Lords Sitting of 1 August 1916

VISCOUNT GREY OF FALLODON.
The Right Honourable Sir Edward Grey, Baronet, K.G., His Majesty's Principal Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, having been created Viscount Grey of Fallodon, in the County of Northumberland—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.

ISLE OF MAN (CUSTOMS) BILL. (No. 81.)
PUBLIC WORKS LOANS BILL. (No. 82.)
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a; to-morrow (The Lord Hylton).

COLCHESTER GAS BILL. [H.L.]
FERNDALE GAS BILL. [H.L.]
GREAT CENTRAL AND SHEFFIELD DISTRICT RAILWAYS BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments: The said Amendments considered, and agreed to.

GAS (STANDARD OF CALORIFIC POWER) BILL.
OUTPUT OF BEER (RESTRICTION) BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments, agreed to.

GORE'S DIVORCE BILL. [H.L.]
Minutes of evidence and proceedings before this House on the Second Reading, together with the documents deposited in the case, returned from the Commons.

PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDERS BILL.
LAND DRAINAGE (FELTWELL) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
LAND DRAINAGE (LILLESHALL) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
Reported, without amendment, and recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House to-morrow.

RETURNS, REPORTS, &c.
Miscellaneous, No. 25 (1916)—Further correspondence respecting the conditions of diet and nutrition in the Internment Camp at Ruhleben, and the proposed release of interned civilians (in continuation of "Miscellaneous, No. 21 (1916)" [Cd. 8262]):
Rebellion in Ireland (Royal Commission)—Minutes of Evidence with Appendix of the Royal Commission on the Rebellion in Ireland:
Small Landholders (Scotland) Acts, 1886 to 1911—Fourth Report of the Scottish Land Court for the year 1915:
Licensing of Partially Disabled Men as Drivers of Public Motor Vehicles—Report of the Committee on:
Presented (by command) and ordered to lie on the Table.
Shops Act, 1912—Order made by the Council of the Burgh of Hawick, and confirmed with amendment by the Secretary for Scotland:
Road Improvement Fund (Accounts, 1915–1916)—Abstract Account of the receipts into and payments out of the Road Improvement Fund in the year ended 31st March, 1916, together with the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General thereon:
Savings Banks and Friendly Societies—
(Post Office Savings Banks Fund)—Account for the year ended 31st December, 1915;
(Savings Banks Fund)—Account for the year ended 20th November, 1915;
(Friendly Societies Fund)—Account for the year ended 20th November, 1915:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) and ordered to lie on the Table.

LARCENY BILL. [H.L.]
Amendments reported (according to Order).

POLICE, &c. (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Lord Sandhurst.)
On Question, Bill read 3a.
LORD SANDHURST: Your Lordships will remember that on the last stage of this Bill before the Third Reading one or two noble Lords suggested that its short title was hardly appropriate to a Bill which included provisions on various subjects. I have consulted the Secretary of State on the matter and also had an opportunity of seeing the Parliamentary draftsman, with the result that the Secretary of State is willing, after the word "Police," to insert "Factories." The short title will then be "Police, Factories, &c. (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill."
Amendment moved—
In short title, after the word ("Police"), insert ("Factories").—(Lord Sandhurst.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.

GOVERNMENT OF INDIA (AMENDMENT) BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (LORD ISLINGTON): My Lords, before moving that the House resolves itself into Committee, perhaps it would be convenient if at this stage I made a short statement informing your Lordships of the alterations that have been made in this Bill during its passage through the Joint Committee. Paragraph (d) of Clause 2 has been omitted. The intention of this paragraph was to validate certain Indian enactments whose validity had recently been called in question by a decision of the Privy Council. Serious objection to this was raised by Chambers of Commerce and other bodies in India, both on the merits of the proposal and because it was alleged that it was of such a controversial character that it should not be inserted in the Bill at this juncture, as it had been generally understood that controversial questions should, as far as possible, be avoided during the war. The Joint Committee therefore unanimously decided to withdraw this paragraph from the Bill. Clause 3 has also been altered. This clause proposed to place chiefs and subjects of Native States, subjects of States adjacent to India, and members of frontier tribes on the same footing as natives of British India as regards eligibility for office, whether civil or military. The Joint Committee
1002
have amended this clause to the effect that persons should be declared eligible in place of classes. This will compel a greater discrimination in regard to eligibility for these appointments. Again, an alteration has been made to the effect that persons of adjacent territory, such as Nepal and Cashmere, and members of all independent tribes on the frontier, should be eligible only for military appointments and not for civil appointments. Then the Joint Committee have omitted Clause 5 of the Bill. This clause proposed to enable, under certain conditions, merchants and bankers to be appointed to Executive Councils in India. The clause was fully discussed in the Committee, and was considered to be objectionable mainly on the ground that it might have an injurious effect on the purity of administration in India. There are also several quite minor changes in the Bill of a verbal character which I will not detain your Lordships by enumerating. I will now move that the House resolves itself into Committee on the Bill to enable me to propose other Amendments.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Islington.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.]
The Amendments proposed by the Joint Committee made.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2:
Removal of doubts as to validity of certain Indian laws.
2.—(1) In section seventy-one of the principal Act shall be inserted the following sub-section:—
"(3A) A regulation made under this section for any territory shall not be invalid by reason only that it confers or delegates power to confer on courts or administrative authorities power to sit or act outside the territory in respect of which they have jurisdiction or functions."
(2) In section eighty-four of the principal Act, after the words "Governor-General in Legislative Council" shall be inserted the words "or a local legislature," and, at the end of the section, shall be inserted the following words:—
"A law made by any authority in British India and repugnant to any provision of this or any other Act of Parliament shall, to the extent of that repugnancy, but not otherwise, be void."
(3) This section shall apply to and shall validate laws made as well before as after the commencement of this Act.
LORD ISLINGTON LORD ISLINGTON moved to add at the end of subsection (1), after the word "functions," the words "or that it confers or delegates power to confer appellate jurisdiction or functions on Courts or administrative authorities sitting or acting outside the territory." The noble Lord said: This Amendment will enable the Courts to carry out their work at the head centre instead of having to migrate into the scheduled districts. For instance, Aden is attached to the Bombay Presidency, and in cases of appellate jurisdiction and in regard to functions of Courts or administrative authorities by regulations the Amendment will enable questions to be referred to the Court sitting in Bombay. This will be a great convenience. There is a question under the present law whether there is power to carry this out; it is proposed, therefore, to make the matter quite clear.
Amendment moved—
Clause 2, page 2, line 4, after ("functions") insert ("or that it confers or delegates power to confer appellate jurisdiction or functions on courts or administrative authorities sitting or acting outside the territory").—(Lord Islington.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 3:
Qualification of rulers and subjects of certain states for office.
3. After section ninety-six of the principal Act shall be inserted the following section:—
"96A. Notwithstanding anything in any other enactment, the Governor-General in Council, with the approval of the Secretary of State in Council, may, by notification, declare that any named person or persons falling within any of the classes in this section described shall, subject to any conditions or restrictions prescribed in the notification, be eligible for appointment to any civil or military office under the Crown to which a native of British India may be appointed, namely, (a) the ruler or subjects of any state in India, and for appointment to any such military office, (b) subjects of any state in territory adjacent to India, or (c) members of any independent race or tribe in territory adjacent to India."
LORD ISLINGTON: I have already explained to your Lordships the Amendment to this clause.
Amendment moved—
Clause 3, page 2, line 20, leave out from ("that") ["may, by notification, declare that"] to the end of the clause and insert ("subject to any conditions or restrictions prescribed in the notification, any named ruler or subject of any
1004
state in India shall be eligible for appointment to any civil or military office under the Crown to which a native of British India may be appointed, or any named subject of any state, or any named member of any independent race or tribe, in territory adjacent to India, shall be eligible for appointment to any such military office").—(Lord Islington.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 4 agreed to.
Clause 5:
Removal of doubts as to validity of Orders in Council under Foreign Jurisdiction Act. 53 & 54 Vict., c. 37.
5. An Order of His Majesty in Council heretofore or hereafter made under the Foreign Jurisdiction Act, 1890, empowering the Governor-General of India in Council to make rules and orders in respect of courts or administrative authorities acting for any territory shall not be invalid by reason only that it confers or delegates power to confer on courts or administrative authorities power to sit or act outside the territory in respect of which they have jurisdiction or functions.
LORD ISLINGTON: The Amendment standing in my name to Clause 5 is identical to the one which I proposed in Clause 2, and it will make it clear that Orders in Council for Native States may confer appellate jurisdiction.
Amendment moved—
Clause 5, page 3, line 8, after ("functions") insert ("or that it confers or delegates power to confer appellate jurisdiction or functions on courts or administrative authorities sitting or acting outside the territory").—(Lord Islington.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
First Schedule:
LORD ISLINGTON LORD ISLINGTON had the following Amendment on the Paper to the First Schedule—
First schedule, page 6, after line 12, insert:
Section 92.—The words "or lieutenant-governor" shall be inserted after the words "a governor," wherever occurring, and the words "or Lieutenant-Governor in Council" shall be inserted after the words "Governor in Council," wherever occurring.
The noble Lord said: It was proposed to extend to Lieutenant-Governors in Council the power of appointing temporary members of their own Council, but the Government of India are strongly of opinion that these powers should be retained in the hands of the Governor-General in Council. Therefore I do not move this Amendment.
But the second Amendment standing in my name to the First Schedule I do move. It merely extends the privilege of exemption from the law in India to Lieutenant-Governors and their Councils which have come into existence since the enactment was brought into force which exempted Governors and their Councils.
Amendment moved—
First Schedule, page 6, after line 28, insert:
Section 110 (1).—The words "lieutenant-governor and chief commissioner" shall be inserted after the words "each governor," and the words "the executive council of the governor-general or of a governor or lieutenant-governor shall be substituted for the words" their respective executive councils."—(Lord Islington.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
First Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining Schedule agreed to.
The Report of Amendments to be received to-morrow, and Bill to be printed as amended. (No. 83.)

THE ROYAL AIRCRAFT FACTORY.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU had the following Question on the Paper—
To ask His Majesty's Government whether they are prepared to circulate the recent Report upon the Royal Aircraft Factory; what steps will be or have been taken to carry out its recommendations, and what alterations, if any, have been made in the higher staff at the Factory.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, on Thursday week I deferred this Question in deference to the generally expressed wish from all sides of the House that the whole of that afternoon should be free for the debate on Mesopotamia. But, my Lords, I have come to-day to put the case before you. It has been, from my point of view, strengthened in the interval, because there has been a great effort on the part of those responsible for the Royal Aircraft Factory to put their house in order—a salutary process which is still proceeding. I desire to-day to discuss this subject in as calm and dispassionate a manner as possible, first, because I am delighted to know that the noble Earl opposite (Earl Curzon of Kedleston) and
1006
his Air Board have the matter under their serious consideration; and, secondly, because I realise, as I have said, that the authorities, now that the very irregular proceedings which were characteristic of the Royal Aircraft Factory in past months have been brought to their notice, are themselves trying to do what they can to remedy the state of things.
The Question standing in my name on the Paper has been to a large extent answered by what has happened since I originally put it down, now nearly two months ago. The Report for which I ask in my Question has been produced, largely due, probably, to interrogations in both Houses of Parliament; and no doubt the Air Board and the other members of the Executive thought it wise that it should be produced in its somewhat shortened form. Then we are given to understand, with regard to the second part of my Question referring to the higher command, that Colonel O'Gorman has been or will shortly be transferred from the Factory at Farnborough to London to act in another capacity. So that, as a matter of fact, my inquiries in the form in which they stand on the Paper have to a large extent been answered. However, I do not think it will be out of place if I give the House to-day a brief history of the growth of the Royal Aircraft Factory, and then venture upon some remarks with regard to the two Reports—the Report of Sir Richard Burbidge's Committee, and the Report thereon by the noble Earl and his colleagues on the Air Board.
The Royal Aircraft Factory as it is known to-day began in a very humble and modest way. Years ago it was the depôt of the ballooning section of the Royal Engineers, who were at that time in charge of all the ballooning and aeronautics in the Army. They found that they needed a factory, and eventually they established a depôt at Farnborough. From 1909, when military aviation in this country may be said to have begun as regards aeroplanes, the Royal Engineers still had charge of that factory, and until 1911 they practically superintended the experiments of all kinds. I and others foresaw that the Royal Engineers could not retain control of what was going to be a very important service, and it is admitted that they were not equal to the task of conducting it. Towards the end of 1911 the Royal Flying Corps was established as a separate unit, and the control of the Royal Engineers over this service vanished.
After that came what is known to-day as the Royal Flying Corps; but in those days it included the naval as well as the military wing. It was not until July, 1914, that the Royal Flying Corps became separate from the Royal Naval Air Service.
In the Spring of 1911 Colonel O'Gorman, a member of the Institute of Electrical Engineers, a distinguished scientific gentleman, I am proud to say a friend of my own, and one whose versatility and fertility of mind is well known, took over the charge of this Factory, largely at the instance of the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Haldane, who was then Secretary of State for War. He had during the first year of his work there, the greatest difficulty in obtaining from the Treasury sufficient money to carry on his experiments in a reasonable manner. He was starved of money remorselessly, and he could neither obtain materials nor men sufficient to make his experiments a great success. However, he struggled on; and whatever may be said of Colonel O'Gorman in his later capacity as manager of a great Factory with over 4,200 men, at that time, undoubtedly, his services were of great value to this country. About that time, or a little later, Mr. De Havilland, whose name is well known in connection with aviation, joined Colonel O'Gorman there, and brought into that establishment all the knowledge he had gained of aviation in civil life; and other officials were added from outside.
In July, 1911, the first R.A.F. aeroplane was produced; but, unfortunately, it killed its pilot, Mr. Ridge, on August 18, 1911. In saying that, I wish to remind your Lordships that experiments in regard to aviation must always involve a large toll of human life. They cause less toil, luckily, now than they did originally, but all developments in flying are bound to involve loss of life. I venture to say that the lives lost by the early pioneers in trying to perfect and in testing machines, which were far from being what they ought to have been, were just as much given to the service of this country as any lives have been during the war, because if those lives had not been sacrificed we should not have been in the position in which we were at the beginning of the war in regard to aviation. Although we then had less than one-tenth of the aeroplanes possessed by the German Army, those which we had were highly efficient and the pilots were well trained.
I pass on to 1912, when, after trials held by the aeronautical authorities, the first B E 2 plane was produced. It was a tractor biplane, and it really put up a very good performance and answered expectations. It was thought to be too slow, and so a more powerful engine was put into it; and necessarily—because we had not the same knowledge then as we have now—it became more dangerous, and killed several pilots. During 1912–13 various machines of the B E 2 type were produced. In 1914, just before the war, the Royal Aircraft Factory lost Mr. De Havilland, who went over to a private firm which is now manufacturing aeroplanes on a large scale. A few days before the war broke out our first real auto stable plane was produced—the B E 2 C. Although at the beginning of the war these machines did good work, they are admittedly out of date now. At that time this was the only machine we had in quantities, and the only really well-designed machine. Therefore I do not blame the authorities for having built them in considerable quantities. The B E 2 C was the work of Mr. Busk, who was very well known at the Factory as a skilful designer and a good pilot. Unfortunately he was killed in a B E 2 C, not from any fault of the plane, but because something went wrong with his engine and the plane caught fire and crashed to earth. I think it only fair to Mr. Busk's memory to say that the results of the examination showed that the faults were not due to any bad design in the aeroplane, but probably to faults in the air-cooled engine, now known as the 90 horse raf, which was the product of the Royal Aircraft Factory.
During this time the Navy were asked whether they would support the Royal Aircraft Factory. Personally I think they were wise in saying that they could obtain as good machines, or better, outside the Royal Aircraft Factory. Therefore they decided to have nothing to do with it. Whether that has been of advantage to the Royal Aircraft Factory I will not say; but as far as the Navy is concerned, the Navy started unhampered with official restrictions and ordered the best machines obtainable in the outside market. About that time—at the beginning of the war—the Royal Aircraft Factory began to antagonise the aircraft trade, which has supplied something like 97½ per cent. of our requirements as against 2½ per cent. produced by the Royal Aircraft Factory.
If we have to depend in this or in any other war on the product of the Government Factory, we shall be badly left behind. We have to try and establish a strong aircraft trade, and see that we enlist their sympathies, and that the aircraft trade look upon the Air Board and the Aircraft Factory as friends, not as enemies. From what I hear I think this feeling is beginning to grow again, and the spirit of antagonism is, I hope, dying out.
It was understood during the years 1911 to 1914, from every person in authority, that the Royal Aircraft Factory was an establishment for testing inventions, for research, and for experiments, and that it was not intended to be the great manufacturing establishment which it grew into. I do not mean to say that it turned cut a very large number of planes and engines, but it turned out a great many spare parts and went in very heavily for repairs, and it is rather difficult to draw the line where manufacturing begins and where it ends. If you are going to employ a couple of thousand men in doing manufacturing work, it does not matter from the point of view of the State whether you are employing them in production or in repairs. The question is whether you should run a big establishment for that sort of work at all, or whether you should not confine it mainly, as I think ought to be done, to research and experiment. Thus things drifted on during the first eighteen months of the war, and the Aircraft Factory became. I am sorry to say, less of an experimental and research, and more of a manufacturing establishment. The Royal Flying Corps had also an experimental and scientific department at Feltham, near Staines. This seems to be sufficient for Certain purposes, and it works, of course, closely in touch with the Royal National Physical Laboratory at Teddington. This laboratory carries out the scientific, mathematical, and other experiments with regard to models and engines; it carries them out mainly in model form, and it is quite right that the State should take the results of experiments in the model form and work them up on the full-size machine or engine later. For that purpose the Factory at Farnborough is very suitable, and if it had confined itself to that work the critics would not have had so much to say.
There was a great deal of discussion on this question last autumn and winter and through the spring, and when I first met Lord
1010
Derby on the Air Committee, from which we eventually felt bound to resign, I was glad to hear from him that he had taken the wise step of stating to Sir David Henderson that he thought it advisable that a Committee should be appointed to go into the question of the Royal Aircraft Factory, and he eventually was instrumental in getting the Committee appointed whose Report is incorporated in this White Paper. That Committee consisted of three distinguished persons—Sir Frederick Donaldson, who had been the head of Woolwich and whose loss in the "Hampshire" we all deplore; Sir Richard Burbidge; and Sir Charles Parsons, of turbine fame, whose great scientific reputation we all know. Those three gentlemen inquired into the Factory, and the Report which they produced is in my opinion a very valuable one, though there are here and there things in it which might have been unsaid, and things which they might have said are omitted; but considering that they did not devote a large portion of their time to this Inquiry, I think the Report on the whole is well worthy of your Lordships' consideration. I may add that I think it justifies any remarks which I have made about the Royal Aircraft Factory, and a great many of the reforms for which I have pleaded are contained in the body of the Report. That Report was made on May 12 last, but it was not issued to either House of Parliament until July 28. There may have been good reasons for this delay, but I think it was an undue time to elapse, especially as it was known that the Report had a great bearing on other Inquiries that were coming on. One can, however, understand the reluctance on the part of the Aeronautical Department to publish the Report on account of its not being wholly favourable to themselves, but I think it would have been better from every point of view had the Report been published earlier.
In this Report I notice that the Committee leave out certain facts and figures, in the place of which are placed asterisks, with the footnote "It is not considered desirable in the public interest to publish the exact figures." Nobody is keener than I am to see that the enemy get no information which could be of use to them, but in some cases the asterisk has been inserted in a quite unnecessary fashion, a great many of the figures having been already stated before the Judicial Committee. It is ridiculous that there should be any

1011
secrecy about some of these figures when the chairman, Mr. Justice Bailhache, and other members of the Judicial Committee stated the figures, and they were reported in the newspapers. For instance, the Committee say—
"The Royal Aircraft Factory has produced * new machines in all since the commencement of the war, while the trade supplies have exceeded * machines."
I think it would be valuable if the public had been given some kind of idea of the number of new machines produced by the Royal Aircraft Factory. I know the number, but I am not going to give it. I can say, however, that the proportion produced by the aircraft trade was over thirty as against one produced by the Royal Aircraft Factory, which shows the small output of the Factory compared with that of the trade. Then the Committee say—
"The approximate value of orders placed by Military Aeronautics Directorate from 1st August, 1914, to 31st March, 1916, for aeroplanes, engines, and spares of Royal Aircraft Factory design is *, and of private design about half this amount."
It would appear, on the face of this statement, that half of the amount spent has been given to the aircraft trade; but, as a matter of fact, two-thirds of the orders were given to the Royal Aircraft Factory and only one-third to the aircraft trade. I am not concerned to defend the trade—I have no interest, direct or indirect, in it—and I will leave it to your Lordships to decide whether the statement which I have quoted from the Committee's Report is suppressio veri or suggestio falsi. In these circumstances you cannot wonder that the aircraft trade is somewhat jealous of the competition of the Royal Aircraft Factory.
Then we come to the statement in the Committee's Report—
"The strength of the Royal Aircraft Factory on March 26, 1916, was stated to be *."
I will give your Lordships the missing figure, because it was stated by Mr. Justice Bailhache. It is 4,222. He said that the output was a small one for 4,222 men, and that of these men half were occupied in experimental work and half in productive work. These facts have been published in the Press, and there is no harm in giving them here. I will not state what the exact amount of wages was or the materials, though I do not think this information would help the German Army very much. But the expenditure
1012
this year will probably be in the neighbourhood of £1,000,000. That is a great deal of money to spend on a Factory which is theoretically doing experimental work, though it is doing a great deal of repair work also.
I pass on to the table of percentages set out on page 3 of the Report. The Air Board have made some rather cogent remarks on these percentages. The table, as we see it in the Report, shows that only 22 per cent. of the total work done was in the nature of experiments. We know from what the Air Board tell us later on that 35 per cent., in their judgment, has to be added, making 57 per cent. in all, which corresponds more or less with the number of men engaged in experimental work and in constructional work. It is stated that Colonel O'Gorman had checked his figures. Well, he must have unwittingly misled the Burbidge Committee, because they would never have put this figure down in their Report if they had thought it incorrect. I notice that in the Report, on page 4, there is another paragraph in which it is not thought advisable to give the exact number. The statement is—
"The Central Office and Stores are manned by * employees out of a total of *."
Surely this information could not help the enemy. I am sure that if I state to the House that 560 men are occupied in the Stores Department I shall not be giving any information which will be of assistance to the enemy. Although I believe that the work of checking stores and of tracing back individual parts is exceedingly accurately done, this is, in my opinion, an undue number of men to have in the Stores Department. I have nothing more to say on the Report itself. I think it is a document worthy of your Lordships' consideration. It recommends that there should be skilled civil management, that there should be management by a person accustomed to the control of large factories. If the Factory is to continue in its present form, I think that is wise; but if it is only to continue as an experimental depot, it does not matter having a skilled commercial man at the head, and I think that very likely on the staff at present there are people quite capable of managing it.
I pass to the Report made by the Air Board to the War Committee on the subject of the Royal Aircraft Factory I

1013
congratulate the Air Board on the courageous way in which they have handled the matter, and there are one or two sentences in their Report to which I wish to call your Lordships' attention. There may be reasons that I do not know of, but I think it would be a pity if Colonel O'Gorman's services to the State were lost in an experimental sense. I am, therefore, glad to see the suggestion that he should be appointed as consulting engineer to the Director-General of Military Aeronautics at the War Office. But I would caution the Air Board that, in my opinion, Sir David Henderson has far too much to do. He is not only a member of the Army Council and in command of the Royal Flying Corps, but he is also the responsible head of the Royal Aircraft Factory, and it is not possible for any one to manage all these concerns efficiently. I think the time has come when this distinguished officer should choose whether he prefers to remain a member of the Army Council or the officer commanding the Royal Flying Corps, or to have nominal control of the Aircraft Factory. It is quite impossible that he can continue in the three capacities, and his continuance in them will only lead to further trouble.
There is one sentence at the end of the Air Board's Report in which I concur and to which I hope the Air Board will stick. They say—
"Any measures of reorganisation of the Royal Aircraft Factory should be adopted with the concurrence of the Air Board."
I was delighted to see that paragraph, because it appears to me that in it the Air Board take up the right position. They say that now that they are responsible to Parliament—though they have not yet, in my opinion, anything like the powers which they should possess—they think their views ought to be heard in any changes which are carried out at the Royal Aircraft Factory.
I have made a good many criticisms on the conduct of the Royal Aircraft Factory. I say, first of all, that the Farnborough Factory is quite unsuitable for being made into a large engineering factory. It is a mile and a half from a station; it has no siding and no facilities for getting its coal and iron; therefore the cost must necessarily be higher than in the case of factories which are situated near the rail. Then there is no doubt that it has been the home of numbers
1014
of "dud" mechanics, and there are any number of unmarried men of military age taking shelter there. When I have been there I have seen some of these men, who I recommend should be combed out; and I hope that my noble friend Lord Derby, who has taken such an interest in recruiting, will give some attention to this matter. It is quite clear also that discipline has been woefully slack—I do not say it is so slack now—and there has been a good deal of pilfering and excessive scrapping, and a considerable amount of private work done in Government time. I am not going into detail in regard to this last, although I have a great deal of evidence on the point. For all this somebody is responsible. Primarily Colonel O'Gorman is responsible, he having been head of the Factory; but we cannot exonerate Sir David Henderson, because, on his own admission, he is senior officer of the Factory, and Colonel O'Gorman has had to do what he was told by him. In fact, I often wonder whether there has not been too much interference from London and too little left to Colonel O'Gorman. I am sure that in the earlier days it would have been much better had Colonel O'Gorman and his staff been given a freer hand. However that may be, we cannot exonerate Colonel O'Gorman or Sir David Henderson from blame in this matter. They were jointly responsible for directing the shops, and there are serious faults in the Factory which should have been attended to long before this.
I made some statements before the Judicial Committee the other day which were shut out to a certain extent owing to the chairman of the Committee thinking that I should not bring them in at that moment as another Committee had sat on this subject. I feel that I must justify what I said in general terms on that occasion, so I have prepared a short précis of the evidence, though, of course, I will not mention names. One of the charges—if you can call it a charge—made was that unfair preparations had taken place at the Factory for the visit of His Majesty, not on the occasion when he was unable to walk very well owing to his accident, but on a subsequent occasion, and also on Committee visits. This evidence was taken down in my presence and sworn before a commissioner for oaths. The man who gave it said—
"Careful preparations were made for the King's visit. The day before, machines old, new, complete, partially wrecked, and otherwise were piled

1015
in from other shops. In certain cases the machines were just stuck together, canvas stretched across the nacelles, and wings temporarily attached. Vacant or partially filled shops were furnished with spare parts, etc., providing an appearance of tremendous congestion. Of one shop, to my knowledge, a photograph was taken for the War Office to show the congested state of the premises. I myself helped to set up machines, already condemned, for show purposes. Twenty-four hours afterwards only three machines were in one such shop."
I cannot say which officer was responsible for having what I call "faked" the Factory for the visit of the Committee, but it was not a fair or right thing to have done. The evidence of another man is as follows—
"I am aware that instructions were given previous to the visits to the shops of the Royal Flying Corps Investigation Committee, called to me the Munitions Committee, on April 9, and that work was slackened up the night before the visit occurred in order that there might be an appearance of business the following day. I could give the name of the man who told me this, if desired, and the one from whom he received instructions; but I do not wish their names mentioned without permission. The result of this was that when the Committee came there were shops that would otherwise have been idle apparently very busy."
I have that kind of evidence ad infinitum. At the end this man said—
"There is nothing to prevent German spies walking through the Factory at any time of night or day, and on occasions of shutting down when Zeppelin raids were near no check was put on men going in and out, and signalling to the enemy might have been possible."
I believe that this has been improved lately, and that now it is difficult for any unauthorised person to go through the Factory; but at that time the words which I have read were perfectly true, and I think it reveals a slack state of things. Another man writes to say that "on the occasion of the Committee's visit an attempt was made to produce an air of activity," and so on.
The wife of a late member of this House, a lady of unimpeachable integrity, writes to me as follows—
"It occurs to me to let you know that a very valuable artisan of ours who did all the painting and plumbing on this estate has now been for nearly three months at the Aircraft Factory at Farnborough and has never yet done a full day's work. I should be far from grudging him or any other man to the national service at this time, but why should our cottages and farmhouses go unmended for this?"
This lady is anxious to keep her estate in good order, and I sympathise with the view she has expressed.
I have evidence of unsuitable people being employed on different jobs. For instance, here is a lad of about 17, unskilled and rather delicate, whose extreme value in any commercial employment is 15 s. a week. He was put on at the Royal Aircraft Factory at £2 2s. a week as over-looker, to walk round and see whether there was any smoking, and so on. Asked "Do they take any notice when you speak to them? "he replied "No." Then he was asked "What do you do then?" and he replied "I have to go and tell some one else." I submit that such work is not worth £2 2s. a week. Another man who had been junior assistant to a grocer, at perhaps 25 s. a week, took shelter in the Aircraft Factory and was put into the stores at £3 a week, with extra pay for overtime and Sundays. Again, a police constable retiring with pension was employed as doorkeeper at the Aircraft Factory. A gamekeeper, who lost his job through the shooting being unlet, makes no secret that he "gets lots of money and very little work," and says he is going to stay at the Aircraft Factory as long as he can. Two farm labourers were taken on at the Factory at a great increase of pay over their previous agricultural wages. They were said to be "urgently needed," and were told to "hurry up"; but when they got there they were employed all Sunday at double pay turning over a dungheap. I have any number of these instances. The general impression from this evidence is that there has been a great slackness of administration, and that the Aircraft Factory badly needs reform.
Then there was a case tried at Aldershot last week, a man named MacDonald being rightly convicted for having in his possession Government stores. His case was such a notable one of want of discipline in the Aircraft Factory that I will quote it. This man made no secret of the fact that he was building an aeroplane of his own design outside the Factory; and he told me—though this appears to have been wrong—that he had leave from various people in the Aircraft Factory to take away material. When I state that he took away a propeller twelve feet long, the whole of the body of a motor-car, and other parts almost as big, you cannot accuse him of taking things away secretly. In fact, it was jocularly remarked that if he had been strong enough he would have taken away the whole shed. It is clear that there has been a great want of supervision, and the chairman of the

1017
Aldershot Bench commented very strongly on the fact that such a large amount of material could have been taken away without the officials, according to their evidence, being aware of it. He criticised the officials for not having interested themselves to discover what material was being taken away, especially as they were in the position of looking after the shed in which this man was working. It is a rather curious coincidence—though I do not blame the Superintendent or Assistant-Superintendent of the Factory, who had nothing to do with it—that this man had not been back twelve hours from Westminster, after giving evidence, before he was arrested, whereas this thing had been going on for a year. I am willing to admit that this was a coincidence, but it was a very curious one; especially after we had had a pledge from Sir David Henderson, with the consent of the Committee, that witnesses who came up and gave evidence should not be victimised in any way.
There was another rather serious matter, of which I think the noble Earl would like to be aware. A gentleman came up to give evidence—a Mr. Valentine. He was at Rugby, and is a man of superior education and standing. His evidence has never been shaken to this day. Mr. Valentine went back after the Inquiry was concluded in the afternoon to get some papers which he had left behind, and as he passed Colonel O'Gorman and Captain Green he was grossly insulted. Colonel O'Gorman said, "That is the adventurer who went up and gave evidence"; and Captain Green said, "Yes, you never can tell what sort of fellows you have in the Factory in these days." I venture to say that this was highly improper conduct, and if it had taken place in a Court of Law it would have been only right to have called the Judge's attention to it, and they would, at any rate, have been in danger of being committed for contempt of Court. Your Lordships can see in this incident an attempt to browbeat and intimidate witnesses which is not in accordance with the magnificent traditions of our Courts of Law. If I had thought it worth while I should have taken it up at the time and made it public, but although it was disgraceful it was not, in my opinion, of sufficient importance to trouble about at the moment. I have brought these cases to your Lordships' notice because I think they have a great bearing on the conduct of the Factory.
Then we come to the question of what our policy should be in the future. No doubt the noble Earl will take this into careful consideration. But, as a matter of fact, I am one of those who think that the Government never does anything as well as a private individual. I do not care whether you take the history of the telegraphs, telephones, factories, armaments, or dockyards. The noble and gallant Lord by my side knows that although the dockyards are kept on, it is only for the purpose of keeping a check on private builders, and that the ships built by the private yards are as a rule the better ships of the two. [Lord BERESFORD indicated dissent.] The noble and gallant Admiral will not admit this; but a great many people in the Navy hold this opinion. At any rate, the ships built in the Government dockyards, even if they are better, are certainly more expensive ships to the country. One has only to ask any responsible official of the Treasury what his opinion is of a Government factory. The opinion is that a Government factory does less efficiently and more expensively than the private individual or the private firm. Personally I think it is an illusion to think that the personnel in a Government factory is equal to that of the ordinary well managed commercial factory. If you take the Royal Aircraft Factory and the few engines and planes they have built, the figures run to I do not know how many times as much as in the case of those built by private individuals or private firms.
I do not propose to detain the House further this afternoon. I think I may say that the Report of Sir Richard Burbidge's Committee amply justifies many things that I have said in this House and elsewhere. I have put before your Lordships on several occasions reports on the Royal Aircraft Factory and have shown that the result has been inefficiency and waste. I want to warn the House of this, that we shall have to depend more and more in coming years on the quantity and quality of our aircraft, and no Government factory will be able to give us machines in sufficient numbers unless it is a factory employing tens of thousands of men. The conclusion, therefore, that we have to come to is, first, that our object should be to encourage a strongly established aircraft trade, strong financially and strong in the power of carrying out experiments and big contracts. That has answered admirably in the case of motor transport, and I think it would

1019
also answer well in the case of aircraft. In my opinion the best machines are those produced outside the Government Factory; and nobody will deny that our pilots, with all their bravery, deserve the best machines, whether they are Government built or factory built. I sincerely trust that the noble Earl, together with his Board, will take these matters into consideration. I know that their powers are limited and hampered by inter-Departmental difficulties; but it is their duty—and I believe they realise it—to see that the bravery of our pilots at the Front is not in any way wasted by inefficiency at home. I hope that the noble Earl will be able to give us some indication of what his Board think of this and other questions.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON): My Lords, the speech of the noble Lord has afforded a remarkable illustration of the curious, anomalous, and, as I think, grossly inconvenient practice that prevails in this House—I allude to the practice of putting down a Question upon the Paper of a narrowly limited type relating to certain specific matters upon which the opinion of the Government or information from a Department is sought, and then upon that peg hanging a long and discursive oration covering a wide field, it may be of inquiry, sometimes of controversy, to which the Minister challenged is expected, point by point, to reply, without having been given any idea in advance of the subjects that are going to be raised. All sorts of personal charges against this or that individual are brought forward; the Minister is supposed to know all about them; no intimation is given to him that these matters are to be raised; and the speaker, having occupied perhaps three-quarters of an hour of your Lordships' time, sits down with an expression of pious hope that he will receive a satisfactory reply on all these subjects.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: All these things are contained in the Report.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: I beg the noble Lord's pardon. The greater part of his speech had nothing to do with the Report, and still less with the Question that he put upon the Paper. Now what is his Question as it appears on the Paper? It consists of three parts. First, he asks His Majesty's Government whether they
1020
are prepared to circulate the recent Report upon the Royal Aircraft Factory. As the noble Lord himself pointed out, that question has already been answered by the appearance of the Report. I do not know whether the noble Lord was disappointed at its publication, but I do know this—that only a little while ago, in an article of which he sent me a copy, he was good enough to say, "It will be interesting to see whether the Government will have the courage to publish the Burbidge Report," and he added that "there was at least a danger lest they might refuse to do so on the ground that it is not in the interest of the Public Service." And then this afternoon he led your Lordships to believe that it was due in some form or another to pressure, either from himself or from other high authorities in the House of Commons, that its publication had been decided upon.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: I think the noble Earl does me an injustice. I put this Question down about two months ago.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: The facts are that there never was any intention to withhold the Report. The noble Lord has spoken of the delay in publishing it. That delay was due simply to the desire of the Air Board, of which I happen to be chairman, to investigate very closely, after careful examination of the principal parties concerned, the case that was placed before them. We held that inquiry, I think, within three weeks or a month after the appearance of the Report. We then drew up our own Report upon it. That Report had to go to the War Office; it was submitted to the Army Council and accepted by them, and it has been laid before Parliament. The noble Lord has not the slightest justification for suggesting, either that there was any reluctance to publish the Report in the first place, or any undue delay in publishing it when publication did take place.
The second part of the noble Lord's Question as it appears on the Paper is, What steps will be or have been taken to carry out the recommendations of the Burbidge Report? As the noble Lord was kind enough to notice, an answer to that question has been given in the Report which has been drawn up by the Air Board and which is published along with the

1021
Report of the Burbidge Committee. The third part of the Question is, What alterations, if any, have been made in the higher staff at the Factory? That also has been answered in the Papers laid before Parliament. My reply to the Question upon the Paper might therefore be delivered in a couple of minutes, and I might cease to occupy your Lordships' attention further. I will come presently to my reasons for saying a word or two in reply to the observations that fell from my noble friend. As regards the alterations in the higher staff of the Factory, the noble Lord has himself correctly indicated what they will be. Nobody knows better than he that there are two aspects of the work of a great organisation like this. One is the business and administrative aspect, the running of a great concern in which vast sums of money are involved and in which several thousands of workmen are employed. For that you want administrative ability and capacity of the highest order, and probably some previous experience of work of a similar description. Then there is the scientific and technical side of the work—quite different; and these two sets of qualifications are not necessarily or invariably found in the same person. It is for that reason that Colonel O'Gorman—the tribute paid to whom by the noble Lord I was very glad to hear, and who possesses, as your Lordships know, scientific attainments of the very highest order—is to be transferred to the War Office as an adviser on the scientific side of the case to the Director-General of Military Aeronautics; while we are now on the search for, and hope soon to find, a thoroughly first-rate and competent business organiser of the Factory as it will be at Farnborough. It is further proposed, as your Lordships will have seen in the Report, to appoint a separate head of the Design branch and a separate head of the Production branch. Those are the administrative changes that are now in course of being carried out.
The noble Lord, at one point in his speech, went a little further and included in his critical survey the present position of Sir David Henderson, the Director of Military Aeronautics. I must confess I thought he was not quite fair in what he said on that point. He gave us to understand that Sir David Henderson is a pluralist of an undesirable character, combining in his person two or three functions that ought not to be joined in the same individual. Nobody knows better
1022
than the noble Lord that General Henderson is placed upon the Army Council because he is Director of Military Aeronautics; and nobody ought to be better pleased than the noble Lord, who is always urging the claims of the Air Service, that the head of the military branch of it should be able to enforce his views by a seat on the Army Council. Then, again, is it not being a little captious to suggest that there is anything wrong in an arrangement by which this distinguished officer who is responsible for the whole Service has at the same time the responsibility for the Aircraft Factory at Farnborough? It seems to me to be an inevitable situation, and I cannot conceive of an officer being placed in the position of Director-General without that responsibility for the Aircraft Factory—a War Office organisation—which General Henderson enjoys. We know that in what the noble Lord said there was nothing personal to General Henderson; but I am bound to say, for my own part, that his criticism of the combination of several functions in a single person was not justified.
As I say, I have now answered the Question on the Paper, and I need go no further. But courtesy compels me to pay some attention to the greater part of the noble Lord's speech, little though the relevance was that it bore to the Question put to me. The noble Lord gave us, in the first place, an interesting essay upon the history of the Royal Aircraft Factory. I do not desire to question his summary of what has happened in the past. But may I say that that does not concern me ill the least. The Royal Aircraft Factory is a War Office institution. It was started, as the noble Lord himself told us, some time before the war; it has been in existence during the war, acting under the orders of the War Office; and the Air Board, for which I speak, had nothing to do with the Aircraft Factory up to the moment we came into existence. I might therefore claim not to say one word about the charges that have been made by the noble Lord relating to the past. What the Air Board are concerned to see, if they can, is, now that this Factory has been the subject of examination by a competent Committee and we ourselves have taken evidence about it, that the changes necessary shall be put into operation with as little delay as may be.
There is another fact which dispenses me from saying much about a good deal

1023
that fell from the noble Lord, and it is this. The conduct, the organisation and the management of the Aircraft Factory have been the subject only recently of a most minute and careful Inquiry by the Committee presided over by Mr. Justice Bailhache. That Committee was constituted in order to examine certain charges which it was understood had been brought against the Royal Flying Corps. I am bound to say, reading the evidence that was given before that Committee from day to day, that I was astonished and even scandalised at the manner in which gossip, rumour, invention, and charges—very often wholly unsupported by evidence—were brought before that Committee. The noble Lord himself gave evidence before it. I am not suggesting for one moment that his evidence could deserve such epithets, but nobody knows better than he does that the adjectives I have employed correctly describe a great deal of the, I cannot call it evidence—a great deal of the random utterance that was heard by the Committee. This Committee has not yet reported, but I believe its Report is now under consideration; and really I was surprised to hear the noble Lord this afternoon come down and repeat in this House, as if your Lordships were a tribunal properly constituted for the purpose, a good deal of the evidence he has given before the Committee.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: May I say that I read out to the House evidence which was, except in one case, totally new. I asked Mr. Justice Bailhache whether I might give it before the Committee, and he said he would not take it. That is why I have brought it up here.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: There were two parts to the noble Lord's speech. In one part, familiar as I am with his evidence before the Committee, I heard evidence that he had given before them. Then there are the cases to which he is now alluding, occurring since he gave evidence before the Committee. [LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULTEU indicated dissent.] It is all very well for the noble Lord to shake his head. I am alluding to the two cases which he read out at some length just now—cases which he was precluded from giving to the Committee, either because he was not allowed by the learned president to do so, or because they have occurred since. I suggest that it is
1024
a wholly improper thing for the noble Lord to come down to the House and raise matters about which nobody here knows and which I have not had an opportunity of investigating, and to take advantage of his position as a Peer to give in detail and at length charges such as I have referred to. I may say on the authority of the officials of the Air Factory, as regards certain of the charges made by the noble Lord, that they wholly deny them and say they are absolutely untrue. The noble Lord told a story about "window dressing" at Farnborough for the visit of the King with an amplitude of detail absolutely denied by the officials. He went further, and at considerable length entered into the cases of two men named Valentine and MacDonald as cases illustrating the lack of discipline and the improper things that go on at the factory. I will only so far depart from my attitude of declining to go into these matters as to give noble Lords the facts about MacDonald's case. This man asked for one day's leave, and was absent two and a half days. During his absence he gave evidence before the Committee, and on his return he boasted, in the section of the Royal Aircraft Factory where he worked, that "Me and Montagu have got them cold." Apparently he works in close co-operation with my noble friend. During MacDonald's absence the works manager had reported to the Assistant Superintendent that MacDonald was wrongly in possession of Government property. As MacDonald was a soldier, the Assistant Superintendent informed the Aldershot Command, who informed the Police. The latter visited MacDonald's house and found a complete aeroplane there which he had built, the parts having been taken from the Factory. On MacDonald's return from London he was put under military detention by the Assistant Superintendent; he was subsequently handed over to the Police and admitted to bail, and was then charged in due course. When charged he said on oath that he had taken nothing out of the Factory. The magistrate did not, as the noble Lord said in his speech, comment on the Factory at all. The man was found guilty, and fined the maximum penalty of £5. I apologise to your Lordships for troubling you with petty matters of this description, but as the noble Lord dealt at length with this particular charge I thought I ought to mention it.
I pass to the rather larger issues raised by my noble friend in his speech. The

1025
first is as to the degree to which the Royal Aircraft Factory has been or ought to be a manufacturing concern. I am very familiar with statements that have been made by the noble Lord at an earlier date in this House and elsewhere that the Aircraft Factory is departing from its proper sphere and becoming a great manufacturing concern in competition with the trade, but, as he himself admitted to-night, that is a charge that finds no support in the figures that have been published. The actual construction work of the Aircraft Factory is shown in the Report of the Air Board, to which the noble Lord referred, as having been less than 10 per cent. of the whole work. Then the noble Lord said, "But how do you account for the fact that Colonel O'Gorman is said, in the Report of the Burbidge Committee, to have given the figure at 35 per cent. for the construction of aeroplanes?" That is a misstatement on the part of the Committee. It was not an error on the part of Colonel O'Gorman. It was a mistake on the part of the Committee which we undertook in the Report of the Air Board to correct. The fact remains that the Aircraft Factory can hardly be described as having been a manufacturing concern at all. Let me tell your Lordships that since the beginning of the war it has manufactured only four engines; that the total number of aeroplanes which it has made—I think the number was given by the noble Lord himself—consisted of 50 machines constructed in the early days of the war when it was impossible to get them from elsewhere; and that a very limited number of experimental machines have been made since. Since the war began less than 2 per cent. of the total aeroplanes have been made in the Royal Aircraft Factory.
Nevertheless, in spite of the views that are held—I think rightly held—by the noble Lord as to the undesirability of turning this Factory into a considerable manufacturing concern, the Burbidge Committee, as we know, recommended that manufacture should be increased. No doubt it would be an excellent thing for the Factory and for the War Office from one point of view if that could be done, because it would give us a balance sheet better than anything we can now producer. But the reasons against it, which are really overwhelming, are, in the first place, that it is no part of the work of the Factory to undertake manufacture on a large scale. In the second place—
1026
agreeing here with the noble Lord when he said that we ought to do nothing to antagonise the trade—I am convinced in my own mind that if we undertook manufacture on a large scale we should revive and increase that hostility which he told us himself was now rapidly disappearing. In the third place, as nobody knows better than the noble Lord, it is a physical impossibility. I went down to see the Factory two or three days ago. The whole ground is congested; there is no room for more shops; there is no room at Farnborough or in the neighbourhood for the accommodation of more workmen; and these conditions preclude any expansion on the manufacturing side. The view taken by the Government and by all those concerned is that the main work of the Factory must continue to be experimental, and that it ought to be a designing rather than a manufacturing institution.
And speaking about the trade, I should like to say that I am certain it is the desire of General Henderson, as it is the express desire of the Air Board, to encourage private manufacturers by every means in our power. I quite agree with the general propositions advanced in that sense. We had a meeting of the Air Board, and asked the representatives of all the principal manufacturing firms in the country to come to us. They attended in force. We listened to everything they had to say, and I myself was rejoiced to hear how small was the area of complaint over which they travelled. Really what it came to in the last resort was, not that they were jealous of the Air Factory or that they had any complaint of unfair competition, but that they wanted more skilled labour to enable them to carry out a larger programme. We entered at once into communication with the proper Department to arrange for the release of more skilled labour from the Army. But everybody is dipping their hands into the same bin, and it is exceedingly difficult to get what you want. But I pray your Lordships to believe, so far as the trade is concerned, that there is no desire on the part of those responsible but to give them every encouragement for the development of their business, which is even more in the interests of the Government than it is in their own.
I will only deal in a sentence with the smaller charges made against the Aircraft Factory, some of which have been repeated by the noble Lord. I mean such charges

1027
as these—that there is great idleness there, that there is an excessive number of workmen employed, that it is the refuge of shirkers, that the men are extravagantly paid, and so on. I can only say that, in so far as I have been able personally to go into any of these charges, although it has been no particular part of my business, I have found great difficulty in getting them substantiated. The line which we on the Air Board felt disposed to take was this. Here you are going to make a change in the organisation of the Factory; you are going to appoint a most competent business head; let his first task be to investigate these charges of bad working in the machinery for which he will henceforth be responsible. If there are any of these matters to which the noble Lord alluded to-day about which he is satisfied that the evidence is really sound and incontestable, and if he will put his charges in a way which will admit of investigation, it shall be done. But I pray him not to come down here again and use this House for the purpose of ventilating matters too petty for your Lordships' attention and incapable of reply, because neither I nor anybody else have the material to meet him.
In the latter part of his speech the noble Lord put a perfectly legitimate question. He asked, What, in the view of the Government, are the proper functions of the Air Factory and what is the part that you expect it to play in the future? I think I may define the functions as follows:—(1) trial and experiment; (2) research; (3) preparation of drawings and designs; (4) repairs, both to planes and to engines; (5) the manufacture of "spares." I rather gathered the noble Lord to imply that the two last headings come in the class of manufacture and ought not to be undertaken by the Aircraft Factory. That certainly was not the impression left upon me by my visit. What do you see there? You see in the various sheds and places any number of engines which have come back damaged from the Front. Everybody knows how extraordinary is the amount of repairs required to be done, and nobody knows better than the noble Lord the expense of aerial warfare in the way of material used. Every day engines are coming back for repair. You must have the workmen and the staff and the machinery to undertake these repairs without delay; and just as they are coming in every day, so they are going
1028
back every day; there is a constant stream to and fro between Farnborough and France. As regards "spares," the noble Lord would see there workshops filled with every variety of article and part required in the manufacture of the aeroplane. I really do not know how our airmen would have performed the wonderful feats they have at the Front unless there had been a supply, well filled and constantly replenished, of all the oddments required in the construction of aeroplanes, which you cannot get from the trade, and which at the beginning of the war were not to be got anywhere except at the Royal Aircraft Factory.
I think the part which the Royal Aircraft Factory has played has been invaluable, and that it has been an effective instrument in enabling our airmen to play the fine part they have played. I do not think I need argue this to your Lordships. Lord Montagu admits that the experimental part of the work is necessary. You must have a place for the study and design of flying machines, and their accessories from the point of view of their flying only; you must have a place in which to give a standard in design, construction, and cost, and to supply material, raw or manufactured, which it is difficult to procure elsewhere. As regards the production of aircraft, the Factory in future will not undertake anything like bulk manufacture, but there is small special work, even machines for special trials, which the Factory must undertake because there is nobody else to do it. Surely what we want to bring about is this, that if an inventor has a good invention and sends it to the War Office, from which it goes on to one of the Committees and thence to the Aircraft Factory, he ought to be able to have it made and to have a trial of his machine conducted there. It would probably be much more quickly and more cheaply done at the Aircraft Factory than in any other way.
I hope that in my few remarks I have covered a great deal of the ground that was traversed by my noble friend; and I trust I have shown, with regard to his concluding question, that there is a very definite place in the military organisation of this country for the Royal Aircraft Factory, not only while the war is going on, but even afterwards. I believe that the Factory, improved no doubt by the criticisms to which it has been subjected and the trials through which it has gone, will take a

1029
definite and increasing part in the air defence of the future.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for his reply, though I think his strictures on what I said were unnecessarily severe. But perhaps be did not realise that this Question was put down two months ago, and therefore bad a different bearing on the position to-day. As to what the noble Earl said with regard to MacDonald, I think I ought in fairness to point out that this man's pass was extended—
[The noble LORD was here met with cries of "Order" and resumed his seat.]
The subject then dropped.

MILITARY SERVICE—BADGES OF EXEMPTION.
THE EARL OF MEATH THE EARL OF MEATH had the following Question on the Paper—
To ask His Majesty's Government whether Captain Mawer, the military representative at the Somerset Appeal Tribunal, was correct, as stated in the Press, in saying, in the case of a shoeing-smith who was badged while working on Government horse-shoes but had ceased to be employed, that there was no Court which could deprive a man of his badge once he had received it, and that thousands of men in the country ought not to be badged, and, if so, whether His Majesty's Government would take steps to prevent men who have left or been discharged from Government employment continuing to wear their badges of exemption from military service.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, in this Question I allude to badged men, but I hope I shall not merit the rebuke of His Majesty's Government if I draw attention to another side of the subject—the side of the unbadged men. They are both cognate. In asking this Question I am far from a desire to criticise. I wish as far as I possibly can, in my humble way, to strengthen the hands of His Majesty's Government in making the Military Service Acts really effective. His Majesty's Government and the nation, after many searchings of heart and nearly two years consideration, passed these Acts in order to compel, where necessary, fit men within certain ages to take up work of some kind or another for the State; and I am sure your Lordships must have remarked as I have, that it is impossible to go about
1030
in the streets or to travel by train or tram without seeing numbers of young men who have no sign of being unfit, no badge, and who may be magnificent heroes, but the public cannot tell whether they are heroes or whether they are unfit. It appears to me that large numbers of men are at the present moment taking advantage of this state of affairs. What I say is without any disrespect whatever to the Government, because I think it is wonderful what the Government have clone considering that we were absolutely unprepared for war and that we never considered these questions before. At the same time there are men, I believe large numbers, who ought to be either in munition factories or fighting the common foe. But how are we to know the reason why these men are at home unless there is some general badge which every man should wear who is not fit to fight or to take some part in the prosecution of the war at home, such as the making of munitions or otherwise?
I have information—and I am sure your Lordships have also—that badges are obtained in several ways by men who have no right to them whatever. One way is this. An unfit man goes before a recruiting officer and gives him some explanation why he is not in the Army—that he has been overlooked but has desired to enlist, He goes before the medical officer, who, of course, finds him unfit—the man knew he was unfit—and he gets a badge, which he sells for five shillings to another man who ought to be in the Army. Another very common way is that munition workers hang up their overcoats or their coats during the time they are working, and a certain number of badges have been stolen in this way and sold; and I have heard of cases where an assault has been committed to obtain a badge or it has been snatched in a crowd.
Would it not be possible to organise some system by which every man who is entitled to one should have a badge? Why should not I be badged? Why should not everybody in your Lordships' House be badged who is not able to do some service to the State? And why should it be necessary for the Police to wait until they are informed that so-and-so ought to be in the Army before action is taken? Why should they not be empowered to stop in the street or anywhere any man who they thought had obtained a badge wrongly and ask for his certificate?
THE EARL OF DERBY: They are authorised to do that.
THE EARL OF MEATH: I am very glad to hear the noble Earl say so. Then I should like to ask him further, Is it systematically done?
THE EARL OF DERBY: Yes.
THE EARL OF MEATH: I am pleased to hear it, because my information is that it is done in certain districts only. Do I understand that it is done universally?
THE EARL OF DERBY: It is done systematically.
THE EARL OF MEATH: But not universally? Might I ask the noble Earl to consider whether it might be done universally as well, because until it is so done we shall never get hold of all these shirkers. This is an important question, because this war is not going to end until we have put forth every bit of strength there is in the country. We cannot afford to waste a single man. Therefore it is of importance that we should know that every man in the country who is fit to be so is employed in the service of the State. My object is solely to see whether it is not possible to make the Regulations still more stringent, so that in no circumstances whatever will it be possible for a shirker to escape the meshes of the noble Earl the Under-Secretary of State for War, and, not only that, but to escape from public obloquy.
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (THE EARL OF DERBY): My Lords, inquiries have been made with regard to the case mentioned in the noble Earl's Question on the Paper. I am informed that the statements attributed to the military representative at the Somerset Appeal Tribunal are substantially correct, but are, of course, in a condensed form. It is a fact that no Court—in the sense of a Tribunal—can deprive a man of a war service badge issued by the Ministry of Munitions. In the case of a war service badge and certificate being held by a man considered not to be entitled to continue to hold them, machinery exists whereby the military authorities can make representations to the Ministry of Munitions for the withdrawing of that badge and certificate. It should be noted that the badge in itself does not give any immunity from military service. Immunity is secured only from
1032
the rightful holding of a certificate issued in connection with the badge. So that all the cases which the noble Earl mentioned of selling badges and that sort of thing really do not apply, because the holding of a badge without a certificate to go with it is useless. Further inquiries are being made into the particular case quoted. I can assure the noble Earl that we are doing everything we can to prevent any one escaping from the meshes. I very often find with reference to cases sent to me—the noble Earl has sent some, which I am inquiring into—that when we come to inquire into them it turns out, as a matter of fact, that the man has been medically rejected or has been properly badged as being a munition worker.
THE EARL OF MEATH: I am glad to hear what the noble Earl says. But I hope he will bear in mind what I have remarked, that unless a systematic arrangement is made by which the Police shall be able to ask for the certificate—and not only be able to do it, but that it should be done—we shall never get hold of all the shirkers.

UNINTERNED ENEMY ALIENS.
THE EARL OF MAYO: My Lords, I beg to ask His Majesty's Government why certain aliens (Germans), a list of whom I have furnished, have not been interned. I am not going to speak about the question of spying, but there are a number of Germans living in this country in freedom and making money out of the Englishmen who are kind enough to allow them to live here and to do practically what they like. I have furnished a list of names of Germans who are carrying on business in London, and these names do not appear in any naturalisation list issued since 1844. I hope I am correct in the names and the trades that these men are carrying on. Tradesmen in London feel that they are being injured in their businesses by the competition of Germans who have in some cases been interned and have been let out again.
LORD BERESFORD: My Lords, before my noble friend answers this question I should like to ask again about the firm of Müller. I must be very careful after Lord Curzon's strictures as to presenting a pistol at the head of the Government without any notice having been given. But this

1033
case has been already brought before the House, and the Government know it very well. The Government say that it is not a ease in which they can interfere, their exact words being "It is not expedient to wind up this firm." The man was taken out of the Baltic Exchange, but the Government had him returned to the Baltic to the intense irritation of all the members there.
THE PAYMASTER-GENERAL (LORD NEWTON): My Lords, so far as I am able to grasp the question asked by my noble friend who has just sat down, it has no sort of connection with that appearing in the name of my noble friend Lord Mayo. As far as I could gather from the noble and gallant Lord's remarks, it is purely a Board of Trade question, and I know nothing about it. If the noble and gallant Lord puts a Question on the Paper, I take it that it will be answered by the representative of the Board of Trade.
With reference to the Question on the Paper, Lord Mayo has furnished me with a list, and he has expressed a somewhat unfounded hope that this list is a correct one. I am sorry to disabuse my noble friend. It is anything but an accurate list. In the first place, it includes a number of names of men who are not German at all; in the second place, it includes the names of a number of men who are represented as being free, but who, as a matter of fact, have been interned for a considerable time. I cannot help thinking that my noble friend is under considerable misapprehension. I rather gathered that he is under the impression that a number of men escape internment, or are released from internment in consequence of petitions and representations brought forward by individuals. I can assure the noble Earl that this is not the case, and that a man is only released from internment by the Home Secretary after his case has been carefully considered by the Advisory Committee. The general rule is this, and so far as I know it is implicitly adhered to—that all Germans are interned unless there is a very excellent reason why they should remain at liberty. And I may say that the precautions are so great at the present moment that I believe any alien enemy who was heard uttering sentiments of a disloyal nature would very soon find himself incarcerated. The noble Earl is under a misapprehension in his belief that there are a vast number of dangerous uninterned Germans in the country at the present moment.
THE EARL OF MAYO: There is not a vast number in my list. I am not in the least saying that.
LORD NEWTON: I wonder if my noble friend has any idea of the number of un-interned hostile aliens. If not, I will tell him. There are, all told, something like 22,000 uninterned hostile aliens at the present moment.
THE EARL OF MAYO: My Question refers only to Germans.
LORD NEWTON: And from the figure I have given you must deduct women, children, and men over 70 years of age, and you must also deduct what are known as friendly aliens—Czechs, Poles, Armenians and such people; and when you have reduced the figure by those categories it really leaves a small number of what my noble friend would consider dangerous uninterned aliens. I should like to assure my noble friend once again that all these cases are carefully investigated; and I venture to think it is a more commonsense and practical proceeding to consider every case on its merits than to intern a man simply because he happens to be technically a hostile alien. I may be thought eccentric, but I confess to holding the view that an alien, even if he be technically a hostile alien, provided there is no suspicion whatever against him, is better employed in making boots or clothes or baking bread than being kept doing nothing in an internment camp at the expense of the taxpayers of this country.

PAY OF PRISONERS OF WAR,
LORD BERESFORD: My Lords, I beg to ask His Majesty's Government whether they can state the terms of pay allowed to officers and men of the British and Indian Establishment who are now prisoners of war.
THE EARL OF DERBY: My Lords, the general rule is that Staff officers receive Staff pay for 61 days, after which they receive regimental pay if of a regimental rank, or half pay if above regimental rank. Regimental officers, warrant officers, non-commissioned officers, and men continue to be credited with full pay. Officers already drawing field allowance will continue to be eligible for it, and Staff officers will become eligible from the date of their coming on to regimental pay or half pay.

1035
Field allowance will continue to be dealt with by the paymaster. There is one thing I do not feel quite happy about in this answer, and that is that those above regimental rank should only receive half pay. I am going into this question to sec whether, as a matter of fact, this does not act harshly.
LORD BERESFORD: Will my noble friend go into the case particularly of the English officers?
THE EARL OF DERBY: I am speaking only of the English officers. Lord Islington will answer for the Indian officers.
LORD BERESFORD: With your Lordships' permission I should like to ask about the English officers, particularly with regard to General Townshend. The only message he has received from the Government after his magnificent defence was one putting him on half pay. The English officers with him have also been put on half pay.
THE EARL OF DERBY: No, they have not. Had my noble friend been good enough to listen to my answer, he would have seen that they have not. Regimental officers, warrant officers, non-commissioned officers, and men continue to be credited with full pay; so are all other officers except Staff officers, who receive their Staff pay for 61 days, and after that they lapse into regimental pay. It is just a case like General Townshend's that I think is unfair. When above regimental rank they should receive full pay.
LORD ISLINGTON: My Lords, before the fall of Kut the rules in force regarding the pay of officers taken prisoners while on the Indian Establishment were as follow:—Officers of the Indian Army should draw full pay for 61 days, and then the rates of Indian Army leave pay ordinarily given on leave out of India. These rates are sterling rates depending on length of service, and may be said to approximate roughly to about half of the officer's full pay. There was a proviso that in any case an Indian Army officer should not get less than a British Service officer, and this became operative in the cases of most junior officers.
Since the fall of Kut the Secretary of State for India, in communication with the War Office and the Government of
1036
India, has reconsidered these rules, which pending any fresh decision applied to the prisoners taken there. It has now been decided that Indian Army officer prisoners, after 61 days on full pay, will receive full pay of rank plus half the Staff pay attaching to their ordinary employment. Speaking very roughly, this will on an average give them about five-sixths of their full ordinary emoluments. Staff officers still on the cadre of a regiment will, after 61 clays, be treated as regimental officers. This follows the War Office practice.
To show my noble and gallant friend the change that has taken place, I will give him a few comparative figures. In the case of a lieutenant-colonel commanding a battalion, his emoluments on field service and for first 61 days while a prisoner amount to £1,219. Under the old rule while a prisoner, after 61 days full pay, he would receive £700 a year; under the new scheme of emoluments while a prisoner, after 61 days, he will receive £964. In the case of a captain, £510 represent his full emoluments on field service. He would receive under the old system while prisoner £370; he will receive under the new arrangement £425. A second-lieutenant, his full pay being £323, would receive while prisoner £228 under the old arrangement; under the new system he will get £280. My noble and gallant friend will see that there is a considerable addition under the new scheme.
LORD BERESFORD: I thank my noble friend for his very satisfactory reply.

STATE WOOL PURCHASES.
LORD HARRIS: My Lords, I rise to ask His Majesty's Government when British owners of wool will be permitted to sell it. It is now about two months since an embargo was put upon the sale of British wool. I fancy that in the meantime Colonial wool has been sold in London, and the unfortunate British farmer is pressing to know when he may be able to sell his wool. I hope my noble friend will be able to give an answer to this Question.
THE EARL OF DERBY: My Lords, I could give an answer in a few words, but possibly the noble Lord might like to have some explanation of what has been done. The answer to the Question is that arrangements for purchasing the 1916 clip will be

1037
completed within the next few days, and that purchases of wool on behalf of the Department are already taking place in certain districts. What has been done is this. Arrangements for handling the wool of the 1916 clip are being completed this week. Purchases of wool are already being made in the Midlands (No. 4 area) List A. Farmers in England and Wales have received census forms and explanatory leaflets of instructions. These are now being returned in considerable numbers. Local advisory committees have been selected in the majority of districts, consisting of three wool merchants and three farmers. Authorised wool merchants are being selected to purchase on behalf of the Department in each area; and as soon as the farmer returns his census, instructions are given to the authorised merchants to proceed to take over the wool.

DEATH OF TERRITORIALS IN INDIA.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: My Lords, before your Lordships adjourn perhaps I may be allowed to ask the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he is prepared to make any statement with regard to the Karachi troop train disaster.
LORD ISLINGTON: My Lords, I would remind the House that I informed the noble Viscount last week that the Secretary of State for India had instructed the Government of India to make a comprehensive Inquiry into the whole circumstances surrounding this calamity, and also to hold to strict account the officers who were found responsible. I will give the answer that has just been received from the Government of India—
" Your telegram of the 28th instant. July 30. We can now give a considered opinion, having received Report of Committee. The responsibility for diverting the ship from Bombay to Karachi rests with Brigadier-General Roe, who was acting as Q.M.G. at the time. He knew unacclimatised troops had never before been sent in large numbers by rail in the middle of summer through the Sind Desert. He knew, or should have known, that the Commander-in-Chief in December, 1915, had decided that Karachi should not be used as a port at which wounded and sick British troops should be landed and distributed to other stations, on account
1038
of danger of sending them in the hotseason through Sind. It follows that before the ' Ballarat ' was diverted to Karachi, acting Q.M.G. should have consulted Commander-in-Chief, and he did not do this. Having taken on himself responsibility he should certainly have warned Karachi military authorities to take special precautions for safety of troops during journey by rail. He did not do this. We therefore must hold him responsible, and propose to remove him from his appointment of Deputy Q.M.G.
" It is clear from evidence that the mischief began before disembarcation, many men having been seen on deck bareheaded in the sun. All the officers on board were quite inexperienced, and we cannot therefore hold them blameworthy. The G.O.C. at Karachi was responsible for all arrangements for railway journey in his capacity as Embarkation Officer. It is shown from evidence that on the day concerned he was very busy, but ho had ample warning of ' Ballarat's ' arrival. Though he knew responsible members of his staff, with one exception, were inexperienced, he took no steps nor gave any orders to see that the safety or comfort of the troops was provided for. In this we consider he failed in his duty, and we propose his removal.
" Special blame we consider attaches to the Assistant Director of Medical Services at Karachi, an officer of long experience of the Indian Medical Service. In the circumstances it was undoubtedly his duty to see that every precaution suggested by medical science for the safety of the troops was taken. He failed in our opinion, to do this. We therefore propose to remove him.
" A number of omissions and errors on the part of other officers were committed, but these were due partly to inexperience and partly to adherence to regulations intended to govern only the ordinary trooping in cold weather. We do not propose to take any action in these cases. The only excuses that can be urged in favour of the officers who are, in our opinion, responsible, are that many of the casualties were due to fact that in many cases the men left their carriages bare-headed, and that the temperature during the journey was unusually high. Nevertheless, though these facts may

1039
have increased the number of casualties, we are clear that there can be no doubt that the train left Karachi insufficiently equipped, overcrowded, and without experienced officers, either medical or combatant. We place for these reasons the responsibility on Brigadier-General Roe, on the G.O.C., and on the Senior Medical Officer at Karachi. All that was possible seems to have been done by the local authorities beyond Karachi throughout the journey."
I may add that we have communicated with the Government of India instructing them to formulate definite and explicit regulations for all troops arriving in India who are unacquainted with the climatic conditions, and to see that those regulations are strictly adhered to in order to prevent trouble of this character in the future.
LORD HARRIS: My Lords, I gathered from the noble Lord's reply that there had been an absence of preparation for trooping in a season when trooping never takes place in India, and that no regulations were issued from headquarters for trooping, whether the disembarcation was to take place at Bombay or Karachi. Unquestionably it had better have taken place at Bombay; but in either case it was happening in a season when it is quite unusual to have trooping in India. I could not gather from the noble Lord whether amongst these unfortunate men who died there were any wounded or invalids, or whether it was merely the return of men no longer required in Mesopotamia.
LORD ISLINGTON: No; these were drafts coming out from England to replenish the Territorial regiments.
LORD HARRIS: Then my remarks apply to a greater extent, because the whole system of drafting to India is laid down upon a carefully arranged plan for the cold weather. There is an interesting point which perhaps I might be allowed to notice. When I was at Bombay the Commander-in-Chief at that time told me "I am going to have all the drafts out of the troop ships taken up into the Deccan, and I am going to train them with trained troops. The doctors tell me they will get sunstroke but you will see they will not." Well, he did that for two years, and I think in the course of that time he had three
1040
cases of sunstroke but no deaths amongst the whole of the European troops. I asked him the reason, and he said "It was simple. I sent them out after they had had their breakfast and after the sun had got above the line of the eyes." He was a very practical man.
It seems to me that here there has been either a want of practical acquaintance with trooping or else an entire indifference to the fact that the trooping was taking place at a time of the year when I should think it had hardly ever taken place before. I would only further remark that the responsibility for the change from Bombay to Karachi must, I think, have rested with an officer who had no experience of Sind, because it is perfectly well known by the Bombay Government that in the hot season in Sind, amongst the very small European staff there, it is almost a certainty that you will have one death every year from heat apoplexy; and in the trains bringing down natives, if they are at all over-crowded, you will occasionally pick out a dead man from heat apoplexy. Here these unfortunate men were sent in the worst season along the valley of the Indus where the humidity is very great and the heat of the sun intense. It seems to me that the fault is not only that of the General Officer Commanding and of the medical officer at Karachi, but that the office of the Commander-in-Chief ignored altogether the change of practice from trooping in the cold weather to trooping in the hot weather. Therefore in my opinion the highest officials in the Government of India are almost, if not quite, as responsible as the Quartermaster-General.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Lord the Under-Secretary for his information. But the effect left on the minds of your Lordships will be that owing to the large number of officers taken away from India for various Expeditions there does not seem to be available sufficient experience in the various commands. It may be impossible to replace all the officers in the various commands, but I should like the noble Lord to give us this assurance, both with regard to the experience in this particular trouble and in the Mesopotamian Expedition, that the Secretary of State will see that the highest military posts are sufficiently equipped with officers of experience to meet the enormous work which is now falling upon them.
LORD ISLINGTON: My Lords, with regard to the point raised by Lord Harris, I would repeat what I read out in the telegram, that the Deputy-Quartermaster-General, an officer of high rank and responsibility on the Headquarters Staff, was blamed by the Government of India and has been removed from his post. As regards the question of the noble Viscount, I will certainly refer it to the Secretary of State, and I have no doubt that he will communicate with India on the matter. I fully appreciate the importance
1042
of what the noble Viscount said, that many of the Staffs are depleted of men with Indian experience, and that there is grave danger of troubles like this one arising owing to officers on the Staff not being conversant with the conditions of the country. I will certainly bring the point before the Secretary of State.
House adjourned at ten minutes before Seven o'clock, till to-morrow, a quarter past Four o'clock.