Lords Sitting of 1 November 1917

SOUTH STAFFORDSHIRE MOND GAS (POWER AND HEATING) (No. 2) BILL. [H.L.]
Committee to meet on Thursday next.

BILLS OF EXCHANGE (TIME OF NOTING) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD HYLTON: My Lords, I ask your Lordships to be good enough this afternoon to give a Second Reading to this Bill, the object of which is to enable bills of exchange, notes, and cheques to be rioted for protest on the next business day following dishonour. Clause 1 reproduces Clause 4 of the Bill on this subject, called the Bills of Exchange Bill, which was introduced in the year 1914 by the then Lord Chancellor, and afterwards dropped. The amendments proposed by that Bill were approved at the time by the Bank of England, the Institute of Bankers, the Incorporated Law Society, various Chambers of Commerce, and other expert bodies to which they were submitted for consideration. This particular provision, it is suggested, is required to be passed at the present time because the clerical staffs of notaries have been so depleted; and that is the case, as your Lordships know, with all business establishments in London and elsewhere. It is most undesirable that the numerous girls in their employ should be wandering round the City in the late evening to make notarial presentments. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Hylton.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Tuesday next.

SHIPPING LOSSES.
LORD BERESFORD LORD BERESFORD had the following Question on the Paper—
To ask His Majesty's Government what steps they have taken to replace the enormous amount of mercantile marine tonnage lost during the year 1917; and whether, approximately, the total of British, Allied, and neutral tonnage lost from all causes and out of running owing to serious submarine damage will probably be four times as much as the Prime Minister expected would be built this year in this country; and to move for Papers.
The noble and gallant Lord said: My Lords, I wish to call attention to the enormous losses of mercantile tonnage in the year 1917. I offer no excuse for making these remarks, because upon tonnage depends the whole success of the war. Everything, no matter what it may be, with regard to food transport and the transport of soldiers depends on the tonnage we can place on the sea. I think the public ought to know the truth about this. Our enemies know all about it, and I should not bring the matter forward in the detail which I intend to do unless the information had already been published in the United States of America. The public are continually being given misleading Returns, and I maintain that they ought to be told the truth. A great number of misleading speeches, too, have been made lately which hard-featured facts completely reverse. I believe that these optimistic speeches are delivered to cheer up the people. People do not want cheering up. What the public wants is to be told the truth; and the traditional characteristic of our race is that the worse a thing is the better the public faces it, with that grit for which our people have always been distinguished.
The position is very serious, and I am going to call attention to one or two recent statements in order to show that, though they are true, the inferences conveyed to the public mind are entirely incorrect. Such statements have been made as these—"The Germans are beaten"; "The Germans are short of food "; "The war will be over by Christmas"; "The Huns are on the run"; "The end is in sight"; "Germany is collapsing." Many of these statements have been made by responsible Ministers, and I respectfully submit that it is very wrong to make them, because they are almost immediately refuted by the facts. We were told some time ago that Germany was collapsing. Yet every autumn she seizes some country. It has generally been a small one. She seized Belgium one autumn; Serbia another autumn; Rumania another autumn; and now she is attacking Italy.
Although I appreciate the Prime Minister's object, I respectfully represent to him that he should not make such optimistic statements as he has made. For instance, he said that we were building four times the amount of tonnage this year that we built last year. That statement

889
was perfectly true; but he did not tell the public that last year we turned out only 525,000 tons, against our normal shipbuilding of 2,000,000 tons in 1913. The public is taken in. People think that "four times last year's total" means an immense amount; but we had the lowest margin of shipbuilding last year that we have ever had. I doubt whether we can even build the amount stated, owing to the difficulties connected with steel, engines, and labour, to which I shall presently refer.
The output of ships is not nearly up to the standard. We have already had it publicly stated that only five of the standardised ships are at present waterborne, and I think we wore to have had fifteen or twenty before this. One of the five has been already sunk, which represents a loss of 20 per cent. of the new ships produced. Then the Prime Minister said that we had sunk in the ten months of 1917 twice the number of submarines that were sunk during the whole of 1916. That statement, again, is absolutely true; but he did not add that we lost nearly three times the amount of shipping in 1917 that we lost in 1916. It is a great pity that these statements are made by Ministers. I have referred so often in this House to the misleading Returns as to tonnage that I will not touch on that subject again. There is a further serious thing to remember. I wish to impress on your Lordships that the question of the near future will be that of the supply of food for this country, and this entirely depends on tonnage. We know there are millions of bushels of wheat in Australia, but we have not the tonnage to bring them home. There are millions of tons of fertilisers in Nigeria, but we have not the tonnage to bring them home. We must have fertilisers for agriculture.
Now there is another serious point in regard to arrivals and sailings. As I have pointed out before, the Returns of arrivals and sailings include the ships of all countries, British, Allied, and neutral, but only the British ships are included in the losses, and these only in numbers and not in tonnage, which is the real point. The arrivals and sailings for this week numbered 4,606, and for the week before 5,337. But you should not look merely at one week's figures. Last month's Return gave a lower total than that of any of the earlier months since March last. We not only get short tonnage but short
890
delivery in this country, which involves the consideration of the question of the storage of food by-and-by.
Then the Prime Minister—I must again refer to him, because he is the principal officer of State—said that the losses in September were a little over one-third of the losses in April. Again he did not tell all the facts. What he said was absolutely true; yet the statement is misleading. He did not state that in April we suffered the heaviest losses that we have had during the war; that the average was 30,000 tons a day for British, Allied and neutral ships. The losses in September were one-third less than that, but still they were a great deal too heavy for any one to regard with anything but extreme anxiety.
We have been told several times that the submarine is under control. It is not under control and never has been, and I doubt whether it will be really under control until the end of the war. There is no necessity to be pessimistic or panicky about the matter, but there is every necessity to tell the people the truth if we want them to economise, which they certainly are not doing at present. We have not yet begun to make up our losses or to approach anything like a state of affairs in which we could regard our losses as having been made good. We can do it if we put our backs into it, as I hope to explain directly.
I will give the House the total losses for 1917 up to date, first by mine and torpedo. They are a little more than 5,000,000 tons, British, Allied, and neutral. And remember it is the Allied and neutral tonnage that is really feeding us, because we have taken away about 75 per cent. of our mercantile marine for war purposes—cruisers for the Navy, patrols, and transport. In addition, we must remember that we lost 4,000,000 tons from August, 1914, to January, 1917. I do not propose, however, to dwell on our total losses, but to deal only with the losses this year. We also lost by raiders this year over 160,000 tons. And the average losses up to December 31, if we take them in the proportion they have been, will be about 800,000 tons more.
In my Question on the Paper I say that the total losses from all causes—submarines, mines, and out of running—are four times as much as the Prime Minister expects to build this year in this country. Let me give the full figures. Again I must remind your Lordships that they refer to

891
British, Allied, and neutral ships. In the year 1917 we have lost by submarine and mine 5,300,000 tons, by raiders 160,000 tons; and taking an average, the losses up to December 31 for the last two months would be 800,000 tons. There are also a large number of ships missing, and I shall bring the case of the missing ships to your Lordships' notice next week. If you put down the missing ships at 1,000,000 tons, and the damaged and out of running by mine and torpedo at 700,000 tons, it gives a total of 7,960,000 tons. The Prime Minister estimated that he could build new British tonnage in the year up to 2,000,000 tons. I hope he is correct, but I do not think it is possible. But even if he can, 8,000,000 tons in losses is four times the amount of tonnage that the Prime Minister thinks can be built. British, Allied, and neutral countries can build by the end of this year, at a fair estimate, 3,000,000 tons, so that our position at the beginning of January, 1918, really will be that we shall be 5,000,000 tons short as compared with 1913. And remember that 5,000,000 tons means 30,000,000 tons in imported cargo. For every ship lost you must count, at a very conservative estimate, three imported cargoes lost to this country, because it will take quite a year before the ship can be replaced. In 1916 we lost 2,225,000 tons of British, Allied, and neutral shipping by submarines and mines; and in 1917, up to date, we have lost over 5,000,000 tons by submarines and mines. The argument may be advanced that the United States can make up this deficiency. I see it is stated in the newspapers that it can be done, but I have spoken to a number of very prominent men belonging to that country and they agree that it cannot be done. They say that they can turn out 6,000,000 tons next year, and will turn out 1,000,000 tons which will be ready in March, 1918.
There is great confusion in the use of the word "tonnage." If your Lordships will allow me, I should like to explain tonnage. Gross tonnage means cubic measurement—the difference between heavy and light cargoes, like coal and cotton. Net tonnage is net measurement after deduction for the Board of Trade open spaces; and deadweight tonnage, which is what the merchant and shipowner consider, means what the ship will carry down to the Plimsoll mark. You must remember that the dead-weight tonnage is two and a-half times the gross tonnage. What is the position with regard to construction
892
for making up this terrific loss? I have already stated that the output is not nearly up to the programme, and I should like my noble friend, when he comes to reply—if he thinks it right—not to tell me how much it is behind the programme, but whether I am not correct in saying that it is not up to the programme.
I do not think the shipbuilding industry is in as good a condition as it should be. There are many things that want looking into. There is a good deal of political business in it. Take the case of the automatic rivetters. One man can work such a rivetter, but it takes two or three men to work the ordinary driving rivet. That should be seen to at once, and an automatic rivetter ought to be started in every shipyard. There is also the question of the leaving certificate. I know of a ship which it is vital we should get on the water because of what she is built to carry; and although she should have been on the water at the end of this month, several gangs have left her owing to the leaving certificate, and she cannot possibly be ready now till April, unless extra work is put on her. These matters are intimately connected with shipbuilding construction, and are important if this work is to be pushed forward in order to supply the tonnage we have lost as speedily as possible. Even if the United States built 5,000,000 or 6,000,000 tons, it does not alter my statement one iota—namely, that we shall be 5,000,000 tons short in January, 1918.
Naturally this indicates the danger to which we are coming. I should like to see the country rationed at once. The Food Controller says he can do it, and I wish he would do it; otherwise we shall again be, too late. I can assure your Lordships that the position will be very serious in the early part of next year unless it is taken in hand at once and the country is rationed without any further delay. We talk of a military victory, but the great tiling for us is to safeguard our shipping. We should also stop the leakage of food to the enemy; otherwise we may lose the war before victory is possible. I hope that even at this late hour the Government will put the Order in Council of March 11, 1915, into force and stop everything from going into Germany. I have not dwelt in too much detail with figures because they are always wearisome, but sometimes they are necessary, and I believe I am correct in saying that candid criticism in Parliament has never yet failed

893
to lead to mprovement in matters which needed improving.
As to the German prophecy that the submarine war would bring England to her knees in half a year, we have seen that that has not happened. But the submarines have produced a danger, and this danger should be made known to the public. I do not think there is anything about which we or the public need get into a panic, but I do say that the question should be faced, and that the public should be allowed to know how we stand. We are always crying out for economy. If we get better organisation, if we increase our effort in shipbuilding, if we ration our people at once, we shall meet these great and growing dangers—the submarine effort, remember, has been increasing lately—but if we do not make these efforts at once, I am confident that we shall be in a very serious position in the spring of 1918.
THE ADDITIONAL PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE ADMIRALTY (THE EARL OF LYTTON): My Lords, I am afraid I am unable to give my noble and gallant friend any satisfaction this afternoon. Cheerful generalities he does not like, and accurate information I am not prepared to give. It is, my Lords, not in the public interest that the information which the noble and gallant Lord asks for should be divulged, and I think your Lordships will appreciate why that is so if you consider for a moment what it is that I am asked to do. If in his Question he had asked His Majesty's Government to state the total tonnage, British, Allied, and neutral, which we estimated would be destroyed by the enemy by the end of this year, I do not think he would have expected to receive an answer, for reasons which have been stated in this House and in the House of Commons on many occasions. We are not prepared to make to the Germans a present of accurate information upon the amount of tonnage lost. The noble Lord believes that they have that information themselves. We are firmly convinced, not only that they have not got it, but that they would be very glad to have it; and if they can only be in possession of accurate information, given to them regularly week by week and month by month they would be extremely grateful for it. For that very reason, my Lords, the Board of Admiralty and the Cabinet have decided that it is not in the public interest to make them that present;
894
in fact, the noble and gallant Lord himself has stated in this House that he thought we were perfectly right not to publish the tonnage figures.
LORD BERESFORD: No.
THE EARL OF LYTTON: The noble and gallant Lord does not, perhaps, remember everything he has stated in this House; but if he will refer to the latest volume of Hansard, Vol. XXIV, on page 973, he will see that in April last he used these words in this House
" I am not going to say anything to-day about the tonnage. I have been requested not to do so, and I think the Government are wise in not publishing the tonnage."
For the very reasons which seemed to the noble Lord wise at that time we still continue to think that it would be unwise to publish figures of tonnage, and I must therefore leave the enemy to obtain his information from the speeches of the noble Lord and the sources from which he derived his figures.
As regards the general statement contained in the beginning of Lord Beresford's Question, I must refer your Lordships to the very full and comprehensive statement which is being made at this very moment in the House of Commons by the First Lord of the Admiralty. When you have read that speech I think you will feel that it gives a very complete answer to the Question of the noble and gallant Lord. It states, as fully as it is possible at this moment to state, what steps are being taken by the Government to deal with the present situation.
I only wish here to make one remark on this general situation. The noble Lord has asked me whether it is not true that ourshipbuilding has fallen very behindhand. It is perfectly true that since the beginning of the war our shipbuilding up to this year had fallen increasingly behind, for reasons which I think must be obvious. It would have been quite impossible for us to meet the enormous demands of the Army in France and to equip that Army and meet all the other national requirements of the last two years, and at the same time keep up our pre-war standard of shipbuilding. But I am able to give the noble and gallant Lord the assurance that the position has not only very much improved in the last six months, but is improving on an increasing scale. I think the most important

895
change since I last spoke on this subject is the fact that this problem—that is, the problem of dealing with the loss of tonnage—is now under the exclusive direction of the Admiralty, through the Controller of the Navy.
LORD BERESFORD: Hear, hear.
THE EARL OF LYTTON: That is to say, the Shipping Controller states his requirements with regard to merchant ships in the same way as the Third Sea Lord puts forward his requirements for war ships. Then it is for the Controller of the Navy, who has knowledge of the labour and material available, to state how far those requirements can be met; and when the amount to be built is settled, the Controller of the Navy is responsible for getting the ships built.
Your Lordships will see in a moment how very important it is that this matter should be in the hands of the Admiralty, because in dealing with the submarine menace there are two lines along which we can advance—the offensive and the defensive. You can either save ships from being sunk by offensive, measures against submarines, or you can replace losses by additional shipbuilding. It is obvious that only the Admiralty can possibly decide upon measures of an offensive character, and the whole problem is one of determining how far you will carry your offensive measures—how far you will use the material and labour available for defensive action, and how far you will use them for additional shipbuilding. It is essential that the problem should be considered as a whole; and I am happy to tell your Lordships that for some time past it has been so considered by the Admiralty, through the Shipping Controller. We have, therefore, a unified and centralised administration.
Then the noble and gallant Lord referred to the difficulty which we have recently experienced with regard to steel. It has been a great difficulty, as there was considerable shortage. I am informed that this shortage is now at an end, and that we are without anxiety with regard to the future in the matter of steel. With regard to labour, that, of course, is always a source of great anxiety—I do not mean for reasons of labour unrest, but because there is not labour in the country to meet all requirements. The demands of the
896
Army are very heavy, and the difficulty of obtaining labour remains an anxiety. But within the limits of our resources we have increased our shipbuilding yards; and your Lordships will see that this, again, is a matter upon which you can expend a good deal of labour, a good deal of time, and a good deal of material without immediately getting a single additional ship. But when your new yards have been built then, of course, in the future your new ships will come in more rapidly. For these reasons, although the shipbuilding programme has been delayed, we have many grounds for believing that the rate of increase in the future will be satisfactory and considerable.
On the offensive side I should like to give one figure which I took down just now in the House of Commons in listening to the speech of the First Lord. You will no doubt have noticed that our weekly Returns of losses from submarine action have been declining very satisfactorily since the month of April last. At the same time, the rate at which we have been able to destroy German submarines has been increasing equally satisfactorily. It is now calculated that between 40 and 50 per cent. of the German submarines commissioned since the beginning of the war have been sent to the bottom. And, moreover, as a proof that this satisfactory state of affairs is due to recent activity, the First Lord in the House of Commons stated just now that during the last quarter we believe we have sunk as many submarines as we succeeded in sinking during the whole of last year. I do not want to give optimistic statements which the noble and gallant Lord may regard as misleading. But those figures are true, and I think it is just as right that the public should know them as that they should know that our loss of tonnage is extremely serious. The speech of the First Lord has dealt very exhaustively with the whole matter, and therefore I must refer your Lordships, for all further details, to that statement.
LORD LAMINGTON: Could the noble Earl give any information as to the number of casualties among our merchantmen serving on board merchant ships, and as to the supplies of men to man all those large ships that are going to be constructed?
THE EARL OF LYTTON: I have no figures with me this afternoon. I believe that these figures were, in fact, given by

897
the Leader of the House in his speech the other night. But if the noble Lord fails to find them there and will put a Question on the Paper, I will see whether the information can he supplied to him.
LORD BERESFORD: My Lords, with your permission I should like to reply to my noble friend. First, he stated quite correctly that in April I said I thought that the Government were wise not to publish the tonnage. But the position was very different in April from what it is now. It is very much more serious, both as regards food and the tonnage to carry it; and I think now that the tonnage should be published. However, it is not for me to dictate. If the Government think it is unwise to publish the tonnage, I must bow to their decision.
Then the noble Earl gave us most interesting information about the Admiralty taking over construction. I always wished that that should be done; it is only common sense. They have to see to the amounts of steel, labour, and engines available. The engines are the real difficulty. Everything that is applicable to war now, from a lorry to an aeroplane, wants an
898
engine; you even want an engine to train a heavy gun in Flanders. Engines are one of the great difficulties. But with the control exercised over those three factors the Admiralty ought certainly to be able to dictate the number of ships to be floated—that is, whether men-of-war or merchant ships.
It is quite true that new inventions and the wonderful heroism of our people at sea have continually mitigated submarine attacks by putting the submarines at the bottom. But that is not my point. My point is that if the submarine danger was eliminated now, you would still be in a serious position. You will be in a serious position in the spring of the year unless more efforts are made to increase the tonnage of the mercantile marine. I thought it wise to utter this warning in your Lordships House, because I am perfectly certain that the Government, who know more than I do, must be aware that the position will be very grave unless we can increase the tonnage more rapidly than we are doing at present. I thank the noble Earl for his reply.
House adjourned at five minutes past five o'clock.