Sitting of 14 November 1917

Preamble
The House met at a Quarter before Three of the clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.
NEW WRIT.
For the County of Armagh (North Armagh Division), in the room of William Moore, Esquire, K.C., a Judge of His Majesty's High Court of Justice in Ireland. —[Lord E. Talbot.]
DISEASES OF ANIMALS ACTS.
Copies presented of Order No. 9,898, dated 6th November, 1917, described as the Cardiff Irish Animals Landing Place Order of 1917 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  WAR

    INDIAN ARMY (PAY AND ALLOWANCES).
    1. Colonel YATEasked the Secretary of State for India why the new rules issued in August last regarding the pay and allowances to sick and wounded officers of the Indian Army should be dependent upon the War Office or the Treasury as to the date of their application, which was fixed for the 17th February, 1917; and whether, considering that it is the duty of the India Office and the Government of India to provide for the sick and wounded officers of the Indian Army, he will now arrange to pay the increased charges on account of these allowances from Indian revenues, with effect from the date of the commencement of the War?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Herbert Fisher): The consent of the War Office and the Treasury was necessitated by the fact that under the Parliamentary Resolutions of 16th September and 96th November, 1914
    352
    which determined the liability of Indian revenues in respect of the charges of Expeditionary Forces dispatched from India, the additional allowances sanctioned under the new rules fall to be borne by Imperial revenues.
    Colonel YATE: May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman will not take into consideration the fact that the Indian Army are under the care of the India Office and the Government of India and will he do anything to put those officers, sick and wounded officers, on a proper footing?
    Mr. FISHER: Under the arrangement made between the Secretary of State for India and the Army Council it was settled that the net cost to be borne by the War Office should equal the actual cost incurred by us—the cost that would have been incurred if the troops had remained in England. It follows from that, as the hon. and gallant Member will appreciate, that the full cost of all officers and men on sick leave falls upon the War Office.
    Colonel YATE: I am sorry to say I do not appreciate that at all. I ask if he will give this allowance from the India Office dating from the commencement of the War?
    General Sir IVOR PHILIPPSWill the right hon. Gentleman see that British officers in the Indian Army and British men in the Indian Army do not suffer owing to some red-tape procedure between the War Office and the India Office?
    2. Colonel YATEasked the Secretary of State for India under what circumstances the reimposition of Indian Income Tax on the pay of officers of the Indian Army serving in Persia has been sanctioned; and whether, considering that the levy of Indian Income Tax from the pay of civil officers serving in Persia was abandoned in 1910 as being illegal, he will take steps to put a stop to the imposition of Income Tax on the pay of officers of the Indian Army now serving in Persia?
    Mr. FISHER: I am not aware that Indian Income Tax is being recovered from officers of the Indian Army serving in Persia. Such a course would be contrary to the practice of the Government of India in recent years. If the hon. and gallant Member will furnish me with any instances in which tax is being recovered, I will have inquiry made.
    Colonel YATE: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to inquire from the Government of India if it is so?
    Sir J. JARDINE: Can the right hon. Gentleman point out whether this is imposed by virtue of powers of the Indian Legislature or whether it is a mere executive order of some sort?
    Mr. FISHER: I am not aware that this tax has been imposed.

    NATIONAL SHIPYARDS.
    3. Mr. G. LAMBERTasked the First Lord of the Admiralty who is advising his Department in the establishment of new national shipyards; and whether the House can have the estimate of cost prepared for the War Cabinet?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): A large number of practical shipbuilders are at present in the service of the Admiralty and are acting as advisers in carrying out the details of the Cabinet policy of establishing national yards.
    The names of the principal of these are:
    Major J. W. Hamilton, chairman of Messrs. W. Hamilton and Company.
    Lieutenant-Colonel J. Lithgow, senior partner of Messrs. Russell and Company, director of Robert Duncan and Company, and director of Messrs. Napier and Millar.
    Mr. Noel E. Peck, director of Messrs. Barclay, Curle and Company, Limited, director of Messrs. Swan, Hunter and Wigham Richardson, Limited, vice-president of the Shipbuilding Employers' Federation, chairman of the Clyde Shipbuilders' Association.
    Mr. W. Rowan Thomson, senior partner of Messrs. David Rowan and Company, chairman of North-West Engineers' Association.
    Major Maurice Denny, partner of Messrs. Denny Brothers, of Dumbarton.
    Lieutenant-Colonel J. Mitchell Moncrieff, R.E., M.Inst.C.E., an eminent civil engineer, experienced in the construction of shipyards and public works generally.
    As regards the last part of the question, I am afraid I can do no more than to refer. my right hon. Friend to the reply I gave to him yesterday to an unstarred question,
    Vol. 99.
    Mr. LEIF JONES: May we take it that any estimate of the cost has been prepared at all?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: They are in course of preparation. If the right hon. Gentleman will look at my reply to an unstarred question he will see what I stated there on the subject. When prepared, they will be submitted to the Treasury.
    Mr. G. TERRELL: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us more detailed information about these shipyards?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I am afraid I can add nothing to what I have said.
    4. Mr. G. LAMBERTasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether it is proposed to increase the number of engineers and fitters in order to man the new national shipyards, or whether skilled men will be withdrawn from present yards or works?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: There is no intention of calling upon private yards to provide any labour for the new national shipyards, though we may by agreement secure the services of a limited number of foremen from the private yards, and, indeed, from our own Royal dockyards. Labour for the national shipyards will have to be drawn from sources other than privately owned yards.
    Mr. LAMBERT: May we take it that labour will not be diverted to these national shipyards until the present shipyards are fully utilised?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: That is so except that we may get a few foremen by agreement.
    Mr. WATT: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether these shipyards will be spread fairly over the various Kingdoms, and that each will have its share?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: They will be placed in the localities best suited to serve the interests of the country.
    Mr. G. TERRELL: Are these yards to be permanent shipbuilding yards or merely temporary yards to meet the present emergency
    Dr. MACNAMARA: They will be to some extent, at any rate, permanent national shipyards, though whether on the scale to which they may develop for war. purposes I cannot say.
    Mr. TERRELL: Maintained and controlled by the State?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Certainly.
    8. Commander WEDGWOODasked the Secretary to the Admiralty, with reference to the new national dockyards, if he will say what arrangements have been made as to acquiring land both for dockyards and housing and as to recovering the betterment in land values likely to arise in adjoining areas?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: In the one case in which matters have proceeded so far as to raise the questions to which my hon. and gallant Friend refers, all the land which has been and may be required for the new national shipyard will be taken possession of under the Defence of the Realm Regulations. Such part of that land and of any adjoining land as is required for the permanent purposes of the shipyard will be purchased under the Defence of the Realm (Acquisition of Land) Act. As regards housing, my hon. and gallant Friend knows the obligations under which we are placed in the matter of providing temporary accommodation under Standing Order of the House of Commons No. 184A. As regards permanent housing, here, as elsewhere, we shall certainly make ourselves responsible for seeing that in any national institution under our direction sufficient housing accommodation is provided.
    Mr. TERRELL: Can the right hon Gentleman say where this particular land that has been acquired is situated?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Oh, yes, at Beasley.
    Mr. CHANCELLOR: Will the right hon. Gentleman deal with the last part of the question as to recovering the betterment in land values likely to arise in adjoining areas?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: We are proceeding under the Defence of the Realm Regulations and the Acquisition of Land Act. As to whether under these Statutes we can acquire land for the purpose of securing betterment in connection with these operations, I do not feel myself called upon to give an interpretation: that is a matter for the Law Officers.
    Mr. RAFFAN: In view of the great importance of this question, is not the Government looking further ahead than the application of the Defence of the
    356
    Realm Act, and is the cost of borrowing in the surrounding areas to be higher owing to the increased land values going into the pockets of private, owners?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: If my hon. Friend will look at the Acquisition of Land Act, I think he will find that his question is partly answered.
    Mr. WATT: Is one of these four dockyards to be in Scotland?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I am afraid I cannot say that.
    Mr. TERRELL: What is the area that has been acquired, and the number of ships that the dockyards are capable of turning out?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I do not know whether I can answer that. But the hon. Gentleman might put a question down. I cannot state it now, because I do not know it.

    MERCANTILE TONNAGE LOSSES.
    5. Commander BELLAIRSasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, in view of the fact that the information cannot benefit the enemy, whether he will give figures which will include all British Empire mercantile vessels of over 1,600 tons and all such posted as missing and are still missing for the first six months of this year under the following heads: British mercantile tonnage of over 1,600 tons where the loss is due to enemy action, whether by raiders, mines, or submarines; loss due to other causes; and, finally, for shipping of over 1,600 tons the tonnage damaged by mines and submarines which managed to reach port and is not therefore included in the tables published of ships sunk from week to week?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: My hon. and gallant Friend bases his question on an incorrect assumption; it is considered that such information can benefit the enemy. It is, therefore, not considered desirable in the public interest to give the tonnage figures asked for.
    Commander BELLAIRS: May we take it that the Admiralty recognise that the First Lord's figures are necessarily incomplete unless the ships posted in Lloyd's as missing are included, and also ships damaged by mines or submarines and which have to go to shipyards for long repairs?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I should like notice of that question. Damaged ships are not included in the figures.

    LOSS OF CONVOY (NORTH SEA).
    6. Sir IVOR PHILIPPSasked the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the officers and men serving on destroyers and patrol boats in the recent convoy affair in the North Sea, who lost their clothing and kit owing to enemy action or in providing for the pressing wants of survivors rescued by them, have been provided with other clothing and kit at the public cost, or whether they have to pay one-third the value of such clothing; and, if so, under what Regulation is this stoppage of pay made?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Officers of the Royal Navy and branches of the Reserves receive compensation in respect of the loss of articles of uniform and appointments due to a casualty of the Service to enable them fully to re-equip for further service. Men in similar circumstances are re-kitted from Service stocks without any expense to themselves. Reasonable compensation is also given to officers and men who provide articles of clothing to meet the immediate necessities of survivors from action, etc. In the cases of men, the awards are limited to two-thirds of the full value of the articles when new, this proportion being considered sufficient, having regard to the fact that generally the clothing supplied would be partly worn. The claims of officers are dealt with on similar principles on their merits.
    Sir I. PHILIPPS: Am I right in assuming that if a man loses, say, a boat cloak, when he is provided with a new boat cloak to replace the one lost in action the State charges him one-third of the cost of the cloak?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: No, Sir, that is not so. The answer shows that if he loses his kit in action it is replaced. If he gives some of his kit to some other survivor, in that case he gets two-thirds of its original cost.
    Sir I. PHILIPPS: In this particular case if a sailor helps other sailors who have been rescued from the sea and to save them from death gives them his kit he has to pay one-third of that and is, therefore, penalised by his action?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: That is so.
    Mr. BILLING: Does that apply also to the men of the Royal Naval Air Service?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: It is general in the Service to all, but I should like to have an opportunity of confirming the point as regards the Royal Naval Air Service.
    Sir I. PHILIPPS: Will my right hon. Friend see whether he cannot alter this Regulation under which our sailors suffer great pecuniary loss through their humanitarian action of saving the lives of our own sailors at sea?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I anticipated my hon. and gallant Friend's comment by putting that very aspect of it to the naval authorities, and they replied that they thought it quite equitable to pay for an old suit two-thirds of its new value. However, I will put the point again.

    GREECE.
    9. Mr. LYNCHasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the importance and the public interest of the documents which reveal the intrigues of ex-King Constantine and his Queen, he will now reconsider a previous decision and publish them in a Blue Book?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Balfour): I cannot feel that the interest of such a publication would justify the labour and expense involved, but a copy of the Great White Book, which contains all the information desired by the hon. Member will be placed in the Library of the House.
    11. Mr. LYNCHasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will state by whose authority Prince Nicholas of Greece was given facilities to undertake a voyage to this country and thence to Germany on a mission dangerous to the best interests of the Allies; and whether any other persons besides Prince Nicholas and Prince George have been given similar facilities; and, if so, whether a statement will be made of the circumstances?
    Mr. BALFOUR: Prince Nicholas of Greece came to England on his way back from Russia. His visit was of a private character. He was given no special facilities, nor did he, so far as I am aware, proceed to Germany on leaving this country. The second and third parts of the question do not, therefore, arise.
    Mr. LYNCH: I give notice that I shall raise this question on the Adjournment to-morrow night in view of the protection extended in this House to members of that dynasty.
    Mr. BALFOUR: I said there was none.

    DIPLOMATIC SERVICE.
    10. Mr. LYNCHasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of recent revelations which indicate the state of competence of the Diplomatic Service abroad, he will forthwith inaugurate the system under which an income of £400 a year will not be considered a higher claim to employment than talent, energy, or aptitude for public service?
    Mr. BALFOUR: While I cannot accept the lion. Member's description of the present system, I hope that it may be possible to adopt the proposals of the recent Royal Commission, though I fear this cannot be done until the end of the War, because the candidates whom we hope to enlist are at present otherwise employed.
    Mr. LYNCH: Then, in fact, the right hon. Gentleman does not hold that talent begins with the fatidic sum of £400 a year?
    Mr. BALFOUR: I refuse to accept that part of the question in which the hon. Gentleman reflects upon the Diplomatic Service, which has done extremely good work under exceedingly difficult circumstances.
    Mr. LYNCH: In Athens?
    Sir J. JARDINE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the objection taken by the witnesses, among others, to this qualification of £400 a year excludes nearly all the people of Scotland?
    Mr. BALFOUR: I do not take that view of the average income in Scotland any more than in the case of England or Ireland.
    Mr. R. HARCOURT: Does the right hon. Gentleman consider that the Foreign Office would be justified in paying junior clerks and attaches a commencing salary of £400 a year?
    Mr. BALFOUR: I have explained to the House that there has been a Committee sitting, and that they have made
    360
    recommendations. We have not yet been able to carry out the recommendations, but hope to as soon as the War permits us. I do not know that I can answer in detail as to the evidence given before the Committee, or that the House would wish me to do so.
    Mr. LYNCH: Is it a fact that the sum of £400 was fixed so as to prevent the possibility of corruption, and is not corruption more likely to follow by the possession of £20,000?
    Mr. BALFOUR: I am afraid it is quite beyond my powers to judge the comparative temptation to corruption between the possession of a capital sum and an income.

    PERSIAN GULF.
    12. Sir J. JARDINEasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he intends to fulfil the promise made on 29th June, 1914, by his predecessor of presenting to the House the Papers, including the text of agreements and covering. dispatches relating to agreements, some signed and others initialled and ready for signature, made, some with Turkey and others with Germany, about the Bagdad. Railway and kindred matters, the navigation of the River Tigris, and generally about our interests in the Persian Gulf?
    Mr. BALFOUR: No, Sir; and I would. refer the hon. Member to the reply returned to him on the 15th of March, 1915,. which will explain my reason for not laying the documents in question.

    CHINA, JAPAN, AND UNITED STATES.
    13. Mr. KINGasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the recognition by the United States that Japan has a special interest in China implies that Japan's right to concessions and commercial interests in China is superior to that of the other Allies; and, if so, whether the British Government has recognised the special interest of Japan in China?
    Mr. BALFOUR: It is not the function of His Majesty's Government to interpret what is or is not implied in agreements signed by friendly foreign Powers. With regard to the last part of the question,

    361
    there has been no recent change in. the attitude taken up by His Majesty's Government.
    14. Mr. KINGasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can give information concerning the agreement recently signed by China, Japan, and the United States, by which Japan and the United States reaffirm the principle of the open door in China; whether this agreement acknowledges that all nations, including Great Britain, shall have equal access to trade in China; and whether the text of the agreement, will be published?
    Mr. BALFOUR: His Majesty's Government are not aware that any agreement has been signed recently by China, Japan, and the United States. The text of the Notes recently exchanged between the American and Japanese Governments was published in the " Times " of 7th November.
    Mr. PEMBERTON BILLING: Surely it is the business of the Diplomatic Staff to find these things out, is it not?
    Mr. KING: Can we know whether communications on this subject have passed between the British and Chinese Governments, and whether the Chinese Government is in entire agreement and supports the arrangement entered into between Japan and America?
    Mr. BALFOUR: To what subject does the hon. Gentleman refer?
    Mr. KING: The open door.
    Mr. BALFOUR: It is not mentioned in his question.
    Mr. KING: Yes.

    PEACE PROPOSALS.
    15. Mr. TREVELYANasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether M. Ribot, as stated by M. Briand, communicated the German peace offer made through M. Briand to the British Foreign Secretary; and whether, in refusing to consider it, the Foreign Secretary consulted the other Allied Governments?
    Mr. BALFOUR: I would refer the hon. Member to the replies which I gave on this subject on Monday. To those I have nothing to add, but the hon. Member must
    362
    not, therefore, assume that there is any foundation for the implication contained in the second part of the question.

    CEYLON.
    16. Mr. MORRELLasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that the ten cases of shooting without trial after the Ceylon riots which are dealt with in Sir John Anderson's dispatch of 26th May are cases taken from a single district of the island and are only a small proportion of the outrages that in fact occurred; and whether, in the interests of justice, he will direct that a general inquiry should now be held, so that adequate reparation may be made to the widows and relatives of those who have suffered?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Hewins): I am aware that all the cases of shooting investigated by the local Commission of Inquiry took place in one area. But many other allegations of illegal shooting have been examined by the Governor, who has furnished Reports to the Secretary of State; and these ten cases were picked out by my predecessor as alone demanding further inquiry, since he was satisfied that in the other cases the facts were not as alleged by the petitioners, and that the firing that took place was justified by grave disorder actually existing at the time. I see no reason for further inquiry, and I have confidence that Sir John Anderson will grant reparation in all proper cases.
    Mr. MORRELL: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, with regard to these ten cases, the Government has stated repeatedly that there was no foundation for the allegations made; is it not, therefore, likely that with regard to the other cases where similar allegations have been made that the denial of foundation for them is equally fallacious?
    Mr. HEWINS: Well, we have gone into all these cases with the greatest care, and I can assure my hon. Friend that the situation is as I have described it.
    Mr. L. JONES: Does my hon. Friend realise that over 200 people are in prison serving sentences inflicted under similar procedure to that which these people were dealt with; if. so far as we know, no investigation has been made in their case,

    363
    is it the purpose of the Government not to hold an investigation into these other cases?
    Mr. HEWINS: I have fully dealt with the case in reply to two or three recent questions. I do not think I have anything to add.
    Mr. P. A. HARRIS: Did not the hon. Gentleman's predecessor inquire and report on all these charges?
    Mr. HEWINS: That question has been raised on several occasions and has been replied to.
    Mr. KING:Why has it not been properly answered?
    Mr. HEWINS: I think it has been properly answered.
    17. Mr. MORRELLasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that Mr. John George Fraser, C.M.G., who was appointed a Special Commissioner for the Western Province to inquire into the Ceylon riots, issued a public Proclamation, dated 10th June, 1915, in which he stated that persons not obeying orders will be shot at sight; whether he is also aware that similar Proclamations were issued by the Government agents in other provinces, and that as the direct result of these Proclamations, which were interpreted by the subordinate officers as a commission to administer lynch law and other outrages committed, a large number of persons were shot without charge or trial; and whether any steps will be taken to bring home to Mr. Fraser his responsibility in the matter?
    Mr. HEWINS: I would refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply given to him by my predecessor on the 14th November, 1916, and to the replies to similar questions by the hon. Member for Westmeath on the 23rd April last, and on other occasions. I cannot admit the accuracy of the hon. Gentleman's allegations, and I know of no reason for attributing to Mr. Fraser any responsibility in regard to the cases of illegal shooting which have formed the subject of inquiry.
    Mr. MORRELL: Has the hon. Gentleman read the evidence of the Commission appointed by Sir John Anderson, and is he aware that in the evidence it is stated again and again that the people who committed these illegal acts did so because they thought they were justified under the Proclamations issued by Mr. Fraser
    Mr. HEWINS: I have read not only the Papers to which my hon. Friend alludes,. but I have read all the Papers.
    Mr. OUTHWAITE: Would it not be possible to get Lord Bryce to issue a judicial. report on these atrocities?
    Mr. HEWINS: I do not think any further report is necessary.
    Mr. RAFFAN: Does the hon. Gentleman propose to act on the Report he has. received?
    Mr. HEWINS: We have been acting. upon it all the time.

    CLYDE CANAL.
    7. Colonel YATEasked the Secretary to the Admiralty whether, considering that the whole question relating to the proposed construction of a ship canal from the Clyde to the Forth is being considered by the Government, including that of the route, the attitude hitherto maintained by him, namely, that so far as the Admiralty are aware the construction of this canal is not contemplated has now been abandoned?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: My hon. and gallant Friend presumably refers to an answer given by me on the 20th January, 1916, to the effect that, so far as the Admiralty were aware, the construction. of the canal was not then contemplated. As already stated on more than one occasion recently, the matter is now under the consideration of His Majesty's Government.
    Colonel YATE: Am I to understand from that answer that, considering the importance of this canal to Rosyth Dockyard, that the Admiralty will now do their best to push forward the construction of this canal?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Oh, no. I cannot give any undertaking as to the construction of it. There are rival routes, as to which there has been no decision.

    EAST AFRICA OPERATIONS.
    18. Mr. KINGasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can give any information concerning the 1st South African Rifles (Nyassaland

    365
    Imperial Service Contingent) and the 2nd South African Rifles (Union Central African Imperial Service Contingent); whether he is aware that these are the only two regiments which have been continuously in East Africa since more than two years ago the German South-West Africa campaign was concluded; and whether, in view of the severity of the climate in East Africa and the number of their casualties, he can announce that these regiments will be withdrawn from their present field of operations?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Macpherson): The 1st and 2nd South African Rifles have served in East Africa for the period mentioned, but it must be remembered that, in common with other units in the field, they have been constantly maintained by drafts from the Union of South Africa. It is, therefore, probable that the number of men who have been in East Africa since the first arrival of those units is very small. Recently, both have, to a large extent, been employed on lines of communication or at instructional centres, under relatively easy conditions. It is regretted that the military situation does not at present admit of the withdrawal of these units, but the policy of the War Office is to substitute native for white troops in this theatre of war to the fullest possible extent.
    Mr. ARCHDALE: Is it not the case that the 1st Kings African Rifles has served at least as long, if not longer, than the two regiments referred to in the question?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I believe that is the case.
    25. Colonel YATEasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the fact that the accredited correspondent accompanying the Forces operating in East Africa is on the sick list and unable to send reports, he will arrange for the appointment of another correspondent to take his place, particularly as no reports whatever have yet been received from any newspaper correspondent in East Africa?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: The selection of accredited correspondents does not rest with the War Office, but with the Press. All possible facilities will be granted to any correspondent selected.
    Colonel YATE: Considering the entire absence of any news from East Africa to
    366
    the public, will the War Office try to arrange that a newspaper correspondent shall be sent there?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: As I have said, the War Office is perfectly prepared to give every facility to any correspondent selected by the Press.

    WOUNDED SOLDIERS (RELATIVES' VISITS).
    20. Mr. STANTONasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if he will grant a free pass to the parents or guardians of wounded soldiers so that they may travel upon any railway to see their wounded relatives; and will he consider some better method of arrangement so that the wounded may be placed nearer their homes and friends?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Forster): Arrangements are already in force for the issue of a free warrant to a relative in the case of dangerous illness, and of cheap vouchers in other cases. Every effort is made to locate patients as near their homes as possible, but my hon. Friend will realise that it is not always possible to arrange this.

    MILITARY SERVICE.

      CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS.
      21. Mr. HOGGEasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether the present and third sentence on Mr. E. Scott Duckers has been commuted by the Army Council so as to enable him to be released from Maidstone Gaol to 24th November, after serving over eighteen months in different civil and military prisons; whether it is proposed to recall him to the Army again; and, if so, whether he can say what public purpose is likely to be served by the repeated and continuous release and retrial of men who are and have been long before the War opposed on principle to the whole system of militarism?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: I am unable to say on what date Private Scott Duckers will be due for discharge, as I am unaware of what remission he may have earned whilst in civil prison. In view of the fact that Private Duckers has not been released

      367
      from military service, the question of his recall does not arise. With regard to the latter part of my hon. Friend's question, I am afraid I can at present add nothing to the general statements which have frequently been made in the. House regarding the treatment of these cases.
      Mr. WHITEHOUSE: May I ask whether Mr. Scott Duckers—[HON. MEMBERS: " Private !"]—will be again arrested for the same offence, and again sentenced?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: Private Scott Puckers will be arrested if he does not perform his duties.

      RECRUITS (IRELAND).
      23. Mr. CHARLES PRICEasked what was the number of recruits obtained in Ireland during each month for the year 1915?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: I regret that it is not considered advisable to give this information in public.
      Mr. PRICE: Will the hon. Gentleman give it to me privately?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: Yes, if my hon. Friend will come to see me at the War Office.

      RUSSIAN SUBJECTS.
      24. Mr. ANDERSONasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he will have inquiry made into the case of Max Seidman, of 1, Calabria Road, Highbury, a Russian subject, aged thirty-five years and a skilled watchmaker, who, coming under the Military Service (Conventions with Allied States) Act, offered himself to two mechanical units, the Royal Naval Air Service and the Royal Flying Corps, but was told that men were not accepted unless they were British subjects of British parentage, despite the fact that men under this Act have the same opportunities of enlisting as British subjects; and whether he will state the position with respect to Russian subjects who enlist?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: Russian subjects desirous of enlisting voluntarily, or called up under the Military Service (Conventions with Allied States) Act, are dealt with in the same manner as British subjects, and are posted, if qualified as tradesmen, to the technical corps which may require them. The man to whom my hon. Friend refers has not been called up for service, I understand, and has not pre-
      368
      sented himself voluntarily for enlistment to the authorised recruiting officer. Further, he has not been attested, and has an appeal for exemption from military service pending.
      71 Major NEWMANasked the President of the Local Government Board the names of the Executive Council of the United Russian Committee who have assumed the powers of exempting, on the production of certain documents, Russian subjects of military age in this country; whether this Committee have already exempted more than 500 men; and how many of this Committee are themselves of military age?
      The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Hayes Fisher): I regret that I have not the information for which the hon. and gallant Member asks.
      Major NEWMAN: Why cannot I have the information?
      Mr. FISHER: Because I have not the information in my Department. The question should be addressed to the Foreign Office.
      72. Major NEWMANasked the President of the Local Government Board the number of special tribunals that have been set up to deal with the cases of Russian citizens liable for military service under the Military Service (Conventions with Allied States) Act; and how many cases of appeals have been disposed of by these tribunals and how many remain to be heard?
      Mr. FISHER: There is only one special tribunal for dealing with these cases, that for London. Over 8,300 applications have been received, of which more than 700 had been decided at the end of last week. Arrangements have been made by the tribunal for dealing with the cases expeditiously after the national service representative has made his preliminary inquiry into the applications. In other parts of the country the applications are dealt with by the ordinary tribunals, with the addition of special members in some instances.
      Major NEWMAN: Will the cases coming before the special tribunal be heard in the course of next year?
      Mr. FISHER: I do not know why the hon. and gallant Member should ask that. They will be heard as expeditiously as possible.

      CLASS W (RESERVE)
      27. Major HAYWARDasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that there are many men in Class W employed in the country who have received no papers or other evidence they can produce to prove their status, and, as a consequence, are liable to interference by the police and recruiting authorities; and whether he will order the distribution of the necessary documents to be expedited?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: Each man on transfer to Class W of the Reserve is given a certificate of transfer to the Reserve. There is no information in the War Office that men have been transferred without this certificate, and I should be glad to know of any cases of which my hon. and gallant Friend has information.

      MEDICAL STUDENTS.
      28. Mr. WATTasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether it is the intention of his Department, in view of the known shortage of medical men, to withdraw all medical students serving in combatant battalions, irrespective of their rank, and send them back in order to resume their studies; and, if so, at what date it is proposed to so act?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: I regret I can add nothing at present to the answer which I gave on the 30th of last month to the hon. Member for Blackburn.

      ARMY SERVICE CORPS MOTOR DRIVERS (PAY).
      22. Sir J. JARDINEasked the Undersecretary of State for War, with reference to Private W. H. Jamison, No. 150,684, Army Service Corps, British Expeditionary Force, whether, after he bad been accepted and served in the Mechanical Transport at 6s. a day, his pay bas been reduced to 2s. 4d. a day on the ground that he had made no application for enlistment before 10th November, 1915; whether, on 26th October, 1914, he applied for enlistment in the Mechanical Transport, Army Service Corps, was medically examined on that day by Captain William Turnbull Barrie, M.B., Royal Army Medical Corps (Territorial), and rejected on that officer certifying that, having failed to pass the test for vision, Private W. H. Jamison was in
      370
      eligible as a recruit for the Army; whether he is aware that, on the 21st October, 1915, he made another application and, at the request of the War Office, gave a reference about his capacity as a driver which was found satisfactory, whereupon he duly presented himself at the recruiting office at Hawick and was again rejected for rupture, but, on a special appeal to the War Office on 18th November, 1915, was accepted for service in the Mechanical Transport and received instructions to present himself on 27th November, 1915, at Galashiels for attestation; whether the reduction of pay from 6s. to 2s. 4d. a day has been made in this man's case after two years of service, of which eighteen months have been in France; and whether the War Office will have a careful inquiry made to prevent him being a loser through a misunderstanding of the dates and facts?
      Mr. FORSTER: The enlistment of Army Service Corps motor drivers at 6s. per diem closed on 10th November, 1915, and all men who enlisted after that date are entitled to ordinary rates only. This man was not attested until 27th November, 1915, and was consequently reduced to ordinary rates. It has now, however, been ascertained that he applied for enlistment before 10th November, 1915, and instructions have accordingly been given for his restoration to the 6s. rate from the date of reduction.

      EGYPTIAN EXPEDITIONARY FORCE (LEAVE).
      26. Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALDasked the Under-Secretary of State for War what arrangements are being made for men who, after certain long periods with the Egyptian Force, are entitled to leave that they may enjoy that leave?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer given on 23rd October to my hon. Friend the Member for East Leeds, and to the subsequent statement I made in Debate on the general question of leave.

      WAR DEPARTMENT (DELIVERY OF WOOD)
      29. Mr. BILLINGasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that on the 9th of November last a War Department lorry drew up outside

      371
      No. 1, Stanhope Gardens, S.W., and two soldiers in uniform proceeded to dump a quantity of logs of wood down the area of that house; whether, under these circumstances, he will say whether No. 1, Stanhope Gardens, has been taken over by the War Office; and, if so, having regard to the fact that this is a block of private flats, will he say for what purpose?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: I have made inquiries, but have not been able so far to discover any information about this matter. if the hon. Member could give me further information, such as the licence number of the vehicle, I shall be happy to prosecute my inquiries further.

      FOOD SUPPLIES

        TILLAGE.
        30. Mr. KINGasked the President of the Board of Agriculture how many acres were in the early months of this year scheduled to be ploughed up in the counties of England and Wales; how many acres have already been broken up; how many still remain to be broken up; and when will the full scheduled acreage be under arable tillage?
        The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Prothero): Complete information is not available as to the number of acres which have been scheduled by agricultural executive committees for breaking up, and in some counties the surveys are not yet completed. The board aim at securing the ploughing up of just over two million acres of grass for the harvest of 1918 over and above the 1916 area, and of this amount about 300,000 had already been ploughed by the beginning of June. No later figures are available. The full accomplishment of the task depends largely on the weather and on supplies of labour, and of tractor fuel.
        Mr. KING: Do the facts in the right hon. Gentleman's possession justify the expectation of the Prime Minister that next year this country will be, so far as food goes, self-supporting?
        Mr. PROTHERO: There will be a very large addition, I hope, made to the food supplies of the country, but how far the country, except with strict economy, can be made self-supporting in so short a time I am not in a position to say.
        Mr. RAFFAN: Arising out of the answer in which the right hon. Gentleman indicates that this development will depend upon the available supply of labour,. may I ask whether the Government are taking any steps to assist farmers?
        Mr. PROTHERO: They are taking a great many steps to assist them, but I think it must be quite obvious to the House that recent developments of the military situation may render the supply of labour somewhat precarious at the present moment.
        M r. BILLING: Will the right hon. Gentleman say what a farmer has to do exactly if he wants immediate assistance on his farm? To whom has he to apply?
        Mr. PROTHERO: If he wants labour he has to apply to the Labour Committee of the county, which is generally in the county town.
        M r. BILLING: I am speaking of the farmer who wants the assistance of enlisted men to work on the farm.
        Mr. PROTHERO: I have told the hon. Member. That is the answer.

        LAND CULTIVATION.
        31. Mr. R. LAMBERTasked how many acres were agreed on by the war agricultural committee in Wiltshire to be ploughed up in that county; how many acres are already broken up; and whether there is immediate prospect of the whole acreage scheduled being brought under the plough?
        Mr. PROTHERO: The Wiltshire Agricultural Executive Committee have been asked to secure an increase in the corn area of 70,000 acres over the 1916 area. It is estimated that this will necessitate the breaking up of 48,000 acres of permanent grass. Complete figures are not yet available of the total quantity of land scheduled for breaking up, but the latest information indicates that it amounts to about 72 per cent. of the quota. The full accomplishment of the task depends largely on the weather and on supplies of labour and of tractor fuel.

        SPECULATION IN FOOD ESSENTIALS.
        61. Mr. BILLINGasked the Prime Minister whether the Government are prepared by an Order in Council under the Defence of the Realm Act to make it illegal for any person to deal speculatively

        373
        in food essentials who was not engaged in such speculations before the outbreak of War?
        The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of FOOD (Mr. Clynes): I have been asked to reply. The policy of the Food Controller has been designed to render it impossible for any person to deal speculatively in food essentials whether he was or was not engaged in such speculations before the War. It is not thought that any additional powers are necessary.
        Mr. BILLING: Are we to understand that it is an illegal act to speculate in food, that one is liable to be prosecuted for doing it, and that the Food Controller will prosecute if evidence can be obtained?
        Mr. CLYNES: In the primary articles of food, certainly.
        Mr. BILLING: What are the primary articles of food?
        Mr. CLYNES: The articles of food that are controlled.

        SHERIFF-PRINCIPAL (INVERNESS).
        35. Mr. WATTasked the Secretary for Scotland whether he is aware that the number of cases that came before the Sheriff-principal of Inverness, Elgin, and Nairnshire during the year 1915 was seven; that the salary paid to such sheriff was £800; and whether it is his intention to take any action to reduce this cost of administering justice during the currency of the War?
        The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. Munro): The reply to the first two parts of the question is in the affirmative. In reply to the last part, I have nothing to add to the replies which I have already given to my hon. and learned Friend on this subject, save this, that it seems to me regrettable that my hon. and learned Friend should select a time when the sheriffs are rendering unsparing and invaluable services to the State as chairmen of the Appeal Tribunals throughout Scotland to pursue a vendetta against them.
        Mr. WATT: Will the right hon. Gentleman grant a Return of the duties which these various sheriffs perform?
        Mr. MUNRO: I will consider that.
        Mr. WATT: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that he has been considering it for several days?
        Mr. MUNRO: I will give an answer to-morrow.

        STREET LIGHTING (SCOTLAND).
        37. Mr. MILLARasked the Secretary for Scotland whether his attention has. been directed to the resolutions passed by merchants' associations in towns situated. in Lanarkshire and in the West of Scotland as to the insufficient illumination of the streets and of shop windows. under the present lighting restrictions. during the afternoons and early evenings when the shops are open for business; and whether he is prepared to consider some modification of the Lighting Order, so as to permit of the better lighting of streets-and shop premises under an arrangement which would provide for the immediate. extinction of lights within a specified period after an air-raid warning had been received?
        Mr. MUNRO: I have received resolutions of the nature referred to by my hon. and learned Friend. As regards street lighting, revised arrangements have been communicated to chief constables which, it is hoped, will enable increased lighting to be provided. As regards shop lights and other private lights, I am at present considering proposals, in consultation with the military authorities, for deferring the hour at which the Lighting Order presently takes effect, and I expect shortly to be able to announce a revision of the Order in this direction.

        SLATE-QUARRYING INDUSTRY.
        39. Major DAVIESasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that, owing in part to the suspension of building operations during the War and in part to the increased demand for patent asbestic tiles for Government Departments, the slate-quarrying industry of Carnarvon and Merioneth has been. seriously affected: and whether, seeing that Welsh slate could be supplied more. cheaply than asbestic tiles, while, in the opinion of competent authorities, it is even more serviceable as a roofing material, he will take any steps to prevent the extinction of this industry?
        The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Sir Albert Stanley): The shortage of timber has made it necessary to use-where possible roofing materials obtain-

        375
        able in large sheets and of minimum weight. I see no reason, however, to anticipate that the slate-quarrying industry will be permanently injured owing to this necessity.

        RAILWAYS (STATE CONTROL).
        40. Mr. GILBERTasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has appointed a Committee to consider the position of the railways after the War, as regards either State purchase or continuing the present Government control; will he state the names of the members of the Committee and their references; and if the Ministry of Reconstruction is represented thereon?
        Sir A. STANLEY: I am afraid there has been some misapprehension in connection with this matter. The Board of Trade, in consultation with the Ministry of Reconstruction, are giving close attention to the problems that will arise when the present war control of railways ceases. In connection with various aspects of these problems the Board are being advised by a number of gentlemen possessing expert knowledge or experience. The names of these gentlemen are as follows:

        Mr. W. M. Acworth

        Mr. W. W. Berry

        Sir John Bradbury

        Sir Gilbert Claughton

        Sir Thomas Ratcliffe Ellis

        Mr. Kenneth Lee

        Sir Ernest Moir

        Mr. Ernest Moon

        Sir William Plender

        Mr. F. Potter

        Sir David Shackleton

        Sir H. Babington Smith

        Mr. H. Steel

        Mr. J. H. Thomas

        Sir Herbert Walker

        Mr. Sydney Webb

        Mr. A. A. Wyon

        They do not, however, constitute a formal committee, and there are, therefore, no terms of reference.
        Mr. G. TERRELL: Will the right hon. Gentleman see that the House is consulted before any definite action of a committal character is taken?
        Sir A. STANLEY: I have no hesitation in giving a pledge of that kind. Certainly nothing will be done without consulting the House.
        Mr. LOUGH: Will the right hon. Gentleman give a more definite explanation of the duties of this Committee, seeing that there are no terms of reference?
        Sir A. STANLEY: The Committee is simply of an advisory character.

        RAILWAY SEASON TICKETS.
        41. Mr. GILBERTasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can now make any statement as regards the increase in prices of season tickets by certain railway companies in London; and whether, in view of the general understanding that the prices of these tickets should not be increased and as many of the holders are workers of both sexes on fixed wages, he can see his way to instruct the companies to stop any further increases and to refund those they have made recently?
        Sir A. STANLEY: I regret that the inquiries which I have been making on this subject are not yet complete, but I hope to be able to write definitely to the hon. Gentleman shortly.

        BOARD OF TRADE SURVEYORS.
        42. Sir FORTESCUE FLANNERYasked the President of the Board of Trade the rates of pay and pensions paid to Board of Trade surveyors in the marine department, and how far those rates represent improvement on the scales fixed in 1876; whether the increases in the wages of captains, officers, and engineers in the merchant service recently arranged have been fully taken into account in increasing the remuneration of marine surveyors under the Board of Trade who are eligible for sea-going employment in the above capacities; and whether any additional improvement in the remuneration of these officials is under consideration?
        Sir A. STANLEY: The rates of pay are as follows:

        Surveyors, £250 by £10 to £300, and thence by £15 to £400.

        Senior surveyors, £420—£20—£500.

        Principal district officers, 2600—£20 —£700

        The pension rules are the same as those for the Civil Service. All the circumstances were taken into account in the

        377
        recent revision of the scales of pay. The surveyors have applied to the Conciliation and Arbitration Board for further improvements in the scales of pay, and this application is now being considered.

        TRAMWAY UNDERTAKINGS (COMMITTEE).
        43. Mr. GILBERTasked the President of the Board of Trade for what reason he proposes to set up a committee dealing with municipal and company tramways; if he will state how many members it consists of and what interests they represent, and what are the references to the committee; if he will state if a Mr. Devonshire has been appointed chairman of the committee and, if so, for what reason he has been so appointed; and if he will give the public record of his present and past connections with tramway undertakings in this country?
        Sir A. STANLEY: As the hon. Gentleman will have seen from announcements in the public Press the object of the committee is not to take control of tramway undertakings, but to meet the needs of these undertakings engaged in work essential to the prosecution of the War. It is proposed to have four representatives of municipal tramway undertakings and two representatives of private companies on the committee. It is proposed that Mr. Devonshire should be chairman of the committee. His knowledge and practical experience of tramway questions are, I think, well known to tramway authorities. I am confident that those who can speak for municipal and company tramways will recognise his suitability for the post which I hope he will undertake.
        Mr. GILBERT: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether it is not a fact that one of the large tramway companies with which Mr. Devonshire is connected is now in the hands of the Official Receiver, and whether he thinks that a gentleman with an experience like that is a suitable person to put on this committee which is going to deal with municipal undertakings?
        Sir A. STANLEY: I believe that one of these undertakings is in the hands of the Official Receiver, but I cannot see that that is any bar. I must remind the hon.
        378
        Member that of the representatives on this committee municipal undertakings have four and private companies two.
        Mr. GILBERT: Is the idea of this committee not to pool the rolling stock and tramway material, and is not the idea of this committee to help companies which are in the hands of the Official Receiver and which have not got a good rolling stock and tramway material?
        Sir A. STANLEY: The financial position of any particular tramway undertaking is not under consideration. The sole purpose of this inquiry is to secure that the tramway undertakings which it is necessary to, carry on should have the necessary material in order to keep them going. There is nothing more.

        TAXI-CABS AT RAILWAY STATIONS.
        44. Major HAYWARDasked what are the efforts which the Government has taken to put an end to the dispute between the. railway companies and taxi-cab drivers as to taxi-cabs entering railway stations; whether any and, if so, what progress has-been made in settling the dispute since Thursday last; and whether the control over the railways now exercised by the Government extends to giving it power to deal with this matter?
        Sir A. STANLEY: As was stated in the reply to the hon. Member for Devonport on the 5th November I do not think that I can usefully intervene in this matter. I do not regard the Government control of railways as covering the charge in dispute which was agreed to by representatives of the cabdrivers, and was allowed by the Secretary of State under the provisions of the London Cab and Stage Carriage Act, 1907.

        ACQUISITION OF LAND FOR PUBLIC PURPOSES.
        45. Major DAVIESasked the Prime Minister whether, because of the prices charged for housing sites by the owners of building estates and the conditions imposed by these owners, the work of public utility societies and other housing agencies is hampered in Wales; whether a large proportion of Welsh authorities have made mention of this in their replies to the Local Government Board circular;

        379
        and whether he proposes to initiate legislation in order to facilitate land acquisition by these bodies?
        Mr. HAYES FISHER: My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply to this question. I have had the replies so far received from the Welsh local authorities .examined to see how far the suggestion in the last part of the hon and gallant Member's question is borne out by the:facts. I find that 74 per cent. have neither experienced, nor do they anticipate, any difficulty; 9 per cent. more do not answer the question as to difficulty in connection with land, and it may perhaps be assumed that they have experienced no very specific difficulty. No doubt, however, there are cases of real difficulty, and I may state that the general question of the acquisition of land for public purposes is now under consideration by a Sub-Committee appointed by the Minister of Re-construction.
        Mr. RAFFAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that at the conference of the representatives of trade unions and local authorities, held at Cardiff on Saturday last, resolutions were passed declaring that the best method of making land available was by taxing land values; and will the Government consider that method of approaching the question?
        Commander WEDGWOOD: Although 74 per cent, do not anticipate any difficulty, does that mean that they are prepared to pay the landlord's price?
        Mr. FISHER: I cannot say what is in the minds of those 74 local authorities.

        ITALIAN FRONT.
        46. Mr. LYNCHasked the Prime Minister whether the statement by Field-Marshal Viscount French that the successful attack by the. Austrians and Germans on the Italian positions was the greatest surprise of all is endorsed by the War Cabinet; and, if so, whether it is intended to make radical changes at once in the administration of the War Office at Whitehall, beginning with the highest ranks, and dealing particularly with the organisers of the Intelligence Department?
        The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Bonar Law): I have not
        380
        seen the statement referred to in the first part of the question. The answer to the last part is in the negative.
        Mr. LYNCH: Will the right hon. Gentleman look at the statement? Does he not agree that speeches of this kind are extraordinarily disquieting?
        Mr. BONAR LAW: My time for reading speeches is much limited. I have not even read all the speeches of the hon. Member.
        Mr. BILLING: Will the Government appeal to all senior naval and military commanders to be more careful in the rash and foolish statements which they make?
        Mr. BONAR LAW: I am afraid I cannot take the hon. Member's opinion as to the rashness of a speech.
        47. Mr. LYNCHasked the Prime Minister whether any adequate system had been organised so that the Intelligence Department of the War Office should be kept aware as far as possible of the march of events in regard to a possible attack by the Austrians and Germans on the Italian Front; if so, whether that Department made clear to the War Cabinet the realities of the situation; if so, why no measures sufficient to obviate the danger were provided; and whether he will proceed to appropriate sanctions?
        Mr. BONAR LAW: The answer to the first and second parts of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the third part, as far as the British Government is concerned, all possible assistance has been and will be given
        Mr. LYNCH: Why is it given too late?
        48. Mr. LYNCHasked the Prime Minister whether the War Cabinet had ever received any communication, directly or indirectly, from General Cadorna indicating his apprehension of an attack upon his positions with forces beyond his power of resistance, and asking for help; and, if so, why no adequate steps were taken to deal with the matter?
        Mr. BONAR LAW: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. The second part, therefore, does not arise.
        Mr. LYNCH: Will the right hon. Gentleman say what authority he has for

        381
        stating that no word came from General Cadorna indicating his apprehension of an attack?
        Mr. BONAR LAW: I have given the most distinct and definite answer to that question.

        HOME DEFENCE.
        49. Mr. LYNCHasked the Prime Minister whether the War Cabinet has considered all the possibilities of an invasion of this country; and, if so, seeing that the qualities of prevision and decision and the capacity of thinking out adequate plans are essential even to the existence of the nation, he will reconsider, in the light of recent utterances by Field-Marshal Viscount French, the question of retaining that officer in the position which he now occupies?
        Mr. BONAR LAW: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. I do not understand the second part of the hon. Member's question, but the Government have every confidence in Lord French as Commander-in-Chief of the Home Forces.
        Colonel CLAUDE LOWTHER: Does the Government consider that Field-Marshal Viscount French was justified in giving expression to these alarmist views, and, if so, what step has the Government taken to safeguard this country from invasion?
        Mr. BONAR LAW: I do not know to which alarmist speech my hon. and gallant Friend refers.
        Colonel LOWTHER: Has not the right hon. Gentleman read the speech which was published in every newspaper?
        Mr. BONAR LAW: No.
        Colonel LOWTHER: Will the right hon. Gentleman read it if I send it to him?
        Mr. ROWLANDS: Will the Government censor some of these speeches before they are delivered?
        Mr. BONAR LAW: I shall be glad if my hon. Friend can suggest any method of doing so.
        Mr. ROWLANDS: Will the right hon. Gentleman have the speeches submitted to him before they are delivered?
        Mr. BILLING: Will they be censored before they are published

        GERMAN AND BRITISH PRISONERS OF WAR.
        51. Mr. BILLINGasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that Germans disguised as British soldiers prisoners of war are fraternising with British soldiers prisoners of war, for the purpose of eliciting by conversation particulars of the movements, strength, and disposition of the units from which they have been captured; and if he will cause such publicity to be given to this latest enemy manéuvre as to put all officers and men on their guard?
        Mr. MACPHERSON: It is not considered necessary to publish any special orders as the practice is one of common knowledge, and all troops are cautioned against revealing information if they are captured.
        Mr. BILLING: Is it not a fact that most important information is being obtained from our men by this method, and, under these circumstances, will the hon. Gentleman issue an Army Order or give the necessary publicity, warning all troops and all ranks against this enemy act?
        Mr. MACPHERSON: As I have stated in reply to the question, it is not considered necessary to publish any special orders.

        PALESTINE (JEWS' NATIONAL HOME).
        52. Mr. KINGasked the Prime Minister whether, in the event of a national home for the Jews being established in Palestine, it is intended that Jews who are citizens of enemy Powers shall, under proper safeguards, be allowed to become citizens of their national home?
        Mr. BALFOUR: It is too early as yet to make any pronouncement on this point.
        Mr. WATT: Is it the case that the Jews are now leaving Aberdeen?
        54. Mr. KINGasked the Prime Minister whether the Government approval of a national home for Jewry in Palestine entails a State with independence or autonomous rule in the British Empire under French or Allied protection, or any other constitution?
        Mr. BALFOUR: It is not possible at this stage to forecast the future constitution of Palestine.

        PRIZE MONEY.
        56. Commander BELLAIRSasked the Prime Minister whether large sums of prize money have been owing for over three years to the sailors who have fought in this War and to the widows and families of those who have been killed; whether any member of the legal profession who has been associated with prize law cases has been kept waiting for his payment from the general fund; and whether lie will put an end to the delay by introducing the new Prize Law Bill early next Session?
        Dr. MACNAMARA: My right hon. Friend has asked me to answer this question. My hon. and gallant Friend is aware that the decision to pool the net proceeds of prize for distribution to the Navy generally engaged in the present conflict made distribution after each capture impossible. In view of his statement that sums of money have been owing for over three years to the sailors, it is perhaps desirable that I should say that proceeds which have been accumulating, and will accumulate, will bear interest. Further, I have several times pointed out that the legal representative of any sailor who dies in the service of the State will receive whatever would have been due to him in the way of prize money. There have, of course, been members of the legal profession associated with Prize Court proceedings. I am not aware that they have been kept waiting for payment for their services. I presume that they are paid by the Treasury under the usual arrangement for law charges. But my hon. and gallant Friend will be glad to know that it is not proposed to draw upon the Prize Fund in respect of such payments. As regards the Bill, it is now in circulation to the Dominions, who, of course, have a very considerable interest in its terms. I hope that it may be possible to introduce it next Session.
        Commander BELLAIRS: Will the right hon. Gentleman use his influence to have it introduced early next Session, in view of the undoubted hardship to many poor sailors and to the wives, widows, and children of sailors in being kept waiting for their money?
        Dr. MACNAMARA: Certainly; I will use all the influence that I can to get it introduced early next Session, but the
        384
        distribution of the money has nothing to do with the introduction of the Bill. If you are going to pool the proceeds you cannot have distribution after each capture.
        Mr. STEWART: Will the right hon. Gentleman use his influence to see that the seamen get the prize money that they earned in the Persian Gulf before the War?
        Dr. MACNAMARA: That is not the prize money here. It is a gratuity. It is not prize money under the Proclamation. We are constantly using all efforts to see that men so engaged get all that is due to them.

        WAR AIMS COMMITTEE.
        58. Mr. R. LAMBERTasked the Prime Minister whether the War Aims Committee has already been established with Government approval and support; whether officials have already been appointed and their duties and salaries fixed; how much money has already been expended; what is the total annual amount of salaries and wages for the existing staff; and what is the estimated cost of this Committee for the period ending 31st March, 1918?
        Mr. BONAR LAW: I would refer the hon. Member to the statements made last night on behalf of the Government.

        PUBLIC DEPARTMENTS (EXCHANGE OF INFORMATION).
        59. Mr. BILLINGasked the Prime Minister whether, having regard to the necessity of all heads of Departments, particularly in the Admiralty, War Office, and Air Board, to be kept fully informed of all occurrences and developments in their respective Departments, and having special regard to the necessity of educating the war emergency staffs into Departmental methods and details, he will recommend the issuing of a daily sheet by each such Department of State to all officials interested, this sheet to contain such information and advice as may from day to day facilitate and expedite the fulfilment of their duties?
        Mr. BONAR LAW: The answer is in the negative.

        ENTERTAINMENTS TAX.
        60. Mr. BILLINGasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware of the potential educative value of moving pictures; whether under these circumstances he is prepared to consider the official production of educative films and films intended as national and Imperial propaganda; and whether, in order to encourage the production of such films at all cinemas, he is prepared to remit or reduce the Entertainments Tax in the case of cinema houses that undertook to exhibit these films for a specified time at every performance?
        Mr. BONAR LAW: The answer to the first and second parts of the question is in the affirmative, and I am glad to take this opportunity of expressing the thanks of the Government for the assistance which the cinematograph trade has already given in this connection. As regards the last part of the question, I can only say that the proposed concession would require an amendment of the law, and that no opportunity for its consideration will arise until the next Budget.
        Mr. BILLING: In view of the fact that the right hon. Gentleman states that he wishes to express his thanks to these houses for value received, will he not express it in some more material way?
        Mr. BONAR LAW: I have already given a full statement on that question, but I sincerely hope and believe that the services of these gentlemen have been given for other than monetary reasons?
        Mr. BILLING: If these houses exhibit Government films, is it proposed to impose:the tax upon people coming to see them?
        Mr. BONAR LAW: I sincerely hope that their exhibition is more likely to increase:than to diminish the receipts.

        DISCHARGED SOLDIERS (CLOTHING).
        63. Mr. EDMUND HARVEYasked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to a public advertisement issued on behalf of the Young Men's Christian Association appealing for the, gift of warm clothing and overcoats urgently needed for discharged soldiers; and whether steps will at once be taken to see that soldiers discharged from the Army are supplied at the time of their dis
        386
        charge with overcoats and warm clothing at the public expense and without any recourse to private charity?
        Mr. MACPHERSON: I have not seen the advertisement referred to. Each soldier on discharge is allowed to retain the underclothing and cardigan waistcoat in his possession, and is given a suit of plain clothes or a money allowance in lieu, if he is already in possession of plain clothes. Soldiers discharged for medical reasons are entitled to receive a greatcoat.
        Mr. HARVEY: Is there any grant of an overcoat, and is it not necessary in winter that the men should be supplied with an overcoat?
        Mr. MACPHERSON: At the present moment I agree that there is no grant of an overcoat, but I will have that matter looked into.

        INFANTILE MORTALITY.
        73. Mr. ANDERSONasked the President of the Local Government Board the names of the insurance companies which oppose the passing of legislation to reduce the mortality among children; and, in view of the estimate of his predecessor that the lives of 52,000 children could be saved every year by such legislation, whether he intends to proceed with it in the present Session?
        Mr. FISHER: In the reply which I gave to the hon. Member's question on Monday I indicated that my Department has for some time been anxious to secure for local authorities in England and Wales the same powers in regard to maternity and infant welfare work as are already possessed by local authorities in Scotland and Ireland, but that owing to opposition from insurance organisations the legislation has hitherto been delayed. The opposition to this Bill emanates from a body who have described themselves as representing the various types of approved societies and the insurance committees of England and Wales. I am not in a position to give the names of any individual insurance companies, neither do I know them.
        Mr. J. H. THOMAS: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the majority of these societies are the trade unions and friendly societies who are anxious for the establishment of a Ministry of Health with a view to dealing with this question,

        387
        and that they are experiencing difficulties from the Department with which the right hon. Gentleman is connected?
        Mr. FISHER: No, Sir; they are experiencing no difficulty whatever from the Department of which I am President. These societies are opposing this particular Bill because they desire to deal with the larger question of a Ministry of Public Health. On the other hand, my Department urges that we should use the powers which we have or which we could easily have in our possession, and that will not in any way prejudice the ultimate consideration of the larger question of the Ministry of Health.
        Mr. THOMAS: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that it is felt it will prejudice it, and that the trade unions and friendly societies are opposed to maternity being handed over to what are nothing more than Poor Law associations?
        Mr. FISHER: It is a matter of opinion as to whether the settlement of the smaller question would prejudice the settlement of the larger question. Our opinion is that the authorities in England and Wales ought to be possessed of the same powers now possessed by the local authorities in Scotland and Ireland. If they were possessed of those powers they could make rapid and vigorous use of them, and if they were to make rapid and vigorous use of them it would largely reduce the rate of mortality.
        Mr. ANDERSON: Does the right hon. Gentleman see any chance of agreement on this question, seeing that while the quarrel goes on 50,000 children are being killed every year?

      BARON VON BISSING.
      62. Mr. BILLINGasked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the fact that Baron von Bissing was released from internment on 6th November; and on what grounds he was interned and on what grounds he was released?
      The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir George Cave): My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply to this question. This man, who was interned on the ground of hostile origin more than two years ago; has not
      388
      been released from internment; but, as it appears from a recent medical report that his health is greatly impaired and that a continuation of the internment would endanger his life, he has been allowed to go to a nursing home for a fortnight on condition that he shall not communicate with anyone except his wife and family and the staff of the home. The question of his subsequent treatment, which will depend on his health, will be considered when that period expires.
      Mr. BILLING: Is he kept under any guard at the nursing home, or is he quite free?
      Sir G. CAVE: The police keep a watch. on this man, of course.

    SUPREME WAR COUNCIL

      STATEMENT BY PRIME MINISTER.
      Commander BELLAIRSasked the Prime Minister whether it is proposed to create for naval operations an Allied Naval Council on similar lines to the Allied Council which has been formed for military operations?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: I can add nothing to the replies which I gave to supplementary questions on this subject on Monday last.
      Commander BELLAIRS: Why in regard to the Navy is a method followed different from that in regard to the Army? Has the War Cabinet taken into consideration the fact that the American and Japanese navies are thousands of miles away from the scene of conflict, except for a few destroyers?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: The Prime Minister is going to make a statement on this subject to-day. Perhaps the hon. and gallant Gentleman will put his supplementary question to him.
      65. Major DAVID DAVIESasked the Prime Minister whether it is proposed that the Army commanders on the various Fronts will remain directly responsible to their various Governments, or whether they will act in future under the direction of the Military Inter-Allied War Council?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: A statement will be made by the Prime Minister at the end of Questions, on this subject.
      Mr. ASQUITH: I beg to ask the Prime Minister a question of which I have given him Private Notice—
      Whether he will now state to the House what are the precise functions of the proposed Inter-Allied Council, and in particular of its Military Staff;
      Whether it is proposed that the Council is, if so advised by its Staff, to have power to interfere with or override the opinion on matters of strategy of the General Staff at home, and of the Commanders-in-Chief in the field;
      Whether the Military Staff of the Inter-Allied Council is to have Intelligence and Operations Departments, or either of them, of its own;
      Whether the ultimate decision as to the distribution and movements of the various Armies in the field is to rest with the Council, or with the Governments represented upon it;
      And whether an early opportunity will be given to the House for discussing the proposed arrangements and the statements made in connection therewith in the Prime Minister's Paris speech?
      The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Lloyd George): The best way for me to answer this question is to read to the House the actual terms of the agreement between the French, Italian, and British Governments for the creation of a Supreme War Council for the Allies.

      1. With a view to the better co-ordination of military action on the Western Front, a Supreme War Council is created, composed of the Prime Minister and a Member of the Government of each of the Great Powers whose Armies are fighting on that front. The extension of the scope of the Council to other fronts is reserved for discussion with the other Great Powers.

      2. The Supreme War Council has for its mission to watch over the general conduct of the War. It prepares recommendations for the decision of the Governments, and keeps itself informed of their execution, and reports thereon to the respective Govenments.

      3. The General Staffs and Military Commands of the Armies of each Power charged with the conduct of military operations remain responsible to their respective Governments.

      390

      4. The general War plans drawn up by the competent military authorities are submitted to the Supreme War Council, which, under the high authority of the Governments, ensures their concordance, and submits, if need be, any necessary changes.

      5. Each Power delegates to the Supreme War Council one permanent Military Representative, whose exclusive function is to act as technical adviser to the Council.

      6. The Military Representatives receive from the Government and the competent military authorities of their country all the proposals, information and documents relating to the conduct of the War.

      7. The Military Representatives watch day by day the situation of the Forces, and the means of all kinds of which the Allied Armies and the Enemy Armies dispose.

      8. The Supreme War Council meets normally at Versailles, where the permanent Military Representatives and their Staffs are established. They may meet at other places as may be agreed upon, according to the circumstances. The meetings of the Supreme War Council will take place at least once a month.

      From the foregoing it will be clear that the Council will have no executive power, and that the final decisions in matters of strategy and as to the distribution anti movements of the various Armies in the field will rest with the several Governments of the Allies. There will be, therefore, no Operations Department attached to the Council. The permanent Military Representatives will derive from the existing Intelligence Departments of the Allies all the information necessary in order to enable them to submit advice to the Supreme Allied Council. The object of the Allies has been to set up a central body charged with the duty of continuously surveying the field of operations as a whole and, by the light of information derived from all fronts and from all Governments and Staffs, of co-ordinating the plans prepared by the different General Staffs, and, if necessary, of making proposals of their own for the better conduct of the War. Should the House desire an opportunity of discussing this important subject and my Paris speech, the Government would propose set aside Monday next for the purpose.

      Fishing Board (Scotland)
      36. Mr. DUNCAN MILLARasked whether any Orders have been made by the Fishery Board for Scotland under the provisions of the Sea Fishing (Scotland) Order, 1917; and, if so, whether he can state the nature of the Orders issued?
      Mr. MUNRO: The Fishery Board have made no Order under the provisions referred to, which were designed for the purpose of enabling immediate action to be taken if the necessity should arise. The powers remain in reserve and will be exercised if and when required.

QUESTION TO MINISTERS.
Mr. LYNCH: I rise, Sir, to put a question which concerns yourself on a matter in which I think you have done me, as a Member of the House, some injustice. I desire to submit to you reasons which may perhaps induce, you to revise your judgment. Yesterday I put on the Notice Paper a question, which appeared to me to be in order, which asked for something definite to be done on the ground of a certain definite fact. Looking ever the questions today, I see there are many questions of the same character. The question which I submitted was, " To ask the Prime Minister whether, in view of his recognition of the fait that many of the disasters that have befallen the Allied arms have been due to the lack of unity of command, he can now indicate the advice on which he acted when proposals tending to unity of command were brought forward in this House by the Member for West Clare many months ago, and in time to have averted the Italian disaster; and whether, having regard to the situation that has ensued as a result of ignoring these proposals, he will announce a complete reorganisation of the War Cabinet? " I should like to know the reason why that question was refused?
Mr. SPEAKER: It appeared to me that the question of the hon. Member, as handed in, was more suited for discussion in Debate than for question and answer at Question Time. It seemed to contain some doubtful statements and also some arguments, and was not a question proper to raise at Question Time seeking for information, but was rather intended to criticise past action.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have passed a Bill intituled, "An Act to confer further borrowing powers upon the South Staffordshire Mond Gas (Power and Heating) Company." [South Staffordshire Mond Gas (Power and Heating) (No. 2) Bill [Lords.]
PRIVATE BUSINESS.
South Staffordshire Mond Gas (Power and Heating ((No. 2) Bill [Lords], read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.AIR FORCES [SALARIES AND REMUNERATION.]
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Bonar Law):I beg to move "That the Resolution relative to Air Force [Salaries and Remuneration] may be considered this day as soon as it is reported from the Committee, notwithstanding the practice of the House relating to the interval between the Report and Consideration of such a Resolution."
It may be desirable that I should explain the reason for this Motion. Owing to there not being a quorum two nights ago this Financial Resolution could not be carried. I understand there is no opposition in any quarter of the House to it. If, as I hope, the Committee stage and Third Reading of the Bill are concluded to-night it will not be necessary to sit on Friday. On the other hand, we shall have to have a Friday Sitting if they are not obtained.
Question put, and agreed to.
Resolution considered in Committee.
[Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys to be provided by Parliament of Salaries and Remuneration payable under any Act of the present Session to make provision for the establishment, administration, and discipline of an Air Force, the establishment of an Air Council, and for purposes connected therewith."—[Major Baird.]
4.0 P.M.
Mr. PRINGLE:As the House has given the Government an opportunity of passing this Financial Resolution through both its stages this afternoon, I think the Committee is entitled to have some explanation of the financial charges which are likely to fall upon the country as the result of this measure. In particular the Committee should be interested in the salaries which are to be payable. We were told on the Second Reading of the Bill that the Minister in charge of the Department was to be raised to the status of Secretary of State, and certain technical reasons were put forward for this change. But it is the duty of the Committee to observe that a change of this kind means a considerable increase in the
422
salaries of the Ministers themselves. At present the President of the Air Board is entitled to a salary of £2,000, although I do not think he draws it, and the Secretary of the Air Board, on the usual scale, is entitled to a salary of £1,200. But if we make the President of the Air Council a Secretary of State he immediately becomes entitled to a salary of £5,000, and the Under-Secretary is correspondingly raised in the scale to £1,500. When a change of that kind is made, we should not be satisfied with the explanation given by the hon. Gentleman, but should ask for something more substantial as a reason for this additional charge upon the revenue. I do not know whether this increase in salary is due to the personnel of the new President of the Air Council. That is a matter upon which we should receive some information before we part entirely with the Bill. Is the increase in the salary due not to this technical question which the hon. Gentleman mentioned, which could easily be got over, but to the fact that a very important person is to be made President of the Air Council, and that it is necessary that he should be appointed to an office of not less dignity than that equivalent to a Secretary of State? If it is a matter of personal consideration of this kind and of personal dignity and of the status attaching to the office, the Committee should hesitate to assent to this increase in the salary. We have heard statements made that the new Air Minister is to be no less a person than Lord Northcliffe. If that is so, it is perfectly natural that he should desire to be made a Secretary of State, because nothing less is in accordance with his merits and authority in the country, but a lesser person might be satisfied with a position of less consideration
and less dignity. Under these circumstances, I think it would be well if the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill enlightened the Committee so that we might be informed upon matters which lead to this increase in public expenditure.
The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the AIR BOARD (Major Baird):I cannot add very much to what I said on the Second Reading Debate. It is not a question of the personality of the Minister. So far as I am aware a choice has not been made. At any rate, I have heard nothing about it. The whole question is one of status. For the reason

423
which I gave during the Second Reading Debate, it appears desirable to raise the political head of the new Air Board to the status of the political head of the Army and the political head of the Navy. It is for that reason, and for that reason only, that it has been decided to suggest to the House that the new political head of the Air Board should be a Secretary of State, and his pay that of a Secretary of State.
Commander BELLAIRS:Is the head of the Navy a Secretary of State?
Major BAIRD:It is a different organisation at the Admiralty, but he is paid the same.
HON. MEMBERS:No, no!
Major BAIRD:There really is nothing in it. The question is, Does the Committee desire that the new head of the Air Service should be on an equality with the head of the Army and the head of the Navy? If so, he must be a Secretary of State.
Mr. BILLING:Is he obliged to pool his salary?
General Sir IVOR PHILIPPS:We are discussing this Resolution, but no hon. Member ever seems able to discover a copy of it except the right hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury), who seems always able to dig out a copy from some box behind the Table. The matter raised by this Resolution is one that requires further consideration. If we pass this Bill, and I hope we shall pass it, then certainly the Minister ought to be a Secretary of State; but while my hon. and gallant Friend (Major Baird) has made out a good case for that, he has not made out a good case to satisfy me that there is any meaning in the Bill at all. I want to see an Air Council started and and Air Force established, but there is nothing in this Bill, and there is nothing in what has been said from the Government Bench, which has at all satisfied me that this is a bonâ fide attempt to set up an Air Force.
The CHAIRMAN:This is not the occasion for discussing that point. This is only the Financial Resolution which will enable us to consider that question when we come to the Bill itself.
Sir I. PHILIPPS:It is very difficult for an ordinary Member to understand what he can discuss on this Resolution. The Committee is being asked to pass the
424
Resolution, and, as I understand it, to, allow the expenditure of public money. I am discussing whether it is right to spend that money, and my point is that if there is no Air Force created by this Bill, then there is no necessity to pay a Secretary of State to control that force. I submit that in the Bill there is nothing to say that there is to be a force at all; on the contrary, it is very remarkable to notice in the Bill that there is to be no force, and that we are merely playing with the whole business. Therefore, I consider that unless we get some satisfactory explanation from the Government that we should not pass this Resolution.
The CHAIRMAN:That really would be a point to be taken on the Second Reading of the Bill. This Money Resolution deals solely with finance. The question is whether the Committee will authorise the financial proposals so far as to enable the Committee on the Bill to entertain them.
Sir I. PHILIPPS:I am trying to give reasons why this Committee should not give that permission, or that they should not give that permission until they have received some assurance from the Government to satisfy them that it is good business to give that permission. Of course, I wish to bow entirely to your ruling, as I am bound to do, but I think my point is a legitimate point to make.
The CHAIRMAN:If the hon. and gallant Member will consider the point he will see that what he wants to do would mean a double Second Reading Debate on the Money Resolution. That has never been allowed.
Sir I. PHILIPPS:Then may I talk about the amount of money, and not on the question whether there is any money to be given at all? That is what I am trying to discuss, namely, that it should not be given at all until we have got satisfaction. We have got no satisfaction. If I may not talk on what money is to be spent, then there is nothing to discuss in the Resolution.
The CHAIRMAN:If the hon. and gallant Gentleman will read the Bill and look at Sub-section (2) of Clause 9 he will see that it is printed in italics. In order that that can be considered in Committee this Money Resolution is required. What we are considering now is really limited to that point, as to what salary is to be paid to the Minister referred to.
Mr. BILLING:Shall I be in order in asking the Leader of the House whether this Secretary of State will have to pool his salary or will he have the option of retaining it?
The CHAIRMAN:That does not arise.
Mr. FRANCE:When discussing the amount of the salary to be paid to the Minister, is it permissible to discuss the duties of the Minister or the personnel of the Minister?
The CHAIRMAN:Certainly not. That clearly would be an abuse of the procedure of the House.
Lord HUGH CECIL:Those who understand Parliamentary procedure know that hardly anything is in order on a Money Resolution. It is, of course, as has been pointed out by the Chairman, in order that the Committee may be able to insert the words,
"There shall be paid, out of moneys provided by Parliament, to the members of the Air Council, and to the secretaries, officers and servants of the Council, such salaries or remuneration as the Treasury may determine,"
that this Money Resolution has to be passed. That is obviously a very narrow matter. The question whether the Minister should be a Secretary of State and be paid the salary of a Secretary of State is on the very border-line of relevancy, and it is upon that point that I wish to say a few words. I think it is of real importance that the office should be one co-ordinate with the Secretary of State for War and the First Lord of the Admiralty. My hon. and gallant Friend (Commander Bellairs) has pointed out that the Admiralty is not ruled by a Secretary of State. That is due to the circumstance that the Board of Admiralty is Lord High Admiral in Commission and some very special powers belong to the Admiralty. They exercise powers which in the case of the Army are only exercised, I believe, by the Crown, because these important powers at common law belong to the office of Lord High Admiral. In starting a new Air Board you cannot create a Lord High Aerial; therefore the method of the Admiralty is ruled out. If you are to make the new Air Force co-ordinate with the old Army and Navy you must have the new Air Minister a Secretary of State. There are reasons which are more than technical reasons.
426
There is the impropriety of the Crown being advised in its relations to the subject by any official less than a Secretary of State. The new Air Minister may, exercise the prerogative of mercy, and if you do not have a Secretary of State one Air Minister would be in the absurd position that whenever the prerogative of mercy had to be exercised in relation to any man in the Air Force it would be necessary to go to some other Secretary of State to advise in that case. Therefore it is really necessary that the new Minister should be a Secretary of State, and I hope that we shall get on with the Resolution and get on with the Bill, which I am, very anxious to see passed.
Mr. HARCOURT:With respect to the point raised by the hon. Member for Lanark (Mr. Pringle), there are, I am told, precedents for announcing the name of a proposed new Minister. I was not in the House at the time, but I understand that was done in the case of the Shipping Controller. If the Government are determined not to make an announcement in this case, I will say nothing, but I do think that perhaps in an exceptional matter of this kind it would be advisable to do it.
Sir F. BANBURY:I raise no objection to all the stages of this Money Resolution being taken on one day, but I would point out to hon. Members, who apparently do not know how to discuss it, that there is a very simple way of discussing it, and that is to put down an Amendment as to the amount of salary to be spent. I do not intend to do that, but I must say that I do not think that the creation of an Air Council, however necessary it may be, necessitates such wide powers as are asked, or that the Committee should be asked to pay an unknown amount to an unknown number of secretaries, officers and servants. It is true that the Treasury has control over salaries or remuneration, but the control of the Treasury has been very lightly exercised in this matter. I know, as a member of the Select Committee on National Expenditure, that every day when we meet to consider this question that the control of the Treasury in these matters is of a most shadowy description. In fact it came out the other day that they do not control salaries at all, unless they are above a certain amount. I think some words ought to be put in as to the amount of money to be

427
spent upon secretaries, officers and servants of the Council, as there is a tendency to multiply these officials very much.
Lord H. CECIL:There will be a Vote in Supply.
Mr. SHERWELL:The serious point in this proposal is that to which the right hon. Member (Sir F. Banbury) has just referred. The only security under the Resolution before the Committee is the security supposed to be provided by the necessity of the sanction of the Treasury to the amount to be expended; but every Member of the Committee knows that since the inauguration of the War, Treasury control over Departmental expenditure has practically ceased. The only argument adduced by the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Major Baird) in support of this proposal is that it is desirable on the question of status that the new Minister shall be a Secretary of State, but that argument falls to the ground because the analogy is unsound and misleading. The Air Minister, under the terms of the Bill associated with this Resolution, is not to have the sole responsibility and the undivided control of the Secretaries of State of which we have experience. He is to have limited control compared with the autonomous control of the two other important Departments of State mentioned. Therefore, he has not the duties and responsibilities of a Secretary of State to carry the ordinary emoluments of a Secretary of State. I have a very disquieting feeling as to the continued evidence on the part of the Government that questions of status and questions of emolument should count for so much in this period of War. I believe the country is thoroughly sick of this insistence of Ministers who are leading in a great war campaign upon these niceties of precedent and status. My own feeling is that under the proposals of the Bill, for which this Resolution is sought to give support, you have no case made out for the creation of a new Secretary of State which involves, as I understand, further legislation subsequently. Since the salary in this Resolution is only under the nominal control of the Treasury, the Government might reasonably reconsider their proposal in this regard.
Mr. BILLING:Am I in Order in calling attention to the threat of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who says that
428
unless we rush this Bill through to-day we shall have to sit on Friday, as if we were schoolboys, who are to be kept in if we do not gallop through the Bill?
Mr. PRINGLE:Clause 8 of this Bill provides for the establishment of the Air Council, and Clause 9, Sub-section (2), the portion for which this Resolution is necessary, provides for the payment to members of the Council and secretaries, officers, and servants, of such salaries as the Treasury may determine. What salaries are to be paid to members of the Air Council? It is important to know that, now that we are elevating this Department into a Secretaryship of State. The Secretary of State is entitled to two Parliamentary Secretaries. Is it intended to appoint two such secretaries at £1,500 a year? To my mind in present conditions there is no case for having three Parliamentary officials in connection with this organisation. We are flooded with Parliamentary officials. The Front Bench has overflowed, the Second Bench is overflowing, and shortly there may be an encroachment on the Back Benches. Is the Government going to limit the number of members of the Air Council? Are there to be any men with trade interests on that Council? We sometimes have on these Councils men who take no salaries, and I give all credit to them for that, but sometimes they are connected with companies which are working for the Government Department of which they are members. Their refusal of remuneration is patriotic from a superficial point of view, but when we come to subsequent transactions the matter bears a somewhat different aspect. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be able to answer these questions.
Mr. OUTHWAITE:My hon. Friend has referred to the remuneration of members of the Air Council, and I would point out the necessity of getting men of professional capacity who are outside the contracting interests. I have raised the question in the House before, by question, as to the presence on the Air Board of members of firms which are contracting for aeroplane supplies. We must get away from such a system as that. I would be very sorry to see it perpetuated in connection with this new Air Service. I would call it a scandal that there should be men in any way connected with the supplying of aeroplanes or anything connected with the Air Service

429
who are themselves connected with firms contracting for supplies at present, and are thus virtually connected with the granting of contracts to their own firms. We see these terrible accidents taking place. Sometimes it may be that a machine falls, the engine of which has been supplied by the firm in which a member of the Air Board is interested. I do not know whether that has occurred. It is quite conceivable that it does occur, and that the Board, which should be concerned with finding out whether there was a defective engine or not, has as one of its members a contractor who supplied the defective engine.
The CHAIRMAN:That will arise on the Bill itself. It can be raised quite properly on Clause 9.
Mr. OUTHWAITE:I only express my hope that no question as to the limitation of expense will affect the matter of making such provision that members of the Air Council shall be provided with such salaries as will enable independent men, outside contracting firms, to take seats on the Council.
Mr. BILLING:I presume that if this Resolution is passed I should still be in order in moving the Amendment in my name to Clause 8, to limit the number of members of the Council to nine.
The CHAIRMAN:At the proper place, when discussing the Bill, a limiting Amendment can be brought up.
Mr. PRINGLE:Are we not to have a reply to the questions which I have asked?
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir F. Smith):All these matters can be discussed on Clause 9, when my hon. Friends can state their opinions. Their suggestions will be carefully considered, and also any information which would enable the Government to come to a conclusion. The matters to which reference has been made cannot be discussed until we get to Clause 9 of the Bill.
Mr. WATT:That is a most unsatisfactory reply. Surely the Committee is entitled to know how many secretaries there will be and how many members of the Air Council, how many members will be paid, and what their salaries will be. Moreover, a most important thing for this Committee to consider is the point brought forward by my hon. Friend regarding the remuneration of these gentlemen who are upon this Board, who
430
ostensibly do their work for nothing, and who, it is well known, direct the orders of this Department into the companies with which they are associated. Though they are not paid directly they are certainly paid indirectly. Then there are other interests, such as the petrol interests, which are concerned, and though members of the Committee are receiving no remuneration, they are indirectly influencing contracts, and so they are remunerated. The Committee should not pass a financial Resolution of this sort without knowing clearly and distinctly how the money is to be expended. We should get some explanation from the hon. Gentleman as to what is to be done.
Question put, and agreed to
Resolution reported.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
Mr. PRINGLE:If there had been any desire to delay the progress of this Bill it was perfectly possible to do it by raising the question as to whether facilities should be given for taking the Report stage of this Resolution to-day. Nobody lifted a voice against that suggestion, but it was on the understanding that the Government would be entitled to give all the relevant information to the House. A perfectly reasonable question has been put to the Front Bench regarding the Financial Resolution, and going to the root of that Resolution, as to the number of men who are to be paid, and the salaries which they are to receive. The Attorney-General has endeavoured to put that matter off by saying that when we come to Clause 9 of the Bill we will get all sorts of information. But as that Clause must be taken to-day the right hon. Gentleman should be in a position to answer the question now at the appropriate stage. It is perfectly true that we shall be able to raise the question again to-day, but we do not want to do that. We want to have done with it now, and not to have to raise it again in Clause 9. It is a most unfortunate arrangement. It is not at all consulting the convenience of the House. It is certainly not likely to encourage anybody to facilitate the proceedings. If the Government want speedy progress with the Bill, it is surely their duty to give information at the appropriate stage. If that information is given, we shall get on. They know, or ought to know, the number of members of the Air Council to be

431
appointed, and they ought also to know the salaries which these people are to receive. If they do not know these things, they are not entitled to get this Bill, and, if they do know, there is no trouble in giving us the information to which we are entitled.
Lord H. CECIL: I think the hon. Gentleman has hardly considered what this Bill aims at doing with respect to the Air Ministry. It is proposed to set up a new Ministry and to launch into an unknown country. It is impossible to say at this stage what exactly will be the extent of the functions of the Air Ministry. I do not know what answer my hon. Friend will give to the question that has been put. It is impossible to give an exact answer as to the numbers of the Air Council. The purpose of this Bill is to set up an Air Ministry, who will consider all these questions, and will then have to come to Parliament with a Vote. Upon that Vote all the matters raised by the hon. Gentleman can be raised, and salaries can be cut down or criticised. It is a mistake to suggest that this Resolution closes the financial control of the House. It does not. Not a penny of public money will be spent without a Vote in Supply. There will have to be an Air Vote, precisely the same as an Army Vote.
Mr. PRINGLE: Every one of these Votes is now a dummy vote. The War Office Vote is a dummy vote. We get £1,000 for the War Office and £1,000 for the Admiralty, so that we have no control over the individual Votes. That is why I think we are entitled to know how many members are contemplated for the Air Council and what salaries are in contemplation.
Lord H. CECIL: I only desire to point out the difficulty which there is at this stage in going into great detail during the construction of the Ministry, and how much more opportune it is to raise these matters when the Air Vote comes before Parliament. This is merely an administrative question, and is not a legislative question. For the moment we are concerned with legislation, and when we come to the Vote in Supply I think that will be the moment to raise this point.
Mr. BILLING: I think that hon. Members will appreciate, to a certain extent, the point raised by the hon.
432
Member (Mr. Pringle). All through this Bill there is practically taken away all the rights of control of Members of this House. It seems that everything in the Bill is to be done by Order in Council, or words to that effect. So far as private Members of this House are concerned, there is a feeling that they should jealously guard their rights of control and say to what extent public expenditure should go. The Noble Lord has suggested, after three and a half years of war, that the officials of the Government cannot yet make up their minds as to how many officials or what sort of posts they will create, and I would submit that this is a type of criticism so severe—and, I might almost say, so malicious—that I could not have been capable of making it myself.
Mr. SHERWELL: I only rise to make some sort of protest, which I think is due, against the apparent determination of the Government to give the Committee no vital information on this matter. It is a gross indignity and affront to the House of Commons to treat us as though we had become accustomed to the Financial Resolutions of Bills being passed pro forma, as if they did not vitally affect the whole scope and efficiency of the legislation founded upon them. The whole value of this Bill depends on this Financial Resolution, and I am bound to say that, at a time like this, when the increased attention of the country, if not of the House of Commons, is directed to the growth of public expenditure and the laxity of control of Government expenditure, it is incumbent upon this Committee to seek for more detailed information of the possible scale of expenditure in connection with the proposal that we have received from the Government. The defence made by the Noble Lord the Member for Oxford University is really rather unfortunate, because he knows quite well that we have had no opportunity, as a Committee, of exercising the smallest control over Votes in Supply, owing to the system of Token Votes, and it is perfectly futile for him or any other member of the Committee to allow this matter to go sub silentio this afternoon because we shall have an opportunity in Supply of raising the issue which we are raising now. No Government, whether a war Government or any other, has any right to come down and propose legislation of this kind without telling the House or the Committee what are its intentions. It

433
is an extremely reasonable request which has been made by my hon. Friend (Mr. Pringle) that, before we are asked to vote this money, we shall be told how many members of the Air Council there are to be in the first instance, whatever may be the subsequent arrangements made. The Government cannot make a specific proposal without knowing and telling us what it is to be. We do not ask for the number to be appointed in three or five years' time, but what we do ask is that, before we vote this Resolution, we shall be given the details which we are entitled to know, and what is to be the scale of expenditure.
Major BAIRD: There is no intention on the part of the Government to conceal from hon. Members any information that they may desire to have. That, indeed, would be a very bad way of requiting the House for their indulgence in giving the Committee the two stages to-day, in order that we may get on with the Bill. The whole question turns upon what my right hon. and learned Friend said as to what is the proper moment to give this information, and he said that the proper moment was not this one, but on Clause 9 of the Bill. However, at the request of the hon. and learned Member for North-West Lanark (Mr. Pringle), I will give such information as in the circumstances is possible. As regards Under-Secretaries, power is taken in this Bill to create a Parliamentary Under-Secretary and a Parliamentary Financial Secretary, but there is no intention at present to appoint the latter, though it may become necessary. Nobody can tell how, eventually, the work of the Air Ministry will develop. At the present moment the work which would normally fall to the Parliamentary Financial Secretary falls within the province of the Ministry of Munitions, the War Office, or the Admiralty, and for that reason there is no intention at present to appoint a Parliamentary Financial Secretary. As to the scale of pay of the Under-Secretaries, we propose to pay them on the same scale as in all
other offices; but it is the Treasury that must determine what the pay is to be. We have been working at a scheme of organisation, and we have made proposals with regard to what we consider adequate, based on the scale of the War Office and the Army Council. Roughly, what we propose, therefore, in regard to the Council, is that it
434
shall consist of the Secretary of State, the Chief of Staff, and probably a sub-Chief, who will act in the absence of the Chief, and vice versa. Then we propose that there shall be an officer who shall have the control of the department of personnel, and also an officer to control materiel, in so far as that is not furnished by the Ministry of Munitions. This officer will take over part of the functions of the General-Director of Ordnance at the War Office. In regard to the Council, I would point out that it would be unwise to lay down a fixed principle in regard to that body, because, for the efficiency of the Service, it might easily be that it would be necessary to increase its number. Then there would be also a Secretary of the Board. Again, land is a question which plays so large a part in the organisation of the Flying Service in regard to aerodromes, and so forth, that it is desirable that these matters should be dealt with as rapidly and as efficiently as possible; and we find it desirable, therefore, to have as member of the Air Council one who will be able to deal with the subject of land. As regards the Ministry of Munitions, I can quite understand the reference that has been made to members of the Air Board who are connected with commercial undertakings, but I wish hon. Members would be quite frank in saying what they mean. Do they mean that, when we are asked to deal with a highly technical matter of this kind, on which depend not only the efficiency of this arm of the Services but the lives of our airmen, we ought not to be debarred or limited in any direction as regards the selection of men for the work? Nobody would think we were doing right if we did not avail ourselves of the services of those men who are best qualified, whatever their position in life may be, to take charge of this work. Obviously nobody knows better the difficulties and the complications of the aircraft industry than those who are familiar with it. I quite agree that in theory and in principle it may be wise to confine these appointments in time of peace to politicians and people of that kind, but it would be a very great misfortune if we carried that practice into war time. The hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Outhwaite) made reference to the personnel of the Air Board and to those connected with the aircraft industry, and he did so in somewhat disparaging terms.
Mr. DEPUTY - SPEAKER (Mr. Whitley): The hon. and gallant Gentleman has been drawn into discussion of a question which perhaps I ought not to have allowed to pass, but it is one that ought not to be further developed at this stage of the Financial Resolution, and the hon. and learned Member who put the question will be in a position to again raise it when we come to Clause 9 of the Bill.
Major BAIRD: I bow to your ruling, Sir, though I very naturally felt that I should make some remarks in reply to the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. OUTHWAITE: The hon. Gentleman has referred to my remarks in reference to members of the Air Board. I did not refer to individuals specifically, and what I urged was that contractors should not themselves sit on the Air Board.
Major BAIRD: I do not think we need pursue that topic further. I trust hon. Members will be satisfied with the reply that I have made, and that they will realise that, without any desire to diminish the control of the House over expenditure, it is not possible to give all the details at this moment, for the very simple reason that I would not be justified in occupying the time of officials who are already overworked.
Mr. DENMAN: I do not see anything whatever in regard to the payment for land and building and materiel. Am I to understand that the Air Ministry will spend nothing whatever, and that the Ministry of Munitions will supply all materiel needed. Who will be responsible for the expenditure on land and buildings?
Major BAIRD: I think my hon. Friend will find that provided for in Sub-section (4) of Clause 8, which says:
"His Majesty may by Order in Council transfer from the Admiralty or from the Army Council or the Secretary of State for the War Department, to the Air Council or the President of the Air Council, such property, rights, and liabilities of the Admiralty or Army Council or Secretary of State, as may be agreed between the Air Council and the Admiralty, or the Army Council, as the case may be."
That refers to aerodromes and the establishments we now have. The Air Ministry will take them over, but, like everything
436
else, it will be done gradually. With regard to the other point, money will of course be required directly the Air Council is formed, for the purpose of starting it. All that this Resolution seeks to do is to enable the Ministry to be formed, and, when formed, it will come to the House for a Vote.
Mr. LYNCH: The words "Air Ministry" are used. Have they any relation to the Air Council?
Major BAIRD: It is the same thing.
Question put, and agreed to.

AIR FORCE BILL.
Considered in Committee.
[Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]

Clause 1 (Raising and Number of Air Force) ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  CLAUSE 2.—(Government, Discipline, and Pay of Air Force.)
  (1) Subject to the provisions of this Act it shall be lawful for His Majesty, by Order signified under the hand of a Secretary of State, to make orders with respect to the government, discipline, pay, allowances, and pensions of the Air Force, and with respect to all other matters and things relating to the Air Force, including any matter by this Act authorised to be prescribed or expressed to be subject to Orders or Regulations.

  (2) The said Orders may provide for the formation of men of the Air Force into, separate units, and for the formation of such units into corps, and for appointing, transferring, or attaching men of the Air Force to units, and for posting, attaching, and otherwise dealing with such men within the units, and may regulate the appointment, rank, duties, and numbers of the officers and non-commissioned officers of the Air Force.

  (3) Subject to the provisions of any such Order, the Air Council hereinafter constituted may make general or special Regulations with respect to any matter with respect to which His Majesty may make Orders under this Section:

  Provided that the administration of Pensions, other than service pensions within the meaning of the Ministry of Pensions Act, 1916, shall vest in the Minister of Pensions.

  437

  (4) All Orders and General Regulations made under this Section shall be laid before Parliament as soon as may be after they are made.

  Mr. BILLING:I beg to move a manuscript Amendment, the object of which is to add a new Clause after Clause 1.
  The CHAIRMAN:We have not got to the new Clauses yet. I will ask the hon. Member to move his first Amendment to Clause 2.
  Mr. BILLING:I beg to move, in Subsection (1), to leave out the word "discipline."
  My object is to secure that the disciplinary measures embodied in this Act should be the same as those which obtain in the Army and the Navy. I fail to see why this power should be given to the Secretary of State, or why the discipline of this Force should be dealt with by this Act of Parliament. I would suggest that always in this Bill there is a tendency to vest in the Secretary of State powers which are not usually possessed by Secretaries of State, and to remove wherever possible the control of the House of Commons. I therefore want this word "discipline" struck out.
  Major BAIRD:I think it is essential to keep the word in. The hon. Gentleman is in error in thinking that this Bill confers greater powers on the Secretary of State than are possessed by other Secretaries of State. The question of discipline in the Air Force has to be provided for in the same way as the King's Regulations provide for it in the Army, and the Regulation will have to be made subject to the provisions of this Act. I think the hon. Member will find it absolutely necessary to keep the word in.
  Mr. BILLING:With all respect, may I point out that the Clause goes on to say: "With respect to all other matters and things relating to the Air Force, including any matter by this Act authorised to be prescribed or expressed to be subject to orders or regulations." Am I in error in suggesting to the hon. and gallant Gentleman that it would be possible under this Act to alter the discipline of the Force without coming to the House of Commons to alter the Act?
  Major BAIRD:The discipline will be subject to the King's Regulations, and any alteration must be reported to this House.
  Mr. BILLING:Would it be impossible to alter the discipline of this Force without altering either this Act or the Army Act? Would it be necessary to come to this House to do that?
  Major BAIRD:I really think the hon. Gentleman is labouring under a misapprehension. The Army Act is to be adapted to this Bill when it becomes an Act, and nothing can be done contrary to this Bill. If the Air Force Bill is passed it cannot be altered without the consent of Parliament, therefore, I think the non-Member's point is met entirely.
  Amendment negatived.
  Mr. BILLING:In view of the reply given by the hon. and gallant Gentleman to my last Amendment, I do not propose to move the next Amendment, to leave out the words, "and with respect to all other matters and things relating to the Air Force, including any matter by this Act authorised to be prescribed or expressed to be subject to orders or regulations."
  Colonel GRETTON:I beg to move, in the same Sub-section, to leave out the words, "including any matter."
  I want to make it quite clear that the Secretary of State shall not make orders which are not authorised by this Bill. The words I propose to omit are rather extraordinary, and if they are left out the Subsection will read as follows:
  "Subject to the provisions of this Act it shall be lawful for His Majesty by orders signified under the hand of a Secretary of State to make Orders with respect to the Government, discipline, pay, allowances and pensions of the Air Force, and with respect to all other matters and things relating to the Air Force by this Act authorised to be prescribed or expressed to be subject to orders or regulations."
  Clearly it would not be wise, nor could, it be intended by the framers of this Bill, unless they are trying to deceive the House, that the Secretary of State, by the formality of an Order in Council, shall make orders on any matter at his own sweet will. Is it not clear there is here an extension of powers which was not contemplated?
  Major BAIRD:My reply to this Amendment is similar to that which I gave to the last. Everything has to be provided for in both directions. It is necessary to be quite certain that Regulations shall, not be made that do not fall within the four corners of the Air Force Act, and at the same time the Secretary of State ought not to be hampered with regard to the regulations he may make under the

  439
  Act. I am afraid the result of the omission of these words would hamper him in this direction. It is absolutely necessary he should have a free hand, but Parliament will still retain complete control by being called upon to sanction the Air Force Act every year.
  Colonel GRETTON:This is news indeed. The hon. and gallant Gentleman has just told us that the Bill is to come up annually for renewal. Does he really mean that? I take it that this is a Bill establishing a Ministry which, like all other Bills establishing new Ministries during the War, becomes an Act of Parliament once it has gone out of the hands of this House, and we shall have no further control over it unless there be a necessity to amend it. What many hon. Members will object to on reflection is that the new Secretary of State should not be hampered. We think he ought to be hampered. He should be kept within the four corners of the law, and only do those things which the House prescribes, and no other things. It is an entirely new doctrine that a Secretary of State should be set up to do whatever he pleases without limitation, while he is to be allowed most graciously to do those things which the Act prescribes. Surely there is something very wrong about this matter. The reply of the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill has only confirmed me in my uneasiness as to the possibility of this new Secretary of State having a roving commission and not being hampered in any way.
  Major BAIRD:I do not think my hon. and gallant Friend can have noticed Subsection (2) of Clause 12, which provides that the Air Force Act shall continue in force only as long as the Army Act continues in force. Provision is made for amending the Air Force Act automatically with the Army Act, so that there is no question about the Secretary of State having a roving commission. He is confined by the very terms of the Clause under discussion to action by this Act authorised. I think that is quite clear.
  Sir I. PHILIPPS:I think the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill is rather confusing us with his Air Force Act and his Air Force Bill. The two separate Bills with similar names give rise to complication, and I do not think they show very great intelligence on the part of the gentleman who drafted the Bills. It has
  440
  always been said in the Army that it is very difficult for a young soldier to acquire a knowledge of military law, as the lawyers do their level best to make it as difficult as possible for them. When we are faced with two Bills like these and call one an Act and the other a Bill, it is liable to lead to confusion. I think the hon. Gentleman might consider whether he cannot invent different names for the two articles which he is presenting to us.
  Colonel GRETTON:I am thankful to the hon. Gentleman in charge of the for his explanation. I am aware that the Discipline Act has to be passed every year, but what we are now discussing is not the Discipline Act or alterations which the Schedule of this Bill is going to introduce, but we are discussing the powers of the Ministry, and I think I am right in saying that the Bill which sets up the Ministry gives it powers which will not have to be renewed year by year, and when once Parliament has disposed of the Bill it will cease to have control over it.
  Mr. BILLING:Perhaps the Attorney-General will tell us whether the Bill gives the Secretary of State any powers which other Secretaries of State do not possess?
  Sir F. SMITH:I do not think it gives any powers which other Secretaries of State do not possess, and consequently in my opinion the fear expressed by my hon. and gallant Friend is quite unfounded. It is obvious that any Bill of this kind, by reason of its very nature, has to make provision that certain matters shall be dealt with by Orders or by Regulations, and this Bill simply contains provisions to that effect. There is nothing unusual in giving these powers to the Secretary of State. It was done in the Territorial Reserve Forces Act of 1906, the Reserve Forces Act of 1882, and the Militia Act of 1866. These all gave very wide powers to the Secretary of State for the time being.
  Amendment negatived.
  5.0 P.M.
  Mr. BILLING:I beg to move, in Subsection (4), after the word "Parliament" ["laid before Parliament"], to insert the words "for confirmation."
  I do this because I think hon. Members will agree that if this is to be brought
  before Parliament it should be brought before Parliament for confirmation, as distinct from what has been the custom in many

  441
  recent acts of the Government, namely, to perform the act, and then to come and say they have done it, instead of first coming to the House and asking permission to do it. This may be necessary in some matters affecting war strategy. If the House is to be consulted at all, I suggest it should be consulted before, and not after, the act has been performed.
  Major BAIRD:If this Amendment were accepted, the effect would be to make it necessary to pass an Act of Parliament whenever alterations were made in the King's Regulations. That is a matter of daily occurrence, and it would be absolutely out of the question to attempt to carry it out. The hon. Gentleman will see that all these Orders and Regulations are made subject to this Section, and I do not think he will find it necessary to proceed in the way he proposes, which would entail legislation on every occasion on which the King's Regulations were altered, which would be perfectly impossible in practice.
  Mr. BILLING:Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman say what the inference is from the words that "they shall be laid before Parliament"? Surely if Parliament has no power in the matter we might as well, in view of the great shortage of paper, have saved those three words?
  Sir I. PHILIPPS:Surely the object of laying them before Parliament is that Parliament may approve or disapprove of the action taken. Any Member can rise and object, and move a Resolution against the Government. I hope this will be left alone. I think the hon. Member (Mr. Billing) is anxious to improve the Bill, but that he is not aware of the way in which the Army is governed through the King's Regulations. Orders and Amendments are almost continuously being issued, and if we had to come to this House regarding each it would be quite impossible to carry on. It would not be to the advantage of the airmen, officers or men, that these delays should take place. Some injustice would be incurring, and the Air Council would be ready, and would have the power, to remove the grievance at once, if the Bill remains as it is. But if it were altered as the hon. Member desires, they would have to come and get an Act of Parliament. It could not be worked, and I am sure the hon. Member does not appreciate what is the meaning of his Amendment
  Amendment negatived.
  Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  CLAUSE 3.—(Transfer and Attaching to Air Force of Members of Naval and Military Forces.)
  1) Any officer, warrant officer, petty officer, non-commissioned officer, or man of any of His Majesty's naval or military forces may, with his consent and subject to the approval of the Admiralty or Army Council (as the case may be), be transferred by the Air Council to the Air Force, or attached by the Air Council to the Air Force for the period of the present War or for a period not exceeding four years:
  Provided that—

  (a) any officer, warrant officer, petty officer, non-commissioned officer, or man who at such date as may be fixed by Order in Council belongs to or is attached to the Royal Naval Air Service, the Royal Flying Corps or any unit of the naval or military forces engaged in defence against aircraft which is designated by the Admiralty or Army Council for the purpose, may be so transferred or attached without his consent, but if any person so transferred or attached, within three months from the time when he receives notice of such transfer or attachment or such longer period as in any particular case the Air Council may allow, gives notice to his commanding officer that he does not desire to be so transferred or attached, the transfer or attachment shall be annulled without prejudice to the validity of anything which may have been done in the meanwhile; and

  (b) no person transferred to the Air Force under the provisions of this Section shall be liable to serve with the Air Force for any longer period than that for which he would have been liable to serve had he continued in the force from which he was transferred.

  (2) Regulations made by the Air Council may provide that in the case of a person so transferred, the time during which he held a commission or served in the force from which he is transferred shall, for such purposes as may be prescribed, be aggregated with the time during which he holds a commission or serves in the Air Force, and that his entry into or enlistment in the force from which he is transferred shall, for such purposes as may be prescribed, be treated as enlistment into the Air Force.
  (3) Where any person is transferred to the Air Force under this Section, then for the purposes of pay, pensions, gratuity, and retired or half-pay, and of any decoration or reward dependent on length of service, any previous service with His Majesty's naval or military forces which would have counted as service towards pay, pension, gratuity, retired or half-pay, or such decoration or reward if he had not been so transferred, shall be deemed to be service with the Air Force towards pay, pension, gratuity, retired or half-pay, or such decoration or reward.
  (4) Where any person is attached to the Air Force under this Section, the fact that he is so attached shall not affect any right to any pay, pension, gratuity, retired, or half-pay, or such decoration or reward as aforesaid, already earned by him in that branch of His Majesty's naval or military forces to which he belonged at the date on which he was so attached, and the period during which he is so attached shall, for the purpose of any provisions relating to pay, pensions, gratuity, retired, or half-pay, or such decoration or reward, be deemed to be service with that branch of His Majesty's naval or military forces to which he belonged at the date on which he was so attached.
  Mr. HARCOURT:I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), to leave out the words "with his consent and subject to the approval of the Admiralty or Army Council (as the case may be)."
  In common with, I think, a good many other hon. Members, I was struck on the First Reading, and perhaps not very favourably impressed, by what I should describe as the voluntary and permissive character of the Bill, or what would seem to be such a character if you confine yourself strictly to the language in which it is drafted. I did not speak on the Second Reading, although I listened to the whole Debate, but I think my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Southampton (General Sir Ivor Philipps) and other hon. Members was justified in concentrating on that point, even at an early stage of the Bill. At the same time, so obvious is it to every friend of the Bill that it is a conciliation as well as an amalgamation Bill, and so much does it depend on tact, good feeling, and good will, that if the Government, and they alone have full sources of information, tell me that this or any other similar Amendment will make a clumsy and brutal change in the Bill contrary to
  444
  the whole spirit of the transfer, so anxious am I that the transfer should take place, that I will withdraw it, although I hope more explanation will be given than was accorded to the House on the Second Reading of the Bill. It is intended to raise, at any rate for discussion, what I think we are accustomed to call usually the question of contracting-out. I take the view—and, indeed I think it will be regarded as a platitude—that the Air Force and the Secretary of State, assuming them to be reasonable and judicious parties, are entitled to take all the personnel that they wish to take and that if any substantial part of that personnel is withheld, for whatever reason, a serious public injury may result. I think I have gathered correctly what is no doubt a prevailing view in opposition to this Amendment, and I will state it merely to see whether I correctly apprehend it. It is said, "That is all very well, but your point is purely a verbal point. No effective contracting-out of the Bill is possible under the Bill, even if it were desired, and it is not in fact desired." The Air Force will have all the materiel—although the hon. Member for Herts put in a caveat as to lighter-than-air machines—or will control the bulk of the machines and aerodromes, and consequently if a pilot desires to fly he will only be able to fly under the auspices of the Air Force.
  Sir H. NORMAN:It is not in the Bill.
  Mr. HARCOURT:I agree that it is not in the Bill, and I think I specifically stated that although it might be an opinion, it was not in the Bill. That is why I am moving the Amendment. What I desire to point out is that whatever that is, it is not conciliation. It is compulsion, and a very effective form of compulsion. It says, in effect—and I was dealing with the answer which I presume will be made to my Amendment— "Whether you like it or whether you do not, you must come under our umbrella or give up flying." Otherwise why have a Bill? I say that is not the intention, the spirit, or the tone of the proposals of the Government. It does seem to me that from the point of legislative effect these words are extremely wide. You have taken power to transfer men to other units, even against their will, and much as many people dislike compulsion it is compulsion of a very mild kind in comparison with other forms. I only want to give a couple of illustrations. In regard to the purely aviation

  445
  element, the pilots are so incomparably the greatest element that one is apt to forget that the personnel includes many other people, such as the observers. The Royal Naval Air Service contains many attached Army officers, Infantry soldiers and gunners. Several of the best observers we had at the aerodrome where I spent many months were soldiers lent to the Royal Naval Air Service, and it is possible, under these very wide powers, that at least a decision might be made that an individual, or group of individuals, should revert to non-aviation service, where their services would be of infinitely less value. Let me take another illustration. With regard to those officers who have been described as the "pukka navy" officers of the Royal Naval Air Service, although I do not much like that phrase, there are men, commanding officers and squadron commanders, and wing commanders, friends of my own, who were at one time naval lieutenants. It would be lamentable if some of those men were sent back to the Navy as watch-keeping officers, or in any such capacity. It is conceivable that they might decide, or it might be decided for them, that their duty lay in that direction, and the same line of argument applies to many technical officers. I will not specify them, but there are many specialised officers, who, if the fashion were set in of contracting-out, might be offered employment in other naval and military units. That will very probably happen as it is. It does happen in nearly all these cases of transfer, and it would be most unfortunate if it did happen in a substantial number of cases where the Air Force really wanted the men.
  To take another illustration, I will refer to the Anti-Aircraft units. I happen to know something about the personnel of those units. I have completed three years' service in them at home and abroad, and I have, as an officer, been in two transfers in such units. When I was demobilised my technical rank was lieutenant of the Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve. Under the Royal Naval Air Service I have been twice asked, quite unofficially, whether I would become, once a captain of the Royal Garrison Artillery and once a captain of the Royal Marines. There is a case in point. It is idle to deny that in all cases of transfer there is always involved a certain esprit de corps, and I press it on the Government that if you offer a man an option you very often, in fact,
  446
  place him in a more difficult position than if you take him over automatically. I think the point is understood. A man is apt to ask himself whether, if he changes his uniform, he will offend the friends with whom he has been working all through the War and whether they will think he is in a hurry to leave, that he is after a job, or that he is playing for his own hand. So the discussion in the mind of the individual goes on, and as the result of all this perfectly honourable, and quite human and natural hesitation you do in fact during transfers fail to get hold of all the best men. That is the point. In the transfer I have in mind owing to that sort of feeling the Army did fail to get the pick of the candidates for commissions, because there was a feeling in some cases in favour of staying in the ranks rather than entering a new branch, whereas several gentlemen whose qualifications for commissioned rank were not so apparent to their own officers blossomed out as second-lieutenants. Of course, you must have the support of the Services. If you have not, obviously your Bill is as dead as mutton. If you have the support of the Services, and when you are ready you say, "We are the executive Government; we have all the best flying opinion behind us; things are pretty hot, and we have no time to waste; it is notified for information that the following are the men we want," I believe every man will rejoice in having once in a way got a bit of leadership, and will say, Take me if you want me, and leave me if you do not.
  Mr. BONAR LAW:My hon. and gallant Friend (Major Baird) at the end of his last speech said a word or two with regard to this Amendment. The basis of this Bill is, in the first place, the determination of the Government that the whole of the Air Services must be treated as one; and, in the second place, it depends on the good will of the two Departments which are now engaged in the Air Services and on their working harmoniously. As regards the first point, the determination that the whole of the Air Services must be treated as one and transferred to the new Department and become a new service independent of either the Admiralty or the Army Council—
  Sir I. PHILIPPS:The whole of it?
  Mr. BONAR LAW:The whole of it—that is the first consideration. The second

  447
  is that this conclusion was come to, and both the Army and the Navy loyally accepted it, and by accepting it have put themselves in this position, that they have come under an obligation, which I am sure will be carried out, to act in the spirit and to transfer the whole services to this new body as soon as it is possible to set it up. That is the position in a nutshell. This Bill in the middle of war would be absolutely impossible if there was not good will on the part of the two Services for carrying on the Air Service. That is the essence of it. Then comes the question of voluntary as compared with compulsory transfer. That deals with two different sets of conditions. The first is the men themselves. I do not think there is any member of the Committee who would want to make it compulsory on the part of pilots in the Air Service to be transferred at this moment.
  Sir I. PHILIPPS:Not in war-time?
  Mr. BONAR LAW:I will give my reason. At this moment, if an officer who is transferred to the Flying Corps were to say, "I prefer to go back to my old Service," he would not be retained, and for this reason: Every member of the Committee knows that this is a service which, above all others, requires nerve and enthusiasm, and it is quite obvious that no one would retain for a minute a man in this position if the man himself felt that he would rather be in some other position.
  Mr. HARCOURT:I rather specifically said in my speech that the pilot stood on a very different footing, but that there were a very large number of other officers and men who were not pilots.
  Mr. BONAR LAW:To a certain extent they have the right now to go back to their old Services. The experience in this War has shown that instead of people wanting to go out of the Air Service, all the inclination is to remain in. I do think the Committee may be under no fear that we will lose on account of this option being given. If my hon. Friend refers to mechanics and people of that kind, there need be no apprehension, since their position is really much better than under either the Army or the Navy. I think the Committee can rely on no loss being sustained on that point. There might be more objection to the right of the Army Council or the Board of Admiralty not to
  448
  allow particular men to be transferred. I do not think it is unreasonable that both those bodies should have the right in exceptional cases to say that a particular man should be retained in his own Service. I admit at once, if that right were to be exercised to any extent, then the whole object of this Bill would be defeated, and the thing could not be done. It rests, as I have said, on good will. There is not only the determination of the Cabinet, but there is the acceptance of that determination on the part of the heads of the two Services. I am sure the Committee can rely that this is a power which will not be exercised except in most unusual and exceptional cases. If by any chance the Board of Admiralty or the Army Council were to be unreasonable, then the new Secretary of State of the Air Department would have a position of authority equal to theirs, and would have the right to bring the question to the Cabinet, in order to see that his intentions were carried out. I will ask the Committee not to press for this Amendment. All these questions of arrangements have been thrashed out between the three Departments concerned. They formed the subject of a great deal of negotiation. It has been done with the utmost good will on all sides, and I do not think the Committee, without the strongest reasons, should upset an arrangement which has been come to by those engaged in framing the Bill.
  Sir I. PHILIPPS:I am very pleased indeed that the Leader of the House has come down to answer our questions on this matter. I really think, considering the great importance of the Air Service of the country, that we should have had his statement on the Second Reading. We pressed for it and we got nothing, and I tried again this afternoon to bring the matter up on the Money Resolution. The statement, the very important statement, now made by the right hon. Gentleman has entirely altered my view of the Bill. I only point that out to show how much better it is to be open with the House, and to tell us what you are doing, and in that case many of us are only too anxious to help you in passing the Bill. We could not doubt, when we saw the Bill, that there was something behind it, but the statement of the right hon. Gentleman has satisfied me that the whole of the Air Services are to be handed over, and, in reply to my question, he

  449
  repeated that. I could not help doubting, when I saw this skeleton Bill, and when I saw this Clause making it quite possible that nobody need go over to the new Force in the middle of a great war, and that you would have in this most important Service a new leader of the Service and no force behind him. That seemed to me to be an absolutely impossible situation to take up. You only had to tell us that you intended, and that the Admiralty intended, and the War Office intended, honestly and honourably, to carry out the proposal, and the whole doubt went by the board. Still, I do not like Clause 3, even now. Of course, I waive my opposition, and would not think any more of dividing the House.
  Mr. MACMASTER:It is permissive still.
  Sir I. PHILIPPS:It is permissive still, and I do not like it. Let me remind the House what has been done with soldiers who from their childhood up have and there are many such who were were suddenly taken and put on bicycles, and there are many such men who were trained as Cavalry, and who have now been turned into Infantry. That is so, because they are fighting for their country, and the country is in danger. I remember in one of the first interviews I had with Lord Kitchener he asked me, "How is your R.A.M.C. getting on?" I said, "I have some of the finest men in the world," and he then remarked, "Turn them all into Artillery." If that is what our great soldier did, why should we hesitate to-day? We do not ask these men to change their profession or their customs or lives in any way whatsoever. We simply say that instead of being under the mixed command of the Air Board with a little soldier and sailor thrown in, we are putting you under one command. I say it is an absurd position, even now, and although I accept what the right hon. Gentleman has said. I think this Amendment ought to be accepted, and that it ought to go out to the country that you are in earnest in your determination that this shall be a great force, and that every man who is in the Air Forces now shall come into the new Air Force. Even now I shall leave this House to-day with a certain amount, not of doubt about the right hon. Gentleman's good intentions, I am quite certain of that, or any doubt as to the Air member of the Army Council, Sir David Henderson, or Commodore Paine, the Fifth Naval Lord, I have no doubt about them. But you
  450
  have a large body of men who have strong feelings about this junction between the Army and the Navy; there are questions of rank. I may say that if you leave it as a voluntary arrangement, I think you will not get over all the men you want.
  The Government are making a great mistake. Even at the last moment I think if you asked those gallant men who are going to be your air force, there would be no question of what their answer would be. I think that you are only hesitating over this because you have got doubts of the good faith of the Admiralty. How can we help having doubts when we know from the moment this outside agitation began, and a very proper agitation, which compelled the Government to bring in this Bill what the Admiralty did. Why do we doubt their honesty on this matter? What did they do? They started immediately from that moment bringing all the naval officers in the Naval Flying Service a great deal more firmly under the Admiralty. They started making aeroplanes, and all kinds of air machines in the dockyards. There was no necessity to do that in any way. They were not doing it before the War. I should like to have that contradicted, but I would even doubt an official contradiction, because my information on the subject is such, that unless I was taken into the dockyards and could actually see that those machines were not being made on the benches, I should doubt, because we all know they are being made. I say that that only began at the time that the Admiralty were beginning to fear that the Naval Air Service would be taken away from them. I do hope that the Government, before the Report stage, will carefully consider this matter. I am sure that they, like all of us, have only one cause at heart, and that is that our Air Service shall be the finest Service in the world. If you are going to hesitate, what will happen? Captain So-and-so—and I am speaking of a naval captain—will say, "How am I to be placed as regards Colonel So-and-so?" and Admiral So-and-so will say, "How am I to be placed as regards General So-and-so?" With these technical questions you will have deals and counter-deals and backstair work of all kinds. There is one other thing. It will cost the Exchequer a great deal of money, and, above all people, that aspect should appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. If you have got to bribe

  451
  these men to come over and to say, "We will increase your pay," that is all to the disadvantage of the country and it is absolutely unnecessary. The Amendment which my hon. and gallant Friend has moved, and of which I also gave notice, as well as the omission of paragraph (a), would simply have provided that any person would be liable to be taken over. Let me remind the Committee also that under this Clause the men are only called on to serve during the period of the War. Why should you not do this in the case of these men as in the case of those whom you made ploughmen, and quite properly so? I say it would be quite proper in this case to do similarly if the interests of the State demand that it should be done. The whole question is "only for the period of the War," or "not exceeding four years." I should like to see that four years knocked out. I shall certainly not vote for the Amendment in view of the statement of the right hon. Gentleman, but I do hope that before the Report stage he will consider this matter, and discuss it with the naval and military officers who are responsible for the Flying Force and not with the Army Council or Board of Admiralty. If he will do that, I have no doubt he will come here and ask us to adopt the Amendment which is now asked for.
  Mr. BONAR LAW:I am not going to reply again to the arguments put forward in favour of the Amendment, but I would point out that all that my hon. Friends have said about the difficulty of making these arrangements as between the different Services is only an additional reason for not refusing to accept the compromise which has been arranged. May I add that I have to leave the House now to meet a deputation, and I thought I should like to inform the House of that fact.
  Sir H. NORMAN:Anything my right hon. Friend says, and any kind of undertaking he gives is instantly accepted at full value by every Member of the House. I am sorry, however, in spite of his appeal, that I cannot accept the situation as it is now left. The general view is really—and I think I must call attention to it—that this is a permissive Bill only. I do not think a Bill of this character on a subject of such far-reaching importance should be left as only one of a permissive character. The right hon. Gentleman said that the Navy and the Army had come under an
  452
  obligation. Why is it an obligation? It is an obligation resulting only from private conferences. Why should not that obligation be frankly in the Bill? The words which fell from my right hon. Friend, may I point out to every member of the Committee, describe exactly what took place. I have no knowledge whatever; I am simply drawing what seems to me the natural inference from what has just been said by the Leader of the House. He spoke of a delicate and difficult arrangement come to between the Government on the one hand and the Board of Admiralty and the Army Council on the other. Is it not a natural inference from that that the Board of Admiralty and the Army Council have agreed to accept the Bill as it is, on condition that these two lines in Clause 2, and the corresponding lines in Clause 8 remain? In regard to these I have handed in an Amendment. That is to say, they have agreed, provided that the Bill remains of a permissive character. If that be a fair and natural inference, and I think it is, then it is a very, very significant one indeed. The phrase has been used about flying officers "being transferred." I would like to point out that this transference is really only a transference in name. It does not mean that a flying officer shall necessarily leave the front and go somewhere else. It does not mean that he will be taken away against his will and attached to a different unit. It does not mean that he will wear a different uniform. It makes no difference whatever to him personally, except that he will owe allegiance to another Minister of State, and will be under the control of another Minister, instead of the Board of Admiralty on the one hand or the Secretary of State for War on the other. One might almost say that it is a matter of book-keeping, of entries. This transference will make no other difference to him whatever. I think, therefore, that undue importance is being attached to it.
  If this agreement has really been come to—we know now that it is, because the right hon. Gentleman has told us so—what possible reason can there be for not putting it in the Bill? If the new Air Service is to be the great, splendid service of the future which we all hope, and confidently expect, you will want all the best men in it. Not only that, but it must be a Service to which they will be very proud to belong. For that purpose the permissive element, it seems to me, must

  453
  come out, and for that reason, although very reluctant, as one always is not to respond to the right hon Gentleman, I must confess myself still wholly unsatisfied.
  Lord H. CECIL:I hope the Amendment will not be ultimately pressed after the very important declaration of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It must be remembered that the organisation and control of the Air Service, and of the Army and the Navy, are primarily administrative matters. It is quite true that Parliament in the old days, to preserve the liberty of the subject, placed certain restrictions on the prerogative of the Crown in respect of the grant of public money. Parliament has to give its consent. It is necessary, also, that there should be administrative discipline; this requires statutory regulation. Therefore in various ways Parliament has to cooperate in military and naval, or, as we now say, matters connected with the Air Force. But it remains true that, fundamentally, the thing is an administrative act, an executive power, lodged in the Crown. It certainly is not desirable to enlarge further than necessary the statutory regulations attaching to the Crown's exercise of its authority in any particular way, further, that is to say, than the public interest requires. Therefore, the general character of the Bill is so far permissive that it leaves the Crown to set up an Air Force, and to remove whatever stands in the way, so far as may be necessary. Perhaps I am speaking rather in a disorderly manner in, for the moment, dealing with the general character of the Bill. But in regard to this particular Clause there is a speciallly permissive character. I think the objections to the permissive character in respect of the control of the Army Council and the Board of Admiralty have been completely removed by the important declaration made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. We have learned from that declaration first, that this Bill is not merely an Air Board Bill, but the policy of the War Cabinet put before Parliament as part of the policy of the War Cabinet; and, secondly, that the Army Council and the Board of Admiralty are obviously—the Government could not have promoted the particular purposes of this Bill unless that were so—consenting parties, and willingly consenting in the public interest.
  454
  Surely there is no reason—not the slightest—to anticipate that the Army Council or the Board of Admiralty will use their veto unreasonably. If such a thing happened the War Cabinet, in carrying out their policy, would certainly overrule it. These declarations of the right hon. Gentleman are, I think, of very great importance. I do not share—nor have I at any time shared—the apprehensions of the right hon. Gentlemen who spoke from the benches opposite a few minutes ago, that there will be left about fragments of the Air Service, partly in the Army and partly in the Navy. That seems to me, with all respect, a rather fantastic conception; if it happened it would incredibly complicate matters. It was stated that there was a danger or suspicion, which does not affect in the slightest degree either the Army Council or the Board of Admiralty, of there being an anxiety to retain officers of great ability in their own Service—of being very unwilling to lose their services. Accordingly something which may be called picking out the plums from the Services may take place. The Army Council might refuse permission to hand over a number of able men not because they wish to do anything spiteful to the Air Service, but because they genuinely wished to retain the able officers in their own services. I think the declaration of the Chancellor removes that fear. If that were done in any manner that interfered with the efficiency of the Air Service, it would be done contrary to the declaration to which we have listened. We may, therefore, I think, assume it will not be done.
  I do not think there can be any objection to giving the option in the Bill to the Board of Admiralty or the Army Council. There is, indeed, a very good reason for doing so. We who are discussing in this House are apt to take the broad outlines. In the actual working out of these administrative problems an enormous number of difficult cases arise. There will be a considerable number of cases in which it may be that there is a doubt as to whether the public service would be best served by men serving in the Navy, or Army, or in the Air Service. It may be that a man is temporarily lent—the case of a Staff officer, say—avowedly lent, temporarily, and for a particular purpose, to the Air Service who never had any intention of permanently joining the Air Service and who, it was never anticipated, would do so. There is an infinite gradation of cases.

  455
  It is quite possible and reasonable that the Air Council may decide straight away that particular officers should be taken into the Air Service. They would be bound to consult the Army Council and the Board of Admiralty and get their consent. The matter is much more likely to be done better, and more efficiently, and with regard to all due considerations, if done in this way. We do not get much in administrative matters with compulsion. If Parliament comes down strong with all its supreme authority to coerce the Army Council or the Board of Admiralty, we are not in the end likely to get very willing service, or more cordial co-operation, than if it be left to the good will of the Services and their loyalty to the best public interests.
  In regard to the choice, then, of the individual by the Army Council or the Admiralty, my hon. Friend behind me, in an admirable speech, described with very great truth the danger of the voluntary system. A person is reluctant on various sentimental grounds. No doubt in many cases it is a very weighty consideration. I do not, however, think it applies in this case, because all the esprit de corps will be on the side of the Air Service. The people who come to give the Service help for a short time, and who are temporarily attached, may well be better in the Army or the Navy, but persons whom it is perfectly plain should be in the Air Service are likely to be attached to it by the esprit de corps. In many cases, moreover, they hold a better position and have better pay. I do not think the choice is likely to be unreasonably used. It will be observed that there is a matter of machinery in the exercise of choice which is really of importance. Every man, every officer, called upon by the Air Council will be transferred, or attached, as the case may be, unless he sends notice in writing saying he does not wish to be; thereupon he will be retransferred. That makes a good deal of difference. Everybody knows that a man will not take the trouble to get himself attached or transferred if he has any doubt or hesitation, but he will not take the trouble to get himself retransferred if he finds that he has already been transferred. That saves a good deal of administrative labour by taking the matter for granted, unless the contrary is shown. Here, again, I believe you find, by allowing the voluntary
  456
  system—though it is perfectly reasonable to coerce people in time of war—that you will get the best for the Air Service. If a man feels that he has been brought in by force, reluctantly—a point of view not at all likely to arise—he would give reluctant and unwilling service to the Air Board, and would look back to the Army or Navy with regret. But if this is a matter of his own choice, and he is a perfectly free agent to do as he pleases, it will be all the better for the Air Service.
  I am, and always have been, a great believer in voluntary choice. I greatly dislike compulsory service, necessary as it is in time of war, and I believe in many respects we get a much better spirit in the Service if you base it on voluntary choice. Therefore, I do not regret the choice given to the officers concerned, and it will be observed that if an officer, against the will of both the Air Council and the Army Council, or the Admiralty, exercises his option unreasonably, in a manner his superiors disapprove, he will be in a very bad position, and certainly neither the Army Council nor the Board of Admiralty would feel bound to find him a new job if he acted unreasonably in refusing the Air Council's job. Therefore, it is a liberty which could only be exercised in reasonable circumstances if a man has a good ground for doing so. I am confident that, after the declaration of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Air Service can be carried through efficiently on these voluntary lines, but, if not, it would be for the War Cabinet to take the necessary measures. The all-important part of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's declaration is that it is the policy of the War Cabinet to make an independent Air Force, and that they are prepared to carry that through by exercising the authority in their hands. That declaration is worth all the compulsory provisions you could put in an Act of Parliament, because it is a declaration made by those who have the power to carry it out, and it is consistent with maintaining an atmosphere of good will between all concerned.
  Mr. MACMASTER:I think, in order to appreciate Clause 3, we must have regard to certain other Clauses in the Bill. On first reading this Clause the impression one would naturally get would be that this new Service, from which much was to be expected, was practically a voluntary service, and that it depended very largely upon the opinion and the

  457
  view of the Admiralty and the Army Council to what extent it should be successful. That was my own impression, and the impression that very largely prevailed. But I do not think that that is the real meaning of the Bill. Clause 3 is a mere incident in the Bill. The substantial Clause of the Bill is Clause 1, which provides for the establishment and the maintenance of an Air Force. Clause 3 is a mere provision for the transference of certain officers of the Army and Navy from their existing services into the new force to be set up under Clause 1. I characterised this as a permissive Clause, and, to a certain extent, it is; but it is also largely an obligatory Clause, because the word "may" empowers the transference of the qualified officers of the Army and Navy to the new force, always subject to the consent of the individual, and subject to the consent of the Army Council or the Admiralty. In that respect it is permissive—that is to say, the permission of the Admiralty or the Army Council must be obtained, and the consent of the man, before he can be transferred. Is that an unreasonable provision? I think the Noble Lord has made out a very strong case why it is not an unreasonable provision. I do not refer at the moment to the objection which might be made by the individual, but I refer to the case of the Admiralty and the Army Council.
  We cannot forget, while we are establishing a new armed force, that many of the men who are at present engaged in the service of the air have come from the Army and the Navy, and they may be extremely useful, and, in fact, necessary in the very services that they are now performing. It might be rather a disadvantage, therefore, if the Bill were made so rigorous that at once it would be in the power of the authority to say to a particular section of the Army men or Navy men, "We wish to transfer you at once into the new force," disregarding the actual necessities of the War, so that an agreement has been arrived at, on the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, between the Army and the Navy with regard to this matter. I think it is reasonable that it should be permissive, and that the word "may" should be retained as to the time of the transference, and the necessity for the transference, and that the Act, reasonably worked under such an instruction, would be quite successful, in view of the general provision in Clause 1. On the first view
  458
  I was rather in favour of the Amendment, but after full consideration I believe that this Clause is a wise Clause and a necessary Clause, and that it does not impair in any respect the vital power of the first Clause of the Bill constituting an efficient Air Force.
  Colonel WEIGALL:The Leader of the House cleared the air considerably by his declaration, but he also added, at any rate to my mind, one further difficulty. He made it absolutely clear that the Air Force was to be wholly separate, and a self-contained, complete force. Agreed. I only rise to ask that one point should be cleared up, and I hope that if this point is cleared up by the Government the efficiency of the force will not suffer. You have already, both here and overseas, an adequate administrative machine. There are now clearly defined commands of the Air Force which have their full and adequate administrative machine. Is it intended to superimpose another self-contained administrative machine? The hon. and gallant Member in charge of the Bill informed us that there would be an officer corresponding to the Q.M.G. and the D.G.O. to deal with the administrative service. But I do want to suggest that, in the interests of economy, we cannot spare the extra man-power and the extra money-power for further self-contained administrative machines to carry out these administrative services for a force that will have to be located in a command which already possesses an administrative machine to carry out fully those duties. I realise that, from the point of view of the senior officer in charge of the corps, it would be extremely difficult to draw a line as to where the administration begins and where it ends. Certain broad administrative services would remain, as I suggest, most economically and most effectively under the Army Council. I hope that my hon. and gallant Friend will be able to give me an answer, although obviously I do not expect that he can give a detailed answer as to where it is to begin and where it is to end. All that I suggest is that where, without loss of efficiency, existing machinery can be used for administrative purposes, it will be so used.
  There is only one other point. In his earlier remarks my hon. and gallant Friend led us to believe that the acquisition of land for aerodromes and so on was to be handed over to a new officer on the Air Council. I am sure he did not

  459
  intend that, and why I am so sure is that only this morning, on the sub-Committee of the War Office which is inquiring into naval expenditure, we had a great deal of detailed evidence from Sir David Henderson and Sir Howard Frank, Director of Lands, War Office, and Ministry of Munitions, which was in direct contradiction to the statement made here by my hon. and gallant Friend. I am sure he did not intend to convey to the Committee that there was to be a new Lands Branch, which obviously could only add to the difficulties in every way, because the Director of Lands to-day has centralised all the work so as to secure efficiency and economy. Therefore, I am sure my hon. and gallant Friend did not intend to convey that the acquisition of land for aerodromes in future would be taken out of the extremely efficient Lands Branch.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS:There is one question I would like to put with regard to the transfer of officers and men. I gather from the statement made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that everybody serving in the existing Air Forces is going to be transferred to the new force. I want that to be made perfectly clear. I suppose my hon. and gallant Friend does accept that view of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's speech. Then I want to go one step further, and to express the hope that, in the event of any officer or man under the preceding part of the Clause desiring not to be transferred, that officer or man will not remain in some kind of ethereal, emasculated Royal Flying Corps, but will be sent back to some other section of the Army. I want it to be made perfectly clear that no residuum of a Flying Corps will remain in connection with the Army. My hon. and gallant Friend nods approval. That is the only question I desire to ask.
  6.0 P.M
  Mr. LYNCH:This Clause seems to be the crux of the whole Bill, and, according to the decision that is given, I believe that this Bill will be a great success or a great failure. I differ from the Leader of the House in the view that there is no man who desires to make it compulsory that all men should be transferred. I am one of those who would make it automatic, because the transference does not necessarily mean that any man who is doing good service in the Army or Navy will be removed from the position in which he is doing that service, but it gives power and authority
  460
  to the new Secretary of State to accomplish the very difficult task that we are now placing before him. Take the matter from another standpoint. I would say that this Bill has been brought into being by a great exterior danger, and what we want is rapidity to form and develop a huge air force, which is capable of meeting the Germans at every point, and not merely holding our own on any front and gaining successes here and there, but developing it to such a degree and with such intensity that once and for all the question of air supremacy is settled so that no German craft can live above the horizon. That is possible only on one condition that the whole of the forces of the country are bent upon it, and that every energy is utilised and every facility given to the man who is to carry it out. Let us look at it from the point of view of the psychology of the new Secretary of State. He may be a new man and even hitherto unused to administration but yet endowed with great faculties, but he will find himself confronted with men who have held responsible posts in the Air Service, who feel their own responsibility and the great importance of their own services. If this Bill is made permissive the new Air Minister will have to fight his corner against these influences and powers and the end will probably be a wretched compromise such as the Bill indicates, and, after six months, if the Air Minister happens to be a Member of this, House, he will come down here and explain that he has done his best and done all that was humanly possible. You should make this arrangement automatic with the whole Service. If the flying man passes under the control of this Council the Allies win, but if you make it permissive the Germans win.
  Mr. BILLING:I would like to add one or two words on this Amendment, but the major portion of my remarks I wish to reserve for the Amendment standing in my name.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Sir Donald Maclean):I do not know whether the hon. Member is referring to the next Amendment standing in his name.
  Mr. BILLING:Yes.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN:That Amendment has been covered by the discussion.
  Mr. BILLING:My Amendment is to leave out all words after the word

  461
  "consent," and the Amendment we are discussing is to leave out all words after the word "may." This Amendment provides that the new Secretary of State shall have power to conscript men against their will and against the will of the Army and Navy, whereas my Amendment is that they shall not have that power but that they shall have power to override the Army and Navy.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN:I understand the hon. Member proposes to make another speech on that Amendment.
  Mr. BILLING:I will leave my remarks on that subject until we reach my Amendment on the Paper. I would be willing to support this Amendment even against my view that it is necessary to make it compulsory on the men, and if some such Amendment is not carried in one form or another the Bill will be absolutely wrecked. From personal experience in the Service I say that if you are going to allow the Army and the Navy to have control as to who shall and who shall not be transferred to the new Air Service the new Air Minister and the Air Council will occupy their time in corresponding with the respective Services trying to get the transfer of men. I have seen many cases of men who desire to transfer into the Air Service, and hardly a day goes by when I do not receive less than twelve letters from men anxious to get transferred into the Air Service, but the authorities will not give them permission.
  We have heard a most remarkable statement from the Leader of the House. In a most dramatic manner he tells us that all we are pleading for is going to be done, but it is not going to be embodied in the Bill. What does that statement mean? Does the right hon. Gentleman mean us to understand that the whole of the Naval Air Service, as well as the Royal Flying Corps, are going to be transferred piecemeal against their will into the new Air Service? The proposition is absolutely impossible. Is it suggested, if this Amendment is carried, that a man with ten years service in the Navy is going to be transferred, with or without seniority into the Air Service against his will. Quite a large proportion of these officers are officers of the Royal Navy. Are those men who have transferred themselves to the Royal Naval Air Service going to be claimed by the Air Minister without any regard to their past service, or to ten or fifteen years service,
  462
  and lose their seniority as well? They may have attached themselves to the Air Service for the duration of the War, and they may wish to return to the Grand Fleet or the Navy at the end of the War. The Chancellor of the Exchequer stated that everything was going to be handed over to the Air Minister. Does that include the anti-aircraft guns? Personally I should be in favour of that. Does it include the airships which at present time are under the control of the Navy and not the Air Board at all? Presumably the Chancellor of the Exchequer wishes us to understand that these things which were mentioned as being now under the control of the Air Board will be handed over to the Air Council. The airships are not under the control of the Air Board, and perhaps the hon. Member will tell us whether airships, dirigibles, kite balloons, and all the various paraphernalia connected with aviation are going to be handed over to the Air Services. If you are going to hand over everything to the Air Council you are doing a reckless thing which will be attended with disaster so far as the Grand Fleet is concerned.
  Hon. Members are quite aware how keenly I feel on the matter of this Air Service, and how anxious I am, that this Bill should become an Act with as little delay as possible, in order that a great Imperial Air Service shall spring up out of the ashes of the present Service, which will be consumed in the creation of this Service. Surely it is an impossible thing to say that aeroplanes which are fitted and specially constructed for service with the Grand Fleet for rising from and alighting on the decks of battleships, with officers trained to naval strategy, are going to be handed over piecemeal to the Air Service, because that is preposterous. I want here and now some assurance from the Front Bench that no such action is contemplated. To suggest, as the hon. Member for Brentwood (Mr. Joynson-Hicks) did, that these are merely fragments which are to be left for the Army and Navy is absurd, for any hon. Member who has only made a cursory study of aviation knows that there are definite functions for aeroplanes in connection with the Grand Fleet.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN:I am not able to connect the hon. Member's remark with this Amendment, and it appears to me that they would be much more relevant to another Clause in the Bill.
  Mr. BILLING:I am now addressing myself to the statement made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on this Amendment as to what it proposed to do, and since the right hon. Gentleman made his statement naturally other hon. Members have referred to it. I do not know whether you, Sir Donald, were in the Chair when the statement was made, but if you were, I think you would appreciate what a dramatic statement it was, and what a bearing it has upon the whole Bill. Of course, if the Chancellor of the Exchequer was out of order—
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN:I do not think the hon. Member is in order. I did hear what the Chancellor of the Exchequer said, and I have heard what other hon. Members have said, but the remarks of the hon. Member are more relevant to another Clause of the Bill.
  Mr. BILLING:I think it is quite unnecessary to give the Air Minister compulsory power to draw in these men. It is not only unnecessary, but it is unwise and impossible, because if he has these compulsory powers he will be able practically to call up all the officers of the Grand Fleet into the Air Service, and the Admiralty could not refuse to deliver the goods, a thing which I suggested was quite impossible for us to permit. I ask the hon. Member in whose name the Amendment stands (Mr. Harcourt) to seriously consider the advisability of giving the Air Minister these powers to conscript Naval officers with long seniority and sea service into the Air Service, and I ask him whether he does not think that, having regard to the fact that possibly 50 per cent. of the present members of the Army and Navy would willingly and cheerfully volunteer for service in the Air Service, he would so alter his Amendment as to make it compulsory on the Army and Navy to release such men who volunteered for the Service, and not hold them back, and not make it compulsory on the men to join at the dictation of the Air Minister.
  Mr. HARCOURT:I do not know to what portion of the Amendment the hon. Member refers, but if he wants the individual to have the option I am entirely in agreement with him.
  Mr. WATT:I have listened with attention to the Debate on this question, and I have noticed that all the speakers with a single exception have been in favour of
  464
  the Amendment. Yet my hon. Friend the Member for Montrose Burghs (Mr. Harcourt) is just about to withdraw it. How has that come about? It has come about owing to the observations of the Leader of the House, who said it was the intention of the framers of the measure that these men should be so transferred. The Committee, therefore, is accepting from the Front Bench a Parliamentary assertion that an Act of Parliament will work in a certain way. Anyone who has had experience of assurance given in Debate from the Front Bench will realise that, although the right hon. Gentleman has made that statement quite bonâ fide in the House, it is beyond his power to see that his promise is carried out. I, therefore, suggest that hon. Members should keep the Report stage in view so that it may be made a thorough measure by the automatic transfer of men and material instead of leaving it a matter of consent or approval by the Admiralty and War Office. Such a provision for approval is apt to give rise to wire-pulling whereby one man is transferred and another retained.
  Commander BELLAIRS:I do not appreciate the difficulties which the hon. Member for East Hertfordshire (Mr. Billing) anticipates with regard to naval officers. I do not see why they should not be transferred. The Clause states that it is for the period of the War or for a period not exceeding four years. They are serving as airmen and there is no reason why they should not serve under the Air Ministry, just as marine officers are lent to the Army and then come back to the Navy. They will not be injured in any way in their careers. Their natural calling for the War is that of the Air Service.
  Major BAIRD:The hon. Member for East Hertfordshire (Mr. Billing) was correct in drawing attention to the fact that if the Amendment were pressed it would enable the Air Minister to lay violent hands upon anybody in the Grand Fleet, and to automatically transfer him to the Air Service without any interference on the part of the Admiralty. It would also enable him to take over
  a whole battalion of the Coldstream Guards or anybody else in either of those two Services. That is not the intention of my hon. Friend (Mr. Harcourt), though it would be the effect of the Amendment if it were carried out.
  Mr. HARCOURT:I specifically said that you must assume that the Air Ministry are reasonable and judicious people.
  Major BAIRD:And that is precisely what I should like to ask to be assumed on behalf of the Admiralty and the War Office. Unless we can assume it, the whole thing will not work. My hon. Friend the Member for the College Division of Glasgow (Mr. Watt) asserted that the Leader of the House had undertaken a responsibility which he would be unable to carry out. I do not think that anybody who has taken any part in the administration of any of the Government offices during the present regimé can possibly complain. After all, this is the decision of the War Cabinet, and, if the Admiralty or the War Office do not want to carry it out, then the First Lord of the Admiralty or the Secretary of State for War must resign. Is it conceivable, when the Air Minister says that he wants a post captain, who is at the same time a distinguished airman, and the Admiralty says that he cannot have him, and when the War Cabinet says the Air Minister is to have him, that the First Lord of the Admiralty is going to resign? Hon. Members have ignored the fact that this Bill has been accepted by all the parties concerned, and that there is every intention of making the thing work well. We are all very keen to beat the Germans, and we think that this is a good way to do it. Hon. Members have expressed a fear as to a residuum of the Naval Air Service or of the Royal Flying Corps being left somewhere, but it has been specifically decided by the Government that the two Services are to be absorbed. I am quite sure that hon. Members are not really in favour of having three separate Air Services. The difficulty arising from two separate Air Services and supplying them with men and material with the danger of competition between the two makes one perfectly horrified at the idea of having three competing Services. It is precisely for the purpose of eliminating competition between the two existing Services and unifying the training, supply, and everything else that this Bill has been introduced.
  I hope that the Amendment will not be pressed. In its present form it would undoubtedly empower the Air Minister to take over a battalion of the Coldstream Guards or to deplete half-a-dozen ships in
  466
  the Navy of their officers. It would confer those powers, and undoubtedly that is not my hon. Friend's intention. I would ask the House to realise this valid reason for agreeing to the condition which safeguards the dignity of the Admiralty and the War Office with regard to their own officers and men. The great bulk of the Air Service will be engaged with the Navy and the Army. It will be the first duty of the Air Ministry to supply the Navy and the Army with their contingents of airmen and their aircraft. If we start on bad terms with the Navy and the Army there will be opportunities for friction and for difficulties which are really quite unnecessary if we start on good terms with them, and those opportunities should not be given merely in order to satisfy a view which is based on the desire to make the thing more logical. You cannot have everything absolutely logical in war-time.
  There is another point which deserves attention. These officers and men in the Navy and in the Army have entered into a contract represented by the Naval Discipline Act and by the Army Act. If those Acts are going to be varied, surely it is only right and fair that all parties to the contract should be consulted and have a chance of giving their opinions. This is a separate force and a separate service, and if you are going to transfer men to it from the Navy and the Army, surely it is only right that the Navy or the Army, as the case may be, should be able to say whether the men proposed to be transferred are indispensable to them or not. Surely the men and officers are equally entitled to say whether they wish the contract that was entered into with them to be varied. It is for those reasons that I venture to hope the Committee will be satisfied with the declaration made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the intention of the Government and the decision of the Government is to substitute a central Air Force for the two forces that now exist with the object of supplying the needs of the Army and the Navy from that common pool, and, in addition, with the object of doing other work. I hope that we may now come to a decision, and that the Amendment will not be pressed.
  Amendment negatived.
  Mr. BILLING:I beg to move, in Subsection (1), to leave out the words "and subject to the approval of the Admiralty or Army Council (as the case may be").

  467
  There is an essential difference between these two Amendments, and, after what I have heard from the hon. and gallant Gentleman, I am quite sure that he will be prepared to very seriously consider this Amendment. In opposition to the last Amendment he put forward the objection, which is a very serious one, and which, naturally, I uphold, that it would put it in the power of the Air Ministry to commandeer a regiment of the Coldstream Guards or officers of the Grand Fleet. I feel sure that the hon. Member who moved that Amendment and myself are quite at one in what we are trying to accomplish. We do not wish it to be within the power of the Admiralty or the Army Council to refuse a man permission if he actually wants to join the Air Service.
  Mr. HARCOURT:Hear, hear!
  Mr. BILLING:My contention is that you will find plenty of men willing to join the Air Service, but, on the other hand, a great number of them may be direct entries into the Navy. The formation of the Royal Naval Air Service brought into being a new type of naval officer who is known as the direct entry man. Some of these men are not first-class naval officers and never will be—a number of them have only a nodding acquaintance with discipline—but they have that which is of great value, a knowledge of aviation and a very valuable knowledge of the new Service. On the other hand, you will find in the Royal Naval Air Service quite a number of deep sea sailors who, through their association with these men for the past four or five years and through the great spirit of enterprise and imagination which they have thrown into their work, will, in my opinion, be quite sufficient to form the nucleus of that technical staff which is absolutely necessary to the existence of the Grand Fleet, and over them the Admiralty should have complete control. It would be a very great pity if the Air Service ever got hold of them, because it would be a loss which the Navy could not possibly make up. This Amendment does not render that at all likely. If a man is anxious to take up flying as a career—at present there is nothing in either of the Services or in this Bill to encourage a man to take up flying as a career—it would be most unfortunate if either the Army or the Navy should have the power to stop him or to cancel his application. If he wants to go into the
  468
  Imperial Air Service he ought to be able to do so. If that is not done, my experience leads me to believe that, anyhow for the duration of this War, neither the Army nor the Navy will give permission to any of their first-class men to transfer. Although we have had an assurance from the Chancellor of the Exchequer that everything is going to be transferred from the Army and the Navy to the Air Force, I beg leave to doubt that statement, and would qualify it considerably. I only hope it is not true.
  We must give every man in the British Army or Navy to-day who thinks he has a special faculty for flying, and who is anxious to excel as a pilot, the right to join this new Service whether his late officers wish him to do so or not. If you make it a matter of permission, a man is put in a false position. If he wants to join the Air Service, he puts in a chit to his commanding officer, who turns him down. Later on he still wants to join, and puts in another chit and asks that it should be passed along. If he presses his request on his commanding officer, I dare say he becomes almost as unpopular as I shall become by pressing this Amendment on the pilot of this Bill. Even if the man eventually gets through, there is always the fear in his mind that, no matter what action is taken, he may not succeed. He is frightened to press his case for fear that if he does succeed he will be penalised because he wants to leave his present Service. It is absolutely essential that some of the best men should be encouraged to volunteer for this Service in order to form its nucleus, and that they should be encouraged to remain in the Service. They should not merely be loaned by the Admiralty, with the right to go back to the Navy. That sort of thing leaves a man in a most unsettled state.
  This is not a War measure; this is a Bill for the foundation of a Service upon which, in the next two or three years, the very existence of this Empire will depend. It is no more a War measure than the Army Act. We must, therefore, frame this Bill so that it makes of this Service a real thing and not a temporary patched-up affair by which you borrow officers from one Service or the other, either men from the Grand Fleet or Hussars or Guards from the Army. We want the minds of the men in this Service to be in a settled state, and we want them to have a settled position so that they may renounce the sea and the field and take up the air as a

  469
  profession. If we leave it in the power of the Admiralty or the War Office to control these volunteers, they will be very slow in coming forward, one reason being that they will not want to show their hands to their immediate superiors. Naval officers will not want to show their hands to the Lords of the Admiralty if they want to get out of the Navy and into the new Service. I am sure that if they have to put in a chit saying that they want to join the Air Service and thereupon they will be allowed to do so, the Admiralty will have to set up a staff to deal with the applications that they received from these men. On the other hand, if you make it compulsory for a man to join, the Amendment would not hold water, because it would give the Air Minister powers which neither the Admiralty nor the War Office possesses. There are not very many Members in the Committee now. I am afraid a good many Members regard this Bill as a political plaster to be applied to the running sores of the two Services, and say to themselves that, no matter what happens, it will do. I want hon. Members to understand that this Bill is the seed from which the supremacy of the air, if it ever comes to us, is going to be born, and that this Clause is going to be the making or the breaking of the Bill.
  Mr. MACMASTER:The effect of the Amendment of the hon. Member is simply to require the Air Council to commandeer any men in the Army or the Navy who is ready to go into the Air Service.
  Mr. BILLING:No. It is exactly the reverse. It is to give every man a chance of choosing the Service he likes, without interference on the part of the Army, the Navy, or the Air Council.
  Mr. MACMASTER:If the hon. Member will consider the terms of the Amendment in conjunction with the Clause, he will see that it gives the Air Council the power to commandeer from the Army and the Navy any man who is willing to go. I do not think the Air Service should be discouraged. Everybody should be encouraged to go into it, at any rate those fitted to fill the position of airmen. While that is undoubtedly true, it would be most unfair to the two old Services that the new Service should have the power, regardless of the necessities of the old Services, to say that they want this man from the Army and that man from the Navy, quite regardless of the necessities of the situation.
  Mr. BILLING:May I point out that the Clause says:
  "Any officer, warrant officer, petty officer, non-commissioned officer, or a man of His Majesty's naval or military forces may, with his consent, and subject to the approval of the Admiralty or Army Council (as the case may be), be transferred by the Air Council to the Air Force."
  My Amendment is to remove the proviso as to the approval, so that a man will be permitted to join without being subject to it. I fail to see how, if this Amendment is passed, the Air Ministry will have any power whatever to commandeer any individual without his consent.
  Amendment negatived.
  Mr. BILLING:I beg to move, in Subsection (1), to leave out the words "not exceeding" ["for a period not exceeding four years"], and to insert instead thereof the word "of."
  By this Clause you bind a man to come in for a period of four years, but you do not bind yourselves to keep him for four years. I quite appreciate that it has now become customary that a man shall serve for three years or the duration of the War, whichever be the longer. If this were a war measure pure and simple, I should not have put down this Amendment, but in view of the fact that this is a measure which, I trust, is drawn up to, encourage the creation of an Air Service, I hold that the contract that is binding on one side should be binding on the other. There may be the case of a man who is attached to some other form of service, but who has made up his mind that he would like to take up flying as a career. That type of man would be encouraged to volunteer for service, provided he was satisfied that whatever happened he would remain in the Flying Service for four years, long enough to become an expert pilot, and probably for him, to have attained that experience and efficiency which would justify the authorities in giving him promotion and retaining his services, so as to enable him to form a career for himself. On the other hand, it is suggested that the Air Service shall have an option of being able to relieve a man of his commission without any explanation or court-martial, so that it might at any time simply tell a man, "We want your services no longer." That would be a most unfortunate state of

  471
  affairs, and would be likely to lead to considerable abuse. Many cases have come to my notice quite recently in connection with the Air Service. I think I am
  right in saying that there are some 240 pilots at the present moment who have been relieved of their commissions in an informal way and told that they had better put in as medically unfit because of some friction with their commanding officer or something of that nature. If it is provided that a man shall be retained for four years, unless there is some definite charge against him, it gives him an opportunity to make good.
  It is most essential for the well-being of the force that there should be a stated period of enlistment. We are now creating a new force, not merely a volunteer force for the period of the War. One quite appreciates that directly peace comes there will be a clamour throughout the country for the cutting down of expenditure, and everybody who suggests the granting of a few shillings for the purposes of munitions of war will be voted an extravagant person. We shall have a grudging Chancellor of the Exchequer and we shall have all our work cut out to get a few shillings out of him for anything like war measures. If we leave this Clause as it stands the first thing he will do will be to reduce expenditure by cutting off the wages of the officers and men who hold a contract which is terminable at the option of the Air Council. This is an occasion when it might be advisable for a statesman to lead public opinion and not to follow it. Although public opinion may be opposed to any extravagant expenditure by way of creating a new fighting force, it is absolutely essential that this force should be the last to suffer. Cut down the Army, even cut down the Navy, but do not let us vote for a provision in this Bill which will enable the popular clamour for economy to force the Chancellor of the Exchequer to reduce the Vote for the Air Service because he will not have the funds to do otherwise, which will mean the turning away of hundreds or even thousands of first-class men who otherwise would have been afforded, by the nature of the contract, an opportunity of having their services retained. I, therefore, press the Committee to accept the Amendment so that these men shall have a career, instead of their being made a convenience.
  Major BAIRD: I am afraid I cannot accept the Amendment. The period not exceeding four years is put in to keep the Bill in line with the conditions that obtain now for men engaged in the Air Service. The hon. Gentleman's suggestion that we should give an undertaking to keep a man for four years is not reasonable.
  Mr. BILLING: You might just as well say that it is impossible to sign on a soldier in the Army or take on a man in the Navy. You have opportunities of satisfying yourself whether or not a man is capable. Indeed, you have infinitely more opportunity in this case than in the others. In the Navy you take a young boy of seven years when you do not know how good an admiral he is going to make. Do you suggest that there should be no honourable undertaking between the Admiralty and an officer to turn him down? Surely you must admit that these men whom you are taking over have proved themselves in nearly every case, and further, that this is not a war measure. I want the Government, if it possibly can, to disabuse its mind of the idea that this is a war measure. It is essentially a measure for creating a new force, and it should have passed through the House five years ago.
  Lord H. CECIL: I do not think the hon. Member quite understands his own Amendment. The omission of the words "not exceeding " would have this consequence, that any officer who was attached to the Air Service would always have to be attached for four years, neither more nor less. A more absurd arrangement could not be conceived. After a very little practice his nerve might be broken, and he might be quite useless for the Air Service.
  Mr. BILLING: Surely the Noble Lord is aware that there are other people besides pilots in the Air Service. There is a vast personnel. Does he suggest that all the rank and file of the Air Service should be in the air from day to day?
  Major BAIRD:I think the hon. Member has omitted to notice one thing. He is talking as if this were a permanent condition. When a man permanently adopts the Air Service he is transferred. When he is attached we proposed that it shall be for a period not exceeding four years.
  Mr. BILLING: Are we to understand that the principle on which this Council

  473
  is going to work is to try to avoid enlistment as much as possible and to encourage attachment? This is a most unfortunate Clause which permits of attachment, because it is going to lead to the very abuse which this House a little time ago was very anxious to prevent, namely, that this should be made a temporary measure, and that the force should consist of naval and military officers temporarily lent for the purpose.
  The CHAIRMAN: That does not arise here.
  Amendment negatived.
  Mr. BILLING: I beg to move, in Subsection (1), to leave out from the words "Provided that " to the end of the Subsection.
  By these two provisoes you put it in the power of the Service to take a man away and transfer him for three months against his will, and if at the end of three months he still does not like it he can go back again. That is a way of toying with a man which should not be introduced into a serious measure. You must either make it compulsory or not compulsory. You might as well introduce a Conscription Act for conscripting the men of this country, and after you have enrolled them all in the Army, give everyone three months to make up his mind whether he wants to be in the Army or not. This must be cleared up now. Either these men must be brought in by compulsion or they must come in of their own free will. A proviso which is going to allow a man, after having been brought in by a compulsory measure, to leave at the end of three months simply means that he will say, " I am not going to stick it, so I will sit down and twiddle my thumbs for three months till I can get out of it." The thing is quite unsound. I propose to omit these paragraphs so as to leave it quite clear that this is a compulsory measure, if we cannot have a non-compulsory measure.
  Commander BELLAIRS: May I invite the hon. and gallant Gentleman to explain what will be the effect of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's promise in regard to these two paragraphs?
  Major BAIRD: These two paragraphs are put in with this object. Paragraph (a) is to enable an existing officer to be transferred without his consent, leaving him the right, by a subsequent provision, to be placed in the same position as if
  474
  he had refused to transfer. That applies to people who may be serving on distant stations. A man serving at the Cape may not be in a position to say he does not want to be transferred. He may have been transferred by his unit being taken over. Take, for instance, the case of a unit of the Royal Flying Corps serving in Mesopotamia being transferred. They carry on and do their duty exactly the same as if they were members of the Royal Flying Corps, but an officer or man may say: " I do not want to transfer to the Air Service, but to go back to my regiment." Paragraph (a) gives him the power to do so. Let me lay stress on the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, which will be endorsed by every man who knows anything about the Air Service. It is perfectly useless to try to take men into the Air Service who do not want to be there. This is merely for the purpose to give a man who would be automatically transferred with his unit, and who is too far away to communicate, three months in which to say he does not want to be transferred, and in that case the transfer will be annulled. The object of paragraph (b) is to secure that the transfer shall not affect their length of service. The first proviso is necessary as a matter of administrative convenience, and it seems right that men should have an assurance, definitely set out in the Bill that no person transferred to the Air Force under the provisions of this Section shall be liable to serve with the Air Force for any longer period than that for which he would have been liable to serve had he continued in the force from which he was transferred. I explained that on the Second Reading. I cannot accept the Amendment.
  Sir I. PHILIPPS: No one, I know, has suggested that men who are not in the Flying Services should compulsorily be put there. All we wish is that those men who are already in the Flying Service should remain in it. Anyone who has had control of large bodies of men knows that this is a very dangerous Clause. The one control you have over your men is that they cannot down tools. If you down tools in the Army it is death.
  Lord H. CECIL: On a point of Order. I think the hon. and gallant Gentleman is hardly in order. He is arguing against the decision at which the Committee has already arrived. The Committee has decided that the words, " with his consent,"

  475
  shall stand in the Clause. An argument directed to show that his consent ought in no form to be asked would be arguing against the decision of the Committee.
  The CHAIRMAN: That is a perfectly sound point. I would ask hon: Members to remember that we had a long discussion on the words, " with his consent," and, after an hour and a half, an Amendment to leave them out was negatived. Therefore, the Committee has decided that point, and our subsequent discussions must be on the basis of that decision.
  Sir I. PHILIPPS: I submit that I am not breaking any rule of order, and the Noble Lord had no cause to interfere. I am not questioning the matter of consent. I am questioning the point that a man is entitled within three months to decide to go back. That is quite a different matter, and it has nothing whatever to do with the matter brought forward by the Noble Lord. I do not see why I should be interrupted in this manner. If the Noble Lord is anxious to get on with the Bill, he should not obstruct Members who are as anxious as he is. We have settled that men can come in with their consent. Now we are dealing with a case where they have been brought in without their consent, and at the end of three months they can go back if they like. Before we discussed the question whether a man would care to come in or not. Now the question is whether, when he has been compulsorily brought in, he may voluntarily go back. I submit that I have not said a single word that is out of order. To return to what I was saying, a man, say, in Mesopotamia, is going to be compulsorily transferred to the Air Force for three months, and at any time during those three months, if he has a little tiff with his commanding officer, or if there is a little bad food or anything that upsets a man, and after all the climate of Mesopotamia is quite bad enough to upset any man, there is nothing to prevent the whole of that body of men downing tools and saying, " We ask under Clause 3 to be allowed to return to our corps." It is an absolutely impossible situation in time of war. I should not have raised the question again but that the hon. and gallant Gentleman treated it as if we were asking for something absurd. I am with him in trying to make this a good Bill, but this position
  476
  is an absurdity, and to think that the Government is putting such a proposal forward in time of war is too absurd.
  7.0 P.M.
  Mr. HARCOURT: I think the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Sir Ivor Philipps) has very substantial grounds for raising what is, after all, to some extent a separate point. I wish to enter a caveat against the proposal that the whole Service, whether it is the Flying Service or the Anti-Aircraft Service will have to go for a period of three months without knowing whether individuals are to remain or not. I think that is a very serious point. I feel considerable nervousness every time I hear a representative of the Government insist upon this point. I hope, therefore, that they will consider in consultation with the Law Officers of the Crown whether it will or will not be possible to introduce some form of words which will make it perfectly clear that that is not intended.
  Colonel GRETTON: This Bill provides a freewill and voluntary joining of the new Air Force by any officer or man. No officer or man is to be compelled against his will to join. If for any reason after he has joined the Air Force he does not wish to go to Mesopotamia, or he does not wish to be sent to, or to take service on any of the fronts in which the War is being waged, he is given the option under this Sub-section, within three months of receiving an order to transfer, if he does not wish to go to any of those fronts, of giving notice under the Act and of saying, " I will no longer be a member of the Air Service " By so doing he escapes performing that service which for some reason or another he does not wish to perform. He takes the law into his own hands. That is destructive of discipline. It is a serious position and one which the Government could not have contemplated when they inserted this Sub-section in the Bill. It requires a great deal more consideration, and I think that when a man has the choice whether or not he will join the Air Service, if he does join that Service he must be prepared to abide by the discipline, rules, and regulations of that Service, and must not be allowed to do anything he wishes up to the end of three months. I appeal to the Government to give this matter further consideration and not press it to a decision until they have consulted their adviser.
  Lord H. CECIL: I did not intend the smallest discourtesy to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman (Sir Ivor Philipps). I was anxious not to have discussion which we had already had, but I did not appreciate at the moment that the hon. and gallant Gentleman was raising a new point. I think the difficulty is, and it is not quite appreciated by hon. Members, that having agreed to the principle that a man may be taken with his consent, you must have the easiest and most convenient machinery for making that principle operative. Obviously it would be a very inconvenient plan if you had deal with each individual officer and man in the existing Services. It seems to me to be the simplest way to provide that everyone whom the Air Council transfers or attaches, as the case may be, shall be deemed to be transferred or attached unless he objects. That saves a vast amount of correspondence which would be necessary if you had to write round to each individual officer and man and ask his consent. if he is to be left the option of objecting, how long is he to be given in which to object? He must be left a reasonable time, and he must be left a time sufficient to cover the longest case. It does not seem to me that three months is too long a period. It is merely a matter of machinery, and I do not see how you can deal with it in any other way than the one proposed. You must deal with it by leaving him the right to object, and you must give a limited time beyond which he cannot object. I do not think that any great difficulty is likely to arise. Anyone who wants to make objection will make it pretty promptly. The Clause expressly provides that nothing that has been done in the interval is to be affected by the subsequent objection. If you are to have the principle of consent at all—and for reasons which were given earlier that seems to be inevitable—you must have machinery, and the simplest way is that provided by this Sub-section.
  Mr. MACMASTER: This Sub-section is a Sub-section of the main Clause and the main Clause provides for detaching units from the Regular Services to this Air Service. This Sub-Clause deals with an entirely different class of people, namely, those who are already in the Air Service, and it provides that they shall remain there without their consent, but it gives them the option within a period of three months of detaching themselves from the Service. I think there is a great deal of force in what was said by my
  478
  right hon. and gallant Friend (Sir I. Philipps), who has had experience of the Army. This Sub-clause certainly gives these men the right to " down tools," and to withdraw from the Air Service after preparations and arrangements have been made upon the assumption that they would remain. I think that weakens the first portion of the Sub-clause, because it provides for attaching those at present in the Air Service to the service. I think this Sub-clause in its operation will be attended with some danger.
  Major BAIRD: We have already agreed that a man may not be taken without his consent.
  Mr. MACMASTER: From the Regular Services.
  Major BAIRD: This is merely a proviso to do away with the necessity of obtaining every man's individual consent. The man is transferred, but if he does not want to be transferred he will say so. We take it the man agrees to be transferred unless within three months he gives notice that he does not want to be transferred. As to the dangers pointed out by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman (Sir I. Philipps), that would be a great danger, but what is the position? The man who leaves the Air Service has got to go back to the trenches, where his pay is a great deal less. The proposal in this Sub-section is necessary from the administrative point of view. You have either to obtain every man's individual consent or you have to take it for granted that the man has consented unless he expresses his dissent. The reason for putting in a long period is because there are men now serving in the Air Force who will be transferred automatically who are serving in distant parts of the world, where it is impossible for them to communicate at short notice with the authorities at home, and this was the only method that occurred to us for safeguarding the rights of men who are not to be taken without their consent. You must either take them with their consent or you must take them without their consent, and in the latter case this Clause would be unnecessary.
  Mr. BILLING: Why not take them without their consent for the duration of the War? The hon. and gallant Member says that this is only a war measure.
  Major BAIRD: No; I do not say that.
  Mr. BILLING: Does not the hon. and gallant Gentleman appreciate that if it

  479
  is done in this way the utmost chaos will arise? I thank the right hon. and gallant Member (Sir I. Philipps) for raising a most important point which I had omitted. But over and above that, what is the position of these men in Mesopotamia, who at the end of three months calmly inform you that they wish to withdraw from the Air Service? They may only hear at the end of the three months for the first time that they have been transferred, and some of them may only have twenty minutes in which to make up their minds whether they will stay in or go out. Many of them may say, "I am going out." But in that case what are they going out to? They are in a Service which exists no longer. What is there for them to remain in? They will find themselves detached individuals with no Service. These direct entry men of the Royal Naval Air Service cannot be taken as naval officers. They will find themselves without any position at all. The hon. and gallant Gentleman has not told us whether it is proposed to consult those people who are not in Mesopotamia as to whether they want to go in the Air Service or not.
  Mr. P. A. HARRIS: I will call the hon. Member's attention to line 28 —" In any particular case the Air Council may allow."
  Mr. BILLING: Is it proposed to consult all these officers and men who are accessible before they are transferred, or are we to transfer them piecemeal almost without any consultation whatsoever, and to provide that only those who squeal will be let out again? If the hon. Member is familiar with the feeling in the Serviecs he will find that it is by no means unanimous. There are some men who are fully out for the new Imperial Air Service. There are other men who are definitely opposed to a third Service, and there are some who want to remain in the Navy and others who want to remain in the Army. There is no unanimity of feeling, and if you take them all piecemeal and say that the ones who squeal can come out you will find that at the end of three months you have hundreds or thousands, perhaps ten or twenty thousand men, who for personal reasons want to come out. Hon. Members must appreciate that the first three months of this new Service will be the most dangerous period, just as the first twelve months of married life is
  480
  the most difficult to live. Therefore, the first three months of the wedding of these Services will suffer very considerably. All the grievances which this new Service is likely to encounter will be encountered in the first three months, and yet you are giving every man the opportunity at the end of three months, when he most probably will be fed up —there will be lots who will be fed up —the opportunity to clear out. There will be lots of them who may think that by this transfer they are going to jump from lieutenants into flight-commanders, and some flight-commanders who will think that the new Air Minister will appreciate their services and make them squadron commanders. There will not be an officer in the Service who will be thoroughly pleased with his new position. Every man who has a grievance —and it is human to have a grievance —Members of this House have grievances —will be given the opportunity of saying, "I am fed up, and I am going out." In that event what is he to go back to, when there is no Royal Naval Air Service and no Royal Flying Corps? The. whole thing is preposterous. The Clause should make clear either that the men are-going to be asked first if they want to come in, or that they are not going to be asked at all, and not to be allowed to leave until the end of the War. If the men were to be told now: " Unless we receive a declaration from you before three weeks that you do not want to join the Service we will take it that you are coming in," you would find that you would have got all the consents before you get your Act. If you are going to wait until you get your Act through it may mean another three months.
  General HICKMAN: The hon. Member may make himself perfectly easy about that. The matter is quite clear. A man may not like to serve, and he will not have-to serve; but he can be attached. If the military authorities want a man they can always attach him to the Service, as long as they like. There is no difficulty at all. The hon. Member is only obstructing business by raising unnecessary points.
  Sir I. PHILIPPS: The hon. Member for Chertsey has made quite clear what has been the difficulty all through. That is that the first part of the Clause deals with the Army and the Navy for all time. Clause 3, Sub-section (1) is for all time. The present sub-Clause is only a temporary arrangement, as long as there is a.

  481
  Royal Flying Corps and a Royal Naval Air Service. There we are getting this very serious position, that there is a possibility of a large number of His Majesty's troops in the field downing tools under an Act of Parliament. Such a thing is so dangerous that Parliament should not think of passing such a Bill in time of war. If my hon. and gallant Friend will look into the matter —which I will certainly raise again on Report, to see how it is possible so to amend this Section as to get the great majority of men to give their consent, so as to reduce the possibility of any risk under this Sub-section —any objection which I have will be waived; but as it stands here the man need not take action for three months. He may be compulsorily retained for three months, and then decide. He would be very apt to say: " Let the Government put me in compulsorily for three months, until I see how the business goes on " That is what you will find the great majority of men will do. It is a national risk to have many tens of thousands of men —I do not know the strength of the Flying Corps, but it is that —it is all the anti-aircraft defence also, serving under such conditions. The Chancellor of the Exchequer told us that the whole of it was coming over —
  Major BAIRDindicated dissent.
  Sir I. PHILIPPS: If he did not say that, I certainly misunderstood him. My words to him were "Do you mean the whole of it?" and he said "the whole of it." This Bill deals with anti-aircraft artillery. Until we get to know what the Government mean we cannot decide. I hope that before Report stage this Clause will be so amended as to remove the danger to which I have referred.
  Mr. HARCOURT: Do I understand my 'hon. and gallant Friend to say that they 'would take the anti-aircraft men?
  Major BAIRD: The hon. Member will see in paragraph (a), " The Royal Flying Corps or any unit of the Naval or Military Forces engaged in defence against aircraft which is designated by the Admiralty or the Army Council for the purpose."
  Sir I. PHILIPPS: The Chancellor of the Exchequer said the whole of them.
  Major BAIRD: He said the whole of the Flying Corps. The anti-aircraft men do not belong to the Flying Corps.
  Mr. BILLING: The airships and the Royal Naval Air Service do not belong to the Flying Corps.
  Major BAIRD: I would ask my hon. and gallant Friend, who seems to anticipate some misfortune occurring as the result of this three months' notice, how are you to give a decent opportunity to men who are serving far off without it? You will see the words of the paragraph, " within three months from the time when he receives notice of such transfer or attachment."
  Sir I. PHILIPPS: It does not matter where he is 'serving. It is three months after he gets transferred.
  Major BAIRD: I was only explaining why we put this in. If we had not put in three months then there would be a grave injustice to the men who might not like to come over yet, owing to the conditions in which they were serving, and had not had an opportunity of taking advantage of the provision in their favour. If a man refuses to transfer to the service of the Royal Flying Corps he cannot be made. but he is at once at the disposal of His Majesty's Government for military service, whereupon he is trained as an Infantry man. It is not reasonable to suppose that a man earning high pay and doing interesting work is likely deliberately to sacrifice those advantages, and also many other advantages attaching to his position, in order to go on to the Barrack Square as an Infantryman at a very much lower rate of pay. I will look into the thing, of course, but I really do not think there is much substance in the point.
  Mr. BILLING: When is it proposed that this three months should commence?
  Major BAIRD: If the hon. Gentleman looks at the Bill he will see that it is " within three months from the time when he receives notice."
  Mr. WATT: May I ask the Under-Secretary for War, who has had a legal training, how is he to prove the day on which a man receives notice in Mesopotamia? It may be a minor point from what day the three months is to start, but it will give rise to a great deal of ill-feeling. confusion, and discontent
  Major BAIRD: I would suggest that that also would be settled in the Orders.
  Mr. BILLING: Why cannot the Orders, now that this Service is proposed, say that if a man is going to enrol he should advise his commanding officer, and then you would start off with the knowledge of what you have got.
  Amendment negatived.
  Mr. BILLING: Am I to assume that there is no opportunity for a Division on so important a question as this?
  The CHAIRMAN: It is for the Chairman to judge when he counts the voices. I only heard a single voice. Does the hon. Member wish to move any further Amendment on this Clause?
  Motion made, and Question proposed, " That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
  Mr. HARCOURT: I am not completely satisfied with the explanation of the Government with regard to taking over the anti-aircraft guns. The Royal Flying Corps does not control the anti-aircraft guns. I have been an officer in the Anti-Aircraft Gunnery for the last three years, and I have been under naval control Is it proposed to take over the anti-aircraft guns and units so far as they are considered necessary for the proper conduct of operations, or are the War Office independently to supply such anti-aircraft defence?
  Major BAIRD: The hon. Member's own experience shows the varying conditions under which anti aircraft guns are controlled. They are either in close conjunction with the Force of the Royal Flying Corps or the Royal Naval Air Service. The matter is one which has to be considered on every occasion. It is a matter of convenience and efficiency in discharging its functions.
  Mr. BILLING: I beg to move in Subsection (2), to leave out the word " may," and to insert instead thereof the word " shall."
  The CHAIRMAN: We are now on the question " That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
  Mr. BILLING: I intimated my intention of moving an Amendment, and I was only taking a little time to find the Amendment for the purpose of moving it. With your permission I will move the Amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN: I waited quite a long time, and I called on the hon. Member.
  Mr. BILLING: I certainly bow to your ruling, but, on a point of Order, is it not customary, when calling on a Member to move an Amendment, to refer to the Clause or the sub-Clause to which the Amendment relates?
  The CHAIRMAN: Where there is a number of Amendments, and some of them are consequential, then it is quite customary to ask the hon. Member, as occurred to-day, which of them he desires to move. There was no response to that request, and therefore I proceeded with the business.
  Mr. BILLING: Then, on a point of Order, it was perfectly obvious to you that I was referring to the Bill to see whether the question of losing the previous Amendment governed those which followed. I did not wish to trouble the House moving any Amendment, except one, which was not affected by the decision on the last Amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN: I have really endeavoured to meet the hon. Member, but I cannot at this time listen to him on this point.
  Question, " That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

  CLAUSE 4. —(Rights of Officers.)
  Officers in the Air Force shall enjoy all such powers, rights, immunities, and privileges as are enjoyed by commissioned officers of His Majesty's Navy or Army as such, whether conferred by Statute or otherwise, and the acceptance of a commission in the Air Force shall not render a person accepting such a commission incapable of being elected to or sitting or voting in the Commons House of Parliament, and nothing in the Succession to the Crown Act, 1707, shall extend to any Member of the Commons House of Parliament who, being an officer of the Air Force, receives any new or other commission in the Air Force, or receives a commission in His Majesty's Navy or Army, or who, being an officer in His Majesty's Navy or Army, receives a commission in the Air Force.
  Sir F. SMITH: I beg to move, after "1707," to insert the words " or any similar enactment."
  Mr. PRINGLE: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman explain what is the meaning of this Amendment?
  Sir F. SMITH: This matter is governed by an Irish Statute of George III., and the Amendment, therefore, becomes necessary.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  CLAUSE 5. —(Application of Military Service Acts, etc.)
  (1) Any men who, by virtue of the Military Service Acts, 1916 and 1917, are deemed to have been enlisted in His Majesty's Regular Forces and to have been transferred to the Reserve, or who having voluntarily enlisted in the Regular Forces have been so transferred, shall on being called up for service be liable to be transferred to the Air Force.
  (2) There shall be included amongst the exceptions mentioned in the First Schedule to the Military Service Act, 1916, the following:
  Men serving in the Air Force.
  Mr. BILLING: I beg to move, in Subsection (1), to leave out the words "be liable to " [" to be liable to be transferred "], and to insert instead thereof the words " subject to his consent."
  The reason why I move this Amendment is that I do not think that the Army Act or the Naval Act permits the Army or the Navy to call the man up for the Army or the Navy and then to transfer him either from the Army to the Navy or from the Navy to the Army. As I understand, if a man goes into the Navy as a stoker or a plumber, or any other particular position, he has a right to say that he will go into that position. This Clause, however, proposes to give power to insist that when the man is called up he shall become a member of the Air Service, or to insist that a man shall be taken from the Army or the Navy and forcibly put into the Air Service. Every man who enlists by the Army Act automatically becomes a soldier, but, if he is called up, he may by this provision be transferred to the Air Service from the Army Service. I think it is not advisable to retain the words "be liable to be transferred" into the Air Service when called up. Although it is absolutely necessary to insist that every man who enlists should be a soldier, it is not always advisable to force a man into a department of the Service to do work which he is opposed to do. It is far better to put round pegs in round holes, if possible, and not to have them in square ones.
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Macpherson): I hope my hon: Friend will not press this Amendment. A man is liable to be drafted into the Royal Flying Corps under the Military Service Act, 1915, and I think it is much
  486
  better that the man should not be given the option as to the Service he would desire. It might happen that a man with mechanical skill was required either in the Air Service or some other branch of the Service, and it is essential that we should have the power, as now, to order the man who enlists to any arm of the Service.
  Mr. BILLING: I quite appreciate the point put by the hon. Gentleman, and I will not press the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  CLAUSE 6. —(Air Force Reserve and Auxiliary Force.)
  (1) It shall be lawful for His Majesty to raise and maintain an Air Force Reserve and an Auxiliary Air Force consisting in each case of such number of officers, warrant officers, non - commissioned officers, and men as may from time to time be provided by Parliament, and to provide for the transfer or attachment to the Auxiliary Air Force, subject to their consent, officers and men of any unit of the Territorial Force which at the passing of this Act forms part of the Royal Flying Corps.
  (2) His Majesty may, by Order in Council, apply with the necessary adaptations to the Air Force Reserve, or to the Auxiliary Air Force, or to the officers or men of any such force, any enactment relating to the Army Reserve or to the Territorial Force or to the officers or men of those forces, and such Order in Council shall be laid before both Houses of Parliament.
  Mr. BILLING: I beg to move, in Subsection (1), after the word " of " [" unit of the Territorial Force "], to insert the words, " the Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve or of."
  I think most Members will appreciate that members of the Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve have as much right as Territorial officers to the advantage which this Clause affords. Territorial officers have become flying officers in the Royal Flying Corps, and this Clause gives them certain advantages which I say should be equally extended to the men of the Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve.
  Mr. MACPHERSON: Perhaps my hon. Friend will not press this Amendment at the present moment. Before the Report stage my hon. and gallant Friend will say whether he can accept it or not.
  Sir I. PHILIPPS: On a question of putting in the word "Royal," is not that a matter for the Crown and not a matter for this House?
  Mr. BILLING: The hon. Member will see that my Amendment refers to a force which is already called the Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve, which has been in existence a great many years. I suggest that force should be put in the same position to the Navy as is the Territorial Force to the Army. But I might save the time of the Committee by pointing out that I have other Amendments practically on the same point. There is no reason why the Royal Naval Air Service should be penalised, or that the Royal Flying Corps should have the advantage. If reserve officers are to be trained for the Flying Services they should be equally trained both for the Military and Naval Air Services, because they are equally eligible as naval volunteers or Army volunteers before the War. Perhaps the Under-Secretary will give me an assurance that it is the intention not to put the Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve outside the scope of this Clause.
  Mr. MACPHERSON: This point will be carefully considered before the Bill passes to another place. I understand the Report stage is to be taken to-day.
  Mr. BILLING: Does the hon. Gentleman mean that the Report stage is to be taken this evening?
  Major BAIRD: If that can be done.
  Mr. BILLING: Are we to understand that all these assurances that we have been given as to the consideration of Amendments between now and the Report stage are going to be left aside, and that the Report stage is to be taken to-night? Are the promises which have been made to be like past promises, leading to nothing at all?
  Major BAIRD: I have only given one promise.
  Mr. HARCOURT: Though the attendance at this Committee is small, I think we are entitled to draw attention to this very interesting situation. The Under-Secretary of State for War has stated that the Report stage is to be taken this evening. While I do not reproach him, I would point out that this is a very unusual proceeding. Having some knowledge of these matters, I myself have hastily prepared a manuscript Amendment in regard to the situa-
  488
  tion which will arise in connection with the various anti-aircraft units; and there are other points which will arise. Is it absolutely essential, from the point of view of Parliamentary business, that we should take the Report stage as well to-day? I do not think the Committee was aware that such an unusual course was contemplated. There has been no desire shown to obstruct the Bill, and I ask the Government whether they cannot, consistently with the demand 'upon Parliamentary time, find some interval between this and the Report stage.
  The CHAIRMAN: I must point out that it does not lie with the Government whether the Report stage shall or shall not be taken to-night; it lies with the House. The Government are only asking the House to assent to the Report stage being taken —I do not say the assent of every individual, but something like general assent.
  Major BAIRD: All I asked the House was that if we could get the Report stage, so much the better. With regard to my hon. Friend's Amendment connected with the Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve, I am informed that there is no Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve serving as a unit, and. therefore, the Amendment would not be applicable.
  Sir I. PHILIPPS: I wish to enter a protest against going on with the Report stage to-night; and, if we had known that was the intention, we would have pressed for very much more definite statements in regard to these matters. It may be that hon. Gentlemen on the Government Bench thought that there was a possibility, seeing matters were going smoothly, of getting the Report stage also. Although that may not have been their intention originally, and they did not have it down on paper, yet it may have occurred to them that they should try to run through the two stages.
  Lord H. CECIL: I rather hope that general consent may be forthcoming for taking the Report stage to-day. If the Bill is not passed to-day it may entail the delay of a week or two, which is extremely undesirable in the public interest. I hope that the Government may be able to meet some of the comparatively small points that have been raised by an assurance that they shall be dealt with in another place. As to the particular Amendment, I gather the occasion for it does not arise, otherwise it is one which I view with a good deal of sympathy.
  Mr. PRINGLE: I think it is rather unfortunate, if we are to take the Report stage to-day, that the Government should not have made up its mind with regard to the various Amendments on the Paper. I certainly, for one, should not feel satisfied with an assurance that the matter will be dealt with in another place. My experience of the result of such assurances has not been very satisfactory.
  Mr. BILLING: May I point out that many of us are looking forward to having a good deal to say on the whole scope of the Bill and the general attitude of the Government in regard to it? We hope for an opportunity to do that on the Report stage, but obviously it has been determined that there shall be no Report stage, because they have managed to struggle through so far without amending the Bill.
  The CHAIRMAN: The Bill has already been amended, and therefore there must be a Report stage. I have allowed this discussion to go on, but it is very far from the matter before the Committee. I have pointed out that it is in the hands of the House itself whether or not the Report stage is taken to-night.
  Mr. BILLING: In view of the fact that the small number of hon. Members present representing the House, while at the back of the Government there are 200 Members in the Lobbies who know nothing about what is going on, are you going—
  The CHAIRMAN: I must ask the hon. Member to be relevant to the Amendment. In this House we endeavour to get through business by taking one thing at a time, and that thing now is the Amendment before the Committee.
  Amendment negatived.
  The CHAIRMAN: Does the hon. Member move his next Amendment? I think the last Amendment to this Clause, of which he has given notice, is covered by a decision come to on Clause 2, where the hon. Gentleman moved a similar Amendment.
  Mr. BILLING: My next Amendment has reference to the Royal Naval Air Service.
  The CHAIRMAN: That is disposed of by the decision come to just now. It is part of the proposal which has just been negatived by the Committee.
  Mr. BILLING: I accept that view.
  The CHAIRMAN: And the hon. Member's last Amendment raises a point similar to that which he brought forward on Clause 2, and which was then negatived.
  Mr. BILLING: Yes.
  Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  CLAUSE 8. —(Establishment of Air Council.)
  (1) For the purpose of the administration of the Act relating to the Air Force and to the defence of the realm by air there shall be established an Air Council consisting of one of His Majesty's Principal Secretaries of State who shall be President of the Air Council and of other members who shall be appointed in such manner and subject to such provisions as His Majesty may by Order in Council direct.
  (2) His Majesty may by Order in Council fix the date as on which the Air Council is to be established, and make provision with respect to the proceedings of the Air Council and the manner in which the business of the Council is to be distributed among the members thereof.
  (3) On the establishment of the Air Council the Air Board constituted under the New Ministries and Secretaries Act, 1916, shall cease to exist, and all the powers, duties, rights, liabilities, and property of that board shall be transferred to the Air Council, but nothing in this Sub-section shall affect any orders, instructions, or other instruments issued by the Air Board, and all such instruments shall have effect as if issued by the Air Council.
  (4) His Majesty may by Order in Council transfer from the Admiralty, or from the Army Council or the Secretary of State for the War Department, to the Air Council or the President of the Air Council such property, rights, and liabilities of the Admiralty or Army Council or Secretary of State as may be agreed between the Air Council and the Admiralty or the Army Council, as the case may be.
  Mr. BILLING: I beg to move, in Subsection (1), after the word "members " ["Air Council and of other members "],

  491
  to insert the words, " it shall include a Director of Operations, a Director of Air Defences, a Director of Construction, a Director of Personnel, and a Director of Equipment, all of whom shall be appointed by Letters Patent under the Great Seal."
  With regard to the suggested method of appointment, I am following the precedent which is adopted in the case of Lords of the Admiralty. With respect to the Amendment generally, I think the composition of the Council and the various positions to be filled should be specified. The House ought to know what is to be the composition of the Air Council and who it is proposed to appoint. At the present moment there is no information offered us at all as to who is to be concerned in the work or what appointments are to be made, and I submit to this Committee that it is quite in order that this stipulation should be made in the Bill, that a director should be appointed who shall be directly responsible for operations, that one shall be appointed who shall be directly responsible for the air defences of the country, and that there shall be Directors of Construction, Personnel, and Equipment. I want the Bill to state definitely that these appointments shall be made, and I would like to know from some member of the Government what objection there is to the introduction of these words.
  Major BAIRD: For reasons I gave earlier in the day, it would be impossible to lay down the exact appointments that are to be made. We cannot tie ourselves down either to their number or designation, but I can assure the hon. Member that the ground he refers to will be fully covered by the appointments made.
  Mr. BILLING: I hope the hon. and gallant Gentleman does not read into this Amendment any limitation of numbers. The Amendment simply states that the Council shall include certain men who shall be directly responsible to the country for these particular duties, but it will not preclude the Government from making any further appointments they choose. It is all very well to state that the object of the Amendment will be secured, but why is it always impossible to get the Government to introduce these things into their Bills?
  Amendment negatived.
  Mr. BILLING: I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (1), to insert the words, " Provided that the number of members so to be appointed shall not exceed nine."
  8.0 P.M.
  I submit that this is a very necessary Amendment, because I think it would be a very good thing for this House to exercise its power of limiting the dimensions of this Council. We have seen during the three years of war the effect of unwieldy councils. We saw it in the last Government, and we have a glorious example of it in the present Government. This is the only opportunity the House will have of limiting the number of the Council. I certainly do not see why there should be more than nine members. There may be hon. Members here who are interested in the financial aspect. Personally, I am only
  interested in the question of efficiency, as to whether this is to be an efficient Council or not an efficient Council; and if it is going to add to its numbers until it is a large and unwieldy Committee, I am afraid it will accomplish very little. I therefore submit to hon. Members who are interested in the financial side of not making unnecessary appointments that they should support this Amendment from that point of view. I move it because I consider it will lead to efficiency in the Service if an unwieldy Committee is prevented by the introduction of some such Amendment as this.
  Commander BELLAIRS: I should like briefly to support the hon. Member in his Amendment to limit the number of members of the Council. I think it would be a very sound thing to get the principle established of small numbers. I hope the Air Council will be less than that, but the danger does exist, owing to financial pressure, the checks of the Treasury, and that sort of thing, of any Council getting to unwieldy proportions. We have just seen the Board of Admiralty expanded to twelve members, and I think there is a great deal in the saying of the French philosopher that the greater the number of wise men assembled in a room the less the wisdom obtained. For that reason I support the hon. Member's Amendment.
  Mr. WATT: I should like to support the hon. and gallant Member who has just spoken in regard to what he said as to the unusual amount of wisdom. It is wise, I think, to restrict the number of the Air Council to a figure such as nine. We must remember that this Government came in

  493
  on the question of reduced numbers in their counsels. It was a question of the extent of the Cabinet and of the War Council that brought the late Government to defeat, and the present Government came in with the fixed intention of ruling things by small councils and small committees. I, therefore, think it ought to accept this Amendment placing a limitation on the number of the Air Council; and nine is a satisfactory number. It is neither too large nor too small, it will enable the Council to find the necessary Under-Secretaries of State, and there will not be more than nine of them, we hope. I cannot see any objection that the Government can have to this number being the maximum. I hope my hon. and gallant Friend will see his way to accept the Amendment, because, may I point out to him, that he has not been very flexible today? He has, if I remember rightly, not accepted a single Amendment. Perhaps he will now turn over a new leaf, and accept a limiting number for this new Air Council.
  Major BAIRD: With regard to the acceptance of Amendments, it is very unfortunate that I was prepared to accept one that the hon. Member (Mr. Billing) could not find. Otherwise I should not have been exposed to this charge of meanness and stinginess. With regard to this Amendment, I do not quite follow what there is in the magic figure nine; or why nine should be exactly right?
  Commander BELLAIRS: An outside limit.
  Major BAIRD: Yes; but the point is that there is no intention whatever of reaching nine. I hope to goodness we shall not reach nine; but there is this possibility: You cannot tell, until you get at the work, how much it will have to be sub-divided to secure efficiency; and it is also possible that, aviation being, from an Imperial point of view, as important a matter as it is likely to be in time of peace, it will prove desirable to have members from the Dominions as members of the Air Council. I hope the Committee will not press this Amendment, because I do not think there is anything very desirable in limiting the Council to a purely arbitrary figure which may be unnecessarily large at the present time—it 'does appear unnecessarily large at the present time—but in regard to which if it is not large enough, it will be rather unwise to have to come to
  494
  the House of Commons to extend it I can assure the Committee that everyone of us who is concerned with the drawing up of this scheme for the working of the Ministry is fully alive to the importance of having the Air Council as small as possible, and that we shall draw our rules in accordance with that view. I think, however, it would be a mistake to limit ourselves to the number laid down, the exact virtue and value of which, I confess, is not apparent to me.
  Mr. BILLING: The hon. and gallant Gentleman has raised a most interesting point in his remark that he regards this as an Imperial measure. I have always wished to regard the Air Service from an Imperial aspect, and I have an Amendment to give effect to that in the title of the Bill. If the hon. and gallant Gentleman were prepared to accept that when we reach it quite shortly, and to express in the title of the Bill that this is an Imperial Air Service, as distinct from an Air Force, I should quite appreciate the only reason that can possibly exist for the extension of the Council to more than nine. Unless the hon. and gallant Gentleman can give an assurance that it is the intention of the Government to make some such alteration I must press this Amendment, because if the question of the introduction of Imperial representatives to this Council arises, surely there will be other matters arising which it will be necessary to come to this House about, and on that occasion the Government could ask for an extension of the members of the Council. I think it was rather a lame excuse to suggest now that the Government should have conveniences for carrying into effect certain powers which they have not the power to do. If they have not the power to add Imperial representatives to their number, and to make this an Imperial movement, why expand the number beyond nine? Unless there is some other reason or excuse for raising the number to nine, I shall press my Amendment to a Division on the ground of efficiency and economy.
  Mr. HOGGE: I do not think we have had a sufficient reply from the Government in regard to the numbers that ought to compose this Council. I think we ought to hear from the Government what the Bill as it stands really allows them to do. The suggestion that it does not admit of the admission of Imperial representatives is, of course, a foolish one, because, before

  495
  that could be done, we should require to have an Imperial Conference, to draft an Imperial constitution, and to have Imperial control not only of the Army and Navy, but of the Air Service, before you could have any representative control of a Committee of this kind. I can quite see that some Canadian or New Zealander could be attached to this Committee for work under some such arrangement as exists at present, but obviously if this country is to be taxed for this purpose the Council cannot be composed of men who have no status except their Colonial status. I really think the Government have not made it clear to the House that the Bill as it stands prevents them from spending unnecessary money. As has already been pointed out in this Debate by the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite (Commander Bellairs), the Admiralty has increased by leaps and bounds during the War. We do not know yet who the Air Minister is to be. We do not know what his fads may be, or how many men he may want to appoint. He may have different fads from those of the man who follows him, and thus we may have an indeterminate Council with an indeterminate number. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman will press this Amendment to a Division, but before we part company with this Amendment I think we ought to have some statement laying down specifically that five or six posts are essential for this Council, and some indication should be given to this House of what others are necessary. Unless that is done I shall feel disposed to follow the hon. Gentleman into the Lobby as a protest against the unnecessary extravagance of leaving the numbers of the Council indeterminate.
  Lord H. CECIL: It would be unwise to make a hard and fast limit to the Air Council, which would last for ever, and with regard to which we can really hardly tell—I am speaking of future years—how the Air Force will be developed. The very experience to which reference has been made, as to the Admiralty and Army Council in recent years having been expanded, should teach us that it is imprudent to have any definite, fixed, legislative maximum for a body of this kind. Of course, it is desirable to practice economy, but I would observe that this Amendment would exclude the adding of officers who might have no special remuneration but whose services might be
  496
  very useful. I hope the Amendment will not be pressed, and that the matter will be left to the discretion of the Government.
  Mr. BILLING: Surely the Noble Lord who has just spoken is aware that the Lords of the Admiralty are limited in number?
  Lord H. CECIL: Not by law.
  Mr. BILLING: Not by Act of Parliament? In the circumstances the suggestion is made that all these members of this. Council should be paid salaries.
  Lord H. CECIL: No.
  Mr. BILLING: It says so later on. The Air Council have the power to pay members, and if we get an extravagant and excitable Air Minister—and really from the recent appointments of the Government there is no telling where their imagination may take them—who has no knowledge either of Army or Navy matters, but who is simply anxious to make a successful post out of the position he is given, he might go off and appoint a totally unnecessary number of officers of this Council, and they might all be civilians. He might take the director of one firm and the managing director of another firm, and all these aircraft firms might be appointed at huge salaries. There is nothing to prevent it. We do not know how much they are going to get. I am only an exceedingly humble Member of this House, but it does astound me to see how alleged private Members allow their privileges to be taken from them. They refuse to fight for them, and they are prepared to hand over to the Government the power to appoint a man they do not know, and people of whom they have never heard, at salaries we can only guess at. It seems to me a preposterous thing, and an insult to the intelligence and an insult to the sense of independence of private Members, that the Government should come down here and bounce these Bills through, and say, "If you do not pass them, we will sit on Friday." It would be a great personal inconvenience to me to sit on Friday, but I would sit on Friday, Saturday, Sunday, and Monday in order to get a Bill through.
  The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member should be relevant in his remarks.
  Commander BELLAIRS: I do not think: there is much substance in what has been:

  497
  advanced by the Government about the Imperial representatives. We have had great Armies from Canada and Australia and have not put members of those countries on the Army Council; neither have we found it necessary on account of the Australian Navy to put an Australian representative on to the Board of Admiralty. It is a far more important matter to establish the principle of limiting the number. Should it be necessary at any time to extend the number it is only right that they should come to Parliament, and our experience has been

  Division No. 110].

  AYES.

  [8. 15P.m.

  Bellairs, Commander C. W.

  Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

  Watt, Henry A.

  Bryce, John Annan

  Lundon, Thomas

  Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

  Pringle, William M. R.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES. —Mr —

  Hunt, Major Rowland

  Billing and Mr. Hogge

  NOES

  Adamson, William

  Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes (Fulham)

  Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert

  Ainsworth. Sir John Stirling

  Fleming,Sir J. (Aberdeen, S.)

  O'Grady, James

  Archdale, Lt. Edward M.

  Galbraith, Samuel

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Baird, John Lawrence

  Gibbs, Col. George Abraham

  Parkes. Sir Edward E.

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Gretton, John

  Parrott, Sir James Edward

  Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

  Griffith, Rt. Hon. Ellis Jones

  Pease, Rt. Hon. H. Pike (Darlington)

  Barnett, Captain R. W.

  Gulland, Rt. Hon. John William

  Perkins, Walter F.

  Beck, Arthur Cecil

  Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

  Philipps, Maj. -Gen. Sir Ivor (S'ampton)

  Benn, Capt.W.W.(T.Hamlets, St.George)

  Harris, Percy A. (Leicester, S.)

  Pollock, Sir Ernest Murray

  Bentham, George Jackson

  Haslam, Lewis

  Pratt, J. W.

  Bird, Alfred

  Helme, Sir Norval Watson

  Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

  Black, Sir Arthur W.

  Hewins, William Albert Samuel

  Raffan, Peter Wilson

  Boland, John Plus

  Hibbert, Sir Henry

  Randles, Sir John S.

  Boyton, James

  Hickman, Brig. —Gen. Thomas E.

  Rees, G. C. (Carnarvonshire, Arfen)

  Brace, Rt. Hon. William

  Higham, John Sharp

  Richardson, Arthur (Rotherham)

  Bridgeman, William Clive

  Hills, Major John Waller

  Robertson, Rt. Hon. John M.

  Bull, Sir William James

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Robinson, Sidney

  Carew, C. R. S.

  Horne, Edgar

  Rowlands, James

  Cator, John

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Samuel, Samuel (Wandsworth)

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

  Hudson, Walter

  Shortt, Edward

  Chancellor, Henry George

  Hughes, Spencer Leigh

  Smallwood, Edward

  Chapple, Major William Allen

  Jacobsen, Thomas Owen

  Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir F. E. (Walton)

  Clough, William

  Jardine, Ernest (Somerset East)

  Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, west

  Clynes, John R.

  Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Thomas, Sir A. G. (Monmouth, S.)

  Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

  Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Coote, William

  Jones, Rt. Hon. Leit (Notts, Rushcliffe)

  Tickler, T. G.

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Jones, William S. Glyn — (Stepney)

  Wardle, George J.

  Cory, James Herbert (Cardiff)

  Jowett, Frederick William

  White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradesten).

  Craig, Col. James (Down, E.)

  Kenyon, Barnet

  Wiles, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Crumley, Patrick

  Kiley, James Daniel

  Williams, Aneurin (Durham, N.W.)

  Currie, George W.

  Larmor, Sir J.

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Dalrymple, Hon. H. H.

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert

  Williams, Col. Sir Robert (Dorset, W.)

  Denniss, E. R. B.

  Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury)

  Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs., N.)

  Doris, William

  Macmaster, Donald

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Macpherson, James Ian

  Yeo, Alfred William

  Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Fell, Arthur

  Marks, Sir George Croydon

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES. —Lord

  Finney, Samuel

  Mason, David M. (Coventry)

  E. Talbot and Captain F. Guest.

  Fisher, Rt. Hon. H. A. L. (Hallam)

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  Mr. PRINGLE: I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (1), to insert the words "Provided that no member of the Council shall be financially interested in any undertaking which supplies aeroplanes, aeroplane engines, or parts thereof, to the Government."
  that they will get the Bill through in a very short time. The Admiralty brought forward three Amendments to the Naval Discipline Act, and got them through in. half an hour.
  Mr. BILLING: May I ask if the representative of the War Office and the Attorney-General is prepared to meet this. Amendment?
  Question put, " That those words be there inserted."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 8;. Noes, 117.
  The Committee will remember that in the course of the discussion of the Financial Resolution this afternoon I referred to the possibility of members of the Air Council being so interested as is described in the terms of my Amendment. I then suggested that it was an extremely bad
  thing from the point of view of public service that members of the Air Council, even although they gave their services gratuitously in that position, should be interested in undertakings which were contracting with their Department. We all know the stringency of the Rules which relate to Members of Parliament having contracts with His Majesty's Government. During the course of the present War, however, the stringency of these Rules has to some extent been relaxed. It has been felt that the nature of the national emergency is such that a Rule of this House which is absolutely sound in ordinary times should not be rigidly adhered to. We know that in connection with the Munitions Department there have been men employed in official positions who have been interested in undertakings which were contracting with them. I do not allege that as a result of these arrangements any abuses have arisen. At the same time, the existence of these arrangements has in some cases given ground for suspicion. The suspicion, for example, of favouritism, of undue preference; while, of course, the very fact that these suspicions can arise is a sufficient ground for putting forward an Amendment of this kind. I could give an example of the kind of thing which is said to have arisen. You may have certain machines supplied at a standard price, and it may happen that, as time goes on, improvements may be introduced into machines. These improvements, of course, disturb the arrangement upon which the standard price is based. If it should occur that a person in a powerful position in the Ministry is interested in the first patent, he will have an advantage which cannot be enjoyed by any competitor. That should be absolutely impossible.
  There is another point of the very greatest importance to the Air Service. That Service, as we all know, is one which is specially in an experimental stage. We are all desirous of seeing improvements made in the machines at the service of our flying men. We desire, in view of their safety, and for the offensive qualities of the machine, that they should have machines of a higher fighting quality than those to which they are likely to be opposed. If, however, you have on your Air Council men who are financially interested in the production of existing
  500
  machines, and to whom the scrapping of the existing type and the substitution of the new type would mean a very considerable loss, there is always the risk, under these circumstances, that the new machine, however admirable and useful it may be, or likely to turn out, however simple its construction, may not have a fair chance when it comes to be tested for the purpose of decision. These are dangers against which we should take every measure to guard. The Amendment which I am proposing is not designed to prevent an expert being on this Committee, that is to say a man who knows all about aviation, aeroplanes, aeroplane engines, and so on. I hold it possible to get on the Air Board men who have the highest skill in all these things, and who are willing to denude themselves of all their financial interests in any of the existing concerns, and who in that position would be absolutely above suspicion. I do not think it is inflicting any hardship upon any man to ask that if he takes a position of this sort, if he becomes a member of this Air Board, to act as an expert, that from that moment he should cease to have any financial interest in the continued production of any competing air machines. That is the object of the Amendment. T do not desire to make any imputations against anybody, or to suggest that anybody at the present time on the Air Council has been guilty of such action, but there is the risk.
  You may have a man who thinks that he has a perfectly sound machine coming along and he asks the Air Council to test that machine. The test may be refused, or an inadequate test may be applied. Either of those decisions may be come to on perfectly sound grounds, but the fact that one of the men who takes the decision is interested against any new departure is likely to create a suspicion in the mind of the disappointed man that he has been unfairly treated. There is not the slightest doubt that, human nature being what it is, he would find very, very many men likely to share that suspicion. That is the kind of thing that one does not desire to grow up in connection with our Government Departments. I have raised this question in regard to the Air Service because I think it is in this matter of new construction and improvements, in the obtaining of novelties and so forth, that the danger particularly lies. It is so much the paramount interest of this country to see that no single improvement in aeronautics

  501
  should be missed, that anything which has the slightest tendency to prevent the adoption of any but the most up-to-date machines ought not to be allowed in connection with this new Service. I hope the Government, in view of the considerations I have put before the Committee, if unable to accept my Amendment in its present form, at least may be able to accept something which would achieve the desired result.
  Mr. WATT: I think this is a most important Amendment. I hope it will receive the serious consideration of the Government, and not only that, but its acceptance. In any case, I hope they will take action to put some Amendment in the Bill which will bring about the results desired by my hon. Friend. The Amendment, as he has said, is to prevent a man financially interested in any air concern or air machine manufactory serving on the Air Council. My hon. Friend said that he did not want to make any insinuations. I feel it my duty to make those insinuations from what I know. I know outside the Air Board there exists among men skilled in aeroplane making—experts, inventors, and so forth—an idea that they do not get a fair chance from the Air Board for their inventions and their schemes. I have one instance, that of a constituent of mine, whose machine, after many, many months of hard work, was scrapped by the order of the Air Board. That may have been right or wrong. No doubt it was right, but it caused in the mind of this inventor a feeling of great disappointment, a feeling of harshness, and a feeling of having been ill-treated. What is the effect on that man? He never tries again to work for the Air Board. His services are lost to the Air Board, and through them his services are lost to the nation.
  I think it is a very unfortunate outcome of events that the men who are desired to exercise their ingenuity in the direction of engine-making are choked off by what they consider ill-treatment by the Air Board. If there were no men interested in any particular manufacture on the Air Board, that conclusion would not arise in the minds of these people, and they would, at any rate, think that they had been honestly judged by the Air Board, and that their inventions had been considered fairly, and they would not have the feeling of umbrage which at present exists. That is one of the points. Another point is that members of the Air Board interested in
  502
  concerns manufacturing aeroplanes have a tendency to put the orders of the Air Board in the direction of the concerns in which they are interested. Any man who has commercial experience knows that that must exist. It is ordinary human nature that that should exist in the members of the Air Board, and that when they are giving orders the orders will go in the direction of the firm in which they are interested. I do not suggest that in the minds of the men so swaying the direction of the orders there is anything unfair. They think, rightly or wrongly, that the engines in which they are interested are the best in the market, and they use their influence there to sway orders in that direction. I think that is unwise. It is unwise that they should be open even to the suspicion of so doing, and the Amendment of my hon. Friend provides that men on the Air Council shall not be financially interested in the concerns which provide the things the Air Council in the future are to find. My hon. Friend who is now in charge of the measure must see that that is a sound principle. Whether he can give effect to it or not I do not know.
  Mr. BILLING: I shall certainly support this Amendment, but if it cannot be carried in the present form, owing to the exigencies of war, perhaps the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill will meet us by amending the Clause so as to provide that when a state of war does not exist no member of the Air Council shall be in the position described; or will my hon. Friend alter the Amendment so as to provide that only so long as the War exists shall it be possible for a member of the Air Council to be also a member of a trading concern which is dealing with them? Does that appeal to my hon. Friend? This puts the House in rather a difficult position. By an overwhelming majority this House not very long ago passed an Act—I voted against it and fought it all I could, but I happened to be an isolated Member—to empower itself to contract with the Government and to vote public money to go into its own pocket, and here we are debating whether we shall allow anyone else to do it. Yet I am in favour of supporting this, even although it puts in a difficult position hon. Members who go into the Lobby to support it, because I trust the hon. Member will press this to a Division. Personally, I think if Amendments are not pressed to a Division

  503
  they might just as well not be put up at all. It gives us, if they are pressed to a Division, an opportunity at some future date, when the virtue of the Amendment has become apparent, to bring home to the members of the Government and other Members of the House the folly of their past ways and probably win their support for a future measure.
  My hon. Friend who moved this Amendment made out a very good case, and were it not for the fact that I have no particular wish to extend this Committee stage, unless it would be for the purpose of having an opportunity of reconsidering the Bill before the Report stage, I could make out even a better case. Take, for example, the case of the managing director of a large aeroplane firm. He is perhaps not the actual designer for his firm, but the machine which comes out of that man's factory originates to a large extent in his mind. He conceives the general idea of the thing. He gives the machine, in all probability, his name, and he has a sort of paternal interest in the success or failure of that particular type. He is sitting on the Council. I am here waiving the question entirely as to whether it is right to place a man in a position to ruin himself financially by doing an honourable thing, because to force him into that position is a matter which might be debated at some length, but has no particular bearing on this case. There is another aspect of the case altogether—personal pride, for instance. The hon. Member who spoke last mentioned the case of an inventor who was so disturbed by the Air Board turning his machine down. Let the hon. Member realise how difficult it is to make an inventor believe he is wrong, or that his invention would not win the War, or at least would not have a considerable bearing on it. Directors of various firms, although not inventors, are in many cases originators of certain types and designs, and to ask them to sit on a council and turn down designs they have spent months in producing and on which they have spent thousands of pounds in perfecting, to ask such a man to assist in reducing his own machine to the scrap-heap, is placing that director in an invidous position.
  Does this Committee seriously believe that, with aviation now nine years old, with the Army having practised aviation for some years, as well as the Navy, it is
  504
  impossible to find nine, eight, five, or three men in this country who are masters of their business unless they are saturated on the commercial side? It is easy to find men capable of holding positions on the Air Council without going to members of the trade. If you do go to members of the trade, I think they will appreciate the honour paid them sufficiently to dispose of their commercial undertakings, and if they do not they must think a great deal more of swelling their own bank balances than serving their country. I think the hon. Gentleman who is piloting this Bill ought to give us some assurance on this point, and explain why it is impossible to form an Air Council without drawing members of the trade into its number. If, on the other hand, the hon. Member can satisfy the Committee that it is utterly impossible to successfully administer the affairs of the Air Service without putting the control of construction, development, design, design, delivery, and office of works into the hands of tradesmen who will benefit to a very large financial extent by their own management, if he can satisfy the Committee that it is impossible, perhaps he will not mind putting an assurance in that when the exigencies of the War permit, and when peace comes once again, then at least in peace time the Council shall not consist of men directly interested in these matters.
  Perhaps the hon. Member will say what is the position of those nominal heads of large firms which are now being supported by the Government itself. Would they be in a position, if this Amendment is accepted, to sit on the Council? I think the hon. Member opposite suggests that it is more or less limited to the speculative development of science. The Government's present method is to erect large dockyards and put the name of some well-known constructor over the door, although he is not interested in the output any more than in simply using his experience to accelerate production. He is not interested in designs, because all these things are done for him. His workmen are paid for him, and the buildings are erected for him, and his name is only put over the door to delude the public into believing that it is a private undertaking when all the time it is a Government concern. What will he the position of a man like that? In the case of a man who simply has his name

  505
  over the door and who only gets a retaining fee, would he be able to sit on the Council?
  Mr. WATT: Not if he is financially interested.
  Mr. BILLING: Possibly the hon. Member representing the Air Board will give detailed reasons for refusing the Amendment, even if it comes to mentioning individuals, and I do not think, on a subject like this, we ought to mince matters. Will he accept the Amendment in so far as it relates to after the War?
  Colonel C. LOWTHER: I have listened to the speech of the hon. Member for North-West Lanarkshire (Mr. Pringle), and although I do not entirely agree with him, I think the Amendment is a very important one. I wish to protest against the emptiness of the House. Here we are on the eve of the creation of a Service on whose excellence so much depends in regard to the successful prosecution of the War, and look at this House ! There is not one Cabinet Minister present. We would like to see the Leader of the House in his place, or some other Ministers on the Treasury Bench. Look at what is supposed to be the Opposition Bench! I would like to see more hon. Members taking an interest in what ought to be our greatest Service, and perhaps the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill will intimate to Ministers that it is the desire of the House that the Treasury Bench should be a little bit fuller.
  Major BAIRD: The Amendment on the Paper appears reasonable, and on general grounds it would be difficult to withstand it. I would like to point out quite frankly that if this Amendment is accepted two gentlemen who have rendered greater service to the Air Service than any other two individuals alive would not be qualified to sit on the future Air Council. If it were only in order to be able to avail ourselves of the services of these two gentlemen, I should certainly think it worth while to resist this Amendment. With all that the hon. Member says about having people sitting in judgment upon their own designs I quite agree, but, this only shows a lack of knowledge of the system under which the designs are selected. The Air Board has in its employment a designs, or technical, department, and they act on its advice. The hon. Member never insinuated that it would be done deliberately—he ad-
  506
  -mitted it would only be done unconsciously —but even if it were possible for a member of the Board who happened to be interested to some extent in the manufacture of aircraft to find himself biassed in favour of his own manufacture as against that of some other man, he would be only one on the Board. Obviously, the last thing that any man would do would be to bring forward something in which he was personally interested. The danger would rather be that he would hesitate to bring forward some invention in which his firm was directly interested.
  Mr. BILLING: It is not what he brings forward; it is what he turns down.
  Major BAIRD: It is precisely the same thing.
  Mr. BILLING: No; it is exactly the opposite.
  Major BAIRD: A thing cannot be turned down until it has been brought forward. If it is brought forward, it is either accepted or turned down. The important thing is that it should be brought forward, and that the Board should have at their disposal, and should thoroughly study, the inventions and ideas of the whole country. The danger which the hon. Member fears does not exist, and it would be extreme folly to deliberately deprive ourselves of the services of two men who, I repeat, have rendered greater service to aviation than any other men in the country. Let it be remembered that with the spread of aviation and the manufacture of aircraft it is extremely difficult to find any big engineer part of whose works are not engaged in the manufacture of some part of an aeroplane. That is precisely the case of the firm which the hon. Member has in mind. A certain part of the works in which two members of the Air Board are interested are devoted to the manufacture of aircraft and air ranges. It is not the whole part of their business, but to-day so widespread is the manufacture of aircraft that if we accept this Amendment we exclude ourselves from the employment of almost any big engineer. We cannot afford to do that.
  Mr. PRINGLE: He could easily part with his shares and put them in War Loan.
  Major BAIRD: Surely it is not reasonable to expect a man to cut himself entirely from his own business?
  Mr. PRINGLE: Lord Rhondda gave up his directorships.
  Major BAIRD: That may be, but I do say that you cannot call upon a man when taking on a Government job—the Government may be short—lived— to entirely cut himself adrift for that period from his own business.
  Mr. HOGGE: He has got to do it now.
  Major BAIRD: Yes, in times of peace.
  Mr. PRINGLE: Lord Rhondda has done it.
  Major BAIRD: That may be, but it is an understood thing that a man does not abandon his interest, although he does abandon actual participation, in what is known as his private business.
  Colonel LOWTHER: A man abandons his directorships.
  Mr. BILLING: Thousands of men have abandoned their own business to go into the trenches.
  An HON. MEMBER: So ought you!
  9.0 P. m.
  Major BAIRD: I do not think it is necessary to pursue this subject further. You run no danger with the type of man you are going to employ or the kind of man who would be asked to sit on the Council, and it would certainly be taking an altogether disproportionate view of the needs of the situation and the best means of meeting them if we were to exclude ourselves from the right of inviting the services of anybody in a position to render services to the country.
  Sir I. PHILIPPS: I did not intend to intervene in this Debate, because I thought that the bon Members who introduced it were simply ploughing the sands, and that it might be taken for granted that there was no necessity for such an Amendment. How often has it been said from that Front Bench that the principles of the Amendment were to be enforced? Over and over again. It never entered my head for one moment that such a policy was the policy of His Majesty's Government. I cannot believe that my hon. and gallant Friend appreciates the words that he has just used. I can imagine the astonishment with which those words would have been received if this House had been full, as it ought to be full at such a time. Here we have a member of the Government telling us that
  508
  the people composing the Air Council, the greatest of Services, are to be those who have private interests in the matter. It is absolutely unheard of. It has been unheard of in the Admiralty and in the Army, and I believe the result of the introduction into His Majesty's Air Forces of such a principle should be quite impossible. I cannot for one moment believe that the Government will support the hon. Gentleman in the view that he has put forward. It comes to me as a most tremendous shock to think that it is even possible. I do not know anything about these Gentlemen, but I never thought it possible that a man in the trade making aeroplanes and airships could sit on the Air Council and have the ordering of them. It seems to me incredible, and I do not believe the country knows it.
  Major BAIRD: It may be new to the lion. and gallant Gentleman, but I myself-at least six months ago in a full House answered a question, and distinctly stated that these two members—
  Sir I. PHILIPPS: I have not referred to them. I do not know them.
  Major BAIRD: I know, but the hon. and gallant Gentleman says that the House would be shocked, whereas the whole House knows it.
  Mr. BILLING: It could not shock the House.
  Sir I. PHILIPPS: I at once withdraw the statement that it was not known, but I am afraid that it has not been appreciated. It is contrary to all the views that have been invariably expressed by all the great men who have led this House, and to hear an entirely different policy now announced must cause great anxiety to everyone throughout the country. Have we ever put on the Board of Admiralty great shipowners or shipbuilders? We have never attempted such a thing. Immediately any officer or gentleman assumes any public appointment he is compelled by the laws laid down by various Prime Ministers to relinquish all private interests, and I shall be very much surprised if the Government really appreciates what has been announced by the hon. and gallant Member. I do not say it is a matter that we ought to take up here, because it is a much bigger question, and such an important question should not be dealt with in an Air Force Bill alone.
  Major BAIRD: For months past the Controller of Aeronautical Supplies and the Controller of Petrol Engines have been members of the Air Board. They were announced as members of the Air Board, and they have rendered incalculable services to the country.
  Sir I. PHILLIPS: Were we ever told that they were working in the other places as well?
  Major BAIRD: Yes, I was asked that question and replied to it in the House, stating that they were interested in particular firms. Is there any reason why, after that arrangement has worked well and after these men have been applying all their experience and knowledge to the subject, we should suddenly, although the House of Commons made no objection to their being employed before, now when we have increased the scope of our aeronautical work, deprive ourselves of the experience of these men and take somebody else who does not know the job? If that is the idea, it is extremely illogical. In addition to the members of the Air Council, to whom I referred earlier in the day, there is bound to be a representative in the Ministry of Munitions. Are we to change the present head of the aeronautical section of the Ministry of Munitions?
  Sir I. PHILIPPS: Who is asking for that? I do not even know the gentleman. All I maintain is that you ought not to have at the head of a Department gentlemen who are personally interested in firms with which they are placing orders. I am convinced that the whole country is with me in that matter. You have asked me the question, and I give you my answer.
  Major BAIRD: Does the hon. and gallant Gentleman appreciate what the necessities of the War entail? Would he apply that throughout the whole of the Ministry of Munitions?
  Sir I. PHILIPPS: No, but I would to the Council. I see no objection to this great technical expert being your adviser, and even your paid adviser, but that is a very different thing from his being on the Council and practically a member of the Government placing the orders.
  Major BAIRD: He is not a member of the Government.
  Sir I. PHILIPPS: He is a member of the Council, which is the government of the Air Force.
  Major BAIRD: I ask whether the hon. and gallant Gentleman would object to the Controller of Aeronautical Supplies occupying on the Air Council the position which he now occupies on the Air Board? That is a perfectly simple position.
  Sir I. PHILIPPS: I do not know what position he is in.
  Major BAIRD: The Controller of Aeronautical Supplies must be on the Air Council as he is on the Air Board. It is inconceivable that you can have an Air Council without a Controller of Aeronautical Supplies on it. Is the contention that the gentleman who occupied that position, and who was considered by the House of Commons and everybody else perfectly fit to serve on the Air Board—there is no question about it—is no longer fit to serve on the Air Council?
  Sir I. PHILIPPS: If the hon. and gallant Gentleman asks me that question, I would tell him what I think. I know nothing about this gentleman or the Air Board, but we are legislating here for a great new Air Force. We are not concerned with this Air Board, which, so far as I have understood—and, indeed, it was explained from the Front Bench—was absolutely effete and useless to-day. We are now setting up a great Air Force in addition to His Majesty's other fighting Forces. We say that the Air Council should be formed on the same principle as the Admiralty and the Army Council, and that any question of the Air Council being selected from men who are themselves receiving orders and supplying goods should be an impossibility.
  Mr. BILLING: May I ask the hon. and gallant Gentleman whether he is going to carry this matter further, as he has so far committed the Government? Are we to understand that a man with shares can occupy a position on the Council, and that a man on the Council without shares can buy them? You cannot say that one man on the Council shall be a holder of shares and that another man on the Council shall not. To carry the thing further, there is nothing to prevent the officers appointed to the Council taking large interests in aeronautical firms. It is perfectly preposterous, even assuming that we have been driven into such a corner and that

  511
  our Army and Naval officers are such fools that we must go to the commercial world to find these persons. I do not think that our dives into the commercial world have been attended so far with glorious success. The hon. and gallant Gentleman has not answered the one point on which I laid particular stress, namely, whether he will give an undertaking that when the exigencies of the War are passed and the piping times of peace come, when we are able to train naval and military officers, he will see that tradesmen do not sit on the Council? Will he give the Committee an undertaking that the day peace is signed these men connected with the Air Council shall resign from it automatically? Is silence consent or are we to understand that the conduct of our national affairs and of our naval and military affairs is to pass into the hands of tradesmen who profit by them? I quite understand that there is some difficulty to-day. One of the reasons I put down the Amendment was to obtain a statement as to who were to sit on the Council. If the hon. and gallant Gentleman will say what particular posts on the Air Council it is absolutely necessary to fill with commercial men, I Will endeavour, from my intimate knowledge of the officers of the Royal Flying Corps and the Royal Naval Air Service, to suggest a few names of men equally efficient and quite capable of filling with distinction these particular posts. Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman state whether it is the intention of the Government that at the end of the War these men shall automatically resign from their positions on the Air Council?
  Mr. HARCOURT: When I came down to the House this afternoon I can assure my hon. and gallant Friend and other members on the Treasury Bench that I had not the slightest intention of dealing with any Amendment except the Amendment of substance which I had put down on a previous Clause. Without any ill-feeling towards my hon. and gallant Friend or the Government, I really must join other hon. Members in what I think is a vital question in protesting against the obiter dictum which fell from the Treasury Bench that no man, whether he be an officer or a civilian, can be supposed, even in time of war, to understand a subject unless he is financially interested. That is one of the most extraordinary statements to which I have
  512
  ever listened in the House of Commons. It is necessary to enter a caveat in this matter, because my hon. and gallant Friend must understand that this is precisely the sort of point that will arouse the deepest possible feeling in certain and not unimportant quarters in the country. I feel rather like a Rip van Winkle in these matters. After being away some fourteen months, I come back to find sitting on the Treasury Bench for the first time—I do not complain of it; indeed, I rejoice in it—a Government largely composed of Labour and even of Socialist elements. I do not envy any of them who has to go down and maintain the extreme doctrine which has been enunciated by the Treasury Bench in this matter. The obiter dictum to which I listened from my hon. and gallant Friend is the principle of this Amendment is to empty the Ministry of Munitions. I am very sorry to hear that. I am a great believer in the Ministry of Munitions Inventions Department. It is one of the ablest Departments we have had created under the stress of war. It is infinitely superior to several other Departments which I could name. I have had a good deal to do with that Department but I have never learned, in the detailed discussions which I have had with members and officials—civilians—of that Department, that they were in any way financially interested in the very important inventions for which they have been responsible. I should be extremely sorry, by remaining silent or by abstaining from the Division, not to make it perfectly clear that I think a very dangerous doctrine has been enunciated stated in a form which is quite unnecessarily strong and misleading.
  Colonel GRETTON: I am astounded, on coming into the House after a very short interval, to find things in the position in which they are. This dilemma seems to have arisen out of the attempt to set up a civilian Department to control the War. So long as you have men in charge of this Department who understand war, whose business it is to make war and who know what machines and apparatus and what training are necessary for the purposes of war, you avoid the financial dilemma. Directly a civilian Department is set up you are encountered with the invincible ignorance, no doubt with the best intentions, of the ordinary civilian. The civilian who knows anything about it is the civilian who is financially interested and a civilian Department is

  513
  therefore obliged to man itself with civilians who know something about the business. They have to go to the manufacturer. I have no particular prejudice against manufacturers. I believe there are many honest manufacturers, people who do their best for the War apart from any financial interest which they may have, but the doctrine which has been enunciated, whether it is a doctrine of peace or of war, is going to horrify this House when it understands it and to cause great criticism and great distrust in the country at large. We are coming to the fundamental principle at the root of this Bill. It appears that the Bill is to set up a civilian Department to make war. I am afraid I cannot support the Government in its doctrine that persons who are financially interested in the supply of the apparatus of war for this Department are to be in control of the Department. I am quite sure the House of Commons, when it realises what has happened, will not support that nor will the country outside. The hon. Member opposite has done service in raising this Debate, because, however urgent may be the necessity of expanding the Air Service, it surely can be done by some other methods than those which are financially absolutely unsound and repugnant to the whole system on which the finance of this country has been built up, and to those principles which are enshrined, and which are, with some difficulties, maintained in certain instances in Departments which already exist. If this Department defies all the principles of financial control and financial disinterestedness which have been at the root of all our ideals in controlling finance and the management of Government offices, then this new Ministry is doomed at its inception.
  Mr. PRINGLE: The discussion we have had has fully justified the proposing of the Amendment. The consternation with which the hon. and gallant Gentleman heard the statement of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Air Board as to the present constitution of the Board shows the absolute necessity of putting on the records of the House of Commons the exact situation.
  Major BAIRD: It was put on record at least six months ago in a reply which I gave to a question on the subject.
  Mr. PRINGLE: I am quite aware of it, and although in proposing my Amendment I scrupulously refrained from making
  514
  any personal allusions, it was, nevertheless, the existence of the system now which led me to propose this Amendment. When the Air Board was set up I do not believe a single Member of the House imagined for a moment that men who were directly interested in factories producing aeroplanes were going to be made members of that Board. It is true that after the Bill was passed two gentlemen were appointed members of the Board who were so interested. They are men of great distinction in that particular line of business. The situation is altogether objectionable from the point of view of the standards hitherto prevailing. My hon. Friend (Mr. Watt) has referred to a case which arose in his experience. I am familiar with a case which concerned a gentleman in the West of Scotland who was Chairman of the first Committee that ran me as a candidate for Parliament. He also had designed an aeroplane engine which he submitted to the War Office and they had agreed to build an engine for testing purposes. He had a long litigation with one of the members of the Air Board regarding the patent. Is it possible to get him to believe that that engine received a fair test? It was not a hare-brained scheme, because the former air authority had agreed that the engine should be built. Is there any man in the position of that inventor who would believe that he had had a fair chance? I was asked to raise the matter in the House of Commons and to put all the facts before it. I said I had no technical knowledge and I could not appreciate whether the inventor had a sound case and it was a serious matter to bring forward. I do not allege anything about it. I merely say such a thing as this ought not to be allowed to occur, and I want to put a provision into the Bill to prevent it occurring in future. There should not be the slightest opening for suspicion. It is absolutely futile to say that unless you take people of that kind you cannot get expert advice. I do not believe that to be true. Expert advice can be got, and even if the expert has interests at present I believe there are a sufficient number of experts who are patriotic enough to denude themselves of their interests during the course of the War. An hon. Member suggested that this arrangement might be accepted in time of peace—I mean the arrangement provided in my Amendment—but that in time of war it could not be accepted. It is precisely during the War that we do not want

  515
  this kind of thing to occur. An inventor cannot get his invention tested during the War except by the Government. He is absolutely at the mercy of the Government. All the engineering industries of the country are practically commandeered by the Government. In time of peace, if a man invents an air engine, he has any number of competing capitalists who are willing to risk a little money in testing the machine, and he can have it tested on a commercial basis. During the War the only people who can test machines are the Government, and if the people in the Government who decide the matter are those financially interested in the result of the test, then you have an impossible position. That is the case for the Amendment. I do not think the hon. and gallant Gentleman has offered any answer to it, and in view of that, although I do not believe I have put the thing in the best form, I wish to test the feeling of the Committee on the principle, and in order to test the views of the Committee I am going to press the Amendment to a Division.
  Major BAIRD: It is quite obvious, after the strong views that have been expressed in regard to this Amendment, that it is impossible to dispose of it by a simple negative on the part of the Government. Nothing has surprised me more than to find that I was apparently enunciating a new principle in the statement which has evoked so much discussion. It is not a new principle, because in answer to a question at least six months ago I gave definitely the information that two members of the Air Board were connected with the trade. Of course, in time of peace, that would he impossible, and I agree that in time of war, on general grounds, it would be far better perhaps if we had not to do it. In view of the very strong feelings expressed in all directions in the Committee, I should be glad if the hon. Member (Mr. Pringle) would allow me to bring this matter up again on the Report stage. Obviously, in view of the action of the Committee, I want to guard myself against the accusation of having announced a new principle. I repeated precisely what I stated six months ago, And everyone accepted it.
  Mr. PRINGLE: In view of the fair way in which the hon. and gallant Gentleman has met me and the promise he has made, I am willing to withdraw the Amendment, and at the same time to assure the hon.
  516
  and gallant Gentleman that in spite of some statements he made, he leaves the Debate without a stain on his character.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, " That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
  Mr. PRINGLE: I raised the question of the personality of the new Air Minister earlier this afternoon. I expect that my hon. and gallant Friend is still in the same difficulty in regard to this matter, but as we are to have a Report stage on Friday, perhaps the hon. and gallant Gentleman may put before his superiors a suggestion that it would certainly be to the interests of the House and of the Bill if, when we come to the Report stage we could know who is to be responsible as the Minister for carrying out these matters. Perhaps he will be able to announce the name of the Air Minister then.
  Mr. BILLING: Are we to understand that if this Clause is passed without this Amendment being pressed, the hon. and gallant Member will consider the advisability of inserting an Amendment on the Report stage, if he finds it utterly impossible to do without the services of these particular gentlemen whose presence renders this Clause so difficult to introduce, providing that after the War, in peace time, this thing shall not be perpetuated. I must express some surprise at the righteous indignation expressed by hon. Members with reference to this matter. I was well aware that the hon. and gallant Gentleman made it quite clear at Question time some months ago what had occurred; but as it was dealing with a purely temporary matter, such as the Air Board, I thought it might be possible to countenance it. What I would like the hon. and gallant Member to understand now, is that in passing this Clause he is passing the Clause of a permanent Act, and would he take the opportunity of assuring us that if he finds it impossible so to amend this Clause as to carry out the Amendment as originally suggested, he will introduce an Amendment which will make it impossible during times of peace for members of a trading company to sit on the Air Council to give orders and practically to vote public money into their own pockets?
  Mr. HARCOURT: Am I to understand quite definitely that the Government have no intention to take the Report, stage as well as the Committee stage to-night?
  Major BAIRD: That is so. I only expressed a hope earlier in the afternoon that we might get through, but obviously there is too much to be considered for us to get the Report stage to-night, so it will have to be taken on Friday.
  Sir F. BANBURY: My hon. and gallant Friend earlier in the afternoon said that he would make a statement either on the Financial Resolution or on Clause 8 as to the salaries to be paid to members of the Air Council and the numbers of that Council. That has not been done, and as this is the opportunity for him to do it, I would ask him if he would make that statement. Clause 8 says
  " there shall be established an Air Council consisting of one of His Majesty's Principal Secretaries of State who shall be President of the Air Council and of other members who shall be appointed in such manner and subject to such provisions as His Majesty may by Order in Council direct."
  The question of the salary of the members of the Air Council comes in under this Clause. I was not here for the Debate which has just concluded, but it will be in order for me to make a suggestion which perhaps my hon. and gallant Friend will entertain. It is quite possible for the members of the Air Council who are interested in the aeronautical trade to give an undertaking that they will not give any orders to their own firm. That is generally done where a director of a company is connected with another company. Orders are not given to the firm with which that director is connected. That might be adopted in this case in order to get over the difficulty, if it was necessary to have these gentlemen on the Air Council.
  Major BAIRD: It may not be a solution of the case, but I promise that the whole matter shall be fully gone into with a view to satisfying the House on the Report stage. I did this afternoon on the Report stage of the Financial Resolution give such information as I had with regard to the proposed composition of the Air Council.
  Sir F. BANBURY: What about salaries?
  Major BAIRD: It is proposed that the salaries of the President of the Air Council, who will be a Secretary of State, and of the Under-Secretary, shall be the same as the salaries of Secretaries of State and Under-Secretaries.
  Sir F. BANBURY: There will be other members.
  Major BAIRD: The salaries of the members of the Air Council as a whole will be fixed by the Treasury. Our suggestion is to submit to the Treasury proposals for a scale of salaries in accordance with the rank of the officer occupying the position on the same basis as the salaries paid to the Army Council. The Treasury has not approved that proposal because it has not yet been submitted, but obviously this and a great many other points have been worked upon, and that is one of the proposals which we intend to make.

  CLAUSE 9. —(Staff, Remuneration and Expenses.)
  9. —(1) The Air Council may appoint such secretaries, officers, and servants as the Council may, with the sanction of the Treasury, determine.
  (2) There shall be paid, out of moneys provided by Parliament, to the members of the Air Council, and to the secretaries, officers, and servants of the Council, such salaries or remuneration as the Treasury may determine.
  Mr. BILLING: I beg to move, in Subsection (2), to leave out the word "Treasury " and to insert instead thereof the word " Parliament."
  This is another case in which I think Parliament should have something to say in reference to the salaries paid. I understood that we were going to have an opportunity of having something to say in reference to the other salaries, but it appears that that is not going to be the case. Under this Bill the Government are reserving the right to appoint as many officers as they like and, through the Treasury, to award any salaries which they think fit, and this House is to have no control. I propose this Amendment so as to give Parliament the opportunity of determining the salaries which these officials shall be paid, because there are so many of them, and one of the reasons why it is impossible to get such an Amendment carried is that the majority of the Members of this House are receiving salaries from the Government; at least the whole of that corner of the House and a great many over here. It is a very difficult thing when you have a house full of Members drawing salaries to get them to vote to defeat the Government when giving more

  519
  salaries. The result is that you are setting up a condition of bureaucracy which is going to be attended with very serious results. In a frantic, lonely effort to retain some little privilege which Parliament should retain, I submit this Amendment, and I trust that, if it is not quite in order in its present form, some Gentlemen of superior knowledge and experience will assist in carrying the idea into practical effect.
  Major BAIRD: I am sorry that I cannot accept this Amendment. The Clause is drawn according to constitutional practice, leaving these matters to be determined by the Treasury. This does not affect the control of Parliament, with which rests the voting of the money required to pay the salaries. Unless the money is voted, the salaries cannot be paid. It is always open to the hon. Gentleman, when the Vote comes up, to ask what salaries are being paid. It is customary for the Treasury to suggest the payments, and it is possible for Parliament to reduce them. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman need be afraid of losing control.
  Mr. BILLING: Do I understand that when the Vote comes up it will be possible to have officers removed? Is it not the general principle to reduce the salary of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, which is £5,000 a year, by £5, or something like that? What I suggest is that Parliament should actually approve of the appointment of the people and the salaries they are paid, before they are employed. Some member of the Government should at least explain to the House of Commons the necessity of increasing the officials, what the duties are proposed to be, and what it is proposed to pay them. If this is not done we never have an opportunity of knowing. How can a Member of this House raise any question with regard to the appointment of half a dozen or a dozen of these officials if we have absolutely no knowledge of the fact that they are even appointed? It is only when the appointments are suggested, and the excuse is offered for the Government making the appointment, that we are able to cross-examine the Government as to the necessity for the appointments.
  Lord H. CECIL: The Amendment, in its present form means that you would have to have an Act of Parliament for every
  520
  official, covering all the officials you appoint. You would have to have them all set out in a Schedule of another Act of Parliament. The votes show fully how the money is spent, and, so far as that is not so, the whole matter goes before a Committee of this House, the Committee on Public Accounts, and they report if they are satisfied that an official is superfluous. The usual way of raising the question would be to reduce the Vote by an Amendment of the salary of the official whom it was thought unnecessary to employ. Thereupon the House can debate the matter. It is necessary for the House to leave a great deal in the hands of the Government in such matters. The Government is the only source of official information on the subject.
  Mr. BILLING: If this Amendment were carried, and it was necessary to obtain Parliamentary sanction, the Government would have to answer to Parliament for his actual appointment. All I am trying to do is to endeavour in some way to arrest the wholesale creation of officials who are quite unnecessary. Surely the—Noble Lord, from his experience of the Army, must appreciate, especially if he—as been in the War Office or the Admiralty, that it is quite a common thing to have five men doing one man's work. We want an opportunity of debating that. If the Noble Lord, with his extraordinary Parliamentary knowledge and great skill, would frame an Amendment so as to fulfil the spirit of mine, I should be charmed to withdraw in place of his. But if, so far as that is concerned, it will necessitate the drawing of a Bill, then, having regard to the extraordinary speed with which it is possible to press measures through this House, I do not think that that is so serious a matter as the indiscriminate and reckless appointment of an enormous number of officials without the sanction of this House.
  Sir F. BANBURY: The only way which I can thi:nk of that is open to the hon. Member is, when a Token Vote is brought forward, to vote against it on the ground that it is a Token Vote and that particulars are not given. I certainly agree with my Noble Friend that under the Amendment as drafted there would have to be an Act of Parliament for every appointment of a secretary. That is quite impossible. This House cannot determine whether a secretary in the first instance is to have £100 or £200 or £1,000

  521
  or £2,000. When the matter comes up on Supply and the Vote is put down it can be dealt with when details are given, but details are not given in a Token Vote because it is said that it would be giving information to the enemy. If this is going to be a Token Vote, the hon. Gentleman could try to throw it out on the ground that it is a Token Vote and that details should be given.
  Mr. BILLING: Surely the right hon. Gentleman, much as I appreciate his advice, will see in what an invidious position it would place a Member to throw out a Vote which would practically deprive the Air Service of the wherewithal to continue the War. Such a matter as that, so trivial, would not demand even an Amendment. It would be like trying to kill ticks with a sledge-hammer.
  Amendment negatived.
  Mr. BILLING: I beg to move, in Subsection (2), after the word " Parliament " [" provided by Parliament"], to insert the words " to the President of the Air Council an annual salary of £5,000."
  The reason I move the Amendment is that the Government has practically assured us that the salaries are to be on the same scale as in other Departments, and I do not see why these words should not be inserted in the Bill. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman who is piloting this measure, or one of his Friends on the Front Bench, will say whether he has any objection to accepting this Amendment as it stands.
  Major BAIRD: I have already stated to the House that it is the intention that the salary will be the same as to other Secretaries of State. But it may be that the scale of their salaries may vary, and it is only right that the salary in this instance should also vary. I do not think the Amendment is desirable.
  Mr. BILLING: A Secretary of State's salary is identical with that of the First Lord of the Admiralty and the Secretary of State for War, and, if they are the same, they should remain so. All I am anxious to do is to be assured that the salary of the Secretary of State for the Air Service shall never be less than that of other right hon. Gentlemen.
  Major BAIRD:I will state for the third or fourth time that the scale of salaries to be paid will be the same as is paid to other Secretaries of State.
  Amendment negatived.
  Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  Clause 10 (Style, Seal, and Proceedings of Air Council) ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 11. —(Provisions as to Sitting in Parliament.)
    (1) The number of Principal Secretaries of State and Under-Secretaries capable of sitting and voting in the Commons House of Parliament shall be increased to five, and accordingly Section four of the Government of India Act, 1858, and Section one of the House of Commons (Vacation of Seats) Act, 1864, shall have effect as if the word " five " was substituted for the word " four " wherever that word occurs in those Sections:
    Provided that nothing in this provision shall affect the operation of Section nine of the New Ministries and Secretaries Act, 1916, so long as that Section continues in force.
    (2) In addition to the Under-Secretary of State one of the Secretaries to the Air Council shall not by virtue of his office be incapable of being elected to or of voting in the Commons House of Parliament.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I beg to move to leave out Sub-section (2).
    I took the opportunity, two or three days ago, of counting the members of the Government whose names were given on the front pages of one of the daily parts of the OFFICIAL REPORT. I counted the list twice before I arrived at the correct number of Ministers at present existing, and I believe I am correct in saying that the number is ninety. Ninety members of the Government, I think, is almost enough, but by this Bill we are now going to add three; but that does not make it ninety-three, because, as I understand, the President of the Air Board, or whatever his title may be, will become, or somebody else in his place will become, President 'of the Air Council, I am not quite sure; but if he should go to some other and more exalted position, the number would still remain at ninety. If my Amendment is carried, it would add nothing to the number of ninety, and even that number is unnecessary. My hon. and gallant Friend informed us that it was proposed to appoint a Financial Secretary, though not at once. If that be so, I think he can give no valid reason for refusing my Amendment. If he is not going to exercise the power which this Sub-section would

    523
    give him of appointing an additional Under-Secretary, for some little time, he can always come down to the House and bring in a short Bill to give him power to appoint this additional Under-Secretary. In the ninety members of the Government, I am not including the private secretaries. It is quite impossible to add up the private secretaries, because at present every Under-Secretary has a private secretary. [An HON. MEMBER: "No, no!"]] I noticed only the other day the new Under-Secretary for the Colonies appointed my hon. Friend, one of the Members for Wolverhampton, as his private secretary, and I was under the impression that most Under-Secretaries had assistance in that way. That is rather a serious thing, because it really means that most of the Members of this House are connected with the Government in one form or another, and that consequently the real effect of the will of the electors is neutralised, because loyalty would prompt those members of the Government, Under-Secretaries and others, not to offer that sort of opposition which they might exercise if they were in an independent position. I think it is necessary that the number should not be increased. I should be the last to do anything which would in any way hinder the establishment of the Air Service Department, more especially as my Noble Friend below the Gangway (Lord Hugh Cecil) is in favour of it, for that goes a long way with me. But I cannot think that the efficiency of the Department, the construction of more aeroplanes, and the securing of more trained men is going to be advanced by having two Under-Secretaries in this House. It may be advanced by having as President, say, my hon. and gallant Friend opposite, but we do not want a number of people encumbering that bench.
    Mr. L. JONES: They do not encumber it now.
    Sir F. BANBURY: Apparently not. I remember Lord Beaconsfield always insisted that all the Members of the Government should be in the House, but then he regarded the House in a way it is not always viewed by his successors. However that may be, I can only say I should not have moved this Amendment had I not seriously believed there was no necessity for an additional Under-Secretary, and I hope my hon. and gallant Friend therefore will assent to my proposal.
    10.0 P.M.
    Mr. BILLING: I do not feel inclined to support this Amendment, and the reasons for my attitude are almost the same as those advanced by the right hon. Baronet who has proposed it. He has reminded us that we have ninety members of the Government, but, then, I would call attention to the fact that on the average we only get two Members present to pilot a Bill through, however important it may be. Possibly we should have better luck if we added to the number of members of the Government. I really should like to know how many Members there need be in the Government to ensure our being able to get a respectable attendance for measures like this. At present there are only 4 per cent. here. The people of this country are becoming utterly sick of the inefficiency of the Air Service. I am not casting any slur on the men themselves They do their part, but what I am complaining of is the indifference displayed by the Government in connection with this Service. The people of this country, to use a colloquialism, are becoming thoroughly fed up, and one of these days when it is in their power to assert their rights of free citizenship, they will give adequate expression to their feeling on the matter. Possibly by appointing another Minister we may secure a little more serious attention to a measure
    of this importance. This Bill will create a new organisation which will have to be leniently dealt with by critics, and that is why I am anxious to administer as much criticism as possible just now and to secure the creation of an efficient service. It will lighten my task in the future. If the right hon. Baronet's Amendment is carried it will mean that there will be only two Members representing the Air Service in this House on the Treasury Bench and there is just possibility, if rumour is true, that the head of the Council will be a Noble Lord, who will not be allowed to come into this Chamber Consequently only one of the ninety Members of the Government will be here to attend to the affairs of the Air Service. I think that is too small a proportion. We ought to have at least 2 per cent. of the Government looking after this very important Service, and much as it grieves me to oppose the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment after the very excellent and kind advice he gave me just now I feel I shall have to do so on the grounds I have stated.
    Major BAIRD:I gladly acknowledge the assistance which the right hon. Baronet has given me and I regret I am unable to accept his Amendment. The whole object of this Bill is to make the organisation which is to deal with the Air Service equal in all respects with the established organisations associated with the Navy and the Army. But it is not contemplated to appoint the Financial Secretary until the Under-Secretary is so over-worked that it will be necessary to give him assistance. We think, however, the proposal should be part and parcel of this Bill, and that we should not be under the necessity to come down to this House later on and ask for powers to make the appointment. I trust my right hon. Friend will extend his kindness a little bit further and not press his Amendment.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I am obliged to my hon. and gallant Friend, but I will not withdraw the Amendment, as I would prefer to have it negatived. We are told it is not proposed to appoint this additional Under-Secretary, although power is asked to make the appointment, and that the reason for asking it is to be found in the wish to place the Department on a similar basis to the Admiralty or the Army. I do not think that that is a good reason. I have found during the last few weeks, since I have been a member of the Select Committee on National Expenditure, that that is the reason usually put forward by officials for demanding high salaries. They say " this is a Department which ought to be equal to another Department; in that Department certain salaries are paid and we cannot consent to our Department being on a lower grade." The result is that whether or not the work justifies it and solely because of the desire to put the Department on an equality with another Department which is more highly paid, the officials demand and succeed in getting salaries in excess of those which they ought to receive.
    Major BAIRD: I have said there is no idea of appointing this Financial Secretary until the Under-Secretary is completely overworked.
    Sir F. BANBURY: If the hon. and gallant Gentleman is going to be the Under-Secretary I should be the last man to wish him to be overworked, but I venture to suggest that the idea of appointing someone only when something occurs is really an admission that it is not necessary to have this Under-Secretary at
    526
    the moment. I do not want to press the matter further, but as I think an important principle is involved rather than withdraw the Amendment I would consent to have it negatived.
    Amendment negatived.
    Amendment made: In Sub-section (3), leave out the word " the " [" in addition to the "], and insert instead thereof the word " an." — [Major Baird.]
    The following Amendment stood on the Paper in the name of Sir F. BANBURY: At the end of Sub-section (2), insert the following new sub-section:
    " (3) The number of persons holding offices of profit under the Crown, as defined in Schedule Eight of the Representation of the People Act of 1867, as amended by subsequent Acts, and Secretaries and Under-Secretaries capable of sitting and voting in the Commons House of Parliament shall not, during the continuance of the present War and for six months thereafter, exceed the number of such Ministers on the first day of November, nineteen hundred and seventeen, and Section three of the Vacating of Seats (House of Commons) Act, 1864, shall apply accordingly."
    The CHAIRMAN: I think the next Amendment, standing in the name of the right hon. Baronet, is beyond the scope of the Bill.
    Sir F. BANBURY: May I submit humbly arguments to show that it is not beyond the scope of the Bill. Clause 11 amends Section 4 of the Government of India Act, 1858, and it amends it in a certain direction. I submit that if it is possible to amend that Act in one direction it should be equally possible to amend it in another. The object of my Amendment is to limit the number of Ministers to the number of Ministers existing on the 1st November of this year, so that for the future we shall have to be content with ninety. The result of that will be that they will have to take a Minister who is not doing very much and put him in the Air Service. You hold, Mr. Whitley, that this is beyond the scope of the present Bill. Let me read from the Government of India Act, 1858. The title of that Act is "An Act for the better government of India," and Clause 4 is as follows:
    "After the commencement of this Act any four of Her Majesty's Principal Secretaries of State for the time being, and any four of the Under-Secretaries

    527
    for the time being under Her Majesty's Principal Secretaries of State, may sit and vote as Members of the House of Commons, but not more than four such Principal Secretaries, and not more than four such Under-Secretaries, shall sit as Members of the House at the same time."
    I read that to show that although the title of that Bill was in Act for the better government of India, that particularly Clause did limit not the number of Secretaries of State or Under-Secretaries of State for the Government of India, but the whole of the Secretaries of State and the Under-Secretaries of State in the Government of that time. If that was not beyond the scope of the title to do that then, it is not beyond the scope of the title of this Bill to do exactly the same thing, in my opinion, especially as in this Bill that particular Clause is amended. My point, put shortly, is that if with the title of the Bill as a Bill for the better government of India you can pass a Clause that limits the whole Secretaries of State for India, for the Army, for the Navy, or anything else, you can certainly do it in this Bill which amends that particular Section, and the title of which is the Air Board Bill, which is not more comprehensive than the title of the Bill for the better government of India.
    The CHAIRMAN: I am afraid I was not here in 1858—
    Sir F. BANBURY: Nor I.
    The CHAIRMAN: And I cannot say what the Rules pertaining to the Chairman's duties were at that time. But I am quite clear that, as it stands here, this does go beyond the scope of this Bill, because it deals with the Ministers in general. If the hon. Baronet, as I pointed out to him earlier in the day, had in his proposal limited it to the effect on this Bill, as a substitute for the Motion we have just defeated to leave out Sub-section (2), then I think he would have brought it within the proper scope.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I am much obliged for your suggestion, Mr. Whitley, but it does not meet my point, which is to limit the number of Ministers to ninety for everything. I thought I should be in order in doing so, inasmuch as some other vigilant Member of Parliament in 1858, in
    528
    a Bill which only dealt with the Government of India, did limit the numbers of Secretaries of State.
    The CHAIRMAN: I am afraid there were not so many talkers in the House in 1858, and that in consequence the Chairman may not have taken so strict a view.
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 12. —(Application of Army Act to Air Force.)
    (1) The Army Act as in force immediately before the passing of this Act shall, subject to the modifications set out in the Second Schedule to this Act (being Amendments required to adapt that Act to the circumstances of the Air Force) apply with respect to the Air Force, and shall, as so modified, take effect as a separate Act of the present Session of Parliament, and may be printed as a separate Act by the printers to His Majesty and intituled "An Act to provide for the Discipline and Regulation of the Air Force," and that Act may, subject to any modifications which may from time to time be made therein, be cited as the Air Force Act:
    Provided that for the purposes of Section eighty-eight of the Air Force Act (relating to the continuance of men in Air Force service in case of emergency) the Proclamation issued under Section eighty-eight of the Army Act on the outbreak of the present War shall have effect as if it had been issued under the first-mentioned, as well as the last-mentioned, Section, and had applied to the Air Force as well as to the Army.
    (2) The Air Force Act shall continue in force only as long as the Army Act continues in force.
    (3) Where by any enactment passed after the passing of this Act any Amendments are made in the Army Act the corresponding Amendments shall be made in the Air Force Act, subject to such modifications and exceptions as His Majesty in Council may declare to be necessary for adapting the same to the Air Force.
    (4) Where by any enactment passed after the passing of this Act and for the time being in force any enactments or words are directed to be substituted in the Army Act or the Air Force Act for any other enactments or words, or to be added to or omitted from the Army Act or the Air Force Act, then all copies of

    529
    the Air Force Act printed after such direction takes effect shall be printed with the said enactments or words added to the said Act or omitted therefrom, or inserted therein in lieu of any enactments or words for which the same are to be substituted, according as such direction requires, and with the Sections and Subsections numbered in accordance with such direction, but, as respects Amendments to the Army Act, subject to such modifications and exceptions as aforesaid, and the Air Force Act shall be construed as if it had at the time at which such direction takes effect been enacted with such addition, omission, or substitution.
    (5) A reference in any enactment passed after the passing of this Act to the Air Force Act shall, unless the context otherwise requires, be construed to refer to the Air Force Act as amended by any enactment for the time being in force.
    Colonel GRETTON: I,beg to move, in Sub-section (1), after the word " Force " [" be cited as the Air Force Act"], to insert the word " discipline."
    This is quite a simple matter of drafting. I propose that the Act referred to at this point in Sub-section (1) shall be called the Air Force Discipline Act: We are in this dilemma, as was pointed out earlier in the Debate, that the whole of this Bill is called the Air Force Bill, but that in Clause 12 it is intended to set up an annual Act, to be renewed in the same way as the Army Act; to carry forward the rules of discipline and the regulations affecting discipline and other matters of that kind, in the same way as is done with the Army Act. There would be the greatest possible difficulty in differentiating between the whole Bill, which sets up the Ministry, in its organisation and matters of that kind, and the limited Bill, which has to be renewed yearly in the same way as the Army Act. I therefore propose that the smaller measure, which is subject to annual renewal, should be called the Air Force Discipline Act. There is, of course, an alternative. It might have a different name, and be called the Air Force Council Bill; but clearly some step has to be taken to differentiate between the Whole Bill and the limited part. I think it would be convenient to call it the Air Force Discipline, Act.
    Major BAIRD: I hope my hon. and gallant Friend who has moved this
    Amendment will not think it unreasonable if I ask permission to consider it. I have only at this moment heard of it, and perhaps he will allow me to bear it in mind and have it examined with a view to dealing with the matter on Report?
    Colonel GRETTON: I do not want to delay the Committee, and I am quite satisfied with the way in which my hon. and gallant Friend receives the suggestion. I would only like to say that I have made every kind of effort to make a communication to him on the subject, and also to his colleague, during a considerable portion of this evening, but apparently they have been so occupied with other matters that they could not pay attention to it.
    Mr. BILLING: Surely here is an illustration of how much Parliamentary time could be saved provided we could have someone who could give a decision in a small matter like this. On this Bill, in everything we have put forward we have been promised that it will be considered, and yet until just recently we have been asked to take the Report stage to-night. Might I appeal to Members on the Treasury Bench to find if they can in this House of Commons a responsible Minister of the Crown who can give decisions on trivial matters such as whether the word " discipline " shall become part of the Bill, and in that way not only accelerate its passage, but pass it into law?
    Amendment negatived.
    Amendment made: At the end of Subsection (2) insert the words, " and during the present War the number of the forces mentioned in the preamble to the Army Annual Act shall include the number of the Air Forces." —[Major Baird.]
    Mr. BILLING: I beg to move, in Subsection (3), to leave out the words, " subject to such modification and exceptions as His Majesty in Council may declare to be necessary for adapting the same to the Air Force."
    The reason I move this Amendment is that there seems to me considerable licence allowed in this Bill for all sorts of changes. The Bill says, " Such modifications and exceptions as His Majesty in Council may declare to be necessary for adapting the same to the Air Force." Earlier in the Bill power has been taken, in Clause 2, to alter discipline by Orders in Council, and perhaps the hon. and

    531
    gallant Member will explain why it is necessary again here. Why should modifications and exceptions be made in all these matters purely by Order in Council? I do not know whether there is any other method of doing it which is more constitutional. Perhaps the Noble Lord (Lord H. Cecil), who is such an expert in these matters, and who, I am sure, is anxious to help this Bill through, will tell us whether he knows of a more constitutional method than that employed here by taking power through all these Orders in Council. Perhaps the hon. and gallant Gentleman on the Front Bench will allay the fears which have been responsible for my Amendment.
    Major BAIRD: If the hon. Member will look at Part II. of the First Schedule he will see the kind of modification which is meant. If you accept the principle of the Army Act, it is necessary to have some such provision as this in order to carry out the necessary modifications. The word " soldier " does not cover "airman," and " airman" does not cover " soldier."
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. BILLING: I had given notice to move, in Sub-section (4), to leave out the words " but, as respects Amendments to the Army Act subject to such modifications and exceptions as aforesaid," but I presume that the hon. Member's assurance is similar to that given on the previous Amendment.
    Major BAIRD: Yes.
    Mr. BILLING: Then I will not move.
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 13. —(Application of other Acts.)
    His Majesty may by Order in Council apply, with the necessary modifications and adaptations, in relation to the Air Council, the President of the Air Council, and the Air Force, and the officers and men thereof, and Air Force property or institutions, any of the enactments relating to the Army Council, the Secretary of State for the War Department, the Army, or the officers and soldiers thereof (including enactments conferring any powers, rights, exemption or abatement from taxation or immunities, or imposing any duties or disabilities on such officers or soldiers), or to military property or insti-
    532
    tuitions, and every such Order in Council; shall be laid before both Houses of Parliament.
    Mr. BILLING: I beg to move, at the end of the Clause, to insert the words " for confirmation before being enforced."
    This is similar to an Amendment I moved previously. It seems to me to be rather useless to lay those Orders in Council before the Houses of Parliament if the matter is purely formal. If there is any meaning in doing so I think the House should have the right to say whether it approved or not.
    Lord H. CECIL: This is purely a provision for making these Orders in Council known to Parliament. They are made for the information of Parliament and do not require confirmation. It would be a very cumbersome thing if it were necessary, to have an Act of Parliament to confirm such Orders. The only desire is that nothing should be done behind the back of Parliament, and the Orders are laid so that Members shall know what is being done and so that they may call attention to them by Resolution or by a Motion on the Estimates or by bringing them to the attention of the Minister concerned.
    Mr. BILLING: Even after what the Noble Lord has said, it is not unreasonable to suggest that an Order in Council, before it is enforced, should be so placed before the House that an opportunity may be given to Members to take what action they think desirable by means of Resolution, or on the Adjournment of House?
    Lord H. CECIL: That course would be inconvenient.
    Amendment negatived.
    Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    NEW CLAUSE. —(Power to Alter and Revoke Orders.)
    Orders in Council, Orders, and Regulations made under this Act may be varied and revoked by subsequent Orders in Council, Order, and Regulations made in like manner. —[Major Baird.]
    Brought up, and read the first and second time, and added to the Bill.

    NEW CLAUSE. —(Air council not to Order or conduct Warlike Operations.)
    The Air Council shall not order warlike operations or make war by itself, but the Air Council shall transfer and attach to the naval and military forces of the Crown such corps, units, officers, and men of the Air Force as may be determined in consultation and agreement with the Board of Admiralty or the Army Council, or both of them, and the Board of Admiralty and the Army Council may attach and transfer such corps, units, officers, and men to any part of the force subject to their orders, respectively. —[Colonel Gretton.]
    Brought up, and read the first time.
    Colonel GRETTON: I beg to move, " That the Clause be read a second time."
    This Clause, and the one following that I have on the Paper, are different parts of the same large and wide subject. Hitherto the Air Board has been a Board of Supply. This Bill is drawn in such a way that it is by no means clear that the new Air Ministry is intended to be limited to supplies. There is to be a Secretaryship of State set up with a complete Council, and there is nothing in the Bill, as it is drawn, to prevent this Department being set up as a separate War Department, conducting operations of war independently, it may be, of either the Army or the Navy. If that is intended by the Government it is quite clear that some explanation should be given. It is an entire innovation to set up an Air Department as a separate Department. Hitherto all the Air Service weapons of war have been placed either at the disposal of the Army or the Navy. I put down my two new Clauses in order to raise this very important and wide question. The Government, and the Committee, will, I think, agree that divided command in war is fatal to success. Constantly the difficulty has been to combine the operations, naval and military, when that has been necessary. The long experience of centuries, the long experience of partial failures and sometimes disasters have revealed the general principles upon which amphibious operations should always be conducted. That is very much better understood than it was some centuries ago, but there are still difficulties, and a divided command always weakens. If the Air Ministry is intended to have it own leaders and to be under the command of its own officers, subject to the
    534
    general direction of strategical operations,. if we are going to have a new division in. future, instead of talking of the Army and Navy we shall talk about the Army, Navy and Air Service. It is by no means clear what the operations of the Air Service are, or what, in fact, is being handed over to the new Air Board. We gather that aeroplanes and all the necessary administration and repairs of those aeroplanes are to be handed over to the new Air Board. It is not clear whether dirigible balloons, or any developments of that kind, are going to be handed over to the Air Board. It is not at all clear whether anti-aircraft defences, whether stationary or movable, are to be under the Air Board. Surely if you are defending or attacking it is necessary that all the means of defence should be under the general direction of one man and one control. Nothing could be worse in war than divided control. It is very necessary that this matter should be cleared up.
    I draw attention to another aspect of the Bill as it stands. There is nothing to prevent —and certain expressions used on behalf of the Government to-day lead us to expect it is intended —that an Air Force shall be employed from time to time at the direction of The civilian Government —this Air Council —independently of either Army or Navy control. Apparently, from one phrase that has been used tonight, there is nothing in the Bill to prevent the Air Council doling out to the Army and the Navy machines and men, and causing the Air Service to be equipped as it thinks fit. The new Air Council can reserve in its own hands portions of that force to use as it may think fit, independently of the Army Council or the Board of Admiralty, for some purpose of war which may be determined upon by the Government of the day, and which it may order the Air Council to carry out. I can conceive occasions when there may be public pressure in certain districts of this country, newspaper agitation of great violence, and public alarm. The Government, in order to protect itself against possible outcry, or even overthrow, having in its hands a large force of aeroplanes, may use them by way of reprisal, apart from naval or military exigencies of the case, and perhaps starve the operations of the Army or the Navy of what it urgently requires in order adequately to conduct its services to unecountry.

    535
    I do not want to press this thing unduly, but we are on very critical and dangerous ground these matters. If the Air Service is to hand over to the Army such aeroplanes and equipment as it may require, what is to be the relation of the officers of the Air Service to the officers commanding the force under the control of the Army Council? Are they to be in all respects under the control of the supreme command of the Army operating in that particular area of the War? Are they to be still subject to the Air Council in London, independent, or partly independent, of the command in that area of the War? There is no doubt whatever that the Air Service will take an increasingly important part in naval affairs. We all know that aeroplanes are useful in searching shallow waters for mine-fields and submarines. What is intended to be the relation between the Air Service and the officer commanding the naval force in that particular area?
    These matters require definition and clearing up. I have no doubt that the Army Council and Board of Admiralty have come to some arrangement. There is great public excitement about this matter. I am not decrying the necessity for a vast expansion of the Air Service, for it may become the most vital service for the purposes of the War that the nation possesses. I think that is very likely to be the case.
    What we have to deal with is the finishing of the present War in which the Air Service is increasingly important, but is still auxiliary to the operations by sea or land and our naval or military forces. The principles of war have proved to be immutable all through the centuries, and there is one principle which has always been maintained, and that is, that the whole of the apparatus of war must be directed to one unty of command. I think I have shown some justification for putting down these new Clauses. They are moved in no sense of hostility. No doubt the Government have considered my proposals, and if they are not accepted I hope we shall have a complete answer to them. I can assure those on the Treasury Bench that these matters have created great uneasiness in many places outside this House, and have caused some perturbation in the minds of those whose opinions are well worthy of consideration.
    Mr. BILLING: I should like to oppose this new Clause, and it seems to me to be practically a negative. We are going to all this trouble to introduce a Bill for the purpose of doing a definite thing, and the hon. and gallant Member is proposing what seems to me to be a negative to the whole Bill. One thing that is essential is to have one supreme command outside the Army and Navy. There is one point which I have persistently made in this House and it is the necessity of getting this one control, and in creating this great Air Service not to trespass on the essential section of aviation which has directly to do with the Navy and the Army.
    The hon. and gallant Member (Colonel Gretton) has asked what will be the position of an officer who has been lent to the Navy. I think it is a most unfortunate thing that there is going to be any lending of Air Service officers to the Navy. Certain officers ought to be retained for the direct service of the Fleet as well as certain machines, and I should like an assurance that they have not in contemplation the taking away from the naval command all that aeronautical apparatus upon which the very existence of the Grand Fleet depends. It would be terrible if it were in the power of a Minister of State with absolutely no knowledge of the sea or the Navy —and it seems likely that the appointment is likely to fall upon one who has no such knowledge —should be in a position to withdraw or recall from the Grand Fleet aeronautical impediments upon which the Navy depends. He may do it in ignorance. He certainly would not do it for any other reason. He may even give orders that such and such machine shall be brought back, or that so many parent ships for aeroplanes shall come back into port for relays of aeroplanes or machines. If such an order were given, presumably it would have to be carried out, and if it were carried out without a full appreciation or knowledge of the actual conditions under which the Fleet was operating, anything might happen.
    I hope at least to have an assurance that it is not the intention of the Government in any way to interfere with the aeronautical developments of the Grand Fleet. That is a thing absolutely distinct, and on its own. There are functions for aeroplanes with the Army, such as spotting of artillery, general observation, and short bomb-dropping work, which make it an open question whether the Army should

    537
    directly control the movements of these machines; but as to the Navy, there should be no doubt at all. I hope we shall be assured that it is the intention of the Government to set up, not merely an Air Minister, but a Director of Air Offence, as well as a Director of Air Defence, and that the whole of the defences of this country will be in the hands of one man, not that it shall be the duty of the Navy to attend to the invader three miles out from the shore, to be handed over to the Army when he crosses the shore, and to the Volunteer anti-aircraft men when he approaches the town. What the country wants, and what the men in the Service want, is a clear-cut statement that the whole of the defences of this country shall be in the hands of a member of the Air Council under the direct instructions of the Air Ministry, and that the whole of the offensive operations and strategy of this AirFleet shall be under the supreme direction of one man, who shall be responsible to the War Cabinet, and report to it to obtain direction to carry out any raid or offensive action which he may consider advisable, neither the Army nor the Navy, except in a consultative capacity, having anything to say as to whether it shall be carried out or not. Over and above that, I should like an assurance that its technical experts will not be taken from the Navy. There are men who make a special study of the technical side of Admiralty aviation, and how far it is possible for aeroplanes to operate for battleships. I beg of the Government, in their desire to make a clean sweep, not to make it so clean as to rob the Army of those men who have made a special study of the requirements of the Navy for operations or other- wise.
    The CHAIRMAN: That does not arise here
    Sir F. SMITH: The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Billing) has told us of a number of things upon which, in his judgment, the people of this country will insist. I believe that the people of this country desire this Bill to pass into law, and I therefore hope that the eloquence of the friends, supporters, or critics of the Bill will not prevent us from getting the Committee stage to-night. My hon and gallant Friend who has been in charge of the Bill has shown a courtesy, a patience, and a desire to consider every point of view from every quarter of the Committee, and I feel sure that hon. Members desire that his
    538
    efforts should meet with the success which not only they deserve, but the public necessities require, namely, that there should be no delay in the progress of the Bill. Let me not come into conflict with my own admonitions, and, is briefly as I can, let me reply to the speech of the Mover of the new Clause. My hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel Gretton) is fully entitled to have his views on military subjects considered, because for a good many years he has given a good deal of time and consideration to these matters, and that at a time when such consideration was not as fashionable as it is to-day. At the same time he must really do the Government the justice to suppose that this Bill has not been introduced without constant weekly and daily discussions between the best brains of the War Office, the best brains of the Admiralty, and the best brains of the infant Air Service. These problems have been considered, received, and discussed, and re-discussed. It is not saying, I hope, anything in any way offensive to my hon. and gallant Friend if I tell him that neither the Army Council nor the Admiralty want this Amendment.
    This Bill is the result of an agreement between the Army Council. the Admiralty, .and the Air Board as to the functions which shall he allotted to this new Air Council. I, for one, can hardly conceive anything more insane than that this House of Commons, in the day in which the term " amateur strategist " is already open to a considerable degree of obloquy—and if we presume to describe ourselves as strategists we must rightly agree that we are all amateur strategists—I cannot conceive any way in which the House of Commons could cover itself with greater ridicule than when the most distinguished officers of the Army and the most distinguished officers of the Navy have come to an agreement that we should take it upon ourselves to give directions to these Departments which do not correspond to their desires and do not correspond to this Bill, which represents their desires. I do not believe that the House of Commons will do anything so foolish. I attempted to explain in my speech on the Second Reading that it is intended, and clearly intended, that when the new Air Ministry has discharged its function of making provision both for the Army and the Navy, and when it has lent a contribution, if I may use a non-military term, either to the Army or the Navy, while

    539
    that contribution is serving in either the Army or the Navy it must be in military subordination to the force to which it is lent. To lay down more would be absurd; to lay down less has never been attempted. I hope the Committee will not accept the new Clause.
    Mr. BILLING: Are we to understand from that answer that it is the intention of the Government to take from the Admiralty all the machines which are specially designed for operations with the Fleet and transfer them to the Air Council, or are they going to be allowed to retain such machines are are essential?
    The CHAIRMAN: That really does not arise on this new Clause.
    Colonel GRETTONrose—
    Sir F. SMITH: Let us get on.
    Colonel GRETTON: I think the Attorney-General might allow us to spend what time is left—
    Sir F. SMITH: There are other new Clauses. I cannot let you spend time.
    Colonel GRETTON: It is the last Clause on the Paper.
    Sir F. SMITH: No; it is not. We shall not get the Bill to-night.
    Colonel GRETTON: I do not want to delay the House for any such purpose. I have not delayed the Committee during the discussion, and I do not intend to do so now, but I must press the Government to answer that question, which is at the root of the whole matter. I understand now that the Air Service, acting with the Army, will be under Army orders in general combination for military purposes, and the same as regards the Navy. That is entirely satisfactory, and what I anticipated. What I want to ascertain, and what the Attorney-General has avoided answering, is, Is it intended that the Air Council shall retain under its own control and its own command, and send forth for operations of war, any portions of the Air Force, or is the Air Force to be at the disposal of the naval and military authorities and will not make war on its own account? That really requires answering. It is a most important question, and I really must press the Government to give some consideration to it, and state to the Committee and the country outside what it means.
    Sir F. SMITH: The hon. and gallant Gentleman is entitled to assume from what I said exactly what I said, and nothing further. I said when contributions were made, either to the Army or Navy, they would be under the command of the Army and the Navy. If there remain independent operations which do not take place because specific contributions have been made either to the Army or the Navy, these will take place under the direction of the Air Ministry, and the most distinguished soldiers at the War Office have assented to and recommend that course to the House of Commons.
    Colonel GRETTON: The Attorney-General has made a very important statement. I do not think it would be right to press the matter further to-night. He assures us it has the highest military sanction, and I take it that includes naval sanction. I put down these two new Clauses for the purpose of eliciting information. The matter requires some little delay, and will be brought up again on Report. I ask leave to withdraw.
    Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
    First and Second Schedules ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    The CHAIRMAN: Amendments to the Title can only be made if it is necessary to bring the Title into accordance with the Bill. No Amendment has been made in the Bill at this stage requiring that to be done. I have three further manuscript Amendments of the hon. Member (Mr. Billing) not disposed of.
    Mr. BILLING: There are considerably more than three. I handed in altogether twelve. Most of them are new Clauses, which, with your permission, I will move.
    The CHAIRMAN: I tried to explain to the hon. Member, but he did not seem very willing for me to help him. I did so as far as I could. All these proposals he has handed in should be Amendments to Clauses. I drew attention to them at the time, and asked him to move them as Amendments to Clauses.
    Mr. BILLING: May I call attention to the fact that I raised these matters with you and you pointed out that they were all new Clauses, and as such would have to be taken after the Amendments have been disposed of in order. In consequence of that I allowed the matter to stand

    541
    over, and now, with your permission and under your ruling, I propose to move my new Amendments.
    The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is mistaken. He handed in a considerable number of these manuscript papers at the beginning of the proceedings. I went through them as rapidly as I could and I informed the hon. Member that they were not new Clauses, but that they were in the nature of Amendments to various Clauses, and as fast as I could I altered them and put them into correct form. That is rather an unusaul thing for the Chairman to do, but I wanted to assist the hon. Member, and I dealt with as many as I could in that way. For his information I may say that the ones that have been left over, and which I was unable to get through and to alter into their correct forms, should come as Amendments to Clause 2 or Clause 3. Those dealing with questions of rank and uniform should be Amendments to Clause 2. There is another which refers to transfers to the Air Force, and that should come as an Amendment to Clause 3. I have done all that I could to help the hon. Member. The question now is that I do Report the Bill.
    Mr. BILLING: On a point of Order. I have a Clause which distinctly states: "It shall be lawful for the Board of Admiralty and the Army Council, respectively, to nominate an associate member of the Air Council, which member shall have the right to take part in the discussions and vote on all measures." That, surely, is a separate Clause. When the Clause was being dealt with my attention was never called to the fact that this new Clause was in the nature of an Amendment to a Clause. How could it be an Amendment when there is no reference in the Bill to the appointment of an associate member? Surely it must be in the nature of a new Clause.
    The CHAIRMAN: I have gone out of my way to assist the hon. Member. It is not the duty of the Chair to put Amendments in order, and if the hon. Member had been more experienced I should have left him to deal with them himself. He must not trespass upon my patience. I have done my best to help him and will do so if he reciprocates with courtesy.
    Mr. BILLING: I am only too willing to meet anything in the nature of an act of grace in this House more than half-way, but, so far as this matter is concerned, there are certain New Clauses here which
    542
    I feel quite sure, do not—if you will look at them—come as Amendments to any existing Clause. For example, I have here a new Clause which provides that it shall be lawful for the Air Council to demand the immediate transference to the Air Service of all aeroplanes, seaplanes, dirigibles, airships, rigid and non-rigid, balloons, spherical and otherwise, arms, explosives—
    HON. MEMBERS: Order, order !
    The CHAIRMAN: I can assure the hon. Member I have had these matters before me during the whole of the day, and have most carefully gone through them, and these cannot be brought up as new Clauses. They are in the nature of Amendments to existing Clauses in the Bill. The Question is that I do report the Bill to the House.
    Mr. BILLINGrose—
    HON. MEMBERS: Order, order!
    Mr. BILLING: I am not going to be put down in this way. I am going to get this matter cleared up, whether you want to come here on Friday or not. Here is a new Clause which has no possible bearing on any Clause in the Bill. There is no Clause in which I could have introduced this Amendment. This is a Clause to permit of the material of the Air Service being devoted by the Ministry in times of peace to peaceful purposes. If you can suggest to what Clause this could be taken as an Amendment, which reads, "At such times as His Majesty's realm"—
    The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is not entitled to go into that. I have given my very best help. The hon. Member must not question my ruling further.
    Mr. BILLING: On a point of Order—
    The CHAIRMAN: The Question is, " That I report the Bill, with Amendments, to the House."
    Mr. BILLING: On a point of Order—
    The CHAIRMAN: I have listened as far as I could properly to the hon. Member's points of Order, and I think that I have dealt fairly with him.
    Mr. BILLING: This is what you call muzzling the House of Commons.
    Bill reported; as amended, to be considered upon Friday, and to be printed.
    [Bill 104.]

    PARLIAMENT AND LOCAL ELECTIONS (No. 2) BILL.
    Considered in Committee.
    (Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.)

    CLAUSE 1. —(Further Prolongation of Present Parliament.)
    Sub-section (1) of Section 1 of the Parliament Registration Act, 1916, shall have effect as if seven years and six months were substituted therein for five years and eight months; and Section 1 of the Parliament and Local Elections Act, 1917, is hereby repealed.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I have a very important Amendment to propose. I do not know whether the Government will persist in going further with this matter just before eleven o'clock. It is quite impossible to discuss it to-night. The life of
    544
    Parliament has already been extended two years, and it is improper that the Government should prevent—
    It being Eleven of the clock, the Chairman left the chair to make his Report to the House.
    Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Friday.
    The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.
    Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER, pursuant to, the Order of the House of 12th February, proposed the Question, " That this House do now adjourn."
    Adjourned accordingly at One minute after Eleven o'clock.

WAR
  DEATH OF THOMAS ASHE.
  DEATH OF THOMAS ASHE.
  BRITISH GUNS (USE BY GERMANS).
  BRITISH GUNS (USE BY GERMANS).
  ENEMY AIR RAIDS (COMPENSATION).
  ENEMY AIR RAIDS (COMPENSATION).
FOOD SUPPLIES
  PUBLIC MEALS ORDER.
  PUBLIC MEALS ORDER.
  MILK.
  MILK.
  BUTTER.
  BUTTER.
  TEA AND SUGAR.
  TEA AND SUGAR.
  LOCAL COMMITTEES.
  LOCAL COMMITTEES.
  YEAST.
  YEAST.
  BREWING MATERIALS.
  BREWING MATERIALS.
  PRISON DIETARY.
  PRISON DIETARY.
  TILLAGE (SUSSEX).
  TILLAGE (SUSSEX).
  TRACTOR PLOUGHS.
  TRACTOR PLOUGHS.
  BEER PRICES.
  BEER PRICES.
  MILITARY POLICE (PORVADOWN).
  MILITARY POLICE (PORVADOWN).
  RETURNING OFFICERS' EXPENSES (IRELAND)
  RETURNING OFFICERS' EXPENSES (IRELAND)
  WAR OFFICE (INTELLIGENCE DEPARTMENT).
  WAR OFFICE (INTELLIGENCE DEPARTMENT).
  VOLUNTEER FORCE (RUSSIAN SUBJECTS).
  VOLUNTEER FORCE (RUSSIAN SUBJECTS).
  TEMPORARY LIEUTENANT COLONELS.
  TEMPORARY LIEUTENANT COLONELS.
MUNITIONS
  ANTIMONY ORE (CONSIGNEE).
  ANTIMONY ORE (CONSIGNEE).
  WOMEN WORKERS.
  WOMEN WORKERS.
  NATIONAL FACTORIES.
  NATIONAL FACTORIES.
  AMERICAN JOURNAL (ARTICLES).
  AMERICAN JOURNAL (ARTICLES).
MILITARY SERVICE.
  CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS.
  CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS.
  NEWSPAPER STAFFS.
  NEWSPAPER STAFFS.
  ISLE OF MAN (CONSTITUTION).
  ISLE OF MAN (CONSTITUTION).
  DEFENCE OF THE REALM ACT (Mr. ARNOLD LUPTON).
  DEFENCE OF THE REALM ACT (Mr. ARNOLD LUPTON).
  NATURALISED ALIENS (OATH OF ALLEGIANCE).
  NATURALISED ALIENS (OATH OF ALLEGIANCE).
  VENEREAL DISEASES.
  VENEREAL DISEASES.
  RAILWAY SEASON TICKETS.
  RAILWAY SEASON TICKETS.
  REQUISITIONED SHIPS (GOVERNMENT AGENTS).
  REQUISITIONED SHIPS (GOVERNMENT AGENTS).
  CITY OF DUBLIN STEAMSHIP COMPANY.
  CITY OF DUBLIN STEAMSHIP COMPANY.
  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
RECONSTRUCTION.
  COMMITTEES.
  COMMITTEES.
  RESERVE OF WORK.
  RESERVE OF WORK.
  FISCAL POLICY.
  FISCAL POLICY.
  INLAND WATERWAYS.
  INLAND WATERWAYS.
  RESTRICTED OCCUPATIONS ORDER.
  RESTRICTED OCCUPATIONS ORDER.
  RECRUITING OFFICERS (UNIFORM).
  RECRUITING OFFICERS (UNIFORM).
  NATIONAL REGISTER.
  NATIONAL REGISTER.
  AGRICULTURAL LAND (SALES).
  AGRICULTURAL LAND (SALES).
  AGRICULTURAL WAGES BOARD.
  AGRICULTURAL WAGES BOARD.
  INSURANCE COMPANIES' AGENTS.
  INSURANCE COMPANIES' AGENTS.
  PRISONERS OF WAR (FOOD PARCELS).
  PRISONERS OF WAR (FOOD PARCELS).
  School Children (Meals).
  School Children (Meals).
  National School Teachers (Ireland).
  National School Teachers (Ireland).
  Royal Irish Constabulary.
  Royal Irish Constabulary.
  Agricultural School, Ballycolman.
  Agricultural School, Ballycolman.
  Ceylon Riots.
  Ceylon Riots.
  Metropolitan Police.
  Metropolitan Police.
  Boards of Guardians (Members' Expenses).
  Boards of Guardians (Members' Expenses).
  Postal Arrangements, Leicestershire.
  Postal Arrangements, Leicestershire.
NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.
  LOCAL COMMITTEES (ACCOUNTS).
  LOCAL COMMITTEES (ACCOUNTS).
  HIGH COURT APPEALS.
  HIGH COURT APPEALS.
  NEW BILL.
  NEW BILL.