Sitting of 20 March 1912

Preamble
The House met at a quarter before Three of the clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Edgware and Hampstead Railway Bill,
As amended, considered; a Clause added; Bill to be read the third time.
London Electric Railway Bill,
As amended, to be considered Tomorrow.
Liverpool Corporation Bill (by Order),
As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
West Ham Corporation Bill (by Order),
Read a second time, and committed.
Bedwellty Urban District Council Bill,
Reported, with Amendments, from the Local Legislation Committee (Section B); Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
Metropolitan District Railway Bill,
Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

STANDING ORDEES.
Resolution reported from the Select Committee;
"That, in the case of the Manchester Ship Canal [Lords], Petition for Bill, the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with:—That the parties be permitted to proceed with their Bill."
Resolution agreed to.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to repeal Section one hundred and fifty-seven of The Factory and Workshop Act, 1901." [Factory and Workshop Bill [Lords.]
And, also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act for the conversion of the Preference Stock of the Credit Foncier of Mauritius, Limited; the cancellation of paid up capital; to repeal The Credit Foncier of Mauritius (Limited) Act, 1895; and for other purposes." [Credit Foncier of Mauritius Bill [Lords.]
Credit Foncier of Mauritius Bill [Lords],
Read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

FYLDE WATER BOARD BILL.
Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 19th March; Mr. Sydney Buxton]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
BANK OF ENGLAND (REGULATIONS).
Copy presented of Regulations made by the Bank of England, with the concurrence of the Treasury, under the Finance Act, 1911, respecting the transfer of Government Stocks by Deed [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
BANK OF IRELAND (REGULATIONS).
Copy presented of Regulations made by the Bank of Ireland, with the concurrence of the Treasury, under Thu Finance Act, 1911, respecting the transfer of Government Stocks by Deed [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
POLICE (COUNTIES AND BOROUGHS, ENGLAND AND WALES).
Copy presented of Reports of His Majesty's Inspectors of Constabulary for the year ended 29th September, 1911, with Statistical Tables appended [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 70.]
BOILER EXPLOSIONS ACTS, 1882 AND 1890.
Copy presented of Report to the Secretary of the Board of Trade upon the working of the Boiler Explosions Acts, 1882 and 1890, with Appendices [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  ROYAL NAVY.

    BATTLESHIPS (COST).
    Mr. ASHLEYasked the First Lord of the Admiralty what was the estimated average cost, without armament and ordnance stores, of the battleships of the

    1857
    "Orion" class built by contract; what was the cost of the "Orion"; and what was the estimated cost of the battle cruiser "Lion," built at Devonport Dockyard, and of the "Princess Royal," built by contract?
    The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Churchill): The average estimated cost of the three contract-built battleships of the "Orion" class, including establishment and incidental charges, is £1,730,668. The approximate cost of the "Orion," including establishment and incidental charges, is £1,705,410. The estimated cost of the "Lion," including establishment and incidental chares, is £1,939,408; and of the "Princess Royal," as shown in the Navy Estimates for 1912–13, £1,893,586. These figures are approximate only. The exact cost cannot be determined until the ships have been completed and the accounts made up.
    Mr. ASHLEY: Is there any explanation why dockyard-built ships cost substantially more than those built by contract?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: lam sure there is an explanation, but I could not go into it in answer to a question.

    SHIPBUILDING (DELAY).
    Mr. ASHLEYasked why the cruiser "Yarmouth" had not yet been delivered by the contractors, the contract date for completion being September, 1911; and why the cruisers "Dartmouth" and "Falmouth," commissioned in October and September, 1911, respectively, had since then both been two months in dockyard hands?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I am informed that the chief causes of the delay in the delivery of the "Yarmouth" are labour troubles and the consequent shortage of labour. The question of minor causes is being investigated, but no decision has yet been arrived at. The "Dartmouth" was in dockyard hands for repairs to one of her four turbines, but the cause of the defects has not yet been definitely ascertained. The repairs were carried out at the cost of the machinery contractors. The "Falmouth" was in hand for repairs to one of her boilers, which had become defective owing to faulty supervision. The necessary disciplinary measures have been taken.
    Mr. ASHLEY: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree with the statement that these cruisers have been two months in
    1858
    dockyard hands? If so, is not that unsatisfactory?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The position with regard to these two cruisers is exactly as I have described it.
    Mr. ASHLEY: Is it not a fact that practically within a month of these two ships being commissioned they had to be put into dock for two months? Is that satisfactory?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I do not know that, if that were often the case, it would be satisfactory; but it is not true to say that the ships are not satisfactory.
    Sir W. BYLES: Is anyone a penny the worse for this?

    PROGRAMME, 1911–12.
    Mr. MIDDLEMOREasked how many armoured ships and small cruisers were provided for in the Estimates for 1911–12; and how many of these ships would have been laid down by the end of that financial year?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The ships provided for in the 1911–12 programme were:—

    One battle cruiser.

    Four battleships.

    Three second-class protected cruisers.

    One unarmoured cruiser.

    It is expected that all these ships will have been ordered by the end of this month.
    Mr. MIDDLEMORE: Is it not misleading and almost farcical to order these ships at an interval of more than twelve months after they have been, sanctioned?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: It has been for a long time the practice to allow a considerable period to elapse between the sanctioning of the programme by the House and the actual orders. A great deal of the time is necessarily taken up in considering the designs from every point of view. No smaller proportion of the programme was taken last year than in previous years.
    Sir FORTESCUE FLANNERY: Is it the intention of the Admiralty to design their ships first and then come to the House for sanction, after the manner of the German Admiralty, and after the manner the British Admiralty have adopted with regard to the destroyers in this year's Estimates?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: No. The object of the Admiralty is to wait until the last possible moment before designing a ship, in order to secure the latest improvements before building.
    Mr. REMNANT: Can we anticipate that any of these ships will be given to the Thames Ironworks Company?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The Thames Ironworks Company will have a chance with other firms for the contracts of next year, which programme, as regards destroyers, is to come on at once.
    Mr. REMNANT: Are the two ships which the right hon. Gentleman hoped to be able to give to the Thames Ironworks Company included in these?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: No.
    Mr. EYRES-MONSELLasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, if he will state how many destroyers of the 1910–11 programme are completed; what was the average time taken for their completion; how many destroyers of the 1911–12 programme are laid down.; and when will they all be completed?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Nine destroyers of the 1910–11 programme have been completed, and the average time taken for their completion was eighteen and a half months from the date of order. The twenty destroyers of the 1911–12 programme have all been ordered. Thirteen should be completed before April, 1913, and the remainder before September, 1913.
    Mr. EYRES-MONSELL: Will the right hon. Gentleman say how many have been laid down in the 1911–12 programme?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I have not got that figure on my answer, though I note from the question that perhaps I ought to have had it. If the hon. Gentleman will put down a question I will reply.
    Mr. EYRES-MONSELLasked the First Lord of the Admiralty what is the contract time, for the destroyers of this year's programme?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Of the twenty ordered, the contract time for the construction of—

    9 is 18 months each.

    7 is 17 months each.

    1 is 16½ months.

    2 is 16 months each.

    1 is 14 months.

    DESTROYERS ("ACORN" CLASS).
    Mr. MIDDLEMOREasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether all the destroyers of the "Acorn" class have been under repair shortly after being commissioned; and, it so, whether their condition is now regarded as being satisfactory?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: With the exception of the "Fury," all the destroyers of the "Acorn" class have been in dockyard hands for a short period. As the result of a very severe test to which these vessels were subjected in a heavy sea, it was considered desirable to strengthen a portion of the fore part of their hulls. The reply to the last part of the question is in the affirmative.
    Mr. BURGOYNE: Is the effect of strengthening their hulls to alter their speed?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: No, I do not think that that will be the case.

    GUNLAYERS' TESTS.
    Mr. MIDDLEMOREasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he has observed that in the gunlayers' tests of 1910 706 rounds were fired and 314 direct hits scored by 12-inch gnus, and that in 1911 742 rounds were fired for only 260 hits; and whether there is any satisfactory reason to account for this decline of hitting power?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The figures quoted in the question are incomplete, as they fail to include the results shown on the last pages of the 1910 and 1911 results of tests of gunlayers. The correct figures are:—

    1910: 785 rounds and 311 direct hits.

    1911: 847 rounds and 310 direct hits.

    A falling off of 7.3 per cent, in direct hits, which, as stated in my answer on 29th February, is accounted for by the fact that the ships as a whole fired under less favourable weather conditions in 1911 than in 1910.

    CLERICAL STAFFS.
    Mr. C. DUNCANasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he will state how many Committees have been appointed since 1892 in connection with the pay, promotion, method of entry, and numbers of the clerical staff, as distinct from the directing staff, employed in the various offices

    1861
    at the Admiralty and Royal dockyards; how many reports from these Committees have been received; and how many have been given effect to?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): Three Committees have been appointed, and four Reports have been issued. Some, but not all of the recommendations of these Committees have been adopted.
    Mr. C. DUNCANasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that the rate of pay of the members of the clerical staffs of the Admiralty and Royal dockyards below the rank of senior writer remains practically the same as fixed in 1879; whether Treasury concurrence with the Admiralty proposals based on the Macnamara Staffing Report has been obtained; if so, can a reply now be given to the petition of the Admiralty and Outports Clerical Federation, dated January, 1908; and, if a final reply has not yet been received from the Treasury, will he take steps to obtain one to enable a reply to be given to the petition referred to?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. Treasury concurrence has not yet been obtained in respect of certain of the proposals of the Board of Admiralty arising out of the recommendations of the Committee in question.

    NATIONAL HARBOUR WOKKS, DOVER.
    Mr. WILLIAM THORNEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that some time ago piece-work and the bonus system were in operation in connection with the works at East Cliff, Dover, and that on representations being made by a union of the workmen they were abolished; whether he is aware that the systems have been put into operation again, one result being that several men have been discharged; and whether he will take steps to abolish altogether both piece-work and the bonus system in connection with these works?
    Mr. GEORGE LAMBERT (Civil Lord of the Admiralty): The premium bonus system was suspended at the Admiralty Works at Dover, in common with all home naval establishments, on the 20th February last, and has not been revived. Piece-work has not been abolished, and no discharges of men have taken place at Dover in consequence of its continuance.

  Admiralty Hospital Stoppages.
  Mr. ASHLEYasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether all ratings in His Majesty's Fleet are, except in cases of injury received in the performance of their duties, mulcted in a portion of their daily pay for each day they are under treatment in a naval hospital over thirty days and up to ninety-one days, at the end of which latter period their pay ceases altogether; whether any stoppages of pay are made in the case of officers under treatment in a naval hospital, irrespective of the duration of their illness; and, if not, would he state what reason there is why the men should not be placed on the same footing as the officers?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: There is no deduction for men in the Fleet in hospital as a result of wounds or injuries received in the performance of their duties. There is no deduction if they are sick on board and not treated in hospital. There is no deduction under any circumstances if serving abroad. If in hospital at either of the home ports there is no deduction for thirty days. So far as continuous service men are concerned a scale of stoppages operates up to and including the ninety-first day from admission to hospital. After that, pay ceases altogether. For non-continuous service men's pay ceases altogether after the thirtieth day. Men treated at home by an Admiralty surgeon and agent are treated as though in hospital in the matter of deductions. As regards officers, no stoppages are made from pay whilst in hospital on full pay. Stoppages are made from officers in hospital on half or retired pay at rates varying according to rank and period of treatment. With reference to the last part of the question the treatment of officers and men in respect of pay is so entirely different in principle that no argument can be drawn from any comparison between the two.
  Mr. ASHLEYCan the right hon. Gentleman say why the men should be treated differently in hospital?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: I can only repeat that the treatment of officers and men in respect of pay is so entirely different in principle that no argument can be drawn from any comparison between the two.

  Great Britain and Portugal.
  Mr. RONALD M'NEILLasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs

  1863
  whether, as stated by the Prime Minister of Portugal, under the provisions of the Anglo-Portuguese treaty of alliance Great Britain is bound, in the event of attack being made on any Portuguese colony, to assist Portugal with troops or ships of war?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Acland): The alliance between Great Britain and Portugal rests on a number of treaties. The text of these is given in full in the Blue Book Miscellaneous No. 2 (1898) Command Paper 9088, to which I would accordingly refer the hon. Member.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: Which is the latest treaty?
  Mr. ACLAND: I think 1815; and the earliest 1376.
  Mr. KING: Has the hon. Gentleman's attention been called to the fact that the Premier of Portugal referred to a secret treaty between this country and Portugal?
  Mr. ACLAND: I think I must ask my hon. Friend for notice of that question.
  Mr. RONALD M'NEILL: Can the hon. Gentleman not say whether, in these various treaties, there is a stipulation to the effect mentioned?
  Mr. ACLAND: The treaties are many and complicated, and I would rather refer the hon. Member to the treaties themselves.

  Italy and Turkey.
  Baron de FORESTasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has received any information as to an agreement between the Italian and Russian Governments with reference to the future conduct of the Turco-Italian War?
  Mr. ACLAND: The answer is in the negative.
  Baron de FORESTasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any communication has been received from the Italian Government with regard to a proposed extension of the theatre of war into other provinces of the Ottoman Empire?
  Mr. ACLAND: I have not had any communication from the Italian Government of an intention, to extend the theatre of war,
  1864
  and I am not in a position to say what their views are on this matter. When a nation is conducting war it must decide the operations on its own responsibility, and other nations who are neutral must reserve their freedom of action should their interests be affected.
  Baron de FOREST: Do I understand that no information at all has been received?
  Mr. ACLAND: That is what my right hon. Friend says: not had any communication from the Italian Government.

  Colonial Civil Service.
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that non-European British subjects in the Straits Settlements enjoyed a statutory right, to free competition for entry into the Civil Service of their own Colony up to 1867, and that since that date they continued to enjoy the same right, though not by Statute, till 1904; and whether he will state what conditions must be satisfied before he restores to British-born Chinese and Malays the rights of British citizenship of which they have been deprived?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Harcourt): I am not aware that any statutory right existed, but I would suggest that my hon. Friend should address the first part of his question to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for India, as the Colonial Office had no connection with the Straits Settlements before 1867. Certainly no right, statutory or otherwise, such as my hon. Friend mentioned, was recognised by the Colonial Office before 1881, when cadetships were first awarded on the results of a competitive examination. I have already informed by hon. Friend that I should be willing to consider the question of admitting British-born Chinese or Malays to the examination, if there were any chance of such candidates being successful, or if there were a local demand for the concession, which at present is not the case.
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: Arising out of the right hon. Gentleman's statement that he would admit native-born Chinese and Malays to the examinations if he was satisfied that there was any chance of their being successful, will he explain to a puzzled House how he can form any opinion as to the chances of the native-

  1865
  born Chinese and Malays passing examinations if he refuses to admit them to the examinations; and, if he is satisfied that they have no chance of passing, will he explain what harm would be done by allowing them to sit for examination?
  Mr. HARCOURT: I do not think I can admit the implication as to the rest of the House; as to the latter part of the question, I think it would be fair that I should have notice.
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: I will give notice.
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will state who were the past Governors of Hong Kong or the Straits Settlements or High Commissioners of the Federated Malay States who made representations that all British subjects who are not of pure European birth on both sides should be excluded from the Civil and Police Services of these Colonies and Protectorates, and who are the prominent members of the Chinese communities who have expressed decided views to the same effect and whom the Colonial Office regards as representing the views of their fellow-countrymen; whether the Chinese members of the Legislative Council of the Straits Settlements have even been consulted; and whether he will publish Papers on the matter?
  Mr. HARCOURT: The answer to the first and third parts of the question is in the negative. I am not aware whether the Chinese members of the Legislative Council have been formally consulted, but they have ample opportunities of representing their views to the Governor in Council or outside.
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if the fundamental laws of the British Empire are to be reversed for reasons which are only given in secret minutes, and which the right hon. Gentleman, with his undoubted courage, is afraid to disclose to this House, and on the recommendation of alleged persons who are anonymous?
  Mr. HARCOURT: I think I shall have to look at the so-called "fundamental laws" before I answer that question.
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will state the names of those candidates
  1866
  who passed the examination for Eastern cadetships held in August last, and who have been assigned to Hong Kong, the Straits Settlements, or the Federated Malay States; and what steps were taken to secure that they satisfied the new Regulation made by the Colonial Office that they should be of pure European descent on both sides?
  Mr. HARCOURT: The names have been published by the Civil Service Commissioners in their annual volume. As to the second part of the question, I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer which I gave on the 13th November last to a question asked by the hon. and learned Member for North-East Cork.
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: May I ask whether these geneological investigations are conducted by the right hon. Gentleman himself or by the Civil Service Commissioners?
  Mr. HARCOURT: Yes, Sir; I assist at all these operations.
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that these investigations would be more suited to the College of Heralds?
  Mr. HARCOURT: If I require their assistance I shall ask it.
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies, in view of the recent Regulations made by the Colonial Office excluding from the Civil and Police Services of Hong Kong, the Federated Malay States, and the Straits Settlements all British subjects who are not of pure European descent on both sides, and in order to prevent British subjects from spending time and money in preparing themselves for examination only to find themselves excluded by this far-reaching colour bar at the last moment, whether he will now frame rules showing how many generations an Asiatic or other non-European family must reside in Europe in order to obtain pure European descent on both sides?
  Mr. HARCOURT: No, Sir.
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that it is a matter meriting his attention that the rights of British subjects should be decided upon by some official guided by no set of rules, subject only to the prejudice or preference of some anonymous

  1867
  official; would he submit his own pedigree to the investigation of a committee that was bound by no rules?
  Mr. HARCOURT: No, Sir.
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: Why should others have to do it?
  Mr. HARCOURT: If it is desired I will submit my pedigree to the hon. Gentleman, who equally is bound by no rules.
  Mr. WATT: Would the right hon. Gentleman consider it relevant to the inquiry to consider the question of Plantagenet descent?
  Mr. HARCOURT: That would be an obvious recommendation.

  Wireless Stations (West Indies).
  Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSONasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, having regard to his dispatch of 2nd January to the various West Indian Governments, he can now state how many wireless stations it is intended to set up in the West Indies, and where such stations will be located?
  Mr. HARCOURT: Wireless stations already exist in Jamaica, Trinidad, Tobago, and British Guiana, and the erection of such stations in Barbados, the Bahamas, and British Honduras is under discussion.
  Mr. MITCHELL- THOMSON: Would the right hon. Gentleman say when the decision is likely to be arrived at?
  Mr. HARCOURT: I hope very soon.

  FINANCE ACT (1909–10).

    SITE VALUES.
    Mr. ROYDSasked whether the valuation of land is still proceeding on the basis that, for the purpose of arriving at site value, no deduction is made in respect of stone walls and dykes, but is made in respect of live fences?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Masterman): Subject to possible exceptions in cases where the stone walls or dykes are appurtenant to or used in connection with a building the answer to the hon. Member's question is in the affirmative.
    Mr. ROYDS: Will the hon. Gentleman say why properties of precisely the
    1868
    same value are for the purposes of the Finance Act being valued at entirely different amounts?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: We are only carrying out the law under Section 25, Sub-section (2), of the Budget, 1910.
    Mr. PRETYMANasked whether, where the original site values are minus quantities, no 10 per cent, allowance is given; and, if so, can he state the ground on which owners of this class of property are thus penalised?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative; as regards the second part, the amount of the allowance must of necessity vary indefinitely according to the circumstances of the case, and will be reduced to a negligible quantity where the original site value is very small; the position of an owner of such land is no more favourable than that of an owner of land having a minus site value, but it is not true that in either case the owner is penalised.
    Mr. ROYDS: Does not the hon. Gentleman consider that, to value any considerable part of the land of the United Kingdom as a minus quantity is a farce?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: No. No land has been valued as a minus quantity. I am dealing with assessable site values. I am considering the question as to the necessity of registering minus values.
    Mr. ROYDS: Is not the assessable site value the value of the land?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: Assessable site value is the value of the site.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: May we assume that assessable site value is a purely imaginary figure?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: No; it is a figure arrived at by certain calculations, and from which certain other calculations being made have to be taken in order that the tax may be calculated.
    Mr. PRETYMANasked whether, having regard to the referee's decision in the Palmer's Green case, he will give instructions that no further demands for duty shall be made where there has in fact been no rise in the value of the site?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The question at issue in the Palmer's Green case is common to several other cases which are

    1869
    the subjects of appeal, and no doubt the legal point involved will have to be decided by the High Court. My right hon. Friend does not, therefore, propose to give such instructions as the hon. Member suggests.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: Will the hon. Gentleman see that a statement is made upon the form to the effect that the matter is still sub judice.
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I cannot answer that off-hand. I will see what can be done.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: Will he bear in mind this case was held without any publicity and that the public have no chance of getting information unless it is given by the Government?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I shall bear that in mind.
    Mr. PRETYMANasked whether, in view of the referee's decision in the Richmond case that the valuation was incorrect by nearly 20 per cent., and also having regard to the official evidence that this valuation was checked with additional care, he will issue instructions that all the valuations already made shall be revised?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: My right hon. Friend is unable to accept the hon. Member's suggestion.

    LAND VALUATIONS MADE UNDER ACT.
    Mr. ROYDSasked how many final valuations of land have been made under the provisions of the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I am not in a position to furnish the information asked for by the hon. Member. As has been previously stated, the information could only be obtained by the expenditure of considerable time and labour, and the information would no longer be correct by the time it was summarised.
    Mr. ROYDS: Can the hon. Gentleman state on what information the Attorney-General based his recent statement to the House that one-fifth of the task of valuation had been completed?

    RATEABLE OCCUPATIONS.
    Sir PHILIP MAGNUSasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will consider the advisability of including the keeping of
    1870
    school boarding-houses among occupations specified as rateable at 6d. instead of 9d. in the Schedule of the Act of 1851?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: My right hon. Friend is not satisfied that there is sufficient ground for amending the law with the object of reducing the rates of Inhabited House Duty chargeable in the particular class of case to which the hon. Member refers.

    CASTLE HOWARD MABUSE.
    Mr. BUTCHERasked (1) whether any application was made to the Treasury under Section 20 of the Finance Act, 1896, as extended by Section 63 of the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910, to exempt from Estate Duty and Legacy Duty the picture recently sold by Lady Carlisle to the Trustees of the National Gallery so long as it remained unsold, and, if so, what was the date of such application; whether such application was granted; whether there is any precedent for exempting a single picture from duty under the said Sections so long as it remains unsold; and what was the date of the agreement for the sale of the said picture by Lady Carlisle to the Trustees of the National Gallery; (2) under what provisions of the Finance Act, 1894, or any subsequent Act, the value of the picture by Mabuse, recently sold by Lady Carlisle to the Trustees of the National Gallery, was for the purpose of Estate Duty taken to be £40,000, and not the true value of such picture, which has been stated by the expert employed by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue to be considerably over £40,000?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: This picture was offered to the National Gallery by Lady Carlisle, after Lord Carlisle's death, for £40,000, on condition that the purchaser paid the Death Duties in respect of it. The picture appeared to the Treasury to be of such "artistic interest" as would justify its purchase for the nation, and it thereupon became entitled automatically to the relief afforded in that case by Section 20 of the Finance Act, 1896, as extended by Section 63 of the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910. Under the conjoint effect of those Sections, any property which consists of pictures, or other things not yielding income, which appeared to the Treasury to be of national, scientific, historic, or artistic interest, is not to be aggregated with other property, but is to form an "estate by itself," and whilst enjoyed in kind is to be exempt from Death Duties, and is only to become chargeable with duty

    1871
    when sold. There are precedents for granting the benefits of the Sections to a single picture. When the picture was sold the duty became chargeable, in strictness, upon its market value. It is extremely difficult to arrive at the market value of a picture of this nature. Seeing that, in this case, no real question of revenue was involved, a precise valuation would have served no useful purpose commensurate with the trouble and expense involved in getting it. Having regard to these facts, and to the fact that any excess value was in the nature of a gift to the nation, the duty was calculated upon the amount of the actual sale moneys.

    MINERAL BIGHTS DUTY (INCOME TAX).
    Mr. PRETYMANasked whether, in view of Mr. Justice Hamilton's decision that a deduction for Income Tax should be allowed before the assessment of Mineral Rights Duty, he is prepared to refund any overpayments of duty which have been made?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: In the event of the final decison of the Courts being adverse to the Crown, applications for a refund of duty which may have been overpaid will be entertained.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: Are we to infer from the answer of the hon. Gentleman that the case will be carried to the Court of Appeal?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I cannot say anything about that at the moment.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: Meantime, if the decision stands, does not the hon. Gentleman think the Crown are bound to return the duty?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: Xo, I said in the event of the final decision of the Courts being adverse.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: Then I ask is this decision to be accepted as final or not?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: That I said I could not say at the moment.
    Mr. PRETYMANasked whether, in view of the referee's decision that no Mineral Rights Duty is leviable on surface rights, he is prepared to refund any duty which has already been paid on surface rights?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The answer is in the affirmative.

    VALUATION DEPARTMENT STAFF.
    Mr. PRETYMANasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will state how many men on the staff of the Valuation Department have, within the last twelve months, been granted leave on a medical certificate showing them to be suffering from overwork; and how many cases there have been of nervous breakdown on the staff of the Valuation Department within the same period?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I am informed that there have been four cases of nervous breakdown, but in no case has the medical certificate stated that the officer's illness was due to overwork.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: Will the hon. Gentleman kindly answer the first part of the question?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I think four is the answer.

    INCOME TAX (OWNER-OCCUPIERS).
    Mr. BUTCHERasked whether it is still the practice, in accordance with the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the House of Commons on 25th February, 1896, to allow payment of Income Tax under Schedules A and B by owner-occupiers, and under Schedule B by occupiers of agricultural lands, to stand over where the parties at the time of the collection are able to produce accounts showing primâ facie that a loss had been incurred?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The answer is in the affirmative.

    FOREIGN INVESTMENTS.
    Captain FABERasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will state whether persons living in Jersey for six months and one day are exempt from any tax on foreign investments?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: Persons resident in Great Britain would not be exempt from any tax on foreign investments because they lived in Jersey for six months and one day.
    Captain FABER: May I take it they have to pay taxes upon foreign investments?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The answer to the question was that persons resident in Great Britain would not be exempt because they lived in Jersey for six months and one day.

    MANUFACTURERS PROFITS (INCOME TAX).
    Mr. NORTON-GRIFFITHSasked whether, in the forthcoming Budget, effect will be given to the suggestions of various chambers of commerce that, in the assessment of manufacturers' profits to Income Tax, further allowance should be made for the depreciation of machinery and plant?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I will refer the hon. Member to the answer which my right hon. Friend gave on the 7th instant to a similar question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Hawick Burghs.

    INCREMENT DUTY.
    Mr. FELLasked what is the reason why no Increment Duty has yet been assessed and paid on any of the 292,998 deeds of transfer of land which have been presented for stamping since the Budget, 1909–10, came into operation; whether no Increment Duly is payable, or whether there is such congestion in the Land Valuation Department that it cannot be assessed; and, if the latter is the case, then is this congestion increasing from month to month?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: Except in cases of special urgency "occasion" valuations are dealt with as they arise in connection with the general valuation, no serious inconvenience being entailed by this procedure. As I have already explained to the hon. Member, there is no delay in stamping deeds, and the instrument as stamped is complete. I anticipate some increase in the number of occasion valuations delayed for the general valuation, but, as the latter approaches completion, the delay in dealing with occasions will get less and less.
    Mr. FELL: Is it not the case that there are now 292,000 vendors who cannot tell what liability they are under?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: Oh, no; quite a number of them have certainly had information as to the assessment of the Increment Tax or if there is any Increment Tax to pay.

  Letting Cottages with Farms.
  Mr. NOEL BUXTONasked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he will cause inquiry to be made into the increasing prevalence of the practice of letting cottages in conjunction with farms; and whether his attention has been called to the feeling aroused among agricultural labourers by this practice?
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Runciman): No information has reached me to the effect that the practice referred to is increasingly prevalent, and no representations have been made to me on the subject. The matter is not one in respect of which the Board have any authority to take action.

  International Fisheries Congress.
  Mr. ROBERT HARCOURTasked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he is aware that an International Fisheries Congress is to be held at Copenhagen on 15th and 16th July; and whether it is proposed to send delegates?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: No information has as yet been received by the Board as to the programme and constitution of the Fishery Congress which is to be held at Copenhagen in July next. It is described as-being the Fourth Scandinavian Fishery Congress. Any communication which the Board may receive on the subject, either from the Danish Government or the promoters of the Congress, will of course be fully considered.
  Mr. ROBERT HARCOURTasked whether the right hon. Gentleman is aware that an International Fisheries Congress is to be held at Copenhagen on 15th and 16th July; and whether it is proposed to send delegates?
  The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. McKinnon Wood): I am aware that there is a proposal of the character referred to and when information is received as to the objects and scope of the Conference I will consider my hon. Friend's suggestion.

  Post Office (Temporary Employment).
  Mr. MARK SYKESasked the Postmaster-General whether he will consider the case of men of forty-five years of age and upwards who are competent to discharge the duties of temporary employment during the Christmas season, and who are prevented from being engaged by the rule laid down limiting the age to forty-five years?
  The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Herbert Samuel): As intimated in my reply to the question asked by the hon. Member for the Brentford Division on the 8th November last, in view of the generally exacting nature of the Christmas work in

  1875
  the Post Office I do not think it would be advisable as a rule to admit men over forty-five years of age. I may add, however, that the cases of men over that age who have been previously employed in the Post Office and have given satisfaction receive special consideration.

  Telephone Service.
  Mr. EUGENE WASONasked whether the right hon. Gentleman could grant the same special telephonic benefits in the way of reduced charges to the police throughout the country that he proposes to give to the farmers?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The telephone rural party line service will be open to all classes of subscribers whose requirements it will meet, but I imagine that the police authorities would usually be unwilling to share the use of their telephone lines with other subscribers, and it is even possible that the feeling might in some cases be reciprocal.

  Post Office Employés (Superannuation).
  Mr. CHARLES DUNCANasked if the right hon. Gentleman will state the approximate number of persons in the employ of his Department to whom Section 4 of the Superannuation Act of 1887 is applicable; what percentage of this number per annum it is estimated will die while in the service; and what, would be the average annual cost of granting to the dependents of such persons so dying a gratuity on the scale provided by the section of the Act referred to for persons retiring on a medical certificate of infirmity?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I have no information which would enable me to answer the hon. Member's question with any approach to accuracy. But it may suffice if I inform him that during the five years ended on 31st December, 1911, 287 gratuities of the average value of £32 were awarded to male Post Office servants, and forty-three gratuities of the average value of £23 to females.
  Mr. C. DUNCAN: Out of what total number of persons?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Perhaps the hon. Member will give me notice of that question. The total number of the Post Office employés last year was 212,000 and this year it is 230,000.

  Mail and Steamer Service (South Uist, Benbecula and Barra).
  Sir JOHN DEWARasked the Secretary for Scotland if he is able to state whether anything has yet been done to help to improve the mail and steamer service to the Islands of South Uist, Benbecula, and Barra, as requested by a Memorandum from the inhabitants of those islands presented to the late Secretary for Scotland on 5th December, 1911?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I am unable as yet to make any statement on the subject, but the Memorandum referred to has been under consideration, and I am in communication with the Postmaster-General.

  Devon Sea Fisheries Committee (Motor Engines).
  Mr. ROBERT HARCOURTasked whether the right hon. Gentleman is aware that the Devon Sea Fisheries Committee have applied to the Development Commissioners for a loan of £10,000 for the purposes of advances to fishermen at 2½ per cent, to enable them to instal motor engines in their boats; and whether he proposes to make a similar application on behalf of Scottish fishermen?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I am aware that such an application has been made and that it is under the consideration of the Treasury. As regards Scotland, the whole subject is at present under the consideration of a Departmental Committee, and it would be premature, to make any statement.
  Mr. CATHCART WASON: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the fact that the Irish Board of Agriculture has already devoted a sum of money to this purpose?
  Mr. R. HARCOURT: Is there anything in the terms of the Development Act which would preclude such a Grant being made?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I should like notice of that question.
  Mr. R. HARCOURTasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether an application has been made to the Development Commissioners by the Devon Sea Fisheries Committee for a loan of £10,000 for the purpose of assisting fishermen to instal motor engines in their boats, interest being charged at 2½ per cent.; and whether loans

  1877
  for such a purpose are within the scope of the Development Act?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: The application has reached the Treasury. I am causing a legal opinion to be obtained upon this question.

  Ancient Monuments.
  Mr. NOEL BUXTONasked the Prime Minister whether the Bill dealing with the preservation of ancient monuments will secure from destruction and exportation all such buildings as are scheduled by the Royal Commission on Ancient Monuments as being worthy of preservation?
  LORD of the TREASURY (Mr. Wedgwood Benn): The First Commissioner hopes to introduce the Bill next week, when full details will be available for the information of the hon. Member.
  Mr. KING: Will the measure be introduced in this House or in the House of Lords?
  Mr. W. BENN: I think the intention is to introduce it in the House of Lords.

  University of London (New Site).
  Sir PHILIP MAGNUSasked whether the Government have appointed a trustee or trustees in connection with the proposal for providing a site in Bloomsbury for the headquarters of the University of London; and whether the senate of the university has been informed of the proposal and has expressed any opinion thereon.
  The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): The Government have not appointed a trustee or trustees for the purposes described. A body of trustees, is, however, being constituted, one of whom is a Member of the Government, to receive gifts offered in connection with the recommendations of the Fourth Report of the Royal Commission on University Education in London. A generous gift has been made on condition that a particular site is acquired. The question of its suitability is one affecting the future organisation of the university, a matter on which the senate has found itself unable to offer any evidence to the Royal Commission.
  Sir P. MAGNUS: May I ask the Prime Minister if he can give an answer to the latter part of my question?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I did answer it. I said that "the senate has found itself unable to offer any evidence to the Royal Commission."
  Sir P. MAGNUS: Then I take it that they have not been consulted?
  The PRIME MINISTER: The hon. Gentleman must draw his own conclusions.

  COAL STRIKE.

    RELIEF OF DISTRESS.
    Mr. EDWARD WOODasked if the right hon. Gentleman will state what steps, if any, the Government proposes to take for the relief of distress in the event of the continuance of the coal strike?
    The PRIME MINISTER: My right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board, who has for a long time been giving daily and, indeed, hourly attention to this matter, has to-day issued a circular to boards of guardians with respect to their powers of relieving distress or suggesting their co-operation with other authorities and agencies which are able to afford aid in this direction. I am glad to observe that there has been in many directions a ready response to appeals made for assistance, and that employers are also doing what they can to mitigate distress amongst their workpeople.
    Mr. KEIR HARDIE: Will the Prime Minister cause a similar circular to be issued to the education authorities calling attention to the power to provide food for the school children under the Education Acts?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I am told that is being done.
    Mr. KING: Will it be provided that those persons who receive relief under this Order will not be disfranchised?
    The PRIME MINISTER: That is a question which I can hardly be expected to answer.
    Mr. O'GRADY: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he has considered or those persons who have raised the price of coal during the panic?
    The PRIME MINISTER: No, Sir; I have not.

  Home Rule Bill.
  Captain CRAIGasked whether it is the intention of the Government to proceed to pass into law a Home Rule Bill under the Parliament Act even though twice rejected by the Upper House, and even though by-elections may go against the Government during the two years necessary, and even though the people of the country generally have no opportunity of pronouncing upon it, and even though the loyalists in Ireland are as opposed to it as in 1888 and 1893?
  The PRIME MINISTER: So many hypotheses—at least four—are involved in this question that I do not feel called upon at present to answer it.
  Captain CRAIG: Is there anything hypothetical about South Manchester, St. Rollox, and other by-elections?
  Mr. MacVEAGH: Is there anything hypothetical about the Unionists being Loyalists in Ireland?
  Mr. KING: Is there anything hypothetical about the fact that the Opposition have no faith in the Upper House, seeing that they consider—
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman which of the four hypotheses he rejects as incorrect?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I do not propose to answer those questions until all the four hypotheses have been realised.
  Captain CRAIG: Will the right hon. Gentleman give Ulster an opportunity of proving its loyalty?
  Mr. MacVEAGH: By fighting the King's arms.

  Imperial Defence Committee.
  Mr. KINGasked whether there is any precedent for the secretary of the Defence Committee of the Cabinet becoming, on retiring from the Civil Service, a director of a company making munitions of war for foreign countries; and whether, to prevent the recurrence of this and similar cases, he will attach to the grant of Civil Service pensions the condition that the holders shall only undertake business engagements of this character after obtaining the permission of the Treasury?
  The PRIME MINISTER: There are only two ex-secretaries of the Imperial Defence Committee, one of whom holds an appoint-
  1880
  ment under the Government of India. There is, therefore, no precedent. As regards the latter part of the question, I must refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave on Monday to the hon. Member for North Salford.

  Panama Canal.
  Mr. NORTON - GRIFFITHSasked whether the right hon. Gentleman has received any communication from the United States Government with reference to the intention of the Government of the United States of America to impose a toll on foreign bottoms using the Panama Canal?
  Mr. ACLAND: The answer is in the negative.

  Scottish Trawlers.
  Mr. CATHCART WASONasked the Secretary for Scotland whether, in view of the inadequacy of the punishment inflicted on trawlers found guilty of destroying the fishing grounds of Scottish fishermen, and the fact that the trawling companies suffer no punishment, he will consider the desirability of amending the law so as to get the person actually owning the offending trawler before the Courts?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: The whole question is under consideration, but I would not be justified in promising legislation this Session.

  Blantyre Disturbance.
  Mr. KEIR HARDIEasked whether the right hon. Gentleman can state the causes which led to the disturbance at Blantyre on Saturday evening; and, in particular, whether it had any direct connection with, or in any way arose out of, anything connected with the miners' strike?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: My information is that there was nothing which could properly be called a disturbance at Blantyre on Saturday night. There was a slight disturbance on Friday evening which arose from a young man being apprehended for having broken a window when under the influence of drink.
  Mr. KEIR HARDIE: The important part of my question has not been answered. Did the disturbance arise out of anything connected with the coal strike?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I think it arose from drink.
  Mr. AMERY: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us how many persons were arrested last night at Blantyre?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I have no information as to any persons being arrested last night, and I have had no notice of this question.

  Cabmuslang School Board.
  Mr. KEIR HARDIEasked whether the right hon. Gentleman is aware that the School Board of Cambuslang is refusing to put the Clauses of the Education Act making provision for supplying food to necessitous school children in operation, despite the fact that destitution prevails in the district; and whether he will issue a circular to the education authorities in Scotland, calling their attention to the fact that they are under legal obligation to see that children attending schools are provided with adequate food, irrespective of the cause which renders such a course necessary?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I am not aware that the school board referred to has refused to put into operation any Clauses of the Education (Scotland) Act, 1908. The statement in the latter part of the question does not correctly represent the effect of the provisions of Sections 3 and 6 of that measure, to the terms of which I would refer the hon. Member.

  Government Contracts (Sub-letting).
  Mr. TYSON WILSONasked the hon. Member for St. George's-in-the-East, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, whether the present policy of the Office of Works is not to permit any subletting of contracts or parts of contracts unless good and sufficient reason is shown; whether, when tenders are being considered, it is considered to be a point in favour of a firm if it is in a position to execute the whole of the work itself, or whether the question of sub-letting is not raised at the time; and whether the Department will in the future restrict sub-letting as much as possible?
  Mr. W. BENN: No sub-letting is allowed without the consent in writing of the Department, and that consent is only given when the Department is satisfied that the sub-letting is in accordance with the custom of the trade. In inviting tenders for building work, the Department informs tenderers that sub-letting is only allowed where unavoidable, and asks them to state
  1882
  on their tender which trades, if any, they would find it necessary to seek permission to sub-let. The Department will, as heretofore, restrict sub-letting as far as possible.

  Natural History Museum.
  Mr. WALTER GUINNESSasked the hon. Member for St. George's-in-the-East, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, whether he can state when the Natural History Museum will be re-opened to the public; and why it has been considered necessary to keep the greater part of it closed after the Victoria and Albert Museum, the National Gallery, and the Tate Gallery have been re-opened?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: A large part of the Natural History Museum is open to the general public every day (including Sunday). The re-opening of all the galleries is a matter within the discretion of the trustees, who will, I understand, consider it at their next meeting in a few days' time.

  H.M. Customs (Preventive Men).
  Mr. SNOWDENasked the Secretary to the Treasury (1) if he is aware that the London and Bristol preventive men of His Majesty's Customs when having done duty at Fishguard in the examination of passengers' luggage from New York get time off for any excess over eight hours a day; will he say why this allowance is not given to the Cardiff preventive men doing similar duty at Fishguard; and, if the reason be that the Cardiff men cannot be spared, will he say why they are not paid overtime for the excess over eight hours, in accordance with paragraph 100 of the Establishment Code; and (2) if he will state under what authority in the Establishment Code did the Accountant and Controller-General rule that travelling from Cardiff to Fishguard by Customs officials to meet the New York boat was not Crown time; and will he consider increasing the present allowance of 1s. 3d. subsistence for an absence of from twelve to nineteen hours in view of its inadequacy?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: The practice with regard to time off necessarily depends on the requirements at particular ports and on the circumstances of particular cases. Under paragraph 100 of the Establishment Code overtime is payable for attendance in excess of forty-eight hours in the six weekdays, but under paragraph 95a no overtime payment is made in

  1883
  respect of time spent in travelling for which subsistence allowances are given. I may add that the question of these allowances has been brought by the staff before the Committee which is now inquiring into the Waterguard Service, and is under consideration.

  NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.

    FRIENDLY SOCIETIES DISSOLVED.
    Mr. TOUCHEasked how many friendly societies and branches have notified their intention to dissolve since the passing of the National Insurance Act; and how many similar notifications were received during the corresponding period in the previous year?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: Since the passing of the National Insurance Act, 1911, 194 societies and eleven branches have notified to the Registrar of Friendly Societies their intention to dissolve. Of these 194 societies nineteen have been dissolved by instrument, fifty-eight have submitted instruments of dissolution for registry, which have not yet been registered, and the remaining 117 have merely expressed an intention to dissolve, but have, so far as is known, taken no steps to give effect to such intention. Of the eleven branches five have been dissolved by instrument, one branch has submitted an instrument of dissolution, which has not yet been registered, and the remaining five have up to the present taken no steps to give effect to the intention which has been expressed. During the period from 16th December, 1910, to 18th March, 1911, forty societies and one branch were dissolved by instrument. It is not possible to state how many notifications of intention to dissolve were received during that period.
    Captain FABER: Might I ask the hon. Gentleman whether friendly societies are obliged to give notice to dissolve or whether they do it voluntarily?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: They do it voluntarily under conditions. I think five-sixths of their members have to agree, and they then send in their request.

    EXPLANATORY CIRCULARS.
    Mr. JOYCEasked whether, now that explanatory circulars have been issued by the English Insurance Act Commissioners in order to facilitate those societies and other bodies who desire to become approved under the Act, circulars and
    1884
    instructions of the same kind will be issued in Ireland, so that trade unions, friendly societies, labour bodies, and other persons who desire to become contributors under the National Insurance Act will have the fullest possible information to help them?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The same steps have been, and will be, taken in Ireland as in England to explain the provisions of the Act to societies and persons affected by it. In both countries, in addition to correspondence and personal interviews, official lectures have been arranged, and model rules, with explanatory circulars, have been issued. Pamphlets and leaflets are being published, winch I hope will be as widely circulated in Ireland as in other parts of the United Kingdom.

    MEDICAL PROFESSION.
    Sir P. MAGNUSasked what is the present position of the negotiations between the Insurance Commissioners and the representatives of the medical profession; whether any reply has been sent to their letter of 29th February embodying the conditions under which they are prepared to co-operate in the working of the Act; and whether the Commissioners will issue such regulations as will enable them to give effect to the requirements of the medical profession as set forth in their letter?
    Mr. FELLasked if any progress has been made in the negotiations with the doctors as to the working under the National Insurance Act; and if the six points which they have asked will be agreed to by the Insurance, Commissioners?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The British Medical Association have availed themselves of the opportunity afforded them by the Commissioners to recommend practitioners-experienced in general practice for appointment as members of the Advisory Committee, and the gentlemen so recommended will be appointed on that Committee. The letter of 29th February has been acknowledged. No regulations have, however, yet been considered by the Joint Committee on this matter, as they recognise that this is essentially a subject in which the advice and assistance of the Advisory Committee are desirable.
    Sir P. MAGNUS: May I ask when the reply is likely to be sent, and, further, whether the Commissioners or the Health Committees have power under the Act to grant the requirements of the medical profession?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I do not know that any reply will be sent except the acknowledgment of the letter, because members of the British Medical Association are going to be appointed on the Advisory Committee which will have to consider the whole question.
    Sir P. MAGNUS: Can the hon. Gentleman answer the latter part of the question?
    Mr. MASTERMAN:I think not in question and answer.
    Sir P. MAGNUSasked whether, in the event of the Insurance Committees or the Insurance Commissioners being unable to satisfy the requirements of the medical profession and consequently deciding to adopt the alternative proposal of the Act, namely, to suspend medical benefit and to return to the insured person the money equivalent to such benefit, the insured person will be free to use that money for any purpose he may think fit; and, if so, whether the insured person would necessarily receive under the Act any medical benefit whatever?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: If the normal scheme of medical benefit laid down in Section 15 is not carried out, not one, as suggested by the hon. Member, but several alternatives are provided by the Act. These include power for the Commissioners themselves to authorise the local insurance committees to make other arrangements for providing medical benefit, or for themselves making such arrangements as they think fit, or for suspending medical benefit for any period, and paying to each insured person an equivalent sum. Even if the last course were adopted, the insured person would be free, though not compelled, to make his own arrangements for medical treatment.

    APPOINTMENTS.
    Mr. FELLasked if the appointments that are being made under the National Insurance Act are being made provisionally, and are subject to determination if no agreement is come to with the doctors who are to work the Act?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The answer is in the negative. The coming into operation of the Act is not dependent upon any agreement that may be made with representatives of the medical profession.
    Mr. FELL: What is the use of the appointments if those who are to carry out the Act refuse to do it?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I do not in the least understand the question. The appointments are made in all four Kingdoms, and yet in Ireland there is no suggestion of medical benefit at all. If necessary, the Act will go on without medical benefit.

    MODEL RULES.
    Mr. FREDERICK WHYTEasked whether the Model Rules A, B, C, and D, issued by the National Health Insurance Commission (England), are intended for use in Scotland; and, if not, whether the Scottish Commission has prepared a set of similar publications?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The Model Rules referred to are being issued by the Scottish Commission with a note specifying the modifications required to adapt them for use by Scottish Societies.
    Mr. FREDERICK WHYTE: Will the hon. Gentleman express to the Commissioners the desirability of having these instructions placed in the Scotch public libraries?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I have already promised they will be placed there, and I will once more communicate with the Commissioners.

    CONTINUOUS AND SUBSIDIARY EMPLOYMENT.
    MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINEasked if, as the National Insurance Act stands at the present moment, a crofter who for two months in the summer gives his whole time as a ghillie comes under the provisions of the Act?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I beg to refer the Noble Lord to the answer which I gave him on 19th February. Ghillies may be excepted under Schedule 1, Part II., paragraph (i), if such employment is ordinarily adopted as subsidiary employment only and not as the principal means of livelihood.
    MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: May I ask the hon. Gentleman whether, if a ghillie works two months in summer, that will be considered as continuous employment under the Act or merely subsidiary?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I think, quite probably, subsidiary, but I cannot give an answer definitely until the Commissioners, have decided.
    MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: May I ask if the hon. Gentleman is aware that lecturers giving lectures in West Perth-shire have informed the people that ghillies are exempt from the Act?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: No, the only document brought before me stated it was probable they would come under this, and that is as far as the lecturer went.
    MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: Will the hon. Gentleman communicate the answer to the Scotch Whips for further communication?

    POWERS OF INSURANCE COMMISSIONERS.
    Colonel BATHURSTasked why the Insurance Commissioners are issuing Regulations and otherwise exercising their powers under the Act before setting up an Advisory Committee as required by Section 58 of the Act?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The only Regulations issued by the Insurance Commission have been those prescribing the character of the constitution required by unregistered societies seeking approval in accordance with Section 23 (1). These Regulations were required before any unregistered society could prepare its rules in order to apply for approval. The advice and assistance of the Advisory Committee will be available in connection with future Regulations, and I hope to announce the names in the course of the next few days.

    TRADE UNIONS AS APPROVED SOCIETIES.
    Mr. BOOTHasked if the National Health Commissioners have recommended employed contributors not to make use of trade unions as approved societies under the National Insurance Act (Part I.): whether trade unions can refuse to pay additional benefits to their members in contradistinction from friendly societies; and whether the Regulations to be issued by the Commissioners will declare all funds provided under the Act to be inalienable and prevent their being diverted by any organisation?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The National Health Insurance Commissioners have made no sort of recommendation to employed contributors not to make use of their trade unions as approved societies. As regards the second part of the question, trade unions which are approved societies will be in exactly the same position as friendly societies, and will apply any surplus arising under the Act to giving additional
    1888
    benefits to its members in accordance with the provisions of Section 37. With regard to the third part of the question, it is directly enacted by Section 35 (4) that funds and credits under the Act shall not be applied directly or indirectly for any purposes other than those of insurance business under the Act.
    Mr. BOOTH: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that erroneous statements, as suggested in my question, have been made extensively by prominent Members of this House who sit on the opposite side?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I very much regret if any such erroneous statements have been made, either inside or outside this House.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Does the hon. Gentleman say that the payment of extra benefits, apart from the Act, could be enforced against trade unions?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I do not understand what that question means.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Can the hon. Gentleman say if a member of a trade union who had selected his trade union as his approved society paid in addition to the 4d. some sum for sickness benefit, whether that benefit could be enforced in view of the Trades Disputes Act?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: Perhaps the hon. Member will not mind putting that question down.

    ALLOCATION OF FUNDS (IRELAND).
    Viscount CASTLEREAGHasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether his attention has been drawn to the conflicting statements made by the official insurance lecturers in Ireland in respect of the amount allocated to Ireland for the building of sanatoria, Mr. Murphy having said at Kilkenny, on 6th March, that £136,000 was so allocated, and Mr. Francis Guy, another official lecturer, having said at Tuam, on 27th February, that the amount so allocated was £100,000; and whether he will state the amount actually allocated for the erection of sanatoria in Ireland under the National Insurance Act, and communicate the figure to the official lecturers in Ireland?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The proportion of the total sum of £1,500,000 available for the provision of, or making Grants-in-Aid to sanatoria and other institutions, which will be allotted to Ireland must, in accordance with Section 64 (1) of the Act depend upon the population, as shown in the

    1889
    Census of 1911, of which the preliminary figures only are at present available. The Noble Lord will see that, according to these preliminary figures, the total sum available for Ireland for Grants and building would work out at rather more than the higher of the two sums mentioned in the question, and for buildings alone would probably be a considerably less amount. No figures given by the lecturers claimed to be more than a rough indication of the sums that might be available for each of these two purposes, the precise amounts of which will be ultimately determined by the Local Government Board for Ireland.

    MANCHESTER UNITY OF ODDFELLOWS.
    Colonel RAWSONasked whether it is possible, in view of Section 23 (1) of the National Insurance Act, for societies, being branches of the Manchester Unity of Oddfellows now grouped in districts, to become approved societies individually and apart from the order; and whether the present rules of the order prevent branches from seceding from the order or impose a penalty on such branches?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative; as regards the second part, I understand that the conditions under which a branch may secede under the existing rules of the society referred to include the payment of certain sums therein specified.

    CHAIRMEN OF COMMISSIONS (SALARIES).
    Mr. WATTasked the Secretary to the Treasury what are the salaries paid to the chairman, respectively, of the Scottish, Irish, and Welsh Insurance Commissioners; what is the reason that the Scotch Commissioner is paid more than either of the other two; and whether it is the practice of his Department to pay salaries in excess of those paid in similar posts without first inquiring the salary previously enjoyed by the appointee?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The salaries paid to the Chairman of the Scottish, Irish, and Welsh Commissions are £1,800 a year, £1,500 a year, and £1,500 a year, respectively; the salary of the Chairman of the Scottish Commission was fixed at £1,800 a year because it was held that the duties of the post justified the payment of that amount. The salary is attached to the office, and not to the officer holding it, and any inquiry as to the previous income of any such officers would be entirely irrelevant.
    Mr. WATT: Does not the hon. Gentleman think that £300 has been lost to the taxpayers by an error on the part of the Department?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: No, I cannot say I think that. It was lost to the taxpayer because it was considered that substantial emoluments were required to persuade Scottish gentlemen to apply.
    Mr. KEIR HARDIE: Is this extra £300 the wage of ability?
    Mr. HODGE: In regard to the Chairman of the Scottish Commission, is it not the fact that in order to secure the services of the gentleman who holds the position—a very able gentleman—the Treasury had to give this additional sum?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: No, I do not think so. The salary was fixed apart from the individual who receives it.

    LECTURES.
    MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINEasked (1) whether lecturers under the National Insurance Act in Scotland have permission to issue and sell pamphlets purporting to explain the National Insurance Act; if so, do the Commissioners guarantee the correctness of any such pamphlet; and, if not, will they have the pamphlets in stock destroyed and further circulation by their employés stopped; and (2) whether the Secretary to the Treasury is aware that in certain cases recently individuals have asked the Scottish Insurance Commissioners by private letter for information on the National Insurance Act, and, after the official answer has been sent, a pamphlet containing inaccurate statements regarding the Act, and written by Mr. F. J. Robertson, one of the official lecturers, has been posted anonymously to the inquirer; and whether this has been done by order of the Commissioners, or whether there is leakage in their office with regard to private communications?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I am informed that the gentleman in question, before commencing to give official lectures for the Scottish Insurance Commission, had written a pamphlet explanatory of the Act. I am not aware that this pamphlet contains inaccurate statements, but in any case it has not been issued by or under the authority of the Commissioners. The only literature for which the Commissioners are responsible is the series of leaflets and

    1891
    pamphlets which were circulated yesterday to Members of the House. I am not aware that there is any leakage in the office of the Scottish Commission with regard to private communications, but the Commission will investigate any specific cases which may be brought to their notice.
    MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this pamphlet has been issued after private letters have been written to the Commissioners? How could the Commissioners possibly know?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I cannot find any evidence of leakage of private communications in the Scottish Commission Department. If the Noble Lord will bring any case before me, I will have it examined.
    MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: Will the hon. Gentleman have the issue of the leaflets stopped meanwhile?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The issue of the Government leaflets? No. We want them issued as quickly as possible.
    MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: I am referring to private leaflets?
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Has the hon. Gentleman read this leaflet?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: No, I think not.

  Silver Coinage.
  Mr. KINGasked whether the new silver coinage will be improved, especially in respect of the form of the obverse die which now appears on the reverse side?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: It is not known to which denomination of silver coin the hon. Member refers, but a careful watch is kept for cases in which the impression of the obverse die is noticeable on the reverse and a correction is made. I hope these steps will prove sufficient.
  Mr. KING: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that a large number of the sixpences and shillings of His present Majesty are struck in such a way that you can see the head on the tail side? Will the hon. Gentleman examine some of these coins before spending them if I hand them to him?

  Development Commission (Scotland Harbours).
  Sir ARCHIBALD WILLIAMSONasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury if he is now in a position to announce the sums of money to be allocated from the Development Fund to the harbours of Morayshire and Nairnshire; and, if not, whether he will take steps to expedite the matter, seeing that several of these harbours are not large enough to contain the fleets of steam liners and boats belonging to them?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. I understand that the Development Commissioners have under consideration several applications for advances for harbour works in the Findhorn District of the Moray Firth, and will report on them as soon as possible. Some of the applying harbour authorities have asked to be heard orally by the Commissioners before any decision is taken, and the Commissioners hope to make arrangements to comply with this request.
  Captain WARINGasked the Secretary to the Treasury the sums of money to be allocated from the Development Fund to the eleven harbours in Banffshire; and, if not, whether, in view of the fact that almost 50 per cent. of the herring fishing industry of Scotland is concentrated on the Banffshire coast and the industry greatly hampered by want of harbour accommodation, he can give an assurance that there will be no undue delay in arriving at the decision?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I hope to be able to announce the decision on this matter very shortly.
  Captain WARING: May I ask whether the announcement in respect of these harbours will be made simultaneously, the announcement having already been made in respect of one?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I cannot tell that; it is largely a matter for the Development Commissioners.
  Mr. CATHCART WASON: Does that include other harbours which are much more important than the harbours of Banffshire?
  Major ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: Might I ask about the harbours in Fife?

  Development of Fisheries (Great Britain and Ireland).
  Mr. FFRENCHasked how much money has been allotted by the Development Commissioners for the development of the fisheries of Great Britain; how much for Irish fisheries; and how many piers and harbours in both countries are to be dealt with?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: Up to the present advances by Grant and loan to the aggregate amount of £110,790 have been recommended by the Development Commissioners in connection with the development of fisheries in Great Britain. Advances by Grant and loan to the aggregate amount of £55,750 have been recommended for the development of Irish fisheries. Further applications are under consideration or in course of preparation. It is impossible at the present moment to say how many piers and harbours will ultimately be affected.
  Mr. KERR-SMILEY: How much of the money has been allocated to Nationalist constituencies in Ireland?

  Financial Relations (Great Britain and Ireland).
  Mr. STEWARTasked whether, since the union of the British and Irish Exchequers in 1817, any taxation has been levied upon an inhabitant of Ireland at a higher rate than upon inhabitants of similar means in Great Britain?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I fear I cannot add to the answer I gave the hon. Member on the 13th instant. The Return I mentioned will give the hon. Member such information as is available.
  Mr. STEWART: Cannot the hon. Gentleman give an answer, yes or no, to a simple question like this?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: It is quite impossible.
  Mr. STEWARTasked the amount of the Irish debt absorbed into the Imperial Exchequer when the two Exchequers were united in 1817?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: Stated in "British Currency" the amount of the Irish Debt at 1st February, 1817, was:—

  Funded in Great Britain

  £83,944,904

  Funded in Ireland

  £23,435,254

  £107,380,158

  1894
  In addition there were:—Long annuities, expiring in 1860, £129,583.
  Mr. STEWART: Will the hon. Gentleman say who will bear the outstanding balance of this debt if the Exchequers are again divided?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I cannot say without notice.

  PARLIAMENTARY FRANCHISE (WOMEN) BILL.
  Mr. AGG-GARDNER: Can the Prime Minister fix a day for the discussion of the Second Reading of the Female Franchise Bill?
  The PRIME MINISTER: As, in deference to the appeal of the Leader of the Opposition, the Government have been obliged to take this Friday for their own business, they will give a Government day next week—Thursday, 28th March—for the discussion of the Second Reading of the Bill referred to.

CONSOLIDATED FUND BILL.
Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: May I ask the Prime Minister a question with reference to a statement he made yesterday to the effect that the proceedings on the Consolidated Fund Bill must be concluded by 28th March. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in 1906 the Royal Assent was given to the Bill on the 30th March, which was a Friday? Is there any necessity, under the circumstances, for finishing the Bill by 28th March this year?
The PRIME MINISTER: I notice that this year 31st March comes on Sunday. I am advised it is necessary to conclude the proceedings by the date I have mentioned.
Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: If the right hon. Gentleman will look further into the matter he will see it was on Friday, 30th March, that the Royal Assent was given in 1906, and as Friday this year falls on the 29th that would appear quite time enough for the Royal Assent, and it would give us one day more.
The PRIME MINISTER: The right hon. Gentleman has occupied the position of Chancellor of the Exchequer as well as myself, and he knows quite well there is a difficulty with regard to payments in Ireland. But I will look further into the matter.

ARREST OF MR. TOM MANN.
Mr. CHARLES DUNCAN: I desire to ask the Attorney-General if he can inform the House what are the charges preferred against Mr. Tom Mann, who was arrested in London yesterday?
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Rufus Isaacs): Mr. Tom Mann is charged with the publication of the "Syndicalist," containing the "Open Appeal to Soldiers" —that is, for the offence of incitement to mutiny and for a common law misdemeanour. Within the last few days application was made by the police authorities at Salford for the prosecution of Mr. Mann, based upon certain statements made and acts done by him at Salford, establishing that he was chairman of the committee which issued the "Syndicalist," and was responsible for the publication. After consideration of the evidence supporting the application, I authorised this prosecution in the ordinary course of my official duties.
Mr. O'GRADY: Why was Mr. Mann taken to Salford, in view of the statement now made by the Attorney-General that, he has not been arrested in connection with any events at Salford, but because he was president of the Syndicalist Education Lague?
Sir RUFUS ISAACS: That is not quite so. I have referred to certain statements made and certain acts done by Mr. Mann at Salford which were of the essence of publication?
Mr. O'GRADY: Am I to understand that the Attorney-General gave instructions for his arrest on the ground that he is president of the Syndicalist Education League?
Sir RUFUS ISAACS: No, Sir; quite the contrary. I was aware of the fact that he was president of that League, but, in my opinion, that was not sufficient in itself to make him responsible to a criminal charge for publication of that particular article. But in consequence of further evidence that came before me in the last few days and certain things which happened at Salford—I cannot discuss them now as the matter is sub judice—I came to the conclusion that I was bound, in the ordinary course of my duty, to allow the Chief Constable of Salford to institute the prosecution he desired.
Mr. WEDGWOOD: Will the right hon. Gentleman withdraw the prosecution
1896
against the two Bucks and Bowman in consequence of this prosecution?
Sir RUFUS ISAACS: No, Sir. They are made responsible because they are the publishers and printers of it, and it will be open to them to make their defence when the case comes to trial at the Old Bailey. I am desirous also of prosecuting the person who is mainly responsible, and consequently I have authorised this prosecution.
Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what are the words which are construed as an incitement to mutiny?
Mr. KEIR HARDIE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether any steps were taken to make the provisions of this ancient law known to the printers, and, further, whether the offence for which Mr. Mann is indicted is bailable?
Sir RUFUS ISAACS: Of course, the question of bail is a matter entirely for the magistrates. They can undoubtedly admit him to bail. The question which my hon. Friend (Mr. MacCallum Scott) asks me is the same question put to me recently. I have not got the document in my hands, but the substance of it is an appeal to soldiers to disobey their officers if they are commanded to fire under certain circumstances.
Mr. O'GRADY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether there is any precedent for the action now taken, and who has placed the interpretation upon the Act that brings the action of Mr. Mann within the scope of that Act?
Sir RUFUS ISAACS: That is a matter which has to be decided by the judge when the question arises. If there is any other interpretation than the one which has been taken the judge will so decide.
Mr. LANSBURY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the police authorities are legally entitled to discriminate between persons who break the law in this respect, and why it is that no proceedings have yet been taken against those persons who successfully conspired together to prevent the First Lord of the Admiralty from speaking in Belfast?
Mr. SPEAKER: That matter does not directly arise out of this question. If the hon. Member has a question to ask, and if he will put it down upon the Paper, I have

1897
no doubt that he will receive an appropriate answer, but it does not arise out of these other questions.
Mr. LANSBURY: May I respectfully ask whether the law discriminates between Privy Councillors and humble printers— that is the burden of my question—and if the Attorney-General sees it his duty to prevent humble people breaking the law, is it not also his duty to prevent Privy Councillors inciting to break the law?

NEW MEMBER SWORN.
Henry FitzHerbert Wright, esquire, for the County of Hereford (Northern or Leominster Division).
While the new Member was taking the Oath,
Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT(addressing the Attorney-General): "Answer, answer."
Mr. SPEAKER: I must ask the hon. Member for the Bridgeton Division to desist from disorderly interruptions while an hon. Member is taking his seat.

NOTICES OF MOTION.
  NATIONAL DEFENCE.
  On this day fortnight, to call attention to the question of National Defence, and to move a Resolution.—[Mr. James Hope.]
  COLONIAL, CIVIL AND POLICE SERVICES.
  On this day fortnight, to call attention to the recent changes in the Regulations made by the Colonial Office, whereby all British subjects, who are not of pure European descent on both sides, are excluded from the Civil and Police services at Hong Kong, the Straits Settlements, and the Federated Malay Straits, and to move a Resolution.—[MacCallum Scott.]
BILLS PRESENTED.
  TRUSTEE (BODIES CORPORATE) BILL.
  "To enable certain bodies corporate acting as executors and trustees to charge fees for their services and to act as sole executors and trustees; and for other purposes relating thereto." Presented by Mr. MILLS; to be read a second time upon Wednesday next, and to be printed. [Bill 95.]
  GOVERNMENT OF SCOTLAND BILL.
  "To make better provision for the Government of Scotland." Presented by Dr. CHAPPLE; supported by Mr. Munro-Ferguson, Mr. Morton, Mr. Wilkie, Mr. Duncan Millar, Mr. Gladstone, Mr. Cathcart Wason, Mr. Dundas White, Sir Henry Dalziel, Mr. Ainsworth, Mr. Munro, and Mr. Pringle; to be read a second time upon Tuesday, 2nd April, and to be printed. [Bill 96.]
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Resolved, "That the Proceedings on the Business of Supply, if under discussion when the Business is postponed this day, be resumed and proceeded with, though opposed, after the interruption of Business."—[The Prime Minister.]
SUPPLY.

  NAVY ESTIMATES, 1912–13.— [PROGRESS.]
  Considered in Committee.
  [Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]
  (IN THE COMMITTEE.)
  Motion made, and Question proposed [18th March], "That 136,000 officers, seamen, and boys be employed for the Sea and Coastguard Services for the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1913, including 17,200 Royal Marines."
  Question again proposed. Debate resumed.
  4.0 P.M.
  Mr. LEES SMITH: I wish to refer to only one point in the statement of the First Lord of the Admiralty. In the course of his most interesting speech, he stated that if these Estimates were high the responsibility would rest upon this House. That appears to me to be a misleading statement upon the situation, and I think that someone, during the course of the Debate, ought to point out that in reality this House has very little voice or choice in the Estimates put before it. The First Lord of the Admiralty pointed out that our Estimates depend upon the Estimates of foreign Powers. The vital factor in the Estimates of foreign Powers is the policy of this country. This is not the place to discuss whether that policy has been good or bad, but, in view of the First Lord's statement, I think it is the proper place to say that, for all practical purposes, this

  1899
  House has no control over that policy at all. There is no Government Department that is so much outside the purview of this House, which is so entirely outside any sort of democratic control. It is for that reason that I dissent from the statement of the First Lord of the Admiralty. While I have been in the House I have always supported the Estimates put forward, because it has always seemed to me that those who are called economists have made a mistake. They have agitated against the Estimates instead of agitating for more effective control over the policy on which those Estimates depend. Given a policy which we do not control, and given a set of actual circumstances, it is not more in our power to seriously curtail the Estimates than it would be if we were discussing them in the midst of a war. For that reason I do not think this House is in any real sense responsible for these Estimates, and until some constitutional machinery has been been devised by which we can secure a more effective control ourselves over foreign policy, all discussions on the Estimates, although they are interesting, will be for their main purposes and objects more or less a mere formality.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: Of course, everyone will agree that naval policy must depend upon our foreign relations generally, but what we are now discussing is the policy of the Admiralty, which is not a question of our foreign relations. It is to provide for the safety of the country under the conditions existing at the moment and the conditions which are probable in the immediate future. The one essential, to my mind, for Admiralty policy is that there should be continuity of policy and continuity of effort in the broadest sense, and although I should be the very last to rake up ancient history, and I do not desire to say it in any contentious sense at all, I am entitled to point out that, so far as we on this side of the House are concerned, our policy in the broadest sense has been continuous, whereas I do not think the policy on the other side of the House has always been continuous. I say that somewhat feelingly, because I have a most vivid recollection of standing where the right hon. Gentleman stood a few days ago to defend Estimates which were most violently attacked from this side of the House from a totally different point of view from that which was so ably put forward by the First Lord in his speech on Monday. I certainly, for
  1900
  one, and I think every Member on this side of the House, rejoices that the party opposite and the First Lord now are in complete unison with us in their view on that matter, and I would never say one word which should in any sense bring naval matters into the arena of party politics. Naval policy must be a national policy and never can be anything else, and to my mind it is no longer a real danger, certainly not a danger at this moment, and I hope it may never be a danger again, that our naval policy, which is a national policy, should be subjected to any changes of any kind which are not dictated by national necessity, but which are merely dictated by the party requirements of the moment. I hope that condition may never arise, and I am quite sure it never will arise from this side of the House, and I hope never again from the other side.
  The First Lord opened his speech with a statement with which I think we shall all agree, that finance was at the root of naval power. But he went on to add that his present ability to meet our naval needs was due to the successful finance of the Budget of 1910. I do not think he looked quite deep enough. I think that remark was quite justified so far as the immediate yield was concerned, but I think he might have said that naval strength depends not only upon finance in the narrow sense of being able to meet the needs of the moment, it depends upon the financial strength of the country in the widest and deepest sense, upon the abilty to meet our requirements for the future; and whether the Budget of 1910 has really increased our national wealth and our resources and our ability to meet, the requirements of the future, is a matter on which there is at least a great deal of doubt. Then the First Lord made a general survey of our naval position, and he made a very important statement as to the standard which he and his naval advisers considered necessary to meet that situation. I listened with great pleasure and very great attention to that statement, and, for what my opinion is worth, I do not differ from a word of it. I believe that the standard, so far as it applies to the situation with which we are now faced, is a standard which does, so far at any rate as battleships are concerned, meet the requirements of the situation. What was more important in the statement was the spirit which was behind it, and I think I may congratulate the First Lord upon having so rapidly imbibed the

  1901
  spirit and atmosphere which prevail at the Admiralty itself. I do not believe it is possible for any man of ability who desires to do his part in the service of his country to go into that office of the State and to meet there the naval atmosphere, which I am glad to say pervades the Admiralty as well as the sea service itself, without imbibing that spirit, and when the First Lord has the ability which the right hon. Gentleman possesses, and when he is imbued with that spirit, I hope we may expect results which will be satisfactory to the country. I come now to the statements which were made as to the right hon. Gentleman's intentions. It is hardly posible to exaggerate the importance of the strength of our destroyer flotilla, and our position in the past has been not at all satisfactory in that respect. The Committee can cast its mind back a few years to the time when the River class of destroyers were first designed and established, and that is the turning point when our Navy began to find itself in a more satisfactory position from the destroyer standpoint. I was a little anxious for one sentence of the First Lord, namely, that he proposed to form one or, I think, two flotillas from the older class of destroyers.
  The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Churchill): I did not say that. We are building a flotilla every year. As new ones join, instead of striking off twenty at the bottom as we should have done, certain increases will be made: seven this year, eight next year, and nine in 1915.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: That amounts to the same thing. Instead of striking off at the bottom, the older destroyers are still to remain to form new flotillas. If these flotillas consist of River class or post-River class destroyers, they may be regarded as at any rate of considerable efficiency; but I say with, I believe, full knowledge, and I assert it without fear of contradiction, that no destroyer of the pre-River class is fit for anything than coast defence, although they may be very valuable for coast defence purposes, and I note with satisfaction the intention of the First Lord to have two, or I think three, flotillas purely for coast defence purposes. I hope flotillas may not consist wholly of pre-River destroyers, which are intended for offensive work. That is a point on which the Committee would be glad to have information. So far as the quality of our destroyers is concerned, in the
  1902
  earlier days to which I have referred we were distinctly deficient, but since that all the destroyers of the post-River class are, I believe, quite equal in efficiency to any which may be brought against them. But I question the sufficiency of numbers. Even by building these twenty destroyers which are now about to be laid down immediately, which is a new departure of great importance and great value, I doubt the sufficiency of numbers. Before Vote 8 comes up for discussion I hope the First Lord will be prepared to give us some definite information on the point with figures of the number of destroyers. I know he will bear in mind that in all probability the first phases of a naval war will consist of establishing the supremacy, in the theatre of action, of flotillas. Of what value will it be to have battle fleets which are unable to go into the open at night to use their strength until flotilla supremacy has been established in the theatre of action? The importance of that can hardly be exaggerated. The work which will fall upon destroyer flotillas will be work of such a character that neither the crews nor the vessels will be able to remain in the first line for more than a very short period at a time. Frequently relief will be required, and for that purpose numbers are the only security. If the First Lord of the Admiralty will be prepared to discuss the question in some rather more detail from that point of view on that Vote, I think the discussion will have considerable value in relieving to some extent the anxiety which exists upon that subject.
  The next point in the programme is in regard to small cruisers. I would only say on this matter that the kind of small cruiser which the First Lord indicated appears to be an ideal vessel. I am not going to ask for any details. The First Lord expressed the hope that they would not be asked for, and I would be the last to ask details of any description. I would only say that, so far as I understood him, the ideal of the naval architect ever since armoured ships have been known has been to produce a ship with vertical armour, with good protection of armour, high speed—those vessels of course have very high speed because they must be capable of dealing with destroyers, a speed certainly of thirty knots—with adequate guns, and with good radius action. It has been the wish of the naval architect to include all these vital qualities in small compass. So far the problem has never been solved.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: And at a cheap price.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: Yes, at a cheap price, but that I consider to be of even less importance than the others, though it is important. If the Admiralty are able to produce an armoured cruiser of only 4,000 tons with adequate protection, high speed, adequate guns, and good radius action at a cheap price, then I think they will certainly deserve the thanks of the country. I hope and trust that result will be attained in a high measure. I cannot pass from that subject without expressing the thanks which the country owes to Sir Philip Watts, the late Director of Naval Construction, who has retired. The country owes a very high debt of gratitude to him for the service he rendered with respect to naval construction. The next subject the First Lord touched upon was that of docks. There again there are questions of important detail which have to be gone into, and which will be appropriate on Vote 10. May I ask before that Vote comes up for discussion if the right hon. Gentleman will be good enough to furnish us—I do not think that there are any secrets involved; at all events, he need not disclose any information in that Category if it would be against the public interest to do so—with a statement of the localities, and, so far as possible, of the dimensions of the docks he named. There is great anxiety on that subject, and it is impossible to discuss it and to reassure the country unless we can have that information. If that information were furnished, and if it were satisfactory, it might save considerable time in Debate, or Debate might even be avoided altogether. It would be satisfactory to hear the First Lord say that his investigation of this matter had greatly relieved his mind. He, no doubt, shared the general feelings to which I have referred. I must say that I am greatly relieved, but I should like to be able to look into the facts for myself, and I hope we may be furnished with the information.
  Then the First Lord referred to another very important matter, namely, oil fuel. That matter came to the front for the first time during the administration of Lord Selborne and Lord Cawdor. At that time we did realise fully the future importance of the capacity of this country to obtain both in peace and war supplies of oil which will be always available to the Navy—first of all, from the point of view of the country of origin being available in time of peace, and secondly, the possibility of transport
  1904
  to this country in time of war. Steps were then taken which were by no means without results. I believe they had very considerable results, but from the information that has reached me it appears that since the Liberal party have been in office and have had control of the Admiralty there has not been quite the same attention paid to that subject—I know I am stating a fact —as was paid by us when in office. I was extremely glad to learn from the First Lord's statement that he does realise the importance of the subject. I hope he will take every possible step in conjunction with other Departments of the State—as it is not only the Admiralty that are interested in his question—to get information on the subject. Other Departments have been, and can be, of very great use in this matter. I am sure the First Lord will bear that in mind, and make it the special work of some individual to serve the Admiralty in that particular matter.
  The First Lord told the Committee of of the very important changes which are to be made in the distribution of the Fleet. So far as these changes are concerned, it is thoroughly recognised by hon. Members, and certainly by the lay Members of Parliament, that however much they may think it right to criticise the administration or work of the Admiralty, it is not their province to criticise the distribution of the Fleet, and I should be the last to enter upon any argument of that description. But I may say that the concentration which was referred to in the First Lord's statement is the natural sequence of the beginning of the concentrations which were made during the late Conservative Administration. They have followed on on the same lines. They do not involve any sudden change whatever. There is ill that sense full continuity of policy. In regard to the particular item of withdrawing the Mediterranean Fleet to Gibraltar. I hope this First Lord will remember that we have a very important naval establishment at Malta, and that a very large number of people may be dependent on the work done at that establishment. Immense sums of money have been spent there, and work can be done there, as cheaply, perhaps more cheaply, than at any other ports. I do hope it will be possible for some of the ships which are to have Gibraltar as their base to be repaired at Malta. The First Lord did not tell us whether any cruisers will still be based at Malta.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: There will be a cruiser squadron permanently based at Malta, with destroyers and submarines, and the Malta Dockyard will be, I hope, kept in a regular state of activity.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: The right hon. Gentleman did not say how many ships will be based at Malta.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: A whole squadron.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: The next point I wish to refer to has reference to the First Lord's statement as to what is called the Immediate Reserve. That appears to be an excellent new departure which can only be of advantage in the event of mobilisation. That brings me to the question of personnel. Although we are increasing the personnel at the rate of 2,000 a year, from all the information which has reached me I am very much in doubt whether the immediate increase is sufficient for the requirements of the Fleet. All the evidence which has reached me tends to show that there is at the present moment, in view of the requirements of the Fleet, a very serious shortage of personnel, not only on the lower deck generally, but particularly in the Marines, and especially in the Blue Marines. The result of that is that the men are hardly ever in barracks. They are nearly always at sea. I may be wrong, but I hope the First Lord will make inquiry into that matter. That is the statement that has reached me, and I believe it to be well founded. So far as the seamen are concerned, the naval barracks are always practically replete. That makes it extremely difficult to train the men. There is congestion, which must prevent proper periods of time on shore, and I hope when the First Lord makes his reply he will say something as to the position of the personnel, and state whether the numbers are sufficient at the present time.
  As regards the Coastguard, I do not know what provision is made for the performance of Coastguard duties in case of war when the men will be embarked. I do not want now to enter into the subject, but the calling of these men from their stations in case of war does seem to me to be a possibility. Full particulars and suggestions are now in possession of the Admiralty. I do not see why another Reserve should not be formed— not like the present Reserve, available for service on the Fleet itself, but a Reserve of our own coastal popu-
  1906
  lation, consisting of fishermen, yachtsmen, and ex-naval men who are to be found on every part of our coasts. They might be formed into what I might term a coastal reserve within proper and definite limits at small expense, and they would be able in time of war, when the ordinary Coastguards were with the Fleet, to do the duties which now devolve on the Coastguards and which will require to be done in time of war—certain kinds of signalling, and possibly even taking part in coast defence work. I do think it is worthy of the consideration of the Admiralty whether the coast population, which is one of the finest national assets we possess, might not be drawn upon to provide that coastal work in order to assist the Navy in its shore operations. I cannot help thinking that some such scheme might be made available which would be of great use as one of our great national assets. The next point referred to was the scheme for warrant officers. So far as I have learned from those with whom I have communicated, that scheme appears to be an admirable one. It will provide for a very deserving class of officers, and I only hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not consider the rank of commander as one of final limit. I gather that he only desired to indicate that that would probably be the ordinary limit which warrant officers, on account of their age, could expect to attain, but I am sure that it would be an additional incentive to warrant officers to know that in case of exceptional ability there was no limit either in fact or in theory to the rank of commander. I am sure that warrant officers will also very greatly appreciate the reduction of the period twenty years to fifteen years.
  The First Lord announced an important change in the matter of the commission of His Majesty's ships, namely, the change to continuous commission from two years' commission. The change to the two years' commission was made with the hope that it would be possible for the ship's crew to remain intact during the two years' commission, and it was not considered that that could be done for a longer period than two years, but as the First Lord has pointed out, that hope has been falsified, and owing to promotions and many other reasons it has been found practically impossible to maintain a ship's crew in its original unit. Therefore I do think that the change is a desirable one, and will make for efficiency. By continuous com-

  1907
  mission I presume the First Lord means —perhaps he will make it a little clearer —that there will never be any general change at all except on foreign stations?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: Yes.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: And will there be three years' commission instead of two on foreign stations?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: Yes. Individual officers and men will not remain on the ship longer than three years, but the ship's company will continue permanently during that time.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: That is very important and desirable. That is just the point I wanted to get—that it would not be possible for one individual on a ship to remain there an indefinite number of years.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: No.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: As I understand there will be no case of an individual remaining more than three years in any ship. That seems to be a very satisfactory arrangement. I am particularly glad of the change with regard to the nucleus crew, which had learnt its duty upon a particular ship, and was bodily taken from that ship when some newly-built ship of similar size was commissioned, as there was no encouragement at all to that crew to perform their exceptionally difficult and trying duties of doing the whole work of the ship's crew, when their numbers were very largely reduced, and never being able to look forward to taking their own ship, the ship on which those duties have been performed, into action. I would like to say one word on the Memorandum appended to the First Lord's statement which was issued in last January on a point as to which I feel very strongly, the formation of the War Staff. The language used in that Memorandum is admirable in itself, but it did not convey to my mind a precise understanding on the footing on which the War Staff would be in regard to sea-time rules. I regard the sea time rules as the sheet anchor of our Navy. No single unit, no factor in our naval organisation has been of such enormous value to the British Naval Service as the sea-time rule, and I hope that no change of any kind will be made, even of the smallest character, in the sea-time rule, and that the sea-time rule will to the fullest extent apply to
  1908
  every officer of the Naval War Staff, as it applies to every other officer in the Service. I hope that the First Lord will reassure us on that point, because, once any inroad is made on the sea-time rule, I believe that the eventual consequences to the Navy will be nothing short of disastrous. I also hope that nothing will be done in any sense to elevate the Naval War Staff into a privileged class of officers. I feel most strongly on that point, that there is a danger there. It has, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, worked untold mischief in the Army, and it is of the most vital importance that the spirit of the sea Service should be as it is to-day, and that all ranks shall be capable, as they have in all times past proved themselves capable, of carrying out the service that may fall upon them. There must be a selection for particular work, but it will be possible, I believe, with care and judgment, to obtain from the proposals of this Naval War Staff all the results which the right hon. Gentleman hopes for without invading those two most important principles, the "sea-time rule" and "no privileged class among the officers of the Navy." I will go so far as to say that all the advantages which he hopes from the new Naval War Staff regulations would be too dearly obtained if obtained at the sacrifice of either of those two principles.
  With regard to the appointment of the new Civil Lord, in my recollection, as things used to be, the work which the new Civil Lord has to do was sufficiently accomplished by the Civil Lord and the Financial Secretary of the day. Of course the work has grown since then. It is for the First Lord and the Board of Admiralty to know whether it has grown beyond the capacity of the Parliamentary staff. But I must say that I do personally think that the Parliamentary Members of the Board of Admiralty are better doing their duty to their country by working on ordinary Admiralty duty than at ordinary party political work, and, if that were recognised, there would be more time available for them to carry out their different duties at the Admiralty and less necessity for the appointment of new non-political Civil Lords. I admit that there is a special difficulty in Admiralty contract work. I do not think that it is quite sufficiently realised from what point of view that difficulty arises. We have had inquiries constantly made here, and inquiries constantly will be made, questions will be asked and objections taken, on the ground of trade rings, an armour

  1909
  ring and a gun-mountings ring. The real trouble at the back of that difficulty is simply this. The Admiralty has two kinds of requirements. In one class of requirements it goes into the market like any other buyer. You can have open competition for all ordinary stores, even for the hulls of ships, and much of a warlike character. You can go into the ordinary market where there is ordinary competition, and there you are perfectly clear of the trouble and danger of the ring. But when you come to such requirements as gun-mountings and armour, you are the only customer. There is no such thing as a market for armour or gun-mountings. You must construct them in your own country. There is no world market. What would be the value of gun-mountings or armour which were being constructed in a foreign country for a nation at war? And when you have to go into the market as an ordinary customer to ask for such requirements, and enormously costly requirements, as armour or gun-mountings it necessarily follows that the supply must be limited to two or three sources. And instead of there being an open trade competition, under which the Admiralty can go to the market like any other customer and obtain a fair and open tender, what really happens is that there is a sort of partnership between the Admiralty and those who produce these particular requirements, which are specially for the Admiralty and for which they are the only customers.
  I admit that the matter is extremely difficult. New safeguards have to be invented. Either the Admiralty has itself to enter upon construction and so test prices or other means have to be obtained to keep prices down and to prevent overcharging by those who must necessarily have the orders conferred to them, and who supply without competition. I admit that it is a matter of extreme business difficulty to get your requirements fulfilled and at the same time to get them at a fair market price. If the Financial Secretary and the Civil Lord find that they are unable to solve that difficulty without other assistance, then it is the bounden duty of the country to supply it, but I do rather doubt whether that necessity ought already to have arisen. So far as the First Lord is concerned, I think he may congratulate himself on the success of his statement, which has been all the more remarkable in that he has not only not aroused any opposition through his straight statement about our naval requirements
  1910
  and how he means to meet them on our side of the House, but that apparently also he has succeeded in disarming the opposition of those on the opposite side of the House, from whom some very active criticism might have been expected. I think that that is a very great tribute to him, and I congratulate also the hon. Gentlemen opposite who have taken strong views on economy that they do now realise that there may be such a thing as economy which is misplaced. It is no doubt a great tribute to the eloquence and power of clear statement of the First Lord of the Admiralty that he has not only convinced us, who required no convincing, but that he has convinced hon. Members unanimously in all parts of the House that what he asked for the Navy is no more than what is really necessary for the defence of the country, and I think that no man can occupy a prouder position than to feel that when he speaks for the British Navy he has the support of the House of Commons in fulfilling the utmost requirements which the Admiralty can justly demand in the interests of the country.
  The CIVIL LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. George Lambert): May I congratulate the hon. Gentleman upon having restored our Naval Debate to a somewhat normal condition. He has not mentioned a word of party politics, and his criticism has been devoted entirely to the welfare of that great service to which he devoted some years of his life. I am very glad indeed to know that we have gone back to a more normal condition in regard to the discussion of our naval position. I have listened to these debates for the last six years, and, generally speaking, there were no party politics dragged in. There was in 1909 a somewhat lively discussion, and I think I may be pardoned for recalling in a word, without any political animus or bias, that we had a Vote of Censure moved on the Government of the day, and a considerable agitation in the Press, and that we were told that the year 1912, in which we now are, would be a year big with import so far as the naval strength of this country was concerned, as compared with foreign Powers. I was very glad last night to hear the hon. Member for Kensington (Mr. Burgoyne), who has devoted a good deal of study to our naval Service, and considerable ability, say, in, regard to the Navy, that to-day we are undoubtedly in a very favourable position. I am glad to have that tribute from a political opponent to the policy of the Board of Admiralty in

  1911
  the year 1909, when we had a Vote of Censure moved, and things were considerably more lively than they are to-day.
  I am very glad indeed that in these Debates we have not had those minute and meticulous comparisons between the strength of this country and that of foreign countries with which we have been familiar. They are generally inaccurate; they were inaccurate in 1909; they are futile; these matters must be considered very gravely by experts, who are aware of the value of our ships in regard to the competing position which they will occupy. There is one other point in connection with the defence of the late Board of Admiralty: There has been a fiction current that the Navy last year was in a state of great unpreparedness. That is pure fiction. The Navy was as instantly ready last year as it is this year, or as it was the year before. It is so easy to make these assertions; they gain currency, and they are accepted as gospel. But I am glad to have been associated with the Admiralty, and during that time, if I may be allowed to say so, those discussions in the Service have ceased, and the Navy has reverted to its old role of the great silent Service. It would be unfair to the distinguished Admiral who was at the head of the Board of Admiralty last year, the great silent Admiral, who is one of the first and living naval strategists, to allege for one moment that the fleet was in a state of unpreparedness. So much for the defence of the Board of Admiralty during the few years before the present Board came into office. The hon. Member for Gravesend (Sir G. Parker) made a complaint to the effect that we were somewhat insensible to the Colonial contributions, and he led us to infer that the Colonial efforts for naval defence was somewhat despised in this country.
  I think nothing can be further from the truth. I am quite sure that we welcomed heartily and spontaneously the efforts of Australia and New Zealand in 1909. We on this side of the House have never brought party politics into naval administration, and if Canadian Ministers come here, whatever party they may represent in Canada, they will receive from the Admiralty all the advice, suggestions, and assistance that we can place at their disposal. I have considerable sympathy with my hon. Friend for the Blackfriars Division (Mr. Barnes) when he states, as he
  1912
  did last night, that we want to get the best brains for the Navy; and I should be sorry to see any money-bar which would prevent our obtaining the best brains for the naval Service. I think it will be well worthy of consideration whether some scheme of scholarships could not be evolved for the benefit of those boys-whose parents cannot pay the fees. Personally I think in the case of the late Board of Admiralty my hon. Friend was rather severe, but we shall be very glad indeed to consider any well thought out suggestion that would be likely to attain that result. My hon. Friend the Member for the Blackfriars Division complained, as he has on several occasions, as to the engineering training which was instituted by the Board of Admiralty; and the hon. Gentleman opposite said that it would not prove to be sufficient and efficient. We are not wedded to that system. Of course, it will be watched with the greatest care. Those who instituted it do not now belong to the Board of Admiralty; fresh brains are brought to the problem, and if any amendment be required it will be made.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: The First Lord of the Admiralty in his statement distinctly said that there was no idea of changing the system of training. Now the hon. Gentleman tells us that they are not wedded to it.
  Mr. LAMBERT: I say that if there is any beneficial change that could be effected I am sure the hon. Gentleman would be the first to suggest its introduction. If any improvement could be made in the system of educational training surely no hon. Gentleman on either side of the House would object.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: That is not what the First Lord of the Admiralty said.
  Mr. LAMBERT: No hon. Gentleman on the other side of the House would suggest for a moment that we should not improve the scheme which, admittedly at the time it was framed, was experimental. The distinguished admiral who was the mainspring of that system, is no longer at the Board of Admiralty, but it is being watched by men who are acquainted with the matter, and, if any improvements can be suggested, I feel quite certain we shall have the support of all sides of the House to carry them into effect. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Pretyman) referred to the question of docking accommodation. He said that he had grave anxiety on the question of docking accommodation for the Fleet. I do not

  1913
  want to make a party point of it, but if there was this great anxiety, Vote 10 was not discussed at all last year. If hon. Members wish for any information we are quite ready to supply it.
  Mr. EYRES-MONSELL: The question was discussed last year.
  Mr. LAMBERT: If the hon. Gentleman will allow me to say so—I know what I am talking about—Vote 10 was not discussed last year, and Vote 10 is the special Vote dealing with dock accommodation.
  Mr. EYRES-MONSELL: The question of docks was raised.
  Mr. LAMBERT: Of course it was raised in Debate, as it is raised to-day, but the proper time at which to raise this question of docks is on Vote 10, and Vote 10 was never discussed at all last year. Still, I quite admit that it is a most important question, and if I can give the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Pretyman) any information I shall be glad to do so. In fact, he is very well acquainted with the question of dock accommodation, as he happened to be for several years Civil Lord, and I expect he knows pretty well what the docking accommodation is at the present time. The First Lord himself dealt with the question of destroyers, the Coastguard, and personnel, and I need not touch upon those points. I do think we were rather severely treated by the hon. Member for Fareham (Mr. Lee) when he suggested that the Admiralty was turning itself into a kind of outdoor relief agency in endeavouring to maintain and secure the continuance of the Thames Ironworks. We had first to consider the interests of the shipbuilding industry, because it would have inflicted enormous suffering on the district if they could not have had orders which would have secured the continuance of the Thames Ironworks. I must say that we only did our duty to the country and to the London district, which forms so important a part of the Empire. I think it was rather unjust to accuse us of political coquetting when we did all in our power to continue the Thames Ironworks. The First Lord of the Admiralty gave his close attention to this most important matter, and it is not quite fair to say that the Admiralty was turning itself into a kind of outdoor relief agency. The hon. Member for Fareham stated that three ships out of five of last year's programme have not yet been commenced.
  1914
  As a matter of fact they were provisionally ordered on 21st December, and as to two of them the date of completion will be February, 1914. Another ship, a little latter in construction, will be ready, I hope, two months afterwards. The point was made that we were spending only £2,000 on one big armoured ship this year. The figure has been quoted over and over again, but I have here the amounts which have been spent in proportion to the whole expenditure on the new programme. The amount spent this year in proportion to the total expenditure on the new programme is 15.2 per cent. If you take this or that part of the programme you can prove anything, but I am taking the whole of the new programme, and I am taking the years 1902–3, 1903–4, and 1904–5. In 1902–3 the proportion was 10.7 per cent.; in 1903–4, 9.5 per cent.; in 1904–5, 8.4 per cent. As I said, we are spending 15.2 per cent. this year, and the charge made by the hon. Gentleman therefore falls absolutely to the ground that we are not spending a fair proportion this year on the new programme.
  5.0 P.M.
  I make no apology for dealing with this, because it is often stated that we are not providing money for the current programme this year. As a matter of fact, the completion of the destroyers makes a very large draw upon the expenditure of the present year. Let me deal, further, with the point raised by the hon. Member for Kensington relating to the Australian and New Zealand ships. He said there was a scandal attaching to the delay in the completion of those vessels. Of course that is a very serious charge to make against the Admiralty. He accuses us of incompetence. As a matter of fact the charge is absolutely baseless. There has been delay, but it was due to our endeavours to get the best armament for the ships. The type of armour two or three years ago was known as the K. C. armour. A big firm in the North of England produced something better; they had made experiments which resulted in the production of armour better than the K. C. armour. Unfortunately, uniformity of quality failed. They were not able to deliver plates up to the contract sample, and those plates had to be rejected. We have K. C. armour plates, and most of those we have accepted are very much superior. I feel perfectly certain that the hon. Member for Kensington, when he knows the facts, will acquit us of the charge of

  1915
  incompetence, for we wish to see those ships armed with the best possible armour that can be produced in these days of improvement. I will not go into the question of delay, or the reference by the hon. Gentleman to the "Ajax" and the "Audacious"—matters well known to the House. I should like to say a word or two upon the breaking up of old ships. We have got a profusion of counsel in this matter. Is the Admiralty to get the best possible price for those ships or is it not? As a matter of fact, those ships are sold under three conditions. Armoured ships possessing a potential fighting value are sold to be broken up under bond in the United Kingdom. A modification in this condition has been introduced which allows the removal of the remains of an armoured ship abroad after very extensive breaking-up work has been done under supervision here. As a matter of fact, no big armoured ships have been sold for the last five years except under that condition. There is another class of vessels of smaller potential fighting value which are allowed to be broken up either in the United Kingdom, or abroad, under bond for the due execution of the conditions. It was made the subject of complaint last night that foreign shipbreakers had bought those ships. In some cases they have done so, but in 1910–11 all the old armoured vessels sold in this country were to British shipbreakers, and in 1909 a similar state of affairs occurred. We have to consider at the Admiralty whether we shall stimulate competition and so get the best possible price for the ships. I cannot help thinking, but that it is our duty in this matter to make the best possible price we can for the ships which are no longer of use and have to be scrapped. An hon. Gentleman said last night that he feared that because of the unspent balances in the present year's finances, that the Navy would suffer. As a matter of fact that is quite contrary to the case. We should very much like to have spent the money because that would have obviated the necessity of the First Lord asking for a re-vote of the amount in the coming year's Estimates. Ships have been retarded for causes well-known to the House. There have been considerable labour troubles, and the shipbuilding industry has never been more flourishing in its history. We have had troubles like other people, and I can only hope that those troubles will pass away. I do, how-
  1916
  ever, assure the hon. Gentleman who made the statement last night, that the Navy has not suffered in the slightest degree. I wish there could be some system of carrying on the balance, but the law says that it passes into the relief of the National Debt, and we have to obey the law in that respect.
  The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down referred to the question of oil fuel, and said that we had neglected it. I do not think that that statement is quite fair and I do not think we have neglected it. The question is one of enormous complexity and magnitude. You have to go into an examination as to where you will store your oil with safety. You have to consider, above all, your source of supply. If hon. Gentlemen would cast their minds. round the world as to where the greatest sources of oil supply are situate, they will see that it has to be brought very considerable distances oversea. It is essential for the Navy that in any time of danger or emergency there shall be an ample supply of fuel, whether of coal or oil, for propulsion. We have been fully alive to the importance of this matter. The First Lord of the Admiralty has, indeed, appointed a Committee to go into the matter which is now being considered with the greatest care that can be bestowed upon it by the Admiralty. Coal, after all, does exist in South Wales. It is not obtainable at present, as there are troubles, but oil does not exist, at any rate, in any near British territory, and therefore it is essential for us to examine with great care the question of where a supply of fuel is to come from in time of war.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: Does the right hon. Gentleman say there is no oil in British, territory?
  Mr. G. LAMBERT: In adjacent or near British territory, and it would have to be brought a long way over the sea. I would ask the hon. Gentleman where he is thinking of?
  Mr. PRETYMAN: When the right hon. Gentleman says British territory does he mean the British islands?
  Mr. G. LAMBERT: I said British territory which would be near. All those matters have to be very carefully considered in dealing with the question of fuel. We have been pressed to increase the pay of the dockyard men and of the sailors and of the officers, and generally to make ourselves agreeable all round. Of

  1917
  course it would be very popular from the point of view of the First Lord of the Admiralty and the Financial Secretary and myself to be able to distribute increased pay to the dockyard men or to the sailors or to the officers, but the gentleman who would have to bear the real brunt of that matter would not be the First Lord of the Admiralty, but the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who would first have to get the money from the taxpayer. I cannot help thinking that the lion. Gentleman was a little ungracious to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who, after all, has constructed a financial instrument which has been successful in paying very large sums for the Fleet, and will pay a very large sum in the coming year for the same purpose. I think we are not sufficiently grateful to the Chancellor of the Exchequer for having, with so slight a derangement of industry, secured those very large sums for naval and other requirements. I believe I have answered nearly all the questions put last night, and the First Lord of the Admiralty will reply later on. It is a pleasure to one who has witnessed these Debates now for a considerable time, to know that the frank, clear and decisive policy of my right hon. Friend has, as the hon. Gentleman has remarked, won universal approval in the House. Personally, and I am quite sure I can speak for all on this side, large naval expenditure is not a matter in which we glory. It is forced upon us by circumstances, and I, for my part, should be very glad indeed if this crying folly of Christendom could be avoided, and if the money spent on armaments, which are primarily for the destruction of human life, could be used to ameliorate the conditions of those who have to work and toil for their daily bread. I can assure my hon. Friends, and especially my hon. Friend whom I interrupted just now, that we do not for one moment like this expenditure, or like to see it, but those are the minimum requirements which appeared to the Board of Admiralty necessary for the protection and security of this country.
  Mr. SANDYS: I desire to take this opportunity of calling the attention of the Committee and also that of the First Lord of the Admiralty to a somewhat remarkable statement which appeared in the "Times" and in the other London newspapers of 22nd December of last year. Apart from the fact that that statement certainly conveyed a very unwarranted and, in my opinion, an exceedingly objec-1918
  tionable personal attack on the Noble Lord the Member for Portsmouth (Lord C. Beresford), and to that portion of the statement I do not want to allude, I desire to call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to the fact that that statement published in the London papers of that date also threw a somewhat remarkable light upon the policy of the Admiralty with regard to the promotion of the senior officers of the Navy, and also a somewhat remarkable light upon the relationship existing between the First Lord of the Admiralty and the Board of Admiralty. The statement which appeared in the "Times" and in the other newspapers was, I understand, portion of a letter which had been written by the right hon. Gentleman who had previously occupied the position of First Lord of the Admiralty, to his election agent, Mr. Rhys Stephens, who acted for him, I believe—
  The CHAIRMAN: These are the Estimates for next year, and the salary of the present Home Secretary is not included in the Navy Estimates, so that we cannot go back into what he previously did or wrote. The hon. Member, of course, is entitled to ask the present First Lord of the Admiralty as to the future policy.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: On the point of Order, is it not customary and usual for the House on Estimates to discuss the administration of the Department during the past year as well as during the year to come?
  Mr. SANDYS: All I wish to do is to indicate the policy of the Admiralty during the tenure of office of the right hon. Gentleman who has now gone to the Home Office, and then to address an inquiry to the right hon. Gentleman who now occupies the position in order to ascertain from him whether it is his intention to carry on the same policy during the forthcoming year.
  The CHAIRMAN: If the hon. Member confines himself to that, I think he is entitled to do so.
  Mr. SANDYS: My point is that I cannot put that question in fairness to the right hon. Gentleman until I indicate from this quotation, which I should like to read, the policy with which the right hon. Gentleman who is now the Home Secretary during his tenure of office at the Admiralty. That is my object, and if I may be allowed to do so, I desire to call the attention of the Committee to this letter, which

  1919
  the right hon. Gentleman addressed, as I understand, to his election agent, and which was considered to be of such public importance that, as a matter of fact, it was forwarded to the Press for publication. The quotation to which I wish to allude—
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. McKenna): On a point of Order, is the hon. Gentleman at liberty to read from a private letter of mine which was communicated inaccurately to the Press without my knowledge, without my authority, and, had I been consulted, certainly against my wish? Moreover, is the hon. Gentleman at liberty to refer to this letter, which in no way relates to Admiralty policy?
  The CHAIRMAN: Clearly it would not be permissible to bring in a question of a letter written by the Home Secretary, not an official letter on Admiralty policy, and, in fact, a letter written when he was no longer responsible for the Admiralty. The hon. Gentleman will please confine himself to asking the First Lord of the Admiralty as to matters of policy, and not go into details, which, of course, might lead to the necessity for a reply. He will see that it would not be fair for me to allow an ex parte statement and not allow a reply.
  Mr. SANDYS: I should not dream of saying anything to which there would be any necessity for the right hon. Gentleman to make any reply, but the right hon. Gentleman has already, I should like to point out, given an adequate and full explanation to the Press as to how—
  Mr. McKENNA: No, I did not.
  Mr. SANDYS: If I may be allowed to refer for a moment to what the right hon. Gentleman—
  Mr. CHARLES DUNCAN: If anything occurs in the speech of the hon. Member that may be assumed to be an attack on the Home Secretary, will the right hon. Gentleman have a right to reply?
  The CHAIRMAN: He will have if I allow the hon. Member for the Wells Division to proceed, but I would ask the hon. Member not to enter into matters which might divert this Debate, which is purely a Debate on the policy of the Admiralty. Many hon. Members desire to speak on
  1920
  that subject, and it would be most undesirable to spend our time on matters which are not relevant. The hon. Member can ask his question as to policy without going into other matters.
  Mr. SANDYS: I wish to ask the present First Lord of the Admiralty whether it is his intention to continue on the same lines of policy with respect to the promotion of officers, in the Navy and the relationship between the First Lord and the Board of Admiralty as were pursued by his predecessor and as are indicated in the quotation which I should like to read.
  The CHAIRMAN: That would obviously call for a reply. The hon. Member can avoid that by asking the First Lord what is his present policy on the matter.
  Mr. SANDYS: I should like to address myself to the First Lord of the Admiralty, and to ask him whether he proposes to adopt the same principles with regard to the promotion of senior officers of the Navy and to carry on the same relationship with the Board of Admiralty as have been indicated in the statement made by a predecessor of his? This statement referred to a particular instance, to which I do not wish to allude, as it is merely the question of policy that I wish to elucidate. It was published broadcast in all the papers; consequently I think we have a right to know whether it indicates the present and future policy of the Admiralty or whether the system has been given up. The statement, which had reference to one particular admiral, whose name it is not necessary for me to give, was to this effect—
  The CHAIRMAN: Will the hon. Member be good enough to put his question in the form of an inquiry as to the policy of the First Lord? As far as I can understand, it can easily be done in that way, as a question dealing with the general policy of the Board.
  Mr. SANDYS: The question I wish to put is whether the First Lord himself would be in a position to make a statement of this character with reference to any admiral or any senior naval officer about whom the question of employment or promotion came up. Would he feel justified in making a statement of this character—
  The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is directly trying to get round my ruling. It

  1921
  seems to me that it is a very simple matter to put the inquiry as a question of policy, without quoting something in regard to which I should necessarily be obliged to allow an explanation and reply. That would be wasting the time of the Committee on a matter which is not relevant to the Vote.
  Mr. SANDYS: What I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman is whether, in his opinion, the question of the employment or the promotion of an admiral is a matter which rests for ultimate decision with the general Board of Admiralty or is the personal prerogative of the First Lord?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would like me to reply at once. All appointments in the naval service lie within the direct responsibility of the First Lord of the Admiralty. They are not matters for the Board of Admiralty. They lie within the personal responsibility of the First Lord of the Admiralty to Parliament and the Crown.
  Mr. SANDYS: I should like further to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, in his opinion—I will not allude to the letter, which is probably within the general knowledge of the Committee, as it has appeared in the Press, but I am not allowed to quote it—it is desirable that communications of this character, in which, in my opinion, information with regard to the policy pursued by the Admiralty is conveyed to the public in a most undesirable manner—
  The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is really acting unfairly in trying to raise this matter. It is a matter to which I must allow a reply if I allow him to go on, and I am of opinion that that would be a wrong use of the limited time of the Committee.
  Mr. SANDYS: What I wish to know is whether it is likely that under the right hon. Gentleman's administration similar communications—
  The CHAIRMAN: I think the hon. Gentleman sufficiently knows my view by now. I trust he will not pursue the matter further.
  Mr. SANDYS: I will not detain the Committee longer, but I hope that the right hon. Gentleman, now that we have had a reply from him as to the principle on which his appointments and recommendations are made, will also, in view of
  1922
  the fact that the charge of misconduct and professional incapacity conveyed in this letter—
  The CHAIRMAN: I must ask the hon. Member not to pursue these lines. He must surely understand that I should have to allow a reply if I allowed him to put a case of that kind. I have already staled that I do not consider it to be relevant to the current Estimates which we are now discussing.
  Mr. SANDYS: I will not proceed further with the matter on this occasion, but I certainly hope that some opportunity will be afforded for the matter to be gone more fully into and an explanation of the whole circumstances given, namely, as to how this document unfortunately received publication, and why this attack was made; so that the right hon. Gentleman may have an opportunity of answering the charges which have been made against him.
  Mr. MURRAY MACDONALD: The hon. Member opposite (Mr. Pretyman) congratulated the First Lord on the fact that he had met with no opposition to his Estimates this year in any quarter of the House. I intervene now mainly in order to prevent any misunderstanding with regard to that question. Last year I questioned the view taken by the Government in reference to the defensive requirements of the country, and I took the judgment of the House upon the question. That judgment was against the view I held. The Estimates we are now considering, as the First Lord has said, are in all essential respects the same as those of last year. So are the conditions in which they are being presented to the House. I therefore have not thought it proper to put down any Motion, or to take the judgment of the House on any point in the Estimates. I have too much respect for the House to ask it needlessly to reaffirm the judgment which I regard it as having already given. None the less I should like to enter my personal protest against the scale of the Estimates. The First Lord in his statement on Monday justified the Estimates, as his predecessors have done, absolutely and exclusively by reference to what other Powers are doing. It was their example that was compelling us to spend such vast sums upon our Navy and Army. If what other countries were doing was to be the sole influence determining what we ought to do, I should at once admit that the justification given by the First

  1923
  Lord was convincing and complete. But that is just the point which I, at any rate, have always, in a very feeble way, disputed. It has always appeared to me that we can go too far in following the example of other Powers in this regard. I do not say, and I have never said, that we can afford completely to ignore what they are doing. But it is one thing to say that, and another thing to say that, however far they may go in building up their armaments, whatever may be the burdens they impose upon their people, we must necessarily follow their example, or that in following their example we are really preparing ourselves adequately to meet a war, if a war came.
  No one disputes that expenditure on armaments is in itself economically unremunerative; nor does anyone dispute that what we spend on armaments is taken from resources that would otherwise be available for furthering the welfare of the body of the people as a whole. No one disputes that you can carry expenditure on armaments to such a point as to undermine the internal welfare of the people; nor does anyone dispute the fact that by pursuing a policy of unlimited expenditure on armaments you may create internal dangers at least as serious as any dangers that you may have to encounter from outside. We have had that lesson illustrated over and over again in the history of European countries, and I think it is being illustrated in the present day. Germany has been quoted a great deal in these Debates. I, too, will quote it, though I wish to do so with the friendliest feelings to that country, and I hope without saying anything that would indicate any hostility to it. It is the example of Germany upon which the First Lord bases his expenditure on armaments, particularly upon the Navy; it is this example that is held chiefly to justify the First Lord and the Government in proposing their present Estimates. I should like the House to consider for a moment what effect, besides the creation of a great Navy and a great Army, that expenditure is producing in Germany itself.
  The expenditure of the German Empire has grown within the memory of some of us, and since the Empire was created, more than sixfold. It has grown very largely on account of the greatly increasing expenditure upon armaments. The debt of the Empire has grown from nothing to proportions which, though very much less than
  1924
  ours, are none the less very considerable. You have in Germany also a constantly spreading discontent among the mass of the people, due, I will not say altogether, but certainly due mainly to the burden that is being imposed upon them in consequence of the policy that their own Government is pursuing in regard to armaments. We are, I think, entitled to draw the lesson from Germany as to the effects that are being produced in that country by that very policy which the First Lord tells the House we must imitate, and which we have been told all through these years that it is our duty to imitate. It is not merely that there is widespread and deep-seated discontent in the German Empire at the present time in consequence of the burdens imposed upon the people by the naval and military armaments maintained by that Empire, but you have an immense section of that people hostile, not merely to the policy of the Government of that country, but hostile to the Government itself. This is true, not merely of a very large section of the German people; it is true of a very large section of all peoples in every one of the great military countries in Europe. The Governments are creating for themselves an internal danger, at least as serious, in my opinion far more serious, than any danger to which they are exposed by an attack from outside. That is one reason that has always influenced me—I am afraid I do not express it very clearly to the House—in holding that we ought to keep a stricter supervision over the distribution of our general national resources among the several needs of the country than we have done during the last six years, or than we have, in fact, done during the last twenty years.

  Would the House contrast, for a moment the care and intelligence which we are devoting year after year to the best means of protecting ourselves against attack from abroad, with the care and intelligence we are devoting to problems of a domestic character that await solution, and that at least demand as much, care and as much intelligence as the problems of defence? We all of us listened with the greatest admiration to the First Lord's statement of the changes he was making in the administration of the Navy with a view to the improvement of its efficiency and the completeness of its organisation. Is there not also a duty on this House, which necessarily conflicts with this other expenditure, to take some care for the interests of education in this; country? The interests of education are

  1925
  more closely connected with the permanent interests of this country, with its real greatness and future influence in the world, than are the means of external defence, although I know we cannot afford to neglect those means. We are starving our educational system. We are neglecting educational organisation.
  We expend money, and we give care and intelligence, without stint or limit, to the problems affecting our position amongst the nations of the world to the detriment of the problems that arise and confront us in regard to our internal interests. We have neglected our housing problem. We have failed to watch and study our labour problems. There is not a single problem connected with defence that has not been considered at the Admiralty by the Committee set up by the First Lord and which has not, to a certain extent, been anticipated and forestalled; but no similar care or intelligence applied by the Government as a whole has ever been directed to anticipating and forestalling the difficulties that arise in the internal administration of our country. That is another reason why I have always regretted both the amount of money and the amount of intelligence and care that has been sacrificed to the maintenance of armaments. I should like to go a step further. I once said in this House that I believed that we could in this country safely enough afford to reduce the strength of our Navy. [An HON. MEMBER: "Oh!"] I still adhere to that. I believe we could not only do it safely, but with enormous gain both to ourselves and to the world.
  Mr. LEE: The world!
  Mr. MURRAY MACDONALD: Yes, the world. I do not fear to say that, although I know it may be said that my courage is greater than my knowledge. I am certain myself that the main argument that the German Government uses at this moment in order to induce the German people to accept the added burdens which it is now asking to be allowed to impose upon them is the argument of what Great Britain is doing.
  Mr. CHURCHILLdissented.
  Mr. MURRAY MACDONALD: The right hon. Gentleman thinks not? He thinks the German Government does not use the argument of our proposals with regard to the Navy as the main justification for the acceptance of their own proposals by the German people?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I think the German argument is based rather on what they should have, rather than what we should have.
  Mr. MURRAY MACDONALD: Then I am afraid the First Lord and I do not derive our information from the same sources. Certainly from the papers I have read I have drawn the conclusion that the argument used throughout the length and breadth of Germany— surely it is common knowledge—is that the Germans must build because Great Britain is building, and that Great Britain is threatening Germany.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: We are ready to stop.
  Mr. MURRAY MACDONALD: The right hon. Gentleman says we are ready to stop. I know what the right hon. Gentleman has said. I know he made a most ingenious suggestion in his speech, but I am afraid it will not be as effective as it is ingenious. [An HON. MEMBER: "Let us hope it will."] Well, I must express my fear that it will not. But to return to my argument, I repeat that there is nothing the German Government would more dread at this moment than a bold reduction of the building policy undertaken by this country. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh."] I am convinced we could do it without any risk to the interests of this country. I come to my final point. I assert that the policy that we are pursuing now, and that we have pursued any time since 1894 is a policy inconsistent with the old policy of this country. I am certain there was not one of the great statesmen of the nineteenth century who would have approved of the course we are now pursuing. They never allowed that it was the example of other countries that should be the sole dominating influence in the framing of their Naval or Military Estimates. On the contrary, they constantly watched the action of other Governments, with a view to determine whether or not they were putting pressure upon their people that was likely to produce domestic weakness and discord, and when any indication of that presented itself they drew the line, and they consistently asserted that it was the first duty of the Government of this country to look after the internal welfare of the people of this country. It was largely due to a consistent adherence to that policy that the British people have been more loyal, more

  1927
  contented, more ready to bear the strain of war, when war came, than any other people in the world. I have protested, I will continue to protest, against the course the Government are pursuing, on the ground that it is not really necessary in order to maintain our interests abroad, and that it is distinctly detrimental to our interests at home.
  Mr. YERBURGH: The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down referred to the opinions of the great statesmen of past generations, and said he was quite certain that there was no statesman who would ever have supported the present policy of His Majesty's Government. I have the good fortune to have here a quotation from a speech made by Mr. Pitt, on 9th February, 1790. Mr. Pitt said:—
  "It is bad economy to attempt to attack in a state of weakness; thus by miserable saving utterly to incur the hazard of great expense."
  My hon. Friend below me reminds me that Mr. Cobden, an authority which I am sure will be agreeable to hon. Members opposite, declared in one of his great speeches that he would be prepared to spend one hundred millions of money on the Navy rather than allow France, which was at that time our possible adversary, to put her fleet on an equal footing with ours, because her doing so would argue some sinister design.
  Mr. MURRAY MACDONALD: I entirely agree. I have never said we should not prepare ourselves to meet any probable attack from any Power. I yield to no one in my belief that we ought to maintain our Navy. Mr. Pitt, of course, was looking forward at the time he made that speech to a great war. When I spoke I had in my mind the men of the nineteenth century, Mr. Peel and Mr. Gladstone.
  Mr. YERBURGH: And Mr. Cobden?
  Mr. MURRAY MACDONALD: Yes, I do not dispute what Mr. Cobden said.
  Mr. YERBURGH: The two-Power standard was founded upon the possible combination and antagonism of France and Russia at that time against our country. I think it is quite clear that the hon. Gentleman opposite in his zeal for economy would disregard the teachings of history. There is no Member of the House who will not agree with the remarks in reference to the waste on armaments. The point was put by the First Lord in his great
  1928
  speech introducing these Estimates. But I would ask the hon. Gentleman, if he has not already done so, to read the delightful book, almost an epoch-making book, by Sir Norman Angel. He puts forward the folly of armaments, and says no country gains by the defeat of an enemy, but is rather a loser. But again and again, in that book, he lays it down that owing to the present condition of European thought he would not vote for reducing our armaments by one single sovereign. He goes further. If I was to quote him in this respect it would be said I was arousing hostile feeling against Germany, but he says, in a letter to the "Spectator," since embodied in his book, what I would not have said, that he is in fear of German aggression. I am one of those who laments most deeply that any particular Power has to be brought into our discussions, but I could not follow my Noble and gallant Friend (Lord Charles Beresford) when he charged the First Lord of the Admiralty with girding at Germany. I regret very much indeed to find that my Noble and gallant Friend is smitten to-day in the house of his friends, because I see a quotation given from a German paper, the "Germania," in the "Times." which describes my Noble and gallant Friend, who is devoted to Germany, apart from these miserable disputes, as "the grim enemy of Germany."
  The House listened, I am sure with the greatest interest, and received with approbation the remarks of the First Lord with regard to our being prepared to reduce our output of battleships if Germany did the same. He said he would like to see a blank page in the book of misrepresentation—very admirable words. I should like to point out to him that a similar speech was made in November, 1899, by the late Lord Goschen, who was then at the head of the Admiralty. He told the country and the world that we were prepared, if other countries would reduce their armaments, to reduce ours. That speech has never been withdrawn, but has been repeated with great force and picturesqueness by the present First Lord of the Admiralty. That is our position—nay, more. The hon. Member opposite suggested we should reduce our battleships. We have done that. There is nothing we have not tried in order to escape from this ruinous competition. This was done by Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman, but the answer that was made was an increase on the part of Germany. It is a hopeless position. To my mind one

  1929
  thing is absolutely clear above all others, namely, that we have to regard our great responsibilities not only in the North Sea, but throughout the whole of the Empire. We have the Mediterranean and the Pacific. We cannot shut our eyes to all these great possibilities, and we must see what is best for ourselves.
  This standard of two keels to one has been attacked very scathingly by my Noble Friend. I do not stand here in sackcloth and ashes, but rather in a spirit of contentment and gratification of mind at a standard which has been devised by people of distinction. I believe the gentleman claiming to be the originator of the standard is a well-known Member of the Radical party and a leader of Radical thought. It is Mr. Stead who claims to be the originator of the two keels to one standard. After all, you must have a standard if for this reason alone. If anyone to-day reads the history of naval administration he will find that in the past, on occasion after occasion when the Admiralty have asked for financial assistance sufficient to enable them to develop the Fleet and make it equal to the duties it would be called upon to perform, they were told by leaders of the Government concerned—both parties are equally criminal—that the time was inopportune for finding the money. How were the public to judge? If you have a standard the public can judge, and for that purpose alone a standard is admirable. I believe, the First Lord will contradict me if I am wrong—we have practically two keels to one now. I know we have a margin of ships over the two-Power standard, taking the United States and Gtermany into account. I say we are in a most favourable position at the present time, and I do not want to see that position worsened; and I venture to say if the two keels to one is taken, and turning to the years 1914 to 1920, if you allow a margin of 20 per cent, superiority in European water over the forces of the Triple Alliance, you will find that in 1914 you will have only six battleships over, and that in 1920 on the same standard of two keels to one and the same measure of 20 per cent. over the Triple Alliance, you will find you have only got some eight ships over in the Pacific and elsewhere. Is that too much? I think not.
  I am not myself personally persuaded by what the First Lord has said with regard to the margin to be maintained, yet I do admit we have a perfectly safe provision
  1930
  at the present time, and I believe the provision he is making will be sufficient, if properly carried out, with the reservation he has made that we must keep a jealous eye on every possible development of other forces. With that reservation I believe the margin is sufficient. Nobody would say to Germany that she does not require a fleet for her developing commerce and for the purposes of defence. She is the best judge as to the size of the fleet she requires. It is not for us to tell her. She has decided what she wants. She has in the preamble of her Navy Law told the world she must have a fleet strong enough in case of war with the strongest naval Power to enable her navy not only to guard against loss, but to threaten the supremacy of that strongest Power. Thus Germany has been an offender in building against us; we have not been the offender.
  Coming from the general subject to some details, may I be allowed to congratulate the First Lord upon this? I was surprised at the impression his speech made upon his own side. I saw one Gentleman opposite (the hon. Member for Montrose), a stalwart economist and a rigid guardian of the public purse, rise, and I trembled for the First Lord. I thought it was Balaam coming to curse, but it turned out Balaam had come to bless. More than that, when my Noble Friend charged the First Lord with being too strong in his reference to Germany, the hon. Member for Montrose threw his cloak over him and protected him, so powerful evidently was the influence exercised by the First Lord's speech.
  Mr. ROBERT HARCOURT: When I spoke I thought it was absolutely necessary to deal with the attacks of the Noble Lord, which I think were most unfair and unjust, and calculated to do great damage abroad.
  Mr. YERBURGH: I appreciate the work of the hon. Member in coming to the rescue of his leader. I now turn to the question of gunnery. I listened with unfeigned satisfaction to what the First Lord said on that subject. I understood him to say he had a Committee sitting going into the whole question, and that he proposed to ask the House to grant him further money. When we consider that it is upon the men behind the guns that the whole fate of our Empire rests we can understand that the First Lord is justified in asking for this money, and I feel sure the House will grant it. You must have a

  1931
  gun platform, but it is upon the men behind the guns that the fortunes of war depend. I congratulate the First Lord upon his recognition of the absolute necessity of halving a Fleet and destroyers to patrol the North Sea. He puts a responsible officer over that Fleet, whose duty it will be to keep a constant guard over that sea. He has decided to adopt Prince Bismarck's advice to his country, that when fighting the Triple Alliance Germany must always be on the deck. I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman most warmly.
  6.0 P.M.
  I want to ask him one or two questions. One is with regard to the amount to be allotted to the battleship programme. It was dealt with shortly a while ago by a representative of the Admiralty, but I did not understand the right hon. Gentleman to deal with the question why so very small an amount was allowed for one of the battleships of the new programme. It appears that ship cannot possibly be completed before 1915. I would also ask whether something more cannot be done in reference to an improvement in the pay of the officers and men. The hon. Member spoke sympathetically at the work done by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in finding money for great social advancement, and for the expenditure upon the Navy. We must, however, remember that the pay of those in the Navy has not been increased for the last sixty years. You have increased the pay of the Metropolitan Police and those in the merchant service. Nay, you have done more. You thought yourselves so worthy that you have voted yourselves a handsome yearly allowance. What have you done for the men of the Fleet? I hope the First Lord will consider whether he cannot devise some means of dealing with this problem. With regard to our submarines, I wish to ask whether tinder the present regulations any system has been devised for providing reserve crews for the submarines, because this is a hard occupation, involving great strain on body and mind.
  Captain MURRAY: I do not wish to take part in controversial matters beyond saying that I agree with every word that was said by the First Lord on Monday last, and I do not agree with the Noble Lord opposite, who said that that speech was provocative. If it were possible to circulate that speech in pamphlet form amongst the German people, I think it
  1932
  would rid their minds of much of the misunderstanding which at present exists. I would suggest to the Anglo-German Friendship Society that instead of holding meetings throughout the country and passing resolutions, they might devote their efforts to circulating a translation of the First Lord's speech in Germany, and then they would be going a long way towards bringing about a good understanding between the two countries. Personally, I see no hope of an ending to this rivalry in armaments until there exists in Germany Parliamentary government in its true sense. I rose to refer very briefly to the policy of the Board of Admiralty with regard to the construction of certain vessels in which the element of superior gun power and armour is sacrificed to that of speed. I refer more particularly to the vessels known as battle-cruisers. There has been launched to-day at Jarrow a battle-cruiser named after Her Most Gracious Majesty, Queen Mary. I merely wish to draw a comparison between that particular type of battle-cruiser and our latest type of battleship, and for the purpose of that comparison, I will take the "Queen Mary" and the battleship "Ajax," which is shortly to be launched. The "Queen Mary" has a displacement of 27,000 tons with a horse-power of 75,000; her speed is 28 knots, and she carries eight 13.5 guns and sixteen 4 in. guns. Her armour main belt is 9 in., thickness above 6 in., and in gun positions 9 in. The estimated cost of the "Queen Mary" is £1,940,764. Now take the battleship "Ajax," which is to be launched at Greenock to-morrow. In this case the displacement is 23,000 tons, and the horse-power 31,000. That, however, is not a matter of much importance to my argument. The speed is 21 knots, which is 7 knots less than the "Queen Mary." The armament consists of ten 13.5 guns, or two more than in the battle-cruiser. She has twenty 4 in. guns, the armour main belt is 12 in., the thickness of armour above is 9 in., and on heavy gun positions it is 10 in. The estimated cost of the "Ajax" is £1,745,087.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: Without armament.
  Captain MURRAY: I added to my figures the estimated liability, but if it is without armament it certainly does make a difference. According to my figures, the cost of the "Ajax" is £195,677 more than the "Queen Mary." The conclusion I draw from this battle-cruiser, the "Queen Mary," is that she gains 7 knots

  1933
  in speed, but she sacrifices two 13.5 guns, four 4 in. guns, and she sacrifices 3 in. of armour. I do not propose to enter into a discussion as to the relative merits of battleships and battle-cruisers, or of gun-firing, armour, or speed. Personally, I agree with an able writer who said:—
  "The gun it the chief means of offence and the best kind of defence."
  I want to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty what particular part in this strategical and tactical scheme these battle-cruisers are destined to play. Several methods of employment have been suggested. For instance, it has been said that they should be employed as a sort of Expeditionary Force to be sent off suddenly in squadrons to attack or defend points of strategical importance, but if that be so I think it is a matter for consideration whether what they gain in speed for that purpose will make up for what they lose in respect of armament. As the First Lord has intimated that he will answer this question, I do not wish to detain the House any longer upon this point. No doubt there is some good reason for the construction of these battle cruisers, but if there is it has not yet been disclosed to the Committee. As one who believes that gun power is more important than speed, I ask the First Lord whether these battle cruisers are really necessary as units of our Fleet, and if so, how he proposes to use them?
  Mr. SHIRLEY BENN: I am not rising for the purpose of criticising these Estimates, although I regret that they do not provide a larger sum of money in order that the dockyard men and sailors might get an increase in their pay so that the best class of men might still be induced to join the Navy. My object is to draw the attention of the Committee to the new condition of affairs which must exist as soon as the Panama Canal is completed, and on this point I hope to obtain the sympathetic interest of the First Lord of the Admiralty. The old American Trans-Isthmian Canal was always expected to be completed by private enterprise, and neither Great Britain nor America were to erect any fortifications along the canal. Unfortunately private enterprise failed, and it was found necessary that the American Government should complete the Panama Canal, and naturally and justly America must protect it. I have not risen for the purpose of attacking the Panama Canal, but simply to review the condition of affairs which will exist when it is com-
  1934
  pleted. After it is completed ships going from New York to Sydney and Australia will have 3,000 miles less to traverse than they have to-day, and New York will be 2,000 miles nearer to Sydney than it is Liverpool to-day. As a natural result we must expect that the trade from America, and from Canada to the countries lying in the East, must increase very largely, and as long as we are one of the great carrying countries of the world we must expect that our ships will trade from Canadian and American ports to the East using the Panama Canal.
  What will our position be under those circumstances? Not only shall we have to defend our ships, but we shall have to defend our Colonies lying between Bermuda and British Guiana, having an area almost as great as that of the United Kingdom and greater than England and Wales. Those ships trading from Eastern Canada and the Eastern American ports using the Panama Canal will have to travel down through the Windward Passages, and they will be very liable to attack by European countries if we should be at war with them, and America happens to be a neutral country. My object is to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty if he has realised the importance of Jamaica to the Navy under these circumstances? Admiral Mahan has already pointed out that Jamaica occupies a great strategic point in the Caribbean Sea, and it would be of great advantage for the Navy to be able to use Jamaica as its base. In certain circumstances, unless we construct a coal depot and dockyard at Jamaica, the Navy will find itself at a great disadvantage. Therefore I hope that the First Lord of the Admiralty will take into consideration the necessity for establishing a coal depot in Jamaica, and providing, not only a dock for the ships of the Royal Navy, but also a commercial dock which our vessels trading from American ports to the East can use; and that he will do it now, so that when the Panama Canal is built nobody can say we are doing it for the purpose of waging war against countries in America. It would be the standard coal depot for the trade going through the Panama Canal out to the East, and it should be properly fortified and could be used as a base for the Navy.
  Mr. CHARLES DUNCAN: I desire to draw attention to the position of the artificers in the Navy. It is true we do not seem to have made very much progress or to have made any great impression upon

  1935
  those who sit upon the Treasury Bench; but I do not think the fault lies at our door, because there have been many changes and many removals from the Admiralty to, I suppose, better positions. There are in the Navy, roughly, 3,000 men who are called engine-room artificers. We have heard a good deal about two keels to one, the two-Power standard, and the man behind the gun; but neither ships nor men will fight unless there is somebody to look after the machinery. If the engines of the ship are not capable of being operated, that ship will not last very long in the face of an energetic enemy. When all the schemes of mice and men are exhausted, the strength of the Navy inevitably lies with the human element on our warships, and nobody will dispute that the man who looks after the engineering part of the vessel must necessarily play a very highly important part in the ship. These men have been trained in the engineering shops up and down the country. They served their time to the engineering and kindred trades before they joined the Navy. They were induced to join the Navy by certain prospects being held out to them, one of them being that they should gradually be promoted to perform what are called watch-keeping duties. Latterly there has been a new scheme put into operation, arising, I suppose, out of the Cawdor Memorandum. I have read the whole of that Memorandum. I find only five persons were examined, and no man, so far as I could see, was invited from the artificer rank to give any evidence. One can only come to the conclusion that the opinions of these men were not worth a moment's consideration. Even amongst the five who were examined there were some who, at any rate, were certainly not favourable to the change. There is in the Navy some 27,000 stokers.
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): Thirty-five thousand.
  Mr. C. DUNCAN: The idea of the Cawdor Memorandum was to give the best men amongst the stokers a certain amount of training, and to make them, in a sense, accessories to the engine-room artificers, and for the mechanicians to practically take the watch-keeping duties out of the hands of the engine-room artificers. I can understand those who have to run the Navy desire to open avenues of promotion to the stokers, and I have every reason to sympathise with the desire of the stokers,
  1936
  but I know, and I suppose the right hon. Gentleman (Dr. Macnamara) knows, that the stokers largely desire—and it is the only claim. I have heard them put forward —an increase in their wages. We never hear anything from the Treasury Bench in regard to that case. A certain number of stokers are to be taken from stoking, although they joined the Navy to stoke, and they are to be given two years' mechanical training in certain ships which are fitted with machinery, and the men who are to teach them their new duties are very largely the men who are afterwards to be superseded by them. The position of the artificer engineer is being very seriously and gravely menaced. If the stoker mechanician is to be promoted to watch-keeping duties, the prospects of the artificer and the artificer engineer are very seriously menaced indeed. I would like to give an illustration from the mercantile marine, because, after all, you have the same class of men in the mercantile marine as in the Navy. The artificers in the Navy are exactly the same kind of men who develop into first, second, chief, and superintending engineers in the mercantile marine. We say that by taking away the watch-keeping duties from the artificer engineer they are being largely deprived of all chance of promotion. We say this because we know that promotion very largely depends upon the watch-keeping duties.
  The scheme brought into operation as the result of the Cawdor Memorandum is not new, though it is supposed to be, and though it is foisted upon the Navy as a new scheme. My experience as an engineer tells me that the scheme is at least thirty years old. It has been tried in the mercantile marine, and it has hopelessly broken down. It is amusing that the Board of Trade, which governs the mercantile marine, and over which only a short time ago the First Lord of the Admiralty was presiding with his usual genius, lays down specific conditions with regard to the men who aspire to occupy positions as engineers in the mercantile marine. It lays it down definitely that these men shall serve at least four years in the engineering shops of the country, that they shall have a certain experience at sea, that then they shall be permitted to be examined, and that, if they are successful in their examination, they shall have Board of Trade certificates. This is the scheme in operation in the mercantile marine, which is not run for

  1937
  fun, but for profit, and we ask that the scheme which has been found by thirty years' experience to be the best scheme should be adopted in the Navy. If we are told, as we have been told, that the shipowners would not look at the scheme in operation, in the Navy and would not touch it with a 40 ft. pole, I think we are bound to protest against it. It will be granted that in the working of machinery a great deal depends upon the man who is in charge of that machinery. Experience teaches that if the man who is in charge has had an extended mechanical training he can by his knowledge and his experience handle, and humour the machinery so that repairs may be largely prevented.
  We shall be placed in this position in the future. The stoker mechanician will be placed on watch-keeping duties, and he will be the superior officer of the man who has had the greatest experience and who, in the past, has taught him to be the man he is. The illustration would not be an inapt one if I took the profession of the right hon. Gentleman himself. It would be a rather strange proceeding to argue that the caretakers of schools and school attendance officers should be promoted to inspectors under the Board of Education, and that school teachers should be kept to their proper duties of teaching the children in the schools and be debarred from that opportunity of promotion. That, in my judgment, is a complete and an exact analogy to the cases of the artificer engineers in the Navy, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will take a little notice of my illustration. I venture to say, if the right hon. Gentleman were sitting on these benches, he would be the first to protest against such a scheme being brought into operation. I can quite understand, if he were in our position, he would feel as keenly as we feel the position in which the members of our trade are being placed as the result of this Memorandum. We are told there is some gonius in the scheme. I have here a quotation from the Cawdor Memorandum which discloses the genius which exists, or which is supposed to exist, in the scheme. I must confess that I have never, in all my experience as a trained engineer, come across a paragraph which contains so great a degree of nonsense. It runs as follows:—
  "It appears that, under the present system, the engine room artificers, who are skilled mechanicians of various trades, are employed on board ship to some extent in doing watch-keeping duties and engine driving, which is largely taught them after having joined the Service."
  1938
  It is, in my judgment, the greatest farce that could be put into that number of words to suggest these men are taught the duties after they joined the Navy. The experience of these men is to be in charge of machinery. They can not only make but they can operate and drive the whole of the machinery that makes the very machinery which is in the hull of the warship. Then it goes on to say:—
  "and which itself requires no very considerable degree of workmanship or mechanical training."
  There again I question that statement. After all, these men, who have served their time in the various engineering shops in the country, are from their youth taught to drive and to make the whole of the machinery that is in the hull of a warship—
  "In consequence, while they are so employed, their workmanship and mechanical ability is not being utilised to the best advantage, and the long apprenticeship which they have served in their various trades is being wasted. It is a matter for consideration whether competent engineers and drivers and stokehold engineers cannot be trained from the stoker ratings of the Fleet, and the artificer class in this way be free to perform their more legitimate occupations in the ships' workshops."
  That raises the whole position which I am ready to put. I venture to say that if these stoker mechanicians are seriously to be put to watch-keeping duties it will land our artificers in the Navy in this delightful position. The individual who will give the instructions over the artificer will be the superior officer. The superior officer will be the stoker mechanician on watch-keeping duties at the particular time the accident happens. The artificer who has been trained in the construction of all kinds of machinery will be under the instructions of a man not so trained, and will have to take his orders from him in the case of repairs necessary in case of a breakdown. I want to suggest that the position will be farcical. A somewhat identical system has been created quite recently in the Post Office. A certain accident took place and the skilled men absolutely refused to do anything until they were ordered by a less skilled man to do so. The man did not understand the business, and was afraid of the responsibility, and the result was that the skilled men were allowed to do the work as their own common sense and experience taught them. I venture to say that exactly the same thing will eventually take place in the Navy.
  It is a matter of common knowledge that our warships are largely becoming simply boxes of machinery. We have this large number of stokers, and the Admiralty desire

  1939
  to give them promotion. I suggest they should make inquiry into the system which obtains in the mercantile marine, and see what promotion is given to these men there. Another problem about which we have heard a good deal in these Debates is one which is going to have, I think, an enormous effect on the personnel of the Navy. We see now that there is an engine being introduced into the mercantile marine, the Diesel oil engine, which constitutes one of the most startling factors in engineering. There is no end to the change. It is illimitable, and we do not know what progress may be made in the future. No doubt we are very near to the position when it is more than possible, and much more than likely, that practically the greater part of our Navy will be driven by oil, and you are going to be placed in this position, that you will have 35,000 stokers in the Navy with absolutely no stoking to do. That is a problem which should be considered by the Admiralty to-day, and considered before they begin to reduce in position the men they have induced to join the Navy as artificers, men skilled and versed in the making, working, and repairing of machinery in the Navy. Before they begin to dethrone these men they should realise the dangerous course they are on, and they should realise that the schemes they are inaugurating in the Navy may bring them to an exceedingly difficult position within even the next two years. However the Admiralty may consider the matter, they have every reason to act with very great caution. They do not seem to have realised the possibilities in the engineering trade, and they may very easily land themselves into the position of having 35,000 men on their hands with no stoking to do.
  Even the boilers in the Navy to-day are very largely lumps of machinery. The boiler that was in use ten, fifteen, or twenty years ago is disappearing. The boiler of to-day is simply an array of pipes. We have an increasing amount of oil fuel being used to get up steam quickly in the Navy, and, to me at any rate, it seems obvious the possibilities are, that, instead of requiring stokers in the Navy in the years to come, you may simply require an increased number of skilled engineers to look after, not only your engines but your boilers. We argue that prevention is better than cure. It sounds very nice, of course, to suggest that the artificer should be kept on the duties for which he primarily entered the Navy, which, of
  1940
  course, means that the skilled hands employed in the Navy shall be kept solely and entirely to the business of repairing break-downs in the Navy, and, so far as the chances of promotion are concerned be practically up against a stone wall. Naturally we object to that, and the men object to it also. We have been told in this House that the argument against artificers in the Navy was that some of them were members of trade unions. I do not know whether that is true or not. One would suppose, when listening to replies to questions upon this matter, that there is a sub-stratum of truth in it, because it seems to me that a dead-set is made against this particular class of men, and against no other section in the Navy. I think we are in duty bound to protest against the system in operation. We think—we may be wrong —that the men who join the Navy as artificers have just as much right to an equal chance of promotion as the same type of men who are joining the mercantile marine.
  We know that to-day you cannot get artificers to join the Navy as Freely as you once did. Is there not a reason for that? Can you expect a young man who has served his time in an engineering shop, and who knows that the chances of promotion in the mercantile marine will enable him to reach a higher, much more responsible, and very much better paid position, than he could hope to get in the Navy—can you be surprised that this man refuses to join the Navy. We know that an advertisement has appeared in the papers recently offering a reward of 10s. to anybody who can secure a real live engineer to join the Navy. It would be the easiest matter in the world to get artificers to join the Navy provided the Admiralty undertook to treat the men properly and give them proper chances of recognition and promotion. It would be one of the easiest matters in this world to obtain an unlimited supply of young men from the engineering shops if the conditions were as they ought to be in the Navy. I consequently think we are right in constantly pressing this question upon the House. Members of the House who have experience in engineering or who, like the Noble Lord the Member for Portsmouth, have experience in the Navy, will sustain us in this appeal which we make year after year. We get the usual stereotyped reply to our appeals; a reply which commits nobody to anything. I am getting a little bit tired

  1941
  of this kind of thing. I think I have a right to be jealous for the trade in which I was brought up, in the same way as the Secretary to the Admiralty, if he too were seated below the Gangway, would be inclined to be in regard to his profession: he too would use the arguments I am using to-night.
  I ask seriously and earnestly that some inquiry should be made into this business. We believe we have a very real and substantial grievance that is causing a considerable amount of uneasiness and unrest among these men. We have patiently pleaded with the Admiralty to give attention to this matter, but so far we have only received happy phrases and pleasant sentences which lead us nowhere. We are therefore bound to persist in attempting to draw attention to this matter, and I ask that, instead of being given the usual soft answer that turneth away wrath, we shall have an understanding that this matter shall be inquired into. We object to the specially trained stoker being placed in a superior position to the man who all his life has been a trained and skilled man; we object to the artificer engineer being denied a proper share of promotion. We object to the artificer being weeded out of the Navy; we believe the workshops of this country can produce men with all the varied experience that cannot fail to be of the greatest possible service inside the Navy. We ask that these men should not be denied their chances; we ask that no Morant Circular shall be issued against the chances of promotion of these men. That is our request. I hope it will be treated as serious business, and I trust we shall have some assurance that inquiries will be made into the case of these men.
  Mr. CROFT: I am not going to follow the hon. Member who last spoke in the various points he raised, although I find myself in cordial agreement with many of his remarks. I want to refer very briefly to the point of view put forward by the hon. Member for Falkirk who spoke earlier on. Every one in this House is well aware of the fact that the burden of armaments on this nation is a very great and serious burden, and it is admitted that the money could be spent very much better in other ways provided there were no armaments in other parts of the world. I speak on this question from the Imperial standpoint. Although I do not believe that the First Lord of the Admiralty in any way exceeded his duty, I
  1942
  think his statement was a bold and courageous one, and I hold, too, that throughout the British Empire his clear exposition of the situation will be received with gratitude. Neither do I think that anything is to be gained to the people of this country or to other countries by failing to face the situation as it is. I believe we gain far greater respect, and that far less uneasiness arises in foreign countries, if these facts are made perfectly plain, as was done by the First Lord of the Admiralty. With regard to the argument which is used by those who consider that even today the Naval Estimates are too high, I will invite their serious consideration of the position of the British Empire to-day, from the point of view of contributions to Imperial defence as a whole. It will be remembered that in 1903 this question was first raised at the Colonial Conference, when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. Joseph Chamberlain) invited the Conference to consider a more effectual recognition of the obligations on all to contribute to the common weal. Oh the same occasion Lord Selborne pointed out that in no less than one quarter of the sea trade of the Empire we were in no way, directly or indirectly, concerned. I think that was the first occasion on which the question of Dominion co-operation arose. At the Conference of 1907 there was a further movement in. this direction, but it must be pointed out that upon that occasion New Zealand alone was prepared to go on with the old principle of contributing in money to the British defence. Australia declared for a local navy, as Canada had also previously declared. At the Defence Conference of 1909 it will be remembered that the Imperial Government supported the policy of distinct fleet units for the Dominions, and that the power of a single nation for a successful action in time of war depended upon unity of command and direction.
  The present unorganised state of the Imperial Fleet units does not carry out this statement of the Board of Admiralty of that time. New Zealand agrees that the "Dreadnought," which is not yet completed, shall be the flagship of the China Fleet unit, and she contributes £100,000 to that squadron's upkeep. South Africa has not yet seen her way to make any contribution. The Conference decided that—
  "each part of the British Empire is willing to make such preparations as will enable it, should it so desire, to take its own share in the defence of the Empire."
  I think it is our duty to quite frankly state in this House that no policy of union

  1943
  for the defence of the Empire can be of any use whatever so long as those words remain and that spirit is held to. I believe that this country has in the future opportunities, which few realise, of an alleviation of this burden of defence, if only we would call the Dominions to our councils and frankly tell them what we want, and that we shall be grateful for what they do. The important fact of that Conference was that the decision of the Board of Admiralty here that you must have unity of command was practically contradicted by that Resolution. Australia told us that their Fleet unit would be put under our control in time of war, but Sir Wilfrid Laurier said:—

  "It is not desirable for Canada to mix in the armament of the Empire, and Canadians will only take part if they think fit."
  I believe no Canadian will blame me for speaking the truth on this question. The Resolution practically amounts to this: that whatever happens to any Dominion the Fleet of the Mother-country must take action; whereas, if the Mother-country is engaged in any way, it is only if certain Dominions think fit that they will join and take part with us. I maintain that that is contrary to the true spirit of Imperial union, and I believe the one and only way in which we can alter that is to say that the Dominions shall have some voice in the control of the Fleet. It is not unnatural that the great Dominions overseas are not prepared to put down large sums of money, or build ships or provide men to take part in naval engagements in which they have no say, or to put their Fleets at our disposal when they have no voice whatever in the control of those Fleets. I believe that these qualifications which I have mentioned destroy the cohesive value of the whole of the Imperial Fleet units. I make the suggestion that we can no longer ignore the fact that there is a vast oversea trade going on between various portions of the Empire, which it is the duty of the Empire's Fleet as a whole to maintain and defend. When we realise that of all countries in the world in the past year Australia purchased more manufactured goods from this country than any other country —I think that is a staggering fact with her small population—we can clearly see that it is our duty to combine with that nation 13,000 miles away in naval defence, so as to see that that trade is assured against any possible misfortune.
  Everybody will admit that with the present Imperial position there is no good
  1944
  reason why we can criticise the Dominions for taking the somewhat detached point of view they did at the last Conference. The present position is strategically inefficient. There is the national pride of the Dominions, which we all like to see, which has carried them recently in the direction of separate fleet units. I believe it would have been better if we had several years ago asked the Dominions to join with us in a Defence Council, and to join in the arrangements disposing of the Fleet. If we had asked them to join, I believe we should have been in a different position. We did not take that line, and nobody can blame the Dominions, least of all would I blame them, for having now decided, in certain circumstances, to have national fleet units as part of the British Fleet. If these fleet units are going to spring up it is our duty to endeavour—and I hope the First Lord is giving his special attention to this part of the question—to see that these fleets are of such cohesive value as to be of real moment to the Imperial defence problem. For that reason I suggest that the First Lord of the Admiralty might be able, when he meets the representatives of the Dominions of Canada and the other Dominions shortly, to suggest some programme to the Dominions for the future. I believe it is of the utmost importance, if these Dominion fleet units are to be useful, that they should, as far as possible, be of one type. We should then be in a position of seeing fleet units of equal speed, of a similar tactical value, gathered together in such areas where they can be of the greatest use.
  The Canadian Parliament having recently abandoned its decision, for the time being, to maintain a local fleet unit, is faced with the question as to whether she is going to give a contribution, or whether she is going to co-operate in the same way as the Commonwealth of Australia. I believe that whatever the Canadian nation decides to do we shall be grateful for it in this country, but I think that if the Admiralty will now speak out their minds to the Canadian people we shall find a far more ready response than many in this country think will be the case. The question of the Dominion of Canada is ripe for consideration, and if the First Lord of the Admiralty were to suggest to those Ministers that the Canadian Fleet unit for the future should consist of four "Dreadnought" cruisers, I do not believe he would in any way shock

  1945
  the Canadian people, but I believe he would find a ready response to that suggestion. Already we find that the Commonwealth, of Australia has one "Dreadnought" building, and that New Zealand has one building. I would suggest—I hope it is not impertinent for a layman to do so—that the day is not far distant when the Dominion of Canada will be prepared to put four "Dreadnought" cruisers at the disposal of this country, that the Commonwealth of Australia will be prepared to do the same, that New Zealand will put two at our disposal, that South Africa will put two or four at our disposal, and the Crown Colonies two, or one at the least. In that manner we could get assembled at various times, either in Australian waters or in South African waters, an Australian-South African Dominion Fleet which would be of great value to the First Lord, which would be far better if the Home Fleet has been temporarily hampered than his older ships, and he will have a compact Dominion Fleet able to come at the earliest moment to the assistance of the Mother-country. I hope that we in this country are not going to be in any way shy of expressing our views to the Dominions. I think they have clearly shown that they only want a strong lead. I think they will not respect us if we allow them to imagine that we believe that the phrases "may" and "if they think fit" are good. We should point out that these are destructive of all cohesive defence, and we should say that if they are prepared to do this for us that we are prepared, if not to give them representation on the Board of Admiralty, to immediately reopen the whole question as to whether the time has not now come for a Council of Defence to sit in London, on which we might have representatives of every unit-owning Dominion under the Flag, as well as of the Mother-country.
  7.0 P.M.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I can assure the Committee that the subjects referred to by the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down have during the last few months been engaging our very earnest attention. It is not for the British Admiralty to initiate any proposals to the self-governing Dominions, but if they come to us and ask us for our guidance, and if they wish to be placed in contact with the accumulation of expert naval knowledge—which is considerably greater in this country than anywhere else in the world—we shall receive them with the utmost cordiality, and shall do our very best to help them to come to
  1946
  a wise decision, convenient, and agreeable to themselves, and also of sound military value, based on the true principles of national and Imperial defence. They may be quite sure that we shall place the facts of naval policy before them with absolute frankness, that we shall not in any circumstances try to treat them as if their proposals were not regarded as grave and serious contributions to the resources of the Empire. I was also struck by the reference which the hon. Gentleman made to some means of associating the Ministers of the self-governing Dominions with the consultations upon Imperial defence which proceed in this country. The subject is not free from difficulty, but as time passes it becomes, I think, less encumbered by difficulty. I purposely use indefinite language, but there can be no doubt that in the Imperial Defence Committee we have a machinery most flexible and comprehensive, which may well be found capable, at any rate in the intermediate stage of the relations between the Mother-country and the Dominion, of establishing that real and intimate connection which ought to exist in matters of Imperial defence between the responsible leaders of the Government and of opinion in the great Dominions, and those who are concerned with the defence of the Empire here at home. Any advance in that direction would certainly be facilitated by the Government and by the Admiralty. I thought the hon. Gentleman was rather optimistic as to the number of battle-cruisers which were to fly from all quarters of the globe to our assistance. These great vessels of enormous strength and cost will certainly be very welcome, but I do not anticipate that the great results which he has forecasted as being likely to occur in the future will make any immediate difference to the problem with which the Committee is dealing this afternoon.
  Mr. CROFT: The House should not forget that New Zealand, with under a million people, practically offered this country two "Dreadnoughts" a very short time ago.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I am well aware of that, and I can assure the Committee that we will not undervalue, in the slightest, aid which has been so generously and spontaneously given. While the hon. Gentleman was speaking of the creation of fleets of battle-cruisers I could not help thinking of my hon. Friend behind me

  1947
  who asked me to say what such vessels existed for. I should hesitate as a layman to plunge into technical details of naval tactics, but I am informed that it is necessary that a Fleet should be supplied with a certain proportion of vessels of the greatest speed and of the highest power in order that those vessels might be used in the course of an action to gain an advantageous position in regard to the enemy's line, to cross that line or to turn it, and also that they may be available for the purpose of bringing a hostile fleet into action. Vessels of twenty-eight knots, and even more can, of course, overtake any battle fleet and, being armed with the heaviest gun now carried in the sea service, they are capable of bringing that Fleet to action and of forcing it to engage and, as the action develops, of compelling the rest of the retreating fleet to choose either between abandoning a portion of their force to be destroyed or coming back and fighting a general engagement. Those are the more obvious tactical uses which these great vessels are designed to fulfil.
  I am not going to do more than answer some of the questions which have been put to me in the course of this Debate which has been so very agreeable to the representatives of the Admiralty. The hon. Member (Mr. Yerburgh) asked why we were taking so little for one battleship this year. Of course we are calculating the dates when we shall lay down each battleship according to the actual dates when we think we shall require them, and if we thought we should need one of these ships at an earlier month than that which we have fixed in our minds as being necessary, there would be no difficulty in beginning the vessel a little earlier, but the true policy is to wait till the last minute in order to get every advantage of design at a time like this, when naval science is moving on literally from week to week. We have taken a larger proportion than is usual of the new programme in the first year of its currency, and we have distributed that money, £1,950,000, among the different vessels of the programme with an eye to securing at the earliest moment those which are most required for the proper development of our Fleet strength, the most urgent claim upon us being undoubtedly an increase in our destroyers. We have at present 116 seagoing destroyers under twelve years of age. We have a great many more of an older period, but we have 116 which conform to the twelve years' standard which
  1948
  prevails elsewhere, bat owing to the steps which are being taken to begin the destroyers of this year at once, and owing to the fact that they take eighteen and a half months to build after the contract has been signed, the House will see that we shall get a great accession of destroyer strength about eighteen months from now. In addition to the 116 that we have at present, there are eleven from the 1910–11 programme not yet delivered which will come to hand shortly, there are the twenty of the 1911–12 programme which were given out in November and December, and there are the twenty of this year's programme, which will be given out at once, and therefore we may expect no fewer than fifty-one destroyers of the most modern type to join our flotilla at the end of about eighteen months from now, raising our total to 167, and, of course, materially altering the not very satisfactory ratio which prevails in this class of vessel at present. I think that is quite a satisfactory solution.
  I notice that inquiries have been made as to the speed of destroyers. I have made very careful inquiry into that and I am satisfied that there are good reasons for the design which has been adopted by the technical experts and naval advisers of the Admiralty. They are perhaps not always described on paper as of the same speed as some which are being built for various other countries, but taking the whole problem of this class of vessel, the weather it has to encounter, the purposes it has to serve as a fighting craft, as well as a fast vessel, its sea-going qualities, its radius of action, the strength of its framework—taking all these facts into consideration, there really is no reason whatever for us not to place full confidence in the expert opinion which is guiding the development and evolution of our destroyer type. The hon. Member (Mr. Pretyman), as well as the hon. Member (Mr. Lee), asked me to give a little more information about dock accommodation, and I think the Noble Lord (Lord Charles Beresford), when I made some statement the other day, asked me whether I was referring to docks in the United Kingdom. I was, certainly. I do not propose to pick out a number of ships and say exactly which dock will fit those ships, because that would perhaps be stating it with unnecessary precision, but I will take one or two test cases. I will not assign ships to docks, but I will mention ships and docks separately. For instance, take the great battleship "Orion." That is the last to join the Fleet, and one of the

  1949
  largest vessels in the world. We have at present five Government docks which can take the "Orion," and there are also six private docks capable of accommodating that ship actually ready—that is eleven— and, of course, a fortiori, all previous types. Then we have five docks building, which will come to hand, as I described the other day, in the course of the next three years, exclusive of floating docks. There is another private dock building, which will also be capable of taking this ship. Many of these docks will take much larger vessels, larger than the largest yet built. That is, built and building, capable of taking the "Orion" class, seventeen and two floating docks—nineteen. That is quite adequate provision, whether for peace or for war. Taking a cruiser like the "Lion," we shall have four Government docks and six private docks capable of receiving it, and one private dock building and seven Government docks building, exclusive of floating docks. I could go on with these figures through all the classes of ships, but I can assure the Committee that they will be found satisfactory, because docks that can take these vessels can take any warship in the world. [An HON. MEMBER: "Without lightening the ship?"] I do not propose to go into details, but these are docks which are practically available for carrying out repairs of the largest class of vessels in the Navy. These docks are distributed, as the Committee know, at Portsmouth, Sheerness, Devonport, Haulbowline—although Haulbowline is not quite big enough for the biggest "Dreadnoughts"—and Rosyth; and private docks are to be found at Liverpool, Birkenhead, Bristol, Southampton, Belfast, and Glasgow, or will be. Of course, it is quite true that these docks are mainly on the South and the West of the Island, and that the East Coast, which has only in recent years attained strategic significance, and which is not very conveniently suited for the development of harbours and dock accommodation, is not supplied with large docks at the present time. There are two floating docks, one of which will be placed in the Medway, and the other is destined for Portsmouth, but it may be found—the matter is being considered—convenient to use the Portsmouth floating dock as a temporary and subsidiary base on the North-East Coast of Scotland at Cromarty, with floating workshops, while the Rosyth docks are attaining their full completion. I can assure the House that no anxiety at all is felt or need be felt on the subject
  1950
  by anyone who chooses to investigate this matter carefully with relation to each particular ship and each particular dock.
  The hon. Member for Chelmsford asked about the Mediterranean. This, I think, was also referred to by the hon. Member for Central Hull (Mr. Mark Sykes) in his brief but interesting speech last night. The intention to base the battleships for the Mediterranean Fleet at Gibraltar does, not imply any neglect of the Malta Dockyard. We shall endeavour to keep that supplied with a proper share of the refitting and repairing work of the Navy, and the cruiser squadron, which will be based at Malta, together with the smaller vessels attached to the Mediterranean Fleet and the flotilla of destroyers and submarines, will, of course, continue to be based at Malta, and will be available for all the usual purposes of diplomacy in the Mediterranean. So far as the action of the battle squadron and the cruiser squadron attached to it is concerned, for both will be based at Gibraltar, I say it will be dictated by the main situation, but no doubt it will frequently be in the Mediterranean, and it will be available to act there whenever circumstances render its presence there necessary or desirable. The hon. Member for Chelmsford also referred to the question of personnel. He asked particularly about the pressure upon the Marines for sea service. I have obtained the figures of the number actually borne on 15th January. I do not know that there is anything significant in the date. I think it is really a convenient date at which the returns are available. There were 6,575 Marines ashore and 10,600 afloat. That is not an undue proportion, having regard to the great scale of our sea-going Fleet at the present time. I have myself questioned a considerable number of Marines as to their relative preference for service afloat and service ashore, and I find that in the majority of cases preference has been expressed for service afloat.
  Lord C. BERESFORD: And more pay.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: As the Noble Lord says, "more pay." There is also better food. My next point will be the question of pay. It is often said that the pay of the Navy has not been increased for sixty years. That is true in form, but it is not altogether just in fact to the continual improvements which have been made during that period by successive Administrations in the conditions of service afloat. While it is true that the actual nominal pay of the lower ratings—the actual substantive pay

  1951
  of the lower ratings—has not been increased, there has been an enormous number of special ratings introduced with very much improved conditions. The emoluments of petty officers and warrant officers have been continually increased, and for all the seamen ratings there have been added allowances for all manner of particular qualifications. Of the 40,000 seamen in the Fleet, 23,000 receive allowances for gunnery and torpedo qualifications alone, earning in this way from 2d. to 1s. 7d. extra per diem. There are also special allowances for diving instruction, physical training, submarine service, and what is called hard-time money, which, with the increase in the flotillas, is a constantly widening area. It must also be remembered that large additions of pay can be earned by good-conduct badges. The result of the greatly improved victualling in recent years has relieved the men to some extent, at any rate, of the necessity of paying for comforts additional to the rations supplied to them. Of course, no one must rest satisfied with the present state of things in the twentieth century, and I can assure the hon Gentleman and the Committee generally that we recognise it as the first of our duties to watch sympathetically over the interests, the comfort, and the contentment of the seamen of the Fleet, for all our great preparations in materiel would be absolutely futile unless we had at our disposal, as we certainly have at the present time, a loyal and contented Service whose conditions are satisfactory to them and afford a regular prospect of improvement and progress.
  The hon. Gentleman threw out a very interesting suggestion in regard to the Coastguard Reserve. He said, why should we not form a kind of reserve of men who would take the places of the Coastguard when the Coastguard are mobilised for active service? I do not think that the present position of the Coastguard is at all satisfactory to the Admiralty. The hon. Gentleman spoke of continuity of policy, and this is a policy in which both Governments have practised continuity. There are several thousand men of the active service ratings who are available on paper for the immediate reinforcement of the Fleet, but who are allocated to duties at the present time largely concerning other Departments of the State —the Board of Trade and the Board of Inland Revenue—from which they could not be moved in a great emergency without causing very considerable dislocation.
  1952
  Of course, the suggestion of the hon. Gentleman is a very valuable one, and I will give it careful consideration, but when the plan of the immediate Reserve has come into complete operation I should expect the class of men in the Coastguard would be considerably altered from what they are at present, and consequently our reliance upon them for the purpose of rapid mobilisation will not be so great as it now is. Therefore they will themselves be more in the position of Reserve men than of active service ratings which they are at the present time. The House will, however, make full allowance for the fact that 3,100 men borne on Vote A as on active service ratings are practically permanently detached from the active service of the Navy, so that Vote A really ought to be reduced by that amount for the Coastguard, whenever you regard them, as they must be regarded, as being a reserve rather than an active service rating.
  As I have mentioned the Immediate Reserve again, I would appeal to hon. Members in all parts of the House that they should, on their part, support and aid the formation of this Reserve, which will require the co-operation, not of a large number of employers, but of a certain number of employers all over the country, and I am quite confident, as we have seen how many Territorials are allowed by their employers to attend their training, that the Navy will not ask in vain for the comparatively small number of men who are required for this most urgent and important Service. When we think that the provision of this 5,000 men, which will cost with all expenses apparently considerably under £100,000 a year, will enable us to man a whole battle squadron, and a whole additional Cruiser Squadron, within, we hope, twenty-four hours. I am quite sure that the Committee will feel that any sacrifice made by individual employers or Reserve men for that purpose will produce a rich return to the country. The hon. Member for Chester (Mr. Yerburgh) and the hon. Member for North Kensington (Mr. Burgoyne) have both recognised the strength which the Government possesses at the present time, and I do not think that it would be possible to find two Members in the House who have more right to give an authoritative opinion on that subject, for both of them have brought to the consideration of naval matters the study of a great many years, and both of them are gifted with knowledge which far exceeds any that I have been able to acquire in the short time during which I have been

  1953
  at the Admiralty. I recognise very gladly the statement which they have made, that our position at the present time is a thoroughly satisfactory one, and I do not think that there is any danger or chance of its becoming unsatisfactory in future. If it is satisfactory now, and if that position is maintained in the next few years, let it be remembered that we owe that position to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, the fruits of whose administration the present First Lord of the Admiralty is reaping. It would be most unjust and ungenerous if the satisfactory position which we now occupy were to come by the public to be attributed to any efforts of mine, whereas they are entirely the result of what was done two or three years ago.
  Mr. LEE: And by hon. Members on this side.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I do not wish to deprive the hon. Gentleman of any credit, but I do feel it necessary to try to prevent that sort of attempt, which I have seen in one or two quarters, to attribute to my right hon. Friend all the blame for circumstances for which I think there is certainly no blame attaching to any individual, and to attribute to me all the credit for circumstances the credit of which must properly be distributed all over the House. One word as to the weighty speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk Burghs (Mr. Murray Macdonald). The hon. Member has urged that we should endeavour to diminish naval rivalry by some striking act of retardation and renunciation. I must remind the Committee that Sir Henry Campbell - Bannerman, whose courage and whose sincerity in the cause of peace have never been surpassed by anybody holding the first great office under the Crown, made a most sincere, earnest, and bold effort in that direction in the first two years of his Administration. It is not right to withhold that tribute of justice to his memory. He was justified absolutely in what he did by the naval situation, and, as a consequence, we have today much better ships than we should have had, more modern and much longer lived ships, and ships with greater war capacity, as a consequence of the restraint which he then practised. We have been no losers by his wisdom and his statecraft. He built three ships in the year 1905–6, three ships in 1906–7, only two in 1907–8, and only two in the year 1908–9. The next strongest naval Power, according to their
  1954
  original programme, should have built two ships in each of those two years, and one would have thought that with this invitation, not by words or precepts, but by a great act of restraint, some slackening, or, at any rate, no increase, would have occurred, but their rate of building rose first from two ships to three and then from three to four. So every year, while we were building two ships, the next strongest naval Power began the construction of four vessels, which is the two keels to one standard from the other side of the picture.
  Mr. MURRAY MACDONALD: That Power made two ships to four in the year 1906.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I do not want to mention the name, because the Noble Lord (Lord Charles Beresford) has such an objection, and I should not like to harass his feelings, especially as he mentioned it himself over two hundred times. I wish I could bring myself to believe that a sudden act of restraint on our part would break the spell, and arrest the tendency which we deplore at the present time, but I do not think it would, and if that is so, there is not perhaps very much that we can do at the Admiralty to reduce the competition in armaments. There are, however, three things that we can do: First of all, we can remove from our naval discussions and naval policy the elements of uncertainty and suspicion. I hope the Committee will see that the institution of, I will not say a programme, but an attempt to look ahead and forecast future construction, may have the effect of removing uncertainty from our naval policy, in this sense that it may avoid each year the necessity for a long detailed argument in which hon. Gentlemen who take very large views will have to bring up all the most favourable facts of the situation, and those facts will be canvassed by those who are optimists like many of my hon. Friends on this side. I am sure that does no good. We have very heated debates, and an immense number of extensive and not always accurate statistics are exchanged across the floor of the House, and all sorts of references have to be made to the building of other Powers, which do no particular good. I am deeply sensible of the kindness with which the House has treated the Admiralty representatives this year, and of the general acquiescence which has been expressed as to the moderate, though sufficient, standard which we have, I will not say, laid down,

  1955
  but set up as a guide and an indication. There are things which we may be able to do if we remove suspicion. Negotiations have been for some time in progress between this country and Germany for an exchange of naval information, and I can assure the House that we shall certainly be very glad if those negotiations reach a satisfactory conclusion. We have nothing whatever to conceal in the scale of our shipbuilding. We shall always be ready to allow it to be known what ships we have in process of construction, and within general limits when those ships may be expected to be completed, provided of course that we will receive reciprocal facilities.
  Mr. LEE: Is it intended that this information shall be communicated to other foreign Powers before it is communicated to the House of Commons, or any information given which is withheld from the House of Commons?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: No. What we want to avoid if possible is suggestions that vessels are being constructed, apart from those which are published and shown in the regular returns. The House knows that a lot of suspicion and ill-feeling was caused on that subject in former years, and it would be a great benefit if at any rate that element of suspicion could be altogether eliminated from the naval relations of two great Powers. We would go a very long way on that road provided that reciprocal facilities are afforded to us. These are two things we can do: we can remove uncertainty by letting it be known quite clearly what we propose to do and what are the limits within which the Government increase or decrease from our prescribed course. I hope that we shall also be able to eliminate the element of suspicion; and lastly, if we assert our claim, as we intend to do, to the supreme position on the seas, it is also our duty so to conduct ourselves that other nations will feel that that great power and that great responsibility which are a necessity to us shall be used in such a manner as to be a menace to none, and a trust held for all.
  Captain TRYON: I should like to protest against two arguments which have been advanced from the back benches opposite. The first is the argument of the hon. Member for Falkirk, who has presented the policy of naval defence and the policy of social reform as alternatives.
  1956
  We look on these things not as alternatives. We believe that you must have both or you will have neither. The way not to promote social reform is by putting down armaments. Just pause to consider what would be the position of social reform after a naval defeat. The same hon. Member told us that what was wanted was education. I hope the education of our people will include a sufficient knowledge of our naval history and the history of countries which have been defeated, so that they may decide more rightly in these matters than otherwise they would be able to do. I would further ask him to consider what the cost of a great naval defeat would be. We cannot add the cost of a great naval defeat to the already heavy cost of public education. The Civil Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. Lambert) spoke with pleasure of the absence of party spirit from our discussion, but with all respect I would say to him that his own speech formed a somewhat unfortunate exception. He told us that three years ago, during the discussion of the question of four or eight "Dreadnoughts," the Unionist party, with regard to the Navy, undertook an electoral campaign. I would ask him, if our campaign in favour of eight "Dreadnoughts" was an electoral campaign, why His Majesty's Government built the ships? It was not an electoral campaign, it was a campaign honestly undertaken by the Unionist party in the belief that those eight "Dreadnoughts" were necessary, and the fact that the Liberal Government, in the end, built those ships has fully justified our action. I think the hon. Gentleman would have been fairer to the Unionist party if he had acknowledged the debt which his party owes to us for warning the nation of the danger which existed at that time, the best evidence of which is that although we have had those eight "Dreadnoughts" actually built they are now still generally keeping up the very large expenditure on the Navy, showing that in the past the expenditure did not exceed what was absolutely necessary.
  A point on which I should like a very definite answer from the Admiralty is with reference to a hospital ship. I understand that in last year's Naval Estimates provision was made for the building of a hospital ship. That ship has not been built, and I should like to know, firstly, why provisions and plans which are made by the House of Commons are not carried out by the Govern-

  1957
  ment, and why this scheme has been dropped? I should like to emphasise the arguments, which I believe are sound, in favour of such a ship. We know that in every action there will necessarily be a large number of wounded. To keep those wounded on the ships would lead to the loss of a very large number of lives, which could easily be saved if a hospital ship were available. I believe that to take over a ship for the purpose of turning her into a hospital ship would not be so good a plan as to build a ship for hospital purposes. I would like to get a reply as to why this provision which was considered necessary by the Admiralty last year has not been carried out. We have had the privilege of listening to a very admirable Tory speech from the Radical benches in the speech of the First Lord of the Admiralty. It is a speech containing a very fine statement of the need of national defence, and I think that speech is purely due to the wide experience which the right hon. Gentleman has had of fighting in various parts of the world—both at home and abroad. I do not know whether he can tell us how far the introduction of the automatic pistol is due to his knowledge of fighting in Stepney; at all events, we can see that his knowledge of fighting in three different continents has made him realise the appalling risks which our country would run if the Navy were cut down, or if we ran a risk of naval defeat.
  It is said that we have to keep up a large Navy partly because of our commerce; and I believe it was suggested from the Labour Benches that if only we could have an agreement between the nations that our merchant shipping should be free from fear of attack in time of war, we could reduce our Naval Estimates very largely. I do not agree with that view. If you were to cut down the Navy you would be running great risk of invasion from those large Continental armies which unquestionably exist and to which the Labour party attribute such a strong fighting instinct, owing to that mysterious thing they call militarism. I have never yet been able to ascertain what is meant by "militarism," a term very frequently used. If training the people for war does create a great desire for fighting—which I do not agree with—then the Labour party ought to help us to keep up a very large Navy to protect us against those Continental armies to which they attribute such a very strong fighting instinct.
  Mr. J. WARD: We do advocate a sufficient Navy.
  Captain TRYON: Well, some hon. Members oposite do. But it was noticeable that during the speech of the First Lord of the Admiralty there was a very remarkable silence on the back benches behind the right hon. Gentleman when he was bringing in his programme, and I think a good many on the Radical Benches really felt what the hon. Member for Falkirk (Mr. J. M. Macdonald) has had the courage to say in opposition to this programme. The House, unfortunately, cannot fully discuss the whole question of national and Imperial defence, because we have to settle the Army Estimates before we know what the Navy Estimates are. I think it a very great pity that we cannot have a more general discussion on the whole question of National and Imperial defence. There have been three wars lately in which the Navy and the Army have co-operated in the closest possible way. More than that, there have been three wars in which I believe the naval situation has been decided largely by the action of the Army. There was, of course, the Japanese war with China, when the army operated against the fortress of Wei-hai-wei, and succeeded in effecting the destruction of the Chinese fleet. There was a very similar incident in the war between America and Spain in what occurred at Santiago. Again, in the Russo-Japanese war the co-operation of the Japanese army was largely instrumental in securing the destruction of the Russian fleet at Port Arthur. I am not suggesting any alteration or proposing any scheme, because it is a matter of extreme difficulty, but I have tried to point out what other nations do. I find that the army and the navy of Japan co-operated under the Imperial Government under a council, directed, I believe, at all events nominally, by the Emperor. We in this country, at this moment, have no effective machinery for securing the proper co-operation of the Army and Navy. The only body that deals with it, as far as I know, is the Committee of Imperial Defence, which really consists, so far as it has a permanent membership, of the Prime Minister, and of other people who may be called in. This body, which consists of the Prime Minister, has been described in the Debate as flexible and comprehensive. I do not know how far it may be flexible, but I do say that the Prime Minister, with all the work he has to do, cannot have adequate time to properly

  1959
  consider the co-operation of the Army and Navy. I think this matter deserves the attention of the Admiralty, and I trust that national attention will be given to the question of bringing, in the event of war, both the Admiralty and the War Office into the closest possible co-operation.
  Mr. ATHERLEY-JONES: I rise to mention a matter of not very great magnitude, but one of very considerable interest, and that is the question of the treatment of the Greenwich Hospital old age pensioners. This matter has been brought before the House by questions recently, and I think occasional discussions by my Noble Friend the Noble Lord opposite (Lord C. Beresford), and it has been dealt with, or it may be dealt with, in a sympathetic spirit by my right hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty (Dr. Macnamara). I do not propose for one moment to occupy the time of the House in referring to the historical circumstances connected with this matter further than to say, as many hon. Members here will be cognisant, that in the year 1692 Greenwich Hospital was established for the purpose of providing a home for aged or wounded seamen who had served their country in the Navy. Up till, I think, the year 1865, or perhaps a little later, Greenwich Hospital continued to fulfil this very useful purpose. In that year, owing to the opinion, no doubt very well founded, that Greenwich Hospital might be applied to more useful purposes, and in order that the funds which were allocated to the naval pensioners should not be diverted from their original purpose, a scheme was formulated whereby provision was made for the payment to a considerable number, some 5,000, of naval pensioners, I think correctly described as naval life pensioners, on their attaining the age of fifty-five years, of a pension of 5d. a day. Of course, that was in addition to their normal pension. To those who exceeded or reached seventy years of age, I think, there was an increment of 4d., making 9d. a day.
  It is now felt by the Admiralty that the funds derivable from the Greenwich Hospital and from miscellaneous sources were inadequate for providing old age pensions to all. To put it very shortly, the result is that there are probably some two thousand naval pensioners who are, I will not say entitled—I think that would be inaccurate—but who are eligible for
  1960
  the Greenwich Naval Pension, amounting, as I have already said, to 5d. a day. These potential pensioners include all ranks, I think I am right in saying, but of course a very large number of them are in receipt now of the small ordinary naval pension of something like perhaps £14, £15, or £16 a year. I am speaking rather off the book; I cannot say what the exact sum is; it is probably there or there abouts. I do not impute any blame to the Government in the matter. I agree that under the scheme of 1865, according to the original conception, of the plan dealing with naval pensioners, it was not regarded as a matter of right that they should receive a pension. A Committee of this House sat on the matter in, I think, the year 1892, and they reported that although this legal right did not exist there was a very general belief amongst naval men that they were really entitled, in law, to a pension of 5d. per day.
  8.0 P.M.
  They were rather encouraged, and here again no fault lies with the Government, by the practice of the recruiting officers for the Navy in holding out to the men who were enlisting in the Navy before 1878 the prospect that they would receive this 5d. pension when they reached the age of seventy, which was subsequently reduced to sixty-five. I do not think that anybody in this House, whether in favour of a large Navy or a small Navy or no Navy at all, so long as there are pensioners who have served their country would be averse to seeing liberal provision made for them. All that I want to do now is to try and get something more from my hon. Friend, of whose sympathies I am assured, than a mere non possumus. I agree that the money cannot come from the source originally destined for this purpose. Those funds are, I believe, practically exhausted. On the other hand it is not impossible, and especially in these days when the cost of living has materially increased the stress of poverty felt by old naval servants, that some contribution, which as far as my calculations go would probably not amount to more than £20,000, should be given from naval funds through a Vote of the House of Commons in the Naval Estimates. I do not suggest that that could be done this year, but I do suggest that an additional contribution of that kind would meet the justice of the case. I am sure the Committee will sympathise with me in bringing this matter forward. I do hope my

  1961
  right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary will find it in his power to give some encouragement to an object which undoubtedly is meritorious. I am perfectly sure that whatever the political opinions of hon. Members, none of them would grudge that comparatively small amount which, from testimony I have received from all parts of the country, is so strongly desiderated.
  Mr. LEACH: I have noticed amongst hon. Gentlemen who spoke in this Debate have been those who have honourably served their country in one or other of the Services, and, perhaps, the House will not be unwilling to listen to a Member who is a layman, and who does not often trouble the House or occupy much of its time. I will try to avoid introducing any words that might create discord. I listened to the First Lord of the Admiralty with the greatest possible amount of pleasure. Though I am regarded as a man of peace, I was almost completely won by the very remarkable speech which he made to us the other day. Never before, I think, have I either heard or read any speech of any First Lord of the Admiralty dealing with naval matters which was so powerful, so convincing, and so able as the speech to which we listened on Monday afternoon. I am glad for the moment the right hon. Gentleman is not in the House, because it might look like flattery if he were to hear me say these things. There are two or three things that strike one about that remarkable address. In the first place, the subject was made very very attractive even to a man like myself, and even those on this side who do not often agree with these things were won completely by the right hon. Gentleman in the speech which he made. Another remarkable thing about that speech, and about the Naval Estimates generally, is that the right hon. Gentleman, I believe, has introduced to this House Naval Estimates showing the largest amount ever introduced either to this House or to any House in the whole world, except last year, when the Estimates introduced by the ex-First Lord of the Admiralty were rather higher. They are figures which will strike the imagination, and which will, I think, make men seriously consider the statements he has made respecting our Navy and its. requirements. I am not competent to enter into details which he and other right hon. Gentlemen have introduced into their various speeches. I have no experts to
  1962
  guide me in these matters, and therefore I speak as a plain man.
  There are a few things which I can say, and which I desire to say, about these Estimates and as to the speech with which they were introduced. Whatever is true as to the feelings of Members of this House and this side of the House, I am bound to say that I think there will be some disappointment that there has not been a larger reduction in the Estimates than has been set before us. They are less, of course, than those introduced last year by a very considerable sum; for that we are all very grateful. At any rate, speaking for myself, I am deeply grateful that the First Lord has been able to satisfy the Service men with these Estimates, judging by their statements from the other side, without any increase in the amount to be spent during the present year. I do not forget that when this Government came in, in 1906 (I was not a Member then), that they promised a considerable reduction in armaments, both in one Service and the other. What has happened? This Committee cannot fail to see that there has been a large increase in the expenditure, which amounts to at least ten millions, and possibly more. I should like to say to the Financial Secretary—and he must forgive me for saying it—that, after all, those large amounts expended on the Navy are straining the loyalty of some of the warm friends of the Government. Not a few are looking for the time when other counsels will prevail, and when we shall not spend quite so much on armaments, and especially on naval armaments, as we are now spending. There are, however, some redeeming features in the statement, and I should be untrue to myself and to the Government, of which I am a very earnest supporter, if I did not mention them. First of all, though there has been an increase of many millions since 1906, and though the Estimates of to-day are larger in amount than ever were introduced I believe into the Parliament House of any country in the world with the exception I have mentioned, yet all that has been done without borrowing and all comes out of the income of the year. That is something for which I am deeply grateful, and most men will be. In addition to that, millions have been found for old age pensions, for which, though hon. Members opposite did not go for it in considerable numbers at the time, we are all grateful. The Government has paid off something

  1963
  like fifty millions of debt—[DR. MACNAMARA: "More."]—over fifty millions. Surely that is a record for which we are all very grateful.
  In spite of it all, I should like the Financial Secretary to notice that there is a growing mass of opinion outside this House in favour of peace, and it seems to some that these large expenditures lead on towards warfare. I shall be told by the party opposite that the way to peace is by a strong and efficient Navy. I am not in a position to question that. I am not, and never have been, a man of war. My occupation most of my life has been rather peaceful. I know that statement will be made by hon. Gentlemen opposite and by those who are in favour of the Navy Estimates. I am bound to say, in my own judgment, a strong Navy is cheaper than a bitter war such as we recently had, and if I could be convinced, and if I really felt in my heart, as many men do, that a strong Navy will secure peace, I am not quite sure that I would not be more pleased to vote for the Estimates than I shall be now. I was greatly rejoiced to hear the First Lord state in his speech that our Navy is for defence and not for offence. That gave me immense satisfaction, but I could not help wondering since Monday if the First Lord and those associated with him had given as much thought and time in trying to secure a better understanding with that naval Power of which we have been so long suspicious, and if they had given the needful attention trying to secure an understanding could they have avoided this large expenditure? What are the Government doing? Is the last word they have to speak on Naval Estimates a sum approaching £45,000,000. If so, it seems to me there is a weakness somewhere. I should like to say I am, and always have been, in favour of a strong and efficient Navy. I do not think any hon. Member or right hon. Member on this side of the House would wish to have a Navy unworthy of the great Empire to which we belong. It should be equal to all defensive purposes. It should be equal to the protection of our trade and for preserving to us all our oversea Colonies. I agree to all that, but I would remind hon. and right hon. Members that there are other things besides warships which make and keep a nation great. The greatness that is built upon power can only be maintained by power. That greatness is most lasting which is built upon
  1964
  the loyal love and comfort of a peaceful and happy people, well housed, well paid, well fed and well clad, and such greatness endures when other so-called greatness will pass away. It will abide when the counsel of those who deal in war is brought to nought, and when the counsel of those who mean mischief is scattered to the four winds of heaven.
  Mr. FRED HALL: I heard a good many congratulations offered to the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty, but if I may be permitted to say so, I think a certain amount of congratulation is due to the right hon. Gentleman and hon. Gentlemen on this side of the House who consistently from 1906 to 1910 were continuous in endeavouring to bring home to His Majesty's Government the absolute need for an insurmountable Navy—
  And, it being a quarter-past Eight of the clock, further Proceeding was postponed pursuant to Standing Order No. 4.

BOARD OF ADMIRALTY (ORGANISATION AND ADMINISTRATION).
Mr. GRETTON: I beg to move, "That the collective responsibility and authority of the Board of Admiralty ought to be preserved as the root principle of Naval administration."
In making this Motion, I do not intend to raise any subject of party controversy whatsoever. The organisation and administration of the Admiralty is a matter far too vital to the interests of the nation to be made the subject of any party recrimination in this House. That which has raised the difficulty to which I wish to refer is the growing tendency, evidenced in this House and in various incidents in the administration of the Admiralty during recent years, to set aside the Board of Admiralty and to claim that a civilian official representing the Government is for all purposes the Board of Admiralty. I think that this is an abuse of an old Order in Council, that it is stretching what was originally intended to be a provision for convenience of administration to a principle ordering all the proceedings of the Admiralty, and that it tends to over-rule the authority of the Board which has been the foundation principle of the whole working of the Admiralty since the office of Lord High Admiral was abolished. Perhaps I may recall to the recollection of the

1965
House the origin of the Board of Admiralty. Ever since the early days of the British Navy, the whole authority over that Navy—the command, the provision of supplies, and the finance—was vested in the Lord High Admiral appointed from time to time by the Crown. But in process of time the office of Lord High Admiral fell into disuse, and under patents granted by successive sovereigns the powers of the Lord High Admiral were vested in the Commissioners of the Admiralty, who were formed into a Board. This has been the system of administration from the beginning. It is logical, and it is founded on experience and long-established custom and success in war. In the war which ended in 1815, and up to that time, the Board of Admiralty had exercised command and administration over the fleets alone. The supplying of the funds, the building of ships, and the provision of stores, guns, and material, had been vested in the Navy Board, which had separate buildings and separate offices from the Board of Admiralty, situated in Somerset House. The Navy Board during the great war was the cause of great scandal, waste, and abuse. Sir James Graham, following the recommendations of Lord St. Vincent's Commission, abolished the Navy Board, and amalgamated the office and duties in the Board of Admiralty itself. That was about 1832. I mention that because there is a great principle of administration involved in that incident. The old Board of Admiralty was, in fact, the war staff of the Navy. The greatest of our First Lords, Lord St. Vincent and others, commanded the Fleet in those days, and their methods and principles brought the great war to a successful conclusion. Supply was seperated from comand. When the Boards were amalgamated Supply was brought into direct communication with command, and very largely overwhelmed the command of the Navy for the purposes of strategy and preparation for war during the period of transition from wooden vessels to iron, and from sail to steam. But the main principle of the administration of the Boards was preserved by Sir James Graham, and it endured until Mr. Childers, in 1869, undertook new reforms in the Admiralty. I mention the reforms of Mr. Childers because they led to the very state of things which we fear is tending to recur, owing to the concentration of the powers of the Board in individuals, and abolition of the control of the Board over the naval policy of the country. Mr.
1966
Childers separated the administration of the Admiralty in regard to Supply and Command. There were only two Naval Lords, the first Naval Lord and the junior Naval Lord subject to his orders and under his supervision. For the first time the controller of the Navy was made a Member of the Board, and the other officers were brought under his supervision, except so far as finance was under the control of the Parliamentary Secretary. There were thus two supreme officials. This was found to work so badly that in 1871, after only eighteen months' trial, a Committee of the House of Lords was appointed, which reported at great length and utterly condemned the whole system. The First Naval Lord of those days stated before the Committee that his office was most difficult to administer. Sir Sydney Dacres complained that he had no colleagues of sufficient rank in the Navy whom he could consult on difficult points. In confirmation of his opinion he stated that on the day when the Russian Note arrived Mr. Childers said:—
"Recollect that the first thing which must be done is to put another Naval Lord into the Admiralty."
The Report states further down—
"Under the present plan, on many matters, the First Lord consults only one man, namely, the First Naval Lord."
The Committee reported—
"The witnesses are equally unanimous in their opinion that the present constitution of the Board of Admiralty is not satisfactory."
They also said—
"While, therefore, under parliamentary government, the civil authority is supreme, some arrangement must be made to give the First Lord professional knowledge upon innumerable matters which he may be called upon suddenly to decide."
The whole system of Mr. Childers was condemned; that is to say, the concentration of the Admiralty in two individuals in communication with the First Lord as the representative of the Admiralty in the Cabinet, and the abolition of the Board as a Board in the administration of naval affairs. Mr. Goschen, in 1872, owing to the ill-health of Mr. Childers, became First Lord. He immediately reverted to the old plan. He dismissed the Comptroller from the Board, and matters at the Admiralty proceeded on very much the lines which had been arranged by Sir James Graham in 1832. This more or less endured until a change was made by Order in Council and new distribution of business by Lord Selborne in 1904. I only need say in passing that the great evil still remained, that is the predominance of supply over command. The civilian side

1967
had charge of the technicalities, shipbuilding, and so forth, and prevailed over the side that had the consideration of war plans; so much so that in 1885 when there was a question of a possible war with Russia it was found that the Fleet was utterly unprepared. That led to a change, and the naval side of the Board obtained greater authority and greater influence. The House, of course, knows what followed in the great shipbuilding programme which raised our Navy to a position commensurate with its great duties and responsibilities and with the great interests entrusted to it, a change carried under the auspices of the First Lord who succeeded, Lord George Hamilton. I only want to deal very briefly with the order of the distribution of business in 1904. That distribution of business, though it may be approved in general, contained one defect which, I think, capable of upsetting the whole working of the Board. That was in regard to the duties of the First Sea Lord, who for the first time in that year was called the First Sea Lord. His duties were laid down as consisting of attending
"preparation for war, all large questions of naval policy and maritime warfare, to advise. The fighting and seagoing efficiency of the Fleet, its organisation and mobolisation; the destination and movements of all ships in commission or in the Fleet Reserve. The control of the intelligence, hydrographical and naval ordnance departments.
That gives the First Sea Lord, if carried out in the meaning of the words, predominance over all his colleagues on the Board. It makes him in fact the Commander and not the senior of equal members acting together on the Board. This is accentuated by a Note which is placed in the Memorandum on the Distribution of Business, and which runs as follows:—
"It is to be understood that in any matter of great importance the First Sea Lord is al ways to be consulted by the other Sea Lords, the Civil Lords, the Parliamentary or permanent secretary, and he will refer to the First Lord for any further action considered necessary, such as, for instance, bringing the matter formally before the Board. It is, of course, understood that all members of the Board will communicate direct with the First Lord in accordance with immemorial custom whenever they wish to do so."
That is the distribution of business made under the powers of the Order in Council, and it makes the First Sea Lord the commander of the Admiralty to all intents and purposes, and for all purposes of action it imposes this official between the Board, and the First Lord who represents the Cabinet. That is what I complain of. The process has been carried further in recent years. Let me remind the House of the
1968
controversy which took place upon the Admiralty Memorandum, published in 1911. Many questions were asked in the House of Commons upon that subject. We have the answer of the First Lord, who is now the Home Secretary. I asked one question myself as follows:—
"Mr. Gretton: I beg to ask whether the memorandum attached to the book called 'Compulsory Service' signed A. K. W.—"
understood to be initials of the First Sea Lord of those days—
"was submitted to and approved by the Board of Admiralty before its issue in an official publication emanated from another department."
"Mr. McKenna: There was no Board meeting on the memorandum referred to, but it was published with my approval."
After some questions the Member for Oxford University asked a question which is in the OFFICIAL REPORT, and extracted from the First Lord a reply to the effect that if any members of the Board submitted to him a document and he approved it, that that document had the approval of the Board of Admiralty. That was the length to which the doctrine of the predominance of one member of the Board was carried on that occasion. I need not remind the House of what took place over the Declaration of London.
An hon. Member declared that the Board of Admiralty as a Board had never been consulted. The First Lord of the Admiralty, it was said, was content to consult one or two of his officials on the subject; he formed his opinion in consultation with those officials, and claimed the full authority of the Board without ever taking counsel with the other members of the Board upon a question of such vital importance to this country, should we ever be engaged in a naval war. The matter has been carried, I think, a little further, as I can show by the Memorandum which has been issued with the present Naval Estimates. I will just recall the fact that these matters have all been thoroughly investigated, and that this process is in direct contradiction with what has been the immemorial practice. Let the House consider the decision of the Hartington Commission. During the whole of these inquiries very great attention was paid to the administration of the Admiralty, which, after full investigation and most careful examination of papers and witnesses, was considered to be a model of the reforms that the War Office might follow. In the Hartington Report, page 23, section 73, it is stated:—
"We consider that a definite and direct responsibility to the Secretary of State should be placed upon

1969
the heads of Departments for their several administrations, as is the case with the Naval Lords at the Admiralty. Under the present system, as we have pointed out (par. 57], the only real responsibility appears to rest on the Commander-in-Chief, who alone would be accountable to the Secretary of State even for such a matter as the defective design of a heavy gun. We do not rind that this centralisation of responsibility exists in the administration of the armies of any of the great Powers of Europe, and we consider that it cannot conduce to efficiency."
Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman, who it will be admitted was a successful and a very able Administrator, added to this Report a statement in which he said (page 30, section 2):—
"In my opinion it is essential that the group of officers by whom the Secretary of State will be surrounded and advised should be, as regards him, on a perfectly level footing."
And he goes on to say:—

"At the Board of Admiralty, which I regard as being in this respect a model to be copied, the First Lord is not divorced from executive duty. On the contrary, his duties keep him in constant contact with all branches of the naval service, and if he enjoys a certain primacy among the naval members of the Board, it is quite as much on account of the importance of his executive responsibility as because of any particular function he fulfils as special adviser of the First Lord."
And further he says:—
"In the first portion of this Report it has been recommended that this latter function should be somewhat developed, but I should regard it as a vital mistake if this were carried so far as to infringe the cardinal principle of loyal equality between the professional members of the Board."
This Report teems with evidence to the same effect, but I do not think I need trouble the House further upon the matter. I do not think it will be contested as to what the old custom in this matter has been, and that it was a sound principle and a valuable principle and conduced to the well-being of the Admiralty and the Navy and the great State which it was their duty to protect. I must ask the House to consider for a few moments the changes which apparently are proposed in the Memorandum of the present First Lord issued with the Navy Estimates. There is a great deal said in this Memorandum upon the question of the new War Staff. I think a good deal too much credit is taken for the establishment of this War Staff. It has existed, and it now appears changed only in two particulars. It merely gives a new name and a new dignity to the Intelligence Department of the Navy, which existed ever since 1885, which arose out of the Foreign Department established two years earlier. But the point where the great difference arises is a vital point. In the old days the Naval Intelligence Department were required to report to the Board and not to any one official on the general work which they had to perform. The Naval
1970
Intelligence was of course open to any one member for the purposes of his Department, but the duties of the Director of Naval Intelligence on great questions of policy was laid down on the 24th January, 1887:—
"The functions of the Intelligence Department are to be purely advisory and in no sense administrative. The essence of the work is preparation for war. The senior Naval Lord will supervise the Intelligence Department, but the Director of Naval Intelligence will apply to other Naval Lords on all matters which are connected with their duties in the distribution of business, will furnish them with any information which they may at anytime require, and take care that they are put in possession of all intelligence received by the Department with which they should be acquainted. … The Director of Naval Intelligence may communicate with all other departments of the Admiralty."
And it goes on in paragraph 12 to lay down that—
"During the first week in each month or as much oftener as may be considered necessary the Director of Naval Intelligence will meet the other members of the Board and the secretary and report to them the progress made by the Intelligence Department in the last week and the work he proposes to do."
As these instructions showed clearly the Intelligence Department was a specialised branch, a branch of the Admiralty acting as a War Board; and it was not contemplated as it apparently is in recently issued instructions, that the Intelligence Department should report to the First Sea Lord alone and communicate with the Board through that official. I am not quite clear upon this point, and I should be very glad if the First Lord would assure me that it is not the intention to do away with the old custom and rule that the chief of the Intelligence Department or War Staff should attend meetings from time to time and once a month to consult and communicate with the Board as a whole, upon the duties of his Department and the work he is doing. There is another matter involved in the new administration which is set forth in this Memorandum, namely, the appointment of a new additional Civil Lord. I tried hard to understand this appointment. There is a precedent for the appointment of such an official. Mr. Rendel was appointed as additional Civil Lord in 1882. At that time there were great changes taking place in gunnery and gun-mounting, and it was admitted he was a far greater expert than any other man in this country and the greatest authority upon gunnery and gun mounting, and it is admitted that his services and his advice given to the Admiralty between 1882 and 1885 were of great service. But the post of additional Civil Lord was not continued, and when his appointment expired no other gentleman was asked to take his place.

1971
Now we are to have an. additional Civil Lord for an entirely different purpose. He is to be the business manager, and he is to supervise contracts, and it is proposed, apparently, to relieve the Controller of some portion of his duties in order to enable him to go about from place to place visiting fleets, watching the progress of vessels, and making inquiries. That seems to be a very vague and unsatisfactory description of the duties of a great official of the Admiralty. The Controller is responsible for the provision of the material for the Navy. If this new Civil Lord is to have any responsible duties whatever as distinct from duties of other members of the Board of Admiralty, I think we must ask the First Lord to explain what these duties are. Is he to have control over the Department of the Director of Contracts? Is he to take over control for the Director of Works and the Directors of Supply, and is he to purchase coal. I am not making any attack upon this gentleman—it is far from my intention to do so. I understand the Civil Lord now appointed is Sir Francis Hopwood. It would appear to those outside that Sir Francis Hopwood, who has had a most extraordinarily successful and useful official career, has very little knowledge of the particular duties which he has now apparently to perform. He is not an expert in the purchase of ships or in the purchase of material for ships. He is not an expert in any one of the Departments under the Admiralty unless it is the Department of Finance. Is the Civil Lord expected to take charge of Finance? The Parliamentary Secretary is entrusted under the Order in Council with the finance of the Admiralty, and he has to supervise the contracts and the accounts, assisted by the Finance Department. If it is intended that the new Civil Lord should supersede and take away some portion of the duties of the Parliamentary Secretary, I would like to remind the House that the Parliamentary Secretary is appointed so that Parliament may have control over the finances of the Admiralty, and he is the representative of the Admiralty in this House upon all subjects of finance. He is here to give explanations, answer questions, and defend the finance of the Department which he represents. I complain that if the new Civil Lord is going to supersede the Parliamentary Secretary it is an unconstitutional practice, and one which is most undesirable in the interests of the nation. It is highly
1972
undesirable that there should be a permanent official taking away from the representative of the Admiralty in Parliament the duties which he has hitherto performed. These matters appear to me to require some explanation.
I should like to refer to the great advantages accruing to the Admiralty and the nation from the administration of the Board of Admiralty. On the whole the evidence before the Committee of the Lords which inquired into the changes led to the reinstatement of the Board. The Committee of Inquiry of 1888, and the experience and history of the Navy, bear out the belief that the administration of the Admiralty by a Board is, on the whole, the best that could possibly be devised, because it leads to individual responsibility in the Departments which members of the Board are entrusted with or for which they are personally responsible, and it also leads to cohesion, consultation, and co-ordination. The members of the Admiralty can meet round the Board as equal colleagues, and discuss great questions concerning their several Departments and the Navy as a whole. All these matters can be threshed out in the hearing of the First Lord, who is ultimately responsible to the Cabinet, Parliament, and the nation for carrying on the business of the Admiralty and the preparation for war. The concentration of power in the hands of single members of the Board, contrary to precedent, has been condemned by experience, and I am sure that every man who has studied naval questions regrets the tendency to re-establish it. I am not desirous of pressing this Motion to a Division, and I hope the First Lord will be able to give us such an assurance on this vital question that we shall be satisfied he is not going to upset the axiomatic principle that the Board of Admiralty must be responsible for the administration under the supervision and control of the Cabinet of the day.
The First Lord is a representative of the Cabinet, and he must have absolute control over the Board, and the members of the Board should be personally responsible to him and to the Board and personally powerful over their own Department. If a Member of the Board disagrees with his colleagues upon conscientious grounds, naturally he resigns, as indeed the First Lord of the Admiralty would resign if he did not agree with his colleagues in the Cabinet. Men of the highest authority on naval subjects and

1973
experienced in naval administration would look upon it as little short of a calamity if the present tendency of allowing power to drift into the hands of the First Sea Lord were permitted to continue, and if the institution of the War Staff tended to impair the authority of the Board of Admiralty. I do not wish to say a word about any individuals in this matter, because there is a vital principle concerned. After all, the First Lord of the Admiralty to-day is a new man, and we wish him well. On this side of the House we are perfectly prepared to support him to the utmost in the interest of the Navy and the nation at large. Whatever controversies we may have had on other subjects we are not going to carry our differences into the administration of the Admiralty, over which the right hon. Gentleman presides, and I hope he will be able to give us an assurance which will satisfy us that he is not going to interfere with the great fundamental principles of naval administration. I thank the House for bearing with me so long.
Mr. BURGOYNE: I beg leave to second the Resolution.
This subject does not allow of any indefinite extension, because my hon Friend has dealt with it very fully and ably. I am told there are a number on both sides of the House who desire to speak, and the time for private Motions is very limited. In these days of lightning legislation, the chances of a private Member getting in upon any subject outside the Parliamentary procedure of the Government itself are so very few that those of us who are lucky enough to obtain a place in the ballot take good care that our good fortune shall not be thrown to the winds. For that reason we are careful to pick subjects of paramount importance, and I submit, in putting this Resolution to the House this evening, we have taken up a matter which is deserving of consideration and earnest thought by the First Lord of the Admiralty, and one to which I hope he will give a satisfactory answer. This subject is brought forward at a peculiarly appropriate moment, because the right hon. Gentleman has not long been in office. I do not mean to say it in any offensive way, but he has acquired a reputation for rapid changes, politically and otherwise. He has already taken advantage of his high office as First Lord to make a large number of changes there, and whether the alterations he has effected are justified or not is for him to state this evening. Our case is that the
1974
responsibility of the Board of Admiralty at the present moment tends to become rather more individual than collective. That is to say, the First Lord and those associated with him are prepared to throw over the policy of two heads being better than one, with the result that the chances are that the main reason for the existence of the Board of Admiralty—that is the readiness of the Fleet for war—will largely be lost sight of.
My hon. Friend who proposed this Resolution particularised, and gave the House a number of striking instances supporting his statements. I intend to conclude by asking the First Lord of the Admiralty three questions, and I trust he will be able to give satisfactory answers, seeing we have brought this Motion forward in all friendliness. It is not my intention to add to my hon. Friend's examples, or to confuse the trend of them by any details of my own. I would rather set out a few ideas for the consideration of the First Lord when he comes to answer. I hope the House will bear with me whilst I outline the work of the Admiralty as it is carried on at the present time. My hon. Friend dealt with the historical side of it. Of course, we can go back a long time to find the genesis of a. Board of Admiralty, or at least of some sort of collection of Gentlemen interested in the Navy and associated with the Government of the day whose concern it was to look after the Fleet. I do not think I need, for the purposes of my argument, go further back than 1872. On 19th March, forty years ago yesterday, we find that by an Order in Council the Board of Admiralty was to comprise as follows: In the first place, of the Commissioners for executing the office of Lord High Admiral, secondly of the Parliamentary or the Financial Secretary, and, finally, of the Permanent Secretary. Since that time a very large number of changes have taken place. In 1882 a comptroller was added to the Board of Admiralty, and in 1904 seniority was for the first time given to the First Sea Lord or First Naval Lord, as I believe he was then called. Before that time all these Naval Lords were placed upon a level position in regard to their powers of voting and the arguments they might bring forward on the Board, and any seniority which they might acquire was developed purely upon the strength of their individual wills. Lastly, the Home Secretary, the predecessor of the right hon. Gentleman, introduced what I think is a most pernicious

1975
thing, and he based the introduction of it upon an old Order in Council, so old that it ought to have been buried and never resuscitated—the signing of memoranda, possibly of great importance to the Fleet as a whole, with the addition of only one other signature besides his own and issuing it either to the Fleet or to the public, as the case might be, as upon the responsibility of the entire Board.
9.0 P.M.
What, in effect, is the Admiralty? The Admiralty is a huge office for national insurance, the steel-hulled policies of which float in every sea, and the premiums which we are called upon to pay every year amount to tens of millions of pounds. There has been set up to control this sum an organisation, perhaps one of the most wonderful that exists in the world to-day, and over this organisation there is appointed at various times and for various purposes a Board of very distinguished directors, which is drawn partly from the Navy and partly from the Members of the Government of the day, whoever they may happen to be. In their hands lies the direction of the greatest arm for war that has been known in the history of the world. Much trust is centred not only in this country but in the whole Empire upon that Board. I would go further than the First Lord, who said our Navy represents a medium of peace for the whole world, and say it is a feature of the Government of this country upon which the whole world largely bases its trust. It would be a bad thing indeed if any fault could be found or suggested with that particular item of our Government. What are the duties of the Members of that Board? First of all, we have the First Lord. He has far more important duties than going about in his yacht. He is responsible to the Crown and to Parliament for the whole business of the Fleet, and for designating within limits the various duties that are to be placed on those who are associated with him upon the Board. I am not quite sure the right hon. Gentleman has not abrogated that particular essential, and taken a large number of those duties upon himself, for which one cannot blame him, seeing the interest he shows in the Fleet. Then we come to the Naval or Sea Lords, who each have their particular departments. It might almost be laid down as an axiom—it is certainly accepted by everybody in the House—that the head of each Department should be
1976
exempt, except upon special occasions, from interference in his Department. I think it has been fully carried out up to the present. I say quite frankly I do not know of any specific instance when it has been interfered with now, but that is not the point. It is the fear that interference might come by an attitude that is at present being taken up, and which is the outcome of a new system introduced during the last few years. It is rather interesting to refer to a Select Committee on Naval Estimates in 1888, when Sir Arthur Hood, as he then was, stated that he could not tell a single instance in which the First Lord, on any important question placed before him, had vetoed the opinion of the Naval Lord in charge. That means, that if a decision had been arrived at by the head of any one of these Departments, and if his decision had been arrived at upon a firm and sound basis and could be-argued as sound before the whole Board, the First Lord had not utilised his veto to go back upon it. The reason, surely, is that the First Lord is most careful in choosing his men. If he is not, then the country has every right to feel aggrieved. The First Lord, in selecting naval officers; to be associated with him and to form the Naval section of the Board, chooses those who are suited for the specific duties they will be called upon to undertake in those particular Departments.
What are the duties of those Naval Lords? I think it is necessary just to give a short outline of what they do, what they are called upon to do, and how their duties might be affected by a system which in its development might be detrimental to our naval administration. The First Sea Lord is the chief naval adviser of the First Lord of the Admiralty. He is the collecting centre of technical information, and the fountain head of practical knowledge. He is the practical man. He is the man to carry on naval work under the guidance of the First Lord who has to get his policy direct from the Cabinet in association with the Foreign Minister. The work of the Second Sea Lord is mainly to look after the personnel—he has other minor duties—and the Third Sea Lord has to do with the medical side of the question and with victualling and transport. Over all the Sea Lords there was spread a certain control of the Intelligence Department. Each had some leading hand in the intelligence with which his particular Department was concerned. That part of

1977
the arrangement has been entirely altered. Intelligence has been removed absolutely from the control of the Naval Lords and placed in a compartment quite by itself, the result of which might be detrimental to the power these Naval Lords exercise in their particular sphere.
Then we come to the Civil Lord. The Civil Lord's work is the Works Department, and the Accountant General's, as far as pay and allowances of the Fleet are concerned, and he is the Director of Greenwich Hospital. I do not know exactly what that means. The Works Department, and such items of the Accountant General's Department as come within the ægis of the hon. Member, should surely bring him more often to the brass-bound box at the Table, yet so rarely do we see him, that when he does come to address us on Naval Estimates men on this side ask who the new Minister is. The Financial Secretary looks after the major portion of the finance. He was Director of Contracts until the appointment of a new business manager, and he has something to do with the purchase and sale of ships. Sir F. Hopwood's name has been mentioned. I am not going to criticise the appointment of Sir Francis. It would be an impertinence. It would be very invidious, because those who have had some little knowledge of the entire working of the Department over which the Financial Secretary has control know perfectly well that the work has developed to such an extent that it is impossible for him to carry it out compatibly with efficiency without the aid of somebody to deal with the heavier items of finance. For that reason it was essential some aid should be given to him by some one in a distinguished high civil position. That outlines a very perfect compartmentation. We have each of these gentlemen having under their control absolutely special features of work in the Fleet, and the concentration of that work, we hope, will give us such an efficient force as will make us at all times safe on the seas. One would expect that with the division of labour in this way, which gives individual effort its greatest chance, we should have supreme efficiency. As my hon. Friend said, we do not suggest that, at the present moment, there is inefficiency. Indeed, we are proud to believe that of all Government Departments the Admiralty has less red tape and more efficiency than any other. But we are frightened of the consequences of
1978
something that has arisen just lately. We fear the insidious and creeping danger of the Board merely becoming the creatures of a single man. We admit it is essential for the carrying along of the business of the Admiralty that the First Lord of the Admiralty should be the supreme head, and the arbiter in every single instance, that he should have the last say and the best say. But what is the power given him now. He is not an expert man, nevertheless, under the new powers taken by his predecessor, he can, if one of the Naval Lords obtains a sufficiently big hold of him, in association with that Naval Lord sign a document putting the views of that Naval Lord into operation, without placing them before the whole Board, and can come down and say to this House that the Board of Admiralty is responsible for it. That is a situation of which we are afraid. I do not say it has been done, still the power is there and the danger is there. The right hon. Gentleman who is now First Lord of the Admiralty is not going to be there always, and some one may succeed him who may be overcome by the greater brain of one of the Naval Lords, and, as a result, a policy may be put through and a decision come to entirely contrary to the best interests of the public.
Now we come down to the Naval War Staff Memorandum. This Memorandum was received with great cheers. It deserved all the cheers it got, because it was the outward and visible sign for which the people of the country had been waiting of what was going on in the Admiralty. It was felt necessary the public should know that the Admiralty were not asleep. There is an ill-founded idea that those appointed as civil officers go to their offices and do nothing. That cannot be said of the Admiralty. They are awake to danger and possible dangers, and so we have that which the Noble Lord the Member for Portsmouth has been crying for for many years, a Naval War Staff. But everyone I think will agree, and I must reiterate something which has been said by my hon. Friend who moved this Resolution, that there is discontent with the manner in which the information is to reach the First Lord of the Admiralty. As this House no doubt knows, the Naval War Staff of to-day under the most distinguished officer at the head of it, is divided into three portions. There are the Intelligence Division, the Operations Division, and the Mobilisation Division. Each of these divisions has over it a very

1979
distinguished officer well fitted for his job, and each of them is bound to carry such information as he culls direct to the First Sea Lord, or else from the First Sea Lord to go to the First Lord himself. We do not object to that, but there is one line in it to which we take a very deep objection. It is that the First Lord and the First Sea Lord may, whenever they think fit, consult the directors of the various divisions or other officers. Of course they will do that, but what I want to know is, can the officers who are at the head of these various divisions go, under this arrangement, to the First Lord, and say to the right hon. Gentleman, having heard the decisions arrived at by the three Sea Lords, they think they are wrong; or must they wait for him to go to them and ask if they think they are wrong. That is the point on which we are wanting information. Under the situation as we read it here, the right hon. Gentleman is in such a position that he can give information from above and can come down and ask for it, but they cannot go and give him information, as has been the case in times past. In conclusion I wish to ask three questions. First, will the right hon. Gentleman give the House an assurance that no decision affecting the Fleet as a whole— obviously in regard to small details of administrative work this question would not hold ground—that no decision will be arrived at without the consent of the whole Board, and that he will not take advantage of that old superannuated, resuscitated Order in Council under which he and one other member can sign papers and put them in circulation as upon the responsibility of the whole Board. Secondly, and I do not know if he is entitled to answer this, how often does the whole Board of the Admiralty meet. Thirdly, is the head of a Department the absolute authority in his own Department; has he the right at any time he thinks fit to go to the right hon. Gentleman or the First Sea Lord and state his complaint or suggestion without its having to pass through any specific channel? This Motion, as my hon. Friend has stated, has been made in all friendliness, the idea being to elicit a statement tending to allay the great feeling of discomfort in certain circles. I trust that in the circumstances the right hon. Gentleman, who knows that the interest I have always taken in the Fleet is purely a national one, as against a party one, will accept the Motion.
Mr. CHURCHILL: The House has listened to two speeches which certainly show great industry on the part of the two hon. Gentlemen who have made them. While I was listening to those speeches the reflection irresistibly crossed my mind that the House, as a whole, will probably feel what an extraordinarily complicated and difficult business the administration of the Admiralty must be, because it would seem, from the account which has been given of it by the Mover and Seconder of the Motion, to involve almost all the complications of the constitution of a first-class Power, with most of the doctrinal dogmas and tenets of a religious body. In fact, it is much easier than it sounds. The constitution and composition of the Board of Admiralty is essentially practical, and is devoted to objects which are purely practical. I should also much deprecate the attempt to raise a long and elaborate constitutional discussion about the exact position, in theory and in practice, of in dividual members of the Board, and the relation of the particular Departments— and there are a very great many Departments within that building—to one another. I am quite certain that if we were to endeavour to apply that kind of examination to the system and machinery by which this great business is carried on, and carried on successfully, from day to day, we should waste our time and do the Admiralty no justice.
I subscribe heartily to the general principle embodied in the Motion. I am very glad indeed that the civilian Minister, the political and Parliamentary chief of a great fighting Service, has the enormous advantage of being provided with the assistance of a Board of Admiralty, representative of the best that the Naval Service can produce, and enshrined in the minds of the Navy by centuries of successful and, whenever occasion arose, victorious naval administration. It is a great advantage, and there is no doubt that the position of the First Lord of the Admiralty, with his Board to assist him is a much more satisfactory one than that which used to be occupied by the Secretary of State for War when he was brought face to face, not with a board of five or six or seven or eight different members, with whom he could confer on the various points of view, and whose views he could check one by the other, but when he was confronted with a single great officer of the military service, the commander-in-chief, who was like the narrow neck of a

1981
bottle, who claimed to be the sole channel through which the information and advice of the technical and expert officials reached the head of the office. I am sure it is a good thing for administration; I am sure it is a good thing for the Navy; and I am sure it is an exceedingly good thing for the First Lord. I can assure the Mover and Seconder that, so far as lies in my power, I shall do all that is practicable and useful to maintain the reality of the executive authority of the Board of Admiralty as a whole.
The hon. Gentleman who seconded the Motion asked me certain specific questions and I shall answer them without equivocation. He asked me, first of all, whether I would give him a guarantee that no decision affecting the Fleet as a whole should be taken without the consent of the whole Board. No, Sir, I am not prepared to give such a guarantee as that. The collective and corporate responsibility of the Board of Admiralty is a matter of high importance, but the swift and effective executive control of events is a matter of still higher importance. In the second place, he asked me how often does the Board meet. I can only speak from my own experience. I have made no calculations, and I am only answering the question put to me across the House. I think that since I have been First Lord the Board has met about three times a month, but some of our sittings have been very long, and all, or almost all, the important matters of business which have been decided have received the formal assent of the Board. I am very glad to think that very complete agreement on the great questions prevails amongst members of the Board. That is only natural, considering that the Board has been almost completely reformed, and I have had the opportunity of ascertaining the views of the new Board—the general views—before they came into the service at the Board of Admiralty. The hon. Member then asked me has each head of a Department full authority over his Department and access to the First Lord. The Departments of the Admiralty are much more numerous than the members of the Board. Sometimes four or five Departments are grouped together under one superintending Lord of the Admiralty. The heads of these Departments, quite apart from the Lords of the Admiralty, very often come to see the First Lord. Of course, I make it my business to see them, and encourage the practice, and I personally have always
1982
used the habit of sending for any of these heads of Departments, apart from members of the Board, whenever any question arises upon which I wish for information, and I most clearly and distinctly see the importance of the First Lord and of other members of the Board having access for the performance of their respective duties to all persons in the Admiralty. I should deprecate very much the development of a series of Martello towers from out of which each particular member of the Board would look anxiously and curiously, and within which all would be strictly his private domain. The whole object of good administration in the Board of Admiralty is that the utmost possible information should be brought into the common stock and that the highest degree of co-ordination should prevail. That is not always reached by a formal Board meeting. It is sometimes reached by two or three members of the Board concerned in a particular branch of the subject or group of subjects in the First Lord's room, and these meetings take place probably on the average more than once a day as compared with the formal meetings of the Board, which register the general progress of Admiralty administration rather than serve as a debating assembly for the discussion of all questions.
So much, then, for the Board of Admiralty and its different members. The First Sea Lord has the duty of making preparations for war and moving the Fleet, and that is a matter which affects from night to night the security of the country. The Second Sea Lord deals with the men of the Navy, but in the Memorandum which was issued on the War Staff it is specificially laid down that the First Sea Lord and the Second Sea Lord are to work in association in the great business of preparation for war, so that in the event of anything happening to the First Sea Lord we are not left without a high naval expert absolutely conversant with every detail of naval plans. The Third Sea Lord deals with materiel. He is responsible for the military construction of the Fleet. Of course, he is responsible for a great deal more, and I am considering at present whether a greater strain is not being put upon a single individual than is advisable. The Fourth Sea Lord is responsible for stores and ammunition, the Civil Lord is responsible for works and for various other ancillary matters, and the Financial Secretary is responsible for the correct and proper control of Admiralty

1983
finance, and also for enforcing that economy in small things which, even when it has been given up in large things, should never be relaxed. All these offices have been adapted to their duties by the regular financial and administrative practice, and I am bound to say I feel a very considerable degree of satisfaction in surveying the machine which time and experience has evolved. Some improvements, no doubt, can be made, but in the main it is a good and convenient instrument for administering the Navy and for administering it, not only to the satisfaction of the House of Commons on the one hand, but to the satisfaction of the great sea-going profession and Service on the other.
The First Lord of the Admiralty stands, of course, in a special position, because under the Order in Council he has the sole responsibility for the patronage and appointments of the Navy, and in addition to that he is charged with the general direction and the assignment of all business. Therefore he has the power of choosing who his colleagues are to be and what functions they are to discharge, and of changing, varying, extending, or diminishing those functions from time to time as he may think fit. That, of course, is a very extensive power, and carries much with it, but nothing can free the First Lord from his ultimate responsibility, which is to discharge his duty to Parliament and to the Crown, and to make sure that, whatever happens, good results are obtained. Nothing can relieve the Minister of that responsibility. Still, I am quite certain that no one who is called upon to occupy a position of high Ministerial responsibility would wish to take more upon himself than he could avoid, and for my part I heartily subscribe to the phrase which has been used that two heads are better than one. Whatever may, in theory and in fact, be the powers of the First Lord, I am sure no one would wish in these matters to proceed alone where it is possible to proceed with the assent of two, three, or four persons who have given their whole life to the professional study of the subjects dealt with. One cannot look at these subjects apart from personalities. You cannot deal with offices in the abstract. You must think of offices in connection with the men who fill them, and I do not think it is very likely that during my tenure of office I shall ever be called upon to proceed in isolation, without the support of the principal members of the Board of Admiralty. Certainly
1984
I hope not. Nothing that I can do to avoid it shall be neglected.
Then I turn to the position of the First Sea Lord. The Mover and the Seconder of the Motion spoke with some anxiety about the superior position which in recent times has been assigned to the First Sea Lord. I am not a very good Latin scholar, but there are a couple of phrases which are appropriate. He is among the Sea Lords, not merely primus inter pares, but facile princeps. I am glad the House likes the familiar ring. But it is necessary to the due performance of the First Sea Lord's duties that a special position should be assigned to him. There must be some one high naval authority in the Admiralty who is directly charged with the day to day movements of the Fleet and with the main direction of the preparations for war. The War Staff has been placed under the First Sea Lord. That does not mean that other members of the Board cannot have access to the information of the War Staff for the purpose of their particular Department. Certainly not. The Third Sea Lord can get from the Department all the information he requires. The Director of the Intelligence Division can obtain exactly what he wants to know about naval construction in other countries. Similarly as regards ammunition and stores, information can be obtained. The staff has to be placed under the First Sea Lord because the responsibility for giving advice upon great questions of strategy and war preparations must be assigned to some high naval authority. So far as the additional Civil Lord is concerned, I should like the House to realise that the work at the Admiralty is necessarily severe. I have served in four of the great Departments during the last six and a half years, and I can say with perfect sincerity that the work which falls on the head of that Department is far greater than anything I was acquainted with in the other Departments. There is a reason for it. At the Colonial Office, the Home Office, or the Board of Trade, there are a number of Departments, but they are all drawn together under the permanent secretary, such men as Sir Llewellyn Smith at the Board of Trade, Sir George Murray at the Treasury, and the other permanent heads of Departments. These are officials who have been for many years in their Departments, and, having the whole of the work at their finger ends, they are able to co-ordinate it. But it is not so at the Admiralty. At the Admiralty there are naval chiefs,

1985
and there are various civil departments, and there is no co-ordinating centre below the political head. There is no co-ordinating centre to which all the papers dealing with the different Departments are brought before they are presented to the First Lord. He has himself to co-ordinate the working of these different Departments. [An HON. MEMBER: "What is the Permanent Secretary doing?"] The Permanent Secretary has certain functions assigned to him, but they are not analogous to the work done by the heads of the other Departments. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why?"] In the first place, how can the Permanent Secretary, who is a Civil servant, deal with the expert advice given to the First Sea Lord? What would be the use of his attempting to deal with questions relating to the projectiles to be used in different kinds of guns? The duty of the Permanent Secretary is to give effect to the decisions of the Board, and to administer the office.
As I say, the main co-ordination has to be done by the First Lord himself. That being so, it is necessary that there should be given to him, within reasonable limits, whatever he requires to aid him in the discharge of the great mass of business there is to be done. My hon. Friends have both a perfectly clear idea of the work. A great number of questions were not receiving the proper attention they required, and it is to deal with these questions of business—questions quite apart from naval construction, or the purely financial duties which fall to the Financial Secretary, that the additional Civil Lord was instituted with great advantage—so great an advantage that I do not know how it would be possible to get satisfactorily forward if he were withdrawn. I think I have given a tolerable explanation of some of the matters which have been brought forward. Let me say in conclusion that I have never sought to magnify unduly the creation of the War Staff. I have recognised in the Memorandum that most of the elements were in existence before the change was made, but they have now been co-ordinated and brought together. They have now been given recognition and authority which never existed before. The advantage of that will, I am confident, be very great. In the first place, there will be continuity of policy. As successive First Sea Lords come to the Admiralty they will find a great body of reasoned opinion which has been collected over a period of years on almost every single strategical question. Everything
1986
will have been treasured up and sifted, and it will be presented as the result of the experience of a growing school of continuous thought with respect to matters affecting the Navy, and so I hope we shall avoid some of those sharp turns and changes which are always the inevitable concomitants of personal rule and personal opinion, however able the principal officers may be. We hope in that way to find some means of guiding naval opinion, because nothing has been more perplexing than the very violent differences of all sorts on technical matters which have prevailed among the officers of the Navy. Careers have been ruined, and animosities of the deepest bitterness have been created by differences of such a character. I am sure the House would appreciate what I mean by that if I were to go over these matters. The reason is very plain. Naval officers have had to exercise their own judgment in the light of their own practical experience upon a great variety of difficult and ever-changing propositions, without being guided by any systematised body of thought and opinion. There has been no manual of tactics or any regular system of staff training. We hope to provide clear and general knowledge on the root facts and root principles of naval strategy and tactics, and to have that widely disseminated to all ranks in the Navy. If that is so, we shall not merely have armed the Board of Admiralty with the best machine for working out war plans and giving advice on strategic questions, but we shall also have done a great deal to sweep away the differences of opinion which have on occasion introduced a serious element of discord into the otherwise harmonious service of the Navy.
Lord C. BERESFORD: As an old Member of the Board of Admiralty I wish to say a few words on this very important question. I do not intend to enter into many details, because the Mover and Seconder of the Resolution have done so in speeches which, I think, were most able and clear. They spoke rather in the way of inquiry than of severe criticism. The real question is whether the Board is a Board or not. My two hon. Friends put very clearly their view of the question. It has not been a Board since the Order of 1904, took away the collective responsibility of the Board, which I think is a-very serious question for this country, and gave the chance of the one-man power which many of us think in the Navy was

1987
not good for the Service, and in any case a great number of the reforms which were introduced between 1904 and 1909 have got to be altered, particularly with reference to the question of arming ships with auxiliary guns, and the question of the strength of the Fleet, and many other things, because as we think the Board had not the collective responsibility. These things were hurried through without Debate, without consideration by the Service, and in nearly every case in direct opposition to the Service opinion. In my opinion the Board should go back to its collective responsibility. I think the country believes that it has collective responsibility. As it is now it is very much the same as it was in what I may describe as the one-man power period. The Board of Admiralty is the biggest burden in the world. It is the most intricate. It has the greatest amount of labour thrown upon it of any bureau in the whole world. Let me compare it to a great shipbuilding company or a great line owning company. Take the P. and O. Company, add to it one of our great shipbuilding companies like Lairds. It has both those two trades to do. It has also organisation for war; it has all the questions connected with the Fleet, which are interminable, and it is, in my opinion, even now, though it has been increased a great deal, to a great extent overworked. As the right hon. Gentleman says, I believe it has rather more than 2,000 people altogether, and every one of those people has his work told off, and it is very extensive. In my opinion it would be better to bring it forward under the old position of the Board than to leave it as it is, for the simple reason that if the Board had remained we should not have had the same large sums of money to pay as we shall have to pay owing to many of those reforms that on the face of them will have to be altered. With regard to the new Civil Lord, I agree that it was necessary to have him. The work of looking after material, of buying, and matters of that kind has increased and will increase enormously in the future, and although the Parliamentary Secretary and the First Lord have an immense amount to do With that class of duty I think it is very wise to have somebody to assist them, as I understand he will not be in a condition of dominance at all.
Mr. CHURCHILL: I wish to make it clear that this additional Civil Lord will
1988
deal with the business and commercial side of the question. He will not be in a position of dominance, nor will he, of course, be in the position of a permanent Secretary in a Government Department, though he is a member of the Board and has certain special functions assigned to him.
Lord C. BERESFORD: The right hon. Gentleman really found that it was necessary for the superabundance of work connected with the business point of view?
Mr. CHURCHILL: Certainly.
Lord C. BERESFORD: And the new Civil Lord is not in any way in a position to control the Controller?
Mr. CHURCHILL: No.
Lord C. BERESFORD: He is under his control?
Mr. CHURCHILL: No, he is a colleague of the Controller, and not under his control at all. They are both on the Board and have different functions.
Lord C. BERESFORD: I will take the class of ship or dock or yard. The Board will say what they are going to do, and they will then instruct this gentleman to do the business part of it, and he will buy the material, and so on. Am I right in that?
Mr. CHURCHILL: That is the theory.
Lord C. BERESFORD: That is a very good plan. It will relieve the other two gentlemen and increase efficiency and cheapness, because I imagine that it will prevent a good deal of unnecessary expense which has often occurred owing to there not being a business man to give advice at the proper moment. I will take two cases in which the Board were not consulted, though they ought to have been consulted. One was in connection with the Declaration of London, as to which there was very strong opinion by merchant ship owners, by insurance societies, and by naval officers. That was passed and brought to this House without any opinion being given by the Board. An opinion by the Board would have been much more satisfactory, though I do not think I would have agreed that it was the best way to do it. Then there is the extraordinary document, the Memorandum that was signed and brought before the House. It was a very important Memorandum, but it was.

1989
evidently written in a hurry by a most distinguished officer without much thought, and never for a moment did he dream that it would be published. If you had brought that before the Board, where there would have been time to think it over and to discuss it, such a Memorandum could never have been published. I only mention these things to show how necessary it is that the Order in Council of 1904 should be rescinded. The Mover of the Resolution pointed out that the two Committees, on each of which I had the honour of sitting, found that the Board should be kept. It was to be a Board to discuss these very great questions connected with the administration of the Navy. After all, what is the Navy for? It is for one crucial moment when you go into action. You have got to win, and to be enabled to win in order to save the country; and if it is strong enough you will not have to go into action at all. The Board is more likely to have a Navy suitable to our requirements than if it were under any one man, no matter how clever or able or experienced he may be. With regard to the War Staff, I would ask if it is not entirely advisory or has it any power of dictation? I imagine it will be entirely advisory. Then I should like to hear as to the suggestion that the officers who are qualified for the staff will have that sea experience to which another hon. Member has referred in such an excellent terms, and that an officer will not be promoted because he is clever enough to work at a table on the staff, but will have that ample sea experience without which no man can be an efficient naval officer.
With regard to promotion and staff appointments, they should not be made as against those who are doing the dull routine work at sea or abroad; there should be no favouritism because a man is very able on the staff at particular kinds of work. With regard to the War Staff, I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that it can communicate with all the members of the Board. The results arising from having a good War Staff are very apparent now. If we look at the statement made by the First Lord of the Admiralty in regard to the organisation of the Three Fleets, in regard to the control of the Admiral over the torpedo boats, and in regard to the cruisers, which are the eyes and ears of the Fleet, it will be seen, I think, that all these things are really far more valuable than if you put down £20,000,000 to add to the Fleet. Organise
1990
what you have got, and you will do a great deal better in time of war than if you have an enormous Fleet not organised. What we have never thought about is war. We have spent all this money, and did not organise our Fleet in order to enable it to act when called upon. These points were brought forward in the speech of the First Lord of the Admiralty, and I most heartily agree with what he said. I can assure hon. Members that this organisation has done more to prepare the Service for war, and to be ready if suddenly called upon, than if we had added twenty "Dreadnoughts" to the Fleet and so many more cruisers. I think that is one of the most satisfactory points to be gathered from the First Lord's statement.
As far as the War Staff goes, in making plans and arrangements, what you have to do is, in sailor language, to put the yarns together into a rope, instead of having the yarns lying on board separately, causing friction and disagreeableness. That is a most valuable point. You may collect statistics of strategy and of clever people's thoughts who have made a study of war, but you should get those people together for discussion. There would be a little give and take in the course of the discussion, but good would result from it, which could not be achieved if you keep them apart. That is one of the most important things you can do in order put the Navy back to the old lines of discipline, good feeling, and comradeship which did not exist before in the Navy through the Board not being really the Board. But these are bygones, and I do not want to bring them up again. The present situation, as far as my experience and knowledge go—and I respectfully submit that they are not inconsiderable—is very good indeed, and better than it has been during the time I have been in the Service, with regard to organisation and the formation of these Departments. Hon. Members will find that economy will result from having everything organised for war in all its details, and in having a War Staff to boil it all up in order to see what is necessary and what is not. In regard to the Intelligence Department, I hope it will communicate with the Board as it did before, and also that the right hon. Gentleman will assure me that it is perfectly and distinctly laid down that the War Staff can communicate with any member of the Board, and that any member of the Board can communicate with the War Staff.
10.0 P.M.
Sir FREDERICK BANBURY: I have listened with very great interest to the speech of my Noble Friend, and also to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman who has now left the House (Mr. Churchill), and if it had not been for some remarks made by my Noble Friend I do not know that I should have intervened in this Debate. I should have waited in the hope of hearing the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Dr. Macnamara) reply to some of the remarks addressed to him by my Noble Friend, but as he has not done so, I should rather like to put my view of what I have heard in the Debate before the House. My Noble Friend, in his speech, rather likened the administration of the Board of Admiralty to a great shipping company.
Lord C. BERESFORD: I did not intend to convey that sentiment. What I said was that the Board of Admiralty in all the details was like adding together a great company with all its duties and affairs and a great shipbuilding yard.
Sir F. BANBURY: And these two great concerns combined would be rather an example upon which the management of the Navy should be conducted. I gather that the object of this Motion is to ensure that responsibility for the management of the Navy is entirely with the Board of Admiralty and not with any particular individual member of that Board. I gather from my Noble Friend that he objected to an individual manager on the ground that from 1904 to 1909, when there was an individual manager, the result of that individual management was wrong. My experience in the management of a great business concern is that though it has a board nominally managing it, practically the management is in the hands of one man, who directs the whole management of the business and the policy of the company. As a rule in nine cases out of ten, especially in successful businesses, it is the one man who carries on the whole concern. As a matter of fact the board registers the decrees of the one man of that particular board, and he is the one man who carries on the business of the company.
In my humble opinion, I believe that a committee of one man is the best committee you can possibly have—far and away the best—it is to my mind the most perfect committee you can have, but it must be a committee composed of one good
1992
man. If you get one bad man on that committee you will have the worst committee you possibly could have. I do not know to whom my Noble Friend was alluding when he referred to what took place between 1904 and 1909, but it is quite possible that he may be perfectly right, and that I may be perfectly right, because the authority to whom he was alluding in that time was a bad authority—that is to say a committee of one man who was a bad committee; but that does not prove that you are going to make it better by having three bad men instead of one bad man. On the contrary, I think one bad man is likely to do better than three bad men. So far, I have dealt with the speech of my Noble Friend. Now I want to deal with the speech of the right hon. Gentleman. The right hon. Gentleman opposite has been requested to make notes of certain remarks of my Noble Friend by letter. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will make notes of my remarks and reply in a separate letter to me at the same time that he replies to my Noble Friend. My idea is that there should be one man at the head of the Admiralty who should be responsible to this House. I am not quite certain from the speech of the First Lord whether he holds that view. As I understand him, he said the first person was to be the First Sea Lord, that he was to be facile princeps. Does that mean facile princeps over the right hon. Gentleman or over the remainder of the Board? I am in favour of one man who is responsible to this House, and that whatever arrangements may be made that nothing should be done in any kind of way which will cause the control or responsibility of that man to be in any way minimised. He must not shelter himself behind the Board of Admiralty. The decision of the Board must be confirmed by the right hon. Gentleman, and he alone must be responsible. That, in my humble opinion, is the only way to obtain efficient management of the Navy. The right hon. Gentleman, or any other Member promoted to his great office, should not shelter himself behind the Board, but should bear the brunt of responsibility and of criticism and of blame. Evidently the right hon. Gentleman opposite agrees with me in the remarks which I have made, and perhaps I have convinced my Noble Friend. [Lord C. BEEESFOED: "Not at all."] Perhaps in private conversation I shall be able to do so, and I shall take the first opportunity I have. The right hon. Gentleman should see that he has proper subordinates, and,

1993
if they sell him, that is all the worse for him, but it has nothing to do with us.
Mr. GRETTON: After the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord made earlier in the evening, I desire to ask the leave of the House to withdraw the Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

PRICE OF COAL.
Mr. THOMAS RICHARDSON: I beg to move, "That this House regrets the action recently taken by owners and middlemen in raising the price of coal to consumers for no other reason than to take advantage of a national crisis for securing inflated profits at the expense of the general community, and considers that this exploitation of the public is a motive inducing sections of the employers to resist the reasonable demands of the workmen; and, further, this House is of opinion that a Committee should be appointed to consider and report how in future the general community can be protected against such action."
The speakers who took part in the discussion about the Navy without exception claimed that the subject was one of very great importance, and that the people of this country were very much interested in it. I am not called upon to give any expression of opinion as to the accuracy of that statement, but I venture to submit that there is probably no question occupying the attention of the people of this country to-day that is of greater importance than the question of the cost of coal. On the official Amendment to the Address of the Labour party, with whom I am associated, and in the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester (Mr. Ramsay Macdonald), I find the following:—
"Finally, we cannot allow an increase of wages to be merely a means of the further exploitation of the general public."
I desire to improve upon that, and to suggest that my Resolution protests against the system of exploitation of the British public even in the absence of any increase in the wages of the people of the country. As to the facts of the case I imagine there can be no disagreement in this House. The price of coal, not only for household purposes but for manufacturing purposes, is to-day at what is spoken of as famine figures. I believe that it is generally concluded that coal in this vast Metropolis is
1994
sold at the highest price in the markets of the country. We are all familiar with the fact that even before the miners ceased to work famine prices were obtaining in the City of London, and that to-day coal is being sold at £2 per ton and upwards. I think, so far as small consumers are concerned and people whose income is precarious and very limited indeed, that it would not be going too far to say that even so much as £2 10s. is being charged for household coal in London. I desire to call the attention of the House to the fact that whilst the price is excessively high, extortionately high, in this great centre of population and of industry, that the relative increase in the cost of coal is higher even in our mining villages than it is in our large centres of industry and population. I have been at some pains to take some returns as to the cost of coals. I find that taking some of the towns and villages in the heart of our large mining districts, the price of coal is substantially higher. Take, for instance. Doncaster. In the last few years there has sprung up round about the town of Doncaster a mining industry which is full of possibilities of development, and yet in Doncaster, in the centre of one of the richest coal fields of Great Britain, the cost of coal since December last, has gone up by upwards of 100 per cent. The same is true of some of our mining villages. Take, as a typical instance, a mining village in Scotland. In December last, in anticipation of the strike coal had risen something like 2s. a ton, and at the present time it is being sold at 19s. or 20s. a ton. Further, the cost of coal for domestic purposes in normal times has gone up during the last thirty years by from 60 to 100 per cent. Nobody will suggest that the miners have received from 60 to 100 per cent, increase in their wages during those thirty years. During the present serious industrial dispute strong indictments have been levelled against the miners on the score of selfishness. I claim on behalf of the party with which I am associated that when in this House or in the country we discuss industrial and economic questions, our outlook is not confined to the interests of the wage-earning section of the community. In the present extortionate prices charged for coal for domestic purposes we have a most striking illustration of one of the facts of modern economic conditions that is forcing itself upon the attention of the British public; that as a result of the growing power of the modern capitalist the general public are

1995
being compelled to face the fact that they are just as effectively exploited, and are largely as helpless to protect themselves as others against the almost unlimited power of capitalism as we find it to-day. The general public have a very substantial interest in the question, and we are serving the best interests of the public when we call attention to these facts in Parliament. What is true of the household buyer is also true in relation to the corporate life of the nation. From inquiry I find that the London County Council are to-day paying 25s. per ton for coals that they were able to buy as per contract prior to the dispute at something like 11s. per ton—with this important difference, that the quality is inferior, thus making the price higher still. As recently as Monday of this week an instruction was conveyed to the county council that instead of 25s. they would have to pay 30s. for their next supply. Within the past few days I was speaking in the precincts of this House with an employer of labour, a member of a firm in this city, who told me that whereas their contract price for coal was 11s., even a month ago he was compelled to pay 25s. a ton for coal of an inferior quality to that at 11s. Any system, we submit, that permits those that own, enjoy, and exercise the power to inflict injustice and injury not only upon the wage-earners of the country, but to exploit the British public has been weighed in the balances and found wanting, and is a subject demanding the earnest consideration of Parliament itself.
The Resolution goes on to say:—
"regrets the action recently taken by owners and middlemen in raising the price of coal to consumers for no other reason than to take advantage of a national crisis for securing inflated profits at the expense of the general community, and considers that this exploitation of the public is a motive inducing sections of the employers to resist the reasonable demands of the workmen."
I do not intend to labour this point further than to assert that while I am not in a position to prove it to the House in the way that one demonstrates that two and two make four, I am certain in my own mind, and I believe there is a large body of opinion outside this House that endorses that opinion, that but for the fact that large employers of labour and mine
1996
owners and the men who are spoken of in the Resolution as middlemen controlling large supplies of coal, and the power they so ruthlessly exercise, there would have been a hopeful possibility of the present dispute being brought to a successful issue before now. We submit, that if what our Resolution says is correct, we are entitled to ask the House to register its protest against that condition of things. The Resolution then suggests that
"this House is of opinion that a Committee should be appointed to consider and report how in future the general community can be protected against such action."
I want especially to urge the importance of this part of the Resolution. Surely it is the duty of Parliament itself, having had brought to its notice that the people of the country, irrespective of their social position, of their craft or trade, irrespective of whether they be of the lower or middle or the upper classes, are helpless to protect themselves against the exploitation to which they are subject to-day, to interfere, and that is sufficient justification for us not only to enter our protest against that fact and call the attention of the House to it, but to suggest in all seriousness that there ought to be appointed a Committee to ascertain the facts, and, in the fulness of time, to bring them home to the House itself, so that in any future struggle of a similar category, which we hope may never occur, but in the event of any such industrial catastrope happening in our lifetime, in the future we ought to be prepared, in the interests of the public, with sufficient safeguards to protect them against repetition of this exploitation. I close by emphasising and urging upon the attention of the House the fact that in our mining villages and towns right in the heart of the centre of the mining industry, not only the general public, but the miners, in need of coal for domestic purposes, are being charged extortionate prices, and that the mine owners, not all of them, and the middle men, not all of them, but those who represent the large capitalists concerned and who have very largely dominated the coal strike, have, with ruthlessness and without any regard to the best interests of the working classes of this country in particular, not hesitated to exercise that power which, in the judgment of the Labour party, they ought never to enjoy, and which, sooner or later, this House itself must seek to take away from those

1997
people who to-day enjoy it at the expense of all that is best in our industrial and our national life.
Mr. HODGE:I beg to second this Resolution. This proposal may be divided into three parts—(1) regret that the coal owners and middlemen have exploited the public; (2) that they have a motive for causing strikes because of that exploitation; and (3) the necessity of setting up a Committee of Inquiry to see in what manner the public can be protected. I think that the word "regret" in this Resolution is much too mild, and we might have condemned the coal owners and middlemen for their exploitation, of the public during the present crisis. The section of the community who have suffered most are the poor people who have to buy their coal in small quantities. They are the class who have been robbed to the greatest extent. We all know that even if they had the cash they have not the accommodation necessary for storing coal in large quantities. We have been told, particularly by one section of the Press, that the coal strike, is a selfish strike. [An HON. MEMBER: "Hear, hear."] What about the selfishness of the coal owners and the middlemen, who have exploited the public during the crisis? We do not hear a single word about the selfishness of the royalty owners. Surely, with the £6,000,000 a year they receive for doing nothing, they might have come forward at the present crisis in order to ease the situation. That is one method the Government might have adapted as something by way of solving the difficulty. Then there is the fact that whilst the price of coal has been enormously increased there has been no extra cost so far as wages are concerned. This exploitation has not only affected the poor people, but the industries of the country have been hampered and harassed as a consequence of the great increase in the price of coal. We know that in South Wales, the district which has offered the greatest barrier to a settlement of the present difficulty, the owners have fomented strikes in the past because of the rubbish they have accumulated on the pitheads which they have been able to get rid of during a strike at large prices. These are facts of common notoriety, and I hope the Government may be able to do something by way of settling the difficulty in the direction of protecting the community from these hardships in any future crisis which may arise.
Mr. PIKE PEASE: Though I was not aware this Motion was really to come on to-night, I should like, as one who has been interested for many years in the coal industry, to make a few remarks in reference to it. It does not seem to have occurred to the Mover and Seconder of the Resolution that it might be possible that the high prices in coal at the present time are due to the ordinary laws of supply and demand; and, as far as any other industry in the country is concerned, if there was the same demand there would be the same increase in the price. I have been interested lately in the correspondence which has appeared in the "Times" in reference to coal profits, especially in the case of Messrs. Bell Brothers, of Liverpool. Sir Hugh Bell has been writing to the Press with regard to these statements as to coal profits. A good many statements have been made that those profits are exceptionally large, permitting in the case of Messrs. Bell Brothers in the ordinary shares of the payment for a certain period of dividends of 28 per cent. It is very easy through figures to prove almost anything, but Messrs. Bell Brothers are an iron making firm and every ounce of coal they raise is used in their ironworks.
Mr. THOMAS RICHARDSON: May I respectfully ask if the hon. Gentleman suggests that the larger margin of profit is made on their ironworks and not on their coal?
Mr. PIKE PEASE: I was going to say that as Messrs. Bell Brothers happen to have ironworks as well it is impossible to say the whole profit is made out of coal. I would like to say if it is not egotistical that the firm with which I am connected in the year ending April, 1910, to take an ordinary year, turned out of their collieries and limestone quarries over 3,600,000 tons of material, and the average profit on that, after taking into account the ordinary expenditure and depreciation, was 4.6d. per ton. Though that seems a small sum, we made a very considerable amount of profit owing to the fact that we have methods of treating the coke and by-products. I would suggest that the high price lately paid for household coal has been caused by the fact that there has been an enormous demand for it owing to the action of the miners themselves, and I am perfectly certain there is no hon. Member sitting on that side of the House who does not agree with me. I have also a right to ask them if they can find any method by which the ordinary

1999
laws of supply and demand would not act in a similar case. It is perfectly true, as far as household coal is concerned, that the middlemen are making very large profits at the present time. There is no doubt many of them foresaw the strike, bought large quantities of coal forward, and then when the demand became intense they sold it at a very high price; but that has not been the case as far as the coal owners with whom I am connected are concerned. In South Wales the coal owners have contracts on their books now for over 20,000,000 tons, and in Durham in ratio to the amount they supply there are the same large sales forward. It is not realised by ordinary people who take an interest in this question that household coal is a small matter compared with the supply for industries. A blast furnace uses as much coal in a week as a town of 50,000 people. It takes about twenty-two hundredweight of coke to make a ton of iron, thirty-two hundredweight of coal to make a ton of coke, and about one and a quarter ton of iron to make a ton of steel. Therefore if the minimum wage decreased the output in this country, and there was an increase in the cost of coal, that would mean not less than from 1s. to 2s. per ton on iron and from 3s. to 4s. per ton on the cost of steel. I am one of those who very much regret that the poor should have to pay so high a price for coal at the present time, but, as far as I can see, that has been caused entirely by the extraordinary demand which has arisen, and when we consider the position of England to-day, when we consider the amount of stock used during the last three weeks we can realise the extraordinary demand there must have been. I for my part cannot see how any committee which can be appointed can possibly find any means by which the price would not increase very considerably when the demand itself extends, and although I should like to know what method might be adopted in regard to that, I personally do not see how one can expect the price to remain low. Then I come to the question of royalties. It is a very difficult question as far as royalty owners are concerned. The increased price of coal has not increased the amount of money they have obtained for their royalties. In very few districts is there a sliding scale in regard to royalties, and therefore the increased price of coal during the last few weeks has not enabled
2000
the royalty owner to obtain more for his coal than previously. Hon. Gentlemen opposite may not agree with my views on royalties. As a member of a firm which pays very large sums for royalties, I confess I should like to get the coal for nothing. But suppose a man pays £100,000 for a coal area. It seems to me he has just as much right to charge 4½d. per ton for his coal as a man has to charge for the cabbages he grows in his garden. If a man has bought property which contains coal, what right has any other man to take that property from him without paying for it the ordinary market; price? I should like, in conclusion, to say I believe that the increased price of coal, which will have to be paid by the poorest of the poor in the country, will have been caused by the action of the miners. As far as the price is concerned, the benefit is chiefly reaped by the middlemen in view of the fact that coal owners in the country nearly always sell their coal forward—three months ahead. Therefore very little of the profit will go to the coal owner.
The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. J. M. Robertson): The hon. Member who last spoke has broadly indicated the acknowledged facts which make it impossible for us to accept this Motion. While accepting in the main his economic argument, I should like to make a qualification on one point. In regard to mining royalties the hon. Member takes the stand of the right of man to do as he likes with his own property. I do not think anyone here is proposing to interfere with that right, but the hon. Member is no doubt aware that there is a very large section of people who maintain that property of that kind is a legitimate subject for special taxation. It has been so treated in the recent past, and it is just conceivable, in the future, that the increasingly general view that that form of property is a windfall may result in further taxation. So broadly does this form of property differ from others that, as the hon. Member is probably aware, in the German Empire, in the Middle Ages—
Mr. PIKE PEASE: I was not referring to that question at all. I quite realise that royalty owners do pay taxation. They have paid Income Tax. That was not my point. My point was that there is no sliding scale in regard to royalties, and that the royalties have no reference to the price of coal at the present moment.
Mr. ROBERTSON: If the hon. Member means that royalties do not enter into the price of coal, I quite agree with him. A royalty is an economic rent.
Mr. WEDGWOOD: No, it is not.
Mr. ROBERTSON: It is a form of economic rent, as regards which there is, at least, a very considerable difference of modern opinion. I was remarking that in Germany, in the Middle Ages, all minerals from the soil were made the property of the State, a course of action which some people wish had been taken in our own case. That is not going to be made up for by any act of confiscation. I merely wanted to avoid seeming to endorse what the hon. Member (Mr. Pike Pease) said on that point, while I agree with his general answer to the Mover and Seconder. With regard to the Motion itself, I confess I am a little surprised at the surprise my hon. Friends expressed. It would seem as if the rise in the price of coal, following upon the announcement that a strike was imminent—an announcement made long before the strike took place—came as an unpleasant surprise to my hon. Friends. That surprise it is that surprises me. I should have thought that the promoters of a general strike would count upon a great rise in the price of coals as a means of making the strike work. If prices were not to rise I do not see how the strike would have had the effect they desired. I do not for a moment seek to bandy those charges of selfishness which have been flung between the representatives of the miners and the representatives of the coal owners, The broad fact is that any business man, in the position in which the colliery owners found themselves when the strike was regarded as imminent, would have raised the price because of the demand. As soon as there was a risk of scarcity many private persons and public institutions began to ask for more coal. The mere rise in the demand in all quarters will invariably raise the price of any commodity.
I do not know what my hon. Friends have in mind when they suggest that there might be a method of checking, or preventing, or breaking this rise in price. I could quite understand that in the case of a, "ring" or a "corner" in which some necessity of life has been cornered by speculators, with the effect of artificially raising the price to all, many of us would like to break the "ring." I could understand hon. Members speculating as
2002
to how the "ring" might be broken, and suggesting, perhaps, legislative methods for doing so. But in this case there has been no "ring." The Mover showed that prices have risen in a most astonishing way, and that they have risen far more in the colliery districts than in London; a fact I can only explain, speculatively, by saying that the London dealers must have had greater reserves or longer contracts. Supposing there is no "ring" or "corner," how can you hope to check the rise in prices? Suppose you had a dictatorship at work and the dictator knew that a strike was coming on and saw prices rising, as they invariably would rise by reason of the alarm of the private consumer as well as big institutions, companies, and so on. Suppose the dictator said, "The colliery owners shall not raise the price of his coal at the pit mouth," and suppose he was able to enforce that, the middleman would get it at his former price. The dictator would then have to say, "The middleman shall not raise his price," and, further, he must say that the middleman shall sell to anyone who comes to him to buy and every private person who wants to have a great store is to be allowed to get it exactly as he orders it. If hon. Members will think out the sequence they will see that the scheme must break down.
Mr. JOWETT: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that municipalities have not raised the price of coke notwithstanding the extra demand?
Mr. ROBERTSON: I do not understand the circumstances and cannot pronounce an opinion, but if the price of coke has risen in the general market, and the cooperative societies have not raised it, that may be regarded as an act of beneficence or of charity on their part towards the general public. The price of coke has risen. The latest price lists I have seen show some rise. But this is more or less irrelevant. The broad fact is that the prices of coal in this case have risen in an absolutely natural and inevitable way. Hon. Members have suggested no scheme whatever, no possible way in which any political machinery could prevent that rise of prices. The Motion only suggests first that prices have been raised for no other reason than to take advantage of a national crisis, for securing inflated profits at the expense of the community—that is to say, that prices have risen for no other reason than that they could be got, and I do not know of any other reason than

2003
that which could be given for any rise of prices. Then the Motion goes on to suggest that the "House is of opinion that a Committee should be appointed to consider and report how in future the general community can be protected against such action." As I myself am destitute of any idea as to how the community could be protected against such action and know no one who has any such idea, and as the Mover and Seconder have not suggested any scheme, but just left the House to express an opinion in regard to the appointment of a Committee, I can only say that to me the suggestion is idle, and I do not see how the House could rationally accept it.
Colonel HICKMAN: One would imagine from the speeches of the Mover and Seconder that this strike has been engineered by the coal owners in order to exploit the price of coal. It does not appear to me to be evident on the face of it. Because the price of coal has gone up it is perfectly ridiculous to suppose that the coal owners worked the strike for that purpose. It is evident to everyone who has any idea of business that it has been a very bad thing for the coal owners. An hon. Member just now remarked that the price of coke had not risen. I speak rather feelingly because the firm to which I belong had to pay double the price to put coke into their blast furnaces last week.
Mr. JOWETT: May I correct the hon. Member? What I said was that the municipal authorities had not raised the price of coke, notwithstanding the extra demand, and that if coal were nationalised the same result would follow.
Colonel HICKMAN: I can assure the hon. Member that the coke we buy from the municipality has been increased in price.
Mr. JOWETT: That is an exception.
Colonel HICKMAN: The hon. Gentleman who moved the Resolution did not appear to be aware that when the collieries are standing there is always going on the interest on the capital expenditure. If the mine owners cannot get any money as the price of coal which is not raised they have to think of paying the interest on the money which has been invested in the mines. That is only one of the reasons why the price of coal should go up if they
2004
can get a higher price. The hon. Member (Mr. T. Richardson) said there had been no rise in wages for the last twelve years. I am of opinion that wages have been advanced something like 40 per cent.
Mr. T. RICHARDSON: The hon. Member is misrepresenting the statement I made to the House. I said that the price of coal for domestic purposes had gone up on the average from 60 to 100 per cent. in the last twenty years.
Colonel HICKMAN: I think it will be in the recollection of the House that the hon. Member said that wages had not risen. I repeat that wages have risen something like 40 per cent. in the last twelve years, and under these circumstances I cannot see why there is any reason to have any special Committee to inquire into the matter.
Mr. POINTER: I do not know that I am altogether surprised at the speech of the hon. Gentleman who has defended the Government position or 1hat of the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Pike Pease). I can quite understand the point of view of the hon. Gentleman who represents Darlington, because evidently he is in the position of belonging to that class of society—I say this with all friendliness and without any suggestion of meekness— who think that the exploitation of mineral wealth is a natural thing, but I cannot exactly understand his parallel between the man who has a cabbage in a field and another man who has mineral wealth below his land. The fact that there is a cabbage growing in the field suggests that there has been some labour attached to it.
Mr. PIKE PEASE: If a man pays £100,000 for an area of land in order to own the coal under the land, has he not the right to the coal?
Mr. POINTER: That is true, but it does not get down to the fundamentals. The mineral wealth of the people should belong to the people. No person should have the privilege of getting into his own possession that which should belong to the whole nation. It seems to me that if a man buys land in the way stated he does it with his eyes open, and he should take the consequences if on a change of public opinion he finds out that public opinion declares that what In the past was a right and proper thing is no longer going to be tolerated. I do not think that personally he has any grievance. All I want to say

2005
is that so far as we can see the whole thing is a matter of system. Everything the hon Gentleman opposite has said is true so long as the present system obtains, but the object of the proposed Committee is to see whether another system would not be more beneficial.
And, it being Eleven of the clock, the Debate stood adjourned.

SUPPLY.

  NAVY ESTIMATES, 1912–13.
  Considered in Committee.
  [Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]
  (IN THE COMMITTEE.)
  Postponed proceedings resumed on Question, "That 136,000 officers, seamen, and boys be employed for the Sea and Coastguard Services for the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1913, including 17,200 Royal Marines."
  11.0 P.M.
  Lord C. BERESFORD: I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman if he is perfectly satisfied with the numbers which he is joining? In 1909 we were 20,000 men short in the Navy. Since then we have joined 3,000 in 1910–11, and 3,000 in 1911–12. That is only 6,000. Can the right hon. Gentleman hold out any hope to the Committee that if there is a Supplementary Estimate there will be more men added to the Fleet? The Committee will remember that if the men had been joined in 1909 we should have had the advantage of 15,000 additional men with three years' training, and, as it takes five years to train, the advantage of joining early is obvious.
  Mr. FRED HALL: I could not help feeling that some of those congratulations which have been showered upon the right hon. Gentleman should have been showered upon hon and right hon. Gentlemen on this side of the House. Those who fought with regard to this matter from 1906 to 1910 always put forward the idea that everything possible must be done to strengthen the Navy. The First Lord of the Admiralty has taken the advice that has been tendered to him from this side of the House. I was particularly pleased to see in the Memorandum of the First Lord of the Admiralty that in the event of increases in the existing pro grammes of other naval Powers His Majesty's Government will be prepared to
  2006
  adopt a similar course. During the Debate I have noticed that the majority of the remarks have been directed to Germany and Great Britain. I can understand that Germany should have been referred to in the consideration of this question to a somewhat large extent. We must not overlook the fact that as far as we are concerned our Navy has to be distributed over all parts of the world for the protection of oar trade routes and our Colonies, whereas Germany keeps her Navy more or lees closely at hand. The House will agree that if Germany finds it necessary to increase her Navy we must, on our part, take the greatest possible care to see that under no circumstances whatever shall we go below the standard, which is one of the fundamental principles of the Unionist party. Hon. Members below the Gangway opposite have suggested the possibility of making some agreement with other Powers to reduce armaments, but it will not do any harm, in view of that suggestion, to state what took place at the annual meeting of the German Navy League held at Kiel in 1909. Admiral Von Weber, manager of the League, said:—
  "With the defences of our trade and our coasts, the task of the German Navy is not exhausted. Recent events in the south-east of Europe, and the grouping of the Powers which was then exhibited, make it perfectly clear that in the future a strong Navy will be indispensable to the political prestige of the German Empire and for the assurance of peace. We should be tying our hands for all time to come if we enter into an agreement with the great Powers which prevented us, as the peace at Tilsit once prevented a dejected Prussia regarding her own interests."
  I think that is perfectly plain as far as Germany is concerned. They consider it necessary that under no circumstances will they enter into any agreement whatever for a reduction of armaments. What Germany intends to do with her fleet we cannot say, but we have to consider what she will be able to do with such a force as she is building. I think it may be reasonably inferred from a recent visit to Berlin by a Member of His Majesty's Government that he went, he saw, but he did not conquer. Anybody who knows anything with regard to shipbuilding knows perfectly well that ton for ton one has to take the question of the fighting value and machinery of old ships as against new ships. It is therefore of the utmost importance that the House should consider the expenditure that has taken place on new ships during the past few years. Looking at the reports which have been issued by the First Lord of the Admiralty, I find that the estimated expenditure for construction in 1911 was £17,566,000.

  2007
  According to the Paper recently issued, the actual expenditure for 1911–12 was £15,063,000, or £2,500,000 below the amount that it was estimated should be expended. I can perfectly understand that under certain circumstances the amount estimated would not be expended, but I cannot help thinking that that is a very considerable difference. Last year, in Germany, the Vote for construction alone was £11,710,859, which comes very measurably within the amount that has been expended during 1911–12 on construction of ships in our own country.
  Matters of personnel and the question of ammunition have been very concisely placed before the House, but there is one matter which I should particularly like to draw attention, and that is the question which I consider, next to "Dreadnoughts," the most important point in Navy construction. I refer to the question of cruisers. Nobody knows more about this than the Noble Lord the Member for Portsmouth and the utmost importance there is in that branch of the Service. What is the duty of the cruiser? The first duty is to act as scout and the second is to protect our mercantile marine in case of war. According to the statement that has been issued recently by the First Lord of the Admiralty I acknowledge, and willingly acknowledge, that this branch of the Service has been improved, but there is an enormous amount to be done in this way. I find that the addition in cruisers since 1st April, 1911, was four protected cruisers and two unarmoured cruisers, and on 1st April of this year, I believe I am right in saying, that there will be under construction six battle cruisers and eight second-class protected cruisers and also two unarmoured cruisers. My right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary will, I think, remember that of those under construction four will be located in Australia and New Zealand. With regard to this matter we naturally have got to take into consideration what other countries are doing as to the construction of what is the most important part of our war programme. I would like to take the figures, and I find that Germany has a distinct advantage in this way. I am not going simply and solely on numerical strength, but also into the question of the age of those cruisers. I think the Committee will agree with me that that, at all events, is one of the important points. I find from a Parliamentary Paper, issued on 20th May, 1911, Great
  2008
  Britain had sixty-eight afloat and Germany thirty-five. That might be taken as representing a two-Power standard, but, on being looked into, it cannot be so regarded. Last year my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool (Mr. Ashley) asked how many completed protected cruisers launched not more than twelve years there were in the British and German Fleets, respectively, on 31st March, 1904, and 31st March, 1911. The figure's given by the First Lord were, in 1904, British 48, German 18; and in 1911, British 24, and German 24—plainly showing that Germany had gone ahead in the construction of this class of vessel, while we had unfortunately got more or less behind. The answer to another important question in July proved how this class of ship had been neglected by the present Government. The First Lord then stated that the number of protected cruisers launched by Germany and Great Britain since 1907 was nine in each case. If we are to be satisfied with carrying on our construction at the same rate as other Powers we cannot possibly expect to maintain the supremacy and preponderance we have hitherto had. Take the question of "Dreadnoughts" and ships of that character. Our effective battle units number fifty-six. I have been assured by those who are thoroughly capable of judging that five cruisers should be allocated as the necessary appendages of every two "Dreadnoughts." That means that we require at least 140 of these cruisers. What is our position? On 31st March, 1911, the total number of unarmoured cruisers actually ready was seventy-nine, including eight scouts. We could not expect to have them all available at one time, so that we have barely more than half the number of cruisers required for the necessary complements of our battle units. I am very glad to find that the First Lord has agreed to the construction of eight of these important ships, which I consider the very eyes of the Fleet. Let me call the attention of the House to the fact that we in this country are placed in a totally different position in relation to the protection of the vast supply of our foodstuffs to any other country. The figures of our exports and imports of foodstuffs clearly demonstrate the absolute necessity that we should at all times take the greatest possible care to see that not only our "Dreadnoughts," but the units required by them for the full security of this country, are arranged for, so that

  2009
  the supremacy that we on this side have always advocated should be safeguarded to the fullest possible extent.
  Sir WILLIAM BYLES: There is a word or two that in my judgment ought to be said before this series of Debates on the Navy and Army close. Perhaps my few observations may not be acceptable to the Committee, but I shall ask hon. Members to believe that they express the sentiments and opinions of a considerable number of people in this country. At the beginning of the Debate this afternoon the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Chelmsford in a very interesting speech complimented my right hon. Friend upon the statement that he made to us yesterday. He rejoiced to find that there was what there ought to be: Continuity of naval policy. I do not want continuity of naval policy if that policy is wrong. Naval expenditure is going up year by year, our Navy is growing bigger and bigger, our ships more numerous; and that is a policy that the hon. and gallant Gentleman doubtless thinks it is desirable should be continued. But I want an opposite policy to that. I want some attempt to be made to reduce the enormous magnitude of these Estimates which are presented to us year after year. One or two things of great importance have happened since last year. From these I certainly had hoped that we might get some relief in regard to the Naval Estimates. There was the visit of the Secretary of State for War to Berlin: it awakened many hopes in the minds of some of us who have been eager to bring about more friendly relations with Germany.
  I had hoped that that visit might in some way be connected with another event, namely, the transference of the late Home Secretary to the Board of Admiralty. There was a series of changes in the Government, the most important of which was that my right hon. Friend left the Home Office, where he was showing an enlightened spirit of reform; I regretted his loss to that office and I regretted particularly that he had gone to what seems to me a work that should have been distasteful to him. But he did go to the Admiralty, and I had hoped his transference there would have meant a change of policy in the direction of retrenchment. Such is not the case. The Estimates presented to ns are the same as last year. Huge expenditure is proposed for building or proposed building, and I do not think these sums of money should pass the House of Commons without protest from those
  2010
  who feel they are excessive. I dare say it is a feeble protest that I make. I am like a voice crying in the wilderness; it has become an annual protest, but nevertheless it ought to be made. I want to know what it is that induces this House to spend such vast sums of money upon the defence of these shores by these "Dreadnoughts."
  What is the pressure upon a Liberal Government which induces it to spend more than has ever been spent by this country upon munitions of war and preparation for Imperial defence1? It surely must be evident to any thoughtful person that there are great influences behind the Government. The hon. Member to whom I have referred rejoiced that my right hon. Friend had so quickly acquired the spirit of the Board of Admiralty. He said no one could enter the Admiralty, surrounded as he would immediately be by the influence of great naval officers and so forth, and breathing the atmosphere which always obtains in the Admiralty, without imbibing that atmosphere, and he congratulated my right hon. Friend, who had imbibed it so well. He is pressed, of course, by the Navy League; he has to submit to the pressure of the Service Members, Naval officers, and the rest in the House. There are some constituencies that are interested in this great expenditure, constituencies such as that represented by the Noble Lord opposite, whose speeches I always listen to with so much interest. The great armour-plate constituencies like Sheffield are pressing for this expenditure. The great clothing factories all over the country, and all they represent, are bringing pressure to bear, and also all the various Army and Navy contractors; and then there are the crowd of inventors and men of science bringing pressure to bear upon the right hon. Gentleman, perhaps unconsciously. All honour to the men of science, but they are all eager for pay and fortune. There are hundreds of bankers and financiers interested, and they all come down every Spring in order to pick up the millions which an indolent and too subservient House of Commons is far too ready to vote for the Navy, just as when you throw a plate full of broken pieces of bread and crumbs on the lawn the sparrows and the chaffinches all swarm round it. This movement has a paid Press behind it, and these newspapers preach the gospel of swagger and talk about supremacy, bigness, and material strength as if those things were great national ideals. All these vested interests have to be fed up

  2011
  every year with Votes and when any other country builds a ship a fright is started and the German bogey is trotted out just as Bonaparte used to be trotted out in my nursery days.
  I know it requires a very strong Minister to resist all these influences, and I can quite understand how hard it is for my right hon. Friend to resist them, surrounded as he is by a hierarchy of naval experts and highly-paid clerks, every one interested in spending money on ships. I had hopes that our new First Lord would have been the man to withstand the pressure of those influences. At any rate the right hon. Gentleman showed in that interesting statement which he made on Monday how perfectly easy it would be for the two nations in question to mutually disarm without altering their relative strength. I want to say, in all seriousness, that I do not believe that England's greatness or her security against her potential enemies lies in the size of her ships or guns or the size of the Navy, but in her upright behaviour to other nations, in a foreign policy which is sympathetic as regards the interests of others, and in a diplomacy which is honourable, frank and fair.
  Given these things I do not think there is any need for nations to quarrel with one another any more than than there is need for neighbours or householders to quarrel. Let us direct our efforts and spend our money, not in building great monsters of destruction and menace, for they are nothing else, which produce only angry feelings and suspicion between nation and nation, but in building up cordial relations between nations. [Laughter.] Those are not sentiments which hon. Members opposite ought to laugh at because they must believe it is a desirable thing to cultivate cordial relations in our commercial intercourse with other nations, for that is the only way to promote solidarity. That is all I have to say. I suppose it is no good. Year by year these horrid warlike bloated estimates come before us until the hope of those who think as I do dies. Twenty years ago when I entered this House England was defended by an expenditure of £33,000,000. Now it is over £70,000,000. Ministers responsible for these enormous demands made upon us are always uttering sentiments about the evil of this expenditure and the importance of some method of reducing it. Three years ago the Secretary of State for
  2012
  Foreign Affairs (Sir E. Grey), whose words are always, carefully chosen, and who is I think I may say, revered on all sides, made a speech which impressed the House. What did he say on that occasion? I will only quote one sentence—
  "I would like the people of this country to consider the consequence to which the growth of armaments has led. The great countries of Europe are raising enormous revenues and something like half of them is being spent on naval and military preparations. Half the National Revenue is being spent on preparations to kill each other. The extent to which this expenditure has grown has become a satire and a reflection on civilisation."
  It is because I feel the truth of this sentiment so strongly that I have ventured to detain the House even at this very late hour to express my sympathy with it. Does the House realise that the great Christian nations of Europe are spending £600,000,000 a year upon these warlike preparations? Does the House realise this country alone is spending £6,000,000 a month upon preparations for war? That is not far short of five shillings per week for every family of five in the land. This system of militarism, as I call it, is the enemy of democracy, and I believe it is an instrument of tyranny. Holding those views, I cannot see how I can possibly vote for these Estimates.
  Mr. HUNT: The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down wanted to know why we spend so much on the Navy. Surely, he must know it is because we cannot help it. We are obliged to spend it. If we did not spend it we should not have any country or any empire on which to spend anything. The hon. Gentleman talked about the German bogey. Germany is a rising nation, determined to expand, and if she makes war upon us, as very nearly happened last summer, if we cannot defend ourselves we shall be wiped clean out of the great nations of the world. There is no way of getting out of it. Unless you are strong enough to defend yourself you are sure to be attacked. Nations act on the old principle that the weak must go to the wall, and that will never be altered, either in our time or in the time of our great grandsons, because human nature is as it is. It is the same with nations as with men.
  The hon. Member for Falkirk (Mr. Murray Macdonald) agrees with the last speaker that we ought to reduce our Navy, and another hon. Member suggested we ought to come to an understanding with Germany. We have tried to come to an understanding, but Germany will have nothing to do with it. We have also

  2013
  tried reducing our Navy, and the result was that Germany increased her Navy enormously. The First Lord of the Admiralty has been praised in all quarters for his speech. No doubt it was a magnificent speech, but no matter how magnificent the speeches may be in this House they will not defend us in the day of battle. It is beyond doubt that we are weaker now in our naval position than we were when the present Government came into office —so far as our Navy compares with those of other Powers. Hon. Gentlemen should remember when talking about our Naval forces that in 1906 we had fifty-five battleships to Germany's eighteen—three to one in number and four to one in strength. In 1914, if I understand the right hon. Gentleman aright, instead of being four to one it will be a case of three to two in "Dreadnoughts." The Government dropped four "Dreadnoughts" in the first three years, and while we have been cutting down our Navy Germany has been enormously increasing hers. So much for the big ships of the Navy.
  When you come to the seamen, what do you find? Our seamen are poorly paid. The Admiralty allow them to get married but do not pay them enough to support their wives and families. They are overworked, for they are too few in number. No wonder they are inclined to be discontented. Even when they are wounded in war the Admiralty will not continue their miserable pensions of 1s. 1d. per day. I have done my best to get them to continue the pension of one man who admittedly has been permanently injured by wounds received in war, but they have actually stopped his miserable pension of 1s. 1d. per day. The answer given to my application was that the man could get just enough to keep himself going. But surely, if he had been under a civil employer and had been injured in the course of his employment that employer would have had either to pay a lump sum or continue the pension. Hon. Gentlemen vote themselves extra thousands of pounds, but here is a poor sailor admittedly permanently injured whose pension of 1s. 1d. per day they take away! It may be Liberal policy, but I do not think it is just. I want to say something about destroyers, to show how the Government have been cutting down the ships of various sorts. They only laid down two destroyers in 1906–7, and only five in 1907–8.
  The Germans in those two years laid down twenty-four. The present Home
  2014
  Secretary told us last June that in 1904 we had 116 destroyers to Germany's thirty-seven. On 31st March, 1911, after six years, of this Government, we had only seventy-eight destroyers and Germany had seventy-nine. Destroyers are just as necessary to a Navy, to protect big ships, as outposts and advance guards are to the Army. Without them our big ships could not stay out at night. The Government spent nothing on Rosyth during 1906–7, and only about £10,000 in 1908. It was in consequence of that policy that I understood the First Lord to say that we have not got a single dock in the North Sea that will hold a crippled "Dreadnought," whereas Germany has seven Government docks and two private docks. That advantage must be enormous. If there is war it is pretty sure to come in the North Sea. Germany has her docks handy, and guarded by the Frisian Islands. Our "Dreadnoughts" will have to go either to Portsmouth or further on. It must be an enormous disadvantage to have to send crippled "Dreadnoughts" that distance, while Germany has plenty of docks quite handy. The Chancellor of the Exchequer told us that he was going to try to find the money for social reform by reducing the amount spent on the hideous mechanism for human slaughter. That is how we find ourselves in the present dangerous position.
  The most dangerous thing of all is that we have not anything like enough cruisers for commerce protection. Outside European waters we have only twenty-seven, while in 1904 we had sixty. There are vast areas of the sea, over which our merchant ships travel, which have no protection whatever. From Vancouver to Cape Horn, a distance of 7,000 miles, there are only a couple of sloops of 1,000 tons, with a speed of about ten knots. That is a most dangerous position. In Sir Arthur Wilson's Memorandum he said that our greatest danger was the interruption of the trade routes. That means the stoppage of our food supplies and raw material without which our people cannot get wages. These are by far the greatest dangers that we have to contend with at present. Germany has distinctly told us she is going to turn her merchant vessels into cruisers at any time in any part of the world. You have these facts about the difficulty of commerce protection I think admitted. You cannot build cruisers in time if we have war in the near future, and I cannot help thinking that far the best plan is to put guns and ammunition

  2015
  on our own merchant vessels. I understand there are something like 100 ships that fly the flag of the Royal Naval Reserve. They have at least one officer and ten men on them. Surely these are the ships which should first be armed. If you do not do that you will have this country, till the cruisers are built, exposed at any time to starvation in time of war which you will not be able to prevent, because half a dozen grain ships sunk coming here would put food up to famine prices; you would have food riots, and you would be driven into surrender before your sea power had time to come in. The Government ought to have the whole food supply of the country in time of war, and they ought to set up a committee to ascertain the best way of organising the food of the country. We know how near we were brought to starvation by the railway strike. In my part of the country there was no bread to be got in the nearest town, and we had to send six miles to get half a bag of flour, and that was only given as a favour.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: It has been done long ago.
  Mr. HUNT: Do I understand that in case of war the whole food of this country would belong to the Government?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: The hon. Member said the Government ought to set up an inquiry to examine the question. That has been most searchingly gone into.
  Mr. HUNT: Has the Government come to any conclusion as to how it is going to be done? The Government are full of inquiries but nothing seems to come of them. I am very glad to hear what the right hon. Gentleman has said, and I hope that as soon as possible the thing will be organised so that if we do have war the Government will be able to own the whole food of the country and to distribute it to the rich and poor, because we shall be a beleaguered city, and unless you manage it properly some will have too much to eat and others will have nothing at all. I would impress upon the right hon. Gentleman that he should put guns and ammunition on our merchant ships to give us a chance with Germany.
  Mr. JOYCE: And the ships manned by lascars.
  Mr. HUNT: I do not know anything about the ships being manned by lascars.
  2016
  I believe that the ships flying the white ensign do not have that class of sailors. I do not think that has really much to do with it, but in any case that would be better to have guns on ships manned by lascars than no guns at all. That is the only way you can save the country. This is not only the most serious question before the country at the present time, but it is the bounden duty of the First Lord to take advantage of these suggestions, which he can do at comparatively small cost, until there has been time to build the cruisers that ought to have been built in years gone by.
  12.0 M.
  Mr. DUNCAN MILLAR: I wish to refer to a matter arising out of the Report of the Committee on Canteens and Victualling which reported in 1907. A number of the recommendations of this Committee have been carried out with very great advantage to the men in the Service. One important suggestion which has already been submitted to the House has not yet been dealt with, namely, the suggestion with regard to temperance in the Navy. The daily ration includes an item for rum, which costs the State three-sixteenths of a penny, no duty being charged, and which the men may or may not take. Those who do not desire to take the rum can have a money allowance of nine-sixteenths of a penny instead. The Committee was a strong one, consisting of a number of naval experts, and they reported that the following changes would do much to promote temperance: that the money allowance in lieu of the spirit ration be increased to a penny per ration in the case of temperance men, and that the system under which men who do not wish to draw the spirit ration in kind are marked "T," or "temperance," in the ledger should be discontinued, and in place thereof men who do wish to draw their ration in kind should be marked "G," "grog." in the ledger, thus making a payment of money the rule and the issue of spirit the exception. In conclusion the Committee expressed the opinion that the adoption of these suggestions would do much to promote temperance in the fleet. The Admiralty has already considered these proposals sympathetically on two occasions, and I would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he would not now be prepared to put them into operation. At present well over 25 per cent. of the men in the Navy are temperance men, and the number is growing rapidly. The opinion of the highest

  2017
  naval authorities is strongly in favour of some alteration, and I am quite sure the Noble Lord (Lord C. Beresford) agrees that something might be done in that direction. It was suggested that the increasing of the money allowance to 1d. would cost £15,000, but in 1908 the Financial Secretary to the Admiralty stated that the amount was estimated at only £12,500 a year. I think it would be money well spent, as it would lead to a larger number of the men becoming temperance men.
  Lord C. BERESFORD: It would be well saved in other ways.
  Mr. MILLAR: I quite agree with the Noble Lord. It has been suggested that if the penny were given the men would spend it on drink which they would get ashore. I do not think so. It would be very easy to ascertain exactly those who took the allowance as bonâ fide temperance men, and as they already have an inducement by having a premium of six-sixteenths of a penny if they take the money allowance the same argument would apply at present as it would to the increased allowance. With regard to the suggestion that the rule should be altered in reference to the entries in the ledger I believe that if it were carried out that suggestion would lead very rapidly to a large increase among those who do not desire to ask for the spirit or to consume it.
  The result would be that in a short time a large number of temperance men would be added to the Navy. We are not dealing here with a committee of teetotalers, but a committee of naval experts. We are also asking to give effect to a view which has grown largely of late years in both Services, and which has been supported by the highest authorities. For a number of years the Japanese Government have abolished altogether the allowance for spirits in their Navy, and the United States Government as far back as 1862 abolished the spirit ration and gave a money allowance. I think that in the interests of efficiency in our Fleet, and of securing a high degree of nerve and physical efficiency amongst the men of the Service, it is very desirable that further steps should be taken in this direction, and I do hope the right hon. Gentleman will give sympathetic consideration to the suggestions which have been made and be able to let us have some definite assurance as to the future.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: The matter to which my hon. Friend has referred is one of real importance, and I can promise him that we will give it our most sympathetic consideration during the forthcoming year. I know that the view the hon. Member puts forward is shared by a very large number of naval officers of distinction, and it is quite true that the extra cost would be more than compensated by the diminution of expenditure which would arise under other heads. I have not been able to come to any conclusion on the matter so far, because so many other subjects have pressed for decision. Of course all expenditure of money must be thoroughly scrutinised. I do not think I have heard anything from the hon. Gentleman that I do not feel very strongly drawn into agreement with. I would appeal to the Committee whether we might not now draw our proceedings to a close. We have a very important day before us to-morrow, when we may sit late, and I trust that we may now be permitted to bring our proceedings to a close.
  Mr. PETO: I feel bound to bring under attention one aspect of the Navy Estimates which has not yet had any consideration so far as I have been able to gather, and that is the closer association which ought to exist between the Mercantile Marine and the Royal Navy. Two or three cases have recently come to the attention of the Imperial Merchant Service Guild, and one is the case of the rebellion or civil war in China. The First Lord of the Admiralty told me, in reply to a question that he had not got before him the particulars of the case which I was bringing under his notice. The right hon. Gentleman said:—
  "The exact circumstances of the case of the steamship "Brodmore" are not known to me.'
  I venture to think that the particulars of the case are extremely interesting, and it is necessary that I should explain what they are in order to show what I ask should be arranged in similar cases. The master of the steamship "Brodmore," which has just arrived from Chinese waters writes:—
  "Early in November last I was in Hankow in command of the above-named steamer ("Brodmore"), loading a cargo of frozen produce. At the time the country was in a state of revolution, and there was severe fighting going on in Hankow and the adjacent country. As the Chinese fleet of warships, which were anchored a few miles below Hankow, were threatening to come up and bombard Wchang (just across the river), merchant steamers were under notice to leave the port at once, should this occur. At the time our

  2019
  pilot was taken seriously ill and had to be taken to hospital. Being thus left in a dangerous position, as no pilot was obtainable in Hankow and all telegraphic communication with Shanghai cut off, I applied to Mr. Goffe, the Consul-General, to have a wireless sent from one of the British warships to Shanghai asking for a pilot. My request was refused by Mr. Goffe on the ground that none but Service and Red Cross messages could be sent. After consulting my agents, we applied to the German warship "Liepsig" who at once sent our message, and in three days' time I had a pilot from Shanghai. There were three British warships at Hankow."
  The First Lord was good enough to say that the rules were not absolutely cast-iron, but I would ask that it should be made clear, in a case such as this, that the duty of the Navy, which, I am sure, would be performed if the Admiralty regulations were so framed, should be to afford protection to merchantmen. The other specific case to which I referred was that of Marconi wireless communication with land stations. I am quite aware of the reasons why wave lengths are different owing to secrecy and so forth. It is admitted that in the case of the "Delhi," the message was not taken by the shore station, and in such a case where there is a Marconi Naval Wireless Shore Station in proximity to a dangerous coast, I would ask that some arrangement should he made, either by duplicating part of the plant, or having another person to receive the message, so as to enable the shore station to act as a protector of merchant vessels which may go ashore or be in other difficulties. The First Lord said it was nothing but a question of expense, but I think that it would be a very good thing if we spent a little more to make those stations applicable not only to naval purposes, but also to the saving of life at sea. With regard to the more general question of the relations of the Navy to the merchant service, I read with the greatest interest the verbatim report of the right hon. Gentleman's speech on Monday, and I could not help noticing that he laid special stress on the eight new cruisers which were going to be built. He said that they were the fastest, cheapest, and smallest vessels protected by armour that have been built. There was not a word in the speech with regard to any cruisers being built for the protection of trade routes. With the expenditure, which we all agree to be absolutely necessary, it seems to me that it is inadequate if it does not provide the necessary cruisers to protect the trade of the country. It is obvious that the merchant service pays a very large proportion of the taxes, and stands in a peculiar position;
  2020
  it therefore has special claims for the protection of the Navy. I feel confident that in the Estimates there is not sufficient spent on this particular department of the Navy. I ask the First Lord to take special note of the two points I have brought before his notice.
  Lord C. BERESFORD: I sympathise with the First Lord, but this is the only chance I have of standing tip for the men and stating their grievances. First, with regard to the engineer officers. The Admiralty promised them twenty-four shillings a day, and they are getting only eighteen shillings. I deliberately charge the Admiralty with having broken faith with these officers, and I make the public charge in the hope that the matter will be looked into. The next case is that of the engine-room artificers. Faith has been broken with them. The mechanician is not the man to be placed over the man who originally taught him. The engine-room artificer has been trained to his trade; the mechanician has not. This is well exemplified in the admiral's barge. You have a leading stoker driving the engines, but he does not see the little thing that goes wrong with the machinery, because he does not understand the building of an engine or a boiler. If that little thing, which an artificer would see, were put right it would save laying up the boat for four days, or even a week or two. You want to drive the engine and to be in command of the engine-room a man who understands the make of an engine and boiler, not a man who does not.
  In regard to the stoker, there are plenty of responsible good billets you can give the mechanician, but I do not think you are-going to get the mechanician to do the work of the engine-room artificer. The Admiralty circular—I do not know who can have written it; it cannot have been an engineer officer—says that they want engine-room artificers to be there to do their jobs of repairs and maintenance. When are they going to do it? You have fewer men who understand engines and boilers than you had before, to do more work. You cannot do anything at sea. You can take off a few covers or ease a few joints, but you cannot do anything in the way of repairs and maintenance of the engines and boilers at sea. You have to do it in harbour. It is a mistake to have those men in that position. I do not say a word against the mechanicians, they are perfectly excellent, but they are not trained to do engines and boiler

  2021
  work. That is my point. There are plenty of billets which they deserve that you can put them into, and you can give them warrant rank more in proportion to their numbers than they have got at present. But do not cause discontent and bad comradeship by putting a class of men—and it was done for cheapness!— over others when they do not know the work as well. Then there is the question of the carpenters and shipwrights, but if the hon. Gentleman tells me that that is still under consideration I will not press it.
  Dr. MACNAMARA: Yes.
  Lord C. BERESFORD: There is next the question of a free kit. The soldier, policemen and postmen all get a free kit. The naval man's work makes his clothes wear out much quicker than other hard work. In blacking the rigging or gun drill a man may spoil his suit; his work thus is far more liable to destroy his clothes than is that of any other department in the Service. He does not get a free kit. I have brought this thing forward and even written to the Admiralty about it. I do not want anything done in a hurry, but I want something done. When I joined the Service in 1859 the soldier cleared 2d. a day—that is all he had in barracks—I am only making the comparison, Mr. Whitley, I am not going into the Army Estimates—and the position of the soldier has improved enormously in his pay, rations, and kit—and not a bit too much. But a comparison between the pay of the men of the Army and the Navy reveals an astonishing difference, especially when it is considered that that of the Navy was so enormously better than the Army. Navy pay has not advanced in comparison with every other department of the State.
  I know what the argument of the right hon. Gentleman will be, and it will be a sound one in some ways. "You," he will say, "take the comparison of corporals and sergeants who are far less in number to the men than are the petty officers and the subordinate ranks." That is so. But that does not get rid of the question. A recruit gets 1s. 2d.; so does an ordinary seaman. A private gets from 1s. 6d. to 1s. 9d.; an able seaman only 1s. 8d. A lance-corporal gets 2s.; a leading seaman only 1s. 10d. A corporal gets 2s. 8d.; a petty officer, second class, 2s. A sergeant gets 3s. 4d.; a petty officer, first class, 2s. 8d. to 3s. A colour-sergeant gets
  2022
  4s. 10d.; a chief petty officer 3s. 4d. to 4s. A soldier gets a free kit; a sailor does not. I know these charges will cost a certain amount of money, but the first thing you have to do in any service in the world is to make the lower ranks contented by treating them fairly. This is the only chance any of us have of bringing forward the case of the men. They are disciplined, silent, loyal, therefore it is left to those of us who, like myself, know the feelings of the men, and their case exactly, to put it forward. As I said, I do not want anything done in a hurry, but I want the question of the pay of the officers and men to be thoroughly looked into; and I feel confident that it will be seen, in fairness and justice, that some improvement ought to be made.
  Colonel YATE: I appeal to the First Lord of the Admiralty to give us some assurance to allay the anxiety which is felt very largely throughout the country as to the steps taken for the protection of our food supplies in time of war which might be forced upon us at any time. This matter is of vital interest to the workmen of the country; it is they who would first feel the strain, as they would be the first to lose their employment and the price of food would go up. The Royal Commission reported on the question of food supplies but nothing has been done. One question as to the removal of the Fleet from Malta to Gibraltar. Are the garrisons at Malta to be increased to enable Malta to defend itself better in the absence of the Fleet? Will the regular Artillery and Infantry retained there be increased, or will larger garrisons be put in there to enable Malta to hold out when the Fleet is away?
  Question put, and agreed to.

  WAGES, ETC., OF OFFICERS, SEAMEN, AND BOYS, COASTGUARD, AND ROYAL MARINES.
  Resolved, "That a sum, not exceeding £7,627,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expenses of Wages, etc., to Officers, Seamen, and Boys, Coastguard, and Royal Marines, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1913."

  VICTUALLING AND CLOTHING TOR THE NAVY.
  Resolved, "That a sum, not exceeding £2,628,100, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Victualling and Clothing for the Navy, including the cost of Victualling Establishments at Home and Abroad, which will come in course of

  2023
  payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1913."

  HALF-PAY AND RETIRED PAY.
  Resolved, "That a sum, not exceeding £955,800, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Half-Pay and Retired Pay to Officers of the Navy and Marines, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1913."
  NAVAL AND MARINE PENSIONS, GRATUITIES, AND COMPASSIONATE ALLOWANCES.
  Resolved, "That a sum, not exceeding £1,516,200, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expenses of Naval and Marine Pensions, Gratuities, and Compassionate Allowances, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1913."
  CIVIL SUPERANNUATION, COMPENSATION ALLOWANCES, AND GRATUITIES.
  Resolved, "That a sum, not exceeding £413,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Civil Superannuation, Compensation Allowances, and Gratuities, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1913."

  NAVY (EXCESS), 1910–11.
  Resolved, "That a sum, not exceeding £100, be granted to His Majesty, to make good Excesses of Navy Expenditure beyond the Grants for the year ended on the 31st day of March, 1911."
  Resolutions to be reported to-morrow (Thursday); Committee to sit again tomorrow.

WAYS AND MEANS.
Considered in Committee.
1. Resolved, "That, towards making good the supply granted to His Majesty for the Service of the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1911 and 1912, the sum of £241,117 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom."
2. Resolved, "That, towards making good the supply granted to His Majesty for the Service of the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1913, the sum of £59,072,100, be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom." —[Mr. Masterman.]
Resolutions to be reported to-morrow; Committee to sit again to-morrow.
And, it being after Half-past Eleven of the clock upon Wednesday evening, Mr. DEPUTY - SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned at Half after Twelve o'clock.

  Kingstown Harbour Dues.
  Kingstown Harbour Dues.
  Finance Act (Reversion Duty).
  Finance Act (Reversion Duty).
NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.
  ORDNANCE FACTORIES.
  ORDNANCE FACTORIES.
  Royal Military College.
  Royal Military College.
  Regular Forces (Government Appointments).
  Regular Forces (Government Appointments).
  Territorial Force.
  Territorial Force.
  War Office (Superannuation).
  War Office (Superannuation).
  Cordite Manufacture (Acetone).
  Cordite Manufacture (Acetone).
ROYAL NAVY.
  NEW CONSTRUCTION.
  NEW CONSTRUCTION.
  SCHAPPED BATTLESHIPS.
  SCHAPPED BATTLESHIPS.
  Fishing Industry, Iveragh, County Kerry.
  Fishing Industry, Iveragh, County Kerry.
  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  North Antrim Harbours.
  North Antrim Harbours.
  Pier at Ohermong.
  Pier at Ohermong.
  Evicted Tenants (Ireland).
  Evicted Tenants (Ireland).
  Old Age Pensions.
  Old Age Pensions.
  Leeds City Boundaries.
  Leeds City Boundaries.
  Poor Law Children (Emigration to Canada).
  Poor Law Children (Emigration to Canada).
  Asiatic Seamen (S.S. "Oceana").
  Asiatic Seamen (S.S. "Oceana").
  Labour Exchanges (Appointments).
  Labour Exchanges (Appointments).
COAL STRIKE.
  CURTAILMENT OF TRAIN SERVICES.
  CURTAILMENT OF TRAIN SERVICES.
  Canadian Steamship Services (Subsidies).
  Canadian Steamship Services (Subsidies).
  Foreshore Rights (Seaview).
  Foreshore Rights (Seaview).
  Drombane Postal Service.
  Drombane Postal Service.
  Postal Motor Cars.
  Postal Motor Cars.
  Johne's Disease in Cattle.
  Johne's Disease in Cattle.
  Hyde Park Corner.
  Hyde Park Corner.
LOTHIAN RAILWAYS BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a, and committed: The Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.

GAS COMPANIES (BENEFIT FUNDS) BILL. [H.L.]
Moved, That the Bill be divided into five Bills, viz.:—

Brighton and Hove General Gas Company Bill.

Lea Bridge District Gas Company Bill.

Maidenhead Gas Company Bill.

North Middlesex Gas Company Bill.

Southgate and District Gas Company Bill.

That the Reports of the Examiners on the Gas Companies (Benefit Funds) Bill be held to apply to the Brighton and Hove General Gas Company Bill, the Lea Bridge District Gas Company Bill, the Maidenhead Gas Company Bill, the North Middlesex Gas Company Bill and the Southgate and District Gas Company Bill; and that the Petitions praying to be heard by Counsel, &c., against the Gas Companies (Benefit Funds) Bill [H.L.] be deemed to have been presented against the Bills to which they relate; agreed to.

CONSOLIDATION BILLS.
The evidence taken before the Joint Committee from time to time to be printed, but no copies to be delivered except to members of the Committee and to such other persons as the Committee shall think fit until further order. (No. 18.)
REGISTRATION OF FIRMS BILL. [H.L.]
A Bill to provide for the Registration of Firms and persons carrying on business under Trade Names—Was presented by the Lord Rotherham; read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a on Tuesday next. (No. 19.)

LLANBRADACH SCHOOL.
THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH*THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH rose to call attention to a correspondence between the managers of the Llanbradach non-provided school and the Board of Education; and to ask His Majesty's Government for an explanation of the delay.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, in calling attention to the case of the Llanbradach non-provided school, I am glad to be able to assure your Lordships that the correspondence to which I shall he obliged to refer is not a lengthy one, but as the whole of it affects this question very directly I think I must deal with each letter. The correspondence in regard to this matter commenced on June 21, 1911. A letter was then written by Mr. Edwards, the correspondent of the school, complaining that the four certificated teachers at the Llanbradach non-provided school are paid salaries lower than those paid by the local education letter that the managers had already made several applications to the local education authority in vain, and that they now felt it their duty formally to appeal to the Board of Education under Section 7 of the Act of 1902. To that letter the only reply received from the Board of Education was a bare acknowledgment upon a postcard.
Mr. Edwards made a second application. He wrote again on December 1, 1911. To that application the official reply was again a bare acknowledgment upon a postcard. Then Mr. Edwards made a third application. He wrote the following letter on January 9 of this year to the Secretary of the Board of Education—
"The managers desire the decision of the Board of Education upon an appeal dated June 21 last year regarding the salaries of certificated teachers. We cannot understand this long delay. Meanwhile our teachers are leaving us for posts in provided schools."
That is a rather remarkable correspondence on the part of the Board of Education—certainly most economical both in courtesy and in the extent of any information at all. When this was brought to my notice I took a great deal of trouble to ascertain how the matter stood as regards the efficiency of this particular school, and I find, upon careful investigation, that this is not an inefficient or what may be called a small or trumpery school. The average attendance of children during the last year was 360, the school has always earned the highest grants, and the reports of His Majesty's inspector have been satisfactory. I do not wish to trouble your Lordships by quoting all the reports of recent years, but I will read an extract from the last report—

545
namely, the report for 1910. This is what His Majesty's inspector says—
"The general management is marked by much intelligence, and die head teacher deserves credit for his success in maintaining the efficiency of the school in difficult circumstances."
The circumstances are certainly very difficult, when it appears that it has been the policy of the local education authority, more or less connived at by the Board of Education, to refuse to give the teachers in this school their proper salaries.
As I say, the school has earned the highest grants, and the reports of His Majesty's inspector have been satisfactory. I have also ascertained that the school authorities have carried out all the improvements and repairs that the Board of Education desired, and that they are not in any default at all. I am not open to the charge that I am in any way ecclesiastically minded, but it does seem to me that in regard to the treatment of this school fair and equitable administration and consideration by the local education authority should be maintained. The first letter written by Mr. Edwards to the Board of Education was dated June, 1911. On April 6, 1911, the Swansea judgment was given. That judgment was unanimous. I do not desire to trespass upon your Lordships' indulgence by reading that judgment at any length, but it bears so very much upon the peculiarities of this particular case that I should like to read part of the judgment. The Lord Chancellor, in the Swansea judgment, made use of this language—
"In some of the judgments in the Courts below it is affirmed, as a matter of law, that under this Act a local authority is not entitled to differentiate between schools in regard to the scale of salaries or the standard of efficiency in the absence of special circumstances appropriate to the differentiation. If a local authority does differentiate without such circumstances, it would be cogent evidence of an intention to starve the less favoured school, but it would he no more than evidence of such an intention all the more cogent if the discrimination were due to political or to sectarian prepossessions. I do not find anything, however, in the Statute itself which prohibits the local authority front doing for some schools more than it does for others even if the circumstances are indistinguishable."
But the noble and learned Earl went on to say—
"At the same time, I must observe that such treatment is a strong circumstance which the Board of Education are bound to scrutinise, in order to satisfy themselves that the discrimination does not involve any lowering of the proper standard of efficiency in the schools for which less is done."
546
It is perfectly clear, therefore, that in the Swansea judgment three things are maintained as self-evident—that is to say, the local education authority must act impartially, its discrimination must not be due to political or to sectarian prepossessions, and its discrimination must not involve the lowering of the proper standard of efficiency in the school. Those are the Lord Chancellor's own words; and my noble and learned friend Lord Shaw, who also was one of the Law Lords adjudicating upon this matter, said—
"I do not doubt that the local education authority must act impartially."
The facts which have come to my notice, and which I have ventured to bring before your Lordships this afternoon, certainly convey to me, and I think will convey to all impartial minds, the feeling that in regard to this matter the local education authority must have been actuated by political and sectarian prepossessions, and that the result of their action—I confess it seems to me a very mean and shabby action—in not granting adequate salaries to the teachers in this school does and must involve the lowering of the proper standard of efficiency in the school. I have stated the facts as they are. What is the official explanation? The President of the Board of Education wrote a letter to The Times on February 28 in which lie made an apology in regard to this matter. He said that the great pressure of work consequent on his appointment, and the fact that his attention had not been directed to this matter until the last day of the autumn session, had prevented him from being able to give a definite reply in regard to it, and he expressed the opinion that before he could adjudicate upon the matter he must ascertain the facts, and that for this purpose it might be necessary to hold a public inquiry or series of public inquiries. That is a very good apology as regards the present President of the Board, but in making a good case for himself he entirely gave away the case of his predecessor. I admit that so far as the present President of the Board of Education is concerned he made a good case, but the Education Office must be a most extraordinary public Department if questions affecting schools are hung up for an indefinite time in this way, and do not receive any consideration or courtesy at all.
All the applications made by Mr. Edwards were merely acknowledged upon a postcard.

547
No reason was given, and it really is a monstrous thing that schools of this or of any kind should be left indefinitely in this position. That is the case of this particular school, and I wish to ask His Majesty's Government whether they will give us, not only an explanation as to why there has been this extraordinary delay on the part of the Board of Education in treating this matter seriously or in considering it in a business way, but some assurance that this matter is not going to be delayed any longer. The delay, to my mind, has been a gross scandal, and has resulted in a grave injustice as regards the particular teachers in this school.
THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (EARL BEAUCHAMP): My Lords, I am glad to think that in this matter the chief facts, as enumerated by the noble Earl opposite, are not in dispute between us. The Board of Education recognise fully the efficiency of the school to which the noble Earl has referred, and neither with regard to that nor with regard to the principle is there really any serious difference between the two sides of the House. It is really more a matter of Departmental administration. The noble Earl somewhat cursorily, but accurately, referred to the fact that there have been changes in the Board of Education within the last few months. Your Lordships know that there was a new President appointed. This, of course, involved some delays in matters brought before the head of the Department. Then after the new President came into office there was a change with regard to the Permanent Secretary of the Board, because Sir Robert Morant accepted a position under the National Insurance Act. Soon afterwards, or at the same time, another important official of the Department accepted a post outside the Education Office; and these three changes, as any of your Lordships who have had experience of Departmental administration will recognise, led to considerable dislocation of business inside the Office.
As the noble Earl informed your Lordships, the matter was brought seriously before the attention of the President of the Board at the end, of the last session of Parliament. The President considered the matter during the recess. Orders were given at the end of January that informal communication should be opened up with the
548
authorities concerned, and on February 5 and 13 the letters of complaint which had been received from the managers were forwarded to the authorities. The President has been informed within the course of the last month by the Glamorganshire Local Education Committee, in whose area this particular school lies, that they are fully prepared in respect of two of the non-provided schools—subject to the teachers entering into agreements with the Council—to comply so far as the Act and their own agreements allow with the conditions of service in these schools, and to settle the salaries of the teachers in accordance with the standard observed in the provided schools. With reference to this particular school, the sub-committee in charge of the matter recommended, at their meeting on Thursday last, that the Board of Education should be informed that the committee would be prepared to deal on the merits with applications for increases of salary subject to reasonable improvements in the premises being carried out by the managers, the committee to take into consideration whether the managers will allow the teachers to agree to observe and comply with the committee's regulations. This communication has been referred to the Board, who are now taking legal advice on the position created by that decision.
The President of the Board wishes me to say that he hopes that satisfactory arrangements may be arrived at without its becoming necessary either to hold an inquiry or to take any further steps. I feel that there is no necessity to assure your Lordships that the Government are as anxious as any noble Lords opposite to see that the law is observed, and if there is proved to be any breach of the law steps will be immediately taken to enforce it. I hope that this recital of the events which have happened so recently will satisfy the noble Earl that, although there has been some delay, which we regret, owing to the changes in the Office which I have already described, the matter is now seriously taken in hand by the President of the Board; and if the results of his action are not thought to be satisfactory to the noble Earl, I trust that he will raise the Question again at a later date, when the results of the action which has so recently been taken by the local education authority will be fully available for the information of your Lordships, and you will then be in possession of the full facts of the case.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, I should like to say a single word about this matter. I should be sorry to comment unfairly upon the fact of the delay alluded to by the noble Earl who brought forward this subject, in view of the apologia that has been offered on the ground first of all that the offices of President of the Board of Education and then of Chief Permanent Secretary had passed to different hands during the intervening months. If this case stood entirely alone and that was the explanation offered we should desire, hard as it is upon the individuals affected, to give the kindliest possible licence to the Department. But, my Lords, it is not an isolated case.
What we have to complain of in these matters, not in this case alone but in others, is that there is an apparent disregard of the immense practical and tangible harm that is being done to poor teachers by the long delay which arises in the settlement of these matters, in which, it is true, only a few pounds are at issue, but those few pounds are of vital importance to the persons concerned. In this particular case the head teacher of the infants' school has, I believe, a salary of£70 a year, whereas the corresponding teacher in the Council school in the same neighbourhood receives£120 a year. The attention of the local education authority was called to this last spring. The local education authority did not meet the representations which had been made, and the Board of Education then had their attention called to the matter on June 21 of last year. We are now at the end of March, and, to take a single example out of several, the lady who receives a salary of£70 a year as compared with the corresponding salary of£120 in the Council school has been suffering that loss during the whole of these intervening months. It is urged upon us by way of explanation that that particular grievance could not be set right because the Presidency of the Board of Education and then the Permanent Secretaryship changed hands. It strikes me as somewhat startling in the case of a great Department like the Board of Education if that really is the explanation.
I do not underrate for a moment the difficulties of the Board of Education, in present circumstances, in Wales and perhaps elsewhere with regard to troubles of this kind. But the question is not a new one. It did not require to be thought out for the first time. It is a matter which has been before the Board before, which was
550
thoroughly threshed out in the Swansea case, and which was familiar to the whole of the staff at the Board. I do venture to hope that if we accept now as adequate the explanation that has been given—that the changes that have taken place in the Board are the real reason why this matter has not been attended to before—principles will as soon as possible be laid down which can be rather more speedily put into operation in the future so that such delays as this may not occur. To some members of this House the evil and loss incurred may seem insignificant, but they are wrongs of a formidable kind to the humbler individuals who are practically affected, and who look to this House for the relief which is required.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: My Lords, I am bound to say, if the most rev. Primate will allow me, that he has taken a very generous and lenient view of the action of the Board of Education in this matter. He has told us that to a certain extent he accepts the explanation given by the noble Earl—namely, that there had been changes in the Board. I myself was President of the Board a Education and many changes took place in the first few months that I was there, but I should never have ignored for Party purposes any matter that came before me or have made such an excuse as has been made to-day for delay. There can be no question that one of the reasons for the delay in this matter was the fact that one of the Ministers who represent the Board of Education had no friendly feeling towards this school at Llanbradach.
Although the fact that the present President of the Board is new to his duties may be taken as an excuse for so many months having been allowed to go by without the letters in connection with this school having been answered, I should like the noble Earl to tell me what Mr. Runciman was doing from the month of June last year, when the first application was made to him, till the end of October when he left the Department. He cannot deny that he was approached on this matter. The noble Earl has read the letters. Therefore I should like to hear from the noble Lord who will reply to me what was Mr. Runciman's reason for taking no notice whatever of the letters of the board of managers on this matter. As a result hardship has been brought to bear on the teachers of this school, whose salaries have for so long been kept below the level of those in the Council schools.
I notice that correspondence took place

551
only a short time ago between the Board of Education and the managers of the Llanbradach school, and I find that Mr. Trevelyan, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board, in March, in defending the Department's inaction, said that the Board had something else to do with the local authorities than to quarrel with them over religion. I venture to say that a statement such as that is unworthy of a Minister representing the Board of Education, and I should be glad to hear from whoever follows me how he can justify such a sentence as that. This I venture to think explains the partisan character of the action of the Board of Education in connection with this school. The dispute in question is not over any matter of religion. It is over the question of the salaries of the teachers. Those teachers have to carry out the instructions given them by the managers, and if they did not do so they would not be retained in their places. Therefore to deal with these teachers in this manner is most unfair and unjustifiable. I must say that when listening to the speech of the noble Earl in which he endeavoured to account for the delay that had taken place I could not help contrasting the hurry of the Government at the present moment to establish a minimum wage for coal miners with their unwillingness to secure a minimum wage to teachers in denominational schools. I hope this matter will be inquired into, and I trust that we shall not in the future have an example of such partisan action brought before the attention of your Lordships.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (VISCOUNT HALDANE): My Lords, the noble Marquess speaks as though it were a simple and easy matter to get over the difficulties which have arisen and which do arise in cases like this. No one knows better than himself, from his own experience when he presided over the Board of Education, what those difficulties are in Wales and in other parts of the country—difficulties which arise from causes into which I need not enter now. I have only to say that the Board of Education are anxious to see that the law is complied with, that they are using the means in their power which they think most likely to lead to a speedy settlement of the matter in dispute, that to resort to more hurried and violent means would probably defeat the purpose they have in view, and that they are endeavouring as rapidly as they can to get rid of a very difficult situation, as to which they have good hope that the difficulties will shortly be surmounted.

THE ARMY.
THE DUKE OF BEDFORD*THE DUKE OF BEDFORD had the following Notice on the Paper—
To call attention to the statement of the Secretary of State for War on the 20th February 1912, "I never reduced any home battalions; what I did was to reduce the battalions abroad." (Official Report, 20th February, page 119.)
To ask the Secretary of State for War to define a home battalion of the Regular Army.
To call attention to the number of troops left in the United Kingdom in the event of the departure abroad of the six Divisions of the Expeditionary Force.
The noble Duke said: My Lords, in the first Question which I have placed on the Paper I ask the noble Viscount to kindly explain to me what is exactly a home battalion of the Regular Army, and I ask the question for this reason. On February last the noble Viscount told us—
"I never reduced any home battalions; what I did was to reduce battalions abroad."
That statement leaves me at a loss to understand what the noble Viscount means by a "home battalion." I have always regarded the Guards as home battalions, in the sense that they were stationed at home, but the noble Viscount has disbanded one Guards battalion and has sent another abroad. The result is a reduction of two home battalions. But, of course, the Guards are on a different footing for foreign service from the Line. A Line battalion stationed at home is referred to as the home battalion. The noble Viscount told us he never reduced any home battalions; but, on referring to the Army List for March, 1906, I find that four out of the eight Line battalions reduced were stationed at home at that moment; so I am puzzled to know what the noble Viscount means by a "home battalion," and before dealing with battalions left at home I venture to ask the noble Viscount, to define a "home battalion."
VISCOUNT HALDANE: The noble Duke has asked me a question which I think I can answer without very much difficulty if he will allow me to refer to what I said on the occasion which his question touches. In the debate in the other House on March 8, 1906, I pointed out in some

553
detail that battalions at home fed battalions abroad, and I said that I should be guilty of an act of lunacy if I reduced battalions at home. The words I used were these—
"If you pass from personnel to units you find that whereas in 1896–7 there were 142 battalions of the Line, to-day there are 156 battalions, a very substantial increase."
Some had been put on under the administration of the noble Marquess opposite for general purposes, and others had been put on for the purposes of the war. I continued—
"And of them [that is, of the 156 battalions] only 71 are at home against 85 abroad."
The noble Duke will appreciate the significance of that—
"Looking a little more closely into the details of the increase, I find to-day that the Guards have been increased by 3 battalions and that 14 battalions of the Line have been added between 1807–8 and the present time. That is to say, we have 17 more battalions to-day than we had at that time, and the whole increase of 14 units of the Line has been used for the purposes of arrangements abroad."
Then I went on—
"There was a rumour the other day in the papers that I had decided to recommend the abolition of 10 home battalions of the Line. I tried to describe that rumour correctly as a nidus equinus, which is a polite and classic way of calling it a 'mare's nest.' If I had decided to do anything of that kind, it would have been in military eyes tantamount to insanity. For many years past we have been working in this country under what is called the Cardwell system, and the theory of this system is that the best way of training your recruits is to link your battalion at home with the battalion abroad…The result of our system of training is that our battalions at home in time of peace are nurseries or training schools for supplying troops to India and the Colonies. In time of war it is different."
That is what I said at that time, and the answer as to what a home battalion means is that it is a feeding battalion—a battalion which is there for the purpose of keeping alive and supplying with seasoned men a battalion which is abroad. On July 19, 1906, I explained it all over again, and if the noble Duke wishes to have the details he will find them in the report of the debate which took place in the other House on that day. As regards the Guards, there was a reduction of one battalion, but it was made for quite another reason, which was admirably explained by the noble Earl opposite (Lord Portsmouth) who was at that time Under-Secretary of State for War in Sir
554
Henry Campbell-Bannerman's Administration. Lord Portsmouth then said—
"I now come to the question of the Guards. The noble Marquess the Leader of the Opposition, when he occupied the position of Secretary of State for War in February, 1897, in order to justify the increase of the G cards used these words: 'It must, however, be clearly understood that we are able to recommend this increase and to justify the expenditure which it involves only upon condition that we are allowed to make arise of the brigade to help us in overcoming our difficulties, and to require from it a reasonable contribution towards the relief of the present strain on the Army system.'"
The noble Earl went on to say—
"But this purpose was never fulfilled…They are not required for the Expeditionary Force, and they have no share in that other great duty of the Army at home—the providing of drafts for the forces that garrison the outposts of the Empire."
The result of that view, which was expressed on July 26, 1906, and which exactly stated the policy, was that I battalion of the Guards was reduced and I was sent to Egypt. As I have said, in 1906–7 the position of matters was this: there were at home 10 battalions of Guards and only 71 battalions of the Line, and 85 battalions of the Line were in South Africa and other Colonies, in Egypt, and in India. In 1907–8 the position had not even then been got right. There were at home still 8 battalions of the Guards; 71 battalions of the Line were at home and 77 abroad. That was after the reduction of 8 battalions of the Line and I of the Guards had taken place. In 1908–9 the position was no better, because in consequence of disturbances in China an extra battalion had to be sent there. There were 70 battalions of the Line and 8 battalions of the Guards at home; there was in Egypt I battalion of the Guards, and there were 78 battalions of the Line abroad. But in 1909–10 we got the policy completely carried out and established the Cardwell balance. The result was that in 1909–10 the state of things was established which exists at the present time—namely, 8 battalions of the Guards were at home and I battalion abroad; 74 battalions of the Line were at home and 74 battalions of the Line abroad. I have now, I think, explained entirely what I mean by home battalions, and I have told the noble Duke what the state of things now is as compared with the previous state of things. I do not know whether the noble Duke wishes me to deal with the second part of his Question now, or whether he would prefer to say something upon it before I reply.
THE DUKE OF BEDFORD: I am obliged to the noble Viscount for his answer to my first Question. But four battalions of the Line were at home when they were reduced. Were they not feeding battalions If 74 battalions of the Line are at home and 74 abroad the noble Viscount seems to think that that balance adds greatly to the safety of the United Kingdom. Personally I should have thought that if we had 84 battalions at home and 74 abroad we would have been in a stronger position.
I will now proceed to the second part of my Question, which is to call attention to the number of troops left in the United Kingdom in the event of the departure abroad of the six Divisions of the Expeditionary Force. By the statement based on mobilisation returns dated June 1, 1911, the number of troops left at home after the departure of the six Divisions of the Expeditionary Force is given at 410,000. The noble Viscount the Secretary of State for War speaking at a distribution of prizes to Territorials at Edinburgh on January 8, 1911, is reported to have thus described this force—
"If the whole of the Regular Expeditionary Force of this country were out of the country, we should still have 410,000 men left trained and organised for defence. We should have 100,000 of the Third battalions. Then there are the Regulars, Royal Engineers, and Garrison Artillery, the Territorials, coast defence troops, and finally there is a central force organised so as to proceed swiftly to whatever point is attacked."
The 410,000 men described by the noble Viscount as trained and organised for the defence of the United Kingdom convey the impression of a great Army with a full complement of officers and men more than sufficient for all our needs. But when we come to examine these numbers in detail matters are by no means so satisfactory.
On the departure of the six Divisions we shall be left with four Regular Infantry battalions, three Regular Cavalry regiments, eight Royal Horse Artillery batteries, and nine Field Artillery batteries. These are the only organised units of Regular Artillery, Cavalry, and Infantry left at home. There are besides shown on the Return many Regular details which in non-military language may be described as "odds and ends" and of no manner of use for a field Army. The noble Viscount told us on November 20 last that the central field force is organised partly of Territorial units
556
and partly of Regular units. If the noble Viscount carries out this combination of Regular and non-Regular forces to which he is pledged, he can hardly do so with less than one Regular Infantry Brigade and three Cavalry regiments. We see, therefore, that all the Regular Cavalry and all the Regular Infantry battalions surplus to the requirements of the Expeditionary Force must be included in the central field force. That means that there will be no Regular Cavalry regiments or Regular Infantry battalions in Ireland, or in Scotland where there are important naval bases. London will be left without a single Regular Infantry battalion or regiment of Cavalry at a moment when the ranks of the Police are weakened by calling out the Army Reserve and the stress and strain of a great war are upon us. I do not believe that any Government will ever allow such a state of affairs. It shows the futility of talking about sending six Divisions abroad.
We have recently had some remarkable experiences at home which it would be folly to ignore. His Majesty's Government have employed troops in aid of the Civil power six times between June 26, 1907, and February 9, 1912. We have learnt by experience that we have in London a large hostile alien population. The First Lord of the Admiralty, when Home Secretary, took the field, or rather the pavement, in person not very long ago and was present at an engagement in Stepney, when he witnessed the discharge of some hundreds of rounds of ball ammunition down the streets of the metropolis. But far more serious were the events of last August. At that time His Majesty's Government found themselves compelled to employ a large number of troops in aid of the Civil power. The noble Viscount, speaking in your Lordships' House on August 22 said, in reference to the state of affairs then prevailing—
"It is obvious that even so, and even with the 58,000 troops we had at our disposal and ready, all of whom it was not necessary to use but the greater part of whom were used, it obviously was not possible to cover every point."
Now the disturbed area was then limited to England and Wales. No troops were used in aid of the Civil power in Scotland, although troops were used and in considerable numbers at a later date in Ireland.
No one would seriously contend that internal disturbance cannot synchronise with external war. The probabilities are

557
the reverse. We are bound, therefore, to consider what troops would be available to aid the Civil power after the departure of the Expeditionary Force. First come the Regular troops. By the plan of the noble Viscount to which he is committed, their place is in the central field force which is to swoop swiftly down on any point attacked. They cannot form the backbone of the central field force and at the same time be detached hither and thither to aid the Civil power. Again, their numbers are wholly insufficient. Why on February 8 last, there were seven Infantry battalions to say nothing of other troops employed in aid of the Civil power in Belfast alone, to enable a Cabinet Minister to deliver a speech in time of profound peace, and we are to be left with only four battalions during the excitement and tension of a great war. We know by experience, and by the statement of the noble Viscount, that last August the numerical equivalent of two Divisions was not sufficient to cover the whole ground when the area of disturbance was limited to England and Wales. Instead, of the equivalent of two Divisions we are to be left with four battalions and throe Regular Cavalry regiments none of whom can be detached front the central field force, and none of whom are consequently available for duty in aid of the Civil power.
Next come the Third and Fourth Battalions of the Special Reserve. I will take the officer question first. The number of officers who remain at home must depend upon the number sent abroad. The noble Viscount has to make good a shortage of 600 Regular Infantry officers in the battalions of the Expeditionary Force previous to their embarkation. He proposes to draw upon the Regular officers attached to the Special Reserve for this purpose. The noble Viscount drew a distinction the other day between the Third and Fourth Battalions of the Special Reserve. In answer to Lord Midleton he said—
"They will be taken from the 74 battalions which do not go abroad. They will be the 74 battalions at the depôts whose function is largely that of training though they do defence work. It is not like taking them from a unit which is going abroad."
The Fourth Battalions are to go abroad; the noble Viscount has often told us that; consequently they cannot be available for home defence. On the point of officers, there is another reason which must have
558
influenced the noble Viscount when he told us on March 6 that—
"He was not going to take the Regular officers from the Fourth Battalions who are to go abroad,"
namely, that he had done so already. All Regular officers have been withdrawn from the Fourth Battalions with the exception of the adjutants and the quartermasters. So much for the Fourth Battalions.
Each Third Battalion has five Regular Company officers, which gives a total of 370 available to meet the deficit of 600, leaving a shortage of 230 to be made good by another call on another Reserve of Officers before the Expeditionary Force sails. The noble Viscount stated on March 6 that—
"In the Reserve of Officers there were at present 791 Infantry officers after allowing 40 per cent. for officers who for various reasons may not be forthcoming. That figure by itself would wipe out the 595."
But what is the real state of the case? There are at present in the Reserve of Infantry officers 129 captains and 38 subalterns who are resident in the United Kingdom and not now serving in any military force and have not left the Army more than three years. These 167 are the only officers in the Reserve of Officers qualified and available for duty as company officers in the battalions of the Expeditionary Force, but 167 is a very different figure from 791 and will not wipe out the deficit of 600. By drawing upon these Reserve officers and by making a clean sweep of all Regular company officers attached to the Third Special Reserve Battalions the noble Viscount cannot make good the deficit of 600 Regular Infantry officers for the Expeditionary Force, but must again draw on some other sources. There is but one other possible source of supply for officers sailing with the Expeditionary Force and who are to command companies in action within a fortnight of rejoining, and that is to take Regular officers away from Territorial battalions. Does the noble Viscount mean to do that? I hope he does. I think it is the only plan, because any other will wreck the Infantry of the Expeditionary Force by sending them into their first great action, upon which so much will depend, under the command of a lot of incompetent officers.
But then how are we going to be left at home for infantry officers? That is a

559
question for the noble Viscount to explain, but I am afraid he will have to rely largely upon that class which he described the other day as—
"the people who in the case of the South African war came forward without being under any obligation to do so, and often rendered very useful service."
The Third Battalions of the Special Reserve are to absorb all immature Line soldiers and incapable Reservists, and are estimated by the noble Viscount at a total strength of 100,000 men. Of these 50,000 are Special Reservists, and according to the estimate of the noble Viscount 55,000 are Regulars, but Regulars who are immature boys from the Colours—of these there will be upwards of 30,000—and unsound men from the Regular Reserve and the Line. These battalions are to act as fixed garrisons for the defence of naval ports. How can a fixed garrison move about the country in aid of the Civil power? Then they are to train recruits; but how can they train recruits when their instructors, the Regular officers, have been removed? These battalions, by their composition as well as by the duties assigned to them, are quite impossible for duty in aid of the Civil power or yet for home defence. Besides, the noble Viscount has told us that the Third Battalions of the Special Reserve are not for mobilisation. They form a large drafting pool. All the same the noble Viscount at Edinburgh included these 100,000 men amongst his list of troops trained and organised for defence. Their training is of the slightest; their organisation for defence, without an adequate supply of officers and non-commissioned officers, without transport and without any Brigade organisation, is nil. Before leaving the Special Reserve I would observe that the Return includes the 27 Fourth Battalions who must by the plan of the noble Viscount go abroad; that means a decrease of 15,000. Then the first contingent of drafts must leave, if not at the same time immediately after the Expeditionary Force for the base overseas; that means another 15,000 gone abroad—a drop of 30,000 all told. Again, the Return is calculated at a moment when the Regular Reserve is at its highest, but the Army Annual Return tells us that the first class Regular Reserve will drop by 40,000 men before the end of next year.
Lastly, we come to the Territorial Army, which would, of course, be embodied.
560
Many questions have been asked as to the legal liability of the Territorial soldier being used in aid of the Civil power. On March 16, 1909, the noble Viscount was asked whether the men of the Territorial Army could be used to aid the Civil power to put down strikes or any kind of disturbances, and he replied—
"The Territorial soldier can be called upon to aid the Civil power only when he is under military law on the occasions set forth in Section 176 (6a) of the Army Act. The hon. Member must be well aware, from the full explanation I have given on the subject, that the Territorial Force cannot be called out or embodied in whole or in part in aid of the Civil power for the purpose of putting down riots or disturbances."
The noble Viscount has referred us in this answer to that section of the Army Act which governs the Territorial Force in its duties in aid of the Civil power. Under the Army Act the Territorial Force can be used in aid of the Civil power when out for training or when embodied on permanent service. A man in the Territorial Force is a soldier enlisted under Section 10 of the Army Act, and when out for training or on embodied service is in precisely the same position as a soldier in the Regular Army except that the Territorial soldier cannot be sent out of the United Kingdom; that is the only difference. The question is, Do His Majesty's Government propose to use the Territorial Force in aid of the Civil power in the absence of the Expeditionary Force? For they have no other military force available. If they do intend to use the Territorial Army for this purpose they should inform the country and the officers and men of the Force. I should not wonder if this particular use of the Territorial Force came as a surprise to both. For this I cannot help thinking that the noble Viscount's answer, which I have already quoted, is partly responsible. The noble Viscount said that the Territorial Force cannot be called out or embodied in whole or in part in aid of the Civil power for the purpose of putting down riots or disturbances. That statement by itself has only one meaning—namely, you cannot use the Territorial Force in aid of the Civil power. But read it with the section of the Army Act quoted by the noble Viscount and it will mean the opposite. The country and many members of the Territorial Force do not trouble to read up subsections of the Army Act even when they are given a reference, and consequently have misapprehended the true meaning of the noble Viscount's statement. I cannot conceive

561
any Government using the Territorial Army in aid of the Civil power, but the Civil power cannot be left unaided and unsupported. The question is what force is to discharge the duties in aid of the Civil power in time of war for which 58,000 men of the Regular Army were found insufficient in the limited area of England and Wales in time of peace.
The noble Viscount has already contemplated the impossibility of his own plan of sending all six Divisions abroad at one time, because on November 20 last he told us that—
"arrangements are also made to include in the central force two Divisions of the Regular Army if, when the necessity for taking expeditionary action arises, the Territorial Force is not considered capable of undertaking the duties of home defence without the aid of Regular troops."
It is perfectly certain that such few Divisions of the Territorial Army which would be available to act as a field force cannot undertake to meet Continental troops without the help of far more than four Regular battalions, three regiments of Cavalry, and eight batteries of Horse Artillery. Two Divisions of Regular troops must remain for the central force and for aiding the Civil power.
Then as to the garrison of Ireland. I wish the noble Viscount would tell us if he really means to garrison Ireland in time of war by means of the boys of the Territorial Army, stiffened by the National Reserve but unaided by any Regular force. I am sure that the National Reserve will add a very stiff element to the Territorial Army. But I am not sure if the National Reserve is liable for service in Ireland. Perhaps the noble Viscount would tell us. Of course, common sense tells one that one Regular Division must remain in Ireland, so that three Divisions will be available for the Expeditionary Force. In conclusion I ask, What is the use of going on talking about a striking force of six Divisions when you know quite well you cannot strike with those six Divisions?
THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH: Before the noble Viscount replies, perhaps I might be allowed to put to him one or two questions with regard to the condition of the force which would remain behind provided the whole of the six Divisions of the Expeditionary Force had gone abroad. I will assume that you have
562
410,000 troops of sorts left in this country. Let us suppose that of that number you have 260,000 Territorials. Now the Territorial Army is organised, but I wish to ask the noble Viscount a question specially in reference to the remaining 150,000 men composed of Regulars and of Special Reservists. As far as I understand, these 150,000 men have no mobilisation equipment. I am not aware that there is any war establishment for these battalions. As regards horses, Colonel Seely stated in another place that the Expeditionary Force would require on mobilisation 44,000 horses and the Territorial Force 84,000 horses. But so far as I can discover, he made no allowance for the 8 Horse Artillery batteries of Regulars and the 33 field batteries of the Special Reserve and Regulars which will be left over in this country. I want to know how that matter stands, and how we stand as regards horses for the equipment of these men who will be left behind. Of course, 410,000 men may seem to the public a very large number of soldiers, and naturally they say, "This Army of 410,000 would be well able to deal with a possible invasion of 70,000 men." But, after all, we want to know that these 410,000 men are properly equipped and organised for mobilisation. I take it that they will largely form part of enormous depôts. It is obvious that when the Expeditionary Force leaves there must be considerable drains upon officers, and it would be interesting if the noble Viscount were able to give us some figures which would show what the Infantry portion of these 150,000 men is in numbers of officers and men excluding, of course, Garrison Artillery and Engineers. In other words, I hope that the noble Viscount may be able to tell us what mobilisation equipment there is for these 410,000 men. How would they be able to act? Would they be able to act as a military force, or would they be merely a mob of soldiers in depôts?
VISCOUNT HALDANE: The noble Duke raised some questions about officers which I think are scarcely covered by the terms of his Notice on the Paper, which relates to troops left at home. The other day, however, he raised the same question and I then gave him a very full statement of officers, which included some sources that he has not mentioned. My statement appears in Hansard, and I would refer the noble Duke to it. As regards the other

563
matters to which he alluded, they come within the terms of the Notice standing in his name on the Paper, and I will answer them. The noble Duke has been haunted by many nightmares, some of which are more serious than others. He has made many permutations and combinations to show what a terrible position we might be in. All I can say is, If you take every possible thing that can happen, such as, for instance, the whole of the civil population, or a large part of it, rising in rebellion at the same time as an invasion takes place, you cannot provide for it. Moltke was once asked what provision he had made for three Powers attacking Germany instead of two. His reply was, "I have made none and Germany must take care of herself." And so the noble Duke and I will have to take care of ourselves without any assistance of an adequate description from the Government of the day if the civil population rises to an enormous extent in rebellion at the same time an an invading army lands upon these shores. Those are not contingencies against which it is possible for any Government to prepare.
Then as regards the Territorial Force, the noble Duke said that if it may conceivably be used for the purpose of putting down civil not it ought to be told so, and he said it did not understand so at the present time. The public know quite clearly that the Territorial Force cannot be called out or embodied for the purpose of putting down riot, but when embodied the soldier, be he Territorial or Regular, is in the same position in this matter. The noble Duke and I would be called upon at once to act as special constables if the State required our services, and while I think he would probably be a great deal more efficient than I should be, I should none the less be under a legal obligation to lend what assistance I could, and so it is with the Territorial Force. You cannot embody them for the purpose under the law, but when they are embodied they have to help the State and can be used just as freely.
I come to the other point. The noble Duke is haunted by the nightmare of the foreign water who might mobilise at Inverness. He has alluded to these waiters as dangerous persons. I think we can take care of the foreign water if the contingency arises. He then went on to the number of troops who would be left in this country
564
if the Expeditionary Force had all gone abroad. Well, the Expeditionary Force may have gone abroad. If it has gone abroad rashly in the face of very great peril, that will be the responsibility of those who sent it abroad. You cannot say beforehand whether or not you will send abroad the whole of your Expeditionary Force. You may send only four Divisions. It is impossible to forecast these things or to base hypotheses on a state of circumstances which may be infinitely different from those we contemplate. But, if the whole of the Expeditionary Force had been sent abroad, there would remain 410,000 men. "But," asks the noble Duke, "in what condition?" The Territorial Force, he admits, is organised; but he asks, What about the rest? And the noble Earl, Lord Portsmouth, put to me the question, Where is your mobilisation equipment for the other 150,000 men?
I explained fully in debate last session what was the plan of the General Staff, the plan that had actually been worked out and arranged for as regards these men. The number of 150,000 is too high. About 100,000 is the number. They are the men who are in the 74 battalions, and these are the battalions which are allotted for the defence of places that require defence, particularly naval ports and other places which require garrisoning. They are distributed, according to a plan, all over the coast of Great Britain and Ireland, and their duties are duties of local defence. They are not designed to be put into brigades, nor do they require mobilisation and transport arrangements of the order that are appropriate to mobile troops. They are there for the purpose of port defence, and unless you had them there you would have to supply their places with some other force. They are not scantily trained men, as has been suggested. They are men not only of the Special Reserve, but of the Regular Reserve. There is a surplus of Regular Reservists on mobilisation which goes into this number, and if the noble Duke will refer to a Return which was given on February 26 last in response to a Question put in the other House he will find the details. There are nearly 91,000 Regulars who will remain at home after the Expeditionary Force has gone abroad; in addition there are 55,000 Special Reservists, and there are 2,174 of the Permanent Staff of the Territorial Force, and 259,264 of the rest. There are still 2,267 of the Militia

565
Reserve Division, and that makes a total of 409,651. Of these Regular Reservists a considerable number are in the 74 battalions, which are brought up on mobilisation to the number of 1,100 or 1,200 apiece. They serve the purpose of training drafts. They are constantly taking in recruits and sending recruits out, and owing to their size and the way in which they are organised they are capable of fulfilling the double function of training troops and affording defence to those places which require this kind of defence. Of course, they have not got mobilisation equipment in the way of transport because they are not intended to be mobile, but they have all the other necessary equipment.
As to the horses required for the Cavalry, the scheme of classification of horses has been to a very great extent carried into operation. It has covered already a great part of the country. We have classified a great many more than enough horses to provide for the Regulars, and in a short time we shall have classified more than enough to provide for the Territorials; and there will still be a large number over to provide for wastage and for extra requirements. I quite agree that, like any other army in the world, we require more horses in war than we have in peace, but under this plan we shall get not only what we want but more than we want. We take every step we can to make up the number of horses required by the Cavalry. Last September we purchased 650 horses and added them to the establishment of the Regular Cavalry, and in the Estimates this year 20 horses have been added to every Cavalry regiment at home. If the noble Earl will look further at what was said in the Statement on the Estimates he will see that we provide for the Cavalry horses being of a better type than they have hitherto been. Up to now our Army has suffered because the horses were too young for their work, and there was, accordingly, great wastage. Four new training depots are being established, one in Ireland and three in this country, to which horses as they are bought for the Cavalry will be sent, and when they have been thoroughly hardened and trained, then, and not till then, will they go to the regiment. Some of the seasoned horses of the regiments will probably be boarded out under a new system which we are arranging, but they can be got back at a few moments' notice; and while they are being boarded
566
out the younger horses will be becoming seasoned in the depots awl will be brought up to the mark. In that way we hope to have an adequate supply of horses for the Cavalry. As the noble Earl knows, there is a system now under which, for the purpose of encouraging horse-breeding, there is considerable expenditure on the part of the Board of Agriculture in stimulating horse-breeding, and our plan is to buy the horses young and send them to the four Cavalry training depots which I have described, and from there introduce them in a hardened condition into the Cavalry.
As regards the Artillery, it is not so easy. There you have to rely to a great extent on what horses you can get. Until lately we had these admirable bus-horses, which were a valuable stand-by. I am afraid we cannot reckon on these admirable horses much longer, and we are taking such steps as we hope will enable us to provide substitutes for them so as to keep the Artillery in a satisfactory condition. You do not, of course, want such highly-trained horses for the Artillery as you do for the Cavalry, but you do want good strong horses. One of the most anxious problems which we have at the present time is to keep our hand on a sufficient supply of hardened horses for the Artillery Still, I hope that the steps we are taking will result in its being solved. I think I have now covered the question about the horses. I would only add this, that all the 410,000 men are organised men. They are all in either the 74 Special Reserve cadres or in other cadres or in the Territorial Force. Besides that, in an unorganised form, you get what you may realise from the National Reserve. That Reserve has already in the very short space of its life reached about 70,000. That list is being classified. There is very little doubt that it will increase strongly in the future, and in that list there is a very large number of capable men on whom in an emergency we might rely to come forward and render assistance of various kinds. Some of them are highly trained non-commissioned officers who could take commissions, if necessary, at a pinch in the Territorial Force and in the Special Reserve. Others are men who would be invaluable for the seasoning of
the Territorial Force, taking the place of untrained recruits and mobilising the Territorial Force up to its strength. I therefore think that, considering that the

567
410,000 men apart from that source numbers nearly six times the 70,000 which is the conceivable maximum against which you ought to provide, and having regard to the principles of naval strategy which were propounded the day before yesterday by my right hon. friend the First Lord of the Admiralty in his speech in the House of Commons, and to the fact that the Navy is our first, and, for that matter, our second line of defence, even when the whole of the Expeditionary Force had been sent abroad we are not left in such a condition as to give rise to fears or apprehensions of unknown terrors.
THE DUKE OF BEDFORD: I asked the noble Viscount the question, how he
568
is going to garrison London when the six Divisions of the Expeditionary Force are out of the country. The noble Viscount has not given me any answer to that, nor to the question of the garrisoning of Ireland.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: You have available the Third Battalions, then you have the Territorial Force, and then you have a certain number of Regulars to draw upon very sparingly and carefully. The two great sources would be the Territorial Force and the Special Reserve.
House adjourned at a quarter before Six o'clock, till To-morrow, half-past Ten o'clock.