Lords Sitting of 27 October 1921

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

BETTING BY CHEQUE.
LORD MUIR MACKENZIE: My Lords, I beg to ask the Lord Chancellor a question of which I have given him private notice. It is, Whether the attention of the Government has been called to the decision of this House in the case of Sutters against Briggs relating to the payment of debts, and to the very serious inconvenience arising from the state of the law as disclosed in the decision, having regard to the many payments made in good faith and in the belief that payments by cheque were good?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT BIRKENHEAD): My Lords, the noble and learned Lord has been good enough to acquaint me with his intention of putting the question which he has just read to the House. The Government is certainly well aware, and I not less vividly than my colleagues, of the terms and effect of the Judgment in question. The noble and learned Lord quite properly addressed his Question to me as a Minister, and I would say in that capacity, and putting myself as far as I can in the position of the noble Lords who tried the case, that the matter is really not quite so technical as its presentation in legal language makes it appear, and if it interests your Lordships at all, before I answer the specific question contained in the interrogatory I could, I think, put the matter with reasonable simplicity.
In the year 1835 it was the law of this country that a man who lost a bet and paid the amount of his loss, whether he paid it in cash or Bank of England notes or by cheque, could recover it. There was no such distinction in the year 1835 as has been commented upon by many who have not very clearly understood the history of the matter in more recent days. It was the policy, not, give me leave to observe, of lawyers—because it has been imputed to some supposed inveterate objection to betting, of which I have not become aware, entertained by the legal profession—it was

83
on the contrary, the expressed policy of Parliament at the date with which I am dealing, and it sprang from the old antagonism, inherent, it may be, in our English character, between our public conscience and our private tastes, the effects of which have sometimes been visible in other fields. But at least there was no such inconsistency in the method in which this law, whether it was good or whether it was bad, operated.
In the year 1835 an Act of Parliament was passed which dealt with a great variety of topics, and, amongst others, with certain aspects of our Gaming Law, and in the course of the changes, not material to be recounted here, which it made it introduced some changes in the legal position of notes and bills, and, having introduced those changes, it occurred to those who drafted the Bill that unless they made it quite plain, it might be supposed that a man who paid a betting loss by cheque could recover it, and inasmuch as at that period if he paid in money he could not recover it, it would, of course, have been absurd to allow him to recover if he paid by cheque. Therefore, Section 2 of the Gaming Act, 1835, provided in express terms that if you paid your betting loss by cheque, you would not be able to recover, in order that beyond all mistake the law relating to cheques should correspond with the law relating to money.
Ten years later it was realised that if a man chose to pay his debt in money it really was not the concern of the Legislature to prevent him, and an Act of Parliament was passed which gave effect to that realisation. But quite evidently it escaped the notice of those who passed this Act that in the Gaming Act, 1835 (which, as I have said, dealt with a variety of topics) there was contained a section which expressly provided that, if a gaming debt was paid by cheque, the payer could recover it, and it is to that circumstance that is to be referred the difference which has been the subject of a good deal of uninstructed comment recently. Now, whoever is responsible for that, it ought not, I think and indeed it could not, be put upon any Judges. Your Lordships know well enough the circumstances under which, in this House, we discharge judicial functions. We are there to state what the law is. Your Lordships have never authorised us, nor has the House of Commons authorised us, when we see, as we think, opportunities of improving the law, to convert ourselves
84
at any moment we may select into a legislative body; and it seems to me extremely unlikely that either this House or the House of Commons will ask us to undertake such functions in the future.
It has been suggested in many quarters, and the question invites me to consider the matter, that there will be grave dislocation of the business of many people. That undoubtedly will be so. Let me make plain the nature and extent of that dislocation. It means that, within the period of the Statute of Limitations, any person who has lost money by betting under the defined circumstances and has paid his loss by cheque, can recover from the person to whom he has paid it, and I have no doubt that many cases could be found in which persons who have discharged a representative function may find themselves under a legal compulsion to prosecute such claims. The inconvenience of that is manifest, and it is not, to those who suffer, rendered more tolerable by the fact—it undoubtedly is a fact—that the section under consideration had escaped the attention of most of those concerned for a very long period of years.
Your Lordships know that the Government, during the present sittings of Parliament, are under very definite undertakings that they will not introduce any legislation which departs from certain limits quite clearly explained. I do not even know whether my colleagues as a body would agree to a measure which was intended to remedy the difficulties which have presented themselves. Certainly I should myself be in favour of it, whether you approach this question from the point of view of the person who sees no particular harm in gambling, or whether you approach it from the opposed attitude of those who have a strong moral objection to gambling. In either case, it would not appear that any great public interest is served by persons who obviously did not share the moral objection to betting, who have taken their chance of winning, who have lost and who have paid, being unexpectedly enabled to recover the money which they have so paid.
I cannot, I confess, see that any moral purpose would be gained by perpetuating this system. I confess that, speaking again entirely for myself, I have never particularly shared the objection to any person who chose, and could afford to do so, making a bet if he so desired; and certainly, though I do not pretend to deal

85
very much in these matters myself, if I wished make a bet, I should conceive myself perfectly at liberty to do so. Indeed, looking back over our national history, there were times not very far removed from our own in which statesmen of the utmost distinction and responsibility—and I may even recall, so that it may be plain that I do not stand alone, even illustrious predecessors of my own—were, I will not say in the habit of settling disputes or testing differences of opinion in this way, but certainly did so on occasion.
It is quite true, also, that the whole law of gaming in this country is in an extremely illogical and unsatisfactory condition. I can perfectly well see how it could be made simple and intelligible, and yet, I think, not tending to encourage gambling. I can perfectly well see how it could be done; but whet her any political Party or whether Parliament would be in the least likely to give me the power so to deal with it, I do not pretend to know. For the reasons that I have indicated, it is impossible, even if they were willing—and I do not know whether they would be willing—for the Government to deal with it, but if the noble and learned Lord who takes an interest in the matter cares to test the feeling of Parliament—if he cares, in other words, to discover whether, even under the conditions under which we assemble in both Houses to-day, there is a general sense that this is an irrational dislocation of all that was treated as existing and binding—it is of course quite within his power (and it can be done in a single clause) to test the feeling of Parliament by introducing such a measure and discovering whether your Lordships' view towards it was, or was not, that here there was on the whole a very widespread inconvenience, springing from irrational causes, and one admitting of simple remedial treatment.
Speaking for myself, if the noble and learned Lord thinks proper to take that course I shall certainly support him, but he would not expect that I should give him any encouragement. I have no right to do so on behalf of your Lordships as a body, and I am still less in a position to say what view may be taken of these highly disputable matters in another place.

CIVIL AVIATION.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU had given Notice to ask the Under-Secretary of State for Air, if, in view of the termina-
86
tion on 19th and 21st October of the agreements under which the temporary cross-Channel aerial service is now maintained, he can give information as to any arrangements come to with civil serial transport firms for the continued operation of services between London and the Continent; and whether there is a chance of agreements being made and subsidies being paid for the establishment of inter-Imperial services.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have raised this Question to-day from several points of view, one of which is that on October 19, I think, the present arrangements between the Government and those who run the cross Channel services by air came to an end. I understand that last March £ 50,000 were allocated as a subsidy towards helping these services, and that that money is now more or less exhausted. Since then, as we have seen from a White Paper just issued, the Government have entered into a new form of contract with two of the parties concerned, and although I do not care to express much opinion upon the wisdom, or otherwise, of that course at the moment, it is quite clear that to maintain these services, which I hope to show are very essential to us from many points of view, some kind of subsidy is necessary.
I think there can hardly be any doubt as to the desirability of maintaining commercial air services. We may compare them now, in value to this country, to the maritime services of various liners during the war, inasmuch as they formed a very useful reserve for the Admiralty to draw upon. If we had not had many of those ships available to be fitted up as cruisers, it would have been very much more difficult to maintain control of the sea. if, in this case, we were to allow Civil Aviation to fade away, so to speak, we should undoubtedly weaken our position from a naval point of view. Therefore, from the point of view of national defence, some subsidy for these services when in their infancy is justifiable.
All over the world other nations are maintaining air services, all of them, so far as I know, subsidised in some form or other. In some cases the service subsidised is a postal service, and in some cases it is paid per mile run or in other ways. In Germany the factories are entirely free from taxation. Therefore, it is clear that other nations besides ourselves realise the great import-

87
ante of maintaining regular air services in addition to the ordinary naval and military establishments. At the present moment, to mention a few of these services, France maintains a postal service to Algiers and several internal services as well. All over Germany there are internal services arranged and to be arranged. The United States is very keen to establish further lines and further services, and has a considerable number of aeroplanes in daily use. In Spain lately the Spanish Government has been trying to purchase two German airships, to start a route between Spain and South America. In Japan, also, great. interest is being taken in aviation, and in fact one may say that in every nation of the world that is likely to be involved in any struggle in the future, it is realised that commercial aviation must be assisted, in order that there may be a larger supply of machines and pilots in case of trouble.
It has often been said in this House, and I think in the other place as well, that the best way of subsidising air services is by asking the Post Office to use them for postal purposes. I thoroughly agree with that view. Those who said that the Post Office was not justified in doing it at first, because it does not pay, forgot that a great many of the postal subsidies in other forms could not be justified on a strict economic basis. I believe that something like £400,000 a year is paid for the mail service to India, and I do not suppose that anything like that amount of profit is derived from that service. The Post Office also pays for services to the Cape and other parts of our great Dominions, and I suppose that hardly one of those services pays, if it is taken by itself. The general policy has been that it is desirable to make the services between the Mother Country and her great Dominions as rapid and useful as possible, and therefore there has been a general policy of helping lines which run a moderately good and fast service to distant points.
I suggest that the same policy should be adopted in the case of the air. The policy at the present moment, I gather, is only to subsidise cross-Channel services. I have seen no indication on the part of the Government of an intention to subsidise any inter-Imperial service, or service which would pass over a part of the Continent and the Mediterranean and give facilities to Egypt, Mesopotamia and possibly India. But I hope to hear from the noble Lord, who I am glad to see on the front bench, when he
88
answers for the first time for the Air Ministry, something about inter-Imperial air services and whether there is any chance of such services being established. Of course, it was a sad thing when the airship service came to an end, and that that magnificent body of men and valuable material had to be dispersed, but much as I believe in airship services, and greatly as I think they will be the long-distance means of aviation, I realise the pressure of finance and I see how it was that the Air Ministry could not continue the airship service in view of that pressure.
Because R. 38 collapsed, with a loss of life which we all deplore, we must not think that airships are things of the past, or that they have been proved to be a bad method of conveyance. Accidents happen, and always will happen, when you are going through any experimental stage of transport. We all remember that the early ships were not particularly seaworthy, and in the early days of trains there were far more accidents than there are to-day. The early days of motor cars had the same feature. Therefore, we must not think that, because of this unfortunate accident, there is any reason why airships should not in future take their place at any rate among the methods of long-distance communication with the outlying Dominions of the Crown.
As regards the Channel services, they have been extraordinarily successful. During the six months ending September 30 last there have been some really remarkable records. At present there are two British and two French services and one Belgian and one Dutch service in operation, and they have flown in the six months well over half a million miles—to be exact, 526,621 miles. It is a noteworthy fact that not a single passenger was killed or injured during that period. In the five months from May 3 the total number of passengers was 7,862, an average of 1,572 per month, or about 400 passengers a week. Of those the British machines carried 3,560 passengers, and the French 3,310. I am glad to be able to inform your Lordships that in point of reliability the British machines were far ahead of the French machines on every occasion. The British machines were Messrs. Handley Page's, which had 96 per cent. reliability, and the Instone Company's machines, which had 95 per cent. In the past seven weeks the Handley Page machines made eighty-four flights,

89
all of which were accomplished without any troubles, and there was only one stop, which was due to fog. No claims were made upon the underwriters, which is really the commercial test of safety. In the six months the two British companies flew 135,1,90 miles, and the French companies 176,362 miles.
Thus, in the period of six months ending September, we arrive at this remarkable result, that no passenger was killed or injured, and only two passengers were slightly hut on one occasion, which was, I believe due to fog. I admit that this summer has been an exceptional one in regard to weather, and that there has been an absence of strong winds and fog. The facts I have given, however, show to what degree of popularity these cross-Channel services are attaining when we get an average of something like 400 passengers a week: during the summer. I do not believe that at the present moment any cross-Channel service could be put on a strictly commercial basis. Two of the companies are. I think, approaching the point at which they w ill be commercially successful, but at the present moment none of them could pay its way. The French Government subsidises its machines very hem ily—much more heavily than we do, and yet they are not nearly so reliable. I do not wish to depreciate the excellent work done by the French, but there is no doubt that in their machines the factor of safety is lower, and their load is proportionately higher, and that makes a good deal of difference when we are considering the commercial aspect of these matters.
I hope the noble Lord who will reply for the Air Ministry will be able to give us some comfort to-day with regard to the future of these services. The figures I have quoted point to the conclusion that more and more people are being converted to the use of aircraft for travel, and that next year the number of passengers wilt probably reach a figure which will warrant serious commercial enterprise. At the moment, the outstanding factor is the struggle between the French arid the British companies for traffic between London and Paris. Both the British and the French companies realise that in the future there may be a great chalice of making the services a commercial success. Also, both countries' appreciate the fact that to maintain the progress of design and the increase of efficiency these regular
90
services are necessary. As a matter of fact, military and naval supremacy in aeronautics will, in my opinion, depend very largely on the assistance given to Civil Aviation at this stage.
In view of the fact that overhead charges form such a large proportion of the expense of the carrying companies, I hope, for my part, that no more companies will enter the field at the present moment. Any great multiplication of companies on the London-Paris route must tend to hamper business. It is better to assist two or three approved companies on a comparatively generous scale than to assist other companies which might come into the field. In the early stages of developments of this kind a certain number of people are willing to put up money, hardly expecting a commercial return, and doing it out of enthusiasm, or more or less as a hobby. In the end those people disappear, and the firms which run their business on a commercial basis must be those which will carry on the business in the long run.
I hope the noble Lord will be able to assure us that the Government are giving this matter very serious consideration. We must remember that, although aviation does not command the attention that it did during the war, if there should be another war aviation will be a much more serious factor in our national safety. Experiments have recently been made by nations in the sinking of battleships by bombs—the bombs not necessarily falling on their decks, but alongside of them—and there have been some very important results reached. I have no doubt whatever that aircraft in the future—at any rate, at the beginning of a war—will be the most formidable means of attack, and therefore we must have a formidable means of defence.
I have pleaded in this House before for attention to this subject, and your Lordships have always received me very kindly. I do so now deliberately, because at the present time, when there is no longer the same thought expended upon aviation as there was a little time ago, Governments and Departments are very apt to neglect vital issues. We must never allow our commercial aeroplanes to disappear. Their maintenance is most important, and in case of war they would be invaluable.
THE EARL OF CARRICK: My Lords, before the noble Lord replies on behalf

91
of the Air Ministry I should like first of all to endorse what Lord Montagu of Beaulieu has just said about the commercial air services. It is most important that the commercial air services should be put on a thoroughly sound business basis, and it is to be hoped that all the pilots engaged in those air services will be maintained as Air Force reserves. It has been suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Montagu of Beaulieu, that only the two companies which are now carrying between London and Paris should be retained, and that other companies should not be brought into consideration at present. At this moment trade is in a very depressed state, as we all know. Those who chiefly benefit by the quick transit by aeroplane are the merchants and traders of the country. By degrees the quick passage between Paris and London will be taken advantage of more and more by the commercial community of both countries, and, with an increase of trade, I think we may look for a large increase in the number of passengers carried between the two capitals. There will always be a certain number of passengers who will make the journey by air for the excitement of it or who want to get from one place to another rather more quickly than is possible by other means.
Is this the right moment to bring into the field several companies who will draw a subsidy from the Government in order to test which of them is best able to carry out that work in the future? Would it not be advisable for the Government to consider the question of subsidising only two companies at the moment? As the passengers increase and the demand grows from clay to day for more flights, then is the time to consider the question of including other companies, when the subsidy, granted en bloc to the carrying companies, can be distributed among them in proportion to their respective carrying capacity. It also seems to me that the apportionment of any subsidy should be made on a reduced sliding scale rather than that a lump sum should be given en bloc, because it is hoped that the number of persons availing themselves of aerial transport in the next two years will be greater than during the coming season.
In regard to the subsidy itself, I hope we shall receive an assurance from the noble Lord who replies that the portion to be given to the carrying companies will be
92
very largely in relation to their carrying capacity, and that the subsidy will not be utilised as a capital grant out of which they will be paid for their machines and will repay the Government on the hire purchase system. It ought to be the business of the companies themselves to provide the necessary machinery with which to comply with the Government's requirements.
Then, again, there is the question of the machines which are now in use. If such subsidy as may be given is used for the purpose of providing new machines and those now in use by the carrying companies are to be scrapped and new ones to be put into the service, it seems to me that it would be regrettable if those machines which have been thoroughly tested and, as you have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Montagu. of Beaulieu, have traveled in carrying out their duties over 500,000 miles with scarcely a mishap, should also have to be scrapped and new ones put in their places. The other point is that if the Government controls an industry the Government should pay for the losses sustained by that industry in its initial stages. Therefore, I press it upon the Government. that they should base the subsidies on a sliding scale, making them larger for the first year and coining down in proportion until the end of the period for which they are granted.
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR AIR (LORD GORELL): My Lords, we have had a most interesting speech reviewing commercial aviation in its widest aspects from the noble Lord, Lord Montagu of Beaulieu, who has been associated so long with every form of transport, and a number of questions on details of the subsidy scheme. The noble Lord gave certain figures rather with reference, so far as I could gather, to the volume of flying in countries generally. I may be able to supplement some of those figures with a definite account of the complete work done under the first part of the subsidy scheme.
Your Lordships may remember that the whole idea of the subsidy is founded, first of all, on the Report of the Advisory Committee, presided over by Lord Weir, which recommended a subsidy of 25 per cent. on gross receipts. But in March of this year, mainly owing to the very largely increased subsidies which were -being given for Civil Aviation by the French Government., the British companies were finding it almost

93
impossible to compete, and there was a very great danger that no British aeroplane would be able to compete at all successfully on a commercial basis. In consequence of that position a Committee was set up, as promised in another place, which consisted of my noble friend the Marquess of Londonderry, the Controller-General of Civil Aviation, and Sir James Stevenson. Their first duty was to try to bring in some scheme, with as little delay as possible, which should enable the cross-Channel service to be maintained against French competition. They formulated a scheme, which was admittedly of a temporary character, with Messrs. Handley Page and the Instone Air Line, the two firms who were then in a position to carry out a service. The terms have been published in the Command Paper which has just been issued and I need not go into them in any detail.
But to supplement the figures given by Lord Montagu of Beaulieu, I would like to state the total numbers carried by the British and French firms respectively since that temporary scheme came into operation; that is, for seven months. The one scheme ended on October 19 and the other on October 21, and the two British firms have carried from London to Paris in that time 2,356 passengers, and from Paris to London, 2,140, making a total of 4,496. The French have carried from London to Paris, 1,861, and from Paris to London, 2,081, making a total of 3,942. These figures are, I think, a rather striking justification of the terms of the subsidy under the temporary scheme, when we consider that in March we were almost in the position of doing nothing at all.
I think they are worth analysing a little further, and I would like to give the figures for the first half of October: Carried by British machines, 149 passengers in 25 machines —that is an average, roughly, of six passengers to a machine—by the. French, 52 in 36 machines, an average of 15 passengers; and from London to Amsterdam the Dutch carried 11 passengers in 11 machines. For the other way, from Paris to London, the figures arc: The British carried 130 passengers in 24 machines, or an average of 5 4 passengers; the French 84 in 35 machines, or an average of 2 4 passengers; the Dutch 12 passengers in 11 machines. During the part of October to which I have referred there were no Belgian aeroplanes flying, in view of the fire at the Belgian aerodrome. The
94
point of the figures that I have given is that though the British are really flying fewer machines they are carrying a considerably larger number of passengers, and throughout the whole seven months period I can amply confirm what Lord Montagu said that there has not been a single casualty, which is rather striking testimony to the growth of safety in the air commercially.
I should like to endorse generally all that the noble Lord said with regard to the mails, but he will realise that it is a difficult matter to place mails upon a contractual basis. It means long negotiation with the General Post Office, but we do find now an increasing disposition on the part of the General Post. Office to recognise the possibilities of aerial transport. The greatest factor in the cost of mails is the cost of handling, and it may be a considerable time before we can get contracts for carrying mails by air at the same rate as by land. But if the cost is additional for air transit, there have been carried, in the. period under review, an average of 380 lbs. weight of mails per month for six months—-that is, roughly speaking, 4,910 letters per month. An interesting and encouraging feature is the development of the parcel service which was inaugurated as recently as July 12. In July there were 216 parcels carried; in August, 363; and in September, 489. Those are the figures for the part of the scheme which ended with the termination of the agreements of October 19 and 21, but the work of the Committee was devoted all through to the idea of trying to bring into operation a scheme on a more permanent basis. It sat regularly, and took a great deal of evidence from many people connected with the aircraft firms.
I am concerned rather directly with Civil Aviation, which has been under my attention, and have been chairman of the Committee since July. It has now formulated a scheme which we hope to maintain for the next three years. The first point is that we are setting aside a sum of £200,000 per annum on this cross-Channel subsidy scheme. As a result of the negotiations and the evidence laid before the Committee, we issued a communication to the Press on June 15, giving certain lines on which the scheme was to proceed. There are two main points—first, that the Air Ministry should order machines of proved types, which will be hired out to firms to augment their existing fleet; and secondly, the Air Ministry will pay sub-

95
sillies on a basis of 25 per cent. to approved firms on gross receipts from carriage of passengers, goods and mails taken on any of the three routes — London —Paris, Brussels, and Amsterdam. The machines were to be insured by the companies. They would be hired out to the company at a monthly rental of 21 per cent. of the cost of the machine, and after the thirtieth payment they were to become the property of the company—that is to say, at 75 percent. of their cost. Other conditions were that personnel was to be of British nationality, and the aircraft and engines of British manufacture and design. In order to qualify for the subsidy any company approved was required to make a minimum of forty-five complete single journeys in each direction during each period of three months.
The Committee had a number of inquiries from a considerable number of firms and —this point has been referred to by both noble Lords who have spoken —the Committee had to consider how far it was justified in approving more than the two firms that had been operating in the past. There are arguments both ways, but, in view of the volume of traffic that was to be expected, the Government decided that it was not justifiable to limit the approval to the two firms only. At the same time, they thought that it was not possible to extend approval at all widely. We had, further, to consider the suggestion that has been made in the past of the formation of a national company, but after full consideration we decided that that was not advisable in the interests of the development of Civil Aviation.
The negotiations which have been taking place with the firms that seem to be in a position to carry out a scheme in future have been very protracted, and the more evidence that was laid before the Committee, the more obvious did it become that it was impossible, upon the conditions issued on June 15, for those firms to carry on in the future without a very serious risk of financial loss, which they were not prepared to undertake. Nor was it the desire of the Government to press them unduly, for the interests of both were to develop Civil Aviation as far as possible. As a result, the Government have made certain concessions, until, at any rate, the end of February, 1923, and are prepared to make a grant of £3 per passenger and 3d. per pound on mails and goods carried.
96
The next question was that of the insurance for machines. It has been decided that the Air Ministry will bear 50 per cent. of the insurance premium of the hired-out machines, subject to its contribution not exceeding 10 per cent. of the value of those machines. One other point of considerable difficulty is the question of the return of machines if it becomes at all apparent that their types are being superseded by newer types. Noble Lords will realise that here the interests of the firms and the interest of the Government are really one and the same, the whole object being to keep in the air a service based upon those machines which will develop in their design the latest and best methods of aviation. There are still certain details to be threshed out with the firms, but the Government are prepared to agree that machines, if returned in an airworthy condition, will be taken back, after no fewer than eighteen monthly payments of 2 per cent. of their value, and will be replaced by the latest machines if the Air Ministry is satisfied that the change is desirable.
Though all details have not been settled, and full agreement has not been reached with all the firms concerned, we hope that at the beginning of March next there will be three firms running between London and Paris, and one between London and Brussels. The arrangements we hope to make for a firm between London and Amsterdam are, for the moment, in abeyance owing to the exceptionally strong position of the Dutch company there.
It was hoped that this three years' arrangement would be brought into operation immediately on the conclusion of the temporary agreement which concluded on October 19 and October 21. That, I am afraid, has not been possible for two reasons. The firms, not unreasonably, were unwilling to commence the services on a durable basis after the conclusion of this wonderful summer and at the beginning of the winter. Further, the negotiations have been concerned with so much detail that it was never certain until recently that they would come to a satisfactory point, and until they had done so it was impossible for the Government to place orders for the new machines. As a result, it has been necessary to renew the temporary agreements with the two firms who have carried on this summer for services during the winter. They will carry on until the end of February next year,

97
and the maximum Government liability will be reduced according to the shorter time.
There is one remark I should like to make with regard to the whole of these schemes. I think it is generally admitted that without some subsidy of the kind indicated the firms and the cross-Channel services would not have continued. But I do not think that we should regard any subsidy scheme as necessarily of an absolutely permanent character. I do not like, in general, the idea of subsidies; arid I think the policy of the Government is clearly stated by the Committee presided over by Lord Weir, to which I have referred, where they say—
"We record at the outset that we should in no ease contemplate the continuance of such assistance (direct assistance) as part of the permanent policy of the State. We have dealt with it solely as a matter for consideration during the present critical years when the fortunes of British Civil Aviation hang in the balance."
While that is admitted, there is no doubt that it was an absolute necessity to preserve the cross-Channel services, because the advantages of commercial flying, which have been stated by the noble Lord, arc advantages which it is the duty of the Government to develop as far as it can.
We have to contend in England with certain disadvantages. We are a country where the distances are comparatively short; we have an excellent network of railways, and we are not always favoured with very good weather. In maintaining these services across the Channel we are doing something to break down the innate conservatism of the British mind towards anything new and demonstrating daily the practicability of air transport. It was hoped at one time that Civil Aviation would undergo a boom, but it has not. Nevertheless, the total amount of flying is steadily on the increase. The figures for the quarter ending June 30 last are -4,985 machine flights, with only three accidents and only one which had fatal results. That is for the whole of civil flying, including the cross-Channel services. I am not so familiar as the noble Lord with the days of early motoring, but I think this ratio of accidents to flights will compare favourably with the early days of motoring.
I would emphasise the point that in their regard for these services the Government are vitally concerned with the development of Civil Aviation and that the Secretary of State for Air has that development
98
keenly at heart.. It is true that the primary responsibility of the Air Minister must be the defence of the country, but it is a mistake to suppose that Service and civil flying are rivals. They are really mates, and there is a good deal of ground which is common to both in which each may help the other.
The noble Lord has asked me a specific Question with regard to the development of other routes, especially inter-Imperial routes. He will realise that the amount of money at our disposal is limited, and after full consideration the Government consider it prudent to concentrate all their limited resources upon maintaining, and if possible developing, the cross-Channel routes rather than dissipating them over a number of routes which it might not be possible afterwards to carry to success. I think it is by no means agreed that a general scheme of subsidies is the best means of assisting the development of Civil Aviation. The policy which the Government are pursuing is that the development, though it may be encouraged and assisted by Government, cannot either be operated or initiated by them and that the true foundation for a healthy industry is in civil enterprise.
At the same time, we are not neglectful of the inter-Imperial side. There, I think, co-operation between the Service and the civil side can be of direct assistance. There will be an example within the next few days of the way the Service will come in with regard to the carrying of mails. The mails for His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales will be caught up at Alexandria by a Service aeroplane and taken across to Suez in time to catch His Royal Highness in H.M.S. "Renown." We are constantly using Service aeroplanes for mail services from such places as Bagdad. The most recent example is that in which a Service aeroplane carried six bags of mails and saved eighteen days upon the ordinary route.
I feel that the possibility of attempting to establish inter-Imperial routes is not one which can be greatly assisted by subsidies. In the outlying parts of the Empire it is the work of the Service side to "blaze the trail," so to speak; establish the routes and safeguard them. I hope I have said enough to show that from rather a serious position in March we are now, though not by any means developed as fully as one might hope, on the pathway of

99
development, and that the cross-Channel services will be established on a successful and, I hope, increasingly successful, basis in the ensuing year.

COST OF THE AIR FORCE,
LORD NEWTON LORD NEWTON rose to ask the Under-Secretary of State for Air what is the estimated additional cost of maintaining the Air Force as a separate service instead of placing it under military and naval administration. The noble Lord said: My Lords, in putting this Question, I quite understand that it will presumably not be within the power of the noble Lord to give me any exact figures, but I have put it down for the following reason. If I am not mistaken, in all other countries the Air Service is under the administration of the military and naval authorities. I believe that we arc unique in possessing an independent Air Service.
When I was discussing this question not long ago with a very distinguished personage, lie informed me, much to my surprise, that the cost of maintaining the Air Force as a separate service amounted to something like four or five millions a year. When I asked him how he accounted for this extravagance, he actually replied that the Government were driven to it by the Press. Now of all forms of government, government by the Press is the most objectionable; I cannot imagine anything so detestable as being governed by Press headlines. But what I do not understand is why, when this alleged extravagance takes place, it has not attracted the attention of the so-called "anti-wasters." It seems to me a very fruitful field for their activities, and I am unable to understand why hitherto this subject has escaped their notice. The only possible explanation that occurs to me is that it is the antiwaste "Press which is always clamouring for fresh expenditure in connection with aviation.
I do not profess to be an authority upon aviation, any more than upon any other subject, but I have often wondered what we really gain by maintaining the Air Force as a separate Service. If I am not mistaken, the strain upon the individual is so great that a flying man is unable to carry on his occupation continuously over an extended period. I do not know whether things have altered, but I have
100
been given to understand that three or four years' continuous work is the utmost that can be expected from an airman. Things have very possibly altered now, but in any case, that is what I have been told, and it seems to me highly problematical whether it is a sound policy to recruit young men for a Service in place of which, after four or five years, another form of employment will have to be found for them. I should have thought that the more practical course would have been to recruit young officers for the Air Force from the Army and the Navy, to make such use of them as is possible, and then to allow them to rejoin their units. In the other case, it seems to me that the young man is in a blind alley, because it is extremely probable that it would be impossible to find further employment for him.
Seeing that the noble Lord who is going to answer the question is a real Under-Secretary, and therefore is, no doubt, fully cognisant of the work of the Department, and is not in the position of noble Lords who frequently have to answer questions of which they are totally ignorant, I venture to put a further question to him, and to ask if he can inform me—I am sure it will be a matter of general interest—what are the total numbers of the Air Force at the present moment, and what proportion of the members of the Air Force are actually flying men, as compared with men whose duties are carried out in other capacities.
LORD VERNON: My Lords, the Question of the noble Lord raises the whole subject of an independent fighting Air Force. That Question was discussed in this House about two years ago. I am not aware that it has been discussed since, but at that time, at any rate, the Government informed us that they were fully satisfied that this was the most efficient means of carrying on the Service for fighting purposes. There are, of course. many who disagree with that view, and, apart from the question of economy, I should like to ask the noble Lord opposite if he can inform us whether the Government are completely satisfied that this is still the case, in view of the experience of the last two years. There must have been a considerable field for experience in India, Mesopotamia and other places, apart from the customary peace training, both by sea and by land, and they have therefore a certain amount of experience

101
to go on, other than war experience of the special kind, such as they had in the fighting in places like the Western Front. They have fresh peace experience by which they can judge whether that is still the case. I should like to ask the noble Lord if he can inform us whether the heads of the fighting Service, are satisfied that, not only what we may call the independent work of the Air Force is carried out with the maximum of efficiency, but also that what one may term the subsidiary work—subsidiary, that is, to the naval and military forces—is carried out to the satisfaction of the naval and military officers concerned.
On the face of it, of course, it would appear to anyone who is interested in these matters that an independent fighting Air Force is an extremely expensive thing, because you must have all the higher command, and you must have all sorts of other departments connected with the higher command and. working underneath them, together with all the complications of interchange of information between the different Services. This would appear to be a very expensive arrangement. It would also appear to be an extremely difficult thing to direct as regards all strategical and technical work. On the face of it, therefore, the argument would appear to be against it, and I do not believe that that conclusion is seriously controverted by the war experience, which was gained under very special conditions vial an entirely new arm. I would merely like to supplement what has been said by the noble Lord who put this Question, by asking the noble Lord opposite whether he can give any information on these subjects. as bearing not only on the economy and expenditure connected with the fighting force, but also as regards its efficiency and the satisfaction which it gives to the officers concerned.
LORD NUNBURNIIOLME: My Lords, I am sorry I was not present at the beginning of this debate, but I have been asked to say a few words to your Lordships, Hid especially to the Minister representing he Air Ministry, on the subject of airships. Many of us who watched the development of airships during the war, and responsible officers who conducted experiments with airships, still think that some of this money which has been voted by Parliament should be devoted to subsidising airships, in much the same way as fast merchant raisers were subsidised before the war,
102
as in the case of the "Mauretania "and other ships. Many of these officers, who have been directing experimental works, completing these airships and using them during the late war, still hold the opinion that for certain purposes an airship is much better than an aeroplane, and they are very keen that some portion of this money should be given to that side of the science, which, we know, is making great strides. In my county, we had a very great aerodrome at a place called Howden, which, I am sorry to say, has been, or is in process of being, done away with. I believe that Pulliam is the only station left.
Whatever the Government decide to do as regards these aeroplane services, we contend that voyages by airship, I mean commercial voyages, to far parts of the Empire, should be assisted in some way by a part of the money which the House of Commons has voted.
LORD GORELL: My Lords, I was not anticipating that on this Question, at any rate, any question with regard to airships would arise, but I might perhaps dispose of that point by saying briefly that it may be remembered that the whole of the future of airships is at the present moment sub judice. The Imperial Conference decided that the airships were not to be disposed of until such time as the Dominion Premiers had been able to consult their Parliaments, and we have, as vet, had no official intimation from any of the Dominions with reference to that matter.
With regard to the Notice on the Paper the noble Lord asked me one specific Question, and raised by implication a very large subject. He asked me specifically to give him the numbers of those officers of the Royal Air Force who flew, and he was courteous enough, so that I might not be taken at a disadvantage, to give me notice of his intention to do so. The answer it is not; difficult to give. With the exception of certain officers whose duty is wholly connected with ground duties, such as medical officers, chaplains, stores and accountant officers, who make up a total of 522, the whole of the officers of the Royal Air Force fly, and a total of 2,478 are actually required to keep themselves always in readiness to fly. I gather that the suggestion is that there is a large percentage of the senior officers whose duties never take them off the ground. The

103
actual percentage of senior officers in the Royal Air Force is rather less than one to 3,500 men. It is often said that the proportion of those who fly to those who are required on the ground is unduly high. I can only assure the noble Lord that in the war it was found that it took eighty-six men to keep one machine in the air, and that that number we have now been able very considerably to reduce.
The noble Lord raised also a point about young officers who might fly for only four or five years. I think that that criticism is answered by the system of short service Commissions which has been introduced by the Air Ministry, and which has been attracting an extraordinarily good class of applicant., who at the end of his time will pass out a highly-trained specialist; and I anticipate that he, as a highly-trained specialist, will find very little difficulty in utilising that experience. With regard to the greater question which lies behind the actual words, I confess I should like to know, although I do not suppose I shall be told, who the distinguished person was who made that estimate of £4,000,000.
LORD NEWTON: The noble Lord would be very surprised if he knew.
LORD GORELL: It is an interesting estimate, at any rate, and I wish to point out that by the wording of his Question on the Paper the noble Lord apparently contemplates that the Air Ministry should go back to the Army and the Navy. There is in it no provision whatever for many functions which the Air Ministry is at present carrying out. What, one may wonder, if that were ever to happen, would he the place of the Meteorological Office, which now covers the whole of the meteorological work of the United Kingdom. It is, I think, inevitable that both the Army and the Navy would require meteorological sections, and we should have three such offices, instead of one. The same thing applies, even more pointedly, to the Directorate of Research, which is the foundation stone upon which all flying must rest. The proposal also leaves entirely out of account the subject which we were discussing upon the previous Question—namely, the whole development of Civil Aviation, which has in the last two years meant a great deal of work in connection with International Conventions, which in no case could be relegated either to the Army or the Navy. That work, pre-
104
sumably, would go either to the Board of Trade or to the Ministry of Transport. I mention those things at the outset to show that it is not quite so simple a question as tearing the Ministry in two halves and giving one half to the Army and the other to the Navy.
Now, the noble Lord pointed out that it was probably very difficult for me to give him any figures. I am afraid that is so. I think he must realise that to give him any close estimate of what such a change would mean would be quite impossible without a very great deal of calculation; without going to the Admiralty and to the War Office, and all the other Departments who would take over certain functions, and getting all those figures agreed with them. But I can answer, if not in figures, at any rate rather specifically, the point which the noble Lord has raised, although I must make one assumption at the start, because without that it is impossible to estimate at all. The assumption I must make is that the strength of the Royal Air Force would remain the same.
LORD NEWTON: What is it?
LORD GORELL: Thirty thousand officers and men—I think 27,000 men amid 3,000 officers. If we were to divide the various functions of the Air Ministry itself, I will admit at once that there would be a certain saving. It is very difficult to arrive at what it would be but there would be a definite saving in the higher civilian staff of the Air Ministry. That represents not a very large proportion of the cost of the administrative staff, and the total cost of the whole of the higher civilian staff is £57,000 plus the Civil Service bonus. If we pass from them I think it may be admitted that a reduction would be possible of the lesser administrative staff dealing with routine work. I think there, again, we may admit there might be a small reduction. It is rather doubtful, but I think that it is admissible.
If, however, we leave them and come to the technical branches—to the research branches, the experimental side, and to the inspection work—I think there is no doubt whatever that so far from their being a saving there would be an actual increase. There would be duplication of a great deal of the work, overlapping, lack of co-ordination, and there might even be triplication. In the case of research I

105
think there would have to be triplication. In the accounting branches it is estimated that it would make very little difference at all. In the recruiting and medical sides of the Air Ministry we might admit that there would be possible saving. The saving would, I am afraid, in no ease even remotely approach the figure suggested by the noble. Lord, and the highest at which it has been put is £35,000—and that I mention with extreme diffidence. It only means that, if such a change were made, certain officers in certain places would be saved, and those salaries might amount to about that figure. In the works and buildings department I think there would be a saving as far its some parts of the Headquarters supervising staff were concerned. It is certain that there would be none in the remote stations. It is sometimes hardly realised that the location of the Air units must very often be entirely different from those of military or naval units.
When we conic to the mechanical transport repair depots there would, in all probability, by reverting to the Army and the Navy, be an increase of cost. It is absolutely certain that there must be as regards the Navy, which is not in a position to undertake it at all. And, with regard to the all-important question in any Service of the training of the cadets, it is estimated that, supposing that, instead of going to Cranwell, as they do at present, the cadets for the Air Service went to Sandhurst and Dartmouth, the cost would be very greatly increased, because at Cromwell, in addition to their cadet training, they learn to fly, and under the other system they would have to be taught to fly. at sonic other place, which would, in all probability, necessitate another flying training school.
I have not laid any emphasis upon one factor which would be very great, and that is the actual cost of the operation of dividing the Ministry. We know how difficult it has been, and how long it has taken, to build up the Service as it is at present. It would be a matter of exceeding difficulty to dissolve it again, and it would take a great deal of time. The administrative difficulties and the rights of the officers at present would make for delay and cost; and if it was difficult to build up the Service when there was the hope of a Royal Air Force to look forward to, one can imagine how difficult it would
106
be, and how utterly efficiency would be lost, in the dreary atmosphere of dissolving it again into two halves.
I have omitted also any question of what must happen to some of the Departments of the Ministry, which must, in any event, unless one is going to cease to fly at all, continue. I think it is unnecessary, after what has transpired in the debate upon the first Question on the Paper, to say very much about the set-back that such a step would undoubtedly mean to the whole feeling of progress m the air with relation to civil flying. To sum up, upon the actual question of the cost I think we can say that there would be financially a possible slight saving—it is, however, a doubtful saving—in certain directions; and that, in others, there would be a definite increase in cost. On the whole, so far as it can be estimated, it would be more costly than the Air Ministry is at present.
I was asked one question by Lord Vernon which it is possible to answer with great directness. I do not think there is any one connected with the Air Service who would not look forward with dismay to such a change as the splitting up again of the Ministry. Everyone connected with progress in the air, or interested in the air, would deprecate such a change.
LORD VERNON: What I particularly asked was whether the naval or military officers are equally satisfied?
LORD GORELL: I have not the same means of knowing the mental satisfaction or dissatisfaction of the other Services, but I shall come to that in a moment. I think there is no doubt that they do not look upon the air in at all the same light as those who have studied it. The figures for the estimates which I have given in some detail about the different Departments are all based upon the assumption that, if you did divide the present work of the Ministry into two component parts, its functions would still continue to be comparable with what it is doing to-day. I maintain that that assumption is utterly and wholly unfounded. It is based upon a view which I had thought almost obsolete—namely, that this new arm of the air has no greater rile to play in the future than to be kept in perpetual subjection to the Army and the Navy. One may fairly ask the question whether memories car i really be so short that we are already forgetting the

107
story of the duplication, the waste, and the lack of co-ordination which drove us, even in the midst of the war, to face the difficulty of forming a separate Ministry. If noble Lords will turn to the first Report of the Air Board they will find there drawn up by the noble Marquess the Leader of the House a most damning indictment of the dual system as it existed during the war. The noble Marquess uses language of great strength, and speaks of the "waste of power, time, and money." You cannot afford to waste power and time in war, though you may be able to afford money; and when you come to peace-, certainly now—we cannot afford to waste money.
You find in the record of the growth of the Air Ministry, as it now is, how irresistibly there was forced upon us, as the war proceeded, the realisation of the power of the air, until it became obvious that the unification of the two Services was an essential element in our victory. The question of the noble Lord, Lord Vernon, suggests that the Army and the Navy are not satisfied because the air is not under their direct control. I would answer that question by another. Are we to suppose that if the air is kept permanently under the direction of the Army and the Navy, we shall ever have its resources fully developed or explored? The whole experience of the past rises up to, contradict such a supposition. I have no desire to speak in disparagement of what one may term the military mind—I had a great deal to do with it during the war—but there is no doubt that it is not possible for any one, however broad minded, whose whole training and mind is devoted to one form of progress or science, to realise what is possible or justifiable in another. Nor is it possible for any one, however broadminded, to be content to see a step-child gradually showing its power to do things which, as an older person, he had been accustomed to do for himself.
We are going to see more and more in the future the Air Force carrying out functions which in the past have been wholly carried out by the two older Services, and carrying them out at far less cost. I will give your Lordships two specific instances. There was a series of military expeditions in Somaliland which were not successful and which cost, in all, several millions of money. There was one expedition based upon a primarily air basis carried out in Somaliland in February of
108
last year, which was completely successful in six weeks and its cost—though the figure is variable according as you include certain sums or not—was in the neighbourhood of £36,000.
Then, as a present example, arrangements are now in prospect for substituting primarily air control in Iraq as against primarily land control, and the estimate for that substitution is upwards of £15,000,000; that is to say, it is a saving of the entire cost of the whole Air Ministry for one year. I would invite your Lordships' attention to the fact that other countries are spending more and more money on the air, or rather, since I am not suggesting that we should spend more money at the present time, they are devoting more and more attention to its problems and realising more and more its potentialities.
The noble. Lord, Lord Newton, said, and it is very often alleged against the position of a separate Ministry, that no other country has one. That is perfectly true. Whether that is a good argument or not, whether we are to measure our progress as the British nation by the progress of the most backward or not, is open to question. Certain it is that we, at the moment, have the lead in air organisation in the world. But it is not true that we shall necessarily maintain that lead. The minds of other countries are moving, slowly perhaps but irresistibly, in the same direction. The most striking example, which is also the most recent, is in Greece, where in the operations actually now going on it has been found that the system of dual control has failed.
One may ask therefore: Are we to be invited to follow the argument that because we are the first we are to throw away our lead? I think every one agrees, at least every one hopes, that we arc entering now upon a long, it may be a very long, peace. What is going to happen during that peace if we neglect to institute research and develop the power of the air in every way we can? It is especially beholden to us, the British people, to maintain our position and lead in the air, because it does not seem always to be realised that for purposes of warfare we are less and less of an island and if, as one may trust, there will be no outbreak of war for a very long time, it is perfectly certain that when that outbreak occurs the greatest part of it, and the earliest part of it, will be in the air.

109
It is often forgotten how youthful the whole of the aerial development is, and one fears that some of the suggestions of strangling it arc clue to a sense of its youth —that it is an easy thing to crush. I would invite your Lordships to hear just a few words written by Marshal Foch upon the possibilities of aerial warfare—
"The military mind always imagines that the next war will be on the same lines as the last. That has never been the ease and never will be. One of He great factors in the next war will obviously be aircraft. The potentialities of aircraft attack on a large scale are almost incalculable, but it is clear that such attack, owing to its crushing moral effect on a nation, may impress public opinion to the point of disarming the Governments and thus become decisive."
I think it may be taken as certain that in future, if we have to engage in a great war And if for any reason we have followed the course which is suggested by this Question, the first step that will have to be taken will be the restoration of an Air Ministry, and it will have to be taken too late, because nothing is more certain than that it will be the fiat days of the next war that will be decisive.
I have had to dwell upon the warlike side because, as I say, the Government must primarily consider the defence of the country. But I confess that I hate to use such words as the "next war" at all, and even to speak much of war, because anyone who has ever seen anything of it must always hold it in horror and detestation. I do not wish to state the case for a separate Ministry only, or even mainly, upon that ground, but rather on the much bigger, broader ground that the air is an element As different front the land as the land is from the sea; that it has a force, a power, a future of its own, and a spirit of its own; and upon those great questions so vital to such an Empire as ours —inter-ommunication, quick communication,
110
and commerce. I hope that when these facts are considered, when the hard experience of the great struggle through which we have victoriously come is remembered, and when the immense potentialities of the air, absolutely still in their infancy, are duly weighed, we shall hear no more of any suggestion that we should revert to a system which is not only uneconomical in peace but would be followed with disastrous results on the outbreak of any new war.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: My Lords, may I thank the noble Lord for what he has said? I entirely agree with the sentiments he has expressed, and may I say to the noble Lord who raised this Question that when he talks about the pressure of t he Press having established a separate: Ministry, I can tell him, from having been a member of the War Air Committee, that it was the inevitable pressure of circumstances, as the direct result of our inferiority in aircraft at the beginning of the war, which caused it to be established, and that the establishment of the Air Ministry led to our Air Forces at the end of the war being on the whole the finest, the most numerous, and the most efficient of all the Air Forces engaged in the war.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: My Lords, I move that your Lordships' House do adjourn, except for judicial business, till Tuesday next.
Moved accordingly, and on Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at six o'clock until Tuesday next at a quarter past four o'clock.