NAVAL ARMAMENTS. (Hansard, 8 May 1924)

§ Sir B. FALLE
On a point of Order. Is it possible, when you read out these very large figures, to mention the Vote?

§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
Certainly.

§ Viscount CURZON
There are one or two items in this Vote which I should like to have explained. The first one is on page 129, the Estimate relating to the Metropolitan Police, for wages, clothing and contingent expenses, amounting to £9,932. I should like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary what is now the state of affairs in regard to the employment of the Metropolitan police, presumably in dockyards and naval establishments? We were told a year ago that the Metropolitan police force in dockyards and naval establishments was going to be done away with and replaced by a force apparently from the marines and naval detachments. I would like to know from the hon. Gentleman why it figures in this Vote and also in the preceding Vote, and why it is not brought under the one Vote. Why do we find it in Vote 8 and in Vote 9? Why cannot we have all the items for Metropolitan police, dockyards and naval establishments in the one Vote? The next question I would like to ask is in regard to Sub-head E (page 130), where I find a general increase on the Vote in respect of rents. I find an item put down last year for rents of £7,000, and this year it has gone up to £14,000. I am sure this will suggest a line which might profitably be explored by some of the hon. Members who support the Government. With regard to Sub-head G (Projectiles and Ammunition), I notice that the Vote has fallen from £1,594,350 last year to £941,600. I would like to ask whether this indicates a decrease in gunnery exercises in the Fleet, because if it does, I think it is a question which the House should examine very critically. If you have a Navy on a reduced scale, as is inevitable under the Washington Conference, it is only proper that this House should see to it that reduced Navy makes up for its reduced numbers by increased efficiency, if possible, and I do not like to see a falling provision for projectiles and ammunition, as I am rather afraid that this may mean that gunnery exercises are taking place on a decreased scale.
Another question arises out of these reduced gunnery exercises. War stocks of practice ammunition were large at the 756 conclusion of the War. Those stocks must have been used up by now, and I am afraid that the decreased amount shown this year may be for a decreased amount of gunnery exercises. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be able to say a word on that when he comes to reply.
The next question which I would like to allude to is Sub-head H. This includes a rather large number of headings for torpedoes, mines, paravanes, etc., and I see that the amount has rather more than doubled since last year. I would like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary if he could explain the reasons for the increase. As I have, indicated, this Sub-head includes torpedoes. Does it mean that the torpedoes could have been a little more inaccurate than usual, and that a few more of them have dived into the mud and have not been recovered, or does it mean that we have lost a few more P. V's.? I hope the hon. Gentleman will be able to give us a little information. We are interested, especially nowadays, in torpedo exercises, and we hope that they are getting a certain amount of precision. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be able to reassure us on this matter. The next item I would like to ask about is Subhead I (Small Arms, Torpedo and Cordite Materials, etc.). I see there an item which I am sure will appeal to many hon. Members; it is for motor vehicles. Are we employing many motor vehicles under this head, and under how many heads are motor vehicles shown in the Estimates? One would like, if possible, to get some idea of the amount of motoring indulged in under the Admiralty. I see a little lower down an item under the same sub-head in respect of Holton Heath Cordite Factory. I would like to direct the attention of hon. Members from Lancashire to the fact that the Vote has gone up from £252,000 to £285,000. Again, an item for motor vehicles is included. Motor petrol seems to crop up under every sub-head and under almost every paragraph, and I hope the right hon. Member will be able to reassure us on this point. One would like to know as a Member of the Estimates Committee This is a subject which we examined with some interest, I think, the year before last, on the Estimates Committee, and it was contended by one hon. Member representing a Lancashire constituency— 757 one who had expert knowledge on the matter—that a good many of the processes carried out at Holton Heath could be carried out as well, if not better, in various factories and works in Lancashire. One would like to know really what the policy of the Admiralty with regard to Holton Heath is. They have a very large and extensive establishment there, probably being run on a very much reduced scale, and I would, therefore, suggest that the overhead charges are proportionately very high. It is a matter for the consideration of the Committee and of the Government as to what their policy is really going to be with regard to Holton Heath.
The Committee should be very careful on this matter. We, as hon. Members, know that during the War we had some very bad accidents, indeed, in the way of explosions. Several ships were totally destroyed by colossal explosions. I witnessed one, and I never want to see a more ghastly sight again in all my life, and the cause of the explosion was never really satisfactorily explained. This explosion, the "Vanguard," was generally put down to deterioration of cordite. There was another story, that a man had been seen in a magazine, who had been employed in the "Vanguard." I think that, in all probability, the explosion arose out of deterioration of cordite. I can say that there was no more depressing or deteriorating influence to the moral of the men of the entire Fleet than that explosion. It was, really, a serious thing, till the effects wore off a little. It is all important, therefore, to see that impurities do not get into the cordite during the various processes through which it goes in the course of manufacture, and I think that, whatever is done by the House in this respect, they should not force economy on the Government—economy which might lead to impure cordite being supplied to the Navy. I gather that deterioration of cordite generally arises from the impurities in the course of manufacture.
I repeat, that one would like to know what the policy of the Admiralty is with regard to Holton Heath? Expenses are going up. Does this mean more work, or what does it mean? On the next page (132) there is an item in respect of staff, which is a fairly large one, but not very 758 large considering the large area covered by the factory, and I would like to know about this.
The only other item which I would like to draw attention to is on page 133, Subhead M. I see a contribution from the Government of India on account of His Majesty's ships in Indian waters. This raises a very important subject. It raises the whole question of Indian defence. The defence of Indian waters has always been the subject of contention, one might almost say, between the Government of this country and the Government of India. We have got in Indian waters a force known as the Royal Indian Marine. It includes some of the finest officers and sailors, but this force has been, shall we say, under a cloud. I do not know what the policy of the Government is. I did not know what the policy of the last Government or the Government before was with regard to the Royal Indian Marine, nor do I know the exact policy of these Governments or of the present Government with regard to the apportionment of labour expenditure as between this country and India, but I would point out that the Royal Indian Marine is organised not exactly as a department of the Navy, as it should be.
If it were to be properly arranged it should be under the Commander-in-Chief on the East India Station, but it is not. It is under an officer under the direct command of the General Officer Commanding the Indian Troops. I believe that in peace time it is a purely civilian service, but in war time it at once discharges military duties automatically. Under present conditions it is practically nobody's child. The Navy are not interested in it because it is not directly under the Admiralty, and the Army are not very much interested in it. Could the Admiralty not come to an arrangement with the Government of India in respect of the Royal Indian Marine and Indian defence generally? I am sure that the sum of £100,000 a year is not a proper contribution from India towards the great burden of the naval defence of the Indian Empire. We hear a great deal of the demand for Swaraj, Home Rule, for India, but we do not hear very much from the Swaraj party as to what they would do in respect of the defence of India if the British forces were removed from India and from Indian waters to-morrow. This country 759 has always made itself responsible for the defence of Indian waters, and quite rightly, but the whole question of the relative apportionment of the burden of Imperial defence should be gone into, and the Government should endeavour to evolve a policy whereby the exact sum for which every Dominion would be responsible should be well known and should be laid down for the information, not only of that Dominion, but of this country, so that we might all know what we are respectively to pay in respect of our Imperial obligations. I submit also that the present Board of Admiralty should come to some definite decision with regard to the Royal Indian Marine, the present—

§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
The hon. Member must understand that this is an Appropriation-in-Aid, and that we cannot discuss the policy of the services in respect of which the saving is made. We are only discussing the amount of the appropriation.

§ Viscount CURZON
My difficulty is that we do not know whether the Royal Indian Marine represents a portion of this Appropriation-in-Aid or whether this Appropriation-in-Aid is something in addition to the Royal Indian Marine. We might have a declaration from the Government in regard to their policy in general in Indian waters and some sort of intimation as to whether any portion of the £100,000 is represented by the Royal Indian Marine or whether it is entirely additional to it. If this Appropriation-in-Aid is all that India pays towards the naval obligations which we undertake, what proportion does it represent of the total expenditure upon the East India Squadron? I do not think that many hon. Members appreciate the enormous magnitude of the burden which this country alone has to bear in respect of the naval defence of East India waters, and £100,000 does not fairly represent the value of the services rendered by the Royal Navy in respect of India.

§ Mr. TURNER
I wish to oppose this Appropriation-in-Aid on the principle that any money which is to be used to produce armaments for killing purposes is contrary to the religion of the ordinary type of man. I may be a solitary voice crying in the wilderness, but I want 760 forcibly to protest against any expenditure on killing arrangements. I think that it is foreign to any peace policy and also detrimental to the well-being of the people of the world. I have not a word to say against the courage and work of the individual sailor or officer or any person connected with the Marine, naval or otherwise. Their courage and devotion are beyond all question, but I think that they are being used for improper purposes—the preparation for war. It is alleged to be a preparation for defence, but it is a preparation for war, and if we prepare for war we get it. Therefore, though I may be by myself in opposing my own Government, I must vote against the Appropriation-in-Aid.

§ Lieut.-Commander BURNEY
The hon. Member who has just spoken says that he is opposed to torpedoes, and so on, because they are contrary to religion, and that he is opposed to any machine that could be used for killing, but I suppose that he realises that he is able to lead a peaceful civilised life simply because he has the protection of the police, and that the protection of the police is based upon the power of the State, and that the power of the State is based upon the power of the Army and the Navy. Therefore I think that if he were to follow his suggestion to a logical conclusion, he would find that the whole of civilisation as we know it to-day would go to ruin.

§ Mr. TURNER
No.

§ Lieut.-Commander BURNEY
I do not want to enter into a discussion upon pacifist principles at present. We are supposed to be discussing appropriations for various types of war machines and ordinance and ammunition. In that connection I wish to ask the Parliamentary Secretary one or two questions. In regard to the sub-head of Vote 9, which deals with torpedoes, mines, depth charges, etc., I see that the amount for experimental purposes is only £42,000. At one time during the late War we were losing 1,000,000 tons of shipping a month, the value of which, with cargo, was, I suppose, about £50,000,000 or £60,000,000 sterling. The greater part of that tonnage was destroyed by enemy mines and submarines. It seems rather extraordinary that, with that lesson in front of us, we should be spending on experiments with antidotes to such enemy action only 761 £42,000. I know that that is not the total amount spent on the experimental service, but the total amount, I understand, is only about £250,000. That is only one-half of one per cent. of the total of the Navy Estimates. Is there any commercial firm competing in a rapidly changing business which would spend only one-half of one per cent. on its plans and laboratory and development staff? To ask that question is to show the absurdity of it. The amount voted to experimental purposes is altogether inadequate.
We learned a very bitter lesson during the War. I know from some personal recollections that at the Admiralty, when War broke out, there was practically no experimental staff for dealing with these devices. Will the Parliamentary Secretary say whether or not he regards the amount of £42,000 as sufficient? I wish to know whether the experiments in regard to the super-sonic gear, the leader gear and hydroplanes are being proceeded with. All these are antisubmarine devices, and are somewhat costly, in so far as experimental work is concerned. I know that when I was in the service we were hampered considerably because we could not get money for these experimental purposes. The result was that, when war came, hundreds of millions sterling were wasted because we had no devices for dealing with enemy submarine action Are any experiments going on in regard to carrying aeroplanes and submarines? As far as I know, none is being proceeded with. Other nations are going ahead. Is it a fact that no such experiments are being carried out, because the arrangements between the Admiralty and the Air Ministry have not been very satisfactory during the last 18 months or two years?
In regard to co-ordination between the Admiralty and the Air Ministry, what arrangements are being made for the Naval Plans Division to work with the Air Ministry Design Department? Which Department is responsible for the bombs or depth charges which are dropped from aeroplanes? Is it an Air Ministry question or an Admiralty question or a Naval Ordnance question, and under whose responsibility is it? Let me turn again to the question of torpedoes carried by aircraft. What arrangements are being made for developing a new type of 762 torpedo for these machines. What arrangements are we making for devising a 42-inch torpedo instead of a 21-inch? With such a weapon we would be able to defeat the bulged enemy ship in the same way as we now defeat the unbulged ship. Are we designing aeroplanes to carry a 42-inch instead of a 21-inch torpedo? Are designs and new devices of this kind being held up because there is no co-ordination between the Admiralty and the Air Ministry? Under paragraph (f) of Vote 9, I see that over £500,000 is put down for breech-loading guns and so forth. If it is not giving confidential information away, may I ask whether we are developing in this country a long-range gun? We know that our friends and Allies, the French, have developed a gun with which they can shell London from the cost of France Are we developing a gun which can reply to that?
Passing to the cordite factory, Holton Heath, there is one minor question I wish to ask. I see there is a sum of £1,500 put down for "ten lady examiners (climatic huts)." What are they for? The same amount was paid last year. To satisfy my curiosity I would like to be told what is a lady examiner, climatic hut. With regard to the question of co-ordination between the Air Ministry and the Admiralty on the technical side, I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to tell us what procedure is now followed. It is of the utmost importance that it should be on the most efficient lines. We have a very rapidly changing naval technique and a rapidly changing air technique, and so far as I can see, under our present organisation we have no co-ordinating body and no co-ordinated policy. Unless we do have a co-ordinated body, and a co-ordinated policy, it seems to me we shall be throwing away the taxpayers' money in exactly the same way as we are throwing away the taxpayers' money on Chatham at present. The other point on which I should like a reply from my hon. Friend is as to whether or not he can arrange for more money to be spent upon invention and research. The actual apparatus which our forces are able to use should be the most up-to-date possible. I hope I have not asked the hon. Member too many questions, and that he may be able to give me an answer to some of them.

§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY
On this Vote 9, which, I think, is probably the most important Vote of the whole of the Navy Estimates, as it deals with the question of equipment, I am very surprised the party opposite are so sparsely represented, in view of their boasted interest in the Royal Navy. May I ask my hon. Friend when he replies, if he will follow the usual custom of the great office he represents, and give us some details of the new shipbuilding programme authorised by this House, and contracts for which are given out?

§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
The hon. and gallant Member is on the wrong Vote. He must confine himself to Naval Armaments.

§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY
I think the Vote includes the gun mountings and the guns. I think I can confine myself to them.

§ Mr. AMMON
Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman permit me to say that while he was out I gave that in answer to the right hon. Gentleman opposite?

§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
Which illustrates the necessity of keeping to the Vote under discussion.

§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY
Vote 9 does include Naval Armaments, at any rate, and I will be in order in discussing the guns. I think I am right in saying it is proposed to arm the new vessels with 8-inch guns. No secrets will be betrayed, because once the contracts are out it does not take very much energy or skill on the part of the various naval attaches of foreign Powers to this country to get as much detail as they require. I understand the new cruisers are going to be armed with 8-inch guns. This I consider to be an unneeded extravagance, because the corresponding gun in His Majesty's Service is the 7.5-inch gun, and the latest 7.5-inch gun does not differ really very much from the 8-inch gun in point of power, but there would be a great economy if we continued for some time with the 7.5-inch gun. We have ammunition outfits for it, we have the spare parts, and we have spare guns, and there is not so much difference between the 7.5 and the 8-inch as would justify the extra expenditure.

§ Viscount CURZON
Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman give us the difference of weight between the projectile fired by the 7.5, which is 200 lbs., and the weight of the 8-inch projectile?

§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY
I have not the weight of the latest guns, but perhaps there is 50 lbs., or even 80 lbs., difference.

§ Lieut.-Commander BURNEY
The 8-inch is 250 lbs.

§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY
There is 50 lbs. between the two, and there is very little difference for practical purposes. It is much more important to hit the other ship with a 200 lb. shell than miss her with a 250 lb. shell. [An HON. MEMBER: "What about range?"] There is no difference in the range either. With the latest type of gun you can range as far as you can see, except with an aeroplane, and I think aeroplane-spotting in cruiser action is not a very useful proposition. I think there has been unnecessary extravagance. It is only the megalomania of certain gunnery enthusiasts, who have had much too much to say on naval policy. It is not as if other nations had this gun afloat in the latest ships. I asked a question of my hon. Friend on the 16th of last month, and he then informed me that no British or foreign light cruisers afloat have 8-inch guns. Two completed British light cruisers and two completing have 7.5-inch guns. No foreign light cruisers have guns of this calibre. We lead the way already in the 7.5, and we are starting unnecessary light cruiser competition in armament by embarking on the 8-inch gun. According to the latest return, as far as I can read it, no vessels have actually been commenced except in the case of two vessels of the United States, to carry 8-inch guns. Of the two Japanese vessels building, no details are given, but I should be surprised if they are actually commenced, and if they are to carry 8-inch guns. [An HON. MEMBER: "Italy."] I am considering the principal Naval Powers, and the latest vessels built for them, and because one extra country with a comparatively small Navy has laid down a cruiser with all 8-inch guns, that is not a reason why we should embark on a complete change in our cruiser main armaments.
765 The second proposition is with regard to the protection of our vessels against torpedoes. We at present put great faith in the internal bulge, and really a race has commenced between the torpedo and the bulge, just as we had a race between guns and armour. When a gun was introduced that could pierce all the iron armour afloat, steel armour was introduced with a specially hardened surface, and that beat the gun again. But, finally, after years of competition, the latest gun will fire projectiles that with a direct blow will smash through any armour that can be put into any practical vessel afloat. I think it is a fair conclusion that the bulge will be beaten by the torpedo. The obvious next development is, of course, the delayed-action torpedo, which can penetrate the outer skin, and the main explosion will then take place, driving the inner skin in fragments into the vitals of the vessel.

§ Viscount CURZON
Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that the lesson of the Battle of Jutland was exactly the contrary of what he is now saying? One lesson was that the armour had completely beaten the gun.

§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY
Not so, it was to the contrary. The armour has not beaten the gun. The Battle of Jutland showed that where straight hitting took place, the armour was penetrated. With regard to this question of a bulge, the next move will be to put internal armour inside the bulge, and that will be met by a torpedo with a greater bursting charge, and possibly the revival of an invention made some time before the War, whereby a torpedo was converted into a cannon, which after puncturing the outer skin, fired a shell with a considerable charge behind it into the vitals of the vessel. I have come to the conclusion that it is technically possible for the torpedo to defeat the bulge, either by increasing the size of the torpedo, or by devices such as I have attempted to describe. I would like to know whether this matter is being experimented with by our very able and enlarged naval staff. I hope that the Admiralty are not relying on their present system of protection against torpedo. It is on that hypothesis they have been led to say in recent years that the big ship has come to stay, and that the great super-Dreadnought 766 and hyper-super-Dreadnought will be the main instrument of naval power. I think that is extremely probable if we look ten or fifteen years ahead, and I am very must distressed to find my hon. Friend, in the Debate on the cruisers, saying that as soon as the Washington Conference came to an end, we would have to embark on a complete programme of great Dreadnoughts, and that therefore we ought to build the cruisers we require now. [HON. MEMBERS: "Might!"] Yes, the hon. Member said "might" have to embark. He would not commit himself too definitely, I know.
These are experiments that ought to be carried out, and they will be expensive. They should be carried out on sections of ships built for the purpose, with special torpedoes manufactured as I have described. The money will be very well spent. I am sorry, for some reasons, that the Admiralty have accelerated their present building programme before these experiments have taken place. I know they have not been tried out at present. They will have to be done, however. It provides a good reason for delaying our programme until the last minute, so that the very latest improvements can be put into the ships. We can always catch up the other Powers. I am dealing with the armaments, and not with the shipbuilding, although armaments affect shipbuilding to a tremendous extent. The only other point I want to put to my hon. Friend follows on what I have already said. I am all for the reduction of the redundant staffs in the Admiralty, but I do hope there will be no further cutting down of the purely naval staff. At the present moment, in spite of the tremendous increase in numbers that still exist in the Admiralty as compared with pre-War conditions, the actual staff available for the planning and experimental divisions is all too small. That is a false economy, and may cost the country very dearly indeed. I will not go into details, for obvious reasons, but I say these things in the hope of conveying to my hon. Friend what naval officers are saying to-day outside this House. It is an opinion which comes from the Fleet, and I know he will make the best use of it that he can.

§ Mr. T. HENDERSON
I desire to raise a point in connection with an item on page 130. It refers to an increase of rent 767 from £7,000 to £14,000, of which there is no explanation. I should like the Parliamentary Secretary to explain it. It seems to me a very small sum is provided for the cost of medical attention. I am afraid it is true we have very poor class of medical attendance in the Navy. If the service is good, it is certainly very cheap. Although the cost has been raised by £100, I do not think it is sufficient. My experience is to the effect that the seamen do not get very good medical attendance. I want the Parliamentary Secretary to get the Admiralty to make the seamen wear their boots when walking about the decks. I do not like to see the men walking about the decks in their bare feet, because they get corns and rheumatism, and they are liable to take very severe cold. I have always opposed this practice.

§ Lieut.-Commander BURNEY
If an order is given for the sailors to wear boots in the morning, they usually fall in and protest against it. They prefer not to wear boots.

§ Mr. HENDERSON
That is not my experience.

§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
I do not see that boots come under the heading of Naval Armaments.

§ Mr. HENDERSON
I am referring to it in connection with medical attendance. My object is the welfare of the seamen. All my life I have been working in naval vessels, submarines, etc., and I know what men have got to suffer not only from their officers, but from the very hard conditions under which they live. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will give some attention to the points I have raised.

§ Sir GEOFFREY BUTLER
It seems to me that the hon. and gallant Member for Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) is a living proof that, by adding to his weight—the external bulge—he has also added to his intellectual range. The hon. and gallant Member for Uxbridge (Lieut.-Commander Burney) raised two very important points in connection with co-ordination and research. There is at least one estimate, and there are possibly more estimates for research workers; but there is a cognate subject which is hardly, perhaps, to be included under the term of research, about which I would like to ask the hon. Gentleman 768 a question. When the War was over, there Was present (very acutely) in the minds of everybody the necessity for taking a census of the various necessary materials, without which we might find ourselves suddenly lacking an essential ingredient either of an explosive, or of some other material used in armaments I ask him whether and, if so, where, provision is made for a scientific technical expert who can represent the views of the Admiralty upon this point to the Committee of Imperial Defence, with whom naturally lies the making of that census of materials. Of course, it would not be proper to raise here the necessity for having such a person on the Committee of Imperial Defence, and I do not know whether such a person does exist or not, but I wish to know what is the mechanism for the Admiralty presenting its own census of the necessary material for armaments and explosives so that various representations of that kind made from the various departments can be co-ordinated by some central body. It is not a small matter. We may be left without some essential thing or, what is more likely is, we may find two or three departments at the same time counting on the same source of supply and not discovering the effect until the war broke out.

§ Lieut.-Commander BURNEY
I hope the Committee will allow me a few-moments to reply to the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) regarding 8-inch guns and before doing so, I wish to say a word with reference to the question raised by an hon. Member opposite about boots. I am reminded that just before the battle of Tel-el-Kebir when the soldiers and sailors were marching across the desert and getting rather sore on their foot the sailors took off their boots and walked past the soldiers showing the result of not wearing boots. As to the 8-inch guns I think the point is that the Washington Conference laid down that the maximum gun on a light cruiser should be an 8-inch gun.

§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY
It is the minimum.

§ Lieut.-Commander BURNEY
Necessarily it became the minimum. It always does and that is merely commonsense, but the difference between the 7.5 gun and 769 the 8-inch gun is rather more than the hon. and gallant Member led the Committee to believe. The maximum range of the 8-inch gun is about 32,000 yards and of the 7.5 gun 27,000 yards.

§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY
You cannot sight further than 27,000 yards.

§ Lieut.-Commander BURNEY
Oh, you can. With regard to maximum range it is not only that, but as the hon. and gallant Member knows quite well, the real criterion of a gun is the extent of the 50 per cent. probability zone and the 50 per cent. probability zone of an 8-inch gun is considerably better than that of a 7.5 gun.

§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY
Does the hon. and gallant Member suggest that light cruisers should open action at 27,000 yards. I think it is quite out of reason.

§ Lieut.-Commander BURNEY
I think the hon. and gallant Member is merely trying to throw dust in the eyes of the Committee by putting the matter entirely upon range. He knows as well as I do that the actual range is merely a criterion as to what the 50 per cent. probability zone and the vertical target will be on any given range. Therefore if you can compare two guns on ranges, your two criterions, the 50 per cent. probability zone and the vertical target, will accurately represent the relative value and further, not only does accuracy of fire depend upon these two factors, but also as penetration depends merely upon the ballistic co-efficient and that co-efficient varies with the diameter of the shell and also its weight. The hon. and gallant Members knows that to suggest to the Committee that our cruisers should be armed with 7.5 guns instead of 8-inch guns is merely a debating point which he is putting up to inconvenience the hon. Gentleman the Parliamentary Secretary of the Admiralty when just an hour previously he was throwing bouquets at and almost kissing the hon. Gentleman.
With regard to the other point which he raised, namely, the question of bulges, I would draw attention to this point, which is very important, and that is, that the Washington Conference has limited the maximum displacement at which a ship can be built. That has automatically and inevitably tipped the 770 scale in the balance to the advantage of the gun and the torpedo, because it has limited the amount of protection and the weight of armour that can be put upon any given ship, and it Las done that by limiting displacement to a stated maximum, so that, other things being equal, it is quite inevitable that the gun and the torpedo will defeat the armour and the bulge if this artificial limit of 35,000 tons, which the Washington Conference has imposed on the Navies of the world, is followed. Therefore, I should like to back up the suggestion of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Central Hull in regard to experiments on bulges and new torpedoes. I think the 21-inch torpedo is out of date. We want at least a 42-inch torpedo, and, personally, I should like to see something a good deal larger than that. I hope, when the Parliamentary Secretary answers the many questions which have been thrown at him from all quarters, he will at least answer those questions in regard to research and co-ordination as between the Admiralty and the Air Ministry.

§ Mr. MAXTON
I wish to detain the Committee for only two minutes with a question. On page 127, Vote 9, Section III, I find two items, which were on last year's Estimates, namely, Bacteriologist and Assistant Bacteriologist. I do not know just exactly what the functions of a bacteriologist are in Admiralty affairs.

§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY
They are experimenting with shells to carry germs.

§ Mr. MAXTON
I am informed that they are trying to discover the possibility of a germ shell that will spread disease. That makes it even more alarming than I had imagined, because I notice the letter (b) is attached to the bacteriologist and his assistant, and the foot-note tells us that (b) indicates that these officers have been transferred to Vote 6, Sub-head N. But a reference to Vote 6, Sub-head N, fails to disclose at that place the existence of this bacteriologist and his assistant, and therefore it would appear that we have these two very dangerous, and possibly infectious, people wandering about somewhere in the No Man's Land between Vote 9, Section III, and Vote 6, Subhead N. It will need some very satisfactory 771 explanation of this mystery to justify me in supporting this particular Vote, and I hope the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty will be able to give me the necessary information and allay the undoubted alarm that I feel, and that is possibly shared by other Members in all parts of the House. I am not raising this in any spirit of carping criticism or in any controversial spirit, but merely for the purpose of eliciting truth.

§ Mr. AMMON
Nothing has touched me more during these Debates—and I have already made reference to the kindly manner in which I have been treated—than the competition to show their affection for me between the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) and the hon. and gallant Member for Uxbridge (Lieut.-Commander Burney). I am bound to say that it has touched me very deeply, par ticularly having regard to the insatiable thirst for knowledge shown by Members of the Committee and started by the Noble Lord the Member for South Battersea (Viscount Curzon), who took a roving commission right through the Estimates, and I will endeavour to deal with the various points that have been raised as well as I can. The Noble Lord drew attention on page 129 to a figure of £9,932 spent in connection with the Metropolitan police. In that particular instance the Noble Lord made a slight mistake, for he quoted the figure for last year instead of this year. The actual expenditure budgeted for the current year is £800, a considerable reduction. The larger figure was the figure for the settlement of the pay of the men who no longer are in the service of the Admiralty. It is a pleasure to note that the Noble Lord is interested in the Metropolitan police. Then, again, on page 130, attention was drawn under Subhead G (projectiles and ammunition), particularly in regard to the reduced expenditure—

§ Viscount CURZON
I ask also concerning rents.

§ Mr. AMMON
The amount in regard to the rents is largely due to the payment of money that has been necessary in connection with the buildings, etc., that were taken by the Admiralty during the War and the increase is due to cases where 772 action was taken in regard to the amount paid for the use of the premises. Coming to Sub-head G I think the noble Lord is under the impression that there is not enough gun practice in the Navy in these days. I can assure him that there has been no reduction of ammunition in connection with gunnery exercises. What has happened is that the Admiralty have estimated more conservatively this year than last year, seeing that the War liabilities are much less. We have been able to show a saving of £700,000. Passing from that to the next item, the noble Lord was particularly anxious to know what information there was concerning the statement of a Lancashire Member with regard to the cotton used for making cordite. This whole subject is now under prolonged research and scientific investigation in order to secure the safest and most suitable material.

§ Viscount CURZON
What is the policy with regard to Holton Heath? Are you going to keep it as a Government establishment?

§ Mr. AMMON
Experiments are now being carried out at Holton Heath with regard to cordite and other matters. The next point raised by the Noble Lord was with reference to the miscellaneous stores for torpedoes, mines, etc. He will find that in regard to this item the increase is largely due to the item for experimental purposes and provision for the liquidation of war orders. In relation to small arms, torpedoes, etc., the decrease is because we have made less provision for new construction. That brings me to the point the Noble Lord raised with regard to the Indian Marine. He will see on pages 8 and 9 of the Estimates a statement as to India's contribution towards naval expenditure. The contribution is £100,000 out of a cost of some £2,000,000 or £3,000,000. I think the Committee should know that the Indian Government are at present considering a scheme of reorganisation of the Royal Indian Marine on a combatant basis, and until the Indian Government have decided whether or not to adopt these proposals which were drawn up by the late Director of the Royal Indian Marine, no progress regarding naval co-operation can be made.
I think that covers the whole of the points which were raised by the Noble Lord, and I now turn to his hon. and 773 gallant Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Lieut.-Commander Burney) who showed an equally insatiable desire for knowledge. He is deeply interested with reference to the relationship between the Air Force and the Admiralty, and he has asked for information in regard to the Department responsible for certain types of aerial bombs and other essentials for naval warfare. He displayed also a very natural and inquiring mind as to the examiners in the climatic huts, and I will try to satisfy him on both points. With regard to the aerial bombs, the Air Ministry are responsible for them, but, of course, the Admiralty are consulted. The aerial torpedoes are essentially naval weapons, and are under the control of the Admiralty. As to the ladies to whom reference has been made, that is a development of the work, in regard to which the Noble Lord was inquiring, that is being carried on at the Holton Heath station. These ladies are employed in the huts where experiments are being carried on in connection with the testing of cordite. Various experiments are now going on with the object of getting an improved cordite, which will have better explosive properties and will keep much longer than is possible at the present time.

§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY
Why are women employed? Why not ex-service men?

§ Mr. AMMON
These ladies are employed in the huts watching the temperature, taking the condition of the cordite, and so on. I think it is the case that they stand the climatic conditions better than men, and they have the temperament.

§ Mr. KIRKWOOD
Is it not that they are cheaper?

§ Mr. AMMON
I feel quite sure that that is not the reason. I now want to refer to a point which was raised by the Noble Lord, and on which I am sorry to say I inadvertently gave him a wrong reply.

Viscountess ASTOR
What about the bonus in the case of these ladies?

§ Mr. AMMON
I think the reason why these ladies are not shown in connection with the bonus is that their rates have been fixed independently of bonus. The increase for rents referred to in the Noble Lord's question was due to awards in the 774 Compensation Court in respect of claims arising from the occupation of property during the War, and not to the reason which I previously stated. Our position, therefore, is rather better than I previously indicated. Then my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) displayed a large amount of technical knowledge, in regard to which he entered into friendly competition with the hon. and gallant Member for Uxbridge (Lieut.-Commander Burney), and he saw that I was not misled by the hon. and gallant Member, although I am sure he would not mislead me in any circumstances. My hon. and gallant Friend was desirous of knowing the size of guns and protective qualities of the new cruisers, and I think he asked me to contradict him if he was wrong. He must not, however, take it that, if I say nothing, I assent to his statements. All that I can say, and all that I am prepared to say, is that the experts who are dealing with these matters have had under consideration everything connected with the range of guns and armament, both in this and in other countries, and that all these matters are being given due weight and consideration. I am not agreeing with or denying my hon. and gallant Friend's statements, but am simply saying that the experts in this connection have had these matters in mind; and, more than that, it is in the public interest that I should not say anything more.

§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY
I think it is usual to give some details of the ships' armament. The number of guns, at any rate, and the speed have always been given in the past, before the War. Indeed, I understand that some details have been already given.

§ Mr. AMMON
My hon. and gallant Friend is not quite correct. The armament and details have, it is true, been given in the past, but that has been after the ships have been completed or well on the way. It is true that my hon. and gallant Friend can point to one case lately in which there was a slight departure, if I may say so, but that is the only case, and I submit that it should not be made a precedent in this connection. My hon. and gallant Friend made reference to the protective qualities of the ships, and suggested that the bulge was the only protection against torpedo attack. It is true 775 that reliance is being largely placed on the bulge of ships. But the experimental staff and the experts are not stopping there and accepting anything as a fact. They are continuing experiments. They have not been above learning from other Powers, they have learned many lessons from the last War, and they are devising ways and means of carrying out experiments in all directions to add to the safety of the ships and their effectiveness. I was rather misrepresented unintentionally when the hon. Member said I intimated that as soon as the Washington Pact had lapsed we should begin to build capital ships again. If I said so, that was not my intention. Certainly I said we might do so, but that would be dependent on what happened in the interval and whether the different countries had come to a more reasonable frame of mind. Anyway for the time being both this country and the other countries which are signatories to the Washington Pact are carrying out what is implied therein in the letter and the spirit. The hon. Member for Tradeston (Mr. T. Henderson) raised one or two points of interest. His suggestion that we should compel the men to wear boots would probably lead to something like mutiny. I am afraid I should not be prepared to accept that suggestion. There has been no complaint, and, as far as we know, the men prefer to go barefoot on certain occasions.

§ Mr. KIRKWOOD
Do Admirals go with bare feet?

§ Mr. AMMON
They may do. My hon. Friend also drew attention to the amount of money expended in regard to medical treatment, and I gather that he estimated the value of the treatment by the amount of money shown under this item. There is more than one way in which that can be accepted, and one of the best ways is that it shows the wonderful health of the personnel of our Navy. The more important thing from his point of view is that the whole expenditure for medical treatment is not shown in Vote 9. Most of it comes under Surgeons of the Fleet, who are not covered in this Vote.
Then I come to one or two points raised by the hon. Member for Cambridge University (Sir G. Butler), who naturally showed a deep interest in research and 776 scientific development and the following up of studies in connection with improving our armaments and protective possibilities. I can give him the assurance he wants. With regard to all the important elements which are vital to war purposes, a special Committee, consisting of all the Departments, is investigating the subject, and the First Lord and the First Sea Lord will represent any important matters before the Committee of Imperial Defence on behalf of the Admiralty.

§ Sir G. BUTLER
Is there some technical expert on the Admiralty Committee?

§ Mr. AMMON
There are experts in connection with the points the hon. Gentleman raised in all Departments of the Admiralty who are constantly at work exploring and investigating. That has been consistently carried out, and they will be in touch with the Committee and will keep them informed as to possible developments. I turn to the very serious and alarming points raised by the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton). One could see the effect that his speech had upon the Committee. I am very anxious to give him rest of mind on this matter, and I hope that the answer will enable him to sleep quite peacefully tonight. The bacteriologists who have been transferred to Vote 6 conduct research into the effect of various sorts of bacteria on the fibrous substances used in connection with the manufacture of cordite. There is nothing alarming about it. We are not contemplating raining down disease germs on other nations or inventing shells which can be exploded, carrying disease among other people. [An HON. MEMBER: "You might!"] Not yet. We have not developed to that stage yet. These people are simply investigating the effect of bacteria on the fibrous substances used in connection with the manufacture of cordite.
I think I have dealt with all the points which have been raised in discussion, but if there is any point I have overlooked I can only assure hon. and right hon. Members that I will read the OFFICIAL REPORT to-morrow with very great care and, if I have failed to answer any point of substance, I will take care that a reply is sent, one way or another, when the point has been investigated. I thank the Committee very much for the sympathy 777 and consideration which they have shown to me in the passing of these Votes.

§ Major BURNIE
Do I understand that it is proposed to reorganise the Royal Indian Marines as a combatant corps?

§ Mr. AMMON
No, not quite that. What I did say was that the Indian Government are at present considering a scheme in that connection, and that until we get the Report from the Indian Government with regard to the matter we are unable to make any alteration as to naval co-operation.

§ Major BURNIE
I have always understood that the Royal Indian Marines, apart from transport duties, act in India in a similar capacity to the Board of Trade surveyors in this country. Their work is purely civil and connected with the merchant shipping in India, and it seems to me a very bad principle to introduce an armed corps to inspect the merchant shipping in India.

§ Mr. AMMON
I gather that the line of development is to raise the Royal Indian Marine on different lines from those which have hitherto obtained, and to do other work. That is the point which is now being considered by the Indian Government, whose Report we are awaiting.

§ Mr. HARDIE
I listened to all the experts in regard to these matters last year, and again to-night. I have been puzzled at the differences of view existing between the experts. As a landsman, I have been listening to experts dealing with things of the sea. One point has been raised to-night which perhaps some Member of the Government Bench can explain, since the experts cannot answer it, and that is the question as to the value of an 8-inch over a 7.5 gun. Will he say whether the visibility as stated by the hon. Member for Hull is correct, or could he say that the visibility as stated by the hon. Member for Uxbridge is correct? This is a matter that should not be left to opinion, even to the opinion of those claiming to be naval experts. Surely we know from our mathematicians whether we get the visibility exactly, and surely we know through the handling of the gun. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman in charge will simply put these experts in their places by telling us what he gets from the 778 scientific men who are engaged in order to determine these things.