HC Deb 11 March 1920 vol 126 cc1640-69

Motion made and Question proposed, That a number of Air Forces, not exceeding 29,730, all ranks, be maintained for the Service of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland at home and abroad, exclusive of those serving in India, during the year ending on the 31st day of March. 1921.

Captain W. BENN

I beg to move to reduce the number to be maintained by 100.

I do not want to go over the ground that was debated earlier in the afternoon in reference to the joint offices held in one by the right hon. Gentleman, although I must say that so much of his defence as I was privileged to hear—unfortunately I did not hear it all—seemed to me to be a very interesting and brilliant defence, but not convincing in the very least. There were four reasons alleged by the right hon. Gentleman why he should continue to be Secretary of State for War and Secretary of State for Air. He finished by indicating that no change was desirable, generally speaking. He spoke about the office routine going on, people sowing with the knowledge that they would reap, not this year, but the year after. All that is incontestable, but it has nothing whatever to do with the point at issue. It is conceivable that a change might come in the Government of the country. Would not these gallant officers in the Department go on sowing? All may sow, but the increase may be reaped by someone else sitting on the Front Bench. The argument that to get continuity of work in the Department you must have no change in the Head of the Department is really an argument which, if true, would cut at the whole system of political management. His second reason was that the Air Service was engaged in a fight for life, but surely it would have been better that it should have had an independent champion with the rank of a Secretary of State which the Act of Parliament gives. His third was that Ministries should be grouped so that, in order to get a smaller inner council of the nation, there should be Ministers who in themselves represent the various cognate aspects of administration. It seems to me an admirable suggestion, but it is not really germane, because we contend that a joint War and Air Ministry is not a step in the direction of a Ministry of Defence, because it has excited in the. Admiralty the very jealousy which would make, not for but against the possibility of that development. The right hon. Gentleman explained how the Ministry worked and how the duty of the Minister was confined to going to the Department and co-ordinating and seeing that things were done, but he suggested that their duties were so light that there was nothing to occupy the whole time of the Secretary of State. If that is true, what about the duties of other Ministers who are Secretaries of State, because if the argument is true of the Air Ministry it is true of every other Ministry? The only answer the right hon. Gentleman could make was that he himself is a man of exuberant energy and is able to do two men's work. I do not demur altogether to that contention, but when he goes on to say that a state of affairs which may be permissible with him at the head is to be made permanent with other less gifted Ministers in charge, he is shaking the confidence of those who would be glad to agree with him if they could.

Anyone who is interested in the air will be very pleased to see in the Memorandum the right hon. Gentleman has issued the statement of faith with which it is prefaced that manufacture, supply, research and meteorology, all are grouped under the one Ministry. That must give very great satisfaction to those who have interested themselves throughout the course of the War in this endeavour to get one Ministry for one element, and although I voted for the Amendment and believed it was right, at any rate we had lip service and perhaps more paid to the principle that the air is an element just as water and the earth are elements, and is entitled to a Ministry devoted entirely to its own interests. I should like to ask a question in passing as regards research. I see the National physical laboratory is going on with its investigations. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will tell us whether any effort is made to co-relate the work of the Research Department at Farnborough with the work of the National Physical Laboratory, I think it should be. Further, as regards meteorology, does that mean that the service of meteorology for all purposes is now in charge of the Air Ministry, or are other meteorological departments at the Admiralty and elsewhere to be kept going? We believe that the science of meteorology can be most perfectly explored by the Air Service. Obviously a thing that goes in the air is a thing which will tell you what the air is like.

Mr. CHURCHILL

It cannot go up to where the meteors come from.

Captain BENN

That is true, but I should like to know that the Admiralty is not secretly hoarding up a Meteorological Department of its own, but has handed over its organisation to what should be the unified organisation of the national service. Neither am I going to quarrel with the amount of the Estimate, although I share all the ideals which my hon. and gallant Friend so often expresses. I am not going to quarrel with the amount of the Estimate, because the Air Service differs entirely from the Army or the Navy in this, that it has a definite peace mission to which it can be adapted and which it can fulfil. The second reason why I do not question the figures is because so far as expenditure on national defence is necessary, I should wish to see the burden taken from an obsolescent Department, such as the Army or Navy, and I should like to see the revision coming more in the direction of giving more work for the Air Service to do and a consequent and much greater diminution in the Estimates for the Army and the Navy. That is the policy, but we do not sec any fruits. We consider that the Army Estimates are grossly swollen and that the Navy Estimates contain large charges for things which ought to fall upon the Air Service Vote. It is a redistribution of this kind which constitutes the sole justification, if there is one, for the right hon. Gentleman holding both offices. It is a much better argument than anything he has put forward to-day, that in his position common to both offices he shall insist at the War Office on charges being transferred to the Air Ministry and the work being done by air machines.

Of course in Somaliland there was a very brilliant operation carried out by the Air Service which gave definite proof of what the Air Service can do in warfare of that kind. I should like to ask whether something more could not be done in Egypt, where there are more than 30,000 troops. Is it not possible that order could be kept, especially in some of the distant districts, by means of low-flying aeroplanes instead of immense territorial occupations by troops, because the moral effect, especially against an enemy which is unarmed, with any anti-aerial defence, of a low-flying aeroplane is tremendous when it is known that it has come or a hostile mission. The right hon. Gentleman told us that more work was to be done by the Air Force in Mesopotamia, but is he able to inform us of what is being done? It would seem that very large tracts might be entirely controlled by a Police Air Service in place of troops living in places where their activities are entirely limited by the country. I think the right hon. Gentleman said that in that case the Supreme Command would be given to an air officer, and troops on the ground would come under the command of the Superior Service. The same of course applies to India, I suppose, and to Asia Minor. I understand the right hon. Gentleman poured ridicule on the suggestion that Asia Minor might be partially controlled from the air. If he had a fleet of seaplane carriers under his own control working in the Black Sea and on the Mediterranean littoral, a very great deal of Asia Minor might be brought under control by air. If it is necessary to give any force to the League of Nations to carry out their peace work, it might very suitably be an international air force enlisted for the purpose. Look what the. effect of that would be on the Turkish situation. The Government's position, I understand, is that by keeping the Turk at Constantinople he is kept at the mouth of the guns and is bound to behave. Therefore he must not go to Brousa. But if he were at Brousa, is he not absolutely accessible by seaplane, to say nothing of aeroplane bombers, from the Sea of Marmora? There was a massacre of Armenians at Adana. I have been over Adana and bombed the railway station. It is absolutely accessible from the sea We did it in machines which had never altered one tittle of their design from 1910, when they were designed, to the time they were supplied by the Admiralty to the Air Service at Port Said.

Commander BELLAIRS

That is a relief from Army Votes.

Captain BENN

Not at all. It is naval guns which the Turks are to be at the mouth of. Large charges which fall on the Army or the Navy might very well fall on the Air Service, and wherever the Turk went in Asia Minor it would be possible to keep him under control from the sea, not necessarily by seaplanes, but by air machines which might be flown off the decks of seaplane carriers, or they might even be seaplanes. [Interruption.] I cannot enter into the rival merits of Armenians and Turks, but it usually seems to be the Armenians who get killed, and if you terrify their murderers it might have a good effect. Air requires someone in the powerful position of a Cabinet Minister to stand up for the Air point of view, and the people in the Air Service very much mistrust the influence of people brought up in the old Army or Navy school, because the tendency always is to look at the thing from the good old days when they were in a regiment or in a ship and not to realise that the Air has its own traditions and peculiarities and its own psychology. What should be the general policy of the Air Ministry in times of peace? There is a Vote here, or roughly £15,000,000 or £16,000,000, which is divided into £12,500,000 to be expended on war service and £2,500,000 on research and civil aviation. I suggest, first, that the proportion is too heavily weighted in favour of the war side, and secondly, if the proportion is not altered, that there is proper co-ordination between the office which deals with civil aviation and the authority which deals with the maintenance of the squadrons and the aerodromes to all the services.

I should like to speak of the matter purely, though that is not the point of view I prefer, from the standpoint of the preparations necessary for some future war There is no doubt that if the right hon. Gentleman is allowed to persist in his policy we shall have a future war. Looking at the matter purely from the point of view of the officer who is in charge of the supply of material for a future war, let us take the material first. It is very striking in the recent War the material that was in existence when the War broke out very quickly became obsolete. One only has to look at the records of performances to realise what enormous strides were made between the years 1913–1916, as compared with the period from 1903 to the year when war broke out. The maximum distance flown in the three years 1912, 1913, 1914, ranged to about 600 or 700 miles, and instead of going forwards it was going backwards. It amounted to 678 miles in 1912 and had gone down to 615 miles in 1914; but in 1916, after we had had the advantage of two years of unlimited expenditure, both in money, in life, and in risk, we had the remarkable flights from Toulouse to Casablanca, over 1,000 miles, and the long flight into Russia of 1,200 miles, so that in two years more had been done than in the whole of the previous eleven years during which aviation had been growing into a practical science.

Whatever material the right hon. Gentleman many accumulate in preparation for the next war it is perfectly certain that very shortly after hostilities break out, or very shortly after the war has been in operation, the material will be out of date. What he ought to do is not to accumulate masses of aeroplanes of an obsolescent standard but try to encourage in every way the development of new ideas. One hon. Member said he thought that the development of civil aviation would not necessarily improve the war machines, because the type was so different. I think it was the Noble Lord (Lord Hugh Cecil) who said that the function of the civil machines was that of safety and weight-carrying and that speed was not essential. What is required in an effective commercial machine is engine power with small weight, therefore good reserve power. A flying machine for war purposes has the safety that is secured in the commercial machines by reserve of power, and the reserve of power is employed in the war machine for fighting purposes, for climbing, etc.

Lord HUGH CECIL

You do not want the same manœuvring power.

Captain BENN

It is quite true that some types of scouts depend entirely on their power of manœuvre, but the Noble Lord knows quite well that bombers of the most successful type are. not manœuvred at all. We may, of course, get a new type of aerial battleship which will be no more manoeuvrable, compared with the scout, than the Dreadnought compared with quick torpedo-boat. What the Air Minister ought to do, even from the war point of view, is to assiduously encourage and cultivate ideas. It is not by an accumulation of war material, or by concentrating on the war aspect, that you will get the development of ideas which is necessary to true progress. What, for instance, should be the policy of someone who is required to produce the personnel for any future encounter? It is quite true that in training men you cannot make all tacticians You can train wireless operators and enginemen, and develop the science of aerial gunnery, bomb dropping, etc., but as regards the pilots, long before there is any danger of a future war the pilots that are being trained to-day will be too old or too stale to fly, or very likely will not be able to fly the type of machine that will emerge— if such a misadventure as a great war came along—as the type by which the war would be won. That is the reason why I say that it is idle to think of having a pool of pilots: keeping together all the pilots who flew in the War. It is to be hoped that not one of them will ever be called upon to fly in such a war again.

Then as to new ideas. The sort of thing that the Air Minister or the man who is looking at the question purely from the war point of view would require to do would be to give every sort of encouragement to new developments. There are certain things which are very distant and others that are near. For instance, if one could invent an internal combustion turbine it would revolutionise the whole art of flying. Then, again, if we could get a non-inflammable gas you might make the lighter than air machine a most formidable war weapon. There was an announcement the other day, I think it was by Mr. Handley Page, in regard to a new shutter in the wings which gives an enormous power of lift. It was a form of shutter which was to vary the wing surface, so that when rising from the ground the shutter would open and the wing surface would be reduced, and subsequently the shutter would close so that the wing surface would be considerably increased. Then take the question of flying tests. There are different kinds of new tricks in flying. I am trying to put before myself what should be the preoccupations of someone trying to prepare for another war. Far be it from me to say that it is my general view. Take the cases of novel performances in flying. It was about twelve months ago since Vedrennes landed on the Lafayette Gallery in Paris; a machine 12 metres broad on a gallery 14 metres broad. A very significant performance which might entirely revolutionise, if it were developed, our general ideas about aerodromes and landing places. Take the case of Pegouid who first looped the loop. He was not told to do that by his superior officer. It was a private performance, and it was regarded at the time as singularly foolish: but we know perfectly well that looping the loop during the War was an essential capacity often for the saving of life. It was one of the functions of aerial manœuvring.

Take the question of routes. The man who is preparing for some future hostilities would have to consider the question of testing the aerial routes over which he would send his aerial forces, supposing that aircraft occupies that high place in offence and attack which we believe it will. Take the case of the flight of R. 34 to America. There is great scope in the testing of the lighter than air machine, and in the getting of aerodromes ready. There is also the development of the equipment of air machines, wireless telephony, communication inside the machine, lights, navigation, &c. Supposing the Minister was preparing for some' future conflict, navigation would occupy an enormous amount of his attention. I am told—I am not sure that it is correct, but perhaps the Under-Secretary will tell me that the four unfortunate pilots who were lost in flying to Ireland recently were seen many miles to the south. They had lost their way. They had evidently been trying to fly by landmarks on the principle that "there is the land, we will go to right angles and then we shall reach Ireland," instead of working by compass. Then there is the question of meteorology. The Minister preparing for future eventualities would be intensely interested in meteorology, and he would see what enormous importance attaches to correct charting of the air, and the preparation of air charts similar to the charts that we have for the sea or the ordnance survey maps we have for land. General Sykes said that it was the discovery of the trade winds which made the military successes of Spain and Portugal. Real meteorological research may do the same thing for the Air Service. We need to be furnished with all possible knowledge with regard to air currents at different altitudes, so that, say, in flying to America we should know what air currents you would get at anything from 1,000 to 10,000 feet altitude.

All this work is purely civilian in character. It is work that civilian pilots are doing. It is work that is equally useful for war or peace. It is experience accumulated and needed by those who are engaged in civil aviation. Therefore I do ask whether we are quite sure that the distribution of the £15,000,000 in the proportion of £12,500,000 for the mechanical and military side and only £2,500,000 for research and assistance in civil aviation is a wise division. Should not the proportion be more in favour of the civilian side, with possibly the bias on that side? That is quite a good argument from the point of view of the Amendment, and that is the sort of co-ordination which the Minister could do. It is perfectly obvious that the Director of Civil Aviation could not demand more money from the Chief of the General Staff. That is the work of the Minister, and if we find it is not done, or if we find that it is not done adequately, then we are justified in asking whether it should be left to a Minister pressed with other work which is taking him away from this work; or whether it is wise to have an Air Minister whose mind is full of military ambitions, and who by that very fact is incapable of envisaging the air problems in the right proportions. There is another suggestion, which is this: When the squadrons are trained, is it not possible that they might be used to carry out useful civilian work of various kinds? I could deal with the commercial question. I am told that the Germans are experimenting with eight-motor craft, carrying 3 tons. There is also the question of the postal service. I have some figures dealing with the London to Paris air mail during the August and March period, which is the worst period in which anyone could undertake to fly over a foggy channel, with the rain and wind we have between here and France.

8.0 P.M.

Out of 400 flights that were to be taken no fewer than 280 were safely accomplished; 68 were prevented by weather; 51 were interrupted by weather; and the number prevented or interrupted by mechanical defects was negligible. That is a very encouraging result. In passing I would like to ask whether sufficient facilities are given to people who desire to take advantage of the air mail. I am told that there are only six places in London where you can post letters to go to Paris by air. I am told that the people who have the contract are not paid by a definite subsidy, such as might be paid to a liner for carrying a mail, but are actually paid so much per ounce for what is carried. If you cripple the service by providing only six places of collection and pay only by weight, obviously it cannot be made a profitable undertaking by those who are carrying it on.

I would suggest that work which might suitably be done, training squadrons or piece work, would form a suitable outlet for the peculiar methods of the flying squadron. I observe on page 17 of the Estimate the large sum of £6,700 for reconstructing the coastguard station at Calshott. What is the Air Force doing in relation to the coastguard service? It may well be that this dual Ministry, where the Minister is in charge of the Air Force, may make it very much harder for the Admiralty to consent to the handing over of its coastguards to the Air Ministry. That is precisely the sort of friction which I anticipate would occur owing to the dual office. Obviously a great deal of the coatsguard station work could be done by seaplanes or flying boats. I know Calshott very well. During the War there were services every day—two or three controls—both westwards towards Portland and eastwards to Newhaven. I had certainly hoped that one of the reasons for the Air Ministry would have been that a great part of the coastguard service of this country could have been taken away from the antediluvian methods at present employed of men walking and handed over to an air machine which would patrol as great a distance effectively in half an hour as a man might walk in half a lifetime.

It is to the civilian side of aviation and its development that attention should be given. The hon. Gentleman was good enough to tell me when I interrupted him that there used to be five airships in the establishment, and that a number of the old ships were still there. Are they under the control of the war side of the Chief of the Staff or under the control of the Director of Civil Aviation, because one of the lessons of the War which could not be mistaken was that the airship, so long as it was merely a gas-filled machine, is a hopeless weapon of war, but that for commercial purposes it has great possibilities with its long duration and its big ambit. There are many features about it which make it much more suitable for commercial purposes than for war purposes, and the airship should be under the control of the civilian side for the purpose of the development of civilian aviation. I think that the E. 34 was positively in the hands of the Admiralty and had to be borrowed by the Air Ministry.

Major TRYON

It was in the hands of the Admiralty.

Captain BENN

That was appalling, and I am glad to know that it has come to an end. I suggest that airships are essentially a thing which should be in connection with the civilian side of the Ministry. The civilian side of the Ministry has, of course, done an enormous amount of useful work. It is an alarming thing to be told by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman (Major-General Seely), and we know it to be a fact, that civilian aviation in this country is in such a bad way, because it is no good for the Air Ministry to think that by heaping up squadrons and having people drilled and having a force under Vote A they are really making effective protective progress in aviation. It is the civilian side which is bound to make progress. If we had one continual war, which seems to be the great desire of some politicians, we could get great developments in aviation, but as that will not happen we must look to the civilian side, and the constant daily experience of the achievements of the civilian side of the Air Ministry is well known. The possibilities of saving time by civilian aviation are enormous. Bagdad has become now a very important place in view of recent military changes. The Bagdad-Cairo flight is a ten-hour flight compared with the present journey, which has to be by Karachi and Bombay, and takes three or four weeks, and the development of this service means a tremendous change for the good of mankind quite apart from the war side, of which I hope we shall not hear very much.

It is because of its enormous possibilities and of the character of aerial flight that it attracts so many people who are merely repelled by the idea of military action. The Noble Lord (Lord H. Cecil) most eloquently said that the type of discipline and psychology in the Air Force is utterly different from that of the Army or the Navy. The spirit of adventure, adaptability and a constant devotion to the scientific aspect of things are the prerogative of the Air Force. The reason that I find it so attractive is not because of its war possibilities at all, but because I believe that when we do get air travel thoroughly developed, as it will be one day, it will be a physical defeat for all the people who want to set up barriers between the nations of the world, with customs and tariffs. The moment when the air is full of flying machines, all customs barriers, alien restrictions and all these divisions which separate mankind and prevent it being one united family will cease, and the reason why I support the development of aviation is not concerned so much with its military side as with the greater development of its civilian side.

Major BARNES

Although I wish to support this Motion for the reduction of the Vote by 100 men, the hon. Member who is in charge for the Government may lake it that there is not any lack of sympathy with the proposal to establish the Air Force, and that there is no desire to impede him in any way in the great task of assisting in the formation and administration of the Force. He must have realised from the speeches to which he has listened that the establishment of the Air Force meets with general sympathy and approval. Its attraction in a great many ways have been dwelt upon. It presents possibilities which no other of our military forces possesses. It has great possibilities in the pursuit of peace. It must play a very great part in the defence of this country. Whether we are going to have war in future or not, there can be no doubt that it is the duty of the Government to make the Force efficient for the defence of these islands. For the purposes of offence, where offence is necessary, we recognise that the Air Force is going to be useful in a direction of saving money. We hope that it will result in the saving of expenditure on the Army and also in the saving of life. I wish to address myself to this question from a point of view which, I think, has been barely touched upon so far. On examining these Estimates they appear—and that appearance is supported by the speeches of the Under-Secretary for Air and the Secretary of State for War—to have a very close relationship with the whole problem of the protection of the Turkish Empire. When one looks at pages 18 and 19 of this Vote, one sees that a great deal of work on building is to take place in the Middle East—in Palestine, in Mesopatamia and elsewhere. In the present state of uncertainty as to the future of the Turkish Empire, it would appear from that that we are prepared to take upon ourselves responsibilities far greater than many of us think we ought to assume.

We are quite in the dark as to what is going to happen. The Prime Minister this afternoon was asked as to the future Status of Palestine, and he told us he could not give any information. From the Estimates it looks as if preparations were being made by us to assume very real and definite responsibility in regard to great portions of the Turkish Empire. I want as strongly as I can to protest against any such assumption of continued and definite responsibility. For centuries the nations of Europe have looked with desire upon the Middle East. Ever since the days when the Turkish invasion began to recede, one or other of the great Powers of Europe has hoped to establish itself in Turkey's place. For several years before the War the minds of people in this country were almost obsessed with the intentions of Germany. I suppose it would not be unfair to presume that probably the real cause of the War was the determination of the German Empire to obtain supremacy in this part of the world. It forms the road to India, and at one time or another every European nation has hoped to possess India. France, Germany and Russia have all held that ambition, and in holding it they appeared to antagonise the real and vital interests of this country. All these great nations have been disappointed. France long since gave up the idea; Germany's hopes have been shattered; Russia is a changed country. The road seems open and clear for us to take the place of Turkey in great parts of her Empire.

It seems to lie with us to decide whether we shall take permanent possession of Mesopotamia and whether we shall hold Palestine and other parts of the world. These Estimates suggest that that is the purpose of the Government. In so far as they do that we feel ourself bound to oppose them. Very different views may be held as to what we ought to do with those great portions of the world. It may very well be held by some people that it is our duty to occupy them and maintain them by our power. That is not my view or the view of many Members on this side of the House. We feel that it is a false step to take, that there is upon the horizon of the world a new hope and a new possibility in the League of Nations. We think there are possibilities of international control which were not open to the world before, and some of us look to this part of the world as a sphere in which the powers of the League may be exercised. Quite recently in this House a strong desire was expressed by some hon. Members that Constantinople should be the headquarters of the League of Nations. From our point of view, the right course would be, not to put the lands out there under the control of any individual nation, but that that should be done by such a body as the League of Nations.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Sir E. Cornwall)

That is not relevant to the Estimate before us.

Major BARNES

We should not undertake or assume responsibility for controlling those parts of the world. We appear to be preparing for an Air Force adequate for that purpose. We think on this side if an Air Force is required, it should be international in character, and that the proper body to control it is the League of Nations. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman intends to give us any indication as to policy, but I suppose it is extremely unlikely. I think he is sometimes rather unfairly blamed on questions of policy, and that too much responsibility is put upon him in that respect. His business as Secretary of State, is to carry out the policy of the Government, and if he displays great enthusiasm and great capacity in that direction, that should not be made the subject of blame. I do hope that he may be able to give us some indication as to the matters to which I have been pointing. He is a very important and responsible member of the whole Government, and their policy, I am sure, is not decided without his counsel, and that it has a very important bearing on it. I should like to be assured by him that the real genesis of this Air Force is not any idea of its becoming a means of defence at home, but for the purpose of ensuring real effective control over great parts of the Middle East which we intend to permanently occupy. That is a matter of substance and importance on these Estimates, and for that reason we have a very real objection to them. This is the first of the great military Estimates, and we feel that it is important, at the outset, that we should endeavour to ascertain whether the growth of our military forces and expenditure is dependent upon the permanent assumption of very great additional responsibilities in controlling very great areas of the world's surface. I notice in two items on pages 18 and 19, the remark that the total Estimate is under consideration. Does that mean that these two particular items are awaiting the decision of the Government on their general policy with regard to regions in the Middle East? I presume that in the Estimate of 29,730 men provision is made for some sort of force in those regions. Is it the determination of the Government to take very large and indefinite responsibilities in that part of the world? We feel that such an assumption can only mean the starting point for further wars. Germany and Russia are down and out at present, but that is net going to continue There is no doubt that before long both will be restored to very much their former position of power and wealth, and if we are at that time established in that part of the world, that can only mean the starting point of further attacks. The only way, we think, to deal with this matter is to put this part of the world under international control, and that, I take it, would mean the reduction of this Force.

Mr. BILLING

I have on most occasions risen on this subject somewhat in anger, but having dealt with these subjects for upwards of two years, I rise more in sorrow to think that on so essentially important a question as the Air Service, we have not had during a great portion of the Debate a quorum of the House present. I think that is the gravest reflection on the Government and on the Minister responsible. Those of us who knew the present Secretary of State for War in the early days of the War appreciate what an extraordinary amount of work he performed to make the Air Service what it was, and I am rather surprised that he has been content to have it regarded now as a sort of punitive weapon. The hon. Member who preceded me went into the question of an international Air Service. I sincerely trust there is no very great danger of that. The facts which he put forward against this Vote are the very facts why other Members would seriously consider the desirability, not only of supporting this Vote, but of strengthening the hands of the Minister responsible for it. Despite the wave of economy which is passing over the country, some hon. Members would either wish that the Vote were greater, or that the money which is now being expended on such obsolete instruments of war as armies and navies, in the generally accepted sense of those terms, should be devoted to retaining the supremacy of the air which we undoubtedly achieved in the War.

A very considerable fight was put up in this House before we got any aeroplanes at all. Then we had the public on our side, and eventually the Government bound to public opinion, but to-day, unfortunately, we have neither the House of Commons nor the public on our side. The day will come—and I say it in no pessimistic sense—when the Air Service will stand between this country and its extinction as a great World power, as the Navy has stood in the past between us and our extinction, and yet the first time when we are really debating this matter after the War we find that the only interest that this House can put up is 1 per cent. of its total membership. During the most of this Debate there have been seven Members, including the representative of the Government in the House, and seven out of seven hundred and seven is a very poor show of the interest of this Committee in the general administration of the Air Service. The present Secretary of State for War knows my views on this subject so fully that were he now present I should not need to trouble the Committee with them. I have had the opportunity of discussing the matter very fully with him, and once upon a time his views were identical with mine, but the fact that he now has under his charge the War Office seems to have caused him to forget the poor little misshapen child, the Air Service, which he was once so keen upon. I urge on the Under-Secretary to use all his influence to get the War Secretary's views back to the value of the Air Service as he once saw it. He saw the ultimate victory of the War in the Air Service, and I respectfully submit that it was the Air Service that brought victory to our arms in this War. Those men who have studied the effect of our Air Service on the Western Front in the last two years of the War know very well that had it not been for our air supremacy at that time, the result of the engagements on the Western Front in 1917 and 1918 would hare been totally different. As a punitive weapon, only two weeks ago, I think, we had one of the members of the Government standing up and saying that one squadron of the Royal Air Force had done in a week what the whole British Army could not have accomplished in I do not know how many weeks in the expedition against the Mullah. As a punitive weapon it is unique, it is efficient, and it is inexpensive.

If the Secretary for War really were to tell us the truth when he replies, he would say, "Here is the position. We have to keep a standing Army, and we might as well billet it in Egypt or India as keep it in this country." But I submit that, did we lay the foundation now of an efficient commercial air service, and did we subsidise that air service, it would be quite unnecessary to keep any great military air service in existence. By arranging for a volunteer reserve among the pilots of a great commercial air service, by requesting the directors of all companies connected with commercial aviation to submit their designs to the Air Ministry, by arranging that the cargo or mail-carrying aeroplanes should be so designed that they could be transformed into bombing machines at short notice, by arranging that fast small machines which are now being built by some men in this country for their own personal pleasure should be so designed as to come within the scope of a useful weapon of war, and by subsidising those machines and those men who were prepared to fly them, I suggest that for something like 10 per cent. or 20 per cent. of the total expense of a standing air service as a fighting unit we could have an enormous reserve to call upon at any time, and not only that, but we should be building up a useful and valuable trade. I assure the Committee that if this country does not take this matter up, there are other countries that will. Germany at present, although we consider her beaten and finished, is building, if anything, more modern aeroplanes and airships than we are, and with the wave of economy which is now going over this country, everybody is saying that we have finished the War because we were victorious. I submit that it is the victorious nations that have to look more closely to their armaments at the end of a war than the beaten nations, and to suggest that because this War has come at last to an end, all wars are finished with. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] I submit that there never was a war which came to an end when those people who were sore and bitter by that war did not gather together and say, "This is the last war!"

Every war is the last war, like every quarrel is the last quarrel, but I do not know whether hon. Members who hold that point of view have taken into consideration human nature. The scene that was witnessed in the House last night shows quite clearly that even in this House it is not always possible to retain that reasoned sense of proportion which is so necessary if the affairs even of debate are to be carried on peacefully, and how much more difficult will it be to control a nation with your Press lashing the country into fury about some new outrage that has taken place! In twenty years' time we shall have forgotten the wounds and the horrors of this War, and in forty years' time, probably, we shall be engaged in some other great conflict. The League of Nations—I say it with all respect to those who are so strongly advocating it—might well be called the League of Notions. You are never going, so long as you have pride of race, and personal pride, and family pride, to do away with national pride, and so long as that exists we are going to sec in the future, as we have seen in the past, great conflicts between various nations. If I were not convinced of that, I would ask for the immediate abolition of all forms of armaments, for that is the only logical conclusion. You cannot have it both ways. If there is a majority of men who honestly believe that all wars are about to cease, that we are going to discuss and settle by arbitration all the various insults which nations can suffer at each other's hands, then I say that this Vote is a farce, and that to come down and ask even for a hundred pounds to build aeroplanes of war and engines of death is an insult and a farce.

The War Secretary is accused of having a militant mind. Of course he has a militant mind, because; he has a great imagination. Imagination occasionally brings with it foresight, and I think he realises that this talk of peace when there is no peace is only a phase, and that exhausted humanity wants to think they are never going to have another war, because they are very tired of five years of it. I only wish hon. Members were present, not to listen to any particular speaker, or to take any part in the Debate, but to show by numerical strength that they were behind the War Secretary in his endeavour to built! up something in the nature of a post-War Air Service commensurate with our Imperial power and strength. I know that word Imperial makes quite a number of Members of this Parliament shudder, but that is my point of view, and if we as an Empire do not stand together we shall make a very small show. We want to be a power in the world.

I pay this country the compliment that it does good, and has done good, and if it is a power for good there is no reason why we should not be proud of it, and we might try to exercise the strength we have. Even hon. Members above me try to make powerful speeches and try to sway opinion for good. I really believe at heart it is for good. Why should not we make of it a greater move and let the whole country be working for good with the world generally? But what has made it the power it was to work for good is the fact that we held the command of the seas and were able to impose our will when it was for the good of the world upon the world. The British Navy in the past has made it a power for good in the world. The British Navy, as a punitive instrument, and as a dominant instrument to impose the will of this country on the rest of the world, is obsolete.' Our Expeditionary Force of men armed with ordinary magazine rifles, and even machine guns, as a punitive force is obsolete. The question arises, are we going to join this world club or are we going in the future to endeavour, as we have in the past, to play the part inspired by national pride, love of fair play and all those things that go down so well when mentioned at a public meeting, and are so little studied in our own political lives. Are we going to drop all that, or are we going to carry it on? Are we going to justify our inheritance 2 Wherever our Army and our Navy went the country benefited by it. I have spent most of my life in travelling over the face of the earth, and I have been to most of our Colonies and worked in them, and wherever the Union Jack has flown there is always a sense of security, dignity, justice and fair play, which does not seem so present in the Colonial possessions and Dominions of other lands. If we admit that our Army and our Navy have in the past been a valuable instrument in defending world peace and administering justice, the obligation is on every Member of the House, if he believes that, to realise that the time has come when we have to change and to scrap the weapon we have been using in the past to carry out this good work, and we have to prepare for the creation of a new force in the future, and that new force is an air force, and the only possible excuse hon. Members can give for not supporting this is its cost.

There is no reason why the cost should not be greatly reduced by encouraging civil aviation, and by subsidising any firm which will undertake to carry mails We ought, even at a loss, to start to pay a great number of our mails in this country by air. We ought to introduce a regular mail service wherever men can be found to do it in any part of the world We ought to subsidise all our Colonies, possessions and Dominions in every way we can so that they might put on foot, not only air services but air stations and repairing factories, and generally form the nucleus of a great British air fleet which would ring the world from one point to the next. In ten years, with imagination, and at very little expense compared with what our Navy and Army have cost, we could set up such a commercial air service as may yet prove whether or not we continue to exist as a nation. We have fought for freedom and various other things which it is not now fashionable even to mention, and we have to retain them by what we fought for them with. We fought for them by force. What you win with the sword you hold with the sword and not with fair words. We have won it by the sword. I respectfully submit to this Committee that we shall hold it with our great Air Service; we shall lose it without.

Major GLYN

I think it is necessary to ask the hon. Gentleman representing the Air Ministry for certain extra particulars in regard to this Vote, especially respecting the Group Captains, who number 22. How many groups is it proposed that there shall permanently be in existence—not on paper—for these 22 Commanders? There are 78 Wing Commanders; how many Wings are there? There are 196 Squadron Leaders; how many Squadrons are there? There are 1425 Flying or Observer Officers—it is interesting to know that at the time of the Armistice, on November 11, the maximum number of squadrons in commission was 201. It is positively the saddest thing I have seen in this House, when the subject of the Air Force, which is the potential force of the future, is being discussed, that there should be so little interest taken in it. I know very well the hon. Member who is now in charge of the Air Ministry, with the Secretary of State for War, has the interests of that Service very much at heart. I know that his views for the future are that the nursery period through which the Air Service must pass is certain to be the most difficult time through which he has to pilot his Ministry.

When we were asking to discuss the Air Estimates in the House there was one point I ventured to put which has never yet been answered. That is what are we doing in this country to encourage civil aviation companies in comparison to what is being done in Germany? In saying this I do not want to be called a scaremonger or anything of the sort, for I am very fully aware that the conditions of the weather on the Continent are not the same as in these Islands, Nevertheless, we cannot get over the fact, it is well known, that the terms of the Peace Treaty it is said—I do not know whether it is so or not—arc not being carried out by the Germans, who are in possession of a very large number of squadrons, or at any rate machines which are capable, as we know, of being transferred into war machines at very short notice. Furthermore, in regard to lighter-than-air machines, the German Zeppelin was, I suppose, the finest lighter-than-air machine known. During the war the Germans put up very large establishments for the production of hydrogen. Some of these hydrogen plants are still in existence, still working, and it is possible for the Germans to use their lighter-than-air craft. They might, if they did not do any damage to us, at any rate produce such a situation of funk upon the Continent in a year or two that we might be necessarily perturbed in these Islands.

What is the Air Ministry doing, and how far is the Ministry able to pull its weight in influencing the Cabinet through the Secretary for War to render assistance to those civilian firms who are anxious to build, and so help us to maintain our supremacy? When the War ended everybody admitted that we had a distinct superiority, not only through the skill of the individual pilot—that is a gift of individualism that this country seems to possess—but also in the skill of the draughtsmen and designers employed by the civilian firms. It stands to reason, with civilian craft manufactures now turning out furniture and not aeroplanes, that it will not be worth while paying the necessary salaries to skilled designers unless the Government are prepared honestly to come forward and admit that they look to the Air Force as the potential force in the future, and recognise that the best insurance that they can adopt is to assist in some way or other commercial firms to develop, and keep pace with the development on the Continent, and of aircraft in general.

I am very well aware that Air-Marshal Trenchard is fully alive to the difficulties of the present situation. I know he understands what the economy cry through the country is. I have no doubt he appreciates that should this country, by any great mischance, be threatened in the immediate future with war, and we were not prepared, on him would be poured the blame for our unpreparedness. But what is the position of the Air Service and the members of the Council? Are they leally able to put forward their views so that the country may know? I am quite convinced that nobody in this country would like to have economy at the expense of danger. I do think we have to get our people to think in terms of air. We do not yet think in terms of air. But it does seem to me absolutely necessary that in this iterim period we should see that everything is done to encourage an adequate reserve not only of pilots and observers but also of machines. If we do not have that reserve created in time of peace we shall undoubtedly be very short in time of war. Now that the total estimate for the Air Service has been reduced to 29,730 of all ranks, it is perfectly obvious that if we are going to keep our position in the forefront in time of war we must depend to even a greater extent than we thought a few months ago upon an efficient and adequate reserve.

9.0 P.M.

The reserve Vote is placed at £77,400. What are the conditions of the training, payment, and service required by the officers and men serving in the Air Force reserve. It would be useful to bring out this point, because I know there are a large number of officers who served in the Royal Air Force during the War who have not been approached recently or asked to hold themselves in readiness to render service during a future war. It would, therefore, be interesting to know on what is this sum of £77,400 to be spent. There is another question almost of equal importance, though I am not certain whether it strictly comes on this Vote—accommodation to be provided in the various establishments under the Air Ministry. Cranwell is to cost no less a sum than £1,237,800. Cranwell is to be put up for the avowed purpose of training pilots. I understand service pilots only at present. If you are going to spend that money on an establishment for training, can the hon. Gentleman not conceive some policy by which it may be worth the while of commercial aviation companies to allow their own people to go through the training at that college so that they may be trained, not only for their own work as commercial pilots, but be given that extra training which will make them fit to be used as an efficient reserve in time of war? I understand in conversation with representatives of these firms that they consider the best age for air pilots for civilian purposes is 25. But our War experience us that we got excellent and gallant pilots at the age of 18. The college is going to be open to cadets from the age of 18. Will the hon. Gentleman tell us if he will consider the propriety of making provision for civilian pilots to be trained at Cranwell, as otherwise the sum of £1,237,000 seems rather large for an establishment to provide trained officers for a force of 29,000 men. It seems like providing an expensive greenhouse for plants for which you have only got the seed? Is there any idea that the seed is going to grow into such plants as to be worth while putting into the expensive greenhouse? I have one more point in regard to this civilian side of the training establishment. I see the educational staff consists of 42 civilians, who are to be engaged in training services. Is it not possible to get some ex-service instructors to teach at this educational establishment? A considerable sum of money is expended on these civilian instructors, but I venture to say in regard to the moral effect a cadet is likely to learn a great deal more from an instructor who has on him the glamour of his doings during the late War than from a man, however learned and distinguished, who has spent most of his time in some university town.

There is the further question of research. I would ask the hon. Gentleman if he will consider the giving of assistance to civilian firms in providing machines for all sorts of services that will fulfill certain requirements. Tests were recently made with various machines in attempts to reach the Cape, and those tests have proved certain definite facts. It would be a great pity to allow individual enterprise by private firms, be they newspaper proprietors or firms engaged in advertising if the tests are to pass unnoticed. I venture to say the sum set aside, for research in the able hands to which it is entrusted by the Air Ministry, might be increased with a view to encouraging the securing of a reliable, economical, high-power engine air cooled. But it would be of no use unless there is direct encouragement from the Government. The Germans have made great advance in all-metal machines, and I would be very glad if the hon. Gentleman can tell us what steps have been taken here to test the benefits of all-metal machines. We want to have the engines more concentrated, with self-starters and silencers. It may seem a small point, but during the late War experience taught us that during the raids at night noisy machines were picked up at a great distance and adequate preparations were made for defence against them. Therefore we ought to have some experiments, especially in the matter of silencers on engines, as that might prove a great point in the potential Air Force.

The Government have lately been subjected to tremendous criticism, not only in the public Press, but by distinguished admirals on the retired list, who are so wise in regard to what, ought to be done in respect of matters for which they have no responsibility. There was one point raised by a distinguished expert, a Lord of the Admiralty, who suggested we had no use for our present machines, but must go in for a perfectly marvellous amphibious machine. I am very glad the Government did not think fit to accept his advice and to scrap exisiting machines until, at any rate, they had something better. The hon. Gentleman will confer a great favour on the country, however, if he will allow experiments to be made with amphibious machines. The British Empire, we are so often reminded, is entirely surrounded by water, and it is obviously best for the development of our Air Service, be it commercial or otherwise, to have an amphibious machine—or, at any rate, a machine which can land either on the water or on the land. I understand that an application was made not very long ago to the Admiralty for a special grant to test a machine of this nature. But with the best will in the world, the Air Minister was not able to comply with the request, not having any funds available for the purpose. I suggest it is penny wise and pound foolish to begrudge money in a case like that.

Last of all there is the general question of the Government encouragement of aviation. I would urge as strongly as I can that the hon. Gentleman should consult the Postmaster-General, who is often open to urgent representations, as Members of the House know. If Egypt is going to be the central radial point of the new air services, as apparently it is to be, it must be of interest not only to the Colonial Office, the Foreign Office, the War Office, the Admiralty and the Air Ministry to encourage and promote aviation and to enable civilian firms to be established in Egypt. Has the hon. Gentleman at any time approached the Postmaster-General and asked him if he will arrange one definite air mail route to Egypt so that the mails for India and East Africa can be expedited? That will confer great benefit, as persons will receive the mail much quicker, and it will be an encouragement to civilian firms to established themselves in such a way as to promote aviation and inter-communication in the Empire.? want to know definitely whether a mail service has yet been established, or, if one has not, if it is intended to establish one and when operations will commence. I hope the hon. Gentleman will remember that there are in this House a large number of Members who have come here solely for the purpose of assisting the Air Ministry to get through a most difficult task, and if only he will tell us clearly what it is he wants I am quite sure we shall be able to stand up against the cries for economy, provided we are certain ourselves that efficiency is not going to be sacrificed.

Major TRYON

I thank the hon. Member for his criticism, which I am sure is intended to help the work of the Ministry. I am not prepared to answer in detail all the questions about our research, our discoveries, and our latest methods, because I am not sure that it is wise to publish everything that has been done. At the same time, I do see the great value in much that he has suggested, and I will endeavour to answer some of his points. First, let me say that I have not got full particulars of the exact number of comparative numbers of air routes. There are a number of officers, some of high rank, higher than he mentioned, engaged in the work of research, but there are no squadrons or groups or wings corresponding to those officers. The hon. Member spoke of the training of the boys. In command of them there are a number of officers holding the ranks which correspond to the importance of the work they are undertaking for the nation.

The number of squadrons and the arrangements for the Air Force was issued as a White Paper some time ago, and it is on the basis of that establishment that these estimates are based.

The next point the hon. Member alluded to is what is going to be done to help civil aviation. I am not prepared to go over again what I said on the subject, but I would remind him that it is asking a good deal that we should build from military sources, aeroplanes above those which are required for the defence of the country. With regard to the Air Force Reserve, the scheme has not yet been fully worked out, but Sub-head H of Vote 1 is intended to provide for the reserve and for annual training. With regard to commercial pilots going through our training college, I would remind him that the work which is done at that college is not solely a matter of the training of officers for flying. They are instructed in all the various technical things which officers have to learn, and if you have commercial pilots, I should not suggest that they should go through a course of that kind, and in that connection he alluded to the question of civil instructors. Some of these are men of great distinction. I had the pleasure of reading through their qualifications before they were appointed. They are teaching things, such as history, the English language—a difficult subject—and other things which are part of the essential qualifications of a regular officer who is going to lead trained men, but are not subjects necessary to be taught by flying officers.

Captain BENN

Is that teaching young officers?

Major TRYON

Yes, the cadets, like Sandhurst.

Major GLYN

I cannot see why the country should not give these boys an excellent education, train them in every way as citizens. and yet that they should be available at the age of 25 to act as commercial pilots.

Major TRYON

I am not quite sure that I apprehend what his point is, but I would remind him that there are a number of officers enlisted in the Air Force for short-time engagements, who would be available for the kind of work he mentioned. The question of the evacuation of Mesopotamia is hardly a matter for me to deal with.

Sir D. MACLEAN

It might not be possible for my hon. Friend to answer that, but I must respectfully enter my protest against the suggestion that it is not within the proper realm of those taking part in the Debate on Vote A to raise such a question as this. The question of the occupation of Mesopotamia is mentioned in one of the subsequent Votes, and it is on Vote A that these large questions of policy are properly raised. I can understand that he is not able to answer it, but it is the right and duty of those Members who feel it their conviction to raise it on this Vote.

Major TRYON

I will now deal with some of the interesting points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Leith (Captain Wedgwood Benn). I should like to thank him for his speech, which was obviously intended to help in every way. He asked whether our Research Department was in touch with the National Physical Laboratory. I am glad to be able to tell him that it is. I thank him for raising the question. He also dealt with the proposal that our squadrons should do useful commercial work. We are at present going into proposals which I hope will prove a success for the use of Service machines for communication between Cairo and Bagdad.

Captain BENN

For mails?

Major TRYON

They will carry letters, but at the same time it is an arrangement that the Royal Air Force is prepared to terminate it at any moment in the event of the Post Office and civil firms coming to an arrangement to substitute a civil service for the service which at this moment is being carried on by the Royal Air Force. With regard to the question of postal facilities for the aerial mail, I may say that I have been lately in communication with the Postmaster-General. I went to see him accompanied by Sir Frederick Sykes, and we did all we could to offer information which would help the work, and urged on him the development of the postal service through the use of aerial communication. We are doing all we can to forward that matter. On the question of rigid airships we are anxious not to waste those airships which remained over from the War, and if we are able to develop some commercial service or put them to some practical commercial use we shall do so.

Captain BENN

That was not altogether my point. If you have got lighter-than air ships, why not put them under the direction of the Civil Aviation Department so that they may be used in some useful way. Why not use them to help the development of civil aviation?

Major TRYON

At this moment the spare ones are not attached to the Royal Air Force, but to the Department of Supply and Research.

Captain BENN

On the establishment?

Major TRYON

Yes, on the establishment. I think these were all the points that were raised, and I should like to thank the hon. Member and all hon. Members for the way in which they have never done anything except to help the Ministry.

Question put, "That 29,630 men be maintained for the said Service"

The Committee divided: Ayes. 45; Noes, 140.

Division No. 57.] AYES. [9.21 p.m.
Adamson, Rt. Hon. William Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool) Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.) Grundy, T. W. Redmond, Captain William Archer
Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith) Guest, J. (York, W. R., Hemsworth) Richards, Rt. Hon. Thomas
Bromfield, William Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent) Roberts, Frederick O, (W. Bromwich)
Brown, James (Ayr and Bute) Hartshorn, Vernon Rose, Frank H.
Cairns, John Hayday, Arthur Seely, Major-General Rt. Hon. John
Cape, Thomas Hirst, G. H. Sexton, James
Carter, W. (Nottingham, Mansfield) Irving, Dan Smith, W. R. (Wellingborough)
Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R. Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M. Spoor, B. G.
Donnelly, P. Kenyon, Barnet Swan, J. E. C-
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty) Lunn, William Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince)
Entwistle, Major C. F. Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan) Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Stourbridge)
Finney, Samuel Maclean, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (Midlothian) Wilson, W. Tyson (Westhoughton)
Galbraith, Samuel MacVeagh, Jeremiah
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton) Morgan, Major D. Watts TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central) Myers, Thomas Mr. G. Thorne and Colonel Penry Williams.
NOES.
Ainsworth, Captain Charles Fell, Sir Arthur Nicholson, Reginald (Doncaster)
Amery, Lieut.-Col. Leopold C. M. S. Foreman, Henry Morris, Colonel Sir Henry G.
Archdale, Edward Mervyn Forrest, Walter Palmer, Charles Frederick (Wrekin)
Armitage, Robert Fraser, Major Sir Keith Parker, James
Atkey, A. R. Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E. Pollock, Sir Ernest M.
Baird, John Lawrence Gange, E. Stanley Pulley, Charles Thornton
Baldwin, Stanley Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham Raeburn, Sir William H.
Balfour, George (Hampstead) Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel John Ramsden, G. T.
Barker, Major Robert H. Glyn, Major Ralph Ratcliffe, Henry Butler
Barlow, Sir Montague Gould, James C. Reid, D. D.
Barnett, Major R. W. Green, Albert (Derby) Richardson, Alexander (Gravesend)
Bellairs, Commander Cariyon W. Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.) Roberts, Rt. Hon. G. H. (Norwich)
Billing, Noel Pemberton. Greenwood, Colonel Sir Hamar Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)
Blades, Capt. Sir George Rowland Gregory, Holman Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs., Stretford)
Blake, Sir Francis Douglas Gritten, W. G. Howard Roundell, Colonel R. F.
Bowyer, Captain G. W. E. Hambro, Captain Angus Valdemar Royden, Sir Thomas
Broad, Thomas Tucker Harris, Sir Henry Percy Rutherford, Sir W. W. (Edge Hill)
Brown, Captain D. C. Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.) Seddon, J. A.
Bruton, Sir James Hewart, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon Shaw, William T. (Forfar)
Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A. Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T.)
Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James Hood, Joseph Simm, M. T.
Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel A. H. Hope, H. (Stirling & Cl'ckm'nn'n, W.) Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. G. F.
Burn, Col. C. R. (Devon, Torquay) Hope, James F. (Sheffield, Central) Stephenson, Colonel H. K.
Campbell, J. D. G. Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley) Stevens, Marshall
Carr, W. Theodore Home, Sir R. S, (Glasgow, Hillhead) Strauss, Edward Anthony
Casey, T. W. Jephcott, A. R. Sturrock, J. Leng
Cautley, Henry S. Jesson, C. Sugden, W. H.
Chamberlain, N. (Birm., Ladywood) Jodrell, Neville Paul Talbot, G. A. (Hemel Hempstead)
Cheyne, Sir William Watson Johnson, L. S. Taylor, J.
Cobb, Sir Cyril Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly) Thomas-Stanford, Charles
Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale Jones, William Kennedy (Hornsey) Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)
Conway, Sir W. Martin Kellaway, Frederick George Tryon, Major George Clement
Coote, Colin Reith (Isle of Ely) Kidd, James Vickers, Douglas
Courthope, Major George L. Lane-Fox, G. R. Walton, J. (York, W. R., Don Valley)
Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry Lewis, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Univ., Wales) Waring, Major Walter
Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H. Lewis, T. A. (Glam., Pontypridd) White, Lieut.-Col. G. D. (Southport)
Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln) Lloyd, George Butler Whitla, Sir William
Davies, Sir David Sanders (Denbigh) Lloyd-Greame, Major P. Williams, Lt.-Com. C. (Tavistock)
Davies, Thomas (Cirencester) Loseby, Captain C. E. Williams, Col. Sir R. (Dorset, W.)
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.) M'Lean, Lieut.-Col. Charles W. W. Wilson-Fox, Henry
Dawes, James Arthur Mitchell, W. Lane Winterton, Major Earl
Dean, Lieut.-Commander P. T. Moreing, Captain Algernon H. Yate, Colonel Charles Edward
Dockrell, Sir Maurice Murray, Hon. Gideon (St. Rollox) Young, W. (Perth & Kinross, Perth)
Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon) Murray, John (Leeds, West) Younger, Sir George
Edwards, John H. (Glam., Neath) Murray, Major William (Dumfries)
Elveden, Viscount Neal, Arthur TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Eyres-Monsell, Commander B. M. Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter) Lord E. Talbot and Mr. Dudley
Farquharson, Major A. C. Newton, Major Harry Kottingham Ward.

Original Question put, and agreed to.