Lords Sitting of 10 December 1919

Preamble
The House met at a quarter before four of the clock, the LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

THE RESIGNATION OF MAJOR- GENERAL SEELY.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU rose to call attention to the recent resignation of Major-General J. B. Seely, M.P., the Minister specially in charge of the Air Ministry; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, before alluding to the Motion on the Paper, might I be allowed to refer to the very remarkable feat which has just been accomplished in the flight from England to Australia. Captain Ross Smith and his brother have reached Port Darwin, a distance of 11,294 miles from their starting point, in just over twenty-seven days. It is interesting to note that the time taken is about twenty-four to thirty-six hours less than the fastest journey ever accomplished by the short route viâ Marseilles and the fastest steamer to Australia. It marks another epoch in the development of the Air Force, as both these officers served with that Force during the war, and it is a triumph for aviation which even the most sanguine could not have anticipated.
My object in placing this Motion on the Paper is two-fold. First, to inquire as to the reasons which led to the resignation of General Seely, an event which naturally alarmed those of us who were more than confident in his power and ability to administer the Air Force; and, secondly, to inquire whether there is any intention on the part of the Government to revert to the former system—a bad system—by which the Air Force was separately under the Admiralty and War Office. The principle involved is as to whether there should be an independent Air Force.
I am sure the Government will have no objection to a short debate on this subject if it makes clear the future of the Air Force. The independence of the Air Force and its administration is not in any sense a political question. It is a subject on which there must be more than one opinion; and speaking for myself and
820
some of my friends, many of us were at one time uncertain as to whether there should be an independent Air Force or whether it should be under the Admiralty and the War Office. Experience has proved, however, that it is very desirable that there should be only one administration.
Before going into the question of principle I would like to ask the Government to explain, if they can and as far as they can, the reasons which led to the retirement of General Seely. I am quite certain that they must have been fairly serious in character. I know he was immensely interested in the work. He flew more miles in the air, if that is a recommendation, than any former Secretary for the Air Force, and he had practical experience in the war and afterwards of the value of the Air Force. I say frankly that some of us are afraid that his resignation means that there has been an attempt by the Government to go back to the bad old system of dual control, or that the Government are considering that question. I know that both the Admiralty and the War Office have never accepted with any great cordiality the independence of the Air Force. That is no secret. I do not say that officially they have not accepted it, but many of the most powerful and distinguished Admirals and Generals think that the Air Force is one which should be a subsidiary arm to the Navy and Army. There are those who think with me that the Air Force, probably more than any other force, can stand on its own basis and is by no means dependent on the Army or the Navy.
Disquieting rumours reach me also that, in the Cabinet itself there is a section which has never accepted the principle of the independence of the Air Force, and that constant efforts have been made in the past, and are still being made, to return to the former system of dual control. The question of single or dual control is one susceptible of many arguments. As far as I can make out, and from reading the speeches of various members of the Government when the original Air Ministry Bill was introduced in this House in November, 1917, it is quite clear that the noble Earl the Leader of the House, and Lord Crawford, who introduced the Bill, were of opinion that it was not only a war measure but a post-war measure. I think I shall be able to satisfy your Lordships that it was looked upon as a permanent arrangement.
Whatever arrangement and form of administration you may have, there are really only two points to be considered. The first is, what is the best way of training the Royal Air Force as a fighting force in war; secondly, what is the best method of administering the Royal Air Force in peace as well as war. The second of these two points—its administration in peace—is not so important as its administration in war. I hold strongly, however, that, if you do not have a sound system of administration in peace, when war comes and a strain is applied, the administration will break down unless it is capable of being enlarged and expanded to meet the necessities of the war. I remember when I was on the War Air Committee that all kinds of interesting strategical questions were discussed. There was one question which, however, was never answered except in one way. It was the question what single force was responsible for repelling air raids from across the Channel, and what force was responsible, naval or military, for carrying out independent raids. That is a question which was never answered until the establishment of the independent Air Force.
It would be ridiculous to say that in an independent Air Force you should have no special training. I fully admit that, however independent the Air Force is, you must have special training to enable it to work with the Navy and Army, and probably training for long distance bombing raids, where the aeroplane really becomes for all practical purposes a long range gun besides being a flying machine. I admit that there is something in the naval contention that an officer trained for work with the Fleet must have some knowledge of naval work, but that does not militate against the fact that above all it is essential to have one single Minister responsible for the Air Force and to be responsible for all work in the air.
Take the question of raids. In the old days, under what I call the bad old dual system, the seaplane or aeroplane operated by the Navy was supposed to keep off an enemy until he reached the coast, and the work was then taken up by a machine under the control of the Army. I do not think anybody could defend that system to-day. After all, the air is one element. There are no frontiers or boundaries. The air goes round the earth, there is nothing except height and depth which matters,
822
and there are no artificial boundaries which make any difference. From that point of view I think that every strategical consideration is in favour of the maintenance of the Air Force as an independent organisation. Then, again, I must point out this, that it is almost inevitable that if you are to divide the Force and if you are to put it to a certain extent under the War Office, I see no reason why the Admiralty claim to put a portion of the Force under the Admiralty is not justified. If the two Departments are to divide the Force, who is to carry on the general work of research and of superintending civil aviation? In time of peace civil aviation is becoming more important than any other question, and we are advancing with considerable speed towards the time when aviation will be used for the mails between distant parts of the world. The organisation and control of all those developments cannot be undertaken by the War Office, or the Admiralty, but must be by an entirely separate and distinct Ministry.
Then take the case of the Air Force in war. In war, and especially at the beginning of war, everybody knows that nothing is more valuable than the element of surprise; and I maintain that to-day, with the ramifications of commerce and communications between countries, the Air Force is the only force which can be used with ally success as an element of surprise. There is nothing to prevent a large force being concentrated in a Continental country and suddenly attacking this country. Equally there is nothing, if there ever was a desire to surprise an enemy, to prevent an Air Force of our own being concentrated in and flown from various aerodromes near the Channel, and concentrated upon any point on the Continent. The only force which can operate without any assistance from the Navy or the Army, and without a single man crossing the Channel or a single ship leaving our ports, is the Air Force. That is a very remarkable new condition of things, and the working out of the problems connected with the element of surprise in air warfare cannot in my humble judgment be done except by a War Air Staff, in consultation with a Minister for the Air and a distinct Air Ministry.
I know it may be said with regard to this that any change which may be contemplated or may take place has been dictated not by reference to war and peace but in

823
the cause of economy. As far as I can see, the only economy in doing away with a separate Ministry would be the saving of the salaries of a Minister of the Air, because whatever department you attach the Air Force to, you would have to have liaison officers between whoever represents the civil and military heads of the Air Force and other Departments. That would mean greater expense than you would save by not having a separate Secretary of State. I doubt in any case whether there would be any advantage, because you must have one single person responsible for the efficiency of the Air Force. Either in this House or in another place, if you want to criticise the Air Ministry you have someone to answer you. The noble Marquess who answers for the Air Administration in this House is always here in his place when occasion arises, but in this House and in the other place if matters had to go through the War Office it would be a distinct disadvantage, and I am not sure that the Admiralty would not claim to reply to questions with regard to seaplanes. I think the mere elimination of the salary of a Secretary of State or Under-Secretary cannot be seriously considered as a contribution towards the reduction of the great expenditure of this country, and I should be surprised if the Government even claimed to base the alteration on the ground of economy. Even if there was any great economy, it seems to me that it would be better to have a small Ministry costing, not possibly £50,000,000, which I understand is proposed for the Air Force this year, but £10,000,000 or even less—it would be much better to have a small Ministry independent and separate, rather than place the force under another Department.
Then again I ask—it is a rather personal question with regard to Mr. Churchill, but we all know his energy and ability—there is no member of the Government who works more diligently at his office—is it in the power of any Minister, even so energetic as Mr. Churchill, to give real consideration to air problems, with all the enormous pressure of work that he has to undertake in connection with the War Office in these days of demobilisation, etc.? It seems to me quite impossible for any Minister, though he be a combination of Hercules and Solomon, to give adequate consideration to matters connected with the War Office and problems relating to the Air Force. I believe that General Seely devoted the whole of his time to air
824
matters, and now that he has gone I do not doubt that the noble Marquess opposite does what he can; but it seems to me that unless you keep the Air Force entirely independent, with a separate Air Minister to represent it, there will be danger of neglect, and if there is neglect other great Powers will soon come abreast of us—because I think we can legitimately say we are leading to-day—and then we shall have to fight to regain our supremacy.
The Government may say, in reply, that while in war a separate organisation is needed, it is not needed now. My Lords, in the speeches of Ministers on the introduction of the Bill in both Houses they both laid stress upon the fact that it was a post-war as well as a war measure. Since then T think the necessity of an independent Air Force and Minister is more evident than ever. The progress that we have made lately shows that aviation is going to be one of the biggest developments of the coming decade, and I think it must inevitably force itself to the front to such an extent that an Air Minister, if he is not appointed this year, will in a year or two have to be appointed.
I ask your Lordships to look at what has been done within this year. The Atlantic has been flown four times, first by an American aeroplane, secondly by a British aeroplane, and finally both ways by a British dirigible. We have going on practically every day our London-Paris air service, in which the record is nothing short of marvellous. About 95 per cent. of the journeys undertaken have been accomplished, and the average speed has been over 100 miles an hour. There have never been more than two or three cases of engine trouble during all this autumn and winter with its strong gales and severe weather. That is an extraordinarily fine record, and it is a record which, compared with any of the other great developments of locomotion in the world, is superior to any of them. In the early days of the railways in the late 'thirties and 'forties you started out from stations and you sometimes got to your destination. We know also about early steamships, and how they had always to carry a full complement of sails because their engines were constantly breaking down. Coming to 20 years ago, when the first motor cars were on the road, some of your Lordships will remember when there was a procession from Northumberland Avenue to the

825
Metropole Hotel at Brighton. I believe that about fifty cars started and less than half arrived within reasonable time. Compared with all these experiments in the development of other kinds of locomotion the success of aviation stands out most favourably. This, I think, tends to show that it is far too big a subject to be handled by any Department which has other matters to attend to, and that one single brain should be responsible for it.
When the Prime Minister formed his Government a year ago many of us acquiesced in the arrangement by which the two seals of office were held by the present Secretary of State for War as a temporary post-war arrangement, but many of us are alarmed to-day at the seeming permanence of this arrangement. We have not so far had any light thrown on the future policy of the Government in this respect. I believe that the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack is going to reply, and I hope that he will be able to give us some inkling of what the Government propose in this respect. It is a curious circumstance that since the formation of the independent Air Ministry four years ago it has—I will not say suffered from numerous heads, because they have all been able—had no less than four separate heads. It first had Lord Cowdray, then Lord Rothermere, then Lord Weir, and then recently as a sub-head General Seely. I do not believe that a single one of those Ministers would differ from me in thinking that the Air Force should be independent.
I would like to read to your Lordships one or two of the most salient passages in the debate of two years ago in order to refresh your Lordships' memories as to what was then said by the Government. The Air Force Bill was then introduced by the noble Earl, Lord Crawford, and he said—
"Aircraft can no longer be regarded as a sub-Department of the Admiralty or of the War Office. The air is one. It is a unity far more than the sea is, and a hundred times more than the land is; and the conditions of fighting in the air are similar even though the airman be attached to the naval or to the military side of the Air Force."
That to my mind describes exactly the true position. Then Lord Cowdray, who afterwards became the First Secretary of State for the Air, said—
"If the Air Forces are to remain—which God forbid—as units only of the two great fighting Services, then the proposed legislation is not necessary. But if your Lordships agree with me in realising that an independent Force is needed
826
and that one must be formed forthwith with full powers, complete organisation, and equal in rank with the Navy and the Army, then the Bill before the House will receive your Lordships' full approval."
With those sentiments I entirely agree.
I will pass on to a more important declaration made by the noble Earl the Leader of this House. He stated then that he was a firm supporter of an independent Air Force a long time before that day. Referring to a previous time at which he had spoken he said—
"I said on that occasion that there were many, of whom I was one, who would gladly have seen an Air Ministry created at that time."
He went on to say—
"I see before myself before many years have passed—it may be even sooner—I paint to myself a dream of a single Service, under a single head, under a single roof, with a single organisation. Such a unification I cannot believe to be beyond the administrative genius of our race."
Later on in the same speech he said of dual control—
"It is an invaluable thing to have got rid of that by this Bill."
He was referring to the friction between the two Departments, and he went on—
"And if for no other reason than the cessation of departmental friction this Bill would be a most valuable thing in itself."
The noble Earl concluded by saying, and to this I call your Lordships' special attention—
"He (Lord Haldane) told us that this is not only a war measure but a post-war measure too. Nothing could be more true than that remark."
I echo that sentiment—"Nothing could be more true than that remark." The noble Earl proceeded to say that this Force must be permanently a necessary part of our Imperial organisation. I have ventured to quote those passages in the noble Earl's speech because they so entirely fit the position to-day, and are so completely the sentiments that I would wish to impress upon your Lordships now.
It may be asked, What are other countries doing in the matter I have been at some pains to collect statistics about that, and I will shortly explain that in France a separate Department has been formed, reporting direct to M. Clemenceau as Prime Minister but not as head of the War Office. In Germany a separate Department has been formed, and great attention is being devoted to civil aviation; how much attention can be gauged from the fact

827
that over thirty new civil companies have been subsidised. In Italy the intention so far revealed is to have a separate Ministry. In regard to the United States, the Report of a very able Commission is in your Lordships' hands in the form of a White Paper, which shows that they were strongly in favour of a separate Air Service, but at the moment Mr. Baker, the Secretary for War, opposes the separation of the Services because some officials of the Admiralty and War Office resent the change. That is what happened here. You have, therefore, all the great countries of the world almost unanimously working in the direction of a separate Service.
I often think that the real difficulty lies in the fact that it is very difficult to get the individual soldier or sailor to think of aircraft in terms of the air. They are always thinking of aircraft in terms of the Navy or in terms of the Army as subsidiary machines to those great Services. There are a great many passages in the American Report which are very appropriate to what we are discussing to-day. The Report says that without a separate department no sudden creation of aerial equipment to meet a national emergency already at hand is possible. That is a subject I have already dealt with. Then they go on to say that in the future, as in the past, if the aircraft activities remain dispersed among the several Governmental Departments, it will be impossible to get decisive action. The Report is well worth reading and contains arguments better than I can put them in favour of an independent, united air service. That Report was the Report of a special Commission which went all over Europe, and I think the very fact that it reported unanimously in favour of an independent air service so recently is a very strong argument in favour of our retention of such a single air service.
Before I conclude I should like to say one word about General Seely himself. I feel certain from my knowledge of him that it must have been something serious which compelled his resignation. I know that loyalty to the Government and to his Office would very likely make it impossible for him to reveal the exact points on which he differed from them, but I hope the Government will be able to tell us the real reason for the difference of opinion and the real reason for his resignation. All of us who are keen on this question and have
828
studied it are most anxious to help the Government in the study of this most difficult problem. We admit that the problem is by no means easy, but better have a small Ministry, independent and responsible for progress in the air, than have it attached to and under the control of any Department, however powerful, and however well presided over by the ablest of Ministers. I have raised this question to-day with the fullest sense of the importance of the issue, but I feel certain that your Lordships will agree with me that it is desirable that the Government should let us know what their policy is and, if possible, reassure those of us who think that an independent Air Service is a vital necessity for this country.
LORD TREOWEN: My Lords, the noble Lord who has raised this question has confined himself almost entirely to its military aspect. It appears to me that the military or the naval aspect of this question is but a very small part of the great problem that has been opened up by what is called the conquest of the air, and the action of air forces in military operations is a very small matter indeed as compared with the immense functions that will be performed by aviation and a general aerial service all over the world. It appears to me, therefore, that my noble friend by confining himself to one particular aspect of the question has hardly impressed your Lordships with the necessity of the Government's considering (though I hope the Government have already considered it) what is going to be their policy with regard to aviation generally as a great world-power. I do not think it is necessary for me to labour this point, but I will ask this one question—What would have been our position in the railway world had our forefathers grasped the idea of what railway locomotion was going to be? I think we might have found ourselves with a Department of Railways, and possibly we might not have had to face some questions which are before us at the present time.
Then with regard to the other—what I will call, with all respect, the narrower—aspect of the question, namely, whether the control of aviation should be in the hands of the military and naval or the air authority, I am sure the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack will remember, and some of my other friends who were in the other House with him, will remember the

829
position I always took up in discussing Army Estimates, namely that it was impossible for the House of Commons ever thoroughly to discuss either military or naval questions because they were separated from one another and put in watertight compartments. It seems to me that all the elements of defence or offence which this country possesses should be controlled by one great Department—possibly it might be called a Department of Defence, or something of that sort. That does not in the least prevent a separate administration of each of these arms, but it would co-ordinate and correlate the preparation which has been made by the nation for great emergencies such as we have just gone through.
I am sure that when the history of the late great war comes to be written and examined from the point of view of its causes and the condition of our preparations beforehand, the critics will fasten upon that absence of any correlation between our great defensive forces. I hope that the noble Lord on the Woolsack when he replies will give us some indication of the view of the Government on both these points—the future of the great problem that is opened up by the international movement which will take place through the air and the control of the various elements that go to make up the defensive forces of this country.
LORD VERNON: My Lords, I ask your Lordships for that indulgence which it is your custom to extend to one who addresses you for the first time. I desire to enter a special plea on behalf of the Navy that they should be allowed to have their own Air Force, in contradiction to the arrangement which is at present in force. At the beginning of the war heavier-than-air craft were in such an experimental stage that no method had been found of using them in co-operation with the Fleet, but they are now an integral part of the Fleet and just as much a weapon of the warship as is the gun. I would ask your Lordships to consider that although in those times when they were still in the experimental stage it may have appeared a superficial reason for amalgamation—they had to be lent to the Army which was then short of aircraft—that condition no longer exists.
The training and work of the Air Force in the Fleet would be simplified if they were under one head. I would rather
830
consider the position of a captain of a special aircraft carrier attached to the Fleet who has his ship's company composed half of members of the Air Force and half of members of the Royal Navy. He cannot possibly have in those circumstances that close control over the Air arm which is so necessary on board ship—while the whole upbringing and training of that portion is foreign to the training and upbringing of the Navy. Such a system does not make for unity. The noble Lord who has put down this Question dealt with the matter on the broad grounds of strategy. There is one fact about strategy in the air which I think must be obvious—namely, that, with the possible exception of bombing raids on civilian towns, all aerial activity must be directed towards some naval or military objective. If that is the case, then surely the direction of that activity should be in the hands of the Naval and Military authorities.
If you take design and supply, it is suggested that design would be co-ordinated by having one Air Force, but if the aeroplane and the airship are to be weapons to assist the land and the sea Forces then they are in the same position as the gun. No one would suggest that the gunnery arm of the Navy or that the Royal Field Artillery should be independent Forces. The question of design is got over by the Ordnance Corps at Woolwich being officered by personnel from both Services. They ensure that all arms are provided with the proper weapons. The supply difficulty was got over by the Ministry of Munitions and by liaison between the two Services. As far as the development of civil flying is concerned, surely this is a matter which should not be mixed up with the fighting Services. It has never been successful when the fighting Services have become mixed up with commercial matters, and there were one or two cases of that during the war. The status of civil aviation, I suggest, is. somewhat similar to that of the mercantile marine, which latter is not definitely under the orders and control of the Admiralty. If you consider the peace time organisation and the war time organisation, I submit that there is more complication in having three Services instead of two, as well as a considerable increase in expense.
Lord Montagu talked about liaison. Three lots of liaison would be required instead of one lot; where you have one

831
liaison between the Navy and the Army you would require three. As the Air Force becomes more and more independent it will be increasingly difficult for the very close liaison work which will be required between the Air Force and the other two Services to be carried out. The Army and the Navy can co-operate only on certain specific occasions, but it will always be necessary to have close co-operation between each of them and the Air Service. You will, therefore, considerably increase this liaison work, increase such things as paper work (already an evil in the fighting Services); there is bound to be overlapping; and I submit that the expense will be more than merely the salary of the Minister in question. There are such things (to use a commercial phrase) as overhead charges. That really means that with a separate organisation you require extra things which are a duplication of things in other Departments, and which are bound to be expensive. You will require three Intelligence Departments and three Operation Departments. That type of work, if the Services had their own Air Force, would still be done by this Department.
It is primarily on account of the Navy that I have advanced this plea; because the Navy works on a separate element, and it is an element to which everyone is not accustomed in the same way as they are accustomed to the land. Although you may say that the air covers both, the base of operation from which they work is not the same. There is all the difference between taking off from and alighting on the deck of a ship and taking off from and alighting on a flying ground; just the same difference as looking for a hostile submarine and looking for a hostile column of troops. Although it may be important with regard to the Army it is far more difficult with regard to the Navy; and since the Navy has always been our greatest weapon I submit that it should have its own Air Service.
LORD SYDENHAM: My Lords, I desire to say only a word in part reply to the speech to which we have just listened. I was a member of the first Air Board, at a time when the two Air Services were independent—one under the Admiralty and one under the War Office. That state of things was inconceivably deplorable, and I am convinced that this division in the early part of the war to a great extent
832
hampered our operations during the war. More might have been done if there had been an earlier amalgamation. If it is absolutely necessary that the Air Service should be placed under one of those Departments of State I agree that it had better be under the Admiralty; because, though I do not admit that there is any affinity between the Air Force and the Army or the Navy, such affinity as exists is closer to the Navy than to the Army. I hope that there will never again be a separation of the Air Service into two parts. If the inside history of the earlier years of the war ever came to be written I think you would be surprised at the mistakes made and at the competition which existed between the two Services at that time. I maintain, as Lord Montagu does, that a Service which has to fight in three dimensions is a Service distinct in every possible way from the Services which fight in only two; although, of course, the submarine may be said to fight in three. I hope, therefore, that the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack will be able to assure us that the change with which we have been threatened is not to be brought about.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD BIRKENHEAD): My Lords, I am sorry that your Lordships should have to listen to me so frequently, but the Leader of the House is unable to be present to-day as he has important public business elsewhere; and as the matters raised are of importance and relate to a Cabinet decision it was thought desirable that such answer as must be given here should be made by a Minister who happens to be a member of the Cabinet. If any question of detail arises, or any suggestion that administratively the present arrangement does not work well, no one is more competent to deal with the matter than my noble friend Lord Londonderry, who so efficiently replies for the Department of the Air, and he will gladly supplement, with a greater knowledge of the detail, the few observations that I have to make.
I think my first duty must undoubtedly be to congratulate a new and a young member of your Lordships' House upon having made to-day a maiden speech of great interest and promise. Your Lordships always welcome here with pleasure the representatives of the fighting services; and while I am unable, for reasons that I will presently give, to assent to all the views expressed by the noble Lord, his

833
speech did give vigorous and intelligent expression to a point of view which was head by a very great many people and is still held by a considerable number.
The Question which is addressed to me by the noble Lord who moved for Papers relates, in the first place, and indeed almost entirely, to the reasons which led General Seely to resign, and the noble Lord asked whether there was not some more serious cause than that which had hitherto been made public. I have no reason to suppose that these is. I myself very much regretted General Seely's decision. He is a very old friend of mine, and everybody in this House admires both his character and his distinguished record in the war. Certainly no one will refuse assent to the claim made by Lord Montagu, that he showed a high degree of efficiency during the period that he was at the Air Ministry.
No; we must not look for an explanation to supposed Cabinet dissensions or to real reasons in the background, whereas unreal reasons are ostensibly put forward. We must look, and that alone, to the explanation which General Seely himself gave when he announced to the House of Commons that he intended to resign his position. I have General Seely's speech here, and I may perhaps summarise very briefly my understanding of the grounds on which he based his resignation. He said that when he was offered the position he appreciated clearly that a difficulty might arise because there was duality of control; control, that is to say, was shared between himself and. the Secretary of State for War, though, of course, the more influential position—greatly the more influential position—was enjoyed by the Secretary of State. General Seely, however, accepted the Office, though, I rather gather from his speech, with some misgivings because of that situation, and, having had some months' experience of the Office, he came to the conclusion that this duality of control was injurious to the public service, and thereupon asked to be relieved of his Office, and was so relieved.
I think the noble Lord may take it that there is no other explanation at all which would repay search in order to account for what took place. I am in agreement, and the Government is in agreement, on the issue which has been raised, with the views put forward by Lord Montagu. In other words, we definitely
834
took the view, and this House definitely took the view some two years ago, after long war experience, that it was desirable that there should be a single and an independent Air Service. Lord Vernon stated considerable reasons to the contrary, based upon his naval experience. All those considerations were put forward with very great force by experienced and distinguished Admirals before the decision was taken. Similar arguments were put forward by many representatives of the War Office. All those arguments were weighed in the balance, and it was decided—and decided with a degree of unanimity which in these circusmtances is not; very often attained—that the balance of advantage in war time enormously inclined to the establishment and maintenance of a separate and independent Service.
Lord Montagu is perfectly entitled to point out that the speeches that were made by myself, who assisted to pilot the Bill through the House of Commons, and by the Earl of Crawford and Earl Curzon and others in this house, made it quite plain that the decision reached was not merely to establish during the war an independent and separate Air Service, but that it was to maintain that independence and that separation as a permanent part of our defensive arrangements. The anxiety felt by the noble Lord who moved is, I imagine, occasioned entirely by the circumstance that at the present time the same Minister holds the seals of both Offices, and he sees in that circumstance a ground for apprehending that the independence and the separation of the Air Force are to be abandoned. I say in the plainest way that the policy of the Government is to maintain the separate and the independent character of the Royal Air Force.
NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: You may take it that it will be so maintained in peace as distinctly as it was in war. Every step that has been taken in the course of the present year has been taken with that end in view. There is no question at all of subordinating the Royal Air Force either to the Army or the Navy, or of splitting it into two and dividing it between the Army and the Navy. In order to emphasise the distinct and the independent character of the Service

835
uniform and ranks and titles have been deliberately differentiated from those prevailing in the Army and Navy, and only Service men know how important are matters of that kind, which sound relatively insignificant. The whole organisation of the Air Force as a separate Force, and of the Air Ministry as a separate Ministry, has proceeded since the Armistice was signed without interruption.
A complete scheme for the post-war organisation has been elaborated during the past year and it is already very considerably advanced. When the Estimates for next year are introduced it will be possible to lay before the House in full detail the steps that have been taken, and it will be seen that all the varied functions of the Royal Air Force and its complex organisation have been fully provided for, including its work with the Army, its work with the Navy, and its work as an independent strategical factor. We have aimed, or the Minister has aimed, throughout the year, at creating an entirely separate permanent Air Service, which affords as good a career and as good opportunities of advancement to officers and men as either the Army or the Navy.
Now the question may be asked—in fact, it has been asked—Was it in these circumstances a wise or defensible arrangement that the seals of this independent and separate Service should be held by the Minister who is at the present time head of the Army? and your Lordships will expect that I shall explain the circumstances in which this decision was taken. The Prime Minister reached the decision—it is, of course, for him to decide whether or not two Offices can usefully and wisely be taken over by one Minister—he reached the decision, in forming the present Administration, that the scale, size, and cost of the Royal Air Force in the years immediately following the war would not be sufficiently large to justify the appointment of a separate Secretary of State.
Many arguments have been used to show the importance of restricting as far as possible the number of Ministers who form the Cabinet. Already the complications of necessary business and the increase in the number of Departments have raised the total number to a point which many critics consider to be undesirable. A separate Cabinet Minister for a Force which cannot in the immediate future be in size
836
or cost more than a sixth or a seventh the size of the Army or Navy would not be justified, and certainly this, I suppose, is clear—that you could not possibly justify the exclusion from the Cabinet of the Minister who would be able to speak with special knowledge and authority on aerial problems. The choice was between the appointment of a Minister who already had a portfolio and the appointment of a separate Secretary of State with Cabinet rank on behalf of this new and relatively small Force.
No one must suppose that a decision has been taken which binds the Government in the future or necessarily for a very prolonged period. It may well be that in the years to come the importance of the Air Force will grow at the expense of the other two Services. The noble Lord has reminded us how unwise it is to make predictions in these matters; how deceived those who went before us were by the swift and incredible development of railways, and how mistaken even many of us were as to the rapid development in the efficiency and reliability of motor cars. I certainly should not be willing to be treated as one who was excluding even the most amazing developments in aviation in the future. There are many who think, and give good grounds for their opinion, that within the lifetime of those of us who are not particularly young the time will come when the air will take the primary place in our defensive organisation. Therefore it must be assumed that the decision which has been taken is one which is taken for the moment. If circumstances alter, the present arrangement will lapse; and I especially ask the House to notice that nothing has been done which is inconsistent with an immediate separation of the two Offices. If events decide that it is expedient at a given moment that a separate Minister should be created for the air, that separate Minister could go into his Office the next day and find absolutely nothing compromised by the temporary association of the Office with the War Office.
The importance of economy and moderate establishments during the next few years is well known, and certainly members of the Government would have no excuse if they were not aware of your Lordships' strong views in this direction. The admonitions which so often have been addressed to us on this subject certainly point to the Air Force being restricted to

837
limits which quite clearly do not justify a separate Secretary of State, and to appoint such an Air Minister and include him in the Cabinet would create a most anomalous position in regard to at least half a dozen other Offices which, for practical purposes, have just as great weight and importance at the present time.
There are two other very important reasons, special in the present year and the next, which render a combination of the Offices desirable at this moment. Your Lordships will not forget that the demobilisation of the Army and the Air Force necessarily proceeded simultaneously. They were intermingled in the fighting forces in every theatre of war, and their general demobilisation problems were completely identical. Uniformity in practice was indispensable in dealing with these demobilisation problems. A difference in practice would have multiplied the already large but inevitable list of grievances and the hard cases which the processes of demobilisation in so many different theatres of war had entailed. The Navy in this respect was in a different position. It was not mixed up with the Army, and the expansion of the Navy during the war was relatively moderate. The Navy was entirely self-contained and the difference of practice in regard to demobilisation did not cause hardship and complaint to anything like the same extent as in the Army and the Air Force. Even so, some difficulty has been experienced. That is the first special and peculiar argument which is deserving of consideration.
In the second place, we have not only to demobilise the Army and the Air Force, but we have to reconstruct and redistribute the fighting forces by which our Empire is maintained. The garrisons of Palestine, Mesopotamia, and India have to be reconsidered from the point of view of the new technical inventions which the war has produced and the general advance in the science of war. This is a problem which cannot be studied in separate departments; it must be studied in its integrity. If we are to derive the economies in man-power and consequently in expenditure which should follow an increase in the power of scientific weapons, especially from the great usefulness of aeroplanes in maintaining order and suppressing revolts in large Oriental regions, it is essential that the problem of the new distribution of our fighting forces both on land and in the air
838
should be considered as a single problem in the period which lies immediately in front of us.
It must therefore be assumed that the view taken by the Government has been determined by the considerations which I have attempted shortly to summarise. It must by no means be assumed that a decision has been reached which may not be modified and would not be modified by unexpected developments in the actual situation. No one, not even his strongest critics, has ever denied to the present Secretary of State for War extraordinary capacity and an unparalleled degree of industry, and those who know him, however much in other respects they may differ from him, know the conscientiousness which he brings to the discharge of his public duties and will be satisfied that, if he found himself unable to carry out his own high standards of industry in these matters, he would not consent to hold the seals of the two Offices for a day longer.
I have one further observation to make in regard to the speech of the noble Lord who spoke second in the debate. He dealt with the great question of civil aviation and expressed anxiety lest under the existing arrangements this important branch of the enterprise might be overlooked or neglected. I am sure the noble Lord is aware of what has already been done in this direction. He knows, I am sure, that there is at the Air Board a department to which has been exclusively assigned the field of civil aviation. At the head of it is a most distinguished member of the Air Force, General Sykes, who is surrounded by able assistants; experiments are carried on, and the importance of the subject, great as it is, is certainly not under-rated. The noble Lord must not think I am claiming that as much is being done as might be done under circumstances which justified expenditure more readily. I am making no such claim, but I am attempting to bring the facts in relation to this part of the case and in relation to my main argument that the Service is not suffering in any way in this respect by the arrangement which I am attempting to explain, and that more would not have been done if a separate Minister represented the Air Force than has been sanctioned under the existing arrangement.
Lord Vernon made an interesting observation

839
in this connection, and one with which I have a great deal of sympathy. He said it would be right, or perhaps he said it is right even now, to look upon civil aviation much in the same way as one looks upon the mercantile marine in relation to the Navy, namely, civil aviation is to combatant aviation as the mercantile marine is to the Royal Navy. I am not sure there is not a great deal to be said for that. I am not certain that its adoption would be beneficial to the Air Service; but I suspect the noble Lord is thinking that the day will come in which the Board of Trade will assume control and responsibility for civil aviation, much in the same way as it has by long practice assumed control over the mercantile marine, and then no doubt the position of civil flying craft in relation to military and naval flying craft, will be identical with that which now exists between the mercantile marine and the Royal Navy.
I have only one other observation to make, and it is this. Many acute critics—I pronounce no opinion upon it myself, because I have no great knowledge of the proper strategical considerations—are most strongly of opinion that the interests of this country would be best served by having some kind of amalgamation for defensive purposes of the three great Services on whose joint efforts the safety of these Isles ultimately depends—namely, the Army, the Navy, and the Air Force. They point to the prospect, and they allege the desirability, of a great Joint Staff, which would bring to the problems of war and to the problems of defence not a partial and limited knowledge, either of the air, or of the land, or of the sea, but bring to a reinforced and a much more fully-informed Staff the special contribution which it would be in the power of each to afford. Whether that scheme is one which will ever be realised I do not know, but it is at least worth recollecting that as long as this arrangement lasts we can bring to bear upon immediate problems which confront us, and which seemed likely to produce rather territorial situations in which we shall be involved in small wars rather than great ones—that we have at least produced from this arrangement a system by which the best brains of the air and the best brains of the Army will be readily marshalled in council, in order to apply all the resources both of the air, and of the Army with the greatest precision and the greatest degree of unanimity.

VENEREAL DISEASE.
LORD WILLOUGHBY DE BROKE LORD WILLOUGHBY DE BROKE had the following Notice on the Paper—
To call attention to the prevention of venereal disease by the method of immediate self-disinfection, particularly in view of the Note on Prophylaxis against Venereal Disease by the Chairman of the Inter-departmental Committee on Infectious Diseases in connection with demobilisation. To ask the Ministry of Health what steps they are taking to instruct the public in the proper application of immediate self-disinfection at the time of exposure to infection; what steps they are taking to provide for delayed disinfection at early treatment centres; and to move for Papers giving information as to the yearly incidence of venereal disease in the Portsmouth area as compared to the rest of England; and for Colonel Keble's reports and for the Hilsea Hospital records giving information as to the relative frequency in Hospital of men who have used immediate and delayed disinfection respectively.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I do not make any excuse to your Lordships for calling attention again to this extremely important subject. It is one which, as your Lordships are aware, vitally affects the health and the life of the race, and we cannot study it too closely or avail ourselves too persistently of every possible means of trying to stamp it out. It stands very high on the list of what Dr. Saleeby describes as racial poisons. Sir William Osler, for instance, said, I think before the Royal Commission, that it stood third or fourth in the great killing diseases of the world, and was responsible for blindness, sterility, locomotor ataxy, and general paralysis of the insane, and had all sorts of hideous effects, not only upon those who ran the risk of infection but also upon the innocent and unborn. The worst of it is that venereal disease has increased and is increasing, and your Lordships will agree with me that it ought to be diminished. In support of this we read in The Times of December 8 that there is a 60 per cent. increase of venereal disease in the London hospitals.
I am bringing forward this Motion for Papers this afternoon, and I feel sure that the Government will help those for whom I am speaking by granting this Motion;

841
but if they do not I shall ask your Lordships to divide upon it, because I consider it to be of the very greatest importance. I am bringing forward the Motion with the object of ensuring that the general public may know the truth with regard to immediate self-disinfection at the time of exposure to the risk of venereal disease. Last April your Lordships were kind enough to listen to what I had to say on this extremely important subject, and I ventured to prophesy on that occasion that we had not heard the last of this matter of self-disinfection. We have had no official answer to that debate except the publication of the Departmental Committee's Report which I refer to in my Question, and which Committee was presided over by Lord Astor. But as a matter of fact it seems to me that apart from the lectures given by the National Council, which are admirable in their way as far as they go, no real progress has been made in trying to stamp out this disease.
Lord Astor's Report is a very interesting document, but the whole trend of it is dead against the policy which. I have come here to recommend to you this afternoon. It is dead against the whole idea of immediate self-disinfection, although rather curiously it admits that drugs and medical preparations may be relied upon to remove or destroy the germs of venereal disease. That is a very valuable admission, but in spite of this the Report appears so incomplete and so unsatisfactory from the point of view of some of the most prominent and learned venerealogists in the United Kingdom, that they have formed themselves into a new body called the Society for the Prevention of Venereal Disease, the object of which is at once evident to your Lordships. Our objects are to protect the health of the race, especially women and children, by instructing the public in the first instance in immediate self-disinfection as a means of prevention, without any prejudice whatever to all the other means that are available, some of which we consider to be of the greatest importance. The Society for the Prevention of Venereal Disease, with which I have the great honour to be connected, is charged with recommending nothing but what is called the issue of prophylactic packets. That is a loose statement, and I should like to examine it for a moment
If your Lordships will read the correspondence that took place in The Times
842
when the Society was first formed, you will see that it declined to be tied down in its policy to recommending the issue of prophylactic packets in the sense that they were issued to His Majesty's Forces. What we intend to recommend is that the general public shall be informed as to the proper application of disinfectants, and that if they wish to expose themselves to risk and provide themselves with disinfectants, they shall know what to ask for and how to use them. Of course if what they ask for—as they can ask for it at any chemist's shop—is done up in a parcel, and I suppose it must be, and if that goes under the name of a packet, then it is indeed a packet. What I particularly wish to disclaim is that I am here on behalf of those for whom I am speaking to recommend the free issue of what are called prophylactic packets, because I am strongly of opinion, if any individual wishes to expose himself (or herself) to risk and at the same time chooses to take a disinfectant with him, that he ought to do so at his own expense and not at the expense of the general public.
I think that your Lordships will agree with me that in this regard prevention is very much better than cure. The cure of venereal disease, as we agreed the last time that we had a debate on this subject, presents an exceedingly difficult problem. It is quite true that since the discovery of Salvarsan the cure of syphilis has become more absolute than ever, but at the same time the cure of gonorrhea in the sense of the complete sterilisation of the patient and rendering him or her innocuous to others still remains a desperate public problem. Either sex may be carriers of the micro-organisms of this disease. Even when the symptoms have disappeared and they think they are perfectly clear from it, they may still be in a condition to communicate it to other people. I do not say for a moment that for this reason the scientific discoveries with regard to the cure of the disease should not be proceeded with. It is a self-evident proposition that they should be, and it is to be hoped that they will be more efficacious than they are at the present moment.
In the meantime it does seem to me that we should address ourselves to prevention. You can only prevent the spread of venereal infection by two main methods. One is by universal continence, and the other is by disinfection. These are the

843
two main channels into which the prevention of the disease naturally falls. We do not wish to speak of those who are advocating universal marital continence with anything except profound respect, but even the most sanguine of them must admit that continence of that kind is not yet, and that it will take a good many generations before it operates to eradicate venereal disease. But disinfection is here and remains. Disinfection is available, and it is, I submit, the scientific way of dealing with the matter. Disinfection is the acknowledged practice with all contagious diseases, and venereal disease is a contagious disease just as are other diseases such as surgical fevers and skin diseases. Disinfection is the guiding principle of the whole of modern surgery. It has enabled us to proceed to so satisfactory a result with regard to the treatment of other diseases that we naturally can hope for success in the case of venereal disease, particularly as that is a disease in which disinfection is so easy, because the microorganisms of the disease at the time they are communicated are so deposited that—and I have this on the highest medical authority—they will yield very readily to the application of a disinfectant. They are not particulary strong microorganisms in themselves, and it is not a matter of very great difficulty to apply a disinfectant to them in such a manner that they disappear. This is particularly true with regard to the male.
The last time that we, had this debate I was asked why we did not say anything about the self-disinfection of women. That, my Lords, is a difficult subject. The disinfection of women in the sense of using disinfectants in the way we recommend that men shall use them is a difficult matter, because woman is not structurally suited to receive the disinfectant with the same case as man, and there are perhaps other reasons, which I will not go into, why the disinfection of women presents greater difficulties. But there is this to be said for it, that so far as we know the results of the disinfection of women have been efficacious in preventing venereal disease, because it is acknowledged by everyone who knows anything about it that most of the cases of venereal disease—something like 70 per cent.—have been communicated to men by the amateur and not the professional prostitute, and the reason why the professional prostitute on the whole has been safer than the amateur is because
844
it is a well-known fact that these women have taught themselves how to disinfect, and for that reason the disinfection of women if properly carried out is probably a success.
We will, however, with your Lordships' permission, address ourselves to the disinfection of men. In doing so I am only following Colonel Harrison, whom I shall quote in a moment. There are two known methods of disinfection. No. 1 is slow or delay disinfection; No. 2 is quick or immediate disinfection. The National Council for Combating Venereal Disease has apparently accepted the principle of disinfection, and the Ministry of Health have gone so far on the road to disinfection, after a considerable amount of hesitation, that they are prepared to advise the construction of a number of what are called early treatment centres, which means the provision of ablution rooms at the public expense where those who have exposed themselves to risk may repair, if they will do so and if they know where they are, as soon after having connection as possible in order that they may be scientifically treated by a skilled attendant.
I should like to direct the attention of the noble Lord who is the head of the National Council for Combating Venereal Disease to this. He knows how to frame his own phraseology much better than I can teach him, but I should not call them treatment centres. It is not treatment, it is disinfection before the symptoms declare themselves, and if you call them treatment centres I suggest, with great respect, to the noble Lord that it does encourage the public to think, when they go there, that the disinfectants they find there are really efficacious for treatment and not only for prevention, and that they may try to treat themselves with these same disinfectants in an amateur way, supposing the symptoms arise.
But in regard to the early treatment centres there is a good deal more to be said than that. I should be very anxious to hear what progress is being made with their provision. The whole case against the early treatment centres is so well put by the Medical Officer of Health for Portsmouth that I shall ask your Lordships to listen to him for a moment—and I shall read no quotations that are not authoritative. He was writing to the Borough of Portsmouth with regard to putting up

845
auxiliary centres, which is the same thing as what are known as early treatment centres, and he says—
"Medical men generally are unanimous in the opinion that the greatest safeguard against the contraction of venereal disease after exposure to disinfection is the destruction of the germs of the disease by the immediate application of a disinfectant. But to endeavour to secure the adoption of this practice by the provision of auxiliary centres in various parts of the town appears to me to be clumsy, extravagant, and futile. To mention one fatal objection only. It is said such places should be inconspicuous. In the first place, it is practically certain that the character of the place will become known, consequently persons would not care about being seen to enter them; in the second, if it were possible to render them so inconspicuous as to escape public notice they would also be so inconspicuous that persons who wanted to resort there would not know where to find them. Speaking as your Medical Officer of Health, whose principal duty is the prevention of disease, I am bound to state that in my opinion the most effective weapon for the prevention of venereal disease is the instruction of the public in a knowledge of those simple measures, the adoption of which is recognised as an almost certain protection against venereal disease."
And I am informed that the London County Council has stated its inability to provide these early treatment centres. But supposing the London County Council did provide them. Who is going to use them? How is everybody to know where these places are? Will they repair there quickly enough after having connection to do any good? Because it is a proved scientific fact that the micro-organisms of the disease begin to get a much greater hold upon the organs every minute after they are deposited, and that any delay after one hour very often is prejudicial to success. I should like to ask His Majesty's Government how many of these early treatment centres are wanted and how many you have got already.
There is another thing about these early treatment centres. For the first time in the whole history of venereal disease there is a danger, if it has not already reached beyond the point of danger, when men coming back from the war will bring these diseases into rural districts, and it is quite impossible to have an early treatment centre in a village in the country. The thing would be watched, everybody would know who went there, and it only needs a moment's consideration to see that the project would be futile. In addition to that, I could well imagine that in urban districts people might easily be subject to espionage, and private detectives might be employed to watch people who were going in there, and it might very easily open the
846
door to an elaborate system of blackmail. I think that this question of what is called early treatment centres requires a great deal of careful examination before it is adopted. And, after all is said and done with regard to disinfection, it is time that is the whole essence of the matter.
I should like to say a word or two about quick or immediate self-disinfection, and by that I mean the state of things by which those who expose themselves to risk carry with them the necessary disinfectants and apply them themselves a few seconds after the exposure to risk. I think that the authorities at the War Office and the Admiralty know something about quick disinfectants, but everybody agrees—even those who do not agree with me in advocating it publicly—as to its efficacy if it is properly carried out. I should like to quote from the speech that Lord Sydenham made in your Lordships' House in answer to some remarks of mine on a former occasion. He said—
"It is perfectly well known that any effective disinfectant, if used deliberately and skilfully and properly, can prevent infection."
He goes on to say that unless more information is given than appears in the Lancet it is impossible to accept the figures which the writer put forward. Later in his speech he said—
"Self-disinfection before or after exposure to risk, and after exposure to risk if there is not too long a delay, which might be one or two hours—"
Rather dangerous—
"and it is applied with care and deliberation and promptness, will probably in most cases be perfectly effective."
The noble Lord then goes on to say that in some cases (which is perfectly obvious, and perfectly true) it will first fail because those conditions cannot always be fulfilled, but, with regard to the efficacy of it, if the proper conditions of its application are fulfilled surely, there cannot be more than one opinion.
This whole system of disinfection is based upon the exceedingly valuable discoveries of Metchnikoff with regard to some experiments which were conducted by him conjointly with M. Roux, who was the Director of the Pasteur Institute in 1905. First of all monkeys of different kinds were taken by Metchnikoff to be experimented upon, and they were experimented upon with admirable results;

847
and these results appeared to be so certain and positive that an experiment was made upon a human being with very great success. All the possible safeguards against failure from the thing not being properly undertaken were used. I have it all written down here from an authoritative source, but I will not trouble your Lordships with it because it might take rather too long to read. The reason I bring this forward is that, as far as I can recollect, in the evidence given before the Royal Commission on Venereal Disease the point was not brought out that the experiments of Professor Metchnikoff—who is the father of disinfection as a prevention of this disease—on a human being were not stated at all, I think, and that the Society confined itself to stating his experiments upon the monkeys.
I am sorry that I have had to read so many quotations to your Lordships, but it is absolutely necessary to establish what I have to say. I should like to quote one or two sentences from Colonel Harrison because he is a particularly valuable witness. I understand that Colonel Harrison is one of the guiding spirits of the National Council for Combating Venereal Diseases, who are not prepared to go nearly as far as we are in advocating self-disinfection. Colonel Harrison has also had a great deal of experience in the Army, and he was a member of the Department Committee which had issued the Report I have ventured to criticise. I am rather disappointed that Colonel Harrison is not a member of the Society for the Prevention of Venereal Disease, because if he were it would accord exactly with a certain lecture he gave not very long ago at the Royal Institute of Public Health. Colonel Harrison says that he looks to the breaking of the chain of infection before it has become well established; that the reason was not far to seek because the microorganisms of the disease were the most delicate organisms in existence, they were planted on an exposed situation and easily liable to removal by urination or ordinary ablution. When natural agencies were assisted by prompt application of antiseptics it can easily be proved that the chances of infection were reduced to an infinitesimal amount.
He then gives some powerful statistics in support of this view with which I will not trouble your Lordships; but later in t his very interesting lecture—which is a
848
perfect justification of everything that this new Society is advocating—he says—
"The ideal method is undoubtedly that in which the man submits himself to treatment by a skilled attendant within an hour of exposure; but promptitude is vitally necessary to success, and if the man is situated where he cannot obtain skilled assistance he should have the means of self-disinfection with him."
I have quoted this passage before, but I have taken the liberty of reading it again. I do not think anything could be clearer than that. I quote Colonel Harrison at some length as he is now claimed as the principal opponent of the view I wish to put before your Lordships.
No one has contributed more to the cause of self-disinfection with greater success than Sir Archdall Reid, and it will be necessary, for those of your Lordships who have not read his letters in the New Statesman and elsewhere, to trouble you to listen to what he says, because this is absolutely first-class testimony by one who has deliberately tried it and has seen the results. He says—
"In a large area—"
I think this refers to the Portsmouth area, about which I am asking for Papers—
"served by a single venereal diseases hospital both quick and slow disinfection has been extensively practised. For quick disinfection nothing more was found necessary than to tell the men to swab themselves with permanganate of potash (or any other active antiseptic) immediately after exposure. No 'packets' were necessary, but the men were given the antiseptic if they asked for it. At the time of my last inquiry, of all the hundreds who had passed through the hospital nearly every man had practical slow disinfection and not one had practised quick disinfection. At a later period the method of quick disinfection was more extensively applied in this area; thereafter almost the only case of disease that occurred within it arrived with men joining station from outside and bringing their infections with them."
In the remarks I was allowed to address to your Lordships last April I gave you the results—which were fairlywell published and studied, and which were well known to all who took an interest in this subject—with regard to Sir Archdall Reid's and Surgeon-Commander Boyden's great and marked success with regard to teaching their men in the Army and in the Navy to use immediate self-disinfection. As these statements of what Sir Archdall Reid and Surgeon-Commander Boyden actually achieved have become so much a part of the public controversy on this subject, I need not weary your Lordships with repeating them; but they are telling in the extreme.
I will now give an extract from them as quickly as possible. Sir Archdall Reid was in charge of a rapidly changing body of men in a large sea-port—I am quoting from the British Medical Journal of February 1919—where the average number of men was about 2,000, and he estimates that 40,000 must have passed through his hands during the war. Venereal disease was common amongst them in spite of moral lectures and early treatment. In 1917 he instructed immediate personal prophylaxis. Each man who applied was given an ounce of potassium permanganate solution (1 in 1,000), a swab of wool, and careful directions. During 1917 and 1918 about 20,000 men passed through the station, and only seven cases of venereal disease occurred. The man who acquired syphilis carried no disinfectant with him, and used it only two hours afterwards. Of the six cases of gonorrhea, two were contracted from the men's wives, two others were drunk, one took no precautions, and the sixth only after an hour's interval. Surgeon Commander Boyden tells practically the same story.
I am aware that in producing this testimony, powerful as it is, I shall be told that statistics equally powerful can be produced in support of a contrary view. The point which I wish to put to your Lordships is that although statistics may be produced to prove that self-disinfection has not always had the same success as when it was recommended by Sir Archdall Reid, the reason it has been unsuccessful is that it has not been systematically, regularly, and properly applied; and however many statistics you produce on the opposite side with regard to the failure—or the alleged failure—of self-disinfection, you will never be able to produce statistics to prove that disinfectants do not disinfect if they are properly applied.
In support of this view I should like to quote a word or two from the very remarkable testimony of Miss Ettie Rout, who is an authority on this subject whom it is permissible to quote. She is the honorary secretary of the New Zealand Volunteer Sisters, and has made a special study of this subject ever since the war began; she has been to practically every area occupied by our troops. The whole of her testimony goes to prove what they all have experienced. She says it has been proved time and time again that whenever disinfectants are supplied adequately in
850
proper form to soldiers, and confidently recommended, venereal infection practically ceases. In this regard it is a rather pet phrase in Lord Astor's White Paper. He alludes to a carefully organised packet system in the Army. It is exceedingly doubtful whether, except in certain areas presided over by certain commanding officers and by those who took the same point of view as Sir Archdall Reid, there was ever any carefully organised packet system. Just listen to this report from a lady, who says—
"In June and July this year—"
that is 1919—
"I visited most of the Australian and New Zealand camps in England and lectured to some 25,000 or 30,000 soldiers who voluntarily attended at my personal invitation. I put the test question to several audiences as to whether they had ever gone on leave without instructions and packets being given to them. On the average not more than 10 per cent. of the men had received packets. The vast majority of the audience held up their hands as having gone on leave without packets during the previous few weeks. When I asked how many men had ever gone on leave without packets, practically the whole audience held up their hands."
I have here one or two very interesting and important figures taken from Paris, and then I shall have very nearly done with these quotations. From June to November, 1918, in a period of five months, when abundant disinfectants were given individually to the Anzacs for the purpose of immediate self-disinfection, the number of infections recorded at the Paris Medical Report Centre was only twenty, whereas in November and December, 1918, during a period of five weeks, when the supply of disinfectants was temporarily cut off, the number of Anzac infections recorded at the Paris Medical Report Centre was twenty-four. That is very remarkable, and these figures can be fortified over and over again by other quotations of the same character, with which I will not now trouble your Lordships, though I can assure you they are very telling.
The fact that self-disinfection, if properly applied, is effective has not been impugned. Nobody in authority has attempted to contradict, or can contradict, the fact that, scientifically, the case for immediate self-disinfection is proved up to the hilt. It is perfectly easy to urge that the improper use of it is unsuccessful. That applies to all remedies. If anybody brushes his teeth, for instance, in a perfunctory manner and so suffers as the

851
result of not brushing them properly, that is not an argument in favour of abandoning the brushing of teeth altogether; and I say that, having got a scientific fact upon which everybody agrees, it is the duty of the Government to give this fact every chance and to try to make it a success. I believe that so far those who do not care perhaps, to go so far as I should like to go in the instruction of the public, will have agreed in the main with what I have said up to the present moment.
What is the issue between the National Council for Combating Venereal Disease and those who support them and the Society for the Prevention of Venereal Disease? I do not believe there is really any very important medical issue at all, because the medical men on the National Council must know what are the properties of calomel ointment and permanganate of potash. At the same time there is a rather important difference between us, and I think that difference may best be described as being a difference in frame of mind. Different frames of mind will give a different answer to this question—How far is it ethically or morally justifiable to withhold or to promulgate the teachings of science? That is where I believe we may part company. The most rev. Primate, in the courteous reply which he gave to the remarks I offered to your Lordships last April, said that I skated rather lightly over the moral issue.
I will put two questions to the school of thought which perhaps the most rev. Primate represents. I should like to ask whether they admit that exposure to risk of catching venereal disease is likely, before universal continence prevails, to control the sexual instinct in such a way that there is no promiscuous intercourse between the sexes, or that, while all this is going on, the consequences of venereal disease are still likely to proceed? The second is this—If you answer this question in the affirmative, are you prepared to let your fellow-countrymen share in the latest teachings of science so as to protect them and their innocent and unborn descendants from these results?
Some people would seem to go only part of the way, and some would seem to say that there is nothing really very immoral in going round to what is called an early treatment centre an hour or two after the connection has taken place; but that there is a difference between the
852
morality of doing that and using certain disinfectants at the time of exposure to risk. I myself cannot see any great difference between these two processes. If immediate self-disinfection is really a success, is it that people are afraid of the consequences of making the intercourse between the sexes too frequent? I submit to your Lordships, with great respect, that real true morality ought to be free from, and independent of, the fear of catching venereal disease. At best those who say that the fear of catching the disease prevents promiscuous intercourse are really using an argument which could be used the other way.
If you say to people that you are going to run the very grave risk of catching this disease unless you disinfect yourself properly, then I can imagine a state of things where, if there is indeed a fear of catching it, those who are afraid of so doing would refrain from intercourse supposing they had not got the necessary disinfectants with them. If it comes to a question of morality I submit to your Lordships that it is a very doubtful remedy to try to suppress the truth. Not only that, you cannot suppress it. The truth with regard to immediate self-disinfection at the time of exposure to risk is out. It is here. Disinfectants and instructions how to disinfect have been supplied to thousands of men on demobilisation, and at this moment, in spite of the law, packets are being sold. They may or may not be of the right strength. If they are not of the right strength it is because they are not properly supervised by the Government and not made up in the proper way, and nothing in the world can be more dangerous than the sale of unauthorised packets by ignorant people to ignorant people. The Society of which I am a member intends to publish the fullest and latest scientific information by every means in its power. The Society for the Prevention of Venereal Disease contains on its list medical men, scientists, and venerealogists whose authority and opinion cannot possibly be ignored. Those gentlemen intend to press forward with the campaign for enlightening their fellow-countrymen.
I appeal to your Lordships, and to the National Council for Combating Venereal Disease, that as this knowledge is getting out it would be much better, instead of trying to suppress it, to direct it scientifically in such a way as to be valuable to the public. I call for this information because

853
I believe we shall get some valuable facts which the public is not in possession of in regard to the Portsmouth area. I ask the other questions because I believe the health of the race is the very best guarantee for its moral tone. I intend to press the Motion to a Division. I have sufficient confidence in my fellow-countrymen to believe that we shall do no harm by telling them the truth. Let us place them in the possession of the latest teachings of science, and leave it to them to choose for themselves.
Moved for Papers giving information as to the yearly incidence of venereal disease in the Portsmouth area as compared to the rest of England; and for Colonel Keble's reports and for the Hilsea Hospital records giving information as to the relative frequency in hospital of men who have used immediate and delayed disinfection respectively.—(Lord Willoughby de Broke.)
LORD SYDENHAM: My Lords, every one who has listened to the speech of the noble Lord must be well aware of the earnest care he has devoted to this subject, and his sincere anxiety to combat venereal disease in every way possible. If I differ from him in his methods I am sure he will credit me with the same sincerity and earnestness. I regret that his Committee would not accept the invitation to a roundtable conference which I offered, because I believe it would have cleared away a good many misunderstandings and have led to the avoidance of this very distasteful debate. It is very natural that he should criticise the Report which has been made public because it really is very damaging to his case. It is not, I think, quite as clear as it might have been, and it is a great pity that the names of the ten experienced medical officers who formed the Committee were not given. I am not myself at liberty to give their names, but although they do not hail from Harley-street I think the public would respect them and feel that they speak with great authority.
I do not think the Note is quite as clear as it should be. It does not make sufficient distinction between the prophylactic packet to be used before risk and the disinfecting packet to be used afterwards. As regards the first, I pointed out in the debate of April last that it had been tried and given up in the American Army, and now Sir Archdall Reid says that the prophylactic packet is useless. We have this then—
854
that this method, which was widely advertised and advocated, is now practically dead. Now I come to post-risk disinfection, The Inter-Departmental Committee, very unfortunately as I think, did not make this one of the main subjects of their consideration, but they have provided us with a large amount of valuable evidence which in my opinion goes very far to destroy the theories of the noble Lord. Post-risk disinfection may be of two kinds. It may be carried out by skilled attendants or under skilled supervision, or it may be left to the care of the individual. It is in the latter case that the packet containing permanganate and the tube of calomel ointment is recommended to be used. According to Sir A. Reid the materials for disinfection should be "ready in the man's pocket, not on the shelf of the Early Prevention Treatment Hut."
I believe medical opinion is quite unanimous that disinfection skilfully and vigorously applied within one or two hours will in all probability remove the risk of the disease. Medical opinion is also agreed that such disinfection may be carried out successfully when applied by exceptional people in exceptional circumstances. But the question really is whether an ordinary individual in special circumstances would be likely or not to disinfect himself effectively. That is not a medical question; it is a question which any layman is competent to judge on such evidence as is available. Happily we have some evidence in the White Paper which was not available when our debate took place last year. We are told that the American authorities tried self-disinfection on a large scale and abandoned it entirely in favour of disinfection by skilled attendants. They were so convinced that self-disinfection amongst their soldiers was a failure that in some units they declined to give all-night passes and issued disinfectants only to men who were going on leave to a distance. They have abandoned permanganate of potash, which we have been told is a specific disinfectant. The American evidence is very valuable, and I commend it strongly to the study of the noble Lord. The American Army figures of incidence among men at home before the war were considerably higher than our own. When America entered the war energetic measures were taken by the authorities to enforce supervised disinfection, and those measures brought down the figures of infection in their troops in this country close to our

855
own; but the rate among troops in the United States was still distinctly high in the last half of 1918.
The Australian evidence seems to be even more destructive of the views of the noble Lord. My information is that no man left camp or barracks without having a packet offered to him, and the result was a distinct increase of disease among the Australian troops. This deplorable failure is attributed to the lack of sufficient stations where disinfection could be applied under skilled supervision. In other words, it was a complete breakdown of purely self-disinfection. In the last three months ended December 31, 1918, the rate among the Australian troops at home was 147 per thousand per annum; and if cases where abortive treatment for gonorrhea was given are added we get an incidence more than five times greater than among our own troops in this country during the same period.
The point that I wish to make is this, that it is quite impossible to carry out self-disinfection among the civil population as vigorously as it was carried out among the Australian troops, and that among them it was an undoubted failure. The reason is given by Colonel Raffan, who says—
"Unfortunately for various reasons due to carelessness, excitement, and mainly excess of alcohol there are a large number of men who fail to use the outfit correctly, if at all."
Therefore we have practical experience showing that the sovereign remedy proposed by the noble Lord failed in circumstances in which one would most expect to find it successful.
On the other hand, there was a marked success amongst the Canadian troops at Havre, where of 5,153 treatments not one infection occurred, due entirely to the work of skilled attendants. In the British Army since the middle of last year extensive measures were undertaken for disinfection purposes, careful instructions were given, inspectors were appointed, and as much as possible was done to make self-disinfection a success. In some cases there was success, no doubt for exceptional reasons. That will always occur. But all the efforts made failed to bring down the incidence of disease in our Army to any marked degree. The rate per 1,000 per annum in the United Kingdom was forty-three in the first half of 1918, thirty-eight for the last half of 1918, and it rose to thirty-nine for the first half of 1919, when the system was in
856
full operation. It is impossible to claim success on such figures, though of course there may be reasons why the arrangements were not so effective as was wished. Sir Archdall Reid has asserted that our military authorities failed because they told men to apply for disinfectants after exposure, implying that they were to wait until they got back to barracks. That is not quite accurate. The War Office, most rightly in my opinion, declined to press packets upon our soldiers, but every man knew perfectly well that he could get a packet, and as a matter of fact large numbers were taken, and in some cases I believe were sold. One man was found with thirty-five tubes of calomel in his pocket.
Sir Archdall Reid gave to the Committee the figures which have been quoted, and very striking figures they were, but when questioned he said he did not know the percentage of men who used permanganate and were infected or not infected, and he did not know the percentage of men who did not use permanganate, nor did he know the numbers of men who were diseased on arrival in Camp or on leaving. Without these important details it is impossible to form a satisfactory and scientific opinion as to the results claimed. We all know how easily statistics may mislead. I do repeat that self-disinfection may succeed if all necessary conditions are complied with—we none of us deny that—or if all the circumstances are satisfactory and all the instructions are carried out in detail; but all the experience which we have is derived from Forces under discipline, and it is certainly not encouraging. An immense advantage is possessed by the military and naval authorities in dealing with this disease. Among the civil population none of these advantages exist. You cannot enforce attendance on lectures and you cannot possibly have the very severe disciplinary arrangements which were applied to the American Army.
Therefore does it follow that even if the evidence derived from the military and naval experience were hopeful, which it certainly is not, we could expect nearly so good results to apply to the civil population. I was at one time uncertain of the policy of the noble Lord's Society, but it has been made quite clear. On the 22nd of last month the Society published its programme, and the public was informed

857
that "immediate self-disinfection, requiring no special skill or training" is "the only way which offers any real hope of efficiently combating this terrible scourge." Accordingly the Society asked everyone to send a stamped envelope, and then promised that the necessary instructions" will be sent free of charge. I think I have proved that this statement it not quite in accordance with the facts, and that as it stands it may do very great harm. Supervised disinfection has proved to be a success, but self-disinfection has not proved to be trustworthy, even when conditions are favourable, and the effect of such an announcement as I have read out must be to create a false sense of security and possibly to increase infection.
The Society of the noble Lord is nothing if not belligerent. Sir Archdall Reid has permitted himself to attack the National Council in very strong language. He declared in the New Statesman of September last that we were a "fake" society. He went on to say that our "object is not to prevent venereal disease, but by pretending to prevent it to prevent other people from preventing it." I decline to characterise a statement of that kind, which must do harm, and I leave it to the judgment of your Lordships' House. This "fake society" was started by the members of the Royal Commission who wrestled with this most unpleasant subject for two years, and took a great mass of expert evidence. Surely I have the right to defend the Council. We were the first to publish widely some striking figures obtained from the American Naval Station at Norfolk, Virginia, where disinfection under skilled supervision was employed. We have used these figures to drive home the lesson of the necessity of treatment at the earliest moment, and we are now accused of keeping back a wonderful discovery of the disinfectant power of permanganate and calomel.
What are the facts? The National Council took up the question of disinfection in the autumn of 1916, as a result of the experience gained in France. We were then greatly concerned with the large number of troops on leave in London, and in a pamphlet which we published the uses of calomel, protargol, and permanganate were explained. With the approval of the Director-General of Medical Services and with the co-operation of the National Guard Sir Thomas Barlow took great pains
858
to secure the establishment of irrigation statistics in camps and barracks. The result of this was a most striking success in many cases, especially in Chelsea Barracks. We also issued many thousands of cards to soldiers on leave, urging them to take early preventive treatment and telling them where it could be obtained. That system could not be applied throughout the country for the use of the whole civil population. It was gradually superseded by the military authorities in favour of self-disinfection packets.
As regards the civil population, the National Council has strongly urged the immediate use of soap and water, which even Sir Archdall Reid admits may be effective. Soap has been shown to be a germicide, and if vigorously used is probably quite as effective as permanganate. We do not deny, and we do not suppress the fact, that disinfectants recommended by a medical man if skilfully and quickly applied will reduce the risk of disease, but they do not afford and cannot afford certain security, and if any symptoms supervene medical advice must be taken at once. But we decline to make soap and water or anything of that kind the only or even main plank of our platform, and for the reasons I have given, we are deeply impressed with the danger of making any announcement which may be misunderstood by the public.
Now we have evidence that already in the case of women harm has been done by the letters which the noble Lord's society have sent to the Press. Some women thought, not unnaturally, that disinfection was a cure for the disease, and used the disinfectant with the result of delaying proper treatment and jeopardising their ultimate cure. Colonel Harrison, whom I agree in thinking is one of our greatest authorities, and who may perhaps have changed his opinion slightly in consequence of larger information obtained of late, has said publicly that "he has seen numbers of cases where soldiers have treated themselves with these prophylactics, allowing the disease to get a deeper and deeper hold on them. Sometimes the result was truly disastrous, as when a man who suffered from syphilis treated the sore with ointment, and his next, event was hopeless paraphlegia." I do beg my noble friend and his colleagues to consider the grave warning conveyed in those lines. Self-disinfection is practically useless for women, and

859
further it is a well-known fact that syphilis can be conveyed by other means, which the measures advocated by the noble Lord's society do not meet.
I will not dwell on the moral aspects of this matter which are very difficult, and on which my Council feels strongly, but I regret the tone of some of the letters of the secretary of the noble Lord's Society. He has accused us of being influenced by ecclesiastical opinion because we say that the only complete safeguard against disease is to lead a moral life. That does not prevent us in the least from recognising the many imperfections of human nature, or from combating disease by all the means which medical science has placed at our disposal, but we do consider that it is not only contrary to moral law but positively dangerous to hold out a promise of certain immunity for men only by the use of these disinfecting packets. I hope that I have succeeded in showing that this promise is illusory, even when self-disinfection is practised under most favourable circumstances. The more sexual irregularity exists the more, most certainly, must venereal disease increase, and the false idea that men only can be made safe by these means must lead to an increase of sexual immorality from which in the long run women may suffer most, morally and physically.
There was a time, not very long ago, when many people thought that the Contagious Diseases Act was an absolute specific against the spread of diseases. Where are those people now? Between 1883, when the Contagious Diseases Acts were suspended, and 1913 the incidence of disease of our troops in the United Kingdom fell from 260 per thousand to 50·9. That reduction to less than one-fifth of the former incidence was brought about by many causes, of which probably healthy recreation, temperance, and good counsel were amongst the most important. Now medical science has given us more weapons in our hands, and we must use them with wise judgment. I hope that we shall never ignore the moral aspect of this matter, or be induced to place complete reliance on methods which experience shows may be failures, and it is for that reason that I regret the far too confident announcements, as I think them, in the publications of the noble Lord's Society. But I do cordially agree with him in asking for any statistics which can be given that are
860
relevant to this matter, provided that those statistics are very carefully examined, because otherwise they would certainly lead to misunderstandings.
I will only say one word in conclusion. Some legislation is very much needed, and I think that it is a great pity that the Joint Select Committee over which my noble and learned friend Lord Muir Mackenzie presided was stopped when the last Parliament ended, and I hope that the noble Viscount may say that the Government will consider whether that Committee might not be set up again, because there are certain questions involving legislation which are very important and very urgent. I believe that it was a thoroughly competent body, and that it would have been able to pronounce a decided opinion upon this matter.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, I am very grateful to Lord Willoughby for having called attention to-night to the Report in the White Paper, on the existence of which his speech was to some extent based. The noble Lord has now, as on former occasions when he raised this subject, handled what is admittedly a most unpleasant matter in its details, and one which is controversial in more ways than one, with lucidity, with knowledge, and with force. He has necessarily gone over the ground which he covered some eight months ago, and he will not be surprised if I propose for the same reason to repeat somewhat what passed on that occasion. The arguments which were then used do not seem to have changed in their character, or to have had much force added to them by what has passed since then. Undoubtedly, however, fresh light has been thrown upon the subject by what is known as Lord Astor's Report.
I note that the noble Lord did not say to-night—and I do not think on a former occasion that he said anything himself to that effect—that this subject is a purely physical one, a purely medical or surgical one, and that it has nothing practically, as regards policy, to do with morals or ethics. But the noble Lord has rested his arguments in no small degree upon the statements of people who have said that. One of them has said that it is time the moralists and ethical people were treated with scorn, and put on one side. He went on to say that they should be allowed a free hand, and that it should be recognised

861
that the two things are entirely different. I will quote these words—
"You will remember that the principles which underlie the whole question of the suppression of venereal disease are, first, the complete and absolute separation of the moral from the medical problem."
I need not multiply quotations to that effect from the lady upon whom the noble Lord relied considerably, or from some of the medical authorities whom he quoted and who hold that opinion. But he himself has not said that. Allegations of that kind, however, continue to be made, and I have tried more than once here, and constantly elsewhere, to meet them. It seems to me that we are in the same position on that matter as were those who were discussing political economy questions in the days of our boyhood. We were then constantly told that whatever we did we must keep out of political economy all questions except those relating purely to the statistical side, and that political economy had nothing to do with morals or ethics. In short, you had to discuss it as something entirely apart from its practical application to human conduct. I do not say for a moment that the great masters of political economy, like Adam Smith, said that the science had no practical application to human conduct, but it was said by political economists in that day. I do not think there is any political economist who will take up that standpoint to-day. Even those who dwell most upon its scientific and statistical aspect acknowledge now that the human nature side does come into and affect the whole question.
That is equally true—indeed much more true—with regard to this particular question. The purpose which we all have in view is the prevention or the eradication of a horrid evil which is flagrant in the midst of us, and it is when the methods come to be discussed that the moral side has to come in. I ventured to say on the former occasion, and I apologise for repeating it, that the moral side cannot be kept out because you are dealing with human beings. You have to behave in a totally different way from the way in which you would behave if you were dealing with animals. If you were dealing with the cattle plague or with the dog plague of rabies you might do so by killing the animal, but in this you are dealing with human beings and you cannot deal with
862
it in that way. It is not a purely physical or medical matter.
Lord Willoughby has to-night, as on former occasions, urged, and with my complete concurrence, that it is desirable that people should know and realise the gravity of the evil and the necessity and, if so be, the possibility, of combating it effectively. His eloquence on that point is not needed now. I think that I am entirely in agreement with him on that point. The cry has been raised that we want concealment. I do not want concealment. I want people to know everything that is to be known provided it is told in a proper way and told without panic. I believe it is desirable that the fullest possible knowledge should be extended on the whole subject. Whatever may have been said or thought a few years ago it is quite certain that since the publication of the Report of the Royal Commission over which the noble Lord who has just spoken presided, the policy which to some extent perhaps existed before of complete silence on the subject or of suppression, not exactly of the facts but suppression of discussion respecting them, is dead. Everybody must know that this subject is before the world. We have to discuss it, whether we like it or not, and we cannot from the daily Press or anywhere else fail to find that it is constantly forward.
But what I am anxious to make clear is that those on whose behalf I speak—if I am allowed to speak on behalf of any group—are quite as anxious as those whom the noble Lord represents that the whole facts should be known, and that no kind of concealment of the deliberate sort, or of any other kind that we can avoid, shall take place in the matter. The noble Lord went so far as to say that it was doubtful morality to suppress the truth. I quite agree with him. I do not want to suppress the truth, and I do not know who does. Nowadays—I do not say it was ever so—nobody does, and I agree with him that it would be unwise, possibly doubtful morality, to suppress it. More than that, we are all in agreement in our desire to prevent and combat this disease. They are really unworthy taunts which are brought against those who are represented by the noble Lord, Lord Sydenham, by some of those upon whom the noble Lord (Lord Willoughby de Broke) relied. Two of them I can quote. An article by Sir Archdall Reid said—

863
"Doctors as well as the general public are divided in opinion both as to whether it is right to prevent venereal diseases, and also as to the best means of doing so."
Are doctors divided as to whether it is wise to prevent venereal diseases? Can we find a member of the public that would take that view? I do protest against that kind of statement being made by such high authorities. And it is made in even blunter forms by some others to whom the noble Lord refers. The lady whose name he gave and who was written voluminously on the subject said—
"A section of the so-called 'religious' public is so benighted ethically that they actually desire to maintain venereal disease as a material hell into which to drop all offenders against their moral code."
This kind of argument might be treated with absolute contempt it its author had not been quoted to-night by the noble Lord as one upon whom he desires to rely as a guide in what we are to do in a subject of this kind. Nothing of the kind is said now by anybody who is worthy of being listened to, and I hope we shall not hear any more said as to its being necessary to meet an argument like that as if it existed now—the argument that it is desirable to maintain diseases in order that punishment should follow from an offence. There, I think, we are all in agreement.
The difficulty arises when the question comes as to the reliance or non-reliance on the self-disinfection about which the noble Lord has spoken so well and so clearly tonight. One school of thought in this matter relies—not infallibly but mainly—on personal disinfection, and desires to make universal provision for it. The other distrusts self-disinfection, and urges that the proper course is to advocate everywhere—in addition to advocating morality—cleanliness on the part of anyone, man or woman, who has subjected himself or herself to the possibility of infection, and then to obtain as early as possible treatment by those who can really give that treatment effectively. That is the difference which divides people. And in the distinction thus drawn you can find on either side of the line medical men of high authority. There is no doubt whatever that there are medical men of high authority who give support to the whole contention which the noble Lord has brought forward. We have testimony to that effect not by Sir Archdall
864
Reid only but by many others as well.
What I want to point out, and to put your Lordships on your guard against in studying this subject, is that those who are giving you statistics about what happened in regimental or barrack treatment in this matter skate lightly over this as if it were true with regard to the general public, and by a kind of sleight of hand—I do not think it was intentional on the part of the noble Lord, but, if it was intentional, it was exceedingly adroit—suddenly slip, as he did, from arguments and statistics which he was bringing out as regards barrack treatment under the careful supervision of Sir Archdall Reid to the application of that to the general public, of whom he speaks in the Notice which he has given, and to the steps given to instruct the general public in the matter. That is fraught with the greatest possible danger. Things which may be true with regard to men under discipline in barracks and elsewhere—though I distrust them there—may be absolutely untrue when you apply the same rule, or anything like the same rule, with regard to the general public. I distrust this system which is advocated. I distrust it for the disciplined forces, for the men in barracks or under military or naval discipline, but as regards the general public I not only distrust it but detest and abhor it. I believe it to be something prejudicial in the highest possible degree to public welfare and the public good.
The noble Lord and those who act with him use, as you would expect, careful, well chosen, and guarded language, and the blunt and brutal form in which the matter can express itself is not there, or is covered up by statements which are not susceptible of attack, because of the careful way in which they are formulated. But while the noble Lord and those who act with him avoid the blunter statement they do not, as far as I can see, avoid what it ultimately comes to in fact. We have the statements perfectly clearly, in plain facts. The lady whom the noble Lord referred to to-night says quite plainly (and this is a lady whom he has relied upon to-night for evidence) that every boy and girl in our parishes must be provided free with the outfit which will make them secure, and when you have done that all will be right "Go with clean people and you will be clean." That is the kind of treatment of

865
this subject, and I did not expect to hear the author quoted to us to-night. But if she is to be quoted let us understand what it means when it comes down to the plain English in which it will be used and understood up and down the country. The words which the noble Lord quoted—the kind of general words about early disinfection and self-disinfection—couched in that kind of language may not mean very much to very many of the public, but when you have it all in the form in which I have put it, quoted from this lady, we see what it means that we are being led to support, if we follow the line along which the noble Lord desires us to go.
The noble Lord has quoted the authority of the medical officer of health for one of our great boroughs as showing what is to be said in favour of the self-disinfecting process which he described. There are others not less entitled to weight, one or two of whom, after what he has said, I think I may be entitled to quote. The Medical Officer of Health for Birmingham says—
"In the first place, I am convinced that the only true prevention for civilians is sexual morality. The alternative which is suggested, of teaching the use of and supplying prophylactic outfits, will more surely destroy the family life of this nation than any other method you could advocate. To destroy the family is to destroy the nation. It was to similar methods that the glory of ancient Rome owed its eclipse."
I do not like repeating what was said on a former occasion, but the noble Lord rather tempts me that way as he has gone over again ground that he traversed before; therefore I do not think it is inappropriate to read what was said, which has never been withdrawn, by the high medical and military and naval authorities who dealt with this whole question with regard to the American troops when they were in this country. Colonel Snow, of the United States Army, said—
"In considering this matter in relation to the civil population, it seems to me, both from my experience in the Army and as a public health officer, that any measure which produces self-diagnosis and self-treatment, such as the 'prophylactic packet,' will militate against the early discovery and treatment of infected persons. In so far as the 'packet' has a bearing on the moral question, its official promulgation seems to me to favour increased sexual promiscuity."
I bring that forward because the noble Lord has, fairly and rightly, brought forward at any rate medical evidence of a weighty kind. There is a well-known passage, that I almost shrink from quoting again, which the American Navy Secretary
866
continued to circulate during the war as regards his views of the suggestions which have been put forward to-night. He said—
"The use of the packet I believe to be immoral; it savours of the panderer; and it is wicked to seem to encourage and approve placing in the hands of the men an appliance which will lead them to think they may indulge in practices which are not sanctioned by morality, military or civil law, with impunity, and the use of which would tend to subvert and destroy the very foundations of our moral and Christian beliefs and teachings with regard to these sexual matters."
These are strong words and I do not want necessarily to adopt them in their entirety, because I can imagine that something might be brought forward to qualify some of the evidence.
It would be sheer impertinence on my part to try and express a personal opinion on the medical and surgical aspect of this question, but at the same time I do not profess to be entirely ignorant about it. I have not only read about it, but I have spent trying hours in the hospitals seeing the actual processes so that I might be thoroughly conversant with what is happening. I am glad that such emphasis was laid by my noble friend on the weight attaching to what is said and done in this matter by the man to whom I believe we owe more in this respect than to anyone else—Colonel Harrison. He has been to the fore in the whole of this matter; he has worked at it, he has written and spoken about it, he has taught people on the subject, and to him, and to the careful and painstaking effort he has made to grapple with this subject, we owe more than words can say. Colonel Harrison is a prominent member of the Executive Committee of the Society for Combating Venereal Disease, the society which the noble Lord is opposing to-night. Colonel Harrison, with increasing certainty I think, is expressing himself in regard to this matter.
I do not know the date of the quotations used by the noble Lord, but a few months ago Colonel Harrison was a prominent member of the great Congress held at Newcastle where this, among other subjects, was discussed. There he said that he was opposed to the methods of prophylaxis by means of disinfectants for the use of the individual so far as they applied to the civil community. His reason was that the results would not justify the price to be paid. As for the results, it would be

867
conceded by every one that such methods would have a better chance of success in the Army, where men would be taught almost individually, and supervision generally must be closer than amongst civilians. Yet so far no general diminution of venereal incidence had occurred in the Army. The admission rate for all troops in the United Kingdom during the war had been approximately 38 per thousand per annum. It was the same to-day as it was before the introduction of prophylactic packets. The rate for English, Scottish and Irish troops was considerably lower than for Colonial troops, in spite of the fact that the prophylactic methods under discussion had been far less energetically pursued in the Imperial troops than among the Colonial. Probably the most energetic in this respect had been the Australians but their infection rate for troops in the United Kingdom was considerably higher at the end than at the beginning, when it had been 130 per 1,000 per annum. Those are the words of the Medical and Military authority to whom the noble Lord has specially referred and on whose authority he lays such stress. I think they are of first-rate importance when we are discussing the question of the difference between the two schools.
In that same speech Colonel Harrison points out the peril which would arise, from the use of the procedure which has been recommended to-night, as to the evasion of the Venereal Diseases Acts. Those Acts are intended to prevent the provision by quacks, or unskilled, or otherwise inappropriate people, of rough and ready remedies for venereal disease. Infinite mischief has come from that which these Acts try to prevent. Colonel Harrison points out in the next place that it is undoubtedly true that the public will use for curative purposes in that case what were not meant for curative purposes but what were issued for preventive purposes. It would be impossible to get people to distinguish between the two. He further says—
"The greatest factor in the reduction of venereal disease in the Army had been improvements in social conditions and encouragement of games; and the reduction was effected without recourse to any direct means of prophylaxis. The best hope of salvation now lies in the promptest possible treatment of venereal disease after its commencement."
I have troubled your Lordships with those quotations because Colonel Harrison is the gentleman on whom the noble Lord to a
868
large extent relies, and it is most important that the words of one who is such an expert, and to whom we all look for guidance, should be brought forward and dwelt upon on such an occasion as this.
The whole of that is summed up in Lord Astor's Report, which is given as the basis of the noble Lord's discussion and Motion to-night. I entirely agree with the desire that found expression that we should be furnished with the names of those who were Lord Astor's colleagues, and I hope that the noble Viscount when he speaks will be able to furnish us with the names of the medical authorities who, with Lord Astor, agreed in putting forward that Report. What the Report says is of the greatest possible importance, and I do not apologise for quoting a few sentences from it because the whole point of to-nights debate is involved. The Report says—
"The Committee desire me to point out that in their view many of those who wish the Government to utilise in peace time for the civil population methods which have been tried among the Forces in war have not sufficiently appreciated the fundamental differences between the two groups, or between the conditions of war and peace; nor have they been aware of the comparative failure of packets even in a disciplined force."
That is after taking all this evidence. Again—
"The civil authorities cannot command or control the general population, men and women, as officers can properly and legitimately control enlisted men."
Then a little later—
"That the issue of prophylactic packets tends to give rise to a false sense of security, and thus to encourage the taking of risks which would not be otherwise incurred, and the neglect of facilities for early treatment when available; and, in certain circumstances, might even increase the spread of disease."
Then—
"That the most carefully organised packet system, such as exists now in the Army (a system which would be unattainable in the civil community) has not produced such a general reduction in the incidence of venereal disease as to counteract the disadvantages mentioned in these conclusions.…The Committee set out to examine the evidence placed before them from the scientific and the medical point of view, and it is strictly in this spirit that they desire to record it as their opinion that the irreplaceable effect of the moral factor has been too frequently neglected or forgotten."
That is the result of the Committee's deliberations on the evidence taken before them. The Committee was appointed by His Majesty's Government to look into this

869
matter, and these quotations really conclude what I have to say. But the general issue is one of very great importance. I am quite sure that we under-rate the danger of arming men with supposed securities—of course, no one says absolute —against venereal disease, and arming them beforehand; and, still greater is the danger, if you make the same applicable, as has been suggested by the noble Lord, to young women. It is a quasi-encouragement of the gravest kind.
I do not want to rest that assertion upon opinions which come perhaps from a source which would be distrusted as coming from those whose special business it is to deal with ethical and moral questions. I much prefer to rest it on those whose primary duty is medical and surgical. Therefore I should like to quote from one of the foremost doctors dealing with this matter, Sir Malcolm Morris—
"If you provide a man with an outfit and assure him that it is a reliable safeguard against infection, do you not so far encourage him to the indulgence in which the outfit will come into play? You may accompany the outfit with an exhortation to practise continence. That is well. But which is the more likely to influence him, your words or your act? Do you not, by providing him with this safeguard, release him from the prudential restraint which might otherwise be effective?…It is a question of ethics. But it is much besides. It is a question of the effect that will be produced upon the mind of the man whom you prevail upon to accept the outfit and carry it about in his pocket ready for use at any moment. I submit that the mere possession of that outfit will tend to lessen his powers of resistance. He will not have had it in his pocket long before he will come to feel that he is a fool unless he indulges himself and brings it into use. No difference between prophylaxis and early preventive treatment! There is the difference between making it easy and not making it easy for a man to yield to temptation."
These are the words of a great medical authority who has given peculiar attention to the subject. He is an authority not only on the technical side, but also upon its bearings with regard to the general conduct and character of a man's life. I think the more closely this is looked into, and the more it is studied in the writings of those who have dealt with the matter in the largest way, the more will the conviction come to those who study it that we are liable to under-rate the moral effect of action which is supposed to make less the risk which at present exists. I do not admit that you do make it much less, but if you have to consider against that the greater number of persons whom you will
870
induce to run the risk—it is obvious that while a limited number of people are led to imagine that they are protected against the evil, at the same time a larger number of people are encouraged to subject themselves to the danger—you are defeating the very object you have in view.
If any one will refer to what has been said in the admirable work of Abraham Flexner in his "History of Prostitution," and look at the statistics from Copenhagen, Vienna, and Berlin, and see how he works them out and shows by actual charts and diagrams the way in which the extent of the moral wrong-doing varied with the increase of supposed facilities for the protection of the wrong-doer, he will be struck by finding how the man who produced this book with no other object than that of science, is led to the conclusion which I believe to be the right and true conclusion.
We have before us two different groups, to which the noble Lord has referred several times—the Society for Preventing Venereal Disease and the National Council for Combating Venereal Disease. Quotations have been made as if the medical authorities were chiefly on one side, but remember that the society which argues against the personal disinfection process and against the issue of packets, and in favour of the other process—I am speaking of the civil population and not of the technically military question, on which I have expressed my opinion before, but which concerns me less than that with regard to the general population—remember that the medical men on that side include the President of the Royal College of Physicians and the President of the Royal College of Surgeons, and such leading medical men as Sir Thomas Barlow, a former President, Col. Harrison, Sir Arthur Pearce Gould and many more who could be named.
It is trifling to say that medical opinion is on one side. It is not for me to try to balance the long list on one side against the list on the other, but I have given the names of great medical authorities to show that we do not speak lightly when we say that we quote medical authority on the side I recommend. I very earnestly hope that no countenance will be given by any action on the part of this House to the recommendations to which I have referred, given in guarded terms by the noble Lord and in less guarded and perhaps therefore

871
a more useful form by those who advocate them in a blunt and full way—that free access should be given to everybody to obtain for nothing that which is supposed to protect them from the evil which is there. There is a right and a wrong way of dealing with the matter. The National Council seeks for the support of His Majesty's Government and hopes to hear to-night that that support is being more strongly given. I hope that we are going to adopt the right and not the wrong way.
THE EARL OF CLAN WILLIAM: My Lords, my only excuse for intervening in this debate is the fact that during the war I had a certain amount of practical experience in preventing the spread of this disease. Before I say more, I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke, that I should like to support him in his request for Papers. I believe that anything that can be either said or done to prevent the spread of this appalling disease is worthy of the very serious consideration of the Government, and anything that can be done to secure that end should be done.
During the war I was attached to a Division, and it was one of my duties to collect evidence of cases of this disease and take what steps I could to prevent the disease spreading. As soon as a man was infected he was sent to me for interrogation and afterwards, accompanied by my French and English representatives, was sent to identify the woman. He then returned to me, was handed over to the medical authorities, and went to hospital to be treated and cured. The same thing happened to the woman. She was taken in charge by the French authorities and sent to hospital. In a very short time this reduced the number of cases of disease in that Division. As I was there for a considerable period I was able to take stock of the measures taken to prevent a spread of the disease, and I found there was no question but what this method was extremely effective. We found considerable difficulty in the cases of houses licensed by the Government, and there, although the women were supposed to be medically examined at frequent intervals, owing to certain reasons identification was not practicable. For that reason I would never advocate the existence of such houses in this country.
One other matter is worthy of note in this debate. The greatest difficulty I, or
872
any one in my position, had to contend with was the case of a man who had been at home on leave. The man went home and some of them, not all of them, came back infected, and it was absolutely impossible to carry out any identification. They returned to France or Belgium on leave, and it was some time before the medical authorities knew they were infected. During all that time they were going about spreading the disease. I do not wish to say anything more about that. Your Lordships will see the moral of it. It was our greatest difficulty and one we could not contend against. I have seen such a lot of this appalling disease that anything which can be done to prevent it will receive my hearty support. I shall support the Motion of the noble Lord.
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, the noble Lord who introduced this discussion deserves the thanks of the House for the manner in which he dealt with it. We all recognise his most earnest desire to deal with this subject and to do what is possible to combat it. I am in great sympathy with him, and perhaps he will therefore forgive me if I criticise just a little some of the things he said. The noble Lord advocated as the measure beyond all measures, superior to all, the one which should be made known to the public generally as the thing for dealing with venereal disease—early self-disinfection. In his Question on the Paper he asks the Ministry of Health what steps they are taking to instruct the public in the proper application of immediate self-disinfection at the time of exposure to infection. It seemed to me his enthusiasm was a little like that of people who think they have suddenly discovered a specific which has never been heard of before and which can be relied upon to remove all the evils if it is adopted.
In a matter of this kind considerable caution is required before you can be sure you really have a specific and certain remedy. I gathered from the criticisms of Lord Sydenham that, although medical opinion admits apparently that immediate self-disinfection, properly applied, is almost practically a certain preventive, there is still a very great difference of opinion as to whether in the case of the ordinary public there is a reasonable chance that it will be properly applied so as to be effective. It is obvious these are medical questions which must be settled by experience,

873
statistics, and doctors, and upon which your Lordships cannot express an opinion.
If these questions are still in dispute as is perfectly obvious they are, and if there is a great deal of doubt about it, is it wise and safe to recommend to the public this method as being perfectly certain and perfectly safe? Are you not really running very considerable risk? Lord Sydenham uttered a word of caution which I should like to endorse. The noble Lord read one of the advertisements and notices to the public which said, "This is the only way to safety." That does seem to me to be rather a dangerous statement to put forward to the ordinary ignorant layman and one which is likely to lead him into a sense of false security. It is probable that that which is merely a disinfectant may also be used as a curative treatment. I think caution is perhaps a little required in a matter of this sort, and a more considerable measure of medical agreement than we have at the moment before you give official advice to the whole community.
The most rev. Primate dealt with a question which is of obvious importance; the effect of this sort of thing on the morals of the community, and he read a sentence, which rather surprised me, from the report of a lady doctor which in terms said that these things were to be taught to every boy and girl. You would in effect have a licence for prostitution, almost an invitation to promiscuous intercourse. That of course from the moral point of view is not in the least desirable, and you are faced there, and the most rev. Primate himself is I am sure prepared to face the position fairly, with the difficulty which is always apt to arise in matters of this sort. You have a widespread scourge which you know is enormously widespread; you know that the populace as a whole is not continent, and that this disease is rampant, and you always have the difficulty of drawing the line as between telling as many people as is necessary and telling too many. If you are really to be effective you must tell the innocent. If you tell those who are already infected, you are rather too late.
On the whole I think we have come to the conclusion, and the most rev. Primate seems to support the view, that perfect frankness and openness and instruction in these matters is better than concealment, but that instruction ought to be under some safeguard and certainly ought not to be given unless you are sure it is the
874
right instruction, and that you are making no mistake in giving it. Less indeed than the most rev. Primate himself can I profess to know of the medical questions involved, but it seems to me a matter which is for experts to decide. It has undoubtedly two branches. One, purely scientific and medical, and the other a question of morals. The question of what is the proper or best treatment does not enter into the question of morals. You must first ascertain what is the proper treatment and the application of that knowledge is not involved in questions of morals, on which we can all have different opinions. I am entirely inclined to support the noble Lord's campaign, but I think it wants caution in its administration.
LORD MUIR MACKENZIE: My Lords, I rise only because, as has been already mentioned, I was Chairman of the Joint Committee of both Houses which dealt, now a year ago, with the Sexual Offences Bill and the Criminal Law Amendment Bill introduced into this House. I do not desire to give any opinion upon the merits or otherwise of the prophylaxis which is recommended by the noble Lord who opened this debate. I am not competent to give any opinion upon the subject and it did not come before the Joint Committee in any way, and therefore I have had no opportunity of dealing with that side of the subject. I only wish to say this. I cannot at present get over my own feeling of repugnance towards the sort of presumption that fornication is to take place, which seems to be involved in presenting people with these packets; nor can I get over the repugnance which I feel towards the idea that everybody, even the youngest, is to have instruction and suggestion in this direction. It was not to deal with that subject that I got up. It was that I think this is a fair opportunity for asking the Government, or the representative of the Ministry of Health in this House, whether all the labours of that Joint Committee, which worked for a long time and with great assiduity, at the end of last session, are to be thrown away or whether the Ministry of Health propose to take any action upon this subject.
VISCOUNT SANDHURST: My Lords, with regard to the last sentence which fell from my noble and learned friend, of course he will readily understand that I am not in a position to give information

875
one way or the other as to the future course in regard to that Committee, which was set up in reference to two particular Bills. I will, however, mention the matter to the Minister of Health, and probably take an opportunity of informing my noble and learned friend privately.
I should like to join with others who have once again remarked in what a fitting manner my noble friend Lord Willoughby de Broke introduced this subject. We all recognise my noble friend's singleness of purpose and his enthusiasm in pressing the cause which he thinks may be so useful to his fellow countrymen. It makes me regret all the more that I do not see eye to eye with him. I was also very glad to hear the experience of the noble and gallant Lord who has served his country so well in France. This debate, of course, bears a very close family resemblance to the debate which we had in April, and I shall, you will be glad to hear, not have to detain you very long at this hour, because really the speech of the most rev. Primate was of such a character that I think I might almost have left the question in his hands although, of course, my noble friend will expect me to say something on behalf of the Government.
It was suggested by my noble friend on the cross benches, and also by the most rev. Primate that it might be for the convenience of the House and of the public if they knew the names of the Committee who sat under the Chairmanship of Lord Astor. Noble Lords will understand that there is no mystery about it. I shall be very glad to give the names, and to give them at once, to the most rev. Primate and to the House. I may remind your Lordships that this Committee, as I think has already been stated in this House and in the Commons, was a Departmental Committee appointed by the Minister of Health to inquire at the time of demobilisation into a number of parasitical and infectious diseases, such as malaria and venereal disease, and to take evidence from expert and other witnesses and to report. The case of both sides in this controversy was fully represented before the Committee, and perhaps noble Lords would like to hear the reference to the Committee. It was "To consider the possible risks of introduction of infectious and parasitical conditions into the country in the course of demobilisation from the
876
various fronts, and to make recommendations for the purpose of securing close and effective co-operation in administrative measures for dealing with these conditions on the naval and military (including the Air Service) and the civil side."
The members of the Committee were Viscount Astor, Chairman; Major W. C. Smales, D.S.O., M.R.C.S. (War Office); Colonel L. W. Harrison, D.S.O., K.H.P., M.B. (War Office); Surgeon-Captain D. J. McNabb, C.B., R.N., M.R.C.S. (Admiralty); Lieut.-Colonel H. F. Horne, R.A.F., M.D., (Air Force); Dr. G. S. Buchanan, C.B., M.D. (Ministry of Health); Dr. F. J. H. Coutts, M.D. (Ministry of Health); Colonel A. L. A. Webb, C.B., C.M.G., M.R.C.S. (Ministry of Pensions); Mr. J. Smith Whitaker, M.R.C.S. (Insurance); and Sir Leslie Mackenzie, M.D., LL.D. (Local Government Board for Scotland).
I should like to mention once more the name of Colonel Harrison, who has been referred to in the course of this debate. The noble Lord quoted from a lecture which was given by him, and which was also referred to by the most rev. Primate. Colonel Harrison advised in favour of the self-disinfection system in October, 1918, judging from the figures which he had then been given of the results of skilled disinfection in the American Navy, and from some Australian statements, but at a later date he had an opportunity of seeing and watching the figures of our Army, showing the rates of the disease after the disinfection policy had been for some time disseminated and to an increasing degree in operation. It was his discovery that such large numbers of soldiers still caught the disease, in spite of the prevalence of the new system, which caused Colonel Harrison to realise that the efficacy of self-disinfection was much lower than he had expected in October, 1918, it would be, and made him realise that for the civil population it would be still less efficacious, and that such good as might be gained would involve other things whose disadvantage would far outweigh the good.
In dealing with this subject so soon after it was dealt with in April, it seems almost impossible to avoid appearing to repeat one or two of the things which I said on that occasion, but I shall do so as little as possible. I would, however, point out that this cleansing is, of course, only one item in a propaganda which has been put forward by a society which has been subsidised

877
for that purpose. The other items in the propaganda have already been referred to, and I do not think that I need refer to them again. In regard to some of the figures to which my noble friend refers—and I hope to be able to meet him by giving the Papers and figures he requires—it has been frankly asserted by such gentlemen as Sir Archdall Reid that if only the civil population were instructed to use proper disinfecting drugs such as permanganate of potassium immediately after exposure to infection, and if outfits for this purpose were made generally available, the risk of venereal disease would be avoided, and that if this policy were made general by the Government the disease would before long disappear. But careful investigation has conclusively shown that even amongst the military, where disciplinary arrangements can be resorted to and instruction can definitely be given, there are found amongst soldiers in venereal disease hospitals substantial numbers of men who state categorically that they used permanganate of potassium within a few minutes after exposure. It is thus clear that even in circumstances specially favourable to instruction and to the method proposed, the risk of venereal disease is by no means certainly avoided; for even in those conditions a certain number of cases occur. How much more then would this be the case, and how far removed should we still be from secured immunity with the civil population, in respect of whom the arrangements as to instruction and discipline adopted for the military would obviously be quite impossible?
As to the Portsmouth position, which was, I think, specially mentioned by my noble friend, the information received as to the number of soldiers admitted to hospital for venereal disease per thousand of the total military strength in the United Kingdom and in the Portsmouth military area, respectively, shows that the incidence of venereal disease amongst the military in the Portsmouth area from 1912 to 1914 was approximately one and a-half times greater than that amongst the military throughout the United Kingdom. In the years from 1916 to 1918, the rates for the Portsmouth area were approximately twice those of the United Kingdom; and in the current year, 1919, the rate in the Portsmouth area has been two and a-half times that of the United Kingdom. I believe that I am right in saying that in the years 1918 and 1919 the policy advocated by
878
Sir Archdall Reid was at its height in that area.
In regard to the statements by Colonel Harrison, it is admitted that skilled disinfection very shortly after intercourse will usually prevent venereal disease, but inquiries at military hospitals show that this is by no means the case when the disinfectant is applied by the man himself, and this even when he has been in a military unit under military discipline, and has been furnished with the usual lectures and posters together with personal instruction. Thus in the venereal hospitals where this matter had been carefully investigated 7·3 per cent. of the patients stated that they had swabbed themselves with permanganate of potassium solution within ten minutes after exposure. A further 36 per cent. had similarly, that is within ten minutes, used calomel ointment, and a further 1·5 per cent. had used both calomel and permanganate. Thus, in these two hospitals there were 12·4 per cent. of the venereal patients who stated that they had disinfected themselves with the drugs advised, within ten minutes after exposure. In another military hospital, 11·2 per cent. of the patients stated that they had themselves used permanganate, or calomel, or both, within five minutes after exposure.
It may be noted that these inquiries show a further and different point—namely, that the clear instructions of the medical officers on early treatment had in a large proportion of the cases either not been observed at all or had been followed in the most diverse ways. From this it is seen that, to be effective, instruction must be given much more clearly and insistently than has yet been accomplished in the Army, even by the lectures, posters and personal instructions given freely in many units.
It has been suggested that instruction in that degree of detail and thoroughness should be given to the civil population. I venture to say that instruction in that degree of detail in regard to the civil population is a practical impossibility. As to what can be recommended by the Minister of Health I may say this. Bearing in mind that if the Ministry recommended any specific disinfectant it would be necessary to issue formal advice as to its use, and that this advice, and also a regular supply of the particular drug, would have to be made available through the usual

879
channels—with all the risk of misuse and of creating a false sense of security—the Minister is not prepared in the present position of the evidence to authorise a recommendation of any drug for these purposes. He would, however, be prepared to sanction the issue of advice in some such form as the following: "Those who have exposed themselves to infection are hereby advised that they have incurred grave risk of venereal disease. Persons who have incurred such risk of infection will certainly diminish that risk, to some extent at least, by effectively cleansing themselves immediately. They are further advised to watch carefully for several weeks for the first signs of disease, and to seek medical advice at a clinic or elsewhere immediately such signs appear."
I believe that what I am about to say has been referred to already, but perhaps your Lordships will pardon me if I repeat what has been well said. It has been said that there is this danger, that the preventive might be used in place of a curative, and that if a preventive is used it might tend, as I think was pointed out from the Cross Benches, to drive the disease deeper and deeper into the system. The use of these things by self-application might tend to prevent men from seeking proper treatment, and by the use of them the impression would prevail, as the right reverend Primate pointed out, that risks might be taken with impunity, thereby increasing promiscuity. On these grounds the Minister, seeing the doubtful results in the case of men under discipline, did not think it right to go further than I stated a moment ago, and I am bound to say that, having read a great deal about this matter officially and otherwise, especially in regard to the use and misuse of disinfectants owing to carelessness and want of knowledge on the part of individuals, the Minister has put himself in an impregnable position in not going further than he has.
My noble friend Moved for certain Papers. The Papers he moves for are those giving information as to the early incidence of venereal disease in the Portsmouth area as compared with the rest of England, Colonel Keble's Report, and the Hilsea, Hospital records. I understand that the War Office has no official reports from Colonel Keble, but in regard to the figures, and the Hospital records that my noble friend desires, I shall be able to place on the Table the Memorandum with those
880
figures, and they will also have side by side with them the necessary statistical explanations, without which in either direction such figures might be misleading. I hope I have been able to give the information desired, though the debate developed in such a way that speeches were made which really-answered the questions on my behalf.
LORD RANKSBOROUGH: My Lords, I am much disappointed that there has been nothing in this important debate on the subject of notification. It has all been prophylactics and things of that sort, and it seems to me that we are at the wrong end of the problem. I was three years at Cambridge, and I have spent my life among soldiers, and my experience is that the chief agent for keeping a man clean has been the fear of consequences. Of course, there are many men who rise above that level, but it has been the athlete's and the sportsman's fear of the consequences that has been the chief motive. We should not diminish that fear. I think we should endeavour to increase it and if possible to make it into a terror. The only way to do that is by publicity, that is, the notification to some public body, in the same way as is done with other contagious diseases.
I am aware of the arguments against it—the stigma, and the difficulty with doctors, and the danger of driving it underground. But it has been underground ever since I can remember, and the question is—Do we intend to kill this invisible demon? If we do we shall not succeed by stroking its back in the dark. By all means have the best advice as to precautions for those who may require it, but let them be under no delusion as to what will happen if these gruesome safeguards fail. I am convinced that if we are going to tackle this scourge and destroy it we can only do it by the daylight of notification.
LORD WILLOUGHBY DE BROKE: My Lords, my friends and I have thought a great deal about this question of notification, and I have given some attention to it myself. It is too late to go into the whole subject of notification to-night. There are very serious pitfalls about notification, and I should say that you are much more likely to be able to insist on notification of venereal disease after you have provided the means of preventing it. When you have found out whether somebody has or has not used the means of prevention, then I

881
should think that the State would be in a much stronger position with regard to notification. But in the present state of public opinion my view is that anything like public notification would not stand a chance of being carried in this country, and the most we could hope for at present would be some form of anonymous notification. But it is, nevertheless, a very important aspect of the prevention of venereal disease, and we are not losing sight of it. I shall take what the noble Viscount said as equivalent to accepting my Motion for Papers.
VISCOUNT SANDHURST: I said I would give my noble friend the Papers and figures, except Colonel Keble's Report, which we have not got.
Lord WILLOUGHBY DE BROKE: Therefore I shall not put the House to the trouble of a Division. But I think it is unfortunate that we have not proceeded further in combating venereal disease than a promise from the Minister of Health of a certain amount of soap and water. We do not seem to have made very great strides in any direction, and the noble Viscount in his courteous and well-considered reply did not say much about these early treatment centres. Has that been abandoned as part of the policy of disinfection, or what has happened to it? Some stress during this debate has been laid on ablution rooms where it is properly carried out by a skilful attendant. Are we to understand that the policy of the Government now with regard to disinfection of any kind before the symptoms have declared themselves is merely soap and water? I do not quite follow the Government policy about this. The most rev. Primate, who was extremely kind to me in his reply, as he always is, was rather annoyed at me for quoting Miss Ettie Rout, and he gave me to understand that she was not the kind of witness that I ought to bring forward on my side. In answer to that I should like to remind him that I have only quoted facts, and did not quote anybody's opinion except Colonel Harrison's. I regret that since April last when we brought forward this matter the Government have taken no further steps to deal with this question. Still, this is going to occupy a considerable portion of public controversy, and I dare say we shall hear a good deal more about it.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

SCOTTISH EDUCATION ASSESSMENTS.
LORD LAMINGTON LORD LAMINGTON asked His Majesty's Government whether representations from any parish councils in Scotland in protest of the heavy assessments under the Education (Scotland) Act, 1918, have been received; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am sorry at this late hour to detain your Lordships, but I have put the Question to-night and do not postpone it again because the action referred to in my Motion is in connection with a parish council which has just ceased to exist, and as it may be rather convenient for the new parish council to know what is the reply of the Government with regard to the matter I bring before your Lordships' notice. I may say that the assessment under the Scottish Education Act has caused a great deal of resentment certainly in my part of Scotland, and, I gather from the newspapers, in other parts also; hence I want to know how widespread this resentment is entertained throughout Scotland. As chairman of my parish council it came as a most startling surprise to me when a demand note was presented for an increase of about 800 per cent. on our old assessment. Up to now our School Board has cost about £240 a year, but under the new demand note it will be £1,797. That is rather larger than in many other parishes, but a 600 per cent. increase is not uncommon, as I can show from a statement which has been furnished to me. It is not only the enormous increase but the inequality of the increase which has caused so much criticism in Scotland. In one parish the rate has gone up by only ½id., while in the adjoining parish it has gone up from 1s. 3d. to 2s. 4d. In many parishes the rate has gone up only 33⅓ per cent., but in most of the rural parishes it has gone up from 600 to 800 per cent. The money levied is not to be spent in the parishes but by the Education authority for the whole of the country. The only money that is going to be spent in the parish itself would be for an increase in the teacher's salary and for the production of free books and stationery; all the rest will go to the big centres where the secondary schools are established. In a statement made the other day by the chairman of the education authority for Lanarkshire he stated that the object of this Act was to allow of the rural population obtaining greater facilities for education; and he also referred to the fact that in the past they had often

883
been crippled by the penuriousness of their School Boards. Apparently that is the sole justification for this Act. The people in Scotland are most ignorant of, or at any rate did not realise, what would be the consequences of this Act. I should like to hear the reply of the noble Lord before I make any further remarks.
LORD STANMORE: My Lords, I may say, in reply to the noble Lord's Question, that the Scottish Education Department has received a considerable number of representations from individual parish councils and from conferences of parish councils in protest of the heavy assessments upon their parishes under this Act. These protests, however, are from a minority of the whole body of parish councils and fall roughly into two classes—namely, those from parishes in the Highland counties, which are numerous; and more or less isolated representations from the parish councils of agricultural parishes in the Lowlands, with high or moderately high valuations, who find themselves merged under the Act of 1918 in a populous education area of a predominantly industrial character. As to the Highland parishes it is found on examination that, generally speaking, the protesting parishes were already highly rated; that the assessment has been steeply increased in the present year, and that they had heavy debit balances at the close of the financial year ending 1919, for which under the Act they had to rate specially this year in addition to the common rate on the education area which they had to pay as well as other parishes in the area; and that this year they had been deprived for the time being of certain special grants which they had enjoyed under the former rêgime.
With education areas of this character—the remark applies to the education areas as a whole rather than to individual parishes—the Department have the greatest possible sympathy. In point of fact, the Secretary for Scotland has just announced his intention of laying a Minute to-morrow to provide for the payment of grants to certain Highland counties of a higher proportion of their approved expenditure than is normal, and I trust that this, if approved by Parliament, will do something to remedy the grievance of which complaint is made. With the Lowland parishes it is quite otherwise. Generally speaking, under the former system they were not highly rated. On the contrary,
884
in many of them the rates were abnormally low, partly because of their relatively high valuation and partly because of the economies shown in providing educational facilities. Generally speaking also, they have no debts, or debts of relatively small amounts. What has happened is this. These parishes have been merged in a larger rating area and have to take their share, according to valuation, of the common burden. Of course there is here a prima facie grievance. There is apt to be a grievance whenever one has to pay rates for a purpose which benefits one's neighbours more than oneself, but that is a defect inherent in any system of general rating.
If rating is admitted at all (as it must be), the only question is what is the most suitable unit. In the matter of education, at all events, and in the interests of future educational developments, a county unit is preferable to a parish (or burgh) unit. One consequence of the substitution of the county for the parish as the unit of rating is the approximate equalisation of rates throughout the larger area. This equalisation may be disguised by the nominal difference of rates as between parishes owing to the different system of deductions obtaining in different parishes. A sum is demanded from each parish according to its gross valuation. That sum may be collected according to the particular system of rating obtaining in the parish. The broad result is that, assuming the total sum to be raised from rates for education in the county area had remained the same as under the School Board system, the rates of some parishes would have gone up and those of others would have been diminished so as to produce an approximately uniform levy of rates throughout the county on a basis of gross valuation. This equalisation of rates throughout the county is one cause, and an important cause, of the in crease of assessment complained of by certain parish councils, being, generally speaking, those whose valuation was relatively high and their expenditure under the former system low.
To take Lanarkshire, for instance, I see that Lamington was rated at slightly over 4½d., while Dalziel's education rate was 3s. 2d. In Dumbartonshire, the rate for Old Kilpatrick was 3s. 0½d. while for Dumbarton (Landward) it was only 1¾ d. This substitution of the county for the parish as the administrative and rating

885
unit for education is a foundation principle of the Act and cannot be departed from; but there is no doubt that its general application, particularly in the case of sparsely populated agricultural or pastoral parishes merged in a unit mainly industrial in character, constitutes a grievance amounting in certain cases to hardship. Such cases are engaging the attention of the Department with a view, if possible, to devising some suitable form of relief. But the material for any complete examination of the position is not yet available. Returns have been asked for from each Education Authority which would supply the necessary information, but, though reminders have been sent, these returns from many authorities are still outstanding.
I am glad to add that the Secretary for Scotland had just announced his intention of making payment this year of what are known as "accrued" grants. A Minute to that end will be laid to-morrow, and, if approved by Parliament, the effect will be that all parish councils, including those just referred to, will be credited with considerable sums which will go some way to meet the grievances complained of, for this year at least. But the equalisation of rates is only one cause of the increase of assessment in certain parishes, for there has been added, not only in these parishes but to all education authorities, an increase of assessment due to certain improvements in education which the Act contemplated as necessary or desirable.
Foremost amongst these, and the necessary foundation for all further educational development, is the adequate remuneration of teachers. The grounds for this increase are twofold—the inadequacy of the present remuneration of large classes of existing teachers to provide a living wage, still less to provide them with the books and opportunities for further study which are essential to success in their profession; and—the second ground is even more important—the absolute necessity of attracting to the profession a larger supply of well-educated men and women in the future. The number of entrants to the profession has been dwindling in recent years, and unless a successful attempt is made to attract suitable recruits to the profession with the certain prospect of adequate remuneration in comparison with other competing professions and occupations, there is great danger of many schools, even as they stand, becoming derelict or
886
of being left to the tender mercies of a lower class of teacher of imperfect educational attainments. But there is an item of an immediate increase of expense which must not be overlooked. One-seventh of the whole school population of Scotland have hitherto been taught in denominational schools.
LORD LAMINGTON: One-seventh?
LORD STANMORE: One-seventh. Apart from Government grants they have hitherto been maintained solely at the expense of the denomination to which they belong, and, from poverty of resources, both the school premises, generally speaking, and the salaries which the managers could offer teachers were much below the level of those of the public authorities. These schools are now, for the most part, transferred to the new authorities, and a great deal of money will have to be spent to bring up these schools to the general level of the others as regards all-round efficiency.
There are other increases of expenditure, more or less of a voluntary nature, which in the circumstances of certain districts seem almost inevitable. There is the question of free books and stationery, referred to by the noble Lord, which has hitherto been given by certain school boards in the district under the Act of 1908. It is difficult for the authority of any such district to continue the practice in the schools in which it was formerly in use by the school boards, and refuse it to others. Lastly, there is the requirement of Section 6 of the Act for an adequate provision of all forms of education, including secondary, without payment of fees, and in certain districts this may also lead to an increase in the cost of education.
For these various reasons the budgets of education authorities are very much swollen, compared with the total expenditure on education of the previous year. No doubt most, if not all, of this expenditure is really necessary under the terms of the Act. But the budgets were prepared in circumstances which made an accurate estimate of the expenditure in most cases very difficult. There are also marked differences in the proportion of increase which is considered necessary by different authorities. In view of these circumstances, it is hoped that, by a careful scrutiny of the various items, the amounts under some heads may be found to be in excess of what is actually required.
Lord LAMINGTON: My Lords, I beg to thank the noble Lord for his considerate answer. He practically infers that the accrued grant is going to be paid over to the school committees. I am afraid, as regards my own parish, it will only be £80, which will not go very far to meet £1,797. However, it is something. I hope it may be larger in the case of other parishes. The noble Lord referred to the fact that all these improvements in the education system have been for the benefit of agricultural parishes; which must take a share in the general ratings. It is a distinct hardship that, whereas in Lanarkshire generally the average works out at £9 per head as the cost of this education, in Lamington—an extreme case—it comes out to £40. We know that the question of rating is a very big one, and we cannot deal with it on an occasion like this, but the hardship remains that, whereas the general average is £9, in certain parishes it is £40 or £45 per child, and this money has to be found in the locality.
While the Act is supposed to be for the benefit of the rural population an extreme animosity against the Act comes from the rural population. I have not met a single person who is not indignant, who does not say he fears the Act, and did not know it was going to be passed. These people did not want the Act. The noble Lord has said that the increase this year is for the pay of salaries and teachers, which I believe to be a most necessary object indeed. And he said that it was very largely the case of the denominational teachers who had been underpaid up to now. That means a tremendous benefit to the Roman Catholic community, who are the only people who have voluntary schools, except, I think, the Episcopal Church, which has one or two. Practically, the Roman Catholics will benefit by the enormous increase of the education assessment.
I rather gather from the noble Lord that the authorities will look into the matter to see if they cannot give some redress. If they do not, I think this is only a forecast of what is coming in succeeding years, when there are going to be secondary schools and continuation schools, and I am told on a reliable authority that we can expect the rates to go up to 8s. in the £ for education alone. That will simply cripple us altogether—certainly, the unfortunate landlords in Scotland who pay half
888
the rates, unlike those in England. I am grateful for the answer, but the Government will realise that the Act has caused hostility among all sections of the population. I can truthfully say that it has done so among all those I have met in any part of Scotland.

COUNTY COURTS BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day read for the consideration of the Commons Amendments.
COMMONS AMENDMENTS.
Clause 22, page 10, line 14, after subsection (2) insert the following new subsection:
("(3) The list of persons qualified and liable to serve as jurors in a court shall not be delivered by the sheriff or high bailiff to the registrar of the court unless and until a demand is made by the registrar in that behalf.")
Clause 26, page 11, line 37, at end insert:
("Provided that where the principal value of the estate of the dependant so dying exceeds one hundred pounds, any sum paid under this section without probate or letters of administration shall be liable to estate duty as part of the amount on which that duty is charged, and the county court shall, before making any such payment, require a statutory declaration by the claimant, or by one of the claimants, that the principal value of the estate, including the sum in question, does not, after deduction of debts and funeral expenses, exceed the value of one hundred pounds, or the production of a letter or certificate from the Commissioners of Inland Revenue stating either that all duties payable in respect of the sum in question have been paid, or that no duty thereon is payable.")
Clause 27, page 12, line 18, leave out ("January") and insert ("April").
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: In moving that these Amendments be considered, I may tell your Lordships that they are purely formal.
Moved, That these Amendments be now considered.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

NURSES REGISTRATION (IRELAND) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.
ISLE OF MAN (CUSTOMS) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.
NURSES REGISTRATION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.
PRIVATE BILLS.
[From Minutes of December 9.]

GLASGOW CORPORATION WATER ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899), deemed to have been read 2a
890
(The Lord Stanmore), and reported from the Committee.

GREENOCK IMPROVEMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.

A FRIDAY SITTING.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: My Lords, in moving that the House do now adjourn, I beg to give notice that it is proposed, for the general convenience of your Lordships, to meet at three o'clock on Friday afternoon to continue and conclude the debate which will be opened to-morrow on the Second Reading of the Government of India Bill.
House adjourned at eight o'clock.