country. We should have only to provide 10,000 Regulars, and we could dispense with the Territorial Army and with everything else and be perfectly safe. It is really the levity of remarks of that description which the right hon. Gentleman has made which does more than anything else to excite our apprehensions.

Colonel SEELY

It was not my remark. It was a remark of Lord Nelson.

Mr. LEE

I am quite certain he did not apply it in the way the right hon. Gentleman has done.

Colonel SEELY

Yes he did.

Mr. LEE

Perhaps, as the right hon. Gentleman said it in connection with his later policy of advocating voluntary service as compared with compulsory service, he will explain to us exactly what he did mean and why he brought forward this statement, which he attributes to Lord Nelson, and which he uses in quite a different fashion. Our complaint is that in lieu of practical measures for dealing with what we consider very grave danger, he tells us of our National superiority in various directions—brains, courage, fighting genius—over those mere foreigners. May I remind him of a phrase he used, and I suppose, after consideration, "our knack at winning." I think we have a tight to complain of the right hon. Gentleman's attitude in these matters. He told us some little time ago in a speech he made that the British people were as patriotically determined to defend their hearths and homes as any people, aye, and more so, he went on to say. The opinion, so far as I know, of all military experts is that the man who is patriotically determined to defend his home is moved by a very proper impulse, but that his services are really almost useless unless he undergoes sufficient training. I remember being told some time ago of a remark which was made by the great Duke of Wellington. When he was told by some enthusiastic person that if any foreign invader dared to set foot on these shores the manhood of the country would arise and interpose their persons between its sacred soil and the abomination which was offered to it. The Duke of Wellington said, "My advice to the young men of England is this: that unless they are willing to join the Army and become soldiers, when the enemy comes they had better stay at home and not make fools of themselves." The right hon. Gentleman no doubt disagrees with that high military authority. I do not think there are any points of resemblance between him and the Duke of Wellington, and the resemblance at least is not one of temperament or of military genius. I have no doubt he repudiates that statement very strongly.

No one impugns for one moment the right hon. Gentleman's sincerity or personal courage. We all know that if the enemy were knocking at the gate, and if any great emergency arose, he would be one of the first to discard his Ministerial and civilian attire, and that he would resume once more the panoply of his Yeomanry to lead a forlorn hope, and, if necessary, the Territorials to certain destruction. We should all regret it very much, but then it will be too late, and we should have no opportunity of bringing him or his Administration to account. It is not the right hon. Gentleman's courage or his sincerity that we impugn in this connection. It is his judgment. The trouble is that we cannot prove that he is wrong, except at the expense of a great national disaster. We contend that he ignores all the lessons of history, that he ignores what happened in the later stages of the Franco-German war, and that he ignores what has been happening within the last few months in the case of the conflict in the Balkans, and that he ignores the lessons which have been forced upon us and upon the attention of the world, again and again, that without training, discipline, proper and adequate equipment, and skilful leadership, mere numbers or even a national genius for war are perfectly helpless in the stress and strain of modern warfare. He really knows this very well.

We remember in the past, not so many years ago, when he 'was fresh from the experience of war himself, that he expressed both in speech and in writing his conviction on this point with great eloquence; but that was before the days when he became a Radical politician, and also before the days when he had been told with brutal frankness by his own party Press, that he has either got to repudiate his own opinions on these matters, and to pronounce the recognised party shibboleths with fluency and precision, or else make way for some other Minister who has not given satisfaction in some other Department. He did see the light once, but so little is he trusted in this matter by his Frends behind him with regard to this point that some of them were apparently preparing or attempting to inveigle them into a situation where he would have to stand in a white sheet and repudiate the opinions he expressed some years ago; whilst others are equally actively proceeding to veto the proposal, fearing that when the occasion arose he should give the whole show away. We do not know yet, except what we gathered from a gesture he made earlier this afternoon, whether that very interesting contest is abandoned. If so, we do not know on what ground, but we think perhaps he is wise in abandoning it. Is it to take place?

Colonel SEELY

I will tell you when I get up.

6.0 P.M.

Mr. LEE

6.0 P.M. That is very fair. I can assure him we shall listen to that portion of his speech with as much interest as any other. At the same time, we do not envy him, particularly the position in which he finds himself placed, because for a Minister whose austerity of conscience is only equalled by the extreme flexibility of opinions on matters of national service it must be admitted he finds himself in a somewhat odious position. The right hon. Gentleman may say, "Well, what, after all, is your solution?" I do not resent the question, although, of course, it would really be quite sufficient to say it is not our business when we are in opposition to suggest solutions, because we have not access to the information which is open to the Government. But I will remind hon. Gentlemen opposite of this fact, than an offer was made only a very short time ago, with authority by a leading Member of the Unionist party, that a non-party conference should be held to discuss this great question of national defence, with a view to arriving at a solution which would be in the interests of the country and the Empire as a whole, rather than a solution which might inure to the advantage of either political party. We had no response to that, except that we had the very violent speeches made by the Chief Liberal Whip and violent articles in the "Daily News" and other papers. The Chief Liberal Whip said he was against it, but he said a great deal more. I am not quoting his exact words, but he said the Tory party was engaged in a deep conspiracy to force conscription upon an unwilling country, and that they wished to add a blood tax to a food tax—of course, a strictly non-party treatment of the question, and which, apart from anything else, was entirely untrue. That only illustrates the petty position into which these great questions are unfortunately brought when prominent Liberal politicians are all for the party, and none for the State. That invitation was not responded to, and we had hoped that possibly it might be in the interests of the country. Meanwhile, what is it the right hon. Gentleman offers us by way of solution of this whole problem? He has told us that invasion is out of the question, and that the matter will be inquired into again. He has told us that even if the invader does come, he will be unable to bring Cavalry, Artillery, and other necessities of modern warfare, and that therefore it is not really an invasion we need worry about. He has further stated on other occasions that any foreign invaders who might come would be eaten up by the forces which are available in this country, although he will not tell us what those forces are, or what their numbers are. He does not deny that they are armed and equipped to an inferior degree to the enemies they would have to meet, and that they are to have no aerial service of any kind whatsoever. In all these particulars he is in direct contradiction to the opinions expressed by the first naval and military authorities in this country, who have clearly stated that the Fleet alone cannot guarantee the safety of this country against invasion, and that a trained professional Army is a necessity for Home defence. These being the facts, I venture to say to the Committee, in conclusion, that it is incumbent upon the right hon. Gentleman to give some intelligible explanation of his attitude towards these problems as expressed in his speeches. So far lie has not done so upon any occasion when he has spoken in a responsible capacity, and it is because of his apparent inability to give some reasonable explanation that we, on this side, have lost all confidence in his policy and administration.

Colonel SEELY

The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down has delivered a somewhat violent attack upon the present occupant of the post of Secretary of State for War. I think the Committee will have observed with great interest that during this Session—I do not know what the reason may be—whether it be on earth, in the air, or on the sea, the one exponent of the view of the Opposition has been the hon. Member for the Fareham Division (Mr. Lee). I cannot help thinking that he must be possessed of a sort of wisdom which has been unknown to all men before his day. When it was the Navy, it was the hon. Member for Fareham who announced to this House that my right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty had brought the country to the verge of disaster.

Mr. LEE

No.

Colonel SEELY

The hon. Member's words were in that direction.

Mr. LEE

Do you mind quoting the words?

Colonel SEELY

Much more violent words than those were used. When it comes to our land Forces, the hon. Gentleman is again found to denounce myself for the dreadful position to which we are brought, and when it comes to the question of the air, there also he knows all about it. If he were any lesser man, I should say of the speech to which we have just listened, that it was composed of a tissue of aberrations from the truth, and of absurdities which we have often heard from him before, and which do not increase their value in any degree by being said over and over again for three long years. I say that, because the hon. Gentleman was not peculiarly polite to me, and because he has always been the principal exponent of the position in regard to earth, air, and sea. Having said that, I come to one or two of the points he raised, and will endeavour to deal with them before I approach the substantial point in regard to aviation, upon which I promised to make a statement to the House, which is of some importance, and upon which I hope the Committee will bear with me for some moments. With regard to the question whether one volunteer is worth ten pressed men, I believe that statement has always been attributed to Lord Nelson. Whether or not he actually made it will never be known. I believe that to be a, true statement of fact, and that in all war, and especially in modern war, the willing soldier is worth at least ten unwilling soldiers. If that were true in the old days, it is much more true to-day because of the strain of modern war. The hon. Gentleman who has said these things knows perfectly well that it is greater than the strain of ancient war, and is more pro- longed. Therefore the unwilling soldier is a greater danger to any Army than ever he was in days gone by, when we fought matters with push and pike, and the unwilling soldier was sometimes induced to put up a fight by the man behind him pushing him forward. All those days have gone. Now each man is by himself for many long hours, and, as we saw in the Manchurian war, even for days. That is obvious to all persons who have studied the subject, and it is the great argument put forward by persons on the Continent in favour of voluntary service, if they could possibly get it.

For nine and a half years I have been advancing this view as to the danger of the unwilling soldier, and, therefore, the advantages of voluntary service for our Army—or, indeed, for any Army. Whatever I may have said before then, I am quite clear as to my record during the last nine and a half years. I do not wish to say this over again, and I hope anybody who hears me will believe me when I say that for nine and a half years and more, certainly for nine and a half years, I have held most strongly the view which I still now honestly hold, that it would be a political and military disaster if this country were to endeavour to form its fighting units by compulsion. I have said it again and again, and I repeat it to-day. All the fears which interested persons may have endeavoured to set about as to the views of myself or of others upon this point are merely, I take it, either the result of stupidity or else of The view I have held I first expounded at great length to the Military Society of Ireland in February, 1904. I do not know whether those I had the privilege to address, under the chairmanship of the Duke of Connaught, agreed with the reasons I adduced for that view. The reasons I adduced seem to me to be even stronger to-day. If we can maintain our voluntary system, it will be of priceless advantage to this country. I go further and say that every foreign country—and I have had the opportunity of discussing this matter with many persons of great distinction in foreign countries, foreign Ministers of War—will agree with what I have said so far. The only thing they point out is that they cannot get the required number by voluntary service, except at prohibitive expense; and, further, in some countries, like Switzerland, the difficulty of the unwilling soldier does not arise because the terms of service are so arranged that the burden is not great, and also because in that case the obvious danger which has to be met by the Swiss in their view is such that it is necessary that all, or nearly all, should be ready to serve. That is not our case. To make a great. Home Defence Army and confine it to Home defence, quite apart from the question of voluntary or compulsory service, would be a gross error on our part, and to make a great Home Defence Army over and above our needs would be the greatest mistake.

I said before, and I confess I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman treated it with such levity, that in this country our problem in time of war was very different from that of any other country, and that, having ascertained with what number of men, allowing every margin for safety, we might be secure against attack from oversea, every man we mobilise over and above that number would in the case of our island Kingdom be a very real addition to our difficulties instead of being an addition to our strength. I repeat that to-day, and I may say, perhaps, in this connection, that what I said then and what I repeat now is the result, not of months, but of years of study which I have been permitted to give to this matter upon the Committee of Imperial Defence. For many years it has been my duty to examine some of these questions in a responsible position, and nothing is more certain than that our difficulties in time of war are not going to be solved by having a vast number of men, whether ill-trained does not matter, under arms. There are other difficulties, such as maintaining our manufactures, maintaining our food supplies, and maintaining communications, all of which can be easily overcome if wise and proper measures are taken beforehand, but none of which will be facilitated by creating a large Army confined to Home defence, which, far from being of assistance to us under the condition of our being at war, would be a positive menace to our security. I trust that after what I have said, and after having told hip that this is not the result of a moment's consideration, but of many years of responsible position, perhaps the most responsible I have ever had to occupy, he will agree that what I have said was a real contribution to the consideration of this important matter, and I repeat it with all seriousness to the Committee as being a matter which must always command the most serious consideration when we are discussing the great question of Home defence.

Sir GILBERT PARKER

The right hon. Gentleman has just said that our difficulties would be increased in the circumstances of a large mobilisation. It would help us to understand the matter if he would explain how the difficulties would be increased.

Colonel SEELY

I thought I had made that plain. I do not wish to go into the details. I said that the problems in our Island Kingdom would be problems of food supply, distribution, and the maintenance of our manufactures. I assure the hon. 'Gentleman that if he will consider the matter he will see for himself it must be true. Therefore, what you have to find out is the smallest number of men necessary, giving every margin for absolute security, and then to see to it that the rest of the population are devoting their energies to the other vitally important matters which are rendered especially difficult in time of war.

Mr. LEE

The right hon. Gentleman misses the point. Of course, we admit that if you mobilise as many men as in the opinion of your military advisers are necessary for Home Defence, any surplus men may be open to the objections the right hon. Gentleman puts forward. Our case has been that you cannot mobilise anything like the numbers which are necessary, and when we made that statement before the right hon. Gentleman's reply was the smaller the number we mobilised the safer we would be.

Colonel SEELY

I hoped I had made plain the particular point I wished to press home to the Committee. I had intended to deal with the question the hon. Gentleman raised, the question whether the number we considered necessary are really necessary, or whether the hon. Gentleman the all-wise Member for Fareham is correct in thinking we want many more. He told us to-day we wanted half a million. Simply, we do not agree with him. I can assure him that the responsible military opinion upon which I rely does not take that view. To say that we must have a great Force like that of half a million men to protect us against a great invasion in the circumstances in which we live is a most faulty view of Imperial strategy.

Mr. SANDYS

Can the right hon. Gentleman tell me why it is they are satisfied with 24,000 men less in the Territorial Force than they had last year?

Colonel SEELY

I do not think that really adds much to our discussion. I have already said that in our opinion—I need hardly say that if it were not cur opinion we should take immediate steps—the danger of an invasion of this country is one which may be faced without fear under our present circumstances. I have said this several times, and I repeat it now. We have said this after full inquiry. But in order to make sure in what way our Forces can best be distributed, as the Committee is aware, a sub-committee of the Committee of Imperial Defence is examining the whole question anew. I do not wish to go into details on the question, and I confine myself to stating what I have already said to the Committee.

I wish to say one word on the subject of the Regular Army. Since I last spoke we have endeavoured to continue to increase the efficiency of the Regular Army in one or two important particulars, and I hope we have been able to do so. In the two matters of the complete classification as well as the enumeration of the Forces of this country we have made a great step forward. The lists are now practically complete, but in some respects the position is more favourable than we at first supposed. In fact the horse population of this country of a suitable kind appears to be greater than we had thought it was. I believe that is confirmed from all reports which have been received, and, of course, it somewhat diminishes certain difficulties which we have to face. Moreover, the number of horses registered under the new scheme is very satisfactory, and that will very considerably solve the difficulty, under which we Inuit always labour, of finding a proper type of light draught horse during the transition period between motor traction and horse traction. It is this type of horse which disappears first. We have managed in one way or other to make such arrangements that our position is much better now, and we are confident that we could mobilise the whole Expeditionary Force with horses which would be of a suitable type, though neither in this nor in any other country can they be as perfect as one could wish during this difficult transition period. In the meantime we have continued the scheme of increasing our mechanical transport at a very rapid rate, and at this year's manœuvres we hope to make a very full test of mechanical transport. I trust many hon. Gentlemen will attend the manœuvres, and see for themselves this test as to how far mechanical transport may be effectively employed by considerable forces in the field. If any hon. Members wish to go I hope they will let me know, so that I can make all arrangements for them.

There is only one other point which arises since I last addressed the Committee about which I should like to say a word and that is with regard to the confidential report on officers. I have had a great many questions addressed to me in this House at different times, and so have my predecessors, with regard to appointments and promotion, and the matter becomes, if possible, more important now that we have taken a great step forward in adopting a scheme by which, while increasing the pay to some extent of the officers of the Regular Army, we propose to make a reality of promotion from the ranks. This may in some ways add to our difficulties in this respect, and therefore after full consideration we have decided to snake this change. It does not sound a very important change in itself, but it is a real change which those versed in military matters will think important. The rule hitherto is that where a confidential report is made upon an officer, if it is unfavourable it is to be communicated to him, but unless it is unfavourable he does not know what is contained in it. It is often pointed' out that, as a consequence, any officer who ultimately may find he is not selected and may then think he has been treated with gross injustice, and his case may even be raised here, may think he has been damned by faint praise in a confidential report which, although not nominally unfavourable, has nevertheless contained some negative statement which has damaged his whole career. In order that there may be no suspicion of this kind the Army Council have decided that for the future, as soon as the different forms have been completed, all confidential reports shall be communicated to all officers, with a few exceptions, whether they are favourable or unfavourable. This is the scheme. While all unfavourable reports shall continue to be communicated, it will no longer be optional to communicate favourable reports, but it shall remain obligatory on all regiments, the only exception being the case of officers of the Staff College and educational establishments. That is the exception, and the House will see why that is. These are specially selected officers, and there can be no question that the reports which are being made would jeopardise their career, for the report is always with regard to the achievements of the officer, otherwise he would not have got there at all, and it is considered that it would be difficult, in the case of Staff College officers, to notify them of all the words of praise which may be said about them by the officer of the Staff College and the other educational establishments. Of course all unfavourable reports must be communicated as before, and every officer will be given his report to read, and a copy will be sent to him if he is absent, and will be returned and destroyed. Reports are to be considered confidential as between the officer reporting and the officer reported on. This is a very real change. It has long been proposed, and it has never until now been adopted. I think it may help to remove the sense of grievance under which some officers have laboured, that it will not in any degree impair the value of confidential reports, in fact it may make them more valuable, and that on the whole it is a step in advance, and I hope the Committee will approve of the course which we have decided to take. This has hitherto referred only to Regular officers, who are more especialy affected by it. Their whole career is affected by the question of promotion and selection. Therefore we have not, up to now, decided as to whether it should apply to Territorial officers or not. I should think it would be wiser so to do, but in their case it is so much less important as, of course, their lives and careers are largely civilian, that we have not yet finally decided upon that question. I will communicate the decision to the House in due course.

Mr. LEE

made an observation which was inaudible.

Colonel SEELY

I said I should have nothing to say with regard to that matter. If the Secretary of State for the time being desires the advice of any Field Marshal, he can ask him to come and see him. I have had advice from Lord Roberts on many occasions in regard to the National Reserve and other matters, and more than that, if any body of men wish to give him an opportunity of expressing his views, and I have the honour of an invitation, I shall be only too glad to attend and to hear what he says. But that I should ever enter into a gladiatorial contest with a Field Marshal in the British Army is a thing that never occurred to me and does not occur to me now. Since the subject has been mentioned I may say I have noticed that newspaper reports of the doings of His Majesty's Ministers in general have appeared sometimes not to be entirely accurate, but I have no doubt that is only a passing phase.

That brings me to the question of aviation, in which these erroneous statements always reach a culmination. Then it becomes the duty of the responsible Minister, in this case myself, to make a statement and the whole thing crumbles to the ground. Then laboriously is built up a further palace of fiction to be again, I suppose, made to crumble to the ground. In this matter I appeal to the Committee, as I did once before, to approach the subject of aeronautics in a similar way to that in which they approach other branches of Army policy. That is not done, and I think it is because it is such a new science that so many people, knowing really nothing about it, have to write something, and, to be quite frank, write the most utter nonsense. I do not propose to deal with the more absurd statements to-day, because, of course, they are not generally made in this House, but I will first deal with the very important matter of the accidents which have taken place, before I come to the absurd nonsense to which I referred. There are one or two absurdities which have been suggested with regard to this matter, too. There have been statements made that we have suffered greater loss of life in aeronautics than other countries owing to the fact that we have been less careful in our selection of machines or less careful in testing them. Let us see how this matter stands. First of all, with regard to tests. Before we accept any aeroplane—and this applies to them all—all aeroplanes have to fulfil the following tests: First, a loading test by which the strength of the construction is tested, that is to say, the machine is loaded with a weight of sand. During this any one wire may be cut and the aeroplane must suffer no permanent distortion. Further, there is a test for the landing carriage, which goes over a certain fixed rough course, at the place where all our aeroplanes are tested. The Committee will realise that the landing carriage of the aeroplane may often be more important to the life of the aviator even than the wings themselves. Then there is the flying test, of not less than an hour's duration, during which the aeroplane must carry a full load and oil and petrol sufficient for the prescribed number of hours. In addition the maximum and minimum speeds must be demonstrated, and the workmanship and the material must be to the satisfaction of the superintendent of the Royal Aircraft Factory. All these things have to be done in the case of each aeroplane. Furthermore, before any aeroplane takes a flight it is inspected by the commanding officer of the place where the aeroplane may be, and every effort is made to see that everything is correct. Every test that we know of is applied, and not until he certifies that it is fit to fly does the officer take a flight.

Sir H. DALZIEL

Every time?

Colonel SEELY

Every time the machine goes up. The next question is what has been the result of the great care which I allege we take in avoiding accidents. I will tell the House how the facts really stand. Of course, it is very difficult to get information with regard to foreign countries. I have been told to-day by the hon. Member for Brentford (Mr. Joynson-Hicks), and the hon. Member for Fareham (Mr. Lee), that I have not told the House enough about our men and materiel, but I can assure hon. Members that this House has been told a great deal more as to the number of aeroplanes and the number of men than any other deliberative Assembly elsewhere. I have reason to know that in other countries, where they are more subject to attack than we are, it is generally considered undesirable to make any statements with regard to aeroplanes and flying. Here in our country we can afford to be less cautious, but I would say to the Committee that we have gone as far as it is wise to go in giving information, and in going so far we have gone very much further than any other country in the way of publicity. That is why I cannot say exactly how matters stand with respect to foreign accidents. In the United Kingdom during the past year there have been five fatal accidents, resulting in eight deaths. I am confident that every Member of the Committee joins with me in saying that those gallant young officers who have died in flying have as truly died in the service of their country as those who have died in the most glorious acts on the battlefield.

First of all as to the machines on which these accidents took place. Let me say that it is a most remarkable thing that what has happened tends to show, not that it is impossible, for nothing is impossible, but that it is extremely difficult to avoid these accidents. Experience has shown that even the utmost care may not succeed in averting accidents. The suggestion has been made that these accidents took place with old machines, but will it be believed—it is a remarkable circumstance—that they took place on machines which, by any known tests, were regarded as the very best machines and the most carefully tested we have got. The Committee will remember that we had a competition open to all the world some nine months ago, which some hon. Members attended. It was a most exacting contest, in which aeroplanes from many foreign countries took part, and in which many remarkable performances were achieved. There were first, second, and third prizes awarded, and one machine which did not compete was considered by the judges to have been superior to them all Out of the five fatal accidents, involving the loss of eight lives, no fewer than four were caused by those machines. These were actually the machines which had won against all the world, and had shown themselves most airworthy, most stable, and best constructed. [An HON. MEMBER: "Were they wanting in stability?"] We have no evidence of that. On the contrary, it appeared to be the case that what was the best design for that day had got some defect which nobody could know until the accident occurred.

Two more accidents occurred recently where actually the machine was a prize machine of the type which was considered best. Coming to the particular accident at Montrose, about which I have been asked questions to-day by several hon. Members, I have to say that here was the case of a machine which was considered by all our officers to be of an exceptionally good design. Our flying officers, or most of them, so far as our information goes, do prefer this machine to almost any other, and many of them prefer it to any other. The actual machine was flown all the way from Farnborough to Montrose, and it did not have the very best of weather, as I happen to know. Naturally, it was most carefully examined before it started on its journey, and it was most carefully examined again on its arrival. One would naturally have said that a mchine that could fly from Farnborough to Montrose in bad weather was probably the safest machine to fly upon; and, in fact, if anyone had asked what was the safest machine at Montrose on the day this accident took place, a very large number of those skilled in these matters would have been inclined to say it was this particular one. We cannot be certain as to the cause of the accident, but what we think caused it was a defect in the woodwork of the tip of one wing. Hon. Members know that the woodwork is covered by a panel, and you cannot see the inside of the panel. We keep a most careful record of any accidents that occur to an aeroplane. Every one has a life history which is recorded. It is not very difficult to keep such a record, for, as hon. Gentlemen know, the number of aeroplanes is not so large. There was no record of any accident to this machine. Of course, one cannot tell what happened to cause the accident, but we will try to find out what took place. One can guess as to what took place from what has occurred so often before where there has been an accident to one's motor car. I remember a case where the radiator was nearly knocked off, and the driver was knocked off the car. That resulted in nothing but inconvenience, but this accident, alas, resulted in death. It might fairly be claimed that nothing we could do could avoid accidents of this kind. I am not sure that that is the case, for, as I have said, nothing is impossible.

It has occurred to me that we might make flying safer if we were to have spare wings, and if at frequent intervals we completely stripped the wings—not only the outer, but the inner panel—and examined all the inside. It may be said that you will get danger by taking off and putting on the wings, and that you will weaken the structure. I am told that is not so, and that the balance of advantage will be in the examination of the panels. This will mean a considerable number of spare parts of all kinds as well as wings, and spare parts are being provided. We regret the accidents to people in other countries almost as much as to people in our own. In France, which, of course, is far ahead of the rest of the world in all matters aeronautical, they had thirteen fatal accidents and seventeen deaths, or a little more than double the number we had. It is well to know the proportion of men The figure I have got here as to the number in our aeronautical service is 756. I know that number to be accurate. The number in France is 1,174. If you were to take the properly qualified pilots there would be very little to choose as between the two, countries. Let us go further in the comparison, because France is much larger than this country, and has, in that respect, a great advantage. In Germany, alas, they have been much more unfortunate. I do not know the precise number in Germany of their personnel or their pilots, but it is not very different from our own. I think they are rather more numerous, but very little. There, instead of having five accidents, they had twenty-one, and instead of eight deaths, I am grieved to say they had twenty-seven—three and a half times as many as we had. Perhaps it is most remarkable that America, although she was a pioneer with France in this matter, has not taken up aviation for military purposes at all keenly. She only allotted £45,000 for aviation last year, and she has only a negligible quantity of aeroplanes. She has probably less than an eighth part of our aeroplanes. I regret to say that she had the same number of accidents which resulted in fatalities.

You have to remember the further fact that flying in England is peculiarly difficult and dangerous as compared with flying in Continental countries which have wide stretches of land, for this reason: Here in our island kingdom we are subject to much stronger and more gusty winds, so that it is very difficult to carry on flying operations. We live in a very enclosed and very hilly country. The enclosed and hilly nature of the country has two results. It makes cross-country flying more difficult. The first difficulty arises from the hilly nature of the country, and the number of trees makes air disturbances more frequent than in foreign countries. A still greater drawback is that it makes it much more difficult to find a landing place, and, so far as I know, in two-thirds of the accidents which have occurred the landing difficulty was a contributory, if not the principal, cause. In open country like the plains of France a man who is flying is in almost as good a position as on Salisbury Plain. At any moment he can come down. In this country, before coming down, he must look for a suitable place, and having found what he thinks a suitable place, he may come down in a particular field and find that there is a wire fence at the end of it. He has then to ascend again and look for another place. I have dealt at some length with the question of accidents, and I think I have shown that they have not occurred as the result of want of care taken by our flying officers. The whole thing is new. A year or so ago there was nothing in the way of military aviation. We have the most difficult country to fly in in Europe, but, judged by any available test, we have been far freer from fatal accidents than any country except France, and possibly as free as France herself.

That reflects great credit on those who have been engaged in the business. It has been suggested that we might have made a comparison of the miles flown, but we cannot do that because we do not known the miles flown abroad. Even if we did that would be most misleading because flying round an aerodrome is very safe compared with flying across country, as the pilots in the aerodrome not only know the landing places, but it is a curious thing that they get to know the condition of the air of the aerodrome and the direction and force of the currents which will come from a particular piece of water or group of trees. But even if that test were taken, I think that it would be found that we have enjoyed a remarkable immunity from accidents. But I assure the House that no expense will be spared to ensure that everything will be done to make this, the most dangerous, as it must be, of all branches of our Service, as safe as mind and money can make it. With regard to the misapprehensions, and what I venture to call the absurdities, that have been expressed as to the question of numbers, I hope that I shall not be asked to state the precise number of aeroplanes which we have, because no other country gives the information; but I did think it desirable, and I spoke with the full concurrence of my colleagues, to make a general statement in view of the fact that the House knew nothing of what had been done. They knew that we had started practically with nothing at all in the May of last year, and they thought it right to give the information. No sooner was that given than there came a chorus of demands, which could not have arisen if I had stated so many guns, so many men, so many wagons. Our experience is that our officials speak the truth, and therefore it is hardly worth while to call a concrete fact like that in question. But I found it very difficult to convince people until at last I found a man, an acknowledged authority on the subject, who definitely said that it was not the case. I thought that we had disposed of that for good and all when Lord Montague wrote me this letter, which I must now read again, because I am bound to read it again to-day so as to dispel these foolish suspicions in order that we may get to real business— I was very glad to receive your invitation to come to the War Office to-day, and to inspect there the documents supplied by your official advisers, and to meet the General Officer who is charged with the administration of the Royal Flying Corps. I am now fully convinced that the number of aeroplanes you have publicly stated represents those really available. I am glad to know that the number is, at the present date, in excess of the 101 you stated on 19th March were then in the possession of the War Office. I quite appreciate the necessity for secrecy in these matters, and understand how misapprehensions may have arisen, and regret that I gave publicity to erroneous figures. I really should have thought that that would have disposed of it. I hope that it will convince the hon. Gentleman to-day. I have now made him another offer. Of course, if he likes to come and see the same documents that Lord Montague saw, I shall only be too pleased, and it may save him the trouble of wandering round. What he now says is that if I can produce for him eighty efficient aeroplanes—he does not give the test of efficient aeroplanes, but I suppose it is rising 3,000 ft. in the air and travelling 50 miles an hour—he will present a full and ample apology. I cannot bring them to him. I will send him to them. I cannot undertake to send him to all the new types which we are considering. I do not propose to show him anything confidential, but. I ask him to see with his own eyes the actual things. If he doubts whether I have the number of guns which I have stated in the Estimates, then I will make the same arrangement.

Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS

With regard to the guns, they are in batteries. Everybody knows them. He is willing to tell us them. There are so many guns in a battery. When I ask him how many aeroplanes there are and in which aeroplane battery, he will not tell.

Colonel SEELY

It is because we do not make it. We know that all our guns are of a certain fixed type. Our aeroplanes are constantly changing in type. We do not want everybody to know what types we have. In no other country do they give so much information as we do, and we shall not ever get on with the proper discussion of thin subject and secure the proper cooperation of all parties, in so far as the matter is not a subject of party conflict, as we have in other subjects, until this absurd suspicion is dissipated. Directly I showed the papers to Lord Montague he made the most ample apology, which I have read to the House. In the same way the hon. Gentleman asks that I may produce for him eighty good machines as to which, without giving away any secrets of the State, I have no doubt he will be able to tell us what he thinks of them. Incidentally, no doubt, he will have a good many other matters to consider, and I hope that he will take a good many flights himself and see what admirable machines they are. On the question of the type of the machine, the hon. Gentleman surprised me very much. He referred to the Farman machines as though they were an obsolete and unworkable craft. That may be so, but it is not the opinion of any aeronautical authority that I know of. In fact, I should say that these particular machines for military purposes would often be of extraordinary value.

Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS

What I think I said was that those particular machines did not go beyond sixty miles an hour, whereas the modern French monoplane goes up to seventy-five.

Colonel SEELY

We have machines that go to greater speeds even than that. But you do not want all your aeroplanes to go at these great speeds—far from it. The principal purpose for an aeroplane is observation, and for that purpose these machines are of peculiar value for military purposes. What really is the position? I quite accept the hon. Gentleman's statement that he has no personal feeling in this matter, and I ask him to accept my statement of the facts which I have given. Assuming the facts, we have made a very remarkable advance. A little more than a year ago we were in the same position as all other countries except France. We had practically no aeroplanes, no pilots, no flying school, no skilled mechanics, and no organisation, and every other country except France was in the same condition. Of course, they had some few pilots, some few machines, and the beginning of an organisation. We decided, when I took my present office, that we must make a move, and in that short time I will ask the Committee to say that we have made a great advance. We have got now 120 machines. I take those only in first-class order. We had practically no pilots. We had one or two extremely efficient fliers. I am glad to say that some of them are still flying, but they were only very few. Now we have 146, and of those 146 there are eighty-three of what we call first-class pilots. All those eighty-three first-class pilots passed a more exacting test than the French military test or the higher test of the Royal Aero Club. It is a very long course. It lasts thirteen weeks. They are constantly flying. They have to learn all these things: The principles of mechanics, the construction of engines, the construction of aeroplanes, meteorological observations in the air, navigation by compass, cross - country flights, photography, signalling by all methods, and other things, such as the study of the types of warships. All this they go through for thirteen weeks. Eighty-three have done that, and all this in less than a year. It does speak volumes for the energy and determination of people in this country, once they get the opportunity to go forward, that eighty-three men, judged by available tests, are, except the best French pilots, the most highly qualified pilots in the world; and what is indeed remarkable, all these men have been trained during this thirteen weeks' course without a single accident.

I think that this reflects great credit upon the able officers at the Central Flying School. We practically had no aeroplanes, and no pilots, and no flying school at all. I went down to the place myself and selected it a little while ago. There was nothing there but a ploughed field. Now we have a first-class establishment, which has produced eighty-three first-class pilots, and is passing through pilots at the rate of about sixty or seventy in the year for military purposes, and, of course, a proportion of naval officers too. Then we had no skilled mechanics. We could not get them. They were not in the country. And so small was the aeronautic industry here that we could not get any. There were very few makers who were making aeroplanes, and they wanted all their mechanics for themselves. Now we have a very large staff of trained mechanics, trained not only as mechanics in ordinary mechanical work, but trained in that very highly specialised work, the mechanical work of aeroplane engines, and aeroplanes themselves. Then we had no organisations, and there was the case of the Clément-Bayard airship. That was before my time. It is quite true that we made some mistake, and there was an expenditure of £12,500; but I ask my hon. Friends to reflect on what has been spent and wasted on these airships in France and Germany, and I think they will agree that we have avoided undue extravagance and undue waste with regard to that.

Sir H. DALZIEL

What I complained of was that the thing was bought without any test whatever.

7.0 P.M.

Colonel SEELY

That was long before my time. I do not know from personal knowledge exactly all that was done, but I understand the envelope was deflated. We were strongly advised by hon. Gentlemen opposite, who, in fact, subscribed a large sum of money, to make patriotic efforts to purchase the ship, which cost several thousand pounds, but like wise people we cut our loss, and if we never make worse mistakes than that we will be more fortunate than our neighbours. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that nothing of that sort has occurred since. Although we are rightly told we have only three military airships, yet they are very efficient airships, in fact, remarkably so, and if the hon. Gentleman opposite really wishes to know what sort of airship we have I would beg him to go down to Aldershot and arrangements can be made for him to go up in one of those vessels. It is perfectly safe. When I tell him that these airships have been all over the country flying thousands of miles, and that there has not been one single accident, and when you compare that record with the record of other and less windy countries, which have had a series of disasters, I think it will be agreed that in the airship branch of the Military Wing of the Royal Flying Corps we have not done badly. I do not think I need detain the Committee further with regard to this matter.

Mr. LEE

Has the right hon. Gentleman anything to say about stopping the competition?

Colonel SEELY

I am asked why we are stopping the "Daily Mail" competition. I am very glad to be asked that question. Like all other things said about aeronautics, there is not a word of truth in the suggestion. I think there is a complete misapprehension of the true facts of the case. We have, as the Committee knows, thought it desirable to define certain areas of the country over which people shall not fly. We do not allow people to approach, either by land or by water, certain fixed points in the country. It is all very well to say that it is not in the public interest to refuse this competition over certain areas, but it is in the public interest, I submit, to define what are the points which we do not wish people to fly over. That is all we require. The "Daily Mail" proposed this competition, and, speaking for myself, I need hardly say I am delighted that the "Daily Mail" shows so large a public spirit in the matter of flying, for which we are all grateful. But while we appreciate to the full the very great services that journal has rendered in aeronautics, when they came to make arrangements for the competition with aeroplanes, we found that it was proposed to-fly over not only one but two of the most important points which we are determined, if we can, to prevent anyone from, flying over. Of course we suggested to, them other proposals to facilitate their arrangements, and as to the rest of their plans we made it perfectly plain that we had not the remotest intention to interfere with them, and I dare say we will be able to come to some arrangement by which the contest can take place.

Mr. AMERY

Is the right hon. Gentleman only referring to the land race, or is he referring to the hydroplane race?

Colonel SEELY

I am referring to the-hydroplane race, which is the one that has been alluded to, and that is the one on which the difficulty occurs. I hope we shall come to a satisfactory arrangement about it. I will now deal with the general question of aeroplanes. I have now, I hope, satisfied the Committee that we have made a very ample advance, and in so doing we have not sacrificed lives in as great a proportion as other countries, and we will make every endeavour to secure that our flying shall be conducted with safety. Now comes the question of the future. We had no organisation a year ago; now we have a sound foundation on which to build. The real difficulty has been that we could not get the things we wanted, nor could we get the workmen. I have stated in public, and I repeat it here, that it has not been lack of money that has caused the delay, nor was it lack of money which caused the small delay, showing a discrepancy of twenty aeroplanes over what we have now; it is simply that we cannot get delivery. If you attempt to accelerate and hurry up the contractors, there is always the danger of stamped work, which might lead to accidents and loss of life. This is one of the industries in which you cannot press people to go too fast. We found also that there was practically no industry of this kind in England on any large scale; but the policy of the British Government in the matter of aeroplanes, engines, and all things connected therewith, is now to get all that they require from within the British Isles, so far as it possibly can. Since the aeroplane has become an engine of war, it must be treated in the same way as other war materiel. I am glad to say with regard to aeroplanes that we are rapidly approaching—in fact, we have reached the position where we can get what we want. Whatever we think is 'desirable in the way of aeroplanes we can order, and though they may be produced more slowly than we could wish, yet we have the mechanics, the skill, the capital, and the plant with which to make progress. With regard to the engines, we are approaching a similar position, but it has not come yet. I have here a list of nine English engines that are now in process of examination, completion, and testing. In regard to the competition for a considerable prize which is proposed, the whole of the details are at this moment in print and will appear in the course of two or three days. As the result of that competition, I have no doubt that engines will be obtainable in this country within a very short time.

Sir GILBERT PARKER

asked a question which was inaudible in the Gallery.

Colonel SEELY

There are nine engines of different forms, I happen to know from confidential inquiries, and no doubt most of them will take part in this competition. I believe that we are now in a position to go forward as far as it is wise and proper to go. We do not, of course, pretend to have a great aeronautical establishment like that of France, but compared with any other country our position is not an unfavourable one. I cannot make a precise comparison, but, from such information as I have been able to obtain, I should say that whereas a year ago we were nowhere, we are now certainly amongst the first three, and possibly in the first two, in the provision of really skilled pilots and proper machines for them to fly, with all preparations for training a force. That is my information. That the number is adequate, I do not for a moment allege. It could not be so in the short time. I am asked if the seven squadrons are ready, or when they will be ready. I cannot give the date. If we tried to do the work more quickly it would lead to a waste of money, and probably a loss of life. I fully admit that the time has now come when the aeroplane industry has become more standardised. The House may say, "You have a small Army, therefore you ought to have a large aeronautical establishment. This is supported by expert advice. If that view is correct, you ought not to regard a small aeronautical service because you have a small Army, but you should rather make up for your small Army by having considerable power in the air." I think we are in a position now to go forward. The matter is receiving careful consideration at this moment. We are still working; we are still making great advances; and, if it be so decided, it is possible to advance further and so secure this country that she may hold her own in the air.

Colonel BURN

The Debate has ranged over a considerable area, and from the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman I feel justified in making a few observations about, the Territorial Army. The right hon. Gentleman said it would be a great mistake to create a Home Defence Army over and above our needs. I certainly agree with him. I think it would be a great mistake to form any Army over and above our needs. But I think it is an absolute necessity to have an Army which keeps up to the minimum standard laid down by Lord Haldane. The numbers of the Territorial Army were laid down at 315,000 men and officers, and everyone knows that this year we are 50,000 short of that number, and we are likely to be still further short before the year is up. Supposing our Expeditionary Force were ordered abroad, and the defence of these Islands were left in the hands of the Territorial Army, what would be our position? What is the test of the men who form the Territorial Army? If you look at the returns you find that the number who go through the full fifteen days' training in camp is about 138,000 or 140,000 men. I was sneaking to an officer of very high rank in the British Army the other day, and I said, in the event of our Expeditionary Force being ordered abroad to take Part in operations and our Special Reserve being taken up almost entirely to fill up those gaps that are caused in every Army by immature men and sick men—with our Special Reserve used up for that purpose and the defence of these islands left in the hands of the Territorial Army, I asked this officer of high rank what would happen to this country, and he said, "Heaven help us!" I perfectly agree it i3 a case of Heaven helping us. We were told not very long ago that these gaps which were formed in the Territorial Army would be filled by the National Reserve. I do not believe that any Minister could seriously tell the House or the country that the National Reserve is fitted to fill the gaps in the Territorial Army.

A large percentage of the National Reserve have never been in the Army. Some of them have been for a short period in the Territorial Army, and what discipline have they got? They have no officers, they are not trained for any portion of any year, and I think everybody knows who is interested in military affairs that what was said by the Duke of Wellington a hundred years ago is equally true to-day, that "an ill-trained and unorganised Army 'is a great deal worse than no Army at all." Sir, I think that this is a really serious; matter that has to be faced. We all appreciate the voluntary soldier, and I will give way to no one in my appreciation of the patriotism and the unselfishness of those men who serve in the Territorial Force and who give up their holidays for the service of their country. But what is 'the good of them unless we have the minimum laid down by Lord Haldane? I do 'say that this question must be tackled, otherwise we in this country are in a parlous position. I earnestly hope that the Secretary of State and his advisers will set to work to get the Territorial Force up to its proper standard and see -that those men who do belong to the Territorial Army do their full training, otherwise they are little or no use. We know what would happen on mobilisation. We soldiers know where the shortage would come. If a man is not disciplined, how can he face a Continental Army of any size, let alone one of the numbers which the Continental nations are able to put into the field in these days?

I wish to make a few remarks on one or 'two other headings in this Vote 1. I want to say a word about the Cavalry School. Let me say that I think it is distinctly good in every possible way. I have heard of complaints that they are isolated on Salisbury Plain and that the life there is some- what dull, but I would not complain of that. If the officers and men are to thoroughly learn their duties they have plenty to occupy themselves with, and I do not think they ought to seek for any great amusement or diversion outside that. I think the position of the place good enough in itself, but in my opinion the efficiency of the Cavalry could be very greatly increased if a certain sum of money were ear-marked for a series of lectures. Now there are men in this country who are specially qualified to lecture on the higher duties of the Cavalry in combination with other arms. We have a small force of Cavalry in the Army, and it is everything that that force should be highly efficient. I know myself when I was studying in Berlin a good many years ago I found an officer who is to-day one of the leading officers in the British Cavalry, and he at the same time was studying the German system, spending his leave of six months from India in Berlin and in other parts of Germany simply studying their system of dispatch riding. That officer went through the Staff College, and he is one of the highest officers in the British Army to-day. I say that if we had a series of lectures by these men who are peculiarly fitted for the position of instructors and able to give instruction it would be of the greatest advantage to the Cavalry, because if the officers are properly instructed it means that they pass on their knowledge in turn to the non-commissioned officers and men, and in that way, without any shadow of a doubt, you get by far the most efficient force. Our recruits, we know, are not of the most desirable class, as a general rule, because of the attractions in civilian life, and also, as I said before—and I feel very strongly about this—because the inducements at the end of their service are not sufficiently great to attract the men we most desire to join the Army. I feel that if the right hon. Gentleman would consider that and would see if a certain sum could not be allocated for lectures in the higher branches and the higher training of the Cavalry service, it would be of the greatest possible advantage.

I want to draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the Chaplain's Department. Promotion in the Chaplain's Department is governed by length of service. Now I venture to say that personality, merit, and real knowledge of the soldier ought to be taken into account. The man who can really get at the British soldier is by far the most valuable as a clergyman to administer religious rites. I would like to see the opinion of commanding officers taken as to the merits of the chaplain, and I should like to see them promoted by merit and not entirely by length of service. I am sure that that would be for the benefit of the Army. I myself have seen certain chaplains who got hold of the men, and whom the men really liked so much that they were always anxious and ready to go to the voluntary services in the evening, let alone the parade service, and I feel that much could be done for the Service generally if these points were taken into consideration and if the eligible man was not obliged to wait until he had fifteen years' service before he could be classed as a second-class chaplain, or twenty years' service before he could draw £1 a day as a first-class chaplain. Again, as regards the officiating clergy, the rate of pay, in my opinion, is quite amazing. If the average attendance is a hundred, then he gets 3s. for each soul over and above that number per annum, but when the attendance is 300 he only gets 2s. for each soul above that number per annum. I think that in the interests of religion, and also of the chaplains themselves and the officiating chaplains, the pay of each chaplain should be revised.

Then as regards pay and allowances, and gratuities of officers regimentally messing. Our rates of pay are quite out of date. We require professional soldiers nowadays, and I ask how can the subaltern, on an average of 6s. 6d. a day, be expected to discharge the necessary living, and messing and clothing expenses. We hear a great deal from hon. Gentlemen who sit on the Labour Benches about promotion from the ranks. I say that if we promoted to commissions from the ranks at 6s. 6d. a day, it would be impossible for those promoted to keep up the position of an officer. I, for one, am always glad to see every eligible man who passes the necessary examinations promoted to a commission. He is equally welcomed in a regiment just as is a Sandhurst cadet or a Militia officer. I think perhaps if there is any jealousy at all it comes from the private soldier of the regiment of the officer promoted from the ranks. The men think he knows too much about them, and therefore they perhaps do not appreciate him as much as they might do, but the officers always welcome the officer who gets his promotion through the ranks. I certainly think they will appre- ciate what has been promised by the right hon. Gentleman as regards the increase of pay. I should say that the sooner that is remedied the sooner will the complaints, diminish as to the difficulties of getting officers. Then, as regards the Army Reserve in this country, we have got practically no Reserve. The Special Reserve, I think most of us agree, is more or less of a failure. We have no Reserve like the Kobe or the Japanese Reserve, on which they depended so much for winning their battles.

Our Army Reserve certainly has many defects. I think the best men are discouraged from enlisting. At the end of their service they have no daily allowance, they have no pension, and they have no trade. What they are perfectly certain or having guaranteed for them is a very uncertain future. Any civilian is in a better position than they are. Deferred pay and stoppages do not attract men to join the Army. They do not like having their pay docked for future benefits at the end of the service in the shape of deferred pay: They consider that it is very much like the insurance scheme of 9d. for 4d. The gratuity on discharge attracts no men of the better class, though it is graphically described in "Voluntary Enlistments" by Sir Ian Hamilton, who says in that work that the voluntary enlisted soldier is equal to ten pressed men. However, I will not enter into that, because we have heard it discussed by previous speakers to-night. But, Sir, we desire that our Army should be a professional Army and should be composed of the right class of men, and I am perfectly prepared to do everything in my power to join hands with the opposite benches, with the Labour party, or with the Nationalists, if they will put their hand to the wheel and use every possible endeavour to provide an Army for this country fitted to meet the duties we have to perform, and to have an Army on which we can rely for the defence of these Islands in the event of our Expeditionary Force being sent abroad and the defence of the country being left in the hands of our Territorials.

Mr. C. E. PRICE

(who was indistinctly heard): I wish to congratulate the Secretary of State for War on the very interesting statement he has made to-day. I understand that there is some danger, in connection with the erection of houses for aeroplanes on Salisbury Plain, of interfering with the amenities of Stonehenge. I shall be glad if the Secretary of State can give some, guarantee that no erections will be allowed which will interfere with these ancient monuments. I was very glad to hear the right hon. Gentleman refer to the efforts which are being made to encourage promotion from the ranks. Some two years ago, I called his attention to what has been done in the German Army to qualify the men raised from the ranks. Oftentimes these men, the moment they get their commission, are for drilling purposes, infinitely better qualified than many of the men who have been commissioned for some time, but they are greatly inferior to their brother officers in their knowledge of tactics. For these men to begin at once their duties as officers, and at the same time to study in order to pass their examinations, is a very great strain. Therefore I should like to know whether anything has been done to transfer the men immediately they are commissioned to one of the Military Colleges for, say, six months, to enable them, under proper tuition, to qualify to pass their examination. If that were done, I believe these men would be far superior to those who have had no practical training. I have had a letter in regard to the quartermasters. In September last a new Royal Warrant was issued affecting the retired pay of officers, and my correspondent informs me that some of the benefits are not to come in force until 1916, by which time many of the men who expected to benefit, will have retired. I trust the right hon. Gentleman will be able to do something in regard to that matter. May I also thank the right hon. Gentleman on behalf of the citizens of Edinburgh for securing for them Dreghorn. I know Dreghorn very well indeed, and a lovelier spot does not exist. Therefore, we are extremely gratified that it will now be preserved for the people. The only point about which we are anxious is that there should not be such restrictions as will prevent the people being able to take advantage of it. Hence we shall be extremely grateful for anything that can be done to preserve the rights of the people and possibly to extend them. When the question of the cost was raised the other night, I understand the Under-Secretary showed some reluctance to give any information, except that it was very cheap.

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. H. J. Tennant)

That it was a good purchase.

Mr. PRICE

You may make a good purchase at a very dear price. We are somewhat anxious about the price, because the War. Office and the Admiralty have at times made many purchases which would not bear examination. There was one case where the owner sacrificed a rent of £11 and we paid him £27,000. I look upon a transaction of that kind as a disgrace to a civilised country. Hence I shall be curious to know the amount paid for this estate as compared with the rateable value. A deputation waited upon the right hon. Gentleman recently with regard to a chapel that is to be erected. I understand that no information could be given at the time, and if a statment can now be made as to what the position will be I shall be greatly obliged.

Sir RANDOLF BAKER

After the speech of the Secretary of State one would imagine that everything connected with the Army was perfect. It is therefore just as well to remember the excessive shortage in the Territorial Force. Every Member must recognise that after years of the most strenuous endeavour on the part of everybody interested in that force there is a lamentable shortage. For this there are a variety of reasons. I very much doubt whether we have not reached the maximum under the present system. Probably I have had more personal experience of recruiting for one particular regiment than any other Member in the House. I have been out recruiting every winter; therefore I know the objections that are raised by the young men who are asked to join. There are certain causes which might be remedied. The first to which I will refer greatly affects the officer problem. The War Office authorities are very rightly trying to get the Territorial officers as efficient as possible. They insist on their going into classes and schools of various sorts in order that they may be made efficient. A point which seriously affects every Territorial officer, and especially a Yeomanry officer, is the fact that the authorities have done away with letting them go to the School of Musketry at Hythe. I passed my musketry course at Hythe, and spent a most interesting month. Now, however, in order to assist certain Territorial Infantry regiments, the authorities are having local classes in various towns for particular areas. Two officers in my regiment went to the last class for the Southern district at Bristol, where they were kept for a month. During the whole of that time the instruction did not begin until six o'clock in the evening, I suppose to make it easier for the Territorial officers in that particular city to attend. Hon. Members will realise that it is a very great hardship on the Territorial officers who do not live in the place where the class is held. I believe that the same thing took place in London. The officers were expected to attend lectures from six to ten o'clock in the evening every day. Although they are kept in the City the whole month they do not learn anything like what they would if they were given instruction at a proper school. If the right hon. Gentleman cannot find room at Hythe for the Territorial officers a very serious hardship would be removed if he could arrange for a subsidiary musketry school, where the officers could receive instruction during the whole of their stay, instead of wasting the whole of each day.

Another grievance is in regard to the food. The Yeomanry have been allowed in connection with the meat contracts, on payment of a small additional sum, to vary the kind of meat supplied, so that they have mutton one day and beef another, and also to get the better joints. This year we went out for a fortnight's training, and we were only allowed to give our men beef all the time. We were not allowed to make a payment out of our canteen funds to vary the meat. In addition to that we were not allowed to pay extra for better joints only, but we had to take whole carcases. That sort of thing creates a grievance at once. If only the responsible authorities would show some little consideration for these small grievances it would help to a certain extent those who are trying very hard indeed to keep up the numbers of the Territorial Force. Small matters of this kind make a great deal of difference. Another thing from which the Territorial Force suffers is the great complexity in regard to the various sections of the Army with which it has to deal. A question was recently asked in this House as to the number of ranges which had been closed for various reasons. One would have thought that the simple course would be to write to the Territorial associations asking for the information. Instead of that, I understand that the War Office proceeded to telegraph to a variety of officials. The secretary of my Territorial association received requests for the information from no less than four different quarters. Each telegram cost about a shilling, and he had to send to each the information required. It is only a small matter, but when there is this continual interference with the associations by all sorts of different authorities it means a large amount of additional work. The clerical work is very inadequately paid for, and at the same time it is unnecessarily multiplied. There, again, is a point which I think might very well be looked into by the right hon. Gentleman to see if he cannot modify the request for information sent out in the way I have described.

The right hon. Gentleman spoke on the horses. I gather he was satisfied with what he had got in the way of a census, but I understand from other information at my disposal that he is now taking a new census through the adjutants of the Territorial Force and others, and that he is not satisfied, as I was quite certain he would not be, with the police census taken a couple of years ago. That police census, I believe, was very rough indeed. The police simply asked how many horses the owner had. The ordinary country policeman has not the slightest idea of classifying horses, nor do I suppose he knows much as to the particular form of horses, whether light or heavy draught, or riding horses. He was simply asked, however, to find out how many horses there were in the county. Now the right hon. Gentleman has learnt, as I was certain would be the case, that what is required is a definite and classified list of the various horses in the country; and you must get that from the people qualified to make it. That, I hope, the right hon. Gentleman is going to do. Just one final question, which the right hon. Gentleman did not deal with, and which perhaps he or the Under-Secretary will deal with, and that is the question of the rifle. I had hoped the right hon. Gentleman would tell us what was the position of affairs in this connection at the present time, how far the test of the rifle had been carried out, and how far that test had proved to be satisfactory; what sort of rifle it was, and how soon it would be suitable for the Regular Forces? My point of view, which is more important to Me, is how soon the Territorial Force is going to be given—at any rate the Yeomanry—a better weapon than at present. I am perfectly convinced that the short rifle we have got at the present time is a very poor one, and very much inferior, from the shooting point of view, to the long rifle with which we used to be armed. If we could get some information later on these points connected with the rifle I should be glad. I believe it has been issued to various troops. What report has the right hon. Gentleman got on it, and what prospect is there of it being issued soon, and a new rifle given to the Territorial Force?

Mr. HAMAR GREENWOOD

I am sure the Secretary of State for War will appreciate the very good-humoured, if pointed, criticism of the hon. and gallant Gentleman who has just sat down. In so far as the Force that he represents is concerned, and that I myself am connected with in a way, I think all criticism urged against the Territorial Army falls and fails in so far as it is directed against the Yeomanry. I ant very happy indeed, and I am sure the Committee will be, that a two weeks' diet on beef has not in any way diminished the physical proportions of the hon. and gallant Gentleman. If the rest of his regiment thrives as well on beef for a fortnight as he has done, there is not much fault to find with the Yeomanry of Dorset-shire. I wish to congratulate the Secretary of State for War especially on the pluck he has shown in testing these fickle air machines of various kinds. Certainly, although criticism may be urged against the great office over which he presides, no one can find any fault with his services as a soldier in the field, or with the practical example he sets in times of peace. There my congratulations cease. I wish to speak very briefly on two points in reference to the War Office generally. First, and speaking generally, the War Office is now, and has been one of the meanest Departments of the State in dealing with those old soldiers or the widows and children of soldiers, who, although they have many champions in this House, have not them selves that political pressure that is necessary sometimes to make Governments do their duty. The whole history of the War Office has been a history of the shabby treatment of those who have risked their lives in the field for the stay-at-homes, or whose widows and children have suffered from the death of their people in the field.

Generally speaking, I submit that the War Office is the meanest Department now, as it has ever been, in the State, and my criticism is this: The Secretary for War, and the Government of which he is a Member, has no business to curtail the salaries, and especially the pensions or allowances of those not able to earn them themselves, without submitting some scheme to the House of Commons. This House of Commons, with all its failures, have never refused to raise the allowances given to soldiers and sailors, and will, I submit with confidence, never refuse in the case of pensions to widows of old soldiers, or of allowances to the children of old soldiers, if it only has the opportunity of voting upon it. Under our rules it is impossible for us to move any Amendment in any way to increase these pensions that are, I think, lamentably low in many departments of the State. That is the general criticism of the War Office that I shall make year by year so long as I have the honour to be a Member of the House. If my vote will make the difference in improving the conditions of deserving men and women now living, certainly it will be given against my right hon. Friend, or anybody else who happens to be the Secretary of State for War.

Coming to a special case, I would like to say that the ghastly record of the air and the still more ghastly comparison that the Secretary of State rightly made with other countries, brings home to us who are Members of this House, who run no risk whatsoever, absolutely none with reference to the Army, and especially the air department of the Army, the fact that every time one of these men loses his life in these fickle machines which are growing more essential every day, the least the House of Commons can do is to see that the man's widow and children are so well and adequately provided for, that every time he goes up to serve his country and to risk his life, he can go up with the confidence that every man would like to feel, that this House of Commons and the country will not forget to provide for those dependent upon him, if after he has gone they are unable to provide for themselves. I submit the present allowance, the present pension given to the dependants of these brave men of all ranks of the Army are lamentably small; smaller in every case, as I understand it, than the salary we have voted ourselves, not for risking our lives, but for attending this House, sometimes whether we like it or not. The least we can do—and I urge this upon the Secretary of State—and I submit to him he will have the House and the country behind him—is to give splendid pensions and generous allowances to those men who are risking their lives for all of us, in peace time as well as in war time.

Major HOPE

I rise, not to call attention to matters which have already been discussed, but having a small Army which the Secretary for State has said is better equipped in its essentials than that of any other country, I would like to call attention to some rather necessary articles of equipment with which I do not consider that our Army is at the present time fully and properly provided. I believe there are 420 range-finders supplied to the Army—that is to the Infantry—at the present time, and that 316 remain to be completed; or little more than half of the proper equipment of range-finders have been supplied in six years. This even is a very meagre allowance, which only reckons for five one-man range-finders per battalion. It would not be very much to ask that there should be nine. At the present time there are no range-finders issued to the Cavalry at all. We have, I believe, a rifle at present, it is not quite perhaps the best in Europe for ranges up to 1,000 yards, though I believe it is claimed that at ranges over 1,000 yards is probably the finest weapon in the world. I would like to remind the House that ranges of from 1,000 up to 2,000 yards are precisely those where it is most necessary to estimate accurately the range in order to develop the full advantage of a good rifle and of accurate shooting. If the range is not correctly estimated it might almost be an advantage to encourage bad shooting. Take it, for instance, that you have two companies, one of 100 marksmen, and the other of 100 third-class shots firing at an enemy 2,000 yards away. Suppose the range is estimated at 1,800 yards. It is obvious that most of the bullets of the marksmen will strike the ground 200 yards snort of the enemy, whilst many of the third-class shots, through aiming too high, will hit the enemy.

8.0 P.M.

The mekometer with which at the present moment many battalions of the Army are equipped is comparatively useless and out of date. Two men have to stand up and take the range, and they have to find a clear level base 50 yards between them. They also, of course, give away the position in doing so. I merely force an open door by making the point I do. What I wish to emphasise is that there has been plenty of time to equip the Army in this most important and essential article. From 1902 to 1907 five Committees of the War Office sat to consider what was the best pattern of one-man range-finder, and in 1907 a range- finder was definitely adopted—that is six years ago. If issued in bulk £20 apiece would have been saved. For an expenditure of £50,000, spread over two years, the whole of the Army would now be equipped with one-man range-finders. We have been six years, and only half have been supplied. This alone, I submit, is not the full extent of the muddle. About a year ago, contrary, I believe, to the advice of Hythe authorities and of the General Staff of the Army, a new range-finder was introduced into the Army. I believe the Secretary of State for War has said that it is cheaper, but it is obvious that to get good results the men must have experience in working their instruments. At the present time two courses are being trained at Hythe. One course of officers and men are being instructed in one pattern of range-finder, and another course are being instructed in the other pattern of range-finder. It is not, therefore, very wonderful that some battalions have been equipped with one range-finder and that all their men have been instructed in use of the other. Can we not conceive, if this happens in peace time, the confusion that would ensue on mobilisation for war! There is absolutely no difficulty about ordering these range-finders. They can be supplied in a very short time. I only suggest that if the answer is they cannot be supplied, I should like to know how many have been ordered since the 30th December, 1912. I mention this as an example of unbusinesslike methods, and of the constant custom of endeavouring to postpone expenditure from one year to another, or from one Government to another. I submit it is not only extravagant, but that it is a course detrimental to efficiency. There are other articles of equipment to which I would like to draw the attention of the War Office. In one of the divisions of the Expeditionary Force there was, a short time ago, only one Artillery one-man rangefinder, and that was taken away for some slight repair for eleven months, and during that eleven months the whole of that divisional Artillery was unable to train any of its men in the use of the one-man range-finder. All the batteries of the Expeditionary Force have not yet got No. 7 dial-sight for the same reason. I believe the reserve of technical stores especially for the Artillery, is very short. It would be very interesting to know what the actual reserve of 18-pounder guns is. Of course, I suppose it would not be admissible in the interests of the public service to disclose that, but I am told many of the field gums are showing wear and tear in breech and mechanism, and that has been remedied to some extent by putting in plastic metal. I do not feel very much confidence that our reserve of 18-pounder guns is more than eighteen.

Let me draw attention to another article of equipment. I find that £500 was paid to Colonel Dietz for the invention of his signalling disc. That was well-spent money, but why not spend more; £2,000 or £3,000 would equip the whole of the Infantry with these signalling discs? They are very cheap, and practically none of the Infantry battalions are equipped with them at all, except in a few cases where the officers have provided them. I have drawn attention to these slight defects, which are well known, and I should like very much to know what guarantee we have that in a very essential part of our equipment there is not more deficiency—I mean in small arms ammunition and the reserve of Mark VII. The Secretary of State for War in his speech says:— Good progress has been made in Mark 'VII.' ammunition, and ample reserves of this ammunition are being provided. But why should not all be provided, at all events by the end of the year? I note that the Estimate for small arms ammunition is down by £110,000. Perhaps an answer might be given as to what the reserve actually is. Might I quote from the "Field Service Manual." "Five hundred rounds per man of small arms ammunition will be maintained in the field for each man of the Expeditionary Force, lines of communication included, whether combatant or not." Is it extravagant to ask that there should be at least another 500 rounds reserve of small arms ammunition per man in order that the 500 may be maintained in the field? One thousand rounds costs £5 roughly speaking. There are 160,000 Regulars, 60,000 Special Reserve, and 140,000 Army Reserve. According to the returns there is in all a total of 350,000 men in round figures for whom there should be provided an ample reserve of Mark "VII." ammunition. I think we might take it that target practice of the Regular troops with the Mark "VII." ammunition would absorb £100,000 a year. Three hundred and fifty thousand men provided with 1,000 rounds at £5 a piece would cost a matter of £1,750,000. If you add another £100,000 for each year for ammunition expenditure on target practice you will get £1,950,000 in two years. On 20th February, 1912, the Secretary for War then said "there had been difficulty with Mark "VII." ammunition, and consequent difficulty in manufacture. This difficulty has now been overcome and the ammunition issued to the troops is satisfactory"; so I think we may take it that previous to February, 1912, there was no provision of reserve of Mark "VII." ammunition.

Mr. TENNANT

We had Mark "VI." then.

Major HOPE

You only started to manufacture a reserve about February, 1912. I find that in the Estimates for 1912–13 and 1913–14 there is only £1,280,000 expended for small arms ammunition. I have pointed out that to provide 1,000 rounds for 350,000 men of the Army—Regular Special Reserve and Army Reserve—would cost £1,750,000, and that £100,000 should be expended each year on target practice, making a total of £1,950,000. If anyone likes to take the proportion of the amount paid to the amount required to provide 1,000 rounds, I think he will find nothing like 1,000 rounds. There is something like 650 rounds. I may no doubt have put the figures too high and made some slight error, but I should like to be assured we have a sufficient reserve of Mark "VII." ammunition, say 1,000 rounds for even a smaller number of men. I only wish to draw attention to these facts, because I feel if there is not sufficient equipment in things we know about, and that sufficient provision has not been made, what guarantee have we that in those items about which the Secretary of State for War cannot make a definite declaration, that the interests of the country have been considered. I hope that the advice of the General Staff and musketry authorities have been followed upon these very important questions, and that not merely Treasury and political exigencies have been acted upon, as I think was the case in the smaller matter of range-finders.

Mr. BENNETT-GOLDNEY

I rise with real diffidence to take part in this Debate, and I feel sure I shall not be misunderstood when I add that this diffidence is none the less genuine because I know, I am assured beforehand of that kindly indulgence which is extended to those who address the House for the first time. I believe that our discussion this afternoon is nominally confined to Vote 1 for the pay of the Army. I propose to confine myself chiefly to this. A wide-enough field perhaps, especially when one remembers how closely very much of our latter-day War Office maladministration is bound up with this particular question. It has become almost a fashion, if I may say so, in referring to the pay of the Regular Army to pretend that everything has been done for the soldier, the rank and file; but this is only partially true. I think it would be far more correct really to say that nothing has been done for the officer, and, indeed, that was admitted by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War himself when he said, I think on 19th March last, when he made known his intentions to this House, that nothing had been done for the last 108 years to increase the pay of the officer of the Regular Army. But in spite of this it would be a mistake, I think, for us in this House to assume that everything, or nearly everything, has been done for the non-commissioned officers and men. Much necessarily remains to be accomplished. We are told, not only here in this House, but we read it in the newspapers, that recruiting is bad. Well, so it is. As Chairman myself of one of the recruiting committees of the Territorial Force, I may say I know something about recruiting, and I say it is likely to remain bad as long as we pay our rank and file so miserably as we do to-day. But there is more than one particular kind of payment.

You may pay the rank and file, if you choose an increased sum of money, but you may also pay the men in another way. You may pay them by reforms much needed or by much-desired concessions. Surely if recruiting is so poor as it is admitted to be, it would be well if the Secretary of State would take in hand some of the reforms and concessions of which he knows so much. For instance, there is the question which has been raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Torquay this afternoon of the employment of the men when they leave the Army, and there is the question of the dissatisfaction, and it is a question of dissatisfaction in spite of what may be said to the contrary, although it may be a minor one, of soldiers in the Army having to take compulsory patrol duties in our military stations, and I may say, in parenthesis, that the fact that a man is required to take part in these compulsory police patrols is never mentioned to the recruit when he joins the Army. Then there is the further question of allowing service -with the Colours to count for pension. I believe there was a Commission appointed some years ago by Parliament to look into this question. There was certainly a Committee at the War Office which went into this question very thoroughly, and they recommended that the years of service of the men in the Regular Army should be allowed to count for pensions if after they left the Army they went into the Civil Service. What has happened? These men have had nothing but rebuffs. Why? Let us be fair to the Secretary for War. I know it is not his fault, but whose fault is it? Let the burden fall upon the right shoulders. It is entirely the fault of the Treasury; but surely the Secretary for War will be able to use his benign influence even with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and if it is used in the way in which he alone knows how to use it, I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer might give way, and the men might be allowed so to count their years of Colour service. There is another serious question, which has been very little spoken about in the country hitherto, and that is compulsory Sunday work. I want to see the military service made more popular with the men and the non-commissioned officers. At a time when here in Parliament and throughout the country there has been a movement, which has now been brought to a termination, to give one day's rest in seven to the police constable, surely it is not unreasonable for the private soldier and the non-commissioned officer to expect to have a rest on a part of Sunday, but he very seldom gets it, because even in these so-called days of voluntary service he is made to take part in a compulsory service on Sunday, and he has to look after his kit to see whether all the buttons are properly sewn on and are bright enough, and there is very little religion about the whole matter.

I hope most sincerely that something may be done in this respect. To-night it is not so much the inadequacy of the pay of the rank and file with which I wish to deal, as the absolute absurdity of the amount of pay of the officers. We are notoriously short of officers. Practically I may say that the chief of our old sources of supply is drying up, and its causes are not far to seek. It is not merely the inadequacy of the pay which prevents young men coming forward to take commissions in our Army to-day, but it is the amount of extra work which is placed upon them. It is the corresponding loss of freedom and the loss of opportunities for sport. The time has come when we must look to other sources for an increase, and we must look even beyond that very excellent reform if it is to be called a reform—it is really a resuscitation of an old principle—promotion from the ranks. There are thousands of retired officers to-day, thousands of widows, professional men, and others with small incomes who would gladly allow their sons to enter the Army if they could only feel sure that they had a real career before them, and if they knew that when once their sons were in the Army they would be able to keep and maintain themselves in decency. Let us consider for a moment what it is that the Secretary of State for War proposes. It is absurd in these days to maintain any longer that the commissioned ranks can be regarded as they have been in the past as a close corporation. That is not desirable in the interests of the State or of society, and it certainly is not desirable in the interests of the Army. What are the right hon. Gentleman's suggestions with regard to the pay of the officers? Let me read an extract from an explanation which was given by the right hon. Gentleman on 19th March last, in which he said:— In this House we are agreed that, whatever view we took of the payment of Members, if they were going to be paid at all they must all be paid alike. I think the House will agree with me that there was no other solution possible than to make such an increase in the pay of intermediate ranks as would enable the officer just to live within his pay. We have heard that there has been no increase in the pay for the last 108 years; Heaven knows we hear enough about the increase in the cost of living. The right hon. Gentleman went on to say:— The class of men suitable for promotion from the ranks has greatly increased..… The reason was because it was impossible for a man to live upon his pay at all. You could do three things. Yon could first, reduce expenses. That we found at once to be an impossible solution. It meant taking away every conceivable luxury, drinking only water, smoking nothing. It was physically impossible for a promoted man, or any other man, to live upon his pay. What are we to gather from that? If we are to gather anything at all from those words, we are certainly to gather that the right hon. Gentleman is going to make it possible for an officer to live upon his pay, or at any rate the officer who is promoted from the ranks. I feel that the Committee will forgive me if I go, not at length, but to some small extent, into details. This is really necessary because the question is far more important than at first sight it may seem to be. It is absolutely useless to have the most perfect guns, the very best of equipment, and the most stable aeroplanes, unless we have a sufficiency of well-trained men to use them, and also a sufficiency of scientifically trained officers to lead our men. If we are to have such officers, then I say that it is the duty of the country to pay for them, and pay them amply, even if we do not pay them generously. What is it exactly that the right hon. Gentleman proposes? I will deal first with the men promoted from the ranks. The right hon. Gentleman told us, first of all, that he is going to: increase the equipment Grant from £100 to £150. That is a move in the right direction. I am not going to suggest that £150 may not be sufficient in nearly every case, but it certainly is none too generous.

The cost of the outfit for an officer, even in a Cavalry regiment which is not considered a crack regiment, is at least £100 for the kit. Now we are dealing with the man who has risen from the ranks. It is not merely his uniform; he has to find all his private clothes but his mufti. He has to find any amount of other necessaries of life which have become necessary owing to the new station he has to hold amongst his brother officers. Apart from the general items which must arise in everybody's mind, there are the actual clothes which the man wears. There are his boots, and his underlinen. There is his luggage which he has to take about with him when he travels, and there are his books, and all the thousand and one things which go to make up the surroundings of an educated man and an officer and a gentleman. £150 will not leave a man rising from the ranks more than a few shillings to spend upon himself in any private way whatever when he has bought himself his kit. Apart from this £150, what is exactly the pay of the officer today? The pay of an officer in the Infantry is only 6s. 6d. a day, and in the Cavalry it is 7s. 8d. a day. What does that really amount to? Seven and eightpence a day amounts to £2 13s. 8d. a week, or £139 18s. 4d. a year. The Secretary of State says, "That is not all; we are going to give him a bonus." He does not call it a bonus; I think he calls it a scholarship of £50 a year. That has to be added to the £139, so that a man who has risen from the ranks has £189 18s. 4d. a year to live upon, and that is all he has to live upon. What has he to find out of it? First of all—there are many officers in this House, and they know perfectly well that I am telling the truth—he has to pay his mess bill.

I admit that the Secretary of State has told us there are to be no sumptuary laws, and that the strictest economy is to be followed and ordered by the officers in command in the regiments. I should, however, be very surprised indeed to learn that the mess bill in any Cavalry regiment is likely to be less than £15 a month on the average. I should be very much surprised to learn that the mess bill in many Cavalry regiments during the last two or three months has been less for a lieutenant—second lieutenants are done away with and abolished—than from £22 to £30, and I do not think £15 a month is a high average to take. That means that the officers' mess bill alone will be £180, and, if you deduct £180 from £189 18s. 4d., it does not leave very much for other things. What else, even if I put the mess bill too high, has the officer who has risen from the ranks to pay for in cash out of the £189 18s. 4d. which he receives? He will certainly have the upkeep of his uniform and of his mufti. He will have a certain amount of horse hire. It is mentioned in the Army Estimates that two chargers are allowed by the Government to each officer, and a sum of £38 for each is given, but it is not mentioned in the official books that if an officer happens to use his charger for other than military purposes he is charged a rent for the horse; the charger is lent out to him on the hire principle. I do not know how much he has to pay for it, but I fancy it is something like £15 a year. If the officer who has risen from the ranks is going to hunt, and of course he will want to hunt—it is right he should; it is part of his Cavalry training—he will have to pay a part of the expenses of the charger. I have yet to learn that the officer does not pay something for the necessary medicines for his horse, even for extra shoeing and all kinds of other minor requirements. It almost reads in the Army Estimates as if it were a fact that an officer in the mounted arm was allowed two servants, but is he allowed them free? It does not mention that he has to pay at least 10s. a month for each of them; he may have to pay more. There are all these incidental minor expenses which are not mentioned and not taken into account. There arc other things.

I hope the right hon. Gentleman will really make it possible for a man rising from the ranks to live in the Army in decency and in comfort, and he cannot do either if he has not enough money in his pockets. I should like to know about many things which ought to have been paid for by the State in the past, but which have been paid for by the individual officer. What about the band subscription? I do not say anything about subscriptions for polo, or for entertaining, or for the drag. Then there are sums of money taken from the officers' pockets for the moving of their own mess necessaries when they go to manoeuvres. Large sums are deducted from officers for these things. Then, again, there is the removal of their own luggage. There are all sorts of these incidental expenses, and, unless something is done to reduce them, the mess bills alone are going to take £180 out of the £189 of the pay of the officer who has risen from the ranks. It is perfectly absurd to suggest that this Government is going to make a reality of this reform which reads so well on paper and which doubtless will sound so well from public platforms. We have been told by some of those who hold strong views on the subject—it is the opinion held by many of those who, if I may say so without offence and without any disrespect, entertain the more old-fashioned views in the War Office—that if we increase the pay of the mere subaltern we are going to demoralise him, and not only him but all the commissioned ranks.

Will the poor subaltern be at all likely to become demoralised merely because for the first time in his life he is able to make both ends meet? If the poor subaltern does have an extra £100 a year, and with the very strictest economy is able to make both ends meet, is it likely or possible that he is going to be demoralised? Or is the rich subaltern going to be demoralised because he can add another £100, or it may be £150 a year to his already adequate income? We might just as well assume that prosperous Members of Parliament on the benches opposite are likely to be demoralised because they voted themselves £400 a year super-income in order to help to pay their Super-tax. It seems to me that we have got to pay our officers a higher rate of salary, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will take into consideration not only what I have said personally but what my hon. and right hon. Friends have also said on the same subject. It is no party question, and it ought to be no party question. The welfare of the Army, of the officers and the rank and file alike, is a question which concerns every Member of Parliament, no matter where he sits or what his political opinions are; and I hope from the bottom of my heart that the Secretary of State for War will give a sympathetic bearing to the suggestions which I have made. I trust that in the very near future, not only will reforms and concessions be made with regard to the rank and file, but that they will be no delusion nor snare to those who are so anxious to rise from the ranks to become commissioned officers and take their place with those who have been more fortunate in respect to their means, so that the country at large may have the benefit of that wide humanity which should go to make up the full strength of the British Army.

Mr. GOLDSMITH

I do not intend to follow the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken, on the various points which he has made in a most admirable maiden speech. I wish to refer to another matter. The Financial Secretary to the War Office, in reply to a question yesterday about wages paid in the explosive works at Stowmarket, stated that although that company frequently had contracts with the War office, that at the present time they did not hold any War Office contract. I can therefore assume from that answer, in the first place, that this firm is on the list of Government contractors, and, in the second place, that careful inquiries have been made by the War Office whether the Fair-Wages Clause has been complied with. I take it that under that clause all that is required is that the firm should be paying the district rate of wages. For instance, no notice is taken whether the men are employed at what may be called a dangerous calling. No one will deny that the manufacture of cordite is a dangerous business, although I have been told that there is no danger in the manufacture of cordite as long as all the regulations are observed. That may be perfectly true, but it is absolutely impossible that all the regulations should always be properly observed. Mistakes are liable, although not likely, to occur. A man engaged in a dangerous process may not carry out all the instructions which he has received, and by omitting one detail of those instructions he will endanger not only his own life but all the lives of the men who are employed in the same building. I think the House will agree that the man who works under those conditions should at least receive an adequate living wage. What are the wages which are being paid at those works to which I refer. The wage a very large number of the men rceive is 3½d. per hour, so that the men working under those conditions receive the splendid wage of 15s. 11d. for a fifty-four-hour week. The company state that that is the district rate, and that therefore they are observing the Fair-Wages Clause. That is quite possible, but those works are situated in what is mainly an agricultural district. I maintain that you cannot compare the wages of a man who works in those cordite works with the wages of the ordinary agricultural labourer. No one will deny that the wages of the agricultural labourer in our eastern counties are low, but at the same time the lot of the agricultural labourer compares favourably with the lot of the men who are employed at these works. The agricultural labourer works under healthier and less dangerous conditions, and has other advantages in addition to his cash wage, and perhaps, what is most important, his house rent is less than half what these men who work in the explosive works and live in a town, have got to pay. I believe I am right in saying that the wages of those who work in the Government factories at Enfield and Eltham have been raised to, I believe, 26s. per week, and that the men who work in the danger zone receive a minimum of 30s. per week. I do hope that in the case of Government contractors also, where the men work under dangerous conditions, when the hon. Gentleman settles what is really a fair wage, that he will take into consideration not only the increased cost of living, but also the dangerous conditions under which those men have to work.

I wish to refer to another and an entirely differnt matter, and to draw the attention of the Secretary of State to the paper which is headed, "Instructions for purchasing. Officers employed on mobilisation. "Those are instructions which are issued to officers 'who are employed to purcase horses on mobilisation. I should like to know why this document is marked as not applicable to Ireland, and why different instructions have been issued to Ireland, and in what respect they differ from those issued to officers in England and in Scotland. This document states, among other things, that the classification of suitable horses in peace time for war requirements both of the Expeditionary, Territorial Force, and Special Reserve has been carried out in peace time under the orders of the general officer commanding. I should like to know whether at the present time all the horses required for the Regular Army, and also for the Yeomanry, are available. I believe at present if we had war that on mobilisation we should be unable to get the horses that are required for the Regular Army, and certainly not the horses required for the Territorial Force. The Secretary of State said, in reply to a question the other day, that there was a great shortage of men and officers in the Territorial Force. I believe there is a shortage, and a considerable shortage, in the Yeomanry, and I would like to draw the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to a matter which is of considerable importance to Yeomanry officers. Yeomanry officers have to pass a certain course of instruction for promotion. I myself have been a member of a Yeomanry regiment for something like ten years. Every single year new rules and regulations have been brought forward as far as the course of instruction is concerned. One year we were told that every officer ought to attend, not only the Cavalry School at Netheravon, but also the School of Musketry at. Hythe, and perhaps under new rules we were informed that it was unnecessary for an officer to attend the Cavalry School if he passed certain examinations. I believe it is no longer necessary for an officer to attend the course of instruction at Hythe, but can pass his examination in musketry, which exempts him from that. I am informed that second lieutenants still have to attend a course if they desire promotion. I have no objection whatever to that rule, but I do object to the way in which these courses are arranged at the present moment.

I know of several officers who are anxious to be promoted, and who are quite willing to attend a course of instruction. They can get leave for their annual training, but are unable to get leave for annual training and a course of instruction. They are ready to devote part of their holidays in July and August to this course of instruction, but they find there is no course of instruction during the months of July and August. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will see that courses of instruction are arranged to suit the convenience of these younger officers. If we want to get the necessary number of officers for the Territorial Force, we ought to make it as easy as possible for them, and not place difficulties in their way. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will bring out a regulation setting forth clearly what the courses of instruction are, what examinations a Yeomanry officer has to pass, and that he will tell us at the same time that these regulations will remain in force for more than one year. So far they have been changed every year. I know of many cases where officers in the Territorial Force have resigned simply owing to the difficulties which have been placed in their way by the various regulations issued by the War Office. There is one other matter in connection with the course of instruction I should like to bring to the notice of the right hon. Gentleman. Officers in the Territorial Force, like officers in the Regular Army, are told that when they go in for these examinations they have to know certain books, upon which they are going to be examined. They find that they are unable to obtain them because they are out of print. I have found myself in that difficulty of not being able to obtain the books which the War Office told me I ought to know for the particular examinations for which I entered. I would impress upon the right hon. Gentleman the desirability of removing these difficulties and making it as easy as possible for Territorial officers to comply with the regulations issued by the War Office.

Mr. TENNANT

I think perhaps it may be convenient if I answered a few of the questions put to me by various Members of the Committee. The hon. Member for the Stowmarket Division (Mr. Goldsmith) and the hon. Member for North Dorset (Sir Randolf Baker) both raised a point with regard to courses of musketry. The hon. Member for North Dorset complained that officers are not allowed to go to Hythe. The explanation is that Hythe is so much occupied by the Regular Army that it is not always possible to allow officers of the Territorial Force to go there. The change in having these local schools, like Bristol and the places alluded to, has been made in order to suit the convenience of local officers in many cases. If it operates hardly in some cases, we regret that very much, and I will certainly make it my business to look into it to see if any other course can be adopted to suit the hon. Gentleman or any of his friends. The hon. Member for North Dorset also referred to the number of telegrams and letters which have gone about the country, and the unnecessary amount of correspondence of the War Office. I should like to take this opportunity of informing him and the Committee that with the consent and ready assent of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, I initiated a Committee of inquiry into the amount of the correspondence of the War Office and in the commands. I am Chairman of that Committee myself. We have already had a great number of meetings in the last few months, and, although I cannot say that our labours are anything like complete, for I do see a considerable field for the activities of my Committee, I hope that it may result in some reforms. I have also been asked what is the position with regard to the new rifle. As hon. Members are aware, the new rifle is now in the hands of the troops, and tests are being carried out. It is too early at this season of the year to say what the results of those tests are, but the programme is being carried out, and, if the tests are successful, the rifle will be distributed at the earliest possible moment—I cannot give the actual date, because it always takes some time—and the ammunition will be distributed at the same time.

The hon. Member for Stowmarket asked why we had different conditions for the purchase of horses on mobilisation for Ireland, England, and Scotland. I think the answer is that the conditions are different. The number of horses available in Ireland is infinitely greater than in this country, and the proportion it would be possible to obtain there is very much larger. The hon. Member did not go into detail, but I think the answer really is that the conditions being different, it is essential that the instructions should be different. The hon. and gallant Member for Melton (Colonel Yate) seemed to think that it was the policy of the War Office to reduce the Regular Army in order to provide funds for the Royal Flying Corps and the School of Aviation. That is not the case at all. All that has been done in the Estimates has been to provide enough money for what will be required in 1913–14. If the hon. and gallant Gentleman will look at the actual figures, he will see that owing to the reduction of the garrison in South Africa there is a diminution of exactly 500 men on the numbers of last year, and any reduction there is in the amount for pay is practically the result of that transaction, which includes, of course, the reorganisation of the Artillery. He asked me, also, if I would try to get an up-keep allowance for Territorial officers for their uniform. I must remind him that we have just provided in the Estimates for a very considerable increase in regard to the outfit for the officers of the Territorial Force. To ask us after we have given with one hand to give with the other, seems as if he did not quite appreciate the position we occupy, which is always endeavouring to cut our coat according to our cloth. The hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Hamar Greenwood) appealed to my right hon. Friend to be more generous in the matter of pensions, and the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Bennett-Goldney), in his admirable maiden speech, appealed to us to give larger pay not only to the officer who is now an officer, but also to the officer who is to be promoted from the ranks. He also complained of the inadequacy of the increase about to be given. If we were always to give everything that we were asked, I am afraid the Estimates for the Army would not be kept within even the bounds of those for the Navy. I do not know where we should be landed if we had to give quite so lavishly as is suggested. The hon. Member (Mr. Price) asked me about the Dreghorn Estate. I refused the other evening to tell him the price we had given because I did not consider it was in the public interest that that price should be made public. I cannot give the figure now. I made a statement the other evening to the effect that we were going to make a rifle range and also an Artillery range there. But it is not intended to have an Artillery range. I thought it was. I think we have made a very good purchase of the estate, and if it is any consolation to my hon. Friend I can tell him that it is not 2,000 years' purchase, or anything approaching it.

Mr. PRICE

How many years?

9.0 P.M.

Mr. TENNANT

I cannot say, because that would give my hon. Friend the information he desires, by means of a small arithmetical calculation. My hon. Friend also asked me with regard to promotion from the ranks. My right hon. Friend is having a special inquiry into that very subject here and in other countries, and the inquiry, I hope, will provide him with the information he requires. In regard to the chapel at Redford, that matter is still under consideration. If we come to the decision that we cannot do it at once it does not follow that it will not be done at all. It is quite possible that within six months, or perhaps a year, we may be able to find funds for what is, I agree, a most desirable object on which to spend public money. Arrangements will be made at Stonehenge by which the rising of the sun is not to be obscured. I hope that will satisfy my hon. Friend. With regard to pensions, the hon. Member (Mr. Hamar Greenwood) thought the War Office was very niggardly and ungenerous. The non-effective Votes—the Pensions Votes—are really beginning to eat up the British Army. There has been an increase for a great many years past, certainly in the last three or four years, and the increase this year is not less than £33,000. I do not think we could justify a further increase, particularly in view of the criticism on the larger subject of Army administration with which we are assailed. With regard to range-finders, it is true that there have been different patterns, and we have changed from one pattern to another, not that there is very much difference between them, but we have made a change, and the number which the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Major Hope) desires will be forthcoming very soon. The hon. and gallant Gentleman thought we were rather niggardly in only providing £500 for the Dietz method of signalling. As far as my recollection goes, the item in the Estimates is for £500 for a reward to Colonel Dietz, the inventor of this particular disc. It was not money paid for the purchase of the discs. I do not know whether I shall be divulging any secret if I say it is aniticipated that an improvement may be made on that method of signalling, and therefore we should not be justified in taking a large sum of money for the provision of an invention which may be superseded by an improvement in the near future. I think I may say with the concurrence of my colleagues, that with regard to small arms ammunition, the Service has never been better provided than with the provision we are making this year. I will certainly bear in mind what the hon. Member (Mr. Bennett-Goldney) said about the Sunday work of the soldier, but I am not very confident that it will be possible to give soldiers in large numbers at least, the whole of their Sunday free to themselves. There is work which must be done. It is like the work on a farm. The farm servant ought to get recreation, but at the same time the work must go on.

Mr. HUNT

Not on Sunday.

Mr. TENNANT

There are some things which must be done on Sundays, though it does not follow that there should be unnecessary parades and things of that kind. Of course it is obvious that if an officer, who has risen from the ranks, has to pay £180 a year for his mess bill, and his total emoluments are £189, he cannot join a Cavalry regiment. Really it was, I think, unnecessary to go into that subject in great detail. It is the intention that the increase in pay, which is to be effective next year, shall enable men who have risen from the ranks to live on their pay.

Mr. CROOKS

I am delighted at the kindly sympathetic feeling there is all over the House. It is very charming, and I hope it will help me in the observations I have to make. I have no complaint to make about hon. Members' kindness and civility. It equals anything in the wide world. But they do not give me much. Perhaps that makes up for it. I wish to make one or two observations which I should not have made if the Secretary of State had not been present. The House was promised last year, late in the Session, a Bill to give superannuation in regard to persons who were in asylums and that sort of thing. We were also promised an Amendment to the Act which would enable the Treasury to pay bonuses or gratuities to the widows of men who died before they were properly struck off the books. That is to say, a man goes home to-night and happens to die before morning and he is struck off as medically unfit, although if alive he might have been entitled to £20 or £30 to-morrow morning. His widow gets absolutely nothing. That has been generally accepted on both sides of the House as a very great hardship, and if a Bill were brought in this Session it would go through without any opposition at all. The Service Members on both sides are very keen about it. I would ask the Secretary for War to go to the Treasury and tell that circumlocution office that it is time to do something in this matter. If he would say to the Treasury, "If you will be so kind as to do this, we shall be very much obliged to you," we might get something. I have rather a strong charge to make with respect to the employment of casual men by the War Office. It was particularly hard that the casual men were treated as they were this week in connection with the King's birthday. Instead of the men being kept on on Monday and called in on Wednesday, they were put off on Saturday and taken on on Wednesday morning. That was particularly mean. After all, a casual labourer is a very poor man, and he does not get very much under the most favourable conditions, but to keep him off for two days was to cause a loss of pay which he was ill able to spare. I hope the Secretary for War will see that this causes hardship to people in the position of casual labourers.

We have heard from time to time of a contributory pension fund. I do not know how many people have lived and died and have been promised that there would be a contributory scheme of pensions in connection with the War Office. I have in my bag a whole scheme, and the reply now will probably be that "the matter is being seriously considered." After a time that phrase will go out of the Parliamentary vocabulary, and we shall be told that "attention is being given to the subject." I would like to point out how more work might be provided by the War Office. We have heard this afternoon that orders have to be given to people who lay down plant, but you have a tremendous lot of plant of your own which is left idle. I do not know much about speculators and contractors, but somehow or other when a man has something to sell to the War Office, such as gun mountings, he has always a champion in the House who says that the Empire is in danger and that we must do something. He knows that the cost is going to be inflicted on the nation. You have a record of millions during the last fifteen or twenty years in respect of plant which has been laid down or inventions which have become obsolete. You do not utilise your own Department as much as you should do. You talk of the necessity of providing for expansion in time of need, but I would point out that the contractor gets peace prices in time of peace, and war prices in time of war. You get no particular advantage out of him, but you keep your own machinery idle. Somehow or other you have never been able to persuade the Treasury to give you what is required in the same way as the Navy. Ask anything for the Navy, and they say, "Ask as much as you like." When you build a ship for a couple of millions and sink it, you can have another. My con- tention is that the War Office should be treated as fairly as the Admiralty.

It will be in the recollection of the House that there was a controversy as to whether men working in the danger department of the arsenal should be paid piece rate or day rate. We say day rate, because this is a kind of work which should not be done by men who are flurried or flying about in a hurry. The awful lyddite explosion which occurred some years ago was inquired into, and every piece of evidence went to prove that the men in the place were hurried. Sixteen men were blown into eternity in a second by that appalling accident. I went down with others to the place after the disaster, and we found that it was in consequence of the way the men dealt with a shell just before booking time that the accident occurred. If it had not been for that, and the wish on the part of the men to get that one shell into the week's money, these sixteen men might have been alive to-day. I am not complaining of the way the Government of the day treated the widows and orphans, on that occasion, but no amount of money can compensate for the loss of a husband and breadwinner. I hate the whole business. I argue that if this work had been paid for by the day instead of on piece terms, that accident might not have happened. The men have claimed to be paid at the rate of 36s. a week. They work on a fellowship system, which is very much like the piecework system. Their average earnings amount to between 32s. and 33s. a week. But the House will hardly realise that the allocation of the shares is on the guinea-a-week system. It is several years since the House decided that there should be a rise in wages. No such rate as a guinea a week exists in the Arsenal at all, but the allocation for rate of pay for work in the danger building is still based on the guinea rate. That ought to be amended. Then you will find no difficulty in fixing a 30s. a week rate. With the supplies of men, with the opportunities that foremen or managers or superintendents have of picking men out, there would be no place for the lazy man if he did not do his work properly, and you would find that you would have the best class of men selected. In the Lower Laboratory of the Arsenal there is general unrest. You have been cutting prices, and I agree that to a limited extent you have as much right to claim a share of the improved methods of production as the private employer. But it is not your business to cut below a living rate or to do things which a private employer would not do.

Last week in the metal-case shop boys were put on men's work, and prices were cut from 5d. and 4d. to 1d. for heavy work unsuitable for growing boys. The piece-work given to men is even now much lower than what is paid by outside contractors. The introduction of boy labour is the cause of trouble in the rifle shell factory. Here, again, the work is very heavy, as many of the highly skilled men have to work to thousandths of an inch, and prices are continually being tampered with. There is the same trouble in other shops of this department. In some shops boy labour has spoilt so much work that even foremen are raising protests against it. It is not unreasonable to ask that some consideration should be given to these points. I know the reply, that you have to find some outlet for boy labour. The whole House will agree that there should not be any more blind-alley occupations, and deputations have asked the Secretary of State for War that there should be some outlet for lads. But when you find that room is made for lads by displacing men, and young lads are asked to do men's work at boys' rates, that is cruelty. I ask the Financial Secretary when we may expect that there will be an increase in the minimum rate of wage. I do not want him to tell me that the matter is under consideration. I am too used to that. If you cut me open you would find branded on my heart, "the matter is receiving consideration." I am getting old now, and at every deputation which I have ever been on from time immemorial, you always get the same thing. "Good morning. Delighted to have heard what you have to state. You have stated clearly and explicitly, and in most eloquent language the conditions under which you labour in your Department, and as Minister in charge I have been deeply touched with the pathetic stories which you have told. Let me assure you, and I say it from the bottom of my heart, that you have not only touched me, but I will endeavour to move my colleagues in the same direction. Good morning. Mind the step." It is the same old thing over and over again.

We ask for superannuation on the promise given years and years ago. Is it not time that the Government should not be asking what somebody outside pays. What we ought to do is to be the model employer. You have had endless inquiries from time to time. You need not ask whether it is a fact or not, that a sovereign to-day has only the purchasing power of 17s., or speaking of places like Woolwich, it has only the purchasing power of 15s., as compared with fifteen years ago, which means that the man on low wages, say 24s.,—he does not get that now because there is a reduction for insurance which leaves the margin still smaller—is in a state of perpetual want, perpetual poverty. The children cannot get the necessaries of life. The mother, instead of being able to devote her life and sympathy to the children, is wondering where she is to get the next meal from. Not only does this apply in the case of Government employes, but in nearly every other instance where men are badly paid, and the accidents are more frequent in such cases than where men are well paid and well cared for. That is because when they go to work and are low paid they take the home worries with them. They are wondering where the wife is going to get food or a pair of boots. There is everlasting worry if you do not get the best men. The cheap man is a dear man after all, and you are not giving the children a chance to grow up. Hence it is not un uncommon thing to find a man working at 24s. a week who is still unable to feed his children, and goes to the education authorities and gets an occasional meal for them. The nation may get the benefit, but it is hardly the sort of thing for free, independent citizens to be asking for. You can picture to yourself a scene which will happen to-morrow morning in a hundred homes. To-morrow is pay day, and I can hear in my mind, "Good morning, mate!" shouted up the stairs. "Good morning!" Don't take the last bit of bread as you go out. That is all there is until you come back with your money." So, if he does not hurry home, the children have to go without until he does get home. It may be that he is in regular employment, and that he is geting his 23s. 6d. or 24s. regularly. It has taken me half a lifetime to point out to people that the fact that a man is in regular employment does not prevent him starving.

I remember years ago having a private commission to go down to one of the Government Departments and to go round talking as simply as I could. When a man told me, "There is a wheel," I would say, "Good gracious! Does it really go round?" When he took me to a depart ment and pointed out to me women who were working at 11s, a week, I asked, "Who are these women?" I was told, "They are the widows of men who served their country faithfully and well." That sounds all right. I asked, "How do you pick them out?" and was told, "We always give the woman a job who has got the biggest family." I asked, "Who looks after the children when they are here?" and I was told," God knows! I don't know. That is not my business." "How much a week do they get?"—"Eleven shillings." "That is starvation."—"Yes, but it is constant." And simply because it is constant it is thought that it does not matter about starvation. We are getting past that, and the conscience of the nation is rejoicing to see an awakening, and there is no man in the land to-day who does not want to see little children fed properly, and want to see happy homes. But what I am asking is, "How is it possible for a man who is getting only 23s. 6d. per week to support his energy and strength in doing the work which is expected of him?" You have received deputations. We have asked that a minimum rate of 30s. should be fixed, below which a man cannot keep himself. I do not suggest that any Member of this House should try to keep himself decently on 30s. a week, but I should like to ask hon. Members to think of how it is possible to be done, and when rent, boots, and clothing and food have to be found you can see the difficulty at once. Here is a great enlightened and wealthy nation, whose wealth no living historian can imagine, nor could any ancient historian have imagined it. On the one hand, you have wealth, and you see luxury and idleness even unto criminality. On the other hand, you have poverty, misery, squalor, want. Surely, if there is anything which the House exists for, it is to equalise this condition of things, and to endeavour to make life a little easier and a little brighter for those in whose behalf I speak! I put this plea to the Financial Secretary to the War Office, and I ask him whether he will not give us a message of hope and comfort to those people, so that it may be made known that the Government are at once going not only to set themselves up as a model in their own Departments, but a model to all employers.

Sir G. PARKER

I want, after the eloquent speech we have heard, and with which the House sympathises, to speak on the broader aspects of the question. The right hon. Gentleman spoke in that spirit of optimism in which he lives and thrives. The party which he represents cannot complain that he takes a sombre view either of the responsibilities of his position, or of the work of his Department, or the conditions of the Army. I should like to call the attention of the Secretary for War once more to the simple facts, in which we are all interested, no matter on which side of the House we may be. I think it was said in the first Debate we had this Session on these matters that we ought to have some broad survey of the military position of our oldest Dominions, and of our responsibilities there as well as here. At the time I very strongly approved of that point of view, but tonight I am not going to deal with that, nor to enter at all extensively into the general position. I only want to point out to the House that, with the establishment which the War Office and the Government have considered necessary for the military welfare of the Kingdom and the Empire, we are in a position which is not satisfactory. If the minimum which Lord Haldane laid down, and his successor has subsequently supported, is the lowest—and I assume it would be with a party which advocates and desires to preserve economy—if that limit has not been reached, and if our Territorial or Home Defence Army is to take the position which Lord Haldane, and at one time the present Minister for War, believed it should take, then we are not in either a satisfactory or a secure position.

The establishment of the Home and Colonial Forces—which includes the Regular Army, the Reserve, the Special Reserve, and the Territorial and Home and Colonial Forces—represents 729,717. Its present strength, as nearly as I can calculate it, is 647,092. That leaves an adverse balance of 82,625. That is a very large percentage indeed; it is a very heavy deficit. It may be that the Regular Army is very full and very fit. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that it is very fit, so far as a layman can form an opinion. I believe that the Army, from the time when I was associated with the right hon. Gentleman on the other side of the House years ago, has made progress, has made very great progress indeed, in the matter of fitness. As to the position of the Army, and its numbers in relation to its responsibilities, I am not so well able to judge, but if the right hon. Gentleman holds the view that he once held, that a Territorial Force or a Volunteer Force is absolutely necessary for Home defence, and if the minimum laid down by Lord Haldane—which was something over 300,000, and it is now lower than that—is necessary, then our position is not a secure one, and it is not a satisfactory one. The right hon. Gentleman, I believe, will not dispute the figures which I have given regarding the deficit. I want to say a word or two about the Special Reserve. In his Memorandum the right hon. Gentleman said that 5,000 men who had previously been employed with the Ammunition Corps were no longer necessary, and would disappear. They will disappear, of course, if no recruiting takes place, as their agreements fall in, and you are faced by this fact, that either these men are needed or are not needed.

Colonel SEELY

They are not needed in consequence of the introduction of motor and mechanical traction.

Sir G. PARKER

I should like the Committee to consider that point for a moment. We are going to have next year, as the War Minister has stated, a shortage of several thousand men. In spite of that fact, he is going to get rid of 5,000 men, who have had training, and who know how to drive and to manage horse transport. I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman if he is ready to assure the House that in the case of the outbreak of war mechanical transport, even if it were perfected, would be all that would be necessary. I think that is a very important point, and it is one which a layman can understand. I can understand that with your divisional arrangements, where you have got motor transport and good roads bringing up what is necessary to the brigade in action, would be all that would be required. But does the right hon. Gentleman really think that in the case of war which will take place over all kinds of country, mechanical or motor transport will meet the needs of the Army in those circumstances? I am asking the right hon. Gentleman if he really means that mechanical transport is going to displace horse transport in the Army. If he does, I do not think that there is any experienced soldier in this House—and I have talked also with a good many outside—who will not say that the mechanical transport may be of use and of very great use, on good roads, for the supply of the troops at the front with necessary provisions and materiel, but, at the same time, in the actual operations of war, your horse transport will still be very widely necessary, especially between the advance depot and the front, as my Noble Friend behind reminds me. I think that the Committee ought to have a further explanation from the right hon. Gentleman upon this point, because if these men who are of no value to him have been taken from the Reserve, they disappear, and you are losing trained men who have had their six months' service, and who have had that special training in the management of horses, which would be necessary in any continuance of horse transport. I would like to put another question to the right hon. Gentleman.

I would like to ask him if he is satisfied with the conditions of the Special Reserve? I remember when his predecessor brought in his Territorial scheme, how many of us, recognising that it was an attempt to improve the voluntary service of our Army, pointed out that in attempting to replace the Militia by any Special Reserve, the right hon. Gentleman was attempting an experiment that would probably result in failure. The Militia sent thirty-nine battalions to South Africa. The Militia provided a very efficient Garrison Artillery. That Militia Garrison Artillery has practically disappeared. Giving the new condition of things full credit, I want to say you have a Territorial Artillery which certainly, I think, is vastly superior to the old Auxiliary Artillery. It is satisfactory to know that you have about 2,000 more men in the garrison auxiliary Territorial Artillery to-day than you had in 1907 and 1908 when the change took place. That is satisfactory. Still, there is a gap between the strength of the force of the Auxiliary Artillery in 1907–8 and the Territorial Garrison Artillery to-day. I think that we ought to have an assurance that that Garrison Artillery will receive as much impulse and care from the War Office as is possible, because either your Territorial system is a fake and a delusion or else it is a real and necessary factor in our military security and development. If you accept the latter, then I do not think that the satisfaction which the right hon. Gentleman has shown in his previous speeches quite commends itself to those who are as deeply interested in the welfare of the Army as he is himself. I am going to challenge the right hon. Gentleman, and he will understand the spirit in which I do it. In 1901, 1902, and 1903 I stood with him on platforms and in this House advocating compulsory service.

Colonel SEELY

Not in 1901.

Sir G. PARKER

I stand corrected for that—1902–3. I have the right hon. Gentleman's speeches here. I am not going to retail and bring up old charges made against the right hon. Gentleman. He said this afternoon that for nine and a half years he has ceased to believe that compulsory service was necessary for our Home Defence Army or necessary for the welfare of the nation, that it was injurious to the nation, and he repeated again the old phrase that "one volunteer was worth ten pressed men." I really am surprised at the right hon. Gentleman saying it. Does he consider that one compulsory volunteer—if I may use the contradictory term—does he consider that one national service man in Australia is only worth one-tenth of a volunteer regular?

Colonel SEELY

What I mean, and what has always been in my mind is that one willing soldier is worth ten unwilling soldiers.

Sir G. PARKER

Surely the right hon. Gentleman uses that argument against the idea of compulsion. But I might say the same about free education. You might say, "Oh, we won't have compulsory education, because one boy who willingly goes to school is better than 10 boys who do not willingly go to school." [HON. MEMBERS: "We are all willing to go to school."] What is the use of the truant officers, then, and why are they used? I want to say this to the right hon. Gentleman. His conversion was very sudden, he was snatched as a brand from the burning, "between the saddle and the ground he mercy sought and mercy found." I cannot feel that the right hon. Gentleman's conversion from his support of compulsory service was wholly one of conviction. We all know that a great many circumstances serve to alter the opinions of a good many of us. Let me give my reasons. I believe this, that the right hon. Gentleman, like a good many others who come more and more in contact with professional soldiers, with the regular Army, and with those who in the regular Army do not believe at all in a Territorial Army, and who produce sometimes very good reasons for their belief—but not to my mind conclusive reasons—that the right hon. Gentleman, like a good many others, has been greatly affected by his associations, and during the last eight or nine years there has slowly been expunged from the right hon. Gentleman's mind the old principles which he so strongly held. I am not satisfied to hear him say in response to an hon. Friend of mine who introduces a Bill for compulsory service, that no one should find fault with him, and so on. They are pleasant words and very agreeable to hear, but I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman has made his position clear. The right hon. Gentleman has told us that he has changed his mind. I defy him to point to a single speech where he has shown any other reason for that change of mind except his statement that one volunteer was worth ten pressed men. Is that the only reason?

Colonel SEELY

A good reason, too!

Sir G. PARKER

A good reason! Does the right hon. Gentleman really believe in the Territorial Army as a Home defence force? If he believes in a voluntary army, he has got it. Does lie believe that that Home Defence Army is needed? And, if it is needed, does he believe that it is efficient? I have a feeling that the right hon. Gentleman does not really believe that the Horne Defence Army is needed. If it is needed, the right hon. Gentleman should move heaven and earth to bring up that Territorial Army to the standard laid down by his predecessor and himself. I am firmly convinced that the reasons which the right hon. Gentleman gave in 1902–3 for a Home Defence Army hold good to-day. He said then that the Navy was not sufficient. These were his words:— I wish to call attention to what took place very recently with regard to the Navy, upon which, we are informed, alone depends the safety of this country. I do not myself subscribe to that view. The right hon. Gentleman does not subscribe to that view now. If that is so, if he holds that the Territorial Army is absolutely necessary, and if he cannot get the men that he wants, what is he going to do? His Special Reserve is passing out of existence. It is nearly 29,000 men below the establishment. It has not done what was expected from it. The class of men from whom the Militia was drawn no longer fills the Special Reserve. It is now unhappily competing with the Territorial recruiting. The county associations, which were intended to be the influence which would turn the Territorial Army into a county and national force, have failed in that direction. I pass no criticism on the admirable and patriotic work which the county associations have done. Numbers of men of all shades of politics have cooperated splendidly in the attempt to make the county associations successful and useful. That they are useful I have no doubt; that they have utterly failed to make the Territorial Force a county force is certain. It is evident that the influence of the county associations and the prestige of their members have not brought recruits into the force. I believe it is because there is a feeling in the country that the War Office and the War Minister have lost faith in the Territorial Force, first, as a weapon of defence, and, secondly, as an organisation, that great numbers of men hesitate to join it. That is certainly the case with the Special Reserve. I do not know what the right hon. Gentleman has in his mind as a remedy for the state of things in connection with the Special Reserve. The most valuable service performed by the Special Reserve was that of sending to the Regular Army 5,000 men for the ammunition columns. I only know that those 5,000 men have disappeared, and that that service is no longer to exist.

The criticisms which were made on the Special Reserve when Me system was laid before the House by Lord Haldane in 1907–8 have been wholly justified. You have no prestige of the individual unit in the Special Reserve. You have men going in to serve for a short time under officers, who know that when war breaks out they will be drafted into regiments with which they have no ties or associations of any kind. I am convinced that that portion of the scheme has utterly failed. If there is any remedy, I would be very glad indeed to hear what it is. Although there are old Militia officers working in the Reserve, who speak well of it because they are interested in their work, still they all feel that the initiation of this scheme was a blunder so far as the Army, the efficiency of this particular service, and the duty which the men in it will be called upon to perform, are concerned. The right hon. Gentleman has not, although he has tried hard, satisfied those of us who have watched his long association with Army reform in the old days, and his association with Army matters officially, and otherwise. Many of us believed that the right hon. Gentleman would be a real Army reformer. But he has inherited a system which he did not invent. I believe the right hon. Gentleman will faithfully fulfil his obligations and responsibilities. But there is one thing the Committee expects of him. He was a fearless critic of the Army in the old days. He associated himself with many reforms which have since been initiated. I might refer, for instance, to the amount of money spent upon the Auxiliary Services, a Territorial costing nearly £12 as against £7 in 1907–8, the development of the Artillery of the Territorial service, and the extension in many directions of its responsibilities and facilities. As he was a fearless critic in the old days, so the Committee expects now when he has to deal with Army matters from that bench, that when he faces what he is convinced is a rotten portion of the system, he will fearlessly eliminate it root and branch; that if he finds the Special Reserve not fulfilling the designs of its founder, he will cut it out; that if he believes the Territorial Army cannot be made effective under our present system, and cannot be brought up to the minimum establishment designed by his predecessor, and approved by himself, he will frankly tell the nation that something else must be done, and not defend the system which, in the belief of many of us, is unsatisfactory, is not meeting our need, and will grow more unsatisfactory from day to day.

Mr. BARNES

I shall not follow the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down in his taunts of the right hon. Gentleman as to his attitude with regard to military service. Rather would I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman upon having changed his opinion, and upon sitting here to-night as "a brand plucked from the burning." I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman has seen the error of his ways in regard to national service and has again reverted to the principles of voluntary service, which I believe is already getting better men than are obtainable abroad, and which if not calculated to get us all the men that we need I think must be strengthned, not in the direction indicated by the hon. Baronet who represents Gravesend, but by improving the conditions and wages of the men. I should like to say that, to my mind, the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down has not been very fortunate in his two illustrations in support of compulsory service. Those two illustrations were as to the education of children and the fact that the Australian Commonwealth had also adopted the principle of compulsory service. I do not see what bearing either of these illustrations have upon the matter in hand. In regard to the education of children, so far as I know, it is undertaken by the community at the community's expense; therefore it carries with it from that point of view the principle of compulsion. Moreover, they are educated so as to equip them individually, and to make them better citizens than otherwise they would be. Neither of these things bear, so far as I can see, any comparison to the principle of compulsory service for the Army.

I think the hon. Member was even more unfortunate in regard to Australia, because the conditions of Australia are altogether different from those which obtain here. In Australia, rightly or wrongly, the people have adopted the principle, and have carried it out for a long time, of retaining Australian territory for white people. They have adopted that principle and have followed it in many drastic ways, such as the imposition of tests against the importation of the yellow races. They know that there is not so far from their own shores a militant nation which has imposed its will upon nations much stronger numerically than itself. Therefore they are faced with the constant danger of invasion.

Mr. HUNT

May I ask the hon. Gentleman is it not largely the same with us; have not we got another nation quite close to us, more numerous, and far stronger?

10.0 P.M.

Mr. BARNES

I was just coming to that. No, I think the conditions here are absolutely different. What people have we shut out from our shores? I am not aware of any. I was sent for a little while ago by a man who happened to bear the same name as myself. I had not seen him before, and did not know him. He was as black as ebony. He claimed the citizenship of the British Empire, and came here quite as freely as would a man from France or Germany, or even from one of our own Colonies. Those are not the conditions of Australia. We have not imposed upon any people with whom we might be at war or with whom there might be the possibility of war, any conditions against their coming freely to our country and making their living here under exactly the same conditions as the people of this country. Why then should we bother our heads about compulsory military service. People base the claim for compulsory military service upon the fact that the country might be at war. The conditions quoted are absolutely different from our own. For my part, I do not know much about these matters, but looking at them from an outside standpoint, and having regard generally to all the circumstances, and especially to the criticism put up against the Territorial Force by men who ought to be defending it, I think the service has developed fairly well. We have, if my memory serves me rightly, something about 260,000 men out of a maximum of 310,000 or 312,000 men. If we want to make up the odd 50,000 or so, there is nothing easier than by improving the pay, the dietary, and the conditions of the Service, and you will get your 50,000 or 60,000 men as easy as winking. There will be no need to talk about any compulsion. By that means you will get better men than is possible by compulsion.

Mr. HUNT

No.

Mr. BARNES

That is my opinion. I did not get up for the purpose of engaging in controversy with the hon. Member opposite on compulsory service. I got up just for a few minutes to support my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich in regard to his plea for better wages and better conditions of employment for the workmen in the Government Arsenal at Woolwich and the other factories. I divide the plea into two, that is to say, the wages and conditions of the labourers and the wages and conditions of the mechanics. But there are two things common to both classes of men. First of all, there is this: that the men: engaged in Woolwich Arsenal and in the other Government works, before they are taken on, have to undergo certain tests of a medical and even of a technical character, so far as the mechanics are concerned. I do not know that that is the case in regard to any other employment outside the Government. As a rule the ordinary engineer or builder, or whatever other occupation it may be, takes on the man as he comes along without imposing tests at all. Therefore, from that point of view it seems to me that the Government stand to get the pick of the workmen so far as medical fitness is concerned, and the pick of the mechanics as well so far as technical knowledge is concerned. This, I think ought to weigh with the Government in the matter of payment and the observance of proper conditions as compared with outside men.

There is another thing that applies to both sets of men, and that is that the Government are under an obligation to pay rates of wages at least as good as those obtained outside, and in fact a little better, because repeated Resolutions have been passed by this House and are supposed to be still applicable to Government Departments not only to pay as well as other people, but to be model employers. The Resolution of twenty-one years ago has been repeatedly cited in this House of Commons. The hon. Member for Woolwich has already spoken of that Resolution and of the fact that the late Prime Minister had said on one occasion that the Government ought to be in the first flight of employers. Therefore, those two things, it seems to me, apply to both classes of men. I am going to say, so far as the labourer is concerned, that the Government not only are not model employers, but that they are not paying like the ordinary employers in the London districts. I have some knowledge of the pay given to the labourers by ordinary manufacturing engineers, and I know that that pay ranges from 24s. per week minimum. I do not know any that pay less, and some pay a good deal more. There are engineers' firms in this district, not above a mile away from this House, that are paying 27s. a week to the labourers employed in the engineers' shops. At Woolwich, as the hon. Gentleman well knows, the pay is, I think, now 23s. or 23s. 6d. Therefore, as compared with exactly the same class of men outside, the labourer in the Woolwich Arsenal has got about 3s. 6d. less per week than the labourer employed by the "good" engineering firms.

If one compares the pay at Woolwich with the pay of the labourer in the building trade the difference is more marked still. Of course, there is this to be considered, that the employment in the building trade is not so continuous as at Woolwich, and therefore the comparison is not so fair. But largely owing to the fact that the building trade is now federated and that the mechanics stick un for the building labourers, the building labourer is paid 7d. and in many cases 7½d. per hour, which is a long way above the rate paid at Woolwich. I wonder if the Financial Secretary to the War Office ever tried to visualise what this 23s. 6d. a week means. Has he ever considered it from the point of view of meeting the needs of a growing family? If he did and knew the working classes as we do, he would know the struggle it is to make ends meet on 23s. 6d. a week. He would realise the miserable little makeshifts of the wife of that labourer, the going out of the children, before their bones are well set, to try to supplement that miserable earning; and the many other things that have to be resorted to to make that 23s. 6d. cover not the comforts, not the ordinary amenities of life, which ought to go to every workman's family, but in order to buy the bare needs that are necessary to support the family.

The Government have on their programme this year Bills for taking care of the feeble-minded, but it is the conditions of trying to support a family on 23s. 6d. a week that are producing the feebleminded of the future. I agree with the hon. Member for Woolwich that under these conditions we are laying up trouble for those who are to come after us. I can see, twenty-five years hence, when these little children of the Woolwich labourer have grown up into men and women, when we shall be all dead and gone, others will be appealing for them. But in regard to a large number of them, there will be neither eyes to see nor cars to hear, and all the colour will fade from the picture. I join with the appeal of the hon. Member for Woolwich that whatever may be done for the higher paid men, something should be done to lift these poor labourers up to a decent standard of a living wage which will cover not only the decencies, but some of the comforts of life, and which will enable them to give their children at least sufficient food and some little luxury and some little education as to put them in a position to start out on the road of life.

I want to say a word about the Engineers. It so happened that I introduced a deputation to the Secretary of State for War at the back-end of last year. I know it was late in the year because there were some hones held out that we should have a reply to our application by Christmas. We asked that the Engineers should be put upon a level so far as wages and conditions of employment were concerned with other men in London. There were several points raised. The deputation represented the whole of the men—fitters, turners, blacksmiths, pattern-makers, and all the allied trades—and they put a number of Points to the right hon. Gentle man. The first was in regard to the payment of overtime and the raising of those rates up to the rates paid by ordinary engineering firms in London. I am glad to say the right hon. Gentleman did concede that point, and the men are grateful for it, and they are now paid, when working overtime, the same rates as are paid elsewhere. The men put other points, such as mutuality in fixing piecework rates and grading day rates of wages, and the question of picking up the wages to the ordinary level of the engineering trades in London. I advised them to drop all the other points and to concentrate on wages, and they took my advice and gathered a great deal of information as to the wages paid by ordinary engineering firms. We put before the right hon. Gentleman the minimum rate so far as good employers were concerned, and we were certainly justified in using the term "good employers," because the Government are obliged to impose conditions upon their contractors equal to the conditions of good employers in the district, and I say we were justified in asking the Government to pay wages at least as high as good employers in London. As a result of a good deal of trouble we collected first one list which I admit was small, and did not perhaps include the shops that were most nearly comparable to the Woolwich Arsenal conditions of work, but subsequently to that we collected a great many more. Included in the list of shops paying two guineas a week were the General Omnibus Company, Messrs. Hoes, printing machine builders, Messrs. Ross, electricians, and the men employed by these engineering workshops paying two guineas a week, covered somewhere about 2,000 or 3,000 out of the 11,000 engineers in the engineering trade unions in London. That may not seem a very large proportion, but when I mention the fact that London is not a manufacturing centre, and that large numbers of engineers are employed in factories, power stations, and hotels, where it would be difficult to collect them, I think the hon. Gentleman will admit that if we convinced him that 2,000 or 3,000 men are employed apart from the 2,000 men in Woolwich at two guineas a week, that two guineas a week might be said to be the fair rate for London. I submitted that list two or three months ago, at least, and the hon. Gentleman so far as I can gather has turned it over to the Board of Trade to make independent inquiry as to whether or not the information was correct.

What I complain about to-night is the dilatoriness either of the War Office or of the Board of Trade in this matter. It does seem to me that three or four months is far too long a time to take in arriving at a judgment as to the truth or otherwise of the statements submitted to the War Office and the Board of Trade, after careful inquiry on our part and at their request. In conclusion, I have to say that I support every word uttered by my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich as to the need and the extreme urgency of putting up the wages of the labourers at Woolwich to a level at least equal to those paid outside and to a level that would give them some of the comforts of life.

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Harold Baker)

The hon. Member for Gravesend (Sir G. Parker) raised a number of interesting points, and I think he alluded to some very real difficulties which certainly will receive consideration. In so far as the hon. Member dealt with the controversy of compulsion and the voluntary principle, I think he received a very effective answer from my hon. Friend who has just sat down. I wish more particularly to deal with the questions concerning Woolwich which have been raised by my two hon. Friends. Perhaps I had better answer first the questions put by the hon. Member for Stowmarket (Mr. Goldsmith), who has a case in his own constituency of a company who, from time to time, have contracted with the War Office, and who at the present time have a dispute with their men. I understand that the question put to me was whether in any future contract which might be considered in relation to that company the War Office would apply the Fair-Wages Clause as strictly as possible. It is very difficult to lay down any general rule about a case which has not yet arisen, and it is particularly difficult in that case, because you have a company in an agricultural district which at the same time is engaged in highly skilled work. I do not think I can go further than say that the terms of that clause will be strictly applied. The hon. Member will recollect that the tests given to us are that we should take an agreed rate of wages between an employer and a trade union, or, failing that, the prevailing rate of wages in the district. If there is no prevailing rate, then we are to take that which prevails in the nearest similar district. It is sometimes difficult to find exactly parallel places, but I assure the hon. Member that whenever that question arises again, it will receive very careful consideration. I am still of the opinion that it would not be desirable, either in the interests of the public, the men, or the firm, that we should interfere while a strike is in progress. When the strike has been settled, if any question of a new contract does arise, it shall be considered strictly on the principle of the Fair-Wages Resolution.

I come now to the speech of the hon. Member for Woolwich (Mr. Crooks). I will try and take the points in the order in which he raised them, and answer them in such detail as I can. The hon. Member took first of all the question of superannuation. We have discussed that question frequently, and the hon. Member knows what our position is in regard to it. When the question first arose, it was the War Office that extended the terms of the Superannuation Act to a larger number of cases. Quite properly, the strict interpretation of that Act was insisted upon by the Treasury. The question has been under consideration of amending the Act so as to include those hard cases, and whenever that Amendment is proposed to the House, the War Office will give it the most complete and hearty support. The hon. Member also referred to the employment of casual men, but I am afraid I cannot deal with that question on the spur of the moment, but I assure him that we will carefully consider it. He passed from that to the question of the pension fund, and complained that was one of the many matters that was under consideration. He said he was sick of matters being considered, and that he wanted something more than consideration. He said that if when he died his heart were examined there would be found engraved on it the words "Under consideration" If that were so the words would be engraved in letters a foot in size, because everybody in this House will recognise that as far as the hon. Member's heart goes it is certainly exceptionally large. He was, however, in this matter rather unfair to the War Office. We have for many years past done everything we can to assist the men to frame some sort of solvent pension scheme. We have given them the services of the very best expert we have. He has given a great deal of his time to the matter, and has met the men in conference. We have done everything we can to get them to agree to some scheme which has some chance of being solvent, and at this moment the matter is still waiting for them to make some further advance. It is extremely difficult to start a scheme. You have a great many old men as well as young men who naturally wish to come in on good terms, and it is exceedingly difficult to start it on sound terms. That is the only difficulty which stands in the way. I still hope that in some way or other by conference with our expert, who has already had many conferences with the men, we may before long succeed in framing sonic scheme which will be satisfactory to them and which will not be vitiated by hopeless financial faults.

His next point was that there was great need for more work in the Arsenal, and he implied that rather an undue proportion of orders was being given to the outside trade. A decision was taken in 1907 and the principle which governs the distribution of orders, as he quite well knows, is this: that we should fix a sort of peace establishment for Woolwich at a certain minimum figure and make sure at all times of providing sufficient work to, keep the minimum establishment fully employed. The establishment, of course, is only a minimum. It is capable of expansion in time of need, but in normal times we do undertake—and I do not know that we have made any breach of our undertaking—to provide work for that minimum. I have got the figures of distribution of work for the last twelve years, and it is perfectly true that the percentage given to the outside trade is slightly higher at this present moment than it has been for some few years past; but, if we were to have enlarged our establishment at Woolwich temporarily—it would only have been temporarily—and given fewer orders to the outside trade, we might in a very short time have found ourselves in the extremely unpleasant position of having to dismiss men. The outside trade does not suffer quite the same difficulties as we do. The trade has less fluctuations, because It gets foreign orders, and it can do what we cannot do, and what we do not wish to do, discharge men ruthlessly any time it wishes. It is to avoid that that we maintain the minimum establishment, and do not increase the proportion of work, which in normal times we give to the Arsenal and other Government establishments.

The hon. Member next referred to the question of wages to men engaged on dangerous work connected with explosives. I recognised a good many friends in the course of his speech. My earliest recollection of the War Office when in another capacity altogether is hearing that question thoroughly threshed out between a former Secretary of State and a deputation. I have heard it at least once if not twice since, and we have had it again to-night. Hardly a month ago I argued this question in detail with a deputation. Explosives are not necessarily dangerous in all circumstances, and in so far as statistics of accidents or of disease can be produced, they are entirely contrary to the men's contention. When there is a case where there is real danger of a serious kind, we do recognise the very principle for which my hon. Friend is contending, and we allow the work to be done at a day rate, instead of piece rate. That principle has been recognised in the case mentioned. There was a controversy as to the precise cause of the very deplorable accident to which my hon. Friend referred, but there, at any rate, rightly or wrongly, and I do not wish to discuss it at present, we did recognise the principle. I can assure him in any case in future in which it can be shown that there is real danger of a kind to justify it, we shall consent to apply that principle. Those so-called danger zones are not really danger zones at all. The proportion of accidents in the danger zones at Woolwich is one in six hundred, while the proportion of accidents in the rest of the Arsenal is as much as one in fourteen. As regards the earnings of the men who work in those danger zones, the deputation asked me to make some sort of inquiry and see whether their earnings had not been the same for twenty years. I have made inquiry and I am informed that the wage books for two quarters compared one with the other, for 1893 and 1912, have been examined and they show that the average piece-work earnings in the danger zones come out as 20 per cent. higher in 1912 than in 1893. There, again, I do not think a sufficient case has been made out. I will let the hon. Member have the totals at some later time. The hon. Member next went on to refer to the unrest which he said existed in some parts of the Arsenal, but very wisely he did not enlarge upon it. We all know that there is unrest in many quarters, and I am glad to think it is quite as great as in the Arsenal. I will not say it is engaging the earnest attention of the Government, because it is engaging the earnest attention of every thinking man in this country. I can assure him as far as I myself and the right hon. Gentleman are concerned, we are perfectly ready, on any case shown, to deal with any genuine grievance that exists in any single Government establishment under our control. I will just deal with a point raised by the hon. Member for Blackfriars (Mr. Barnes).

Mr. CROOKS

What about the boys?

Mr. BAKER

If I understood the case to which the hon. Member referred, it was that in which for some time boys have been engaged on filling shrapnel. I made careful inquiry as to the nature of the work being done, and it was perfectly clear that it was quite proper work for boys to do. The decision come to rightly by the chief superintendent in his discretion was that boys should be put to that work, and they have been put to that work and it is work they are capable of doing. The hon. Member is well aware of the weakness of his position. He knew that at other times he had asked us, and quite rightly, not to dismiss boys, but to keep them on to a reasonable age. It is rather hard when we find a particular class of work peculiarly suitable for boys and which enables us to retain a certain number of boys who have been employed, that an outcry should be made because we give the work to boys and not to men.

Mr. CROOKS

Will the hon. Gentleman say anything about the price being reduced from 5d. to 1d.?

Mr. BAKER

The price was reduced because it was ascertained that the men had been earning a grossly excess value. I cannot admit that boys employed on boys' work should be paid men's wages. The men previously employed on the work have been exceedingly fortunate in getting excess value for their work. The case of the engineers was referred to by the hon. Member for the Blackfriars Division (Mr. Barnes). The hon. Member made out as heavy a case as he could, but he did exaggerate to some extent, not very much. The deputation was in December. The hon. Member practically admitted that the question of overtime was very fairly and satisfactorily dealt with by us. Another question raised by the deputation was that of stocktaking. Although I cannot give a promise for all future years, I think he will find it has been satisfactorily dealt with for this particular year. As to the 40s. rate, the hon. Member put in a list of a certain number of firms. I must confess that I have heard my hon. Friend in this House, and knew him just by reputation, and I was rather astonished at the nature of the list he handed in. In settling what the wages of the engineers shall be, we must, of necessity, take as our standard good engineering firms in London. When my hon. Friend's list came to be analysed it was found to be full of brewers, opticians, newspapers, and other firms of that sort, which had no sort of relation at all to the conditions. It is true that another list has been put in since. That has been referred to the Board of Trade. It is a very long list, which accounts for the delay in its analysis and verification. There are some thirty principal engineering firms in the London district, and I can assure my hon. Friend that if these thirty, or any considerable proportion of them, are found to be paying 42s. to their men, I shall not have the slightest hesitation, but the greatest satisfaction, in acceding to the request he has put forward for a 42s. minimum. Those who feel strongly upon this question of wages will see that it is for us governed by external standards. We have to discover a fact existing outside us. As soon as it is verified and presented to us, I can assure the hon. Member that with the greatest goodwill we bring ourselves into line and make the improvements modern conditions demand.

These considerations apply to the minimum wage. The minimum at this moment is not 23s. 6d., as the hon. Member said, but 24s., not counting privileges. That 24s. is given to men without any degree of skill in their labour. They are men who do such things as carrying, sweeping, fetching, and work of that sort. Just so far as they show any degree of extra strength, dexterity, or experience, they get an increase above that 24s., and rise to as much as 26s. The 24s. was fixed in 1911. That is not very long ago. A deputation of the men came to me in December and asked for an increase for Woolwich and the rest of the Metropolitan area. I thought the men had made out a primâ facie case for an increase in their minimum wage. Thinking that, I referred it at once to the Board of Trade, and then to the Fair Wages Advisory Committee that they might ascertain and inform us what the existing current rate is among good employers in London districts. The answer, of course, has not yet come. The last inquiry of this nature took some three months, and at that moment the Fair Wages Advisory Committee were fortunate enough to have a large amount of information and statistics which had been acquired for another purpose. I doubt if they have the information, and it is possible that there may be a certain amount of delay. There again the moment that we receive from the Fair Wages Advisory Committee an answer, if it gives us any justification whatsoever for raising that minimum wage, no obstacle will be placed by any official, certainly not by anyone on this bench who is concerned with War Office administration.

Mr. BARNES

Cannot you stir up the Board of Trade?

Mr. BAKER

My hon. Friend is ready to jump to easy conclusions on this matter of wages. The Board of Trade is under a strict sense of responsibility and must take time. The hon. Member (Mr. Barnes) dealt in eloquent and moving language with this question of the minimum wage, and he invited me to visualise the condition of a family living on 23s. 6d. in London districts. I am not so wanting in imagination, nor indeed is my right hon. Friend, as he seemed to think. Speaking personally, and not as representing a Government Department, I agree that it is a low wage, and life on such a wage is by no means easy for a man with a wife and family, but, after all, we are bound by certain strict considerations in the matter. We cannot dole out the taxpayers' money so freely as We might wish to, but we have a fixed determination, and it is an unchanged determination, so far as we are permitted by the knowledge given us by the Board of Trade of the actual conditions prevailing in London at this moment, to live up to the pledges so repeatedly given in the House of acting as a model employer. I do not think conditions in Woolwich, at any rate, can be said to be so extremely bad. It is curious that deputations come and visit us at the War Office and tell us that the conditions are so bad, yet the hon. Member (Mr. Barnes) has told us we are getting the pick of the labour market. That is some testimony, at any rate, to the success which our efforts to keep labour conditions at a high point have so far achieved. The hon. Member asked me to give a message of hope. I cannot give him a message of hope at this moment, speaking as a representative of the War Office, for the reason that the two main items which he brought up for discussion are both matters which are referred to these other authorities and for the complete issue of which he must wait. But speaking for myself, and I know I have the full authority of the Secretary of State to speak for him too, we have every hope that we shall be able to do more than we have done in the course of the coming year.

We have got in rather closer contact during this last year with the men at Woolwich and elsewhere. Following out the idea originated by my predecessor in this office, and following to some extent the precedent set by the Admiralty, various members of the Army Council have been to Woolwich and met those who wish to air their grievances, and they then dealt with them and made concessions where concessions were possible. We heard twenty-one deputations at Woolwich, sixteen at Pimlico, and four at Enfield. That makes a total of forty-one deputations. They raised 118 separate points with which the War Office has had to deal. This was the first time for this being carried out. It was carried out at a time which was extremely inconvenient to the War Office, because it was the time when we were engaged in the preparation of the Estimates. Next year I hope we shall have the scheme more systematised, and be able to give longer notice and more speedy answers. As to those deputations whose grievances we have been able to hear face to face, we have been able to deal with the hours of labour or to give extra pay in no fewer than ten cases. In the case of the Pimlico factory, we have given increases of pay to some of the women employed there. My hon. Friend was rather jealous of the new system, because the workers were afraid that it might interfere with some of the older methods of seeking the redress of grievances. Obviously the old channels of communication are still open, and the new system merely affords an extra, and I think, valuable opportunity for the members of the Army Council coming into contact with the workers, and of examining into their complaints. It only remains for me in conclusion to assure hon. Members that we do intend with as little delay as possible to examine the cases presented by the other considerable classes. I hope to be able to give an answer very soon.

Major ARCHER-SHEE

This is the last occasion on which the general military situation of the British Army can be discussed in this House this year, and I would ask the right hon. Gentleman if, he could bring pressure to bear on his colleagues to, at any rate, give us some more time to discuss the general question, as we have only had one day and a half before this. Considerable time has been taken up with the important question of Woolwich Arsenal, but that does not affect the general military situation of the country.

Mr. CROOKS

I wish to inform the hon. Member that we have only had one solid hour.

Major ARCHER-SHEE

I am not finding fault. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to give us the opportunity of having a general discussion of the Army on the Vote for his salary. I wish to allude briefly to-night to the general military situation. It seems to me that, alone of all the nations of Europe we are relying upon a so-called voluntary service. We have heard a great deal about one volunteer being worth ten pressed men. If that is so, I would like to remind the right hon. Gentleman that our Regular Army, though voluntary in name, is in fact recruited by the compulsion of want to a very large extent. That has been admitted on many occasions. I would only remind the Committee that in the general Annual Reports on the Army for the last three years that has been admitted in the most un-mistakable terms. The report for 1911 states that the supply of recruits was interrupted by the revival of trade and active emigration. In 1912 the same story is told again. We are told that a larger number of recruits could be enlisted in the Army, but during the greater part of the year the generally prosperous condition of trade and the activity of emigration tended adversely to affect recruiting. It was also put down to an unusually fine summer. This year we are informed that a good many more recruits could have been accepted if they had been forthcoming, especially for the Special Reserve, but that the continual prosperity of trade—even under a Radical Government there is sometimes prosperity of trade—the continued activity of emigration and the recruiting of additional personnel in the Navy adversely affected recruiting. So in three years reports we see that recruiting is affected by the state of trade, and that men only go into the Army when they cannot get employment in other ways. [HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.] I am sorry to see that there are hon. Members in this House, who seem proud of the fact that it is not easy to get recruits to carry on the most essential duty of every citizen of this country, which is to fight for his country if required.

The height required for the Infantry last year was only 5ft. 3in. Surely that standard was low enough to enable as many recruits as were required to be obtained, yet we are told that many more could have been taken. The recruiting for the Regular Army depends on the necessities of the people rather than on the desire of people to join the Army. I think that that disposes of the assertion of the right hon. Gentleman that one volunteer is equal to ten pressed men, because our Army is not strictly speaking a voluntary Army at all, but at the same time you may have a compulsory service Army which is composed of volunteers as well. For instance, in the Boer War the Boers had compulsory service, yet everyone of those men I venture to say came forward voluntarily to serve his country when required. The Territorial Force is not only about 50,000 short, but of the numbers of men who actually did belong to the Territorial Force last year 58,000 failed to qualify in musketry, 34,000 failed to attend camp, and 67,000 were unable to attend the annual fifteen days' training. The most extraordinary methods have been adopted to obtain recruits for the Territorial Force. I quote from the "Times" of 2nd April a statement that a Territorial recruiting week opens at Twickenham on 11th April, and gentlemen interested in its success have offered ninety pairs of kid gloves as an inducement to ladies to act as recruiting officers. We shall soon be back to the same methods as were employed when the Duchess of Gordon kissed all recruits for the Gordon Highlanders and of the two the latter was the better system and more likely to result in large numbers of recruits than the absurd methods which have been adopted to get recruits for the Territorials. We are told by Lord Herschell in another place that the loss to the Territorial Army this year will be 114,000 instead of the usual 85,000, so that the Territorial Force next year is likely to be very much below even the strength of this year.

While our forces are very far below their proper standard of strength, we see all over Europe every nation increasing its military strength, yet we, of all the nations of Europe, are content to take no steps to increase ours and put our national defences upon a proper footing. At the same time, we are allowing our Mediterranean garrisons to be composed of a ridiculously small number of men. We have only five battalions at Malta, and two battalions and seven companies of Artillery at Gibraltar, a far less force than when Gibraltar was besieged a hundred years ago. We have only one regiment of Cavalry and four battalions in Egypt, and that at a time when our naval strength is really infinitely less than it was formerly, when we had stronger garrisons. I hope that, at any rate, the right hon. Gentleman will get his colleagues to support him in asking the Cabinet to reconsider this matter, and to devise some steps for increasing our forces. The country is not enlightened by statements like that made by the Prime Minister in answer to the Noble Lord the Member for Oxford University, when he replied that the Expeditionary Force was not necessarily obliged to go abroad to help an ally. That, I think, was probably an ambiguous phrase. I cannot believe it possible that we, in the event of a European war, would fail to carry out those, obligations of honour which every other nation in Europe expects us to fulfil. The fact that the Prime Minister made the statement that the Expeditionary Force would not go abroad was at once used by one of the journals which support the party opposite to say that there was no necessity to strengthen the Territorial Force, and that there was no necessity at all for national service. Yet that Expeditionary Force might not be at Home at all. It is quite possible to conceive a situation where the Expeditionary Force would be fighting on the frontier of India, or somewhere else in the world, or, at any rate, a very large proportion of it. Then what happens to the military defence of this country? It depends entirely upon whether we are going to be at peace with all our neighbours in Europe, and whether, on the other hand, we are going to have time to raise a sufficient force of Territorials, with six months' training, to defend the country properly. As a matter of fact, we have been warned times out of number that if we were ever unfortunately engaged in war, say on the frontier of India, it would be just at that very moment, probably, that our potential enemies would attack us here at home. I think I am right in saying that some of the most distinguished German strategists—

Colonel SEELY

On a point of Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. and gallant Gentleman, but if we proceed with this Debate now, we will be unable to get the Report of the Naval Vote before eleven o'clock, and unless we can do that we shall not be complying with the Standing Order. I am sure some other opportunity can be found for continuing the general discussion, and the hon. and gallant Gentleman will be able to conclude the observations which he is now making. Another hon. Gentleman opposite has also a special claim that the discussion on the Vote should be continued. The Report of the Naval Vote should be taken to-night for the purpose of obtaining the money, and the discussion could be continued, as I have suggested.

Mr. LEE

In reference to what the right hon. Gentleman has said, we recognise there is a certain measure of urgency, but he will also admit my hon. Friend has a certain ground for grievance. He was promised on a previous occasion, in almost exactly the same words, that he would be provided with an ample opportunity on the next occasion. Now, when the next occasion has arisen the same suggestion is made. The only thing I can suggest is, if he will promise us we shall have an extra day for the Vote which would enable this discussion to be continued, then we will certainly be prepared to agree, but there must be an understanding that there will be an extra day for discussion.

Colonel SEELY

I will sav at once we will certainly agree. I have consulted with my hon. Friend. I think it will be convenient, as a whole, if we could offer half another day to raise the whole question of the strategy on the Military Defence Vote.

Mr. LEE

Not that. That is already done.

Colonel SEELY

Well, if it is considered that is not sufficient, I think I may say, speaking on behalf of the Government—in fact I will say—that opportunity shall be given on my salary for the hon. Gentleman to continue his speech.

Mr. LEE

A whole day?

Colonel SEELY

An extra whole day. Whatever we do, let us be quite clear about what we are doing. What is necessary now is that we shall have the Navy Votes. I will undertake there shall be another day.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolution to be reported upon Monday next; Committee to sit again upon Monday next (9th June).