Commons Sitting of 21 March 1927

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Nar Valley Drainage Bill,
Read the Third time, and passed.
Montrose Burgh and Harbour Order Confirmation Bill [Lords,]
Read the Third time, and passed, without Amendment.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  INDIA.

    MILLS AND FACTORIES (FINES).
    Mr. W. BAKERasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that the system of deductions from wages and fines for the enforcement of discipline in mills and factories in India is liable to grave abuse, and that the employe has no effective remedy if he is fined unjustly or excessively; whether he will state in general terms the character of the Reports which have
    2
    been received by the Government; and whether he will indicate, if possible, what action it is proposed to take?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Earl Winterton): In a letter of 25th June, 1926, the Government of India asked local Governments for information as to the extent, if any, to which the system is in practice abused, and consulted them as to the desirability of measures to counter any such abuses and the form which any such measures should take. They were asked to reply by 1st March, 1927. My Noble Friend has not yet received information as to the nature of the replies or as to any action that may be proposed.
    Mr. BAKER: If I put down a question in a fortnight's time, will that be too soon?
    Earl WINTERTON: I am afraid it probably would be too soon. It was necessary for the Government of India to consult a number of authorities. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will put down a question just after the Easter Recess. I hope then to be in a position to give him an answer.

    ARMY ESTIMATES.
    Mr. SPOORasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he has noted the discontent expressed in the Legislative Assembly regarding the statement of the Finance Member that the Army Estimates are likely in the future to increase rather than diminish; and

    3
    whether the Secretary of State was consulted before the statement was made as to its possible effects on the political situation in India?
    Earl WINTERTON: I have not yet seen any detailed criticisms of the statements made on this subject in the course of the Budget Debate. My Noble Friend was not consulted and sees no reason why he should have been. In any event, where the safety of India is in question he would not be deterred by possible political consequences from the plain duty of stating unpalatable facts.
    Mr. SPOOR: Is the Noble Lord aware that full and detailed reports have been published in the British Press and that, according to these reports, there has been very severe criticism by the Indian representatives, of the statement made?
    Lieut.-Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Is it not a fact that in recent years there has been an enormous decrease in military expenditure in India?
    Earl WINTERTON: With regard to the first supplementary question, there may have been reports in the British Press but it is a well-understood rule of this House, that when questions are put to a Minister he replies from the official information at his disposal. I have said I have not seen any detailed criticisms and no detailed criticisms have been sent home by the Government of India. With regard to the second supplementary question, there has been an immense decrease in the military expenditure in India over the last six years—I think the greatest proportionate decrease of any comparable army, anywhere in the world.
    Mr. HARRIS: Is consideration given to the opinions of members of the Legislative Assembly?
    Earl WINTERTON: If the hon. Gentleman will be good enough to read the debates in the Legislative Assembly, of which I shall be pleased to supply him with a copy, he will see that on almost every occasion full consideration is given by the Government of India to opinions expressed by members.

    BHIKKU U. VIJAYA.
    Mr. LANSBURYasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether
    4
    he has any information as to the Buddhist monk Bhikku U. Vijaya, who is detained in prison pending prosecution for sedition and is on hunger strike, alleging that he is not allowed to perform his usual religious duties by the authorities?
    Earl WINTERTON: No, Sir.

    PROVINCIAL ADMINISTRATION.
    Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCEasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that the Bengal government has framed proposals, which have been under the consideration of the Government of India since 1924, for the separation of the executive and judicial functions; and whether he will state which provincial governments have not yet put forward their proposals with regard to this matter?
    Earl WINTERTON: I doubt whether the final proposals of the Bengal government reached the Government of India as early as 1924. A month ago the Government of India stated in the Indian Legislature that besides those from Bengal they had received proposals from the governments of Madras, the United Provinces and Bihar and Orissa.

    TELEGRAPH STAFFS (CALCUTTA AND BOMBAY).
    Mr. AMMONasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that the staffs in the telegraph offices in Calcutta and Bombay have been reduced by about one-half, so that the men are unable to obtain leave when it falls due; and whether any complaints have been received from merchants in Calcutta of serious delays in telegraph traffic in consequence?
    Earl WINTERTON: I have no information, but will inquire.

    ARMY CANTEEN BOARD.
    Mr. AMMONasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he can explain why the Government of India has decided to dissolve the Army Can teen Board; and what system it proposes to adopt in its place?
    Earl WINTERTON: As regards the first part I would refer to the answer I gave the hon. Member for Mile End (Mr. Scurr) on the 7th June last, of

    5
    which I am sending the hon. Member a copy together with a copy of the Report mentioned therein. As regards the second part, I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a statement recently issued by the Government of India on the subject
    Followiny is the statement:
    As a result of inquiries the Government of India have decided to revert to the system of unit contractors existing before the Army Canteens Board (India) was constituted, and arrangements are now being made under which contractors will take over canteens from the Board in the Northern and Western Commands.
    Certain conditions designed to ensure efficient service and to safeguard the interests of troops have been drawn up. These conditions have been accepted by a representative body of contractors and will be made applicable to all canteen contractors throughout India. They include a minimum rate of rebate, the furnishing by the contractor of all rooms in which he functions and inspection by canteen inspectors employed under orders of the Quartermaster-General, particularly with regard to the quality of foodstuffs supplied which will be subject to frequent analysis.

    AIR DEFENCE.
    Mr. AMMONasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether, in view of the change that has come over the problem of Indian defence as a result of the advent of the air arm, and seeing that the geographical position of India makes it possible to be the flying centre of the East, he is prepared to recommend the Government of India to throw open this arm of defence in both commissioned and non-commissioned ranks to suitable Indians?
    Earl WINTERTON: There is no Indian Air Force to the commissioned and noncommissioned ranks of which suitable Indians could be admitted, the squadrons in India being units of the Royal Air Force—a purely British Service, the composition of which it is for His Majesty's Government to decide.

    BOMBAY PRESIDENCY (CROPS).
    Mr. LANSBURYasked the Under-Secretary of State for India the amount and extent of the failure of the crops in
    6
    the Bombay Presidency due to locusts and failure of rain; and what preventive measures the Government has taken, and proposes to take, to deal with these recurring visitations or to meet the privation and suffering caused to those whose crops have suffered?
    Earl WINTERTON: My Noble Friend has not received any detailed information on the matter referred to in the first part of the question beyond what has appeared in the Press. The measures to be taken for the relief of distress when scarcity has been declared are prescribed in great detail in the Bombay Famine Relief Code.
    Mr. LANSBURY: If the report does come to hand, will the Noble Lord inform the House?
    Earl WINTERTON: Yes, Sir, if the hon. Gentleman will put down a further question, but I think he can rest assured that, if this scarcity does exist, the Government of Bombay will take all steps to deal with it.
    Mr. HARRIS: Is it not the business of the Government of India to give the Department here detailed information as to what is going on, instead of leaving the Minister to get his information from the Press?
    Earl WINTERTON: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman has not quite grasped that it is not the Government of India but the Government of Bombay which is concerned. It is the business of local governments to deal with any question of this kind.

    INDIAN SUBJECTS (SOUTH AFRICA).
    Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCEasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether it is the intention of the Government of India to arrange with the Government of the Union of South Africa for an official representative of the Government of India to reside in South Africa to look after the interests of Indians there?
    Earl WINTERTON: The recent agreement between the Government of India and the Government of the Union contemplates the appointment of an agent of the former in the Union in order to secure continuous and effective co-operation between the two Governments. This matter is receiving the Government of India's earnest consideration.

    ARMY (REPORTS).
    Lieut.-Colonel HOWARD - BURYasked the Under-Secretary of State for India when the Indian Sandhurst Report and the Auxiliary and Territorial Force Committee Report will be published; and whether, as these Reports were sent to the Imperial Government in June and November, he will say what have been the reasons for the delay in issuing them?
    Earl WINTERTON: The Auxiliary and Territorial Force Committees Report was published in India early in 1925. The Government of India have not yet submitted the Indian Sandhurst Committee's Report with their views, and my Noble Friend has so far only received advance copies. I hope to be able to make a statement as to publication very shortly.

    SUBHAS BOSE.
    Mr. THURTLEasked the Under-Secretary of State for India if he has any further information regarding the state of health of Mr. Subhas Bose, who has been detained in India without trial for more than two-and-a-half years?
    Earl WINTERTON: I understand that, while special medical examination has not disclosed actual disease, the health of this detenu is not satisfactory, and the question of moving him to a better environment is being considered.

    INTERNATIONAL ECONOMIC CONFERENCE.
    Mr. R. MORRISONasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he will inform the House of the persons selected by the Government to represent India at the forthcoming International Economic Conference?
    Earl WINTERTON: The representatives of India at the International Economic Conference which is to be held at Geneva in May will be:—
    Dr. L. K. Hyder, Professor of Economics at Aligarh University, member of Royal Commission on Agriculture in India.
    Sir Campbell W. Rhodes, C.B.E., member of Council of India, formerly President of the Bengal Chamber of Commerce, and President of the Associated Chamber of Commerce of India and Ceylon.
    Sir N. N. Wadia, K.B.E., C.I.E., ex-Chairman of Bombay Millowners' Association and member of Indian Cotton Committee.

    SIND (EXCAVATIONS).
    4. Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHYasked the Under-Secretary of State for India the cost of the excavations in Sind; whether the whole cost of these excavations fall on the Indian revenues; and whether any arrangements or requisitions have been made as to the distribution of the finds?
    Earl WINTERTON: Up to 31st March, 1927, roughly, I lakh of rupees will have been spent on the Sind excavations; the answer to the second part of the question is in the affirmative, and to the third part that a requisition has been received by the Government of India from the British Museum, but that no scheme of distribution has yet been considered.

    BENARES HINDU UNIVERSITY (TRAINING CORPS).
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that Lord Reading, in visiting the Benares Hindu University in December, 1921, announced the sanction of the Government for the formation of a university training corps; that subsequently the university authorities received orders to recruit only two platoons to start with: that these two platoons have been amalgamated with the 3rd United Provinces battalion and have excelled in battalion sports and other battalion competitions; that several hundreds of students have been waiting for the past three years to be admitted to the corps; and whether permission will be given to raise a battalion of the university training corps by the Benares Hindu University?
    Earl WINTERTON: So far as I am aware, the facts are as stated. The question of increasing the strength of university training corps will arise in connection with the Report of the Indian Auxiliary and Territorral Forces Committee, which is now under my Noble Friend's consideration.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: In view of the discussion which took place on the Government of India (Indian Navy) Bill the other day, will the Noble Lord suggest to the Government that they might arrange for a larger increase in the number of cadet battalions?
    Earl WINTERTON: I do not think that is the point at issue. The matter is feeing considered by the Government of India as to whether there should be a total increase in the number of cadet corps. If there is presumably this particular cadet corps will have its proportional increase in common with other cadet corps, but the main question as to whether there should be an increase in the Auxiliary and Territorial force depends upon the size of the Army generally and other considerations.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Does the Noble Lord attach no special value to having an efficient cadet corps in connection with the Benares University?
    Earl WINTERTON: That is quite a different question. I could not give any undertaking that any particular cadet corps should be increased in advance of the increase granted to cadet corps generally if there is a total increase.

    OPIUM.
    Mr. GARDNERasked the Under-Secretary of State for India the number of licensed opium shops in India; the area of opium cultivated; and the parts of India in which opium-smoking is prohibited?
    Earl WINTERTON: The number of shops in British India in 1925–26 was 5,844, with the addition of a small number in Delhi, Ajmer-Merwara, Coorg and Baluchistan, which in 1924–25 was 88. The latest figure of poppy cultivation an British India shows 114,198 acres in the year ending October, 1925; in addition there was a small area of 1,653 acres in the Punjab Hills. The law in British India prohibits the sale of opium prepared for smoking and also its manufacture except by an individual for his own use from opium lawfully in his possession. Opium smoking in company is illegal in the United Provinces, Punjab and North-West Frontier Province, and consumption of opium in any form is subject in Burma and Assam to registration and individual rationing.

    COAL (EXPORT TO GREAT BRITAIN).
    Mr. GARDNERasked the Under-Secretary of State for India the amount of coal sent last year from India to Great Britain and the approximate price per ton of coal.
    Earl WINTERTON: According to the Indian returns, 49,088 tons of coal were exported to the United Kingdom in 1926. The greater part of this arrived in the first two months of the present year. Only about 44,000 tons in all appear to have arrived here, the balance having presumably been diverted on the way. The declared value at the port of import averaged 59s. per ton.
    Mr. PALING: Was not the whole of this export due to the abnormal circumstances produced by the coal stoppage? Would there have been, in normal circumstances, any coal exported from India at all?
    Earl WINTERTON: I think it is true, as the hon. Member suggests, to say that this export of coal was wholly due to the abnormal circumstances in this country. As far as I know, in normal years, no coal is exported from India to this country.
    Mr. GARDNER: Is the Noble Lord aware that the average wages of coal-miners in India do not exceed 7s. a week, while the figures he gives suggest that this coal was exported at a price level corresponding to that prevailing in this country?
    Earl WINTERTON: If the hon. Member desires information on the subject of the wages of Indian miners, perhaps he will put down a question.

    RAILWAY BOARD GRANT.
    Mr. GARDNERasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether, in view of the rejection of the railway board grant by the Indian Legislative Assembly, he will state what steps the Government propose to take in the matter?
    Earl WINTERTON: My Noble Friend has not yet been informed as to the action that the Government of India propose to take in the matter.

    GOLD COAST (MINE WORKERS, MORTALITY).
    Mr. W. BAKERasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is in a position to state the effect of Ordinance No. 19 of 1925, and to supply comparative figures showing any im-

    11
    provement which may have taken place in the death rate of mine workers on the Gold Coast since the ordinance was introduced?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Amery): I am not yet in a position to supply the hon. Member with comparative figures, since the latest information available to me relates to the period from 1st April, 1925, to 31st March, 1926, while the new ordinance to which the hon. Member refers did not come into force until January, 1926.

    BRITISH GUIANA (INDIAN FAMILIES).
    Brigadier-General WARNERasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the committee appointed in British Guiana to inquire into the financial capacity of that island to the scheme recommended by Mr. Kunwar Maharajah Singh, C.I.E., for the introduction of 500 Indian families into that country, has arrived at any conclusion?
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Before this question is answered, may I inquire since when has British Guiana become an island?
    Mr. AMERY: I am not aware that the Governor has yet received the report of the committee. May I add that British Guiana is not an island?

    TROPICAL COLONIES (INFANTILE MORTALITY).
    Mr. H. WILLIAMSasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether systematic work is being undertaken in the tropical Colonies for the purpose of reducing the heavy infantile mortality?
    Mr. AMERY: Yes, Sir, measures are being taken in most tropical Colonies on-the lines that have been successful in reducing, infant mortality in this country, and in many of them the results compare not unfavourably with what has been accomplished here. The Governments of tropical Colonies are fully alive to the importance of this matter. Infant welfare clinics have been established and women doctors, nurses and health visitors, who
    12
    have had special experience in this branch of medical work, are being appointed in increasing numbers.
    Mr. ERSKINE: Is not the best way to save the children to kill the mosquitos?
    Mr. AMERY: That is obviously one remedy.

    NOVA SCOTIA (BOY MIGRANTS).
    Colonel DAYasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Dak-lyne Farm, near Windsor, Nova Scotia, has now received official recommendation; of so, how many boys from England have passed through the farm and been placed in situations; how many boys are sent out monthly; and at what ages the boys are eligible?
    Mr. AMERY: The Dakeyne Farm, Nova Scotia, has been used since 1913 as a training centre for boys from the Dakeyne Street Lads Club, Nottingham, which is officially recognised by the Dominion Government and the Oversea Settlement Committee as a juvenile migration society. Boys between 14 and 17 years of age have been trained at the farm and placed in employment at the rate of about 12 per annum. The total number deait with up to date is about 130.
    Colonel DAY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say if any assistance is given to the boys towards passage money or outfit?
    Mr. AMERY: I could not give details without notice, but I understand assistance is given.

  KENYA.

    NATIVE LAND TRUST.
    Mr. W. BAKERasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in the arrangements for the Native Land Trust in Kenya, he is prepared to consider the advisability of giving powers to the trustees under which they will be able to secure additional areas as and when they may be required for native occupation?
    Mr. AMERY: All relevant considerations will be borne in mind in discussing this matter with the Governor of Kenya.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Has the right hon. Gentleman yet had a discussion with the Governor on this question?
    Mr. AMERY: Not yet.

    EDUCATION TAX.
    Mr. SNELLasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that in Kenya all European persons over 18 years of age are subject to an annual education tax of 30s.; and whether, in view of the fact that the tax is a great burden upon young people and upon persons with small incomes, any steps can be taken to substitute a graduated tax to correspond with the income of the taxpayer?
    Mr. AMERY: I am aware of the legislation referred to, but the substitution of a graduated tax is not contemplated, as it is the intention of the Government that the powers of total or partial le-mission should be exercised generously in favour of the poorer members of the European community in appropriate cases. I am not prepared to admit that, apart from these exceptional cases, an annual payment of thirty shillings can involve any hardship to European residents in Kenya.

    HONG KONG (EMERGENCY REGULATIONS).
    Mr. W. PALINGasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that a state of emergency has been declared in Hong Kong and emergency regulations have been issued; and whether strikes and labour demonstrations are forbidden by these emergency regulations?
    Mr. AMERY: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. Among the regulations which the Governor has found it necessary to issue in the interests of public order and safety are regulations giving power to disperse any processions, crowds or assemblies and to proscribe any organisation which has among its aims, or is being used for the promotion of a general strike.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: I suppose there is no risk of flogging for any offence under this regulation?
    Mr. AMERY: No, Sir.

    SINGAPORE (DISTURBANCES).
    Mr. PALINGasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can make a statement upon the reported shooting of six Chinese and the wounding of 11 others at Singapore during the observance ceremonies of the anniversary of the death of Sun Yat Sen; in what circumstances this shooting took place; and on whose authority instructions were issued to shoot?
    Mr. AMERY: I am not in a position at present to add anything to the reply returned on the 16th March to the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury).

  PALESTINE.

    GOVERNMENT BUILDINGS.
    Colonel WEDGWOODasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies when it is proposed to commence the construction of Government offices in Jerusalem; what Government buildings, costing how much, have been constructed in Palestine during the past eight years; and will wages paid to labour in such future construction be based on the cost of living of Jews?
    Mr. AMERY: Plans for the proposed new Government offices in Jerusalem are now being prepared, but the site selected for them is in dispute. I hope however that the commencement of their construction will not be long delayed. I will send the right hon. Gentleman a copy of a return showing the Government buildings constructed during the past eight years. As regards the last part of the question, the rates of wages offered for labour to be employed on the construction of Government buildings must vary in each case according to the locality and the class of workmen which it is desired to attract.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: May we presume that it is desired to employ upon these buildings some of the many thousands of unemployed there?
    Mr. AMERY: Yes, Sir. If the work is being done in the locality where they are or in a locality to which they can be brought.
    Sir FREDRIC WISE: Who is going to pay for these new buildings?
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: The Palestinians.
    Mr. AMERY: The revenues of Palestine or the loan moneys raised by Palestine.

    HAIFA HARBOUR.
    Colonel WEDGWOODasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies when the Haifa harbour works are likely to be started; in view of the widespread unemployment can he hasten the date of commencement; and what is the estimate of the cost of completion of the works proposed?
    Mr. AMERY: I am anxious that work on the harbour at Haifa should be put in hand as soon as possible, but, as the right hon. and gallant Gentleman will realise, the preparation of detailed plans and estimates always takes time, and I am not yet in a position to give a definite date. It is anticipated that the cost of the works will be in the neighbourhood of £1,000,000, but that figure is, of course, subject to modification when the detailed plans are available.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Were any estimates or plans got out before the loan was approved?
    Mr. AMERY: Yes. We had an examination some time ago, and we had general estimates and general plans, which, of course, have to be worked out in greater detail.
    Vice-Admiral Sir REGINALD HALL: Is there a place where one could see the plans of the proposed harbour?
    Mr. AMERY: I think there are some papers in my office, and I will consider whether there is any way of making them available.

    OIL PIPE LINE.
    Colonel WEDGWOODasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is as yet taking any steps and, if so, what to get any pipe line constructed by the Anglo-Persian Oil Company from Khanikin, or by the inter national oil combine from Mosul, to debouch on the Mediterranean at Haifa instead of at Alexandretta; and has the Admiralty yet been consulted in the matter?
    Mr. AMERY: The point is obviously one which will be borne in mind if and
    16
    when the companies concerned are in a position to consider the construction of a pipe line to the Mediterranean, and I am keeping in touch with the Admiralty on the matter.

    JEWISH EMIGRANTS.
    Mr. BARRasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can give any explanation of the reasons prompting the emigration from Palestine of 7,340 Jews during the year 1926, as against 13,056 immigrants during the same year; and whether he can make any statement as to their destination?
    Mr. AMERY: The emigration of Jews from Palestine in 1926 was no doubt due to unemployment in that territory, particularly during the latter part of the year, when Jewish emigration exceeded Jewish immigration. No information is available as to the destination of emigrants.

  TRADE AND COMMERCE.

    WEST INDIAN ORANGES.
    Colonel WOODCOCKasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the orange growers of the West Indies have yet appointed a direct representative watching their interests on the London market, in accordance with the suggestion in the Report of the Imperial Economic Committee?
    Mr. AMERY: No representative has been appointed, nor am I aware that the Imperial Economic Committee have suggested such an appointment in this case.
    Colonel WOODCOCK: Has the right hon. Gentleman seen the report?
    Mr. AMERY: Yes. I have not only seen the report, but I have refreshed my mind on the subject. It is not a specific recommendation. In fact, it is fairly clear from their references to the West Indies that in this case they would not have made such a recommendation.
    Colonel WOODCOCK: Has the right hon. Gentleman seen that in my question I only said "the suggestion"?
    Mr. AMERY: In discussing the question of the West Indian fruits, they pointed out certain facts, which obviously would involve great improvements in the fruit before it would be worth marketing here.

    DAIRY PRODUCE.
    Colonel DAYasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department whether any dairy produce of milk or cream imported from overseas is distributed in this country?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Sir Burton Chadwick): The answer consists of a table of figures which the hon. Member will perhaps agree to my circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Colonel DAY: Can the hon. Gentle-man say whether any cream has been imported into this country from overseas?
    Sir B. CHADWICK: Oh, yes, a considerable quantity.
    Following is the reply:
    Yes, Sir. The imports of fresh milk and fresh cream into Great Britain and Northern Ireland in the year 1926 were as follow:

    Commodity and Country whence consigned.

    Quantity Imported.

    Declared Value.

    Cwts.

    £

    Freh Milk:

    From

    Foreign Countries

    184

    279

    Irish Free State

    73,415

    35,704

    Total Imports

    73,599

    35,983

    Fresh Cream:

    From

    Norway

    2,779

    16,531

    Denmark

    12,289

    68,301

    Netherlands

    11,044

    59,082

    France

    331

    1,979

    Other Foreign Countries

    928

    4,546

    Total Foreign Countries

    27,371

    150,439

    From Irish Free State

    64,736

    326,956

    Total Imports

    92,107

    477,395

    I would add that nearly all the milk recorded above as imported from the Irish Free State was received in Northern Ireland across the Land Boundary.

    FRANCE (CUSTOMS TARIFF).
    Mr. BENNETTasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department whether he has received any representations regarding the effect on British exports of the proposed revision of the French tariff; and, if so, whether his Department is taking any action in the matter?
    Sir B. CHADWICK: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given by the President of the Board of Trade to the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. Taylor) on the 15th March, a copy of which I am sending him. Representations concerning certain of the proposed tariff changes have already been received by my Department, but it is necessary to give an opportunity to other British traders to furnish their views, before considering whether any action can usefully be taken by His Majesty's Government, and I am communicating with chambers of commerce and trade associations accordingly.
    Mr. H. WILLIAMS: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether at any time during recent years any result has come from representations made to foreign Governments with regard to their tariffs?
    Sir B. CHADWICK: I am not able to say.
    Sir H. CROFT: Is it not a fact that the Leader of the Liberal party on a certain occasion threatened to impose a duty on Spanish oranges and other foodstuffs unless notice was taken of British representations?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The Government cannot answer for that right hon. Gentleman.

    BRITISH CIGARETTES (SOUTH AFRICA).
    Mr. HARRISasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department whether he is aware that duty in South Africa is levied on cigarettes imported into that Dominion on the home selling price with duty added in their country of origin; and whether, as such method of levying duty adversely affects British-made cigarettes as compared with the products of other countries, owing to the high rate of duty in this country, he will make representations to the Government of the Union in the interests of the British industry?
    Sir B. CHADWICK: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the second part, the general question involved formed the subject of a Report adopted by the Imperial Conference of last year, and is to be further examined by the authorities concerned.
    Mr. HARRIS: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the duty on tobacco in this country is higher than in almost any other

    19
    part of the world, and that the produce of Great Britain is very much handicapped by the high duty paid here?
    Sir B. CHADWICK: Yes, I am aware of it, and that is what I say was the subject of an inquiry by the Economic Committee of the Imperial Conference and was submitted to the Customs authorities and others for examination.
    Mr. HARRIS: Is this the newest form of Preference?

    MOTOR INDUSTRY.
    Major SALMONasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has any recent information as to the progress of the motor industry in this country?
    Sir B. CHADWICK: From statistics compiled by the trade, it appears that the number of private cars produced in 1926 exceeded the number for 1925 by 19 per cent. and the number for 1924 by some 48 per cent. The production of commercial cars in 1925 exceeded that of 1924 by about 20 per cent. Particulars for 1926 are not yet available. I am informed that several British makers extended their factories during 1926.
    Major SALMON: Has this progress of the motor industry been greater since the McKenna Duties have been introduced than prior to that date?
    Sir B. CHADWICK: The whole output of the trade was very much smaller, of course, before the War. Yet there was an increase from 1907 up to 1913; but the relative increase has been very much greater since 1915.
    Sir JOSEPH NALL: Is it not a fact that since the reimposition of the duties there has been a very considerable expansion in the trade?
    Sir B. CHADWICK: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. REMER: Is it not a fact that for the first time we are exporting more motor cars this year than we are importing?
    Sir B. CHADWICK: I should want notice of that question.
    Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: Did not the greatest leap forward in the export trade occur with the removal of the duties in 1924?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is entering into a fiscal debate.
    Major SALMONasked the President of the Board of Trade whether any foreign motor-car makers have established works in this country since the import duties were reimposed?
    Sir B. CHADWICK: One foreign maker of cars commenced manufacture in this country early in 1926, and it is stated that the factory will provide employment for about 5,000 workpeople. Another foreign company has recently announced that it has acquired a factory site here.
    Colonel DAY: Can the hon. Gentleman give the name of the foreign company which has already started manufacturing here?
    Mr. LOOKER: Can the hon. Gentleman state whether the Ford Company intend to proceed with their proposals to erect a factory in the Lower Thames area?
    Sir B. CHADWICK: I am not aware of that.
    Sir H. BRITTAIN: Does that figure include the factories in this country for the assembling of foreign cars, the bodies of which are made over here?
    Sir B. CHADWICK: I must have notice of that question.
    Lieut.-Colonel JAMES: Do not the figures quoted furnish a very good argument for the reimposition of the McKenna duties?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That is a matter of argument.
    Sir H. CROFT: May I ask whether this factory which has been, referred to does not point to the fact that the duties are completely paid by the foreign importer?

    IRISH GRANTS COMMITTEE.
    Lieut.-Colonel HOWARD-BURYasked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether the Irish Grants Committee, recently set up, have held any meetings; whether they have investigated any cases yet; and whether the results will be published?
    Mr. AMERY: The Committee met for the first time on 13th October last, and since that date have held 25 meetings. I am informed that they have so far dealt with 771 cases. In reply to the last part of the question, I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the answer which I gave in reply to a question addressed to me by the hon. Member for Devonport (Mr. Hore-Belisha) on 17th February last.

    EMPIRE MARKETING BOARD (MAP).
    Mr. HARRISasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department what is the cost of the poster displaying a map of the British Empire; how many have been distributed; and what is the cost of the bill posting of the same?
    Mr. AMERY: I have been asked to reply to this question. The total cost to the Empire Marketing Board of the production of this poster is £1,398 3s. 9d. 4,125 copies have been distributed up to the present. It is not possible to distinguish the cost of posting this poster from the cost of posting the numerous other posters issued by the Board; and I regret, therefore, that I cannot answer the last part of the question. I may add, in case the information may be of interest to the House generally and to the hon. Member, that copies of this poster may be purchased by the public for 7s. 6d. post free from the Controller, His Majesty's Stationery Office. Small reproductions will shortly be available for sale at 1s. 6d. post free.
    Mr. HARRIS: Would not this expense be more appropriately debited to the Board of Education, as the matter is purely of an educational character, and can it be said to be of direct assistance in the sale of New Zealand mutton or Australian apples?
    Mr. AMERY: The work of the Empire Marketing Board is necessarily to a large extent of an educational character, in order to educate the public to take a greater interest in Empire produce.
    Brigadier - General Sir HENRY CROFT: Is it not a fact that, by this means the Liberal party will learn that there are countries other than our own?
    Mr. MONTAGUE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what method of projection was used in making that map?
    Mr. AMERY: It is a new method of projection, and a very interesting one.
    Lieut.-Colonel JAMES: Is it not a fact that the cost of this poster is more than offset by the advantages of advertising the Empire, which would not receive similar advertisement from those who represent Little England?
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir FREDERICK HALL: There is only one representative here to-day.

  AGRICULTURE.

    LONG-TERM CREDITS.
    Sir FRANK NELSONasked the Minister of Agriculture whether, in view of the necessity to the agricultural industries of an early announcement, he can indicate when he will be in a position to inform the House of the conditions under which long-term agricultural credits will be granted?
    The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Guinness): I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave on 14th February to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Northern Norfolk (Mr. Buxton), a copy of which I am sending to him.

    GLAND GRAFTING.
    Sir HARRY BRITTAINasked the Minister of Agriculture whether he has had brought to his notice any of the experiments of Dr. Voronoff in grafting an extra gland on to livestock for the purpose of producing a finer and more vigorous type; and, if so, whether these experiments can be looked upon as successful and will receive attention from his Department?
    Mr. GUINNESS: I am aware of Dr. Voronoff's work on gland grafting, and I have arranged, with Dr. Voronoff's concurrence for a small Commission of scientific men to examine and report upon the experimental work on sheep which has been carried out at the Government Breeding Station in Algeria. Owing to the bad season, the visit of the Commission has been postponed until October or November, when the grafted sheep will be available for examination.
    Mr. BECKETT: Could not a Voronoff gland be grafted on the English Government?

    LOWER THAMES TUNNEL.
    Mr. ALBERYasked the Prime Minister whether he can inform the House as to what decision the Government have reached concerning the construction of a Lower Thames tunnel as a result of the deliberations of the Royal Commission on London Bridges and the London Traffic Advisory Committee?
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Baldwin): A Lower Thames tunnel between Dartford and Purfleet has been recommended by the London and Home Counties Traffic Advisory Committee, but they considered the Victoria Dock Road Scheme and other schemes more urgent. The Royal Commission also recommended the corstruction of the tunnel.
    The position of the Government is indicated in the answer given by me to questions by my hon. Friends the Members for Kensington South and Greenwich on Wednesday last, that Waterloo Bridge, Victoria Dock Road, Charing Cross and Ludgate Bridges are considered the most urgent matters and that the other schemes recommended by the Royal Commission, including the Lower Thames tunnel, will form the subject of negotiations with the local authorities subject to the limitations contained in that answer.
    Mr. ALBERY: Can we take it from that that it is definitely decided that the position of such a tunnel would be between Dartford and Purfleet?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I can only say, in answer to that at this moment, that negotiations will proceed with the local authorities on the lines of the Lee Commission Report. I imagine that no alteration in the recommendations would be made, supposing the financial adjustments could be made, without the consent of the local authorities.

    OPTICIANS (REGISTRATION).
    Mr. H. WILLIAMSasked the Minister of Health if he is in a position to announce the composition of the departmental committee on the registration of opticians?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Sir Kingsley Wood): The personnel of the committee is not yet complete, but my right hon. Friend hopes to be in a position to announce its composition at an early date.

    CHESTER-LE-STREET GUARDIANS (REPORT).
    Mr. BATEYasked the Minister of Health whether, before issuing as a Command Paper the Report of the Chester-le-Street Board of Guardians, he gave the ex-guardians any opportunity to make any comment on the statements contained therein?
    Sir K. WOOD: No, Sir.
    Mr. BATEY: Is it the intention of the Ministry to issue any more of these reports?
    Sir K. WOOD: That is an entirely different subject. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will put the question on the Order Paper.
    Mr. BECKETT: Could the hon. Gentleman say whether, when the new guardians first took over the work, the ex-guardians asked for a public inquiry at which all sides could be heard?
    Sir K. WOOD: That is also another subject, and perhaps the hon. Gentleman will put it on the Paper.
    Mr. BATEYasked the Minister of Health if he has made any inquiry as to the publishing by certain newspapers of the Report of the Chester-le-Street Board of Guardians before the Command Paper was published; and what is the result of his inquiries?
    Sir K. WOOD: No, Sir.
    Mr. THURTLE: Does the hon. Gentleman not realise that there is very grave public concern at the way this information came out, and does he not think it the duty of his Department to make some inquiry?
    Sir K. WOOD: I think there is greater concern with the contents of the Report.
    Mr. BECKETT: Is the public concern with the contents of the Report due to feeling aroused by the action of the Ministry of Health?
    Sir K. WOOD: No, my right hon. Friend definitely stated in connection with this matter that he had no knowledge of the publication, and the concern arose out of the contents of the Report.
    Mr. BECKETT: Is the hon. Gentleman prepared to give us the same undertaking that he had no knowledge?
    Sir K. WOOD: Yes, certainly.

    ROYAL AIR FORCE (HOUSING COSTS, HALTON)
    Colonel WOODCOCKasked the Secretary of State for Air the cost per house built for married quarters at Halton; and what is the accommodation provided?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Sir Samuel Hoare): The average cost of the married airmen's quarters erected at Halton works out at £561, exclusive of external services, such as roads, drains, etc., the accommodation consists of two bedrooms, living room, scullery, bathroom and sanitary facilities.
    Colonel WOODCOCK: May I ask whether these houses are made of cork, and why the Air Force wants cork houses; and, in relation to the high expenditure, is that not in keeping with the general extravagance of the Air Force?
    Sir S. HOARE: In the first place, these houses, as far as I know, are not made of cork. I must repudiate my hon. Friend's suggestion that this price is an illustration of the extravagance of the buildings in the Air Force. It compares favourably with similar buildings, whether civil or military, in other parts of the country.
    Colonel WOODCOCK: Will the right hon. Gentleman take the opportunity of consulting the Public Accounts Committee's Report where it states that these houses are made of cork?
    Mr. SMITHERS: Will the right hon. Gentleman allow me to give him the price of a house, four models of which were inspected the other day by the Minister of Health, and which comes out at half this price, with much more accommodation than I gather these have?
    Sir S. HOARE: I should be very glad if the hon. Gentleman would give me the figures.
    Sir J. NALL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these married quarters erected by the Air Ministry make a very good example which the Ministry of Health and local authorities might copy, and will he take steps to acquaint them with the type of house?
    Sir S. HOARE: I am very much obliged to my hon. Friend.

    PASSPORTS (WOMEN AND GIRLS).
    Sir H. BRITTAINasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can see his way to making further use of the safeguard of the passport system in the protection of women and girls, particularly in the case of theatrical troupes, before they are permitted to accept engagements in a succession of foreign countries?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Godfrey Locker-Lampson): In the case of all applications for passports from women and girls who are taking up employment, special precautions are taken, and in the case of theatrical artistes passports are not issued unless the contracts and conditions of employment are recommended as satisfactory by one of the recognised bodies, such as the Stage Guild or the Variety Artistes' Federation. In such cases the validity of the passport is generally limited to the country for which it is required. His Majesty's Consuls abroad have instructions to take similar precautions in the case of applications made to them either for passports or for further endorsements. I do not consider that any more stringent precautions could be taken without delay and inconvenience to ordinary travellers.
    Sir H. BRITTAIN: When these troupes of girls go from one foreign country to another, could the hon. Gentleman say through whom the inquiries are made?
    Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I think they are made by one of these two bodies I have specified.
    Sir H. BRITTAIN: If, for instance, the girls are sent over to Paris, where they are well looked after, and are then, possibly, sent to the Argentine, through whom would inquiries be made between Paris and Buenos Aires?
    Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: It is not very easy to answer that question, but I imagine we keep in touch the whole time with the two bodies I have specified, and they find out exactly where those persons are proceeding, and what the conditions are.
    Colonel DAY: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that many of these application forms are filled up in such a manner as to give the impression that the women performing in troupes are going for a holiday, and not to work? Can the hon. Gentleman say how that can be avoided?
    Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: That is exactly what these two bodies take care to avoid.
    Colonel DAY: But is the hon. Gentleman aware that the passport application is filled up not as if the artistes are going to work, but as if they are going for a holiday, and that that is for the purpose of avoiding examination?
    Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I should like notice of that question.

  CHINA.

    BRITISH CONCESSIONS.
    Lieut.-Colonel HOWARD - BURYasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the recent developments at Hankow and the protests from Tientsin, he will consider the advisability of adopting a similar policy to the Japanese Government, which has stated that it has no intention of returning any concessions to China in the present unpropitious circumstances?
    Mr. LOCKER - LAMPSON: His Majesty's Government have no intention of going back on their proposals regarding arrangements for the concessions, which were communicated to the Chinese authorities at Peking and Hankow in January last, and published in the Press on 3rd February. These proposals were made after a careful examination of all the circumstances.
    Lieut.-Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Is my hon. Friend aware that fear has been expressed in Tientsin and Shanghai that we have landed over our rights without having exacted sufficient safeguards from the Chinese authorities?
    Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: That question does not quite arise out of the answer, but negotiations are now going on with the Chinese authorities in regard to Tientsin, and I hope that an amicable arrangement may be arrived at.
    Sir F. HAUL: May I ask whether, in entering into the agreement with regard to Hankow, any arrangements were made with the Chinese authorities asking them to assist in stopping all this anti-British propaganda?
    Mr. THURTLE: Does the hon. Gentleman accept the statement in the last part of the question with regard to Japanese policy in China as being well-founded?
    Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: As a matter of fact the information we have received from Japan shows that there is a good deal of divergence of opinion. I believe the Japanese Consul-General in Hankow is prepared to sign a similar agreement to ourselves?
    Sir F. HALL: Will the hon. Gentleman give me a reply to my question?
    Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: When the agreement was signed it was certainly understood between ourselves and the Southern Government that everything possible would be done to safeguard the interests of both side?.
    Mr. LOOKER: May I ask whether it is a fact, as stated in the Press, that Baron Shidahari has stated that the Japanese have no intention of returning their concessions at present?
    Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: That is why I said that divergent opinions have been expressed.
    Mr. LOOKERasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any negotiations with the Nationalist (Cantonese) Government are in progress or in contemplation in respect of any other British concessions in China situate

    29
    within the area controlled by the Nationalist Government regarding which no agreement has yet been entered into?
    Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: No negotiations are at present in progress regarding British concessions in the area under the control of the Nationalist Government. His Majesty's Government have, in their proposals communicated to the Chinese authorities at Peking and Hankow on 27th and 28th January last and published in the Press on 3rd February, declared their willingness to discuss and enter into arrangements for the modification of the municipal arrangements of all British concessions.
    Mr. LOOKER: Is it not a fact that the Nationalist Government have failed to respect British rights, and have failed to restrain their followers from acts of violence in the British concessions at Wuhu and Ning Po, and does the hon. Gentleman not think it desirable, in these circumstances, to defer any further negotiations with the Nationalist Government?
    Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I think my hon. Friend is under a misapprehension. At the two places he has mentioned there are no British concessions at all.
    Mr. LOOKER: But are they not Treaty ports of some description, and are not British Consuls there?
    Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I agree that they are, but they are not British concessions in respect of which any negotiations such as those referred to are being undertaken.
    Sir J. NALL: Notwithstanding that fact, are we to understand that the British Government will do their best to protect British rights?
    Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Certainly, wherever British subjects are.

    SHANGHAI INTERNATIONAL SETTLEMENT (RATEPAYERS).
    Mr. RENNIE SMITHasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he can say what are the numbers of ratepayers of Chinese, British and other nationalities in the International Settlement at Shanghai; and what proportion of the total municipal rates is paid by each of the above nationalities?
    Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer returned to the hon. Member for Aber-tillery (Mr. Barker) on 28th April last. The latest available detailed list of foreign ratepayers in the International Settlement, dated March, 1925, shows the following distribution among nationalities:

    British

    1,157

    Japanese

    552

    American

    328

    German

    184

    Russian

    112

    French

    98

    Portuguese

    80

    Italian

    35

    Danish

    28

    Dutch

    26

    Swiss

    24

    Austrian

    22

    Spanish

    22

    Belgian

    10

    Greek

    9

    Norwegian

    9

    Swedish

    7

    Polish

    6

    Czechoslovak

    6

    Brazilian

    3

    Turkish

    2

    Latvian

    2

    Unclassified

    20

    2,742

    No statistics are available showing the proportion of municipal rates paid by each nationality.
    Sir H. CROFT: Is it not a fact that a large proportion of British subjects in Shanghai are black-coated workers, and would probably be ratepayers, and will the hon. Gentleman take that into consideration?
    Mr. H. WILLIAMS: Could the hon. Gentleman tell us roughly what proportion of the total number of ratepayers are British?
    Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I should think about half the foreign ratepayers.

    BRITISH SUBJECTS (HANKOW AND KIUKIANG).
    Mr. LOOKERasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, now that agreements have been entered into, he proposes to take any further steps to

    31
    protect British subjects and firms and British interests at Hankow and Kiukiang?
    Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: The same measure of protection will continue to be afforded to British subjects and interests in Hankow and Kiukiang as is afforded in other Treaty ports.
    Mr. LOOKER: May I ask whether any further representations have been made to the Nationalist authorities?
    Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Our representative in Hankow is in continuous touch with Mr. Chen, and certainly will do his utmost to see that British interests are protected.
    Mr. LOOKER: Has he got any satisfactory replies from him?
    Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: We are still awaiting reports from him.

    SHANGHAI (MUNICIPAL COUNCIL).
    Mr. RENNIE SMITHasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what is the present position with regard to negotiations for Chinese representation on the Municipal Council of Shanghai?
    Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I have nothing to add to the reply returned to the hon. Member on 23rd February last, except that I am in communication with His Majesty's Minister at Peking and His Majesty's Consul-General at Shanghai on this subject, which is being carefully and closely examined.

    POSITION AT NANKING.
    Sir H. BRITTAINasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is able to give the House any information with regard to the present state of affairs in Nanking?
    Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: The latest official report from Nanking shows that the Shantung troops are holding a line between points some 40 miles southwest and south-east of the city and are sending forward strong reinforcements. The same telegram reports that there is considerable nervousness and unrest among the Chinese population of Nanking.

    HANKOW MUNICIPAL DEBENTURES.
    Sir F. HALLasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what amount has been invested by British subjects in Hankow municipal debentures; and whether, seeing that the abandonment of British control of the Concession in Hankow has affected the value of these debentures, it is the intention of the Government to guarantee the British investors concerned from loss resulting from the arrangements come to with the Cantonese Government?
    Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: The China Year Book for 1926 shows that the total amount of municipal debentures outstanding on 31st December, 1925, was Tls. 432,200 (say £55,000), but there is nothing to show how much of this is in British hands. The second part of the question is based on an assumption which, as explained in the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff East (Sir C. Kinloch-Cooke) on 9th March, I am not prepared to admit.
    Sir F. HALL: Is it not a fact that a large number of these debenture holders invested their money in consequence of the security being under a British concession, and may I ask whether, owing to the change that has taken place, the hon. Gentleman will get into touch with the debenture holders to see what is the present position, and whether any rights are left to them with respect to their securities?
    Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: In the reply-to another hon. Member to which I referred my hon. and gallant Friend, it was pointed out that the fall in debentures was not so much due to the rendition of the concession at Hankow as to the general state of unrest throughout China.

  LEAGUE OF NATIONS.

    DISARMAMENT CONFERENCE.
    Captain GARRO-J0NESasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will say how far the League of Nations' negotiations for disarmament have now progressed; and whether he can indicate any approximate date on which the conference proper will be held?
    Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: The Pre-paratory Committee on Disarmament is still sitting, and I am unable to add anything to the answer which my right hon. Friend gave to the hon. and gallant Member on 2nd March.

    COUNCIL REPORT.
    Captain GARRO-JONESasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether and, if so, when he intends to issue a full statement on the recent proceedings at Geneva?
    Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: In accordance with the usual practice, a detailed report on the last session of the Council of the League will be issued as soon as possible.
    Captain GARRO-JONES: Could the hon. Gentleman say whether representatives of the Italian Government made any communication in respect of the situation existing between the Italian Government and the Jugo-Slavian Government?
    Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I must have notice of that question.

    PERSIA (EXTRA TERRITORIALITY).
    Mr. RENNIE SMITHasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any modifications have been effected in the system of extra-terri-toriality obtaining in Persia; and, if not, whether His Majesty's Government proposes initiating any steps to bring about such modifications, in view of the fact that Persia is a member of the League of Nations?
    Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: The answer to both parts of the question is in the negative.

    MINISTRY OF PENSIONS HOSPITAL, CHEPSTOW (VACCINATIONS).
    Mr. R. MORRISONasked the Minister of Pensions whether he is aware that instructions were issued on the 9th instant to the patients of the Ministry of Pensions hospital, Chepstow, that all patients must either be vaccin-
    34
    ated or take their discharge; and will he state by whose authority and for what reason these instructions were issued?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY of the MINISTRY of PENSIONS (Lieut.-Colonel G. F. Stanley): The instructions given were not in the terms suggested by the hon. Member in the first part of the question. In consequence of the recent severe outbreak of smallpox in Monmouthshire, it was deemed necessary by my medical advisers to take all possible steps both to protect the patients in the hospital at Chepstow and to obviate the risk of the closure of this important institution which serves the needs of pensioners in Monmouthshire and South Wales, as closure would have been the only possible course in the event of an outbreak of this disease occurring in the hospital. With this view, instructions were issued to the medical superintendent directing his attention to the importance of the matter and advising him that, in the case of any patient whom he considered not already adequately protected against the disease, re-vaccination should be secured as far as possible, if he considered it necessary and medically practicable. In the event of refusal on the part of a patient or where the case was not, on medical grounds, suitable for vaccination, the case was to be dealt with either by the temporary provision of alternative treatment, or by isolation, or by other means, compatible with the welfare of the patient, which would obviate contact with other patients in the institution. These instructions have been carried out with careful regard to the well-being of all the patients concerned, and, I am glad to say, have so far been effective.
    Mr. MORRISON: Could the hon. and gallant Gentleman say whether any of the ex-service patients who objected to being vaccinated have since taken their discharge from the hospital?
    Lieut.-Colonel STANLEY: I think there were three, whose time was practically up. They left last Saturday, their treatment being practically concluded; I do not think any others have gone. We have dealt with the difficulty by isolation.
    Mr. MORRISON: Do I understand that the three who left last Saturday

    35
    would have left in any case, or that they left before their time as a result of objecting to vaccination?
    Lieut.-Colonel STANLEY: As far as I remember, they would have left in any case, but at any rate their treatment was practically complete.

    WASHINGTON NAVAL AGREEMENT.
    Sir F. WISEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty the estimated amount that has been saved as a result of the Washington Naval Agreement?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Lieut.-Colonel Headlam): I would refer my hon. Friend to the First Lord's reply of 16th June, 1926 (OFFICIAL REPORT, col. 2281), to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Spoor). Any additional estimate with regard to

    —

    Accountant General's Department.

    Savings Bank Department.

    Accountant's Office Edinburgh.

    Total.

    1st April, 1922

    …

    …

    201

    106

    24

    331

    1st April, 1923

    …

    …

    163

    83

    21

    267

    1st April, 1924

    …

    …

    136

    61

    18

    215

    1st April, 1925

    …

    …

    104

    26

    16

    146

    1st April, 1926

    …

    …

    61

    13

    14

    88

    No redundant second division clerks are employed in the other departments of the Post Office.
    I regret that the information concerning ex-third class clerks is not available in the form desired by the hon. Member.

  EDUCATION.

    ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS (UNCLEAN TOWELS).
    Colonel DAYasked the President of the Board of Education whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that one towel only is provided for the use of, approximately, 166 children in London county elementary schools; and, in view of the harm caused in such schools due to unclean towels, will he faring this matter before the notice of the
    savings outside the ambit of that reply would be so conjectural as to be of no value.

    POST OFFICE (CLERICAL CLASS).
    Mr. MONTAGUEasked the Postmaster-General if he will give the number of redundant second division clerks on the executive scale and the number of ex-third class clerks in the clerical class within the various sub-departments of the Post Office on 1st April of each year from 1922 onwards?
    The ASSISTANT POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Viscount Wolmer): As the answer to this question contains a number of figures, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the reply:
    The numbers of redundant second division clerks on the executive scale within the Post Office on the dates mentioned were:—
    education authority concerned with a view to more adequate provision in this regard being made?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of EDUCATION (Duchess of Atholl): My right hon. Friend understands that head teachers are furnished on requisition with such supply of towels as they consider necessary, out of the annual allowance for such equipment made to each school. They may also arrange for the washing of towels at the charges approved by the Council. My right hon. Friend is informed that the Council are not aware of any complaints as to the sufficiency of the supply, but they have asked their inspectors to pay special attention to the matter when visiting the schools.
    Colonel DAY: Is the Noble Lady aware that the Medical Officer of Health for Tottenham stated that the washing convenience at the London County Council schools in that district is scandalous, and there is one case where 300 children have been using the same towel for a week?
    Mr. H. WILLIAMS: Is Tottenham in (he London County Council area?
    Captain GARRO-J0NES: Is the Noble Lady content to wait until some complaints are put forward by the little children who have to use these towels, or does she recognise a supervising responsibility for seeing that the children have hygienic conditions?
    Duchess of ATHOLL: I think the hon. and gallant Member will see from the reply which I have given that the London County Council are instituting inquiries through their inspector. As to the statement of the Medical Officer of Health for Tottenham probably the London County Council would wish to have the report of their own Medical Officer before taking action.

    EDUCATION AND INDUSTRY.
    Mr. HARRISasked the President of the Board of Education whether he proposes to make inquiry into the relation of technical education to industry, especially as to now far it meets the requirements of manufacturers and provides them with the necessary technical skill; and whether he has made any recent inquiry into what is being done to promote technical education in continental countries and in America?
    Duchess of ATHOLL: As regards the first part of the question, the matter is already being investigated by the Committee on Industry and Trade, and the hon. Member has doubtless seen the volume recently issued by that Committee. It is also one which will doubtless be considered by the Inter-Departmental Committee on Education and Industry in connection with the first part of their terms of reference. As regards the second part, no special inquiry has been made, but the Board arrange for the collection of information, upon technical and other types of education, published by foreign countries, so that it may be available for the general use of the public.

    TAXI-CAB FARES.
    Sir F. NELSONasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is considering any action in regard to the present high level of taximeter cab fares, with especial reference to the recent reduction of 2d. per gallon in the cost of petrol?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir William Joynson-Hicks): Yes, Sir; and quite apart from reductions in the price of petrol, I think there is a strong case for cheaper facilities for the public. I have no desire to resort to drastic measures, but the trade have now had an opportunity for many months of putting a less expensive vehicle on the streets, and I have given clear intimation that unless advantage is taken of that opportunity in the near future, the whole question of taxicab fares will have to be re-opened.
    Sir F. HALL: Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise the fact that the increase was made by his predecessor in consequence of petrol then being 3s. 4d. or 3s. 6d. per gallon, and tyres were much heavier, and seeing that they are now down to pre-war prices and in some cases less, does the right hon. Gentleman not think the public have a right to demand much cheaper fares?
    Lieut.-Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in Paris to-day the price of petrol is 2s. per gallon as compared with 1s. 3d. per gallon in this country, and yet the fares of taxi-cabs in Paris are only one-third of the prices charged in this country?
    Sir H. BRITTAIN: Is it not the case that the main difficulty is not so much the price of the petrol as the heavy initial outlay on the cab itself?
    Sir F. HALL: Surely they can get a cheaper cab?
    Dr. VERNON DAVIES: Will the right hon. Gentleman define "the near future"?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I should say the near future is one that is not very remote. In reply to the hon. and gallant Member for Dulwich (Sir F. Hall), I have already said that there is a strong case for cheaper facilities for the public. The House will remember that just before

    39
    the General Strike I authorised two-seater taxicabs at lower fares, and I am told they were being delayed in consequence of the difficulty of getting the necessary steel and so forth owing to the strike, but if they are not forthcoming in the very near future, I have announced that I shall take steps to re-open the whole question of fares.
    Commander BELLAIRS: Could the right hon. Gentleman not abolish some of the extras right away because they are not charged in other countries?
    Mr. R. MORRISON: If the right hon. Gentleman proposes almost immediately to alter the fares of taxi-cabs, will that not be a handicap upon the people who have applied to put two-seater cabs on the street under the impression that they are going to put them on cheaper?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Quite honestly I am getting a little tired of waiting for these two-seater cabs, and unless I am satisfied that they will very-soon be forthcoming I shall assume that they are not coming at all.
    Mr. SMITHERS: Will the right hon. Gentleman define "the very near future"?

    GREEK WAR DEBT.
    Sir F. WISEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if any renewed negotiations are taking place for the settlement of the Greek War Debt to Great Britain?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Ronald McNeill): Yes, Sir; negotiations are at present proceeding.

    REPARATION PAYMENTS.
    Sir F. WISEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the amount Great Britain has received from reparation payments for the third annuity year; and what is the percentage of the deliveries in kind, what is it in marks, and what is it in currency?
    Mr. McNEILL: For the period from 1st September, 1926, down to 28th February, 1927, the United Kingdom receipts from the Dawes annuities have been £4,850,000, of which £3,950,000 have been paid in
    40
    sterling under the Reparation Recovery procedure and the equivalent of £900,000 in marks and services in Germany.
    Sir H. CAUTLEY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how that compares with the amount paid to the United States of America during the same period.
    Mr. McNEILL: I could not say. I must have notice of that question.
    Lieut.-Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Can my right hon. Friend say whether it is a fact, as stated by Mr. Mellon, that we are receiving more than we are paying to the United States?

    CINEMATOGRAPH FILM DUTIES.
    Mr. H. WILLIAMSasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the length of negative cinematograph film imported during the calendar year 1926; the length of such film which was re-exported; and in respect of how much of the latter was drawback paid on re- exportation?
    Mr. McNEILL: The length of negative cinematograph film imported during the calendar year 1926 was 6,424,620 feet of the standard width of 1⅜ inches; the quantity re-exported was 3,562,720 feet, of which quantity 40,313 feet were exported on drawback.
    Colonel DAY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether that is an increase on the exportation of 1925?
    Mr. McNEILL: I have not the figures before me for 1925. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would put a question down on the Paper and then I will answer it.

    SUPER-TAX.
    Colonel WOODCOCKasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the amount of Super-tax still outstanding as unpaid for the previous year and the approximate amount still unpaid for the present year?
    Mr. McNEILL: In view of the fact that the main collection of the current year's tax is now proceeding, I am unable without a disoroportionate expenditure of time and labour to state the amount of Super-tax at the moment in arrear.

    KEW GARDENS (FEES).
    Sir JOHN MARRIOTTasked the Minister of Agriculture the total amount of fees paid during the last 12 months for admission to Kew Gardens; and what, if any, was the cost of collecting them?
    Mr. GUINNESS: The total amount of fees paid during the 12 months ended the 28th February last was £6,133 13s. 1d.; the cost of collection (excluding costs of erection and maintenance of turnstiles) was £166 19s. 10d.

    MIDLAND COAL, COKE AND IRON COMPANY, LIMITED.
    Mr. BROMLEYasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, as representing the First Commissioner of Works-, what Government contracts within the purview of the Department have been given to the Midland Coal, Coke and Iron Company, Limited, of Apedale, Staffordshire, during the years 1923, 1924, 1925 and 1926; the value of such contracts; and if any orders have been given to the company in 1927 or are any orders contemplated?
    Captain HACKING (for The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS): As the answer to this question contains a number of figures, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the answer
    Contracts for coal to the following values have been placed with the Midland Coal, Coke and Iron Company, Limited:—
    Year ended 30th June:

    Tonnage.

    Value.

    £

    1923

    7,000

    7,700

    1924

    7,000

    8,050

    1925

    10,000

    12,500

    1926

    8,000

    8,400

    Nine months ended 31st March, 1927

    3,000

    3,875

    No contracts have yet been placed by the Department for coal for delivery after 31st March,1927.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Motion made, and Question put,
"That, notwithstanding anything in Standing Order No. 15, the Reports of Civil Services and Revenue Departments Excesses, 1925–26, and Ways and Means [14th March], may be considered this day, and that the Proceedings on Report of Supply of the 14th March may be taken after Eleven of the Clock, and shall be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."— [The Prime Minister.]
The House divided: Ayes, 224; Noes, 96.

Division No. 50.]

AYES.

[3.45 p.m.

Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.

Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James

Eden, Captain Anthony

Ainsworth, Major Charles

Bullock, Captain M.

Edmondson, Major A. J.

Albery, Irving James

Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Alan

Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)

Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)

Burman, J. B.

Elliot, Major Walter E.

Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.

Burney, Lieut.-Com. Charles D.

Ellis, R. G.

Applin, Colonel R. V. K.

Burton, Colonel H. W.

Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)

Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.

Butler, Sir Geoffrey

Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith

Astor, Viscountess

Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

Fairfax, Captain J. G.

Atholl, Duchess of

Campbell, E. T.

Falle, Sir Bertram G.

Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

Cautley, Sir Henry S.

Fanshawe, Commander G. D.

Balfour, George (Hampstead)

Cazalet, Captain Victor A.

Fermoy, Lord

Balniel, Lord

Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton

Fielden, E. B.

Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)

Foster, Sir Harry S.

Barnett, Major Sir Richard

Charteris, Brigadier-General J.

Fraser, Captain Ian

Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.

Churchman, Sir Arthur C.

Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)

Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony

Bennett, A. J.

Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir G. K.

Ganzoni, Sir John

Berry, Sir George

Cope, Major William

Gates, Percy

Betterton, Henry B.

Couper, J. B.

Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John

Blundell, F. N.

Craig, Capt. Rt. Hon. C. C. (Antrim)

Glyn, Major R. G. C.

Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

Goff, Sir Park

Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vanslttart

Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)

Gower, Sir Robert

Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.

Crookshank,Cpt.H.(Lindsey,Gainsbro)

Grace, John

Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

Curzon, Captain Viscount

Grant, Sir J. A.

Briscoe, Richard George

Dalziel, Sir Davison

Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

Brittain, Sir Harry

Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)

Greene, W. P. Crawford

Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.

Davies, Dr. Vernon

Grotrian, H. Brent

Broun-Lindsay, Major H.

Dawson, Sir Philip

Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.

Brown, Brig.-Gen.H.C. (Berks,Newb'y)

Dean, Arthur Wellesley

Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

Buckingham, Sir H.

Dixey, A. C.

Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)

Hall, Vice-Admiral Sir R.(Eastbourne)

Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm

Skelton, A. N.

Hall, Capt. W. D. A. (Brecon & Rad.)

McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John

Smithers, Waldron

Hammersley, S. S.

MacRobert, Alexander M.

Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-

Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.)

Harrison, G. J. C.

Makins, Brigadier-General E.

Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

Hawke, John Anthony

Malone, Major P. B.

Starry-Deans, R.

Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.

Margesson, Captain D.

Streatfeild, Captain S. R.

Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.

Marriott, Sir J. A. R.

Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.

Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.

Meyer, Sir Frank

Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

Herbert, S. (York, N.R.,Scar. & Wh'by)

Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.

Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)

Sugden, Sir Wilfred

Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)

Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

Tasker, R. Inigo.

Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard

Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.

Templeton, W. P.

Holt, Captain H. P.

Moore, Sir Newton J.

Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)

Hopkins, J. W. W.

Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)

Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

Howard-Bury, Lieut.-Colonel C. K.

Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive

Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney,N.)

Nall, Colonel Sir Joseph

Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-

Huntingfield, Lord

Nelson, Sir Frank

Tinne, J. A.

Hurd, Percy A.

Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)

Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

Hurst, Gerald B.

Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)

Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

Hutchison, G. A. Clark (Midi'n & P'bl's)

Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert

Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough

Iliffe, Sir Edward M.

Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William

Ward, Lt.-Col. A.L.(Kingston-on-Hull)

Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.

Penny, Frederick George

Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.

Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)

Perkins, Colonel E. K.

Warrender, Sir Victor

Jacob, A. F.

Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)

Waterhouse, Captain Charles

James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert

Pownall, Sir Assheton

Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)

Jephcott, A. R.

Price, Major C. W. M.

Wells, S. R.

Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)

Ramsden, E.

Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.

Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William

Remer, J. R.

White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dalrymple-

Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)

Remnant, Sir James

Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)

King, Captain Henry Douglas

Rentoul, G. S.

Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.

Wilson, M. J. (York, N. R., Richm'd)

Knox, Sir Alfred

Rice, Sir Frederick

Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)

Lamb, J. Q.

Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y,Ch'ts'y)

Winby, Colonel L. P.

Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)

Ropner, Major L.

Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.

Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)

Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

Wise, Sir Fredric

Loder, J. de V.

Salmon, Major I.

Wolmer, Viscount

Looker, Herbert William

Sandeman, A. Stewart

Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)

Lougher, L.

Sandon, Lord

Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.).

Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vera

Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.

Woodcock, Colonel H. C.

Lumley, L. R.

Savery, S. S.

Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.

Lynn, Sir R. J.

Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W.R., Sowerby)

MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen

Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D.Mcl.(Renfrew, W.)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

McLean, Major A.

Sheffield, Sir Berkeley

Colonel Gibbs and Major Sir Harry

Macmillan, Captain H.

Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)

Barnston

NOES.

Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)

Grundy, T. W.

Paling, W.

Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)

Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)

Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')

Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

Ponsonby, Arthur

Ammon, Charles George

Hardie, George D.

Potts, John S.

Baker, J, (Wolverhampton, Bilston)

Harney, E. A.

Rose, Frank H.

Baker, Walter

Harris, Percy A.

Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

Hayday, Arthur

Salter, Dr. Alfred

Barr, J.

Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)

Scrymgeour, E.

Batey, Joseph

Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

Scurr, John

Beckett, John (Gateshead)

Hore-Belisha, Leslie

Slesser, Sir Henry H.

Bondfield, Margaret

Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)

Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley)

Briant, Frank

Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

Broad, F. A.

John, William (Rhondda, West)

Snell, Harry

Bromley, J.

Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)

Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

Charleton, H. C.

Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)

Spoor, Rt. Hon. Benjamin Charles

Cluse, W. S.

Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

Stamford, T. W.

Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

Kennedy, T.

Stephen, Campbell

Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)

Lansbury, George

Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)

Cove, W. G.

Lawrence, Susan

Thurtle, Ernest

Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

Lee, F.

Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.

Crawfurd, H. E.

Livingstone, A. M.

Viant, S. P.

Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)

Mac Donald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)

Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney

Day, Colonel Harry

Mackinder, W.

Wedgwood. Rt. Hon. Josiah

Dennison, R.

Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.

Welsh, J. C.

Dunnico, H.

March, S.

Williams, David (Swansea, East)

Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)

Maxton, James

Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.

Montague, Frederick

Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

Gardner, J. P.

Morris. R. H.

Windsor, Walter

Gillett, George M.

Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)

Wright, W.

Gosling, Harry

Mosley, Oswald

Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)

Naylor, T. E.

Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

Owen, Major G.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

Groves, T.

Palin, John Henry

Mr. A. Barnes and Mr. Whiteley.

First Resolution read a Second time.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  SUPPLY.
  [4TH ALLOTTED DAY.]
  REPORT [14th March].
  Resolutions reported,

  SUPPLY.

    NAVY ESTIMATES, 1927.
    1."That 102,275 Officers, Seamen, Boys, and Royal Marines be employed for the Sea Service, together with 450 for the Royal Marine Police, borne on the books of His Majesty's Ships, at the Royal Marine Divisions, and at Royal Air Force Establishments, for the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1928."
    2."That a sum, not exceeding £14,715,300, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Wages, etc. of Officers and Men of the Royal Navy and Royal Marines, and Civilians employed on Fleet Services, which will come in course

    —

    —

    Excess of Expenditure over Gross Estimate.

    Appropriations in Aid.

    Amount to be Voted.

    CLASS II

    £

    s.

    d.

    £

    s.

    d.

    £

    s

    d.

    Vote 5

    …

    …

    …

    Foreign Office

    …

    …

    751

    10

    1

    741

    10

    1

    10

    0

    0

    CLASS VI.

    Vote 3

    …

    …

    …

    Old Age Pensions

    …

    15,728

    7

    3

    *345

    8

    9

    16,073

    16

    0

    REVENUE DEPARTMENTS

    Vote 3

    …

    …

    …

    Post Office

    …

    …

    107,807

    13

    10

    26,341

    17

    7

    81,465

    16

    3

    £124,287

    11

    2

    26,737

    18

    11

    97,549

    12

    3

    * Deficiency of Appropriations in Aid.

    Mr. LEES-SMITH: I beg to move to leave out "102,275," and to insert instead thereof "102,175."
    The First Lord of the Admiralty announced a few days ago that in a short time there is to be a conference on naval disarmament between ourselves, the United States and Japan, and perhaps Italy and France. We wish to take this opportunity of putting before the House the broad outline of the proposals which, in our opinion, should be submitted in the name of this country to the forthcoming conference, and as these proposals would involve a great reduction in the number of men in the Navy, it is on this vote that it seems to us the subject might be most conveniently discussed. Last week,
    of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1928."
    3. "That a sum, not exceeding £1,907,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Works, Buildings, and Repairs, at Home and Abroad, including the cost of Superintendence, Purchase of Sites, Grants-in-Aid, and other Charges connected therewith, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1928."
    4."That a sum, not exceeding £4,261,600, be granted to His Mayesty, to defray the Expense of Victualling md Clothing for the Navy, including the cost of Victualling Establishments at Home and Abroad, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1928."

    CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS (EXCESSES), 1925–26.
    5."That a sum, not exceeding £97,549 12s. 3d., be granted to His Majesty; to make good Excesses on certain Grants for Civil Services and Revenue Departments for the year ended 31st day of March, 1926:
    in order to formulate our programme upon this subject, we put a Motion on the Order Paper which represents the opinions of the Labour party, and I will begin by reading its terms.
    "That this House, whilst welcoming the proposals of the Government of the United States of America for a further limitation of Naval Armaments and the declaration of His Majesty's Government in relation thereto, is of opinion that National Security, and therefore international peace, can only be assured by international agreement for a substantial all-round reduction in Naval Armaments, including the abolition of capital ships and submarines and the reduction of the maximum tonnage of cruisers to that necessary for police purposes, and accordingly urges His Majesty's Government to initiate without delay proposals to this end."
    One part of our policy coincides with the policy the Admiralty has already

    61
    adopted. The Admiralty has already, at the Washington Conference, put forward bold and fundamental suggestions for the abolition of the submarine, but what is the use of this country putting forward proposals of that kind by themselves? Proposals for the abolition of the submarine put forward in isolation merely mean that the strength of our Navy is to be increased as against the strength of all the other important navies in the world. The submarine happens to be a type of vessel on which we do not concentrate. The United States has double the number of submarines that we have, Japan has more, France has more and Italy has about the same number. What does our proposal then mean? Of course we wish to see the abolition of the submarine, but if the Government propose nothing else at the same time, we are not surprised that their proposals are received with complete cynicism in other countries, which realise that they merely mean that every other navy is to be weakened in comparison with our own. So other proposals ought to be made at the same time, and of these in our opinion the first should be the final abolition of the battleship.
    4.0 p.m.
    At the present moment this country and the United States are allowed an agreed ratio of battleship tonnage of 525,000 each. But the battleship has only one purpose, that is to fight other battleships, and our equality with the United States would be equally well maintained if the battleships of both Powers were to disappear simultaneously from the seas. In the last Debate it was suggested that, even though this were carried out, there would be no great or immediate reduction in our expenditure, because we are not building any new battleships in the forthcoming year; but there would be an immediate reduction, because you would reduce the number of destroyers, and cruisers, and bases which exist for the battleship and without which the battleship would die. The first step in this direction, and the most natural step would be the expansion of the present naval holiday. That holiday is now drawing to an end, and, if no fresh proposals are made, it means that in 1932 we shall lay down the keels of two new battleships. The very idea that we are soon to contemplate the building of two more of these mammoths costing
    62
    £7,000,000 each is unthinkable. If this holiday has lasted 10 years, it can last for 20 years, and, if can last for 20 years, it can last for all time. We wish the First Lord of the Admiralty to take the initiative in making this suggestion. Why should it always be left to the United States to take the lead in the world on these questions? We want the First Lord of the Admiralty to get in first this time and make a speech which will stagger humanity and send him down to history as one of the greatest naval revolutionists of the world. As a matter of fact, that would be very wise policy. Anyone who has followed the attitude of the United States on this subject will recognise that such a proposal would have a terrific reception by public opinion in the United States and would create the favourable and friendly atmosphere which we shall need when we come to discuss the special position with regard to cruisers which the Government maintain.
    The competition in cruisers is undoubtedly now the crucial difficulty in all these negotiations, and it is also the greatest menace that confronts the future peace of the world. Just what the competition in Dreadnoughts used to be before the War, the competition in cruisers is becoming to-day. Look at the programme this year. We are laying down three new cruisers. Last year we laid down three; the year before, four; the year before that, five. Next year we are to lay down three and the year afterwards three, until finally, including the two Australian cruisers, we are to have a Fleet of 73, all of which but nine or ten will have been laid down since the outbreak of the War, and which, the Admiralty tell us, will give us the margin of security at which they are aiming. These 73 cruisers will not give us security. There is no finality in this process, because this very increase in the strength of our fleet is bound, in its turn, at an early date to bring a corresponding increase in the strength of the fleets against whom our increase is being calculated. That is shown in the Fleet Return. Look at what is happening in the United States. The figures published in the Fleet Return of last year show that in the United States, in addition to their existing fleet, they had eight cruisers building and projected. The return published about a week ago shows that this year the United States cruisers

    63
    building and projected have increased from eight to 18, an increase of 10 directly put before Congress, as the Debate showed, as an answer to the expansion programme which the right hon. Gentleman put before the House last year.
    The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Bridgeman): It was not my expansion programme; it was the programme put down by the Labour party.
    Mr. LEES-SMITH: This is an interruption which is made by the right hon. Gentleman on an average once in every speech delivered from these benches.
    Mr. GROTRIAN: It is true.
    Mr. LEES-SMITH: There is a distinction. The programme put down by the Labour party was one of five cruisers for one year—
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN indicated dissent.
    Mr. LEES-SMITH:—bringing us up to something like an equality and ending there. The programme of the right hon. Gentleman is a programme, not for the year only, but for next year, the year after, and right on into the future, and it was in reply to this programme that the United States have now laid down this programme for 10 cruisers. There is all the difference in the world between the Labour party's programme and this programme of the right hon. Gentleman looking years ahead. What does it lead to, apart from the past? Where are we getting? The United States have now introduced a Bill for 10 new cruisers. When that Bill is implemented, then the First Lord, in his turn, will come down to this House, as he is bound to do, and ask for another expansion programme in reply to the United States. Our 73 will become 83, and the whole process will begin again. I think all Members will agree that the Washington Conference is really defeating itself. It has prevented the competition in battleships, but it has simply shifted the competition on to the next largest type. The result is that the right hon. Gentleman in his last speech referred to the similarity of his Estimates to-day and the Estimates of 1908. There is an exact similarity between his speeches and the speeches of the First Lord of the Admiralty in 1908. There is the same concentration on one type of
    64
    ship, on Dreadnoughts then and on cruisers to-day, costing about the same as Dreadnoughts used to do in those days. There is the same competitive rivalry, against Germany then and against our Allies to-day. There is the same argument, that everyone is building for defence. No one is building for war. But it is leading gradually and inevitably to the same result. We therefore wish the Government to put forward definite proposals with regard to cruisers, and first of all proposals with regard to their size or tonnage. Before the War, when one spoke of cruisers, one always meant a vessel of from 4,000 to 5,000 tons. That was the normal cruiser, and during the War the vessels that were built for commerce protection were of from 4,000 to 5,000 tons. That is in the Fleet Return. The majority of vessels built during the War for commerce protection were less than 5,000 tons.
    Lieut- Commander BURNEY: Not for the North Sea.
    Mr. LEES-SMITH: I am talking of the majority, whether for the North Sea or anywhere else. The majority of the vessels were less than 5,000 tons, and for commerce protection we relied on those vessels and on destroyers of less than 1,500 tons. But these great vessels, including stores and fuel, are 12,000 tons, or 10,000 tons without stores and fuel, and they are not required for commerce protection; they are due to the Washington Conference. What has happened has been that the Washington Conference, by laying down a maximum of 10,000 tons, has practically compelled the Great Powers in Competition with each other to make 10,000 tons the normal size for their future construction. Therefore, at the forthcoming Conference, the Government should suggest that the maximum tonnage of cruisers in future should be 5,000. That is quite large enough for any commerce protection.
    Vice-Admiral Sir REGINALD HALL: When the hon. Gentleman says 5,000 tons, what does he include? Does he mean total displacement, including munitions, fuel, and everything?
    Mr. LEES-SMITH: I mean 5,000 tons using tonnage in the sense in which it was used at the Washington Conference.
    Sir R. HALL: The hon. Gentleman has already drawn a distinction, in the present cruiser, between 10,000 and 12,000 tons. Does he mean the same to apply to the future cruisers?
    Mr. LEES-SMITH: I mean the Washington Conference definition, which excludes fuel and stores, so that it would be 5,000 tons in accordance with the definition used for the Fleet Return, but it would in fact be 6,000 tons, including these other displacements to which the hon. and gallant Member refers. The First Lord of the Admiralty, in discussing this subject, has never, I think, dealt with the actual tonnage of cruisers, but has always confined his observations to the number of cruisers and the proportion this country would have as against the United States. We recognise that that is the central difficulty in these negotiations, but the proposal to reduce their tonnage would greatly ease and simplify the whole question of an agreement on their comparative proportions. If all cruisers were reduced to, say, 5,000 tons, they would become a comparatively minor type and the discussion of ratio on all these minor types could be taken together. If you took them altogether, cruisers, destroyers and submarines and discussed them together the fact that the United States has twice as many submarines as we have and twice as many destroyers as we have would make a claim for the special position in regard to cruisers which the right hon. Gentleman has stated, and which appears to me to be the only serious difficulty in the way of all these negotiations. If these proposals were adopted, the 5,000-ton cruiser would be the largest fighting vessel left upon the seas. If that could be secured, the last vestige of the reason would have disappeared for any further continuance of the work at Singapore. The dock was laid down for capital ships. I have heard it also defended in this House as being necessary for the 10,000-ton cruisers, but if both those types become obsolete that dock would then be superfluous and the work could be brought to an end.
    Commander BELLAIRS: I understand the hon. Member's proposal on behalf of the Labour party is, that we
    66
    should scrap all ships over 5,000 tons; that they should all be sunk. Is that so?
    Mr. LEES-SMITH: My proposal on behalf of the Labour party is that the Government should lay down a programme which would mean the disappearance in a reasonable space of time of all ships over 5,000 tons; that you should follow out the Washington Convention principle. It does not necessarily mean that you would sink them all to-morrow. It would mean giving a certain period for the navies of the world to adjust themselves to the new conditions, but it would mean that the time would eventually arrive when we could calculate as a certainty that the 5,000-ton cruiser would be the largest fighting vessel upon the seas, and that the dock at Singapore could be closed.
    There would be another result of this programme. If, say, in the case of Japan, the most powerful vessel which she possessed was a 5,000 ton cruiser, then any menace or threat to Australia would be correspondingly diminished and the whole of the political situation in Australian waters would be transformed. For that reason, again, the adventure at Singapore could be brought to an end. These are our proposals. Every one of them is practicable. Taken together, these proposals would constitute the largest programme of naval disarmament ever yet presented to the world. They involve, perhaps, certain risks, but risks not half as great as the continuance of all this naval rivalry will eventually bring upon us. They are small risks for the sake of incalculable gain. I say in all sincerity that I deeply envy the First Lord of the Admiralty or any man who in the name of this country has the opportunity now, if he grasps his hour, to put forward proposals which would open a new chapter in the history of mankind.
    Mr. RENNIE SMITH: I beg to second the Amendment.
    I can understand the First Lord of the Admiralty adopting the attitude of mind of a man who is responsible for big business and feeling regret every time he sees a little bit of the business cut down; but, on the other hand, in view of the fact that this is the year 1927 and in view also of the very radical disarmament which was carried through in 1919 as a

    67
    prelude to general disarmament, I should have thought it was only reasonable that in the present year he should have been proud as the responsible leader of the Admiralty in being able to announce reductions in the direction indicated by my hon. Friend, and that he should rejoice every time he can announce very considerable reductions. My hon. Friend, in suggesting what the Labour party would do if they had the opportunity this year, sought to emphasise the fact that these proposals are definitely intended to be a part of the scheme for a general disarmament, to be worked out at the Disarmament Conference of the League of Nations. It was one of the most helpful sides of President Coolidge's proposals that, while he did venture to make certain criticisms in regard to the slowness of procedure at Geneva he has shown unusual willingness, sympathy and friendliness towards the work at Geneva, and he has very definitely underlined the fact that whatever may be done in regard to what is known as the Coolidge proposals at Geneva should be done as part of the work of general disarmament with which the League of Nations has been so much occupied in the last three or four years.
    When the First Lord of the Admiralty compares the standard of the British Navy to-day with that of 1914, as he did in his speech last week, and emphasises the amount of relative disarmament that has taken place since 1914, he is not very happy in his choice of standard. He knows better than most men in this House that the 1914 standard was a very inflated standard. It was a standard that had been achieved as the result of 10, 15 and 20 years definite competitive building. Everyone in Great Britain acknowledged that it was an outrageously high standard and we were very unwilling to sustain it, but the existence of the German Navy made that standard inevitable. If the right hon. Gentleman had wanted to get a sound view in regard to the present situation, he would have gone back another 10, 15 or 20 years to make an adequate comparison. Would it not have been better to have taken the year 1895, when the German Navy was in its infancy and when we had no really serious naval competitors and were, therefore, in the position, substantially, in which we are to-day. I think I am right in saying
    68
    that the naval bill for 20 years ago was about £15,000,000. That was about the time when German competition was beginning to make itself felt.
    If the First Lord would take the 1895 standard for his comparisons and set it up as the ideal of a small British Navy we could appreciate his Estimates this year much more scientifically than we can hope to do so long as he is continually reminding us of where we were in 1914. Not a small part of the reductions for which he claims credit have developed directly out of the only voluntary agreement for mutual reduction which has taken place since 1911. Those reductions have arisen directly out of the Washington Naval Conference of 1922-23. I gather from the figures which I have been able to work out, based on the reply which the right hon. Gentleman gave to the hon. Member for Peckham (Mr. Dalton) last year, I think in October, that we have saved somewhere between £60,000,000 and £90,000,000 as a result of that Agreement reached at Washington. I find it extremely difficult to say what the exact figures are. It is almost impossible for a layman to work out on he basis of naval estimates anything like accurate figures. Let us take the lowest figure and say that we have saved £60,000,000. I think the proposition which has been put forward by my hon. Friend this afternoon would result, over a space of five years, in a far greater saving than that which has originated from the conference at Washington.
    I should like to stress further aspects of the Labour programme which has been put forward in relation to naval disarmament. I find it very difficult to understand exactly what is the present day standard of measurement adopted by the First Lord of the Admiralty. I gather that according to the Imperial Conference of last year it is the policy of His Majesty's Government to have a Navy as large as any other navy in the world or, in other words, to have a greater Navy than any other navy in the world except one, and to have always a Navy at least as great as that of the United States. I do not know how he measures that. The United States is appreciably greater than we are in one or two categories and we are much greater than the United States in other categories. I do not know whether the First Lord would say what

    69
    the 50–50 standard really does mean. It seems to me of some importance in any serious discussion of the possibilities of mutual reduction that we should know that.
    I find that the 50–50 standard is very loosely held by the experts and advisers of His Majesty's Government at Geneva. I remember two or three months ago, when the naval experts were discussing before Sub-Commission "A" what could be done by Great Britain in regard to naval matters, they put forward the argument that the present British Navy and the naval policy of the present British Government was very little bound up with the naval policy of any other Government in the world, and that the present British Navy was little more than a police force for the requirements of the British Empire. They put forward the suggestion somewhat on the lines of that which was put forward by an hon. Member opposite last week when we were discussing the Army. He said that the British Army was down to the minimum to-day and that, whatever other countries might do in regard to their armies, we could not hope to reduce the British Army in the future, because it was at bedrock. Even the representative of the League of Nations Union on the other side put forward that argument last week. Very much the same kind of argument has been put forward at Geneva by the Naval advisers of His Majesty's Government. I hope that, when the First Lord comes to reply, he will deprecate breaking away from any kind of a clearly defined standard, giving the impression that in respect of the issue of general disarmament this country has got the smallest Navy it can possibly manage with from the point of view of doing the police work of the Empire. It would be deplorable if that attitude of mind should be emphasised, and the world get the impression that we really cannot see our way, whatever other States may do, to reduce the size of the British Navy. In respect to these two standards, which are both vague, I should like to ask, in relation to the discussions on general disarmament as they affect the Navy, what effect the 1919 standard is going to have on the discussions of this year?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: What do you call the 1919 standard?
    Mr. R. SMITH: I mean the standard that was applied in the case of Germany and subsequently to Austria, Hungary and Bulgaria in respect of the three fighting services. I have always understood that that standard carried with it certain defined obligations to the rest of the member States of the League of Nations, and I want to put forward the consideration that it is very necessary, both in regard to proposals for Naval reductions as well as those bearing on the Army and Air Services; that there should be one standard. I do not see how we can have two standards for disarmament. I have argued that it is indispensable for the future work of the League of Nations, as well as for consistency in these matters, that we should aim at one standard of definition which will apply to all the States likely to be involved in the scheme of disarmament, and this is an argument especially important in regard to naval disarmament. The First Lord knows that Germany was disarmed in respect of her navy in 1919. The actual number of battleships was fixed at six, and the tonnage of a battleship was to be 10,000 tons. The number of light cruisers was reduced to six, with a maximum tonnage of 6,000 tons each. The maximum number of destroyers was fixed at 12, with a maximum tonnage of 800 tons each. The maximum number of torpedo boats was fixed at 12, and the maximum tonnage at 200 tons each. It is quite clear that the British naval experts, who are concerned with the problem of the relative disarmament of Germany in respect of the navy as a first stage towards general disarmament and in order to make general disarmament possible, took the view that submarines were not necessary, and they emphasised the point that there should be a reduction of submarines; a total abolition of the submarine.
    I want to ask the First Lord if he has worked out what relation these proposals bear to the 1919 standard. It is important, because bodies like the League of Nations Union and other bodies are emphasising the point that there must be one common standard, and Germany, Austria, Hungary, and Bulgaria are watching other members of the League of Nations this year from that point of view. I do not want to see the First Lord or his successors embarrassed in

    71
    future years with the re-arming and re-equiping of the German Navy. I do not want Germany to have the right to build submarines again. I do not want Germany to have the unrestricted right to build battleships and cruisers, torpedo boats and destroyers, but I confess that I do not see anything to prevent that result either in law, or in the normal working of the League of Nations, unless the remaining members of the League of Nations are prepared to work out one common standard of disarmament. May I ask the right hon. Gentleman point blank if he is prepared to admit in principle the right of Germany, Austria, Hungary and Bulgaria to claim some new and undefined standard, or can he conceive the continuance of the League with four States on the 1919 standard and the rest of the States on a different standard; whether he can contemplate the continuance of a dual standard of that kind? I press upon him the broad, commonsense point of view, and as one who does not want to see Germany depart from the 1919 standard, as one who wants it to be enforced, as one who wants to see Germany kept where she is, I want to ask him what relation his proposals bear to the 1919 standard?
    In the proposals which we put forward as a party we are departing from the 1919 standard as applied to Germany. We are suggesting the total abolition of the battleship as well as the submarine. That does involve a considerable departure from the 1919 standard. I am perfectly convinced that, if the United States, and Great Britain and Japan, not to mention Italy and France, should agree in principle that, on the basis of mutual agreement, it is possible to do away with the first-class battleship, there will be no difficulty in securing an adjustment in the same direction through the 1919 standard as it applies to Germany. I think in the year 1927 we should have some clear definition from His Majesty's Government as to the standard they are aiming at, whether they are prepared to make their standard general to all the member States of the League, and such other States as may be willing to co-operate, or whether the Government contemplate after this year perpetuating some kind of a dual standard within the organisation of the
    72
    League of Nations itself. The First Lord of the Admiralty has a far better chance than the Secretary of State for Air or the Secretary of State for War in this matter, because the other two Services present far more technical difficulties than the question of reductions in the Navy. No nation can conceal its power with regard to naval matters. If you do away with a battleship you cannot conceal it, you cannot describe them by another name, and if you decide to do away with submarines or destroyers, you cannot conceal them. Although there has been no system of inspection since 1925. I think the agreement at Washington has been very loyally carried out, and this is one of the advantages which the First Lord has in this matter; there is a sense of confidence, arising out of the technical conditions, on any agreement that can be reached.
    Much as I rejoice that it has fallen to the lot of the President of the United States again to take the initiative in this matter, I deplore and regret that Great Britain, which has the oldest Navy and has set the standards now for 200 years, which has taken so large a part in carrying out stage one of general disarmament in 1919, should not have shown greater zeal and earnestness to carry out stage two of that proposition. I ask the Government to tell us what it is that they propose to do with His Majesty's Navy. We are asking for a programme from the Government— which they will be prepared to carry out if other naval Powers will accept the same terms and conditions. I hope the First Lord will pay particular regard to the fact that there is in existence the 1919 standard for naval disarmament, that it is part of the machinery of the League of Nations, and that general disarmament is a contingency of the 1919 standard. He may be perfectly sure that if he can make a clear statement in detailed terms on the lines of the proposal put forward by my hon. Friend he will not only meet with a large response from the people and Government of the United States, and from Japan, but he will make the success of the General Disarmament Conference absolutely certain and guarantee the British offer as laying the foundations, firm and reliable, for general dis-

    73
    armament whereby we can secure not only naval disarmamnt but general disarmament as well.
    Mr. MACPHERSON: Nobody can cavil at the speeches which have just been delivered on account of their tone or temper, whether one agrees with them or not. The hon. Members base their proposals on two grounds, one moral and the other economic. I do not think there is a single Member of this House who would not agree with them on both grounds. Every party, so far as I know, agrees with and supports the general principle of disarmament upon moral grounds, and it gives one furiously to think that the cost of one battleship is equivalent to the cost of one hundred 8,000-ton cargo ships. In the present state of the finances of this country I feel sure that, however belligerent one might be in spirit, we should willingly support any proposal for disarmament, and for economy in that direction if these proposals were at all possible in the present state of the world. As I understand it, the hon. Gentleman who moved the reduction made the contention of the Labour party to be as follows: That no larger ship should be afloat than one of 5,000 tons. We all know, particularly the landsmen, how difficult and complicated it is to deal with tonnage as far as ships are concerned. I will leave that particular part of the subject to naval Members of the House, who know more about it than I do. But the hon. Member made one observation in connection with it, with which I as a landsman disagree. It was one of his main arguments that if we could only get the 5,000-ton cruiser or ship, as the case may be, the last vestige of support for Singapore would have gone. I should have thought that the lower your tonnage the more numerous should your coaling stations be. I am speaking as an ordinary landsman. If the hon. Member is going to make that his principal argument, I am afraid that he must find another before the House will agree to the proposal.
    Everyone welcomes the proposal for a Conference made by President Coolidge. Speaking for my colleagues on the Liberal benches, and I feel sure that I am voicing the sentiments of every Member of the House, we wish that Conference at Geneva every possible success. But this
    74
    country has to be very careful in any step that it takes in connection with the Navy. We are in a position in the world quite unlike the position of any other nation, and I am strongly of the opinion that if disarmament is to come about it must be simultaneous and comparative and it cannot be uni-lateral; that is to say, if disarmament is to take place we feel sure that Great Britain would welcome it, provided that other nations disarmed in the same proportion, without any danger to the safety of our Great Empire. I am certain that the hon. Gentleman who moved the reduction does not contemplate the idea of our supporting in this House uni-lateral disarmament. Does he realise that France and Italy have so far refused to enter into the Conference? Does he realise what that means? We may go on discussing disarmament at conference after conference, but unless we have an agreement among the armed Powers of the world to come in and accept common ground and discuss disarmament from a world point of view, it would be a great mistake on our part to formulate any proposal.
    If France and Italy refused to disarm, what would happen? The Mediterranean will become a mare clausum. What that means to the Empire I leave the House to consider. The Mediterranean is the main artery of our great Empire. I take the view very strongly that we ought to be very careful in the discussion of any proposals which are not discussed unanimously by all the armed Powers of the world. I would ask the hon. Gentleman who moved the reduction what he is going to do if France and Italy do not enter into this Conference. He may say that he is going to do nothing. But it was made clear when the Labour party had the responsibility of office that that was not the view of the party, for they fulfilled their programme, a programme which for its intensity was criticised in many quarters of the House. They know as well as anyone else that no conference proposals can be acceptable in this House or the Empire unless and until all the armed Powers are assembled at that conference, pledged to comparative and simultaneous disarmament.
    I yield to no one, nor does my party yield to any, in the desire to have disarmament. My own view is that moral disarmament should come first of all. I believe that there is a growing feeling

    75
    throughout the world for that moral disarmament, but until all the nations of the world are anxious for that moral disarmament it would be a very dangerous thing for the British Empire to forsake its safety in any unpremeditated way. I do not know what is the attitude of the Government. I hope it is that they will welcome at all times any proposals for disarmament, and that they will go to this conference at Geneva anxious and eager to help on disarmament in every possible way, but I need hardly warn any Government that has the safety of the Empire at heart to remember that it is the Government's duty, so long as conditions are as they are in the world, to maintain the safety of the Empire, to remember that it is far-flung, that it has many possessions all over the world, and that in the last resort our Navy, which has never been flamboyant and never been dangerous to the interests of peace, is necessary for the safety of that Empire.
    Sir HARRY FOSTER: The House must have listened with pleasure to the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken, and who has brought us back to those opinions of responsible leaders which we have had the pleasure of listening to when this Vote was last before us. For my own part, I was completely satisfied, as I suppose most reasonable people were, with the remarks of the First Lord on the subject of the conference which has been so much discussed this afternoon. The First Lord said:
    "We welcome it, provided that we go into that Conference asking other nations to consider our special difficulties in the same way that we shall undoubtedly respect and consider theirs. There are special circumstances with regard to our Navy which are totally different from those of any other country. Our obligation is to maintain a Fleet equal in naval strength to that of any other Power, and provide reasonable security for safeguarding trade and communications."
    My right hon. Friend replied to tine appeal of the right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken, in these words:
    "That is the sacred duty, as I regard it, placed upon the Fleet, and one which we at the Admiralty are proud to endeavour to carry out. I think that any defection from that very moderate policy would never
    76
    be tolerated by the present House of Commons, and that obligation we shall continue to carry out."
    And then my right hon. Friend added, very significantly:
    "Even if this House of Commons were to say that we no longer need be guided by such a formula, I for one should not be able to take the responsibility of occupying the post that I do."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th March, 1927; col. 1683, Vol. 203.]
    This assurance, moderate, specific, and at the same time full of the conviction of the first duty of our Navy, was enough to satisfy me, and I think it will be enough to satisfy the right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken. It completely meets the appeal that has been made, and recognises the special difficulties in which this country and the Empire are placed compared with any other nation in the world. We have heard a lot this afternoon of what, without disrespect, I venture to call platitudes on the question of disarmament. of course, if all the nations interested in navies met, and if a common standard— to use the expression which the Seconder of the Amendment repeated many times— could be agreed upon, and if all the nations would agree to take that common standard, it would be a great blessing and a great saving to every nation, and of course we would do our part. That is but a platitude. As to the general expression of opinions by responsible leaders in this House, the First Lord was followed in our last Debate by the hon. Member for North Camberwell (Mr. Ammon) who had occupied a responsible position in the Labour Government. What did the hon. Gentleman say?
    "I join with the right hon. Gentleman in his statement that under present circumstances it is necessary that our lines of communication, our trade routes and all other things which are necessary should be preserved and maintained."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th March, 1927; col. 1686; Vol. 203.]
    Then a little later the right hon. Member for West Swansea (Mr. Runciman) made a most important and comprehensive and valuable comment of his own:
    "I am always apprehensive of any reduction of British naval strength which is not accompanied by an equivalent reduction in the navies of other Powers, and for that reason I think one is bound, if one has any sympathy at all with the sea spirit and any knowledge of the liabilities under which the Empire labours, to be driven to the conclusion that the only possible hope of a

    77
    reduction in naval expenditure must come by international agreement."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th March, 1927: col. 1705, Vol. 203.]
    HON. MEMBERS: Let us have your own views.
    Sir H. FOSTER: I am reminding the House of the views expressed by responsible leaders of the parties in this House, to show that we have ample guidance and ample agreement amongst them. That is much more important to me than my own views, and I suggest humbly should be more important to the House than any personal views of my own. The right hon. Gentleman emphasised the point which has just been made, that the ultimate decision of France and Italy must be a vital one for us, and that, whatever may be done at Geneva, unless we have the assent of France and Italy and know what they are to do, our first duty is that which is indicated in the old Book which will be for a long time our guide:
    "The strong man armed keepeth his palace."
    5.0 p.m.
    We cannot, without common consent and common disarming action by other Powers, disarm ourselves. I have said so much with regard to the subject which has mainly occupied us to-day. I want to say a few words on other subjects. The Singapore Base has again been referred to to-day, and I want to repeat what was said previously in this House. that the Imperial Conference strongly reaffirmed the value, in their opinion, of proceeding with the Singapore base, and to express the hope that, as the Malay State has made a most generous contribution and also Hong Kong, that other parts of the Empire may see the right and the necessity and the justice of doing something to relieve the mother country under this head. I thank the First Lord of the Admiralty for one announcement which he made which affects my own constituency, the City of Portsmouth. Its creation as a City since our consideration of Navy Estimates last year is a just meed to the historical position of Portsmouth and the great services it has rendered to the country. I want to thank the First Lord also for the improvement which has been made in the submarine base, but I join with others in expressing regret that he has found it necessary to reduce the number of men in the dock-
    78
    yard. I recognise that, if you diminish your shipbuilding and repairs, it must involve a reduction in the number of men employed, but I think the remark made by the hon. Member for North Camber-well (Mr. Ammon) was somewhat cynical under that head. He said, and said quite truly with regard to the dismissal of these men, that it would mean
    "simply a transfer of expenditure from one side of the national account to the other, and, perhaps, will give us a very much worse return in unemployment and all those things which follow."—OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th March, 1927; col. 1685, Vol. 203.]
    I would commend that comment to those in office at the Admiralty. It is a fact that, if you dismiss a number of your hands, men who have been trained for special work, living in a place which is almost entirely occupied in connection with the dockyard industry, the inevitable effect will be to transfer them from the Government Vote to the dole which means unproductive expenditure and the deterioration and demoralisation of the men. That is one of the problems in connection with the reduction of armaments which hon. Gentlemen opposite, I am glad to see, are realising. I hope that, as far as possible, the wind will be tempered to the shorn lamb, and that other work may be provided for those men when they are no longer required in the dockyards. I will not enter into the vexed question of the duty of the Admiralty not to send work to the private dockyards so long as they have men and space available in the Royal dockyards; I know what there is to be said on both sides of that question, but I do commend to the House, as perhaps carrying more weight than the words of a dockyard Member, some words spoken on this question by the hon. Member for Dunfermline (Mr. W. M. Watson). I think he made an extraordinarily good and able reference to the condition of these dockyard men. He said:
    "These dockyard towns have been built up exclusively for Admiralty purposes. Apart from naval activities, there is nothing in these areas. The whole community is dependent upon the work in the dockyards, and I rather sympathise with their representatives in asking that the men should be given as full employment as can possibly be given them. There is no justification for handing out Admiralty work to private yards while the Government has in their own hands the means whereby they

    79
    can meet their own requirements. In the Royal dockyards a great deal more work could be done than has been done up to now. There is no justification for the plea put forward …. that more Admiralty work should be given to private dockyards. So long as the Royal Dockyards are there and capable of doing Admiralty work, the first claim on that work should be for Admiralty workers in the Royal Dockyards."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th March, 1927; cols. 1760–61, Vol. 203.]
    That statement comes with more force from the fact that anything which we, as dockyard Members, may say is largely discounted, and that the hon. Member for Dunfermline is not a dockyard Member.
    Mr. W. ADAMSON: He represents Rosyth.
    Sir H. FOSTER: But Rosyth is no longer a dockyard, and the hon. Gentleman is not in the position of being a dockyard Member. I would like now to refer to the large reduction which has been made in the Navy Estimates in comparison with the year 1914. I do not think the House and the country realise that the amount asked for to-day, as com-pared with 1914, is something like one-third less than the total votes of 1914. If you test it in the only fair way, namely, by comparing the value of the sovereign to-day with what it was in 1914, and if you take the amount that is now being asked for the Navy at £58,000,000, you will find that it is only £34,000,000 when judged by the standard of 1914, while the amount of the Vote in 1914 was £51,000,000. I think that is cutting the meat right down to the bone. Whatever happens in the way of air developments, the Air Force can only be, for many a long year to come, supplementary to the needs of His Majesty's Navy and will not supplant them. At the best, they will but supplement the Navy. They are all in the nature of the experiment, a necessary new arm, but in no way displacing the Navy, upon which we depend for the maintenance of our sea routes and for our supplies of food and raw material. I am comforted by the knowledge that the present Board of Admiralty will not, on any plea, whether of economy or any other, consent to any further reduction which, in their view, would in the slightest degree endanger the safety of our trade loutes.
    Mr. GILLETT: I confess I do not share the equanimity with which the hon. Member who last spoke regards the Navy Estimates. It is very much to be regretted that we have not had any opportunity in this House of having a general discussion on Army, Air and Naval Estimates altogether, so that the House might come to some conclusion as to the amount of money that they think it is well to spend on armaments, and consideration may be given to how the money can be best spent. I am sometimes surprised, in listening to Debates in this House, to hear statements as to the value which the man in the street places upon the Navy. I think I may be taken to represent that individual, and, speaking for myself, my own feeling would be that, if there is any armament in which I took a special interest and in which the man in the street is specially interested it would be the Air Force rather than the Army or the Navy. I believe what people fear to-day are air raids rather than anything that might happen at sea. That is, no doubt, partly due to the fact, which was largely overlooked by the last speaker, that the German Navy went to the bottom of the sea at the end of the last War. Therefore, it seems to me that that makes a very considerable difference to our outlook in regard to the whole problem of the Navy Estimates.
    The point which I want specially to bring before the House is the extravagance which we can see at the Admiralty, and which has been pointed out from the benches opposite even more than from the Opposition Benches— the extravagance of the Admiralty and the way in which the First Lord seems to have got the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his pocket. A Debate took place in another place on national economy, and the representative of the Government there assured those in the other place that a watchful eye would be kept on education, on public health, and on certain other great necessary services; but I do not think it was said that a watchful eye was to be kept on the Navy Estimates. The First Lord, with that guile for which he is so noted, that manner which he has of getting round difficulties. seems to have squared the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who agrees to Estimates which, to my mind, might, even from the financial standpoint bear much closer

    81
    scrutiny. I entirely agree with the Mover of the Amendment when he lays down the position that the first great matter to decide is the question of policy and that the policy to be followed is really what decides finally all your military and naval armaments. The chance of economy is really to be found in policy, and, as far as I can see at the present time, the most hopeful way of securing any large saving in our Navy Estimates is to be found by means of international agreement for disarmament. I was surprised at the speech which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Macpherson), who spoke for the Liberal party, delivered. He asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he might not very carefully consider whether he was really prepared to enter into a disarmament conference in which only three nations were to be represented. In a leading financial paper, the "Economist," there appears a most interesting article this week dealing with the whole question of the Navy Estimates, to which I should like to draw the attention of the House. They point out one or two most important things in connection with the Naval Conference which it is proposed to enter upon. The first thing they point out, as I understand the argument, is that the key stone of future policy in regard to naval armaments lies in this question of the number of cruisers.
    They point out in this article that the number of British cruisers shown in the return dealing with the fleets of the world include a large percentage which are of much later build than the Japanese or American cruisers. They state that, with the cruisers which are built or being built, the British Navy to-day is practically on a two-Power standard in the matter of cruisers. If we take the larger battleships which are governed by the Washington Agreement and consider the question settled so far as they are concerned, then we come to what is the keystone of the cruiser problem. This article suggests that a cessation of the building of cruisers would be justified by the present naval situation. Like the hon. Member who moved the Amendment, I cannot speak with authority on these matters from a technical point of view, but I am informed that the cruisers under construction to-day would be more likely to be
    82
    used in the case of war, in connection with great battleships, than to be used singly for the protection of trade routes. In the last War the cruisers allotted for this purpose were of smaller build than the vessels which are being built at the present time. The argument used by several hon. Members in these Debates has been that the trade routes must be defended. The argument in this article is that the cruiser which we are now building is not of the type which would be used for the defence of trade routes. They argue that it would be quite safe for us to suspend cruiser building for the simple reason that we are in a position to wait.
    The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Macpherson) referred to the position of France and Italy. I would point out to him that the argument which applies to the United States and Japanese fleets in regard to cruisers also applies to the Italian and French Navies. I find on page 18 of this Return a list of cruisers now in use in the French Navy. Some are being built now and some projected, but about eight or ten of the vessels in the list were launched in 1912, 1907, 1902, and so forth. The number of recently launched cruisers in the French Navy is comparatively small. If we take it that this list is up to date, we find the same thing in regard to the Italian cruisers. About eight or ten vessels are mentioned on page 19 in connection with the Italian Navy, and every one of them was launched either in 1915 or before that year. Judged by tin's standard, and in view of the fact that as regards the comparison of great battleships, France and Italy in no way compare with us, we have nothing to fear in regard to the Mediterranean because we should have to stand still for some years before the French or Italian fleets could compete with us in this respect. It seems to me if we are going to have any disarmament worth anything, some nation will have to give a lead. It is no use each nation refusing to give a lead in regard to the one matter which is of supreme importance to that nation. This nation has an exceedingly small Army. It is no use for us to suggest disarmament in regard to military forces. The other Powers would naturally say that the question did not affect us to any great

    83
    extent. But when it comes to the question of naval disarmament, if we take up the attitude of being hardly willing to enter, into a conference unless France and Italy are there, then the other Powers find at once that on the subject which affects ourselves we are unwilling to take a risk or to give a lead.
    Disarmament is of vast importance to this nation and to the whole world, but we shall never get any further if we are not willing to risk something in order to give a lead. It is all the more possible for us to make a move in this direction to-day because, if we look at the present naval position, we find that there are only two great navies in any way competing with us. One is that of the United States, and over and over again we have been told that war between this country and the United States is impossible. On the other hand, if we are to follow up our present cruiser policy, which is looked upon in the United States as a challenge, the United States will build more battleships and enter into a race with us. If it is going to be a race in building, the wealth of America will win. We cannot possibly compete in a race of armaments with the United States. If we put aside the case of the United States, the. only other naval Power with which we are concerned in this argument, is Japan, situated on the other side of the world. Apart from the question of Australia, I suppose it is exceedingly unlikely that we shall have any difference with Japan and even if we had, war between the two to countries is almost impossible because of the vast distances which divide them. I was interested in the figures which were brought before the House by the hon. and gallant Member for Maidstone (Commander Bellairs) in a previous Debate, in which he showed that the oil supply of the world is practically in the control of the United States and this country. He pointed out that Japan would be limited to six months' oil supplies for carrying on naval warfare unless she had the support of the United States or of this country.
    As there are only three great Powers affected by the question of naval disarmament, I suggest that an arrangement is possible and the Government ought not to enter this Conference with a greater hope of doing something and with
    84
    a greater willingness to take some risk and make some definite proposition than has been shown by some of the speakers in this House. If this country is unwilling to act, it seems to me that the chance of the Conference doing anything of real importance is exceedingly small and once again the peoples of the world will be disappointed. We must make a move, and these Naval Estimates provide the opportunity. I have not great confidence in the First Lord's enthusiasm for disarmament. I feel that his Estimates need a much closer investigation than this House has given them. The right hon. Gentleman informed us with great satisfaction that the Estimates showed a reduction of £100,000. He also showed —I was going to say with a kind of simplicity—that this year he was taking £900,000 worth from stores, whereas last year he only took £700,000 worth from stores. So he saves £100,000 on the Estimate but takes £200,000 worth more from stores, and therefore the total expenditure on the Navy, instead of being £100,000 less is £100,000 more. No business could exist on the financial principle of looking upon a transaction of that kind as a saving. If you went on taking something from your stores to a greater amount every year, the business would ultimately come to bankruptcy. As the financial advisers of the First Lord must have pointed out to him, there is no saving whatever.
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN indicated dissent.
    Mr. GILLETT: I am taking the First Lord's own statement. We are not told exactly what these stores are. They are always a mystery in the Army, the Navy and the Air Force alike; and all the right hon. Gentleman told us definitely was that last year he took £700,000 worth and that this year he is taking £900,000 worth. I, therefore, assume that he is taking £200,000 worth more, and instead of a saving of £100,000, that seems to represent an additional expenditure of £100,000. What the First Lord has not told us is how much he has purchased in the way of stores. I view these Estimates with dissatisfaction in several respects. We had soma figures in the last Debate showing the increasing Admiralty staff. The First Lord gave a statement to the House a year or two ago I know, but some further explanation is required of the fact that there has been an in-

    85
    crease in staff of something like 1,000 and a reduction of about one-third in the fighting force as compared with pre-War days. The number of men is 100,000 compared without about 144,000, and it is difficult to know why the Admiralty require 1,000 more staff for a force of 100,000 men than they did for a force of 144,000 men. The statement which we had from the First Lord, and which I read last night, leaves me unconvinced. This particular item seems to me typical of the Naval Estimates. I should also like to know why the number of officers of the highest paid class is increasing. We have something like 400 ships as against 500 before the War—we have a smaller Navy and a smaller number of men—but we have a larger Admiralty staff and a larger number of highly-paid officers.
    These are things on which the House is entitled to have more information. Why does the staff continue to grow? The First Lord says he has had to provide more staff because there is more clerical work. One thing he said was that the letters are typewritten instead of being written by hand, and, as far as I can gather, he used that as an argument in favour of a bigger staff. I could not follow it, because I should have thought it was a saving of time to have typewriters, but that is the sort of argument that is used and that seems to satisfy the First Lord. When we make any criticism upon the whole policy, which certainly I do, in regard to the vast expenditure for the construction and management of the Navy to-day, an hon. Member below the Gangway reads out a statement to the effect that the First Sea Lord would be unable to continue in his position. I am afraid that that statement left these benches cold. We have seen so many changes in the world in the last 10 years that we could possibly even survive the passing of the First Sea Lord.
    I think this House is justified in having a fuller explanation from the First Lord in regard to his policy on the larger questions that my hon. Friend has brought up, and I hope that before the Debate comes to an end we may have fuller information about some of these financial questions that are raised, I would remind him, more from the right hon. Gentleman's own benches than from ours. I very much nope the Navy
    86
    will not think, simply because they have squared the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that they have squared all the other financial interests of this country or that the country to-day takes first interest in the Navy. I believe myself that the Air Force would probably command far more popular support to-day than the Navy, but the really interesting thing, the thing that we need most of all, is disarmament. That is the only hope of any lasting solution of the military problems, of the world, and if we can have some, undertaking from the First Lord that he is really determined to do something in that matter, I think we should feel grateful to him. As it is, I feel myself, with these Estimates, that there is nothing to be grateful for, in view of the extravagance of them and of the way in which the right hon. Gentleman goes on spending money on the Navy which is so badly needed to be spent on social reform.
    Commander FANSHAWE: The hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. Gilleft), who has just sat down, said that the general public of this country view the Air Force with more favour than the Royal Navy. It may be that to be bombed is a very painful experience, but it is also a very painful experience to be slowly starved to death, and surely the hon. Gentleman can look back to our experiences in the late War, when we very nearly starved to death on more than one occasion. I understand that the proposition, roughly, before the House to-day is that we should abolish our battleships and submarines and reduce our cruisers to those with a displacement of 5,000 tons, and not of 10,000 tons, as they have at the present time. I think we are indebted to the right hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Macpherson) for enlightening the House on this subject. He told us that we cannot sacrifice our battleships or our submarines unless we can be perfectly sure that France and Italy, who have refused to go to Washington with us, will do likewise, but there is one thing that the right hon. Gentleman left out. We have Russia, certainly, with a few of these two classes of vessels, but if they, who are much further outside the sphere of Washington than France and Italy, are left even with a few of these vessels, our danger will be very great. There fore, with respect to the right hon.

    87
    Gentleman, I would suggest that we should add Russia to the countries of France and Italy mentioned by him.
    The hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Lees-Smith), who moved the Amendment, asked the House why the United States takes the lead in this respect, and why we do not take the lead. I think the answer to that is very clear, and must be very clear to everybody. To the United States of America a fleet is nothing more than a luxury, for they are the only big country in the world that is entirely self-contained, and,, of course, they can call the other countries of the world, particularly ourselves, to Washington and put forward proposals for doing away with this luxury that they possess. The hon. Member thought the First Lord, with his programme spread over some years, was a danger, because it was starting a new race for naval armaments, and that the United States of America,, because of the right hon. Gentleman's programme, were at once going to build 10 more cruisers. But are they? Has that been passed into law? I believe there are some people in this country who do not think that that proposition for 10 more cruisers for the United States will ever become law at all, and I believe that our programme, spread over a good many years, will ensure peace and not start a race of naval armaments. The United States of America and other countries know very well that if the First Lord came down to this House at any time and said he wished for an increase in that programme, he would find it very difficult to get such a proposal assented to by this House. Therefore, I believe that this extended programme works for peace and not for war.
    Again, the hon. Member for Keighley said that if we could have 5,000-ton cruisers,, the threat from Japan to Australia would become less. But how could that come about? The Japanese would have the same sort of ships at sea, and of the same size, as ourselves. We should both have 5,000-ton ships, as we both now are entitled to have 10,000-ton ships. What difference would it make? The Japanese cruisers would be able to escort the troop transports from Japan, and both our forces at sea would become
    88
    weaker, but the landing forces of the Japanese would be in no way diminished, while our sea force would be diminished vis à vis the Japanese attacking sea force, because our 5,000-ton ships could not get so far afield to seek out and destroy the enemy before they reached the neighbourhood of Australia. Therefore, in point of fact, I believe that the 5,000-ton proposition would be a danger to the safety of Australia from invasion. The last point I take from the speech of the hon. Member for Keighley is that he said that cruisers built before the War were of less than 5,000 tons and were considered the right sort of craft to employ on our trade routes. At the time we were beginning to build cruisers during the War in great numbers, the trade routes that we had any concern in guarding were those of approach to this country and the trade routes in the Mediterranean; in other words, the trade routes on which the German submarines could act. We had swept every German surface craft off the face of the waters—the "Emden," the "Konigsberg," and all the others— which meant that we were engaged in a most peculiar war, and certainly our smaller, light cruisers and our destroyers were the most suitable craft to employ. They could turn more quickly and get their speed more quickly, and so on.
    I pass now to the general question of cruisers. I believe that, as regards batleships and submarines, we should simply leave that bargaining power in the. hands of our naval experts going to Washington, with the inclusion of Russia, if we may have it so. It may be said in this House this afternoon—and I can only reaffirm it—that we are in the most peculiar position of any nation in the world. Take our eastern trade coming to this country. First of all, in the Indian Ocean it has to be convoyed by ships big enough to keep the sea for as long a time as the big merchant ships bringing our supplies, and if we had the 5,000-ton cruisers, those ships would not be able to keep the sea for so long between port and port as our great merchant ships can. Not only so, but the speed of our merchant ships is being; increased, and the speed of our 5,000-ton cruisers would not be able to be maintained in the same way as the speed of our 10,000-ton ships can be maintained. One of the chief causes of

    89
    weakness in some of our earlier destroyers in the late war was that they carried insufficient supplies of fuel oil, and we should find, in the same way, in escorting our convoys across the Indian Ocean, that our 5,000-ton ships would have to go into port to get oil, and so delay would occur, or we should have to have some ships so that they could come out from some relieving port and take over the duties of convoy, as we did also in the late war.
    We also have in the Indian Ocean the question of the monsoon, with a heavy sea, with which the 5,000-ton ship cannot compete if she is going to use a high rate of speed, to get to windward quickly, to get from one point to another quickly, and be able to fight her guns successfully. Another point that occurs to me is that in the Tropics at sea, if the 5,000-ton ship were closely battened down, the comfort of the crew would be jeopardised to a great extent. We. have also to consider the question of piracy. Only the other day there was an extremely bad case of piracy in the China Sea, and it would be far better to have a ship that is able to go to sea in any weather, as a high speed is essential for releasing a ship from the grasp of the pirates. In these great open spaces of the China Sea and the Indian Ocean, the 10,000-ton ship is a better vessel for doing the work than a 5,000-ton ship could possibly be, and I say that in these Eastern waters we are fully justified in maintaining the bigger displacement. To come to the question of the Mediterranean, which is the next place that we have to pass through, closely under the shores of possible naval rivals, there is no doubt that there it might be possible to employ the 5,000-ton ship or smaller ships. May I draw the attention of the hon. Gentleman to this fact that the First Lord, by his proposals, is not only building the bigger 10,000-ton ship, but also a smaller class of ship, and the smaller class, no doubt, could operate in the closed waters of the Mediterranean.
    The hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Rennie Smith), who seconded the Amendment, made two rather peculiar remarks. He first of all, referring to the work of the League of Nations on disarmament, said that such a country as Austria was looking to the League for disarmament. Presumably, as we are dealing with the
    90
    Navy Estimates, he meant naval disarmament, but the Austrians have no interest at present in a Navy at all, because they have no sea port of any sort, and that at once brings us to the whole difficulty of naval disarmament carried out at Geneva. At Geneva we have such countries as Austria, Switzerland, and other inland countries having exactly the same vote on the question of naval armaments as this country, for whom an efficient and a sufficient Fleet is absolutely vital, and this question of naval disarmament is far better raised and ventilated at Washington, away from the influence of people who have no concern in it whatever. The hon. Gentleman who seconded also talked a good deal about some 1919 standard, and I believe he was referring the whole time to the Naval Clauses of the Treaty of Versailles, which imposed a certain naval strength upon Germany. It is only imposed upon Germany for the reason that when the Germans built up their army for attacking France they also built up a tremendous navy simply for the sake of attacking this country. That is the only reason. It is not the 1919 standard. It is merely the naval terms in the Treaty of Versailles imposed upon Germany for the sake of keeping the peace of the world.
    Finally, I appeal for the cruiser policy to be gone on with, to be kept open, and I ask that no sort of internal policy of the United States of America should influence us in any way in jeopardising our sea-power, in putting our fighting men into ships which they cannot properly operate in hot climates and heavy seas, and in jeopardising the lives and the safety of that very fine body of men, the Mercantile Marine, who, after all, have got to bring the stuff we eat and on which we live. Do not let us jeopardise the lives of those men whom we who have served in the Royal Navy admire wholeheartedly for their action during the late War.
    Lieut.-Commander BURNEY: I think that the present state of this House is a very good indication of the general public opinion of the academic nature of this Amendment. It is quite true that the right hon. Gentleman who spoke from the Liberal Benches said that no one could have any quarrel with the tone or temper of the speeches, but I do suggest to the House that the proposal which

    91
    has been made by the Opposition cannot be regarded as a practical one. There was a strange dissimilarity between the contention of the Mover and the contention of the Seconder. The hon. Member who moved the Amendment only wanted the First Lord of the Admiralty to make proposals at Geneva upon the basis that any proposal would be carried out by this country if it were a simultaneous arrangement with other nations, but the Seconder suggested that it should be a unilateral gesture upon our part, and he stated that he would deplore the fact if the First Lord were not prepared to make this reduction, although no such reduction was made by other countries.
    There are, I think, three proposals to discuss—the question of the submarines, the question of the battleships, and the question of the cruisers. My hon. and gallant Friend has covered a very great deal of the ground, and, therefore, there is no point in my restating it. There is only one point with which I would like to deal in regard to the cruisers, and that is that if we have the 5,000 ton cruisers, I think the ultimate amount we should have to spend on cruisers would be a great deal more, and not less than if we adopted the 10,000 ton cruisers. The reason is this, that with the great extent of the routes we have to safeguard, the cruisers might have to go 1,000, 1,500 or 2,000 miles to take up their stations, and if they have such a very small amount of fuel capacity, they can only remain upon their stations for comparatively few days, with the result that we should require many more cruisers to maintain our patrol than if we had cruisers of greater capacity, which could remain at their stations very much longer. Is it really the function of the House of Commons to suggest technical details of this character? If we are agreed upon a general and simultaneous disarmament, surely that is as far as the politician or the statesman ought to go, and I think it is a very dangerous practice for an Opposition to bind itself upon technical details, which, surely, should be left to the consideration of the technical experts who advise the Government of the day, and I, for one, would deprecate the suggestion with regard to limiting the displacement of cruisers to 5,000 tons.
    When we come to battleships, the matter is on an altogether different scale.
    92
    If we do away with battleships, we have got to face the result, and the result, I venture to suggest, would be that we should then have to maintain an Army on the Continental scale. If we are going to maintain the superiority we have maintained for the last 300 years as a naval power we must carry out those very necessary technical arrangements in regard to the type of ship, composition of our Fleet and the other technical details of our naval forces which will allow us to maintain our naval power; but if we are going to give up the idea of being a naval power, and are merely going to maintain police cruisers, then the whole status of this country, as far as its position in the world is concerned, will be altered, and I suggest that the only result could be that we should have to maintain an Army upon a Continental scale, because in that case the decision of any war would have to be arrived at by military means, and not, as it could to-day, by naval means.
    If I may make that a little clearer, I think the reason is that as long as this country depends entirely upon merchandise and foodstuffs carried on our merchant routes, we are in the position of being absolutely defeated in this country not by invasion, not by bombing from the air, but merely by the interruption of our food supplies. At the same time, the reverse of that, namely, the interruption of the enemy supplies, gives to us the main weapon which we have—the weapon which brought Napoleon down. Therefore, if we are going to consider the giving up of our naval superiority, I venture to think we shall have to reach any decision in war by military means. But I do not think we can really arrive at any real evaluation as to the number of vessels we are to keep until we settle the functions which those vessels should carry out in time of war. Let me give an example. Suppose, for instance, it was agreed by all nations that the neutral flag should cover not only non-contraband, but also contraband goods, so that there was no such thing as contraband at all. The result would be that in the event of two nations going to war, they could either sell or transfer their mercantile marine to neutrals, and the whole trade would run just as if there were no war. In consequence, any action between two enemy battle fleets would have about as

    93
    much effect upon the result of a war as Roman gladiators would have in the arena. The whole object of naval power is to preserve the running of our own merchandise and stopping and securing for our own purpose that of the enemy.
    That brings me to this point. Until we know what is the policy of the Government in regard to this whole question of dealing with merchandise during war, it is very difficult to criticise proposals as to the strength of the British fleet and as to the type and number of vessels which are required. The present position of affairs is this: During the Napoleonic wars we were able with the British fleet to deal with all enemy merchandise of any kind, and during the long intervals between the Napoleonic wars and the Great War we entered into various international agreements which effectively destroyed the offensive power of the British Navy toy relegating more and more commodities to what was termed the Contraband List, and one of the main difficulties with which we had to contend in the late War was, first, the Declaration of Paris, and then the Clauses of the Declaration of London. During the War it was found, as hon. Members know, quite impossible to carry out the Clauses of the Declaration of London. The Foreign Office endeavoured to get over that by continually adding different classes of goods to this list of contraband, the details of which were given out in various Orders-in-Council. The result was that America was irritated and the whole of our war policy was altered, due to pressure put upon us by virtue of the fact that many people in this country thought that America might come into the War against us. Because of that, we allowed Germany to be supplied with many of those commodities which not only kept the War going for two years more than it need have lasted, hut probably sacrificed half a million British lives. We have had no statement from the Government from that day to this. If we are, as a result of the experience of the War, coming back to this basis, that we can deal with enemy merchandise and stop the running of enemy merchandise, we can exert our offensive power at sea. If that be so, there is no need for this country ever to contemplate the maintenance of an army
    94
    upon the Continental scale, but our sea power necessarily depends upon the battleship.
    6.0 p.m.
    Therefore, I put this point to the hon. Member who moved the Amendment. If it be suggested that the battleship could be done away with, we have got to think well and deeply before we allow that to be done, because the result must be that we have thrown overboard the whole experience of the last 300 years, and this country, instead of depending for its strength, for its security upon the sea, becomes a part of a great Continental organisation. So far it has been found that no country has been able to support the economic burden of a great navy, and at the same time an army upon the Continental scale. I venture to suggest that it was that great strain brought upon Germany by trying to build and equip a fleet to contest the mastery of the sea with us which was largely responsible for bringing about the War. The economic pressure put upon the German people made them feel, "Well, let us get it over." That economic pressure was caused through trying to maintain a great navy as well as a great army. I think this Amendment is one of the most mischievious which has been moved for some time. It is a very specious argument to suggest that if we are to have battleships of any kind we should agree all round to reduce them to 5,000 tons. The development of underwater attack has made the 5,000-tons ship very much more vulnerable than the great battleship, and it is only when we build vessels of 35,000 tons that we are able to produce something which can withstand under-water attack, aircraft attack, bomb attack, and so forth. To agree to a proposal like this would be to base our naval power upon a highly vulnerable vessel, our whole naval power would be jeopardised, and if that were done we should have no other course than to maintain an army upon the Continental scale. For all these reasons I hope the party opposite will withdraw their Amendment.
    Mr. MORGAN JONES: The hon. And gallant Gentleman who has just sat down implied that this discussion was of somewhat academic interest only. I would assure him that it is not our desire to

    95
    raise merely an academic Debate, but rather to draw attention to a matter which to us is one of supreme and first-rate importance. Although the attendance in the House would seem to indicate a comparatively small degree of interest, we submit that doe6 not reflect the interest felt in the country at large. People outside have long come to the conclusion that some initiative should be taken towards general disarmament among the nations of the world. It is, however, somewhat of a tragedy that this discussion has not generated more interest in the House. We are now nine years away from the late War. I am stating nothing new when I remind the House that during that War we were repeatedly assured that one of its objects was to end all war. The speeches we have heard from hon. Members opposite would lead one to believe that the late War has been forgotten, that its lessons have been entirely overlooked, and that all we have to do now is to get ready for the next war.
    We have the authority of a very distinguished politician, no less an authority than Viscount Grey, for the proposition that our modem wars have arisen very largely, if not entirely, from too great energy in the building up of armaments on every side. That is a proposition capable of proof. So far from armaments having safeguarded peace in the past, they have very largely prepared the minds of nations for future wars. Germany was one of the most powerfully-armed nations in pre-1914 days, but no one will argue that the provision of those vast armaments secured immunity from war for Germany nor, indeed, did it secure immunity for other nations. The preparations generated suspicions and rivalries, and ultimately we were landed in the catastrophe of 1914. Having that fact in mind, we are entitled to say we are extremely disappointed with the Estimates presented by the First Lord. It is obvious from them that we are pre pared, and are preparing, to take our share once again in a new race of armaments. There can be no end to these preparations except another eruption in some part of the world.
    I have some sympathy with hon. Members opposite, because they are in an obvious difficulty this afternoon. Their
    96
    predecessors in the Conservative party in 1910, 1912 and 1913 had some show of reason on their side. They could point to Germany, but to whom do hon. Members opposite point to-day? Is it Japan? Is it America? Is it France? Is it Italy? Will they tell us who it is precisely against whom we are called upon to prepare these huge agglomerations of force? Surely it is not a rational proposal to ask us to spend our wealth in this ridiculous fashion unless we know that somebody is challenging our position.
    Accepting for the moment, and for the sake of argument only, that a retaliation in this form is required, let us consider one or two of the countries to which I have just referred. There is America. The hon. and gallant Member for Uxbridge (Lieut.-Commander Burney) did not take up the point, made by the hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. Gillett), but is it an extravagant proposition to say that we are going to invite rivalry in naval armaments from America? Does the hon. and gallant Gentleman suggest that we can hope to keep pace with an enormously wealthy country like that? We are burdened with an intolerable debt. Our expenditure on armaments of every sort accounts for between 14s. and 15s. out of every pound of taxation. If we are called on to embark on rivalry with America, it is obvious that we must ultimately lose.
    I presume, therefore, I am right in saying it is not America that we are challenging. Is it Japan? I am not quite sure that Japan is not at times in the minds of hon. Members opposite, because if it be not Japan I cannot understand why we have embarked upon the, to me, somewhat stupid proposal of fortifying Singapore. The mere fact that we have established the Singapore base has been accepted by certain people in Japan as a challenge to Japan on our part.
    Brigadier-General Sir HENRY CROFT: May I ask if the hon. Gentleman has included in his calculations Russia, which has the largest number of armed men in the world?
    Mr. JONES: My hon. and gallant Friend perhaps has better information about Russia than I have, but I have no idea that Russia is possessed of an enormous fleet, and so I presume it is not against Russia that we are building.

    97
    There are three aspects from which we can judge these questions. There is, first, the method propounded from this side of the House in an unofficial way last Thursday. That is what one might call a purely pacifist point of view. Whatever our views of that method may be, and I am pretty generally in sympathy with it, it is obvious, judging by the vote last week, that it does not command very general support in the House itself. I presume, therefore, we must leave that method on one side for the present. At the other extremity is the old policy which I take it is embodied in these Estimates,, the old pre-War policy of arm, whether there is an enemy in sight or not, spend upon your Army, spend upon your Navy, spend upon your Air Force, but, for Heaven's sake, spend. That is the old policy, which takes no account of the very significant fact that the Foreign Secretary is engaged, and has recently been engaged at Geneva, in trying to develop a policy of pacific relationships between ourselves and other countries. How can the First Lord of the Admiralty defend these Estimates this afternoon from the standpoint of one who is in the same Cabinet as the Foreign Secretary working so extremely hard for peace. Surely, the Foreign Secretary would not feel particularly grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for these somewhat primitive efforts to demonstrate his love of peace. The other alternative is that suggested in the Motion before us. The hon. and gallant Gentleman twitted my hon. Friend who opened the discussion with a suggestion which he did not make, that we were anxious to reduce our armaments to a certain level, but the Motion which he spoke to and the ideas he attempted to propound were based upon this Motion.
    "That this House …. is of opinion that national security and therefore international peace can only be assured by international agreement for a substantial all round reduction in naval armaments, including the abolition of capital ships and submarines and the reduction of the maximum tonnage of cruisers to that necessary for police purposes, and accordingly urges His Majesty's Government to initiate without delay proposals to this end."
    This afternoon we are taking the line that an approach towards general disarmament among the nations of the world is a more hopeful line for our country to adopt.
    Lieut.-Commander BURNEY: What I said was that although the Mover suggested that we should get simultaneous disarmament by agreement, the Seconder proposed that we should undertake disarmament without its being simultaneous on the part of other nations.
    Mr. JONES: I know the Seconder pretty well, and I am also acquainted with his views, and I do not gather that from his remarks. We do not desire this afternoon to propound ideas which require this country to do anything that other countries are unwilling to do as well, but we are anxious that the initiative shall be taken by our own Government in respect of our own naval force in the direction of securing naval disarmament. Fortunately for us President Coolidge has put forward an invitation to the nations of Europe, and for my part I rejoice exceedingly that this proposal has come from President Coolidge. I am extremely glad that a favourable gesture has been made in return by our own Government, though of course it is a qualified gesture after all. It is qualified to the degree that it is dependent very largely upon what the French and the Italians may do ultimately.
    I think that the way in which we accept these proposals from America is fraught with great consequences to our country. I was in conversation with an American some days ago, and I asked why it was, in his opinion, that the American people were so touchy upon the question of the League of Nations and the familiar question of the debts. His reply to me was quite apposite to the discussion we are having to-day. He said that the American people will remain-strongly antagonistic to associating with the League of Nations or with the Geneva Convention, nor will they be favourable to a consideration of our debt to America, until the people of Europe have shown a greater readiness to consider the question of disarmament in Europe. The Americans feel that if we do not disclose a real desire to get rid of this constant arming and arming year after year, they would not be entitled, nor would it be just to their own people, to remit our debts. The American nation will not attach themselves to the League of Nations so long as the people of Europe show the old pre-War mentality instead of a post-War peace mentality.

    99
    When I was in America about 18 months ago I found a considerable measure of support for that point of view. If we are going to get the American people with us in the direction of co-operation inside the League of Nations, we must persuade them by actual practice that we are really prepared to tackle the question of disarmament in a generous kind of way. There is another argument in favour of the taking up of this question in a prompt and generous spirit. While we are spending somewhere between 14s. and 15s. out of every pound of taxation we collect on armaments—[HON. MEMBERS: "No, no!"] That is so. I assert that we are spending 14s. or 15s. out of every pound of taxation upon either past or present expenditure upon armaments. Our National Debt is what it is to-day because of our immense expenditure upon armaments in pre-War days and during the recent War.
    Sir H. CROFT: Does the hon. Member advocate repudiating the National Debt?
    Mr. JONES: I am not advocating anything so stupid. I simply say that the debt is so much, and, while we are spending between 14s. and 15s. of every pound we raise in taxation upon this form of activity,, there is only 5s. or 6s. left out of every pound for the purpose of social reconstruction. It cannot be denied that a considerable measure of our social discontent is due to the fact that so little of our national resources is spent in a useful direction. I see the Minister of Health on the Bench opposite, and I am sure he will agree with me when I say that if he had more money at his disposal he would be able to embark upon an innumerable and endless list of social reforms which are necessary; but, while the right hon. Gentleman keeps asking for money for these purposes, the First Lord of the Admiralty is able to get it, and the Ministry of Health is starved for lack of resources.
    There is another point which is worth keeping in mind in connection with this discussion, and I think I discerned it in the speech of the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Sterling and Clackmannan (Commander Fanshawe), who seemed to indicate or betray a desire that the Washington meeting should be
    100
    pushed forward so that in some way the Geneva Convention might be put into the background. I have heard that suggestion put forward before, and we must approach this question with some care, because I regard it as fraught with the greatest danger in regard to our relationship with other countries. Here we have been for some years co-operating with European nations within the aegis of the League of Nations. I understand that there is a desire among certain military and naval authorities to push forward the Washington proposal so that the Geneva proposal may pass into the limbo of forgotten things. We must not allow this American proposal to blind us to the great importance of keeping touch with European nations in our march towards disarmament.
    On one of the Committees dealing with this question, there are a number of eminent naval and military advisers belonging to the various nations of the world, and they have presented a unanimous report, in which they suggest that the limitation of armaments is not a discussion entirely in the air, but it is, in fact, a practical proposal. If that be so, I trust, if we are to go into a discussion with the American authorities, we shall not use this as an excuse for cutting out any proposal that may be forthcoming in connection with the League of Nations. The hon. and gallant Member opposite pleaded—I suppose from his point of view quite rightly—that we must preserve a certain amount of naval power in order to protect our trade routes. From a naval man I should expect that argument, but surely we may secure a certain measure of protection by agreement among the nations of the world. Our trade routes would not be jeopardised in consequence, but would be made all the more secure, since the armaments of all nations would be reduced pro rata.
    The main point I want to put is that it really will not do for the Government, from the mouth of one of its spokesmen, to be continually reiterating the word "peace" when other Members of the Government are obviously preparing for war. We have heard repeatedly speeches from supporters of the Government which have visualised the next war. If hon. Members opposite have faith in the

    101
    policy of the Foreign Secretary, then why not disclose their faith in the success of that policy by agreeing to the proposal we are making this afternoon, namely, that Britain, the leader among the nations of the world, shall not follow other nations, but shall take her place in the forefront among those nations who are anxious to secure a naval holiday for the future. There was a time a few years before the late War when a naval holiday proposal was made. It did not prove successful at that time, but the old rival of our Navy is now at the bottom of the sea, and Germany who was invited to join with us in a naval holiday in pre-war days has by compulsion been disarmed, and the Treaty which involved Germany in that disarmament specifically declared, and the pledge was given to Germany at the Peace Conference by M. Clemenceau, that the disarmament of Germany was only a preliminary to the disarmament of other countries in due time. We ask this afternoon that we may have a statement from the First Lord of the Admiralty which will encourage us in the belief that that pledge is going to be honoured, and that this country is willing to take her place with other nations who are pledged to disarmament.
    Commander BELLAIRS: I do not know why the hon. Member who has just spoken should insinuate that there is a suspicious motive behind the policy of the Government with regard to the reduction of armaments, and I do not see why he has put forward the view that the Government desire to side-track Geneva by adopting the proposal of President Coolidge.
    Mr. JONES: I certainly do not attribute any charge of that kind to President Coolidge, but I understand that there are people in this country who desire to push forward the Coolidge proposal with the ultimate object of sidetracking Geneva.
    Commander BELLAIRS: I think that that is a baseless charge to make against anyone in this country. The only person who is responsible for these proposals is President Coolidge himself, and gave very good reasons for doubting the success of the League of Nations' effort. It is his strong desire to bring about a mutual reduction of naval armaments that
    102
    has caused him to ask the principal naval Powers to meet together. There was another suggestion—and it is a favourite trick on the part of the Socialist Opposition for the purpose of sowing suspicion —that was attempted to be put forward by every one of their four Socialist speakers this afternoon, and that was that we were in some way building against the United States. It is perfectly obvious that the United States do not build against us, and that we do not build against the United States, but we fixed at Washington a scale of 5-5-3, both the United States and ourselves possessing a five to three superiority over Japan in regard to battleships and aircraft carriers. It is obvious that we do not build against the United States, because, before the Washington Conference, the United States were building 14 super-Dreadnoughts, and we made no attempt whatever to put down any. The United States at this moment has a far greater force of submarines and destroyers, and yet no one calls attention to it in this House, or bothers about it at all, because, as I think was said by one of the hon. Members themselves, the idea of war between the United States and this country is a thing that no one thinks possible.
    The hon. Members, the Seconder of the Amendment especially, accused the Government of lack of zeal in trying to bring about disarmament, but I do not know of any nation that has tried more than this country to bring about disarmament. As I pointed out in the Debate on the Motion for going into Committee of Supply, for six years we abstained from laying down any ships at all, and I challenge anyone to mention any other naval Power that has abstained in the same way. What is still more to the point is that, after the Washington Conference, we did not wait until all the five nations had ratified the Treaty. All the other four nations waited for ratification by France some years later, but we scrapped 19 capital ships straight away without waiting. That shows that this country is as keen as any country on bringing about disarmament. I am glad that, instead of the Resolutions moved last year from the Front Opposition Bench for doing away with the entire Navy, and this year for doing away with the entire Air Force, we have now an acknowledgment from the Front Opposition Bench that at any rate

    103
    the official policy of the party is relative disarmament, that the nations should disarm together. But the case is not very hopeful in regard to relative disarmament. We had a Conference at Rome of all the small Powers to try to bring about relative disarmament, and that failed; and the invitation of President Coolidge has been refused by France and Italy. I am also glad that, in addition to being in favour of relative disarmament, the party opposite recognise that the Navy is far more vital to us—I think the speeches of the Mover and Seconder of the Amendment recognised that—than in the case of any other Power. They recognise that the whole living of the working classes of this country depends upon the defence that the Navy can afford to our commerce. That is a useful admission.
    Now I come to their practical proposals. There is no party in this House that disputes the benefit that will come to the world if we can bring about mutual disarmament. Therefore, with the early part of the hon. Meniber's proposal everyone agrees. But the Socialist party —whether in the hope that some part of the programme may be carried out, and they will be able to say, "We told you so," I do not know—have laid down their practical solutions, one of which they call "the abolition of the battleship." So long, however, as you have fighting ships at all, you cannot abolish the battleship. You might abolish the present type of battleship, but the next smaller ship would immediately become the battleship. There is a point that hon. Members opposite lose sight of. I could wish that President Coolidge had summoned a conference to deal both with naval and with air armaments, because the two are very closely related; you cannot really consider the one without the other. Supposing that the 5,000-ton ship becomes the battleship, it then becomes a mere toss-up whether air power cannot sink that 5,000-ton ship. She is vulnerable to a torpedo, she is vulnerable to bombs, she cannot carry the weight of armoured decks and anti-aircraft guns. Therefore, the proposal of hon. Members opposite is to place at hazard the whole naval power of this country. There is no doubt that the present battleship can defeat aircraft; she can defeat the bomb and the torpedo,
    104
    and can carry an equipment of anti-aircraft guns which will keep aircraft at a safe distance, with a fleet assisted by defence planes.
    Rear-Admiral SUETER: May I ask my hon. and gallant Friend one question?
    Commander BELLAIRS: My hon. and gallant Friend is always interrupting on that point, but he has never taken the trouble to study the American Reports.
    Rear-Admiral SUETER: Does my hon. and gallant Friend say that the battleship can defeat the Whitehead torpedo launched from aircraft?
    Commander BELLAIRS: After repeated bombing and torpedoing, extending over a period of time, ships have been sunk, but they have been ships without any defence in the form of anti-aircraft guns, and without up-to-date arrangements for making them unsinkable.
    Rear-Admiral SUETER: I asked a simple question.
    Commander BELLAIRS: All the war staffs of the principal navies agree that the battleship remains supreme. Whatever happens, if you do away with the existing type of battleship, it simply means that the smaller type of fighting ship will become the battleship. As to the definition of what is a battleship, my own idea is that it is the finest unit of fighting power that can act in combination with ships of its own type against enemy ships or enemy aircraft, or whatever can be brought against it. The next point that I wish hon. Members to consider is this. A nation like Japan can do as the Dutch did in the old wars, and as the Germans did in the last War—they can lay up the whole of their commerce. They can either send all their cruisers and arm their merchant vessels to attack commerce, or, on the other hand, they can assemble their cruisers to form a fleet. Under the Socialist proposals, the battleships would have gone, and the cruisers would have become the battleships, so that we should have to meet both possibilities and both dangers with cruisers: and hon. Members will find that, when the war staff come to figure the matter out, they will be let in for a very considerable building programme by their proposals.

    105
    I take the Return of Fleets. The hon. Member opposite had it in his hand, but I do not think he has studied it if he thinks we are going to get off any building by getting rid of all ships above 5,000 tons. If he turns to the Return of Fleets, he will see that, even taking 20 years as the life of a cruiser—I doubt very much whether it is so long as 20 years—by 1936 only the ships that have been laid down since 1916 will be in existence, and he will then find, by adding them up, that all the ships that have been laid down subsequent to 1916 by Great Britain amount to 22. Therefore, in order to form a fleet and have cruisers available for the defence of commerce, we shall be let in for a big building programme, up to 1936, of ships of less than 5,000 tons. Again, if he turn to Japan, he will find that Japan only has three cruisers of less than 5,000 tons. She is not going to be content with that. Therefore, having scrapped all her ships above 5,000 tons, she will also be let in for a considerable building programme.
    There is another point with which I desire to deal, namely, the abolition of submarines. On that there is no difference of policy whatever. At the Washington Conference we proposed the abolition of submarines, and we set another example in disarmament, but again it failed. We had at that time the finest submarine fleet in the world, without exception, and we have not got it now. We set an example that has not been followed. We offered to scrap the whole of it, and that proposal failed because of France. The contention of the French, I am sorry to say, is that they are going to apply the sink-at-sight doctrine. After all, they were the inventors of the sink-at-sight doctrine, in the eighties and nineties of the last century. The Root Resolution for the abolition of the sink-at-sight doctrine, whether from the air or from submarines, although it was signed by M. Briand, has never been ratified by the French Chamber. It has been ratified by the other four nations which were signatories of the Treaty of Washington, but has never been ratified by or submitted to the French Chamber, and on that doctrine the French will never agree to the abolition of the submarine.
    I believe, however, that it is practicable for Great Britain, the United States and Japan to make a three-party agree-
    106
    ment for the abolition of submarines, but, of course, it will leave the other nations with submarines in their possession. If, however, each nation retained, say, five for experimental purposes, and agreed to communicate all its secrets of defence against submarines to the others, and also to any other nation that would come into the Agreement, I think we should win out. After all, ever since the War the dice have been loaded ever more strongly against the submarine. The antisubmarine defence measures have far overtaken the attack, and, therefore, I think it is a practical proposition to bring forward once again our proposals for the abolition of the submarine, and induce the United States and Japan to agree with us to that abolition, retaining a few for experimental purposes with a view to strengthening measures of defence against them, and leaving it to time for France and Italy to come in.
    Commander COCHRANE: The Mover of the Amendment, in his opening remarks, referred to the desire for greater security, and, as far as I could follow him, he felt quite convinced that the proposals he was putting forward would tend to bring about greater security in the world. It appears to me that naval disarmament is not in itself an end, but that, if it is to be of value, it must tend to promote a feeling of security and the avoidance of a feeling of suspicion. At the present time, I think it is worth while to consider what feeling of suspicion there is in the world, and why it exists, so far as this country is concerned. There is no doubt that during the past few months there has been up and down the country a great deal of talk of war, a great deal of talk about the Government being alleged to be preparing for war, and so on. So far as that talk has gone, and so far as the party opposite are responsible for it, I believe they are the greatest obstacle to a policy of agreed disarmament. They have been creating in the world a feeling of suspicion—a feeling of suspicion that this Government is proposing a warlike policy against China. That is the greatest possible obstacle to disarmament. There is one particular aspect of this question of disarmament to which I would like to address myself very briefly, in connection with this

    107
    question of the creation of suspicion, because it appears to me that the proposals put forward from the party opposite are based on a profound misconception. They appear to think that if you abolish battleships and submarines everything else will remain exactly as it was before. The hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Rennie Smith) said that in his opinion the First Lord was fortunate because in the Navy it was quite easy to distinguish a battleship, a destroyer, and a submarine and so on, and that there could be no difficulty about what these vessels were and what type they were. That is a profound mistake. You may abolish what, at present, are known as battleships but some other type will take their place. In this question of international agreement for disarmament, surely what is essential is that the agreement should be incapable of evasion. If we are going to avoid suspicion, we must have an agreement which cannot be evaded. To my mind, that was one of the great points in favour of the Washington Agreement. It could not readily be evaded. Definite tonnages were laid down for certain classes of ships. You might build a cruiser of slightly more than 10,000 tons, but you could not evade that Agreement so as to obtain a great advantage over a possible adversary.
    May I give an example from an analagous case? In yacht racing, there is an international committee which draws up rules under which that sport is carried on. They have no distractions for political or financial reasons. They are set there to draw up formulas under which certain types of yachts must be built, so that there may be a reasonable margin of safety and so on. So soon as that Committee has produced its formulas, the yacht designers settle down and say, "Yes, we have to fulfil these conditions. How can we get round them?" They do it every time. The designers will invariably evade the rules. Again, it may be necessary to define "battleships" or "submarines" in an Act of Parliament. We all know what we mean by a submarine, and we can use the word quite properly in an Act of Parliament, but, if in the future any question of what the definition meant arose it would come under the review of a court of law, and
    108
    it would there be decided as to whether what Parliament had intended when it used the word "submarine" was in fact what the word meant. In an international agreement, the position is entirely different. Suppose we had an international agreement to abolish submarines. You must obtain a definition of a submarine which cannot be evaded if you are going to do any good and to avoid suspicion. I do not wish to go into technicalities but I would invite any hon. Member who is interested in the matter to attempt to find a definition of a submarine which will mean not only a submarine as we know it at present but a submarine as it may evolve as the result of these definitions, because that is the difficulty you are up against.
    Mr. RENNIE SMITH: Does the hon. and gallant Gentleman think the definition of submarine as applied in the 1919 standard for Germany has been adequate?
    Commander COCHRANE: I think the word alone is used, and there is no definition. What happened in 1919 was that existing vessels were destroyed. That is simple. But what we are considering at present is the drawing up of a rule which will stand, as I understand it, for a term of years, and under which vessels which have not yet entered the mind of man cannot be built. That is the difficulty, and the ingenuity of designers will invariably beat your definition.
    The other point I wish to put is very similar. You can carry these proposals for disarmament a certain distance. You are then faced with a growing suspicion that they are being evaded. Is it the proposal of hon. Members opposite that there should be international inspection to see that these Agreements are carried out? That appears to me a very important point which must be considered if you are proposing such drastic reductions as have been put forward by hon. Members opposite. I do not believe international inspection would be agreed by any self-respecting country, and I do not, for a moment, believe it would be effective in preventing evasion of a complicated rule of disarmament. Take the position of a body of experts who go to a foreign country to examine all its engineering and other establishments to determine whether they are attempt-

    109
    ing to build some particular form of armament which has been prohibited. You have not only to consider the forms of armament which you know at this moment, but the types which the country will endeavour to introduce as the result of the restrictions which have been put on them, because I am convinced, and I think hon. Members opposite will agree with me, that the desire of the country to defend itself goes right down into the heart of things. You cannot get away from the desire of the country to be secure. Therefore, if you attempt to apply restrictions which are not readily acceptable, you inevitably lead to a policy of evasion.
    I started by saying that in my view the most important thing involved in the policy of disarmament was to be quite certain that in your policy you did not create renewed suspicion. I cannot get away from the feeling that a policy such as has been proposed to-day would inevitably lend itself to evasion. Actual evasion is unnecessary. It may be merely suspicion. In this matter of disarmament it is better to have a certain standard of armaments. Take what we have now. It costs a certain amount of money. We know what it is. It creates no suspicion in the minds of any other country except when the party opposite for political purposes say that the Government are preparing for war. What would be the position if we had reduced ourselves to a state where, by secret preparations which could only be discovered with the greatest difficulty, any country might successfully attack our trade routes and starve our people? I am not attempting to oppose limitation of armaments. I believe the Washington Agreement was a great success, and a great advantage, not only to us, but to the world. But I beg hon. Members to think that in this matter there are practical difficulties. It is not only the case, as they might allege, that the Government are unwilling to face this thing, but there are practical difficulties, and on account of those difficulties I do not think proposals for the limitation of armaments should in any way be pressed too far. It is a subject which must be approached very carefully and cautiously if we are not going to stir up greater evils than those we are allaying.
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The Debate has largely centred round the question of what should be the tasks at the forthcoming Conference to which President Coolidge has issued invitations, but there have been one or two other points raised, and perhaps I had better refer to them first. The hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. Gillett) made a few criticisms of the Estimates in general He spoke particularly about the staff of the Admiralty. I do not know whether he holds the same view about increased staffs anywhere else, or whether it is only the Admiralty that he is interested in. May I inform him, although I do not wish to boast of it, that there has been a reduction of 96 in the number of the staff although the actual expense is slightly higher than last year. That is partly due to the rise in salary as they get higher up. Again and again I have endeavoured to explain that the business of running the Navy now is totally different from what it was before the War owing to the enormous developments and the extraordinary different number of spare parts of machinery. It is just the same if a farmer turns to intensive cultivation. He would have to employ a much larger number of men than before. But I do not suppose it will be very easy to please the hon. Member. I do not think any Estimates would satisfy him. He said the really important defence of the country was the Air Force, and yet a large number of his party decided that the Air Force ought to be abolished. If the Air Force is more important than the Navy and ought to be abolished, how am I ever going to please the hon. Member?
    The only other speech which I thought went a little ahead of the lines on which the Proposer and Seconder initiated it was that of the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Morgan Jones). He was endeavouring all the time to fix upon this party the accusation that they were against peace and were starting a new race for armaments, and that is what they say all over the country. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Fife, Eastern (Commander Cochrane) is right. If there be any suspicion, they are making it. What justification is there for it? After the War, he asks, who is starting the race for armaments? This country I He is always ready to make his own country a butt if he possibly can. What

    111
    is the fact? After the War, this country practically laid down no ships at all until 1924, when the party opposite laid down a few cruisers, very properly, for replacement purposes. The other four great naval Powers had built or laid down 300 ships when we had laid down only 11. What is the truth in a statement like that, when the hon. Member asks, "Who started the race for armaments?" and answers it himself—"this country"—when we built only 11 while the others were building 300? I hope he will not use that argument in the future.
    Mr. MORGAN JONES: How many guns?
    7.0 p.m.
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: One other thing the hon. Member said. He asked against whom we are arming. We are arming as an insurance, as I have said over and over again. That is the reason why the right hon. Gentleman and his friends replaced the cruisers that were worn out. Why did he not say to the other nations who were building much faster than we: "Against whom are you arming?" The object in his mind is to try to fix upon this Government and this country the accusation that we are bellicose and anxious to start war. That accusation is absolutely contrary to the facts of the case. He went on to carp at what he calls our qualified acceptance of Mr. Coolidge's invitation. What are the facts about that? How is it qualified? He could not say when I asked him. He said something about Prance and Italy. If he will look at our reply—I am speaking from memory— he will find that all we said about France and Italy was that we honed they would come in, and, if they did not, we would be very glad to come in anyhow. As to the qualification, our invitation was to join in a discussion on whether the ratio should be extended. Our answer was that it should be wider than that, and every method which could possibly lead to a limitation of armaments should be considered in that conference if it took place. So far from qualifying, our acceptance widened the invitation, and I am very glad to say that President Coolidge accepted the suggestion that it should be an open conference in which any country can discuss any method
    112
    which they think can possibly reduce the armaments under discussion.
    I would like now to come to the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Lees-Smith). I have no cause whatever to complain of the way in which he proposed it, or of the way in which the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Rennie Smith) seconded. They did not attempt to overstate their case or to accuse their opponents of any evil intentions. They spoke quite fairly, but perhaps they will allow me to say that the views they advanced were not altogether novel to any Member of this House. They are not the result of some brain wave which occarred to them, and which nobody else has ever thought of. Similar arguments have been present to the minds of most Members, and have been considered most carefully by the Admiralty, not without having arrived at some results, which I hope some day may be useful. What they suggested today has nothing very novel in it, but I think the reason why they brought it forward was that the Socialist party were anxious that, if anything did come of this conference, they should have the credit of it, and, if nothing came of it, we should have the blame.
    The hon. Gentleman who opened the Debate rather misrepresented what happened at Washington. He said it was no use our proposing then to stop building submarines, because we did not accompany it with any limitation at the other end. He forgets that we did. It was accompanied by a very good limitation at the other end. It was accompanied by a limitation in the size and number of battleships. His history therefore is not quite correct in that matter. The reason why it failed is not quite the reason he gave, namely, that we did not propose to abolish all battleships. He also said—I do not think it is quite correct—that the fact of fixing 10,000 tons as the limit for cruisers leads to 10,000 tons being not the maximum but the minimum. That has not taken place. At Washington, our representatives were certainly in favour of a lower figure for cruisers, and therefore, as far as this country is concerned, it was not our fault that the figure of 10,000 tons—2nd 8-inch guns—was fixed.
    The Seconder of the Motion talked a great deal about one common standard.

    113
    I did not make out exactly what he wanted us to do. He appeared to wish us to settle something which would, at one fell swoop, tabulate the armed forces of every country. That, of course, is far beyond anything that is possible at the present moment. At the present moment, the Conference, which I hope will be held in June at Geneva or any other place that is fixed upon, will be one in which certainly not more than five Powers will take part, and possibly not more than three. I hope it will be possible for all five to take part in it. Whatever we do there, cannot accomplish what the hon. Gentleman desires, namely, fixing something for all sorts of other countries. What it may do, and I hope will do, for other countries is that it will make it easier for them, seeing what we three can do, to follow suit and come to some more general agreement.
    I do not know whether those hon. Gentlemen really thought that it was right for me to state in this House to-day exactly what proposals our Government will make when the Conference at Geneva meets. I do not think they really thought that. I am sure they understand that it would be quite impossible for me to give chapter and verse for the proposals which we think we may be able to make on that occasion. First of all, let us get the Conference called. I think we shall be able to put forward proposals which will be at any rate worthy of consideration. I certainly am not going to accept his formula of abolishing all battleships and all submarines. I am not going to accept any formula except this, that—subject to the consideration, which the right hon. Gentleman for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Macpherson) mentioned, that this country stands in a perfectly unique position, for we are dependent for our very existence upon the freedom of the seas—we shall be prepared to consider, with every desire to come to an agreement, any proposals that may be made for a limitation of armaments acceptable by other Powers. It is perfectly right to say that this is a question of relativity. Whether you have a battleship or not is a question of relativity. It depends a great deal upon what vessels there are that are likely to attack your battleship. Suppose you fix the size of the battleship, and the size of the vessels likely to attack it keeps on increasing, you would find you could not adhere to that standard, and there-
    114
    fore the size of a battleship is relative to the size of other vessels. It is also relative to what other countries possess.
    What the right hon. Gentleman said is perfectly true that, while we are prepared to consider with other countries, what can be done we are not prepared to say straight away, without knowing what anybody else is going to do, that we can abate in any way the obligation that is put upon us to be in a position to defend this country in case there was any attempt to cut off our food supplies. Of course, hon. Members opposite, because we do not gush every day about the possibility of peace, are very anxious to fix upon! us the accusation that we do not care for peace. I do not yield to anybody, nor do any of my hon. Friends on this side of the House, in our desire for peace, but it must be peace that leaves us without any anxiety, and it must be an arrangement with the view of limiting armaments in the future in which other countries share—other countries realising our difficulties and we realising their's. Although it may not be all done at one burst, I for one very much hope that the result of this Conference will be to take a considerable step forward, and I can assure the House that, while safeguarding as I hope the position of this country and this Empire, there is no proposition which we will not consider that any country can bring forward to limit the armaments of the future.
    Mr. RENNIE SMITH: I quite understand that the right hon. Gentleman cannot give any details now, but will he explain whether the Government will put forward some definite offer to come up for consideration? Or do I understand that the Government will not put forward an offer, but will wait and see what other countries will do?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: No, what I said was, that we have been thinking out these questions while hon. Members opposite have imagined we were preparing for war. We think we have got proposals which are worth considering. As to who makes the proposals first, it depends entirely upon what is the order of going in—if I may use the expression. All I want the hon. Gentleman to understand is that we have got our ideas and

    115
    are quite prepared to put them forward. Whether they will be put forward before by anybody else or not, I cannot say.
    Mr. SCURR: I rise perhaps with some little trepidation in this Debate, as I am in no sense of the word a naval expert, and, after the differences of opinion which have arisen between the naval experts, one is a little diffident as to treading in their footsteps. But, having passed some of my early years at sea, and knowing something of what has been done in regard to the Navy, I feel that it is my duty to rise to support the Amendment that has been moved from this side of the House, because I feel that this afternoon the Debate, which was described by the hon. and gallant Member for Uxbridge (Lieut. -Commander Burney) as academic, is really a tragedy. During the whole time that hon. Members opposite have been giving us their expert knowledge on this or that part of a ship or this or that implement of war, and how it might be used or developed, we have been in the atmosphere of war and not in the atmosphere of peace. We were told during the Great War that it was a war to end wars. I take it that when people used that phrase they really meant it; but here we are to-day in this House face to face with this Estimate for an enormous sum for the Navy, and all that the First Lord of the Admiralty can say is: "We are going into the Conference; we have been thinking about it and have some proposals which we may put forward, or someone else may put them forward first." Is that a serious way of dealing with this question?
    I hold very strongly the opinion that whatever conferences we call at the present time or at any other time on the question of disarmament, they do not face the question from the point of view of disarmament. They face it all the time from the point of view of the future conduct of war, and the conduct of that war in the cheapest possible way. That is at the back of the minds of most people who go into these conferences. It was the same thing many years ago when the Czar of Russia issued his famous peace rescript to the world, but the Hague conference and other conferences which followed did not concern themselves with trying to bring peace into the
    116
    world; they discussed all sorts of methods for the future conduct of war, and when war did come, all the things which had been agreed upon at those conferences were scrapped. We know very well that although we may enter into any number of arrangements that this shall not be done in wartime and that that shall not be done in wartime, when war breaks out the whole of those things will be scrapped, because of the old saying "Everything is fair in love and war." When war is on, the whole thing thought about is the desire and the will to secure victory, and people resort to any means in order to gain victory. We had that experience in the last War. If 30 or 40 years ago there had been talk of the various implements of war which were used in the recent war, people would have pooh-poohed the idea, and would have said that it was impossible that men could be so vile as to devise some of the instruments used in that war. First one nation used them, and then another nation used them, and so the whole diabolical business goes on.
    The only way in which security can be maintained is to start casting out fear. We are in fear all the time. This afternoon the whole discussion has been that we have to safeguard our trade routes, that we have to safeguard our food supplies and that we have to safeguard our nation. Here is a great and powerful nation, and yet it is all the time expressing its fear. Disarmament is only going to be a practical proposition when one of the great nations, a nation like our own, will start doing the thing itself, without relation to what other nations are doing, and without waiting for other nations. Such a nation must-say: "We will not build for war." During the Debate, some amusement was expressed when the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Morgan Jones) referred to the fact that 15s. out of every pound of expenditure per head went in expenditure for wars and past wars. Out of every pound which we spend at the present time we are spending on the Army, the Navy and the Air Force 3s. 2d. It is a very big insurance premium if out of our expenditure 15 per cent. has to be paid in that way, and we have no reliability from it. We are told that these armaments are for keeping peace, and that unless we have them it is impossible to keep peace. We know that

    117
    the more and more armaments are developed the sooner war comes, because when people have these instruments in their hands they want to use them and to see whether they have the uses which they expected of them.
    On this side of the House we have been very disappointed with the reply of the First Lord of the Admiralty. He has been amusing in some ways, and has twitted the Opposition on simply doing its duty in putting certain obligations upon the Government. We feel that at the present time throughout the whole world we are in an atmosphere of war. There are, however, forces working in the world at the present time that will compel disarmament. Throughout the world there is a great development of international capitalism, the relationship between various organised industries not on a national basis but on an international basis. If those organisations
    are being formed on an international basis, and if the chemical trade, the iron and steel trade and other trades are to be under international control, the great industrial magnates who control them will not want this great expenditure upon armaments. Such expenditure will be useless for them, because to set nations fighting one another would be to destroy their own capital. Therefore, you may find that there are influences at work which will bring about disarmament even quicker than you anticipate. The whole argument put forward in regard to defence and the rest of it is an argument of fear, and until we get rid of that fear there is absolutely no hope for the world.
    Question put, "That '102,275' stand part of the Resolution."
    The House divided: Ayes, 231; Noes, 92.

    Division No. 51.]

    AYES.

    [7.23 p.m.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

    Cunliffe, Sir Herbert

    Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

    Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.

    Curzon, Captain Viscount

    Hills, Major John Waller

    Alnsworth, Major Charles

    Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset,Yeovil)

    Hogg, Rt. Hon.Sir D. (St.Marylebone)

    Albery, Irving James

    Davies, Dr. Vernon

    Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy

    Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)

    Dean, Arthur Wellesley

    Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard

    Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.

    Eden, Captain Anthony

    Holt, Captain H. P.

    Applin, Colonel R. V. K.

    Edmondson, Major A. J.

    Hopkins, J. W. W.

    Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.

    Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)

    Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)

    Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)

    Elliot, Major Walter E.

    Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

    Atholl, Duchess of

    Ellis, R. G.

    Hore-Belisha, Leslie

    Atkinson, C.

    Everard, W. Lindsay

    Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

    Fermoy, Lord

    Hudson, Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney, N.)

    Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

    Fielden, E. B.

    Hume, Sir G. H.

    Barnett, Major Sir Richard

    Forestier-Walker, Sir L.

    Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis

    Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)

    Foster, Sir Harry S.

    Huntingfield, Lord

    Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.

    Fraser, Captain Ian

    Hurd, Percy A.

    Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)

    Fremantle, Lieut-Colonel Francis E.

    Hurst, Gerald B.

    Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-

    Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony

    Hutchison,G.A.Clark (Midl'n & P'bl's)

    Berry, Sir George

    Galbraith, J. F. W.

    Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)

    Betterton, Henry B.

    Ganzoni, Sir John

    Iliffe, Sir Edward M.

    Blundell, F. N.

    Gates, Percy

    Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.

    Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

    Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham

    Jacob, A. E.

    Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.

    Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John

    James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert

    Brass, Captain W.

    Glyn, Major R. G. C.

    Jephcott, A. R.

    Brassey, Sir Leonard

    Goff, Sir Park

    Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)

    Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

    Grace, John

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Briscoe, Richard George

    Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)

    Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)

    Broun-Lindsay, Major H.

    Grant, Sir J. A.

    King, Captain Henry Douglas

    Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)

    Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Brown, Brig.-Gen.H. C.(Borks,Newb'y)

    Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter

    Knox, Sir Alfred

    Buckingham, Sir H.

    Greene, W. P. Crawford

    Lamb, J. Q.

    Bullock, Captain M.

    Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)

    Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.

    Burman, J. B.

    Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

    Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)

    Burton, Colonel H. W.

    Grotrian, H. Brent

    Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

    Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

    Gunston, Captain D. W.

    Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th)

    Campbell, E. T.

    Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

    Loder, J. de V.

    Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)

    Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)

    Lougher, L.

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)

    Hall, Vice-Admiral Sir R. (Eastbourne)

    Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere

    Chilcott, Sir Warden

    Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)

    Lumley, L. R.

    Cobb, Sir Cyril

    Hanbury, C.

    Lynn, Sir R. J.

    Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

    Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

    Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)

    Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir G. K.

    Harland, A.

    Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)

    Cooper, A. Duff

    Harney, E. A.

    McLean, Major A.

    Cope, Major William

    Harrison, G. J. C.

    Macmillan, Captain H.

    Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.

    Hawke, John Anthony

    Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm

    Crawford, H. E.

    Headlam, Lieut-Colonel C. M.

    McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John

    Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)

    Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.

    Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.

    Crookshank,Cpt.H.(Lindsey,Gainsbro)

    Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.

    Macquisten, F. A.

    MacRobert, Alexander M.

    Remer, J. R.

    Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

    Makins, Brigadier-General E.

    Rentoul, G. S.

    Tinne, J. A.

    Margesson, Captain D.

    Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.

    Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

    Marriott, Sir J. A. R.

    Rice, Sir Frederick

    Turton, Edmund Russborough

    Meller, R. J.

    Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y,Ch'ts'y)

    Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.

    Merriman, F. B.

    Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)

    Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L.(Kingston-on-Hull)

    Meyer, Sir Frank

    Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs., Stretford)

    Warrender, Sir Victor

    Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

    Ropner, Major L.

    Waterhouse, Captain Charles

    Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.

    Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.

    Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)

    Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.

    Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

    Wells, S. R.

    Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive

    Rye, F. G.

    Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.

    Murchison, Sir Kenneth

    Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putne.)

    White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dalrymple-

    Nall, Colonel Sir Joseph

    Sandeman, A. Stewart

    Wllliams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)

    Nelson, Sir Frank

    Sandon, Lord

    Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

    Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)

    Savery, S. S.

    Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)

    Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)

    Scott, Rt. Hon. Sir Leslie

    Wilson, M. J. (York, N. R., Richm'd)

    Nicholson, O. (Westminster)

    Sheffield, Sir Berkeley

    Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)

    Nuttall, Ellis

    Shepperson, E. W.

    Windsor-Clive, Lieut-Colonel George

    O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)

    Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)

    Wise, Sir Fredric

    Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William

    Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine.C.)

    Withers, John James

    Penny, Frederick George

    Smithers, Waldron

    Wolmer, Viscount

    Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

    Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

    Womersley, W. J.

    Perkins, Colonel E. K.

    Streatfeild, Captain S. R.

    Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)

    Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)

    Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.

    Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.

    Pilcher, G.

    Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn]

    Young, Rt. Hon. Hilton (Norwich)

    Pownall, Sir Assheton

    Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

    Price, Major C. W. M.

    Sugden, Sir Wilfrid

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Radford, E. A.

    Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.

    Major Sir Harry Barnston and Capt.

    Raine, W.

    Tasker, R. Inigo.

    Lord Stanley.

    Ramsden, E.

    Templeton, W. P.

    Reid, D. D. (County Down)

    Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

    NOES.

    Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)

    Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

    Scrymgeour, E.

    Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)

    Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

    Scurr, John

    Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')

    John William (Rhondda, West)

    Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John

    Ammon, Charles George

    Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)

    Slesser, Sir Henry H.

    Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)

    Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

    Smillie, Robert

    Baker, Walter

    Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

    Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

    Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

    Kelly, W. T.

    Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)

    Bondfield, Margaret

    Kennedy, T.

    Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

    Briant, Frank

    Lawrence, Susan

    Snell, Harry

    Broad, F. A.

    Lee, F.

    Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

    Bromfield, William

    Livingstone, A. M.

    Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe)

    Bromley, J.

    Lowth, T.

    Spoor, Rt. Hon. Benjamin Charles

    Clowes, S.

    MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)

    Stamford, T. W.

    Cluse, W. S.

    Mackinder, W.

    Stephen, Campbell

    Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

    MacLaren, Andrew

    Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

    Cove, W. G.

    March, S.

    Sullivan, Joseph

    Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh)

    Maxton, James

    Thomas, Rt Hon. James H. (Derby)

    Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)

    Montague, Frederick

    Thurtle, Ernest

    Day, Colonel Harry

    Morris, R. H.

    Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.

    Duncan, C.

    Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)

    Viant, S. P.

    Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.

    Mosley, Oswald

    Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

    Gardner, J. P.

    Naylor, T. E.

    Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney

    Gillett, George M.

    Palin, John Henry

    Welsh, J. C.

    Gosling, Harry

    Paling, W.

    Williams, David (Swansea, E.)

    Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)

    Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

    Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

    Groves, T.

    Ponsonby, Arthur

    Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

    Grundy, T. W.

    Potts, John S.

    Wright, W.

    Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)

    Purcell, A. A.

    Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

    Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Sprinq)

    Hardie, George D.

    Ritson, J.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Hayday, Arthur

    Robinson, W. C. (Yorks,W.R.,Elland)

    Mr. A. Barnes and Mr. Whiteley.

    Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)

    Salter, Dr. Alfred

    Second Resolution read a Second time.

    Ordered, That the Resolutions which upon the 17th day of this instant March were reported from the Committee of Supply, and which were then agreed to by the House, be now read:
    "That a number of Air Forces, not exceeding 33,000, all ranks, be maintained for the Service of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland at Home and Abroad, exclusive of tho6e serving in India, during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1928."
    120
    "That a number of Land Forces, not exceeding 166,500, all ranks, be maintained for the Service of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland at Home and Abroad, excluding His Majesty's Indian Possessions, during the year ending on the 31st day of March. 1928."
    Ordered, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide, during Twelve Months, for the Discipline and Regulation of the Army and Air Force; and that Secretary Sir Laming Worthington-

    121
    Evans, Mr. Bridgeman, Secretary Sir, Samuel Hoare, and Captain King do prepare and bring it in.

    ARMY AND AIR FORCE (ANNUAL) BILL,
    "to provide, during Twelve Months, for the Discipline and Regulation of the Army and Air Force," presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 94.]
    Mr. GILLETT: I desire to move, to reduce the Vote by £100. I am much indebted to the First Lord for the limited explanation he gave of the points I raised earlier this evening, but I now want to put them a little more definitely to him. In an answer to a question in this House about a year ago on the subject of the Admiralty Headquarters Staff, the First Lord said that the staff in July, 1914, numbered 2,072. and the monthly cost was £42,000. The Headquarters Staff on the 1st January, 1926, according to this answer, numbered 3,280, and the monthly cost was £106,000.
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is referring to the cost at the Admiralty?
    Mr. GILLETT: No. I understand that the term "Admiralty Headquarters Staff" must include more than appears on the Admiralty Vote. The number of people employed under the Admiralty Vote is only a few hundreds, while it is obvious that the men to whom I refer number about 3,000 and a large proportion of them must come under Vote 1; and that is why I am raising it. I think the figures under Vote 12 are only 210, and I am referring to the 3,000 men employed on the Headquarters Staff, as I presume the larger number must come under this Vote. The answer which the First Lord gave me in regard to this matter was that the Navy is something like a garden and is having a system of intensive culture applied to it. Although we have a Navy which is now 100,000 instead of 144,000 men, the staff has to be increased from, roughly, 2,000 to 3,000. The figures given a few days ago by the right hon. Member for Norwich (Mr. Hilton Young) was that the increase was 160 per cent. as compared with the numbers before the War. The answer given now, and also last year, does not make it suffi-
    122
    ciently plain to this House and the country why this should take place in the Navy, for nothing comparable to it has taken place in the Army. Yet we have this extraordinary increase in numbers, which has been much criticised, not only in this House but in the country as well. In the answer given about a year ago, it was stated that the reasons for this increase were that there were more men in receipt of pensions and that typewriters were now used instead of letters being written by hand.
    Mr. SPEAKER: I think it is quite clear that this is a point which must be raised on Vote 12. The present Vote is for the wages of the officers and men of the Royal Navy and Marines, and it does not seem to cover this payment, which is quite a separate Vote, under Vote 12 for the Admiralty staff.
    Mr. GILLETT: How can these 3,100 men be possibly included in the Admiralty staff which is only 200? I suggest that the Admiralty Headquarters staff covers a larger number of people, officials scattered all over the country in different offices, and that they are paid under the Vote we are now considering.
    Mr. SPEAKER: The First Lord informs me that they are not borne on Vote 1. I cannot see where else they can be found.
    Captain CROOKSHANK: Is not Vote I headed "Fleet Services?" How can sea service be inside any office in this country?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Lieut.-Colonel Headlam): Vote 12 covers the point raised by the hon. Member.
    Mr. GILLETT: If we turn to Vote I and add all those who are dealt with under it, you get 100,000 men, and all those who appear under all the other Votes total 1,779, of whom 700 are in the medical establishment alone. That leaves about 1,000 men who are not included, and how that 1,000 can include 3,100. I do not know. I think the First Lord must be in error and in spite of what he has said I think I am in order.
    Mr. SPEAKER: I cannot follow the hon. Member's ingenious arithmetic. At the moment I am quite clear that the present Vote is for the pay of those

    123
    engaged on fleet services, and those engaged on fleet services are not the persons to whom the hon. Member is referring. Vote 12, I think, is the proper place to raise it.
    Mr. GILLETT: If that be so, I hope when we come to consider Vote 12 that you will kindly remember that if I want to speak about these 3,000 men on a Vote which only deals with 200 men you will not rule me out of order, and I hope the First Lord will not raise the point either.
    Mr. SPEAKER: I do not think the hon. Member ought to say that. It certainly will be in order on that Vote because the First Lord's salary comes under it, and the hon. Member can attack all his misdoings.
    Mr. GILLETT: I did not mean to be disrespectful, and I will withdraw the remark. There is one other point I want to put, and that is why in the Service for 1927, flag commissioned officers have been increased by 300 and subordinate officers by nearly 100. Can the First Lord give us any information on that point? Are we to understand that the number of ships are to be greater this year than last year, or does it mean that he is retaining officers for the new ships which he expects to launch this year and that next year we shall find that petty officers and seamen of the Navy have also increased in order to fit in with the larger number of officers he is asking for now?
    Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: It is somewhat difficult to give the hon. Member an answer to a question of that kind without notice. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Yes, it is. It is only reasonable to give notice if you are going to ask questions regarding details. All I can say at the moment is that the increase is on the Vote, but I shall be prepared to give an answer when the opportunity arises later on, and I will give the hon. Member a written answer as soon as I can do so.
    Mr. W. BAKER: I beg to move to leave out "£14,715,300," and to insert instead thereof "£14,715,200."
    I am really amazed at the answer given by the Parliamentary Secretary. I
    124
    have been present at many discussions on Votes of this character and I certainly have never witnessed such an attempt at an answer. There has never been a discussion on Navy Votes unless the First Lord and the Parliamentary Secretary have been prepared to answer careful and deliberate criticisms directed against them. I do not know whether it is in order to refer to the very strong force of advisers which the hon. and gallant Gentleman has, but if it is in order I should like to say that the only difficulty in. which the Parliamentary Secretary is placed is that he has not had sufficient time to obtain the information. I desire to move a reduction of £100 in the Vote to signify our dissatisfaction of the state of affairs.
    Mr. RENNIE SMITH: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Sir R. HALL: I think the hon. Member who has raised this point must realise that the Parliamentary Secretary has only had a very short time to make himself acquainted with the Estimates. I put it to right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite, that if they were in office and one of them had to jump straight into the Estimates and take charge of them in this House, he would find the same difficulty as my hon. and gallant Friend has found. It would have been perfectly simple for my hon. and gallant Friend to have given an answer which would have satisfied hon. Members opposite, but it might not have been an absolutely correct answer. Rather than do that my hon. and gallant Friend delayed the answer until such time as he could be entirely satisfied as to the correctness of it.
    Mr. LEES-SMITH: We certainly do not wish to press too hardly on an hon. and gallant Gentleman who has lately taken office, but I would point out that the First Lord is in his place and the House must recognise that over and over again it occurs on the Report stage of Estimates of this kind that questions involving details are put and those questions are frequently answered at a few seconds' notice. There have been at least five minutes since this question was put and the First Lord has had plenty of time to obtain expert official information on the subject. If the right hon.

    125
    Gentleman is now prepared to supply this rather elementary information I am prepared to resume my seat.
    Mr. THURTLE: I do not know whether the First Lord intends to give the House a reply after his consultation, but he ought to do so. The hon. and gallant Member for Eastbourne (Sir R. Hall) entirely missed the point in his remarks. I do not think there is a single Member on this side who would presume to reflect in the slightest degree on the ability or the industry of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty. We all have a very high regard for him and his efficiency, but the point is that we as Members of the House are guardians of the public purse, and we want to be quite certain, before we pass any Vote, that it is being properly accounted for. We have asked perfectly fair questions on this particular Vote, and for some extraordinary reason we have not yet been able to get an answer. I ask the First Lord or his very efficient assistant to take the opportunity now of giving the answers to these very important questions.
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I am not sure that the hon. Member knows what are the very important questions to which be refers. I understood the question to be, what was the reason for the increase of 316 flag and commissioned officers in 1927, as shown on page 13, Vote 1. The answer is that during this year new ships and large ones will come into commission, and we have to train and prepare more officers and men for them and for other ships now under construction. The "Rodney" and "Nelson" and some of the cruisers which the Labour Government laid down will come into commission in the course of the year, and naturally we require more officers and men to man them.
    Mr. THURTLE: May I point out that, simultaneously with an increase in subordinate officers there is a decrease in the number of warrant officers required. There is a decrease of no fewer than 25 warrant officers, while there is an increase of 98 subordinate officers. How can the right hon. Gentleman explain this apparent contradiction?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I really think that if the hon. Gentleman wanted to raise questions of very small detail, he might have taken the trouble to give me notice. I was given to understand that no question was to be raised to-day except the question of the Disarmament Conference. So far as small points like that mentioned by the hon. Member are concerned, it is very easy to give an answer, but not to do so offhand. I shall be glad to give the hon. Member an answer if he will let me send it to him in writing.
    Mr. STEPHEN: I think it is remarkable that the First Lord should take such a line. When he is presenting Estimates he should be in possession of the knowledge to defend them. I do not think that the excuse given is good enough. The public service comes first, and if the First Lord was conscious that he would be in such difficulties owing to the change in the occupancy of the position of Parliamentary Secretary, the reorganisation of the Tory party might have stood over until these Estimates were through. It is very unfortunate that the state of chaos and disorganisation of the Tory party has left the First Lord of the Admiralty in the pitiable position in which he is placed to-night.
    Question put, "That '£14,715,300' stand part of the Resolution."
    The House divided: Ayes, 215; Noes, 89.

    Division No. 52.]

    AYES.

    [7.54 p.m.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

    Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.

    Campbell, E. T.

    Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.

    Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)

    Ainsworth, Major Charles

    Berry, Sir George

    Chilcott, Sir Warden

    Albery, Irving James

    Blundell, F. N.

    Cobb, Sir Cyril

    Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)

    Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

    Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

    Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)

    Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.

    Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir G. K.

    Applin, Colonel R. V. K.

    Brass, Captain W.

    Cooper, A. Duff

    Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.

    Brassey, Sir Leonard

    Cope, Major William

    Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.

    Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

    Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.

    Atholl, Duchess of

    Briscoe, Richard George

    Crooke, J. Smodiey (Deritend)

    Atkinson, C.

    Broun-Lindsay, Major H.

    Crookshank,Cpt.H.(Lindsey,Gainsbro)

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

    Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)

    Cunliffe, Sir Herbert

    Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

    Brown, Brig.-Gen.H.C.(Berks, Newb'y)

    Curzon, Captain Viscount

    Barnett, Major Sir Richard

    Bullock, Captain M.

    Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.

    Barnston, Major Sir Harry

    Burman, J. B.

    Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh)

    Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)

    Burton, Colonel H. W.

    Davies, Maj. Geo.F.(Somerset,Yeovil)

    Davies, Dr. Vernon

    Hurd, Percy A.

    Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.

    Dean, Arthur Wellesley

    Hurst, Gerald B.

    Rice, Sir Frederick

    Dixey, A. C.

    Hutchison, G. A.Clark (Midl'n&P'bl's)

    Richardson Sir P. W.(Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)

    Eden, Captain Anthony

    Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)

    Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)

    Edmondson, Major A. J.

    Iliffe, Sir Edward M.

    Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs, Stretford)

    Elliot, Major Walter E.

    Jacob, A. E.

    Ropner, Major L.

    Ellis, R. G.

    James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert

    Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.

    Everard, W. Lindsay

    Jephcott, A. R.

    Rye, F. G.

    Fermoy, Lord

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Samuel, Samuel (W'dtworth, Putney)

    Fielden, E. B.

    Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)

    Sandeman, A. Stewart

    Ford, Sir P. J.

    King, Captain Henry Douglas

    Sandon, Lord

    Forestier-Walker, Sir L.

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Savery, S. S.

    Foster, Sir Harry S.

    Knox, Sir Alfred

    Scott, Rt. Hon. Sir Leslie

    Fraser, Captain Ian

    Lamb, J. Q.

    Sheffield, Sir Berkeley

    Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony

    Lister, Cunilffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

    Shepperson, E. W.

    Galbraith, J. F. W.

    Locker-Lampson, Com. O.(Handsw'th)

    Skelton, A. N.

    Ganzoni, Sir John

    Loder, J. de V.

    Slaney, Major P. Kenyon

    Gates, Percy

    Lougher, L.

    Smith, R. W.(Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)

    Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John

    Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere

    Smithers, Waldron

    Glyn, Major R. G. C.

    Lumley, L. R.

    Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

    Goff, Sir Park

    Lynn, Sir R. J.

    Storry-Deans, R.

    Gower, Sir Robert

    McLean, Major A.

    Streatfeild, Captain S. R.

    Grace, John

    Macmillan, Captain H.

    Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.

    Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)

    McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John

    Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

    Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

    Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.

    Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

    Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter

    Macquisten, F. A.

    Sugden, Sir Wilfrid

    Greene, W. P. Crawford

    MacRobert, Alexander M.

    Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.

    Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)

    Makins, Brigadier-General E.

    Tasker, R. Inigo.

    Grotrian, H. Brent

    Margesson, Captain D.

    Templeton, W. P.

    Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.

    Meller, R. J.

    Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

    Gunston, Captain D. W.

    Merriman, F. B.

    Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

    Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)

    Meyer, Sir Frank

    Tinne, J. A.

    Hall, Vice-Admiral Sir R. (Eastbourne)

    Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

    Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

    Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)

    Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M

    Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough

    Hanbury, C.

    Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.

    Ward, Lt.-Col.A.L.(Kingston-on-Hull)

    Hariand, A.

    Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive

    Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.

    Harrison, G. J. C.

    Murchison, Sir Kenneth

    Waterhouse, Captain Charles

    Hawke, John Anthony

    Nall, Colonel Sir Joseph

    Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)

    Headlam, Lieut-Colonel C. M.

    Nelson, Sir Frank

    Wells, S. R.

    Henderson, Capt. R.R. (Oxf'd,Henley)

    Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)

    Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.

    Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)

    Nicholson, O. (Westminster)

    White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dalrymple

    Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.

    Nuttall, Ellis

    Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)

    Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.

    O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)

    Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

    Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

    Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William

    Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)

    Herbert, S. (York, N.R., Scar. & Wh'by)

    Penny, Frederick George

    Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)

    Hills, Major John Waller

    Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

    Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

    Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D.(St.Marylebone)

    Perkins, Colonel E. K.

    Wise, Sir Fredric

    Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy

    Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)

    Withers, John James

    Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard

    Pilcher, G.

    Wolmer, Viscount

    Holt, Capt. H. P.

    Pownall, Sir Assheton

    Womersley, W. J.

    Hopkins, J. W. W.

    Price, Major C. W. M.

    Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.).

    Hopkinson, Sir A.(Eng. Universities)

    Radford, E. A.

    Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.

    Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

    Raine, W.

    Young, Rt. Hon. Hilton (Norwich)

    Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.

    Ramsden, E.

    Hudson, Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney,N.)

    Reid, D. D. (County Down)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Hume, Sir G. H.

    Remer, J. R.

    Colonel Gibbs and Captain Lord

    Huntingfield, Lord

    Rentoul, G. S.

    Stanley.

    NOES.

    Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)

    Grundy, T. W.

    Montague, Frederick

    Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)

    Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)

    Morris, R. H.

    Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')

    Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)

    Baker, J. (Wolverhamton, Bilston)

    Hardie, George D.

    Naylor, T. E.

    Baker, Walter

    Hayday, Arthur

    Palin, John Henry

    Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

    Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)

    Paling, W.

    Batey, Joseph

    Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

    Pethick-Lawrence. F. W.

    Beckett, John (Gateshead)

    John, William (Rhondda, West)

    Ponsonby, Arthur

    Bondfield, Margaret

    Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)

    Potts, John S.

    Briant, Frank

    Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

    Purcell, A. A.

    Broad, F. A.

    Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

    Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

    Bromfield, William

    Kelly, W. T.

    Ritson, J.

    Bromley, J.

    Kennedy, T.

    Robinson, W. C. (Yorks,W.R.,Elland)

    Clowes, S.

    Kirkwood, D.

    Salter, Dr. Alfred

    Cluse, W. S.

    Lansbury, George

    Scrymgeour, E.

    Cove, W. G.

    Lawrence, Susan

    Scurr, John

    Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)

    Lee, F.

    Slesser, Sir Henry H.

    Day, Colonel Harry

    Lindley, F. W.

    Smillie, Robert

    Duncan, C

    Livingstone, A. M.

    Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

    Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.

    Lowth, T.

    Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)

    Gardner, J. P.

    Mackinder, W.

    Smith Rennie (Penistone)

    Gillett, George M.

    MacLaren, Andrew

    Snell, Harry

    Gosling, Harry

    March, S.

    Snowden, Rt, Hon. Philip

    Groves, T.

    Maxton, James

    Spencer, G. A. (Broxtowe)

    128

    129

    Stamford, T. W.

    Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.

    Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

    Stephen, Campbell

    Viant, S. P.

    Wright, W.

    Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

    Watson, W. M. (Dunfermilne)

    Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

    Sullivan, Joseph

    Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney

    Thomas, Rt. Hon, James H. (Darby)

    Welsh, J. C.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro, W.)

    Williams, David (Swansea, East)

    Mr. A. Barnes and Mr. Whiteley.

    Thurtle, Ernest

    Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

    Third Resolution read a Second time.

    Mr. LEES-SMITH: I beg to move to leave out "£1,907,000," and to insert instead thereof "£1,906,900."
    I find on page 110 of these Estimates that this Vote includes a sum of £291,000 for the berth at Singapore. I have already discussed that subject this afternoon. I do not propose to repeat any of the arguments that have been used, but in order to express our opinion upon this undertaking we propose to take the House to a Division.
    Mr. MORGAN JONES: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Mr. GILLETT: Before the Question is put there is one question I should like to ask the Minister, if I may be allowed to do so. I do it with all the more interest because I see that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Rochester (Sir G. Hohler) is in his place. I want to draw the attention of the House to the fact that we are voting about £25,000 towards the dockyard expenses and other fees at Chatham. I have a very vivid recollection that in some of the Debates on this subject a year ago those hon. Members who were best qualified to speak on the subject of air warfare said that Chatham Dockyard was out of date because of its position, and that the best thing to do would be to get rid of Chatham Dockyard.
    Sir GERALD HOHLER: That idea has long since been exploded.
    Mr. GILLETT: They wanted to have a dockyard somewhere else which was in a better position. Before we vote this sum of money, which includes a sum which, in the end, will amount to £37,500 for a boat house and other items, I should like to know from the Minister if the Board of Admiralty are quite satisfied that it is worth while going on spending these large sums of money on Chatham in view of the dangers which have been pointed out in the past by those who are
    130
    well acquainted with aerial warfare, and who have said that Chatham is now out of date.
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I did, as a matter of fact, in my speech, in introducing the Estimates, actually mention the Boat House at Chatham. I said that I was quite satisfied on that point, and I am sure that anyone who has been to Chatham and who has seen the old Boat House will realise the necessity for tin's work.
    Mr. GILLETT: I think the right hon. Gentleman has missed my point. My point is not that the old Boat House is out of date, but it is the question as to whether it is worth while paying any money at all for Chatham, and whether Chatham should be done away with.
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. James Hope): The hon. Gentleman is now making a second speech.
    Mr. KELLY: I was hoping that before we were asked to go into the Division Lobby on this Vote we would have heard a little more as to the amount of money to be spent at Portland, and particularly in regard to Holton Heath. There is a considerable sum for new buildings, and we have had no explanation at all with regard to it. There is also the question of Malta. I see a great many items for expenditure in regard to Malta, and we have not heard one word as to the manner in which this money is being expended at Malta. I hope either the First Lord of the Admiralty or the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty will give some explanation as to these amounts spent at Holton Heath and Malta.
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: There, again, if the hon. Member had done me the honour of listening to what I said on Monday, he would have known that I mentioned both those items.
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The right hon. Gentleman can only speak again by leave of the House.
    Mr. W. BAKER: I regret the right hon. Gentleman should attempt to evade the necessity of replying to a quite polite question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Finsbury (Mr. Gillett). This is not a matter of detail. It is a broad question of policy, and if, as my hon. Friend has suggested, it is doubtful whether the continuance of the dockyard at Chatham is sound from the national point of view, then I take it that the First Lord will be well aware of all the details surrounding any decision concerning that dockyard. I would ask that, even though it may not be possible for the right hon. Gentleman himself to reply, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty will deal with this point. It is not satisfactory that we should be told that it is impossible to give a reply because the question asked concerns detail, and then to have a failure to reply on the question of principle. I sincerely hope that a reply will be given.
    Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: First of all, in regard to Chatham. It is considered that Chatham is suitable and the Admiralty would not have required to spend this money unless they were so convinced. As a great deal of money has already been spent for the improvement of Chatham, it would be obviously impossible to close it down in a minute. Whatever the future or the ultimate fate of the dockyard at Chatham may be, or the fate of a dockyard anywhere else, is a matter as to which neither the First Lord nor myself can give any opinion at the present moment, but so long as there is a dockyard there it is perfectly clear that it must be kept efficient and that is what we are trying our best to do.
    Question put, "That '£1,907,000' stand part of the Resolution."
    The House divided: Ayes, 213; Noes, 88.

    Division No. 53.]

    AYES.

    [8.10 p.m.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

    Dean, Arthur Wellesley

    Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.

    Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.

    Dixey, A. C.

    Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)

    Ainsworth, Major Charles

    Eden, Captain Anthony

    Hohler, Sir Geraid Fitzroy

    Albery, Irving James

    Edmondson, Major A. J.

    Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard

    Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)

    Elliot, Major Walter E.

    Holt, Captain H. P.

    Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)

    Ellis, R. G.

    Hopkins, J. W. W.

    Applin, Colonel R. V. K.

    Everard, W. Lindsay

    Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)

    Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.

    Fermoy, Lord

    Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

    Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.

    Fielden, E. B.

    Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.

    Atholl, Duchess of

    Ford, Sir P. J.

    Hudson, Capt. A. U.M. (Hackney, N.)

    Atkinson, C.

    Forestier-Walker, Sir L.

    Hume, Sir G. H.

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

    Foster, Sir Harry S.

    Huntingfield, Lord

    Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

    Fraser, Captain Ian

    Hurd, Percy A.

    Barnett, Major Sir Richard

    Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony

    Hurst, Gerald B.

    Barnston, Major Sir Harry

    Galbraith, J. F. W.

    Hutchison,G.A.Clark(Midl'n & P'bl's)

    Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)

    Ganzoni, Sir John

    Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)

    Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.

    Gates, Percy

    Iliffe, Sir Edward M.

    Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)

    Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham

    Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)

    Berry, Sir George

    Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John

    Jacob, A. E.

    Blundell, F. N.

    Glyn, Major R. G. C.

    James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert

    Bourne, Captain Robert Croft.

    Goff, Sir Park

    Jephcott, A. R.

    Brass, Captain W.

    Gower, Sir Robert

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Brassey, Sir Leonard

    Grace, John

    Kennedy, A. R. (Preston).

    Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

    Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)

    King, Captain Henry Douglas

    Briscoe, Richard George

    Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Broun-Lindsay, Major H.

    Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter

    Knox, Sir Alfred

    Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)

    Greene, W. P. Crawford

    Lamb, J. Q.

    Brown, Brig.-Gen. H.C. (Berks, Newb'y)

    Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)

    Lister, Cunliffe, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

    Burman, J. B.

    Grotrian, H. Brent

    Locker-Lampscn, Com. O. (Handsw t)

    Burton, Colonel H. W.

    Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.

    Loder, J. de V.

    Campbell, E. T.

    Gunston, Captain D. W.

    Lougher, L.

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)

    Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)

    Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere

    Chilcott, Sir Warden

    Hall, Vice-Admiral Sir R. (Eastb'rne)

    Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman

    Cobb, Sir Cyril

    Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)

    Lumley, L. R.

    Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

    Hanbury, C.

    Lynn, Sir R. J.

    Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir G. K.

    Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

    McLean, Major A.

    Cooper, A. Duff

    Harland, A.

    Macmillan, Captain H.

    Cope, Major William

    Harrison, G. J. C.

    McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John

    Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)

    Hawke, John Anthony

    Macquisten, F. A.

    Crookshank,Cpt.H.(Lindsey,Gainsbro)

    Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.

    MacRobert, Alexander M.

    Cunliffe, Sir Herbert

    Henderson,Capt.R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)

    Makins, Brigadier-General E.

    Curzon, Captain Viscount

    Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)

    Margesson, Captain D.

    Davidson, Major-General Sir John H

    Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

    Meller, R. J

    Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh)

    Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

    Merriman, F. B.

    Davies, Maj.Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)

    Herbert,S.(York, N.R.,Scar. & Wh'by)

    Meyer, Sir Frank

    Davies, Dr. Vernon

    Hills, Major John Walter

    Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

    Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M

    Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs., Stretford)

    Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, S.)

    Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.

    Ropner, Major L.

    Tinne, J. A.

    Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive

    Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.

    Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

    Murchison, Sir Kenneth

    Rye, F. G.

    Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough

    Nall, Colonel Sir Joseph

    Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

    Ward, Lt.-Col. A.L.(Kingston-on-Hull)

    Nelson, Sir Frank

    Sandeman, A. Stewart

    Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.

    Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)

    Sandon, Lord

    Waterhouse, Captain Charles

    Nicholson, O. (Westminster)

    Savery, S. S.

    Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)

    Nuttall, Ellis

    Sheffield, Sir Berkeley

    Wells, S. R.

    O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)

    Shepperson, E. W.

    Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.

    Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William

    Skelton, A. N.

    White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dalrymple-

    Penny, Frederick George

    Slaney, Major P. Kenyon

    Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)

    Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

    Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)

    Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

    Perkins, Colonel E. K.

    Smithers, Waldron

    Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)

    Pilcher, G.

    Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

    Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Litchfield)

    Pownall, Sir Assheton

    Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

    Windsor-dive, Lieut.-Colonel George

    Price, Major C. W. M.

    Storry-Deans, R.

    Wise, Sir Fredric

    Radford, E. A.

    Streatfeild, Captain S. R.

    Withers, John James

    Raine, W.

    Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.

    Wolmer, Viscount

    Ramsden, E.

    Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

    Womersley, W. J.

    Reid, D. D. (County Down)

    Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

    Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)

    Remer, J. R.

    Sugden, Sir Wilfrid

    Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.

    Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.

    Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.

    Young, Rt. Hon. Hilton (Norwich)

    Rice, Sir Frederick

    Tasker, R. Inigo.

    Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)

    Templeton, W. P.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)

    Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

    Major Sir George Hennessy and Captain Bowyer.

    NOES.

    Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)

    Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)

    Ritson, J.

    Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)

    Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

    Robinson, W. C. (Yorks,W.R.,Elland)

    Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')

    John, William (Rhondda, West)

    Salter, Dr. Alfred

    Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)

    Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)

    Scrymgeour, E.

    Baker, Walter

    Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

    Scurr, John

    Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

    Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

    Slesser, Sir Henry H.

    Barnes, A.

    Kelly, W. T.

    Smillie, Robert

    Batey, Joseph

    Kennedy, T.

    Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley)

    Beckett, John (Gateshead)

    Kirkwood, D.

    Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

    Bondfield, Margaret

    Lansbury, George

    Snell, Harry

    Broad, F. A.

    Lawrence, Susan

    Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

    Bromfield, William

    Lee, F.

    Stamford, T. W.

    Bromley, J.

    Lindley, F. W.

    Stephen, Campbell

    Clowes, S.

    Livingstone, A. M.

    Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

    Cluse, W. S.

    Lowth, T.

    Sullivan, Joseph

    Cove, W. G.

    Mackinder, W.

    Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)

    Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)

    MacLaren, Andrew

    Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro, W.)

    Day, Colonel Harry

    March, S.

    Thurtle, Ernest

    Duncan, C.

    Maxton, James

    Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.

    Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.

    Montague, Frederick

    Viant, S. P.

    Gardner, J. P.

    Morris, R. H.

    Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

    Gillett, George M.

    Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)

    Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney

    Gosling, Harry

    Naylor, T. E.

    Welsh, J. C.

    Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent)

    Palin, John Henry

    Williams, David (Swansea, East)

    Groves, T.

    Paling, W.

    Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

    Grundy, T. W.

    Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

    Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

    Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)

    Ponsonby, Arthur

    Wright, W.

    Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Potts, John S.

    Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

    Hardie, George D.

    Purcell, A. A.

    Mayday, Arthur

    Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Mr. Whiteley and Mr. B. Smith.

    Resolutions agreed to.

    It being after a quarter past Sight of the Clock, and there being Private Business set down by direction of the Chairman of Ways and Means under Standing Order No. 8, further Proceeding was postponed without Question put.

LONDON, MIDLAND AND SCOTTISH RAILWAY BILL. (By Order.)
Order for Second Reading read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a Second. time."
Mr. BARNES: I beg to move, to leave out the word "now" and, at the end of the Question, to add the words "upon this day six months."
Last year we had to bring a similar Motion before the House in connection with a similar Bill for the purpose of calling attention to the traffic facilities which this company provides in the East End of London and in South Essex generally. One regrets that in a Measure of this description local matters should have to be intruded on the main purpose of the Bill, but this is the only opportunity we have of voicing considerable

135
grievances to which I hope the company will on this occasion give due consideration. This company serves one of the most thickly populated areas of London including the East End and part of South-Eastern Essex down to the coast. The population of the area is increasing by leaps and bounds. Indeed, during the post-War period in all these districts the population has increased tremendously. Just beyond Barking, where the electric service of the District Railway which has running powers over the London, Midland and Scottish line, now ends, the London County Council are making another new estate, and unless the London, Midland and Scottish Company carry out their legitimate obligations in this area, the traffic problem in that part of London will be made more chaotic than ever. Even when we pass beyond the London County Council area we find West Ham with a population of 350,000, the borough of East Ham with a population of 150,000, Barking, Becontree, Purfleet and so on down to Southend.
When the London, Midland and Scottish Company took over the old London, Tilbury and Southend Company they gave various undertakings to this House. I do not intend, however, to deal with that part of the problem to-night because I understand the railway company have intimated future plans to the local authorities concerned which more or less meet the requirements of those bodies. Therefore, I wish to direct the attention of the House to the service of this company in the parts of East London nearer to Central London. The population which is served is purely industrial. Their wages are comparatively low, and most of them are compelled to go into the City or West End to earn their livelihood. As I have said, the District Rail-way runs an electric service from Bow Road to Barking over the London, Midland and Scottish line, and the fares on this section are on a higher level than that which prevails in London competitive traffic as a whole. I understand the company's case is that the rates are fixed by the Rates Tribunal, and I wish to address a question to the Minister of Transport on that point. Are we to understand that the purpose of the Rates Tribunal is to keep the fares above the general competitive level in London? If an individual gets on an omnibus or tram
136
at East Ham Town Hall and travels by omnibus or tram to Aldgate, and then takes the District Railway from Aldgate to Charing Cross or Westminster, there is a net saving to the passenger of 3d. on that journey. That is because on that particular section of the line, the London, Midland and Scottish insist upon main line fares for the crowded traffic on the District Railway. I wish the Minister to indicate clearly, whether that is the purpose of the Rates Tribunal or whether the company have not power, if they so will, to reduce the charges on that section of the line and bring them into conformity with the rates prevalent elsewhere in London.
Again, because of the practice of the L.M.S., workmen's fares on this section are still just over 100 per cent. more than they were in 1914. That is an anomaly which ought to be rectified, and if the Minister has any power he ought to exercise it in the interests of the tens of thousands of poorly-paid people who are compelled to use that part of our railway system. May I now turn to the travelling conditions on this part of the line? While we all recognise that travelling generally in London is somewhat of a problem, and has become very uncomfortable for the mass of the people who have to get from the outer areas of London to the centre, I venture to assert that the travelling conditions from the East End of London to the centre are a disgrace and are almost unbearable. I experienced that discomfort personally many years ago, when I used to travel by workmen's train, but in the intervening period that difficulty has become worse, and this company is not providing the facilities for the growing population that is there. I have seen young girls using all their physical power in their efforts to get into these trains, and yet these trains repeatedly pass out of the station leaving hundreds behind, it being physically impossible to squeeze in an additional person. It is intolerable that young girls and boys should have to go to their employment under travelling conditions of that description. All the alertness and vigour of which they are capable are very often taken out of them in the early morning by that journey alone.
The more this company extends outwards and the more the area develops in population, so at the stations nearer

137
to London, like East Ham, Upton Park, and Plaistow, the facilities for obtaining a seat or travelling in comfort become less and less. The company have in a tentative way attempted to meet the difficulty by running occasional trains starting from East Ham and from Plaistow, but I wish to urge that they should develop that system much more in the future. I do not see that it is impossible, from a traffic point of view, to start empty intervening or alternative trains from each of these stations, so that facilities are open to persons in all parts of the area at least to get a seat occasionally in travelling to their work. Used as they are in a very overcrowded way, when these trains complete their journey at the end of any particular system or at a junction station some effort should be made, even if in a hurried sense, to fumigate and cleanse them. I do not think that is an unreasonable request, and it is no reflection at all on the people who use the trains —I must use them as frequently as anyone else—but it is obvious that if you have a carriage carrying treble its normal seating capacity, the wear and tear are unduly heavy, and I think the company ought to adopt some method at least of hurriedly sweeping these trains before starting them back on their return journey.
I must apologise for mentioning these detailed complaints, but we must not overlook the fact that it is these daily inconveniences that matter so much to the travelling public. It is very nice in Parliament to talk about problems in a broad and general way, but if Parliament cannot give some attention to the mass of the people of this country, whose time is occupied in the daily routine work that goes to make up the commercial supremacy and greatness of this country, I think it is not doing its duty. I wish we had not to bring these matters before Parliament, but as this is the only opportunity on which criticisms can be levelled against the railway companies to try to bring the pressure of public opinion to bear upon them to improve their service to the community, the difficulty is not with the Member who stands up here, but with the system which makes it necessary.
Another point that I wish to bring to the notice of the company is the position of people who live in areas like Pitsea and Laindon, further down the line. I
138
have constituents who have removed from my particular division to Laindon and Pitsea, who have work in the docks, in the riverside area, and those early morning shifts start at 6 or 6.30 a.m. I know of numerous cases where men have taken their families down to places like Laindon and Pitsea, to give their children the opportunity of fresher air than we get in the East End of London, and yet they are in the unfortunate position of having themselves to reside nearer to their work, in the Borough of East Ham or West Ham, five nights in the week, because there is no train that leaves Pitsea or Laindon, or intermediate stations, to get them to East Ham or Plaistow in sufficient time for them to start work at the proper hour. I understand that a train leaves Southend at 4.20, but it does not stop at these intermediate stations, and I would press upon the railway company to meet a very important domestic matter for a good many families by stopping that train, or possibly sending it off a little earlier. I admit that the railway company are in a difficulty and that it might mean five or 10 minutes earlier for the people at Southend, but in matters of this sort I think the convenience of people all down the line should be considered, even if it meads a slightly earlier rising time for the people at the extreme end.
I sincerely trust that the representatives of the railway company will realise that this particular company holds the key to the traffic problem in the East End of London. If the London, Midland and Scottish Railway Company does not extend its service in all parts of East London and South Essex, that traffic problem will grow steadily worse, and while recognising the general difficulties of ralway administration to-day, I do not think they will overcome those difficulties by piling up dissatisfaction among the travelling public.
Mr. HANNON: They are not.
Mr. BARNES: I would ask the hon. Member to consider this fact, that for the last 14 years this company has been under the obligation to extend its facilities in this area. I have lived in that district all my life, and have had daily experience of the problem of the travelling public in the East End of London, and I have no hesitation in saying, while admitting all the difficulties, that that

139
problem has become steadily worse as the years have gone by. It is not because the people are disinclined to use that system. As a matter of fact, the difference of 3d. on the fare from Upton Park to the centre gives the situation in a nutshell. The mass of the people in that area must study a factor like 3d. on a single journey to the West End of London, and tens of thousands of people are being pushed on to the roads, on to omnibuses and tramcars, who, from the standpoint of convenience, would prefer to travel on the Underground, if its system were extended from Barking and if the service were more complete.
We are repeatedly hearing complaints from the railway companies that motor traffic is undermining their position. I say that if that be true, it is because the railway companies are not meeting the modern problem of suburban traffic. I know from practical experience that thousands of people want to travel on the District Railway, but the fares are so high in comparison with other forms of traffic, and the conditions are so uncomfortable, that they are compelled to go on omnibuses and tramcars, and the more we use road vehicles the more congestion we have in the Commercial Road, the East India Dock Road and in the City generally. I ask the Railway Company to take this problem seriously in hand in the East End of London otherwise we shall have to stiffen our attitude.
Mr. RHYS: I beg to second the Amendment.
My hon. Friend adduced some very weighty reasons in moving the rejection of the Bill, and I should like to place before the House some other reasons for the attitude which those of us who are opposing the Bill are taking up. I go back to February, 1924, when this railway company had a Bill before the House. The Noble Lord the Member for Southend (Viscount Elveden) at that time read a letter from the general manager of the railway company, and my hon. Friend the Member for Moseley (Mr. Hannon) made a very optimistic speech. The speeches delivered on that occasion led us to believe that an immediate panacea was forthcoming, and that the overcrowding and unsatisfactory
140
service would be remedied, but, I regret to say that no very great improvement has taken place. I should like to divide the few remarks I propose to address to the House into two portions. Both portions have one thing in common, and that is the very general reluctance on the part of the inhabitants of the districts concerned to agree to any postponement, however brief that may be.
First, I should like to deal with the Corporation of Southend. There did appear at one moment upon the Order Paper of the House an Instruction that the Corporation of Southend should be allowed to submit a case to the Committee before which the Bill will come, if it obtains a Second Reading. Upon that Instruction appearing on the Paper, the railway company and the corporation got into touch. Some of us have acted as intermediaries and negotiators betwen the two contending parties, and I am very glad to say that the railway company have now submitted certain proposals to Southend which have led them to withdraw their opposition from the Bill for the time being. In order that there may be a public record of what has transpired, I would like to read the House an extract from a letter written to my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Essex (Mr. Looker) setting forth the proposals of the company. The letter is written by the president of the executive of the London, Midland and Scottish Railway Company, and I would here say, if I may, how much we appreciate his courtesy and kindness in seeing us, and, I think I may say, his very evident desire to deal with the problems which he has inherited, and which, possibly, are not of his making. This is from the letter, which was written on the 11th March:
"I am, however, prepared to undertake on behalf of my Company that within two years from the present date, alternative proposals of a really comprehensive nature will be put forward, and should Parliamentary powers be necessary to give effect to them a Bill will be promoted for that purpose, but it is understood that as it may be that the carrying out of these proposals is dependent upon the acquiescence and cooperation of other parties interested, it is impossible for my Company to pledge themselves to any particular scheme."
That has satisfied the Corporation of Southend, because, in addition to that, the company have undertaken im-

141
mediately to put in hand certain minor ameliorative measures, and they have give actual dates by which these shall be put into operation. Once more we are prepared to meet the railway company, and I would appeal to them most earnestly to recognise that we have attempted to meet them in the most conciliatory spirit, and in a spirit which does recognise that certain difficulties do exist.
In the second portion of my remarks, I would like to deal with the problem of Barking and Becontree. The London County Council have on that side of Essex a vast housing scheme. When it is completed, it is estimated that there will be a population living there of 120,000 people, where a few years ago there were none at all. At least 20,000 people use Barking station every day. Not only are these two districts rapidly developing, but there are other districts further down the line, such as Horn-church and Upminster. The Royal Air Force are putting up a large aerodrome at Hornchurch, and a large garden city is being developed at Upminster. I think the railway company are realising their obligations, in that they have put in hand electrical signalling on a certain section of their line, which, I understand, will allow the capacity of the line to be increased. But the problem is so vast that merely ameliorative measures are not going to be of any value. We have to realise that vast new towns are springing up, and, in my view, it will necessitate the construction, eventually of a fresh line. Nothing less than that will satisfy the needs of the district.
It is my privilege to represent a Division on the edge of London, and I can assure my hon. Friend opposite from my own personal knowledge that, travel ling-conditions are perfectly scandalous. The overcrowding has really to be undergone to be believed, and I do not exaggerate when I say that I can produce instances of people who have not been able to get out at the station at which they wish to alight, let alone others not being able to get into the train. The longer this problem is left, the greater it becomes, and the more difficult will the various traffic interests serving that part of London find it to deal with it. It may be that in the future some big scheme for the whole of East London traffic will be evolved, but we cannot assent to much
142
more delay, and, as we have endeavoured to be reasonable and conciliatory on this occasion, I hope that when the hon. Gentleman who, I understand, will reply for the railway company comes to speak, he will be able to give us some real hope of something tangible being done to satisfy the needs of the inhabitants of that area.
Sir HENRY JACKSON: l am venturing to intervene in this Debate for the reason that I have been a member of the London Traffic Advisory Committee since its formation, and, through the courtesy of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport, I have had the privilege of being a member of each of the three committees which have held public inquiries into the travelling facilities in North London, East London and South-East London. With the information we have obtained and the conclusions we have come to, I hope I may be able to be of some help in this discussion. In the first place, I would say that I believe all that my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Ham (Mr. Barnes) and my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Mr. Rhys) have said about the difficulties of the situation is in every way true. The Committee which investigated the situation in East London reported:
"We are thoroughly convinced that the inadequacy of the through travelling facilities to and from East London generally has been established."
I would like to illustrate some of the lines along which we as a Committee think this problem is ultimately to be settled. At Becontree there is an instance of a new town suddenly arising on the rim of a great city. Where there were formerly fields, in a very short time there will be, as the hon. Member said, a town of 120,000 people. Not only are there the crowded districts between here and Barking, but there is this immense accretion of population at Becontree.
My first point is that I believe the solution of this problem is not the special privilege, shall I say, or obligation of the London, Midland and Scottish Railway Company. There are many people responsible for this great district, and many people will have to bear their share. There is great and an intensive road competition; there is the London and North Eastern Railway,

143
with its responsibility; and there is the special responsibility of the Underground service. In order that the House may fully appreciate the situation, I would like to show to whom the line which has been the subject of discussion belongs. The District Railway ownership, apart from about one-sixth of a mile between St. Mary's and Whitechapel, ends at the Mansion House. Between the Mansion House and Whitechapel the line is the joint property of the District Railway and the Metropolitan Railway. Between Whitechapel and Bow it is the joint property of the Metropolitan Railway Company and the London, Midland and Scottish Railway Company. From Bow to Barking it is the absolute property of the London, Midland and Scottish Railway Company. The District Railway have running rights over these last two sections.
We have heard to-night, and we heard much more at the inquiry, of the overcrowding on the trains. This overcrowding makes a very interesting story. Practically, there is overcrowding for four hours out of the 18½ hours the line is open daily. For two hours in the morning and for two hours at night there is all the overcrowding and all the congestion to which hon. Members have alluded; they could not paint too black a picture of the terrors and the horrors of those four hours out of the 18½. But for the remainder of the time, for 14½ hours, there is a slackness of traffic which is probably unequalled in London. Within 10 miles of Charing Cross there is no line of railway which carries such a small traffic during the slack period as the particular section under discussion. The equipment of power and cars is practically doing nothing for these 14½ hours.
We have ventured to suggest to the London, Midland and Scottish Railway certain means by which improvements may be made. We were told, and I have no doubt we shall be told to-night, that the Company have begun, and I believe are approaching completion, of electric signalling on the lines belonging to them. When that is done, certain relief will be obtained. At the present moment the maximum number of trains that can be run on
144
the sector from Barking to the Mansion House at the peak hours—or, indeed, at any hour—is 24 per hour. When this new signalling is complete—and probably some representative of the company will tell us that it soon will be complete—it is estimated that another four trains per hour can be run in each direction. That will mean that 28 trains an hour can run over that sector at any time, and that they will be able to carry something like 3,200 additional passengers every hour.
That is the first solution. The second proposal—and again L do not know what answer we shall get to-night—was that the London, Midland and Scottish Railway should electrify their line from Barking to Upminster. If they did that we were assured that the District Railway could run their electric trains from the west of London right through to Upminster, and that, of course, would bring relief to that estate which the hon. Member for Romford so admirably represents. These were the two improvements which we thought the London, Midland and Scottish Railway might undertake at any time; hut, after all, the key to this problem is in another part altogether. A small section of the line from Aldgate East to Whitechapel is really the crux and the key of the problem of this line. Over that small section of line not only do the District trains run from the Mansion House to Barking, but one gets the Metropolitan trains coming from the Inner Circle dipping down under the Thames, and going to join the Southern Railway at New Cross. It is that extra number of trains passing over that section which makes it impossible at the present moment, and will make it impossible even after electric signalling has been installed, to run more than 28 trains over this sector in an hour. We suggest that there should be built a fly-under, by means of which the Metropolitan trains can be diverted to pass under the line and so under the Thames to New Cross. The cost of that will be very serious; it is estimated at about £1,500,000. I want to stress the great importance of that particular piece of work. When this is done 40 trains per hour can pass over this section and improve by 66 per cent. the present service. In our last report on the

145
South-East London inquiry we made a suggestion that the Southern trains should be projected through that tunnel to the District lines and so give an improved service between South-East and Central London. If that be done it will mean more trains on that sector, and that would only aggravate the present trouble. This makes the building of the fly-under a matter of urgency because it is the key to the position.
For the moment that section belongs to the District and the Metropolitan Railways, but we say that it really is the common problem of all these railway companies, and I suggest to the House that sooner or later the four or five railway companies concerned should get together and frankly face the building of that fly-under junction in order to give this great relief. In all these railway extensions we know the question of finance is the crux of the whole problem. The committee of inquiry into this question reported:
"The evidence submitted at this Inquiry strengthens their view that no lasting solution of the London passenger transport problem can be secured so long as the present competitive methods are pursued. It is only by the elimination of all wasteful, uneconomic and unnecessary competition between the various transport agencies, that it will be possible for any considerable improvements to be effected, particularly in the way of the construction of new underground or surface railways."
9.0 p.m.
Perhaps I may be allowed to refer to the question of railway fares, and make a comparison with tram and omnibus fares? We had that problem very earnestly examined by the representatives of the Southern Railway at the last inquiry. They said that they felt that this competition was doing damage to their service, and they made the suggestion that somebody—they did not say whether it should be the Minister of Transport—should raise the fares of the trams and omnibuses up to the fares charged by the railways. Of course, that was a solution which we could not countenance for a moment. If and when we do get this co-ordination of London services and the elimination of the waste that is going on, we are confident that we shall be able to lower the railway fares down to the fares charged by other transport services. After all, Members of this House know as well as I do the very
146
perilous financial position of the suburban railway traffic. We have been told that the Southern Railway have been compelled to close down eight of their suburban stations in the South-Eastern section because the traffic has left it, and this is the problem which is causing the greatest possible anxiety to the suburban railway service. After all, much as we may admire omnibuses and tramways, all means of transport are necessary for a great extending city. As the city grows the transport problem becomes a very complex one. When you get new towns like Becontree growing on the edge of a great city you need express railway services to connect the outer suburbs with the centre, and you also need stopping trains to connect the inner suburbs with the centre, and you need omnibuses and trams to deal with heavy short journeys. All these are necessary, and you cannot do without them. What is more, you cannot allow any one of them to be killed by the others. We are now fast approaching a time when certain services are going to kill other services unless some co-ordination like the one I have suggested takes place.
May I give some interesting figures in regard to the competitive services of omnibuses, trams and railways? I will take the figures for omnibuses, trams and the tubes. The average receipt per passenger per annum on the Underground services to-day is 2·8d. The average in the case of an omnibus is l·8d. and for a tram 1·5d. The cost of carrying the passengers on these services is 2·ld. on the Underground railways; l·5d. for the omnibus, and l·3d. for a tram. If you consider what is the capital investment of providing each of these services for each passenger every year the figures are, on the Underground 34d. per passenger, 5d. for a tram and l·5d. for an omnibus. If you combine all these figures into one economic whole you find the cost of providing these services. If you take the economic value of an omnibus at 100 you will find the economic return for a tram is 21, and on the Underground it is only 15. It is obvious, therefore, if you allow this competition to go on the omnibus must kill the railway and even the trams.
That is the problem we have to contemplate. We believe the solution of

147
this problem is only one of the many traffic problems in Greater London which will have to be taken on the shoulders of many people, and ultimately must be borne by the responsibilities of a large number of people. The Minister of Transport, in answer to a question put by the hon. Member for Ilford (Sir F. Wise), stated that a small Committee had been set up to consider the coordination of all great transport services in London. It has been sitting for several months, and while it would be improper for me to say how far things have gone, some of us seem to think that it is on those lines a solution will be found. I wish to say, in conclusion, that I think the London, Midland and Scottish Railway can only contribute a very small portion towards the solution of this problem, but I believe they are trying to do that. I hope this Bill will be given a Second Reading.
Mr. THOMAS: Whatever else may be said of railway companies, they do, at least, by our procedure in this House, provide a very convenient opportunity of discussing, not only their own sins of omission and commission, but generally the ills of the world. I heard with considerable interest the speech of the hon. Member for Central Wandsworth (Sir H. Jackson), whose work on the Traffic Committee is well known and appreciated. Having listened very carefully to all that he said, I expected him to wind up by saying that the Report he produced showed the competitive system to have broken down, and asking the House to realise that the only remedy is nationalisation. That is what he was leading up to.
Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. James Hope): He did not get as far as that.
Mr. THOMAS: Apparently because he thought that you might have stopped him, he did not quite get there, but, at all events, he did clearly set out to show what, after all, is the real essence of this case—the problem which my hon. Friends who moved and seconded the rejection of this Bill showed to be a real problem. There is great difficulty, there are great inconveniences, but anyone who knows anything of railway or traffic
148
problems knows perfectly well that, no matter who may speak for the London, Midland and Scottish Railway Company, no matter how good their intentions may be, no matter how sincere they are, no matter if they even applied the whole of their resources to it, they could not solve the problem. The answer to the remarkable figures quoted by the hon. Member for Central Wandsworth is very simple. That, after all, is the railway problem to-day, not only in London, but all over the country. The hon. Member has shown, by his figures for costs in the case of railways, omnibuses and trams, that the real people who have got away with it, and whom the public are paying, are the ground landlords who have had to be bought out, thus enhancing the prices which the railway companies have to charge to-day. That is the real answer to the competitive prices that the hon. Member mentioned.
Not a solitary word has been said against this Bill, and, therefore, we are all agreed that, the Bill being a good Bill, we will use our Parliamentary opportunities to discuss what is not in the Bill, and what could not possibly be in the Bill, because it happens to be a London, Midland and Scottish Railway Bill. When you are dealing with the question of fares, and particularly cheap fares—and if it were possible to have lower fares than obtain to-day I certainly would support it—it must be remembered that, just as sugar, and tea, and newspapers and other things have gone up, just as the wages of the workers producing those particular commodities have gone up, so the reduction of railway fares must not be at the expense of sweated railway labour or reductions in railway men's pay. I am always interested to hear the critics of the railway companies who talk about railway fares being 50 per cent. higher than they were before the War, but who forget that they can hardly show a commodity or industry, whose prices have not gone up by at least 75 per cent. to 100 per cent. You will see in the newspapers agitations against extortionate railway Companies, but none of them say a word about the fact that their charges have gone up by 100 per cent., as against 50 per cent. in the case of the railway companies.

149
One of my hon. Friends said that he would like to see the trains fumigated. I suppose he has been to a cinema, and at half-time has seen them go round with some fizz and, so to speak, clear the atmosphere. Let me urge him, however, to remesnber that a railway train is not a cinema, and, while it would be a very good thing if we could have something on the lines he indicated, I would ask him to imagine what would happen if there were a thousand passengers at the other end waiting for that train. Their language, while the train was being fumigated, would entirely overbalance the argument on the other side. I hope the Minister will not say anything—I am sure he will not—that would interfere with the functions of the Railway Rates Tribunal. The Railway Rates Tribunal is a safeguard to the worker, to the shareholder, and to the public. The Railway Rates Tribunal, in fixing rates, are not only empowered to take evidence from all sides, but they are empowered also to take into consideration the working conditions of the great mass of the railwaymen, and that, in itself, must be a factor that governs their recommendations. I believe that this is a good Bill. I believe that all the grievances that have been ventilated are genuine, but they cannot all be remedied by this company. I hope. that the company itself will give earnest consideration to those points that can be remedied, and that the House will give its best assistance by giving the Bill a Second Reading.
Sir CYRIL COBB: I want to say one further word to press home the matter of the London County Council housing scheme at Beacontree. I do not think that it would be possible here in this House at this moment to devise a comprehensive scheme to deal with the very complicated position of affairs between the various railway companies with a view to solving this problem, but what I think we can do, and ought to do, is to get some undertaking from those who are promoting this Bill that there will be no further delay in doing something to strengthen the railway services on the line between Southend and London, particularly that portion of it passing through the Beacontree estate. It has already been pointed out what a large estate that is, how it is growing, and how eventually there will be something like 120,000 people living on it. When we settled on
150
that estate in 1919, we had very largely in view the factor of communications. The House will realise, because it knows about housing and about communications as no other body in the country does,. that it is no earthly use having a housing estate outside a large metropolis like London without having proper communications between that estate and the Metropolis, because nine-tenths of the people, who are actual wage-earners, will come in every day to the Metropolis.
When we settled on that estate in 1919, and bought it in order to develop it as a housing estate, we had distinctly in our minds the need for proper communications between the estate and London, and already arrangements had been made or undertakings given, by the predecessors of the London, Midland and Scottish Railway Company, that the line should be electrified in 1919, the very year in which we acquired the estate. Further undertakings were given by the Underground Railways that, in conjunction with the Midland Railway, they would not only re-signal the whole of the line, but would electrify the line between Barking and Southend. That has not been done; nothing has been done towards accomplishing it, with the exception of some amount of re-signalling and the erection of one station on the Beacontree estate. Admitting all the difficulties, admitting all the intricacies of the question, I do think that that is not a good record for those two railway companies. What I think I am entitled to insist upon, on behalf of the London County Council and its housing estate, is that we should get a definite undertaking from the promoters of this Bill that, inasmuch as we know now that the re-signalling—automatic signalling—is to be completed some time this year, either in May or June, from that date there should be an increase in trains as between Beacontree and the Metropolis. I understand that the company is willing to give us six extra trains in each of the peak hours, two in the morning and two in the evening over those running now, making 12 each way every day during the peak hours. That is a great concession, and one which I am sure will meet with the approval of the people who live on that line.
Not only shall we have more trains, as I understand it, but larger trains, because the intention is to increase the

151
size of the platforms, and by doing that we shall be able to have longer trains holding more people. Then, I understand, not only shall we get these six extra trains at the peak hours but, spread over the whole day, we shall be able to get four to six extra trains on the top of those running into Broad Street. That is the first thing we ask the promoters of the Bill to undertake as from May or June next, or whenever it is that the re-signalling will be complete. In the second place, we ought to have a promise that they will do their very best in their negotiations with the other group of railway companies to have a really comprehensive scheme worked out before 1929, when they will bring in another Bill to include all that my hon. Friend said ought to be done to bring the underground system right over the London, Midland and Scottish system. Those are the two points I want to make on behalf of the county council. If we get our extra trains now, with an undertaking two years hence to have a thoroughly good scheme hammered out and carried out to a conclusion so that we shall have a system giving us 40 trains an hour at the peak hour, we shall be satisfied.
Mr. EVAN DAVIES: Two years ago I had an opportunity of raising the special grievances of a district in South Wales against the London, Midland and Scottish Railway Company. I once had an interview with the general manager, who went into the details very thoroughly with me and explained the difficulties they had to contend with. We had an interview recently with the heads of the company and they made a promise that certain things shall be done to make the necessary improvements as soon as financial conditions permit. The special grievance I have to bring before the House is this. We have a branch railway about 14 miles long on which the stations are wooden structures. One of them is 1,150 feet above sea level. Anyone travelling there on a winter evening and finding the accommodation they have would think himself in an uncivilised country. I am told that the income that branch line draws from the Tredegar Steel, Iron and Coal Company, and other companies, amounts to £150,000 per annum, though
152
it is only fair to say that the railway company does not admit the accuracy of that figure. The Tredegar people at mass meetings, the Chamber of Commerce, the Tredegar Steel, Iron and Coal Company and the Urban District Authority are all stating very definitely that the time has come for the Railway Company to provide better station accommodation. It may be true that they are not taking as much money from that part of the country as they used to, but they have drawn large sums of money from that area and nothing has been done in return. The wooden structure at Tredegar is an eye-sore to the whole place. There is a beautiful lake in the vicinity. The station was built in 1865, and practically no improvement has been made since. It has only one platform, which is about 100 feet by 15, with a covering over only a part of it. The passenger traffic is very considerable. There is a level crossing 12 yards above the station platform, and traffic has been delayed by as much as 17 minutes at a time owing to shunting operations. I should be failing in my duty if I did not use this opportunity of emphasising the necessity of certain improvements. The Tredegar people are very bitter on the point. They have sent deputations to Euston over and over again, and a promise has been given that steps shall be taken immediately. I am asking the House to take note of it so that the next time a Bill is promoted by this company it will be resisted unless the promise has been carried out.
Mr. BROMLEY: I am always interested in discussions on railway Bills, but I only rise to draw attention to the futility of much of the discussion that has taken place, and that takes place on similar Measures. It is easy for people having knowledge of the great volume of peak morning and even traffic round the Metropolis to criticise any railway company, but their energies are mis-directed because, no matter what the motive power is or how frequently trains may be run during those peak hours, they will never solve the problem. I have had experience of driving these trains into London in the morning and outwards in the evening some years ago, since when the passenger traffic has intensified. My experience was that, no matter how fast the trains were

153
booked, no matter how long they were, as you were leaving one station you could see in the distance the next train coming towards that station. My train was packed, and there were always the half-dozen or more "last second" passengers running and scrambling into your train in a position of unsafety, no matter how long you had been at that platform.
If the railway companies carried out their own rules for the safety of the travelling public and refused to allow passengers to approach the trains because of the danger to the passengers themselves, then the confusion and congestion would be far more complicated and intensified than it is to-day. The railway companies and the railway servants do their best to meet the necessities of the travlling public, but it is impossible, I repeat, for any railway company with any motive power—work their servants never so hard—to cope with the morning and evening peak traffic around this city or some of the other great cities.
Therefore, I ask, why turn criticism and energy, thought and research, to something which cannot be solved in that way? There have been other suggestions made, and I remember quite well when I was a member of the Railway Advisory Committee which was set up at the close of the War and which was in being until the railways amalgamated, we made a suggestion then to endeavour to solve this problem. We realised that it was impossible, as I have indicated, to deal with the peak traffic satisfactorily and allow no inconvenience to any would-be passenger, but we did find a solution. That may appear to be a large claim because I know that not only the hon. Member for Wandsworth (Sir H. Jackson), who spoke in so well-informed a manner on this question, but others have turned their attention, brains and experience to it, but I repeat we did find a solution. We suggested that as it was impossible for the railway companies to carry the traffic of the morning and evening peak period, the business houses and factories and works might alter their times of starting and closing and break it up over about two hours. But no one was willing to do that to assist the problem. Every office said, "No, we must start at 9 or 9.30 in the morning; it would upset our whole business to start half an hour earlier or later." Every
154
factory and workshop said, "We must start at this particular time or the whole of our business would go." I do not believe that those statements were correct, and I believe if the business elements in these great cities could arrange to open their shops some half an hour earlier and some half art hour later so as to cover an hour, and close them in the same way in the evenings, even if they alternated their opening and closing for the convenience of their servants, this problem could be solved. But so long as your people are not prepared to alter their age-old conventions by half an hour or three-quarters of an hour, I suggest we are wasting the time of the House if we continually criticise the railway companies who cannot possibly solve the problem themselves.
There is one other point on which I should like to say a word; again I am referring to the very learned exposition of the position given by the hon. Member for Wandsworth. He pointed out that it is necessary to have trams, trains and omnibuses to deal with the traffic round the great cities. Yes, but the railway companies are in a peculiar position. Where road traffic is necessary, there is an expansion of new roads to meet the convenience of omnibuses and trams and we have a Road Fund to assist them. The railway companies, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas) pointed out, have been financially hamstrung from years ago—for which the present proprietors or those who manage the railways, are not responsible—by the rapacious demands of the ground landlords putting up the cost of this or that bit of land purchased for the railways, and there is no Road Fund to assist the railways companies. Every practical railwayman knows that the traffic—it is the same underground as above ground—at these particular hours is absolutely overwhelming, and no science or methods can deal with it, whether you have electric or pneumatic signalling, or electric trains, and no matter what the motive power may be, steam or electric. You cannot get more trains over a given area with safety, irrespective of what the power may be.
The only solution, as every practical railwayman will say, is to broaden the railway road just as you would the roads to carry more omnibuses, trams or motor

155
cars. The nation spends money and taxes itself to provide broader and better roads for the private car owner, who is often travelling for pleasure and not for peak-hour business and for the trams and omnibuses, but as long as the railways are restricted to such narrow permanent ways in the cities, you cannot get more trains over them. The advantage is all with the road transport because the nation provides better roads for it. I am not presuming to ask that national finances should allow subsidised railways to broaden their traffic roads into the cities, but it is a problem for all who in the future have to govern the complicated traffic in any city. They are prepared to help the roads, and until they are prepared to recognise the difficulties of the railways, too, and assist them to broaden out their roads to bring their passengers in. I suggest, with all respect, it is a waste of the time, intelligence and energy of this House to criticise that which no one on this earth can possibly help under present circumstances.
Mr. FIELDEN: As a director of the railway company which has introduced this Bill, I will endeavour to deal with some of the points which have been raised. I should like to enter a protest on behalf of the railway company against the remark made by the Mover of this Amendment when he said that for 14 years the railway company had done nothing to carry out their bargain made in 1912. I am quite sure he did not intend by that to suggest that the railway company had really neglected an obligation which they had accepted when the Act of 1912 was passed. I think he omitted to remember that there was War which lasted four years, that at the end of the War the railways were under the Government and not in private hands, and that on the completion of that period the whole question of the railways was before this House and the whole position was recast and it was not until 1922 that the railways could act on their own behalf. In 1924, a Bill was brought in for dealing with this question. Therefore, the suggestion that we have been leaving, for a good many years, an obligation which this House placed on us, is scarcely fair. The hon. Member for Wandsworth referred to the
156
question of the railway and travelling facilities into the big cities, especially in regard to the particular part of London which lies to the east. It is a problem which is exercising the minds of many people and is a very big question indeed. I think the House would be very unwise if Members did not cast their minds forward as to what the problem will be 50 years hence, and any movement which takes place which does not visualise the future would be likely to be a wrong one. Therefore, if we do not move very fast it is partly because we think that this is a problem that ought to be considered not only from the point of view of the London,, Midland and Scottish Railway but that of other railways also, and other means of communication, and that it is not only the railways that are or will be affected, but the whole question of the movement of these vast masses of population from their homes to their work, and back.
The company are prepared to undertake that within two years of the present date alternative proposals will be put forward, and should Parliamentary powers be necessary to give effect to them, a Bill will be promoted for that purpose, but it is to be understood that, as it may be the carrying out of these proposals is dependent upon the acquiescence and cooperation of other parties interested, it is impossible for my company to pledge themselves to any particular scheme. We have, in addition, given in charge of the late chief engineer of the company the question of inquiring into the engineering problems that present themselves in this district. The question of electrification is one of them. One official is solely engaged in the consideration of schemes for meeting the future requirements of the traffic on the London and Southend sections; progressive electrification is one of them, and alterations and improvements at Broad Street is another. Steps are being taken to avoid delay owing to traffic movements, and the provision of additional running lines and facilities. Therefore, the House will see that we are studying these questions and taking steps to see what solution can be provided.
It is not entirely a question for ourselves. We may be able to run a greater number of trains by means of additional facilities on our own portion of the line,

157
but when those trains leave us and go to the other lines it is a question whether those lines are able to take the additional number of trains. We are in process of automatically signalling the line between Barking and Bow. That work will be completed, we hope, by this summer, and when the work has been completed we shall be able to accept 40 trains per hour as against 26 to-day. It will not, however, be possible to arrange with the District Company for more than six additional trains per hour in the first instance; but this number will be increased so soon as the necessary arrangements can be made. These arrangements will relieve the difficulty at Upton Park and other stations on this section. It will be seen, therefore, that we have not been altogether idle, but that we have been taking steps to deal with this problem. It is a very big problem, and it would be unwise to take steps which would have immediate effect if they were not steps which were going to help to solve the difficulties of this problem, not only in the year after next, but 10 or 20 years from now. I think I have answered the remarks of the hon. Member for Fulham, West (Sir C Cobb). Six additional trains will be run this summer during the peak hours.
Sir C. COBB: Stopping at Becontree?
Mr. FIELDEN: We are fully alive to the importance of the population at Becontree, and I hope that all these trains are going to stop at Becontree. We shall undoubtedly have in mind the requirements of Becontree, and we fully admit that the requirements are not at present satisfactorily met by the existing service. The hon. Member for East Ham South (Mr. Barnes) referred to fares. The question of fares is at present before the Railway Rates Tribunal, and I am informed that three local authorities have filed petitions to be heard before the Rates Tribunal. Therefore, the question of fares is really sub-judice, seeing that it is now before the committee set up by Parliament to deal with such questions. Another point raised by the hon. Member was the overcrowding of the trains. We hope that the additional trains which we shall be able to put on will mitigate, if they do not entirely cure, the evil of overcrowding, but as the large majority of people
158
seem to want to travel during certain hours the difficulty of meeting the traffic demands during certain hours is one which I am afraid will always be with us. However, the six additional trains will help somewhat to relieve the pressure on the peak periods when the overcrowding takes place. With regard to the cleaning of the trains, I do not know whether the hon. Member was referring to the London, Midland and Scottish trains or to the trains belonging to some other railway company.
Mr. BARNES: The District Railway.
Mr. FIELDEN: We are not responsible for the District Railway. We do know that the trains are not always in a condition in which we would like to see them, but after the rush hours all the London, Midland and Scottish trains in that locality are cleaned out. I am afraid that if we attempted to clean them during the rush hours we should complicate still more the overcrowding problem. The timing of the trains, to which the hon. Member referred, is a question which is being very carefully considered by the executive officers. The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Evan Davies) raised the question of the condition of the Tredegar Station and the other stations on the Tredegar branch. I can assure the hon. Member that we are fully alive to the condition of these stations. There are, unfortunately, other stations on other parts of the system which are also in an unsatisfactory condition. We have a list of these stations, and I am sorry to say that Tredegar does not come top, but it will undoubtedly come in for proper attention in due course. I hope the House will grant a Second Reading to the Bill.
Mr. LANSBURY: I am sorry that I am unable to put the questions I desire to raise to the hon. Member who has just sat down, but perhaps some other hon. Member who can speak for the company will be able to give me some satisfaction. The right hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas) and the hon. Member opposite who spoke in favour of the Bill have both left the House, otherwise I should have felt rather timorous in taking part in the discussion seeing that a railway director and a trade union

159
leader have told us how hopeless it is for us to say anything or do anything. If either of these two hon. Members travelled on the district railway, and on that part of it controlled by the London, Midland and Scottish Railway, or if their wives and daughters travelled on it night and morning, then in spite of what they have said, they would want something done. Every Session of Parliament, except perhaps during the War period, since the District Railway and the London, Midland and Scottish Railway have been run to Barking, there have been discussions on the overcrowded condition at certain times of the day and night, and even now I am not sure that hon. Members really understand what goes on on this railway at these times. For reasons quite beyond my control I have to go up and down early in the evening, I have to see someone who is lying ill, and the filthy condition of overcrowding is such that no man would want his daughter or his wife to endure, and I suggest that Sir Josiah Stamp should go himself and take any woman relative he pleases from Westminster to Barking any night or morning between the hours of six and nine. I am talking about the London, Midland and Scottish line between Aldgate and Barking; that portion of the line which we have been told is under the control of the London, Midland and Scottish Railway.
It is no use telling us that two or three people are responsible; and it is really not a matter to joke about. For two or three years I have not had to ride on the railway, but lately I have done so, and I am shocked each night as I go down and each morning as I come up at the condition of overcrowding, which the wives and daughters and sisters of the working people have to endure. The hon. Member for Plaistow (Mr. W. Thome) has been calling attention to this matter since the years 1910 and 1911, but if anything the conditions are worse to-day. As to the remedy, that is a matter for discussion, but some things, in spite of what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby has said, could be done now. We have running from Poplar to Broad Street what used to be called the North London Railway; it is now a portion of the London, Midland and Scottish concern.
160
That railway was formerly used to a very considerable extent by the inhabitants of the district, but it is run to-day as it was run 50 years ago, the same kind of engine, the same kind of carriage, not the least attempt made to expedite the travelling, no comfort, no more convenience. It goes on now as it did many years ago. The portion of the line with which I am most concerned, that from Dalston Junction to the Docks, is a portion which pays very well indeed, because it carries for its length the heaviest amount of goods traffic to and from the docks of any piece of line in and around London. The company do not care a bit for the passenger traffic, and never have done. They just take it as though it was a nuisance, and give the smallest service possible.
In these days there are no trains on Sundays. The line is shut down, and yet that line from Poplar could carry our people to Hampstead Heath and Kew Gardens and Victoria Park, but simply because this company does not care one scrap about the passenger traffic it is closed entirely on Sundays. On weekdays the services, which were cut down during the strike and lockout, have never been restored, and so far as we can see, they are never going to be restored. The reason which will be given is that it does not pay, but it is quite certain the railway will never pay if the company runs it on the same methods and with the same organisation that existed fifty years ago. There it is. I should like hon. Members opposite to sample that railway. They will not find it overcrowded. They will have plenty of room and plenty of time. It is slow, comfortable and easy, and beats the South Eastern into fits. There is no railway in the Kingdom that is conducted as the old North London line is conducted. We do not want to cast our minds forward to what is going to happen a hundred years hence. We are concerned with what is going to happen now, and we say that this piece of railway is not properly used. The company has already electrified certain portions of the line which run to the west of London from Broad Street, but they have not even considered whether they will electrify the portion of the old North London which runs through to Poplar.
That brings to the next point. The experts, the trade union leaders and

161
directors or representatives of directors, have with one accord told us that it is hopeless, that nothing can be done, that it is too big a question, that we must wait for co-ordination, and wait for this, that and the other. As a matter of fact you could ease the district that my hon. Friend represents, the whole of East Ham and Barking district, if this piece of North London line were electrified and you used the junction between Plaistow and Bow to run trains through to Broad Street. That is not done, because the directors do not trouble one scrap about the people who want to travel. The junction there is made. You have not to spend £'1,000,000 to fly over or fly under, for you have the junction made. The people who go to Aldgate, many thousands of them, would be even more conveniently placed if they were put out at Broad Street. But the company leave that junction almost unused. It was built years ago for some trains to operate, but nowadays it is scarcely operated at all. While I suppose all of us agree that it is not a very good thing for Parliament to spend a lot of time listening to this sort of complaint that affects only a few, yet I notice that every Member from a constituency which has a complaint uses the House to voice that complaint when he has a chance. But when other Members do it, or I do it, there is proof that we have not yet discovered how properly to use the time of Parliament.
I wish that we had a better means of bringing forward these grievances and getting them remedied. I have not very much hope that Sir Josiah Stamp and his colleagues will bother much about Poplar and Bow and Bromley and Hackney. We cannot spend very much money on passenger traffic, but we do happen to want some conveniences. We are not asking for a new railway to be built. We are asking for a railway that is built to be properly used, and that a means of accommodation which at present exists should be used to mitigate terrible over-crowding Everybody knows that over-crowding takes place very largely between Aldgate and East Ham. If this Broad Street to Plaistow section of the London, Midland and Scottish Railway, which belongs entirely to the London, Midland and Scottish Railway, were open and the line
162
electrified and properly developed, it is certain that the over-crowding would be very considerably lessened. I hope that if another representative of the company is to speak he will tell us what the company propose to do with regard to this North London Railway, when we may hope to get a full service restored, when we may hope to get the line electrified, and when we may hope to get on that line some carriages that did not come out of the Ark.
10.0 p.m.
Sir JOSEPH NALL: If it were considered in its true setting, I think that the speech of the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken would stand out as a really startling example of inconsistency, because, as the representative of his constituency, he voices what he believes to be the grievance of. his constituents as to the character and capacity of the railway service that they presumably do not enjoy, and yet in his capacity as a member of the Opposition with Socialist tendencies, on Friday next he will ask the House to encourage municipalities to run omnibuses all over the country in opposition to the railways.
Mr. LANSBURY: How do you know what I am going to do?
Sir J. NALL: We all know. I should be entirely out of order were I to pursue any arguments as to the merits or otherwise of municipalities running omnibuses from Land's End to John o'Groats. That subject must be discussed in due course when it arises. What the House is asked to consider to-night is whether a Bill promoted by a railway company should be given a Second Reading in order that its details may be considered. The essential points in the Bill are not numerous. After the somewhat discursive Debate that we have had, I would remind the House that the Bill is simply to enable this company to construct two junction railways and to undertake one diversion of a main road. One of the junction railways is a short but very important piece of line essential for the better conduct of the transport of coal in the now widely developing Nottinghamshire coalfield. The Nottinghamshire coalfield was referred to in the Report of the Samuel Commission, and I need not repeat here what was there stated, except to say that it is the important coalfield in this country for future

163
development. Here is a provision for a junction railway that is essential for the better transit of the product of that coal-field. The second junction railway mentioned in the Bill is in Yorkshire and is necessary for the better conduct of traffic on the company's lines in that county. The road diversion, which is perhaps a small matter, is in the County of Flint, which is chiefly important as being a sort of half-way house between the industrial areas of Lancashire and the health-giving air and wonderful scenery of North Wales.
Is it really suggested that two important proposals such as those I have mentioned are to be held up and indefinitely delayed because the trippers of Southend-on-Sea want to travel in vestibule Pullman saloons? I cannot conceive any greater travesty of the authority of Parliament than the constant holding up of these private Bills, the object of which is to improve one or another public utility of the essential public service to the country. I know that you, Mr. Speaker, have held quite properly from time to time that a company promoting a Bill of this kind should answer to the House if any question is raised as to whether it is a fit and proper authority to be endowed with the powers proposed, but it does seem to me to be a travesty that grievances and complaints such as we have listened to to-night, which, after all, can from time to time be repeated for almost every congested part of the country, should be brought up to-night as on other occasions as an excuse, but only an excuse, for preventing the further development of some essential public utility because it is in the hands of a private company.
Mr. BARNES: May I point out that in this case Parliament has specifically laid an obligation on this company to carry out certain undertakings?
Sir J. NALL: And the company, as is quite clearly shown, is doing its best to carry them out, and in this particular case is endeavouring, through every means, to try and carry them out, and the local authority concerned has refused to come to any kind of agreement with the company. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] There is only one way in which we can really thrash out the details of the
164
opposition and the complaints such as arise in this case, and that is in the Committee Booms upstairs. For my part my constituency, of course, is not directly represented in this Bill. I happen to represent an urban constituency in the powerful city of Manchester. Sometimes I feel thankful that there is no railway station in it and that my constituents travel by tram.
Mr. LANSBURY: Municipal!
Sir J. NALL: Yes; municipal every time. But there are great principles involved on which I could enlarge at very considerable length, except that Mr. Speaker would remind me that I should be out of order in doing so. The same kind of complaint which is raised in the House to-night is raised in and around every urban or industrial area in the country, and in every case it comes back to the fact that in the past Parliament has been too lenient in authorising sometimes irresponsible and frequently unnecessary competition with statutory undertakings upon whom has been imposed the obligation of providing facilities which the public require. When, as a result of that irresponsible or unnecessary competition, the statutory undertaking finds itself unable to proceed as rapidly as it would like with the acceleration or improvement of those facilities, hon. Gentlemen are invited by uninformed and sometimes irresponsible bodies to get up in this House and object to such efforts as those undertakings are able to make towards bettering the facilities they offer. There is only one solution to those things, and that is to enable the statutory undertakings properly to fulfil the functions for which they were created. Here is a company labouring under considerable difficulties. It meets with competition of every kind at almost every turn. Hon. Gentlemen who, as I said just now, rise in this House and voice the grievances of their constituents, as Members of this House on other occasions are almost relentless in their efforts still further to cripple the capacity of these undertakings to discharge their proper statutory functions. If we, having regard to the public interest desire to see these railway facilities increased, we can do it on occasions such as this by saying that this Bill should be afforded a Second Reading in order that the proper and strictly relevant complaints may be duly heard in Committee.
The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Colonel Ashley): I do not agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Hulme (Sir J. Nall) that it is at all improper that hon. Members on the occasion of a Bill such as this should voice any grievances they may have against the particular company. It is a well-established practice of the House of Commons, on the Second Reading of a Railway Bill, that matters entirely unconnected with the Bill but connected with the railway company should be raised, and this evening, if I may so, hon. Members have put their case with moderation and with appreciation of the difficulties of the railway companies. But as we have now been discussing the Bill, not mentioning one single line which is contained in the Bill, for two hours, I would appeal to the House now to give the Bill a Second Reading. It is a very innocuous Bill. It is a good Bill, because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hulme has said, it only seeks to obtain powers to construct two quite important, though short lines, in Nottinghamshire and Yorkshire and to authorise the diversion of a road in the town of Flint. That being so, and as the House has other business to get through, and as no one likes a lengthy sitting, I would ask the House to give the Bill a Second Reading and to leave any details to be thrashed out in Committee upstairs.
Mr. BARNES: Would the right hon. Gentleman answer the point about the railway rates, and whether they prevent the London, Midland and Scottish Company, on the line from Barking to Bow Road, adjusting its fares to the general level that obtains on the District Railway?
Colonel ASHLEY: I thought that point was dealt with by one or two other hon. Members but, as I understand it, until the appointed day, that is to say, until the Railway Rates Tribunal has decided every fare and every rate in the kingdom, the London, Midland and Scottish Railway on that particular section of line are entitled to charge what fare they like, so long as it is under the maximum under which they are now working.
Mr. BARNES: They are not governed by a minimum?
Colonel ASHLEY: I cannot say without notice.
Major OWEN: I rise more particularly in view of the remarks of the hon. Member for Hulme (Sir J. Nall) when he said it was not the right of an hon. Member to explain the grievances of his constituents on the Floor of this House. That is the first time I have ever heard that doctrine enunciated.
Sir J. NALL: I did not say so.
Major OWEN: That was the trend of the remarks of the hon. Member, and I think that was the way in which they were understood by the House. I happen to be the representative of a constituency which is served by this railway, and on more than one occasion I have had to make complaints with regard to the inefficiency and the inadequacy of the services given and of the buildings used by this company. Some two years ago, as the Minister of Transport will remember, I drew his attention to the condition of one of the stations in the Conway Valley, the Dolgarrog Station, where, for a considerable period, nothing had been done to provide accommodation for passengers using that station. There is a small shed there, but practically no other convenience, and in very inclement weather scores of people get wet there and catch chills and suffer ill-health through the inadequacy of the provision made by the railway company. And nothing has been done. Every time one puts a complaint to the company the answer is that the matter is being considered. So far as I can see, it remains to be considered for ever and a day.
There is another point to which I want to draw attention and that is to the condition of things at the station of Port Dinorwic. There, on many occasions, owing to the inadequacy of the platform, people have been in danger of injury and several people have experienced injuries as the result of the inadequate arrangements for lighting the platform. The only thing that this great railway, which, as the result of the amalgamation brought about by this House, was going to improve its services so much, has been able to provide is a step ladder to enable passengers to get in and out of the carriages at this station. We were told that as a result of the amalgamation the passenger and

167
freight traffic would be improved. Under the old London and North Western Railway there was a far better train service to the towns in North Wales than there is to-day. In the old days the Irish mail used to stop at Bangor and people travelling from that area could get up to London in a comparatively short time. The best train which the company now run from Euston to Bangor and Carnarvon starts at 10.35 a.m. and does not reach Carnarvon until 5.8 p.m. Travelling by this train one arrives at Chester at 2 o'clock, but three hours are then occupied in covering about 50 miles. The only train by which there is a full connection from. Carnarvon starts at 10.42 a.m. There is a wait at Chester for the Irish mail and London is not reached until 5.50 p.m. The service instead of improving has become much worse, and it is only right that Members of this House should utter their protests when new powers are being claimed by a company like this. I certainly do not hesitate to utter my protest against granting this company greater powers until they make proper use of those powers which they already enjoy.
Mr. MARCH: I also wish to make a protest on behalf of my constituency. Only last year a commission which was taking evidence as to passenger conges tion in Poplar placed their case before the Traffic Committee, and I think the hon. Member for Wandsworth (Sir H. Jackson) will admit that they made out a fairly good case. Since then things have become worse—and they were bad enough. The Minister of Transport has had a petition from people in Poplar complaining of the inconvenience which is suffered owing to the want of proper railway facilities. The London and North Western Railway formerly ran a 15-minute train service between Poplar and Broad Street. Under this company we get a half-hour service, and in the middle of the day there is no service at all. They have a rest until it is time for them to resume in the evening. It is no wonder there is congestion on the trams and omnibuses, when we have a statutory authority with a line and railway stations who will not run a service. The reason why they do not run a service is because they have not come up to date. They send all their worst and oldest steam engines down to Poplar.
168
[Laughter.] That is a positive fact, and one can see the old London and North Western rolling stock still in use there, having been sent from other parts.
Sir J. NALL: Are they on the rates?
Mr. LANSBURY: They are.
Mr. MARCH: The company might help to pay some of the rates if they ran a better service. They would get a better return if they did so. Complaint has been made about Members raising grievances of this kind in the House. It is the only opportunity for doing so, and uniess the procedure of the House is altered we must use such opportunities as we have got. I have nothing to say against the proposals in the Bill. I think it is a very good think that the Company should have these facilities for which they ask, but it is as well to remind them that they might do more with the railways they have already got. We have had reports this evening about the congestion in the East End of London, and I think it could be considerably relieved if this Company would only become a little bit up to date. This is all their own line. They have no need to trouble any other Company whatever, and all that is needed to do is to electrify their railway and put some electric trains on and run them into Broad Street. They run a portion of their trains from Broad Street to Dalston electrically, and why cannot they do it in this other case? The hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) mentioned their service from Plaistow to Bow. The old North London Company had a service from Plaistow round into Bow and on to Broad Street, and why cannot this Company do the same? They would relieve the congestion at Plaistow on the District Railway if they did. I think we are quite justified in telling this Company that they are not doing their duty in regard to their passenger service.
Mr. FIELDEN: By leave of the House, I would like to answer a point raised by the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) with regard to Broad Street Station. We are at the present time taking steps to lengthen the platforms at that station, and we hope in a comparatively short space of time to be able to run trains from the Southend district and Barking into

169
Broad Street Station. We are going to make additional use of Broad Street Station.
Miss LAWRENCE: Additional trains from Poplar to Broad Street Station?
Mr. FIELDEN: I hope so.

SUPPLY.
REPORT [14th March].
SUPPLY.
  NAVY ESTIMATES, 1927.
  Postponed Proceeding resumed on Consideration of Third Resolution.

WAYS AND MEANS [14TH MARCH],
Resolutions reported,

1. "That, towards making good the Supply granted to His Majesty for the service of the year ended on the 31st day of March, 1926, the sum of £97,549 12s. 3d. be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom."

2. "That towards making good the Supply granted to His Majesty for the service of the year ending on the 31st day of
170
March, 1927, the sum of £3,108,989 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom."

3. "That, towards making good the Supply granted to His Majesty for the service of the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1928, the sum of £168,506,900 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom."

Bill ordered to be brought in upon the said Resolutions by the Chairman of Ways and Means, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer and Mr. Ronald McNeill.

WAYS AND MEANS [14TH MARCH],

  CONSOLIDATED FUND (NO. 1) BILL,
  "to apply certain sums out of the Con solidated Fund to the service of the years ending on the thirty-first day of March, one thousand nine hundred and twenty-six, one thousand nine hundred and twenty-seven, and one thousand nine hundred and twenty-eight," presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 95.1
  The remaining Order a were lead, and postponed.

ADJOUBNMENT.
Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Commander Eyres Monsell.]
Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-five Minutes after Ten o'Clock.