Commons Sitting of 26 April 1917

Preamble
The House met at a Quarter before Three of the clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
South Eastern and London, Chatham, and Dover Railways Bill,
Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
Railway Bills (Group 1),
Sir GODFREY BARING reported from the Committee on Group 1 of Railway Bills; That, for the convenience of parties, the Committee had adjourned till Wednesday next, at half-past Ten of the clock.
Report to lie upon the Table.

BOARD OF EDUCATION.
Copy presented of Minute of the Board of Education, dated 26th April 1917, modifying the Regulations for Public Elementary Schools, 1912, in England and Wales, as already modified by the Minutes dated 4th July 1913, 24th June 1914, 25th November 1914, and 21st March 1917 [by Command]; to lie upon the table.

INFANT WELFARE.
Return presented relative to Grants from the Board of Education [ordered 3rd April; Mr. Acland;] to lie upon the Table.
Return presented relative to Contributions from the Rates [ordered 3rd April; Mr. Acland;] to lie upon the Table.

NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE COMMISSION (IRELAND).
Copy presented of Order, dated 19th April 1917, made by the National Health Insurance Joint Committee acting jointly with the Irish Insurance Commissioners, entitled the National Health Insurance (Temporary Employment in Agriculture) (Ireland) Order, 1917 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  WAR.

    RUSSIA AND POLAND.
    Mr. ASQUITHasked the Prime Minister whether His Majesty's Government is now in a position to make any statement in regard to Poland?
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Bonar Law): As the House is aware, one of the first acts of the Provisional Russian Government was to issue a Proclamation to the Poles, recognising their right to decide their own destiny, and stating that the creation of an independent Polish State would be a sure guarantee of durable peace in Europe. I am confident that I rightly interpret the feeling of this House when I say that we welcome that declaration and look forward to the time when, thanks to the liberal and statesmanlike action of the Provisional Russian Government, Poland will appear again in international life and take her share with other nations, in working together for the common good of civilisation. Our efforts in the War will be directed towards helping Poland to realise her unity on the lines described in the Russian Proclamation, that is to say, under conditions which will make her strong and independent. We hope that after the War Great Britain will remain united to Poland in bonds of close friendship. [See OFFICIATE REPORT, 2nd May, 1917, col. 342, Vol. XCIII.]
    Mr. DILLON: May I ask whether the Provisional Government in Russia, in issuing that Proclamation, and the British Government, in giving their assent to it, have inserted in that Proclamation any provision giving a veto on the independence of Poland to the large number of German residents in that country?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I do not know that there is any such condition, but there is certainly no part of Poland where the conditions are the same as in the district of Ireland to which the hon. Member refers.
    Mr. KILBRIDE: How far is Poland from London?
    Commander WEDGWOODasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any information from

    2555
    Russia as to the wishes or intentions of the Provisional Government as to including in the conditions of peace the reuniting of Poland, including the territories of Posen and Cracow, in the free Poland of the future?
    Lord R. CECIL: I have no information beyond the Proclamation issued by the Provisional Russian Government to the Poles.
    Commander WEDGWOOD: Has the Noble Lord no information as to the attitude of the Workmen's and Soldiers' Union on this point?
    Lord R. CECIL: I have no reason whatever to think that there is any difference of opinion among those in power in Russia on the subject.
    Commander WEDGWOOD: Or the question of reuniting Poland?
    Lord R. CECIL: I have no reason to suppose so.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: Has the Foreign Office entered into communication with any organisation in Russia besides the Provisional Government?
    Lord R. CECIL: No, of course not; but a question is to be answered later in the day by the Leader of the House.

  FOOD SUPPLIES.

    TILLAGE OF LAND (IRELAND).
    Mr. FITZPATRICKasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if he will state the number of Tillage Exemption Orders granted to landowners in the Ossory Division of Queen's County?
    The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Duke): The Department of Agriculture are of opinion that it would be undesirable at the present stage to publish the detailed information asked for.
    Mr. REDDYasked the Chief Secretary if he is aware that Mr. J. Perry Good-body, Clara, King's County, who owns about six square miles of land, has refused all requests to rent any portion of the land by conacre or otherwise for tillage purposes to any of the occupiers of the small, congested, and uneconomic holdings which surround his property on all sides; and whether the Government proposes to take any action to remedy this state of affairs?
    Mr. DUKE: I am informed that Mr. Goodbody declined to let the Tully Farm for conacre, but that he was willing to sell it for cash. He offered 12 acres of land elsewhere, but the offer was refused. As Mr. Goodbody is tilling more land than is required by the Compulsory Tillage Regulations, no case arises for action by the Government in that respect.
    Mr. REDDY: How many acres of the six square miles of the land is Mr. Good-body tilling?
    Mr. DUKE: If the hon. Member will put that down I will try to get an answer.

    FISH CONSIGNMENTS (COUNTY CORK).
    Mr. O'LEARYasked the Chief Secretary whether he is aware that a quantity of fresh fish consigned to the English markets from Baltimore, Allihies, and other fishing centres in West Cork was held up in Cork in course of transit within the past week for want of adequate railway and tonnage facilities; whether he can state the number of boxes of fish so held up and whether, having regard to the scarcity of food and the discouragement which such a condition of affairs is likely to have on the fishing industry, he will take the necessary steps to prevent this state of things arising again?
    Mr. DUKE: Considerable quantities of fish were offered in the South of Ireland for transit to English markets during the past week, and in the case of part of these consignments delays occurred. The Railway Executive Committee will do everything possible to prevent any avoidable delay.
    Mr. O'LEARY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that on Saturday last a large quantity of fish had to be destroyed?
    Mr. DUKE: It is quite possible that in the event of an exceptionally large catch of mackerel or any other seasonable fish the arrangements which have been made in ordinary circumstances for forwarding are not sufficient.
    Mr. FLAVIN: Why are there not sufficient railway and shipping facilities for the forwarding of food?
    Mr. DUKE: Anyone who is familiar with the circumstances of the fishing industry know that occasionally there are cases where you get a very great take of fish, and it is impossible to foresee a case of that sort and ensure that none of it is lost.
    Mr. O'LEARY: Will the right hon. Gentleman put before the Congested Districts Board the necessity of establishing ice depots in some of the larger fishing centres in the South and West of Ireland, so as to conserve the fish?
    Mr. DUKE: That suggestion shall be considered.
    Mr. O'SHAUGHNESSY: Has not the right hon. Gentleman's notice been called to the frequent complaints of delay in the carriage of goods by rail in Ireland?
    Mr. DUKE: That is so wide a question that I would rather not answer it until I have time to look into the allegation.

    ARTIFICIAL MANURES (IRELAND).
    Mr. BOLANDasked the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland) whether any definite steps have been taken to secure for Ireland an increased quantity of artificial manures; and, if not, whether every effort is being made to ensure that the increase of tillage now being undertaken is not wasted by the impossibility of securing the necessary manures?
    Mr. T. W. RUSSELL (Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture, Ireland): The general position in regard to the supply of artificial manures was intimated in reply to a similar question by the hon. Member on the 23rd instant. I am, however, glad to state that since that date the position has improved somewhat, and increased quantities have been coming into Ireland. The Department of Agriculture fully recognise the importance of the matter, and will continue to make every effort to secure adequate supplies for the country's needs.
    Captain DOUGLAS HALL: Is it not a fact that chemical manufacturers are at a considerable loss in supplying these artificial fertilisers to the farmers, rather than exporting them?

    POTATOES (SPRAYING MATERIAL).
    Mr. BOLANDasked whether arrangements have been made to secure the necessary amount of spraying material in view of the increased area of tillage which is being planted with potatoes?
    Mr. RUSSELL: Arrangements have been made (as intimated on 7th ultimo. in reply to a similar question by the hon. Member for North Monaghan) by the Department of Agriculture whereby
    2558
    sufficient supplies of spraying material will be available to meet the requirements of farmers in Ireland this season, provided the materials are ordered without further delay and that delivery is taken at once. This course has been urged upon both farmers and merchants by means of Press notices, circulars to traders, and the issue of special leaflets.
    Captain DONELAN: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what steps he proposes to take with a view to ensuring that this spraying material shall be of the proper quality?
    Mr. RUSSELL: The material will be tested before it goes to Ireland. The great point is that farmers and merchants shall place their orders at once, because French and Italian purchasers are in the market.
    Sir PHILLIP MAGNUS: Will the spraying material be supplied even if the spraying machine is not available?
    Mr. RUSSELL: I am not quite sure, but I do not think that spraying material would toe much use without the spraying machine. The Department has provided for 5,000 spraying machines to reach Ireland in good time.
    Mr. FLAVIN: Is there a fixed price in Ireland for soda and sulphate of copper for spraying, and, if so, is it from the right hon. Gentleman's Department or from some other Department that Irish merchants must apply for this material?
    Mr. RUSSELL: There is a fixed price, and the merchants are quite aware as to the source to which they ought to apply.
    Captain DONELAN: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether any analysis will be guaranteed?
    Mr. RUSSELL: I think that is further than I should like to go, but we shall take every precaution to see that the material is of the proper quality.

    FISH TRANSPORT (IRELAND).
    Sir THOMAS ESMONDEasked the President of the Board of Trade if, as the result of his inquiry, Irish fishermen will be exempted, like the Scottish, from the Order securing the prepayment of carriage on goods sent by passenger trains?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Roberts): The inquiries now being made on this

    2559
    subject are not yet complete, but I will communicate with the hon. Baronet as soon as any decision has been reached.
    Mr. O'DONNELL: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the great possible inconvenience and loss has been caused to fishermen in the South and West of Ireland owing to this Regulation?
    Mr. ROBERTS: If they are dissatisfied, the matter can be taken into consideration, and I will do all I can to expedite a decision.

    MERCANTILE MARINE.
    Sir FORTESCUE FLANNERYasked the total quantities of bread, meat, and other provisions used per annum by the British mercantile marine; whether the whole of these provisions are obtained in this country, or whether any part of them is required under the Defence of the Realm Act to be obtained by each ship during her stay in ports abroad, especially in those countries from which food is imported; and whether steps will be taken to ascertain the facts fully with a view to framing such Regulations as will economise the supply of all ship's food available for consumption in this country?
    Mr. ROBERTS: I regret that it is not possible to give the statistics asked for in the first part of this question. It is the wish of the Government to encourage the purchase of ships' stores at ports abroad instead of in the United Kingdom, and communications have been addressed to representative shipowners' associations in this sense. The question of further action in the matter is receiving careful consideration by the Board of Trade and by the Ministry of Food.

    INTOXICATING LIQUORS (MATERIALS).
    Mr. CECIL HARMSWORTHasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food if barley and other grain is being used in the manufacture of beers or spirits that are exported to countries other than Allied countries; and whether, if so, he will consider the importance of disallowing such manufacture and export forthwith?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY Of FOOD CONTROL (Captain Bathurst): A proclamation prohibiting the exportation of all beer except under licence will be issued next week. I
    2560
    am obtaining from the Customs and Excise Department precise information in reply to the first part of the hon. Member's question, which I will furnish to him as soon as I receive it. As regards potable spirits, exports in most cases are made not from spirits now manufactured, but from stocks. The only exception was gin, in which case until recently licences were being granted on a restricted scale for its manufacture for export purposes. It has now been decided to stop entirely the issue of these licences.
    Mr. DUNCAN MILLARasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether, looking to the fact that bread and sugar consumers are now rationed, he will consider the advisability of placing consumers of beverages manufactured from grain and sugar on exactly the same footing by rationing them on the basis of the amount of grain and sugar required to produce their favourite beverages instead of allowing them, as at present, to consume double rations?
    Captain BATHURST: I understand the hon. Member to suggest that a person who takes beverages requiring grain and sugar for their production should reduce their ration of actual bread and sugar proportionately. The proposed rations are so far voluntary only, but this ingenious suggestion is well worthy of the patriotic consideration of consumers of those beverages.
    Mr. A. WILLIAMSasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food if he will state what quantity of grain is being used weekly for the production of coloured malt with which to brew stout and black beer; what is the urgent reason for the continued production of those liquors at the expense of the food of the country; to what extent licences for the continued production of coloured malt are current; and whether it is intended to issue further licences for that purpose?
    Captain BATHURST: The quantity of grain so used is about 250 tons per week. The output of these beverages is limited to the same extent as that of beer. Licences are granted down to the 30th June next, and their continuance will depend upon the continued production of beer.
    Mr. WILLIAMSasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether the 40,000 quarters of malt used weekly for brewing other than brew-

    2561
    ing for the Army, together with the other cereals used for the production of distilled and fermented drinks, would suffice to provide bread rations for about four and a-half million persons at the rate of three and a-half pounds of bread per person each week; and, if not, can he say for how many persons?
    Captain BATHURST: Practically all the grain now being used for the purposes described in the question has already been malted. The extent to which malt can be used in the bulk for human food is uncertain, so that any calculation such as that suggested by the hon. Member is somewhat hypothetical.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: Can it not be used to dilute the other grain which is now used in making flour?
    Captain BATHURST: I believe that that is possible up to a certain proportion, and that matter is being very closely investigated at the present time.
    Mr. D. WHITEasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he is aware that sugar importers, on sending to the London docks to fetch their sugar, have received a note from the Port of London Authority saying that delivery of their sugar was stopped by the Food Controller unless for brewers; whether a similar course has been taken at Other ports; what is the quantity of sugar in respect of which such notes have been sent, and what is the quantity that has passed for brewers during the present year; and whether steps will be taken to reverse the policy indicated by the note?
    Captain BATHURST: The arrangements referred to were made by the Board of Customs and Excise and the Port of London Authority for securing the observance of the Brewers' Sugar Order, 1917. Similar arrangements exist at other ports. The object of this Order was to prevent impure sugar from finding its way into retail shops; and the restriction of the use of the sugar to brewing made it possible at once to stop further imports of brewing sugar. This restriction, however, has now been abandoned, and manufacturers are allowed to remove brewers' sugar from warehouses under licence on condition of reckoning it at 80 per cent. of its full weight as part of their sugar supplies for the year. The notes to which the hon. Member refers were sent only to
    2562
    persons who neglected to obtain the Food Controller's licence. I am unable to state what is the quantity of sugar that has been passed for the use of brewers during the present year.

    EXPORTS.
    Mr. C. HARMSWORTHasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food if food products, manufactured or otherwise, are still being exported from the United Kingdom to countries other than Allied countries; and whether, if so, he will consider the importance of disallowing all such exports forthwith?
    Captain BATHURST: I have already informed the House that in some cases raw foodstuffs are exported, for return to this country, in manufactured form. A limited number of other articles which are classed in the Customs Returns under the heading of "Food and Drink," but which have little or no food value, and of which there is no shortage, are occasionally still licensed for export to neutral countries. Subject to the above explanations, the answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. I should add that goods which merely come to this country for transhipment on through bills of lading have hitherto not come under the export restrictions, although they appear in the Customs Returns as exports, and have consequently not required licences for export. Steps are being taken to bring all such transhipment goods under the same conditions as goods for export.

    MILLING RESTRICTIONS.
    Sir J. LONSDALEasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food if he will state what restrictions are imposed upon the milling of flour and the baking of bread in Ireland; and if it is intended to take control of the flour mills in Ireland, as has been done in Great Britain?
    Captain BATHURST: Unless otherwise specified, the Orders issued from the Ministry of Food apply to Ireland as equally with other parts of the United Kingdom. The answer to the second part of the question is accordingly in the affirmative.
    Mr. GIN NELL: Will the hon. Gentleman say whether the Ministry of Food have consulted the Irish Millers' Association upon this subject?
    Captain BATHURST: I cannot at present say that, but in this matter there is no reason to discriminate between different parts of the United Kingdom. The Food Controller does not propose to do so.
    Mr. GINNELL: Has he not consulted the millers in this country, and will he consult the Irish Millers' Association upon this subject?
    Captain BATHURST: No, Sir; there is no reason to give special attention to the millers in any part of the United Kingdom.

    SUGAR.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he is aware that there are families in Glasgow who have been unable to purchase any sugar for several consecutive weeks; and what measures the Ministry of Food proposes to take to secure that families obtain the ration of sugar to which they are entitled?
    Captain BATHURST: As a result of inspection by the Ministry of Food additional supplies of sugar at the rate of seven tons a week have lately been sent to Glasgow. If the hon. Member will inform me of the district in which a shortage is still being experienced, further inquiries will be made into the matter.
    Mr. SCOTT: Does the hon. Gentleman intend to wait until there is no sugar at all to regulate before he introduces some scheme of compulsory rationing?
    Captain BATHURST: No, Sir. I am afraid the hon. Gentleman is not fully informed as to the case about which he has raised an inquiry. As a matter of fact, the municipal authorities estimated the additional population of Glasgow, and on their own figures their requirements have been met.
    Mr. SCOTT: What is a family to do if the grocer with whom they are customers refuses to supply any sugar at all?
    Captain BATHURST: I doubt if that supplementary question arises out of the main question; but in any case, if that has occurred, if the hon. Member will only let me know the facts, I will do my best to get a remedy.

    ICE CREAM.
    Mr. ROWLANDSasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether his attention has been called to the quantity of ice cream which is made; and, as sugar, milk, corn flour, etc., are used in its production, he will consider the advisability of prohibiting the sale of it, so that the ingredients used in its manufacture may be used for food?
    Captain BATHURST: I have not been able to ascertain the quantity of ice cream Which is made; but the suggestion made by the hon. Member as to the advisability of prohibiting its sale will be borne in mind.
    Mr. ROWLANDS: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that at this time of the year there is a great deal of ice cream about the streets wherever there is a gathering of children, and would not the same materials be better utilised in the form of food?
    Captain BATHURST: The matter shall be borne in mind, but it represents a very small quantity of essential food.

    TEA.
    Mr. FLAVINasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether the attention of the Food Controller has been called to the discontent existing and arising among tea-growers who have patriotically contributed 40. per cent. of their incoming Indian and Ceylon tea-crops to provide a 2s. 4d. tea to the public owing to permission having been given by the Food Controller to blenders, dealers, and distributors to substitute other than Indian and Ceylon tea in the 2s. 4d. controlled tea; whether he is aware that, owing to this permission, commonest low-grade China teas have during the past fortnight risen 2d. per pound on the wholesale market; and will immediate steps be taken to prevent this fraud upon growers and the public generally taking place?
    Captain BATHURST: There is no evidence of any considerable discontent on the part of the tea-growers with the arrangements which have been made far ensuring a supply of tea to the public at a reasonable price. The market price of all teas has recently advanced, and the tendency is for this movement to be more emphasised in the case of lower than of higher qualities. I am not aware that such advance is entirely due to the cause suggested.

    NON-ALCOHOLIC BEER.
    Mr. A. WILLIAMSasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food if he will state what are the reasons which have induced his Department to issue licences for the use of grain in the manufacture of non-alcoholic beer; whether beer, whether alcoholic or non alcoholic, has a greater or less food value than the materials of which it is made; and what quantity of grain is used for this purpose weekly?
    Captain BATHURST: Licences have been issued for the use of grain in the manufacture of non-alcoholic beer, because it was thought unfair to stop the trade altogether. Non-alcoholic beer has a smaller food value than other beer, and the materials of which beer is made have a. greater food-value than their liquid product. The licences issued for the production of non-alcoholic beer since the restrictive Order came into force on the 20th February, 1917, cover only 62 quarters of malt.

    BREAD YEAST.
    Mr. A. WILLIAMSasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food if he will state what investigations have been made by his Department into the methods of leavening bread without bread yeast; whether any such methods are more economical of flour than the use of bread yeast; and whether any investigations have also been made into the possibility of making bread yeast otherwise than as a by-product of processes which consume foodstuffs in the manufacture of alcohol?
    Captain BATHURST: Investigations are being conducted as to the best method of economising yeast in the making of bread and also into the possibility of obtaining effective substitutes for yeast. I am not yet in a position to state the result of these investigations. The possibility of making yeast otherwise than as a by-product of processes which consume foodstuffs in the manufacture of alcohol forms part of this investigation. These problems are by no means free from difficulty.

  REBELLION IN IRELAND.

    GAELIC LEAGUE OFFICIALS (EXPULSION ORDER).
    Mr. LYNCHasked the Chief Secretary (1) whether it has been brought
    2566
    to his notice that expulsion orders have been issued against Sean O'Murthville, Gaelic League organiser for county Clare, and Eamon Waldron, who succeeded him as organiser; whether the intention is to destroy the Gaelic League by such means; whether the Gaelic League is constituted as a lawful association; whether, if these proceedings are not aimed directly at the Gaelic League, he will advise the release of these gentlemen or at last formulate charges against them; (2) whether he can state the reasons that have led to the order excluding Eamon Waldron, Gaelic League organiser for Clare, from all parts of Ireland except Waterford; whether any charge has been formulated against Eamon Waldron or whether any kind of trial has taken place; and why he is restricted in particular to Waterford?
    Mr. DUKE: As to Sean O'Murthville, whom I suppose to be John O'Hurley, of Limerick, his case cannot be distinguished from those of the other deported men. As to Eamon Waldron, I must refer to the answer given to the hon. Member for North Westmeath on Monday last.
    Mr. LYNCH: Will the right hon. Gentleman prevent a report of these proceedings reaching Russia?
    Mr. DUKE: I shall not take any special action in that respect.

    RUSSIA (NICHOLAS II.- DOMICILE).
    Mr. OUTHWAITEasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether His Majesty's Government has made any proposal to the Provisional Government of Russia regarding the future domicile of the late Czar?
    The MINISTER of BLOCKADE (Lord Robert Cecil): His Majesty's Government have taken no initiative in the matter.

    FRIENDLY ALIENS (ENLISTMENT).
    Mr. BLAIRasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what progress, if any, has been made during the last fortnight as to the enlistment of friendly aliens of military age; and is he aware of the feeling growing up against the Government owing to its seeming inaction in this matter?
    Lord R. CECIL: I hope that a Bill dealing with this subject will be introduced very shortly. The delay has been due to the necessary negotiations with our Allies.
    Mr. HOGGE: Will these men be called before the discharged and wounded men who are to be called up?
    Lord R. CECIL: I think the hon. Member had better wait for the Bill.
    Mr. OUTHWAITE: Will it apply to American subjects of military age as well as to Russian?
    Lord R. CECIL: I think it will be better to wait for the Bill, rather than that I should give a preliminary account of it which might not be accurate.

    LAND SETTLEMENT (SERVICE MEN).
    Sir CLEMENT KINLOCH-COOKEasked the Secretary for the Colonies whether he is aware that a sum of £22,000,000 has been set aside for settling ex-soldiers on the land in Australia and that it is the intention of the Commonwealth to advance up to £500 to each ex-soldier for the purpose of improvements; and if he can say whether these privileges will be available for ex-sailors and soldiers migrating from this country to Australia after the War?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Steel-Maitland): I am aware that it is contemplated to set aside a considerable sum for settling ex-soldiers on the land in Australia, and I understand that, as stated in the question, it is proposed to advance £500 to each man for the purposes of improvements. I am not in a position to give a definite reply to the last part of my hon. Friend's question.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked the Secretary for the Colonies how many meetings have been held by the Committee appointed by himself to consider the question of Empire land settlement for ex-sailors and soldiers, and when it is expected that the Committee will issue its Report; whether that Report will be laid before the Imperial War Conference; and, if that is not possible, will he say whether the views of the Prime Ministers attending the conference have been ascertained?
    Mr. STEEL-MAITLAND: I understand that the Committee deferred meeting until the representation of Canada was completed. Since then a meeting has been held, and Sub-Committees appointed. I cannot say when the Report of the Committee will be ready, but it cannot possibly be completed in time to be laid before the Imperial War Conference. No statement can be made at present in reply to the last part of my hon. Friend's question.
    Mr. F. WHYTE: Does the hon. Gentleman accept the implication in these two questions that there will be a surplus of man-power in this country to be exported either to our Dominions or to any other part of the world?
    Mr. SPEAKER: It would be very undesirable to start a debate.

    BRITISH TRADE CORPORATION.
    Mr. S. SAMUELasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will state the privileges to be conferred upon the new-company to be formed, the British Trade Corporation; what are the obligations to be imposed upon the new British Trade Corporation for the protection and assistance of British manufacturers and of merchants in different parts of the world; and what are the guarantees to be imposed for the due performance of those obligations?
    Mr. ROBERTS: His Majesty's Government have promised the British Trade Corporation their sympathy and support. The Corporation has received a Royal Charter establishing it for a term of 60 years, and Clause 4 of the Charter confers on it the right in certain circumstances to act as the agent of Government, subject to Government being entitled to appoint other agents in any special case in which such a course may appear necessary or expedient. The Corporation has been brought into being with the object of assisting the development of British trade and industries, and failure on the part of the Corporation substantially to give effect to that object would expose it to the liability of proceedings being taken to annul the Charter. The Corporation are also under terms to remain British in character and free from foreign control.
    Mr. SAMUEL: Will the hon. Gentleman give the House an opportunity of discussing this very important subject?
    Mr. ROBERTS: I have no objection, but the hon. Member's question will have to be addressed to the Leader of the House.
    Sir F. LOWE: Will the terms of the charter be laid before the House in any way, and will the House have an opportunity of saying whether this Corporation will be afforded preferential treatment over any existing banking institution?
    Mr. ROBERTS: I certainly hope that the charter will be generally agreed to.
    Sir C. HENRY: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether this Corporation is receiving any subsidy or guarantee from the Government?
    Mr. ROBERTS: No subsidy or guarantee.
    Mr. P. A. HARRIS: Will it have a monopoly in any form?
    Mr. ROBERTS: No, Sir.
    Mr. MacVEAGH: Will a Parliamentary Paper be issued containing this charter?
    Mr. SPEAKER: Any further questions must be put down.
    Mr. S. SAMUELasked the President of the Board of Trade whether the Commercial Commissioners who are going to China and other places are to be paid out of moneys voted by the House of Commons; whether the Reports of these Commissioners and information given by them of new business proposals and contracts, as suggested in Clause 10 of the Report of Lord Faringdon's Committee, are to be communicated to the new British Trade Corporation in the first instance, or, seeing that they are paid out of the taxpayers' money, are all merchants to have the same information at the same time as the British Trade Corporation; and, if not, will he say what services have the British Trade Corporation rendered to the nation to entitle them to exclusive preference against merchant firms who have been established twenty, thirty, forty, and fifty years in different parts of the world?
    Mr. ROBERTS: The Board of Trade dispatched a special Commissioner to China three years ago, and do not contemplate arranging for another commercial mission to that country at present. Commercial missions are dispatched from time to time to various parts of the world, and the cost is met out of the public funds. It is not proposed that the British
    2570
    Trade Corporation should have an exclusive preference in respect of the reports resulting from such missions. Such reports will continue as at present to be available for British merchant firms who deal in British manufactures.
    Mr. SAMUEL: Will the Government undertake that the Reports are not handed to the British Trade Corporation before they are handed to all the merchants who have been established in China or other parts of the world, some of them as long ago as fifty years, or will they have the same advantage in knowing what is going on as this Corporation, or has this Corporation the monopoly of the Government?
    Mr. ROBERTS: I think that I have repeatedly stated that this Corporation possesses no monopoly, and certainly no discrimination would be made in favour of it.
    Mr. SAMUEL: Will they get the information only at the same time as the others?
    Mr. ROBERTS: That is implied in the answer.
    Mr. P. A. HARRIS: Who are the directors of this Corporation?
    Mr. ROBERTS: I have not the names in my memory, but I am quite prepared to give them.

    TRADING WITH THE ENEMY.
    Mr. BUTCHERasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will at an early date introduce legislation for amending the Trading With the Enemy Act, 1916, and removing the defects in that Act which experience has proved to exist, and for more effectively eliminating enemy influence from our trades and businesses?
    Mr. ROBERTS: The matter is under consideration, and I hope that a definite decision will be arrived at shortly.
    Mr. BUTCHER: Has the President of the Board of Trade received a report signed by certain Members of this House pointing out the deficiencies of the first Act, and suggesting how they could be remedied?
    Mr. ROBERTS: Both the President and myself have received copies of that report and have noted it.
    Sir C. HENRY: Will the Board of Trade consider the advisability of dealing with those firms who have black lists in the Colonies?
    Mr. ROBERTS: If representations are made we will consider them.

  MILITARY SERVICE.

    RAILWAYMEN.
    Mr. GOLDSTONEasked the Secretary to the Board of Trade (1) whether he has seen a communication addressed to the Board by the chairman of the committee on the release of railwaymen for military service, calling attention to the fact that two men had been ordered to join the Army by recruiting officers, although it was reported to the officers concerned that these men had lodged appeals in accordance with the rules laid down by the Railway Executive Committee; whether an official reply has yet been sent to the communication; what action he proposes to take to secure the jurisdiction of a committee which was constituted by the Board of Trade; (2) whether he is aware that the recruiting officer at Exeter recently refused to defer the (ailing up of a railwayman for a period of time sufficient to allow of the hearing of an appeal before the committee on the release of railwaymen for military service on the ground that the War Office did not recognise the authority of the committee; and what action, if any, the Board of Trade has taken to inform the competent military authority that they have constituted the committee to hear appeals from railwaymen?
    Mr. ROBERTS: A communication dealing with the cases referred to has been received from the committee on the release of railwaymen for military service, and a reply to it will be sent as soon as possible.

    NAVAL CLERKS.
    Captain D. HALLasked the Secretary to the Admiralty if he can state the number of civilian clerks out of Government offices who have ben enlisted since the beginning of the year and are now employed as clerks in naval offices; and if he will explain why these clerks are compulsorily enlisted and removed from work the details of which they are thoroughly conversant with and placed to perform entirely new office work in the Navy about which they know nothing?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): I have no information as to how many men, entered since the beginning of the year, and now employed in naval offices, were, prior to enlistment, serving in Government offices. The total number of writers enlisted since the beginning of the year is very small—between seventy and eighty As regards the second part of the question, the Admiralty share my hon. and gallant Friend's view that it is generally a wasteful process to remove trained Civil servants from the Government Departments merely in order to employ them on clerical work, either in naval or military offices. In releasing members of their own staff under the Military Service Acts the Admiralty have done everything in their power to ensure that these shall be employed on bonâ-fide combatant duties.

    CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS.
    Major HUNTasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that a Committee of the late Government has been engaged in getting conscientious objectors into Government offices; and whether, in view of the numbers of wounded soldiers requiring employment, he can see his way to prevent any men of military age who refuse to fight for their country or their womenkind from being employed in Government offices and put in their places men who have done their duty in the War?
    Mr. BALDWIN (Lord of the Treasury): My right hon. Friend has asked me to answer this question. I am not aware that any Committee has been engaged in the manner described in the question. The Government are in accord with the principle that conscientious objectors should not be admitted to work in Government Departments, but it has been found desirable in one special instance to utilise the services of a few of them with special qualifications in connection with work under the National Health Insurance Acts.
    Major HUNTasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the fact that the passive resisters refuse to do a fair day's work and cannot at present be compelled to do so, he can say what steps he proposes to take to compel them to do their fair share of work during the War?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Brace): My right hon. Friend has asked

    2573
    me to answer this question. Any conscientious objector employed under the Committee on the Employment of Conscientious Objectors who refuses to do a fair day's work can be arrested and returned to prison, or, if his sentence has expired, can be recalled to the Army. This power has been exercised in a good many cases.
    Major HUNT: Is it not very well known that these men will not do a fair day's work, and will not the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of offering them to the Germans in return for British wounded soldiers?
    Mr. BRACE: The only power I have to deal with men who refuse to do work is to recall them to the Army or to return them to prison, and that we are doing.
    Colonel FABER: Could not these men be sent to France to make roads?
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he will issue an Order forbidding the tradesmen in Princetown to supply the so-called conscientious objectors with articles of food, including chocolate and sweets, except by special permit?
    Captain BATHURST: The custody and control of the conscientious objectors at Princetown are matters for the Home Secretary. I am in consultation with my right hon. Friend upon this point.

    ROYAL DOCKYARDS (FEMALE LABOUR).
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he will say how it happened that when it was decided to introduce dilution of labour into the Royal Dockyards women were entered from the Labour Exchanges without any regard as to whether they were the dependants of men previously employed in the Royal Navy or in the Royal Dockyards; whether it is a recognised rule that all female labour, except in the case of women clerks, preference is to be given to the dependants of men who have served their country in the Royal Navy or in the Royal Dockyards; and will he say why this rule was set aside and female labour of a general kind introduced, seeing that there is, and has always been, a very large list of women
    2574
    dependants of ex-sailors and ex-dockyards men awaiting employment in the dockyards?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: There have for many years been standing instructions to the effect that in engaging women for employment in the Royal Dockyards preference is to be given to the widows of men who have belonged to the naval and dockyard services. When in the process of applying dilution it was desired to enter women in much larger numbers, the preference for relatives of deceased men of these services was maintained, and I am satisfied that the instructions in this respect have been faithfully carried out. My hon. Friend will be interested to know that at most of the dockyards the list of available candidates for whom preference was authorised, being the widows of men originally in the naval and dockyard services, has on several occasions been exhausted, leaving the superintendents at times no alternative but to obtain other women. He will be further interested to know that, whereas before the War there were in all our home establishments, including the Central Offices in London, about 650 women employed, there are now over 9,000.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that with regard to the Royal Dockyard at Devonport he is misinformed?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: No. If my hon. Friend says that that is the case there I will look into it.

    ADMIRALTY DRAUGHTSMEN.
    Mr. TYSON WILSONasked the Secretary to the Admiralty whether any announcement has been made regarding the temporary war adjustments in the remuneration of inspectors and corresponding classes and first-class draughtsmen, who are not included in the workman class; and, if not, can he say when an announcement will be made?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Yes, Sir. Instructions were issued on the 24th April.

    NATIONAL REGISTER.
    Mr. HOGGEasked the Secretary to the Local Government Board whether the National Register still exists; whether it is kept up to date; when it was revised last; and what uses it is now put; and when it was last used?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Hayes Fisher): It is the duty of every local registration authority under the National Registration Act, 1015, to maintain the register so far as it relates to their area. The process of revision which is carried out under the instructions of the Local Government Board and the Registrar-General is a continuous one. The Register is still used by the military recruiting authorities, and recently it has been made available for purposes of the National Service recruiting scheme.
    Mr. HOGGE: If the National Register is kept up in this way what is the necessity for all this expense, in all these Departments, in getting this information?
    Mr. HAYES FISHER: It is being dealt with by the National Service Department.

    HOLLESLEY BAY LABOUR COLONY.
    Mr. S. SAMUELasked the Secretary to the Local Government Board (1) the number of men that were housed and employed in the Hollesley Bay labour colony at one time or another during the last financial year; the average number of weeks' work performed by each colonist; the average net cost of maintenance per head per week; the total cost of running the colony for that year; (2) whether he can state the net annual loss on the Hollesley Bay labour colony, and the amount of the contributions from local rates received by the Central (Unemployed) Body for London from the Metropolitan borough councils and the City Corporation during each of the last five financial years; and what purpose that body is now serving, having regard to the absence of unemployment throughout the country?
    Mr. HAYES FISHER: The Hollesley Bay Farm Colony has during the last financial year been in partial occupation by the military authorities. No unemployed persons have been given assistance at the colony during that period. The farm and garden have been maintained by the Central (Unemployed) Body, but no Government Grant for this purpose has been necessary. I will send my hon. Friend a statement of the contributions from the Government Grant and from local rates received by the Central (Unemployed) Body in the last five years.
    2576
    As regards the last part of the question, I may point out that the Central (Unemployed) Body is a statutory body, although at the present time its functions in the relief of unemployment are practically in abeyance.

    PRINCE FREDERICK CARL'S BODY.
    Captain D. HALLasked the Prime Minister whether any application has been received from the Kaiser or the German Government through any neutral Power that the body of Prince Frederick Carl of Prussia, who died from his wounds while a prisoner in the hands of the British, should be handed over for internment in Germany; and whether, if such application has been made, or is made, the British Government will insist, as a condition for granting the same, that the body of Nurse Cavell and Captain Fryatt be handed over for fitting burial in this country?
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: No official application has been received, but a verbal and private inquiry was recently made by the Sovereign of a neutral country, through the diplomatic representatives in this country, as to whether the body of the late Prince Friedrich Carl of Prussia could be sent to Germany. The reply given was to the effect that it was impossible at present, but that, so far as we are concerned, there would be no objection to this being done on the conclusion of hostilities.

    CIVIL LIABILITIES COMMITTEE.
    Mr. HOGGEasked whether the Government contemplate continuing the Civil Liabilities Committee after the War, to assist in rehabilitating returned soldiers in businesses which they have been compelled to scrap and in taking up their trades and professions?
    Mr. HAYES FISHER: This question is under consideration.
    Mr. HOGGE: What does the right hon. Gentleman mean by being "under consideration"? I am a member of that Committee, and we have never discussed it.
    Mr. HAYES FISHER: When I say that it is under consideration, I mean that it is being considered.
    Mr. HOGGE: By whom?
    Mr. SPEAKER: It is a very well-known phrase.

    REPUBLICAN CENTRES.
    Mr. LYNCHasked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the suggestion that republican centres should be established in this country in order to promulgate and encourage republican ideas; and whether, in view of the fact that three of the most powerful Allies are republican States and that opinion is still hesitating in the great republics of South America, he will consider some form of machinery that may be set up to give the utmost importance obtainable and the earliest effect to these suggestions?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The answer is in the negative.
    Mr. LYNCH: Even in this particular matter has the majority in this country the right to oppress a minority of sincere and more intelligent people?

    TITLES (CANADA).
    Mr. MARTINasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that at a convention of farmers recently held at Toronto, attended by 400 delegates from the province of Ontario, a resolution was passed protesting against the distribution of titles in Canada; and whether this indication of public opinion will have any effect on Imperial policy?
    Mr. STEEL-MAITLAND: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative, and therefore the second part does not arise.
    Mr. P. A. HARRIS: Is the hon. Gentle-aware that every Member of the House has received a book on this subject?

    GERMAN OUTRAGES (REPRISALS).
    Major CHAPPLEasked the Prime Minister whether it can now be stated that British aircraft dropped bombs on open German towns, killing women and children; whether, if this is to be continued as a policy designed to deter the German high command from ordering the sinking of hospital ships, he will, before any other
    2578
    raid is ordered, consider that the peculiar quality of German morality gives our enemies resources in brutality beyond our reach and makes the military cast oblivious to any kind of reprisal which leaves them personally unhurt, so that the end desired is therefore not likely to be attained; that it would be more consistent with British tradition and more likely to appeal to German military rulers if the Government were to adopt the alternative policy of a joint announcement by the Allies (including, if possible, America) to the effect that, without prejudice to the present position, a special inquiry, with a view to fixing responsibility, will be held into all attacks on hospital ships, and that those in whatever rank or station found to be in any degree responsible, either because they ordered or carried out such attacks, or because, having had the power to prevent them they failed to do so, will be dealt with personally at the Allies' discretion?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: It is not possible for me to add anything to the statements that I have made on this subject, but I may add that I do not think that the suggestion of the hon. Member is practicable.

    "NATION" NEWSPAPER.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked the Prime Minister whether the lettter from Headquarters in France making representations with regard to the effect of the circulation of the "Nation" newspaper among the soldiers was from the Commander-in-Chief personally or from some of the Department at headquarters; whether the Commander-in-Chief had personal cognisance of it; and what was its date?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Macpherson): It was not signed by the Commander-in-Chief personally, but emanated from the branch of his Staff charged with conveying his views on such subjects. It was dated 12th of March. It is not known whether the Commander-in-Chief had personal cognisance of it.
    Mr. SCOTT: May I ask whether in this letter reference is made to any other newspaper, and whether any action was taken by the Government with regard to other newspapers mentioned in that letter?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I think my hon. Friend must give me notice of that.
    Mr. HOGGE: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether this letter, which is not signed by Sir Douglas Haig, called for the prohibition of the foreign circulation of the "Nation"?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I do not think I had better quote it.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Will my hon. Friend correct the answer he has already given, and make it in accordance with the facts?
    Mr. PRINGLEasked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been directed to the message of the "Times" correspondent in Washington, dated 22nd April, published in the "Times" of 24th instant; and whether, in view of his statement regarding American opinion the suppression of the foreign circulation of the "Nation" will now cease?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: My attention has not been called specially to these statements by the New York correspondent of the "Times," but I would refer the hon. Member to the decision announced on the subject by my Noble Friend the Secretary of State in another place, on the 24th April.
    Mr. PRINGLE: May I say that I put this question down to the Prime Minister, because I regarded it not as a Departmental matter, but as a question concerning the foreign relations of this country, which are so far above the knowledge of the War Office, that the Leader of the House might have considered the question of sufficient importance to reply?
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the "Nation" newspaper is the most prominent exponent in this country of the same views that are expounded by President Wilson and his Government?
    Sir H. DALZIEL: Will my hon. Friend consider whether it could not be arranged that the "Nation" newspaper should be put in the same position as any newspaper circulating abroad, provided that articles on military operations are submitted to the Censor'!
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I think my Noble Friend the Secretary of State would be prepared to withdraw the embargo, provided that the editor of the "Nation" submitted any article on the conduct of the War to the censorship before publication.
    Mr. WHYTE: Is my hon. Friend aware that the "Nation" has been invited to submit all its articles to the Censor?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I was not aware of that.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Because it is a Liberal paper.

    GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND.
    The following question stood on the Paper in the name of Sir H. DALZIEL:
    60. To ask the Prime Minister whether he is yet in a position to inform the House when it is proposed to make a statement on the result of the Government's efforts to effect an Irish settlement.
    Sir H. DALZIEL: I beg to postpone this question until Tuesday.
    Mr. DILLON: I should like to know on what ground, Sir, the right hon. Gentleman has asked to postpone this question?
    Mr. SPEAKER: Any hon. Member is entitled to postpone a question, and I have had notice of several questions that have been postponed by the hon. Member's friends.

    NATIONAL EXPENDITURE.
    Major GODFREY COLLINSasked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been drawn to the Notice of Motion standing in the name of the hon. Member for Greenock and 161 hon. Members, including members of all parties; and whether the Government will give a day for the discussion of the Motion, or, if that is considered unnecessary, whether they will take steps to set up the Committee?—["That this House is of opinion, in view of the continued growth of Expenditure, Taxation and Debt, that a Committee be appointed, consisting of Members of this House, with power to review all National Expenditure, examine Ministers and officials, and report to the House."]
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The introduction of the Budget will afford an opportunity for the discussion of this subject, and I think its consideration might be deferred till then.
    Major COLLINS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that according to the ruling of the Chair last year, the question of controlling expenditure, and

    2581
    questions of expenditure generally, were ruled out of order on that occasion; and in view of that ruling, and having regard to the largely expressed wish of this House, will he set aside an early day for the discussion of this vital matter?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I quite agree that it is quite necessary that it should be discussed, but I am not aware that it could not be discussed on the Budget; but I presume it could be discussed in connection with the Vote of Credit, which probably will be introduced in the following week.
    Mr. G. FABER: Would it not be better to have one concentrated discussion?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: An opportunity will be afforded for discussion in the natural course, but if there is still a desire for further discussion, I am quite ready to consider the matter.
    Mr. LEIF JONES: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a most earnest desire throughout the whole country, and not only in this House, that this question should be discussed in a concentrated form?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I think the answer I have given shows that I am quite ready to meet the wishes of the House.

    BUDGET STATEMENT.
    Mr. M'KEANasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in framing his forthcoming Budget, he will have due regard to the fact that while the taxation of Ireland has increased since the beginning, and as a consequence, of the present War the taxable capacity of that country has, for various reasons, including the restrictions imposed on the trading community, seriously diminished; and whether he will be prepared to make such remissions of taxation as Ireland is entitled to under the circumstances mentioned in accordance with the terms of the Act of Union?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I cannot anticipate my Budget statement. But I must not be taken as accepting the implications in the question.
    Mr. FLAVIN: Can the right hon. Gentleman state definitely if the Budget will be taken on Monday next, as there are rumours to the contrary?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: As I intended to state in reply to a question, I hope to take the Budget on Wednesday next.

    WAS LOANS.
    Mr. DAVID MASONasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can now inform the House of the total amount outstanding of the recent Five per Cent. War Loan and of the total amount of floating debt; and whether he is in a position to furnish any information with regard to any new loans or credits which may have been arranged with the United States of America?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The Government of the United States has already placed a considerable sum to our credit in America. As regards the first part of the question, perhaps the hon. Member will await my financial statement.

    EXCESS PROFITS DUTY.
    Mr. WILSON-FOXasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that the Government of the Union of South Africa has announced its intention of imposing an Excess Profits Tax of 25 per cent. for war purposes; whether he is aware that such a tax, if imposed, will affect a number of companies which now pay Excess Profits Duty in the United Kingdom; and whether he will consider the justice and expediency in such cases of allowing such companies to deduct from the amount due for Excess Profits Duty in the United Kingdom any amount which they may have to pay as Excess Profits Tax in the Union?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I am aware of this proposal, but, as my hon. Friend will appreciate, I cannot anticipate my impending Budget statement.

    WAR OFFICE SUPPLIES (SURVEYOR-GENERAL).
    Mr. MacVEAGHasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the appointment of a Surveyor-General of Supplies in the War Office is the result of suggestions from the War Office or from the War Cabinet; whether he can state what

    2583
    necessity arose for such an appointment; whether the Director of Contracts will be under the jurisdiction of the Surveyor-General; if so, how either of them can be made directly responsible to Parliament; and what special qualifications or experience in finance are possessed by the Surveyor-General which justify his superseding the Financial Secretary to the War Office?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: A post of this kind was discussed by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister when he was Secretary of State for War and my Noble Friend the present Secretary of State; and when my Noble Friend became Secretary of State the discussions continued and a decision -arrived at. The appointment arises from the necessity of creating a new authority to enable pace to be kept with the increasing volume and complexity of the commercial side of the work of supplying the military forces. The Surveyor-General has taken over control of the Contract Department, with a view to securing close cooperation between this Department and the other supply branches. My Noble Friend the Secretary of State for War is satisfied that Mr. Andrew Weir, who has been appointed to be Surveyor-General, has acquired during a successful business career of many years the necessary experience to enable him to cope adequately with the duties and responsibilities of the position. He is responsible to the Secretary of State, who is represented in this House, in this as in other Departments of War Office administration by myself and my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary.
    Mr. MacVEAGH: May I ask the Leader of the House, as this is a Government question, whether this decision to appoint a civilian to supersede the Financial Secretary to the War Office is a decision of the War Cabinet or is it the decision of the War Office only. In either case, is there any reason for the appointment of a Gentleman who is not responsible to this House, and who will supersede a Gentleman who is responsible to this House for his Department; and whether there is any reason for superseding the Financial Secretary to the War Office in view of the fact that he is one of the most courteous members of the Government?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The decision was taken by the Secretary of State for War,
    2584
    but with the knowledge of the Cabinet. I do not at all assent to the hon. Member's statement that this is meant in any way to supersede the Financial Secretary to the War Office, who is not only one of the most courteous, but in my opinion one of the most able members of the Government. It simply means that the work was of a kind which had to be dealt with, and in the opinion of the War Secretary and of the Cabinet, this Gentleman is well qualified for that position.
    Mr. MacVEAGH: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to tell the House—have the Government by this action taken away jurisdiction which has hitherto been exercised by the Financial Secretary to the War Office, and how is the House going to exercise authority over the Gentleman who is now appointed to discharge duties formerly discharged by the Financial Secretary?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: It must be obvious to the House that the nature of the business which has to be done in the way of contracts is so different from anything that happened before the new measures had to be taken. It is not a question of a change of authority. Everyone is under the Secretary of State for War, and he is represented by Gentlemen here who speak for him.
    Mr. MacVEAGH: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell me whether this new Gentleman to be brought here from Scotland will be subject to the Financial Secretary and the Financial Secretary of the Department?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I really do not know—
    Mr. MacVEAGH: You do not know?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: They are all subject to the jurisdiction of the Secretary of State for War, who is responsible in all these matters.
    Sir H. DALZIEL: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether it is the case that Mr. Weir has already saved the country over a million per week?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I cannot name any figure, but I am satisfied that an arrangement of that kind is the best that can be made in the direction of saving public money.

    DUTIABLE GOODS (CLEARANCES).
    Mr. LOUGHasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that the Board of Customs have ceased to publish particulars of imports, daily clearances, and stocks of tea and other dutiable goods; and, seeing that the want of these figures tends to create a panic on the various markets, whether he can undertake that the usual particulars will be furnished?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The decision in question was taken after the most careful consideration on the ground that it was not in the national interest that the figures should be made public.
    Mr. LOUGH: Docs the right hon. Gentleman not realise the great difficulty that some businesses might be plunged in by this secrecy, and, if it is not entirely necessary, could it not be avoided?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I was not on the Committee which considered it, but it must be obvious to the House that it is not desirable that the variations from week to week in the receipt of foodstuffs should be made public to the enemy.

    DISTRESS IN DUBLIN.
    Mr. FIELDasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he has received a report of a representative meeting held in Dublin on Tuesday night, organised by the Women's Civic Union, and resolutions passed regarding the grave situation arising from low wages and high prices, food scarcity, and widespread distress; whether he can state what measures the Government propose to meet this serious emergency; and whether he will immediately establish a wages board for Dublin City?
    Mr. DUKE: I recently made close inquiries as to conditions in Dublin, and was satisfied that a certain amount of distress which existed was being efficiently dealt with by existing agencies, and that some exaggeration of this distress had been made. I am in further communication with the Local Government Board, Ireland, about the statements to which the question refers. I have no power to establish a wages board in Dublin, and I
    2586
    am not satisfied that such a board would effect the object my hon. Friend has in view.
    Mr. FIELD: Will the right hon. Gentleman make inquiries about a wages board, because resolutions have been passed by several public bodies in Dublin requesting its establishment, and if it has been established in other directions, why not in Dublin?
    Mr. DUKE: There is a proposal in a Bill before the House for wages boards for agricultural labourers, but I do not know of any others proposed by legislation.

    Land Purchase (Ireland).
    Mr. HAYDENasked the Chief Secretary whether the attention of the Congested Districts Board has been called to a resolution passed at a recent public meeting held near Strokestown, in the county Roscommon, asking the Board to-purchase the following grass ranches: Ballybroghan, Oakfield, Grange, Kilcooley, Clooneybirne, and Clooneylee, and to take in hand at once the division of other ranches in the district already purchased by the Board; and whether the subject of this resolution will receive immediate attention?
    Mr. DUKE: The Congested Districts Board have received the resolution referred to, but they cannot identify the farms mentioned. If the names of the owners of the farms and the townlands in which they are situated are given inquiry will be made.
    Mr. O'LEARYasked the Chief Secretary why the Daly estate, situated in the townlands of Behagh, Thoam, and Balteen-brack, near Dunmanway, in respect of which purchase agreements were signed over eleven years ago, has not yet been vested; whether he can say if this estate will be vested immediately so that the tenants will get without further delay the full benefit of their purchase agreements; and whether he is aware that other estates in the same district, in respect of which purchase agreements were signed at a much later period than those on the Daly estate, were vested some years ago?
    Mr. DUKE: I am informed that the holdings cannot be vested in the purchasing tenants until the purchase money of the estate is advanced. In existing finan-

    2587
    cial conditions this cannot be done. The Estates Commissioners are not aware of the particular estates referred to in the concluding part of the question, but if the owners elected to accept payment either wholly or partially in stock, the vesting would no doubt have been completed at an earlier date.

    Local Taxation Account (Ireland).
    Mr. O'DONNELLasked the Chief Secretary whether he will state the total amount withheld during the past five years from public authorities in Ireland owing to deficiency in the Local Taxation Account; what is the amount withheld from Kerry in that period; and what steps he proposes to take in the matter?
    Mr. DUKE: The deficiency in the Local Taxation Account for the past five years was £193,500, and the abatements in county Kerry during the same period amounted to £8,671.

    Old Age Pensions.
    Mr. O'LEARYasked the Chief Secretary on what grounds the Local Government Board reject the application of Daniel Lehane, of Rooska West, in the union of Bantry, for an extra pension, having regard to the fact that the local old age pension officer, who has a full knowledge of the details of the circumstances of the applicant, granted him 2s. a week and the local pension committee granted 2s. 6d. a week; and whether he will see that the Local Government Board now grant the pension the applicant is entitled to?
    Mr. DUKE: The application was rejected on the ground that claimant's means including the old age pension of 5s. exceeded 12s. 6d. a week. The applicant is a labourer who works for board and lodgings. The Local Government Board have no power to reopen the case.

    Fishing Industry (Ireland).
    Mr. O'LEARYasked the Chief Secretary whether he is aware that the facilities for landing sea sand and fish at Trafrask, in the parish of Adrigole, county Cork, are altogether inadequate, even for small rowing boats; and whether he will urge on the Congested Districts Board the necessity of constructing, or else giving a grant to construct a suitable pier, and thus aid the sand raising and fishing industries in that locality?
    Mr. DUKE: I am making inquiries in regard to this matter.
    Mr. BOLANDasked the Chief Secretary whether he is now in a position to state whether the restrictions on the export of fish from Caher iveen imposed by the railway company on fish merchants will be withdrawn; and will the Irish fish merchants be treated at least as fairly as their Scottish competitors?
    Mr. DUKE: I am taking steps to ascertain whether what is desired can be done.

    Floods (Ireland).
    Mr. FITZPATRICKasked the Chief Secretary if he has yet received a Report with reference to the floods caused in the townlands of Derrykeirn, Capnaclough, Shanahoe, and Cloncough by the weir across the River Nore at Leeche's disused woollen mill near Abbeyleix; and, if so, what steps he intends taking in the matter?
    Mr. DUKE: I have received a Report on this subject which I shall be happy to show to the hon. Member. I am advised that I have no power to direct the removal of the weir.

    Rates of Remuneration (Ireland).
    Mr. CLANCYasked the Chief Secretary whether the employés of the Board of Works in Kingstown, county of Dublin, the Ministry of Munitions in Dublin, the national school teachers in Ireland, the postal officials in Ireland, and the employés of the War Office in Ireland work under the same conditions as the corresponding classes of employés in England; and, if so, whether they will, respectively, be granted rates of remuneration equal to those paid to their brethren in England, in accordance with the official statement that, when the conditions were uniform, the remuneration would be uniform?
    Mr. DUKE: No, Sir; I am not prepared to admit that the conditions are uniform in the various cases mentioned. I must point out to my hon. and learned Friend that I have no responsibility for the wages paid by the War Office, the Ministry of Munitions, the Post Office and the Board of Works, and any question regarding these cases should be addressed to the Ministers responsible for those Departments respectively.
    Mr. CLANCY: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean that what I have said is untrue?
    Mr. DUKE: I should not say anything of the kind. I am told the conditions in these cases are not uniform, but it may be that there is a difference of opinion between those who give me the information and the hon. and learned Gentleman.
    Mr. CLANCY: Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to say in what respect they are not uniform?
    Mr. DUKE: Not without notice.

    Intermediate Board (Ireland).
    Mr. BOLANDasked the Chief Secretary when the new rules of the Intermediate Board will be presented to Parliament; and, if he is not in a position to indicate the exact date, will he undertake to notify the hon. Member for South Kerry at the earliest possible moment?
    Mr. DUKE: These rules have not yet been settled. I will give directions that the hon. Member shall be informed when this has been done.

    Education Grant (Ireland).
    Sir JOHN LONSDALEasked the Chief Secretary what the equivalent Grant to Irish education will be in view of the Grants announced for England and Wales and Scotland; and if he can indicate how the money will be expended?
    Mr. O'DONNELLasked the Chief Secretary what steps are being taken to provide Grants to Irish education corresponding with the Grants given to England and Scotland; and when does he propose giving an opportunity of debating this question?
    Mr. DUKE: I am not in a position yet to make a statement on this matter. As to debate, inquiry should be made of the Leader of the House.

    Ceylon.
    Mr. GINNELLasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has read the considered opinion of Mr. Eardley Norton with reference to the courts-martial held in Ceylon in 1915, that they laboured under disadvantages to which no governor should have subjected the civil population of the island; that innocent men had been convicted upon evidence on which no com-
    2590
    petent legal tribunal would have acted; that there was no lawyer to advise the officers acting as judges; and that, contrary to law, the Courts were secret; whether Sir Robert Chalmers, Governor of Ceylon at that time, was Under-Secretary in Ireland when the similar courts-martial were held there in 1916; and where and in what position Sir Robert Chalmers now is?
    Mr. STEEL-MAITLAND: The Secretary of State has read what purports to be a copy of the opinion referred to. The hon. Member is in as good a position as the Secretary of State is for ascertaining the answer to his last two questions.
    Mr. GINNELL: Will Sir Robert Chalmers be afforded an opportunity of vindicating his character if ever?
    Mr. STEEL-MAITLAND: I am not sure that the character of Sir Robert Chalmers is attacked except by the hon. Member.
    Mr. GINNELLasked the Secretary for the Colonies by whom are English police magistrates in Ceylon appointed; what qualifications are required; how are the qualifications ascertained; what instructions are issued to them; what follows violation of instructions and of law by them; why no consequences followed the censure of the Supreme Court of Ceylon on 22nd May, 1915, when, in a case in which a blind Sinhalese charged a European planter with having assaulted him, it was known that the magistrate's judgment acquitting the European opened with the words, that in a case of that nature, where a European was charged before a European magistrate every point that could be strained in favour of the accused would naturally find favour in the eyes of the magistrate; why this magistrate, entertaining such views, was employed to administer martial law a fortnight later; whether his general conduct in that capacity has been subjected to any independent investigation; whether he has undergone any trial for having on 8th June, 1915, ordered the shooting, without trial, of Mark Leo Ferando, who had done his utmost to stop the rioting, and had incurred the displeasure of his own people by protecting Moors and their property under his roof; whether the depositions of Fernando's mother, D. Francina Hamine, of Diulapitiya, have been examined at the Colonial Office; whether the corroborative evidence of Rev. Father Davy, O.M.T., has been examined; where

    2591
    this police magistrate now is; and whether his movements will be restrained until his conduct has been investigated?
    Mr. STEEL-MAITLAND: The hon. Member under cover of one question asks thirteen questions, which I could not answer within the limits of a reply, even if I possessed the materials for doing so.
    Mr. GINNELL: Is it not obvious that the questions are inconvenient?
    Mr. STEEL-MAITLAND: Not in the least. If the hon. Member wishes to put any one of them separately, I will see that they are taken into consideration.
    Mr. GINNELL: Will the Government see that the Allies are informed of this Hunnism?

  NATIONAL INSURANCE.

    LEAD MINERS (ULLSWATER).
    Sir GEORGE TOULMINasked the Comptroller of the Household, as representing the National Health Insurance Commissioners, whether excessive sickness is found amongst the lead miners employed at the Greenside Mine, Glen-ridding-on-Ullswater; what percentage of men so employed have required sanatorium treatment for phthisis, and what ratio this bears to men employed in neighbouring lead mines; whether this sickness rate is due to any want of precautions in the working of this mine; whether exceptional calls have been made on the funds of approved societies in consequence; and whether any steps are contemplated to deal with such cases under Clause 63 of the National Insurance Act, 1911?
    Sir EDWIN CORNWALL (Comptroller of the Household): The information which I have been able to obtain from insurance committees and approved societies in the district is not sufficient to enable me to say definitely that the amount of sickness amongst the miners in question has been abnormal. I would draw attention to the action which has already been taken by the Home Office, as explained in the answer given to my hon. Friend yesterday by my right hon. Friend the Under-Secretary to that Department. I may add that in the circumstances it does not appear feasible at the present time to proceed under Section 63 of the National Insurance Act, 1911. I am glad of the attention which my hon.
    2592
    Friend has drawn to the circumstances of the locality, and I have arranged that the position in the district shall be kept under special notice.

    DOCTOES (AMOUNTS DUE).
    Sir P. MAGNUSasked whether the amounts due to doctors for the year 1916 have been computed; when the balance outstanding will be paid; and whether, in view of the increase in the cost of living, a small sum could be released forthwith?
    Sir EDWIN CORNWALL: The accounting operations are being expedited as much as possible with a view to enabling insurance committees to effect an emergency settlement with doctors for 1916, and it is hoped that the necessary information will be in the hands of committees within a few weeks. I understand that insurance committees have already advanced to the doctors as large a sum as can safely be paid in anticipation of the settlement, and I doubt whether any additional advances, entailing, as they would, a serious risk of overpayment and subsequent recovery from the doctor, would in these circumstances be welcomed by the profession.

    STANDING COMMITTEES (CHAIRMEN'S PANEL).
    Mr. EUGENE WASONreported from the Chairmen's Panel, That they bad appointed Mr. J. W. Wilson to act as Chairman of Standing Committee A (in respect of the Venereal Diseases Bill [Lords]).
    Report to lie upon the Table.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  Mr. McKENNA: Can the Chancellor of the Exchequer say what the business of the House will be to-morrow and for next week?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: To-morrow we propose to take the Munitions of War Bill, the Billeting of Civilians Bill, and, if possible, two or three other small Bills.
  On Monday, the Criminal Law Amendment Bill.
  On Tuesday, Supply (Office of Works Vote).
  On Wednesday and Thursday, the Budget and Budget Resolutions.
  Mr. H. SAMUEL: May I ask whether, in view of the present situation with respect to the sinking of ships, the First Lord of the Admiralty proposes to make any statement to the House, or whether there will be any opportunity for the House to discuss the matter?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: No request of that kind has been made, and I would like to have notice of that question, so that it may be properly considered.
  Mr. PRINGLE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when the Vote for the Ministry of Food will be put down?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: It is impossible to name a date now; there are a great many demands for Votes.
  Mr. PRINGLE: It is very important.
  Mr. DEVLIN: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when he is prepared to put down the necessary Vote to enable a discussion to take place on the effect of the liquor restrictions in Ireland?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: It is our intention to take it the week after next, but the hon. Member must not consider that as absolutely definite.
  Mr. HOGGE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say why the Vote for the Office of Works is put down for next Tuesday, and who wants to discuss it?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: It is put down because it is convenient to have it then.
  Sir H. DALZIEL: Can he state when he proposes to hold a Secret Session?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: We have been considering that, and, as far as it is possible. I have been making inquiries as to the desires of the House in regard to it. The time at the disposal of the House for the necessary business is very short, and I think the best arrangement would be to have a Private Sitting on the second day of the Vote of Credit, which will be taken the week after next, and I propose to adopt that course.
  Mr. A. WILLIAMS: Does the right hon. Gentleman say that the discussion of liquor in Ireland is to have precedence over the discussion of food in the United Kingdom?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I do not say anything of the kind. I was asked many weeks ago for a day for this particular subject, and I promised to give a day at the earliest possible moment; I am simply trying to fulfil that promise.
  Mr. PETO: Will the House sit on Friday of next week?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: In all probability it will; the business for that day will be announced next week.
  Resolved, "That this House do sit Tomorrow."—[Mr. Bonar Law.]

SUPPLY.— [6TH ALLOTTED DAY]

  CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1917–18.
  Considered in Committee.
  [Mr. MACLEAN in the Chair.]

  CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1917–18.

    AIR BOARD.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £l,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course: of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1918, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Air Board."
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the AIR BOARD (Major Baird): I hope the Committee will think it a convenient arrangement if, before entering upon a discussion on the Air Board, I give a few facts concerning the composition and functions of that body. There has been no opportunity hitherto of explaining precisely what the Air Board is, and what are its duties. The present Air Board

    2621
    was created by a Minute of the Cabinet on 22nd December last. It retains all the powers of the previous Air Board, with a certain number added. The Committee will remember that when the former Air Board was constituted, the Leader of the House referred to it as a necessary step in the development of what might eventually become an Air Ministry. The present Air Board is undoubtedly another step forward in that direction. I would ask hon. Members to remember, if perhaps they are a little disappointed with the powers now exercised by the Air Board, that in proceeding, not only with a new arm, but with an arm which is of vital importance to both Services, and which is fighting daily, it is absolutely necessary to avoid any rash experiments which might lead to a diminution, either of the output of machines or a dislocation of the activities of the Services at the Front. Therefore, it is essential to proceed cautiously.
    The present composition of the Air Board is as follows: There is a President, Lord Cowdray; the Director-General of Military Aeronautics; the Fifth Sea Lord, who is Director of Air Service at the Admiralty; the Controller of Aeronautical Supplies, who is an officer of the Ministry of Munitions; the Controller of Petrol Engines, equally an officer of the Ministry of Munitions; and the Parliamentary Secretary, who, in the absence of the President, has to preside at the meetings of the Board. The duties of the Board may be summarised as follows: The Admiralty and the War Office concert their respective aerial policies in consultation with the Air Board. The Admiralty and the War Office formulate the aerial programmes required for the fulfilment of the approved policy. Then the Air Board decides the extent to which it is possible to meet that approved departmental programme. The Air Board selects and is responsible for the design of the aeroplanes and seaplanes and for their engines and accessories; the Board furnishes approved plans and specifications to the Controller of Aeronautical Supplies, and to the Ministry of Munitions, which is responsible for their production, and who subsequently hand them over for the use of the Air Service for which they are designed and manufactured. It is quite obvious that that arrangement is open to the criticism that too many cooks may
    2622
    spoil the broth. It is equally open to the contention that if you have a stiff hill to climb four horses are better than two. For the success of our work two conditions are essential. First, that all the members of the Board should work in the closest harmony and co-operation—and that we have got to the utmost extent—and the second is what was not foreseen at the composition of the Air Board, but what has been achieved since, that everybody should be housed under the same roof. The idea of the Naval Air Service having to visit first of all the Air Board in one house and then to go on to the Ministry of Munitions in another house, and of their correspondence having to be passed backwards and forwards by boxes, or through the telephone, and so on, would have led to delay which in a service where it is absolutely indispensable that the user of the machine should be in constant daily communication of the closest nature with the producer of the machine would inevitably have led to disaster.
    4.0 p.m.
    An essential feature of the present arrangement, therefore, is the fact that by securing the Hotel Cecil the Air Board has been enabled to house as its guests the whole of the Royal Naval Air Service, in so far as it is concerned with heavier-than-air machines, the whole of the Royal Flying Corps, and, of course, the whole of the Service of the Controller of Aeronautical Supplies. They are not yet altogether in the building because a certain number of rooms, which are not yet at our disposal, have to be vacated, but this matter is going forward as rapidly as possible. In addition to that the Controller of petrol engines also has his office in the building. Criticism may be offered that this arrangement applies only to heavier-than-air machines. That is true. Therefore, it is suggested, it does not cover the whole ground of aeronautical activity. I would beg the House again to remember that we are in the middle of a war, and we are dealing with a great service, with an arm which is of the utmost importance to our Forces, whether naval or military, at the front, and the Air Board covers the branch of the air arm which is common to both Services. The Army does not use lighter-than-air machines, and consequently there is no question of any competition between the Army and Navy in

    2623
    regard to manufacture. As seaplanes and aeroplanes are machines of the same nature they require the same materials for their construction. They are made in the same factory. They require the same sort of labour. They employ the same kind of engines, and it is in these directions that a unification has been effected with a view not only to prevent any kind of overlapping, but with a view to using to the utmost possible extent the resources of the country for the benefit of the nation as a whole. I pass on from that brief description of what the Air Board is to the different sections which have taken up their headquarters in the Hotel Cecil. As I said, the Controller of Aeronautical Supplies, of the Ministry of Munitions, who is a member of the Air Board, undertakes the responsibility, on plans and specifications supplied by the Air Board, of producing the aircraft that are necessary for carrying out the programme of the two services. But design is a function of the Air Board itself, and it is the business of the Technical Department of the Air Board to settle upon designs of the aircraft which are used by the two services. That does not mean that the Technical Department designs aircraft. On the contrary, the Technical Department furnishes the designers of the country in connection with private firms with the requirements of the two Services as sent home from the front. The designers of the manufacturers of the country are supplied with the lists of the specifications, and their designs are received by the Technical Department of the Air Board, stresses are checked and calculated, and they are considered in the light of the best technical experience available. Experimental machines are then ordered for trial.
    The head of the Technical Department of the Air Board, Brigadier-General Pitcher, was nominated by both the 'Director-General of Aeronautical Supplies and the First Sea Lord, who agree that he is the best man for the post. He is not only a very experienced pilot, but he has commanded a wing at the front, and he is therefore in close touch with the requirements of pilots at the front, and he knows what the technical and manufacturing difficulties are from the point of view of the man who has to keep his wing up at the front. The Deputy-
    2624
    Controller of the Technical Department is Captain Groves, of the Royal Navy, who is a Wing Captain in the Royal Naval Air Service, and who, in addition to a long experience—long as far as anything can be said to be in connection with aeronautics—has had considerable experience at the Admiralty and commanded a naval wing abroad. Therefore, we are fortunate in having in these two officers able men in the closest touch with their brother officers in the services, whose technical attainments are admitted by all. In this technical branch they examine the designs, consider them and report on them to the Air Board, and it is the function of the Air Board to decide whether a design is to be adopted or not. That is the joint responsibility which falls on all members of the Air Board. It comprises, as I have said, the head of the Naval Air Service, the head of the Royal Flying Corps ("Military Branch), and the Controller of Aeronautical Supplies, who looks at the thing from the manufacturing point of view, and we are in possession of the requirements of the services at the front, and we have to make up our minds what machines shall be ordered, and in what number.
    One of the chief functions of the Technical Department is to arrive, as far as possible, at a common specification and standardisation of the machines used by the Army and by the Navy. For no very apparent reason, it has occurred in the past that machines of precisely the same type used by the Naval Air Service are different from machines of the same type made for the Royal Flying Corps, and consequently, if the two happen to be serving together, inter changeability is not possible, and there is an inevitable waste of resources. That branch of standardisation is being developed by our Technical Department, as far as it is possible to do it. Of course, I do not wish the House to carry away the impression that we are endeavouring to standardise machines on a large scale, because nothing, I believe, could be more fatal than that. You might standardise machines, and get vast quantities of them, and when you had them they would be out of date, and you would be better off with one-tenth of the number of up-to-date machines. Therefore, I do not want there to be any misconception as to the extent of standardisation which is being carried out. It has been carried

    2625
    out such instances as this. It used to be the practice for the speed indicators fitted to an aeroplane that was flown by an officer in a blue coat to have the speed marked in knots, but the same machine flown by an officer in a yellow or a brown coat had the speed indicator with the speed marked in miles. That seemed to be an unnecessary duplication, and, therefore, aeroplanes are having their speed indicators marked in miles, and the seaplanes have their speedometers marked in knots. That is only reasonable, as it is the system used on the sea. There are a few other points of that sort. Standardisation, so far as it is possible to be carried out, is being carried out to the utmost extent.
    Let me say, further, that there is a very close liaison maintained between the Technical Department and the Headquarters at the front. There is a constant interchange of visits between competent officers, with a view to climinating delays as far as possible, and in order to enable modifications desired by the pilots at the front to be produced in the machines, and at the same time keep London in close touch with the general requirements of the services at the front. Then, as regards the production of experimental machines, there also the Technical Department has access to the manufacturer through the Director of Aeronautical Supplies. The Committee will realise that production in quantity and production of experimental machines are two quite separate departments of commercial activity, and nothing retards production on a large scale more than confusing the two, and insisting on a machine being put on a productive scale into a shop before you have got the machine entirely satisfactory for use. Therefore, every effort is made to keep quite distinct the experimental section of the manufacturers from the production section of the manufacturers, which is devoted to productions on a large scale. Communications from inventors are, for the moment, dealt with by the Technical Department of the Air Board, but we are in process of creating a Department specially designed for the purpose of dealing with inventions, and for that purpose we are calling upon, and hope to secure, the services of the officers and others who have been employed in the Invention Section of the Ministry of Munitions, the Admiralty and War Office, in so far as they
    2626
    relate to aircraft. The proposal is—it is only a question of arranging the thing— to amalgamate all those three bodies of competent people dealing with invention, so that they should form a branch of our Air Board.
    As regards the Royal Aircraft Factory, that is considered from the point of view of the Air Board as precisely on the same footing as other manufacturers. It is under the Controller of Aeronautical Supplies. There is at the head of it Mr. Henry Fowler, who has rendered great service in connection with the production of munitions. I shall have rather more to say about the Royal Aircraft Factory when I come to the Department of the Controller-General of Supplies. Lastly, the Technical Department is in constant and close communication with manufacturers. A society of manufacturers has been formed, and both through them and through individual manufacturers the Technical Department keeps in the closest possible touch with the trade. It is hardly possible to go to the Department without finding manufacturers and designers in constant and daily touch with the officers of that Department. I would add that the same close liaison is established between our Technical Department and the corresponding Department of our French Allies, and we are now arranging in the same way with our new Ally, America. I think the Committee will agree that, in so far as co-operation and co-ordination between the Allies are possible, a great advance has been made.
    With regard to the Department of the Controller of Aeronautical Supplies, let me say at once that he is a gentleman who is in a peculiar position, because, though a member of the Air Board, he is an official of the Ministry of Munitions, and I suppose technically, according to the strict letter of the law, any reference to him should be made by the Minister of Munitions, but, as a matter of convenience, and also, I suppose, from a common-sense point of view, as I have the privilege of being in daily and hourly contact with Sir William Weir, and the Ministry of Munitions sees very little of him, perhaps it is more practicable that I should deal with the subject.
    With regard to the Controller of Aeronautical Supplies, I would like to draw the attention of the Committee to the magnitude of the business with which he has to deal. I have been furnished with a list of 958 firms engaged on work for

    2627
    the Directorate of Aeronautical Supplies. Of these, 301 are direct contractors, and 657 are sub-contractors. In addition, there are a very considerable number of sub-contracting firms of whom we never hear, unless they have troubles in regard to labour or material. The total number of hands employed by the fifty firms of most importance is 66,700. It may interest the Committee to know that dilution has been carried out to the extent of 31 per cent. in those firms, and by dilution I mean the employment of women and males under military age. It is, of course, necessary to remember that that degree of dilution does not help manufacturers. It is a sacrifice that had to be made, but when you take a quite new industry like the aeronautical industry, which requires the very greatest skill that can be produced, I think it is fair to say that it speaks well, both for the manufacturers and the organisation, that it has been possible to carry on that business and combine this very high degree of dilution.
    I do not know that the Committee will want me to deal in detail with the various subjects of manufacture. I think probably they will not. No doubt certain points will be raised in the course of the discussion, which I shall endeavour to answer afterwards. There is, however, one point which it may be well for me to refer to now, and that is the recent Order issued by the Minister of Munitions concerning the manufacture of experimental aeroplanes. That Order is in no way intended to impede progress, but, on the contrary, to directly facilitate it. It is now necessary to obtain a licence in order to be able to manufacture experimental aeroplanes. We have no desire to hamper the genius and ingenuity of those who think they have machines which are going to be of service in the field. On the contrary, we want all the inventions we can get, but there are a very large number—in fact, an immense proportion—of inventions which, although their creators believe they are bound to revolutionise aeronautics, or anything else, when they are judged by practical men, it is perfectly obvious that they are of little use. It is to prevent the waste of material, time, and labour on inventions which have no prospect of proving useful to the country that this Order has been issued.
    The applications for licences afford the Technical Department the opportunity of
    2628
    knowing what is being done in the country, and guidance and help can thereby be extended to all hopeful propositions. At the same time, an opportunity is afforded of refusing permission in the case of useless proposals. A number of examples could be quoted illustrating these points'.
    As regards the Royal Aircraft Factory, from the point of view of the Air Board, this factory is now regarded in the same light as the private contractor. Any designs which it may prepare are subject to exactly the same technical criticism as those of a private firm. The factory is under the direct charge of the Ministry of Munitions, and is utilised for detail experimental work, which is carried out under the requisitions of the Technical Department of the Air Board. In addition, repair work is carried on, together with miscellaneous urgent requirements. Either in the way of alteration or manufacture it may suddenly become necessary to produce one particular type or any of the hundred and one stampings or things required for manufacture, and time is saved by having that work done at the Royal Aircraft Factory, and that is the kind of work that is being done there.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: By miscellaneous requirements, I take it the hon. Member does not mean the manufacture of a complete aeroplane?
    Major BAIRD: Certainly I do, because it is often possible to get out the first lot of a new design of an aeroplane quicker from the factory than it would be if we had to wait for the manufacturer who is going to bring them out. It is our practice, and I think it is a very wise one, to get from the Royal Aircraft Factory the first number as quickly as possible of the new type of machine which there are not facilities for making elsewhere, and to that extent it is a miscellaneous requirement. Under the new arrangement, the Aeronautical Supply Department, being under the Ministry of Munitions, benefits directly as regards the many and varied activities of the other Departments of the Ministry; for instance, priority, raw material, machine tools, labour, etc. In addition to these, many additional facilities have been provided for the carrying out of aeronautical supplies. That applies to all the factories. When I come to the question of affording additional facilities, a subject in which

    2629
    the hon. Member for Brentford (Mr. Joynson-Hicks) is much interested is the adaptation of factories which, owing to the changes in the programme of the manufacture of munitions, may become available for employing in the aircraft industry. That policy is carried on so far as possible, but it can only be carried out to a limited extent. Considerable investigations have to be carried out as to the nature of the machines and the character of the work done in the factories when they were used in their former occupation. Every possible use is being made of those factories, but there are very distinct limitations to any indefinite extension in this direction on account of the difficulties which I have mentioned.
    Mr. BUTCHER: Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman tell the Committee whether any changes have been made in the Royal Aircraft Factory s regards experimental trials and research?
    Major BAIRD: No essential difference has been made, and there is a branch carrying out experiments of every kind at the present time, and it is a very valuable branch. It is necessary to point out that aeroplane construction and aeroplane engine construction are industries entirely built up during the War, involving highly technical processes, great precision and accuracy in machining work, and a necessity for the most accurate machine tools and the most highly specialised materials, involving the most modern metallurgical processes. This work has largely had to be carried out with a very small nucleus of skilled labour, and consequently a very large percentage of unskilled and female labour, involving long training and fairly long periods of inefficient production. The use of such diluted labour necessarily calls for the closest degree of inspection.
    Mr. PEMBERTON BILLING: Are we to understand that inefficient mechanics are allowed to proceed with their work, although you know their production is inefficient?
    Major BAIRD: I do not quite understand the hon. Member's question.
    Mr. BILLING: With regard to this inefficient production: At what time is this inefficiency discovered? Is it discovered in England or in France?
    Major BAIRD: I did not mean to say that we turned out bad machines, but simply smaller quantities than we other-
    2630
    wise should if we had more efficient labour. It does not matter to us who the machine is turned out by as long as it can satisfy a certain test. It is a question of labour, and it is no disgrace to the labour that it was not then efficient.
    Mr. TENNANT: Can the hon. and gallant. Gentleman elaborate the point about testing by informing the House how and where the tests are made?
    Major BAIRD: The engines are tested at the manfacturers by the Aeronautical Inspection Department under the Aeronautical Supplies Department. The Minister of Munitions is responsible for the quality of the machines produced, and consequently that Minister must have at his disposal the services of the skilled inspectors who have been employed hitherto. Certain modifications have been made in the exact nature of the inspection—that is to say, the principle of inspecting individual parts rather than the inspection of the finished article is being rather extended now. An effort is being made to place men in the factories, whose attainments are sufficiently strong to warrant them being given rather greater latitude in assisting the manufacture than would be possible when you had to depend on unskilled inspectors who discharged their function by a purely mechancial process. The inspection is now carried out at the works, and the machines are taken over by the Naval Air Service and the Royal Flying Corps at the door of the works, and they are flown away by representatives of those services. The Air Board is responsible for the design of machines, and the Minister of Munitions is responsible for construction and delivery.
    Mr. BILLING: Am I to understand that these machines are delivered without any air test? Do the Air Services take them over without the air test and only after inspection?
    Major BAIRD: That is so.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Mr. Maclean): The hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. Billing) has interrupted five times already, and I would suggest to him that he should as far as possible allow the hon. and gallant Gentleman to make his statement without interruption.
    Major BAIRD: I must apologise for being rather long in this statement Personally, I do not resent interruption,

    2631
    except that they interfere with the flow of one's ideas. The interruptions are not unnatural, but I would remind hon. Members that, with the leave of the House, I propose to reply to any points that may be raised in the course of the Debate. The functions and composition of the Air Board are well known to hon. Members. We are responsible for the machines until they leave the factory. They are then taken over by the Royal Naval Air Service and the Royal Flying Corps at the factory, and the reason for this is pretty obvious. It is that they are flying men and we are not, and having their own stock of flying men, they prefer this arrangement, which also suits us best. With regard to the increase in production, the Committee will realise that it is quite impossible to give definite figures with regard to what we are producing. But it is possible to give a ratio, and I rather hope that the Committee will be satisfied that the ratio will indicate satisfactorily an improvement in the matter of production. Taking the average monthly output of last year at the arbitrary figure of eight, the output for the first two months of this year, January and February, was sixteen, the anticipated output for the next three months is nineteen, and we hope by the end of the year to have doubled that, or very nearly to have doubled it. Let me say also—and this is a point which the Controller of Aeronautical Supplies desires to be realised—that it would be most unjust to forget that those who have had the duty of supplying the aeronautical requirements of the two Services up to the present are solely and entirely responsible for that very satisfactory increase. Anything that can be done by new arrangements which did not come into force until this year cannot show any appreciable effect certainly until the latter half or the third quarter. That is a point which ought to be remembered when people are prone, and I think very unjustly prone, to criticise the arrangements previously made for production. It is only fair to remember that that very substantial increase is entirely due to the energy and foresight displayed by those whom we have now succeeded.
    There is another point which ought also to be remembered. We are under a very large debt of gratitude to our French Allies for the assistance which we
    2632
    have received from them, not only at the beginning of the War, when we had to rely upon them to an enormous and even an appalling extent for our aerial equipment, but for assistance of a very valuable character which we are constantly receiving from them. We hope that it is not altogether one-sided; but they organised their Air Service before we organised ours, and there is no doubt that they are rendering us invaluable service to-day. Our relations, I am pleased to say, are of the most cordial and satisfactory kind. Before leaving altogether this question of the manufacture, I would point out to hon. Members what a complicated thing an aeroplane is. Sir William Weir tells me that the number of separate pieces in a modern aeroplane, exclusive of the engine, is 2,234. When you come to think with what accuracy each one of those pieces has got to be made, using only the very best material— consequently, a large proportion of rejections is inevitable—and how the very best skill must be exercised in order to put those pieces together, you do get some idea what a complicated and difficult job is this aeronautical business. Then he also points out that there is probably a wider range of materials than in any other manufacture of munitions, covering the finest timber, the highest qualities of alloy steels, textiles, mechanical instruments, guns, making demands on the widest range of industries. To afford a slight example of the new facilities which require to be provided and the character of the provisions to be made, the following may be cited. It is necessary to obtain assurance of satisfactory deliveries of flax seed for the flax crop in Ireland. Hon. Members may be surprised to learn that is important, but it is a matter of vast importance. It has, moreover, been necessary to build up the magneto industry in this country entirely. Before the War we were dependent upon foreign supplies. Lastly, new chemical works have had to be erected for the manufacture of dope to render us independent of imported supplies. Those are only very small instances of the wide range covered by aeronautical supplies.
    I pass now from this question of supplies to another field of activity of the Air Board. Although its functions are restricted to heavier-than-air machines, and although it has nothing to do with operations, the Air Board does have the duty of considering air policy, and in connec-

    2633
    tion with air policy it appeared to the Board, and it has been approved by the Prime Minister, that it should be our duty to investigate the question of aerial civil transport after the War. It will be apparent to hon. Members that when the War comes to an end there will be not only a vast number of (highly skilled pilots, but there will be a large number of aeroplanes in the hands of the Services, and a still vaster number of aeroplanes and aerial engines on order. I have quoted the number of people engaged in the air industry to-day. They are more likely to increase than diminish. This whole great industry (has been built up for the purposes of the War, to make use in warfare of an element which certainly cannot be neglected in peace. Therefore, it does not appear to be unreasonable that the Air Board should take up as a subject of inquiry as far as possible the uses that can be made of aircraft after the War, and for that purpose it has been decided to institute a Committee of which Lord North-cliffe has been asked to take the chair, and has accepted, and it is proposed that the Committee should comprise representatives not only of the two Services and of the Air Board, but also of the Board of Trade, the Post Office, the Foreign Office, the Colonial Office, the. Customs, and the Treasury, representatives from the Dominions, representatives of course of the manufacturers and designers in this country, and obviously it would be desirable that Parliament should also be represented. The terms of reference arc as follows:
    "To consider and report to the Air Board with regard to:

    (1) The steps which should be taken with a view to the development and regulation, after the War, of aviation for civil and commercial purposes, from a domestic, an Imperial, and an international standpoint.

    (2) The extent to which it will he possible to utilise for the above purpose the trained personnel and the aircraft the conclusion of peace may leave surplus to the requirements of the Naval and Military Air Services of the United Kingdom and Overseas Dominions."

    The proceedings of the Committee to a large extent will have to be confidential. The Committee, I would remind hon. Members, corresponds to a similar body which has been already created in France under the presidency of M. d'Aubigny It was set up by the Ministry of Commerce and was appointed to consider the routes to be followed in France, the Colonies, and in Allied countries, type of machine to be employed, type of postal
    2634
    car or carrier, bases, relay stations, and the recruitment of the personnel, as well as the question of the purchase of hangars, aeroplanes, motors, etc., for the military authorities. I trust the Committee will agree that this was a branch of the subject which ought to be tackled. It is only necessary to exercise very little imagination to realise what far-reaching and vast opportunites may offer for the development of the Empire. I have dealt with the technical department of the Air Board and with the Aeronautical Supplies Department of the Ministry of Munitions, which makes the machines for the Air Board, and I do not propose to detain the Committee more than two minutes on two other subjects. First, I would ask the Committee to remember—and I submit this for their consideration—how necessary it is to be careful, in criticising any branch of military or naval service, that you do not give to the enemy information which we should be delighted to have with regard to his service. It would be most unbecoming on my part to endeavour, and I do not seek to endeavour, to induce Members to refrain from criticism. Everybody is a judge of what is warrantable and what is unwarrantable criticism, but I think it fair to suggest, as regards the Air Service, that criticism ought to be limited in precisely the same way as it is limited with regard to guns, or types of guns, or equipment of any other kind. There really is no justification for thinking that we, as laymen, and we are all laymen, are more competent to criticise aircraft, or the use of aircraft, than we are to criticise types of guns, or submarines, or destroyers. The danger is that you will give to the enemy information which it is very desirable that he should learn in one place and one place only, and that is in the air. The effort of the Air Board is and ought to be to secure that that information which the Germans will derive from our airmen shall be even more disagreeable in the future than it has been in the past, and I do not think that they have had much to smile about during the past week or ten days. Nobody denies that criticism can have a very stimulating effect, but as regards aeronautics it can have another effect. It can have the effect of reducing, or diminishing or destroying, the confidence of an airman in the machine which he has got to fly, and there is no more certain way of killing a man than to send him up in a machine which for one reason

    2635
    or another he believes to be unsound. That is one thing which I do think hon. Members should bear in mind in criticising the Air Service.
    I want to take advantage of this opportunity to modify, or to explain, an answer which I gave to the hon. Member for East Herts (Mr. Billing) yesterday. I think it gives an example of the dangers, and to some degree of the uselessness, of a certain kind of criticism. The hon. Member asked me, as he was perfectly entitled to do, whether a certain type of machine was used for long-range bombing, and I replied on perfectly competent authority that the machine which they use normally for gun spotting and artillery reconnaissance was on certain occasions used for long-range bombing. The hon. Member, I think, said, "Are these machines considered fit to send on a long journey?" I replied, "They are considered fit by the officers who send them out." Let me qualify that answer. It is perfectly true that the officers would not send out these machines if they did not consider them fit for the job, and the proof that they are fit for the job is that they have done it; but I do not deny that if they had other machines they would send them out in preference. That is a point which hon. Members who have not been on active service may find it difficult to realise. It is inevitable that in every campaign there comes a moment when you do not have to ask, "Is this the best thing for the particular job?" but where you have to use every man and every machine you possess in order to defeat the enemy. My answer to the hon. Member yesterday was not of a character which covered the whole ground, and I invited him not to continue that form of criticism, but to reserve his energies for a subsequent occasion. Is this House going to dictate to officers in the field how they are to use the material sent out to them? You cannot do it. You would then get into the range of operations, and once you do that, you must have absolute confidence in the officers who are in command of our forces in the field, so long as they show that they are worthy of that confidence. The idea that we here can interfere with the use made of the machines we send out is really untenable.
    Mr. BILLING: As the hon. and gallant Gentleman has referred definitely to a question which I raised I should like
    2636
    to take this opportunity of replying. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no!"] He has referred to a question which I asked yesterday, and I would suggest that he has put words into my mouth which I never used. I must ask you, Mr. Maclean, for an opportunity now of putting the case as it was put yesterday, or for an opportunity of doing so when the hon. and gallant Gentleman sits down. I trust you. Sir, will give me an early opportunity of replying to that particular point.
    Major BAIRD: If I have misrepresented the hon. Member I shall be only too glad to have it pointed out. As a general rule, we cannot interfere in this House with operations so far as aircraft are concerned. If the hon. Member or anybody else asks, are we satisfied with the machines we have at the front? I say plainly, No, we are not. We have endeavoured to improve the machines. To go on clamouring for the production of certain kinds of machines in substitution for the machines we have does not help. Nobody imagines that a suggestion which may be made in this Committee to-day with regard to a machine can be brought into effect to-morrow. The changes which are now taking place are the results of measures taken month? and months ago, and any changes we are now planning in our Air Services cannot take effect until months and months ahead. It is not in the interests of the country to represent our machines as being unsuitable for the work which they are performing, when you know that those machines cannot be replaced at once, when you know that those machines are being replaced as rapidly as can be, and when you know that, however inadequate those machines may be, the duties performed by our Air Services are second to none in the whole field of operations. The question really is whether or not the work is being done properly. It is our business to secure that the officers in the field shall have the very best material we can produce. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] That is agreed. All our efforts are being made to that end. I would remind hon. Members that whereas ginger may be a very good thing, they must not think that they are the people who have a monopoly of that very useful article. We have it supplied also from the front. Hon. Members must not imagine that we do not hear of requirements and suggestions from the

    2637
    front as well as from this House. Hon. Members may be quite certain that long before they raise points here with regard to machines, those points have been raised, probably weeks and months before, by competent officers who have visited the front. The only other question with which I have to deal is that of the mastery of the air. I do not know who invented the expression, but it has really very little meaning.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: I think I did. I have tried to get it for years.
    Major BAIRD: Perhaps the hon. Member will tell us what he means by it. I can tell him that there is no such thing as mastery of the air, for the reason that the air is not only a very big place but that it is getting bigger every day. That is explained when you realise that if from being able to get up to 10,000 feet you are able to get up to 20,000 feet you have extended the air by 10,000 feet. In that sense it is true to say that the air is getting bigger every day. However numerous your machines or your patrols, nobody can pretend that you can patrol a strip of air 100 miles long and five miles deep in such a way as to make it impossible for the enemy to get through your patrol. It is not wise to endeavour to impress upon people the idea that aerial mastery is going infallibly to prevent any enemy aircraft getting through. The thing is impossible. Therefore, if we should receive visits from the Germans from time to time, we have got to put up with them to a certain extent. It is not fair to lead people to believe that you can give them that protection which they cannot be given. It would be very unwise to withdraw from useful and effective work a number of machines merely in order to do the work of reassuring people at home. You might have a large number of machines waiting here on patrol duty to meet possible and hypothetical raids, when you know that they would provide inadequate protection and that those machines might be better employed elsewhere. I think it is wise to say a word or two of warning on this matter.
    What you can do in the air, and what is being done in the air, is to ensure that our men shall enjoy a degree of predominance sufficient to enable them to carry out their duties and to prevent the Germans from carrying out their duties. That has happened and is happening. So long as that State of affairs exists, I am
    2638
    bound to say it is as much as we can expect. The men are carrying out their functions. They are not satisfied, and we are not satisfied, with the machines we have got. We never have been satisfied, and I do not suppose we ever shall be, for the reason that you can either have a service with the very best machines, in which case you will have very few of them, or you may have a service comprising second-rate machines, in which case you can have a great many of them, or you can have a service combining both, in which case you will have the advantage of both. That is exactly what we have. To have nothing but first-rate machines, which implies their immediate substitution for the machines which are in use, is not really a practical proposition. It does not lead to any useful result and is likely to produce among the pilots a degree of discontent and a degree of lack of confidence in their machines which is not wise. Let hon. Members remember that, although very good machines may be produced, you will always have to continue to produce large numbers of slow, obsolete machines in order to enable the pilots to be trained. You must bring up your pilots step by step. It is necessary to do what is accepted and well-known by competent judges in this matter, namely, produce slow and obsolete machines in order to train your pilots efficiently up to the highest point. May I say, in conclusion, that I hope to have an opportunity of replying at the end of the Debate to any criticisms which may be offered.
    5.0 P.M.
    Mr. MONTAGU: I want, first of all, to express my thanks and the thanks of the whole Committee to the hon. and gallant Gentleman for the very clear and interesting account which he gave us of the activities of the Air Board. I congratulate him on being able to give what seems to be a very satisfactory statement of the position of affairs. My sole object in rising is to say something on only one part of the subject—because I know nothing about the air—the part of the subject which deals with the supply of machines. My hon. and gallant Friend will admit that all through the earlier stages of the history of this matter the Ministry of Munitions gave all possible assistance in its power to the needs of the Air Services, conflicting though they often did with the needs of other supplies. Of course, it was recognised that the needs of the Air Services must come first, and that every effort must be made to meet

    2639
    their demands. The old system of things was very inefficient and wasteful, and led to the greatest possible delays in the equipment of the Air Services. If one were asked the root cause and the greatest difficulty in the equipment of our fighting forces in this War, it would be right to say that it was the conflicting demands made by different Government Departments for the same services on the same limited supply of raw materials and of manufacture. It was not sufficient to take one service and give it to one Department, and another service and give it to another Department. No service is wholly watertight. You might allot a firm which used to make motor lorries, equip it, take it away from the service of the War Office, and give it to the service of the Admiralty to make aeroplanes for the Admiralty, and then discover that that firm was also making spare parts for the motor lorries of another firm, and that you had rendered useless the lorries in France by the transfer of that firm. The whole of the engineering resources of the country ought to have to deal with one coordinated authority, which should be responsible for supplying all the needs of the nation. It was for that reason that, during the time I was at the Ministry of Munitions, the whole of those interested in the matter united in their demand that the Navy should not build aeroplanes for itself and the Army for itself, but that we, who had to deal with petrol engines, motor lorries and with the same firms that were making aeroplanes, should be entrusted with the responsible task for which we thought our organisation fitted us, of supplying everything for everybody. The problem was not easy; it was not as simple as the transfer of the supply of guns and ammunition from the War Office to the Ministry of Munitions. There was no stereotyped design. There was, as my hon. and gallant Friend (Major Baird) has said, a great necessity for keeping the user of a machine in touch with the manufacturer and for facilitating production. Design and alteration of design is always tedious and bothersome for the manufacturer to have to put up with.
    It appeared likely that friction might arise owing to the difficulty of interdepartmental negotiations. If the President of the Air Board had to write a letter to the Minister of Munitions it had
    2640
    to filter down through his Department, and then a reply had to be sent: "I am desired by, etc., etc." Red-tape and official etiquette might have been preserved by that means, but friction must have resulted, and delays could not have been obviated. The hon. and gallant Member (Major Baird) and the Air Board have found a satisfactory solution of this difficulty. When two or three Departments are concerned in a common work, I think the maxim they ought to adopt is that of never writing letters. If they meet in a room and confer with one another, that is best. During war-time, at any rate, there is no time for writing letters and red-tape. If the designer and manufacturer are in daily or weekly intercourse with the user of the machine, and sees both or either, all these difficulties-are overcome, and you have a tremendous advantage in the cessation of a conflict between the different needs of the nation from the engineering resources and the raw material supplies of the world. I would say, in conclusion, that I trust the House will consider this, as the months go by, as a precedent for the organisation of the nation. Let us never face a war again—if there be another war—let us never face peace again, with the departmental spirit in the Navy and the Army competing against one another. The Ministry of Munitions began with small things, and, growing from day to day, is beginning to be a Ministry of Supply. I hope such a Ministry of Supply has come to exist as a permanent part of our organisation.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: I desire, in the first place, to associate myself with what has fallen from my right hon. Friend (Mr. Montagu) in the remarks he has made with reference to the speech of my hon. and gallant Friend (Major Baird) this afternoon. We all knew that Lord Cowdray was making and was bound to make a most efficient Air Lord. We thought, and hoped, my hon. and gallant Friend (Major Baird), if I may say so, would make an efficient Under-Secretary. He has proved this afternoon that he is that by the speech which he has just made and by the clear way in which he has put the difficulties and, may I say, the honest way in which he has confessed those difficulties. He has shown us that we have in him an ideal Parliamentary Secretary for this particular post. I should like also to congratulate him especially, and the Air Board also,

    2641
    upon the suggestion he has outlined of the new Committee under the aegis of Lord Northcliffe—than whom I do not think one could have a better man, for he has been so keenly interested in flying for so many years—to consider the naval and military and commercial side of flying as soon as the War is over. I am only too glad to think that a Committee is to be formed, for there is need for a large amount of work to be done.
    Major BAIRD: The Committee is to consider the civil side of aviation.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Still, I am very glad that a Committee is to be formed to consider the civil side of aviation. There is quite enough work in connection with that to provide the Committee with plenty to do for a good many months. At the same time, I hope the enormous advance which is bound to take place in the next few years in naval and military aviation will not be overlooked, and that someone will appoint a Committee, or that somebody will be appointed whose duty it will be to look after that, and not leave us in the parlous position in which we were when the War began. There is one other small point in regard to the suggestions made by my hon. and gallant Friend with which I desire to refer—that of the licence for the manufacture of experimental aeroplanes. I hope and trust those licences will be freely granted. I know that in time of war one cannot press too strongly the right of the individual inventor, and I hope these licences will be freely granted, and that no inventor will be crabbed, however absurd his ideas may be to the minds of those in the Air Service, because it is out of absurd ideas that very often brilliant inventions result. The utmost facilities should be given to those who desire to manufacture new-inventions in the shape of aeroplanes.
    I have not made a speech on this subject, which is one very dear to my heart, for many many months past, partly because I felt, after the appointment of Lord Cowdray to what we hoped would be the position of Air Minister, that it was my duty, and the duty of the Parliamentary Air Committee, for whom I have the honour to speak in some respects, to leave Lord Cowdray in undisputed possession without any criticism for some months in order that he might see in what condition the Air Services were and might formulate his plans and then come down to the House of Commons. After all, even in
    2642
    war-time, we here are the arbiters and deciders of all matters connected with the War. We are and we must remain, as-representatives of the people of this country, the final arbiters in these matters. I do not intend to indulge in any random criticism, nor do I want to indulge in hostile criticism. My hon. and gallant Friend has put us in a difficulty in regard to objections and criticism. At the same time, the Parliamentary Air Committee and we cannot be unmindful of the grave anxiety that there is at the present time: in regard to certain machines at the front. I will call them A and B. I do not want to mention them particularly, but there is anxiety with regard to the casualties from time to time. Numbers have been kept from us by the Under-Secretary of State for War, but I venture to suggest that secrecy in the House of Commons means publicity outside. Through the Press, through correspondence, through wounded men coming back, the facts filter through, and the country gradually begins to realise what machines are good and what are bad, and what the state of affairs at the front is. When Lord Cowdray was. appointed there was a strong consensus of opinion that we had got the right man at last, and that Lord Cowdray was going to have the real powers of a real Air Minister. I admire my hon. and gallant Friend's candour in making the remarks he did in regard to the powers of the previous Air Board. Those powers, such as they were, might be developed into an Air Ministry, and that, at all events, would be a step forward. How at last we have in Lord Cowdray an Air Minister in whom are concentrated all the civilian powers which have been previously exercised in regard not only to manufacture but in regard to the civilian control of both the Air Services.
    What is the position? I will first of all say what I mean by command of the air. I was challenged in regard to that a few minutes ago by my hon. and gallant Friend (Major Baird). General Henderson stated last week at Birmingham that neither command nor mastery of the air had any existence. On the other hand, I think I am right in saying that General Smuts at Edinburgh stated we have got mastery of the air. Personally, I agree with General Henderson. I do not think that up to the present there has ever been mastery or command of the air by either belligerent in this War. The object of the Committee and of those of us who have

    2643
    for years been interested in the Air Service is that we should get the mastery or command of the air. What I mean by command of the air is this: we should have in relation to the air exactly what the Royal Navy has in relation to the sea. I leave out for the moment the question of submarines, which is quite a distinct point. But we all know that Great Britain has known for generations past what command of the sea means. We had it at the beginning of this War. We controlled the seas from one side to the other; we swept off the seas all the enemy shipping; we kept command of the sea. I think it perfectly possible for us to have in the same way and in the same sense command of the air. I want to be able to block enemy machines from coming out of their aerodromes. I want to be able to prevent them spotting for Artillery. I want to be able to prevent them sending over airships here in order to carry out raids on innocent people. I want to prevent them sending over their aeroplanes here to drop, not very harmful, but unpleasant, bombs on our East Coast towns. I think that is possible if we have such a predominance in numbers as will ensure it. We have the predominance in men. There is no question about that among any of us. I have never said in any of the speeches I have made on this subject, and I am not going to say this afternoon—I am sure the House will bear me out—one word in criticism of the morale, bravery and devotion of our airmen. That is absolutely beyond any words. They are the super-heroes of the War, and, inasmuch as they are so brave, so brilliant and so determined, it is for us to see that we give them the very best machines that they can possibly have. That I suggest is the view which I have always taken and is the view which the Parliamentary Air Committee takes with regard to this matter.
    I see my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary for War (Mr. Macpherson) is here. What is the position with regard to mastery or supremacy of the air at the present time? On the 7th March the Under-Secretary of State for War was asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir H. Dalziel), "Can he assure us we still maintain mastery of the air on the Western Front?" "I think I can make that assurance," said my hon. Friend. On the 13th March he rather modified that statement, "There has not
    2644
    at any time on any side of the Western theatre been a situation which can properly be described as the mastery or supremacy in the air," he said. I am rather inclined to doubt that. I think there was a time when we had the supremacy in the air. If you read the dispatches from France from the Commanders-in-Chief in the spring of 1916 to the summer of 1916 and at the commencement of the Somme offensive in July, 1916, you will see that we undoubtedly had a distinct and total supremacy of the air on the Western Front. We had all last summer a distinct supremacy. We smashed the German aeroplanes down, we prevented their artillery from having the advantage of efficient air observation, and at the same time our men went over their line and brought back at much less cost than they are doing to-day large numbers of photograps and records of observation. They will go on doing it however costly it may be. Our brave airmen care nothing for losses. Whatever the cost they get the information. Our men, as we learn from a recent report, brought back in one day 1,700 photographs, but I am afraid they are doing this at a greater cost than in 1916. We have not the same supremacy on the Western Front that we had during the whole summer of 1916. The reason is this. My hon. Friend went on to say:
    "The War Office is satisfied for the moment with the best types which are being employed, hot there are machines still in use of types, which are not up to the latest standard. These are being: replaced as rapidly as possible."
    What does that mean? The War Office is satisfied with the best types which are being used. So am I. Our best machines are equal, or superior, to the best German machines. There is no question about that. But what proportion of these best machines have we got at the front to-day? I will not give any figures, but I will hazard—and I think I am not very far wrong—that we have at the front to-day 4 per cent of our machines of the best type. My hon. and gallant Friend will know what I mean by the best type of machines—I mean the ones that the hon. Gentleman meant when he spoke on 13th March as being superior to anything of the Germans. Can he or the Air Board tell me that there is any possibility of, I will not say 100 per cent., but 50 per cent. of our machines at the front being replaced by the best type of machines, such as he and I have in our minds during the course of the coming summer? I am afraid not. I am afraid it might have been done

    2645
    if it had not been for the confusion and the lack of driving force in the last two Air Boards or Air Committees, or whatever they are called. Has Lord Cowdray the power that he ought to have? Is he in any degree nearer being an Air Minister? Have we taken a step forward or is he merely in the same position as Lord Derby and Lord Curzon and Lord Montagu were in reference to the previous Air Board or Committee, which I fear were not very much good, in the autumn of last year? The public believes in Lord Cowdray, firstly, because of what he is, because he has great powers, great organising ability, and great driving powers, but also because they believe he has the power to do things. They believe he is really in control. Let me ask whether he really has any effective control with regard to the Air Services at all? What do the Air Services consist of? There is the Royal Flying Corps, which is an integral part of the Army to-day. Its officers are appointed and its regulations framed, not by Lord Cowdray. All its strategy and all its tactics are framed by the Army. It is under the Army Council. In the last resort it is under the civilian head, Lord Derby, the Secretary of State for War. There is no doubt whatever about that. Lord Cowdray and the Air Board have no power whatever to move a man or move an aeroplane which belongs to the Royal Flying Corps. Exactly the same is the case with regard to the Royal Naval Air Service. The Royal Naval Air Service is under the Board of Admiralty. Although we talk of the Board of Admiralty and the Army Council, the First Lord of the Admiralty and the Secretary of State for War are predominant in those Councils respectively, and the First Lord of the Admiralty can override—we had that discussed in the recent Dardanelles Debate—the decision of the Admiralty exactly in the same way as the Secretary of State for War is master of the Army. Therefore you have two civilian heads of the two Flying Corps entirely apart from Lord Cowdray as the head of the Air Board. Then I ought also to mention that the lighter-than-airship side has never come under Lord Cowdray or the Air Board at all. They have nothing to do with it, and when we wonder whether we are going to have any Zeppelins to meet Zeppelins—the German Zeppelin menace is not yet finished, and in all probability we shall have them over again—and when, after two and a half years of war, I want
    2646
    to know who is responsible for the fact that we are not able to meet like with like. I am not entitled to go to Lord Cowdray at all. He says it is nothing to do with him, and I have to go to the Civil Lord of the Admiralty and ask him.
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): The Civil Lord of the Admiralty?
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: I most deferentially beg his pardon—the Financial Secretary to the Admiralty—and ask him why there are no English Zeppelins to compete with German Zeppelins. Then, not merely are these two services under separate heads, but there is no interchange between officers of the Royal Flying Corps and the Royal Naval Air Service. I hope and believe that Lord Cowdray and my hon. and gallant Friend can act as friendly go-betweens between the services and modify differences between them, but there is no power to say to this service, "Do this, and you must do it," or to the other, "You must come in closer touch." They can only say, "We hope you will accept our recommendation and be better friends one with another than you have been in the past." Then there is the Advisory Committee of Aeronautics, which has not been mentioned this afternoon, and which, as I gather, is responsible to no one except the Prime Minister direct. Why it should report to the Prime Minister I do not know. That at least might be at once put under the supervision and control of the Air Board.
    Let me go a little further and find out what powers Lord Cowdray has. My hon. and gallant Friend has been speaking about a particular type of machine at the front. I myself think we might mention the name because it has been quoted so often, but if he likes I will call it the A machine. He knows perfectly well to which I refer. There are three variants of it. Suppose Lord Cowdray and my hon. and gallant Friend come to the conclusion, as sooner or later they are bound to come, that that is an inefficient machine for present purposes. It was a valuable machine two years ago. It was an excellent machine at the beginning of the War. Suppose they come to the conclusion, as responsible members of the Air Board, that it is desirable that those squadrons should be brought back, and that the work they are doing is being done at too great cost. They have no power whatever to bring those machines

    2647
    back. They have no power to say to the Royal Flying Corps: "You must send those machines back and even if you do less work you must do it for the moment until we can send you out some newer and better type," or if they come to the conclusion that a certain type—let us call it X—is better than anything else, they have no power to say to the Royal Flying Corps or to the Royal Naval Air Service, "We are going to manufacture you this X machine. We are convinced by our technical advisers that it is better than anything you have got, and you must use it." The Royal Flying Corps will say, "No, we do not agree with you. Our technical experts do not agree with yours, and there is no authority whatever in Lord Cowdray over those two services." In effect, the new Chairman of the Air Board is only an intermediary between the two Air Services and the Ministry of Munitions. He does not even control his own factory. The Royal Aircraft Factory is not under him. He cannot, as I understand it, appoint or dismiss a single man in that factory. That is under the Ministry of Munitions. This is a matter which cannot help the Germans at all, otherwise I should not criticise in this way. With every desire to be fair to my hon. and gallant Friend, he has not shown us that the new Air Board has any real powers greater than the last, nor is it one whit nearer to the ideal which so many of us have in mind of an Air Ministry to control the new and great services which are gradually growing up and which must develop ere long into an Imperial Air Service. Even on the Air Board itself I am not quite sure what the Minister's powers are. Suppose he differs on a matter of principle from General Henderson or Commodore Payne, I do not know that he can call for his resignation as a member of the Air Board. Probably he would have to go to the Prime Minister and get him to institute a fresh Air Board, leaving these gentlemen over, but that would not alter their position as heads of the Royal Flying Corps and of I the Royal Naval Air Service. All you would have would be Lord Cowdray as head of the new Air Board with General Henderson as head of the Royal Flying Corps, having had a disagreement on a vital matter with the head of the Air Board, but responsible to Lord Derby as head of the Flying Corps, and not to Lord
    2648
    Cowdray as head of the Air Board. I suggest that the proper course is to transfer to the Air Board the civil powers of the Secretary of State for War over the Flying Corps and the civil powers of the First Lord of the Admiralty over the Royal Naval Air Service. I do not suggest that Lord Cowdray and his Board should interfere with the tactics of Sir Douglas Haig at the front. Lord Derby does not do so. Theoretically he may have the power, as Secretary of State for War, but, of course, he does not do so, nor would the Prime Minister. Therefore, I suggest that their civilian powers ought to be amalgamated in the head of the Air Board, so that even during the War the lines may be laid down on which a great Imperial Air Service may be built up.
    I want to ask a further question of my hon. and gallant Friend. I am afraid the answer is in the negative, as to the other question. Supposing Lord Cowdray and his own immediate advisers come to the conclusion that it is desirable and feasible to do what so many others have asked should be done ever since the War began and have a large air offensive, either at Essen or in the Rhine country, consisting of at least a thousand machines?
    An HON. MEMBER: That is not a matter for the Air Board.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: That is the position. It is not a matter for the Air Board. Supposing they have an idea that it is possible, on the one hand you have the Generals at the front managing their own strategy and their own tactics, and you have the Admirals of the Fleet managing the Fleet and requiring aeroplanes or seaplanes for their Fleet purposes. I am suggesting quite seriously that there is an opening for a third man or a third body such as this Air Board to formulate, while supplying the Army with all it wants in the way of reconnaissance machines, bomb-dropping machines, photographic machines, a new Imperial Air Service, under a new head if necessary, which would take in hand an offensive which, I suggest, might have a very real effect on the conclusion of the War, which would get behind the German lines in a way that artillery cannot get, in a way that Cavalry and Infantry cannot get, and destroy, in the German country, the moral which is at present upholding the German forces. That is what I want to

    2649
    do, and I ask my hon. and gallant Friend can that be done? Even if the Cabinet decided that it could be done, there is no Air Service. If he tried to get 10,000 men for the purpose, the moment they enlist they become soldiers and sailors and ipso facto under the control of Lord Derby and the First Lord of the Admiralty. My hon. and gallant Friend should suggest this point to Lord Cowdray. The country, I believe, has such confidence in the Air Minister that it would be willing to give him almost whatever powers he likes to ask, believing in his power of push, go, and determination. It is no good telling me it could not be done. It is no good telling me, "You cannot manufacture the machines." Eighteen months ago we thought it could not be done with regard to artillery and munitions, but, owing to the imagination and determination, almost the genius, of one man, the present Prime Minister, who took hold of the munitions question and turned England into munition manufacturing area, it was done. If the right hon. Gentleman opposite had said eighteen months ago we could turn out half what we are turning out to-day in regard to munitions of war he would have been laughed at, and I am afraid I should possibly have laughed myself at the great imagination of the Prime Minister. What he did for the Army could be done by a man with the same determination and imagination for the Air Service. I am speaking to-day on the assumption that the War is not to be over this summer but will last another year, which is the only assumption upon which the House of Commons and the Air Services can go. Whether it is or not, we must be prepared for another campaign in the spring of next year, and now is the time to make your preparation.
    I feel in a very great difficulty after the appeal which has been made to me by my hon. and gallant Friend. I realise what has been done. I do not know whether the House realises that when the War began, in August, 1914, there had never been a single aeroplane engine manufactured in this country at all. They had all been brought over from France. Someone will hang on a lamp post in Whitehall when the War is over for the abominable neglect of the Air Service and the engine question at that time. When I come to the machines, I am afraid that I must take my courage in both hands. Even after the speech of my hon. and gallant Friend, I must say that there are certain
    2650
    machines at the front to-day which are obsolete so far as bombing raids and offensives over the German lines are concerned, which are putting upon our airmen too great a strain, a greater strain than we have a right to ask. My hon. and gallant Friend was, I think, not quite right in the suggestion which he made just now, when he asked, Is the work being done? Of course the work is being done. The position is that we are responsible for asking ourselves the question, Is the work being done even in wartime at too great a sacrifice? We are responsible. The Russian Army went into war some little time ago partly armed with broomsticks and partly armed with rifles, and they did very well. They gallantly allowed themselves to be slaughtered, though some of them were only armed with broomsticks. Would it have been right for the controlling Minister in Russia to say, "1s the work being done?" Would it not have been his duty to say, "Is it right for me to allow these men to go into battle armed only with broomsticks when a little energy and determination might have equipped them properly?" I suggest that the Committee is responsible, and this is the occasion to-day. You are entitled to say, not merely "1s the work being done?" but "1s it being done at too great a sacrifice?"
    I told the Committee just now how many of the best machines there were. I am not going to say how many of the A type of machines there are. It is a machine which is perfectly well known to the Germans as well as to us, which can fly at the outside only seventy or seventy-five miles an hour in favourable circumstances, and at the outside can climb only 8,000 ft. to 10,000 ft., and it takes from forty minutes to forty-five minutes to go up 1,000 ft., and it has to go into battle with German machines, and it has to go on bombing operations over German lines, where it has to meet German squadrons of Halberstadts and Albatrosses with an engine-power double that of our machines and a climbing-power of 1,000 ft. per minute, so that it can get up 18,000 ft in less than twenty minutes, while it can fly at a speed of 110 miles an hour. Should I mention these figures? I hardly know. I am told that if I mention them in this House I shall cause our young men who are flying this machine to be afraid.
    Colonel FABER: Not they.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: But I am bound to say that not once or twice, but over and over again I have had letters from men at the front with regard to these machines. Here is a letter from a flight commander, a relation of a Member of this House, who has sent the letter to me. It was written a few days ago, and it shows that the men who have to fly know that this is an inferior machine:
    "I do not know if you have seen the criticism about the Royal Flying Corps?"
    and then it mentions that my hon. and gallant Friend said that this particular machine was not sent on bomb-dropping expeditions. He quite admits that that was a mistake, but I have had numerous letters from flyers in regard to that unfortunate statement. Then he goes on:
    "This is precisely what they are working it for at the present moment."
    This is a man who has done well. He is a flight commander, whose father is a gallant officer in our own Army and a Member of this House. He goes on:
    "If from any ill-luck I get done in in a bombing raid. I hope that someone will make a fuss about sending flyers out bombing with those machines, which, as everybody knows, are not lit for the work."
    He is willing to go and he is going, and he has fought well. Here is letter received this month from another man who has done well. I have seen this man. He is fighting in one of our squadrons. He says:
    "No. So-and-so did a bombing raid, and No. So-and-so did a raid."
    and he mentions three machines of this A type, who were sent on another raid. It is too sad. The Committee will believe me when I say that there is a condemnation from top to bottom, by the men who fly these particular machines, of the policy which sends them to fight these high-power German machines on these expeditions. I cannot help saying, it is my duty to say, that last month another colleague in the House telephoned me, "I have got a young Australian officer from the Flying Corps who would like to see you. I will guarantee him, he is a relation of my own." He came and saw me. I asked him about this particular machine. He said, "If you want to know," and he used an ugly expression, which has been used already in this House, about "murder machines, which my squadron is flying on to-day."
    It is better to face these facts. Man after man comes and tells me that. Am I to smother that information? Am I to
    2652
    say," I am a Member of the House of Commons and will say nothing about it"? My hon. Friend told us just now in his speech that he got this information months before we got it. I have had that information. The hon. Member for Herts has had that information months ago. Therefore, if he has got it months before we got it, there has been time to clear out those machines altogether, and there has been time to manufacture new machines. I had that information six months ago. My hon. Friend had it six months ago. There has been ample time to clear out the whole of those "A" machines, but, instead of doing that, even to-day they are ordering that type of machine, and they are ordering them not merely for certain purposes at home, but for use at the front. I admit that they are good machines, stable machines, useful for night flying. But they are not machines that ever ought to be allowed to go over the German lines, and to come into conflict with the enormously high-power German machines, who can pounce on them and shoot them down, even before they know that they are attacked, swooping down from a height of 18,000 feet, while almost invisible from the ground, and smashing up and crashing to the ground our machines almost before the pilots know that they have been attacked.
    We have heard during the last fortnight of the great successes of our Air Service at the front. I admit that it has been magnificient. No words of mine are needed. It would be painting the lily to praise the work which they have done, but the cost has been great. We have not been told the figures of our losses. I obtained them in the same way as the Germans have got them. I obtained them by putting somebody to read through the file of the "Times" newspaper from the 1st of January to to-day. I would not give the figures to this House at all if the Germans had not got them, but the "Times" goes to neutral countries. The. Germans are not such fools as not to have gone through our casualty lists, which are published for all the world to see. What it the position? It is right that you should know. You Members of the House of Commons are jointly responsible, in spite of the magnificent work. In the casualties that have been mentioned in the "Times" reports are included the casualties for both Macedonia and Mesopotamia. I think that my hon. and gal-

    2653
    lant Friend will agree with me that the casualties there in flying are very small. At all events, they would not in any degree alter the proportion in these lists from the 1st January to to-day. They also include men—non-commissioned officers— who were flying. There, again, the number would be very small indeed— perhaps two or three a month, because nearly all of our flyers are of the officer class. They do not include any accidents. They include only killed, wounded, and missing at the front, as given in the casualty lists in the "Times." In January there were 56, in February 119, in March 152, and this month up to date there are 319, more than double the figure for March, nearly three times that for February, and nearly six times that for January. There were this very week 117 reported in the paper on one morning.
    I present this dilemma to my hon. Friend: Either those men were on the best machines or on inferior types of machines. If they were on the best machines, then I am afraid that the statement of the Under-Secretary that our best machines are better than the Germans is rather discomforting. If, on the other hand, you think that they were on inferior machines, then a very heavy responsibility is upon the directors of the Air Service, who sent these men over on machines which, on my hon. Friend's own showing, he knows are insufficient for the work they have to do, and obsolete so far as conflict with the high-power German machines is concerned. In addition to this, during this same period, the Royal Naval Air Service has lost 121, and at home there have been 73 pilots killed. That is a rather serious toll to take place at home. A great many of them are on a particular machine—not the one I am talking about now—which has been referred to in this House, which I will call "B," if my hon. Friend will allow me. One was killed yesterday in my Constituency. Five were killed within the last few weeks in that constituency. Many of them were killed at the aerodrome. After going there all you. hear is that this machine is a very dangerous machine to fly. I know that my hon. Friend says that one of the leading generals in the Flying Corps has flown it over to France. I know the general in question, and if it were possible to saddle the devil himself, he would saddle him and fly him without hesitation. But
    2654
    while he can do these things it does not follow that it is always desirable for young men to follow his example. The right course is to stop all contracts. When you find machines getting obsolete, instead of taking delivery by the hundred, you should cut with a knife into the contracts, whatever it may cost the country, and, instead of building obsolete machines, build some of the magnificent machines which we know they are turning out. The new machines are very fine machines indeed. They are sent over with the young men, and men who have been out at the front flying for months are still kept on the old machines, instead of being transferred to the new first-rate machines. In the French Flying Corps, a man goes up from a seventy or eighty miles an hour machine to a 100 or 120-mile machine. With us the men are kept at the old machines, and the new men go out on the new and best machines. That is a small criticism of detail, but I know that my hon. Friend will inquire into it.
    There are not many of these new flying machines. I will call one of them "X." It is a machine better than any German machine, fitted with our newest and best engines, and can climb and fly faster than the German machines. A squadron of these machines were sent over. There is no harm in telling the House how Lieutenant Robinson, V.C., met his fate, whatever that fate may be. A squadron of these machines were given pilots, most of whom had never been over the German lines at all. They were practising flying up and down behind our lines, and afterwards sent for a short distance for one day. Then six of them were started off for a long patrol over the German lines, and these included Lieutenant Robinson. They were X machines, the best we have got. Out of that six one got back to our aerodrome all right, one got back just safely behind our lines, and four either came down or crashed down behind the German lines, and the Germans have got those best machines now. Surely those machines ought not to have started. You ought to have waited until you had got three or four squadrons ready to go over. It is like the old tanks over again. Instead of waiting for a lot and crushing the Germans, they sent six machines over and they were met by nobody knows how many German machines, and, as I have said, four out of the six were brought down.

    2655
    I hear on all hands that there is much anxiety in regard to our flying machines. I wish I could get my hon. and gallant Friend (Major Baird) to realise that it is no pleasure to me to bring these facts before the House, but the only way to force the Air Service, or the Air Control, whoever that may be, is by pressure of public opinion in this House. The whole secret of the matter is engines, engines, engines. My hon. and gallant Friend agrees. Last week I met six of the principal aeroplane manufacturers in this Kingdom, and they told me they could turn out, and were turning out, as many machines as you like of the best and highest type, but they could not get engines for them. One man said, "For every fifty machines that we turn out I can only get five engines. I am praying that I may get more soon." The engine position was known. It had been spoken of in this House. There is no essential difference between an aeroplane engine and a high-class motor engine, and the manufacturer who builds one can build the other. Years ago arrangements ought to have been made to build these high class engines. Ask any manufacturer of engines you like—I will not mention any names— how they have been treated in regard to the manufacture of engines, and whether they have been given sufficient orders months ago, as they ought to have been. Perhaps now they are being given the encouragement that is so necessary. But are proper plans being laid down for the necessary engines, or are constant tinkering alterations being made to the engines? A Member of this House said he was manufacturing a certain part of one of our new and best engines, and that he had been doing it for three months. The week before last an alteration of a ¼in. was made in regard to a certain portion of it; and I asked him what would be the result. I said, "Will it mean a fortnight's delay?" He said, "The result will be three months' delay!" Why was that not thought of before? Why was not that design made sufficiently correct before, in order that the manufacturer, when he had started, would be able to go straight ahead with the work.
    I want to congratulate the Government on the reprisals which took place a fortnight ago at Frieburg. But if you are going to have reprisals you must be thorough. You must have an offensive Air Fleet apart from the everyday require-
    2656
    ments of your Army. You cannot take your machines from Sir Douglas Haig at the time of a big push. You must have an independent striking force, and I hope the time is coming when such arrangements will be made that every time there is a Zeppelin raid over defenceless towns in this country, every time a hospital ship is torpedoed, every time a merchant ship is torpedoed without notice, every time the German Army commits a breach of the civilised usages of war, there will be a reprisal, swift, sudden, and determined, on German territory behind the German lines. The time has come to take off our gloves in this War. Having once started reprisals, the Germans will laugh, and laugh heartily, if you give them up again. You have had two more hospital ships torpedoed since your last reprisals. The very next day there ought to have been a squadron of machines sent off to German territory to let them know that the opinion of civilised Great Britain was against any such dastardly things as the torpedoing of hospital ships. But you cannot do that unless you have the necessary machines. I know that the speech I have made this afternoon will not be popular in certain quarters, but the first duty of a Member of Parliament is not to be popular, but to be honest. It is our duty, knowing these facts, to put them before the only place where a Member of Parliament has a right to be heard, and that is the House of Commons. My responsibility, I admit, is great in putting them before the House, but I feel it to be my duty, and I ask the Committee to realise that I have only done what I feel bound to do in regard to these obsolete machines. When the Secret Session comes I will give my hon. and gallant Friend and the House a lot more information. I will read a lot more letters, and I will tell him of more interviews I have had. This is a matter for the Secret Session, because I do not want to do anything that will possibly give the Germans information. While our men are what they are, with their superb gallantry, their determination, their bravery and their fearlessness, it is the duty of the Air Service, and it is the duty of the House of Commons, to see that they are provided with the very best machines brains can devise and hands can manufacture.
    Lord HUGH CECIL: I caught your eye, Sir Frederick Banbury, with some diffidence, as I am not able to speak on the

    2657
    question now before the Committee with anything but very slight information. I listened to the speech of my hon. Friend (Mr. Joynson-Hicks), as the whole Committee did, with great interest and sympathy for the earnest desire that he always shows to make the lot of the flying officer at the front, supported by intelligent criticism at home, as good as it can be made. I think my hon. Friend deserves great praise for having devoted so much time and attention to this subject and having, therefore, acquired the right to make criticisms to the best of his ability. But I confess I was not quite able to follow what is the remedy that he desires to apply to the evils which he alleges to exist. He was very anxious, as I was, to increase the authority of the Air Board and to make it an Air Ministry. As I understand him now, the Air Board is mainly concerned with the supply department, and he complains that its control is limited to supply, and that it has no control over operations. I thought that rather a surprising complaint because practically speaking no Board sitting here in London could ever effectively or usefully control operations at the front. It is quite true that Sir David Henderson is an official of the War Office as well as being a member of the Air Board, and it is quite true that a similar observation might be made about the Air Lord of the Admiralty. The practical truth is that operations must always be left in the hands of the professional soldiers and sailors. When my hon. Friend came to deal with the practical evil which he alleges to exist, it amounts to one, and that is that the machines used at the front are not sufficiently good. That is the fault of the supply department. If such fault there be, the fault lies with the very Air Ministry the power of which the hon. Member is anxious to increase. If it really be so, that the machines used at the front ought to be very much better than they are, the blame obviously lies rather with the supply department than with any other department of the air administration, because they are supposed to supply the combatant officers with as good machines as can be obtained. My hon. Friend is anxious to meet Zeppelins with Zeppelins. I thought that of all the successful things in Home defence the resistance of Zeppelins by aeroplane had been most notable. People have been impatient that this form of Home defence was slowly developed, but. at any rate it has been a really good piece
    2658
    of work through the organisation of aeroplanes and searchlights. I always think that the value of searchlights arc inadequately recognised by the public. They are as important in the defence of the country against Zeppelins as aeroplanes. So far as that criticism goes, surely the hon. Member is carrying criticism rather too far when he complains of our Home defence against Zeppelins.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: My point is this: Will the Noble Lord consider the question of the demands of the Fleet in regard to aeroplanes and the great use Zeppelins have been in naval battles?
    Lord H. CECIL: That is another point. I understood my hon. Friend to be dealing with the question of Home defence against Zeppelins, which has been one of the things that has been very well done. With regard to the hon. Member's suggestion as to sending a large number of machines over German territory, that is not a question upon which the opinion of this Committee can be a really valuable one. If ever there was a question which is a technical military question, it is this question as to sending a vast number of military aeroplanes to make an attack upon Germany, and in regard to that technical question the opinion of this Committee is not worth much. The main difficulty is not so much the supply of machines as the supply of pilots for these expeditions. A pilot takes a much longer time to make than a machine. I do not know whether they have got quicker now, but a year or two ago it took from three to five months to train a pilot. If you were unfortunate enough to throw away three or four hundred pilots in this way it would be a serious hindrance to your operations for some time to come. Then we come to the question of obsolete machines. I am not in a position to contradict my hon. Friend, and I must not be understood to make any assertion on the subject, but my hon. Friend did not quite convince me that he was overstating his case. I do not think you can prove anything merely by dealing with casualties. My hon. Friend was led so far as to say that if these casualties occurred on the best machines it showed that those were not the best machines. Surely you can conceive that a casualty can happen on the best machine whenever a shot hits the petrol tank or whenever a shot kills or seriously injures the pilot in a battle in the air, and you cannot say because in a number of cases aeroplanes

    2659
    are brought down over the German lines that it shows that that type of aeroplane is not the best. The mere fact of casualties happening shows that you are using the Flying Corps with more enterprise and energy.
    6.0 P.M.
    I understood my hon. Friend to argue that only the very best machines should be sent out on hazardous duty, and it is certainly obvious that the better the machine the safer the enterprise. It is desirable, of course, that as soon as possible we should have the best machine that can be devised for the task. If I am correctly informed, the machines which are sent out upon raiding expeditions are accompanied by fighting machines, which are supposed to guard the attacking aeroplanes. I am not in a position to judge of the matter, but it seemed to me that my hon. Friend represented that inferior machines should be sent back to the base, and that a battle should take place between two sets of good machines.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: The whole point of the question is whether the protecting machines are as good as the best machines there are in Germany. We have not sufficient protecting machines.
    Lord H. CECIL: I have not the name of the machine referred to.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: The names are 2 C, 2D, and 2E.
    Lord H. CECIL: I only wish to point out that the particular machine which has been referred to has various qualities which should be taken into account. It is true that the machine is not so fast as many a more modern machine, and it is true that it has not the quick climbing qualities of other machines, but it is a very easy machine to fly. Let me take an illustration. We are sometimes told that a horse is a "confidential animal," and this aeroplane to which I refer may be described as a "confidential aeroplane." It is easy to fly, and puts less strain on the attention of the pilot. That is a quality of an advantageous character, because the eye of the pilot is not being constantly called to his machine when he has other things to claim his attention. There are machines which fly faster, but they are not so easy to handle. That, I say, is a consideration which must be borne in mind, though, at the same time I
    2660
    wholly agree with my hon. Friend, that it should always be the object to have the best machines we possibly can get for the front. I think my hon. Friend is a little too hard in his criticism of the machine. He said it would only go seventy-five miles an hour, but my recollection is that it goes between eighty and eighty-five an hour.
    Mr. BILLING: What height will it climb?
    Lord H. CECIL: That I cannot say. I flew the machine on the level, in still air. I admit, as I have said, that we should provide the best machines we can, but we do not want to delay operations, because we cannot get everything perfect. My hon. Friend would seem to suggest that we must hold up the operations of the Flying Corps, to some extent, at any rate, until we can chiefly replace all the older machines with newer machines. But we must go on with the War, even at considerable risk; we cannot stop the vital and important work of the Royal Flying Corps until we get what is lacking. I cannot help remembering the speech of my hon. Friend a year ago when we had supremacy in the air, for I almost jumped to my feet because he was even more pessimistic then than in his present speech. The machines were even worse then than they are now, and I have often had the idea that when members of the Flying Corps are at all depressed and out of spirits, they should write to the hon. Member for Brentford (Mr. Joynson-Hicks). Large numbers of the officers of the Royal Flying Corps are very young men, but I would venture to repeat an observation which has been made, that the root of human progress is to be found in the criticism and ideas of young men under twenty-five years of age. At that period of life young men are almost always very critical, and it has been said that the ideas, beliefs and criticisms of young men under twenty-five, ten or twenty years later, become realised; and we may assume, therefore, that the young man's conception of what the ideal aeroplane ought to be will be realised ten or twenty years hence. I think, however, that criticism of the present machine may be overstated, and if you cross-examine those who make the criticism you often find that very considerable deductions have to be made. I think we are well entitled to congratulate my hon. and gallant Friend on the prosperity which has

    2661
    attended the Air Service in the past year, and on the special measure of success which has attended the operations of the Royal Flying Corps. I think that if we could get into the minds of the German General Staff we would find that there is nothing for which they envy us more than our Air Service, and they consider that we have nothing which is better and more efficient. We have, also, the gallantry and glory of our soldiers, and, therefore, let us heartily rejoice.
    Mr. BILLING: The Noble Lord spoke of the requirements of the machine B 2C, and I think what he said was substantially correct. It is a machine which I, months ago, described here as the "murder" machine. It has a speed, when turned out from the factory, of 72 to 75 miles, with a 90 horse-power engine. In all circumstances it should have a careful pilot who is an engineer, but I suggest that the majority of our pilots are not engineers. With this machine, if the pilot is an engineer, and in sympathy with his engine, he might possibly obtain 75 miles an hour, but when it is sent out before very long it is found that the speed goes down to something like from 62 to 68 miles an hour, and in some cases even lower. With such a machine it is almost impossible to use it to cross the line, carrying an observer. It has a Lewis gun at an angle of 43 near the propeller, and another Lewis gun at the back sticking out at an angle of 43. Under ordinary conditions its speed is about: 62 miles an hour, while its maximum altitude is about 6,000 feet. A machine when it crosses the line must be at a height of not less than 6,000 feet. When going on bombing raids the machines cannot carry a passenger, because they have to have the weight of the bombs. They go in batches, or squadrons, and are convoyed by fighting machines, but they have great difficulty in keeping in touch with the convoy, some of which circle away to the right and some to the left. In a case of that kind, with these convoys the him has a simple trick for dealing with them, and it is very difficult to stop him doing it. While our machines have been spending fifty minutes to get to an altitude of 6,000 feet, some of the better machines of the enemy get up in from three and a half to four minutes. Those pilots get up about 18,000 feet, and dive on at least one of those bombing squadrons, or perhaps two of them. The result is that the convoys go out in front in order
    2662
    to get those two enemy machines down. What are the bombers going to do with their speed of about 62 miles'! They plod along and hope for the best. The convoy engages with the two chance machines, confident that they will be able to catch up with the bombing party. Before those fellows have got on about two or three miles there are two or three more Huns at a height of from 18,000 to 20,000 feet. Directly they see the convoy drawn away by the first two pilots, down they come and shoot those other fellows down.
    That is the point I want to make—to try and get them to stop sending over those fellows in that type of machine. It has taken me thirteen months before any Member would get up to support me on that point. I used the word "murder" thirteen months ago. It is all very well for the Noble Lord to make a joke about a pilot having nothing else to do, and so he writes to my hon. Friend. It is a most unseemly remark. Pilots think quite differently from that. I have had four letters this week, signed by pilots, and fellows who fly these machines call themselves the Suicide Club. I do not want to trouble the House with those letters. I have here a letter coming from a totally different source, which bears out what my hon. Friend above the Gangway said. I think I should, without mentioning the squadron, read an extract.
    "No.— squadron did a raid on Good Friday. The previous day No.—quadron did a raid."
    Then he gives the names of three other squadrons all on B.E. machines, who were under orders for another raid, and continued:
    "If the raid is only two to three miles over, you can probably get there and back without being attacked, but they send us to— nearly 14 miles over. and the Huns catch us on our return. It is not as if one had a chance. Our machines are unable to carry two bombs and an observer, so we go solo. These machines climb very badly, especially when loaded with bombs, say, 6,000 feet in 40 to 50 minutes, and fly 50 to (SO miles an hour. We have two Lewis guns which fire at angles to avoid the propeller and the rudder, and are almost useless on this account and because of the difficulty of sighting in their awkward position. The machines we are flying are the 1915 type. We do not complain about using them with an observer for Artillery work, but it is pure murder to send one on long bombing raids and solo. Besides, the effect of the raids is insufficient."
    He goes on to make further remarks with reference to forthcoming operations. That was from another pilot in the same squadron as that to which my hon. Friend refers. It may be a very sound thing so far as the administration is concerned for a member of the Government to stand up

    2663
    and say that it is not in the interests of the country to criticise and that you must not give information to the enemy. If there had been no criticism in this House I do not know what would have happened. The agitation that took place twelve or thirteen months ago resulted in alterations and, in fact, it provided the hon. and gallant Gentleman with the position he now holds. If it had not been for that agitation there would have been no Air Board, and we should have gone on in exactly the same way.
    I do not say that the Air Board is perfect. I have considerable confidence in the ability of the Chairman to do a very great deal, and, anyhow, it is a step in the right direction. I understand that the Director-General of Aeronautics, Sir David Henderson, is being found an appointment in the Scottish Command outside aeronautics. If that is so, I am very pleased to hear it. I have no grievance against Sir David Henderson. I never had. I have no grievance against any particular per-son, but the difficulty in criticising a service without mentioning the responsible head of the service is just the same as criticising a Department without mentioning the responsible head. It has always seemed to me a rather deplorable thing that criticism in this House to be of any use must naturally and necessarily be what one might call destructive criticism. If any Member of the House presumes to offer destructive criticism, always presuming there is someone on the Front Bench listening, it is regarded as something bordering on impertinence to suggest how the Government should do things or how a military Department should do things. The result is that before criticism is tolerated in this House there must be something pretty rotten in the Department that is being criticised. If it were only a slight fall from efficiency I think the critic would have a very bad time. Time is of the essence in this matter, and we have got to get on with the position at the front. There are times when the spur of destructive criticism is the only thing that official apathy will feel. It is necessary, more so now than ever.
    I would ask the hon. and gallant Member one very distinct question—namely, if the Chairman of the Air Board, assuming that he has the authority, if certain Members here can produce evidence to him which cannot be contradicted that these
    2664
    machines are totally unfit for this purpose, will he give orders that these machines are not to be employed any further in France for this purpose, that is, for bomb dropping behind the enemy lines? He might limit their activities to gun spotting and other observations of that kind. Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman give an undertaking that the statement he made to me in this House on the 20th of last month shall be kept, and that they shall not be used for this work. If he will not grant that, will he say this, that no further machine of this type shall be sent from England to France to be used for this purpose. If that is too much to ask him, will he see that no further machine of this type shall be ordered now to he built in the future and to be delivered in six months' time in France at the front? From information I have in my possession I am satisfied that that is what is now being done at present. They are ordering these machines. If they are so hopelessly inadequate, outranged and inefficient today, how much more likely are they to be so when delivered in six months. I would like him to give an assurance to the men at the front that when they are through with this lot of machines, if they are necessary for the efficiency of present operations, they will not continue to be sent over. I do not think that any Member of this House can say that they had not fair warning as to what would happen to the pilots if the ordering of these machines was persisted in. Twelve months ago I mentioned the matter. It is perhaps poor satisfaction to suggest that one has told anybody inside or outside this House, but they had fair warning of what was likely to happen if they persisted in ordering these machines, and the result we have seen.
    There is another question I should like to ask. The hon. and gallant Gentleman told us in his address that the Air Board delivered aeroplanes to the respective services at the gates of the factory which built them. I should like to know at what precise moment from the time the order is placed until the time the machine is delivered the contractor ceases responsibility. If my hon. Friend says there is no air test, as far as I remember, eighteen months ago that was not so. An air test was required before the machine was taken over, in order to see the general assembly of the machine and that it was up to contract. Perhaps, if the hon. and gallant Gentleman replies, he will deal

    2665
    with that point. The hon. Member above the Gangway raised another point, in which I think he was a little misunderstood. That was the question of the men flying better types of machine, of which he gave an instance. It is not always because a man is on the worst type of machine that he is at a great disadvantage, or because he is on the best. It entirely depends on the machine a man has been used to, and not the type of machine. It is a question of judgment. We know at the present moment there are fellows sent out to France who have not had ten hours' flying. They are being drafted out there, they are put into high-speed machines, sent over the enemy's lines for the first time, and they have not a look in. Candidly, they would be better at home here, quite a number of them. I do not want to give the House the number of pilots that went out four days ago, but a vast number of those men had not sufficient experience, and I appeal to the hon. and gallant Member to use whatever influence he may have with the authorities to see that those men are thinned out when they get out there, and not sent over the lines until at least they can have some chance to use that bravery which we are all so busy praising in this House. If these men were not so brave and so full out you would hear a great deal more about it, but it is because they are so full out that they put up with these inefficient machines.
    The hon. Member for Brentford also raised the question of a sustained air offensive, and I would like to suggest to the Air Board that there has existed for a long time an opening for a sustained air offensive quite independent of the requirements of the Naval and Military Wings. The Naval Wing was formed, in the first instance, to provide the Grand Fleet with machines for gun spotting and observation and to assist the Grand Fleet in operations on the High Seas, but the Royal Naval Air Service has never fulfilled its functions. It has never yet been able to produce anything that was really of any material use to the Grand Fleet. The result has been that it has been used in many instances to devil for the Royal Flying Corps. When the Royal Flying Corps have been weak in any place we have sent them a squadron of Royal Naval Air Service machines. I think the members of the Royal Naval Air Service at least do not think very highly of that, although they are quite willing to do it.
    2666
    I can assure the Committee that there are a vast number of machines now in this country, despite our losses at the front, under the administration of the Royal Naval Air Service, booth stored here and being taken delivery of. If these machines are in the country and the pilots, surely they can be put on some useful work. It has been suggested that to initiate one reprisal raid and then stop is a bad policy, and I quite agree. What is responsible for the apathy in the administration of the Royal Naval Air Service? One thing it is doing—it is using up an enormous amount of the output of this country and arresting an enormous amount of facilities which might be used to advantage for the Royal Flying Corps. When we have an opportunity in Secret Session I trust that someone on the Front Bench will be as candid with this House as it is suggested that this House should be candid with the Front Bench, so that at least we can get something approaching the actual figures. I should also like to know whether the Financial Secretary to the Admiralty will be so good as to tell us how much of this country's money has been spent on developing the Royal Naval Air Service since August, 1914. I think it is out of all proportion to the value that the service has been to the country, although it is not out of all proportion to the value the service might have been to the country.
    I had occasion last week to ask the Prime Minister what our attitude towards America on the question of the production of machines was likely to be? We all know that the American mechanical resources for the building of aeroplanes are limitless; if any resources are limitless, they are in the United States. It is some weeks now since the Americans came into this War, and yet, I understand, we have absolutely refused to give them access to our designs or to our latest types of engines, owing to some commercial cause. I think that is a very great pity. I am confident that the constructors in this country would be willing to meet the American Government and supply them with the very latest types of our machines, and I quite fail to see why we should not supply the American Government with the latest types. What is the use of asking our new Allies to blunder through all the mistakes which we have made for two and a-half years? When the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Major Baird) replies, I should like to know whether there is any likelihood of the drawings and specifications of one of

    2667
    our latest types of machines being sent to America in the next ten days. I cannot see any excuse for them not having been sent ten days ago, so that the American constructors might have something to work on. It would be quite possible for the American nation, without any great strain on their resources either of personnel or of material, to raise 5,000 or 10,000 bomb-dropping machines in the next six or eight months. I think it is also feasible that they might be able to provide pilots for at least half that number, which would be a very fair average to allow for crashes; and I think, if this War does continue through this year, as it seems likely to continue, it would be a very useful thing for the Allies if the Americans could put from 3,000 to 5,000 bomb-dropping machines on the Western or on the Eastern front early next year. The effect of raids carried out on a vast scale, as they could be carried out, without any trouble to ourselves or any drain on our resources beyond supplying America with the drawings and specifications and possibly one or two machines to help them through the initial stages, would be incalculable. But it wants to be done now. We do not want to talk and haggle about it in the middle of December and then say, "I think it is time to do it," with the result that the machines will not come along until the following winter. It seems to me that in this matter of America, also, time is absolutely of the essence of the contract.
    Possibly it will be fair for me to say that the officials of the Royal Flying Corps and of the Royal Naval Air Service are not so much to blame in these matters as what one might describe as the political interests at the head. There are so many things that have to be taken into consideration, and so many vested interests to be consulted before anything can be done in this War at all, and there is such an utter lack, with one glorious exception, in both this Government and the past Government, of vision and imagination in dealing with these subjects. I do not want to suggest that the result of that lack of vision and imagination is to be laid entirely on the shoulders of the Royal Flying Corps or the Royal Naval Air Service. I think they have suffered all the way through owing to the political attitude, which has been very difficult to overcome. The question of vast numbers of aeroplanes being ordered has been sug-
    2668
    gested as a way out. Personally, I have never held that view. You want vast numbers of aeroplanes, but the mere ordering of them will not win the War, and what I have endeavoured to suggest here is that what is essential is to start off with a policy. Never since the outbreak of the War has there been anything approaching a fighting policy in either of the Air Services. Somebody brings out a new machine, and it is brought to the Admiralty or to the War Office, and they say, "Would you like to try it?" "Yes." "Then go and try it." We will say that Lieutenant Smith, or Captain Smith, or Commander Smith is in charge of the Department an that he initials a slip saying it is a good machine, and somebody works out slide-rule calculations, and fifty of the machines are ordered. In six months' time somebody comes up and says, "Where shall we deliver these machines?" "What machines?" "These machines." "Who ordered them?" "Commander Smith." "Where is he?" "In Egpyt." "What shall we do with them then?" "Oh, you had better ask So-and-so Department." They have been ordered in a most haphazard manner. I have given the House dozens of instances of the manner in which these machines are ordered. I gave an instance of Short bomb droppers the other day, when, because they could not get the drawings complete, they kept on giving orders for more and more of the machines, and, although the initial order was to be for fifty, after they had increased the order in this way to 250 the whole lot was cancelled and a different type introduced.
    If whoever is responsible for initiating an air offensive will make up his mind what offensive we shall initiate, and then consult with those who understand the construction of the machines as to what sort of machines will be necessary to carry out that operation, then we might get a little further. The Chairman of the Air Board should ask himself three simple questions. The first is—What damage both to material, and, what is more important, to the moral of the enemy, can be accomplished by striking at him from the air behind his lines? It has been suggested that the Chairman of the Air Board has not the authority to do anything in this matter. Then I commend it to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Air Board to pass these suggestions along to whoever may have the power. I only wish there was one man in this country absolutely

    2669
    responsible for an air offensive. He should then ask himself, What types of aeroplanes is it necessary to construct to accomplish this thing? And thirdly, What steps is it necessary to take to enable us to standardise production and produce the necessary quantities in order to make an air offensive effective? It is possible to turn them out providing that you have a policy, but if you have no policy you cannot standardise. Assuming that we were contemplating a big raid on Essen in six months' time, and continued raids on other parts of Germany, it is possible to standardise a bomb-dropping machine for the next six months. Not only is it possible, but we have the types now. One gets into consultation with the people who have experience in these matters, and the Chairman of the Air Board says, "I want a machine of such a performance at such-and-such an altitude." It need not be a a very quick-flying machine if heavily loaded, because in bomb-dropping raids they always start a good way behind our lines, so as to get height before crossing over into the enemy's country; but it must have at 16,000 feet a speed of not less than about 90 knots, or even 90 miles. If it has got that, and if it is capable of about five or six hours' duration, which would give 500 to 600 miles radius there and back, and if it is capable of carrying perhaps two 200-pound bombs, that will do. We have that machine in existence to-day.
    It is quite an extraordinary thing, as we had it in existence twelve months ago. To a certain extent it has been standardised, because we are still building the machine. But we have been at it for twelve months, playing at it. We have never taken it seriously. If the authorities standardised that kind of machine for six months, and put 1,000 in hand, and then put in hand the training of the men necessary to fly these machines, in six months, or in three months' time, as was necessary, it would be well. Then it conies to a question of providing fighting scouts to accompany them. That is a thing you cannot standardise. It is utterly impossible to do it. I would suggest that orders for that type of machine should not be given at a maximum of more than one month's output to any firm who took it on. Those machines want restandardising practically every month. Provided that a firm is given an order, at twelve or fifteen machines a
    2670
    week for sixty of them, which will represent a month's output, then at the end of that time you could standardise that type again with the improvements that the month's air flying had taught, and that machinery could go steadily on. You could standardise your fighters every month, and your bomb-droppers every six months. There is nothing to stop you doing it now. We could arrange the delivery and the commissioning of the pilots to synchronise with a definite policy in hand, and these raids could be commenced. All this could be done without interfering in any way with the output in this country for naval and military requirements, providing that which is asked for the naval and military pilots is limited to what the Army and Navy is justified in asking for.
    It has been suggested that the Admiral of the Fleet or the Field Marshal in France should be responsible for arranging these raids. That is a false policy. All we want is the matter of the enemy's country in conference with the Secret Service people. The whole thing could be done from this country without any trouble at all. We know quite well that we can accept practically every German township as a hive of military activity. The Secret Service could act with a man who never went outside this city, providing he understands and appreciates the task that is set a pilot to do when we send him out. It is quite possible in conference with a Secret Service officer and a map to plan any number of raids where they shall be initiated and where they shall take place. I say that this could be done without interference so far as either naval or military requirements are concerned. Not only that, but if the material which the Royal Naval Air Service at present are not employing was taken over it would form a very considerable nucleus for such Imperial Air Fleet or raiding squadron. I think the operations of the force I suggest want to be absolutely distinct from the Army and the Navy. I think that that is a point upon which we might get a little information later. To me it seems perfectly clear and simple that we should have a separate raiding squadron which will initiate raids and carry out reprisals. I do not see why Sir Douglas Haig should be concerned when we are raiding various parts of Bavaria or Frederickshaven, or other parts of the enemy country. The only interest that Sir Douglas Haig would appear to

    2671
    have in the matter is when he gradually found his Army opposing an army with a weaker morale, which would probably continue to decrease in proportion to the increase in our raids.
    I should like to congratulate the Government on the recent changes and promotions in the Royal Flying Corps. I consider the new system of a Director-General one of the happiest appointments that has been made for a long time. The promotion, too, of several other officers is likely to have not only far-reaching, but immediate results in many of the cases which hon. Members have felt it their duty to bring before the House. I do not know that I have anything further to say beyond expressing the feeling that I at least have a great deal more confidence in the future of our Air Service. More particularly did I like that very interesting suggestion made by my hon. and gallant Friend as regards what is likely to happen when peace comes, and as to the Committee he proposes to set up. I think the Government are fortunate in their selection of a chairman. I should also like to ask the hon. and gallant Gentleman whether it is proposed to have naval and military representatives on this Committee, because I think it is most essential that it should be so. It is no good having a Committee set up to inquire into this thing unless they have in common conference with them those men who control or will practically control the supplies of the aeroplanes with which they will have to deal. It is quite possible that after within a month or a couple of months of peace coming, the Irish or the Paris mails may be carried by aeroplanes.
    It will be a very sound thing if the senior in command in both services, who is fully conversant with the types of machines they have, and what they are capable of accomplishing with a useful load, were in conference with this Committee so as to point out the facts to the Postmaster-General if he asks whether they have any machines capable of doing certain special work. I think most probably that it will work sweeter if those officers were called in whenever this Committee met than if it were left only to the Committee to come to some wrong decision from their ignorance of the facts—facts the officers could supply at a moment's notice.
    2672
    It seems to suggest that at last the administration of the Royal Flying Corps, the Royal Naval Air Service, and the service generally is passing out of the hands of what might be called the elderly politician. It has always seemed to me such a pity that the administration of a service such as this should not have been placed unreservedly in the hands of the generation that brought it into being. It is a new service. It demands new interest Young men should have their opportunities. I do not think that history records any case where it has taken longer for the younger men to come into their own, both in the administrative departments and in the other departments than in this War. We have trusted very much to elderly ad vice, for in this country we always pay respect to grey hairs. Hence it has been rather difficult to convince some of them that possibly their views and their opinions were not quite in keeping with the ordinary lessons of the War in front of which we find ourselves.
    "The lamp of their youth will be utterly out,
    But they shall subsist on the smell of it,
    And whatever they do they will fold their hands,
    And suck their gums and think well of it;
    Yes. the shall be perfectly pleased with their work,
    And that is the perfected hell of it."
    7.0 P.M.
    Mr. TENNANT: We have had a very useful discussion, and I should like to join with my right hon. Friend, who sits on this bench, in congratulating my hon. and gallant Friend opposite on the speech which he delivered earlier in the proceedings. I should also like to congratulate him further upon having received the congratulations of almost everybody who has spoken. It is a very difficult position that he has, and one which I had in years gone by, when I had to meet the stormiest attacks, and a good deal of criticism and antagonism from Members in all parts of the House—from Members representing those constituencies which had received visits from Zeppelins in the course of the previous few weeks. It was important, I think, that the hon. and gallant Gentleman should give us, as he did give us, a correct account of the functions of the Air Board. In the minds of a good many hon. Members, certainly in my own, there was some confusion of ideas as to what were the proper duties and functions of the Board. We all know that in the past there have been difficulties—I think even the word "friction" would not be too strong a word to use—as between the various Government Departments concerned in the provision of the material

    2673
    necessary for this most important branch of the service. If I am right, and I think I am, in saying that the new Air Board has smoothed away these difficulties and has reduced that friction to comparative insignificance, or perhaps has absolutely got rid of it altogether, then the hon. and gallant Gentleman who represents the Air Board here is much to be congratulated. I was very glad to hear the various other things that he told us. Passing from the functions of the Air Board to actual activities in which we have been engaged, I was glad to hear of the co-ordination which he announced between ourselves and our Allies, in order that the best brains and the best experience which can be brought to bear upon the problems connected with flying should be so brought to bear, and the best results obtained. I also was interested in the question of inspection. None of the field of the production and activity of an aeroplane seem to me to be more important than it should be thoroughly tested, and that the Inspection Department should be as efficient as possible. I am not quite certain, but my hon. and gallant Friend will correct me if I am wrong, whether it is not desirable that trial flights should be made at the factories. I do not know whether the great manufacturers have any facilities for trial fights or not. but it does seem to me important that before a machine actually comes out to be used in the manner in which it is used—always a very dangerous proceeding even at home in peace times—that it should be tested in a satisfactory manner. I listened rather with some astonishment to the hon. Member for Herts (Mr. Billing) when ho spoke of the absence of a policy, and he said that ever since the beginning of this War he could not see that in any of the conduct of operations there had been a policy at all. I venture to think that he is wholly mistaken. If the House reflects on what the Royal Flying Corps has done, how it has contributed in the operations in the field by photographs, by its wireless telegraphy, and in artillery observation, I am sure the hon. Member will agree with me that that has been a policy which has been not only of inestimable value, but absolutely of the greatest possible necessity to the operations. And not only in observation for artillery, but in observation of every kind, in reconnaissances throughout the whole of this War,
    2674
    the Air Service has really been the eyes of the Army. That is a commonplace. The Noble Lord the Member for Oxford University (Lord H. Cecil) made a very illuminating contribution to our discussion, as he has done on more than one previous occasion. He referred to the young men who, being in low spirits, wrote letters to my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford (Mr. Joynson-Hicks). I have often thought that my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford deserved our greatest consideration and our entire sympathy for the astonishing productions which come in his post-bag. I am very sympathetic with him for being the recipient of so many disheartening missives.
    Whereupon, the Yeoman Usher of the Black Rod having come with a Message to attend the Lords Commissioners, the Chairman left the Chair.
    Mr. SPEAKERresumed the Chair.

ROYAL ASSENT.
Message to attend the Lords Commissioners;
The House went; and, having returned,
Mr. SPEAKER reported the Royal Assent to—
Parliament and Local Elections Act, 1917.

SUPPLY.
Again considered in Committee.
[Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]

SUPPLY.

  AIR BOARD
  Question again proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £1,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1918, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Air Board."
  Mr. TENNANT: I was interrupted in my flight, which is not a very high soar. The hon. Member for Brent-ford has given us the percentage of accidents, and the numbers of the various types of machines which are used at the front. I still hope that some time we may be informed in regard to the relatively small proportion of efficient machines.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: I did not say efficient machines. I was dealing with machines stated to be our best machines, and better than the best German.
  Mr. TENNANT: I am obliged for that correction, and I did not desire to misinterpret my hon. Friend's remarks. The machines referred to are known by the letter "X," and my hon. Friend gave a description of how even on those machines four casualties occurred out of six. Previously he informed the Committee that the casualties were attributable almost entirely to the comparatively low velocity of the machines employed, and yet when the high velocity machines are sent up no less than four out of six had casualties. In so dangerous an occupation as that of flying in war-time you cannot attribute all the casualties to the type of machine which is being used, because flying is always a most hazardous and dangerous occupation. I wish to say a word about the B 2C. I doubt whether this is such an obsolete machine as my hon. Friend seems to think. I want to see improvements made, but the B 20 has some great qualities. It has stability, it is comparatively easy to learn, and it is the custom to use these machines at definite times and for definite purposes, and they are generally accompanied by faster fighting machines.
  One other word as to the danger. In a hostile country, where you cannot make convenient landings, flying in a very fast machine is much more dangerous than a slower one. Even our own aerodromes behind the lines are very small, and it is exceedingly difficult to land a fast machine on a small area. We know the existing state of affairs in France, where the ground has been so pounded by artillery that shell holes are so numerous that landing is a sheer impossibility. I intervened in this Debate partly to pay my respectful congratulations to my hon. and gallant Friend, and also in the hope that we may by judicious criticism and helpful observation be of some assistance to the Air Board in providing for this most wonderful service. I yield to no man in my admiration of the Air Services, and one almost stands aghast at their wonderful achievements. I only trust that my hon. and gallant Friend in the strenuous work he is putting in may have a great success in providing a splendid service and the most efficient machines.
  Captain BURGOYNE: I do not know whether hon. Members have such intense faith in the Air Board that they do not wish to hear these matters discussed, or whether it is that this being a great national question it does not appeal to
  2676
  them as much as some of those questions of much less importance. I have too much personal vanity to think that the absence of hon. Members is due to the fact that it has been my good fortune to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, at this particular moment. I wish to congratulate the Parliamentary Secretary on the survey that he has given of the situation in the air at the present time, and upon his definition of the policy of the Air Board, of which he is not the least distinguished member. The newest of our Services has for too long been the Cinderella of our Government Departments, and those of us who have taken an interest in the matter have not only rather begun to despair, but at the same time they have been a little suspicious as to what was going on behind the scenes. To-day the Parliamentary Secretary has very kindly lifted one corner of the curtain, and we are enabled to see that if the progress that is being made under the auspices of the new Board is not all that we would wish, at all events something is being done.
  I am bound to admit, after listening to the hon. and gallant Member's description of the function of the Board and the work it is throwing on to its various members, that I am afraid it is getting a little too complex. Of course, that is a problem which the future alone can decide. I do not wish to follow the Chairman of the Parliamentary Air Committee on those lines at all, but I want to deal with the Royal Aircraft Factory. That factory has got a very bad name in this House, and I do not think it has altogether been deserved. I regard the Royal Aircraft Factory as the cradle of the Royal Flying Corps. From the efforts made there in the initial days have sprung very nearly all the successes which have been obtained up to the present time. Not only that, but it deserves a position of greater importance, because it is the only Government air dockyard in existence; and, even if it does not develop to a much greater size, it will be the first of a large number of similar institutions mainly on the lines of the dockyards provided for the Navy at the present time. I hope the Committee will bear with me while I deal with the Royal Aircraft Factory during two different periods.
  I want to take, first of all, a period from the time when the first design of the first stable machine was framed up to the outbreak of war; and, secondly, a period from the outbreak of war up to the

  2677
  present time. I am doing this for this specific reason—to show that there is some contradiction of policy in regard to an institution which ought to be one of the great standbys of the Air Service. My hon. and gallant Friend will recollect that about 1910 the officials of the Royal Aircraft Factory, under a most able superintendent, decided, after a most careful investigation, that a tractor biplane was the most suitable for military work; and in 1911 the plans were published of the machine which subsequently got known as the B.E. 1, which, I believe, means the Bleriot Experimental. The engine was not found to be satisfactory. It was an old engine taken out of a smashed Bleriot, and it was replaced with the 60 horsepower engine, and this became the B.E. 2. At that time the Royal Aircraft Factory was doing precisely that for which it was intended: that is, experimental work of the very highest kind. Minor alterations were made in the general design of that now aged biplane, and with those alterations came the B. E. 2 A. In this machine the pilot considered that he was not quite as comfortable as he ought to be, and the body was made narrower in order to give greater protection. This was the B. E. 2 B. In 1912 the Secretary of State offered a prize to all comers for the best machines, and the trials took place in August, 1912. The date is significant, for it is two years before the War broke out. The trials took place, and out of thirty-one machines tested, the latest Cody machine came out on top. When they had secured in this way the best machine, they tested it with their B.E. 2B. against it, and it beat the Cody machine on every single ground, and at once a colossal order for twelve of these machines was given.
  I will now leave machines and see what the Royal Aircraft Factory in its halcyon days was doing in the matter of engines. Engines then, as now, were the controlling factor in aircraft, and they were astonishingly bad. Early in 1912 the Royal Aircraft Factory asked for a grant to design and build an engine, but the War Office turned it down, as they frequently turned down things which were new and which the old men there did not understand. Nevertheless, the Secretary of State took it upon himself to order on 14th October, 1912, an engine to the design of the Royal Aircraft Factory, and on 13th December of that year a grant was forthcoming, and the outcome of that was the 90 horsepower R.A.F. In 1913 both the Admiralty
  2678
  and the War Office decided that they wanted something good in the way of engines, and so a large prize of £5,000 was offered for the best engine, but the one that gained a prize was found to be impracticable in actual service, and again the 90 horse-power R.A.F. came out on top and it was installed in the old B. E. 2 B.
  I will carry this history a little bit further. All this time the Royal Aircraft Factory was doing precisely the work for which it had been established. In the following summer Mr. E. T. Busk, the head of the research side of the Royal Aircraft Factory, told the superintendent that he thought he had a design for a stable machine which would also be easy of control, and in the Estimates for 1914 £5,000 was put down for an aeroplane to be flown without the use of a control. The War Office struck out the item. I am glad to have an opportunity of bringing these facts before the Committee so that the absurdity of the administration of the War Office with regard to the Experimental Department of the Air Service may go down on record. The superintendent of the Royal Aircraft Factory fetched out the old B.E. 2 B, pulled it to pieces, repainted it and redesigned it, and it emerged as B.E. 2 C. We have been talking about the B.E. 2 C to-day. That was the first inherently stable machine. It was completed two months before the outbreak of the War, and when the War came upon us the only effective machines we had to send to France were sixty at the maximum to fight some 1,300 of the Germans. If there had been official authority to carry on experiments with the speed with which they should have been carried on, we had every opportunity of preparing a really first-class design of stable machine, whereas we had to take the old B.E. 1, redesigned several times, worn out with constant exercise, and from it drew up plans which were of very little value, but from which we discovered the stable machine in use at the present time.
  Up to the outbreak of War the Royal Aircraft Factory was absolutely fulfilling its job. It was experimenting, and experimenting hard, and it had discovered something that every single nation now engaged in the War would have been glad to have had, and against its work there was official crabbing right from the beginning. I go so far as to say that even with regard to a heighth record which was got out by a young pilot called Spratt, the head of

  2679
  the Air Service himself, Sir David Henderson, said, "You had better give up these record stunts." I put it to the Committee that the job of the Royal Aircraft Factory was to carry out experiments. What happened after War broke out? Hero I hope that I shall have the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary, because I am going to deal with the Royal Aircraft Factory upon rather different lines. Subsequent to the outbreak of the War we had, naturally, very largely to extend the staff and the means of production of that factory. Owing to the fact that it was extremely difficult to get hold of men accustomed to aeroplane work, there was a considerable falling off in the efficiency of that work. Furthermore, owing to the fact that we had no proper engines for aeroplane purposes in this country, they looked to this 90 horse-power R.A.F. to provide the initial design of every other engine. We heard all sorts of rumours, committees were appointed, inquiries took place, and in the result the Royal Aircraft Factory got a name which was certainly not very sweet. What did we get as the result of all these inquiries? We got a series of statements defining the exact position that the Royal Aircraft Factory ought to hold in the future. It was founded, as we all know, for purely experimental purposes, and the scientific data from which machines were to be designed were obtained, I understand, from the National Physical Laboratory. At all events, that laboratory worked with the Royal Aircraft Factory. We now come to the first point, as to whether or not the Royal Aircraft Factory at the present time is fulfilling the work set for it in the statements made by the hon. and gallant Gentleman in this House and by his associates on the recent Air Board, with which he was also connected, and other eminent people. The Committee on the administration of the Royal Flying Corps, in their Report of last year, said:
  "We think that the continued existence of the Royal Aircraft Factory is essential."
  Everybody agrees with that. It is our first aerial dockyard.
  "It should not, in our opinion, become a manufacturing establishment, but should confine itself to the five subjects stated in the Report, namely: (1) Trial and experiment; (2) research; (3) preparation of drawings; (4) repairs; (5) manufacture of spares."
  It is perfectly well known that the factory-is much more a manufacturing factory than it is devoted to research work. I
  2680
  purpose to read letters and other documents to prove that is so. My argument becomes a little difficult in that I have found the Parliamentary Secretary to the Air Board out in a complete contradiction of statements in his opening remarks. He first said of the Royal Aircraft Factory, "It is being dealt with on precisely the same terms as any other manufacturing firm." He subsequently told us that they were doing exactly as much research work as before. He cannot run with the hare and hunt with the hounds. Neither of these statements can be absolutely right. Then we get the official organ of the Royal Aero Club:
  "Let the Royal Aircraft Factory stick to its original charter—the prosecuting of practical experiments, and, as we have had occasion to point out consistently in past years, it will have all its work cut out to keep this country to the front in the science of the air."
  Lord Curzon in another place on 1st August last year said:
  "The Government take the view that the main work of the Royal Aircraft Factory—"
  I emphasise the word "main."
  "must continue to be experimental rather than manufacturing."
  Then we come further still to the Air Committee's Report:
  "No reduction should be made in the amount of experimental work conducted at this factory."
  Finally, I take the remarks of the hon. and gallant Member himself in the House of Commons on the same day, when he said:
  "The Royal Aircraft Factory is primarily and mainly an experimental establishment.—"
  He added:
  "It is therefore not thought advisable to place the factory under the Ministry of Munitions."
  What has actually happened? In the first place, the Royal Aircraft Factory has been placed under the Ministry of Munitions.
  Major BAIRD: What date is that?
  Captain BURGOYNE: 1st August last year. I should like to say that I am not greatly concerned whether the Royal Aircraft Factory manufactures or not, but let us get a perfectly clear policy on the subject. The hon. and gallant Member contends that it is doing as much experimental work as in the past. If that is so, it is perfectly obvious you must have a highly technical experimental staff. You cannot carry on as much experimental work of the same useful kind if that staff

  2681
  be constantly changing. The matter was so important that in the Report of the Air Board of 27th July last this appeared:
  "The object to be aimed at in the view of the Air Board is an increase in the output of aeroplanes by an improved organisation of the existing staff."
  I am a very humble business man, but I know perfectly well that you cannot expect to get the best possible work out of a business if you keep changing your staff. What has been the attitude of the Air Board in regard to the Royal Aircraft Factory? They start by moving—I dare say for very good cause—Colonel O'Gorman from that particular sphere to another sphere where, no doubt, he is doing valuable service, and we get Mr. Fowler put in charge. I have never had the privilege of meeting him, but I am quite sure that Mr. Fowler is a man of very eminent capabilities, but obviously, however eminent and whatever his business capacity, he has got to spend some time getting a grip of that huge business employing nearly 5,000 people. How much further did they go in getting rid of their expert staff? Lieutenant-Colonel Hextall Smith has gone; Major Green has gone after eleven years' service; Captain Hiscocks has left after nine years' service; Captain Whiddington has been removed from the Electrical Research Department, after two years' service; and Mr. Heron has left after valuable service on experimental work. These are all very necessary men. Captain Grinsted, chief officer of Physical Research, after four years' experience, changes his function to that of chief designer. It may be passing through the minds of one or two hon. Members, "Ah, but they were found not fit for their jobs." Every single one of these gentlemen has gone to a very high billet in a private firm. There has been competition to get these men, they are so good. If the hon. and gallant Gentleman is going to tell me, "Ah, but what we have done is to send our people out as scouts in advance so that we get a hold on these private businesses," then we can talk matters over on a different basis; but if he is not going to say that, and obviously no one is going to make such a suggestion, when it would get back to the whole trade, why in the world did he allow the very best men to leave the Royal Aircraft Factory, the only air dockyard that we have got to-day?
  What is the programme of the Royal Aircraft Factory for the coming year? We
  2682
  have had strict injunctions not to say anything likely to help the enemy. I do not think in the few speeches that I have made on technical subjects—and they almost always concern something technical—I have been found out in that fault, and I shall endeavour to avoid it now. But even the Air Board have felt a little unhappy as to what they were doing in the matter of policy with regard to the Royal Aircraft Factory. Annually a programme has to be prepared for the purposes of the annual estimates, and on this occasion the programme for the Royal Aircraft Factory ran into many scores of aeroplanes I want to emphasise their discomfort by mentioning the fact that as adjudicators in all these matters they wrote to the General Officer responsible for these orders over the signature "H. P. Harvey," who, I believe, is Secretary of the Air Beard, as follows:
  "The proposed course has the disadvantage of involving a rather large order to the Royal Aircraft Factory, which is contradictory to the assurances which have been given in Parliament."
  I shall be glad to show the hon. and gallant Gentleman the letter. It was sent to the General Officer from whom you get the programme of the factory for the next year, and it was written on 28th September last year. This General Officer, in whom the entire service as also the Air Board has the utmost confidence, sent an absolutely admirable answer that he was trying to do the very best for the Air Service. This placed my hon. and gallant Friend on the horns of a dilemma, and he has been bound to reverse the policy laid down in this House and by various Committees which have sat upon the Royal Aircraft Factory. The concurrence of the Air Board in the reversal of their policy down there had not been obtained—anyway, up to the end of January this year.
  These are naturally private documents, although they are not confidential. I am only going to read one small section of the answer to that letter from the Secretary to the Air Board, because it seems to me to state in very precise language why we should have the Royal Aircraft Factory. It refers to the development of new designs by the construction of the units of so many aeroplane engines a year, and the provision for emergency orders to cover shortcomings by contractors. I now come to a very serious criticism indeed. I do not object in the slightest to the Royal Aircraft Factory building aeroplanes. It is essential that they should

  2683
  do their best to keep our designs right up to the mark, but what is wrong is that they should start the construction of designs which have been sworn to be better than anything turned out by private firms and subsequently, after great expenditure of public money, find that the series has had to be deleted. I would ask the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary to this: I am certainly not going to give any names or the numbers of machines, but the types which are to be tested in next year's programme are six, of which it is said:
  "As the performance of all these machines is very much ahead of machines in use now passed, probably these types will, if they are well handled, be serviceable for the whole of next year."
  Of one of them it was stated—this is interesting—
  "The design should be completed by the 30th January, 1917, and the first machine flying by 14th March. It is considered that this aeroplane might, be safely manufactured at the Royal Aircraft Factory to the number of thirty before the first machines are flown."
  Mr. MONTAGU: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman be good enough to tell us exactly what it is he is reading from? Is it the published Report of the Air Board?
  Captain BURGOYNE: No.
  Mr. MONTAGU: Is it correspondence between the Air Board and a private firm, or between the Air Board and the Royal Aircraft Factory?
  Captain BURGOYNE: I agree that that is a perfectly proper question. These are letters that have been sent to me. They are not letters which arc going to involve anyone, or give, information to the enemy. If the hon. and gallant Gentleman thinks they are going to give information to the enemy, of course I will close down at once.
  Major BAIRD: I am quite sure the hon. and gallant Gentleman would never read anything which would give any information to the enemy, but I must say that I am very much surprised at hearing letters read out which, to the beat of my belief, are official letters addressed by the Secretary of the Air Board to another public body. I do not know and do not wish to inquire how the hon. and gallant Gentleman obtained them, but they are undoubtedly offiical documents. I would also point out they are all from the old Air Board. The conditions now are absolutely different. The old Air Board, of which the present Air Board is not a direct
  2684
  lineal descendant—it is quite a new organisation—expressed certain opinions, not in public, with regard to these matters. The constitution of the present Air Board is based on the decision of the Cabinet. Under the constitution of the present Air Board, the Royal Aircraft Factory comes under the Ministry of Munitions, but for the purpose of experiments it works in the closest possible touch with the technical department of the Air Board. I would point out that nothing is to be gained by adverting to a communication between a body which has ceased to exist, in the shape of the old Air Board, and the Royal Aircraft Factory, which in those days was under the direction of the Director of Aeronautical Equipment.
  Captain BURGOYNE: I quite agree with what has been said by my hon. and gallant Friend (Major Baird) and the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Montagu), who is quite right in what he says. I would like the Committee to believe that I do not want to do damage in any direction, so I will leave that and come to another side of the matter. I wanted to say something about Cadillac engines. There, again, and this letter is a public one, it is interesting.
  Major BAIRD: That again came under the old Air Board. It was by a pure fluke that I happen to have been connected with the old Air Board and the present one. There is really no continuity in any way between the two One was a purely advisory and examining body. The present Board has definite functions.
  Mr. MONTAGU: If the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Captain Burgoyne) wishes to discuss in public correspondence conducted by Government Departments, let us by all means unite together to press the Government to publish it, but it is rather a strange and anomalous proceeding that one member of the Committee should quote communications which the House as a whole has not seen.
  Captain BURGOYNE: Both my hon. Friends have been very kind about the matter, and their action is quite sufficient to make me turn immediately to another subject. This comes under the aegis of the Parliamentary Secretary, and the facts must be known to tens of thousands. Last week there was a certain number of strikes among wood workers in the aeroplane factories. I have had the names of seven given to me. I am satisfied it was pretty general. The fact remains that they

  2685
  object. Where does the authority of the Air Board come in, and the hon. Gentleman might answer as to what power they have to support the owners or managers of these factories when such strikes take place. This is the situation in a controlled establishment: It is true that the men are employés of the former owners of these establishments. On the other hand, these men are responsible for their work only to the Ministry of Munitions or such public Departments as have them in charge. The former owners become nothing more than managers. What power have they to make up for the loss of time that is constantly going on? I have an instance of hours lost by two firms only, where they lost over 4,000 hours in the course of two days. Taking 400 hours as being the time required to build an aeroplane we find that ten aeroplanes in the glider stage are lacking today. The matter is very serious indeed. If the hon. and gallant Gentleman will deal with that point, I think it is one that ought to be cleared up. It would be interesting to know whether the National Physical Laboratory at Teddington is in the hon. and gallant Gentleman's Department.
  Major BAIRD: If the hon. and gallant Gentleman wants an answer, I will tell him it is not in my Department, but is in the Prime Minister's Department, although we are in constant communication with it.
  Captain BURGOYNE: May I put my case first? The National Physical Laboratory was founded to investigate scientific problems and to help all those interested in aeronautics. Obviously, if it was founded for that purpose, manufacturers and men whose integrity is above reproach have the right to go and obtain the result of those investigations. At the present time how do. they stand? They have, first, to get a permit as to whether or not they can have that knowledge. When they go down with that one specific question, they get an answer back; but if there is another question which seems to arise out of that answer, they cannot put it because they are told they must get another permit. In one instance it took three months to obtain the information required, and in that time the particular series of machines dealt with in the question was deleted. It would be advantageous to the whole of aeronautics if any man well known to the
  2686
  authorities and who was above reproach and desired information could go down there, hand in his card, and say that he wanted to know this or that. That is what the National Physical Laboratory was founded for. I have here a lot about airships and aeroplanes, but I cannot think that at this time I can serve any good purpose by going deeply into that matter. Obviously, with the explanation we have had from the hon. and gallant Gentleman and the admirable speeches we have had from those who have preceded me, although much might be added, it would be wasting the time of the Committee if I were to continue further. One does see a glimmer of hope in the opening remarks of the hon. and gallant Gentleman. I hope he will not think that the members of this Air Committee are desirous of crabbing any of his efforts. We are quite prepared to apply the ginger, as he suggested, before and behind, and to keep him up to the mark. So long as we see progress being made that is consonant with the development of this new industry, I do not think he will find any hostile critics in this House.
  Mr. BUTCHER: As a member of the Air Committee over which Mr. Justice Bailhache presided, and which reported in November last, I rise to intervene in this Debate. I first wish to congratulate very heartily my hon. and gallant Friend upon his clear and satisfactory statement, and to express the hope that the new Board may carry out effectually the anticipations we have formed of its efficiency and success. We sat in that Committee for twenty-two days and examined fifty-four witnesses. We then formed the opinion which was summarised by Sir David Henderson the other day, when ho said:
  "The flying men of this country are the salt of the earth, and they deserve the very best engines and machines that can be supplied to them."
  In that opinion Sir David Henderson will find that every man in this country who knows anything about the subject will agree with him. The opinion which was expressed by us at the time has been greatly strengthened and encouraged by everything that has happened since. It is not too much to say that the offensive on the Somme last year and the greater successful results which have attended our offensive this year in France could never have been attained but for the extraordinary skill and gallantry of our air-

  2687
  men. In the first place, the airmen enabled our Artillery to direct its fire in a way which in its turn enable our Infantry to advance. Without our airmen the Artillery could not have effected the magnificent success it did, and without the Artillery our Infantry could not have advanced with such splendid gallantry and captured the positions we have already captured from the Germans. May I give the Committee one illustration, and only one, of the kind of things our airmen do and the sort of gallantry they show? Only this afternoon I was speaking to one of our wounded airmen. A year ago he was flying in France over the German lines. In the course of his operations one of our machines which was over his head was hit by the enemy, and fell on the top of his machine. The two machines were locked together, and they, with the two pilots and observers, fell a distance of one mile from the sky to the ground. It sounds a little more like fiction than fact when I tell the Committee that one of the pilots who fell that mile from the sky is still alive. I regret to say he is grievously injured, but he is still alive, with a splendid cheerfulness and courage which distinguishes all our wounded. He was here this afternoon listening to this Debate. I trust that some form of employment will be obtained for him, which he is still able to do, notwithstanding his injuries. That is an illustration worth giving as showing the kind of things our airmen have done and will do in this War.
  8.0 P.M.
  May I say a word about the recommendations of the Committee of which Mr. Justice Bailhache is the Chairman? Our first recommendation was that the equipment of the Royal Flying Corps should be entirely separated from the executive command. That has been done, and I believe everyone approves that it is a proper and useful change. Our second recommendation was that there should be one equipment department, charged with the equipment both of the Army and Naval Air Services. I am glad to say that the Air Board is the embodiment of that recommendation, and I think there is every reason to hope and believe that some, if not all, of the friction and difficulty which existed in the old days, when the Royal Flying Corps and the Royal Naval Air Service were looking about the world separately for aeroplanes and for engines, will have disappeared, and that the result
  2688
  may be that both services may be better and more efficiently supplied than they were in former times. As to the second recommendation on which my hon. and gallant Friend (Captain Burgoyne) has enlarged, namely, that the Royal Aircraft Factory should not become a manufacturing establishment but should confine its activities to the subjects with which they dealt formerly, I had to be assured by my hon. and gallant Friend that the Royal Aircraft Factory is not going to become a great manufacturing department. The subjects with which it dealt in former days, and up to comparatively recently, were mainly trials, experiments, research, and the preparation of drawings, and I gather from something my hon. and gallant Friend said in his speech that so far as trials, experiments, and research are concerned, the functions of the Royal Aircraft Factory would be continued in the future substantially as in the past.
  Major BAIRD: Yes.
  Mr. BUTCHER: I am very glad to know that, and I would suggest that if they are going to carry out these functions satisfactorily, it might be a certain interference with their success in that capacity if they were to become a large manufacturing concern. I think it would be far better if they assisted the Air Board and the technical advisers of the Air Board in experiments in design, as to designs of aeroplanes and engines, and let the private firms of the country to a greater extent do the manufacturing. I hope my hon. and gallant Friend will be able to give us some assurance on that point. As I say, the Air Committee of which Mr. Justice Bailhache was chairman, strongly recommended that they should not become a great manufacturing establishment, and that recommendation was made after hearing very carefully all the evidence. Then there was one other recommendation which has not been touched upon to-day, and I should be glad to know what is going to be done with regard to it. That recommendation was that observers should receive promotion without having to become pilots. As matters stood when our Report was made, no observer could ever get promotion at all, unless he qualified as a pilot, and then got promotion as a pilot. We had a great deal of evidence which, at any rate, satisfied us that there are some men who are admirably useful as observers, but who

  2689
  possibly might not be so successful as pilots, and that it really is not fair to them to insist that they should go into another accupation, in which they are not nearly so good, may be, as that in which they are engaged, as a condition of getting promotion. This is, perhaps, a matter which hardly falls so much within the Department of the Air Board. I do not know how that may be. I should imagine it is not; but perhaps my hon. and gallant Friend will kindly take note of it in passing and bring it before the proper authority.
  The hon. Member for Brentford (Mr. Joynson-Hicks), in the course of his most interesting speech, referred to the question of the mastery of the air. I venture to think that the expression "Mastery of the air" is a somewhat misleading expression, although I believe my hon. Friend was the first and true inventor of it. Probably he means the same thing as other people mean when they speak of superiority in the air; because there cannot be any mastery of the air. There cannot be any absolute and complete mastery of the air, as we speak of mastery of the seas. I venture to think that it is quite impossible that we could ever drive out of the air every German machine and ensure that no machine should ever go up on the battlefields of France and elsewhere except our own. What we can aim at, and what I think we have successfully aimed at, is superiority in the air, and I think we have never lost the superiority. At some times our superiority has been greater than at others. There was a time, indeed, at the end of 1915, when the German Fokker came into existence,, when we did lose a certain degree of our superiority. We recovered that later on, in the early part of 1916, because we got machines which were able to meet the Fokker and beat it on its own terms. There is no doubt that in some respects some of the German scouts and fighting machines have very greatly improved of late. I believe the true position at the present time at the front in France is something of this sort—and in this I am quoting what has been reported to me by men who have recently come back, and who know all that can be known about fighting in the air in France. What happens is this: We are on the offensive, and therefore it is necessary for us to fly over the Germans' lines constantly, to fly far over them, and to take observation for purposes of gun-spotting, for bombing, and
  2690
  for all other operations essential to an offensive. The Germans, on the other hand, at the present time are, and for some time have been, strictly on the defensive, and their policy is, when our machines go over their lines, to send up some fast fighting machines and attack some of our slower machines; and that they have done with certain considerable success. I believe—and my hon. and gallant Friend will tell me if I am wrong— that at the present time the Germans have a very fast fighting machine with very powerful engines, and with very considerable power of climb and of speed. I should like to be assured that sufficient care is being taken to see that we have the most powerful and effective engines possible. The German engine is, I understand, the Mercedes. I am rather inclined to believe—if there is any reason why this cannot be referred to my hon. and gallant Friend will tell me—that we have not any engines of the Mercedes type. I do not quite know why, because I presume the design of the Mercedes is just as familiar to us as it is to the Germans. I know we have some very good engines of high power, and I would only suggest to my hon. and gallant Friend, what no doubt is very present to the minds of his advisers, that if we want to obtain that undisputed superiority which is essential to us we must do the very utmost we can to get the highest-powered engines. I have heard the phrase, "Building an aeroplane round an engine." I believe it is not an inapt phrase. The engine is of far more importance than the aeroplane, and if you have a first-rate engine, thoroughly reliable, of very high power, I should think it quite possible that it is the view of experts that you can build an aeroplane round it which will do justice to the engine. I hope, therefore, very much that our attention is being concentrated upon the production of engines of the highest power possible.
  There was one point connected with the recommendations of this Committee to which I want to refer. One of the members, Mr. Charles Bright, took immense pains, as my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford knows, not only to think out and digest the evidence given, but I think he also read every part of the literature of engines and aeroplanes which exists in this country. He made some very valuable separate recommendations, and I was very glad to hear from my hon. and

  2691
  gallant Friend, in a reply to a question the other day, that some of these recommendations had already been adopted and put into operation. I think he also said that it was probable that some other of these recommendations would be adopted, and I shall be glad to hear from him, when he replies, whether further progress has been made in that direction. The only other thing I have to say is this: I should like to quote three lines from the end of the Report of our Committee, in which, speaking of the services of Sir David Henderson and those associated with him in the Royal Flying Corps, we said this:
  "The gratitude and thanks which are Sir David Henderson's, due for a great work devotedly undertaken and well done, he will, we know, be glad to share with the officers and men who have served under him, whether as commander of the Royal Flying Corps or as Director-General of Military Aeronautics."
  I can only hope that after the Air Board has been in existence for some time it will be possible for us truthfully to give the same high measure of praise which we felt bound to give as his due to Sir David Henderson and the officers and men of the Royal Flying Corps associated with him.
  Mr. SHIRLEY BENN: There are one or two points in my hon. and gallant Friend's speech about which I should like to say a word or two. In the first place, I understood him to object to standardising aeroplanes. I want to urge upon him that, while, of course, he wants to get the latest and best, to a certain extent a standardised airship is like a standardised motorcar. If you can get a large number, like the automobiles that you see in America, standardised, and have all the parts ready, you can turn them out in large numbers, and you will be able to turn out your squadrons in great numbers, and I urge on him not to lose sight of the fact that you can get greater despatch in building standardised aeroplanes than in building an ordinary motor. In the second place, he said we have aeroplanes at the front which were not up to the mark, that he was sorry and hoped to send better. When he is sending better can he not bring home the trained pilots out at the front, who are flying on the lower-engined machine, to help train the new men and to practise on the higher-engined aeroplanes here before sending them out to the front to fight? The third point is, Can he not, now that America has come into the fight, arrange in America to get a large number of aeroplanes built and sent over
  2692
  here and use them as scouts to look after the submarines which are lying off our coasts and in the Mediterranean and to act with our merchant ships, because if we had a large number of these aeroplanes over here they would form a great protection for our merchant ships, which are. being sunk so ruthlessly. We quite realise what the Air Board is doing. We know it is making every haste in its power, and I am confident that in the near future we shall have not only the very best airmen who can be found in the world, but also the best aeroplanes and airships.
  Major BA1RD: Allow me to say how much I appreciate the way in which the Committee has accepted the Vote that has been presented, but if they arc good enough to be more or less satisfied with the prospect presented to them of our programme in the matter of aeronautic development it is only fair to say that the credit belongs not to the present Air Board, which has only just taken it over, but to its predecessors of the Army and Navy who have carried on this very arduous duty since the start of the War. It is necessary to say that because it would be quite unfair for us to take any credit for the existing state of affairs. The criticisms which have been offered may be summarised fairly easily. In the first place, there is the usual criticism of the B.E. machines. That is, so far as anything can be in aeronautics, a hardy annual, and I am sorry not to be able to give any satisfaction, I am afraid, to hon. Members who quite definitely ask that that machine should be withdrawn from the front. It is impossible to withdraw it until it can be replaced by another. Otherwise you are going to handicap not only your Air Service, but the Artillery, the Infantry, and the General Staff, and to upset the balance between all the Services. To withdraw these machines from the front is absolutely and entirely impossible. I want the Committee to remember that the casualty returns, measured by the percentage of casualties suffered by the different categories of machines, do not bear out the contention that this is the machine which has the largest percentage of casualties. That is a very important point. The Committee will not expect me to give the figures. Not only is the percentage of casualties, Having regard to the number of machines in use, lower than the percentage of casualties with the higher-powered, more recent,

  2693
  and up-to-date machines, but it is very much lower, in some cases almost a half, of what it is with these higher-powered machines. The reason is that the kind of work that hon. Members complain about as being the sort of work these machines ought not to do, and which I admit they would not do it if we had better machines, is the sort of work they are only employed upon in exceptional cases. The work they are normally employed upon would be work which they could not possibly do unless the sky were kept clear of fast German fighting machines. It is the kind of work which cannot be combined with fighting, and therefore, however efficient they might be from the fighting point of view, they would not be able to do the work which they are sent up to do and fight at the same time, and, consequently, it is only in exceptional circumstances, when they are sent on these long bombing expeditions, that hon. Members complain. I have no right and no power, and I would not desire if I had the right or the power, to urge the withdrawal of these machines from the front on the ground of undue risk. Supposing in a land battle, when you got to the end of your ordinary troops, and had nothing left but batmen and cooks, what justification would you have if you lost the battle, which you very likely would not have done if you put those batmen and cooks into the line? It is ruthless and brutal—anything you like—but it is war. We are supplying other machines as rapidly as we can, but until we can supply them there is not the slightest chance that we can discontinue to send the other machines up on these duties.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: I do not wish to press my hon. and gallant Friend, but can he give any approximate date when he thinks there will be enough new machines to prevent these machines going on bombing expeditions?
  Major BAIRD: Aeronautics is a most desperate thing to prophesy about. Let me give my hon. Friend an example of the kind of difficulty that absolutely queers the pitch. One of the new machines which we are sending out has a very satisfactory engine, but an appalling quantity of them have proved to be faulty when we came to test them in all their parts. It was due to faulty casting, faulty mixture, and faulty treatment. I only mention this as showing the extraordinary difficulty of prophesying. That puts the manufacture
  2694
  of these engines back. The difficulty had to be got over. It put back the output of these machines and postponed the time at which they could come into use. That is an instance of the difficulty of prophesying when these machines will be available.
  Mr. BILLING: Was the design faulty before they made the new castings, or was it purely and simply in the mixing of the metal that the mistake occurred?
  Major BAIRD: It was not the design at all. Then I come to the R.E. 8. I was taken up in the R.E. 8 last summer, when it came out and went to the front. It was reported on very favourably, and the machine began to come out in quantities. Hon. Members perhaps know the history of a new machine. It is produced in deference to requirements which are received from the front. There are no drawings, and it is made more or less by hand. When the R.E. 8 went out it met with universal approval. Having been made in deference to the requirements received from the front, it met those requirements, and it meets them to-day, but, unfortunately, you cannot get pilots to agree about it. Men who are flying the B.E. at the front are clamouring for this machine. Officers who are flying from headquarters to the brigade at the front all beg to be given this machine in preference to other machines, and yet you have most regrettable and horrible accidents happening with young pilots. I am sure the hon. Member for Herts has been misinformed when he said that young pilots were sent up after such a short time in the air. The minimum number of hours is twenty six.
  Mr. BILLING: Does that twenty-six hours include the initial training to obtain a pilot's certificate, or the twenty-six hours' cross-country flying, or the twenty-six hours' training in the air?
  Major BAIRD: Twenty-six hours' solo in the air. That is not all. Do not let hon. Members imagine that when a pilot gets out to France he is sent over the lines until he is considered by the officers out there to be fit. Of course, an occasion may arise when a man arrives from England in the afternoon and he is sent up bombing at night. That is not outside the bounds of possibility, but as a general rule a different system obtains. No one realises the value of the pilot's life more than those who depend for the success of their operations on the work of the pilot,

  2695
  and no one is less likely to squander the pilots—it is a horrible expression to use, but I hope hon. Members know what I mean—and no one is less likely to make a pilot undertake work where the risk is disproportionate to the result which may be expected than the officer in command of the pilots at the front. Therefore, I am sure that my hon. Friend has been misinformed. The information I had to-day as to the number of hours is quite definite. I was told that the minimum was twenty-six, and that was confirmed quite independently when I happened to be with a squadron the other day. The R E. 8 machine has given satisfaction. Of course, there had to be modifications. I do not say it is perfect. It would be ridiculous to deny that a machine on which there have been numerous accidents requires modification. Of course, it is not entirely satisfactory. It does good work in the hands of the men who use it in France, but apparently it does require modification in order to make it suitable for the average man. These modifications are being dealt with, and we hope that the result will be thoroughly satisfactory. As regards standardisation, do not let there be any idea that there is a hard and fast cast-iron objection to standardisation. You can afford to standardise your first hundred or two hundred machines according to the output of the factory with which you are dealing, and if you are going to have an output it is wise to do it, because nothing hampers production more than constant alterations. But unless you reserve to yourself the right to introduce modifications into the second batch of two hundred or three hundred machines, or whatever may be the number ordered, you are going to find perhaps at the end of six months that you have out-of-date machines. Within those limits standardisation is being carried out, but not on so large a scale as the hon. Member for Herts wishes.
  Mr. BILLING: I suggested only the standardisation of certain types.
  Major BAIRD: We must have absolute freedom of action. The hon. Member was good enough to supplement what he thinks is the gap in our powers or activities. He says there is no policy, and he wants to offer us one, cut and dried, with machines, pilots, and the whole thing complete. Let me assure the hon.
  2696
  Member that a policy does exist, and that it is perfectly impossible to draw up a programme unless you have a policy. The idea of living from hand to mouth in regard to machines or engines would land us into chaos, and probably into a position where we might have no machines in a very short time. We have a policy. I did not read fully the portion of the Air Board's Charter, which refers to policy, because I did not want to take up too much time and because it is a repetition of the old Charter read out in this House at the time of the creation of the Air Board. That Charter provides for the discussion of matters of policy in regard to the air, and for the making of recommendations to the Admiralty and the War Office, and it also provides that the Admiralty and the War Office shall concert their aerial policy in consultation with the Air Board.
  Mr. BILLING: That is only in consultation.
  Major BAIRD: They have to concert their respective aerial policy in consultation with the Air Board. That covers the whole ground.
  Mr. BILLING: Does that include building policy or fighting policy? Do you control operations?
  Major BAIRD: No. Nothing would be more deplorable than to spread the idea or to cultivate the idea that air fighting is an amateur's business. On the contrary, the men who have acquired experience in the War as airmen, and who are now at the top of our flying services, both in the Royal Naval Air Service and in the Royal Flying Corps, are the people who are far more capable of deciding how our aerial resources can best be employed, and they do that on the strength of their experience and knowledge, not only as airmen but also as men whose business in life it has been to study war. I deprecate very much the idea that it would be to our advantage in any way that an attempt should be made to take the conduct of operations out of the hands of trained naval and military officers. That is not the case. The point is that there is. a very much wider question than the mere operation. We decide the policy, but the operation has been decided upon by the naval and military officers who are going to carry it out. Therefore, we do not claim and do not want any hand in the operation. We do claim that we have got quite sufficient

  2697
  powers with regard to policy. I hope that my hon. Friend will consider that I have said all that I can about this question. It is perfectly plain that the B.E.'s will be replaced as soon as we have got sufficient machines to replace them. Meanwhile, from time to time, it must unfortunately happen that a B.E. will be used to perform duties which we would sooner have another and better machine to do.
  As regards the question of the Royal Aircraft Factory, my hon. Friend, who is not here, was rather confusing in his attitude towards the factory and the relations between the factory and the Air Board. The Air Board is in no sense a manufacturing body. The whole of the supply and manufacture is in the hands of the Ministry of Munitions. But we who are concerned with the air all live in one house. We begin the day by a meeting of the officials representing the heads of all the departments, who meet in one room and compare notes, and arrange any differences which exist. This has been found to be a convenient arrangement, and in that manner any danger of friction, if there had been any —as far as I know there has been none whatever—is eliminated, and we expedite enormously all the work that has to foe done; for instance, such things as exchange of machines between the Army and Navy, when exchange is possible— for, as a rule, there are not enough for both—are arranged under the system of beginning work with a meeting of representatives of the heads of all the departments. The factory is an establishment which is under the orders of the Ministry of Munitions, and to that extent its relations with the technical department of the Air Board are precisely the same as the relations between the technical department of the Air Board and any other manufacturer. That is to say, if the factory makes a design, it is submitted to the technical advisers of the Air Board in precisely the same way as the designs of any other recognised manufacturer. But, like every other big factory, it has an experimental side. That experimental side is far larger than in the case of the ordinary commercial factory, and in addition to experiment and research carried on by the factory as such, it carries out any experiments or research work that may be required by the technical department of the. Air Board.
  As a proof that research work has not been dropped, I may give the numbers
  2698
  employed in each of these branches as compared with what it was six months ago. In experimental engineering the number is now ninety as compared with eighty-six six months ago. In the experimental flight department the number is eighty-six as compared with eighty-three; and in the case of the research department, dealing also with aero dynamics, it is 107 as against eighty-three, so that hon. Members will see that there has been no reduction in these activities. As regards the ordering of machines, the policy of the factory is only to manufacture a sufficient number of machines to try the design and to embody any alteration which the Expeditionary Force, from their experience, find necessary to deal with the other changing requirements at the front. That in practice means, as I have explained, that we get the first batch of machines of Government design made at the factory. They do not continue to produce that machine. The drawings are handed over to manufacturers to produce machines as contractors to the Government.
  Mr. BUTCHER: Am I to understand the Royal Aircraft Factory do not produce engines. They produce machines. Is that so?
  Major BAIRD: They have not produced any engines since the hon. Member was on the Investigation Committee. They have produced designs, but nothing material. I agree on this point, that you cannot have too much real talent employed on the difficult work of trying to improve the machines. Whether in private factories or in Government factories does not make any difference. The great point is to have the machine as perfect as possible. As regards the references which have been made to the necessity of having high-power engines, I can assure the Committee that that is a matter of constant study, and the hon. Member (Mr. Butcher) will realise from his examination of the question when he was a member of the Committee how extremely complicated and difficult it is and how many disappointments there axe. All I can say is that every effort is made constantly to secure the best results. I think that I have dealt with all the questions which have-been brought up, except perhaps the question of promotion of men. That does not depend on us; it is entirely a matter for

  2699
  the Director-General. As to the question of pilots who obtain experience such as enables them to teach other pilots, I may-state that there has been a constant increase in their number, and it is a subject which continues to engage the attention of the Department.
  Mr. S. BENN: Can the hon. Gentleman say anything about getting seaplanes from America?
  Major BAIRD: That is not being overlooked, but as my hon. Friend will realise they have to take their turn with other things. It is not so much a matter of production as a matter of other claims on shipping that have to be considered.
  Mr. BILLING: I do not think this Debate ought to be allowed to close without calling attention to the fact that there have not been forty Members present during the whole of the time the hon. and gallant Gentleman has been replying to the various points that have been raised in regard to the work, the very important work, of this Department. I see that there are not more than nine Members present at this moment, and that has been the maximum number during the whole of the hon. Gentleman's observations. I should not like this Debate to be brought to a close without calling attention to the fact. The hon. and gallant Gentleman, who represents the Government, has done his best to meet the various points which have been raised. He made the remark that the present conditions of the Air Service might be likened to the Western front on the outbreak of war, when the band men and the cooks had to go into the fighting line; but I would like to point out to the hon. Member representing the Air Board that the officers who were responsible for ordering the machines should have taken steps to see that they ordered them of the right type. The hon. Gentleman also suggested that we cannot have standardised machines for reproduction for some time, yet we have a machine which has been in use for two years, and which has been a standardised type—a most inefficient type —for that period; and he now suggests that we cannot standardise a much more efficient type for the next six months. I would appeal to the Air Board to at least give us the assurance that, if they cannot withdraw the machines because there is nothing to be substituted for them at present, they will at least see to it that they order no more of them for active
  2700
  service. Orders have been placed, I understand, throughout the country, thus employing skilled workmen whose services could be far better utilised. That is not too much to ask the hon. Gentleman, when ho recognises that these machines are obsolete, or at least obsolescent, and when they are not up to the job, to stop building a type which is inefficient and unsatisfactory, and concentrate energies on the machine intended to take its place. Reference has been made to the R E 8 machine. It is a machine which has a lot of tricks in the air, and requires to be handled by a most skilful pilot.
  Design is at the bottom of the matter, and it is because those in command have supported men who have produced machines of bad design that half our troubles exist to-day. The hon. and gallant Gentleman said that some hundreds of base chambers were found on delivery to be faulty. I think I am right in stating that they were of aluminium, and I submit that if one faulty casting was found in connection with a machine of that description, those responsible should have taken the trouble to make investigations, and if it were found that there were not one or two, but fifty or sixty faulty castings, then I suggest that there must have been a question of design, if not of workmanship, in the case. If the hon. and gallant Gentleman will look to it a little more closely—and I beg him not to take for granted anything that is said to him, but will put himself to the trouble of inquiring—I think he will find, or I shall be very surprised if he does not, that fifty, or sixty, or 100 castings were delivered, but the design was not materially altered. An order was given for 250 engines of another type, and they got out some 200 of these. When tested, the crank chamber burst, and they had all to be scrapped. The hon. Member remarked that the Air Board is an amateur body, purely amateur body, but I should prefer to believe that is not so. There are members of the Army and Navy who sit at that Board, men of naval and military experience, and they at least cannot be considered amateurs, and the hon. Member is in constant communication with the heads of the Air Service. In all my criticism with regard to this service I have been prompted by a desire to save the lives of pilots, and to offer suggestions which I thought might have some grain of constructive merit. It may have been that I have been looked upon

  2701
  as offering those suggestions in a bundle of chaff, but I trust that hon. Members will recognise that I made them with good intention. Still, it has been with the very best intention that those grains of constructive suggestions have been made.
  I would suggest to the hon. and gallant Member that there is a position for someone in this country which requires filling up. So far as the Royal Naval Air Service is concerned, if the chief occupies his whole time in seeing that the requirements of the Grand Fleet are met, then a very joyful condition of affairs will prevail, and he will have all his work cut out for him. If the orders of the Royal Naval Air Service were limited to serving the Fleet a good deal of the criticism in this House would pass into the limbo of forgotten things. The position which I suggest might be filled possibly by the Chairman of the Air Board, who, although he is an amateur, may be a strategist. We have discovered in this War some very good strategists amongst amateurs. That position to which I refer is the command of what would be a raiding squadron as distinct from the Royal Naval Air Service. That is the point I have been trying to impress on this House until I wonder which of us is the more weary. I know there is considerable objection against such an appointment. I know that the Royal Naval Air Service would object to it, and probably the Navy would object to it. I think the Navy might give some consideration to the value of such an appointment, quite apart from any irritatation it might cause to the Service, and I know the Army does not wish it either. Surely, if the requirements of the Army are met by the Royal Flying Corps and those of the Navy by the Royal Naval Air Service, there is no reason against the formation of a raiding squadron. If they do not want to have another Air Service, let them call it what they like—let them call it a Raiding Squadron, and let one man have supreme control, with instructions to initiate air raids. I am quite satisfied that the time is not far distant when the moral of our enemy, which I am glad to say is not as high as it was, will be considerably affected by a steady series of raids on their principal towns.
  9.0 P.M.
  This Debate has been listened to by very few Members. I thank the Parliamentary Secretary for sticking it out. He had, I expect, all that he had got to say
  2702
  cut and dry, and I suppose it was arranged at one of those wonderful conferences which I am pleased to hear take place. I expect there was one this morning, and the whole thing was gone over as to what he was to say and that he was to go so far and no further. I expect he knew pretty well what we would say and that it was suggested that some Members would get up and make some sensational remarks about recent losses and that others would make suggestions. I think he will understand that this is the only place where any representative has an opportunity of bringing these questions up. If he will take kindly to our constructive criticism, then I am sure we will endeavour to treat him to that rather than destructive criticism. If we feel that all our suggestions are tabooed, then there is no encouragement to continue in that kind of criticism. I should like to congratulate the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Butcher), who sits here and who formed one of the late Air Inquiry. It is the first time since I became a Member that I really felt that some useful purpose was being achieved by the critics of air administration here when I heard him admit that the various recommendations which the Committee had put forward had not only been approved, but adopted, and that there had been some wonderful reforms on account of that Inquiry. I felt that surely we Members who fought for that Inquiry for fourteen days as hard as we could, had not laboured in vain. I should like to thank my hon. and learned Friend for the gracious tribute he paid to the critics in pointing out the enormous good brought about by the Committee of Inquiry which the critics of the Air Service in this House brought into being.
  Mr. LYNCH: I had not intended to speak, not having in any way prepared a speech, mainly because I feel that it is almost useless to speak even with reason and good sense to such a body as has been constituted to defend the interests of the Air Board. I would say by way of apology I was the first Member in this House to advocate a great air fleet, a great air policy, a separate Ministry, and separate arm. That is so long ago that it seems now in the limbo of time, although it took place in the early stages of this War. But again and again, when I have come into contact with those great Departments of the State on whose activities the very life of

  2703
  the nation depends, I have been astonished even in the estimate I would like to form of Englishmen, of their lack of brains and lack of real intellectual capacity, and the invariable habit of trying to shoulder off responsibility and to hide themselves behind all kind of shams and make believes and makeshifts, which I know are the great stock-in-trade of politicians. It is easy to make a member of the Front Bench. He has to learn a few tricks in answering questions. He has to put on a surface and a facade. He has to be dexterous in the use of hypocrisy and semi-official lies. But it is a very different thing to be able to produce a man who has a scientific brain, and who will look at a problem in its essential character, and endeavour not to hoodwink Parliament, or the people, but to solve the problem in its real validity, and to make that solution tell in the safety of the nation. Such a man we have not produced in anyone of the great Departments of State. My hon. Friend who has just sat down (Mr. Billing) has been attacked again and again, he has been sneered at in this House, and he has been treated most unfairly. I do not hold a brief for him, because he is very well able to defend himself, but I will say this, that it is greatly due to the driving force which he has brought into these Debates and to the suggestions which he has made, even though at times they have been couched in a somewhat rhetorical vein, that we have had that degree of activity which has been manifested in the governing circles which produced the Air Board. That Air Board itself is a sham. I dare say they know it themselves, and if they do not know it, that is a still further proof of their want of capacity. We have first of all the Army with its Air Service, a very necessary Air Service, but this Army, whatever its great qualities have been—and I am so far from wishing to belittle their great services that I am filled with absolute admiration for the Army until we reach a certain level of command—ought not to be left perfectly free to develop that function of air service, which, remember, it never invented itself and which no military man, although war has been going on since the dawn of time, ever allowed to enter his brain. The same remarks apply to the Navy. Military men, and I think men in all Government Departments, seem gradually to train themselves into a kind
  2704
  of frame of mind, marked by routine, bound down by red-tape, and dominated by tradition, which seems to deprive them of any valid faculty of thought at all.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Mr. Maclean): The hon. Member seems to me to be using this particular Vote in Committee for the purpose of an attack on administrations in general and on this administration in particular. Will he kindly confine himself to the question before the Committee?
  Mr. LYNCH: I was trying to account for what at first blush seems an extraordinary phenomenon, that after nearly three years of war the mountain has laboured to produce this mouse of an Air Board, but I will come now to a definite and concrete point, and that is that even now, seeing that this War may last a long time—and remember that that is the calculation of the Americans, who I hope will bring some brain power into it—the Government should make an effort to rise out of this thraldom of tradition and definitely lay the foundations of a new and separate striking force for the air of great magnitude, greater than has hitherto ever been imagined, and proceed from tomorrow to lay it down on definite lines, so that that great imagination may become a reality, and if they are able to grasp that idea, to face that problem in its whole character, and even from the ground to lay the foundations on which it shall be built, they may finish by bringing into a reality a force which may be one of the decisive factors in the determination of this War.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Resolution to be reported To-morrow; Committee to sit again To-morrow.
  The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.
  Whereupon Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKEB (Mr. Maclean), pursuant to the Order of the House of the 12th February, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."

GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND.
Sir H. DALZIEL: I am glad to see the Leader of the House in his place, because I desire to refer for a single moment only to a matter which was raised at Question

2705
Time this afternoon. I refer to the question which stood in ray name to-day, and which asked the Prime Minister whether he was yet in a position to inform the House when it is proposed to make a statement on the result of the Government's efforts to effect an Irish settlement. When that question was called, I asked leave to postpone it till Tuesday. Since that time I have ascertained from Members in different parts of the House that they interpreted my postponement of the question as meaning that there was something indefinite about the time at which the Government contemplated being able to make the statement, and that the matter was likely to be indefinitely delayed. Let me say that that was certainly not my view of the proceedings. The facts are that I had an opportunity of discussing this question with the Prime Minister previous to the meeting of the House to-day, and it was at his request that I refrained from addressing the question to the Leader of the House, as I intended to do this afternoon; but I understood the reason for the suggested postponement, was that the Prime Minister and the Leader of the House were reluctant to commit themselves to a definite day until they were quite certain that it would not be necessary to have another postponement; and, as far as I was concerned, I postponed it till Tuesday, in the hope and expectation that they would be able then to fix a definite day for a statement to be made on Irish policy on behalf of the Government.
I take this opportunity, therefore, in view of the misapprehension which obviously has arisen in different parts of the House, of asking the Leader of the House to say whether he can in any way be more definite than was the case early to-day. The question I desire to ask him is whether he can hold out hope, or whether he can even go further than that, and say that the policy of the Government may be given to the House, if possible, not later than next week. Let me say that, so far as I am concerned, I have no desire unnecessarily to harass him at this very difficult time, but I am sure my right hon. Friend will give due credit to the fact that this question now has been in possession of the House, so to speak, for some considerable time. I know the Government are very fully occupied with other and very important matters, and I certainly know that the Prime Minister
2706
and the Leader of the House have been giving their constant attention to the difficult matter which I am now bringing to my right hon. Friend's attention. These are critical days both for Ireland and for the Empire. I am sure my right hon. Friend would be the first to admit that the representatives of Nationalist Ireland have, at all events, been very patient in regard to this matter, and not only the Irish representatives but the Irish people. They have been patient almost to the point of despair. Therefore, I think, it is in the interests of the good government of Ireland, as well as in the interests of the Government itself, that a statement should be made, and I feel sure it is the intention of the Government to make such a statement at the earliest possible moment.
Every hour brings fresh reasons why the Government should not only make an early settlement, but, if I may say so, a hopeful and satisfactory settlement with regard to this all-important question. Anyone who has paid the slightest attention to the latest phase of the matter cannot be too optimistic about the result. It is difficult in every way in which the Government may have to turn, but I think this House is determined that there shall not be failure to do everything it can in order, if possible, to rescue the negotiations from such a calamity. Further, within the last few days, we have had the declaration of America in regard to the War. That is an epoch-making event. My right hon. Friend will, I am sure, agree with me that that makes an additional reason why we should endeavour to settle the Irish question with the least possible delay. It is better to have the enthusiasm of the Irish in America than to have their aloofness in this great struggle in which the American Government is now taking part. We have had also this afternoon a declaration from the Leader of the House on behalf of the Government, which was received with enthusiasm. It was to the effect that Poland at last is going to get a free government, and that the opinion of the British Government was that that would add happiness to the people and prosperity to the country. If Poland and Finland are going to get self-government, and Russia is now going to be free, these things should operate for a determined effort to be made on our part to settle the Irish question. I therefore hope that my right hon. Friend will be able to give us some assurance: first that there is not going to be an indefinite delay

2707
and, secondly, if he can, that a statement may be made, if possible, during next week.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Bonar Law): My right hon. Friend has accurately described the motive which induced the Prime Minister to ask him not to put his question to-day. As my right hon. Friend has said, both the Irish Members and the other Members of this House have been very patient, and for that reason we desire, if possible, to avoid making another statement until we can say definitely when the policy of the Government will be announced upon the subject. I can assure my right hon. Friend and the House that there has been no delay which we could have avoided. The delay has been partly due, as I am sure the House will understand, to the very exacting nature of the day-to-day duties in connection with the War in which the Government have been engaged. But it has been also due to the inherent difficulties of the subject with which we are dealing. The House will remember that after a great deal of deliberation the Government definitely decided that they would make an attempt to deal with this question. I appealed to the House at that time not to press us unduly, but at all events to allow us as much time as we thought necessary. Well, Sir, it has not got easier as we go on, but I can say this much: Had we abandoned all hope, there would not have been any delay in making a statement. We still have hopes that, with the good will which is felt, certainly both in the Government and in the House, to make solution possible. As regards the request for a definite statement which has just been made, I can only say this: I discussed the subject with the Prime Minister this morning—as, indeed, I have been doing every day—and he authorised me to say that he had every expectation that next week it will be possible to make a statement on the subject. Of course, I need not point out that this must to some extent depend upon the nature of the calls which day by day arise upon the Prime Minister in connection with the War.
Mr. DILLON: This is no occasion on which the House should desire to raise the Irish question in Debate. I do, however, desire, and I want to press upon the Leader of the House, that I think we who represent the Irish people at a time of
2708
terrible crisis are entitled to know, and that without further delay, where we stand? The Leader of the House, in the speech just now, told us that all sections of the House, including the Irish Members, had treated the Government with great patience. What has been the history of this question? We had a Debate inaugurated by Irish Members, and the Government took up an attitude such as obliged us to go into open opposition to them. We concluded that at that time they had shut and barred the door in our face. We then knew where we stood and where our people stood. Subsequently, however, not upon our Motion or our initiative in any respect, directly or indirectly, an English Member on the Back Benches raised this question.
An HON MEMBER: A Scottish Member!
Mr. DILLON: And the hon. Member who raised the question was joined in that Debate from the Back Benches by Members of all parties in this House except the Irish Nationalist party. A most remarkable and historical Debate took place in the House, with the result that the Government, on their own initiative, and without any pressure from us, announced that they intended again to approach this question, and on their own responsibility to attempt a solution. Subsequent to that, two or three days after, a Debate took place, in which I took the opportunity of warning the Government, with all the solemnity I could command, that now they had taken that responsibility upon their own initiative, without any pressure from us, that delay was dangerous. I said that the Irish people had been exasperated by what they conceived to be a series of breaches of faith, of postponements, of playing with them, and of dallying with them. The results were visible! Those results were the exasperation of the Irish people, and—a very much minor consideration—in making our own position as representatives of the Irish people almost impossible. I said all this to the Leader of the House and asked him to convey to the Prime Minister that while we were willing, under the circumstances of extraordinary strain and pressure, to exercise the greatest possible amount of patience, and that we were entitled to demand that at the earliest possible moment the Government should let us know their policy. We were prepared on the one hand to meet

2709
them if they were prepared to act in a generous spirit, and on the other hand we were prepared to fight them if we had to fight them. I said then, as I say now, that a more deplorable and disastrous result, both for our people and for the Empire, could not be conceived than that we should be driven into such a position—perhaps I should rather say, forced to maintain such a position. We were led to believe, and we were under the impression—we put no pressure on the Government, we left it in the hands of the English Members, who had taken it out of our hands—we were led to believe—it will be in the recollection of every Member of the House when I say this—that before the Easter Recess we would be put in possession of the decision of the Government. We waited patiently. We were told at the last moment that this thing should stand over until after the Easter Vacation. We said nothing, but we fully expected when we came back after the Easter Recess, and the Government had the opportunity afforded them by the cessation of the sittings of the House, that we should then immediately receive the decision of the Government; but still we put no pressure on them, and then we were given to understand that the statement would be made to-day. When we saw the question of the right hon. Gentleman on the Paper to-day we concluded that, knowing his position, it was put on the Paper in privity with the Prime Minister and Leaders of the Government and that a definite date would be mentioned on which a statement would be made. But I deeply regret to say the statement to which we have listened from the Leader of the House to-night leaves us wholly in doubt whether even next week a statement will be made.
Mr. BONAR LAW: It is in doubt to this extent, that it may be impossible to make it. But I did say clearly that it is our intention to make it next week unless something entirely unforeseen happens.
Mr. DILLON: That is better. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will convey to the Prime Minister the desirability of making a definite statement next week. I do not propose to say any more except that, so far as the situation in America is concerned, as the Leader of the House probably knows better than anyone in the House knows, it is extremely exasperated by the action of the Government, and, so far as the position of Ireland is concerned, these delays are dangerous. Therefore, I
2710
do hope that next week the representatives of the Irish people will be put in a position in which I think they are entitled to demand that we should know where we stand, whether we are to be friends of this country and this Government or whether we are to be driven back to another long fight for Irish rights.

"NATION" NEWSPAPER.
Mr. PRINGLE: The question with which I intend to deal on the Adjournment is somewhat different from that which has already engaged the attention of the House, but it is one which has some resemblance to it in one important respect. It resembles it in this important respect, that it very considerably affects the view of a considerable body of people in America as well as Ireland and Great Britain. I have already raised on an Adjournment Motion the question of the suppression of the "Nation" newspaper. It is not my intention to-night to enter into the merits of the controversy. I think the discussion we had on Tuesday, a week ago, clearly showed on which side the merits lay. On that occasion we had a defence from the Prime Minister and from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but no unofficial Member of the House of Commons had a word to say in defence of the high-handed, arbitrary and ill-advised action of the Government. Only two things would I say on the general issue. In the first place, I would say the whole case at that time made for the Government was based on a single sentence, in a single article wrenched from its context —an article so ambiguous in interpretation that my right hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir H. Dalziel), a devoted and slavish adherent of the Prime Minister, gave a different interpretation from the Prime Minister himself. The second point I would make in regard to it is that on that occasion an entirely misleading account was given of the view of the "Nation" newspaper in relation to the War. It was represented that the "Nation" newspaper was a peace paper —a paper which advocated peace on the basis of a deadlock. Neither of those propositions can be maintained by anybody who has consistently read that paper. The "Nation" newspaper has never held the deadlock view on the Western front or advocated a premature peace.

2711
What I wish to refer to to-night are two points which have arisen out of questions raised during the Debate. During the Debate on Tuesday of last week both the Prime Minister and the Leader of the House claimed that they were justified in their action in suppressing the foreign circulation of the "Nation" newspaper because of representations made from Headquarters in France, and in the course of the Debate the Chancellor of the Exchequer expressly quoted the name of the Field-Marshal Commanding-in-Chief.
The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Macpherson): The Prime Minister.
Mr. PRINGLE: I said the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I am very accurate in my statements. My hon. Friend will observe exactly what I said. I said the Prime Minister referred to representations made from Headquarters in France, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer expressly quoted the name of the Field-Marshal Commanding-in-Chief. A question was subsequently put on Monday of this week by my hon. Friend the Member for the Bridgeton Division (Mr. MacCallum Scott). He asked the Prime Minister:
"In view of the fact that the suppression of the foreign circulation of the 'Nation' newspaper has been justified on the ground that the Commander-in-Chief in France wrote personally saying that it was most discouraging to the soldiers that things of this kind should be published, whether he will publish the letter referred to?"
My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary replied:
"The answer is in the negative."
I then put this supplementary question:
"Is it because it is stated from France that no request was made from headquarters to have the foreign circulation of the 'Nation' suppressed?"
My hon. Friend replied:
"If such a statement was made, it is quite untrue."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd April, 1017. col. 2031.]
To-day a question was again put by my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgeton:
"To ask the Prime Minister whether the letter from headquarters in France making representations with regard to the effect of the circulation of the 'Nation' newspaper among the soldiers was from the Commander-in-Chief personally or from some of the department at headquarters; whether the Commander-in-Chief had personal cognisance of it; and what was its date?"
The answer to-day made by my hon. Friend was:
"It wag not signed by the Commander-in-Chief personally, but emanated from the branch of his staff charged with conveying his views on such
2712
subjects. It was dated the 12th March. It is not known whether the Commander-in-Chief had personal cognisance of it."
That is the whole point. A great many people, when they heard the name of the of the Commander-in-Chief quoted, were deeply concerned to think that in the midst of the tremendous operations now going' on in France he should have been considering a single sentence in a single article of the "Nation." We thought it was a very grave reflection upon the Commander-in-Chief, and we thought it a strange thing that the Government should have dragged in his name. Indeed, the dragging in of his name could only have been justified by the weakness of the case they had to put. We now know that no representation was made by the Commander-in-Chief, that the Government did not know whether the Commander-in-Chief ever saw the article or not, and we know also that the Commander-in-Chief never made any request for the suppression of the "Nation" newspaper.
Mr. MACPHERSON: How do you know?
Mr. PRINGLE: I know it for a fact. Can my hon. Friend say to-day that he has seen the letter? I will give way to him. I have given him a fair opportunity.
Mr. MACPHERSON: I am going to reply in a moment.
Mr. PRINGLE: I have given the hon. Member a fair opportunity to answer that question.
Mr. RONALD McNEILL: Why should he?
Mr. PRINGLE: As a matter of ordinary courtesy in the Debate.
Mr. MACPHERSON: I am going to reply to my hon. Friend in a moment.
Mr. PRINGLE: My hon. Friend interrupted me earlier when I was not asking a question, and when I do ask a question I expect the courtesy of a reply.
Mr. MACPHERSON: My hon. Friend is always asking questions.
Mr. PRINGLE: I am here for that. I did not join the Government, like my hon. Friend, in order to preserve the freedom of interrogation, and I make bold to say this, that my hon. Friend did not give an entirely correct account of the situation.

2713
I ask him to-day to take an opportunity of correcting that statement. I know quite well what has happened probably better than my hon. Friend. I wonder if my hon. Friend knew that the Army Council had taken action in this matter. He probably will not answer that because it is inconvenient. The fact is that the Department which looks after newspapers and articles in France wrote a letter calling attention to an article in the "Nation" newspaper and other articles at the same time, and this general reference has been used by those who wish to suppress the "Nation" newspaper for bolstering up their high-handed and tyrannical action I wish to make it clear that the Commander-in-Chief had nothing to do with this action, and I wish to dissociate his name from it. I regard this matter as one of very great importance.
In the course of the Debate last week I made it clear that the uppression of the foreign circulation of the "Nation" was important, not because of what it suppressed, but because of its effect on great Allied nations. I then made reference to Russia. I can tell my hon. Friend, who probably does not know anything about foreign newspapers, that the editor of the "Nation" has received from the Embassy in Petrograd a letter thanking him for the part he took in the revolution, and yet some jack-in-office at the War Office, who has no conception of our standing with the great Republics of Russia and the United States, ignores all these questions. I put a question to-day with special reference to the United States:
"To ask the Prime Minister whether his attention has been directed to the message of the 'Times' correspondent in Washington, dated the 22nd of April, published in the 'Times' of the 24th instant; and whether, in view of this statement regarding American opinion, the suppression of the foreign circulation of the 'Nation' will now cease?"
My hon. Friend then replied:
"My attention has not been called specially to this case by the New York correspondent of the Times,' but I would refer the hon. Member to the decision announced on the subject by my Noble Friend the Secretary of State in another place on the 24th April."
I should have thought the first duty of those who had the power to deal with the circulation of our newspapers abroad was to consider anything that came to this country from a newspaper representative so important as the correspondent of the "Times" in New York. What did the correspondent of the "Times" in New York say? He pointed out quite clearly
2714
that there were two obstacles to the most intimate and cordial relations between this country and America. One of them was the bureaucratic action of the Government in regard to the "Nation" newspaper. The other was the slowness of effecting a settlement in Ireland. In regard to the first he pointed out that the "Nation" was regarded as an organ of Liberal opinion, that it represented the views of Liberals in America, and that after all whatever might be the case here there were a great many Liberals in America, and that there was no paper which had more clearly and fairly stated the position of President Wilson than the "Nation" newspaper.
Mr. DEVLIN: What did Poland think?
Mr. PRINGLE: We know what Prussia thinks, and Poland has not much opportunity of expressing her opinion because she is living under a suppression of opinion not unlike our own. But there is more evidence than that. Actually when the "Nation" was suppressed a special request came from the American Embassy to have it sent through to the head of a great friendly nation. The same gentleman in the War Office who knows everything—
Mr. DEVLIN: Nothing.
Mr. PRINGLE: Who knows what President Wilson ought to read, suppresses the foreign circulation of the "Nation" newspaper. I have further evidence on this question. There is a great newspaper in America called the "New Republic," and it is widely known as the special organ of President Wilson, and we have to-day an opportunity of seeing what it thinks regarding the action of our Government. For the benefit of my hon. Friend whose: attention has not been specially called to it I propose to read what the "New Republic" says:
"Some British official has put the London 'Nation' on the list of papers which cannot be sent to foreign countries. Having become a partner of the British Empire in a war for democracy, Americans are now forbidden to read the foremost organ of the English Liberal democracy. By issuing the order the very week America entered the War the bureaucrats certainly selected a handsome moment for this piece of grotesque stupidity. It was genial and tactful of them, for the 'Nation' is one of the two or three English publications that have consistently worked for Anglo-American co-operation. The weekly has been a conspicuous friend of this country and of the Wilson administration, and no paper in England has done more to assist America's entrance into the War."
This is the paper you suppress, and you stop going to America the very paper

2715
which has done most to bring about America's intervention. I hope my hon. Friend's attention will now be specially called to this matter. [An HON. MEMBER: "They will suppress that newspaper as well!"] The quotation proceeds:
"Indeed, the 'Nation' might well claim a triumph for its policy. Yet, in the very moment-when its faith in America is most completely vindicated, Americans are informed that they cannot read the 'Nation' because it would contaminate them. It is a grave discourtesy to the American Government, an act unworthy of an Ally, and a complete blunder. Those Americans who read the 'Nation' are not a great number, but they are influential. They will assume that the 'Nation's criticisms of Mr. Lloyd George's Government are responsible for the suppression. Naturally they will assume the worst. They will say that something must be going so wrong that Americans dare not be informed about it. If the present British Government had set out deliberately to put itself under suspicion it could not have done so more effectively."
I hope I have now called my hon. Friend's attention especially to that matter. I know, of course, that he has no authority to reply, and I regret this. It is not possible to have an answer from him, because he cannot speak for the War Office or the War Cabinet, and on a matter of this kind, which is not a mere question of Departmental policy, we are to be fobbed off with an Under-Secretary who has no authority. I do not blame him. I know perfectly well that he would never have touched it with a 10-foot pole if he had had any control either over the policy of his Department or of the Government. I know that he is still a Liberal although he sits on that bench. I know all this, and I regret that he has to do this. I deeply regret to be up against him. But he has to do this job. It is part of the penalty and the price of a great national Government to continue the War. There are few episodes in our recent history which have done more to discredit us with those in whose eyes we should hope to stand best than this silly, cowardly, contemptible action.
Everybody knows that the ostensible reason put forward has nothing whatever to do with it. The single sentence in a single article in this newspaper was not the most pessimistic thing which has appeared in recent days either in the Press or in the speeches of our Ministers. The speech of the Prime Minister at the American luncheon was a far more pessimistic performance than this article in the "Nation." The speech made to-day by the President of the Board of Trade on the submarine menace was one
2716
of the most gloomy, melancholy announcements ever made by a British Minister. It was more deserving of suppression than anything that has ever appeared in the "Nation." The unfortunate thing is that it is only too true. These things all prove conclusively that it was not that sentence, and not that article, but a desire to penalise the paper for its Liberalism and for its independence. An official, an understrapper, believed that he would be in favour with those who were setting authority over him. Two things are now proved. First of all, the Commander-in-Chief in France had nothing to do with this. His name has been dragged into it gratuitously and unfairly, and to bolster up the Government action. In the second place, if this Government is going to have any regard for the good name of this country, and is anxious to preserve good relations with our two greatest democratic-Allies—namely, Russia and the United States—not one day should pass before this stupid, idiotic action is reversed.
Mr. MACPHERSON: The House, I feel sure, will not expect mo to reply to the series of personal attacks upon myself by the hon. Member who has just spoken. He referred to me as remaining a Liberal although on this bench, and as trying to carry through a job. Long before I sat on this bench I did my level best, without being a paid servant of His Majesty, to do what I could in the interests of the. House, and the House knows that I did not waste my time in embarrassing Ministers and in making things uncomfortable and impossible for men endeavouring to do their work as it was possible to make them.
Mr. PR INGLE: Hear, hear! I agree.
Mr. MACPHERSON: The hon. Member referred to some jack-in-office at the War Office, who, upon the mere chance of getting some preferment, wished to stifle a Liberal newspaper. I think he went on to speak of an understrapper. I protest against any such allusion to a distinguished public servant. What are the true facts of the case? This is simply and solely an administrative act done by the competent military authority under powers given to this competent military authority by this very House of Commons.
Mr. PRINGLE: Under false pretences.
Mr. MACPHERSON: I do not believe that the gallant gentleman whose order this was has ever heard of the editor of

2717
The "Nation," and I question if anyone in that Department has ever read that paper in his life.
Mr. HOGGE: He ought to have done.
Mr. MACPHERSON: That may be so.
Mr. HOGGE:It shows his incompetence.
Mr. MACPHERSON: I heard my hon. Friend throughout, and I say this advisedly: I do not believe for a single moment that anyone in that Department knew the editor of the "Nation," or of the personal animosity that is said to have existed between him and the Prime Minister. I do not believe that any personal consideration of any sort entered into this question at all. It was done by the competent military authority, after he had considered the article and the series of articles himself, after he had received a letter from the Home Office drawing his attention to this particular article, and after the Foreign Office had drawn his particular attention to it.
Mr. PRINGLE: The Foreign Office?
Mr. MACPHERSON: The Foreign Office. I say it again, advisedly. After the Foreign and the Propaganda Department of the Foreign Office had drawn his particular attention to it. Even then he did not take action. He took action, and again I say it advisedly, after he had received a letter of the 12th March from the General Headquarters in France mentioning, not as my hon. Friend suggested many other papers and not the "Nation," but the "Nation" expressly, and enclosing, underlined, the articles referred to, and pointing out the fact that they were undesirable, and had a pernicious influence upon the troops at the front. My hon. Friend went further and said that for the sake of our argument in the Debate which he raised on the Adjournment we expressly mentioned the name of Field-Marshal Sir Douglas Haig.
Mr. DEVLIN: Does the hon. Gentleman suggest that the troops at the front read a sixpenny weekly journal?
Mr. MACPHERSON: I say nothing of the kind. That is entering into the merits of the case, and I will deal with it when I come to the merits of the case. The letter which we received from General Headquarters in France expressly mentioned the "Nation," and no other newspaper, and drew particular attention to
2718
these articles, namely, the article of 3rd March, and I think the article of 10th March. My hon. Friend comes forward to-night and tells the House that for the sake of the influence which it would have upon the Debate we introduced the name of Field-Marshal Sir Douglas Haig. The House knows perfectly well that the Prime Minister never mentioned the name of Field-Marshal Sir Douglas Haig during the course of his speech. I have a quotation of his speech here.
Mr. PRINGLE: The Leader of the House did.
Mr. MACPHERSON: I am coming to that. It was the Prime Minister who gave the Government reply, and what he did say was that the letter from General Headquarters in France was substantially the statement made by the various Government Departments which I have enumerated. My hon. Friend, with his well-known love for the Prime Minister which he always shows, would have used the Prime Minister's name to-night if he had thought that he could do so to his detriment. As a matter of fact, my hon. Friend intervenes in Debate probably as often as anybody, and he knows the custom of the House. He knows that the main speech on behalf of the Government that night was delivered by the Prime Minister, and if he really could have attacked the Government by showing that the Prime Minister had used the name of Field-Marshal Sir Douglas Haig he would have done so. For the purpose of his argument, he goes to a very uncertain reference in the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, which was not the main speech in the Debate. I will read what he said:
"Mr. Churchill: He wrote personally on the subject?"
He was referring to the Commander-in-Chief in France.
"Mr. Bonar Law: I think he wrote personally. It came from headquarters."
My hon. Friend bases the whole of his speech upon that.
Mr. PRINGLE: No, I did not. Read on.
Mr. MACPHERSON: I will read on:
"Mr. Bonar Law: My right hon. Friend the Member for Dundee has spoken—and I think it rather interests the House—of a Government wishing to exercise arbitrary powers. That is very interesting, coming from him. I have no doubt bethinks he is a much better judge of what is important than the Commander-in-Chief."
Mr. PRINGLE: Hear, hear! The Commander-in-Chief!
Mr. MACPHERSON: Let me finish the quotation:
"But I am not sure that the House of Commons agrees with him. This is the fact"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th April, 1917, col. 1631.]
I am going to deal with the interruption of the hon. Member. I have read the passage from the Chancellor of the Exchequer's speech. He made it perfectly plain that he did not know whether the letter came from the Commander-in-Chief. That point was expressly put to him by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dundee, and he said it came from Headquarters. That is how Sir Douglas Haig comes to be spoken of. It is a common way of referring to any letter that comes from Headquarters in France to say that it comes from the Commander-in-Chief. Anybody who has any knowledge either of commands or of any Government Department knows that when we refer to a letter as coming from the Secretary of State for War that it is not actually written by the Secretary of State for War, but by a particular branch which is entirely under the control in the matter referred to, of the Secretary of State for War. To come forward and base an argument of this sort upon a statement of that kind really passes the bounds of my comprehension. The hon. Member went on to say that the case of the Government was based upon a single sentence. I tell my hon. Friend that that had nothing at all to do with it. The single sentence that was most quoted appears to me to be one of the worst sentences in the article. I have the article here and would refer any hon. Member here who would care to read it to the article of 3rd March. It is not a case of a single sentence; the whole article is bad from beginning to end. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh!"] It is bad taken as a whole. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, who was hard pressed for time, did draw particular attention to one sentence. I must confess, whatever the exegesis, as we should say in theological Scotland, of that passage might be from the point of view of the "Nation," from the point of view of the ordinary soldier when you say that the soldiers were found wanting and that the honours were with the enemy, there is only one interpretation possible.
10.0 P.M.
My hon. Friend went on to say we received no representations at all from the
2720
Commander-in-Chief. I think I have met that point. Let me come to the last point of all, which I understood was the main reason why this Debate was to take place, namely, that the "Times" correspondent in New York had laid special emphasis on the fact that the "Nation" had had an embargo placed upon its exportation. What are the facts? That was merely a simple expression of opinion. Nobody knows whether it is true or not. I would like to ask my hon. Friend if he can assure the House that the "Times" correspondent knew what the real facts were? Did the "Times" correspondent at that time know that a Debate had taken place in this House? Did the "Times" correspondent in New York know that the Foreign Office, the Propaganda Department of the Foreign Office, the Home Office, and General Headquarters in France had said that this article which was published in the "Nation," which was a continuation of other articles of the same sort, had a pestilential effect upon the morale of our troops? Before he made this statement, did he assure himself that the "Times" correspondent knew these facts? Unless my hon. Friend can assure the House that he did know them, his contention to-night is without any foundation. I do not think the hon. Gentleman raised any other point. He said he was not going into the merits of the case, but he did find an opportunity again of going into the merits. The point he seemed to rely on was that this action was due to the arbitrary and ill-advised judgment of a single individual. I have already met that point.
Mr. PRINGLE: That was a Report issued from 10, Downing Street.
Mr. MACPHERSON: As to the distinguished Gentleman upon whose orders this was done, if he had not done as he has done, after the representations made to him by the men whose interest in the troops who are fighting for us in France is greater than the interest of any other man, by the Foreign Office and the Home Office, he would be lacking in his duty, and would not be competent to perform the duty he has been called upon to perform by the War Office. My hon. Friend tried to make the House believe that I have been inconsistent in what I stated in the House on Monday. His remarks were not so politely put at Question Time to-day, but the House is accustomed to

2721
his polite utterances. I should like to recall what actually did occur, both for my own personal satisfaction and the satisfaction of the House. My hon. Friend the Member for the Bridgeton Division (Mr. MacCallum Scott) asked if we would publish the letter referred to. I said:
"The answer is in the negative."
"Mr. Pringle: Is it because it is stated from France that no request was made from headquarters to have the foreign circulation of the 'Nation' suppressed?"
I replied:
"If such a statement was made, it is quite untrue."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd April, 1917, col. 2031.]
How what I said to-day conflicts with that passes my comprehension. I have already said, and so had the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that we had received that letter from Headquarters in France mentioning one paper only, and pointing out the pernicious and pestilential effects these utterances had upon the troops, and I had that point in my mind. I ask the House to believe that what I did say was true both in substance and in fact.
Mr. T. WILSON: Will the hon. Gentleman say who signed the letter?
Mr. R. McNEILL: I have listened very carefully to the speech of the hon. Gentleman who introduced this Debate (Mr. Pringle), and so far as I could follow him he made two points on the subject, and made them very badly. The first point he attempted to make was that the letter which was said to have come from Headquarters did not come in the personal handwriting of the Commander-in-Chief. I must say that I was very much surprised that the hon. Gentleman should have thought it worth while to make a point of that sort. I should have thought he would have been acquainted with the words
"Qui facit per alium facit per se."
Mr. PRINGLE: He has disowned it.
Mr. McNEILL: He has not disowned it. We know this letter came from General Headquarters in France, and that is the only material point.
Mr. HOGGErose—
Mr. McNEILL: I am afraid I cannot give way to the hon. Member.
Mr. HOGGE: I know you cannot, because you do not like the truth.
Mr. McNEILL: The hon. Member for North-West Lanark (Mr. Pringle) has had a very fair share of time. The other point he made was with regard to the effect on American opinion. There, again, I think that is a very bad point, and it appears to me a most extraordinary habit that this House appears to be slipping into to consider it necessary to have our policy in this country governed by foreign opinion. We have had it not merely with regard to my hon. Friend, but with regard to questions below the Gangway. I am most anxious, as we all are, to stand well with our friends in other countries, and indeed with all the world, but I repudiate the idea that in matters of domestic policy we ought to let ourselves be guided by criticisms in foreign countries. My hon. Friend read some very scathing remarks on the action of the Government drawn from the well-known American newspaper, the "New Republic," which I often read with great interest. But what would be thought in America if some paper of equal standing in this country took it upon itself to lecture the President, Congress, and the administration in America on the conduct of affairs in America? I have no hesitation in saying that there would be very great friction if we ventured to use the same freedom towards America that they think it well to use towards us. So far as this House is concerned, while I desire to stand well with American opinion I should not be guided in the slightest degree by criticisms of the American Press or statements of newspaper correspondents as to opinion in America on our action. I believe too much in the robust common sense of the American people to think that they will take offence at our wishing to guide our domestic policy as they do their own, for our own reasons and independent of foreign criticisms. Those are the only two points the hon. Gentleman has made.
I could not but be struck in his speech by the evidence of how these Scottish Liberal members resemble the early Christians in the love they have one for the other. [Interruption.] The hon. Members who still sit on the Scottish mountain are now separated from the Front Bench and my hon. Friend who sits hero (Mr. MacCallum Scott). They are all separated now, but they still occasionally act together. I notice that my hon. Friend who is sitting here was very useful the other night in preventing a Division. I think the hon. Gentleman who introduced

2723
the Motion to-night spoke about the feeling in the House the other night when no independent Member got up to speak for the Government. I think that must have been because the whole House felt that they were quite prepared to show their support of the Government in the Division Lobby, and that it was quite unnecessary to make remarks on the Motion itself. At all events, it is quite clear that those hon. Members who introduced that Motion but who shirked taking an opinion in the Division Lobby—[Interruption]—must be very grateful to my hon. Friend who sits here. I must say that the love of these Scottish Members has taken a very curious way of showing itself, and I think the speech of the hon. Gentleman opposite shows the great gulf that exists when one is taken and the other left. [Interruption.] I cannot either hear or follow the running comments that come from Edinburgh. I think those hon. Members have had a large
2724
share of the time of the House, and it is rather remarkable that when another hon. Member has a few minutes in which to address the House he cannot be free of running comments from that quarter. I do not, however, bear any ill-will on that point, for I should be very sorry to show the venomous hatred which my hon. Friend shows of his own hon. Friend. Now, having once shirked a Division, and brought two very bad points before the House, and having received a good answer from the Front Bench. I hope he will allow this blessed matter to sleep for the future.
It being one hour after the conclusion of Government Business, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 12th February, until To-morrow, pursuant to the Resolution of the House of this day.
Adjourned at Eleven minutes after Ten o'clock.