NAVY ESTIMATES, 1916-17.—VOTE A.

HC Deb 08 March 1916 vol 80 cc1563-636

Considered in Committee.

[Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]

Motion made, and Question proposed [7th March], "That 350,000 officers, seamen, and boys, Coast Guard, and Royal Marines be employed for the Sea and Coast Guard Services for the year ending on the 31st day of March 1917."

Question again proposed. Debate resumed.

The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Balfour)

I occupied the time of the House yesterday at considerable length on the question of the Navy Estimates for the year, and I should not again have trespassed upon the patience of hon. Members but that I think some brief notice should be taken of the speech made by my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Dundee (Colonel Churchill), who immediately followed me in the Debate yesterday. That speech deserves some notice because it was a speech very unfortunate, both in form and in substance, and I rather conjecture that the Committee would wish me to deal with it as far as it may seem necessary on the present occasion. The speech of my right hon. and gallant Friend practically was divided into two parts. In the first part he strove to arouse doubts, misgivings, and suspicions about the strength of the Fleet and the energy of the present Board of Admiralty in dealing with national interests; and in the second part of his speech he suggested a remedy that would, he thought, put an end to a condition of things which, if it existed, everybody would admit would be lamentable. I may say something, perhaps, on each branch of my right hon. Friend's speech.

Anybody who listened to the speech in which I tried to give a general account of the building for the Navy would know beforehand that I absolutely deny the charge which my hon. Friend made. He did not refer to that speech. His own charges, I imagine, had been prepared before that speech was delivered. I reiterate, what I then said in the most explicit manner, that there has been no breach of continuity between the last Board and the present Board; that there has been no slackness in pressing on the construction of ships for naval purposes; and, as a matter of fact, that construction has gone on at a rate which, if not so rapid as we could desire, at all events-compares most favourably with anything that has ever yet been done by this or any other country in times of peace. I pointed out yesterday that the real limitation to our building at the present moment is due to the difficulty of obtaining labour.

Sir HENRY DALZIEL

How long has that prevailed?

Mr. BALFOUR

I am sorry that at the time I stated the facts I did not make the House clearly understand—it was my omission—that we had not sat down contentedly under this difficulty, but were doing all that we could to alleviate it, if not to remedy it completely. That, however, is a fact. I pointed out that there were three difficulties in the matter of labour. There was the difficulty that a certain number of highly-skilled men had gone to the front; there was the difficulty arising from the bad timekeeping in certain yards and among certain sections of the shipbuilding population; and there was the third cause that we had not yet carried out to any adequate or sufficient extent the policy of dilution. Let me say that, under all those three heads, every effort is being made, and has been made, by the Admiralty to bring about a better state of things. My right hon. Friend knows, much better than I do how it came about that when he was First Lord of the Admiralty those skilled mechanics were permitted to go to the front. That, at all events, had nothing to do with me, or with my colleagues on the Board of Admiralty. If anybody in the Admiralty at any time was responsible, I presume it was my right hon. Friend and those with whom he worked. But the evil having occurred, we have done and are still doing everything we can to remedy it. As regards dilution of labour, that is a subject which presents considerable difficulties in its execution, but those difficulties, chiefly through the efforts of the Minister of Munitions and under his guidance, have been and are being overcome, and though a shipbuilding yard is not perhaps the most favourable theatre of operations in which to carry out dilution of labour, undoubtedly it can be carried out to a great extent in those yards, and is being carried out. The matter cannot be done by a wave of the wand, or a stroke of the pen, but it can be done gradually, dealing with each yard in turn; it is being done, and His Majesty's Government has every reason to hope for good results from that operation. I presume when my right hon. Friend spoke yesterday these were facts with which he was not at that time acquainted.

My right hon. Friend—acting I know not, speaking I know not on what basis, inspired I know not by whom, or whence—indulged yesterday in a comparison between the work of the present Board of Admiralty and the Board of Admiralty over which he presided, very much to the disadvantage of the former, and he gave as a crucial instance of his energy and our slackness the case of the monitors and the case of the capital ships. He hinted that the time might be now approaching when this country might be in need of a larger number of capital ships than it at present possesses, owing to the fact that our enemies may have been building in the interval. He said, although this necessity must be apparent to His Majesty's Government, they have not pressed on the completion of the ships of the "Dreadnought" class which were laid down by their predecessors, and he suggested, in the first place, that that was a grave charge which lay against His Majesty's Government, and, in the second place, that it was an imminent peril to the country. Compare that with the energy, the speed, the push, and the drive that animated the last Board, which created these monitors in a period of six months! I think that is an illustration which from almost every point of view is singularly infelicitous for the right hon. Gentleman who used it. The main cause why these "Dreadnought" ships have not been completed as soon as had been hoped and expected is that the right hon. Gentleman and his Board, in order to make the monitors, used the guns and the gun-mountings which had been designed for the capital ships. What on earth is the use of bringing forward a comparison of these two rates of building, when the rapid rate for which he takes credit was obtained at the cost of delaying the ships for whose delay he blames us? These are facts which, now that I have reminded him of them, must be perfectly familiar to the right hon. Gentleman.

Sir A. MARKHAM

The monitor guns came from America.

Mr. BALFOUR

There was more than one monitor. There were guns that came from America, and there were guns for monitors which were designed for the "Dreadnought" ships. Then what is the value of an argument which, on the one hand, takes credit to the late Board of Admiralty for having hurried on the monitors, and blames us for having delayed the capital ships, the two Operations being intimately connected, and the delay in the capital ships being due in this way to the monitors? But that is not all. What are the monitors? They are a kind of vessel of war, which for certain purposes have proved and may again prove themselves of the greatest value. So far I am quite ready to go, but neither these monitors nor all the monitors in the world add a tittle to the strength of your Grand Fleet. They cannot work with the Grand Fleet, they are not intended to work with the Grand Fleet, and to take guns and gun-mountings from a capital ship and put them into a monitor may be right or may be wrong, but it deliberately weakens your Grand Fleet in order to obtain another kind of naval intrument to be used, more usefully perhaps, in what may be called amphibious warfare than in a straightforward fight for the command of the ocean. I do not say it was wrong to create these abnormal vessels for purposes outside the ordinary work of the Grand Fleet. I am not sure it was wrong. They have done very good service at the Dardanelles, and they may still do good service. They have done good service on the coast of Belgium, and yet may do good service there or elsewhere, but it does not lie in the mouth of those who have deliberately, and perhaps rightly, weakened the strength of the Grand Fleet in order to create these monitors, to turn round to their successors and say, "You are neglecting the strength of the Grand Fleet, which ought in the face of foreign building to be bigger than it is." The two lines of policy are absolutely inconsistent. I think the whole House is unanimous in thinking that the Grand Fleet must be strong enough in capital ships for all that is required of it in fighting the enemy. There is no difference of opinion on that point at all, and I am not in the least pessimistic about the strength of the Grand Fleet to carry out that policy. I recognise that the Grand Fleet is now more powerful than it was when my right hon. Friend left office. As the months go on it will be more powerful still, and when my right hon. Friend left office it was more powerful than it was when the War began. I therefore do not suggest for a moment that it has been dangerously weakened by the policy of monitors, and I do not get up and suggest that anybody was responsible for unduly weakening the Grand Fleet at the very moment when I boast, as the right hon. Gentleman boasted, that he had been the creator of this particular and rather abnormal fancy kind of vessel, which can only be created, and has only been created at the cost of other ships more clearly and legitimately connected with purely maritime warfare.

4.0 P.M.

I think that is almost all that need be said about monitors, but there is one other observation that I must permit myself. The right hon. Gentleman is extremely proud of his six months rapidity of building, although that six months was only made possible, as I say, by getting guns and gun-mountings elsewhere, partly from the Grand Fleet and partly, as my hon. Friend (Sir A. Markham) has suggested, from America. But the point of these six boasted months, arrived at in this particular fashion, is really an indication that bustle, hurry, and push, and all the great qualities which the late Board arrogates to itself and denies to its success may sometimes be pushed to an undue extreme, because so hastily was the design of some of these vessels, and so ill were they contrived to carry out their purpose that even now it has not been found possible to use some of them for the purpose for which they were originally designed. They are in process of being modelled or remodelled so as to make them suitable for this amphibious warfare. The design was hasty, the execution was hasty, and the result is, therefore, as might easily be expected, not always satisfactory.

I do not wish in the least to make a charge against the late Board or against anyone connected with the late Board. In my opinion there are risks which you must run. You cannot have everything your own way. In some of the destroyers that have been finished under the present Board it has been found, I believe, that undue haste in construction has rather led to delay than to speed. You have to strike the medium. No doubt if you press on to the extremest limit, and allow neither the designer nor the contractor to have a moment's pause for thought, you may get a good vessel quickly, or you may get a very indifferent vessel quickly, and you may or you may not have wasted both time and money. But because of some failures, while, no doubt, there are some successes, I do not wish to attach any blame in connection with these monitors or anything else in connection with hasty building. But do not suppose that over driving in the matter of haste is an impossibility. It is not an impossibility, and it sometimes happens. That really is, I think, a sufficient analysis and examination of the crucial case which my right hon. Friend brought forward when he was engaged in the congenial task of showing how well he had done, and how ill his successors had done. After all, a contest between two Ministers who have successively held the same office is not very decorous or proper, and I certainly do not wish to dwell upon that aspect of the case any longer. There is a far more important and far more serious aspect of the case, of which I think the Committee should take notice. To me it seems that this deliberate desire to suggest doubts, fears, and alarms among the public, who cannot by any possibility know intimately all the facts of the case, is really acting against the public interest.

Sir A. MARKHAM

The same old tale.

An HON. MEMBER

The same old true tale, too.

Sir A. MARKHAM

Munitions of war.

Mr. BALFOUR

I am not quite sure that I follow my hon. Friend's interruption, but at all events I take it that he does not dissent from the broad proposition which I have ventured to put before the Committee. Of course, there are degrees of crime. It is a much better and a much less serious attack upon public policy to suggest suspicions which really on examination have no foundation at all than to suggest suspicions, fears, and misgivings which have a foundation. It is one of the cases in which the greater the truth the greater the injury to the public, and, therefore, I admit that in the charges which my right hon. Friend has levelled against the present Board of Admiralty he has not done nearly the same injury to the public interests as he would have done supposing his charges had been 'ell founded. I might illustrate the proposition which seems, I think wrongly, to some of my hon. Friends below the Gangway to be rather a paradox. Really it is not a paradox at all. Supposing I give an imaginary illustration. Supposing somebody in the month of August, 1914, had gone about whispering and spreading rumours, even making public speeches, in which it was said, "It is all very well to be happy about the Fleet. It is perfectly true that the Admiralty have with admirable promptitude brought their Fleet into the war stations at the very moment they were required, and by so doing they have done a great and an unforgettable public service, and that Fleet had a margin of safety in access of any fleet that could be brought against it at the moment." Then supposing it was added that the Admiralty responsible for that Fleet had not got at that time a single naval base upon the whole East Coast of the British Isles which would save them from submarine attack, and that the immense trade routes of the world were being most imperfectly policed by fast cruisers. Both those statements would have been true, and, therefore, anybody who had gone about spreading these stories and raising these alarms among the population would have been guilty of the fault of which I speak in its greatest magnitude. That would have been an unforgivable offence. It would have done no good, and it would have seriously alarmed the public mind. Yet everybody knows it was a fact; everybody knows it was true. Everybody knows that that was absolutely and entirely due to the responsibility of the Board of Admiralty which had to conduct the naval operations in the early time of the War. That would have been the worst form of the offence. That form my right hon. Friend has not committed. He has simply suggested slackness, indifference, want of push and drive, which cannot be proved or disproved in the simple form in which the statement which I have just made can be proved or disproved, which it calculated to cause uneasiness, which has caused uneasiness, and which has, in my opinion, absolutely no foundation.

If the Fleets at the command of this country at this moment are not sufficient to secure national safety, then in the whole history of this country they never have been sufficient to secure national safety. They are much stronger than they were six months ago. They are still stronger than they were twelve months ago, and their excess over what we pos- sessed nineteen months ago is still greater. As I said yesterday, in every class of ship, big and little, ships designed to meet on equal or superior terms the German High Sea Fleet—auxiliary ships, patrol ships, anti-submarine ships, light cruisers, destroyers, flotilla leaders, submarines, every kind of ship available in modern war—we have increased, and largely increased, since the War began. Well, then, let us dismiss vain and empty fears. As I said yesterday, war is necessarily and always an uncertain game. It may be true, and it is true, that maritime warfare, under modern conditions, and against the new form of attack constituted by submarines, aircraft, and mines, is a more uncertain game than it was in the "good old days," when it was merely a question of counting your 74-battleships and your 36-gun frigates and the rest. Therefore, I repeat, that I will make no boast about the British Navy. I will not guarantee it against misfortune or accidents. But I say, in perfect confidence, that it is stronger in the face of any overt attack which it is likely to meet, that it is far stronger than it was at the beginning of the War, and is, I believe, stronger than it has ever been in its history. So much for the first part of the right hon. Gentleman's speech, a speech in which he was explaining the "diseases" from which we suffer.

Let me say now one word about the remedy which he proposed at the end. I do not imagine that there was a single person who heard my right hon. Friend's speech who did not listen to this latter part of it with profound stupefaction. My right hon. Friend has often astonished the House, but I do not think he ever astonished it so much as when he came down to explain that the remedy for all our ills, as far as the Navy is concerned, is to get rid of Sir Henry Jack son and to put in his place Lord Fisher. My right hon. Friend has never made the smallest concealment, either in public or in private, of what he thought of Lord Fisher. Certainly the impression that we all had of what he thought of Lord Fisher was singularly unlike the picture that we should ourselves have drawn uninspired as to the character of a saviour of his country. Because, what did he say when he made what at the time he thought was his farewell speech, when he exchanged a political for a military career? He told us that the First Sea Lord, Lord Fisher, did not give him, when he was serving in the same Admiralty with him, either the clear guidance before the event or the firm support after it which he was entitled to expect. The speech from which that is a brief extract was one not made in the hasty irritation that might be excusable in the midst of a political crisis, such as that which accompanied my right hon. Friend's resignation of the position of First Lord of the Admiralty on one side and Lord Fisher's resignation of the position of First Sea Lord on the other. Speeches made on such occasions as that are apt to lack balance and meditation. But my right hon. Friend had six months in which to meditate over his relations with Lord Fisher before he made that considered judgment, and anybody who knows my right hon. Friend is aware that when he makes one of these great speeches they are not the unpremeditated effusions of a hasty moment. He takes care to weigh well and balance every word which he utters. That being so, we must assume that this was his considered judgment, that his First Sea Lord did not give him either the clear guidance or the firm support which he had a right, as he told us, to expect.

Then my right hon. Friend, with the memory of that speech in his mind, had naturally to frame some explanation of advice which suggested that Sir Henry Jackson should be relieved of his office in order to put in his place the most brilliant and distinguished sailor who had, however, according to the right hon. Gentleman, the defect of not giving his chief either the clear guidance or the firm support which his chief had a right to expect. It was not a very easy thing to explain, and I must honestly say not a thing which was very adequately or satisfactorily explained. All that my right hon. Friend said was that he had gone since then to the front, and that with the opportunity for calm meditation which apparently the front presents his mind was cleared. The great ancestor of my right hon. Friend, the first Duke of Marlborough, was always supposed to be more cool, more collected, more master of himself, more clear in thought amid the din of battle than he was in the calmer occupations of peace, and perhaps my right hon. Friend shares this hereditary peculiarity. I venture to suggest that that clearness of thought which we all desiderate is bought at a rather costly figure if it involves a European war in order to obtain it. And what was the result of my right hon. Friend's meditation? May I remind the House that he told us yesterday that he and Lord Fisher parted on a great enterprise, upon which the Government had decided, to which they were committed, and in which the fortunes of a struggling and ill-supported Army were already involved. I therefore, he goes on, should have resisted, on public grounds, the return of Lord Fisher to the miralty—and I have on several occasions expressed this opinion in the strongest terms to the Prime Minister and the First Lord of the Admiralty."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. col. 1 430, Tuesday, 7th March, 1916.] Just let the Committee consider what that statement means. It means that when my right hon. Friend and Lord Fisher were colleagues at the Admiralty, and when the Admiralty were taking part in the difficult enterprise of the Gallipoli Peninsula, and when the fortunes of the sister Service, ill supported, were already involved, then such was his opinion of Lord Fisher that he could not count on his support, and he would have resisted to the utmost allowing him to come back to the Admiralty to share in his responsibility for the Navy. I do not know what Lord Fisher thought about that apology. I know that if a friend of mine had made it about me I should regard it as the deepest insult that could be offered. It means that because Lord Fisher—that is the way I interpret it—disapproved of the expedition to Gallipoli, therefore, in the opinion of my right hon. Friend, although the Army was involved, he could not be trusted to carry out effectively and vigorously the measures necessary in order to support the Army. If that were true, it is almost high treason. I do not believe for a moment that it is true. If that were true, what would we think of Lord Fisher, one of the most distinguished members of his great profession which any of us have seen in our lifetime? "But," says the right hon. Gentleman, "that is all over. If it was not all over I could never think of suggesting that Lord Fisher should go back to the Admiralty. But it is all over. Therefore it may be supposed that in future Lord Fisher and his colleagues will act in perfect harmony, and as they act in perfect harmony, Lord Fisher's loyalty would be beyond all question." Who ever got up in this House and commended to a Government the acceptance of the services of a great public servant in a great position of public responsibility on the ground that he could not be adequately trusted to do his work when he disapproved of the policy of the Government, but that he could be trusted to carry it out when he approved of it? That is a charge which I should have thought Lord Fisher would have the right most bitterly to resent, and which for anything I know he does most bitterly resent.

I cannot follow the workings of the right hon. Gentleman's mind. He told us in his speech yesterday, I have not got the quotation, but it came however to this, that he told the Prime Minister when Prince Louis resigned the position of First Sea Lord that the only man he could work with was Lord Fisher. He seemed dogged by ill-fortune. Is it not a most extraordinary and emphatic coincidence that the only man with whom my right hon. Friend could consent to work at the Admiralty was the most distinguished sailor who, after five months, refused to work with my right hon. Friend? And why, if my Friend is unfortunate in his relations with Lord Fisher, did he think that he is the one and only man to remedy the defects of the present Board? I do not know if my right hon. Friend is under the impression—perhaps he is—that if the change which he desires to force on the Government were accepted, I should still remain a member of the Government. But let us suppose that that is so, and that I was prepared to take my Board of Admiralty from the right hon. Gentleman—rather a violent supposition—why does he suppose that Lord Fisher should behave differently to me from the manner in which my right hon. Friend declared Lord Fisher behaved to him? Is it my merits? Am I more happily gifted in the way of working with people than my right hon. Friend? Does he think that I could better utilise Lord Fisher's great gifts and avoid this want of harmony which rose between them and which in different circumstances might still have prevailed if Lord Fisher were still First Sea Lord? I do not know whether that is the explanation or not. The fact remains that the right hon. Gentleman, who could not get on with Lord Fisher—I will not say that, but with whom Lord Fisher could not get on, says that Lord Fisher, who according to my right hon. Friend neither supported him nor guided him, is nevertheless the man who ought to be given as a supporter and a guide to anybody who happens to hold at this moment the responsible position of First Lord of the Admiralty. It is a paradox of the wildest and most extravagant kind.

I am neither prepared to endorse my right hon. Friend's opinion of Lord Fisher as it was six months ago, or my right hon. Friend's opinion of Lord Fisher as it may be now. They seem to me to be totally inconsistent. It is possible that both are remote from truth. Just let the Committee ask itself this question. My right hon. Friend comes forward with this suggestion. He put it in the form of a suggestion that Lord Fisher should come to the Admiralty. There is another form in which it could be put, which is equally veracious. That is that Sir Henry Jackson should go from the Admiralty. Now Sir Henry Jackson is an admiral who no doubt is less known to the general public than Lord Fisher. He has not been, like Lord Fisher, in the public eye for many years. His name is not familiar to newspaper readers. He has not been associated with great and dramatic changes in naval policy, but I think, if you ask competent judges in the Navy, they will all say that a more admirable officer than Sir Henry Jackson and one better fitted to fill the place which he now occupies could not be found. By character, experience, abilities, and position he is the man who commends himself to naval opinion in this country. His experience has been great. He has been head of the War College. He has been Chief of the Staff. He has been controller. He was designated as admiral of the Mediterranean Fleet at the moment war broke out. He is known to every officer throughout the Fleet, and wherever he is known he is respected and admired. I think when the right hon. Gentleman comes down to this House, and, without a tittle of evidence, giving us no argument, no ground, suggests to the Government that this great public servant should be turned adrift in order to introduce in his place a man of whom I would never say anything which does not indicate my enormous admiration of the great services he has performed to his country in connection with the creation of our Fleet, but who, according to the right hon. Gentleman himself, has not done that which is his first duty as First Sea Lord to do, namely, to give guidance and advice to the First Lord and his colleagues in the Cabinet, seems to me the most amazing proposition that has ever been laid before the House of Commons. Certainly that is the way it strikes me. I should regard myself as contemptible beyond the power of expression if I were to yield an inch to a demand of such a kind, made in such a way. The right hon. Gentleman was not fortunate enough to get the guidance and support of the First Sea Lord when he was in office. I have had a happier fate. I have received both guidance and support from the present First Sea Lord.

I do not dictate, I have no right to dictate, I have no desire to dictate, either to my colleagues or to the House, or to the country, but I say, so far as I am concerned, nothing would induce me to yield to such a demand made in such a way.

Colonel CHURCHILL

Yesterday I occupied for a very long time the attention of the House, and I rise now only for a few moments to reply to the speech of my right hon. Friend. The right hon. Gentleman is a master of Parliamentary sword-play, and of every dialectical art. His great position, his long standing in the House, enable him to convey rebuke to others, wherever they may sit, and of course that attitude is more effectively assumed in the case of one who is so much younger than himself. But the right hon. Gentleman must excuse me if I say that he applied to the statements which I made yesterday all the familiar Parliamentary devices. First of all, he proceeded to state my charges in a crudely exaggerated form. He proceeded to say that I had stated that ship construction had been unduly delayed, and that I had charged them with unduly weakening the Grand Fleet and so on.

I was naturally and necessarily vague, I had to be; though I am not quite sure that the right hon. Gentleman, under the exigencies of his reply, has not lifted more the veil than is perhaps desirable. At any rate, I am not going to amplify in any respect the statement which I made yesterday, but I may as well define it in a sentence. My feeling of disquiet arises from doubts as to whether the battleship and destroyer programme is being worked to the dates which were arranged, and, when I say that, I mean the revised dates, in certain cases. I carefully said that many reasons might arise which would justify the delay of a ship, and I remember perfectly well the history of the various monitors and where the gun-mountings were obtained from; but it is of the revised dates that I am speaking, and I notice that the right hon. Gentleman neither yesterday nor to-day is able to give us the assurance that the revised dates are, in fact, likely to be realised. That is the point which I make. I carefully said, and I repeat now, that there is. no reason to suppose that our margin of strength in the Navy at present is not sufficient, and that there is no cause for alarm. I said that if there were cause for alarm then it would be necessary, as the right hon. Gentleman pointed out, to be silent. But I have tried, in as full a statement, of course, as I could make, to bring to the House and the country the feeling that the greatest efforts must be made to carry the programme out at the highest speed. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman yesterday in his speech gave us the feeling that the labour difficulty has been grappled with the resolution and energy which were required. It is very easy to exaggerate the statements which I made, and then to protest against the form in which they were couched. But the right hon. Gentleman ought, I think, not to be unduly offended or vexed at the speech which I made, because, after all, a speech is a very small thing, and a failure of any kind in this matter is a vital thing. Do not let us be too touchy on the Treasury Bench in regard to matters of that kind. It is right that a note of warning should be sounded, and sounded in time. So far from having gone beyond what the facts of the situation justified, I have been restrained only by the strictest regard to secrecy, in the public interest, from making my statement in a stronger form, in which it would have been justified, and that is perfectly well known to those who sit on the Treasury Bench. The right hon. Gentleman, of course, was very effective in dealing with my relations with Lord Fisher. I make him a present of all the rhetorical and debating retorts which he can derive from that fertile field, and I must say that I do not at all wonder that he was able to rove about in this luxuriant field, so well fitted to the special arts he exercises. But, after all, what is the real fact? The real fact is that if we could associate in some way or another the driving power and energy of Lord Fisher, with the carrying out of Lord Fisher's programme at the highest possible speed, there is no reason to suppose that great public advantage would not result from that

Mr. HOGGE

The Debate which has taken place leaves the situation where I think it cannot be left, and I hope the First Lord of the Admiralty and my right hon. Friend the Member for Dundee will not assume that this can be made something in the nature of a political discussion between those two Members of Parliament, and that the House of Commons itself shall not take some notice of what has transpired. I feel very strongly that the House is entitled to some further explanation from the First Lord of the Admiralty, and that those who speak with and on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Member for Dundee have still some reasons to place before this House. Let us for a moment examine the point which we have reached. The right hon. Member for Dundee has done a very extraordinary thing—having made his statement he has apparently left the House. As an ordinary hardworking active Member of this House I do object to Members coming from the front and raising matters of such vital urgency as these and then disappear from any discussion which may be conducted in the House as the result of their maladroit appearances. In this case I am with the Government. I am not always with the Government, but in this case I think the Government have the better end of the argument.

At the same time is this not the conclusion that the general public will come to, that the ex-First Lord of the Admiralty has made more or less specific charges—[Interruption]—more or less was my phrase, but very much less as a matter of fact, only I wish to be courteous—that have not been specifically met by the present First Lord of the Admiralty? We will, however, give the advantage of the phrase "more or less" to both sides. The First Lord of the Admiralty has not met certain arguments that have been advanced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Dundee. Let us take one—I wish to show the House what it is that is in my mind; I really did not get up so much to make a speech as to indicate that I felt this matter could not be left where it is—let us take the question of the labour difficulty. That seems to me to be one of the most serious questions that has been brought up in this Debate. My right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty has very rightly said to-day that the question of dealing with labour in our shipyards is a very difficult one. He knows, and the House knows, that you cannot dilute labour in the same way in a shipyard that you can do in other workplaces. You cannot have women riveters or women holders-on going round the stages. It is true to say that in a shipyard it is less possible to dilute labour in that way than in any other. The shortage of labour is both a shortage of skilled and unskilled, and if you take unskilled labour and make it skilled there will still be a proportionate shortage of unskilled labour. Can the First Lord assure us on this point? He said that his Friend the Minister of Munitions was dealing with the question of labour. Can he assure us that the Admiralty Board in itself has actually gone into or is going into the question of labour in our dockyards and round the coast? Is he himself personally observant of what is but one of the duties of the Minister of Munitions? The Navy is a great thing to the people of this country, and I do not think the people of the country like to feel that the question of the labour available for the Navy is under the control of the Minister of Munitions along with many other things. Can the First Lord assure the House that he has got this problem well in hand?

There is another matter to which I desire an answer, and that is whether or not our shipyards round the coasts are also attending to the question of our mercantile marine. I will not use any argument about it, because the matter has been raised several times. The British Navy exists to preserve our mercantile marine. In this House we talk politically of the "usual channels." The great usual channel for bringing everything to the country that is wanted is our mercantile marine, and on that is based much of the greatness of this country. Is the Admiralty so utilising that as to preserve after the War has concluded the easiest access again to all those usual channels between this country and the rest of the world? Those are the two points which I should like dealt with. I wish to emphasise that the House of Commons has witnessed this afternoon a political tournament which I hope will not be repeated on the floor of this House. I have no objection to a fair and square Debate, but I do object to a man leaving the Government, going to the front, clearing his mind in charge of a Scottish regiment, and coming back to this House and starting a hare which, despite the very excellent effort made by the First Lord this afternoon, has not yet been caught, because it has got a start in all the papers of the country and in the minds of all the people of the country. If you unsettle the minds of the people about the Navy you are doing a great disharm to the people of this country, and the man who seeks to do that with so inadequate arguments in this House is certainly not performing a national service.

Sir ALFRED MOND

I quite re-echo what the hon. Member (Mr. Hogge) has just said. Many of us have listened with some pain and some amazement to the Debates of the last few days. When we have asked very moderate questions endeavouring to extract a modicum of information for our guidance about military or naval matters we have usually been informed that even the smallest information could not be vouchsafed to us, because of the public interest. Yet yesterday, and still more so in the speech of the First Lord to-day, we have had stated in this House in rather a bald way matters which some of us would have considered questions for secrecy and of the utmost importance. What will outsiders feel, who do not enter into the controversy between an ex-First Lord and a First Lord, about the present state of the Admiralty? Undoubtedly we can only listen with some amazement to their mutual recriminations and their mutual charges of incompetency.

Mr. BALFOUR

I did not make any charge of incompetency.

Sir A. MOND

The right hon. Gentleman did not make any charge of incompetency, but he referred to the question of bases on the East Coast, and that when the War broke out they were not properly provided. Fortunately we have now got over those difficulties. These things will not create a good impression in the country nor stimulate our Allies, but they may cheer our opponents. In this matter and many others there is one question only which ought to animate the mind of any responsible man in this House, and that is, is the position in any public department of such a character that it is necessary to produce the fact in order to avoid a greater catastrophe which may occur? We have had instances of pleasant optimism, not by the present Government, but by a former Government. I considered, for instance, that it was a scandalous and criminal thing for people either to draw attention to or make the charge that we had not sufficient munitions. I considered that those statements must be ridiculous and untrue, and the Prime Minister's statement at Newcastle set all my doubts at rest. Since that time the statement which was then denied proved to be true, and enormous efforts have been made to provide a remedy. Are we to sit down and absolutely accept statements made, no doubt, in good faith by Ministers?

I am very glad the First Lord made the speech which he has delivered to-day, because the speech yesterday, I think, was perhaps over modest. The right hon. Gentleman desired to avoid what he calls personalities. With regard to the impression that there was a certain amount of delay in shipbuilding, the right hon. Gentleman has told us that every effort is being made to do away with the difficulties. We must accept statements of that kind and hope that not only every effort but every possible effort is being made. I agree that a great deal of what the right hon. Gentleman said that over-hurry does not necessarily produce the best results, and that you can waste as much time by over-hurrying matters as by delaying matters. On the other hand, there is a margin between what we have thought possible and what is possible. If the right hon. Gentleman and the able men associated with him say that everything possible is being done and no effort spared I, for one, will be satisfied. I think it is an extremely regrettable incident in this controversy that we should have Lord Fisher's name used and bandied about from one side to the other. Lord Fisher, I think, has deserved better of this House. I have only a very slight acquaintance with him, but surely there is nobody but will admit that he is one of the greatest admirals this country has ever produced. It seems unfortunate to some of us that, owing to circumstances, of which we know nothing and at which we can only dimly guess, that he ever left the position he occupied. The present First Sea Lord is a man whose qualities are universally recognised, and surely the services of Lord Fisher should be co-operated and co-ordinated as far as possible.

Mr. BALFOUR

made a remark which was inaudible in the Reporters' Gallery.

Sir A. MOND

I know that Lord Fisher is head of the Inventions Board, but he has devoted the best part of his life to great strategical questions, and I should have thought that those services would have been of the very greatest importance to anyone who had to deal with maritime affairs. I believe he has now been called into consultation by the War Council. When we have men of great intelligence and of great experience such as Lord Fisher, and whose intelligence and experience are not utilised for reasons of machinery or organisation because there is a certain man in one position and that therefore somebody else cannot be utilised, that, I think, is a system quite inexcusable in the serious times we are passing through.

Sir JOSEPH WALTON

There is no Vote considered by this House to which more willing assent is given than any Vote for the purposes of our Navy. The whole nation is profoundly grateful to our Navy for the splendid way in which they are giving to the nation the sense of security and safety during this time of war. But whilst we are prepared to supply to the full the financial needs of the Navy, there is at the same time most urgent need that all wasteful expenditure in connection with the Navy should be prevented as far as possible. We have commandeered about 7,000,000 tons of the mercantile marine, and the management to a large extent of that is in the hands of the Naval Transport Department. We had the other day a Report circulated in defence of the management of the commandeered mercantile marine by the Admiralty Transport Department. I refer to the Report of a Mr. T. Paterson Purdie, who is, I understand, the manager of three tramp steamers, and who states that he is president, also, of the Clyde Steamship Owners' Association, which owns 1,750,000 tons of merchant ships. What I have got to say is that Mr. Purdie had no authorisation whatever from the Clyde Steamship Owners' Association to make the statements he has made in this Report, and the great majority of the shipowners in that association do not endorse them. The Report makes many statements, but I cannot go into detail. It says that the system of organisation at the Naval Transport Department includes a return showing what previous service under requisition each owner has done in the period during which market rates have risen considerably above requisition rates.

5.0 P.M.

But it was a fact that for months after the War began the Government requisi- tioning rates were higher than anything obtainable in the open market, and therefore to the advantage of the shipowners. That should be brought into the consideration whether there has been anything like equal requisitioning as between one owner and another owner. It states in that Report that the system takes into account the number of ships in the owner's fleet, but one has to ask whether any allowance is made for ships which are interned or detained to avoid capture by the enemy in Germany, in the Baltic, in the Black Sea, or detained in the White Sea when under charter to or with cargo for the Russian Government. Other considerations to be taken into account are whether any allowance is made for any ships repairing; whether any distinction is made between ships repairing on Admiralty account; damage caused by accidents, marine, or war risks, compulsory work and survey work. Then there is the question whether ships sold since the beginning are taken into account in estimating what might be fairly requisitioned from one steamship-owning firm and another. Mr. Purdie states that a vessel is only requisitioned on expert advice, that she is entirely suitable for the Service, or is the most suitable of those available. Well, the experts have been very wrong in many cases, or perhaps it was unfortunate that at the particular moment suitable ships were not available. Good measurement ships have been taken for dead-weight cargoes, and ships built for dead-weight cargoes have been taken for measurement goods. Ships have been sent to the White Sea which should not have been sent. Much criticism, we are told, has been levelled against the Department, or rather the Government, because the Report states that the business of the Naval Transport Department is conducted on commercial lines. Was the "Apollo" case an example of business conducted on commercial lines? If the Department were so conducted they would have ascertained if the coal could be taken into store at Malta before despatching this steamer. Then, as regards sugar. Would not any commercial man have ascertained last winter, before sending forward so many cargoes of sugar, whether it was possible to effectively handle the ships and cargoes at their discharging ports without causing delay and loss of carrying capacity to the country? The same applies to oats this winter. The Admiralty requisitioned ships to bring oats for the Army—

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara)

That is an Army matter.

The CHAIRMAN

I think that is so. This is really the Army, and the responsibility for these stores does not lie with the Admiralty. The only thing the Admiralty can do is to provide ships, and the hon. Member should confine himself to the matters included in the Estimate.

Sir J. WALTON

As regards the White Sea trade, that is dealt with by the Naval Transport Department, and the question is, if the business of the' Naval Transport Department was conducted on really commercial lines they would surely ascertain beforehand whether late last autumn it was safe to send ships to the White Sea so that they could get safely away again, and not get frozen up and kept there until the month of May next. However, turning to the question of requisitioning the Naval Transport Department have commandeered 7,000,000 tons of shipping, and the Government have taken 80 per cent. of war risk on the whole of the commandeered shipping. And, although they will not tell us, it is common knowledge that it has been extremely good business, and they have large accumulated funds to the credit of that Insurance Department. The suggestion that I have to make is that the Naval Transport Department will be well advised if, in addition to taking war risks to the tune of SO per cent., they should take the whole of the hull and machinery marine insurance risks usually covered by Lloyd's time policies. It has been a very satisfactory transaction, as far as it has gone, in taking war risks, and the suggestion I have to make is that if they are not prepared to cover the whole of the marine risks under a Lloyd's time policy, that they might, at any rate by the machinery now arranged, take war risks, and also accident, including the total loss risks on the whole of the commandeered shipping. There is no doubt whatsoever that underwriters are having the time of their lives at present, and the very fact that the Government take the war risks on the whole of the 7,000,000 tons of commandeered mercantile marine lessens the marine risks. Vessels in this time of war are making fewer voyages in the year; they have long delays; in many cases they are convoyed by Government war vessels, which adds to their safety; very often they are not allowed to run at night time; and by the very fact of the removal of the whole German tramp shipping from the North Sea, the risks of collision are considerably lessened. I am interested in a small shipping concern with twenty-one steamers, and for the last twenty-three years we have taken one-third of the marine risks, and, with that number of steamers at the end of that period, we have a quarter of a million to the credit of the marine insurance fund. That was done in normal times, and now in these abnormal times, when the Government take war risks, there is no doubt whatever that the extension of Government insurance would produce a very considerable saving and profit for the Treasury. The greater the number of steamers over which these risks can be spread the greater likelihood there is of it being a profitable undertaking.

The CHAIRMAN

Surely that is under the administration of the Board of Trade. I think there is no question about that. The hon. Member must remember that, wide as is the scope of Vote A, all the matters discussed must be strictly within the power of the Board of Admiralty to deal with.

Sir J. WALTON

If I am mistaken in thinking that these insurance matters are dealt with by the Naval Transport Department, well, then I am out of order. Do I understand, Mr. Whitley, that your ruling is that war risks are not arranged by the Naval Transport Department, and that marine insurance of vessels going to the White Sea are not also arranged by the Naval Transport Department?

The CHAIRMAN

I cannot give an opinion on that point. The hon. Gentleman was discussing the general Government scheme for war risks on commercial vessels. That was announced here in the House by the President of the Board of Trade, and questions on that subject have been answered by him.

Sir J. WALTON

I was only raising the question so far as Government commandeered ships are concerned. My remarks have nothing to do with ships outside that category.

The CHAIRMAN

That may be so, and so far as the hon. Member keeps to the question of requisitioning ships he will be in order.

Sir J. WALTON

I am merely dealing with requisitioned ships, which number about 2,500, and I was saying that as the taking of insurance risks on a small fleet of twenty-one ships has in twenty-three years provided a profit, how much more profitable would it be for the Government not only to take war risks but marine risks on those 2,500 ships that they have requisitioned? When requisitioned steamers come to grief private owners and underwriters have the greatest difficulty in getting repairs done, and if the Government had marine risks as well as war risks they could have the repairs to the steamers effected in the controled establishments. That would be done at much less cost, and would increase the carrying power of our tonnage, so that that would be another indirect and very great saving. I merely raise the question to-day because I am desirous that it should be very carefully considered both by the Admiralty and the Board of Trade. I do not wish to injure underwriters, but in this time of great financial difficulties which we have to face the interests of every section and of every trade in the country might be put out of consideration so long as a paramount need of the State comes in to justify any particular change or the taking up of any particular business which in normal times is left in the hands of underwriters or any other traders. I am quite aware that, although I have given reasons why this taking of marine insurance on requisitioned ships would be a profitable undertaking, there are arguments against it. I mean that in the removal of lights all round our coasts there is no doubt that we have had more ships stranded and that in that respect they run greater risks, and also that the fact that they have to proceed without lights in certain parts of the world increases the risks. But I have not lost sight of the fact that although there might be very substantial saving were the Government to take marine risks on requisitioned steamers, that it would not all be gain to the Treasury, because of course the Excess Profits Duty would take a portion of the largely-increased earnings of underwriters that they are making to-day. I hope the Financial Secretary to the Admiralty will be able, at any rate, to give us an assurance that the matter that I have raised specially is having the careful consideration of the Admiralty, and I hope that he will consider that it is one well worthy of their most careful consideration.

Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE

I wish to bring before the notice of the Financial Secretary to the Admiralty the question of allowances to dependants of ships' apprentices. Ships' apprentices get very small wages. Many of these apprentices have enlisted, and the allowance that the mother receives is very small. I have a special case which I should like to mention, where the mother gets an allowance of only 5d. a week. This woman, who has now become a widow, has two children, one a schoolboy, and the other a married man with five children to support. I think the Financial Secretary will agree that 5d. a week is a very small amount to enable this woman to support herself and bring up her child. This is not an isolated case. On the contrary, there are many such cases, and many of them from the Royal yards. Would it not be possible to increase the allowance where the mother is a widow? Further, would it not be possible to make an increased allowance where there are mothers with other children? We know that there must be some arrangement made, and I find no fault with the arrangement that when a boy or man enlists the amount that he has been allowing to his mother should be the basis of the calculation on which the Government allowance is made. But it is entirely different in the case of apprentices. An apprentice begins with very small wages—perhaps 3s., 5s., 9s., or 10s.—whereas in the Royal yard when he becomes a man he is able to earn 23s. or 24s. This would allow him to make a much larger allowance to his mother. I would therefore press the Financial Secretary to place before the First Lord the case which I have mentioned. The boy, who is now a sergeant fighting in Egypt, must be getting a fair amount of pay, and if he had been at home would probably have been able to allow his mother 10s. or 15s. a week.

Sir A. MARKHAM

I regret very much that the First Lord of the Admiralty is not in the House. It seems to be the practice for Ministers to come in, deliver their speeches, and then go out again. During the whole time I have been a Member of the House I have never been so profoundly dissatisfied with any statement made by a Minister as I am with the speech of the First Lord to-day. The First Lord used all those dialectical powers in the exercise of which he is a past master and which he used with such great effect when he was Leader of the House and sent his party into the wilderness for many years. But he entirely ignored the real issue which the late First Lord brought before the attention of the House. What was the charge made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dundee yesterday? It was this: Are you to-day building at the same rapid rate and with the same energy as you were in the early part of the War? I know from my own knowledge and association with the engineering trades that the same push and energy and the same speed are not to-day being devoted to construction work for the Navy as in the first six months of the War. If that statement be true, as it is, the whole charge of the late First Lord has not been in any way met. Is it or is it not a fact that the speed of building to-day and the amount of labour devoted to it are less than they were at the beginning of the War? I know in point of fact that they are. Therefore I ask, Why have you not, when you are admittedly short in certain classes of boats, laid yourselves out, with the open purse of the British nation at your command, to obtain the craft that you require? Large numbers of them have been bought. Why have you not bought a further number?

I never thought that argument in this House would sink to such a point that, in order to damage and discredit the right hon. Member for Dundee, an ex-Prime Minister of the country would rise from that bench and ask what was the opinion that the Member for Dundee had privately expressed to his friends in addition to what he had said in this House. If the First Lord of the Admiralty is going to maintain that it is legitimate argument to ask what the Member for Dundee has privately said, I say that every Minister on that bench has in private life stated that Lord Kitchener is the greatest failure there has ever been at the War Office and that we should have been much better without him. The right hon. Gentleman is included in that statement. Therefore, when the right hon. Gentleman brings in private conversations to justify his attack on the Member for Dundee, he should at the same time remember that other people can use that weapon. In the case of the Navy we know, or the country thinks, that we have an immeasurable superiority over the Germans and over any combination that the enemy can bring against us. We are satisfied that that is so. I do not think that anything suggested by the Member for Dundee in any way touched that point. What he said was that the whole of the dockyards of Germany to-day are surrounded by a cordon beyond which the workmen are not allowed to go, and that complete secrecy is maintained as to what is going on Having regard to the great inventive genius of the Germans, the} Member for Dundee asked, "Are you, in view of the unknown dangers which may arise from new inventions, doing all you possibly can to maintain this great superiority of the Fleet for the maintenance of which the country is prepared to pay anything that is necessary?" You may be too late with your munitions; you may be, as you have been, too late in every respect in carrying on the War. We have had to pay for that with huge sacrifices of life and treasure. We cannot be too late with the Navy. If once the Navy is too late that will be the end, not only of the British Empire, but also of the liberties of the human race. Therefore, the Member for Dundee asked, "Are you doing all that you can? Is every yard in the country still engaged at the same high pressure as Lord Fisher brought to bear?" Is that a statement for which the right hon. Gentleman should be held up to obloquy by the First Lord to-day?

I think the country owes a deep debt of gratitude to the Member for Dundee. No one questions the right hon. Gentleman's courage, both in the field and in political life. I have attacked him many times. At the same time one has always recognised that his chief anxiety was to serve the office committed to his charge. A few months before he resigned, before the outbreak of war, I had an interview with him with a view to seeing whether some saving could not be made in buying coal for the Admiralty. The right hon. Gentleman at once said to me," If I could save that money I should have more for my aircraft, of which I am so sadly in need, and for which I cannot get money from the Government to make it, as efficient as I want it to be." It is only right that it should be known to the public that the right hon. Gentleman went to the Prime Minister and others and urged the necessity of being prepared for War with Germany. We were all kept in ignorance of what was going on. The Prime Minister neither directly or indirectly gave any hint to any of his supporters that these large Estimates were necessary for the Navy. We blundered along into War. The party opposed the Estimates put forward by the Admiralty—Estimates which caused the Member for Dundee to be held up to public execration by Liberals in the country as a spendthrift and a man whose judgment could not be trusted. He worked under great difficulties. If he had had the money he would have made the Air Service something which would not be the discredit to the country that it is at the present ime. That the First Lord of the Admiralty should come down to the House, as he has done to-day, and, because the Member for Dundee, not for any personal interest, but solely in the interests of the country, made the statement he did yesterday, level at him all that cheap rhetoric is, I think, unworthy of the right hon. Gentleman and of the office which he holds.

Then the First Lord did not hesitate to repeat the old tale told so many times during this War on that bench, namely, that it was not in the public interest to refer to these matters at all. I challenge any man in this House to prove that with regard to the Armay, to start with, there has been any statement made here during this War by any of us who have been forcing the Government which has been to the detriment of our country. We have time after time called attention to the utter lack of energy which has been thrown into the War by the Government. I think that equally applies to the Navy, and the Financial Secretary cannot say to-day that any Member in this House has asked a single question during the course of the War which has been to the detriment of the Navy. Therefore, what is the crime which the late First Lord has committed? No one questions the fact when Lord Fisher was at the Admiralty he brought a driving force into that Department such as there had never been before and has never been since. I do not think my right hon. Friend made any charge against Sir Henry Jackson; on the contrary, I think he never mentioned his name. What he asked was that Lord Fisher's services should be used at the Admiralty. Then with all that cheap rhetoric, the First Lord now says, "You, the late First Lord, could not and did not trust, and did not receive support from, your own First Sea Lord, and, therefore, why should you ask the present Board of Admiralty, of which I am the head, to take Lord Fisher back?" Ask everyone who is associated with shipbuilding, ask everyone who has been brought into contact with the Admiralty—not politicians, but business men—and every business man in the country who has had business with the Admiralty will tell you that never at any period in the history of the Admiralty was such fighting force brought to bear by the unbounded energy which Lord Fisher showed in the first six months of the War, and which he imparted to everyone associated with him. The First Lord referred to the views of other officers of the Fleet about Lord Fisher. We all know what are the views of the men who, after all, holds the defence of this country in his hands, namely, the Admiral in charge of the Grand Fleet. We know that, in his opinion, no man has ever done more for his country than Lord Fisher did when he was at the Admiralty.

I notice the First Lord has come back to his seat, and I want to ask him this question: Will he get up in his place and say that the Admiralty to-day are keeping all the shipyards in this country working at the same high pressure as they were during the first six months of the War, when Lord Fisher had the administration of affairs? I know they are not doing so, and whatever the First Lord or the Financial Secretary says, being associated with the engineering trade myself, being associated with firms who build the engines and machinery and the guns for these ships, I know something of what is going on, just as well as people at the Admiralty, and perhaps a little better; and what I say is that when the late First Lord came down here yesterday and made this statement he made it only in the interest of his country. All he said was, "Are you doing all that you possibly can, in view of the unknown danger, which may not fructify, probably never will, but are you doing all that human effort can do at the present time to maintain this driving force which Lord Fisher brought to bear?" I say you are not, and, if that be so, then the whole charge the right hon. Gentleman has made is justified. There is either a negative or an affirmative answer to that charge, and all these side issues, all these small, cheap sneers which the First Lord of the Admiralty thought fit to bring against the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dundee, are all beside the question. The First Lord of the Admiralty was not in his place when I made my opening remarks, but what I wish to impress upon him is that the Government can afford to-take no risks in this matter. You have been all through, in the words of the Government, "too late." You cannot be too-late with the Navy. Once you are too late with the Navy, that is the end of it; and if the right hon. Gentleman, who has played with every political subject, is entitled to make these cheap sneers at the right hon. . Member for Dundee, we are entitled to reply to them. During the whole time he led this House when I was a Member of it he followed the same kind of argument he did to-day, to try to score a cheap debating point at the expense of the real issue before the House.

I am only going to refer to one other matter, and that is with regard to the question of hasty construction. It is true, in regard to the monitors there has been a certain alteration made. It is not desirable, of course, to say what that alteration is, and I am not going to say what the cause of it was; but the right hon. Gentleman gave the impression to the House that it was due to the hasty action taken by the right hon. Member for Dundee, which was unfair and unjust, because the cause is due to an entirely different reason, which, if stated to this House, would at once prove to the House how unfounded is the charge made by the First Lord. I do not know how he comes, therefore, to make this statement, leaving the country to think that the right hon. Member for Dundee had acted wrongly in this matter when, in point of fact, those very ships themselves were the creatures, if I may use the word, of Lord Fisher himself, and it was unfortunate, unforeseen circumstances, which necessitated the alteration. The country must spend any money necessary to maintain not only safety, but a double or treble margin of safety Have you kept all the shipyards in this country working at full pressure? Have you kept all the shipyards of neutrals working at full pressure? That, after all, is the question, and the only question that is raised by the late First Lord of the Admiralty. When the history of this period under review comes to be written it will be seen that the statement made by my right hon. Friend yesterday was perfectly true, and that, despite any statements made by the Admiralty, you have not kept the same great push and energy in your dockyards as you did during the first period of the War.

Mr. CURRIE

At a time like this, when the whole country is so much the debtor of the Navy, and when many Members of this House are under obligation to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty, I recognise this is not the time to bring forward any criticism of the Administration which might be described as carping. At the same time, I would draw the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to what, I think, may be fairly described as a minor and exceptional miscarriage of administration, and which has involved expense and the waste of the time of naval officers. I drew the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to certain proceedings in the Criminal Courts in Scotland the other day, in the form of a question, and the right hon. Gentleman's answer rather led me to think that his own personal attention had not been directed to the subject-matter quite as closely as I would almost have expected. However that may be, I think it reasonable to remind him that a little more was at stake than a vital question of principle. Indeed, I do not think that the vital question to which he referred was really seriously questioned by anyone. It is, of course, very easy for a Department like the Admiralty, with the Law Officers and the whole legal machinery of the Crown Office at its disposal, to instruct a prosecution, and the ease with which it can be done greatly increases the responsibility. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will not counter that proposition. In the present exceptional instance, I can only think a very unhappy use of the power was made. What took place was really this: Leading citizens of Edinburgh—in fact, men well known throughout Scotland—who have been working as hard as possible since the outbreak of war to assist the Government, suddenly find themselves pilloried in the Criminal Court, just as if they had been charged with forgery, theft, or embezzlement, and are subjected to examination and these proceedings for no less than three days.

I do not want to go into the question of who is to blame for these unhappy instructions and these unhappy proceedings. I do not ask for any victim. I do not seek to lay any charge at the door of any individual, but I do wish to point out the grave injustice that was done to these gentlemen. The strain which such proceedings is bound to place on any man's health is a serious one. Had these gentlemen been poor men, the action of the Government would have absolutely ruined them financially. As it is, they are left with a heavy law bill of costs to pay, and that in itself, I think, is a considerable injustice While not wishing to press the right hon. Gentleman for details of what happened, I want to remind him how damaging proceedings of that kind are to his Department and to the ministration of justice and legal administration generally. I think he must admit that that is so, and that the prosecution was really most unfortunate, and we may be thankful the jury refused to be convinced by any of the evidence placed before them. My suggestion is that without loss of dignity—indeed, very far from loss of dignity—it really lies with the right hon. Gentleman, on behalf of his Department, to tender these gentlemen an apology from the Government for the unfortunate action which was laid against them. Beyond that I think, in the circumstances, the Government should consider whether they cannot pay the expenses which these gentlemen are left at present to bear. These are the suggestions I make to the right hon. Gentleman, and I would only say that, in my view, the public will judge his Department a great deal more severely for what has happened if he fails to make the amende honorable to Mr. White-law and Mr. Jackson.

Mr. PETO

I somewhat regret that the hon. Member for Mansfield (Sir A. Markham) has copied the right hon. Member for Dundee in his policy of making very considerable charges and immediately leaving the House; but, in spite of his absence, I do want to protest against his grotesque travesty of the speech of the First Lord of the Admiralty when he said it consisted of cheap sneers and avoided the real issue. I do not think there is any other Member who heard the First Lord's speech who has any such impression of it; on the contrary, I think it would have been perfectly impossible for the First Lord to take any other course than that which he did take, in view of the speech made yesterday by the late First Lord. The hon. Member for Mansfield said that the only real question was whether the Government have kept the shipyards working at full pressure. That is the point I want to deal with. The First Lord of the Admiralty answered that question perfectly clearly, and he said: There are limits not to our will but to our power The limit is the limit of labour. That is the only part of this question which it does not seem to me as being satisfactorily dealt with and about which the country may now have some anxiety, in spite of the speeches which have been made from the Treasury Bench. Yesterday the First Lord of the Admiralty said that no further advance in rapid construc- tion or repair was possible except under three conditions—that is to say, by getting new skilled labour, by somewhat diluting existing skilled labour, and by inducing those who are now working to-work more. I think we are entitled to know which of those three ways the Admiralty are depending upon, and whether they are doing everything possible to get an increased labour force for this problem which is so vital to our success in the War. I did not see in the speeches of the First Lord yesterday and to-day any indication as to what steps are being taken to put any of these three methods into operation to increase our labour force at all in the great dockyards in this country. It would be most unfortunate if this labour question is not tackled at once in such a manner as will ensure there being the necessary increase of skilled labour available. This point is exactly appropriate to Vote A and Vote 1, and it has not been brought out in the Debate yesterday or in Committee. If we increase in every six months' period that the War has lasted all the different varieties of ships of war with the one exception of armoured cruisers, we can man them. We do not know what is going on upon the other side of the North Sea in the German shipyards, but we are satisfied that there must be in Germany an insurmountable difficulty in manning and officering any considerable increase of naval force to which we may be opposed before the end of the War.

With regard to officers alone, the Imperial Merchant Service Guild has induced, without a halfpenny of expense to the Government, over 2,000 officers of the merchant service to serve in the Royal Naval Reserves. Could anything of that kind be possible across the North Sea in Germany? Where do we draw 160,000 additional men from? To a small extent we draw them from the Reserve, but we must draw the great bulk of them from the personnel of the merchant service. Much as we deplore the loss from time to time of our vessels, and much as we miss them in the carrying trade of the Empire, we have always to recollect that in a large measure the crews and the officers of those ships are not lost in a very large proportion, and I am thankful to say many of them are saved and come back to this country, and are therefore available as a fresh reserve, for these additions to our Navy. From that point of view we have an immense advantage over the enemy, whose merchant service is now interned in ports all over the world. Their crews are also interned, and neither they nor their Navy have for eighteen months had any opportunity of getting sea service to improve themselves as sailors or fighting units in their Navy.

I hope nothing will be allowed to interfere with our naval construction. There are two things which we have been told in recent speeches do interfere with naval construction to some extent, both of which are essential to carry on the War, and which make demands on skilled labour—one is the anti-aircraft gun, but the larger matter is the completion and construction of new mercantile tonnage. Both these are vital matters, and I feel satisfied that if the Government will tackle this labour problem and solve the three difficulties which the First Lord has put forward, they will find not only the skilled labour they require for the increase and repair of our Navy, but they will be able to do something very substantial to increase our now somewhat unfortunately depleted mercantile service. I have been told several times, when I have raised the question of the assessment of officers to Income Tax, that I ought not to ask for any remission of Income Tax but for an increase of pay. As this is the appropriate Vote I do not want it to be said, when I press this matter again upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer and ask for an extension upon what has already been given, that when the Navy Estimates were before the House I did not ask for an increase in pay. I do not ask for this concession with regard to all ranks because I do not think it would be appreciated if I did, or that this is a proper way of meeting a direct diminution of the pay which was considered proper in time of peace. We have had our Income Tax doubled, and the percentages have been increased. They will probably be increased again until they reach a figure which may probably take a quarter of all incomes not below a very limited amount. I think, however, that I shall be justified in pressing upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he should give some further concession in this respect in regard to the incomes of the officers of the Navy. I do not want to make any further criticism upon this point now, and I am only doing what the legal profession would call entering a caveat, so that it will not be thrown up against me that I did not take this opportunity of pressing for an increase in the pay of officers.

There is one rank to which the hon. Member for Wexford called attention yesterday, namely, that of the midshipman, whose pay is so contemptible that it does not come within the limits of our present reduced Income Tax scale, and is not touched by this other question. It is really a most scandalous thing that now, when this country is at war, midshipmen should be called upon to go to sea and serve their country under all the conditions of stress and danger inherent to the carrying on of a great naval war, when the bulk of their pay is provided by their parents. I have looked very carefully at the figures, and that is the only conclusion I can draw from them. These midshipmen who go to sea are in many cases doing the duty of sub-lieutenants, while the pay they receive is at the rate of one-and-ninepence a day, so far as the pay which is really found by the country is concerned. I only want to make one further reference to what the First Lord of the Admiralty said with regard to officers and crews of the merchant service and the service they are rendering to the country. I am satisfied that out of the many things we shall have learned from this War we shall find that the merchant service and the Navy are much more closely interdependent the one upon the other than we have had any idea of in recent years. I believe that we shall have to do a great deal to find the appropriate place for ships of all kinds, whether they are under the red ensign or the white when we are at war. It is quite clear that we never could have carried on this War for nineteen months at all if we had not had this fine reserve of suitable vessels of all kinds to use for various purposes, and this could not have been done if we had not had that great reserve of officers and men to draw upon. I hope a definite policy will be adopted of making these great reserves more immediately available in the case of any future emergency, and that the principle of the Royal Naval Reserve will be carried out a great deal more so that practically every Britisher who goes to sea will be required to put in a certain amount of service upon fighting vessels at one time or another or upon vessels that may be required for special services, so that if war ever overtakes this country again we shall be able to avoid having to improvise everything after the declaration of war.

I appreciate immensely the very happily-worded tribute which the First Lord of the Admiralty paid to the merchant service yesterday. Through the Parliamentary Committee of the Guild I have referred to I claim to represent the marine service, or, at any rate, over 70 to 80 per cent. of the officers, and on their behalf I wish to assure the right hon. Gentleman and the Committee that what the right hon. Gentleman has said will go a great deal further than any much more substantial reward, which has not been asked for, and which might have been thought appropriate. What they do want is the recognition of their services, which were so admirably recognised in this House when the First Lord conveyed, not only the thanks of the Admiralty, but he also said that he thought he could convey the thanks of the House for the services that had been rendered to the country.

Sir H. DALZIEL

This is practically the only opportunity which hon. Members have of introducing matters dealing with the Navy from a broad point of view, and that is my only reason for intervening in this Debate. I wish, however, to take this opportunity of registering once again my protest that in a great and important national matter like this not one single member of the Cabinet thinks it worth while to come and listen to the opinions which are expressed in the House of Commons. I think this is a Parliamentary outrage, more especially because after the last time we complained we had a definite and distinct pledge from the Prime Minister that such a thing would never occur again.

Dr. MACNAMARA

The First Lord of the Admiralty is very busy.

6.0 P.M.

Sir H. DALZIEL

I do not think it is at all necessary for my right hon. Friend to interrupt me in order to tell me that. I know that the First Lord must be busy, but it is part of his duty to be here to answer criticisms which are made against him and his Department. Granted that he is so busy at the moment that he cannot come here to listen to the Debate, is it unreasonable to ask that some other member of the Cabinet who can represent the views of the whole Cabinet should pay us the courtesy of coming here and listening to what we have to say? I say that the Prime Minister himself, if the First Lord of the Admiralty could not be present, ought to be here to listen to the views expressed from different parts of the House. It is no ordinary Debate. The Debate that took place yesterday was one that is calculated to give grave cause for anxiety to the whole of the people of this country, and up to this moment we have not had a full and adequate explanation which would justify any relaxation of that concern and that anxiety. It is not a question of any controversy over one man. I deplore more than I can say the introduction yesterday of Lord Fisher's name into these Debates. I have the greatest opinion, as every man must have, of the genius and ability of Lord Fisher. No one denies that. There is not a single member of the Cabinet who would deny it. The First Lord of the Admiralty did not deny it. Therefore, we are all at one with regard to the ability of Lord Fisher. But we really have not the facts before us to judge as to what the attitude of the Cabinet ought to be in regard to Lord Fisher. No private Member of this House can be in possession of information which might be of a vital character in regard to the whole question of the continued association of Lord Fisher as a member of the Board of Admiralty.

My confidence in Lord Fisher, I must say, was rudely shaken when I found that he left the Admiralty voluntarily at his own instigation, and left it without a chief, at one of the most critical and vital moments in the history of this country. I have never heard any explanation of that, and until I have that explanation, and unless it is full and adequate, I cannot give my full confidence to Lord Fisher, especially as I understand—I do not know whether it is true or not, but it is so stated—that he desired the privilege of nominating his own chief. That is a thing which cannot be granted to any Civil servant, however brilliant and however great a genius he may be. We must have Cabinet control and we must have Parliamentary control. Therefore, I say it is to be regretted that Lord Fisher's name should have been introduced in the manner in which it was introduced even by my right hon. Friend the late First Lord of the Admiralty (Colonel Churchill). My right hon. Friend, who knows more about these issues than any private Member can know, was entitled to say, "I have had my differences with Lord Fisher and I have stated them in this House"—by the way, he did not say that Lord Fisher did not give him generally that support which he ought to have received, but only in regard to one particular instance—"but these are over, and at a time like this no matter of personal consideration should be allowed to stand in the way, and if the Government think it right to call Lord Fisher back to their councils I shall be delighted," but he ought not to have made the demand in the manner in which it was made, making it more difficult for the Cabinet to carry out the very policy which he desires. Put in that light, I think it would have made it more easy for the Cabinet.

Another very distinguished public servant has been mentioned in the person of Sir Henry Jackson. The public know very little about Sir Henry Jackson, and I think that is greatly in his favour. I personally approach the consideration of his name more favourably because, as far as I understand, he has never done anything at all to put his claims before the public. He is content to go on quietly with his work, and, as far as I know, to do it very successfully. I know nothing about the merits, and for my part I should hesitate to criticise him on that account. It rather counts in his favour that he has never entered into public controversy, and, as far as I know, his photograph has never appeared in the newspapers. Lord Fisher, who built the Fleet which we have now, is undoubtedly a great genius, and he has an amount of vigour which is not equalled by men half his age. It seems a pity that he should be side-tracked into a small Department dealing with all kinds of inventions with which a man of different intellect could deal. Is it possible that at this hour of crisis in our country's fate the Cabinet cannot forget personalities and take advantage of Lord Fisher's great ability and marvellous experience without in any way interfering with Sir Henry Jackson? We really must not make it an issue between the two men at the present time. Could there not be more cordial co-operation than there is at the present time? The evil of it is you are again creating two schools of thought throughout the Navy at the very moment when all minds ought to be concentrated on one purpose and one purpose only. In that direction lies danger, and unless the Government do something to stop this continued controversy I believe it will be bad for the Navy and bad for the country. The First Lord's statement yesterday was a very alarming statement. What did he say? He said, "I have not got the small craft or as many ships as I should desire."

Mr. PETO

Armoured cruisers.

Sir H. DALZIEL

He did not limit himself to that. He made what I thought was a very unwise and a most extraordinary statement—that we had not built any armoured cruisers—

Mr. PETO

It is a pity that the right hon. Gentleman should leave the House under any misapprehension, so perhaps he will allow me to read what the First Lord actually did say: We have lost some armoured cruisers, and we have not replaced them. But in armoured cruisers our superiority is enormous and is uncontested."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th March, 1916, col. 1413.]

Sir H. DALZIEL

Of course, that is an obvious fact. We do not need to be told that. I assumed that the House knew it. What he did say was that we had not built any more. The distinguished Vice-Chamberlain of the Household (Mr. Beck) says that we do not require them

Mr. BECK (Vice-Chamberlain of the Household)

I do not think my right hon. Friend realises that the First Lord of the Admiralty was not alluding to battle cruisers.

Sir H. DALZIEL

I say that if any newspaper had published that fact they would probably have been prosecuted. It is no use the hon. Gentleman shaking his head. I can tell him that it is a fact. If any newspaper had published a fact of that kind they would at least have been warned, and on a second occasion they would probably have been prosecuted. The right hon. Gentlemen ought not to have made that statement. The point had not been raised, and I do not think that it was wise to state it. His statement that after eighteen months of war he has not got the ships which he would like to have, and that labour has been the difficulty, is to me a very surprising and, I think, a very disconcerting statement. We have never heard before in this House of any trouble with regard to labour so far as the Admiralty are concerned. We have never heard any complaint of labour trouble to give us cause to be anxious about the Admiralty programme. I am speaking now purely from the point of view of the Admiralty. Do let me put my case, however imperfectly, in my own way. I am speaking from the point of view of the Admiralty, and I say that throughout all the controversy which the Minister of Munitions had up and down the country there Was never a speech made in the country, or a prominent speech made in this House, by anybody on behalf of the Admiralty complaining that ships were going to be delayed because of that fact. It is true that the Minister of Munitions read a communication from the Admiral of the Fleet, a letter which was very much discussed and criticised at that particular time. It was a letter which was written in order to assist my right hon. Friend in regard to the drink proposals which he was then putting before the country. I still come back to the point that officially the Board of Admiralty have never made a definite and strong appeal on behalf of the interest of the Navy that more labour should be at its service, or that more industry should be carried on. It has not been done. The whole work has been left to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Munitions. He is the Minister who has been preaching it, but no support whatever has come from the Admiralty. I say, if matters were so anxious, as apparently they are at the present time, and if we have trouble with regard to labour, that one appeal that the Navy was in difficulty because of the want of labour would have got them all the labour they required in the course of a single week. After all, whatever else may suffer, and however late we may be with regard to munitions, as we have been late, that is a secondary matter compared with the actual necessities of the Navy. Therefore, I say that an appeal from the Navy would have been made with double force in regard to that matter. Is it the case that the Admiralty have done everything in their power, except, if you like, making this definite appeal, which I suggest they ought to have made, to get the ships and all that they want?

I want to ask three questions of my right hon. Friend (Dr. Macnamara), and here let me say that when I complain about no Cabinet Minister being present it is not because he will not answer me, and answer me better than any of them—he probably knows more about it—but it is because of their want of courtesy to the House. Will my right hon. Friend assure me that no private firm with slips empty has been refused orders by the Admiralty until within these last three weeks? Will he assure me that the Bethlehem Steel Company of America have not been refused orders which they were willing to undertake with regard to ship building? Will he assure me, further, that no yard has been voluntarily given up by the Admiralty to the Munitions Department for the purpose of munitions, and, as my right hon. Friend reminds me, for the building of merchant ships? These are questions that ought to be answered. I do not think the position as left by the First Lord of the Admiralty to-day is a very satisfactory one. I have heard from sources which I cannot ignore that there has been less driving force at the Admiralty for some time than there was previously. It may be that they are doing their work quietly and are not making as much fuss about it, and as long as we get the results I do not know that we have anything very much to complain of, but I think, in the first place, the country will resent any controversy over persons with regard to this matter. They do not want there to be any possible doubt as to our security in regard to the Navy, and they will not be satisfied with less. We must not forget that 80,000 men have been working continuously in Germany since 6th August, 1914, with their yards surrounded by a great iron ring, within which no one at all is admitted. It may be that they are doing something which may not be of any particular value, but that they have been working night and day continuously all that time is an established fact. Therefore, we have to keep in mind not only our superiority but a substantial increase of our superiority, and we have to be prepared at all times for new ideas being instituted with all the enterprise of which we know the Germans capable, and we have to put forward every possible energy we can in order to deal with the situation which may soon arise.

Dr. MACNAMARA

I will take this opportunity to reply to some of the points raised in the Debate last night and in the course of the speeches this afternoon. My hon. Friend the Member for Wexford (Sir Thomas Esmonde) yesterday, and my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Peto) to-day, referred to the question of the pay of midshipmen. Let me, in the first place, associate myself with the tribute paid by the two hon. Gentlemen to the services rendered by midshipmen in common with their gallant comrades of all ranks. This is the position with regard to the pay of a midshipman. He receives 1s. 9d. per day, or 12s. 3d. per week. His parents are called upon to make him an allowance of £50 per year, which represents 19s. 2d. per week. His total receipts therefore amount to 31s. 5d. per week. His compulsory messing charge is 1s. per day, or 7s. per week. My hon. Friend the Member for Wexford yesterday stated that since the War broke out that charge had been raised to 1s. 6d. per day, or 10s. 6d. per week. If so, it must be a matter of local arrangement of a mutual character entirely outside the regulations; the authorised charge still remains 1s. per day. There are, I admit, other charges which have to be met. He has to pay washing, servant, hammock man, library, newspaper, games, and other charges. But if you multiply the compulsory charge of 7s. per week by three, that makes the total charge he has to meet £1 1s. per week, and it leaves him 10s. still in pocket. It should be remembered that the ages of midshipmen range between fifteen years ten months and nineteen years six months, and, on the whole, I think, the amount left for pocket money is not unreasonable.

Mr. PETO

After all, he has but 10s. a week left for pocket, or just one-half of what his parents allow him.

Dr. MACNAMARA

That is a perfectly fair point, and I will deal with it presently. My hon. Friend the Member for Wexford suggested that the midshipman should be put on the same footing as regards pay as a second lieutenant in the Army and should receive 7s. 6d. per day. But the Army lieutenant is much older, as a rule, and his compulsory messing charges are much higher. I therefore think I cannot accept the hon. Gentleman's suggestion. My hon. Friend the Member for Devizes must not quote the parents' allowance to me, because we have made known to everybody concerned that if a parent can show that as a result of the War his income is so reduced that he finds it difficult to make this allowance, the State will waive the allowance for the period of the War and take the charge upon its own shoulders. We have had quite a number of applications, which have all been granted, I think, with the exception of three, and in one of those cases we waived the allowance to the extent of one-half. Where we do waive the allowance it means increasing the pay from the State by 19s. 2d. per week.

Colonel YATE

Why not waive it in all cases?

Dr. MACNAMARA

If parents make application, and show that as a result of the War it is difficult for them to continue the payment, we will certainly do so, and I think the figures I have quoted prove the readiness of the Government to act in this way. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Chatham (Mr. Hohler) cited the case of a sergeant-major in the Royal Marine Light Infantry, now deceased, and he made an appeal on behalf of the widow that his pension should be on the scale of a lieutenant's pension. This man had provisionally been promoted lieutenant by his commanding officer on the field of battle. Subsequently, on the same day, he was wounded. His promotion necessarily required Admiralty sanction and confirmation. It was put forward in due course, but, in the meantime, the man had died in the hospital at Alexandria. My hon. and learned Friend suggests that the widow should have a pension on the lieutenant's scale. Of course, the Treasury have to be extremely careful in dealing with these matters, and it has a rule that posthumous promotions for the benefit of dependants shall not be permitted. This is a rule which, on the whole, is sound. Nevertheless, in this particular case I think there are features which entitle me to press it on the Treasury, and I hope my hon. and learned Friend will leave the matter there. My hon. and learned Friend made some comments on the personnel of the Royal Naval Air Service, and referred to a case at Chelmsford, where a man in that Service was unable either to fly, or drive a motor car, or work a searchlight. That is very likely. In all probability the man was a mechanic, who deals with aeroplanes and their engines.

Mr. HOHLER

No.

Dr. MACNAMARA

Is my hon. and learned Friend sure of that?

Mr. HOHLER

Quite.

Dr. MACNAMARA

If he were a mechanic whose duty it was to keep the machine and its engines efficient, there would be no need for him to fly or to drive a motor-car or to work searchlights. My impression is that it will be found that he was a mechanic.

Mr. HOHLER

I will give the right hon. Gentleman the man's name.

Dr. MACNAMARA

I was rather sorry my hon. Friend made somewhat disparaging remarks about this Service. Does he not know that the members of this Service are doing most excellent and most valuable war work? The hon. and learned Member referred to the fact that they appeared to do a good deal of motor riding and to indulge in joy rides. We have, at the present time, an Admiralty Committee dealing with motor transport. That Committee have had similar accusations before them, and I may state that, in practically every case which they investigated, it turned out that the man was driving his own private motor. Surely members of the Royal Naval Air Service who are the fortunate possessors of motor cars are entitled to use them occasionally!

Mr. PRINGLE

Whose petrol do they use?

Dr. MACNAMARA

The Committee goes closely into these matters to see that petrol is only used for Service work, and the regulations in that regard are of the strongest possible character. My hon. and learned Friend referred to the question of promotion from the ranks of the Royal Navy, and he rather complained of the extent to which we had given commissions since the outbreak of the War to those outside the Navy. He put it that we ought to give promotions to a much greater extent to men already in the Service. I am glad to say we do give many such promotions. Since the 1st January, 1913, we have made a large number of promotions in the Royal Navy from the ranks. But we have always to keep in mind the permanent establishment which is to remain after the War is over, and if we did not avail ourselves to some extent of the services of men outside the Service to fill the commissioned ranks, the result might be that hereafter chief petty officers and warrant officers who had been temporarily acting in the commission rank would have to revert to their non-commissioned and warrant rank. That, I think, would be very undesirable, and I feel quite sure everybody will feel that it would be so. We have therefore to adjust the thing as far as we can. We have made a considerable number of mates from warrant officers and of lieutenants from mates. A number of men have been promoted for gallantry. A good many commissioned warrant officers have been promoted lieutenants for long service and a great many petty officers have been advanced to warrant rank, including gunners, boatswains, signal boatswains and carpenters. I am dealing with warrant rank as well as commission rank. Warrant telegraphists, warrant armourers and electricians, writers and warrant stewards have been made. The ranks of lieutenant and commissioned telegraphist have been opened since the War began. Warrant writers and warrant stewards have been given commissioned warrant rank. On the engineering side there have been a great many advances to warrant rank from engine-room artificers and from, warrant rank to commissioned warrant rank. In the Royal Marines since January, 1913, we have also had quite a number of permanent commissions granted and we have also during the War given a number of temporary commissions from the ranks to young fellows who went into the Royal Naval Division for the period of the War. I think I have made a satisfactory case out with regard to the extent to which men have been raised from the ranks.

Colonel YATE

Have any superintending clerks been promoted to quartermaster?

Dr. MACNAMARA

I cannot answer that question without notice.

Colonel YATE

Will the right hon. Gentleman look into the point?

Dr. MACNAMARA

Yes, if the hon. and gallant Member will put a question down. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Chatham referred to the Royal Dockyards and brought up the Labour question, especially in relation to the Royal Dockyard at Chatham. My hon. and learned Friend said that, in the yard at Chatham, we do not allow men to work overtime and that the machinery is not fully utilised. That is a charge which clearly demands an answer. As regards overtime, we very carefully surveyed the whole field of overtime in the Royal yards many months ago, and we came to the conclusion that continuous Sunday labour and continuous overtime did not necessarily mean pro tanto increased output. Undoubtedly war pressure and the acceleration of work in the early days of the War necessitated overtime being worked both in Royal and in private yards, and it resulted in men coming rather to look upon continuous overtime with the higher rates paid as the normal state of affairs and part of their ordinary due. It certainly meant more money, but it did not mean continued capacity for efficient work over a long period of time. Therefore, subject to national interests, which are of the first importance in these matters, and in the interests of the men themselves as well as in the interests of a continuous maximum output, we steadily cut the overtime down in the Royal yards, and, on 13th April last year, we issued a Circular to the Royal yards stating that Sunday labour must not, except in case of urgency, be resorted to unless special permission was first obtained. Then in the Royal yards we have steadily got down the overtime, but even now the current overtime expenditure at Chatham, which is the case in point, represents more than one-third of the time-rate wages of the men. Therefore it is not true to say that the men are not working overtime. I quite admit that in certain branches or departments there may be men not working much overtime. Possibly some are not working overtime at all in a particular case, although it would be a rare case. Although in the interests of the men themselves and of the maximum output we have got it down to a reasonable limit, still in Chatham the cost of overtime at the present time represents more than one-third of the time-rate wages, and for this current financial year the expenditure on overtime at Chatham will represent a 45 per cent. increase upon the expenditure on ordinary working hours. Therefore it is not correct to say that there is no overtime at Chatham.

Mr. HOHLER

I was not referring to the whole year. There is not at the present time.

Dr. MACNAMARA

I will give my hon. and learned Friend the figures for the present time. I do not think my hon. Friend need have any anxiety as to the alterations in the yards. With regard to transport work, the hon. Member for North-West Lanarkshire (Mr. Pringle) offered some criticisms upon that last night. I do not doubt that, after I have said what I am going to say, he will quite sincerely tell me that I have made no reply whatever.

Mr. PRINGLE

Hear, hear!

Dr. MACNAMARA

I imagined that he would say that, but I think he might have waited until he heard me give the reply. I felt confident, however, he would tell me beforehand that I had made no reply. I have insisted and do insist that those who make charges against the Transport Department do not, if I may say so, fully appreciate the precise function of that Department or the nature and scope of the work it has to perform. As regards its function, whether my hon. Friend likes it or not, the Transport Department is simply the servant and agent of the naval and military authorities. It has to carry out the orders given to it as it receives them. It may ask questions, and it does. It may make suggestions, and it does, but it cannot possibly have the last word. It cannot say to the naval or military authorities, "You do not want these ships; you do not want to keep these ships so long." What it has to do is to carry out the demands made upon it as promptly, as economically, and as appropriately as time and opportunity permit. That is its duty. It has to keep a close hand on rates of hire, and it has to be careful to see that, so far as it is concerned, the tonnage which it requisitions shall not be allowed to lie idle or uneconomically employed. If it fails in these respects, it is bound to meet with criticism in the House of Commons, and I have not the slightest doubt that in due course the Comptroller and Auditor-General and the Public Accounts Commit tee would have something to say when they came to examine the Appropriation Account of the transactions and proceedings of any Department if it appeared that public money and merchant tonnage, which is of equally serious importance in this case, has been used wastefully in all the circumstances of the case. I hope I may be forgiven for saying that very much of the criticism—I have listened to it all with the greatest care on several occasions—

Mr. HOUSTON

I have some more!

Dr. MACNAMARA

I cannot be expected to have listened to something which has not yet been enunciated. I have listened to all the criticism that has been levelled at us so far, and I think it is all based on the fallacy that you can conduct war transport work on the same lines as you conduct merchant tonnage under peace conditions. You cannot do it. War is war, and war is waste.

Mr. HOUSTON

Wastage!

Dr. MACNAMARA

War is waste, and war is dislocation. If anybody gets up here and says the contrary, I am here to deny it. An hon. Member spoke about colliers hanging about for a long time doing nothing. The very phrase "doing nothing" is evidence of the fallacy underlying the criticism, namely, that you can conduct war under peace conditions. Of course colliers hang about doing nothing. The Fleet has to be ready to take action at a moment's notice, and strategic conditions kaleidoscope those contingencies. You have to make provision for contingencies beforehand. If they do not come off, nobody can turn round and say that the provision you made was wasteful and that colliers were lying about doing nothing. That is very often what it comes to. Of course, I recognise the far-reaching effects of the inroads the war service has made upon merchant tonnage. I agree that we are bound, in the national interest, so far as administration is concerned and so far as opportunity and time enables us to do so, to see that we do not carelessly and unnecessarily detach merchant tonnage from its vital service to the State, and that we must do all in our power, in the circumstances in which we work, to see that the diversion of merchant tonnage is not wastefully and extravagantly large. All that is subject to naval and military considerations. I have assured the House, and I can assure the Committee, that we shall do all in our power, after receiving the advice of the expert Committees which we have had for over twelve months and who constantly watch the matter, not to take any further tonnage than the demands of the naval and military authorities render it necessary to take.

The hon. Member for Barnsley (Sir J. Walton) referred to the method of insuring requisitioned tonnage, and suggested that we might do our own insurance. That is a matter upon which he has been good enough to put before us a memorandum which we are having carefully considered. Beyond that, I do not think he will expect me to go at the present time. The hon. Member for Devonport (Sir C. Kinloch-Cooke) referred to the cases of civil apprentices who joined the forces, and said that even though they made considerable allotments to their fathers or mothers, as the case might be, the State allowance was a very small and exiguous. He must not address that criticism to me, but to the Select Committee on Naval and Military Pensions. The Select Committee, I will not say whether rightly or wrongly, laid down the principle that in dealing with other dependent relatives, mothers and others, there must be evidence of pre-war dependence, and that the allowance which the State makes must be decided in relation to the measure of the pre-war dependence. Here is the case of a lad who was near the end of his apprenticeship on the 4th August, 1914. With great patriotism he rushed to the Colours. He may very well be, and I think he was spoken of as a sergeant, but inasmuch as he joined as an apprentice and obviously was not making much of a contribution to the household at that time, there was substantially no pre-war dependence. Had he not rushed to the Colours, had he waited until a month or two afterwards, he might have become a journeyman workman in his trade and have made a considerable contribution to his household. There would then have been a larger State allowance in respect of pre-war dependence, and in that case he would, under the Select Committee's finding, have had a larger State allowance and allotment. I cannot alter that. The Select Committee have laid down that the basis must be pre-war dependence. I have stated the case put to me quite clearly. The hon. Member asked me whether we could not do anything in this case. So long as the Select Committee's rulings hold good I cannot alter them.

Sir G. TOULMIN

Can the House have an opportunity of reviewing them?

Dr. MACNAMARA

That point should be put to the Chairman of the Select Committee or to the Prime Minister. My hon. Friend will see that is a matter which does not rest with me. The hon. Member for Leith Burghs (Mr. Currie) raised the case of the Edinburgh trial. Of course, he will recognise that it would be quite improper for me, and in fairness to him I do not think he suggested that I should do so, to endeavour to re-try the trial here. The proceedings were criminal proceedings for offences against the Defence of the Realm Regulation 43 and 47. I have them before me, but I do not think it is necessary to read them.

Mr. CURRIE

They were alleged offences, of course.

Dr. MACNAMARA

Certainly, they were alleged offences. The matter was represented to the Admiralty as being a deliberate and intentional breach of the Defence of the Realm Regulations, and the Admiralty, after obtaining the best legal advice it could, decided that there was sufficient evidence to prove the charge and that they could not overlook such an attempt to delay His Majesty's service in war-time. Therefore the prosecution was instituted, with the result that there was an acquittal. I stated in reply to a question put by my hon. Friend on 2nd March that— The object of the Admiralty in instituting these proceedings was to establish the principle that no local authority or person shall have the power to hamper the movements of any ship engaged in His Majesty's service upon war work. This principle we still think of vital importance."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd March, 1916, cols. 1194–95.] To that I do not propose to add anything at the present time. My hon. Friend asks me whether or not the Admiralty will be prepared to tender an apology in this case. He is anticipating an answer which I have no doubt will be given to a question which I think he has on the Paper. He had better possess his soul in patience until that question is answered. The hon. Member for Mansfield (Sir A. Markham) asked—I am not sure that I am using his precise words—if the amount of labour engaged on shipbuilding for the Navy is as great as it was at the beginning of the War.

Sir A. MARKHAM

I did. not say that.

Dr. MACNAMARA

I can reassure him on that point. The amount of labour engaged in the Royal dockyards—that is under Vote 8 for Shipbuilding and Repairs only, not the other branches—was 43,500 men. The number is now 55,500. I do not know what the increases are in the private yards. Certainly I can say at once, if I am asked the question, that there are more men engaged in building ships for the Navy now. I would call the hon. Member's attention to an answer given by the First Lord of the Admiralty on 26th January, an answer which is very interesting in view of the Debates we have had yesterday and to-day. It arose out of a question by the hon. Member (Mr. Wing) as to whether he could assure the country that the Navy is in a condition of preparedness for meeting any new developments of the German Navy made during the period of its inactivity in the matter of ships and larger guns? Here is part of the answer— As regards the preparedness of the British Navy, I can only say that successive Boards of Admiralty have most anxiously considered the mode in which the building resources of the country can best be employed. These resources are now used to their very utmost. Speaking broadly, it may be asserted that every dockyard, public and private, here or in the Mediterranean, is being used to its utmost capacity, either for new construction or for repairs required by ourselves and by our Allies."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th January, 1916, col. 1259, Vol. LXXVIII.]

Sir A. MARKHAM

Not true!

Dr. MACNAMARA

I do not think I can add a single word to that. It is perfectly true.

Sir A. MARKHAM

I beg pardon. That remark applied solely to the Royal dockyard, I think?

Dr. MACNAMARA

I do not think so.

Sir A. MARKHAM

Then it is quite untrue.

Dr. MACNAMARA

My right hon. Friend (Sir H. Dalziel) said the Minister of Munitions had said he had no support from the Admiralty in handling labour problems. I am quite sure the Minister of Munitions would be the last man to say that. I am perfectly certain, if the question was put to him, he would say the Third Sea Lord has been in constant touch and has been rendering every assistance he could at every stage of his endeavour to deal with the labour problem.

Sir H. DALZIEL

Will my right hon. Friend assure me that the Admiralty has offered no objection to the dilution of labour in any Department under their control?

Dr. MACNAMARA

I want to make this quite clear. My right hon. Friend would be the first to admit that in the many admirable schemes in which he has endeavoured to meet the labour problem he has had any assistance which the Third Sea Lord and myself have always endeavoured to give to every suggestion which has been made. My right hon. Friend (Sir H. Dalziel) asked about dilution. The best thing I can do is to say exactly what the Admiralty have done. The Admiralty fully recognise the necessity to secure that the services of the skilled mechanic are everywhere devoted to the work which he and he alone can perform properly, and that on work not calling for the whole resources of his skill at this time of national emergency others less skilled than himself should be employed. That is vital to the successful prosecution of the War. We met the Minister of Munitions in conference on the 14th of February. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend rendered most admirable assistance in certain shipyards in this very matter.

An HON. MEMBER

Why do you not carry it further?

Dr. MACNAMARA

I should be only too glad to receive any suggestion my hon. Friend has to make. We discussed the best means of instituting dilution in connection with firms engaged on Admiralty work, and since then it has been carried out. Commissioners have been appointed by the Minister of Munitions and Admiralty officials have rendered every assistance. On the Tyne and the Clyde dilution has been to a certain extent established, and we look with confidence to a considerable extension of its operation. I should like to read the terms of a circular letter which we are sending out to all the more important Admiralty firms: Dilution of Labour (Increase of Output). I am commanded by my Lords Commissioner of the Admiralty to call your attention to the circular letter L 29 issued by the Minister of Munitions and to inform you that my Lords have accepted the principle of dilution, and you have their full support in carrying it out in all cases where this is possible without affecting the quality of the work performed. They desire that you will press it forward in your works as extensively as possible and without delay. The main object is that the skilled men thus released should be employed in your own establishment to increase your output on Admiralty and other orders ranking as munitions work. Undoubtedly we are bound to give every assistance in a matter of this sort. It is vital. I am disclosing no secret when I say I have been in communication with my right hon. Friend on nearly every document he has issued on this matter. As regards our own dockyards, we have asked the yards to consider and report to us— As to the methods which might with advantage be adopted for the dilution of skilled labour so as to extend the area of such labour. as to the possibility of employing to a greater extent than at present mechanics of the classes in which there is not a marked shortage on more of the work usually performed by trades in which there is at present a shortage, and as to the extent to which women can be introduced into the various engineering and other shops in the Royal yards for the purpose of undertaking work within their physical capacity and aptitude, and particularly work on repetition machines. We have, of course, for a long time availed ourselves of women in Admiralty establishments on the clerical side, and we shall certainly extend the employment of women at the bench, in the dockyards, on the engineering staff, and, if possible, in the shipyards, wherever the work is within their physical capacity and aptitude. We fully agree that the Minister of Munitions cannot man his new factories and cannot get his guns and shells, and neither can we get all we want with these great operations going on, with the expedition which is vital without every practicable effort in the direction of dilution being carried forward with earnestness and energy.

Mr. PETO

Was that circular sent to the superintendents of the dockyards?

Dr. MACNAMARA

Certainly. The first circular I quoted was going out to private yards. The other I spoke of—I cannot give give the date—may be going out now, or it has just gone out I would not be quite sure that they have yet received it, but, at any rate, we have passed it at the Board, and it is by way of being circulated now to them, as far as the Royal yards are concerned. We are in the closest touch with the Minister of Munitions on this, and we are in the fullest sympathy with him. It is essential that the skilled mechanic shall only do work which he alone can do, and if the work on which he is engaged can be performed by less skilled men it shall be done by them, so that his usefulness may be extended over a wider area.

Sir A. MARKHAM

Can my right hon. Friend give me a definite reply to a simple question? I do not think he has answered the question I put. Are the dockyards at present working with the same intensity and doing the same amount of work for the Navy as they did six months after the outbreak of war? Is it not a fact that you have diverted work for the mercantile marine, that you have ceased to order the ships that you purchased during the first six months of the War in neutral countries, and are not carrying on anything like the same amount of work you did during the first six months of the War?

Dr. MACNAMARA

As regards the last part of the question, it is obviously quite incorrect that we are not doing anything like the same amount of work. I can only repeat the statement of the First Lord, which my hon. Friend says is not true. If I repeat it, no doubt he will tell me it is not true— These resources are now used to their very utmost. It may be asserted that every dockyard, public and private, here and in the Mediterranean, has been used to its utmost capacity, either for new construction or for repairs for ourselves and our Allies.

Sir A. MARKHAM

If I send my right hon. Friend a case of a ship—I will not say what class of ship—on which not a blow has been struck for months, and the Admiralty have allowed the firm to work on ships for the mercantile marine, will he then say that the statement made by the First Lord is not correct?

Mr. PRINGLE

Was it not the object of the Munitions of War (Amendment) Act to allow this to be done and to allow men to be transferred to work for the mercantile marine?

Dr. MACNAMARA

Certainly. By Section (9) of that Act, the definition of munition work was extended so as to include not only the building and repairing of ships of war, but also work on any other ships, or vessels, or classes of ships or vessels, or parts of ships or vessels duly certified by the Board of Trade to be necessary for the successful prosecution of the War. Of course it is essential that we should add as far as possible, and with all rapidity, to the tonnage of the merchant service.

7.0 P.M.

Mr. HOUSTON

I regret that the right hon. Gentleman thought it necessary to intervene in the Debate before I had had the opportunity of speaking. I made every attempt to obtain a hearing, because I wanted to give him an opportunity of replying to the fresh facts which I have to put before him in connection with the Admiralty. Although I spoke at some length on the last occasion when we were discussing shipping, and I understand that I incurred the displeasure of the authorities, I do not propose to speak at any length on this occasion. I am rather speaking under a time limit.

HON. MEMBERS

No, no!

Mr. HOUSTON

Yes

An HON. MEMBER

You have until eleven o'clock.

Mr. HOUSTON

I am speaking rather about authority. I should have liked to have dealt with the two remarkable speeches made yesterday by the First Lord of the Admiralty and the late First Lord, and the still more remarkable two speeches made to-day, but in view of the limit of time I shall not refer to them, nor to the other speeches, as I would have liked to have done, because several interesting points were raised. I come down to grips with the right hon. Gentleman at once. As they say in America, "We will get right down now to brass tacks." I hope the right hon. Gentleman will understand that all the criticisms I am offering to the Admiralty are offered in a friendly spirit, and with a desire to help and not to hinder. The right hon. Gentleman has told us, and the First Lord of the Admiralty did so the other day, of a most astounding proposition, and that is, that the Admiralty, or the Transport Department of the Admiralty, is simply the servant of the military and naval authorities. It will be within the recollection of the Committee that on the last occasion I made it quite clear that I was not criticising any Department of the Admiralty or any individual in connection with the Admiralty. I think the right hon. Gentleman will agree to that.

Dr. MACNAMARA

indicated assent.

Mr. HOUSTON

Let us take this astounding proposition that the Admiralty—call it the Transport Department if you like, but I prefer to call it the Admiralty—has simply to carry out the instructions of the military and naval authorities as to the number of merchant ships which shall be supplied to them. If you are going to carry that proposition to its logical conclusion it might result in this, that the military authorities might demand half of the merchant shipping and the naval authorities the other half. What becomes then of the needs of the people of this country? It is the most astounding proposition I have ever heard. In addition to that, we are to supply our Allies, we are to carry on the War in every direction, and we are to be at the mercy of, say, a General Incompetence or a General Ineptitude—and we have such generals in the Army—who might say in connection with an expedition, "I must have the whole merchant fleet placed at my disposal to effect one of these brilliant retreats." What then? Does the right hon. Gentleman propose to carry out that instruction from the military authority or even from the naval authorities? What has he got to say to that? He says that the Transport Department is merely the servant of the military and naval authorities. Are you going to allow the Transport Department of the Admiralty to carry out such an insane proposition as that without a word of protest to the military authorities who are making unreasonable demands? I do not say that the Transport Department can protest, but I do say that the Admiralty can protest. The First Lord is a member of the Cabinet, and it is incumbent upon him to point out such serious mistakes as might occur. The position is becoming really serious. The hon. Baronet the Member for Mansfield (Sir A. Markham) spoke about work not being done upon a certain warship because the labour had been transferred to a merchant ship. Well, knowing as I do the alarming and the growing scarcity of merchant tonnage, I say at once that I prefer that the work should have been carried on in connection with the warship than upon the merchant ship. That shows that I am not prejudiced in any way against the Admiralty.

We are really getting into a very serious condition in this country by reason of the requisitioning of British tonnage and the distribution of it amongst our Allies for military purposes, much of which is wasted. I maintain that statement, and I join issue and challenge the right hon. Gentleman upon that point. In consequence of this state of affairs we are rapidly drifting into a position when we shall be dependent upon the tonnage of neutral countries for the food supplies of this country. Can the right hon. Gentleman not see what a dangerous position that is? Supposing the neutrals made it a condition of supplying us with food that we should make peace with Germany. The merchant service is as vital to the prosecution of this War and the interests of the country as the Navy. I have the greatest admiration for the Navy, and I have always expressed it. You cannot divide the Navy from the merchant service. They are both indispensable. They are twin sisters, although I grant the Navy is the bigger, and the life of this country and the existence of the Empire is as dependent upon one almost as the other. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will consider the serious position which I have put before him. Has the Cabinet ever given that matter any consideration? I am very glad indeed that in the Debate we had on the 17th of February on the Shipping Amendment to the Address, when I expressed myself in an outspoken manner, I was able to do some good by the direct references I made to Portugal and Italy. I then said that I did not think Italy was playing the game in demanding that British ships should be requisitioned for the purposes of carrying food to Italy when they had German ships lying in their own ports. I do not sit at the Cabinet table, nor have I a place under it, therefore I do not know the secrets of the discussion that goes on, but I have some common sense, and I can see what does go on. A question was afterwards put down and answered by the President of the Board of Trade. Any experienced Member of this House could at once see that it was an inspired question in order to elicit an answer. I am not going to make any difficulties for the Government if I can possibly avoid it. On the Contrary, I will try to help them all I can.

Sir A. MARKHAM

I asked the question. Following the speech of the hon. Member, I put a question down asking the Government whether these ships had been requisitioned. I was not asked by the Government to do it.

The CHAIRMAN

Both hon. Members are out of order. That is a matter dealt with by the Board of Trade and not the Admiralty.

Mr. HOUSTON

Forgive me, Sir, if I venture to suggest that this matter arises out of the action of the Admiralty by the Transport Department of the Admiralty requisitioning British ships.

The CHAIRMAN

I have pointed out before now that in that matter the Transport Department is merely the agent of the other Departments, and the Board of Trade is the Department to answer in the House for the policy.

Mr. HOUSTON

I like to be corrected if I am wrong, but I do not think that the Board of Trade had anything to do with the requisitioning of these ships to carry Italian goods, neither had the Board of Trade anything to do with the requisitioning of ships for nitrate and other things like that. So far as I know, the Board of Trade and the Admiralty are at daggers drawn over this very thing. It is a case of "pull devil, pull baker." They both want the ships. Therefore I venture, with all respect, to say that I hardly think the Board of Trade, who are looked upon as a business Department, were responsible for the action of the Admiralty in requisitioning these ships. However, I pass that by. I maintain that the First Lord of the Admiralty has not answered the allegations made against his Department, the Admiralty, neither yesterday nor to-day, in regard to the definite charges that were made. The last time that he spoke he got into a righteous state of indignation against anyone charging the Transport Department with the blunder about the "Heliopolis."

Dr. MACNAMARA

Hear, hear.

Mr. HOUSTON

Nobody did that.

Dr. MACNAMARA

Oh, yes.

Mr. HOUSTON

The right hon. Gentleman is entirely mistaken. Nobody blamed the Transport Department for the "Heliopolis." They blamed the Admiralty. It would be impossible to blame the Transport Department for the purchase of the "Heliopolis," because the Admiralty bought her three years ago. I am afraid that is a financial transaction which lies at the door of my right hon. Friend. I want to point out how astute he was. No one made the slightest charge against the Transport Department in connection with the "Heliopolis," but the right hon. Gentleman suddenly seized upon this and worked himself up into a state of indignation to repel these charges. It is within the recollection of the Committee that the right hon. Gentleman challenged me across the floor of the House. He said that if I make charges I must stand up to them. I did stand up to them. What happened? He sat down and claimed your protection, and I incurred a reproof from you for taking up the challenge of the right hon. Gentleman. He says there is no waste of ships. It is absurd to say that. He cannot tell me, because I know as well as he does, that when the Navy is stationed in a certain quarter, and does not know when it may have to move at a moment's notice, because the enemy may break out, there may be a battle or there may be escaped cruisers, or something of that sort which have to be followed, ships of war must have colliers there ready to attend them when they go. Anyone who said anything to the contrary would be a fool.

I am not going to trespass on the time of the Committee by producing a lot of particulars, but when it comes to a question of saying that it is necessary to keep a collier—not a collier, but an oceangoing steamer for coaling—lying in Portland or in the Forth for five and a half months on end without ever moving a screw, and when it comes to keeping a steamer in Sheerness so long that her cargo takes fire by spontaneous combustion, I say that there is something very wrong there. I am not blaming the Transport Department for that. They have no responsibility for that sort of thing. I could go on for hours giving fresh illustrations, but I will not do that. The right hon. Gentleman has dragged the Transport Department or the Director of Transport into the fray, much against my intentions, because on the last occasion I never made any reference to the Transport Department when speaking of the Admiralty. But the right hon. Gentleman said that the Transport Department are the servants of the military and the naval people, and they have got to select the ships. Then surely they are responsible if they requisition in an ill-advised, foolish, or stupid manner. Again, I ask the one question, What about the oil ships that were requisitioned as troopers, fitted up as troopers, kept lying idle for six months and then dismantled and sent back to their occupations? Does the right hon. Gentleman attempt to justify that? Is not that waste? Is that the waste that arises in war?

Dr. MACNAMARA

Yes.

Mr. HOUSTON

No. It arises from stupidity. Will the right hon. Gentleman answer a question if I put one down, as to the cost of fitting up those ships and afterwards dismantling them? There are several of them.

Sir A. MARKHAM

It is not in the public interest!

Mr. HOUSTON

I do not know who is to blame for the requisitioning of ships to carry nitrate. The letter of requisition comes from the Admiralty, signed by the Director of Transport.

The CHAIRMAN

I think that the hon. Gentleman should find out beforehand who is responsible for those things. Clearly it is the Ministry of Munitions which is responsible for claiming those ships for that purpose, and the responsibility cannot be passed on to the Lords of the Admiralty.

Sir A. MARKHAM

May I point out to you that there is a Department charged solely with the business of selecting these vessels, and I submit that it is in order to say whether the Admiralty have wisely or unwisely requisitioned vessels for that specific object.

Mr. KING

May we not call attention to this matter when we are voting the money for the Admiralty services, which include the Transport Department? Its clerks and personnel are paid out of the Admiralty Vote.

Sir A. MARKHAM

They are.

Mr. KING

Surely we are in order in referring to it in this Debate?

The CHAIRMAN

By all means. If hon. Members keep to that point they will do well. I have never suggested anything else.

Mr. HOUSTON

With all respect I was going to show that it was not the Minister of Munitions who was responsible, because although no doubt he makes demands for nitrate, still it is the Admiralty who have got to employ those boats economically and without waste. They ought to utilise them, as they have done, for bringing home the hay which we require for the innumerable horses here and in France. That the Admiralty did a short time ago, but now they have fallen off from grace. I will not labour those things, but there is also the question of the White Sea. The right hon. Gentleman could give me a lot of information, and doubtless I could give him a lot of information, if he was going to make use of it. I have here particulars of the ships that have loaded for the White Sea which are lying in Liverpool and elsewhere until they can be sent off. That is the fault surely of the Admiralty and not of the Transport Department. Surely the military authorities do not instruct the Admiralty as to when the White Sea opens and when it closes. The right hon. Gentleman tells me that the military authorities are responsible for that. I at once join issue and say that it is the duty of the Admiralty to avoid that waste by pointing out that it is impossible to send those ships during certain periods. When one reads of the appalling cases of hardship to merchant seamen it does make one indignant with those complacent assurances that everything is right.

I may now refer to the question of ballast voyages. The Board of Trade, in the interest of economy, urge upon shipowners that they should not take any ballast runs, so that ships shall always be employed in carrying goods. What does the Admiralty do? When steamers are paid off or discharged, say at Alexandria—I am glad that my right hon. Friend (Dr. Macnamara) is amused at this—and they are released—that is the expression—then they are ordered to go, say, to Calcutta, Australia, or Java, to load cargo for this country. Now, when you take into consideration the question of tonnage, the matter of ballast runs is seen to be very important. I will give a case of a boat ordered in ballast from the coast of Chile up to Port Victoria, in British Columbia—that is, 5,800 miles of a run in ballast. You have other ships sent in ballast 9,500 miles, from Glasgow or Liverpool, to the nitrate ports and coming home with all their spaces empty; you have steamers requisitioned on the East Coast of South Africa to Antofagasta and Iquique, a distance of over 7,000 miles; and you have steamers sent from the Mediterranean, say Alexandria, to Australia, a distance of 8,500 miles, in ballast, to bring home Australian wheat. I will deal with that later on, but if that is not waste of tonnage I want to know what is waste of tonnage? And this is done at a time when we are short of food in this country and prices are going up. During the time occupied in this manner these boats which are sent off in ballast would have made three or four trips across the Atlantic to bring foodstuffs for the people of this country. It is absolute waste.

The Government will say, "But we must help our Australian friends." I say Yes. Our debt of gratitude to our Australian friends is so great that nothing which we could do would ever repay them for the blood which they have shed for us, but we might have met the case in a different way. When in Australia the wheat was commandeered or requisitioned by the Australian Government, we could have bought it and could have paid for the storage and waited until we had more tonnage to spare. Who is to blame for those ballast cargoes? Surely the Admiralty. I have spoken about sending ships to Italy. What will the Committee think of this? The Australian Government requisitioned wheat from the farmers, and they paid them their prices. Also ships are requisitioned, and requisitioned say at 90s. to 110s. a ton, and they have taken a ballast run of 8,500 miles to Australia. The freight from the Argentine at the present moment is, under the Government scheme, 135s., and outside of that, 155s. to 160s. a ton. Do we get cheaper wheat in this country? Is Australian wheat sold for a farthing less in this country than Argentine wheat or English wheat? Who gets the profit? Not the Australian Government, I think; but it may be. These are things that require to be looked into. Instead of bringing that Australian grain home to this country, what are we doing with it? Some of the ships are sent to Spain. Is Spain an Allied country? Certainly it is not a belligerent. Why should we provide shipping to send wheat to Spain, instead of bringing it home to our own country? I do not know, and I lay this charge at the door of the Admiralty. There is no use in my right hon. Friend saying that they have no responsibility with regard to requisitioning. I raised the question a considerable time ago in the House. It is bad enough that the Transport Department should requisition vast, roomy measuring steamers for carrying nitrate or coal; but what are we to think of the Admiralty or the Transport Department delegating their authority to requisition to Messrs. Mathwin, who purchase coals for the Admiralty, and who evidently do not know one end of a ship from another? I would be very pleased to show my correspondence with them. They requisitioned one of my refrigerating steamers, which was intended to carry meat, as a collier for carrying coal. That is judiciously done!

Mr. HOGGE

So that there would be no spontaneous combustion.

Mr. HOUSTON

We have got every evidence of waste and every evidence of ill-considered and reckless requisitioning. We are told that the Transport Department is only a little Department, numbering some fifty or fifty-five. It has now-grown to about ninety, and must be the envy of the shipowners, whose staffs have been reduced by 50 per cent., with the consequence that the work is very much harder for them. It is no use for the right hon. Gentleman to tell us that the Transport Department can manage ships.

Sir A. MARKHAM

They could not manage a fried fish shop.

Mr. HOUSTON

I do not go quite as far as my hon. Friend. But I do say that there is no business, or profession, or occupation in which people can so easily go astray as in shipping. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, who knows something about business and talks common sense when he stands at that table, told us that the shipping problem was not one problem, but several problems. I say that it is more than that. The shipowning business, the management of shipping, is a labyrinth with ramification so extensive, so intricate, and so involved that certainly an amateur would lose himself entirely, and even an inexperienced or a moderately experienced shipowner would lose himself in that labyrinth. Therefore it is ridiculous to talk about the Transport Department of the Admiralty managing these ships and managing them efficiently. The hon. Member for Barnsley referred to a circular which was issued by Mr. Purdie, and it is one which I did not refer to in the last Debate, for I detest anything in the nature of personalities or charges against individuals.

In the last Debate we had what might be called an apologia of Mr. Graeme Thomson, and then we had a sort of vindication which we are told is entirely voluntary and impulsive on his part, in rushing out to tell the world what a wonderfully managed Department this Transport Department is. If it impresses the right hon. Gentleman it does not impress me. This gentleman, I know, owns three tramp steamers, and he tells us that he is chairman of the Clyde Steamship Owners' Association (Mr. Paterson Purdie), owning over 1,750,000 tons of shipping. The Liverpool Steamship Owners' Association has 4,500,000 tons, and a junior partner of mine was the chairman of that body. But importance must not be attached to that fact, or to appointments like that. The Liverpool Association has a very able secretary in Sir Norman Hill, but even he is wrong, and the association are very often wrong, and were wrong when they decided in favour of the Declaration of London. We are suffering now. We private Members are suffering here because we have no regular Front Bench. An hon. Gentleman opposite referred to the Colonial Secretary, when he was Leader of the Opposition, and how he got up in this House and denounced the ways of the Admiralty in connection with colliers. He read a letter from a Glasgow firm, and I know the firm from which the letter came.

Imagine if we had a Front Bench filled with members of the Opposition. What would happen then, if we had leaders on this Front Bench who were trying to turn the Government out and to get in themselves? We have heard from that bench the suggestion that Gentlemen occupying the Ministerial Bench should be taken outside to adorn the lamp posts. We do not hear that now. There is no suggestion of hanging now, and that is one of the advantages of a Coalition Government. There can be no criticism upon the Government, and if a private Member gets up and makes any charges against the Government, not to injure them but help them, he is accused of want of patriotism, of giving information to the enemy, or even of acting from personal motives. I have no personal motives in this matter, and if I had any personal motive do you think I would get up in this House and denounce my old Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty and the right hon. Gentleman himself (Dr. Macnamara), for whom I have every feeling of friendship. I criticise the Government in order to try to help them in every way, and do you think that I would fall out with the Transport Department of the Admiralty, who can confer favours or inflict injuries? No; I would kow-tow, like a good many others, and I would be better off now. I have had the temerity, or stupidity if you like, to be the one ship owner in this country who has had the audacity, if you like, to criticise the Admiralty and its various Departments from the beginning of the War, and pointing out mistakes. Of course, I am a fool. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why fool!"] Because I suffer for it.

Dr. MACNAMARA

That is a very interesting statement. I think it ought to be proved.

Mr. HOUSTON

I think it will be proved. I have got to suffer everywhere. Do you think I do not suffer in old friendships who support the Admiralty and everyone else. But what I am doing is out of a sense of public duty, and I shall continue to do it but of a sense of public duty. It is of no use the right hon. Gentleman trying to discount that statement, because it is absolutely true. Members of this House will believe me when I say it is true. I do not want any personal advertisement, or any advantage, or anything of that sort. I have done it from the first out of a sense of public duty, and I shall continue to do it.

Dr. MACNAMARA

I should like to ask the hon. Gentleman whether he suggests that because of his criticisms here it can be said that the Department treats him unfairly or unjustly, or has come down on him harshly in the requisitioning of his ships. That is what I took him to mean. I should like to know if that is the charge.

Mr. HOUSTON

Let me say what perhaps the right hon. Gentleman is unaware of. Is he aware that I have by his Department been what I might call threatened in this House itself?

Dr. MACNAMARA

I do not quite follow what the hon. Gentleman means, but no doubt he will tell me. I should like to ask this question.

Mr. HOUSTON

It is very dangerous to ask.

Dr. MACNAMARA

The hon. Gentleman told us of a steamer of his that was adapted to carry frozen meat, and had been taken up by Messrs. Mathwin to carry coals. Is it not a fact that within twenty-four hours he was notified that it was quite a mistake and the steamer was released?

Mr. HOUSTON

No. Would the right hon. Gentleman like me to read the correspondence?

Dr. MACNAMARA

Is it not a fact that within twenty-four hours the hon. Member was notified that it was quite a mistake?

Mr. HOUSTON

Entirely wrong.

Mr. WILKIE

Having been attending a Committee, I am sorry that I have not been able to hear the whole of this discussion, and I have only risen in order to refer to some remarks of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty, who alluded to the way in which officials have done their work, but overlooked some of those who, it cannot be denied, have also done their work—I refer to those who are engaged in the dockyards. I am one of those who have always supported an efficient Navy, and that at a time when such a view was not popular on these benches; and it is a great advantage to nearly the whole world, as the First Lord of the Admiralty pointed out yesterday, that we have that efficient Navy to-day. When the War broke out, those who were vitally interested both in the construction of war ships and merchant ships, did their level best to assist the Admiralty, at their request. The Parliamentary Secretary, when stating what the officials of the Admiralty have done, ought, I think, to have also included those of the rank and file, with their officers, who have given every assistance possible to the Government. The question has been raised more than once about the dilution of labour. From the beginning of the War labour has been diligent in giving assistance, as I think the right hon. Gentleman will admit, and that assistance, given at the beginning, is still being continued. If there is any complaint it is possibly from one or two dockyards where the complaint is that there might be possibly more work done. That is entirely in the hands of the Admiralty.

I have in my possession, from some of the principal shipbuilding firms in the United Kingdom, letters of thanks to our workers for their efforts in assisting them in the dilution of skilled labour and in carrying out their work. We have sent nearly 2,000 men to His Majesty's dockyards, and I think that it is only fair to recognise how the workmen have assisted in this matter. It is a fact that a number of highly skilled workmen in His Majesty's dockyards have assisted in every way in the dilution of labour, and wherever they have been called upon, either by the dockyards or by large private firms, or at the request of the Minister of Munitions, they have endeavoured to render all the help they can. We are told that the building of merchant vessels is just as necessary in some respects as the building of warships, and even with that the workmen have agreed. In reference to the Member for Liverpool (Mr. Houston), I would observe that with all their complaints the shipowners of the country have had the time of their lives, and the complaint of the workers is that while the shipowners and employers are getting from 50 per cent. to 100 per cent, for new vessels, and when old vessels change hands they get from 300 to 600 per cent., they, the shipbuilding workers, have only got 10 per cent., which, apparently, is to be the limit. That is the difficulty workmen feel in these matters. It has been clearly pointed out from these benches that neither the legal nor the medical profession have ever diluted their labour, and they require to dilute it just as much as the rest of us at the present time. Therefore I think it is only just to the workers, who have shown by the number they have sent to the fighting forces—(from our own organisation we have sent over 2,000)—as well as assisting the Admiralty in war work and giving assistance in private shipyards wherever possible, therefore, they should have these efforts put on record in order that it may be known what the men have done in giving their blood and their life, and working all hours in many cases. I think it was unfair that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty, in referring to what others had done, did not likewise recognise what has been done by those for whom I speak on behalf of the country.

Sir THOMAS ESMONDE

I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman the Parliamentary Secretary has not been able to make any concession with regard to the pay of midshipmen. I thought the Government would have acted with a little more generosity in the matter. I endeavoured to put the case very moderately, and at the least I think he might have agreed to an inquiry. If we are met with a refusal there is nothing more to be said now, but we shall have more to say about it by and by. No matter what the right hon. Gentleman thinks, it is my conviction that these young officers are not sufficiently paid. It is all very well to say that between the Government allowance and the parents' allowance they have quite as much money as they want. I think that 1s. 9d. per day is very miserable pay for a rich country like this to give its young naval officers, especially when we consider that the Government take 1s. 6d. of that amount, leaving the midshipman with 3d. per day, a huge sum to dispose of. The right hon. Gentleman, I know, does not agree with these figures, but with all respect to him, I am perfectly satisfied they are correct, and I have inquired into the matter.

Dr. MACNAMARA

I have also inquired.

Sir T. ESMONDE

If the Government will not make any additional contribution, will they agree to the parents' contributions being increased? I am convinced that these young officers do not get enough to live on.

Dr. MACNAMARA

There is nothing to prevent a parent increasing the contribution if the parents so desire.

Sir T. ESMONDE

I mean the contribution through the Admiralty.

Dr. MACNAMARA

I will look into that matter, but surely he can make a contribution himself.

Sir T. ESMONDE

As the right hon. Gentleman is aware, the Admiralty send circulars to the parents in which they say that midshipmen should not have too much money. The parents agree to a certain extent, but my suggestion is that the Admiralty should allow the parents to make a larger contribution through the Admiralty since they are not prepared to increase the pay from 3d. per day. Parents now are allowed to make a contribution of £10 in addition to the regular contribution of £50, but that is only to be expended under certain conditions, such as if these young officers go on shore. The expenditure of the money is at the discretion of their commanding officer. That is quite right, and in principle I agree, but I would suggest that the Government should either diminish the messing charge or else allow the parents to make an extra contribution through the Admiralty. We hear accounts of the conditions in the Fleet, and we know perfectly well how extremely arduous are the duties and the weather they encounter, so that altogether these young officers are not living on a bed of roses. We have the suspicion that the food supplied on board His Majesty's ships is not all it might be, and that very often there is a scarcity. When the Admiralty make a deduction of an amount for messing they ought to see that the quality of the messing is better than it very often is. I am sorry the right hon. Gentleman cannot consider this matter, which will not be allowed to drop. He will, I think, be well advised to have it further investigated by somebody who understands it, and perhaps he will have some little trouble about that and some other questions.

Colonel YATE

There are two points to which I wish to refer. The right hon. Gentleman told us that midshipmen ranged from fifteen years and six months to nineteen years, and that he considered the pay they were getting at the present time was as much as they were worth.

Dr. MACNAMARA

I did not say that.

Colonel YATE

However much they may be worth at fifteen years and six months, I think that at seventeen or eighteen they are worth a little more than 1s. 9d. per day. The point I wish to raise is the new system which the right hon. Gentleman seems to have introduced into the Service by which parents are permitted to plead in forma pauperis if they are not able to pay the £50 per year. We have, of course, in the Army King's Cadetships at Sandhurst, and something similar, I suppose, in the Navy, but when once ranked as a midshipman, all the officers should be on the same level, and we should not have officers of the same rank serving side by side and on different terms, one having £50 paid by his parents, and the other £50 from the State. The money should all come from the same source. I think this new system will not be appreciated and I hope the Admiralty will consider whether it really is good policy. The second point I wish to mention is the question of the enormous cuttings from the pay of officers on account of Income Tax. I raised this question before the Chancellor of the Exchequer with regard to the pay of officers in the Navy. An officer of the rank of commander in the Navy has pay of about £300 per year, and, if he is a married man he insures his life to make provision of say £100 a year for his wife and family in case of his death, which is as much as he can afford and not too much, and his insurance premium probably amounts to £60 to £65, and when war broke out, like all officers he had to pay to the insurance company at least £150 extra premium for war risks. There are officers who could not do that themselves, and had to borrow the money in order to pay the extra premium. They dare not give up the insurance because otherwise the policy would be forfeited and their wives might be left penniless. The Chancellor of the Exchequer gave an exemption from extra war taxes up to £300, but we asked that officers of commander rank and other rank up to £400 should be given the benefit of the exemption. I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty to press this matter on the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and to urge that the exemption for £300 should be extended to £400.

Mr. KING

I listened to the Debate yesterday and to-day, and I have come to the conclusion that the House of Commons has been treated in a peculiar way. We had the Treasury Bench and the Front Opposition Bench full for a certain part of yesterday and to-day when one ex-Minister was warning and admonishing and lecturing the right hon. Gentlemen who were his colleagues a few months ago, and we had the not very edifying spectacle of the two Front Benches stretching forth their arms to one another and washing their own dirty linen. That is not calculated to give confidence to the country and not calculated, so far as I can see, to be really helpful. It has, however, served one purpose. It has shown to the House and the country what keen observers and judicious men have long realised, namely, that there are a great many points of divergence, division, and even disunion in the ranks of Ministers, and that on many points of their policy they are not clear, they are not consistent, and are groping their way. You cannot grope your way through a war. This War has been so unexpectedly successful for the Central Powers, not because of any inherent righteousness or justice or even strength, but because they have been consistent in their policy all through. They have been consistent with one another, and in their aims. What they have set out to aim at they have persistently and consistently pursued to the end. That is what our Government and our Allied Governments do not do. This is a theme which I have enlarged upon before and on which I am ready to enlarge again, namely, that there has been neither consistency nor harmony in the policy pursued by Ministers, and consequently we are suffering daily immense loss in the lives of our people and in the material resources of the country. I say that we want a consistent policy, and I will give an illustration of two minor matters which stand out clear as evidence of the vacillating, changing, shifting ground on which the Government stand. The first point is that of the Anti-Aircraft Service which defends us now.

The CHAIRMAN

That does not come under this Vote, which covers a period after the 31st March next. I understand that this Department in the next financial year will not be under this Vote.

Mr. KING

I am very glad to have that assurance. I have made inquiries, and I find that many of the anti-aircraft stations in London are still under the Admiralty, and they have no idea when they are going to be transferred. I have also had the information that some of the work that has been put upon the War Office personnel has been so inefficiently carried through, and with such unfortunate results, which I will not particularise, that fortunately for the Service, and for the safety of this City, they are continuing the Admiralty in those stations. I will not pursue this further. Of this I am certain, that at the present time many or several anti-aircraft stations in London are still manned and under the Admiralty, and there is no certainty when they will pass over to the War Office. That fact alone justifies me in saying that the policy of the Government in a matter like this is shifty, groping, uncertain, with no clearness of decision, and with no vision. Let me remind the right hon. Gentleman of the well-known saying that where there is no vision a people perish. Even the right hon. Gentleman will admit that this has not been a happy instance of clear, consistent, steady policy, and that is what we want at the present time.

8.0 P.M.

I am now coming to another important matter which is undoubtedly under the Admiralty, and has always been under the Admiralty, and on which so far as I know we have had no discussion in this House. It is an extremely important matter, to which we ought to give more attention. I say that because it is the question which is at the present moment of extraordinary importance in the relations of the United States. It is the arming of merchantmen. This question, and the Admiralty policy concerning it, have led up to a great political crisis in the United States, involving its future relations to the Allies. Policy, therefore, on this question is obviously a matter of great importance. I must go back a certain way, nearly two years, and remind the House that during the summer of 1914—the right hon. Gentleman will probably remember, although possibly other Members of the Committee will not—I put down a long series of questions on the armed merchantmen policy of the Government to the First Lord of the Admiralty. I think he evaded the difficulty which I indicated, and I had a conversation with him at the time in which he practically told me his position, but which went to make my mind clear that the great difficulties of arming merchantmen and the diplomatic and foreign relations which would be raised by it, had not been fairly faced. That was the position when war broke out. Our Admiralty had arranged for the arming of a certain indefinite number of merchantmen. Whether these were to be armed in order to be taken over by the Government and used as auxiliary cruisers—which has actually been done, and about which, as these vessels have passed under complete Admiralty control and command, and are on the Navy list, I have no more to say—or whether those vessels were to be armed in order to defend themselves against possible hostile attacks, there was no clear decision taken at the time we went to war, and no clear indication was given. Probably the Admiralty had no clear idea itself of what its policy on armed merchantmen would be. It very soon appeared, however, that a large number of our merchantmen on the great trade routes, especially to America, were to be armed for defence against hostile craft. This was not altogether a new policy, but it had been made under Admiralty control and Admiralty orders into really a new development of naval warfare.

On the 25th of August, 1914, the British Ambassador at Washington informed the State Department that a number of armed British merchantmen would soon be visit- ing American ports, that is, within three weeks of the opening of the War, and that their armament was solely a precautionary measure adopted for purposes of defence against attack by hostile craft. I shall be able to quote one or two State documents which so far as I know have not been published on this side of the Atlantic, and I am quoting from those published in America. I think, therefore, that they are worthy of some consideration. I am sorry that here, as in other matters, we who try patriotically to criticise and suggest questions of real policy of high interest to the Government are not fairly considered. There is nobody connected with the Admiralty on the Treasury Bench. I know the right hon. Gentleman is in the House, and I hope he is consulting the officials on the subject I am raising, for this is a very important matter. I was pointing out that within three weeks of war breaking out, the British Minister informed the State Department at Washington that armed merchantmen would be visiting American ports. Mr. Bryan, who was then Secretary of State, replied immediately acknowledging this Note and adding that he understood it to imply an assurance that armed merchantmen—this is important—would never fire unless first fired upon, and that they would never in any circumstances attack any vessel. That was the assumption with which this policy of armed merchantmen was immediately accepted at Washington. But during the following week two vessels arrived in New York armed with so many guns that difficulties were immediately raised by the United States authorities, and on the 4th of September—this is striking, only a month after war broke out—our Ambassador at Washington, Sir Cecil Spring-Rice, informed Mr. Bryan that these vessels were to be disarmed. Your policy changes within a month of the outbreak of war. These vessels were to be disarmed in order to avoid the difficult question of the character and degree of armament which would justify detention. The purport of my questions to the First Lord of the Admiralty was that the difficulties which would arise with port authorities, with Customs authorities, with neutrals, in the case of the arming of these merchantmen would be such that the policy could not be carried out. That actually occurred, and, as a matter of fact, here we have the Ambassador, a month after the outbreak of war, throwing aside, no doubt after consideration with the Foreign Office and, I suppose, the Cabinet, the policy on which we started at the beginning of the War. It is rather a long story, and I am not going to pursue all the steps of it, though it is very instructive, and no one can really understand the peculiar political position, and the crisis at Washington which has just been passed through in the last few days, without going into the question. But I am going to carry it a step or two further.

On the 19th of September the State Department of the United States issued a memorandum saying what it was going to consider as proper defensive armament. Of course, it is not denied that in time of war merchant ships may carry purely defensive armament, but when the Government starts the arming itself of merchantmen with its own guns, and presumably with its own gunners, then, of course, difficulties at once arise. What the United States held was to be actually meant by defensive armament was as follows. The calibre of guns must not exceed six inches. Guns and small arms were to be few in number. No guns were to be mounted forward. The quantity of munition carried was to be quite small. Officers and crew were to be on a peace standard. The vessel was to follow the usual trade route and not to go out of it. The vessel was not to carry an unusual amount of fuel, and the cargo was to consist of articles of commerce unsuited to a ship of war engaged in operations against an enemy. These provisions are of course quite clear, and quite plain; but we accepted them, and I contend that our acceptance of these conditions again meant a departure from the policy which had been prepared before the War, which had been indicated in various ways and in the speeches of First Lords from that Bench for a year or two previously, and which was the policy of the Government when the War opened. Of course, even then, even against that principle of arming merchantmen for purely defensive purposes, there was a protest from Germany. That we might have expected. Germany could not allow the United States to lay down a policy in this respect which we would adopt without some protest. I will not follow out all the various steps, but I must point out that the whole of this question was brought into another sphere, in relation to another set of questions, with the opening of the submarine campaign against merchant shipping. Before this War, submarines had not been conceived of, or if they had been conceived of their full importance had not been realised, and I do not think the full importance of submarine warfare against merchant shipping had been discussed.

When Germany, with remarkable audacity and a certain amount of success, started this policy of destroying merchant shipping through the submarine, of course the whole question of arming merchantmen came into a different set of facts, into a different position altogether, because armament which would be no use except possibly purely defensively against small ships of war would be, against a submarine, capable of very effective action, and, of course, when that terrible crime and horrible German outrage, the sinking of the "Lusitania," occurred, the Germans had just one ground for justifying their action, a ground, of course, which was only plausible to those who were prejudiced in their favour, but a ground which, making its appeal to the strict, neutral position which the United States had taken up, was very important. The "Lusitania" was in our Navy List, a large amount of money had been contributed towards it by the Admiralty, and it was believed to have guns of a defensive character. That being so, I say that our policy of arming merchantmen was a very unfortunate one.

The CHAIRMAN

This discussion on the arming of merchantmen hardly comes on this Vote. It is surely the Prime Minister or the Foreign Secretary who would answer on a question of that kind. I do not think it can be held that these negotiations affecting Diplomatic questions come on the Navy Votes.

Mr. KING

I will not say that the question is beyond the right hon. Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench, but it is perhaps rather beyond the range of the questions which they expected to deal with to-night. Therefore I will not pursue it further in detail. The facts I have brought forward show that the Admiralty policy in this matter has not been thought out, has not been really consistent, has been changed from time to time, and consequently has not been as effective as it ought to have been. We ought to have some statement of some kind or other concerning policy or principles. I will not ask for full details of all the merchantmen that have been armed, but I think we ought to have more information on the matter. We ought to have more information on many Admiralty matters. A demand for more information when the time has gone by when any publication could really assist the enemy was made last night, and I repeat it to-night. The country would be heartened and encouraged, and we in this House would take up a warmer and less critical attitude if we were taken more fully into the confidence of the Government, We have had no statement whatever about the number of submarines that have been accounted for. Surely it would be possible to give us information on this subject, say up to three months ago? I suggest that every three months we might have a statement showing the number of submarines or other craft which have been accounted for. If we had periodic statements on this and other matters of high naval policy it would do a great deal to hearten the country, to impress our Allies, and to get favourable opinions from neutrals, and it would also satisfy many Members of this House who are inclined to hesitate, or, if not to hesitate, to be critical and suspicious. After all, none of us want to be either critical or suspicious at the present time if we can be whole-hearted and enthusiastic supporters of the Government. I am sorry if I have brought forward a question which cannot now be dealt with, but I hope the importance of the matter will be understood by the Government.

Question put, and agreed to.

WAGES, ETC., OF OFFICERS, SEAMEN, AND BOYS, COASTGUARD, AND ROYAL MARINES.

Resolved,

1. "That a sum, not exceeding £1,000, be granted to His Majesty to defray the Expense of Wages, etc., to Officers, Seamen, and Boys, Coastguard and Royal Marines, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1917."

Resolutions to be reported to-morrow (Thursday); Committee to sit again Tomorrow.