Lords Sitting of 14 November 1934

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

THE LORD BISHOP OF PETER- BOROUGH.
Claude Martin, Lord Bishop of Peterborough—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.
The Earl of Chichester—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his brother.

BETTING AND LOTTERIES BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments.

POTATO (IMPORT REGULATION) ORDER, 1934.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, I beg to move that the Special Order be approved. Perhaps it would be better that I should give your Lordships some indication of what the Order does in view of the Resolution that was agreed to by the Special Orders Committee yesterday. They called attention particularly to the fact that under the Order the Irish Free State appears to be treated differently from the rest of the Empire. The reason for this is that the Irish Free State is the only part of the Empire from which there is any appreciable importation of main crop potatoes. The quantity has varied from year to year, and in 1931 it was 780,000 cwts. What I should like to impress upon your Lordships is that the application of the Order to the Irish Free State is in no sense a measure specially directed against that country, but is dictated by purely market conditions. It. is essential to the successful operation of the Potato Marketing Scheme that the bulk of the imports should be closely regulated, and to have left out so large a potential supplier as the Irish Free State would have prejudiced the whole operation of the Scheme. I do not think there is any need for me to delay your
398
Lordships further, but if there is any other point on which your Lordships wish to have information I shall be glad, in the absence of my noble friend, to supply it.
Moved, That the Special Order, as reported from the Special Orders Committee yesterday, be approved.—(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

TOWYN ABERDOVEY AND DISTRICT ELECTRICITY ORDER, 1934.
TORQUAY ELECTRICITY (EXTENSION) ORDER, 1934.
SEDBERGH ELECTRICITY ORDER, 1934.
EAST CORNWALL ELECTRICITY ORDER, 1934.
CHELMSFORD AND DISTRICT ELECTRICITY ORDER, 1934.
GRAMPIAN ELECTRICITY ORDER, 1934.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH): My Lords, I beg to move that these Special Orders, as reported from the Special Orders Committee yesterday, be approved.
Moved, That the Special Orders, as reported from the Special Orders Committee yesterday, be approved.—(The Earl of Plymouth.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

BINGLEY GAS ORDER, 1934. PORTSMOUTH GAS ORDER, 1934.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, I beg to move that these Special Orders, as reported from the Special Orders Committee yesterday, be approved.
Moved, That the Special Orders, as reported from the Special Orders Committee yesterday, be approved.—(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LAND DRAINAGE PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 1) BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

AFFORESTATION.
LORD DERWENT LORD DERWENT rose to call attention to the inadequate production of home-grown timber in replacement of that felled for war-time use, to the rapid exhaustion of the virgin soft-wood forests of the world, and to the important bearing of afforestation upon water supply; and to move that it is desirable that the planting programme of the Forestry Commission be increased substantially, and that steps be taken to encourage planting and the practice of sound forestry upon municipal and private estates.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in rising to speak for the first time in your Lordships' House, I trust I may be accorded the usual indulgence that such an occasion demands—an indulgence that I should prefer to see reserved for any deficiences in my presentation of the case outlined by the Motion that stands in my name, since I certainly need none for calling attention to a problem that so intimately concerns so many of the members of your Lordships' House. In any case, I need make no apology for appearing in the role of one of the legendary "backwoodsmen Peers" arriving unexpectedly to talk about backwoods and woods in general; for the matter is one of real urgency, as I hope to prove to your Lordships' satisfaction. I shall be as brief as possible, since I am well aware that there are other Motions besides my own on to-day's Paper.
The problem to which I wish to draw your Lordships' attention is, of course, far from being a new one. This is neither the time nor the place to insert a complete exposê of the history of British woodlands. It should suffice for this afternoon if I remind your Lordships that it was not until the middle of the sixteenth century that any serious legislation was introduced to cope with the scarcity of useful trees, not until the end of the same century that trees began to be planted other than from seed, and even so, by the beginning of the reign of Charles II, the scarcity of oak-timber for the Navy had become so alarming that the Commissioners of the Navy asked the newly-founded Royal Society to suggest a remedy. As early as 250 years ago Britain was already dependent on her American Colonies for her timber, apart from her
400
oak, which passed then, and still passes, for having very special qualities. In spite of abundant legislation designed to deal with the matter in the reign of George III, a Royal Commission of 1792 is precise and eloquent in its expressions:
"We shall only observe (with regard to the whole of the forests, parks, and chases belonging to the Crown) that instead of yielding any clear revenue to the public, the value of all they have produced has been expended on them, and a great sum besides … and yet they now contain much less timber than in former times."
A special Act passed in 1808 arranged for fresh enclosures of State woodlands; but, although between then and 1830 an impetus was given to private planting, in particular in Scotland, in 1810 we find Lord Melville addressing Mr. Perceval, the Prime Minister, on the decay and destruction of the national forests, pointing to advanced prices of soft woods, the increase in the demand for oak, and the inability of the woodlands to meet this demand, and exhorting the Government to provide for the future instead of relying solely on private commercial enterprise.
And taking a long step to the close of the last century, we come to a Select Committee of the House of Commons reporting in 1887 in these terms:
"The woodlands belonging to the State are comparatively small, though even as regards them, the difference between skilled and unskilled management would itself more than repay the cost of a forest school. The woodlands in private hands, however, are far more considerable. … The Committee are satisfied that, so far as Great Britain and Ireland are concerned, the management of our woodlands might be materially improved. Nearly every other civilised State possesses one or more forest schools. In this country, on the contrary, no organised system of forestry instruction is in existence excepting in connection with the Indian service."
Finally, so as not to drag out to undue length the tale of woe I have been spinning your Lordships, I will conclude with a statement from an authoritative work, the 1905 edition of Nisbet's "The Forester," which quotes statistics for the year 1902 showing that the United Kingdom was then the most poorly wooded country in Europe. It points out
"the extreme disadvantage of this country in respect to timber due to the fact that they were neither formed, nor are they maintained for the growing of timber for profit,"
and it sums up as follows:
"In consequence of its poverty in wood-lands, its dense population, and its vast commercial industries, Great Britain requires immense quantities of timber each year. … Simultaneously with this expansion in our requirements, the sources of supply are diminishing as the natural forests in thinly populated countries are being cleared for permanent cultivation. … Britain's requirements cannot be entirely met at home; even if the three million acres of woodlands were trebled and were in a fully stocked condition, they would only just supply existing needs, without leaving any margin for expansion of industries."
The year 1914 brought the War; and if I have been able to impress your Lordships with the seriousness of the situation in the old decade that preceded it, I certainly do not need to expatiate on the immense aggravation of that seriousness produced by the War itself, with its in-satiable demand for timber of all kinds from all sources, which resulted in the felling of 450,000 acres of British woodlands.
I have dwelt rather long on the history of timber in Britain, at the risk of wearying your Lordships, because I was anxious to demonstrate that the War did not create but merely occasioned a crisis in a state of affairs already chronic in the annals of our country. Nevertheless, the increased difficulties attendant on this question brought some good in their train; they brought the Acland Report of 1918 and the Acland Report brought the Forestry Commission. The Committee responsible for issuing that Report was a Sub-Committee of the Reconstruction Committee, and was presided over by Mr. Francis Acland, as he was then; and in case some of your Lordships have had time to forget them, I would remind them that its terms of reference were:
"To consider a report upon the best means of conserving and developing the woodland and forestry resources of the United Kingdom, having regard to the experience gained during the War."
Its findings were, very briefly, as follows: The three million acres under woodland in the United Kingdom before the War gave an annual yield of 45 million cubic feet, which was about one-third of what it should have been under correct silvi-cultural management. During the five years preceding the War the home production amounted to less than 8 per cent. of the total consumption. The imports of timbers of all kinds during the years
402
1915 and 1916 were respectively three-quarters and two-thirds of the normal pre-War imports, but their cost was £37,000,000 in excess of their pre-War value. Two million acres of land then used for rough grazing could be devoted to timber production without decreasing the home production of meat by more than 0.7 per cent., and would ultimately afford employment to at least ten times the number of men then engaged on that area. Dependence on imported timber had proved a serious handicap in the conduct of the War; the United Kingdom could not run the risk of future wars without safeguarding its supplies of timber as every other Power that counted had already done. In order to do this, the Committee recommended that a Forest Authority equipped with funds and powers to survey, purchase, lease, and plant land should be set up, and that the care of forestry should be centralised in such a body.
It would make it its business to afforest 1,770,000 acres in eighty years (the average rotation); two-thirds of this area (that is, 1,180,000 acres) should be planted in the first forty years, though in view of the initial difficulties the quota for the first ten years should be limited to 150,000 acres, to be planted by the State, and 110,000 planted or replanted by private persons and public bodies, these latter assisted by grants, or by co-operation between them and the State. The area to be planted by the State in subsequent years might be reduced in the same degree as private individuals came forward to undertake the work—and I should like to lay particular stress on this proof that the State was not supposed by the Committee to bear the whole onus of the task, but that other organisations must carry out their share. As for finance, they estimated the cost for the first, ten years at nearly £3,500,000, and they considered that it might be necessary to invest £15,000,000 altogether in the enterprise during the first forty years. After that the scheme should be self-supporting. In any case, the whole sum involved was less than half the direct loss incurred during the years 1915 and 1916 through dependence on imported timber. The outcome of this admirable Report was, as your Lordships are aware, the formation in 1919 of the Forestry Commission; and it is now my duty to remind your

403
Lordships of what has actually been accomplished since that first attempt was made to put some order into a very disordered department of national production.
I will take the first decade first, from 1920 to 1929 inclusive. The total sum paid into the Forestry Fund from the Exchequer during the ten financial years in question was £3,500,000. The total net expenditure exceeded this only by the small sum of £150,000. But if the money was wisely expended, it was far from enabling the Commission to carry out all that was originally intended. I quote from its Tenth Annual Report:
"The total area of plantable land acquired to September 30, 1929, was 310,230 acres compared with 402,000 recommended by the Acland Committee. The shortage was, therefore, 91,770 acres, or 22·8 per cent. of the total."
It shows also that, where actual planting was concerned, as against 150,000 acres recommended by the Acland Committee, only 138,279 were planted by the State, and only 72,840 planted by private individuals and public bodies, as against 110,000 recommended by the Committee. The Tenth Report states:
"Broadly, the reason for the shortage on the acquisition programme has been uncertainty as to finance,"
and with regard to planting it furnishes the following significant details—the Report is speaking of conifer planting:
"The Acland programme was an expanding one beginning with nil in the first year and growing at the rate of 3,300 acres per annum to 30,000 acres in the tenth year. An excellent start was made, and by 1922 the rate of planting was well in advance of the prescribed rate. For reasons of finance the planting rate was then stabilised at nearly 10,000 acres per annum for three years. From 1924 to 1927 more money was available, and the expanding programme was resumed. From 1927 to 1929 the rate of planting fell away slightly, again owing to difficulties of finance which had curtailed land acquisition."
The Report sums up:
"Although in the upshot the full statutory amount was credited to the Forestry Fund during the ten-year period, there have been times during which considerable uncertainty has existed as to the annual provision of funds."
So much for the first decade; and your Lordships will, I think, agree with me that, though much was done, more ought to have been done. What of the intervening years between then and now?
For the second decade Parliament decided in September, 1929, to vote £9,000,000 to enable the Commission to carry out its programme; but in March, 1932, owing to the necessity for economies to be made all along the line, the Committee on National Expenditure presided over by Sir George May was obliged to change the situation by recommending that the Commission should be allocated only £450,000 for the next five years, after which the position must be reconsidered, and thus its finances were cut down to about half what it had hoped to use, with the result that for the year 1931–1932 a proposed programme of planting 28,000 acres had to be replaced by one of 22,000 acres, and since then, instead of an annual 30,000 acres or over, the Commission have only been able to plant an average of 21,000 acres. I should add that private planting after fifteen years is still some 5,000 acres under the original amount hoped for for the first decade alone. These are the facts. Owing to financial circumstances over which (to parody a familiar phrase) no one has any control, the pressingly necessary work of restoring this country to what I may describe as sylvicultural health and strength has never been able to be adequately carried out, and has had to be indefinitely slowed down.
But, my Lords, there is more. I have shown that the situation is, by reason of all this, extremely serious. I have not attempted to persuade your Lordships that we can ever hope to grow all the timber we need for our own use, nor have I entered at all into the question of imports as a whole, since that would be beyond my competence. I have not reminded your Lordships of the decreasing percentage in the use of home-grown timber as compared with that imported. I have not mentioned the growing difficulty experienced in finding adequate amounts of English oak and ash, although they are far superior to all others for certain uses; and with regard to the regrettable state of private planting, I will confine myself to a quotation from the Imperial Economic Committee's Report of 1928:
"It is estimated by the Forestry Commission that private planting will not at best do more than keep pace with current fellings, and we are advised that under existing conditions it is probable that fellings exceed plantings."
I have not time to go into all the necessary details. What I wish to impress upon your Lordships is that, if only for three reasons, it is absolutely essential that something must be done to remedy the deplorable situation of this country with regard to woodlands.
The first is the gradual depletion of soft-wood forests all over the world. I will turn again to the Acland Report:
"The United Kingdom is dependent for more than 60 per cent. of its timber on the virgin forests of foreign countries which are being steadily depleted."
This was written in 1918:
"The proportion derived from sources within the Empire fell from 22 per cent. in 1899 to 10 per cent. in 1913. Every year we become more dependent on Russia, which in 1913 supplied us with nearly half our total imports. We have no means of reckoning how long the virgin forests will last, but unless they are brought under systematic management, their exhaustion can only be a question of time. … The only large reserves within the British Empire are those of Canada, which are rapidly being depleted by fire. … The Canadian reserves are the only source on which the United Kingdom can fall back if supplies from Russia fail. … Unless the Canadian forests can be adequately protected and made available in case of necessity for the United Kingdom, it is certain that the area of timber within the British Isles must be increased far beyond that recommended in the proposals made in the following pages."
As your Lordships know, neither of these desiderata has been achieved.
It is, of course, soft woods that are the crucial point; both our imports and our use of hard woods are negligible in comparison. On consulting the official figures, I find that we still draw by far the greater part of our imported soft woods from Russia and Finland; Canada comes somewhere about fourth on the list of countries that export them to us. In other words we are making practically no use of one of the largest sources of supply which continues to pour immense quantities of timber into the U.S.A., so that it may not be there when we one day require it; and we remain dependent on the slow-growing Finnish forests, which are only 82,000 square miles in area, and on those of Russia, a country with which I need not remind your Lordships our commercial relations are extremely irregular, whose forests contain large areas that are without commercial value, and which will inevitably need more and more of its own timber for use at home
406
as its industrial development proceeds. Your Lordships will readily grasp that if I plead for more extensive planting in the United Kingdom, it is first and above all, in order to guard against one day being unable to find any of the necessary timber at all, and since we cannot become an exporting country, at least to ensure that the shortage is not due to our own lack of foresight.
My second reason is based on a desire to avoid what I may call the secondary effects of general deforestation, of which we shall certainly stand in danger if felling continues at the present rate and re-afforestation is not extended. I refer to the climatic results of excessive deforestation. Now, I do not wish to give your Lordships the impression that it is a matter of change in rainfall, as it is in some countries. Our rainfall and the general dampness of our climate are mainly due to the warmth of the saturated air-currents accompanying the Gulf Stream; and even if every tree were cut down in these islands to-morrow, it is unlikely that it would alter the rainfall at all. The kind of thing that would result, and that may result if we allow things to go on as they are at present, may be described to your Lordships by the following extract from a recent address to the Botanical Section of the British Association by a Professor of Forestry, Professor Borthwick:
"Although it has not been definitely decided whether forests increase the rainfall or not, it can be claimed with every justification that the forest is of great importance as a conservator of water and as an equaliser in the drainage of the land. Where no forests exist in the upland or collecting regions of watersheds the rain falls unhindered, beating the surface hard or eroding it down to the bare rock. There is nothing to check the downward rush of water, which collects into mountain torrents, which gush unbridled into the main rivers and streams, causing them to become swollen and flooded. These in turn race through the fertile valleys to their outlets, tearing down and overflowing their banks. The damage done by severe and sudden floods to roads, bridges, agricultural crops and stock, including human, habitations, is well-nigh incalculable. Nor does the matter end there: millions of tons of valuable soil are washed away in these turbulent floods, and deposited as barriers in the river beds or in the sea at the river bar. Harbours and docks at the outlet of our main rivers become silted up with mud and debris: this in turn—apart from the loss of soil—involves costly dredging operations to keep the navigation channels clear.

407
"Where forest exists in the upland districts or collecting ground of the water, rivers are more uniform in their flow, year in and year out, and carry much less silt and debris. The crowns of the trees break the force of the falling rain; the humus layer on the forest floor has an enormous water-absorbing capacity, and when saturated it allows the water to percolate slowly into the deeper loosened layers of mineral soil from which in turn it gradually finds its way into springs and watercourses. Further, the influence of the forest is such that the melting of snow is more gradual and water is slowly absorbed and held, thus again avoiding floods. The forest regulates the off-flow of water after heavy rains or melting snow. This water is fed into springs and watercourses more gradually throughout the year, thus preventing floods at one season and equally serious drought at another. … I do not claim that afforestation or forest conservation in the high ground and valley slopes will entirely prevent floods and drought, but what the forester is doing, or leaves undone, in the remote hinterland will go a long way to check or ameliorate the evil effects of both."
My third reason concerns a question which is of the deepest interest to us all, the question of employing more of those millions of unfortunate idle hands that the present discontents have set up before us as an ever-present reminder that all is not so bright as an apparent prosperity may lead us to think. It is not necessary to try to justify the employment of men in forestry on grounds of health and contentment; and as for the practical side, it has been demonstrated that it can employ more men for a given expenditure of money than almost any other industry. A leader in The Times of September 22 of this year puts the matter in a nutshell. It is speaking of the part of the Duke of Northumberland's estates recently acquired by the Forestry Commission at Kielder in the Cheviots. "They" (the estates)
"… offered a fine opportunity for the Commission to extend the facilities for giving work to the unemployed in which it has been co-operating with the Ministry of Labour. … What the Forestry Commission gives to the Ministry of Labour is the means of restoring to health and vigour … relay after relay of enfeebled and objectless men from the depressed areas … and of training them to some degree of efficiency in the hope of future occupation. What the Ministry of Labour gives to the Forestry Commission is the present completion of works—road-making, drainage, and the like—which are not immediately necessary, but which will prove in the end a great saving of time and money.
408
Not only in the camps and courses for the unemployed, but also in the regular operations of the Commission, there remains much more to be done, if funds will allow and encouragement is offered."
If it is also taken into account that in the North of England in particular, the former home of so many thriving industries in the last century, much labour has been displaced which may never be able to return to its original site—in the cotton and woollen and coal trades for example—how is it possible not to feel that here is a partial solution of this terrible problem, able to secure health and an occupation for thousands and at the same time to increase our basic store of timber; in other words, an opportunity to spend money in a way that is sensible now and lucrative later?
I have done my best, my Lords, to make clear the straits in which we find ourselves as a nation at the present time with regard to timber, and I have given what I consider the most cogent reasons for attending to the situation. I have one word more to say which concerns the last clause of the Motion that stands in my name. The question of private planting is difficult one to embark on. Landowners on mixed estates have little enough money to spare for planting in these days; municipal bodies and public bodies have many more immediate necessities in their mind's eye, housing, drainage, slum clearance and so on. It has not hitherto been considered an acceptable policy for the State to acquire land compulsorily, although the Forestry Commission have stated that part of their difficulties are due to the fact that they cannot acquire all the land they would like under the present system. What the future holds, in this connection, I leave to others to prophesy. But I would make the tentative suggestion that, since it should be evident to all by this time how grave the emergency is, whatever energies have so far been expended in circularising and encouraging owners of woodlands should now be redoubled, through whatever channels are considered most suitable; and that no pains should be spared to bring home vividly to owners and purchasers of woodlands what their responsibility is. Possibly the various independent societies that deal with forestry—and there are quite a number of them now—might make this

409
their business. Possibly municipal bodies might, in time, be obliged to devote to afforestation at any rate a part of such lands outside towns as they acquire. The subject is a very thorny one, and I shall wait with interest to hear if His Majesty's Government or any other speakers have any suggestions to offer, since I do not feel prepared to embark as bravely as perhaps I ought to on a highly contentious subject, since it is one which introduces the whole ethics of private property.
My Lords, in conclusion, I have in the course of these remarks omitted two arguments; because I consider they need no demonstration. One is that of a potential war-time emergency where timber is concerned. It should be obvious that if the last war occasioned the difficulties that did, another conflict, especially after the progress in aeronautics of the last twenty years, would make the arrival of supplies from outside exceedingly problematical. The other concerns the beauty of the English countryside. From Chaucer to the Georgian poets and all through our literature runs the strain of panegyric in praise of it. The Forestry Commission are obliged, for economic reasons, to concentrate on soft-wood planting; hedgerow timber and hard-wood plantations are disappearing as fast as the rest, and it is that which makes up our English scene. If, in a 100 years time, someone reads the words of Keats:
"As when upon a trance'd summer night Those green-robed senators of mighty woods
Tall oaks, branch-charmed by the earnest stars
Dream and so dream all night without a stir …"
I could continue the quotation, but I do not want to weary your Lordships—would you have those words seem very much a fantasy of the remote past, and the reader be looking out on a landscape occupied entirely by something resembling the road between London and Oxford? I think not, and in that event, and that hope, I beg to move.
Moved to resolve, That it is desirable that the planting programme of the Forestry Commission be increased substantially, and that steps be taken to encourage planting and the practice of sound forestry upon municipal and private estates.—(Lord Derwent.)
THE EARL OF LEVEN AND MELVILLE: My Lords, I should like, if I may be allowed to do so, first to offer my sincere congratulations to the noble Lord who has just sat down on his very eloquent and most informative speech, to which I, for one, have listened with the greatest interest. If I intervene in this debate it is to speak on this subject of the growing of timber from the point of view of Scotland generally, and particularly of the Highlands of Scotland, in which is to be found so large a proportion of the plantations of timber at present being grown. What is the position in the timber-growing industry to-day? The main difficulty, I think, is not just the lack of capital to put into the planting of trees, but rather the complete inability of the prospective timber-grower to see any reasonable possibility of any return on the capital which he expends in laying down his plantation, and this is, of course, caused by two main reasons. The first is the very low price which at present prevails for home-grown timber, and the second, the very high cost of producing and delivering the timber at the market.
In considering the question of the cost of producing timber, the type of timber which is more effective than any other is the smaller type of timber which is used as pit wood for the mines, and it is to this variety that I propose, to-day, to devote the greater part of my attention. I do so for two reasons, first, because, as I have said, the return on the capital employed in planting, to-day, is so mythical, and secondly, because it is so absolutely essential to forestry generally that the thinnings of the plantations should be able to be sold, in order that the plantations may be thinned and the final yield of timber should be of a satisfactory character. If I may give your Lordships a few figures of the costs in this industry, particularly of selling the pit wood, I would remind your Lordships of these figures. I find that the average railway cost from the Highlands to the mines for pit-wood timber is about 18s. per ton. If you assume, as is generally assumed, that with well seasoned pit wood a ton will consist of about 50 cubic feet, that gives you a cost of railway carriage of about 4¼d. per cubic foot, and the cost of felling, cross-cutting, and haulage has been worked out very carefully on a certain large estate as 5d.

411
per cubic foot, though that is assumed by many timber merchants, I believe, to be decidedly on the low side. The total cost therefore of felling, hauling to the rail and putting on the rail of a cubic foot of pit-wood timber is 94¼d.
The average price of pit wood at the mines in Scotland during the current year has alternated from 8d. to 10d. per cubic foot. It will therefore be obvious that here is an industry where, after many years of hard work, the thinnings, which must somehow be disposed of, can only be disposed of possibly without loss but certainly without profit, and if from the ordinary private individual's point of view a timber merchant must be used to fall and shape the timber, as in most cases he must be used, and if any profit is to be allowed to the merchant, the owner finds himself without any prospect whatever of profit, and possibly with a loss on every foot of pit-wood timber that he sells.
Turning to the cost of the original capital which is sunk in the industry, the cost of planting per acre is put at various figures. The Forestry Commission, planting on a large scale, quote a figure of £9 15s. per acre. To the private individual, or to the municipal body, planting on a much smaller scale, the costs are far higher and are put as high as £15 and more for each acre planted. What are the results of this situation? The timber grower, under present conditions, faces the prospect of getting no return on thinnings from his plantations after his capital has been sunk for a period of about twenty-five to thirty years, and may be certain he will get no yield whatever on his money until the larger timber can be sold, after period of waiting, say, of fifty or sixty years.
This is not the worst of the situation, for as things are, to-day, the position is that landowners are literally unable to sell the thinnings which they must take out from their woods if the woods are to mature and produce good timber. Also there are in Scotland to-day large acre-ages of plantations which are ripe, and more than ripe, for having trees thinned out, which to-day cannot be done because the grower of the timber is faced with the prospect that if he does it he will do it only at considerable cost to himself. In the census of 1932 it was shown that there
412
were available 2,250,000 tons of pit wood, which was reckoned to be sufficient for all the mines in Scotland for a period of from eight to ten years; but when the unfortunate timber grower endeavours to put his timber on the market he meets with prices so low, and costs so high, that it is quite impossible for him to face the loss involved. As I have shown your Lordships, of the cost of delivering timber at the market almost 50 per cent. is composed of the cost of railway carriage. Efforts are being made by the growers in many parts of Scotland to come to some arrangement on this matter with the railway companies, in order that some more satisfactory rate may be agreed upon, for an average rate from the Highlands of 18s. per ton does not compare very favourably with the flat rate of 10s. per ton which was in existence throughout the War.
In this connection I would ask the Government whether they cannot give some help, or apply their best efforts towards trying to raise the price of home-grown timber, or, as an alternative, securing some reduction in the cost of railway carriage of timber. Forestry, as Lord Derwent has said, is an industry which is not only extremely healthy but one which can produce work for a very large number of men in rural areas, so taking away numbers of the surplus population from the larger cities. It is an industry which lately was described in one of his speeches by His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales as one which did more than any other to improve the physique of the people employed. His Royal Highness, I think, used the words that "fine forests make fine men." I trust therefore that something can be done in this situation which will make it possible for the many individuals and public bodies in this country who would be well prepared, as I know, to plant timber if they could see any reasonable chance of a return, to do so. I would also remind your Lordships that if the present situation continues there will in the course of a very few years be a large acreage of Government-granted land where the plantations will have to be thinned and where, if present costs and present prices continue, this can only be done at considerable cost to the taxpayers of the country.
LORD LAMINGION: My Lords, I should like to join in congratulating the noble Lord on his speech in introducing this topic. I think he is too enthusiastic about the value of afforestation by the State. At the prices which prevail now forestry in most cases in this country is carried on more as a pleasant occupation than as a remunerative business. My noble friend behind me referred to the question of railway carriage. It seems to me that in these days, when roads are being built to carry the big lorries which transport timber, that is really a minor question, and if the railway companies can possibly convey timber without loss they do so. The noble Earl mentioned the question of pit props. I still believe in free trade, but I do not understand why, this country having departed from the principles of free trade, pit props should be allowed free entry, as I understand is the case. Manufactured timber pays duty, but not pit props. Why not? Before the war it did not pay, except in a few cases in very favoured localities, to grow timber for sale. I saw a letter in The Times the other day, I think by a Mr. Baker, estimating that if 3,000,000 acres of land were planted there would in thirty-five years time be a profit of £60,000,000. That is fantastic, and ought not to be considered seriously.
I have spoken to many carpenters, and I have never yet found a carpenter who did not prefer working with foreign timber in preference to home-grown timber. Why even in the case of the Speaker's Chair, which was sent out to Australia from here—where did the oak come from out of which it was made? It came from Austria. As for the exhaustion of the world supplies of timber, I am perfectly incredulous about it. I believe there are vast areas of timber still unexploited, and there are countries where they grow timber like corn crops, which will be available in the future. I trust that the Government will not be betrayed into lavish expenditure on afforestation. Besides, if there is to be this great increment in value, how hard it is on the private individual that he should plant timber when the State is going to compete with him. How could a private individual compete in the market at prices at which the Government could sell? No doubt new uses may be found for timber in the future, but at the present time timber
414
is being supplanted in one industry after another. There is the question of doing away with wooden railway sleepers and substituting iron and steel sleepers, and scaffolding poles to-day are always made of steel. I do not mean that in the future wood may not come into use again, but in the meanwhile, from all the experience of the past, and certainly of the present time, it would not be wise for the State to go in for a very large increase of planting. It is valuable to have these experimental plantations by the State, but I think that ought to suffice.
THE MARQUESS OF ABERDEEN AND TEMAIR: My Lords, I feel that we owe a very considerable debt to the noble Lord who has raised this most interesting and important question. The ordinary public do not understand this question, nor do they realise the importance of the work of the Forestry Commission. I am interested as one who actually grows timber and plants a very considerable number of trees every year. But from what I have seen of the work of the Forestry Commission I think they do too much in the way of planting soft wood trees, which give a quicker return than hard wood trees. For private enterprise hard wood trees are almost out of the question, because if a man 21 years old were to plant he would not see any result of his labour before he died; whereas he can see some result if he goes in for soft wood. The Forestry Commission is presumably a body that will not die. Moreover, they do not pay Death Duties nor Income Tax, like the ordinary private landowner who grows timber, and I suggest for the consideration of the Government that they should encourage the Forestry Commission to go in for much more hard wood than they are doing at the present time. It is a well known fact that English oak is getting very scarce indeed, and yet when the Commission have bought land bearing oak or any other hard wood, they cut it—which is quite natural if it is ripe—but they do not replant with hard wood but with soft wood. It seems to be absolutely unjustifiable from the Commission's point of view, because hard wood is an extraordinarily important part of the product of forestry.
Soft wood, as I say, gives a quicker return, but if the Commission are going in for soft wood, what chance is there

415
of the private grower being encouraged? The one side of the industry which might possibly pay is taken from him by keen competition from a Government Department. Those who grow timber privately are really grateful for the planting grant they get, but it does not nearly cover the cost, which has already been estimated this afternoon at £15 per acre at least. In my own case it only pays the cost of fencing—I am not sure whether it does that even—to protect the young wood from game and vermin. We want greater encouragement than that. Those who do make the growing of soft wood pay are able to do so because they can repair their own property with the timber they have produced. In that case alone can a private grower get some return for his industry and capital. Owing to legislation for which the Government are not responsible it is getting harder and harder for any individual to own sufficient land to make it worth while growing enough wood to supply the whole of his needs for building or repairs. Even when he does do that his successor is mulcted in heavy Death Duties.
I feel that timber-growing is one of the most important things to do in this time when we are so threatened with entire rural depopulation. Forestry does require a good many men to help in the way of labour. You can employ a lot of men very usefully on timber growing, in looking after forests, cutting and preparing for the mill, and distributing, but unless one gets encouragement it is extremely difficult. I suggest that it is one of the fields for recruiting unemployed men to the great advantage of the State and the great advantage of the individual men concerned. I should like again to thank the noble Lord opposite for having raised this subject, and I hope the Government will look into this question very carefully in order to encourage those who are trying to do their best for timber growing in this country.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (EARL DE LA WARR): My Lords, I think the noble Lord who has raised this question must feel that he was quite right in saying he offered no apology for bringing it before your Lordships' House. Might I be allowed to associate myself with the words which have already been spoken in congratulating him on his maiden speech? I think
416
we shall all be agreed that not only his manner of presenting his case, but the remarkable thoroughness with which he has prepared it, make us all look forward to the time when we shall hear him again taking part in our debates. In replying to this Motion I must confess to a slight feeling of embarrassment, because I am not a Forestry Commissioner nor does the Forestry Commission in any way come under the ægis or authority of the Ministry of Agriculture. My only qualification for replying on their behalf is that they are another very important Department of State responsible for administering important policies in the countryside, and therefore in our Department we are most anxious to do everything in our power to co-operate and to do anything we can to assist them.
The main question which has been raised on the Paper and by the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, is with regard to the activities of the Forestry Commission and the possibility of increasing these activities. He has already given your Lordships a sketch of what they have actually done. They have acquired something over half a million acres of plantable land, of which they have already planted just over a quarter of a million acres. Their programme this year is just over 20,000 acres. In addition they have by a system of grants assisted local authorities and private owners in planting something upwards of 100,000 acres. These grants, as your Lordships are aware, mount up to £2 per acre for soft woods and £4 per acre for hard woods. In addition they have established about 1,200 small holdings for forest workers.
The noble Lord is perfectly right in saying that in their accomplishments they are a long way behind what was hoped for and demanded in the Acland Report. In the first ten years they were not very much behind—about 20,000 acres, about one year's planting; but since then they have fallen back. Actually they had prepared an ambitious scheme, as from 1929, starting with something over 25,000 acres a year and going up in 1938 to 44,000 acres per annum; but unfortunately in 1931, as your Lordships will remember, the Report of the May Committee intervened and made it essential that all economies that could be made should be made, and one of the items of public

417
expenditure most severely cut was the activities of the Forestry Commission. Accordingly, they have proceeded since then with a very much reduced programme. The noble Lord has already mentioned this point, and, if I might be permitted to join with him, speaking for a moment as spokesman for the Forestry Commission rather than as a member of His Majesty's Government, I think we must be prepared to agree with him that the activities of the Forestry Commission have been very much upset by the ups and downs of the national economic position.
Forestry is essentially—more so, I think, than almost any other industry (shall we so call it?) in this country—a long-terra proposition, not merely in regard to the time you have to wait for your return, but long-term in the sense of all the preparations that have to be made for planting. The original machinery of the Forestry Commission was undoubtedly designed specifically with this point in view in order to separate the activities of this Commission as far as possible from not only the day-to-day but year-to-year influences of national policy. I do not think any one would wish to criticise the Governments which have taken this action, but unfortunately the times have been against us. The noble Lord raises the question of whether the Commission could not once more receive further support and be allowed to increase their planting. The first answer one would make to that is this: "For heaven's sake do not let us, for temporary political expediency, embark on a course of encouraging the expansion of planting on behalf of the Commission unless we are prepared to continue it." Nothing would be more destructive of the good and efficient work of the Forestry Commission.
But undoubtedly there is a very strong case at this time, when quite a number of cuts, some of a less constructive nature than this, have been restored, for some reconsideration of the position. The Commissioners' view, I think, is this. Their five-year term of office expires this month, and as soon as they are reappointed, or new Commissioners are appointed, they intend to prepare for the consideration of the Treasury proposals for planting and other work which they would like to undertake in the next
418
few years. Speaking as I am to-day for the Forestry Commission, the noble Lord would not expect me to give any indication of what the Treasury is likely to say, but again, speaking not as a member of His Majesty's Government, I would like to be allowed to wish the Forestry Commission the very best of good luck in any scheme they may feel able to bring forward.
Other questions have been raised in this discussion. The noble Earl, Lord Leven, the noble Lord, Lord Lamington, and the noble Marquess, Lord Aberdeen, all from different points of view, raised the question of the general economic situation of the industry. They pointed out that home-grown timber is being increasingly used, and undoubtedly the costs of handling timber to-day do give a very poor return for the effort that has to be made. That raises very difficult issues—issues which the noble Lord, Lord Lamington, hinted at in his speech. All of us who are connected with the countryside know the importance of forestry to the life of the countryside, and must desire that the planting and growing and handling of timber should be made a profitable concern. But where does the timber go? If we consider the matter from the point of view of the industries that have to use the timber we realise that we have to face a very difficult issue indeed. For instance, timber goes to the mines. Pit props were mentioned by the noble Earl, Lord Leven. How many of us feel to-clay that the coal-mining industry is in a state to bear further additions to its costs? I think we must feel that we have to look at any proposition that would increase coal-mining charges in any way with the greatest care. Where else does the timber go? It goes for building. To-day sweeping throughout the country—everyone of us must welcome it—is a demand for the building of cheap houses to let at low rents to the working classes. Again, I think noble Lords who are enthusiastic for assistance to be given to home-grown timber would feel that very careful examination would be required before the Government took any steps that were going to increase the cost of erecting those houses. I want to-day, speaking not on behalf of His Majesty's Government but as an individual, to say that these issues cannot be lightly regarded.

419
There are other questions than the quesion of price. The noble Lord, Lord Clinton, may be able to tell us something about the thought and work that landowners have been putting into the consideration of the question of the lowering of their costs—the lowering of the costs of handling timber and the lowering of the costs of marketing timber. I think we are all agreed that if this industry is to be assisted it would be very much better to assist it by the lowering of costs rather than by raising prices. The noble Earl, Lord Leven, asked why could not the Government bring some pressure upon the railway companies to induce them to lower their transport costs. The Government have frequently in the past, in dealing with agricultural commodities, done what they could to intervene with the railways on this question, but, as noble Lords realise, there is now in existence definite machinery—the Railway Rates Tribunal—for the consideration of railway rates, and that is the proper body to deal with the matter. But might I say this? It does occur to me that negotiations carried on by an organised industry itself, by a body composed of men who really know the facts of the situation and can put their own case, are far more likely to have success with the Railway Rates Tribunal than negotiations by the Government which, after all, would be intervening from right outside the industry. Again I venture to hope that the noble Lord, Lord Clinton, will be able to tell us something of what has been considered by himself and his friends with regard to this question of the organisation of timber producers.
I hope I have dealt with all the questions that have been raised. If not, I trust your Lordships will address further questions to me. The noble Lord (Lord Derwent) has raised this question in a manner that must have impressed us, not only with his capacity for putting a case, but also with the importance of the subject as a whole. I should like to give him my assurance that I will bring all his points which concern the Forestry Commission to the notice of that body, and those which concern His Majesty's Government more generally to the attention of the Government.
LORD CLINTON: My Lords, I should like to say a very few words upon this
420
matter. In the first instance I wish to support in the fullest possible way the desires which the noble Lord opposite has expressed concerning the increase of afforestation in this country. He has given many very adequate reasons for it—reasons of production, reasons of employment, reasons of amenity, and also climatic reasons. An increase of afforestation is undoubtedly concerned with them all. The noble Earl, the Parliamentary Secretary of the Ministry of Agriculture, has given us, I am glad to say, a very sympathetic reply, both personally as well as in the details which he has announced on behalf of the Forestry Commission. The record of work done really is, in my view, a very fine one. I am not speaking for the Forestry Commission, although my close association with them for the first ten years of the work enables me to speak with some knowledge of the work done. Not only have they done a very great work in planting, but they have done a great deal in bringing in a forest policy, they have done a great deal through research and through experiment, and really they have brought in a new system of enormous importance to the private individual and to forestry generally.
There has been the very greatest difficulty in forestry during the fifteen years in which the Commission have been operating. Suggestions have been made that they might have done more, and I was very glad indeed that the noble Earl was able to put his finger upon what has been the greatest obstacle in the path of the Forestry Commission—that is, the constant changes of programme brought about by various financial crises which have overtaken us in the last few years. He spoke about the crisis in 1929, but of course the same thing has happened before in the very earliest days of the Commission. Your Lordships will recollect the crisis that came upon the country in 1919 when the Geddes axe descended. I have no doubt that that axe fell with more or less impartiality upon most Departments, but it fell with exceptional severity upon the Forestry Commission because the axe was supposed to execute that Commission. Fortunately, through the wider knowledge of the Government of the day, they escaped immediate execution, but they were cut down to a very much lower programme and that greatly upset their work. That has

421
happened on three separate occasions since. It is easy to understand the loss that occurs. The whole work of acquisition is upset, the whole programme of planting and creating forest holding is upset and, more particularly, the actual nursery work is disturbed. When suddenly the programme is reduced, a great number of plants that have been raised at considerable cost are lost.
One or two criticisms of the work were made by the noble Marquess, Lord Aberdeen, who asked a question which is often heard: Why is not more oak planted? He recognises that it is difficult for the private individual to do that, but he considers that a Government department should be able to stand the loss which such planting obviously must entail. That is not quite the whole story. I think the Forestry Commission would like to plant oak, and I believe in almost every case where they have felled oak they have replanted the ground with oak, except in those cases where it was found to be quite unsuitable for such planting. The trouble is that oak, unfortunately, requires a deep and fertile soil, far more fertile and far more expensive than that which is required to grow conifer timber. It is not only a question of expense. I agree with the Forestry Commission in their view that it is not right, when we are planting for the Commission, that we should buy land which is more suitable perhaps for growing food. If it is land which produces food, it is better to apply it to that purpose than to the production of timber. That is the main reason why oak is not planted.
The difficulties of the private timber owner have been pointed out by the noble Lord opposite and have been dealt with by other noble Lords. Considerable assistance has been given in the way of grants—I wish they were larger—and in the way of advice and instruction. All that is of great value, but in my view assistance might also be given by the Forestry Commission in the direction of the disposal of timber. That is the big problem which faces private owners. They can get on fairly well with production with the grants and other assistance they are given, but when it comes to disposal, as the noble Earl, Lord Leven, has pointed out, they are faced with low prices, poor demand and high railway rates so that the position has become an exceedingly difficult one. The suggestion
422
was made that the Government might consider putting a duty upon imported props or other timber. The noble Earl below me said that would be entirely wrong because it world increase the cost of building. Why should it? Already the price that is paid for the foreign timber is higher than that paid for home-grown timber. There is a difference of nearly £1 per standard in the case of timber for ordinary construction work if you buy Canadian timber instead of British timber. A tariff might be right or wrong, but I do not think it would affect the price of timber either in mines or in construction work.
There is only one way of getting over the difficulty of high railway rates—personally I believe it could be done—and that is by sending timber and props in large and regular consignments. If we can send train loads instead of four truck loads there is a possibility of getting railway rates reduced, because obviously it is to the interest of the railway companies to carry this traffic if they possibly can. It is in the direction of the disposal of the produce that I think assistance might be given. Some time ago, before the Death Duties were so severely felt, when there were large woodland estates, there was generally a good system of forestry and a good organisation for disposal of timber. Now these estates are split up and are in the hands of comparatively small owners who have no scope for forestry. What the individual cannot do alone would be possible, it seems to me, for a combination of owners. They should be able to make provision for bulk supplies and for the regularity which not only the railway companies but the timber merchants require.
I do not want to labour the subject, but I should like to say that both in Scotland and in England organisations for that purpose have been started. The English organisation was only begun this year. I think that if we ourselves endeavour to organise our business, so that we can put our material on the market in the way which trade and industry desires, there is some reason why we should expect assistance from the Forestry Commission. We ask them to do for the forests what the Ministry of Agriculture have done with such great effect for the farms. It is not a case of asking for large grants. We want

423
recognition and assistance, we want them to take charge of home-grown timber and popularise the demand for it. With the assistance that they could give us, I believe that our own organisations would go on and it would be a real incentive to forestry in this country.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

MARRIAGE LAWS.
LORD KILMAINE LORD KILMAINE had given Notice that he would move to resolve, That the marriage laws should be so amended as to make it obligatory for both parties to the proposed marriage to produce medical certificates of fitness when they come before a minister of religion or the civil authority.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I hope that the Motion which I have on the Order Paper may meet with the general consent and agreement of this House as well as of the Government, for I cannot but feel that the subject with which it deals is of such vital importance that it must concern any Government with the true welfare of the people at heart. I have talked over the matter with many medical men and I find general agreement that some legislation on the lines which I am venturing to suggest is very badly needed. Those of your Lordships who, like myself, have passed middle age have, I am sure, met with many cases of men and women leading unhappy, spoilt lives through no fault of their own but owing to some hereditary taint or illness transmitted to them by their parents or ancestors. Some of your Lordships also may have witnessed a very remarkable Canadian film which was shown in London during the past summer; it was called "Damaged Lives," and it dealt with one of the worst of the hereditary evils. My proposal as expressed in my Motion is that henceforth it should be made illegal that any marriage should be solemnised in this country unless both the contracting parties when they come before the minister of religion or the registrar can furnish medical certificates of fitness to marry and to raise a family. These certificates should, in my opinion, be signed by some competent medical authority; the fee for them should be fixed, and should be fixed as low as possible; and some steps should be
424
taken to ensure that the answers given are true.
I propose that there should be four certificates: Certificate "A," the "All clear," showing that the parties are perfectly fit to marry and to raise a family; then certificate "B," which will show that for some reason of health it is advisable that there should be delay, but that the parties may present themselves again three or six months hence. This would be a most important provision in the case of suspected venereal infection. Then there would be certificate "C," which would say that the parties can marry without danger to each other, but that for family or other reasons it must be a childless marriage. I admit that that question of childless marriages is the real difficulty. People may say that it is arbitrary and immoral, but I hold very strongly that it is wicked and criminal to bring children into this world unless there is a reasonable prospect of their being able to lead healthy, happy and useful lives. If that be agreed to, then it must follow that some form of birth control must be employed for the unfit. I hesitate to suggest sterilisation, though it has been suggested, but if the Government want advice they have the whole medical profession upon which they can draw for it. Lastly, there would be certificate "D" which would prohibit marriage altogether.
That certificate would be given in a case in which it would be considered that not only would there be danger to the children but that there would be definite danger to the parties themselves. It will be seen that only in the last case is marriage absolutely prohibited, and I hope and believe that by that certificate the parties concerned would be helped to realise that they had a lucky escape. I also hope that certificates "B" and "C" would come to be regarded by the parties themselves as necessary safeguards against much misery and unhappiness, both to themselves and to any possible offspring. Most parents are fond of their children; a mother, especially, thinks that her baby is the best baby that ever was born. I cannot imagine any greater grief or distress than for parents to see their child grow up mentally or physically defective.
Besides this menace of hereditary disease there is the further problem of close in-breeding. Many of your Lordships know that in the more remote parts of this country, as in others, there are communities who live isolated lives in a sort of small world of their own. In due time the young men and maidens grow up and marry, but too often the result of these marriages, owing to close blood relationship, is that the children of the marriages, though physically well developed, are mentally deficient. The asylums of the country are full of such people, and there those poor people are likely to continue for the rest of their natural lives. The cost to the State of the public mental institutions of this country must be enormous. I have not all the statistics before me but I have been given the statistics of one large county asylum, and they are simply staggering. I cannot reconcile the extraordinary care taken by breeders of pedigree stock, pedigree herds, pedigree dogs and other animals where money is concerned, to keep the herd or breed pure and healthy, with the almost total neglect of the human race. Practically nothing is done to protect the next generation. If my Motion results in legislation on the lines suggested it will, at any rate, lead to a great diminution in the number of such spoilt lives.
At present it is possible for marriages to take place in this country, with the full blessing of Church and State, which almost certainly mean damaged and hopeless lives for the children. The Roman Catholic Church, as your Lordships probably know; prohibits the marriage of first cousins; the English Church gives its blessing to it. Why is it that when other countries are doing everything in their power to remedy this defect, we cannot do it? This fearful increase of damaged and useless lives must be prevented somehow, both for the sake of the race as a whole and for the sake of the individuals themselves.
May I before I sit down read to your Lordships three extracts from the Press? One is a letter which appeared in the Daily Telegraph:
"The Bill to enforce obligatory medical certificates of fitness before marriage, of which Lord Kilmaine has given notice, is surely one that is long overdue. Only those who endure, or see the endurance of, inherited physical or mental taint can realise the tragedy of lives that must be lived handi-
426
capped by disabilities as hopeless to avoid as impossible of cure. It is useless, seemingly, to caution unsound people about the disastrous consequences attending the procreation of children. Marriages are contracted in order to gain wealth or position, while too often health becomes a secondary consideration."
Here is another letter which appeared in the Manchester Evening News:
"It would be the height (or the depth) of presumption for a nonentity in a provincial town to think of swaying that august assembly the House of Lords, yet I think the opportunity occurs for the Lords to distinguish themselves over Lord Kilmaine's Motion. What a fine thing it would be if they were to astound the world by giving a real lead. Our public men and women seem to be so nervous about doing anything rash, and your correspondent suggests that 'liberty-loving couples might resent the innovation and the expense of it.' Certainly marriage is a private and intimate matter up to a point, but no responsible person could wish to transmit disease or incapacity; to do so is a great injury to the individual, to society, and finally to oneself and one's partner. As to the expense of a medical examination—what a fearful thing it is in these days for people who cannot find such a fee to contemplate bringing children into existence."
Lastly, there is a quotation from the Wigan, Examiner as follows:
"I see that Lord Kilmaine has given notice of a Motion in the House of Lords "—
the writer then sets out the Motion and continues:
"This may seem, to many people, revolutionary or unfair; but I think that if we consider seriously what it means we must come to see that it not only would be a sound measure, but also that it is fast becoming a very necessary one. The future of the human race is in this country doubly handicapped at the present time; there is first the low standard of living of a proportion of the population (and this proportion, as I pointed out above, has a high birthrate), and secondly—another indisputable fact, though we fight shy of it—the gradual degradation of the race through the increasing reproduction of its worst specimens. I shall watch with great interest the progress of Lord Kilmaine's idea."
I would like to add that one of the objections to my proposal is that couples might very much resent undergoing medical examination. I do not propose that they should undergo medical examination. That would only be necessary in the case of venereal disease. In all other cases it would simply be necessary to answer questions relating to general heath and family history.
Moved to resolve, That the marriage laws should be so amended as to make it

427
obligatory for both parties to the proposed marriage to produce medical certificates of fitness when they come before a minister of religion or the civil authority.—(Lord Kilmaine.)
THE LORD BISHOP OF NORWICH: My Lords, there was so much in the earlier words of the noble Lord with which I agreed that I should have liked to be able to associate myself with him in this proposal, but as his speech developed itself I found myself unable to do so. I do not think it is possible to draw a parallel between the breeding of the human race and the breeding of stock. First of all there is a dignity attaching to the human race of which one must never lose sight. Secondly, those who work in country districts are only too well aware that marriage is not the only door to procreation, and I am afraid there are many who, failing to receive any of the certificates suggested, would still not be restricted from forming alliances from which children might result. The certificates themselves seem to me to involve much greater difficulty than the noble Lord has himself suggested. I cannot imagine that they could be removed from careful medical examination, and there we touch on the dignity of the human race.
Speaking generally, I think this proposal must be viewed with a very much larger background behind it. It touches on the whole view of mental defectives or ineffectives. There are a great many gradations in the want of complete mental power, and at the present time our knowledge of these disorders, and our equipment for dealing with them in private and public ways, are so limited that I cannot suppose we could handle this isolated point as separate from all these larger questions, which certainly need a closer investigation. Would it be effective? Physically, sometimes, Yes; but when you touch the mental ground I am afraid the answer must be, No! Many of these mental disorders are intermittent in their effect. You may find someone perfectly clear, mentally, in himself or herself, and yet he or she may carry a taint into a further generation. I can see extreme difficulty in disqualifying people for marriage who are apparently perfectly sane, who have shown no sign of disorder, simply because their fathers or grandfathers, or some other generation
428
behind them, have shown tokens of some kind of mental disaffection; and yet all the time these people, adequate and perfect in themselves, might be the very ones who could not be safely trusted to rear families.
At the same time I think we may be grateful to the noble Lord for raising the question. We need a ripe opinion on all these questions of eugenics, and in that sense we are indebted to him for raising the subject. He has pointed out to us that while our birth rate as a whole is not increasing we do find that the birth rate amongst undesirable stocks proceeds more rapidly than among the more promising stocks of the community. These undesirable stocks appear to be particularly lacking in self-control, and this self-control is not much found in the marriage relationship. It is a very grave matter. Perhaps it is a national menace, but I do not think that any isolated action of this sort would be any good. I find myself therefore constrained to oppose the Motion, while sincerely thanking the noble Lord for having given the matter this publicity, which may set us all thinking.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, I find so much, general talk on this large subject that I think it is rather desirable, when it is discussed in such a place as this, that we should endeavour to reduce it to a greater degree of definiteness than that with which the noble Lord has introduced it. I agree that it is a matter of great importance, and one which will demand very soon very careful consideration by the Government, but before that is done I think it is well to get rid of the rather loose assumptions which, with the best possible intentions, the noble Lord has made. First of all, if we look at the Resolution which your Lordships are asked to pass, we would ask what is the nature of the fitness into which inquiries are to be made. Is it merely for the production of children, or for reasons of health and nerve, and the like? But, most of all, who is to certify? If every married couple is compulsorily to produce a medical certificate, is it to be some State official before whom they are to go? Are we to understand that they are to pay a small fee for an investigation by some State official as if they were to be "vetted" like horses? Then

429
how is the private practitioner to take the responsibility except perhaps in the case of a clear-cut "All is well"—the certificate "A" of the noble Lord, or the quite definite certificate "D"—prohibition. How is he to take upon himself the responsibility of saying, "You must delay," or of saying "I think you must be prepared to render yourself childless."? That is putting an onus upon a private practitioner which wants a great deal more thinking out before we can agree to it.
My last point concerns the difficulty of who is to certify and how. What are we to say of the difficulty of the minister of religion or civil authority before whom the parties come? No doubt they will not be troubled if the parties receive certificate "D," which prohibits, and there will be no trouble if they bring certificate "A," which is "All clear." But what is the unfortunate minister of religion to do if they bring the certificate "B"? Is he to say to them: "Have you delayed long enough to conform with this certificate "If it is certificate "C," is he to say; "I am sorry to trouble you with this question, but are you quite sure you have made it impossible for you and your proposed wife to have children"? It is putting the minister of religion and equally the civil authority in a quite impossible position. I do not mean to say that this is not a matter which requires very careful consideration, but with the greatest possible appreciation of the motives of the noble Lord, I think it wants much clearer statement and much fuller thought than we can give to it on the basis of this particular Resolution. There is awaiting your Lordships, I suppose some time, a full discussion on the recent Report which has been prepared, at the request I think of the Home Office, on sterilisation and kindred subjects. That merits the most careful consideration, but, taking the actual terms of the noble Lord's Resolution, I must say that, in spite of the impressive testimony of the Press which he quoted, I hope your Lordships will not "astound the world" by taking the lead and passing the Resolution as it stands.
VISCOUNT GAGE: My Lords, as the Ministry of Health regard this matter as of some importance I want to say a few words on their behalf. In dealing with a proposal of this sort, which affects
430
the life of the people on a very personal and intimate point, we must be very certain, not only that the objective itself is one that is desirable, but that the method proposed is likely to have the result anticipated. There has been a good deal of outcry in recent years about the restrictions on liberty. When applied to matters which, I suppose we all admit, are human weaknesses, like drinking and gambling, the restrictions may arouse feelings of irritation; but when restrictions are applied to such matters as the right to marry they are obviously likely to stir far more fundamental feelings, and may easily involve the religious convictions of large sections of the community.
May I say a word first on whether the objective is desired? I think it might be said that there is at least strong evidence of the desirability of limiting the right of marriage in regard to one class of person, the mentally defective. A recent Committee on the sterilisation of mental defectives really dealt with the matter from a somewhat different angle from that which we are considering today. But the evidence of that Report has interest as showing the extraordinary volume of suffering and misery that so often afflicts the children of defective parents; and I am sure that those of your Lordships who have had to inspect lunatic asylums and institutions can never forget the terribly sad and harrowing cases which I am sure they have encountered there. With the subject of the legal marriage of mental defectives that Committee does not deal, but the Board of Control have on several occasions recommended in strong terms that the marriage of mental defectives under order should be prohibited by law. At present the position of the control of marriage of mental defectives, as far as I can ascertain, is that when they are in institutions they are incapable of marriage. In the case of mental defectives under guardianship, the consent of the guardian is required but, as with minors, if a defective manages to get married by evading the guardian's consent, then the marriage is valid.
The Report of the Board of Control says this, referring to the evidence which has been mentioned previously:
"On these grounds our Board have in previous Reports strongly recommended that the marriage of defectives under order should be prohibited by law. We realise

431
that the proportion of defectives under order is so small that such a prohibition would only touch the fringe of the problem; but we believe that the statutory prohibition of marriage in these cases would have a value far beyond the actual number of cases to which it would apply, because of its effect in bringing home to the public conscience the unwisdom of countenancing unions the results of which are, from every point of view, nothing less than disastrous."
Your Lordships will remember that the Departmental Committee on Sterilisation did recommend a form of voluntary sterilisation, but they also dealt with the proposals for compulsory sterilisation. They were clearly of opinion that any hint of institutions being associated in any degree with compulsory sterilisation would keep people from going to those institutions for treatment which, in many cases, would be highly beneficial to them, and would also lead them and their relatives to try to conceal from their medical attendants that they were affected at all.
The loss of rights of marriage, or the qualification of rights of marriage which the noble Lord proposes, is a less severe step than compulsory sterilisation, but I think it might be argued that any investigation by the State of this kind would still have the tendency to drive underground facts which ought, both in the interests of the individual and of the nation, to be brought to the notice of the medical profession as soon as any suspicion is aroused. I do not think there has ever been any serious consideration of proposals to limit the right, of marriage to anybody except mental defectives, but I imagine that the same considerations would weigh with even greater force where an individual was able to apply a sound mind to the concealment of his complaint. Indeed I think it is not entirely improbable that to some people of rather nervous temperament the dread of a medical examination would be a severe deterrent, to a legalised marriage, and might, in fact, tend to increase the number of illegitimate births. I think we might agree with the most reverend Primate that a medical certificate based on anything but a medical examination would hardly be a medical certificate at all.
I think one might summarise the attitude of the Ministry of Health to these matters by saying that they do feel that there is sufficient evidence, from experience extending over a large number of
432
years, to justify them in testing public opinion very thoroughly in regard to the Reports of the Board of Control and the Committee on Sterilisation. This is what they are doing now. The Report of that Committee on Sterilisation has been circulated, and is being considered at present by large numbers of institutions and bodies interested in these matters. But beyond what we have done we cannot go, at any rate for the time being. We realise, of course, that there are undeniable evils in the present situation, some of which may be prevented, but we feel that in these very delicate matters it is absolutely necessary to carry the public with us at every step. Consequently we are convinced that to go now a long way beyond what we are doing, on the lines suggested by the noble Lord, without very large evidence of public and medical support, would be disastrous to the very cause which the noble Lord has at heart. Though I cannot therefore accept in any way the Motion of the noble Lord, we are grateful to him for raising this subject. We desire to listen carefully to expressions of opinion from the public on these matters, and we shall continue to watch the whole situation with the greatest attention, as I think everyone will agree it is a matter of the greatest possible importance.
LORD KILMAINE: My Lords, having regard to the reply of His Majesty's Government, of course I shall willingly withdraw my Motion, but I should like, before doing so, to answer one point raised by the most reverend Primate, the Archbishop of Canterbury, about certificate "C" and childless marriages. I happen to know myself of three or four cases where couples have married and are living happily together and who, by mutual consent, have no family because they are well aware that, if they do, that family probably would be seriously tainted. I should say that any doctor examining people should put down consumption, insanity, venereal disease, or close blood relationship as bars to the production of children. I beg to withdraw my Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn

DEFENCE SERVICES.
LORD MOTTISTONE LORD MOTTISTONE had the following Notice on the Paper:—To ask His Majesty's Government whether they can

433
now give in broad outline a clear definition of our needs for national and Imperial defence, with a view to securing an adequate number of recruits for all three branches of His Majesty's Services; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I know the hour is somewhat late, but the matter is urgent and affects the usual subject which I find debated in your Lordships' House—liberty. We alone of all the nations in Europe rely on the free will of the individual to fill our armed forces, and that is a point that is too often forgotten. The result is that recruiting gives cause for anxiety, as I know the Leader of the House will confirm me in saying. The Territorial Force is considerably below strength and indeed has gone clown. I, myself, know about this matter because for the last seventeen years I have been charged with recruiting for the Territorial Force in a great county of England, and others of your Lordships have been likewise charged. Although recruiting has not gone down in our county it has gone down in the country as a whole, and this is due, I am sure—and that is why I bring the matter to the notice of your Lordships—to what I may call an unholy and unnatural combination between what is termed the pacifist, on the one hand, and the panic-monger on the other. Between the two of them they have formed a body of doctrine which I am presently going to describe, and which has the most disastrous results on recruiting for the forces of the Crown.
May I say one word to what are termed pacifists? May I, if my words can reach them, implore them to stop shouting "Britain does not want war—no more war"? Everybody knows that. Of course we do not want war. Let any pacifist step outside this country and go to a foreign country, and he will perceive that if he says one word like that they will either burst out laughing or want to beat him over the head. Of course we do not want war, and everybody knows it, for the simple reason that we have got everything in the world we want. We have a great Empire, which is no doubt of great advantage to everyone in this country and outside, so no Englishman wants to change the status quo. I remember that before the War the then German Ambassador, Baron Marschall von Bieberstein, said to me: "You
434
want to maintain the status quo." I replied: "Yes, we do not want war." He said: "Of course you do not want war, because you have command of the sea and all the best places on the land, but we do not like your status quo." It is more than ever true now that the happiness of the citizens of this country and of the Empire, which is undoubtedly greater than that of people in any other portion of the globe, is due in large measure to the fact that we, have that Empire. So for heaven's sake do not let us be such hypocrites as to keep on saying: "We do not want war," because everyone knows that without our telling them.
A friend of mine, a very eminent soldier and a former member of the North-West Mounted Police of Canada, who tried to maintain order in Klondyke during the first gold rush, told me that the chief difficulty there was a man called Jamie Macpherson. Jamie Macpherson developed such a remarkable technique at the game of poker that he cleaned out all his fellow diggers and made a fortune of $400,000, and my friend said to me: "That was bad enough, but imagine the rage on the gold reef, which even I could not control, when a revivalist preacher came around and Jamie Macpherson, although he did not look very much like a Scotsman, announced that he was converted and went round the diggings saying that poker was wicked and shouting 'No more poker'." The parallel is not exact but it is apt, and I implore these people not to shout "No more war." They will be like Jamie Macpherson when he said "No more poker." Unless my noble friend behind me has an answer which I do not think he will dare give, I only say that because I want the Government to make a clear declaration of the truth about this matter. If other Parties should combine in saying the same it would be an immense advantage in maintaining the voluntary principle, for, rest assured, unless something of this kind is done in the near future this Government or any other Government will be confronted with the alternative of enforcing conscription in order to maintain our defence forces at the level agreed to by this and preceding Governments.
There are four doctrines which tell against recruiting, and very briefly I shall deal with each of them. The first

435
is the suggestion that England is no longer an island. The result is a feeling that it is no good to join the Navy. I see the noble Earl, Lord Beatty, in his place, than whom I suppose no living man is more entitled to speak on the subject of the Royal Navy, and I expect he will agree that this is a fantastic mistake. In point of fact England is more an island from the point of view of national defence and Imperial defence than ever before. All the new inventions—aircraft, tanks, gas, all of them—make natural obstacles more, not less, valuable. If I may try to convince your Lordships by quoting a man who was undoubtedly a great student of war, I recall that Marshal Foch at the time of the Peace Conference perpetually tried to insist on a Rhine frontier. He put that to me, who was representing the Air Ministry at the Peace Conference, again and again. When I said to him: "I do not think you ever can get that solution, even if it were wise," he replied: "Don't you see that now we have all these methods of surprise, notably the aeroplane, a natural barrier is the one thing that will save you? There was only a little stretch between Nieuport and Ypres, but it saved the Channel ports, though it was only forty metres broad. The Rhine would save all fear of conflict for good and all. But your wonderful Channel—what would not we give for your Channel? "That is perfectly true no doubt. All I can say is this. If we take the proper measures for defence against aerial attack, I should say that the danger to Britain and her Empire of one submarine was more formidable than that of a hundred or possibly a thousand aeroplanes. That is fallacy number one.
Doctrine number two says: "The next war will be begun, continued and ended in the air." I am sure that that is completely untrue. The air is immensely formidable when combined with Navy and Army, but it cannot end the war by itself. The only way to end the war is by subduing the people. From the air you can terrify, you can kill, you can destroy, but I am persuaded that you cannot possibly subdue, unless the destruction of human life was so enormous that all power of resistance would be gone. If, after the experience of four years of the recent struggle, when English, French and Germans continued
436
to fight, when thousands of tons—and we are coming to tons now—of explosives and gas were dropped on them day by day, anyone means to suggest that the losses caused by air bombardment can bring this country to its knees, I can only say they have never considered the facts which I wish now to put before them. For these facts are really somewhat surprising. I know that the Secretary of State for Air, whom I see in his place, will not dispute them, for they are mostly taken from official publications of the Air Ministry.
Having dealt with doctrine number two—the fallacy which would make the would-be recruit join neither the Army nor the Navy because it is going to be entirely a war in the air—we come to doctrine number three. And this does the most harm of all; this is where the unholy combination comes in. It is said—I do not trouble to quote from the newspapers, though I could quote volumes, and, indeed, I could quote from some of His Majesty's Ministers, speaking, I think, at hasty moments, words which would give some colour to the theory adduced by the Press—that "if war were to come unexpectedly tomorrow"—I quote exact phrases— "millions of people would be killed, utter disorganisation would result, or" —I still quote—" if gas be employed hundreds of thousands would be permanently maimed or blinded." I am glad to have this opportunity to dispel these fantastic delusions. We know about these things, and I propose to give some figures to which I believe there is no answer at all, because they are taken from official sources. It is true I was appointed to the Committee of Defence twenty-seven years ago, and have constantly attended it, but not in recent years, and anything I say is not taken from any of the secret documents but from documents which are available to anyone to read.
First, we have the actual experience of the past. We deal now only in tons to be dropped. How much could be dropped and what damage would be done, whether it be gas or high explosives or incendiary bombs or germs of disease? I think I can tell your Lordships. During the last War, towards the end, Germany had 3,000 aeroplanes. During the course of that War she dropped altogether on England 270 tons. The number of killed

437
was 1,403 persons altogether, and that works out at 5.9 persons killed by high explosive for every ton of bombs dropped. "Ah," it may be said, "but now there will be ever so many more aeroplanes and ever so many more tons will be dropped." Of course. But somebody is now asking whether millions would be killed. Let us see the facts as taken from official figures. I perceive that as against the 3,000 aeroplanes possessed by France, the 3,000, approximately, possessed by Germany, and the 3,300 possessed by England in those days, there are now altogether 7,000 civil and 7,000 military aeroplanes in Europe, excluding Russia. I made a calculation myself in which I multiplied the losses on the first day by ten to make allowance for any increase in the size of bombs and some other factors. I think the figure stated must have been a great exaggeration, for I believe the official estimate is that the most that could be dropped on this country on the first day would be two hundred tons.
Elaborate experiments made by various persons have tended to show that the most that could be killed on an average per ton is sixteen and wounded seventeen. It will thus be seen that the most that could be killed on the first day would be sixteen times two hundred, which is 3,200 persons. I estimated that it was possible that 14,000 might be killed, but even supposing it was that number, is it conceivable that this country should be brought to her knees by the process of killing even 14,000 let alone 3,000, when, as I have said, we suffered without wincing casualties ten times that number per day in the recent war? "Ah," it may be said, "but there are all sorts of new inventions which have come along; that is where the millions come in." My Lords, that is quite untrue. The sort of high explosive that can be dropped to-day is no different from the sort of high explosive which was dropped at the end of the War. The kind of gas that can be dropped to-day is no more deadly than the kind of gas that would have been dropped in 1919. In fact, so far from it being true to say that the next war, if it broke out to-morrow, would be the most terrible thing ever known, the truth is it would not be anything like so terrible as the war of 1919 would have been, and for the simple reason that, as I know, having
438
been in charge of the Warfare Department of the Ministry of Munitions at the close of the War, there were 100 of the best brains thinking out plans for destruction for one that is thinking out such plans now. I conclude therefore that the theory that we can be annihilated from the air is a complete delusion.
The dropping of gas bombs, viewed purely from the technical point of view, has much against it. A technical friend of mine said with a gloomy smile when it was suggested to him: "It is a pity you know; it is the spoiling of good shells; it never does the same amount of damage." So says the technical man, and I think it is true, because we all learned then, and it is just as true today, that the problem of killing people with gas is very difficult, especially if you attempt it from a distance. You must know, firstly, the barometric pressure, and, secondly, the temperature, or your gas will be very ineffective. It is not so with gas shells, as those who were engaged in the late War know. Then one constantly had beside each battery a record of the temperature and of the barometric pressure. But you cannot tell what that is going to be coming from a distance, as any meteorological expert will tell you. Therefore, if an assumed enemy wants to drop two hundred tons, he would be well advised to drop high explosives instead of gas. I think expert opinion will be inclined to agree with that. The total of damage done by two hundred tons of gas would be much less than that done by two hundred tons of explosives, which, as I say, means 3,200 people killed.
Then it is said that we shall be doomed because the two hundred tons may contain disease germs. That is a fantastic delusion. Can it be supposed that any Commander-in-Chief of Forces would say: "Let us give England leprosy by dropping two hundred tons of leprosy germs"? At once he would be confronted with the answer that it would be very slow in action, and that if it did act more than locally so as to spread all over the country, it would also undoubtedly spread to neighbouring countries, whatever precautions might be taken. But above all, the objection would be that it would be such a slow job. If you wanted to do anything of that kind, it would be far better to em-

439
ploy an agent, a spy. He would do the thing much better. It is also said that incendiary bombs can do immense damage. That is a direction in which great advance has been made since the War, as everybody knows who has studied the question. Given the right wind, I think it would not be altogether impossible for these two hundred tons to destroy a large portion, especially of the worst built parts of London, the East End and so on. But can anybody really suggest that this Commander-in-Chief would adopt that method against England? Does he suppose that the working man, seeing his house in the East End go up in smoke, would say: "Oh well, we had better give in." No, no. No pacifist opinion would have a hearing then. What he would say would be: "Let us be avenged."
The last of these false doctrines is that there is no answer by combating the thing from the air. In fact, an eminent man has said: "Nothing on earth could prevent you being bombed." In a sense, of course, that is true, but then you could not prevent all your shipping in the Channel being sunk if there is going to be an attack without a declaration of war. There is nothing new in that. And it is absolutely untrue that the enemy can continue to bomb with impunity. The experience of the last War is conclusive. We set to work by aerial defence and counter offensive, and the result was that as the War went on air raids became fewer and fewer, until in the last five and a half months they ceased altogether. Memories are short. I would like to quote to your Lordships a resolution passed by the Common Council in the City of London. Bear in mind that we had at that time 286 anti-aircraft guns, 387 searchlights, and a big force of fighters in the air. What was the effect of that? It is expressed in the resolution of the Court of Common Council which was as follows:
"That this Court desires to record its appreciation of the effective measures taken for the defence of London on the occasion of the enemy raids by enemy air-craft during the War, and especially on the night of the 19th May, 1918.
"The Court wishes to express the great indebtedness of the citizens and inhabitants of London for the untiring devotion and splendid services of the pilots, airmen, gunners and others engaged under the command of Major-General Ashmore on the night of 19th May, when not only were seven of the
440
enemy machines brought down, but so much further heavy damage was done to the enemy that the Germans finally decided to abandon attacks On London."
So they did. We know now from German sources that the game was not really-worth the candle; it was so terribly dangerous to come over.
I say to the noble Viscount, the Leader of the House that if as the result of prolonged study of the question he were to come to this House and to say that it is vitally necessary for us to make, let us say, Woolwich impregnable, it would be far less costly to make it impregnable, from the air, except for the first shots after the opening of the War, than to move it elsewhere. The science of balloon aprons has advanced very greatly. As I have said, airmen naturally fear them to the utmost degree. You can get them up to fourteen thousand feet now, and with a little trouble I have no doubt you would be able to get them up to twenty thousand feet. Then we have our wonderful aeroplanes now—too few in number, but extraordinarily efficient. I have a young relative who said he could not play golf the other week-end because he had to go up fifteen thousand feet in fifteen minutes with the rest of his flight. He told me aterwards that they had done it. It is a terrific performance, but it can be done. What would become of the poor bomber if he meets these people up above the curtain the whereabouts of which we know but he does not know? What I suggest to the Secretary of State for Air and to the noble Viscount the Leader of the House we can do with great effect is, not to say by way of reprisals "Kill more babies" but "Kill the killers." War is very wicked and sad, but if somebody comes killing our babies, let us go out and kill them. If we have a bomb to spare for the Prime Minister who decreed the deed, we might have a go at him: otherwise, kill the killers. But I hope the air will be used for peaceful purposes. Once it is known in the world that we have got the measure of them, I think the chance of getting general agreement to abandon all these ideas of either incendiary bombs or gas bombs will have come. I think that we can, and I am sure it will be really worth while.
Finally, there is the most important point that prevents recruits from joining. There is that baffling phrase that our

441
frontier is on the Rhine. I see that repeated in foreign newspapers, and when I go to France and Germany, as I often do, people asked me what it means, and I have to tell them that I really do not know. What can it really mean? I am sure it does not mean that the German people are our hereditary and perpetual foes, for that is contrary to history and contrary to modern fact. If anybody cares to go to Germany to-day he will find there is not a single German from top to bottom who wants to quarrel with England. And, of course, they are not fools. Only five days ago I met an English admiral who had spent two months wandering about Germany, and he assured me, and I can confirm this from my own observations, that he never met such courtesy and kindness and consideration amongst all classes of people. It was apparent to him that they were really anxious to be our friends. Of course, naturally they are. It must be so. Of course, they admire us because we fought well in the War and because we treated them fairly decently after the Peace. More than that, it would be such an idiotic thing to quarrel with England. We are pretty formidable people to "take on," as they found. No, no; it cannot mean that and I am sure that it did not mean that.
If you take the whole speech in which it first appeared, which I have read, apparently it did not mean that, but I think it would be a good thing to dispel that illusion. If it refers to the range of aeroplanes, that is even more baffling. The range of aeroplanes is increasing very rapidly, so why the Rhine? Why not (as I suggested to myself just now) the Volga or the Euphrates? Why the Rhine? The reason it so baffles the recruit—and I know it does because recruits have told me so—is that they do not know what they are going to do. They ask: "What are we going to do? It is not the air business obviously, because you are not going to set your aeroplanes there, are you? I suppose when the next war comes we will walk over the great French defensive line"—which everybody knows about, and which they have built at a cost of, I believe, sixty millions—"into a sort of No Man's Land between the frontier line and the Rhine and then sit there and wait to be told which way we have got to face when 'the Day' comes." It is a very baffling and puzzling
442
statement, and I should be glad, and I think the whole country would be glad, if it could be cleared up by an authoritative statement.
If anything I have said about killing the killers seems rather blood-thirsty to my noble friends behind me I regret it, but I do really mean all that I say. It is no good being mealy-mouthed about this. If we are going to be attacked we must defend ourselves with vigour, and we cannot do that unless we have an adequate number of recruits. We cannot get an adqeuate number of recruits under the voluntary system unless we get a clear lead from those responsible. If my noble friends behind me—and I know the Liberal Party will agree—would join in what I may call a general manifesto agreed to by all Parties on the lines of our defensive policy, to the effect that we must have an adequate Navy, that we must have an Air Force and an attacking Air Force, and that, of course, we must have an Army and a good Army—if they could tell us that, I believe our recruiting difficulties would disappear. But, if I may say so to my noble friend opposite with respect, "if the trumpet gives out an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself for the battle?" And the trumpet has been giving out a very uncertain sound lately—not the trumpet sounded by the Secretary of State for War but the trumpet sounded by other people who have nothing whatever to do with our defensive forces. Their cue has been taken up by the newspapers, who by alternately alarming us and by saying that war is wicked have brought us to to a state in which proud and powerful England is in a real dilemma owing to the shortage of recruits. I trust that my noble friend may help us by making a clear pronouncement upon this important subject. I beg to move.
EARL BEATTY: My Lords, I rise to support the noble Lord's appeal for a clear definition from the Government of our needs for national and Imperial defence. The Motion is one of inquiry, and as the noble Lord did in his concluding remarks, I appeal to the Government to make a clear pronouncement on the needs for all the three Services. I deal with the naval side of this picture. I am, of course, aware that at the present time the Government are engaged in conversations with other Powers, on the

443
naval question, and I have no wish to embarrass them in any way whatsoever, but I do not believe that the raising of a domestic question of this nature would be in any way harmful.
What do we know about this very grave question? In the past, and not very long ago, it has been stated by Cabinet Ministers that there are serious deficiencies in our Imperial defence. The First Lord of the Admiralty in introducing the Estimates made the alarming statement that the Navy was cut to the bone, and that there was a shortage of men. Again, the Lord President of the Council stated on July 19, which is only three and a-half months ago, that
"… in our efforts to further the policy of international disarmament by example as well as by precept we have reduced our armaments to a dangerously low level in the hope that others would follow our lead."
That pious hope has not fructified; they have not followed our lead. That was practically admitted by the Lord President of the Council in that selfsame speech, because he further said:
"During the past eight and a-half years misgivings have arisen in many quarters at the increasing accumulation of deficiencies in our Defence Services, particularly in view of the increased expenditure on armaments in many other countries."
He also added:
"The whole question of Imperial Defence and the part to be played in it by the three Defence Services has been for some months under review by the Government."
That was three months ago.
"It is not necessary to-day to give any complete account of our inquiries or of the detailed conclusions at which we have arrived."
I would ask, when will it be necessary to give this complete account for which we are asking to-day?
He further went on to describe a programme for increasing the Royal Air Force, and in that he informed us of some small additions which were to be made to the strength of the Fleet air arm, but in view of the growing strength of the Fleet air arms of other countries, are the Government of the day satisfied with the provision which is being made? I hope that it will be taken into account that the importance to the Navy of the efficiency of the Fleet air arm is just as great as is the efficiency of the guns and the other weapons which they use. The country is definitely disturbed. I myself am continually receiving letters
444
asking for information and instruction on the increasing propaganda that has been going on in a certain section of the Press leading the country to believe that the Navy is moribund, that it could no longer fulfil the duties for which it exists; that it is no longer necessary for our security; and that its place can he taken, and should be taken, by the Royal Air Force. The battle cry is "Aircraft are more important than ships." What we want to know is, do the Government believe that? Do they agree that this propaganda is good for the country? If they do, I hope they will say so, but if they do not, let the Government equally educate the country to the contrary, and prevent wrong teaching being given to the people.
I maintain that the country has the right to be educated by those who know and not by those who do not know, who in many cases are panic-stricken or have an axe to grind. Because of this uncertainty in the minds of the public, who are being taught that there is no future for the Navy, there is failure to obtain the best-educated youth of the country for officering the Navy, and consequently the Navy suffers from this failure to educate the people on the needs of the country. There is another question. We come to the question of battleships. Do the Government believe that the Battle Fleet is vital for our safety? If they do, what are they intending to do about it? What is going to be done towards replacing those war-worn vessels which were constructed and brought into being by the last generation? I maintain that this again is a question on which the country needs education, and education from the right sources, and not, as at present, from irresponsible critics.
The expenditure on our fighting Services in this year's Estimates amounted to £113,711,000, of which about £18,000,000 is stated to be ineffective, due to pensions. That would mean that the actual expenditure on Defence Services amounts to round about £95,000,000. This is a very large sum, but the value obtained from money to-day is considerably less than it used to be, and I do not think that if it was compared with previous Estimates in pre-war years this vast sum would be found to be excessive. Considering the responsibilities of this

445
country throughout the world it is an inadequate expenditure, on the only true comparative basis—namely, the expenditure of other countries, who with far less responsibilities are spending greater sums on their defence. If this country is not willing to make the sacrifices for our security that was made by our fathers we shall inevitably be brought to ruin. The people will always make financial sacrifices if asked to, and if they are assured that they are essential, and if they are educated in the right way. Therefore I think, in the circumstances, it is not unreasonable that the Government should be asked to make a statement in reply to the questions which have been put to them in the Motion moved by the noble Lord.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM): My Lords, the question which is raised by my noble and gallant friend in the Motion which stands under discussion is a question of supreme national importance. The speech in which he moved his Resolution was one of very great interest, in which he himself gave expression to some very interesting views, and in which he gave to your Lordships, and I hope a wider public outside, some very useful and valuable experience and information. The noble and gallant Lord ask me to reply, and hoped that the trumpet would bray, if that is the right phrase, with no uncertain sound, but I think he was good enough to point out that any uncertainty in the trumpeting was only due to a wrong trumpeter being employed, and I do not think he suggested that I had any delusions on this topic.
The debate has been all the more interesting to listen to because we have had a speech from the noble and gallant Earl who sits on the Cross Benches, of whom my noble friend truly said that no one could speak with greater authority on the particular branch of defence with which he dealt. The noble Earl asked me some questions. I shall not be able to answer them all, and I do not think he will expect me to do so, but I shall endeavour to deal, in the course of what I have to say, with the main topics raised by both of their Lordships. I should like to begin by saying this quite definitely, that my noble and gallant friend is quite
446
right in saying that the modern developments and the discoveries of modern methods of warfare, and of modern armaments, have not in any way diminished the importance of our older arms. Nobody with any sort of knowledge, I believe in any country in the world, and certainly nobody in this country, would suggest that because of the rapid extension or possibilities of aerial warfare there was any less need of an adequate defence by sea or on the ground, and I am quite certain I make that statement no more definitely than it would be made by my noble friend the Secretary of State for Air.
In fact, I was interested to hear from my noble friend opposite that Marshal Foch had expressed the view that the developments of modern warfare made co-operation between the different Services of greater rather than of less importance, and I believe that to be quite true. We at any rate in this country are working on that view, because it is of the essence of the whole of our strategy that the three branches of Imperial defence, Navy, Army, and Air, should co-ordinate their work in co-operation, and that they should not attempt, any one of them, to operate without regard to the other, and they are none of them so foolish as to suppose that they can dispense with the assistance of the other two. The co-ordination between the three branches of the Defence Services has, I think, never been more cordial than it is to-day. I am not going to discuss vexed topics like a Ministry of Defence and things of that kind, but it may interest your Lordships to be reminded that we have first of all the three political chiefs of the Services, whose relations, I hope, are always harmonious but whose relations could not be more harmonious than those of the present three leaders of those Services. Then we have the Committee of Imperial Defence. The noble Lord opposite knows quite as much about that as I do, and he is aware that on that Committee any matters which are of common interest for the defence of the realm are discussed, and that on that Committee not only are the political chiefs of the three Services present but also the professional chiefs are invariably invited to attend. You have therefore on the Committee of Imperial Defence a very

447
valuable method of co-ordination when, if ever, any dispute arises.
Then there comes next what I personally regard as perhaps the most useful of all, the Sub-Committee of the Committee of Imperial Defence which is known as the Chiefs of Staff Committee. That is a body consisting of the three professional heads, the Chiefs of Staff of the Navy, the Army and the Air Force, to whom are referred problems of strategy and of defence which they discuss together, with regard to which they produce reports when they are required, and by means of which we are assured that on any question of Imperial strategy we have the opportunity of getting the combined views of the three professional chiefs, who are able to discuss and agree with one another as to the right course which ought to be pursued. Below that, and in order to try to keep the three Services together, a little lower down than at the head, in the Imperial Defence College there are always representatives of all three Services attending and going through the same course at the same time together.
At the three Staff Colleges of the respective Services there are always representatives from the other two Services, who are being educated at the Staff College of each of them, and they, therefore, are able to assimilate the strategic ideas of each branch of the Service and bring them back into the common pool when they return to their own particular branch. The Staff Colleges themselves always have now what is called a combined operation exercise at the close of each scholastic year, which lasts for a month or more, during which time all the three Staff Colleges are working and living together, and are therefore getting to know, not only one another personally, but also the respective points of view of all three Services. There are other minor means of exchange of information and ideas. I am not saying it may not be possible to develop them even further in the future, but I do mention this to your Lordships so that you shall understand that it is fundamental to the whole of our strategic conception of Imperial defence that each one of the Services depends upon the other two, and that without the other two any one of them would be paralysed and unable properly to discharge its duty. I should like to add that in my experi-
448
ence the object of all three Services is not to try to gain for each one a supremacy or predominance over the other two, but to combine, not in rivalry but in co-operation, to achieve the best means of attaining the ends which we all desire.
If I pass from that topic to discuss each Service separately, it is only for convenience of arrangement, and not from any idea that any one Service can be dealt with in isolation from the other two. I pass from that preliminary observation first of all to the senior Service—the Navy—and here, of course, I speak without any claim to technical experience or knowledge, but I speak on such information as has been supplied to me from the Admiralty, which is the proper body to advise on this matter. The Admiralty view of their conception of their duties and the best means of fulfilling them may be stated in general terms somewhat on these lines. The Admiralty feel that our special problems of defence arise from the unique conditions of the British Commonwealth of Nations, or, as I should prefer to call it, the British Empire, its worldwide distribution, the fact that all parts of it are to a greater or less extent dependent en communications by sea for their wellbeing or, in some instances, for their very existence, and that in the last resort it is on the transport of adequate forces by sea that the Commonwealth relies to resist aggression and ensure the security of our interests and the integrity of our territory. It is therefore the security of sea passage to and from all parts of the Empire that forms the basis and foundation of our system of Imperial defence, without which other measures of defence can be of little avail. Quite obviously I do not think it is necessary to develop that, but in this island alone we depend for our means of existence, for the food which keeps our people alive, on having free access to the sources of supply scattered all over the world. More than that, we depend on it for the essential means of carrying on any kind of warfare. For the oil which forms the fuel for our Navy and the means of transport for a great proportion of our Army, for the metals which are essential to our munitions, and a number of things—we depend for the obtaining of these things on keeping our sea communications open, and therefore the security of sea passage re-

449
mains, as I have said, the basis and foundation of our whole system.
Our naval strategy, then, is based on the principle that a fleet of adequate ships, suitably disposed geographically and concentrated as may be necessary, provides the cover under which security is given to widely dispersed territories and to our merchant ships on the trade routes. This security cannot be given by the same strength of fleet dispersed to afford local protection to particular territories or trade routes. Such dispersion might leave an enemy free initiative and invite the destruction of those detached forces one by one. Whilst, however, the main fleet is the basis upon which our naval strategy rests, the cover it can provide is rarely complete, and it may aways be expected that units detached by the enemy may evade the main fleet and carry out sporadic attacks on territories and trade. To deal with these attacks cruiser squadrons are required in addition to the vessels forming part of the main fleet. It may be sufficient to maintain these cruiser squadrons within the various areas liable to attack, but if in any particular area the attack is sufficiently sustained, it may be necessary to resort to the convoy system to provide adequate security. That system for its efficiency depends on sufficient escorts being available. The normal form of attack against a convoy being by enemy cruisers or armed merchant vessels, it follows that cruisers are required as escorts.
Then I come to a point which was raised specifically by the noble Earl on the Cross Benches—the question of the battleships. This was a point which, he may remember, was dealt with specifically by my right honourable friend the First Lord of the Admiralty, when he introduced the Estimates earlier in the year. The capital ship forms the essential element in the Battle Fleet upon which the whole structure of naval strategy depends. The capital ships we have to-day are, with very few exceptions, rapidly approaching the limit of their age and their efficiency, and the question of their replacement will have to be considered before very long. Our war-built cruisers are being replaced by a steady programme of some three ships a year. Under the London Naval Treaty we accepted a cruiser tonnage of only fifty cruisers. Our reasons were stated by the
450
Prime Minister in the House of Commons in May, 1930. In the changing situation to-day the question of the number of cruisers required adequately to provide for our sea communications is a matter of the most serious consideration.
I cannot develop in great detail what may be necessary with regard to the Navy for the simple reason that the noble Earl, I think, himself foresaw. The Government are now engaged in preliminary conversations with certain Powers with the object of preparing the ground for the Naval Conference which it is hoped may be held next year. It is obviously not possible for any definite information to be given whilst these preparations are in progress. The whole of our naval position has, however, been most carefully considered in relation to our absolute requirements. It is the hope of the Government to secure an arrangement to replace the Naval Agreement that lapses in 1936 and which will avoid competition in naval armaments while leaving us free to maintain the Fleet on which the naval defence of the Empire depends at the strength necessary for our security. Obviously in these discussions we shall have to consider and discuss the question both of quantitative and of qualitative disarmament. Beyond that I do not think it would be wise or proper for me to go in dealing with the question of the future development of the Navy, but I hope I have said enough, at any rate, to indicate that nobody need be under any misapprehension as to the urgent necessity, the imperative necessity, of maintaining our Fleet in a position adequate to maintain the security of our communications.
I pass from the Navy to the Army, which is more especially my responsibility. In introducing the Estimates in the House of Commons earlier in the year my honourable friend the then Finance member of the Army Council, Mr. Duff Cooper, stated this as to the purpose of the Army:
"An Army is required of a size adequate to discharge four separate duties. First—
I am not stating them in order of importance, but just to summarise the four—
"First, to protect the bases from which the Navy operates or may have to operate; next, to maintain order in territories where we have important and heavy responsibilities; next, to protect this country; and, fourthly, to provide a force to despatch to any particular area in order to defend the interests of the Empire."

451
When one states these four requirements of the Army the first reflection which instantly comes to one's mind is this, that if these be the purposes for which we require an Army we have not less responsibility to-day than we had twenty years ago, before the outbreak of the Great War. That reflection necessarily invites another reflection that, although that fact is true, yet we have a very much smaller Army with which to discharge these responsibilities to-day than we had then.
I do not want to weary the House with too much detail, but the matter is of some little importance and I think of some interest, and therefore I may just remind your Lordships of what the reductions have been in the case of the Army. Your Lordships know there have been also reductions in the case of the Navy, and since the end of the War in the case of the Air Force. In the case of the Army the total reductions which have been effected in the list, comparing 1934 with 1914, are as follows: 51 Cavalry regiments, 93 units of Royal Artillery, 21 companies of Royal Engineers, and 164 battalions of Infantry; that includes the Regular Army and the Reserve and the Territorial Army. The Special Reserve, which in pre-War days constituted a very important factor in our pre-War scheme of mobilisation and provided over 100 battalions of Infantry besides other forces, has disappeared altogether. The Supplementary Reserve to-day is for quite different purposes—to provide specialists and tradesmen for certain special purposes. As against that, it is right to say that in view of the changed conditions of warfare we have formed six battalions of the Royal Tank Corps, of which one serves in Egypt; two light tank companies, which are in India; and six armoured car companies; and we have set up the Royal Corps of Signals, which before the War was not a separate branch of the Service. But these offsets go but a very small way, numerically at any rate, to replace those very large reductions which I have indicated.
Since those reductions have been made, and since our responsibilities have not lessened, it follows of necessity that the burden which is now laid upon the Territorial Army, and the reliance which we place upon the Territorial Army, to-day, is infinitely greater than it was in 1914.
452
To-day it is an accepted principle of our defence strategy that the Territorial Army is the only means and basis of expansion of our land forces for the defence of the Empire. The Territorial Army is to-day primarily responsible for the coast defences and for the anti-aircraft defences of this country from the ground. These are new responsibilities, and the speech to which we listened a little earlier in the afternoon sufficiently brings home to us how grave the nature of these responsibilities may well be. In order to discharge these responsibilities it will be necessary on the outbreak of war for the Territorial Army units to increase up to was establishment, which is, in round figures, about double their peace establishment. They will also have to throw off their first reinforcements, training cadres, and possibly later on to form second line units so that the men serving at the outbreak of war must form the basis for the expansion of our forces. Organisation of training has therefore to be arranged to-day with this object in view.
In 1914 the peace establishment was virtually the same as the war establishment instead of being, as to-day, only roughly half. The peace establishment in 1914 was over 312,000 all ranks, and there existed actually on the 1st July, 1914, 265,427 of all ranks in the Territorial Army. To-day the recruiting establishment has been cut down to 8,112 officers and 155,587 other ranks, and on the 1st October, which is the latest date for which figures are available, there were actually serving 7,066 officers and 125,274 other ranks, of whom 24,821 had been enlisted during the last twelve months. Your Lordships will see therefore that there is a shortage of no less of 1,046 officers and 30,313 other ranks as against the recruiting establishment. When you add to that fact that the recruiting establishment is roughly half—a little less than half I think—of what the war establishment was in pre-War days, which was also the peace establishment, your Lordships will realise why it is that it is my habit, I am afraid almost to the point of weariness, to insist on the duty in these days of people joining the Territorial Force.
The general framework of the Territorial Army is the same to-day as that for the old Territorial Force. The details for its organisation and adminis-

453
tration are laid down in Lord Haldane's Act of 1907. Each Territorial Army Association, with the Lord-Lieutenant of the county at its head, is responsible for all the administrative work and has certain very definite duties to perform. For instance, the Territorial Army Association in each county is responsible for the organisation of the Territorial Army units and for their administration and maintenance except when they are called out for training or actual military service, or when they are embodied. Then the Territorial Army Associations are responsible also for recruiting for the Territorial Army both in peace and war, and perhaps it is worth mentioning that this is the method by which the ancient duty of the Lord-Lieutenant, as representative of the Sovereign, to raise the military forces required in his county, is maintained. Then there is the provision and maintenance of buildings, and rifle ranges, and the like, the provision of areas to be used for manœuvres, and arranging with employers of labour as to holidays for training and as to ascertaining the times of training best suited to the circumstances of civil life. That, being so, I cannot stress too strongly the responsibility which in my judgment, rests upon the Lords-Lieutenant and the Associations in the counties and county boroughs to take steps to reduce the present deficiency in personnel, because it is very largely by their interest and their activity that the present deficiency in numbers can be reduced.
I pass from the Army to the Air Force and here I speak in the presence of a greater authority than I can claim to be, but I do not think I shall say anything with which he will be in disagreement. An Air Force is required of a size adequate to enable certain primary duties to be carried out. First, to defend this country against hostile air attack; secondly, to maintain order in certain territories, either having the major responsibility or a responsibility in co-operation with the Army; and thirdly, to co-operate with the Navy and with the Army. It is obvious, therefore, that all these three forces must be in a high state of efficiency, because, owing to the scattered nature of our responsibilities all of them have to be ready for action at any time and in any part of the world. The Air Force was, at the end of the War, the strongest and the most
454
efficient in the world. We have made tremendous reductions since that day and we have watched other nations surpassing us in numbers to a very great extent. The Government, as is their duty, have had to keep the most careful watch over the situation, which, unfortunately, has not shown signs of improvement. As a result they came to the conclusion that they could no longer postpone a comprehensive review of the whole situation, particularly of the strength to which our forces have been reduced. Announcement was made in this House by my noble friend the Marquess of Londonderry on the 19th July of this year of an expansion programme of forty-one squadrons. It was explained by my noble friend that the decision was based on the considered conclusion that the symptoms of unrest in Europe and the failure of other Governments to follow the example of this country in reduction of armaments, made it impossible to delay any longer the measures to bring our Air Force to a level more closely approaching those of our nearest neighbours.
For the present the programme of expansion by forty-one squadrons holds the field, and perhaps it may be of interest to your Lordships if I give some details of what has been done in the last few months to implement that decision. In the first place, as regards training and intake of personnel, an additional flying training school was opened last month, and another is due to open about April next. This will mean an increase in the number of short-service officers and airmen entered annually for training as pilots from 120 to 200—that is, an increase of over sixty per cent. The Air Ministry has also substantially increased the entry of boys for training as aircraft apprentices, the actual figures being 370 against the previous entry of 270, and the next half-yearly entry will probably show a considerable further increase. Arrangements are also already in operation to increase the annual entry of pilots from civil life to the Air Force Reserve from 100 to approximately 200 per annum. The Air Ministry inform me that they have had no difficulty in recruiting the additional numbers required under these various heads, and they do not anticipate that the problem of recruitment will present any major difficulties in the

455
future. Recruitment for the auxiliary Air Force is also on the whole very satisfactory, though some of the newly-formed squadrons in the North of England are in need of more recruits. As regards measures for providing new aerodromes and additional accommodation, the Air Ministry has inspected ninety possible sites during the last few months, and out of that number has definitely decided upon eleven as certainly suitable, and of these six have been actually acquired or are well advanced towards acquisition. Plans are also in an advanced state for increases and alterations to existing stations to enable them to accommodate more squadrons than before. All these measures, as your Lordships will appreciate, are additional to what was included when the programme for the current year was originally fixed at the beginning of the financial year.
Overseas a great deal of attention is also being given to measures which have for their object the development of the strategical mobility of the Air Force and of the ability of our air squadrons at short notice to reinforce threatened areas, and to be at the right place at the right moment. This is a policy which makes for economy both of material and of financial resources. As the Air Estimates show, considerable provision is being made for improving the facilities for the accommodation of units at Singapore and Hong Kong. At Singapore some £80,000 has been spent in the present year, and at Hong Kong some £50,000, and the Air Ministry is proceeding with the surveys and selection of additional landing grounds to enable our squadrons to be moved as required to meet the multifarious and complex responsibilities of Imperial defence. At the present time, for example, a squadron of flying boats is carrying out a survey of the air route between Singapore and Hong Kong. Your Lordships will appreciate that it is not possible for me at this present time to give particulars of any new proposals, specific sanction for which will depend upon the financial provisions to be made in next year's Estimates, and, therefore, any such announcement would be made, if it became necessary, when the Estimates are brought forward, but the information which I have just given will show your Lordships that the expansion which was announced is being actively and steadily pursued.
456
In the view of the Government the proposals which I have referred to are the very minimum considered to be essential if our forces are to remain adequate for their duties in the light of present circumstances. It will be necessary, of course, to keep the whole situation under the most careful and constant review, so that the programmes can be adjusted to meet new conditions as they arise. The arrangement is, in fact, one of flexibility which is very essential in these days of uncertainty. Whilst I am dealing with the Air Force I would like to add a word about a subject which was discussed by my noble friend—that is, the air menace and the right way of dealing with it. I am not going to discuss with him—because he has much more expert knowledge than I can have—the exact measure of the peril which we may expect from aerial attacks, but I do want to deal with a point which I think arises from his first two reasons for the failure of recruiting. One was the suggestion which has got abroad in some quarters that because of the menace of attack from the air you only want to strengthen the Air Force. That is a complete delusion. In order to defend yourself from attack from the air of course you must have an adequate Air Force. You have to have fighters to deal with the enemy bombers when they arrive, and you have to have bombers not, as the noble Lord quite truly says, in order to bomb defenceless cities in other countries, but to search out and bomb the aerodromes from which the enemy bombers proceed
But that by itself is not enough. We in the Army have to provide anti-aircraft batteries, searchlight companies, and signallers. We have to provide them first of all, of course, directly to fire at the enemy bombers. I think that modern development shows that the possibilities of dealing with enemy bombers in that way are much greater than they were when the War came to an end, or than some people suspect to-day. But that is not the only, although I admit that it is the chief object of anti-aircraft batteries. By coming in formation and flying at a comparatively low altitude under modern conditions trained bombers can bomb with deadly accuracy. If you break up their formation and if you force them to go higher up in the air, you enormously diminish their capacity for doing any

457
effective damage. In addition to that, the signallers are of the very greatest value in enabling our aircraft to know from what direction to expect attack. Searchlights, too, are not only in valuable, but absolutely necessary, to enable our aircraft in the case of night attacks effectively to find and follow the enemy bombers. In all these respects there has to be, and there is, the closest co-operation between the ground and the air forces, and it is ridiculous to suppose that the Air Force can deal alone with the air menace—just as ridiculous as to suppose that the ground force could deal with it without the assistance of the air.
There was a phrase to which my noble friend took exception about our frontier being on the Rhine. He said that he thought that phrase has given rise to misconception. I was not the author of the phrase, and I can only give what I believe to be its meaning. Most certainly—I think I ought to say this at once—what was not in the mind of whoever coined that phrase was any idea that one particular country on the Continent of Europe was our hereditary and necessary foe. That I am quite sure never crossed the mind of any member of the Government, least of all my right honourable friend when he used that expression. What was, I think, in his mind was this—that the success of an attack depends in very large measure upon the proximity of the place from which the attack is delivered. The speed and range of modern aircraft are, of course, immense, but for every fifty miles that you push back the point from which the enemy starts you diminish the range by one hundred because he has to go there and back. You also give a much better opportunity for your aircraft to be in a position to meet him when he comes. Suppose you get an attack from any of the Low Countries—I mention them because of the reference to the Rhine—if you get an attack from an enemy who is encamped in the Low Countries and has his aerodromes there, he would be able, under modern conditions, to deliver his attack and get away almost before the defending squadrons had reached the necessary height to deal with him. He could get over in fifteen or twenty minutes and be away again almost at once. If you push him further back you get longer notice of
458
his approach, and when he comes you find yourself in a far better position to deal with him.
I think the expression "our frontier is on the Rhine" was intended to convey that, under modern conditions and with the possibility of attack from the air on the sort of scale which is sometimes suggested, even by people who have really studied the possibilities, it is of vital importance to this country that any attack which is delivered should not be delivered from the Low Countries or, of course, from France or from any place within fairly reasonable reach of this country. If you push further back the point from which the attack can be delivered, you enormously diminish the risk, and render much more effective your means of combating the attack. I believe that to be the meaning of the expression and, accepting it as a convenient phrase for conveying that meaning, I would unhesitatingly endorse it. If anybody ever supposed it to have the sinister meaning to which the noble Lord alluded, I am very glad to have this opportunity of disposing of that illusion, I hope once for all.
I should like to add, in concluding what has been a longer speech than I intended, that in considering all these matters in our judgment the best defence is to diminish the possibility of attack. That has been the cardinal feature of our policy at the Disarmament Convention and at all these International Conferences which have been called at Geneva. You can always, of course, provide by expenditure further armaments and better means of protection, but there is no means of protection so good as those which make it impossible for you to have to meet grave attack. All our policy has been directed, as far as lies in our power, to reduce that risk, and it will continue to be directed to that end, because we are quite satisfied that by that means we have the most promising method of defence. When I say that I do not mean that reduction in the forces of this country alone is going to reduce the possibility of attack. I do not take the view that by increasing our vulnerability we diminish the risk of our being attacked. We have tried unilateral action, but I am afraid that an example which no one follows may, in the long run, produce the very worst results. It is for that reason

459
that we have strained every nerve and shall continue to strain every nerve to produce an atmosphere of tranquillity in which disarmament becomes possible. But unless and until that atmosphere is achieved we do not take the view that we have the right ourselves to disregard our responsibilities and unilaterally to disarm.
The noble Lord has said that there has been difficulty about recruiting. It is quite true; so there has. I do not want in this House to expatiate upon the advantages of a recruit joining the Army; I would only like to say that to any one who examines the possibilities of that career with an impartial and unbiased view of what it really involves, it becomes obvious that there are few opportunities more attractive to a young man than those of joining His Majesty's Forces today, and if anybody would like to find out the details of that I shall be very happy to see that they are furnished to them. But so far as the regular Army is concerned to some extent, and even more so with regard to the Territorial Army, the real incentive which is going to give us the right class of recruit is not merely that there is an advantageous, adventurous and interesting career at home and abroad, it is the fact that the man who joins, joins because he realises that it is his duty as a citizen to do so. If we ever should unhappily go to war, under modern conditions the whole nation would of necessity be engaged in that war and every able-bodied man would have to do his share. The good citizen, so it seems to me, is the man who in time of peace is qualifying to do his share if ever the emergency arose. By doing that, not only does he fit himself to take his share if the emergency arose, but by the fact that he is fit and that he is known to be fit to perform that duty he is enormously diminishing the risk of his ever being called upon to discharge it. I do not believe that the old virtues of loyalty, of patriotism and of courage are any less existent in our young men to-day than they were twenty or forty or sixty years ago, but I do think that the direction in which duty points has been obscured and perhaps in some cases even perverted. I shall be very glad if one result of this debate may be to make the path clear and so to encourage more people to follow it.
THE EARL OF MIDLETON: My Lords, I do not rise to continue the debate, for neither the period of the Session nor the state of your Lordships' House at this moment lends itself to efficient debate, but I must take note of the fact that despite the adroit manner in which my noble friend the Secretary of State for War dealt with this question, he has made a statement which I think will be considered by all those who have regard to our defences for the last thirty or forty years as a very grave one. The condition of our Regular Army at this moment and what has been shown to be the state of the auxiliary forces are matters which we cannot leave where they are, and I would venture to tell my noble friend that in the new Session I think we shall be forced to return to this subject and to ask him to consider whether the pious aspirations which he put forward in so charming a manner at the end of his speech have any chance of being realised, having regard to the fact that of the auxiliary forces, to which, according to his observations, is to be committed practically the whole defence of this country, there is hardly a regiment which is up to strength and there are a great many regiments which, even including recruits who would not have been mobilised in other times, cannot at the moment take the field at half strength.
All these are very serious matters, and I think we have to be grateful to my noble friend Lord Mottistone for having brought them forward. There is no man in this House who has a better right than Lord Mottistone, not only from official experience, but from his own experiences in the field, to speak on the condition of our defences. I remember, if I may say so, that on the first occasion when I was at Lord French's headquarters, Lord French appealed to me as an ex-Secretary of State for War and therefore having, as he hoped, some influence on my noble friend who had also filled that office, to ask him on public grounds not to risk himself in the front trenches so often and so negligently as Lord French considered that he did. I did what I could, but I am not sure that I was able to bring my noble friend to that state of regard for the safety of his own person that we should have wished him to have.

461
There is only one aspect of the noble Viscount's speech which I think was thoroughly satisfactory. I was very glad, and I am sure all your Lordships were very glad, to hear that the Defence Committee plays so large a part in our present arrangements. That Committee first came to light and was established under the Government of Mr. Balfour, which was perhaps not one of the most glorious parts of the history of the Conservative Party, but at all events I think it was a great step forward that the two Services then, and now the three Services, were brought together. That Committee continued throughout the War to be the nucleus of all our efforts, and it is reassuring to know that it is at present taking an active part in our organisation, and in fact governing our organisation. It is in no spirit of unfriendliness to the Government, and still less from any desire to say anything which might militate against international peace, that I say I think that what the noble Viscount has said to us must be reviewed in debate on a future occasion, and I hope that he will take my remarks in that spirit.
LORD MOTTISTONE: My Lords, I am sure we are all grateful for the very full statement made by my noble friend the Secretary of State for War, though certain parts to which my noble friend the Earl of Midleton referred were, through no fault of the noble Viscount, disquieting, as, for example, the grave shortage of recruits. In view of all that be has told us and the pains which he has taken to inform us, I am sure my noble friend Lord Beatty would agree that we would not like to press our Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE BILL.
House in Committee (according to order): Bill reported without amendment

POOR LAW BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Viscount Gage.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The EARL OF ONSLOW in the Chair.]
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: There are no Amendments to this Bill in print, but the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, has handed me a manuscript Amendment, so that I am afraid I must take the Bill in the ordinary way.
Clause 1:
Amendment of 20 Geo. 5. c. 17. s. 48.
1. Section forty-eight of the Poor Law Act, 1930 (which makes provision as to be matters to Le disregarded in granting outdoor relief to members of friendly societies and certain other persons), shall have effect subject to the following amendments, that is to say:—

(a) in subsection (1) of the said section after the words "friendly society" wherever those words occur therein, there shall be inserted the words "or trade union";

(b) at the end of the said section there shall be inserted the following subsections, that is to say:—

THE EARL OF KINNOULL THE EARL OF KINNOULL moved, at the end of the clause, to insert:
"(6) In granting outdoor relief to any person the council of a county or county borough shall not take into consideration any weekly payments by way of compensation under the enactments relating to workmen's compensation received by any person whose resources are taken into account in relieving him, as though such payments were reduced by one half.
(7) The foregoing subsection shall apply to Scotland."
The noble Earl said: I apologise to your Lordships for not having handed in this Amendment in time for it to be printed. The object of the Amendment is to make it mandatory on public assistance committees to disregard half of workmen's compensation benefit. At the present moment it is discretionary. The Government do really accept this principle, as in their 1934 Act it is made mandatory upon the Unemployment Assistance Board to disregard half the workmen's compensation benefit to those people who are applicants for transitional payments. The point I wish to make is this, that people who are applicants for transitional payments come under the means test in precisely the same way as people who have to apply for out relief, and there is no reason why applicants for out relief should not be treated in the same way. It seems to me there is no

463
reason why the Government should not accept the Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 18, insert the said new subsections.—(The Earl of Kinnoull.)
LORD RANKEILLOUR: I am not sure whether I fully appreciate the effect of this Amendment, but it appears to me that it is undoubtedly a Privilege Amendment, and I submit to noble Lords opposite that they should be very chary of running counter to the Privileges of the House of Commons. This House, I think, will always be careful, unless it has very strong convictions on the matter, not to run the risk of conflict with another place, and I should think that that would appeal to the noble Lord who leads the Opposition.
VISCOUNT GAGE: We have just listened to an expression of opinion from a very experienced noble Lord on the question of Privilege, and I have to point out that whether or not this is a Privilege Amendment, in another place it has been ruled out of order, though I notice that the noble Earl has slightly changed the Amendment, and reduced by one-half the amount of compensation which is to be regarded. The principle, however, would remain the same as was considered in another place to be out of order. Mr. Speaker said he had carefully considered the reports of speeches made by representatives of the Government in introducing the Bill, and was quite clear that the Bill was one to bring the English law into conformity with the existing Scottish law, and that if he allowed the instruction he would be allowing the House to consider in Committee a Bill which was not the same Bill as that to which the House had given a Second Reading.
As I explained yesterday, this Bill was designed to remove certain discrepancies between the procedure for the application of the Poor Law in Scotland and the Poor Law in England. The noble Earl wants to take this opportunity to amend both the English and the Scottish procedure and—I will not say that this House has not rules of procedure in this matter, but at any rate it is less strict than the rules of another place. Nevertheless, I think it could hardly be considered that any Amendment of this character was within the four corners of the Bill. I do not know whether it is necessary for me to argue this matter on
464
its merits. Your Lordships realise that public assistance committees have discretion in these matters. At present they can take these things into consideration, or not, as they choose, but the principle which generally is taken to apply to the Poor Law is that where the local authorities administer the Poor Law they should have, excepting in unusually important matters, the discretion to take these assets into consideration, or not.
It is quite true that we did make the disability pension to which the noble Earl has referred an exception. Perhaps it may be argued that we were wrong in so doing. It may be argued that it does offend the strict principle of Poor Law procedure. Nevertheless, there is considerable sentiment attaching to the disability pension, and it was allowed to pass. But if we are to consider every aspect in which this Bill does not definitely correspond with the Unemployment Act we should have to consider many other items beside this. I can only repeat that this Bill was never intended to have that effect. I hope that, in view of the fact that if the Amendment were passed it would necessitate some slight struggle between the two Houses, the noble Earl will not see fit to press it. That is a hope in which I am reinforced by observing that on the original Scottish Act, introduced only last July, the noble Earl did not see fit to propose such an Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Remaining clause agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment.

HOUSE OF LORDS OFFICES.
Order of the Day for the consideration of the Third Report from the Select Committee read.
The Committee reported as follows:
1. CIVIL SERVICE PAY AND SUPERANNUATION (CONSOLIDATION SCHEME).
The Committee sanctioned the adoption by the House of Lords Offices of the consolidation scheme for pay and pensions in accordance with Treasury Circulars Nos. 14/34 and 17/34.
2. OFFICIAL SHORTHAND WRITER.
The Committee sanctioned the following amendment to the arrangements for the remuneration of the official shorthand writer, as set out in their First Report of 1933: at

465
the end of paragraph 3, insert "For the purposes of this paragraph the expression 'session of Parliament' shall be interpreted as a period of twelve calendar months."
3. CLERK OF THE PARLIAMENT'S MESSENGERS.
A sub-committee was appointed to consider and report on the question of the revision of pay of messengers in the Parliament Office; the sub-committee to consist of the Chairman of Committees, the Earl Stanhope, the Lord Stanmore, the Lord Marley and the Clerk of the Parliaments.
4. PRINTING OF AMENDMENTS.
A letter from the Viscount Ullswater, containing suggestions as to the printing and circulation of Amendments, was laid before the Committee and referred to a sub-committee to consist of the Chairman of Committees, the Earl of Lucan, the Viscount Ullswater, the Lord Stanmore, the Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, the Clerk of the Parliaments and the Clerk of Public Bills.
5.LIBRARY CARPETS.
A letter from the Office of Works was laid before the Committee pointing out that the carpets in the Library were completely worn out. It was decided that an indent should be sent in for new carpets, the Committee to be consulted as to design and colour.
6. ACCESS TO LIBRARY.
The Committee agreed to grant facilities for the use of the Library to the unofficial adviser to the independent Labour Peers.
7. ELECTRIC LIGHT IN COMMITTEE Room CORRIDOR.
The Committee sanctioned a proposal from the Office of Works to complete the electric lighting system in the upper Committee Room corridor and certain committee rooms.
8. RETIREMENT OF HEAD DOORKEEPER.
The Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod informed the Committee that Mr. C. W.
466
Maidment will retire on the 16th November, 1934, having completed 20 years' service.
The Committee sanctioned a pension under the Superannuation Act, 1909, amounting to £90 5s. 6d. under the new consolidation system and also an additional allowance of £241 19s. 0d. under the same regulations.
9. E. DAVIES—LATE DOORKEEPER.
The Committee sanctioned the payment to the dependant of Mr. E. Davies, late doorkeeper, believed deceased, of the sum of £80 15s. 0d., being one of three instalments on the sum of £242 5s. 0d., to which she would have been entitled had legal proof of his death been forthcoming.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend the Lord Chairman, I beg to move that this Report be now considered and adopted.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
LORD PONSONBY of SHULBREDE: My Lords, perhaps the noble Viscount the Leader of the House will tell me if I am correct in thinking that this House will meet for the Prorogation at eleven o'clock on Friday.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I understand that it will be convenient from the judicial point of view to meet on Friday at eleven o'clock. We do not anticipate any business here or very much in another place, and the Prorogation will probably be at about half-past eleven.
House adjourned at twenty minutes before eight o'clock.