DISARMAMENT.

HC Deb 08 March 1932 vol 262 cc1717-69

Mr. DAVID ADAMS

I beg to move, to leave out from the word "That," to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof the words: this House is of opinion that the expenditure on armaments is a crushing burden on the peoples of the world and a menace to the continuance of peace, and that in the interests of mankind a speedy and substantial reduction should be made in warlike expenditure. The moving of this Amendment affords me pleasure owing to the fact that I am an old military man and have also been attached to the Navy. This is a most important question. The world is anxious for disarmament and ready to apply it. We could help to bring about disarmament by appealing to the other nations and by at least giving some lead on the question. I believe that the present situation is due to the feeling of suspicion in the minds of the different countries. If only we would make a move, I am sure that other nations would follow. Let us be the first to cast off the suspicion and let us do all we possibly can at the Disarmament Conference to advise other countries to follow in our footsteps. We have in the past, unfortunately, been very boastful of controlling the world and even the ocean. I remember as a lad singing the words of an old song, "And a whip at the mast have we." Does not this sort of thing cause suspicion in the minds of other countries? Do they not think that we are covetous and desire to make claims throughout the length and breadth of the world?

It will be said that we require this great Army of ours to prevent invasion. Is it meant invasion like that which we had in Sidney Street, Whitechapel, with Peter the Painter, or does it mean an invasion such as that in which we took part in Russia in 1920? I wonder whether the Minister for War at that date knew that it was I who helped to bring that war to a very speedy conclusion by stopping all the ships in London from conveying munitions and lethal weapons in order to crush Kerensky and the rulers of that land. Thousands of tons of munitions were piled up on the quay and could not be delivered. Is this great Army for the purpose of suppressing the workers and preventing them from obtaining their rights? It would be to the advantage, not only of this country, but of every country if disarmament were put into effect. Preparing for war, or even maintaining an army for future offence, is very costly and unproductive. What have we gone through as a result of the last War? Poverty, debt and misery. We have not gained that land fit for heroes. What we have gained is a knowledge of the cost of war and the terrible suffering of mankind.

I wonder whether the great militarists of this country and even of other countries have ever thought of the expenditure. It has been a revelation to me to-day to hear ex-officers of very high rank talking about finance. We remember the days when they did not study finance at all. When they were in control, they saw to it that they got the money, and they spent it irrespective of where it came from. I will give a few figures to show what the late War cost us. It cost the British Empire alone £10,054,000,000, and out of that Great Britain paid. £7,000,000,000. In France, the cost was £8,126,639,000, in the United States £5,519,594,000, and in Italy £3,502,200,000. What a tragedy when we look upon the unemployed worker to-day! He helped to save this country, but to-day he is absolutely starving, with all this colossal waste going on. Out of every 20s. which was spent, 16s. was borrowed; the remaining 4s. came from the taxpayers, including those poor people who were fighting at the front to save this country. Those who had money and could afford to lend it received interest and jolly good interest too, and they are still receiving interest. What has the taxpayer received? Nothing but abuse. We are left with a debt of £7,000,000,000 as a legacy from the late War. We have to raise each year £350,000,000 for the purpose of defraying these debt charges, and it will take 140 years before we have finished with it at the rate we are going. The taxpayer for this debt service has to pay £1,000,000 a day, £40,000 an hour or nearly £600 a minute. The biggest debt of all that we owe is to those who have gone to the Great Beyond.

I realise that disarmament will have to be done in a gradual way so that the people who are now engaged on armaments and in the Services will be able to earn their livelihood instead of being dumped on to the unemployed market. At the end of the Great War I read with much delight the statement that it was a war to end war. Why, then, are we maintaining such a huge Army? It is all because of the suspicion that rests upon nations. I remember responsible Ministers saying that we would turn our munition and armament factories into factories for agricultural purposes, and that war material would be used as ploughshares. We are backward in bridges to-day, in bridge repairs, and in house building, on which the people have been deceived. Many of the houses that have been built are not in a sanitary state. All the munition factories and workshops might be utilised for purposes that would be for the good of the people. The Government of that day had delusions and the national Press, with the exception of the "Daily Herald," deluded the people.

Perhaps the Minister of Agriculture and other Ministers will be able to help us out of the difficulty. During the discussion on the Agriculture Bill they drew vivid pictures of the farmers looking into the horizon and waiting for the dawn of hope for the benefit of the unemployed workers. I am wondering whether that will materialise. If it does, I hope that they will be able to employ the thousands of people now employed in armament factories, and even the men who will come out of the Army and Navy. It is possible that it may be said in that case that there is not enough land. If so, then let us take the thousands of acres that are lying dormant in this country and that are being used for sport for a few weeks in the year when the owners entertain their friends. I trust that there will be some hope for those who are anxious to come out of the Army and who have been forced into the Service through economic conditions. It would be well if religious bodies would sometimes look after their own business instead of sending busybodies to foreign lands to teach the foreigners, taking with them pots of jam, dumping themselves down and saying: "Give me that land for that pot of jam. If you do not, off goes your head." Then comes along our great War Office and says: "Let us go out and protect these barterers." If we were to keep to our own country we should do more good than we are doing now.

I am anxious for Disarmament particularly because of the sacrifice of human life that results from war. In the last War the British Empire lost 1,098,919 men, young men of a generation that this country sorely misses to-day. Those who have lost sons and other relatives will look back not so much with pride as with sorrow on the fact. The total killed in the War was 10,873,577. Is not that a great argument for Disarmament? The wounded totalled 20,000,000, the war orphans 9,000,000, the war widows 5,000,000, and the refugees approximately 10,000,000. In addition many people died from famine and other causes. I believe that, approximately, somewhere about 40,000,000 have passed away or were casualties as the result of the War. I followed the War from the 4th August, 1914, when I saw the first batch of men coming along with their bags at the railway termini, being met by ladies who bestowed upon them chocolates, flowers and kisses. Unfortunately, many of those men never returned.

Those who survived that great ordeal are to-day left to the tender mercies of boards of guardians and public assistance committees; and, what is worse still, their wives and little children are left without a helping hand to assist them through life. Those who did return, blinded, with limbs amputated, suffering from neurasthenia, who lie to-day in mental hospitals, no more than Poor Law patients, with tuberculosis and disease in many other forms, when they apply to public assistance committees for assistance have their pensions taken into consideration in reckoning up their means. Do we want another war? An hon. Member has said to-night that we shall want every able-bodied man in the case of another war. I warn this House that you will not get them—I hope you will not. These men who are now seeking employment were told that they would have the preference when they came out of the Army. Why do you not do it now? I have nothing to say against the military heads of our vast Army; they are most efficient for their duties, but they know nothing about the industrial side. What about the bricklayers and plasterers? I thought that the Government were going to build all the houses necessary for the people, but these men when they come out of the Army with a supposed trade in their hands cannot get a day's work.

8.30 p.m.

When I pass the great memorials like the Cenotaph, a cold lump of stone, the only recognition these ex-Service men have got, or go into the various provincial places and see the great memorials on which their names are inscribed in golden letters, and the words, "Your country needed you," I ask myself, are they needed to-day? No. We look back to that great day of silence, the 11th of November, when you hear bitter sobs, sometimes from very strong men because they have to listen to, and look on the anguish of those whom these men have left behind. Is it not worth while for us to consider disarmament? We told them how brave they were. Let us do the other thing; let us keep them now in decency. I represent a district where we have a memorial not to these men but to 18 little tots, 15 of them of the age of five years, and the others of the ages of six, eight and 12, who were blown to pieces at North Street school. Hundreds more were injured. Is it not worth while, for the sake of little children, to consider disarmament and to prevent war? If some of our friends who live in the big parts of London were to come down and view that memorial, if they were to come to Chinatown and eat chopsuey as an experience, it would bring many of them to approve of disarmament.

Mr. COCKS

I beg to second the Amendment.

I am actuated by the same motive which causes most people to support armaments; the motive of fear. I sometimes imagine that other reasons of a more constructive and idealistic character are mingled with that motive, but I am not certain about it, and I may be deceived. The basic and fundamental motive is that of fear; fear not merely for the future of my country but for the whole future of civilisation. We have the best of reasons for such fear. We have been told by the greatest minds of the world, by the greatest statesmen and thinkers, that the next world war, if it ever takes place, will thrust humanity into the dark ages, where all the "glories of our birth and state" will perish. The Leader of the House has warned us what a catastrophe another world war will be. One would think that as the world is faced by such a peril the Governments of the world would be animated by a passionate and concentrated determination to see that disarmament is brought about and humanity saved. I do not see that passionate desire and concentrated determination manifested among the Governments of the world, although a. Disarmament Conference is sitting at Geneva. I see very little of it in the House to-night. It may be that we shall wake up too late.

The chief nations of Europe, including ourselves, are bound by treaties, by covenants and by moral obligations, to disarm. The Treaty of Versailles has been quoted very often in this House, and the very Clause imposing disarmament upon Germany stated that disarmament was imposed upon Germany not because of any particular sin or iniquity on her part, but: in order to render possible the initiation of a general limitation of the armaments of all nations Germany undertakes strictly to observe the military, naval and air clauses which follow. When these terms were presented to the representatives of the German Government the latter replied as follows: Germany is prepared to agree to the basic idea of the Army, Navy and Air regulations. … provided that this is a beginning of a general reduction of armaments. To that the Allied Powers gave the famous reply which has been quoted so often and is being quoted to-day in Germany: The Allied and associated Powers wish to make it clear that their requirements in regard to German armaments were not made solely with the object of rendering it impossible to resume her policy of military aggression. They are also the first step towards the reduction and limitation of armaments which they seek to bring about as one of the most fruitful preventives of war, and which it will be one of the first duties of the League of Nations to promote. That is the promise which was made to Germany. Germany has carried out those conditions. She has disarmed. There is no doubt about that. She now comes to Geneva and tells us that we must carry out the conditions also. She asks us to fallow the example which we have imposed upon her. If this country and her late Allies in the War do not follow that example and disarm as Germany did, then it is absolutely certain that Germany is going to insist upon liberty to re-arm. That is the position which confronts us to-day. That is the demand which Germany is making at Geneva. If these conditions are not fulfilled on both sides, she must have liberty to re-arm and the result must be to increase the burden of armaments and the menace and danger of war.

Since the War the problem of Disarmament has been approached by two paths. There is first the political method which aims at bringing about a condition of pooled security in which the nations would disarm. Secondly there is the direct approach, without any political clauses or agreements, by means of bargaining between one nation and another that certain categories of arms should be reduced or even abolished. The political method of bringing about a condition in which armaments would be reduced, because security would be maintained, started with the famous Article 8 of the Covenant of the League of Nations which reads as follows: The members of the League recognise that the maintenance of peace requires the reduction of national armaments to the lowest point consistent with national safety and the enforcement by common action of international obligations. The Council. … shall"— not "may"— formulate plans for such a reduction for the consideration and action of the several Governments. The League of Nations immediately afterwards attempted to formulate such a plan. They worked very hard, but they found many obstacles both of a technical and a political nature. Arguments of this sort were put up against them—that if all the nations did disarm, the highly industrialised nations would be in a superior position to the agricultural nations, because they would have factories in which they could turn out chemicals and poison gas, and also fleets of motor lorries which could easily be used for war purposes, whereas the agricultural undeveloped countries would be placed at a disadvantage in these respects if war broke out. It was also found that no nation would disarm without some knowledge that they would be protected in case of war by the others. In all these arguments and discussions, no progress was made, a complete deadlock was reached. It was only when the problem of disarmament was linked up with that of security that any progress was made. That was done nearly 10 years ago. In September, 1922, four Resolutions were adopted by the Temporary Mixed Commission of the League of Nations and I have always considered that those four Resolutions are very illuminating and important. I do not know if they have been quoted in the House before, but they represent the point at which the nations had arrived at that time, and for that reason I would like to recall them to hon. Members.

The first Resolution was that no scheme for the reduction of armaments could ever be successful, unless it was general. The second was that in the present state of the world the majority of Governments would be unable to accept responsibility for a serious reduction of armaments unless they received in exchange a satisfactory guarantee for the safety of their countries. The third was that such guarantee could be found in a general defensive agreement between all the countries concerned binding them to, provide immediate and effective assistance in accordance with a prearranged plan in the event of one being attacked. The fourth Resolution stated: It is understood that the whole of the above Resolutions are conditional on a reduction of armaments being carried out on the lines laid down beforehand, and on the provision of effective machinery to ensure the realisation and maintenance of such a reduction. As a result of those Resolutions several schemes were drawn up, and in the end discussion on the Resolutions ended in the famous Protocol of Geneva. Without going into that Protocol in detail, I may remind hon. Members that it declared, first, that all war between one nation and another was an international crime, and, secondly, that all disputes between nations would have to be settled by arbitration. It set up machinery for that purpose. Thirdly, it declared that if a nation which agreed to arbitration did not act in a military way, then, if the other nation, having refused either arbitration or the results of arbitration, proceeded to attack, that other nation should be restrained, and the first nation, which had accepted arbitration, should be entitled to the protection of the other members of the community of States. Upon that basis, it was said, security would be attained and a measure of disarmament brought about. It was further stipulated that unless disarmament was brought about, the whole thing should fall to the ground.

I have a great admiration for the character of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Sir A. Chamberlain), but I have always regretted that he rejected that Protocol in such an uncompromising manner. It may have had its weaknesses; it may have been capable of amendment in various ways, but I think it was a great misfortune that it should have been turned down and that every attempt made since to revive the principles of the Protocol at Geneva, and many have been made, should have been turned down in the same way by the Government of this country. The result was twofold. First of all, it brought about a separation between the policies of France and ourselves, and if we could have had an agreed policy on disarmament with France, it would have been a great thing for Europe. Secondly, it took the heart out of the constructive activities of the League of Nations. That has been shown in many ways. It reduced the League to the position of weakness which we have seen during the last few months.

In the last few years the attempt has been made by the League to attack Disarmament in a direct way—that is to say, without referring to questions of arbitration or political issues, to see whether, by negotiation, arms could not be reduced—and after five years' discussion a draft Convention has been drawn up and is now being considered at Geneva. It is a very complicated document, in which all the various arms of the Services, the Army, the Navy, and the Air Force, are divided up, as a result of negotiations, into different categories, but not a single figure has yet, of course, been put into those categories. That is the task of the Conference at Geneva. It is for the nations themselves to decide how many heavy guns, how many moderate-sized guns, what amount of light artillery, cavalry, tanks, and so on shall be put into the different categories; and I hope that very low figures will be voted for by our Government. Signor Mussolini has stated that Italy is willing to reduce her Army even to 10,000 rifles, provided no other nation has a larger force. That is a statement which cannot be swept aside as a mere phrase. Signor Mussolini is a great European statesman, and I suggest that it might be a gesture of some value if we stated that we would do the same and stand with Italy by reducing our Army also to 10,000 rifles, provided no other nation exceeded that force.

The Amendment which we are moving states that: the expenditure on armaments is a crushing burden on the peoples of the world and a menace to the continuance of peace. I need not argue that. I need only say that at present the nations of Europe are spending £800,000,000 a year on armaments. This country is at present, spending £200 a minute on armaments. Since I have been addressing this House, we have spent £4,000 on armaments; a sum of £4,000 has gone up on the taximeter since I have been speaking here. As to its being a menace, I do not intend to weary the House by describing what science has said as to the nature of a future war, though I have plenty of quotations which I could use. I do not intend to do so, but everybody knows that if another war took place, in one night half the population of London might be suffocated, and it would give very little consolation to the survivors if they knew that a few hours later the population of another capital had been devastated and destroyed in a similar way.

The Foreign Secretary made a statement at Geneva, in which he said that a high level of armaments was no substitute for security. I will read the statement, because it is a very valuable one. He said: The proposition that the peace of the world is to be secured by preparing for war is no longer believed by anybody"— I think he was rather optimistic there, and forgot to take into account some of the Members of this House. He went on: for recent history manifestly disproves it. A high level of armaments is no substitute for security. At best, it only creates the illusion of security in one quarter while at the same time aggravating the sense of insecurity in another. I think that is a very wise statement from the Foreign Secretary. After all, armaments cannot be a security unless you have a larger army than anybody else, and your rival says the same thing; he wants a larger army than yours. As it is impossible for two peoples to have larger armies than each other, it means a race in armaments, and that in the end means war. Surely it is obvious, if we wish to secure peace, that Europe must follow the example given to us by America and Canada. At the beginning of last century the frontier between America and Canada was fortified, and there were warships on the great Lakes, and large warships too, but to-day along those 3,000 miles of frontier there is not a ship nor a gun. What America and Canada did in 1817 Europe ought to be able to do in 1932. If this country would only give a lead to Europe, I believe we should get a great response from the democracies of the world, and that they would join with us in building up and safeguarding our civilisation from this menace of war and destruction. It would be said again as it has been said of old, that England saved herself by her exertions and Europe by her example. After all, if this civilisation perishes in war, it will not be the first civilisation that has done that. The great and wonderful civilisation of Athens, of the time of Pericles, was destroyed by war. That reminds me that there survived from that civilisation that perfect building, the Parthenon, which not only survived Athens, but Rome, and the Goths, and the Vandals. It even survived the early Christians, who were such great destroyers of pagan beauty, but it did not survive modern warfare. About 300 years ago there was a war between Turkey and the Venetian Republic, and the Turkish commander thought it would be a good thing to store gunpowder in the Parthenon, to use it for his ammunition. The Venetian commander thought it would be an equally good thing to bombard the Parthenon with red-hot cannon balls, with the result that it was bombarded, and the powder exploded and blew up that wonderful structure.

Is not that typical of our civilisation? We build up, through toil, and sacrifice, and effort, a great civilisation; we adorn it with all the flowers of poetry, philosophy, and art; and then we fill up the whole thing with high explosives. When some little incident occurs, like a shot at Sarajevo, or something at Shanghai, or an incident on the Italian-French frontier, the ammunition explodes, civilisation is smashed up, and all that is left is the mere memory. I feel that this ancient assembly, this High Court of Parliament, should send a call to the world to-day to disarm, in order that humanity shall not perish from the earth.

Mr. PIKE

The hon. Member for South Poplar (Mr. D. Adams) and the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Cocks), in presenting this Amendment, have overlooked the fact that, if the whole world had given to-us some evidence that their ideals with regard to disarmament were running in the same channels as ours have proved to have been running for a considerable time, everyone on this side of the House would have been in wholehearted agreement. One has to decide whether it is in the interests of the nation to disarm or to arm for that point of safety necessary to the economic wellbeing of the country and its people. For the last 10 or 12 years we have been pursuing a policy of disarmament which I am convinced will prove ere long to be a policy running extremely near the danger line. So far I am joined by the late Minister for War, Mr. Tom Shaw, who, in speaking on the Army Estimates a year ago, made this statement on the subject of disarmament: If anyone will examine closely what has been done in this country during the last 10 or 11 years in the shape of reductions in the Army, and compare it with the position in other countries, there can be no doubt that they must conclude that the policy of unilateral disarmament has not achieved its object. It is impossible to examine the figures and, looking facts in the face, to conclude that any foreign country has followed the example set by this country. I do not want to make invidious distinctions, but I ask anybody who takes an interest in the question of disarmament to note carefully the condition of affairs as shown in the League of Nations books on the subject, and then I think there can be no question at all that the enormous reductions which have obtained in this country have not been reproduced in other countries. Disarmament in this country, instead of being a lead to foreign nations, has not led to that desirable result. Therefore, it is impossible in the circumstances for me to recommend to the Government any further unilateral disarmament because the figures are against it, experience is against it, and, in my opinion, the prospects of the future are against it."—OFFIOIAL REPORT, 10th March, 1931; cols. 1019–20, Vol. 249.] What was true last year is more than ever true to-day. So far as we have disarmed, and so far as an extension of disarmament on our part is concerned, we shall be pursuing, if we adopt the advice of hon. Gentlemen opposite, a very risky and uneconomical course. It has been said that we should appeal to other nations. The hon. Member for South Poplar said that if we appealed to other nations they would listen to our appeal, and then, if we gave them a further lead, they would follow us. Facts prove the opposite. Nobody has appealed more than the British nation, not only through its administrators and its legislature, and through successive Foreign Secretaries, but through, its great-hearted people, for world-wide disarmament and peace. In return, we are shown conclusively that in practically every instance, while we are disarming to danger point, the nations of the world are increasing their armaments to a much more dangerous point—dangerous again to our economic security.

9.0 p.m.

The last War, we are told, cost £10,000,000,000, and 5,000,000 British sons were killed and maimed. I ask whether my hon. Friends opposite who put this Amendment before the House really believe that that huge debt accumulated and that huge loss of life resulted through armaments or the lack of armaments. Had this country taken more of the advice of its military leaders prior to 1914, and had prepared itself against the coming catastrophe, which even school children were taught to see, we would not have been compelled to enter that long and expensive struggle. It was really our lack of armaments and lack of defensive forces that compelled us ultimately to continue in the War as long as we did and to spend so much in life and money. I do not want to see that repeated. There is more prospect, if we continue the policy of bleeding ourselves of the forces necessary for our defence and for even our economic defence, of a further catastrophe like 1914 to 1918 than there is if we give ourselves what we are entitled to have, fair economic defensive forces.

There is another side to the argument for disarmament. There is the economic and industrial side for a large community of workers. I come from a city where many thousands of men have for years been employed in the production of armaments. It is the city of Sheffield, of which, during the last Government, the First Lord of the Admiralty was a representative. The city has depended to a large degree in the past on their part in armament production. To-day over 80,000 men are divorced from the means of existence in that city. I do not want to see them simply producing guns or the material of war; I want to see them producing material for ordinary economic and domestic consumption. I do not want to see them, however, by a policy of unjustified disarmament, thrown on to the streets into ale ranks of the unemployed without any prospect of alternative employment. If hon. Gentlemen opposite can give us an alternative and show us that, if we continue disarmament and close down our armament works, these works will be reorganised and re-equipped for the production of domestic articles, we shall be with them in furthering their claim for peace and disarmament. So long as they lack that alternative programme we are entitled to ask the Labour party, in view of their broken promises, what proposals they have for providing industrial occupation for those men whom they have thrown upon the streets owing to unjust disarmament?

At the last election, out of the 42,000 electors in my own division of Attercliffe, 21,500 were unemployed. Of this number fully 50 per cent. had, in the past, been employed normally in the production of armaments, and I am honestly convinced in my own mind that they really thought that after this election the Government would not proceed with the foolish policy of the past 11 or 12 years of disarming beyond our just rights. They hoped to find a little more employment in those armament works than had been available in the past three or four years. I ask the Government, before they go any further in the matter of disarmament, to take note of the policies being pursued by other countries in this respect. We were told by the hon. Member for South Poplar that the Government could, if they chose, afford to scrap the whole of our armed forces. Previously the late Financial Secretary to the War Office in the last Government had said that the Government must prevent the closing down of the Pimlico Clothing Factory. He wanted it maintained for the purpose of providing military and naval dress uniforms—at least to provide the clothing for the Members of His Majesty's Forces. I hope he does not expect the War Office to maintain the Pimlico factory if there is no army to be clothed. Are those who are now pleading for the continuance of the Pimlico factory prepared to say, "If you will promise complete disarmament to-morrow morning, we will promise that we will never mention the Pimlico factory again"? I am convinced that from the point of view of propaganda the closing down of the Pimlico factory is far more valuable to the Labour party than the question of whether we should disarm completely or not.

The hon. Member for Broxtowe, after quoting a document from the League of Nations, spoke upon the question of Disarmament to a point consistent with national safety. What is disarmament to a point consistent with national safety? Let us take our view. We think that we need sufficient forces to protect our trade routes throughout the world. But what is the American view of disarmament to a point consistent with national safety, or the point of view of Italy, or France, or Germany? I should imagine they all have a different point of view. Must we allow them all to enjoy disarmament according to their own point of view, or is the question of disarmament to a point consistent with national safety to be decided by some outside body which may or may not be ignorant of our economic requirements? It is riding a very bare horse to suggest that this policy is a practicable one or that it would be acceptable to the majority of the nations of the world.

Then the question of a future war was raised. In my humble opinion, those who talk of the horrors likely to be experienced in a future war owing to the development of scientific weapons do most to create a suspicion of war. If they paid more regard to the cold common sense of the peoples of the world they would know that the average person in this country and in other countries is not a warlike person but is just as anxius for peace as the most ardent member of the League of Nations. To preach continually of the horrors of war creates an idea in the minds of many people that there is somebody in existence who is trying to force another war. Such notions are misleading, and very mischievous in their effect upon the mentality of a section of the people, either large or small, in this or any other country.

Next it was said that if another war came we should not get the men. That was said by the hon. and affable Member for South Poplar. What the Financial Secretary told us was that last year there were so many recruits for the Army that a record number bad to be turned away. If there were a danger of war the spirit and the desire for justice which are inherent in every Britisher would answer the foolish submissions of the hon. Member for South Poplar. I think the rising generation are just as keen and as anxious for the peace of the world as we are, but I am sure, on the other hand, that if the occasion arose they would be just as anxious to serve their country in its hour of need as those who have gone before. It was also suggested by the same hon. Member that our maimed ex-service men are left in ex-service men's hospitals as nothing more than Poor Law inmates. That is not fair. That is not a true suggestion. I think I can safely say that the disabled ex-service man in an ex-service men's hospital in this country is treated better than any other disabled ex-service man in any other part of the world. Everything is done for his personal comfort, and every effort is put forth with the object of restoring him to permanent health and strength. If is suggestions such as those which create an atmosphere of real suspicion in the minds of the people.

The last point with which I wish to deal was raised by the hon. Member for Broxtowe, who said on the subject of disarmament that there was no question of security unless a nation possessed the largest army and the largest navy. If we are to look at it from that angle, that is the last argument which the hon. Member should have submitted in the interests of disarmament. I am sure that the country possessing the largest navy or the largest army in the world to-day is not regarded as the country likely to develop aggressive methods. The world to-day regards the question of world peace from an entirely different standpoint from that which prevailed in pre-war days, and I am convinced that instead of large armies and large navies—which, if we like can be called economic services for the purposes for which they are needed—creating a spirit of war they are creating that spirit of security which this nation needs. We are afraid that if the policy of this country on disarmament is carried much further we shall be destroying what we, an island among the nations of the world, most need, and that is the security of the livelihood and economic position of the people of this country and of the Empire.

Mr. GORDON MACDONALD

I have always maintained that the best qualification for representing Sheffield is to be a tenacious fighter for the making of armaments, and there is nobody better qualified for that job than the hon. Member for Attercliffe (Mr. Pike). Sir John Tudor Walters complained in the past that Sheffield was not getting its fair share of armament work, and he one said at a public meeting in Sheffield: When he secured from the Government a large order for Sheffield he was not so simple as to go shouting about it in the House of Commons. If you shout you cannot do much. If you want to accomplish things, you have to go to work quietly and carefully. It is not for me to shout about orders. It is for me to go to the War Office and the Admiralty and get them.

Mr. PIKE

I hope the hon. Member is not imputing those motives to me.

Mr. MACDONALD

No, I was only stating what are the qualifications for a good Member for Sheffield. I would suggest that the hon. Member for Attercliffe should take a leaf out of the book of Sir John Tudor Walters who, after being rejected at Sheffield, went to Falmouth, where he found things a little more pleasant. We have been told that we are opposed to unilateral disarmament, hut we have never stood for unilateral disarmament. We know that Great Britain has made a tremendous contribution to the cause of disarmament; in fact, no country in the world has made a bigger contribution in that direction, and it should not be, suggested that because we are supporting an Amendment of this kind, we lack a patriotic spirit. We declare in the Amendment: That this House is of opinion that the expenditure on armaments is a crushing burden on the peoples of the world. Is it denied that an expenditure of £900,000,000 a year on armaments is a crushing burden? Does anyone suggest that this country is not at the present moment carrying a crushing burden in regard to our armaments? The Amendment goes on: and a menace to the continuance of peace, and that, in the interests of mankind, a speedy and substantial reduction should be made in warlike expenditure. I enjoyed very much the speech of the Financial Secretary, and I also enjoyed the speech of the First Lord of the Admiralty yesterday, although I regret a total abstinence in both those speeches of any reference at all to Disarmament. I think that these Estimates show a very fair reduction amounting to about 10 per cent. My only complaint is that these reductions are surrounded by fears and warnings that the reductions can be only of a temporary nature, and that this expenditure will have to be incurred again at some later period. The question I wish to ask is, whether Great Britain is doing everything she possibly can in the cause of Disarmament? I would suggest that one thing this House might very well do would be to carry this Amendment, and send a message to Geneva showing exactly where we stand.

We should not become too self-satisfied. This is not the time to pat ourselves on the back. It is our duty to see if there is something more we can do in the cause of Disarmament. I think there is. Reference has been made to the League of Nations, and one important question which is now being considered by the League is whether something more cannot be done with regard to the manufacture of armaments. I hope we shall have some statement on that point from the Government. I think there should be some pronouncement from the Government in relation to the Covenant, and the provision relating to the private manufacture of war materials and implements of war. I remember reading a Debate just prior to the War where this point was raised by the present Lord Privy Seal, and if anyone can drive a point home it is Viscount Snowden, more especially in his wiser and better days before the War. Viscount Snowden, speaking in the House of Commons on 18th March, 1914, on the Navy Estimates said: What are the obstacles in the way of a substantial reduction of this expenditure? Why is it mounting up? The Governments —not only our own Government, but the Governments of all the European nations—profess to deplore it. The only speech I have heard upon the question by a responsible Minister in recent years who did not deplore it, and who will not make an appeal for a better understanding between the nations of Europe was 'the First Lord of the Admiralty yesterday…What, in spite of these conditions is the obstacle in the way of a better understanding? Lord Welby, who has held the highest and most responsible position as a permanent civil servant in this country, who was at the head of the Treasury, who is a man of world-wide reputation in matters of financial knowledge and a man of sterling probity, was speaking on this question a few weeks ago and he said: 'We are in the hands of an organisation of crooks. They are politicians, generals, manufacturers of armaments and journalists. All of them are anxious for unlimited expenditure, and go on inventing scares to terrify the public and to terrify Ministers of the Crown.' As long as the making of armaments is in the hands of private manufacturers, it will be impossible to control their manufacture. On these benches we think that the making of implements of war is a job that ought to be taken over by the Government of the nation, and, once this is done, we shall be free from the danger of corruption. On this subject Viscount Snowden said on the same occasion: It would be impossible to throw a stone on the benches opposite without hitting a Member who is a shareholder in one or other of these firms."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th March, 1914; cols. 2134–40, Vol. 59.]

Mr. HOLFORD KNIGHT

When was that statement made?

Mr. MACDONALD

It was made on lath March, 1914. The question of whether the manufacture of armaments should be left in the hands of private manufacturers is a serious matter. We feel that the Government of the day should consider taking it over. It is clear that this job must sooner or later be taken away Iron) the private firms, for, if it is left in their hands, it endangers peace. There is no one in this House who does not desire disarmament and all that we ask hon. Members to do is to say so. To vote against this Amendment means that we do not desire disarmament, and no one who thinks disarmament is a human necessity can vote against it. If lion. Members vote against it, they will tie the hands of the Foreign Secretary behind his back at Geneva. He will be asked, "Why do you come here and advocate drastic reductions in armaments on behalf of your country when your country has rejected a proposal of the character of that put forward by the Labour party? "No, we must carry this Amendment to-night.

I want to refer once more to the speech made by Viscount Snowden in his palmier days. It was a very interesting speech, and in his peroration—and Viscount Snowden could perorate very well—he said: The peoples of the world have in the past trusted in Kings, nobles and plutocrats and each of them has failed. It is now for the people to trust themselves. The workers of the world have no animosities; they have no jealousies; they have no diverse interests. All they want is freedom to work and the right to enjoy the fruits of their labours. I say again, we echo, in the same sentiments as our comrades in the French Parliament and the German Reichstag, our determination to do what we can to change national opinion and national ideas upon this question, and I do not despair of our doing so. The dawn comes slow—how slow !—but it does come, and I believe that out of the chaos and strife that now prevail, there are arising brighter and better times when nation will no more lift up its hand against nation, and when all the peoples of the earth will realise that of all the great, priceless blessings of humanity, the greatest of all is peace."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th March, 1914; cols. 2147–8, Vol. 59.]

9.30 p.m.

Mr. VYVYAN ADAMS

I have given a promise to be brief, and therefore I cannot follow hon. Members as closely as I should like, not even the hon. Member for South Poplar (Mr. D. Adams), with whose passionate desire for peace I agree so much that I feel there must be between him and me some avuncular relationship. Let me be very frank and say that I heard with some little misgiving the remarks made by hon. and right hon. Members of the Government in presenting the Estimates yesterday and to-day, when they said they regretted they were the smallest Estimates that had ever been before this House. I cannot reconcile some of the observations made by the right hon. Member for West Birmingham (Sir A. Chamberlain) with any possibility of every-sided disarmament. Let me quote one sentence from the speech he delivered yesterday: We want our policy to he one of cooperation with the rest of the world, but we want to be independent."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th March, 1932; col. 1515, Vol. 262.] I should like some assurance from the Government that if a situation arises as favourable as that which obtained at the time of the Washington Conference in 1922, that would be grasped with both hands by them, because I do feel that the skirts of such an opportunity should be grasped and held firmly if that situation arises again. I do entreat the Government not to be trapped into resisting this Amendment too strongly tonight, and for this reason, that it is truly a most self-evident proposition. All the statements contained in it surely cannot be objected to either by Liberals, Conservatives or Socialists. You might almost as well be invited to vote against the Book of Proverbs. The Amendment is, in fact, a series of truisms, but it is none the worse for that, because when you deal with the problem of disarmament you automatically repeat platitudes, since so much has been said on this subject ever since the Armistice in 1918. The Amendment says that armaments are "a crushing burden." Of course they are. It is a crushing burden to this country to have to pay £100,000,000 a year in armaments. I am not particularly elated with the reflection that 25s. out of every £10 of Income Tax I have to pay is going to be devoted towards something which may be used to destroy wealth and life, or to be used to prevent that destruction by some foreign instrument.

Then it is said that armaments are a menace to peace. That, also, is a perfectly self-evident proposition. The vicious circle of armaments is extraordinarily small in circumference. You start with fear abroad and go on to armaments abroad; then you get fear at home, followed by armaments at home, and the result is fear abroad, and so you are ready to start again with the same cycle. That is almost too self-evident to require comment. I always imagined that the charge of a large army was the gravamen of the case against Germany. There is no possible security in large armaments. The hon. Member for Attercliffe (Mr. Pike) reminded me of a man sitting on a column of gunpowder and maintaining that he was entirely safe. Of course he is, until some fool comes along and throws a match at the foot of that column. If you reduce armaments by 25 per cent., you only reduce that column of gunpowder from 100 feet to 75 feet, and the explosion would be nearly as bad when it inevitably comes through some silly adventurous foreign Machiavellian politician. It is equally self-evident when it is said that another war will most certainly destroy civilisation as we know it. It is equally true that all the criteria and the condition of mind in every party have absolutely changed since 1914, because war has now become too terrific and too terrible to contemplate. It is true that civilisation as we know it is a blend of contradictions and injustices, but, in my humble submission, it is a far better condition than that reversion to primaeval savagery which we should inevitably have if another war occurred.

There is one point which has not been mentioned, but which is extremely relevant to this matter, and that is the attitude of the electorate. On this most important matter the House should be the mirror of the public and the echo of the popular will, as we are assumed to live under a democratic form of government. I think every hon. Member will agree that, with absolutely negligible exceptions, if you want to raise a storm of applause you should plead the cause of disarmament before any mixed audience in any constituency. This issue was rather obscured in the last General Election, but in my obscure way I tried to bring it forward in my own fight. I extremely regret the absence from this House to-night of the spiritual brother of my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council, the Prime Minister, because he has withstood an absolute storm of obloquy in the cause of peace. It is never charged against him that he acted with any insincerity during the War. I think his policy then was mistaken, but it is surely true to say that there is not alive anywhere in the world to-day a truer friend of the cause of peace.

I conclude, in keeping with my promise to be brief, with the observation that I belong, by a hair's breadth only, to the post-War generation, and, therefore, perhaps I may be said to have some personal interest in a Motion of this kind. I want to see this question taken right out of the realm of party politics, for this desire for disarmament and the cause of peace at large is not the perquisite of any single party. As I have said, I and those of my own generation escaped service in the last War by a hair's breadth, but I invite the House to remember that I and my contemporaries will have to live two de- cades before we exceed the military age. The hon. Member for South Poplar said that, if another military crisis occurred, the men would not go. I wish he were here now, because I would say to him," O, sancta simplicitas," of which a somewhat free translation is, "My poor fish!" Of course they would go; they go every time, and that is the danger. We have to obviate this crisis and get rid of it by every means in our power. It is because I believe that disarmament is one of the most compelling causes which would induce a permanent condition of peace that I ask His Majesty's Government, with all the seriousness at my command, to do whatever they can whenever any opportunity arises to relieve those of my own day and generation from the terror that flyeth by night, and the arrow that destroyeth in the noon-day.

Mr. PARKINSON

In rising to support this Motion, I cannot but think of the varied expressions of opinion that we have heard on this subject to-night. The Labour party do not demand something that is outrageous to the sense of the whole community, but we believe that there should be a reduction of armaments as far as is really possible, in order that we may give a lead to the world and let it be seen that we are genuine and sanguine in our anticipations. My hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Cocks), who has given the terms of the Covenant and has quoted the Resolutions of Agreement between the nations, has said all that it is necessary to say on that point at the moment, and the statement of the hon. Member for Attercliffe (Mr. Pike) has also been dealt with. He said, however, that the country was very near the danger line owing to the reductions that had been made. It is questionable whether he is likely to know where the danger line is or not, because our statesmen, and the statesmen of other countries, even after very long consideration, have not been able to find out exactly where the danger line is. The hon. Member said that, while we have been getting so near the danger line, other nations have been increasing their armaments, but the most cruel part of the business was his suggestion that we ought to keep on spending money on armaments irrespective of the economic position of the country.

Mr. PIKE

I think that the hon. Gentleman has rather misinterpreted what I said. I said that we should guard the economic interests of the country before we completely abandoned the spending of money on armaments.

Mr. PARKINSON

I should be very sorry to misinterpret the hon. Member's suggestion, and if I have made a mistake I apologise. As my hon. Friend the Member for Broxstowe said, the fact that it was laid down in the Treaty of Versailles that Germany was compelled to disarm was the starting point for every nation, and the reply of M. Clemenceau, writing in June, 1919, was as follows: The Allied and Associated Powers wish to make clear that their requirements in regard to German armaments were not made solely with the object of rendering it impossible to resume her policy of military aggression. They are also the first step towards the reduction and limitation of armaments, which they seek to bring about as one of the most fruitful preventives of war, and which it will be one of the first duties of the League of Nations to promote. We are under the same obligation; the British delegates have their obligations to fulfil there. This afternoon the Financial Secretary, in his statement with respect to present reductions, said that the Estimates for this year cannot be taken as a standard for future years. I do not know exactly what he meant by that—whether he meant that we are going to stabilise the figure at something like its present amount, or whether we shall be able to increase it in future years. If, however, he is looking forward to an increase in the Estimates in the coming years, I think he is making a very great miscalculation, because, in my opinion, it will not be necessary in future years to increase the Estimates in order to maintain the present standard.

As regards the present situation or standard in armaments, we have to ask ourselves one or two questions. In the first place, are we really weaker in the field with a slightly reduced number? As a matter of fact, our numbers are only 100 less this year than last year, so that practically speaking there is no reduction in numbers at all. I think the hon. Gentleman will agree that, although our numbers may be less, our striking power is greater. It is not now man-power so much that makes up the equipment of an army, as the position in regard to machines. Mechanisation is bound to make a considerable difference in the power of any army in the field. We may have less men, but we lead the world in tank construction and probably in many other forms of mechanism, and possibly in chemical warfare. Some time ago it was stated in the "Times" that Great Britain, deficient in numbers as compared with other Powers, had gone far ahead of them in efficiency. I take it that that does not mean that we have gone ahead of them as regards the mechanism of the Army only, but that it also includes chemical warfare; and that would mean, even if the personnel is reduced in number, the strength of the Army is not really reduced, as the Army, fortified by all the new Services, will be stronger in future than ever before.

The world economic crisis compels us, to take into consideration the question of expenditure, particularly at the present time and in the circumstances in which we are placed at the moment, I think a halt ought to be made. We must look at the question from the point of view of the great increase that has taken place since the pre-War period. I know that much will be said with respect to the difference in the purchasing power of money pre-War as compared with the present time, but our expenditure in 1913 was £80,000,000, while last year it was, I think, £115,000,000. Can we continue spending money to that extent, or will the economic position of the country demand that less money shall be spent 7 Many other nations besides our own are spending liberally on this kind of thing, but there is no doubt that the economic circumstances of the world at the moment justify a demand for a reduction of expenditure in every country, particularly in our own. The expenditure of the United States has risen in 10 years from £92,000,000 to £175,000,000. The nations of Europe are spending annually £520,000,000 on armaments. The world expenditure is £900,000,000.

What is the effect of this colossal expenditure, and is it possible for it to continue Is it not money spent in a direction which is not giving a sufficient return? Does it not denote that we are sooner or later to enter into a great war, whether we like it or not? You do not build up armaments against a friendly nation. You do it because you believe there is going to be trouble between some other nation and yourself. If you think there is going to be trouble, who is our enemy, and whom are we building against, because it will be asked in some other Parliament who is their enemy and whom are they building against. In view of the fact that there is a Disarmament Conference going on, should not there be a better feeling among nations, and should not the statesmen of all nations understand each other better? Would it not be better for them to bake their tongues out of their cheeks and to speak more plainly to each other? Sir Edward Grey gave the answer with respect to armaments before the last War: The enormous growth of armaments in Europe; the sense of insecurity and fear caused by them—it was these that made war inevitable. May I bring before the notice of the House the expenditure in other countries, because there is such a similarity in the amounts, according to population, that it makes it possible to believe that there is some kind of agreement as to the extent of the expenditure that shall take place in foreign countries. America, with a population of 123,000,000, is spending £149,000,000 per annum. For the defence of 100,000,000 Frenchmen, including colonies, France is spending £110,000,000 annually. To safeguard 43,000,000 Italian people costs £63,000,000. In Japan, to safeguard their population of 86,000,000, they are spending £53,000,000 annually. What are we doing? The British Empire, excluding the Dominions and India, comprises a population of 110,000,000, and we are spending over £100,000,000 in their defence. The home country expends between £95,000,000 and £100,000,000 a year.

Mr. LEWIS

Why does the hon. Member exclude our Colonies and include the French colonies?

Mr. PARKINSON

I suppose they are separately treated.

Mr. LEWIS

I understood that the hon. Gentleman added the population of the French colonies to the population of France, whereas in this Empire he specifically excluded them.

Mr. PARKINSON

Every country must be treated on its own basis.

Mr. PIKE

If the hon. Gentleman cannot answer that question, can he say what exactly is our share of the armament costs of the main portion of the Empire?

Mr. PARKINSON

If the hon. Member makes inquiries of the War Office he will probably get that information. We must look at the financial aspect a little further. The British National Debt is £7,500,000,000. This lays a burden on our population of not less than £165 per head. This shows that we are spending more money than we really ought to do. I know the House is very sorry at the passing of M. Briand, becaues I believe he was one of the greatest friends of peace the world had. He certainly was the greatest Frenchman in the line of peace. I am sure that to a large extent he sacrificed himself in the interests of peace in working for his country and for the world in general. Unfortunately, in every country we have two spirits—the war spirit and the peace spirit. One of the two must yield to the other sooner or later, and it is much better that the peace movement should come out on top, because it offers a nation life while the war spirit means death and the passing of nations. Whether it will be possible for the people throughout the world to overcome the opposition that it has been receiving remains to be seen, but let us all make the greatest possible efforts on behalf of peace, because that way salvation lies.

The economic disorganisation which faces the world at present is the direct consequence of the Great War. Everything that has been brought about in the way of a downward grade in the last 10 years has really been a consequence of the War, and, if another war of anything like the same magnitude occurred, it would not only threaten nations but it would threaten the stability of society and it would threaten civilisation itself. The hon. Member for Attercliffe said we made too much of that, and he tried to make it appear that the city that he represents suffered more than any other. I would ask him to look at the position of the mining community, because their commodity could not be done without any more than could the commodities manufactured at Sheffield. While he can point to an unemployed list of 50,000, in our industry we have an unemployed list of something like 350,000. Germany was compelled to remain unarmed in order to render possible the limitation of armaments by all nations. They have kept true to -flat. Whether it will be possible to keep them in the position they are in now unless other countries disarm to a greater extent remains to be seen. The Kellogg Pact and the Protocol condemn resort to war and express a determination to settle international disputes by pacific means. Ever since the War I have lived in the hope that the League of Nations would become the one determining instrument of war throughout the world.

The hon. Member for Ince (Mr. G. Macdonald) dealt with the question of the manufacture of armaments. This to me is one of the most crucial things in connection with the whole business, because I believe the longer we permit the private manufacture of armaments, the longer we shall be in getting a solution of our difficulties. I believe that no country should permit private enterprise in the manufacture of armaments. My opinion is that the manufacture of armaments ought to be controlled by the Government of the country in which they are manufactured and that the private trade in armaments should be rigidly controlled by the respective Governments, that the exports and imports of armaments should cease and that, a full account of the manufacture of all armaments in every country which is a member of the League of Nations ought at least to be registered by the League. To contend that disarmament is not practicable is equal to stating that the Covenant of the League is merely an ideal and that the close of the Peace Treaty meant nothing. Do we agree that the Peace Treaty means nothing? I know it is said that every country is working hard in order to comply with the terms of the Peace Treaty. At the moment there is a great Disarmament Conference sitting, and everyone in this House and outside is looking forward to beneficial results from that conference. I am sure that every one of us desires that some agreement of limitation should be reached. We all agree that Britain has made certain sacrifices. We have shown an example to the world in some respects, but I believe that we can honestly make greater efforts in the direction in which we have started, and that the efforts which we make would at least bring along other countries who are of the same way of thinking. We may agree that to some extent Great Britain has shown an example to many other members of the League, and though they have not fallen in with the steps taken by us, we should continue our work until our disarmament has reached such an extent that the limits of safety really have been reached.

A great deal is made of the fact that we are disarmed, as one newspaper stated this morning, "to the bone." I do not believe that for a moment. I believe that further efforts can yet be made, and that we shall strengthen our position with other nations rather than lay ourselves open to other countries. As a nation we cannot do other than honour our word. When we lay down the conditions in a Treaty we undertake as a nation that as far as is humanly possible we shall carry out those conditions. Armaments do not give security, because chemical warfare is rapidly developing and taking the place of armaments. As an hon. Member has already said, it is suspicion that stands in the way of a settlement. The hon. Member said that if this suspicion was removed it would give a lead and opportunity that others could take. My right hon. Friend the late Secretary for War has been quoted to-night. I will give a further quotation from a speech by him: Science has proceeded at such a rate that it has quite surpassed the capacity of the politicians and the diplomat to deal with the new world that has arisen. There is a set of politicians which thinks that one cannot live as a country without either detesting or mistrusting other countries. Until that mistrust is turned into friendship and unless nations will cease to treat other nations as potential enemies, whether in a military or an economic sense, there can be no hope of a world revival. Armaments are one mark of the politician's failure to recognise that the world has become a whole. 10.0 p.m.

Why is there this great mistrust? I am a peace-loving man, and I do not understand why nations cannot be quite open in their conversations with one another, as individuals are. It may be said that diplomacy stands in the way, and that great care has to be exercised. It appears that suspicion and distrust are the two elements which are preventing the materialisation of what we set about to get in 1919. Fear seems to have taken the place of courage; we seem so afraid of one another that we are unable to trust one another at all. On the other hand we have not the courage to do that which we ought to do, by making ourselves plainly understood by all the people with whom we are in conversation on these matters. By co-operation and friendship between the peoples of the world, and frankness between statesmen and Governments, I believe that the peace of the world could be secured.

To say that Britain is disarmed to the limit of safety is not the end of disarmament. We have some way further to go yet, and I sincerely hope that as a result of this Debate to-night we shall make it quite clear that we believe that disarmament has not been carried to the limit to which it can be carried, and that it has not fulfilled its mission or purpose yet. As one of the greatest Powers we can still afford to make further sacrifices in this direction—sacrifices in order to remove from the minds of other nations that mistrust and fear which are the obstacles to true friendship—and so make a gesture and give a lead towards securing the peace of the world. If we could do that we could very easily clear away a tremendous amount of distrust. Then the huge cost of disarmament could be reduced by a very large amount in accordance with the economic necessity of every country. We cannot get away from the fact that the economic necessity is such as to demand the cutting down of the cost of armaments in every country in the world.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of PENSIONS (Lieut.-Colonel Headlam)

We have had a very interesting Debate on a most important subject, and I have no serious complaint to make against any of the speeches that have been made by hon. Members on the other side. The Government has no objection to, indeed sympathises entirely with, the terms of the Amendment, and I hope, therefore, that the Opposition will not think it necessary to divide on it, because obviously, from the point of view of business on an Estimates night; it is impossible for us to accept the Amendment without serious consequences to the work of the House. The main thing is that this House as a whole is in hearty sympathy with the principles which are set forth in the Amendment. The Amendment sets out very plainly what we are all agreed upon. We may not all agree that it is such an easy matter for this country to go on disarming still further, as some speakers have suggested. We may not think that this is quite the moment for this House to record its opinion upon matters which are under discussion at the Disarmament Conference, where our representatives are already putting forward our point of view and are doing all that they can to bring about that reduction in the world's armaments which we believe to be necessary for the peace, and the welfare of mankind. The hon. Member who opened the Debate dilated upon the horrors of war and I think spoke somewhat extravagantly upon matters arising out of the late War. One thing is perfectly certain, however, and that is that no one who took part in the late War has any wish or intention, if he can help it, to take part in another war. I sympathise very heartily with the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Parkinson) who made such a fervent request that the House should do everything in its power to prevent a recurrence of another war which might send him into a position of danger which he had no wish to occupy.

Mr. V. ADAMS

If the hon. and gallant Gentleman is referring to me, may I remind him that I come from West Leeds.

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM

I apologise to my hon. Friend. The real thing for us to remember and which it would be well for us not to lose sight of is that war is merely a symptom of a disease, not the disease itself. The causes which lead to war are the disease, the envy, suspicion and hatred which exist among nations. Therefore, the real work before us all is not to worry so much about disarmament and matters of detail but to do all that in us lies to remove the causes of war and to do our best to eradicate the spirit of evil which exists in the world by showing our disinterestedness and our faith and confidence in the future of humanity. That is why I am glad of the opportunity of to-night's Debate to refer very shortly to the great statesman of France whose death has just taken place. I was very glad that one of the speakers on the Opposition Bench referred to M. Briand, because it is only fitting I think that we in the British House of Commons should make it clear to the French people that we sympathise with them in the tremendous loss which they have sustained by the death of M. Briand. We in this country were associated closely with M. Briand in the Great War and we all know that after the Great War the whole policy of M. Briand was directed to bring about a better relationship among the peoples of the world and was concentrated upon the preservation of peace.

It seems to me that in a discussion of this kind, when it is clear that the whole House in united, there really is no cause or reason why we should take up any further time in debating the Amendment. We, the representatives of the British people in the House of Commons, are absolutely determined to do our utmost to bring about a reduction in armament, because we believe that by so doing we shall be reducing the chances of another war. I am one of those who has perfect faith, if we are so united, that we shall carry through our ideal. I believe that the practical example in disarmament that we have already given, has proved our good faith to the world at large, and I hope that we shall succeed in making other nations follow suit. But do not let us imagine that we can secure anything like permanent peace in this world unless we can do more than has been done up to the present time in doing away with the real causes of war. Our task is, as I have already said, not so much a matter of reducing armaments, as one of a steady and persevering policy to bring about a better relationship and a better understanding between the nations of the world.

Mr. LANSBURY

I will not detain the House more than a few minutes, as I wish only to say that the speech of the hon. and gallant Gentleman who has just spoken certainly satisfies us, and the only difficulty is in regard to the previous speeches which have been made. But we are going to take his speech and the speech of the Foreign Secretary which was quoted here to-night as the mind of the Government on the subject, and we are going to accept the statement that to the fullest extent the Government intend to pursue the policy of Disarmament with the rest of the nations of the world. In those circumstances, I ask my hon. Friend if he will kindly withdraw his Amendment.

Mr. D. ADAMS

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Main Question again proposed.

Mr. MICHAEL BEAUMONT

Whatever may be the views of the House upon the Amendment which has just been discussed, I think that it is generally agreed that while we continue to have an Army it is essential that we should have an efficient one. I think it is also agreed that at the present time of financial stringency the maximum amount of economy should prevail in that as in every other Service. I congratulate the Financial Secretary upon the way in which he introduced the Estimates, while offering him my compassion upon the necessity for squeezing them down into such narrow 'limits. I feel that there are many of us in the House who would wish that those who are responsible for economies in the Army should go round to some of the other more prolific spending Departments and give them a few lessons as to how the thing has to be done. I sincerely believe that in the matter of achieving economy with the smallest loss of efficiency, the Estimates presented to-day form a model.

Having said that, I desire to call attention to a matter in which I feel that efficiency has been sacrificed not necessarily to economy, but to a false impression of economy. I refer to the continuation of the policy of the complete mechanisation of artillery in the Territorial Army. As a Territorial officer I feel, as we must all feel, very proud of the tribute paid to the Territorials by the Financial Secretary, and with regard to certain economies in that force I do not think that we wish unduly to cavil. We were very grateful for the statement that he realised that though we might have to -forego our training this year, we could not be expected to forego it next year. I know that he realises with what sacrifices on the part of all ranks, and particularly on the part of the private soldier, the training is being carried on this year. Long week-end camps without pay, and forms of training of that sort are being carried on under very great difficulties and at the expense of terrific sacrifices. That is being done very largely in the belief and knowledge that next year we shall be allowed to have our annual training on which so much of our efficiency depends.

With regard to the mechanisation to which I have referred, I suggest that a mistake is being made, and that even at the eleventh hour or it may be, at five minutes to 12, the War Office may see fit to make a change of policy in this matter. The fear has gone forth that all Territorial Field Brigades are to be completely mechanised by, I think, the end of this year. It is a matter not so much of efficiency as of economy. I make no plea to keep the horse as a method of traction in pulling a gun. I aim making no plea to keep the horse from the point of view of sentiment, and there are many people who say that the idea of keeping horses is merely a survival of an ancient sentiment. I would not make a claim on these grounds for a, moment. I suggest that it is impossible to train military staffs in reconnaissance and in giving orders with the vehicles that are supplied to them. In the Regular Army the vehicles supplied are cross-country vehicles for the most up-to-date form of transport.

It is obvious that the Territorial Army cannot expect to have that form of vehicle supplied to them. It would be too expensive and would be a waste of money, but I do submit that the impossibility of training across country, especially English country, is almost insuperable. I would say nothing derogatory of the admirable vehicles which Sir William Morris provides so cheaply, but they are not good vehicles for cross-country transport. It is almost impossible to get a proper impression of the ground, a, proper aspect of the country and proper mobility when the battery staffs, the battery commanders and signallers have to go across ploughed country, with heavy clay soils, often soaked with rain, in a number of "Morris Cowleys." I know that this is being done because the old horse conveyances were so expensive, but I suggest that a, reduction of the horse grants rather than the abolition of them would not decrease efficiency but would materially decrease the expense.

I have particulars of the profit made by one county territorial association out of its horse grants. It was allowed a certain amount in order to provide horses, and in 1928–29 out of the money, after having supplied its horses most adequately and efficiently, it made £881 clear profit, in 1929–30, £793 profit, and in 1930–31, £612 profit. All sheer profit out of the allowances made by the Government. I would ask the Financial Secretary to note these figures and see whether he cannot on the basis of those figures agree simply to a reduction of the horse grants instead of abolishing them. If he wants any more money in order to avoid what I believe would be a serious falling off in efficiency, I think I can suggest a method of finding it by touching upon another subject, namely, the question of grants for light horses. Here I speak of something of which I have personal experience, because I have been the recipient of premiums for some years under the light horse breeding scheme. I am told that some of the stallion owners were able to make a good thing out of it. It is no pleasure for me to see these grants cut down and still less to see them abolished.

I suggest that with the increasing mechanisation and other modernising factors this is no longer a matter that should be dealt with by the War Office, and that it should be handed over to the Ministry of Agriculture, to whom it rightly belongs. If there is any misgiving in the Treasury in regard to the matter, I may say that I have already put forward to the Ministry of Agriculture, and am prepared to put it forward to the Financial Secretary, the view, which is supported by many of the leading people in that industry, that all the money that is required for this purpose could be produced by the industry itself, with a little legislative help from the Government, not Treasury help. Therefore, the work done by the industry under the light horse breeding scheme could be carried on without any cost to the State. I submit that point to the Financial Secretary for consideration, with the plea that if it finds favour in the sight of the Government he might consider using the money which is saved for the purpose that I have indicated, in order to preserve the efficiency of the Field Artillery units of the Territorial Army, which will be seriously hampered if the horses with which we now train for reoognisance purposes are finally removed.

Mr. LEWIS

I desire to ask the House to consider the case of the Army Educational Corps, with special reference to the conditions of employment of those responsible for its efficiency. The Army Educational Corps is a comparatively new unit. It is also a very small unit. It has only been in existence for about 10 years, and as far as the numbers are concerned the strength on 1st October of last year was 86 officers and 362 other ranks. But though the Army Educational Corps is a new unit and small in numbers it has work of very great importance to perform. It is responsible for providing the opportunities for enabling the Army to go on with its education and also for providing vocational training for those who will shortly leave the Service for civilian life. In all quarters of the House that work is recognised as very responsible and very desirable. As to how the corps is carrying out its work some light is shed in the Memorandum circulated in the Army Estimates, in which it is said that in regard to the opportunities for continuing their education afforded to men in the Army: It is interesting to note that whereas the number of candidates presenting themselves for the first class and special certificates in 1921 was 121, the corresponding figure in October, 1931, was 5,462; these certificates are comparable with the school certificate and with the matriculation for a university respectively. The number has gone up from 121 to 5,462 during the period the corps has been in existence. In regard to vocational training, the figures given in the Memorandum show that the provision is increasing, and not only so, but that the percentage of those who have enjoyed a course of vocational training who afterwards have got employment is increasing. For example, last year 2,429 went through a course of training as compared with 1,991 the year before, but although the number had increased over 75 per cent. of those who had undergone a course of training last year got employment, whereas in the previous year under 70 per cent. got employment. I claim, therefore, that I have shown that this corps not only has work of great importance to perform but that it is, in fact, performing that work satisfactorily. I wish to raise to-night the conditions of service under which the men responsible for the efficiency of the corps are invited to serve. I say deliberately that nothing could be more disheartening than the conditions under which the commissioned officers of the Army Educational Training Corps are asked to work to-day. Unlike any other branch of the service, they have praotically no hope of promotion.

If any hon. Member after this Debate has the curiosity to look at the Army List he will see that an extraordinary state of affairs exists with regard to the length of time which each officer in this corps has held his rank. Let me give some examples. We find that there are four lieutenant-colonels who have held that rank in the corps during the 10 years of its existence as a separate unit. That circumstance, of course, has completely blocked any chance of a major being made lieutenant-colonel. If we look at the majors we find in the Army List of last month that the senior major is Major It. Jones, O.B.E, M.A. If we look at the Army List of 10 years ago we shall see that the senior major in the corps then was the same gentleman. There are 12 other majors who have held the same rank in the corps during the whole time. There are 22 captains who have held that rank throughout the separate existence of the corps. There are many who have held the rank of captain in the Army for 18 years and who are still captains in the Army Educational Corps. What prospect is there of anyone joining the corps as a lieutenant being promoted to a captaincy I It is sufficient I think to draw attention to the fact that the junior captain in the list to-day had to wait eight years as a lieutenant before he was promoted. How can we expect men who have joined this corps, desiring to give of their best in its service, to continue to work keenly, if they see the prospect of any improvement indefinitely blocked?

As regards the lieutenant-colonels at present in the corps, I understand that not long ago the conditions of retirement were altered so that the prospect of any major becoming a lieutenant-colonel is worse now than it was a year or two ago. Consider the case of a man who, as a captain joined the corps when it was formed, who possibly got married, and who hoped that if be did his job well, his rank would be improved, and he would gain the advantages which go with higher rank. The years pass by and he sees no hope whatever of promotion, One of two things aught to be done. In the ordinary regiment, if a man attains a command, the normal thing is that he holds it for four years and then moves on to make room for another. If that were done in the Army Educational Corps as regards the lieutenant-colonels in charge of establishments, it would immediately cause a flow of promotion through the corps. If it be argued that it is undesirable to do so in this case and that, on account of the nature of the work, it is desirable to keep these officers longer at their particular jobs than is done in other branches of the service, then a different set of rules ought to be drawn up governing pay and promotion in this corps.

10.30 p.m.

If the time that senior officers are to hold these positions is not to be limited as it is, in practice, limited in other branches of the service, if they are to hold these appointments for as long as 10 years, then some special arrangement ought to be made for those whose promotion is thereby blocked. If it is desired that the rank should follow the ordinary Army rank, then a distinction should be made between the rank and the rate of pay. There is no reason why, if the Corps is to be treated as a separate entity, the rates of pay should follow the rank as in other arms of the Service. It might be arranged on the basis of years' service, subject to the necessary qualifications of examination and so on, but in any case I maintain that very great hardship is being suffered by the officers of this corps. They are utterly hopeless, there is nothing that they can do, and there is no prospect of their position being in any way improved.

We have not the advantage of the Secretary of State for War in this House, and I realise that the Financial Secretary to the War Office will have to he more guarded perhaps in what he says than his chief might be if he were here, but I ask him not to content himself with promising that he will look into this question, but to go so far as to say that he will himself make a serious effort to get something done, so that when these Estimates come before this House next year, we may find that this absolute stagnation in promotion in the Army Educational Corps has in some way been broken up.

Brigadier-General MAKINS

I wish to address myself to the Financial Secretary to the War Office on one point of great interest, and that is the employment of ex-soldiers. The hon. and gallant Member for Aston (Captain A. Hope) and the hon. and gallant Member for Ludlow (Lieut.-Colonel Windsor-Clive) both mentioned that they thought it would be of great advantage if there could be a certain continuity of service for men in the defence forces of the Crown and in the Civil Service afterwards. I should like thoroughly to endorse that view. At the same time, the employment of ex-soldiers is a very important thing to consider. There are no fewer than 30,000 to 40,000 men annually leaving the service who are thrown on the labour market, or there is that number annually due for discharge or transfer to the Reserve. Their ages vary between 23 and 40, and the average age is probably somewhere in the region of 27 years. The State can only absorb about 5,000 of these men, and not always immediately on leaving the Colours, and they have to wait a considerable time.

There is a well-known association, called the National Association for the Employment of Regular Sailors, Soldiers, and Airmen. It is the principal agency for this purpose, and is used and officially recognised by the War Office. It is supported almost entirely by voluntary contributions, but the Government contribute a sum of £1,950 per annum, of which £1,250 is given by the War Office, £500 by the Navy, and £200 by the Air Force. This is a very meagre amount, and it is a very struggling concern, especially in these days, when there is such a, great deal of unemployment. There have been various schemes, spreading over a number of years, for the improvement and the strengthening of the financial position of this great association. So long ago as 1906 there was a Departmental Committee presided over by Sir Edward Ward as Chairman, and they recommended that a sum of no less than £16,000 should be given from public funds for the assistance of this agency. Recently there has been another scheme, under which, with the increased rebate from the Navy, Army, and Air Force Canteen Fund, they should give £8,000 towards the association, but that unfortunately fell through.

We cannot do it this year, but I would recommend to the Financial Secretary that the time will come next year when something should be done in order to strengthen the financial position of this great association. It is lagging behind. There are several other small associations of different regiments and corps that should come in and join up and make one strong, central association. The stronger the central association is, the more readily they will all come together and do their best for the ex-service man. It would increase the popularity of the Army and enlistment in the Army if the men realised that the Government were prepared to do anything they could to settle them in civil life when they left the Colours. I strongly recommend to the Financial Secretary that something should be done next year in the way of a larger grant to this association for the employment of ex-service men.

I must say a word as an old cavalry soldier because we have heard one or two very uninformed speeches, one from the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker), saying that the cavalry was an obsolete arm. I do not think that the hon. Member can know very much about it. He certainly has not studied the manoeuvres of two years ago when the cavalry absolutely walked round all the mechanical contrivances of modern times. Practically all these mechanical vehicles broke down and the cavalry walked round the lot. The hon. Member quoted only one authority in support of his argument—the late Minister of War, Mr. Tom Shaw. I can only think that the late Minister of War missed his vocation when he did not enlist as a heavy dragoon.

Lieut.-Colonel APPLIN

I want to draw attention to a question connected with our armament manufacture. We have at Enfield in the Small Arms Factory an excellent institution for the production of small arms for our troops. Economy has necessarily caused the factory to fall under the eye of the Secretary of State. This factory is one of the most efficient in the country. It is equipped with the very latest and best machinery, which is equal to any engineering machinery in the country. It is a large factory and capable of very big production. It used to employ no less than 1,800 men in the production not only of rifles, which are well known throughout the world as the Enfield rifle, but of machine guns, of pistols, and of small arms generally. Unfortunately, we have suffered a very heavy reduction in numbers of men employed in the factory from time to time. If that were due to sheer economy and to the fact that we could obtain these arms cheaper or better outside, I would have nothing to say, but the fact of the matter is that the overhead charges of the factory are so high that it cannot possibly compete with outside firms. The reason for that is that a large amount of the machinery is not being used. Nearly one-half the machinery is not in use at the present moment; the result is that the overhead charges are so great that it brings up the cost of arms made in the factory considerably above the present market price.

Should a nation that possesses a factory equipped with modern machinery on such a scale, however, go outside for its work, and then bring back that very work, which is made by a private firm, to that factory in order to he inspected and passed by the inspectors there, while at the same moment it is actually discharging no less than 256 men who have had years of experience I The oldest men, who are the most experienced and the best workmen are being discharged in order to effect economy. Thereby they throw more machinery out of work. That machinery belongs to us, it is public property, and is idle when it ought to be working, simply because we are employing outside firms to produce things which could be perfectly well made in that factory. I do not want to appeal to my hon. Friend from a sentimental point of view, but I would point out to him that what we are doing is not an economy at all. If we turn 256 men out of employment in the Enfield factory and they are obliged to go on the Poor Law, as they must, because there are no less than 3,000 unemployed in Enfield at the present. moment, it is no economy at all, except to the hon. Member himself, in his official' capacity. The War Office, I admit, will be better off by, what?—£5,000 or £6,000 a year; but those men will still have to be kept by this nation, and they will be kept in idleness instead of in productive work.

I make a last appeal to my hon. Friend to consider this subject from a national point of view and not from the point of view of the War Office alone. Surely it would be better to use the factory for the production of the hundred and one things we require in the Army than to turn those men out on to the Poor Law, to be kept by the public, and in that way reduce still further the efficiency of the factory, because the overhead charges will be still greater if instead of having about 1,000 men we have only 750. On the ground of economy, on the ground of efficiency, and for the sake of the Army as well as of the men, I make a final appeal to the hon. Gentleman to retain those men in the factory and give them the work which is now being done by private firms. Let him bring the machinery which is there, which has been paid for, and which is now rusting—if I may use the word—into work again, and keep those highly trained and highly skilled men in employment instead of turning them leg, after 30 or 40 years' faithful service, to what really becomes pauperism—living on the dole which they will get from the public.

Mr. COOPER

I think it will be as well if I reply now to the long Debate we have had and the many interesting points which have been raised. I think all who have taken part in the Debate have contributed something towards it, and they have certainly contributed towards my task in replying. In fact, if I replied to all the points brought forward and all the questions put I am afraid I should keep the House longer than hon. Members are probably willing to stay. Therefore, I shall have to select some of what I think are the more important points, and I hope hon. Members will not think it too strange if I prefer to reply to those hon. Members who, unlike jesting Pilate, have waited for an answer rather than those who have gone away. The Debate has been enlightened and improved by one or two interesting maiden speeches from Members whom we shall all hope to hear again, and I would particularly mention the speeches of the hon. and gallant Member for East Hull (Brigadier-General Nation) and the hon. Member for East Nottingham (Mr. Gluck-stein).

The main general criticism of my opening remarks was that I provided no opportunity for a discussion of the great question of a Defence Ministry. It was not open to me to discuss that question to-night, and any criticism on that ground comes ill from the Opposition, who can always put down the Committee of Imperial Defence Vote in order to discuss it. During the short period I have been in the House we have had, I think, one Debate upon that very subject. Whenever it has been referred to to-day, the May Committee has always been spoken of as though their judgments and their views were the last word in wisdom, and may I point out that the May Committee did inquire very closely into this question of a Ministry of Defence and the coordination of the three defence Departments, and definitely turned the proposal down. I do not say that that judgment will always remain the final one, but at any rate it is in this year 1932 the judgment of that committee, and we must bear it in mind.

The hon. Member for Limehouse (Mr. Attlee), who opened the Debate, complained that in my speech I had not given any justification for maintaining an Army of this size, and had not explained what the policy was which made the retention of such an Army necessary or defensible. I really thought that if any Member of this House knew the reply to that question it was the hon. Member himself, who himself has served at the War Office, who has sat on this bench, and supported by his vote and speech the retention of a larger Army, and who has voted for bigger Estimates. I did not think that it would have been necessary for me to explain to him why we required to have an Estimate for 140,000 men. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sparkbrook (Mr. Amery) raised a more far-reaching question of policy. His questions were very much from the opposite point of view from those put by the hon. Member for Limehouse. The point of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sparkbrook was that it, was impossible to justify the existence of so small an Army to carry on such great responsibility. The right hon. Gentleman's criticism can be replied to in almost the same words as my reply to the hon. Member for Limehouse. The right hon. Gentleman has been a member—not a junior member, but a Cabinet Minister —of more than one administration, and he has always supported an Army of this size. During the years the right hon. Gentleman has been in office he has seen the Army dwindling and diminishing, and I am not sure that he has ever protested against the present numbers of the Army being insufficient to fulfil their responsibilities.

The hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) criticised on general grounds the present position from the point of view that we were bothering more in the Army about mechanisation than about keeping it up to date, and about preserving it as a force for killing men and worrying less about housing the troops. That is perfectly true, but that is one of the unpleasant facts of the situation. We have to realise that if we have an Army at all, we must keep it efficient That must be our first consideration. To let that Army get inefficient is, obviously, a worse policy than to disband it. Therefore, we must keep the question of efficiency in the forefront, and allow housing questions and general amenities to take a secondary place when it comes to comparing them with the question of the efficiency of the Army.

The hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Parkinson) asked why I said the present Estimates could not be taken as a standard for future Estimates, and why it should be necessary to ask the House to vote larger sums for future Estimates. I endeavoured to explain that in my opening remarks. Surely the hon. Member will agree with the views of his late colleague Mr. Shaw, who was Minister of War a year ago, when he said that the Army had been reduced to the lowest limits and that no further economy could be effected. I agree with that, and I am sure the hon. Member will agree with it, and when I tell him that we have cut down expenditure this year by abolishing the Territorial camps, thereby saving £1,000,000, that we cannot do it next year, and that therefore that £1,000,000 will have to be spent next year, and I do not see where it is coming from, surely he can see why I argue that these Estimates could not be taken as the standard for another year.

A great many questions have been put to me, a number of which I will try to answer. The hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) paid a tribute to the staff of the War Office. I do not think sufficient tribute has been paid to that staff this evening. I am glad the hon. Member said that while he was there they deserved his respect. I should like to assure him that that respect was mutual, and that he entirely earned their respect. Then he asked about the stores and as to inspection. He has been Financial Secretary to the War Office, and did he accept the word of his advisers as to the stores being there, or did he take a train down and insist on seeing them for himself? He knows that the inspectors are people who are highly qualified for the task of inspection, and it is impossible either for him or for me to suggest anybody better to fulfil that task. Then he asked whether we are going on with Catterick. The work is proceeding, and we are going on there. We have done nearly everything in making the conditions of the troops at Catterick as suitable and as agreeable as possible.

The hon. Member for Gorbals asked whether I could give any assurance as to the restoration of the reduction made in Army pay. I am not sure whether he was here when I spoke, but if he had been he should have realised that I tried to explain that we did not admit that the present pay of the Army was too low. We merely applied to the whole Army the new system of pay introduced in 1925. It may have inflicted many hardships, and men who are now serving abroad may now be sending home to their relatives less than they did. That is all very regrettable and sad, but we do not admit that they are being paid at too low a rate. Therefore, we cannot undertake to restore what was admittedly too high a rate of pay which those who joined the Army prior to 1925 were then receiving. The truth of that is shown by the fact that since these new rates of pay have been in operation, they have not adversely affected recruiting at all. The hon. Member for Gorbals suggested that the better recruiting now was due to the fact that hunger was the recruiting sergeant, but I would point out that the improvement in recruiting began in the spring of 1931 when the Socialist Government were in office. It is estimated by those who watch these affairs closely and are best qualified to judge, that events at Shanghai, so far from discouraging recruiting, have encouraged it to a considerable extent.

The hon. and gallant Member for Carlisle (Brigadier-General Spears) asked a good many questions and made many criticisms in the course of his useful and helpful speech. He asked whether we had put into force the May recommendations with regard to Woolwich. That we have done, and £40,000 has been saved as a result. He asked also a question with regard to mechanical transport, as to whether we had accepted the May recommendations with regard to withdrawing the subsidy for mechanical transport. We have done so to a large extent, but not altogether. There are still certain vehicles which are of inestimable use to the Army, and without which it cannot get on, but for which at present there is no commercial future, and we believe that it is necessary to subsidise the manufacture of these vehicles, I cannot say for how long, but until either their utility has been proved to the commercial community and they are prepared to buy them, or until we are able to find something more satisfactory from the Army point of view. The £8,000 this year is not a terminal charge, but is contingent as regards the years to come.

The hon. and gallant Member also asked whether the Whitley Council for the War Office were allowed to recommend people for promotion. I am glad to say that that is not the case. They are allowed to put forward recommendations, but not to mention any names. They might recommend that the rule of seniority should be observed in making any promotions in the future, or they might recommend that the rule of seniority should not apply, and that greater attention should be paid to merit. Their recommendations are treated with great consideration, but they are never permitted to suggest names. The hon. and gallant Member for Ludlow (Lieut.-Colonel Windsor-Clive) raised many points, among others, the question of coast defence, on which he is not quite satisfied, because he feels, very naturally, that the handing over of this heavy re- sponsibility to the Territorials involves a risk, owing to the fact that the Territorials would not always be prepared to mobilise in time. As a matter of fact, the Territorials in question will be maintained on a war basis. They will be allowed to be called up during the period before mobilisation, and will be in exactly the same position as the artillery who have hitherto had this responsibility.

The hon. Member for East Nottingham put forward one or two suggestions. He suggested a wandering commission, if I may so describe it, of ex-business men, travelling about and appearing suddenly and asking people what they were doing. They would be accompanied by some staff officer of almost universal attainments, acquainted with every branch of the Service, who would be able to put them right if ever any danger should occur of their going wrong. It is an interesting suggestion, but I am not sure that in practice it would work out so well as the hon. Member expects.

11.0 p.m.

I ought to remind the House, and those who have criticised the staff at the War Office and the numbers of those employed on the staffs at various places, that since the War no less than seven separate committees have inquired into the War Office and the staff of the War Office Some have been mentioned in this Debate, but not all. In addition to these seven special committees of highly qualified business men, the Estimates Committee of the House of Commons have three times made special inquiries into the War Office and the staff of the War Office, while every year the whole of our Estimates come before the Public Accounts Committee, and have to face the severest criticism of the members of that Committee by question and answer, which the hon. Member for Limehouse suggested was the way in which you should proceed to inquire into these items—by having the people up and asking them. It happens every year. Representatives of the Department are brought up before the Committee, on which all parties are represented, and they can be asked any question and they have to answer. So many people are apt to think that everything can be set right by setting up a committee of clever men, especially business men. We have had in the last 10 years almost too many of these committees. I think as far as the War Office is concerned, they have done their worst, or their best. An interesting suggestion with regard to reducing the movements of troops was made by the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Aston, but it was gone into very carefully at the time when economies were forced on the War Office. I read all the minutes and saw that a discussion had taken place between those best qualified to judge and the conclusion was come to—not a final conclusion: it would be possible to inquire further into it—that the economy would be slight and the loss in training would be considerable. You have stations such as Gravesend and Pembroke Docks where there are no opportunities of training at all. You do not want to leave any unit there longer than you can possibly help. The same applies to the Brigade of Guards. In London there are no opportunities of training, and that is why they are moved more often than others. However, I am prepared to consider my hon. Friend's views. There is a, good deal to be said for them.

The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Ludlow raised once again the question of buying British meat for the Army. It would add £200,000 or £300,000 a year to our Estimates and it would not help the efficiency of the troops at all. Speaking simply as the mouthpiece of the War Office, I cannot give any sympathy whatever to the suggestion. No doubt it is a meritorious suggestion on other grounds, but it is the Ministry of Agriculture that should bear the weight and pay the piper.

Another suggestion by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Aston (Captain Hope) was that men should enter the Government service and remain in it, that they should, on leaving the Army, join some other Department of the State and their seven years should be allowed to count for pension. That, also, has been gone into time and again by highly efficient committees of business men. The trouble is that someone has to pay. It will cost the country more. Someone has to pay for the seven years in the Army and counting the service for pension. We do not want to pay and no one wants to pay. The suggestion itself is very attractive but the general view of those who have inquired into the question is that it would cost more money in the long run than it would be worth. The criticism by the hon. Member for Leigh of the cavalry has been answered by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Knutsford (Brigadier-General. Makins), who is qualified to speak on it. I do not think the hon. Gentleman allows an occasion to go by without expressing the views that he holds concerning the cavalry. I almost think he must have served in the infantry in the last War.

An hon. Member referred to the mechanisation of the Territorial Army and criticised it. We wish to make the Territorial Army as efficient as the Regular Army. There is no doubt nowadays that we are obliged to introduce mechanisation in the transport of the Regular Army, and it is necessary that the Territorials should be kept abreast of the Regular Army, and that we should keep them as similar as possible. With regard to the light horse breeding scheme, it was one of the recommendations of the May Committee that we should withdraw the subsidy. It was withdrawn, although my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State subsequently made a very generous concession of £8,000 towards those engaged in the light horse breeding scheme. The situation is that, while we do not for one moment take the view that the work of the cavalry is done and that there is no future for cavalry in war—on the contrary, we hold that it still has a great part to perform—we believe that we can obtain the horses that we need without supporting the light horse breeding scheme, and that therefore we are not justified any longer in spending public money in this way.

The question was also raised of the employment of ex-service men, and I am very glad that my hon. and gallant Friend supports the scheme at which we are working for co-ordinating all the various bodies which are now engaged in trying to find employment for these men. I need hardly deal with the questions regarding the abolition of the Clothing Factory at Pimlico, because I think they have not really interfered with my original statement on the subject. So far as these particular people are concerned the fact that the lease is coming to an end in 1937 is final and is of first-rate importance. The hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) said that it was of no importance whatever. So far as these people are concerned it is the thing that matters above all, for it means that they will lose their employment sooner or later. Then there is the fact that we are going to save money.

Mr. LAWSON

Why not start another factory?

Mr. COOPER

Because there is nowhere else where we can get a factory site in that part of London. We have had a very careful search made all over the Pimlico district, and that is the case. In any event it would not be the best part of England in which to have a factory. If we did have another factory we should probably have it in the north of England. The case has been made out that the factory was formed in 1855 in order to defeat the rascally contractors, but we have devised other means since then of defeating rascally contractors. There is no suggestion that in the late War the contractors supplied boots made out of paper, or supplied rotten meat or any of these horrors, and that these things will continue if we destroy that poor little factory. Why is it, if we can succeed in getting good meat, good boots and everything else, without having a special Government factory, that we should still continue a factory at Pimlico for the manufacture of Army clothing? There is no case for it at all, as the experience of other Government Departments shows.

With regard to the War Office staff, which many hon. Members raised, I feel that the case has not been sufficiently strongly stated on behalf of the Civil Service. The change that has come over the Civil Service during the last few years can be appreciated only by those who have seen it. I joined the Foreign Office in the year 1913, and in that year the whole duty of dealing with telegrams, receiving, ciphering, deciphering, and distributing, was performed by three junior members of the office staff. The one thing that we had not been examined in was typewriting, and we had to learn it during the first morning we were in the office. The whole of that work was carried out by three members of the office. To-day there is a specially trained staff of 25 people engaged upon that work. They work in two shifts, from eight o'clock in the morning until 12 at night. In another room there are professional typists and stenographers who take down, copy out, and distribute the documents. That is my experience of one corner in one Department of State. The same thing has been happening all over the Civil Service all over England and in not one case has so much been done as in the War Office. There are 92 different kinds of vehicles used in the Army, there are actually four times as many kinds of guns used in the Army as before the War. Before the War there were two machine guns for each battalion, and to-day there are 42 for each battalion. There used to be 39,000 tenders, this year 56,000 were sent out. That gives hon. Members some idea of the increase of the business. There is a complication of affairs—mechanisation, wireless, tanks, anti-aircraft, all that sort of thing. It has far more than doubled the work which the Civil Service has to perform. In addition, we have in the Army the question of dealing with married officers and marriage allowances which did not exist before the War. Education and vocational training, which hardly existed before the War, are now some of the important things with which the War Office has to deal. We also have to pay greater attention to the social conditions of the troops. There are questions of housing and pensions legislation—all putting a tremendous, additional burden upon the Civil Service. There are pensions, widows' pensions, old age pensions, unemployment insurance, industrial courts, Whitley Councils, all increasing the work of the Civil Service. There is the application of Income Tax affecting as it does an enormous new circle of people. All that has increased the work of the War Office.

Even in regard to the political situation, there are I forget how many new countries which have been created since the War under the Versailles Treaty and as the outcome of the policy of self-determination. Each has its own Army to be watched in order that our War Office may be efficiently informed. There has been a 50 per cent. increase in correspondence. Apparently owing to the growth of education people write more letters. Also people are more interested in War Office affairs, as we have seen by the length of this Debate. So many people were engaged, unfortunately, in the late War and so many of our contemporaries have been in the Army, that many of them have been anxious to take part in the Debate upon the Army. A great many more people are anxious to write letters on the subject of War Office affairs. All this has increased the work of the War Office by twice as much as the numbers of the staff have increased. When I reflect upon those facts I am astonished that the staff is not very much larger than it is.

Mr. LEWIS

Is there no word of hope to offer to the officers of the Army Education Corps?

Mr. COOPER

The Army Education Corps is one of those corps which was started and grew up so rapidly that it is now suffering from a certain congestion. I hope that it may be possible to find some way of dealing with the problem, though I cannot at the moment suggest any solution of it. I should be very glad to go into it with him, and I think that we might find some way by mutual understanding to achieve a solution of the problem which, in comparison with many other problems affecting the War Office and the many hardships inflicted upon men of all ranks, is not one, perhaps, of first-rate importance.

Supply accordingly considered in Committee.

[Captain BOURNE in the Chair.]