Sitting of 24 July 1919

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Fylde Water Board Bill,
Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.
London County Council (Tramways and Improvements) Bill,
To be read a second time To-morrow.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  COMMERCIAL TRAVELLERS (BRITISH AND FOREIGN).
  Colonel YATEasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what fees are levied by foreign Governments on British commercial travellers and agents in their respective countries; and what fees are levied by the British Government on foreign commercial travellers and agents in the United Kingdom?
  Colonel Sir HAMAR GREENWOOD (Department of Oversea Trade): A Memorandum (Cd. 7031) was issued in 1914 by the Board of Trade summarising the regulations then in force in all countries abroad affecting British commercial travellers and the clearance of their samples, and changes which have since been made in the regulations have been notified in the "Board of Trade Journal" as reported. A list of references to changes which have been so notified can be obtained on application to the Department of Overseas Trade (Development and Intelligence), and I am furnishing the hon. and gallant Member with a copy of the list and of the 1914 Memorandum. Generally, resident British representatives abroad are subject to the same fees as native traders—i.e., the national fees and the municipal or other fees, which vary according to locality. Particulars are in
  1530
  most cases available at the Department of Oversea Trade. No fees are levied by the British Government on foreign commercial travellers and agents in the United Kingdom, though there are, of course, certain goods for the sale of which a licence is required, for which a charge is made.
  Colonel YATE:Will the hon. Gentleman take steps to put commercial agents to this country on the same footing as British commercial agents are in foreign countries?
  Sir H. GREENWOOD: If I cannot make an answer in the terms the hon. and gallant Gentleman would like, I can assure him that everything is done to put British commercial travellers in as good as possible a position in every country in the world.
  Colonel YATE: How are British commercial travellers on the same footing unless we put a tax on foreign commercial travellers coming into this country; will the hon. Gentleman promise to do that?
  Sir H. GREENWOOD: I shall make no such promise to my hon. and gallant Friend.
  Sir H. BRITTAIN: May I ask whether a decision is yet reached to create, at least, a register of foreign commercial travellers?
  Sir H. GREENWOOD: That matter is still under consideration.
  Mr. G. TERRELL: Will the hon. Gentleman issue a statement showing exactly, from 1914 up to date, the position in each country with regard to commercial travellers?
  Sir H. GREENWOOD: That is now being done and will be printed as soon as possible?
  Colonel YATE: Will the hon. Member give me a copy of it?
  Sir H. GREENWOOD: As many copies as my hon. and gallant Friend wishes.
  Colonel YATE: Will the hon. Gentleman undertake to put English commercial agents on the same footing?
  Sir H. GREENWOOD: I have answered that question.

  CZECHOSLOVAKIA.
  Lieut.-Colonel Sir SAMUEL HOAREasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether a Minister has been appointed to the Czecho-Slovak Republic?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Cecil Harmsworth): A Minister has been selected, but the appointment awaits final sanction.

  BRITISH REPRESENTATIVES.
  Sir S. HOAREasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether political representatives have been appointed to South Russia, Sofia, and Vienna?
  Mr. HARMSWORTH: Representatives to reside at Sofia and Vienna have been selected, but their appointment awaits final sanction. The question of appointing a representative to South Russia is under consideration.

  SMYRNA AND AIDIN (MASSACRES).
  Lieut.-Colonel AUBREY HERBERTasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the massacres in Smyrna and Aid in by Greek troops have been on a great scale; whether British interests are gravely damaged by these massacres; and if he will take steps to elicit the truth about these facts?
  Mr. HARMSWORTH: The incidents to which the hon. Member refers, regrettable as they are, do not appear to have been exactly on the scale indicated in the question, though there can, unfortunately, do no doubt that there has been a considerable loss of life. A certain amount of damage seems to have been done to British interests during the disturbances, and the. claims arising there from are being examined. The Peace Conference at Paris has decided to send immediately a special Commission of Inquiry into the alleged atrocities in the territories in question, upon which each of the four Great Powers will be represented by an officer.
  Lieut.-Colonel HERBERT: Can my hon. Friend confirm what is very well known and recognised in every part of the British Empire, that we have no responsibility for the massacres and repudiate them?
  Mr. HARMSWORTH: My hon. and gallant Friend can accept my assurance that no British troops had anything whatever to do with them.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any official information to the effect that Turkish villages around Aidin have been burnt by the Greeks, and that many Mussulmans of the districts of Smyrna, Pergame, Menemen, and Manissa have been killed; whether we have any Diplomatic or Consular officers in those districts; and what steps are being taken to protect the native population of the Turkish State with whom we-signed an Armistice in 1918?
  Mr. HARMSWORTH: While at least one village near Aidin has been partially burnt, no information as to the murder of its inhabitants has reached me. There have undoubtedly been excesses in the other districts mentioned excepting possibly Manissa, but these are not necessarily traceable to the Greek military forces. While the state of war exists, the appointment of Diplomatic and Consular officers is impracticable. In addition to the British Naval Representative at Smyrna, the British High Commissioner at Constantinople has his own representative at that place. There are also naval representatives at Aidin and Aivali and two Naval Missions have recently visited Aidin and other places, and I am informed that their presence has exercised a marked restraint upon the attitude of both parties. In regard to the last part of the question, this matter is now under discussion in Paris, where, as I informed the House on the 22nd instant, the Peace Conference are doing their utmost to prevent the recurrence of such disorders by an arrangement strictly defining the limits of the Greek military occupation.
  Sir J. D. REESasked the "Undersecretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any official information that the Turkish villages around Aidin have been burned and destroyed and their Mahomedan inhabitants have been killed by Greek troops; and, if so, whether the Allied Powers will restrain these levies, at any rate until the Peace terms with Turkey are settled?
  Mr. HARMSWORTH: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I have just given to the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull.

  POLAND.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that Polish forces have crossed the demarcation line between Poland and Lithuania laid down by the Inter-Allied Commission; whether the Lithuanian Army is at present engaged in guarding the northern frontier of Lithuania against the Russian Soviet troops; and what steps are proposed to bring about a withdrawal of Polish troops into their own territory?
  Mr. HARMSWORTH: The answer to the first and second parts of the question asked by the hon. and gallant Member is in the affirmative. As regards the last purl of the question, the Supreme War Council in Paris have requested the Polish Government that the necessary instructions may be given to Polish troops to withdraw with the least possible delay to south of the demarcation line.

  ANGLO-AMERICAK RELATIONS.
  Sir H. BRITTAINasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the immense importance to the future welfare of the world at large of the maintenance of the closest possible Anglo-American relations, he is following the present anti-United propaganda in the United States; and whether any effective measures are now being, or will be, taken to offset that propaganda?
  Mr. HARMSWORTH: The answer to both parts of the question is in the affirmative
  Captain W. BENN: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that military rule in Ireland is the greatest possible obstacle to friendship with America?

  EGYPT.
  Captain W. BENNasked the Under secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if
  1534
  he will state what was the total number of natives killed and wounded during the recent disturbances in Egypt?
  Mr. HARMSWORTH: In a telegram dated 21st July, General Allen by states that the approximate figures are: Killed, 800: wounded, 1,500.
  Captain BENNasked the Undersecretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will state what was the total number of Europeans killed and wounded during the recent disturbances in Egypt?
  Mr. HARMSWORTH: General Allenby reports, in a telegram dated 21st July, that the figures for all Egypt arc as follows:

  European and other civilians killed

  31

  Composed of: British, 4; Greeks,

  7;

  Armenians, 19; Jews, 1.

  European and other civilians Wounded

  35

  Composed of: British, 2; Greeks,

  7;

  Syrians, 3; Armenians, 22; Jews

  1.

  Military casualties for all Egypt are as follows:

  Killed

  29

  Composed of; British officers.

  3;

  British other ranks, 17; Indian other ranks, 9.

  Wounded

  114

  Composed of: British officers,

  3

  British other ranks, 70; Indian other ranks, 36.

  Captain BENNasked the Undersecretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will state how many natives have been executed and how many have been imprisoned, and for what terms, for offences during the recent disturbance in Egypt?
  Mr. HARMSWORTH: The following are the returns desired by the hon. and gallant Member:

  Death sentences

  —

  —

  49

  Sentences of penal servitude and detention as follows:

  Life

  —

  —

  —

  27

  10–15 years

  —

  —

  —

  82

  5–9 years

  —

  —

  —

  203

  Under 5 years

  —

  —

  —

  118

  Sentences of imprisonment as follows:

  2 years

  193

  1–2 years

  202

  Under 1 year, and sentences of fines

  2,873

  In a telegram to the Foreign Office, dated 9th July, General Allenby stated that he had decided, as from 15th July, to put an end to the Military Courts constituted to try offenders connected with the recent disorders, in view of the complete restoration of tranquillity in Egypt. With the exception of offences committed against members of the British Forces, all cases would henceforth be dealt with by the ordinary civil authorities.
  General Allenby further stated that he was remitting three months from the sentences imposed by Military Courts in connection with the recent disorders, and releasing persons interned in Egypt on political grounds.

  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

    FABRICATED STORY.
    Major GLYNasked the Pensions Minister whether he has now inquired into the case of Private Harold Leonard Dawson, No. 566487, late Royal Engineers, 18, Birmingham Road, Oldbury, who was stated to have lost both his legs and his right arm; and, if so, what is the result of his inquiries'?
    The MINISTER of PENSIONS (Sir Laming Worthington-Evans): I have inquired into the case. The statement made concerning this man, to which publicity was given by some of the Press and about which inquiries have been made by several hon. Members, was that- he had lost both his legs and his right arm at the battle of Mons, that he had had not a farthing of pension during the last six months, that he had a wife and three children dependent on him, and that his wife, on applying to the Walsall War Pensions Committee was told to take him to the workhouse.
    Investigation has proved beyond doubt that the story is a complete fabrication. There is no such man. There is a woman calling herself Mrs. Dawson, but she has unfortunately disappeared and the police are looking for her. The story was put into circulation by a local officer of the Discharged Soldiers' Federation. He has satisfied himself that it is untrue and he is taking every possible step to undo the mischief he has caused.

    ARTIFICIAL LIMBS FOR OFFICERS.
    Major COHENasked the Pensions Minister whether officers who, as the result of their war service, require to wear artificial appliances are required to bear the cost of repair and renewal of these appliances themselves, although in the case of the sailor or soldier the cost is borne by the State?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I am glad to be able to announce that the cost of repairs and renewals of artificial limbs and other appliances will in future for officers, as for men, be borne by the State. The decision, which was some time ago arrived at in regard to artificial limbs, has already been announced, and it has now been extended to artificial appliances other than limbs. The serving officer must bear the cost of renewals and repairs until retired, but on his retirement my Department will undertake such expenses when necessary from fair wear and tear.
    Mr. J. JONES: Will the same rule apply to the cost of funerals?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: No. There are special regulations with regard to the cost of funerals, and this refers merely to appliances and limbs.

    APPEAL TRIBUNAL.
    MR. SEDDONasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that W. H. Reece, late No. 29840, South Wales Borderers, is in receipt of parish relief owing to the fact that his disablement allowance is disallowed, respite the fact that he passed as fit for the Army, five doctors, class A, and is now incapacitated and unable to support himself, wife, and seven children?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of PENSIONS (Colonel Sir James Craig): I have been asked to answer this question. Mr. Reece was with the South Wales Borderers for less than four months, and was then transferred to the Labour Corps, from which he was invalided on 5th March, 1918. He was awarded a final weekly allowance of 5s. 6d. for twenty-two weeks. He has been given the opportunity of establishing his claim to pension before the Appeal Tribunal. His case was heard on 12th May last, and the tribunal decided against him. This decision must be regarded as final.
    Mr. SEDDON: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that this man had five medical certificates before he entered the Army, and at the present time his health is broken; he has a wife and seven children, and he is now dependent upon Poor Law charity? Does the hon. and gallant Gentleman think that fit treatment to give to a man who, whatever may be the duration of his service, went to serve his Country?
    Sir J. CRAIG: I assure my hon. Friend that I regret exceedingly to hear of the sad circumstances of the man, but we have to work inside the Royal Warrant. Under the Royal Warrant the Minister set up an independent tribunal to investigate these particular cases quite free from Ministerial interference. The tribunal hoard this man's case and were not able to do other than stated. Their decision must always be regarded as final.
    Mr. SEDDON: Does not the hon. and gallant Gentleman think that the time has arrived when the Warrant should be altered rather than that such a disgraceful state of things should exist in this country?
    Sir J. CRAIG: Well, of course, in the meantime what is the use of the Royal Warrant? If, however, any alteration is made by this House, I can assure the hon. gentleman that nobody will be more glad than I myself.
    Captain Sir B. STANIER: Is this case being reconsidered or will it be?
    Sir J. CRAIG: To reopen cases which have been decided by the tribunal, I am afraid, would make the proceedings interminable. We must have finality.

  IRELAND.

    CONCERTS AND DANCES.
    Lieut.-Col. Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCKasked the Attorney-General for Ireland how many persons have been imprisoned in Ireland for attending concerts and dances during the last six months?
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL for IRELAND (Mr. Denis Henry): No cases such as are referred to in the question have occurred.

    RESIDENT MAGISTRATES.
    Mr. ARCHDALEasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if the Irish resident magistrates, whose pay and allowances have not been increased for very many years, have been promised a permanent increase of pay and travelling allowance; and, if so, if he will explain why it has not yet been paid them?
    Mr. HENRY: My right hon. and learned Friend the Chief Secretary is in favour of increased remuneration for resident magistrates, and is in correspondence with the Treasury on this subject.

    WEAPONS OF WAR.
    Major E. WOODasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Government have any information is to Lord alleged supplies of weapons of war in the hands of private persons or unofficial organisations in Ireland; if so, whether he will communicate it to the House; and what steps, if any, it is proposed to take on behalf of the Grown to obtain possession of such supplies?
    Mr. HENRY: It is not in the public interest to disclose on this point any information in the possession of the police.

    FOYNES (ARRESTS FOR STREET COLLECTING).
    Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCKasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that a body of soldiers and police arrived in a motor lorry in the early morning of 18th July at Foynes, and arrested two men, the secretary and assistant manager, respectively, of the co-operative store, for collecting money in the village street without a permit, and that these men were afterwards committed to gaol; and whether he will explain why prosecutions for such offences are undertaken?
    Mr. HENRY: The facts are as stated. The men were prosecuted for a breach of the Regulation made under the Statute 6 and 7 George V. Chapter 31, Section 5. They were brought before a resident magistrate, and refused to recognise the Court. He ordered them to find bail to be of good behaviour but they refused, and were sent to goal for a month in default. These men were collecting in, contravention of the Regulation. When the police asked them for their authority they stated they had De Valera's authority and recognised no other authority or no other law.
    Mr. WATERSON: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of altering the law so as to make it possible for a business man to do business in Ireland in the street as can be done in this country?
    Mr. HENRY: The law is the same for all parts of the United Kingdom.
    Mr. WATERSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in this country no end of business is done at the doors of people's houses, and how does he reconcile that fact with the statement which he has already made?
    Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: Is it for this purpose that we are keeping an Army of 120,000 men in Ireland?

    GOVERNMENT.
    Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCKasked the Prime Minister whether, in pursuance of the declaration contained in his letter of 25th February, 1918, to the Chairman of the Irish Convention that the only hope of agreement lies in a solution which provides for the unity of Ireland under a single legislature with adequate safeguards for the interests of Ulster and the Southern Unionists, the Government will formulate proposals which will give to an Irish Parliament, through an Irish Executive, complete control over all internal affairs including the levying of all taxes, and at the same time recognise the rights of minorities by giving to an Irish legislature representative of the Province of Ulster power to alter and forbid legislation and administration injuriously affecting their moral and material interests?
    Mr. BONAR LAW (Leader of the House): I cannot add anything to what the Prime Minister said in Debate on Monday last on this subject.
    Lieut.-Colonel MALONE: Has the right hon. Gentleman read the article in the "Times" this morning; and will he consider the adoption of those proposals, if the Government cannot consider any better ones?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I have not had time to read the whole of it, but l certainly shall do so.
    Lieut.-Colonel A. MURRAY: Will the Government examine and consider these proposals?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I do not know what my hon. and gallant Friend means. We
    1540
    receive a great many suggestions of this kind, including those put forward by Sir Horace Plunkett. You may be sure that the Government will not leave out of account any relevant suggestion.
    Lord H. CAVENDISH - BENTINCK: Does the right hon. Gentleman consider that if proposals such as these were formulated hon. Members from Ulster would be justified in refusing to co-operate in the settlement of the Irish question?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I think that is a hypothetical question to which an answer cannot be expected now.
    Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: Can I ask the right hon. Gentleman a question which is not hypothetical; how long will the Government insist on misgoverning the people of Ireland at the dictation of an irreconcilable minority?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That hardly arises out of this question.

  ASSISTANCE TO POLICE (W. F. WATSON).
  Mr. R. YOUNGasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will state what kind of assistance was rendered to the police by W. F. Watson whose appeal against his conviction was dismissed at the London (Sessions recently, and, seeing that it is admitted that payments have been made for the assistance given, will he state the amount of such payments?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Shortt):. Watson gave information from time to time about breaches of the law actually committed or planned, such as the fomenting of strikes in munition works, incitements to disorder, etc., and was paid small sums in respect of each piece of information found to be of value to the police.

  ALIENS COMMITTEE.

    REPORT FBOM ME, JUSTICE YOUNGER.
    Sir J. BUTCHERasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the Advisory Committee presided over by Mr. Justice Younger act upon any general rules or principles in granting exemption from deportation to former enemy aliens, or whether they consider

    1541
    each case separately and apart from any general rules or principles; and whether he will state what general rules and principles, if any, the Advisory Committee have adopted for their guidance in granting such exemptions?
    Mr. SHORTT: I can only answer this question by courtesy of the Committee, which consists of Mr. Justice Younger and five hon. Members of this House. The judge has been good enough to inform me as follows:
    The Committee deal with each ease according to the justice of that case as they see it, taking into account the considerations which seem to them to be relevant.
    In all cases where the views of the police and military authorities have not already been expressed, the Committee make their recommendations only after consultation with these authorities.
    Further than this, the Committee are unable to set forth, in a way which would not be misleading, any general rules or principles upon which they proceed. They find that they cannot rely upon any general rules or principles in such a way as to dispense with the necessity of considering each case in detail on its merits.
    Sir J. BUTCHER: Has the practice of the Advisory Committee which existed before the present one been altered in any way, and were there not certain general rules or principles adopted by that Committee in their decisions?
    Mr. SHORTT: I cannot add anything to the answer which I have already given.
    Sir J. BUTCHER: Will the right hon. Gentleman make inquiry into this matter having regard to its importance and to the pledges given by the Prime Minister and other Ministers at the last election?
    Mr. SHORTT: I will ask further if my hon. Friend wishes.

  NATURALISATION LAWS.
  Sir J. BUTCHERasked the Secretary of Stale for the Home Department whether his attention has been drawn to the promise given in the House of Commons on 12th July, 1918, by the then Home Secretary, Sir George Cave, at once to refer the many difficult questions of principle which has arisen in connection with the law of nationality to a conference of experts who would consider them and sug-
  1542
  gest or recommend legislation; whether that conference of experts has considered these questions and recommended legislation; and whether he will state when ho will be in a position to introduce legislation to amend the laws of naturalisation?
  Mr. SHORTT:I am well aware of the promise given by my predecessor. The deliberations of the conference to which the hon. and learned Baronet refers are not yet complete, and have, naturally, been delayed by the pressure of business arising out of the Peace Conference. As to the prospects of legislation I can only repeat the reply given on the 10th April last to a question asked by the hon. Member for Canterbury—that the urgent questions were dealt with in the Act. passed last year and the others must foe fully discussed with the Governments of the Dominions and of India before further legislation is proposed
  Sir J. BUTCHER: In view of the urgency of this matter, will my right hon. Friend accelerate the proceedings as far as possible so as to bring in a Bill?
  Mr. SHORTT: There will be no avoidable loss of time.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: How often has the conference met?
  Mr. SHORTT: I should require notice of that.

  CRIMINAL LUNATIC ASYLUMS (STAFF PAY).
  Mr. J. JONESasked the Home Secretary whether he will consider the advisability of the pay and conditions of ser vice in the criminal lunatic asylums being assimilated to those prevailing in the English prisons?
  Mr. SHORTT: Yes; this matter is now being considered. it is impossible, on account of the difference between the work in criminal lunatic asylums and the work in prisons, to obtain complete assimilation, but steps are being taken to give the attendants in the asylums concessions substantially equivalent to those now enjoyed by prison warders.

  GIBRALTAR (ADMINISTRATION).
  Lieut.-Commander KEN WORTHYasked the Under-Secretary of State for

  1543
  the Colonies whether he is aware of the discontent among the inhabitants of Gibraltar; whether he is aware that this is largely due to the inhabitants, including the British-born workmen, having no voice in the administration of purely local affairs; and whether it is proposed to introduce any form of democratic government into this ancient Crown Colony?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY Of STATE for the COLONIES (Lieut.-Col. Amery): Representations on various subjects have recently been made to the Secretary of State by the Gibraltar British Workmen's Association. The Secretary of State is consulting the Governor with regard to them, and, in particular, is asking how far it may be compatible with the security of the fortress of Gibraltar to give the inhabitants a greater share in the administration of local affairs.

  ST. HELENA (GOVERNOR).
  Mr. JOYNSON - HICKSasked whether the Governor of St. Helena has been on leave for two years, the Colonial surgeon for three years, and the inspector of schools for nearly three years; and how long this state of affairs is to be allowed to continue?
  Lieut.-Colonel AMERY: The Governor of St. Helena and the two officials referred to by the hon. Member were granted leave of absence to undertake duties connected with the War, and normal conditions will be restored as soon as practicable. The Colony has been administered by the officer commanding the troops, as is usual when the Governor is absent; a substitute has been provided for the Colonial surgeon; and the Secretary of State is satisfied that the efficiency of the administration has not been impaired.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Now that the War is over, will my hon. Friend see that the Governor and other officials, or some adequate representatives, are sent to this unfortunate island, which has been deprived of their services so long?
  Lieut.-Colonel AMERY: I will not admit that the island is unfortunate, but normal conditions will be restored as soon as possible.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will state when the last year's ac count for the Government of St. Helena will be published, and when the restrictions on trade for that Colony will be removed?
  Lieut.-Colonel AMERY: The annual account of St. Helena for the last year will, in due course, be reported on in the usual manner by the Comptroller and Auditor-General through the Committee of Public Accounts. As regards the second part of the hon. Member's question, I presume that he refers to the control exercised by the Colonial Government in regard to the importation of foodstuffs. This control was established with a view to ensuring adequate supplies of food at a reasonable price, and will not be retained any longer than is necessary in the interests of the general community.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: What does "usual course" mean? How long will it be before last year's accounts will be dealt with and published?
  Mr. AMERY: I am afraid that I cannot say.

  STANDARD SUITS.
  Mr. WATERSONasked the President of the Board of Trade whether the standard cloth requisition by the Government for discharged soldiers' suits from the Co-operative Wholesale Society will be replaced and, if so, when, as the pre sent position is preventing the supply of men's ready-to-wear suits at 65s. and is, therefore, one of the causes responsible for the abnormal advance in the cost of clothing; and if it is the intention of the Department to complete the co-operative orders for grade I cloth, whereby orders for men's suits to measure at the standard price of £4 17s. 6d. can continue to be supplied?
  The DEPUTY-MINISTER of MUNITIONS (Mr. Kellaway): I have been asked to answer this question. The cloth for ready-to-wear standard suits required to replace that requisition by the Government from the Co-operative Wholesale Sociesty is now available. Over one-half has been allotted, and patterns have been submitted to the various branches of the society for selection by the society to meet the balance. As to the second part of the

  1545
  question, this is a matter for settlement between the individual merchants and the individual manufacturers.
  Mr. WATERSON: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the order given by the Co-operative Wholesale Society on 11th October was refused by the Wool Textile Production Committee at Bradford, that it was passed to the Worsted Sub-committee, and is this committee in a position to fulfil the order given to it; and is he aware that the substitute for the cloth which was released on the faith of a guarantee that it would be given back is of inferior quality?
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must give notice.

  RAILWAY ADMINISTRATION.

    MEON VALLEY RAILWAY.
    Lieut.-Colonel CAMPIONasked the President of the Board of Trade if his attention has been called to the dissatisfaction caused throughout rural Hampshire by the new railway services, and especially in the Me on Valley district, which combines great inconvenience as to connections, mostly now made impossible, with extreme unpunctuality; and if he will take steps to get the former service restored?
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: I am sending my hon. and gallant Friend a copy of a letter which I have received from the London and South-Western Railway Company, stating that the question of improving the train service on the Me on Valley line in the autumn is receiving consideration, and explaining their present difficulties in the matter.

    GLASGOW AND SOUTH-WESTERN RAILWAY (FREIGHT CHARGES).
    Sir J. D. REESasked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that the Glasgow and South-Western Railway make a freight charge of 13s. 4d. per ton on potatoes between the Isle of Arran and Ardrossan by sea, a distance of 12 miles, with an additional charge of 4d. for each barrel, making a total cost of 18s. per ton for the carriage of potatoes; and whether be will take steps to reduce within reasonable limits profits made upon the food of the people?
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: I am not aware of the freight charged by the Glasgow and South-Western Railway Company on this traffic, but I will make inquiries.

    WAGON SHORTAGE.
    Mr. HAYDAYasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the present shortage of railway wagons, he will consider the advisability of setting up a committee or commission to inquire into the conditions of the industry of making and repairing railway vehicles, the use thereof, the cost of production, and the charges for the same?
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: My right hon. Friend doubts the advisability at the present moment of setting up a Committee such as that indicated in the hon. Gentleman's question, but his suggestion will be borne in mind.
    Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether the work of repairing the wagons brought back from France has been begun?
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: I must have notice of a question of that kind.

  ARTIFICIAL LEATHER IMPORTS.
  Major BREESEasked whether under any circumstances licences will be granted to traders in the United Kingdom for the importation of artificial leather; and what is the reason why licences are not available for this class of merchandise?
  Sir H. GREENWOOD: The Imports Consultative Council considered all branches of the oil cloth trade very carefully, and recommended that all kinds of oil cloth except table baize, blind cloth and leather cloth should be freely licensed. I am not prepared to revise the decision taken in respect of leather cloth, so long as adequate supplies are procurable from local sources.

  INDUSTRIAL SITUATION.

    COAL (INCREASED PRICES).
    Mr. GEORGE THORNEasked whether retailers of coal will be entitled to charge the 6s. per ton increased price

    1547
    from the 21st instant upon stocks accumulated in yards, premises, and railway sidings before that date?
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: It is not practicable to discriminate between deliveries from wagon and from stocks, but this will also be the case if and when a reduction of colliery prices takes place.
    Mr. J. JONES: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the extra halfpenny a bag on coal over and above the previous price?
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: The answer I have given already covers the supplemental question.
    Mr. JONES: Do you want to stop the poor from being robbed?
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: I will do my best, I can assure you.

    MINERS' STEIKES.
    Mr. JOHN DAVISON: (by Private Notice) May I ask the Prime Minister whether, in view of the grave unrest in the country, he will follow the action taken in the industrial crises during the War and call together the national executives of the important trade unions and make an announcement to them on the Government's policy in regard to the questions at present giving concern, especially the attitude of the Government towards the Sankey Report on the coal industry?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The suggestion of the hon. Member has much to recommend it, and will be sympathetically considered.
    Lord H. CAVENDISH - BENTINCK: Has the Government any policy?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: We think so.
    An HON. MEMBER: In Ireland?
    Mr. DAVISON: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman, in view of the success which attended these conferences in the national interests during the War, whether he does not consider that the present industrial situation not only warrants but necessitates one of these conferences?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: Before the question was put we had considered and discussed this point. I am sure the hon. Member will agree that at this moment it would not be advisable to say more than that the suggestion will be carefully considered.
    Major NALL: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of announcing the Government's decision to this House before it is announced to any outside organisation?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I think the House of Commons will not consider that anything of that kind should stand in the way of trying to put a limit to this industrial unrest. Certainly, any decision will be made first, if it is possible, in the House of Commons, but that does not preclude our meeting other bodies.
    Lord HUGH CECIL: Will the Government also carefully bear in mind that they are responsible to Parliament and to the whole people, and not specially to the trade unions?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: Oh, yes! I hope that not only this Government, but every Government, will always have that in view.
    Sir D. MACLEAN: In view of the fact that we hope to rise somewhere about the middle of August, will any announcement of policy which the Government may determine be made in this House before we rise?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I have said in answer to a question on the Paper the Government expects to be able to make a statement on this subject before the Recess. Of course it will be made to this House.
    Mr. G. BALFOUR: Have not such negotiations themselves in the past been largely responsible for some of the unrest?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: No, my hon. Friend is quite mistaken. It is not a question of negotiations at all; it is a question of meeting these bodies in order to try to impress upon them, as upon the country as a whole, the seriousness of the position.
    Sir D. MACLEAN: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us any information about the position of the negotiations regarding the coal strike?
    Mr. BONAR LAW:There is no change except that there has been an accession of strikers in the Nottingham district. A meeting with the Miners' Executive took place to-day. It dealt with the question of piece-rates. The Government, while making it plain that Mr. Justice Sankey's Report must be adhered to, and that the

    1549
    average of 10 per cent. must be the basis of the arrangement, expressed their willingness to agree to any fair system of distribution over the area, provided the principle were maintained. That is now being considered by the executive of the Miners' Federation.
    Mr. GRUNDY: Are we to understand that an instruction has been given that the 10 per cent. shall be the basis Does that mean that employers and employed are prohibited from going beyond that if arrangements can be made?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: It would be well if the House understood the position. It is not a question between employers and workmen. Under the present arrangement, under which the employers' profits are guaranteed, any payment of this kind falls not upon the masters, but upon the State, and therefore the Government must be responsible. As I have said, we have no objection whatever to the variation of the rates in different districts to meet the circumstances, but we do say the average should not exceed the basis of Mr. Justice Sankey's Report.
    Mr. GRUNDY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that both South and West Yorkshire owners agreed with the representatives of the men that 14.3 per cent. should be paid, and the real origin of the dispute and stoppage is through the fact that after this agreement had been come to by the workmen and employers, the Coal Controller stepped in with the 10 per cent., as mentioned by the right hon. 'Gentleman, which ultimately was "increased to 12½per cent. Had the matter been left to the owners and workmen, is it not a fact that there would have been no stoppage in the Yorkshire coalfield?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The hon. Member has not understood the position. The coal-masters in this case cannot possibly come to an agreement, and any discussion was on the basis of being subject to the approval of the Coal Controller. It must be so, because the Government, through the community, have to pay. It was not a matter which could be left to negotiations between the masters and the men.
    Mr. GRUNDY: Am I not perfectly light—we are only attempting to elucidate the matter and if possible assist in some settlement—is it not a fact that the South and West Yorkshire coal-owners had -agreed to pay 14.3 per cent.?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: We are really just going over the ground that has been gone over frequently. It is the case that the masters, so far as they are concerned, would have been willing to make that arrangement, but the masters do not pay the money, and it had to be. subject to the approval of the Government, which does pay the money.
    Mr. GRUNDY: I am perfectly sure of the facts. I know the right hon. Gentleman will not think I am contradicting him for the sake of contradiction. Is it a fact that they had agreed?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: They had agreed, as I understand, subject to the approval of the Coal Controller.
    Mr. GRUNDY: Unless my information is wrong, and I feel confident it is not, after the Coal Controller had made the statement that it must not exceed 12½per cent., the South Yorkshire coal-owners adhered to their original arrangement with the men to pay the 14.3 per cent., and said they would pay it even after the Is. 2d. allowed for profit. Is that not also a fact?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I was not aware of it, and, so far as we know, it is not a fact. In any case, it must be the Government that has to pay, and therefore they must decide.
    Mr. GRUNDY: If these facts are correct, the responsibility for the stoppage must be that of the Coal Controller. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] I am sorry to cause any dissent. It appeared to me that what the owners in South Yorkshire thought just and equitable, that was the 14.3 per cent., and if the difficulty of the Coal Controller could have been put on one side, it appears to me that arrangement for resumption of work could be immediately come to. Surely what the owners themselves thought was just and equitable ought to be equitable for the Coal Controller?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I doubt if any advantage will be gained by discussing it, because the matter has been thoroughly argued with the Miners' Executive to-day, and is now under consideration by that body, but it is right that the House should understand that while, of course, if the owners were themselves paying the amount, it would be for them to decide,

    1551
    but they are not paying it, but the Government, and it must be for the Government to decide.
    Major HURST: Were any Yorkshire representatives present at that Conference?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I do not think they were, but it was the executive of the Miners' Federation.
    Colonel GRETTON: May I ask what steps the Government are taking to deal with the confusion and disorganisation arising from the strikes in the collieries and docks, and if they are aware that the strikes are the result of an agitation during a considerable period, by persons whose intention it is to destroy the present industrial, social, and political organisations in the United Kingdom?
    Mr. BONAR LAW:As regards the first part of the question, it is impossible to say more than that the Government are doing their best to deal, so far as Government action can deal, with the industrial situation. As for the second part of the question, the Government are well aware that there is a number of people—not a very large number, I believe—who, aiming at the destruction of our whole social and political system, are doing their best to foment any discontent that may arise from any cause.
    Mr. HOUSTON: Will the Government deal with these people immediately?
    Colonel GRETTON: Can the right hon. Gentleman give a definite assurance to peaceful and law-abiding citizens that the Government are taking all possible steps to maintain order, and to protect the rights and freedom of orderly citizens, which are now being menaced?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: It is obvious that it would 'be wrong of the Government to use any language which could be regarded as provocative, but, on the other hand, we have made it absolutely clear that the whole force of the Government will be used to protect people against undue pressure from any source.
    Mr. J. JONES: Will the same apply to North-East Ulster?
    Mr. HOUSTON: Will the Government deal at once, and drastically, with these agitators?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: My hon. Friend may be sure that the Government are not over-looking these people. We have them in view, and will do whatever we think effective for the purpose. [AN HON. MEMBER: "Will it include Carson?"]
    Mr. ADAMSON: Will the Leader of the House, and the Government, always keep-in view the bad effect that profiteering is having in this country, and deal as drastically with the profiteer as they evidently intend to do with the section of the people mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: we quite realise that a great deal of the discontent is due either to profiteering or to the belief in profiteering, and the Government certainly intend to take whatever action is possible for them to take before the Committee has reported.

    SANKEY REPORT (GOVERNMENT POLICY).
    Mr. SPENCERasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the unrest amongst the miners and other sections of the community, he can state the policy of the Government in reference to the last Report of Mr. Justice Sankey?
    Major KELLEYasked the Prime Minister when he will announce the policy of the Government with regard to the Sankey Report?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The Government fully recognise the importance of coming to a decision on this matter without any avoidable delay, but it is not possible at present to give a definite; date. It is expected, however, that (the statement will, be made before the Recess.

    MACHINERY FOE COAL PRODCCTION.
    Mr. CHARLES EDWARDSasked the Prime Minister whether he will consider the compulsory taking over of certain works, as was found necessary to be done to increase munitions during the War. for the production of colliery requisites such as rails, trams, trucks, machinery, etc., so as to provide facilities for miners to increase the production of coal; and,, if not, will he state what the Government intends to do to provide these and other necessary materials which is- the cause of the reduced output?
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: The supply of material used in collieries is much more

    1553
    liberal than it has been during the greater part of the period covered by the War, and is improving. The Government are giving urgent consideration to the further supply of all necessaries, including clearance.

  WOOL STORAGE.
  Mr. RAEasked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that port warehouses in London and elsewhere are seriously congested; if he is aware that railway -warehouses in the West Riding of Yorkshire and elsewhere, which formerly were largely devoted to the storage of wool, are at present sparsely occupied; and if he will take steps to ensure that these premises be quickly made available for the storage of wool?
  Sir H. GREENWOOD: I am aware that the present stock of wool in the country is such as to make it difficult to find storage accommodation for it. I should doubt if much additional accommodation could be found in any railway warehouses at the present time, but if the hon. Gentleman will let me know what premises he has in mind I will see whether anything can be done. Efforts are being made to find other means of storing wool away from the ports.

  HOUSING.

    BRICKLAYING.
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir F. HALLasked the Minister of Health if he can state the average number of bricks laid by a bricklayer in this country prior to the War and at the present time in Great Britain and the United States, respectively; if he is aware that certain of the principal trade unions in the building trade have placed a limitation on the output of their members; if this policy is partly responsible for causing the delay in carrying out the national housing policy that is so urgently called for and increasing the cost of providing houses to an extent which makes it difficult for the local authorities concerned to provide adequate housing accommodation; and if he will state what action the Government are taking to secure the measure of production by the workpeople concerned if the housing problem is to be solved with due expedition and reasonable economy?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTER of LABOUR (Mr. Wardle): Every effort has been made to obtain information as to the number of bricks laid prior and since the War, but so far I have been unable to obtain figures for whose accuracy I could vouch.
    Sir F. HALL: If it is not possible to-obtain information from the United State can the hon. Gentleman give the information as to the number of bricks laid in prewar days in this country and the number of bricks laid to-day?
    Mr. WATERSON: Perhaps the hon. Member can find out.
    Mr. WARDLE: It is impossible to get the information at present, but we arcs doing our best.
    Mr. G. TERRELL: Has the hon. Member made inquiries of any building contractors, and is he aware that any building contractor can furnish the information?
    Mr. WARDLE: I am quite sure that no building contractor can furnish the information for the particulars in different parts of the country arc quite different.
    Sir F. HALL: Are we to understand that it is inadvisable for the Government' to give the information?
    Mr. WARDLE: Certainly not.
    Mr. J. JONES: Could the inquiry be extended to the poultry farmers, to see how many eggs arc being laid to-day?
    Sir M. DOCKRELL: If a larger amount is paid to the men in this country, do they not expect results commensurate with that payment?
    Mr. WARDLE: Perhaps that has something to do with it.

    LAND VALUES OFFICE.
    Sir EDWARD GOULDINGasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Corporation of Worcester are engaged upon a town-planning scheme, and in order to facilitate preparation of the plan required for that purpose sought permission to ascertain the boundaries of the various holdings in the town-planning area and the owner's names from the plan in the possession of the Land Values

    1555
    Office, but that the permission was refused; whether, having regard to the fact that many local authorities are now engaged in the preparation of similar schemes, advantage can be taken of the information which has been obtained by the Land Values Office at the public expense for facilitating the preparation of the plans of the town-planning areas by furnishing information which cannot be considered in any way as confidential; and whether he will give the matter his early consideration and authorise the necessary permission?
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Chamberlain): Information as to the ownership and boundaries of land has been principally obtained from the statutory Returns made under Part I. of the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910. I am unable to authorise a departure from the rule under which the information contained in these Returns has always been regarded as confidential.

    HOUSING SCHEMES.
    Mr. CHARLES EDWARDSasked the Minister of Health how many authorities, outside the three who were provided with moneys from the Loan Commissioners, have succeeded in securing loans to enable them to commence with their housing schemes; whether he has received any complaints re the difficulty in securing money from private sources, chiefly owing to the pressure and inducements to put money into the Government loans just issued; and what steps the Government propose to take to enable the work to proceed?
    Commander EYRES-MONSELL (Treasurer of the Household): No complaints have been received which suggest that work in connection with housing schemes is being held up by difficulty in obtaining the necessary capital. The Public Works Loan Commissioners are prepared to lend to local authorities having a rateable value of less than £200.000 who are unable to raise loans otherwise, and they have not refused to lend money to any such authorities. As regards authorities whose rateable value exceeds £200,000, only two authorities have stated that they have experienced difficulty in raising loans for this purpose, and my right hon. Friend is in communication with the Treasury in these cases.

  DENTAL REGISTER, ISLE OF MAN.
  Mr. SEDDONasked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that dental practitioners in the Isle of Man are on a register separate from that of Great Britain; whether he is aware that gentlemen whose names are on the British register can practice in the Isle of Man but not rice rersá; and whether the coming amending Bill to the Dentists Act, 1878, will take cognisance of this position and confer the benefit of registration in Great Britain on men on the register of the Isle of Man, in order to give them equal status to gentlemen on the British register?
  Commander EYRES-MONSELL: The Dentists' Register is now common to the United Kingdom and the Isle of Man. By the Isle of Man Dental Act, 1908, provision was also made for a "supplemental register" of persons in practice in the island on the 1st January, 1908, and such persons can only practice locally. As regards the latter part of the hon. Member's question it is premature to say what will happen to persons so situated, but the recommendations on the point contained in the report of the Dentists' Committee suggesting machinery through which their claims might be considered, will be carefully considered.

  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.

    OFFICIALS OF ENEMY ORIGIN.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the Prime Minister (1) what, if any, action has been taken to clear out of Government offices the officials of enemy origin who are not mentioned in the second schedule to the Report of Lord Justice Bankes Committee; (2) what action he proposes to take after peace is declared regarding Government officials of enemy origin who may have been suspended from duty during the War?
    Mr. R. YOUNGasked the Prime Minister if he is aware what number of the 1,594 persons employed in Government offices not of British or Allied parentage were employed in these offices before August, 1914; whether he will state how many persons included in the 1,232 for whom definite claims for retention have been made have only been engaged since August 1914, on Government work; and whether the Government intends to employ qualified demobilised officers and

    1557
    men in the place of those now in Government offices but not so employed before the outbreak of war?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: After the most careful consideration of this question the Government has decided that it would not be justified in breaking its contracts with officials of enemy origin who have already received permanent appointments in the Civil Service and whose good conduct and loyalty is not in doubt.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Will the right hon. Gentleman take some steps to allow this question to be debated in the House, as the answer he has given is certainly not in accordance with what we deem to be the pledges of the Government?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I think the opportunity may arise before the Recess without giving a special day. May I say to my hon. Friend and the others interested that I am convinced that if the responsibility had rested upon them as it does upon the Government, they would have come to the same decision? The conditions at the time this Committee was set up were quite different from now. We were then at war, and we would have been justified in securing the national safety at all costs.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: I am not suggesting that contracts should be adversely broken; but has the right hon. Gentleman really considered the advisability of preserving these posts for English-born subjects? As lie has appealed to me, did I not suggest to him that- he should appoint a small Committee of this House to consider this matter?
    Mr. BONAR LAW:That is true. We have most carefully considered the matter, and we have considered especially the aspect to which the hon. Member has referred as to the desirability of giving employment to British-born men who have served. As a matter of fact, a very large proportion of these men did go, and have fought, and they went on the same footing as other Civil servants on the understanding that if they came back their posts would be given to them. I am quite sure that no other decision could have been arrived at.
    Brigadier-General CROFT: Will the right hon. Gentleman give a definite pledge that henceforth no man or woman of enemy origin will be appointed to these posts?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: That is an entirely different question. We are perfectly justified in laying down any rule for the future, and we have made a new rule in this respect.

  ALIENS RESTRICTION BILL.
  Sir J. BUTCHERasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the pressing importance of passing the Aliens Restriction Bill through Parliament before the Adjournment, he will fix a day before the end of this month for the Report stage of the Bill?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: It is impossible at this stage to say whether time can be found for the Report stage of the Bill before the Adjournment.
  Sir E. WILD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this is a matter of vital and first importance, and one on which the British public are very deeply perturbed?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: Yes, I am quite aware of the desirability of passing the Bill before the Recess, but i see great difficulty if we arc to adjourn at any reasonable time.
  Sir J. BUTCHER: How can we protect ourselves against the influx of these alien enemies during the time before this Bill is passed into law?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I understand that the emergency powers will remain during the whole time. In that event there will be no influx.

  PEACE TREATY (ENEMY DEBTS TO BRITISH SUBJECTS).
  Sir S. HOAREasked the Prime Minister whether the Government has decided to give notice to the German Government of its intention to put into force Article 296, Section III., of the Peace Treaty, which provides, inter alia, for the payment in full of enemy debts to British subjects at the pro-war rate of exchange?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, Sir.

  OLD AGE PENSIONS.
  Captain BAGLEYasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that the present old age pensions of 7s. 6d. is the

  1559
  equivalent in purchasing power of less than 3s. 7½d. before the War; that, in effect, the old age pensioner is being compelled to contribute over one quarter of his pre-war income towards the cost of the War; and whether the Government intend taking early action to transfer this burden to the shoulders of those better able to bear it
  Mr. BALDWIN (Joint Financial Secretary to the Treasury): I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the answer given to the hon. Member for Barnard Castle on the 26th ultimo.

  POST OFFICE SAVINGS BANK.
  Mr. LUNNasked the- Postmaster-General whether he is aware of the long d slays at the Post Office Savings Bank Department in the issue of the bank books containing the war gratuities of demobilised men, and of the long delays occasioned in the answer of correspondence on this subject; and can he state the reason for this laxity in the Department concerned?
  The ASSISTANT - POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Pike Pease): There is no delay in the issue by the Post Office Savings Bank of deposit books for war gratuities advised by regimental paymasters. Correspondence is dealt with as it is received, but much difficulty is experienced when incorrect or incomplete addresses are furnished in the schedules reporting the gratuities. Thousands of communications sure, consequently, returned as undeliverable. The number of cases of complaint is very small compared with the number of gratuities dealt with. More than 3,250,000 books have been dispatched, and 4,500.000 withdrawals have been paid on the accounts represented by these books.

  CABLE COMMUNICATIONS.
  Lieut.-Colonel ARCHER- SHEEasked the Postmaster-General whether the American Telephone and Telegraph Company have been granted landing rights on both sides of the Atlantic for the five Atlantic cables which they took over from British companies before the War; and, if so, upon what date were these landing rights granted to them
  Mr. PEASE: The Western Union Telegraph Company were promised landing rights under certain conditions when they took over the five Trans-Atlantic cables in question. Owing to various causes there has been considerable delay in issuing a formal licence embodying these landing rights, But such a licence has recently been completed.
  Lieut.-Colonel ARCHER-SHEE: Can the hon. Gentleman say when these landing rights will be granted, and whether they will include the control of rates clause which was the reason they were held up?
  Mr. PEASE: The Board of Trade say that the licence will be signed on their behalf to-morrow. All the other parties have-signed. I cannot say anything with regard to the other part of the question, but I will inquire into it.
  Lieut. - Colonel ARCHER-SHEEasked the Postmaster-General whether any steps have been taken by the Imperial Communications Board to examine the question of duplicating the West Indian cables rid Halifax and Bermuda, as recommended by the Dominions Royal Commission; and, if so, what steps have been taken to proceed with this policy forthwith?
  Mr. PEASE: The Imperial Communications Committee have not considered the question of duplicating the cables between Halifax and the West Indies. The Royal Commission on Trade Relations between Canada and the West-Indies recommended in 1910 that these cables should be duplicated or supplemented by wireless; and a supplementary wireless service has since been provided. The question of duplication was again considered in 1915 by a Committee of the Departments concerned, but it was decided that the heavy expense involved would not be justified, more especially as there is an alternative route through the United States and Cuba, while the direct cables are by no means fully occupied.
  Lieut.-Colonel ARCHER-SHEEasked the Postmaster-General whether any steps have been taken to carry out the recommendations of the Dominions Royal Commission which recommended that one cable should be leased from the American companies in order to provide accommodation for British Imperial and commercial traffic across the Atlantic, and

  1561
  further concurrently to obtain control of a land line from the landing point to Montreal?
  Mr. PEASE: A Trans-Atlantic cable has not been leased from either of the American companies, but a Government Atlantic cable has been provided between this country and Canada by the diversion of one of the German Atlantic cables. This cable has been used principally for Government and commercial traffic for Australasia and for Government traffic for Canada. A special landline has been leased between Halifax and Montreal for she transmission of the traffic for and from the cable.
  Lieut.-Colonel ARCHER-SHEEasked the Postmaster-General whether, in view of the importance of developing cable communications in the Empire, and of cheapening cable rates, the Imperial Communications Board has taken any steps to examine the question of duplicating the Pacific cable to Australia and New Zealand, in view of the fact that that cable is now making a handsome profit for the Governments of the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand?
  Mr. PEASE: The Imperial Communications Committee have not considered the question of the duplication of the Pacific cable, but I understand that the Pacific Cable Board have this question under consideration.

  RUSSIA.

    ECONOMIC TEEATY WITH GERMANY.
    Major GLYNasked the Prime Minister whether the Government have taken any action to find out from Allied Governments whether there is any further official information in regard to the conclusion of an economic treaty between the Russian Soviet Government and the German Government since the existence of this treaty has been reported to the British Government?
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: I have nothing to add to the reply which I gave the hon. and gallant Member on Monday. We have no official knowledge on the subject, but are making inquiries.
    Lieut.-Colonel MALONE: Would it not be desirable to send a Mission to Russia to find out the facts?
    Sir S. HOARE: Would it not be much simpler to make representations direct to the German Government and find out whether they are true or not?
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: I will consider that.

    EXISTING SITUATION.
    Major GLYNasked the Prime Minister whether it is possible to issue an official statement dealing with the existing situation of Russia and quote the authorities on whose information such a statement is issued; and whether the Government have received any recent information to the effect that the German reactionary party is encouraging the Russian Soviet Government to stir up industrial unrest in many countries to enable Germany to re-establish' her own trade and industry, to exploit Russian wealth and labour, and to hamper other nations' trade by inducing anarchist agents to take advantage of the exhaustion which follows war in those countries?
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: His Majesty's Government do not at present propose to issue any further papers beyond the White Paper which was laid before Parliament in April last. The answer to the second part of the question is in the negative.

    EXPEDITIONARY FORCE.
    Mr. ALLEN PARKINSONasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that Corporal D. Scard, No. 782384, 29th London Regiment, enlisted in June, 1915, and although eligible for demobilisation was ordered to embark for the North Russia Expeditionary Force on the 27th June last, although he had never volunteered and was, in fact, opposed to going; and whether, in view of the fact that this man is eligible for demobilisation, and in view of the pledge given that none but volunteers should be sent to North Russia, steps will be taken to secure this soldier's early return and release?
    Captain GUEST (Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury): I regret that my inquiries in this case are not yet complete, but I will write to the hon. Member as soon as possible.
    Mr. WATERSON: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that this question was put down in my name some time ago and he gave a promise on that

    1563
    occasion that he would investigate it, and that, in the meantime, the man should not be sent to Northern Russia. His wife only yesterday received a letter from him in North Russia?
    Captain GUEST: Well, I regret extremely if that should prove to be the case. The War Office have such an immense number of individual eases to deal with that it is, of course, conceivable that mistakes of this kind have occurred. I can assure my hon. Friend that I will immediately take the case up.
    Mr. WATERSON: I can give you the man's letter received the other day.
    An HON. MEMBER: Will he be recalled?

  PEACE CELEBRATIONS (THAMES PAGEANT).
  Sir H. BRITTAINasked the Prime Minister whether, upon the occasion of the Pageant on the Thames upon 4th August, he will move a suspension of the sitting of the House so that Members may have an opportunity of witnessing the progress of the Royal barge?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I will consider the suggestion of my hon. Friend, in consultation with Mr. Speaker.
  Sir H. BRITTAIN: May I suggest as an alternative—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order!"]

  EX-SERVICE MEN (EMPLOYMENT).
  Mr. ANEURIN WILLIAMSasked the Prime Minister whether, as a practical way of celebrating the signing of Peace, His Majesty's Government will establish better means for finding work for discharged and partially disabled sailors and soldiers?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: My right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour hopes to make a full statement on the question of the employment of ex-Service men before Parliament rises. In the meantime every step possible is being taken by the Government in the direction indicated by the hon. Member.

  CENTRAL CONTROL BOARD (LIQUOR TRAFFIC).
  Mr. HAYDAYasked the Lord Privy Seal whether the Commission to be set up in place of the Central Control Board (Liquor Traffic) is to be set up at once or after legislation; and whether, in view of the representative nature of workmen's clubs, he will bear in mind their claim to representation on the Commission?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: The establishment of the Commission referred to in the first part of the question will require legislation. With regard to the second part, I would refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Plaistow on the 9th of July.

  VICTORY LOAN CAMPAIGN (BLANDFORD).
  Major COLFOXasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has now seen the evidence that the war savings committee of the borough of Blandford was asked to pay for a tank to assist in the Victory Loan campaign; whether the cost was to have been from £30 to £40, plus running expenses at 6s. to 7s. a mile, plus the cost of maintenance of the crew of one officer and four men whilst assisting; and whether this charge prevented the use of a tank and thereby prejudiced the success of the Loan?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have made inquiries as regards the case referred to and I understand that the Blandford War Savings Committee without previously consulting the National War Savings Committee applied direct to the military authorities, who informed the Committee of the cost of providing a tank, and it was for the Committee to decide whether that cost could be justifiably charged against the Grant allowed by the Treasury for the campaign. Had the local committee consulted the National War Savings Committee they would have been informed that the expenditure was not justified.

  NATIONAL WAR BONDS.
  Sir J. D. REESasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether information will be afforded to the House and to the public-regarding the amounts held in the different maturities of national War Bonds?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: This information is given in the annual finance accounts.

  POOR LAW OFFICERS (EX-SOLDIEES).
  Major BREESEasked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been called to the advice given by Mr. H. R. Williams, the Poor Law inspector to the Pwllheli Board of Guardians, to secure the assistance of experienced women in the administration of out-relief; and if their appointment as assistant relieving officers represents the policy of his Department, bearing in mind the transcendant claims of disabled ex-Service men to employment in the public service at the present time; and whether he will say what action he proposes to take in the matter?
  Commander EYRES-MONSELL: My right hon. Friend's attention has not been called to the particular case to which the hon. Member refers, but the advice attributed to the inspector accords with the policy recommended to guardians by the Local Government Board in 1914. It has long been recognised that there are great advantages in. the employment of women officers to deal with the relief of women and children. Moreover, the appointment of such women officers would usually be by way of addition to the staff, without involving any reduction in the work to be done by men officers.
  Major BREESEIs it not a fact that the application for the appointment by the board of guardians of an ex-soldier has been refused?
  Commander EYRES-MONSELL: I am not aware of that.
  Major BREESE: It is a fact.

  MULTIPLE SHOPS.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that small shopkeepers and traders are having their shops sold over their heads without warning in all parts of the country and to an increasing extent; whether he is aware that this is the work of certain trusts and combines, including, among others, an American syndicate, with a view to establishing a chain of mul-
  1566
  tiple shops throughout the land; and whether he will consider the introduction of legislation to give some security of tenure and compensation for disturbance to small shopkeepers and traders, many of whom have been on active service during the War?
  Sir H. GREENWOOD: I have been asked to reply to this question. My attention has been drawn to statements in the Press to this effect, particularly relating to the drapery trade. If the hon.. and gallant Member will give me any information of a definite character on the subject, I will consider whether any action should be taken by His Majesty's Government.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is anything under consideration with regard to the last part of my question and the suggested legislation contained therein?
  Sir H. GREENWOOD: I must have notice of a question of that kind.

  GERMAN GAS MASKS.
  Brigadier-General CROFTasked the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the Admiralty have any knowledge of German gas masks that were captured on the "Emden"; if the date of their manufacture was marked on them; and, if so, what was that date?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): Search in the records and papers connected with the "Emden" and her examination reveals no mention of gas masks.

  EX-SERVICE MAN (TRADE UNION PERMIT).
  Sir F. HALLasked the Minister of Labour whether his Department have yet communicated with the National Union of Papermakers inquiring the grounds on which they declined to carry out the instructions of His Majesty's Stationery Office that a permit should be given to ex-Corporal Albert Edward Parfitt, pending the granting of a card in order that Parfitt might be enabled to accept a position which had been offered to him in His Majesty's Stationery Office printing works, Farringdon Road; and, if so, what reply has been received?
  Mr. WARDLE: I am still in communication with the union, and will let the hon. and gallant Member know the result as soon as possible.
  Sir F. HALL: Are we to understand that there has been a fortnight since the Minister of Labour has been in communication with a certain union, and that they decline to allow this man to earn his living? Js that going to be the condition of affairs; and does the Government not give a reply in order that the public may not know.
  Mr. WARDLE: My hon. and gallant Friend is not entitled to make this inference. I shall be very glad to see him about it if he desires.
  Sir F. HALL: I beg to give notice that I will raise this question in a week's time, and, perhaps, the hon. Gentleman will then give me a reply.
  Mr. WARDLE: If my hon. and gallant Friend will see me, I will give him a reply at once.
  Sir F. HALL:Why cannot the hon. Gentleman give me a reply which the House can hear? Why should we have a private communication on such an important matter? Does he recognise the power of the union to decline to carry out the instructions of His Majesty's Stationery Office?
  Mr. WARDLE:If the hon. and gallant Gentleman will put a question in a week's time, after he has seen me, I will do my best to give him a full answer.

  COAL MINERS' STRIKE (UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFIT).
  Mr. CASEYasked the Minister of Labour whether the men employed at collieries, other than miners, who have been prevented from following their employment through the miners' strike, are entitled to State unemployment benefits?
  Mr. WARDLE: The workmen to whom my hon. Friend refers would not be entitled to benefit, unless in any particular case they are employed in a separate department in a branch of work which is commonly carried on as a separate business in separate premises. The interpretation of this provision in any cases of doubt rests with the umpire, who is an independent judicial officer appointed by the Crown.
  Mr. NEAL: Are winding-men and pumping-men, who have no connection with the union which has called the strike, to be refused any payment through circumstances over which they have no control?
  Mr. J. DAVISON: And would that also apply to other workmen who are all unemployed through the same cause?
  Mr. WARDLE: This is a general regulation, and it depends entirely on the circumstances whether it applies or not.
  Mr. J. JONES: What about the labourers working about the mines? Are they not entitled to unemployment benefit?
  Mr. WARDLE: The same answer I have given applies.

  FOOD SUPPLIES.

    DATES.
    Mr. SAMUEL SAMUELasked the Food Controller what quantity of dates the Ministry of Food imported from September, 1918, to date, arrived and to arrive; what have been the allowances made by the Government for inferior qualities; have any dates been condemned as unfit for human food and been destroyed; if so, what quantity; and what has been the financial result of the transaction?
    The MINISTER of FOOD (Mr. G. Roberts): My Department has purchased and imported, on its own account, approximately 12,000 tons of Persian dates since September, 1918. In addition, some 20,500 tons of dates which were purchased before the Armistice on account of the War Office and the Army and Navy Canteen Board have been brought to this country by my Department for. distribution amongst the civil population. About 3,500 tons of dates have still to be shipped from Basra. I understand that small quantities of dates amounting to less than 500 tons have been condemned by the sanitary authorities and destroyed. In cases where the dates distributed to the trade are subsequently found to be unfit for human consumption, the full invoice price is returned to the trader concerned, but otherwise no allowances are made for inferior qualities. Until all the dates have been disposed of it is not possible to state what has been the financial result of the transaction.
    Mr. S. SAMUEL:Have the Government endeavoured to resell the dates they bought at Basra, and have they been successful in doing so on account of their condition?
    Mr. ROBERTS: I cannot say off-hand, but I will ascertain.
    Captain ORMSBY-GORE: Will the right hon. Gentleman see that the dates declared unfit for human consumption will be sold to the distillers in order that they can make whisky of them?
    Mr. SAMUELasked the Food Controller what was the price of dates in the Persian Gulf, free-on-board, Basra, in 1914, 1915, and 1916 before the Government took over control; and what was the price in 1917 and 1918 when the Government took control and were the only buyers?
    Mr. ROBERTS: In 1914, 1915 and 1916 the free-on-board Basra price of Persian dates averaged 9s., 11s. 6d. and 14s. per cwt, respectively. The average free-onboard price paid by my Department in 1917 was 17s. 2d. per cwt., and in 1918, when there was a short crop, 26s. per cwt. I am satisfied that, in view of the increased cost of production, which included a rise of 500 per cent. in the price of date boxes, the average prices paid in 1917 and 1918 represent highly advantageous buying.
    Brigadier-General CROFT: Has any Member of the Government been connected with this date trade during these years?
    Mr. ROBERTS: I can give my hon. and gallant Friend the assurance that I am not connected with it.
    Mr. DEVLIN: Was any Member of the last Parliament?
    Mr. SAMUEL: Do the Government intend in the next season to buy dates from the Persian Gulf free-on-board, and do they intend to put down the prices, seeing that the crop is one of the largest on record?
    Mr. ROBERTS: I am unable to state what is the intention with regard to further purchases, but if the hon. Member will put down a question I will give him a reply later.

  SMALL HOLDINGS, SCOTLAND.
  Major W. MURRAYasked the Secretary for Scotland whether the proposals made by the Dumfriesshire War Committee for the establishment of a small holdings scheme in the neighbour hood of Lochmaben and Hightae have been approved, either in whole or in part, by the Scottish Board of Agriculture; and whether schemes for afforestation and the encouragement of rural industries will be combined with this small holdings scheme?
  The SOLICITOR-GENERAL for SCOTLAND (Mr. Morison): The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. The Board have inquired into the proposal and arc still in correspondence with the committee. Apart, however, from other considerations, my hon. Friend is advised that the cost of terminating current leases would be prohibitive, and at present the circumstances are therefore unfavourable for the prosecution of the schemes referred to.
  Major MURRAYasked the Secretary for Scotland whether the land in the neighbourhood of Gretna factory upon which it has been proposed to establish small holdings has now been acquired by the Scottish Board of Agriculture; and whether it is intended to take- steps now for the settlement of small holders thereupon?
  Mr. MORISON: Negotiations are in progress between the Board and the War Department, but no definite arrangement has yet been concluded.

  TEACHERS' PENSIONS.
  Lieut.-Colonel A. HERBERTasked the President of the Board of Education whether there are retired teachers who, after serving thirty years' as certificated teachers, retired before this year owing to chronic ill-health on pensions not exceeding 13s. 4d. a week, including the sum which has accrued from the monthly deduction of 4s. which has always been taken from their salaries; and whether, in view of the increased cost of living, especially for invalids, he will consider the advisability of increasing such pensions?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Herbert Lewis): My right hon. Friend is

  1571
  aware of the fact that the pensions which could be granted under the Elementary School Teachers (Superannuation) Acts, 1896–1912, to disabled teachers were unfortunately small in amount, and it was in order to provide more adequate pensions in future that the Superannuation Act of 1918 was passed. He has no power to increase the pensions payable under the Acts of 1892 and 1912, and he does not think that the position of retired teachers can be considered separately from the position of other retired public servants or pensioners.

  ROYAL GUNPOWDER FACTORY, WALTHAM ABBEY.
  Mr. J. JONESasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Munitions the nature of the Committee which considered the future of the Royal Gunpowder Factory at Waltham Abbey; whether he is a wars of the concern that is felt by the people in Waltham Abbey regarding the future of the factory; and whether ho will publish without delay the Report and conclusions of the Committee?
  Mr. KELLAWAY: I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT the names of the Committee and the terms of reference. The Committee's Report has been received and will shortly be submitted to the Cabinet. Until the Report has been considered by the Cabinet, a decision as to publication cannot be made.
  The following is the information referred to:

  GRETNA-WALTHAM ABBEY COMMITTEE.
  The Committee was originally appointed in February, 1919, "To consider the possible uses to which His Majesty's factory, Gretna, could be put, "and consisted of the following members:

  Sir Edward E. Pearson, J.P., as Chairman.

  Brigadier-General Alexander, D.S.O., C.M.G., C.B., Ministry of Munitions.

  Sir Phillip Henriques, K.B.E., Ministry of Munitions.

  Sir William Pearce, M.P.

  Mr. E. H. Marker, Board of Trade.

  Colonel Cobb, O.B.E., Lands Directorate, Ministry of Munitions.

  Dr. H. E. Watts, Secretary

  Towards the end of March the Committee was asked to include also in their
  1572
  inquiry the question of Waltham Abbey Factory, and for this purpose two additional members were added, namely:

  Sir Byron Peters, K.B.E.

  Sir Sidney Henn, K.B.E.

  TABLEY ESTATE, CHESHIRE (RENTS).
  Captain R. TERRELLasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture whether the attention of the Board has been drawn to the action of the owner of the Tabley Estate, Cheshire, in demanding the immediate increase of rent from his tenants without giving the necessary notices, under the threat that if not paid the tenants would be turned off their farms; to the arbitrary increase of rent demanded on this estate and the consequent discontent and unrest invoked; whether the landlord had declined to meet a joint deputation from his tenants and the county branch of the National Fanners' Union; and. if so, whether the Board of Agriculture are prepared to take action to ensure a meeting of the parties interested, together with a representative of the Board of Agriculture, to see if an amicable settlement could be arrived at?
  Colonel SANDERS (Lord of the Treasury): The Board's attention has been called to the increase of rent demanded from tenants on the Tabley Estate. They have no information as to the refusal of the landlord to receive a deputation, nor have they any power to intervene in the manner suggested.

  ARMIES OF OCCUPATION.

    OFFICERS AND WIVES.
    Lieut.-Colonel CAMPIONasked the Secretary of State for War whether permission is to be granted for wives of officers serving in the Rhine Army to join their husbands; and, if so, when this permission may be expected?
    Captain GUEST: Permission for the wives of both officers and other ranks to visit their husbands serving with the Army of the Rhine was granted on the 9th July, and all concerned have been so informed.

    SOLDIERS' LEAVE.
    Dr. M'DONALDasked the Secretary of State for War if, in view. of the

    1573
    fact that many men have served in Egypt continuously without leave, a condition which has caused discontent, he will take steps to rearrange the Egyptian Army of Occupation, in order that these men may be released at the earliest date possible?
    Captain GUEST: Instructions have recently been issued making provision for the early release of all men eligible for demobilisation. All men (except those in India and North Russia) who joined the Colours for continuous service in 1914 and 1915, men over thirty-seven, and those otherwise eligible under Army Order 55, have to embark for demobilisation by certain given dates.

  TRANSPORT DEPOT, ST. GILES-IN-THE-FIELDS.
  Lieut.-Colonel CAMPIONasked the Secretary of State for War whether the War Office is occupying a building and site, exceeding an acre in extent, in St. Giles-in-the-Fields, in the centre of London, for the storage of motor equipment, at a rental of £4,000 a year; whether a suitable site for such a purpose could be found in a less expensive locality; and whether he is aware that this site is urgently required by the new owners for a, great commercial undertaking, and that the inability to obtain possession is preventing the company that owns it from employing a large number of discharged officers and men?
  Captain GUEST: The site in question is occupied by the Home Mechanical Transport Depot. Every endeavour has been made to secure alternative accommodation elsewhere in the country for this unit, but, owing to the large amount of space required and the dearth of unoccupied buildings, this has, so far, proved impracticable. Negotiations are now proceeding for the acquisition of a particular building, and, if these are successful, steps will be immediately taken to vacate the site in St. Giles-in-the-Fields.

  DEMOBILISATION.

    APPLICATION FOR RELEASE.
    Mr. WATER SONasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that Private John Jolley, No. 17014, 9th Lancers, A Squadron, British Expe-
    1574
    ditionary Force, Cologne, Germany, is only seventeen years of age, having been born on 23rd June, 1902; and, under the circumstances, will he have the youth recalled to this country with a view of release from the Army?
    Captain GUEST: Inquiries are being made, and I will let the hon. Member know the result as soon as possible.
    Mr. WATERSON: When informing hon. Members, in reply to these questions, could not the hon. and gallant Gentleman see that they know before the individuals concerned?
    Captain GUEST: Yes; I think we can arrange that copies of the correspondence are sent to the hon. Member concerned.

    SALONIKA.
    Mr. R. YOUNGasked the Secretary of State for War whether Corporal Ban-key, No. 284457, Army Service Corps (Mechanical Transport), Grove Park, London, has been sent home from Salonika unfit after two and a half: years' service there; whether he is entitled to seven days' leave for each six months as per Army Order G.R.O. 4,840, paragraph. 881, A.C. 1, 1/1,815, 1918; why he has only been allowed ten days' leave; whether he is aware that he is suffering from malaria, and has been certified as unable to travel at the expiry of his leave; and whether he will arrange that, in this case, demobilisation shall take place under Army Order, 29th January, 1919, page 4, paragraph 7, seeing that he was recommended to the War Office by the Ministry of Labour before 1st February, 1919?
    Captain GUEST: There is no Regulation authorising leave in this case on the scale suggested, and ten days is the usual period granted. I am informed that the General Routine Order quoted does not bear on the subject. Corporal Sankey did not return at the expiry of his leave, and was in consequence charged as an absentee. He did not produce a medical certificate on returning four days later, but stated that one was being forwarded. On receipt of the certificate, the case of absence was dismissed. Corporal Sankey is not registered either as pivotal or for special release, and I regret he is not eligible for demobilisation under existing Regulations. If, however, he comes within any of the categories mentioned in the Memorandum published on the 17th July he will be released accordingly.

  CIVILIAN LABOUR, HARWICH.
  Captain COOTEasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that discharged men employed as civilian labour by the officer commanding Royal Engineers at Harwich were locked out on the King's birthday and received no pay for that day; and whether he will cause payment to be made?
  Captain GUEST: Inquiry is being made. I will inform the hon. and gallant Member of the result.
  Captain COOTEasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that discharged men employed as civilian labour by the Royal Army Service Corps, Harwich, are still receiving the same wage as has prevailed all through the War, namely, £2 12s. 6d. per week; whether he is aware that civilian labour employed by all other War Office Departments in this district are receiving £2 18s. 6d. per week, and that Royal Army Service Corps civil employé at all other depots are receiving £2 17s. 6d. per week; and whether he will cause this inequality to be remedied'?
  Captain GUEST:I think my hon. and gallant Friend will find on further inquiry that the rate of 52s. 6d. paid at Harwich includes war advances amounting in total to 28s. 6d. The other statements in the question do not accord with my information, but further inquiry is being made.

  YPRES (GAS ATTACK).
  Brigadier-General CROFTasked the Secretary of State for War whether our Staff in France knew of the gas attack at Ypres a month before it took place and wired to England for gas-masks; and, if so, what was the reply to this requests
  Captain GUEST: The information received by the General Staff in France was not sufficiently definite to enable any adequate precautionary measures to be taken. No demand was received in the War Office for gas-masks before the attack.

  OLD SOLDIERS (MEDAL).
  Mr. MALLALIEUasked the Secretary of State for War if there is any provision in the shape of a medal for old soldiers who re-enlisted in the late War but were denied the privilege of serving
  1576
  abroad on the ground that their services were more valuable in training the recruits at home?
  Captain GUEST: As I stated on Monday last, this question is still under consideration.

  INDIA.

    TROOPS (HEAT-STROKE).
    Major COLFOXasked the Secretary of State for India whether, on a date early in June of this year, some troops arrived at Lucknow at 11 a.m. on a day when the thermometer registered 115 degrees in the shade; whether they were marched to barracks carrying their full kit; whether, as a consequence, five officers and sixty men were admitted to hospital suffering from heat stroke, of whom three died; and whether it is proposed to institute an inquiry to find out who was to blame for this occurrence?
    Commander EYRES- MONSELL: I greatly regret to say that, according to a preliminary report which my right hon. Friend has received from the Government of India, the facts are as follows: The 3rd Garrison Battalion Bedford Regiment, the transfer of which from Burma to Lucknow was necessitated by military exigencies, was timed to arrive at the latter place in the early morning of 27th May, but the train was four hours late in leaving Calcutta owing to delay in unloading the baggage from the transport. The troops suffered from heat on arrival at Lucknow, and during the march to barracks in the heat of the day, with the result that there were twelve cases of heat stroke and seventeen of exhaustion, and two deaths. When the full report on this lamentable occurrence is received, my right hon. Friend will be in a position to consider what action is necessary.

  PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMITTEE.
  Second Report brought up, and read; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 145.]

  PRIVATE BILLS (GROUP C).
  Major MALONB reported from the Committee on Group C of Private Bills; That, for the convenience of parties, the Committee had adjourned till Tuesday next, at Eleven of the clock.
  Report to lie upon the Table.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders Bill,
Reported, with Amendments [Provisional Orders confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
Bill, as amended, to be considered Tomorrow.
Middlesbrough Corporation Bill [Lords],
Stockton-on-Tees Corporation Bill [Lords],
Reported, with Amendments; Reports to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to,—
Anglo-French Treaty (Defence of France) Bill, without Amendment.
Treaty of Peace Bill, with an Amendment.
That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to dissolve the marriage of Maurice Boland with Annie Boland, his now wife, and to enable him to marry again and for other purposes." [Boland Divorce Bill [Lords.]

BOLANVD'S DIVORCE BILL [Lords].
Read the first time; to be read a second time.
TREATY OF PEACE BILL.
Lords Amendment to be considered tomorrow, and to be printed. [Bill 149.]
HEALTH AUTHORITIES.
Order for Address [17th February] relative thereto, and discharged.
BILL PRESENTED.
WEST INDIAN COUKT OF APPEAL BILL,—" to provide for the establishment of a Court of Appeal for certain of His Majesty's Colonies in the West Indies," presented by Lieutenant-Colonel AMERY; supported by Mr. Attorney-General; to be read a second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 150.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Sir D. MACLEAN: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman what is the business for next week?
Mr. BONAR LAW:Monday. Pre-War Practices Bill (Report), if not obtained to-morrow (Friday); Patents and Designs Bill (Second Reading); Trade Marks Bill, Expiring Laws Bill, and succeeding Orders on the Paper.
Tuesday, Supply (Army Vote on Account).
Thursday, Supply (Ministry of Pensions Vote and Education Vote).
The business for Wednesday has not yet been decided upon, and will be announced on Monday.
Commander BELLAIRS: In the event of a reconstruction of the Government, shall we have an opportunity of debating this question?
Ordered,
"That the Navy Estimate;, 1919–20 (Supplementary Vote on Account) [presented 16th July], and Civil Services Estimates, 1019–20, Class 2, Vote 6 (Colonial Office), be considered in Committee of Supply."— [Mr. Bonar Law.]
Commander BELLAIRS: May I ask whether, in the event of Government business coming to an end at an early hour, we can discuss the Motion on the Order Paper in my name—
"That. in the opinion of this House, the Navy, Army, and Air Force should be under the supreme direction of one Cabinet Minister, and the War Staff Colleges for the three fighting professions should be assembled together at Cambarley with a view to developing a unity of doctrine of offensive war which will gradually spread through the whole of the Imperial forces— [Commander Bellairs.]
Mr. BONAR LAW: We have already said that if the Navy Vote does not occupy the whole of the time the remainder of the time will be taken up by the Colonial Office Vote.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  SUPPLY. — [17TH ALLOTTED DAY.]
  Considered in Committee.
  [MR. WHITLEY in the Chair.]

  NAVY ESTIMATES, 1919–20.

    SUPPLEMENTARY VOTE ON ACCOUNT.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a, Supplementary sum, not exceeding £60,000,000, be granted to His Majesty, on Account, for defraying the Charges for Navy Services, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st clay of March, 1920."
    4.0 p.m.
    The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Long): In asking the Committee to grant a Vote on account of £60,000,000, I regret very much that it has not been practicable to adopt a course which I had hoped might have been adopted and to submit the Estimates in full detail. The real truth is that the figures we present to Parliament arc not the result of the policy of the Government of the day for the future, but; on this occasion are for the clearing up of war expenditure, and, having regard to all that has been going on and to our present position, it has been found impossible to present the Estimates in their final form. Therefore, all that we can do is to ask for a Vote on Account and to tell the House that it is the intention of the Government later on, I hope in the early autumn, to present detail Estimates which will give full opportunity for discussion of the policy of the Government, the expenditure, and detail questions. The Estimates for 1919–20 are connected with war expenditure and with the aftermath of war far more than they are with the ordinary maintenance of the Navy. For instance, out of the total money which we have to ask Parliament to vote no less a sum than £75,000,000 represents expenditure incurred in connection with the War over commitments which have not matured but which we have to meet, and that, of course, is expenditure over which we have no control. It is, I think, interest on mortgage which has to be paid, and we cannot lessen it. We have only got to meet it and explain what it means. It is, however, expenditure which we hope will never recur, and it is money which has been spent for the achievement of a great
    1598
    object, in the winning of a great victory, and in securing the peace which I hope we are now going to enjoy.
    The Committee, of course, will wish to know what is the position in regard to. the demobilisation of officers and men and also what is the position in regard to ships and construction. The demobilisation of the Navy has gone on without any avoidable delay. At the date of the Armistice the strength was about 407,000; the strength to-day is about 180,000. Demobilisation is going on actually every day. and we have every confidence that by the end of August at least 95 per cent, of the hostilities-only men will have been demobilised. At the date of the Armistice there were under order 302 warships and 806 auxiliaries. There arc now being completed 84 warships and 110 auxiliaries. They are ships which in the opinion of the naval advisers of the Admiralty are either essential in order to replace old ships to help to meet the ravages of the War or ships which were so far advanced in their construction that it would have been very bad economy to have scrapped them. I may mention—I think I have told the House this before in answer to a question—that among the ships which were under order and which were cancelled were the three battle cruisers which were laid down—the "Anson," the "Howe," and the "Rodney."
    Mr. CLYNES: May I ask how the figure of 180,000 compares with the pre-war figure.
    Mr. LONG: The actual number of officers and men pre-war was 151,000. If anyone desires to criticise the Government on the ground that demobilisation has been too slow or that our expenditure is still too heavy, he should remember, after all, the actual facts, upon which we have every reason to congratulate ourselves, namely, that the War did not come to an end gradually by a process of attrition. It will be remembered that when the War was going on there were many who foretold that it would not end suddenly in our full strength, but would come by a process of attrition when the contending forces were being gradually worn out, and when resources in men, money, and material were gradually getting less and less. So 'far as this country, at all events, is con-corned when the War came to an end, as it did, quite suddenly, it found us at the very maximum of our output. Everything was

    1599
    being produced to the fullest possible extent; every workshop, every factory, every shipyard, everything had reached the highest pitch of perfection, and all of a sudden, as with a clean cut of the knife, there came an end of it all. The Commits tee will realise that it is impossible, there-lore, to effect the same reduction in these circumstances that could have been effected if things had been gradually dwindling down, getting smaller and smaller, and you had had a diminished output to deal with instead of the maximum output.
    It is only fair to say that a comparison between the present and the pre-war time for our purposes here is really misleading. The real comparison that we ought to make is between the expenditure during the War and that which we should have been spending after the War had it still been going on and that which we are spending now. We are now really cleaning up the expenditure which remained when the War happily came to an end. There are, of course, incidental expenses which we have to incur in connection with operations. We have not been able to deal with the Navy as if we had Peace. The Navy has had to play a considerable part in many quarters, and for the present it is idle to expect that we can treat our naval expenditure as if war were a thing entirely forgotten, and if we were back in the old halcyon days of peace when we were fearing war but had not yet been called upon to find the expenditure for war. With the exception of two cruisers upon which for the present work has been stopped, the work being done at our dockyards is entirely on the repair of ships. Of course, the Committee will realise that during the War it was impossible to keep all the repair work up-to-date or to do a good deal of it as thoroughly and efficiently as we can now. Our dockyards are engaged entirely in repairing all our warships and in the reconditioning of the ships which were commandeered or hired and used for war purposes. Practically, new construction does not exist. We are not building new ships under a new programme; we are completing those ships which were so far advanced that they could not be stopped, and which were recommended by our naval advisers as being essential for the maintenance of the Navy in future.
    Sir DONALD MACLEAN: Could the right hon. Gentleman tell us what are the eighty-four warships?
    Mr. LONG: I have net he particulars here, but they can easily be got. I am very glad to say that an additional sum for which we have to ask this year is in respect of the increased pay of officers and men. This increase has been very long delayed, and I rejoice that it has fallen to the lot of the present Board of Admiralty to be able to do this act of justice to officers and men who have so abundantly and so gloriously earned it. I know that in some; quarters there are those who ask for more and say that this is not enough. I would point out to them a fact which I think they ought in fairness to bear in mind, namely, that the additional pay which we ask Parliament to grant amounts this year to the very large sum of £10,000,000 for the permanent Navy. That shows that the recommendations which we have made to Parliament have not been very small in character, and I think I may say from representations which have reached me from very many reliable quarters that, generally speaking, the increases on pay for officers and men which the Admiralty have recommended, and which Parliament has accepted with great willingness, may be regarded as just and satisfactory.
    These increases arc the result of inquiries made by two Committees—one presided over by Admiral Jerram and the other by Admiral Halsey. I should like to take this opportunity of expressing the gratitude of the Board of Admiralty, and I hope I may say of this House and of the country also, to those, two gallant admirals and their colleagues on the respective Committees for the most admirable work which they did. There are in the House a certain number of old sailors who know something, although not everything, of the extraordinary complications of our naval pay system. I do not believe even naval officers themselves, who have not examined this question carefully, can realise the immense burden of work thrown on these two Committees in investigating the existing condition of things in order to produce a Report which would bear examination and cover the whole ground. What they set themselves to do, and what we have set ourselves to do in the recommendations which we have made to Parliament, has been to see that there is a real increase given to all grades, and that the increase shall be so divided and so arranged as to offer inducements to get on, so that as they do get on the men will have a better reward for their labours, and

    1601
    better prospects both as regards retired pay and pension. I hope we have been able by the aid of these Committees to deal in a satisfactory way with the old troublesome and vexed question of the half-pay system.
    There are three criticisms on which I wish to say a few words. One is that in the recommendations made to us it was suggested that there should be back pay, and that the new pay should be dated back to the 1st October. We have been criticised because we altered the 1st October to the 1st February. I have only a brief reply to make to that. There is no special merit in the 1st October. There is no reason why it should not have been the 1st January, or working by mere justice it might have gone back to any period you like as representing some recognition of the fact that the Navy has boon labouring under this injustice so long. But I think if the Committee, whether they be naval representatives or not, will look at this question quite dispassionately they will come to the conclusion that the Board of Admiralty and the Cabinet arrived at a very fair and reasonable compromise when they decided that the increased pay should be dated back to the 1st February, so that officers and men who now get it for the first time will receive what is after all a considerable sum as a sort of recognition by Parliament and by the country of the fact that this pay question ought to have been settled some time ago, and, as it was not, we make this acknowledgment of our indebtedness to them.
    I would beg the Committee to remember this. We are always being criticised for our expenditure, yet whenever our unwillingness to spend special sums annoys a particular section of this House, the members of that section forget the lectures on extravagance which they have given us in the past, and because we do not think it right in the particular instance to concede their claims it does not please them. They think they are justified in claiming to be the only exception to the general rule. It is a wonderful thing to notice how many special exceptions there are of this kind. Every body of Members which has a particular cause to press in Parliament thinks that theirs is a special case, and that the circumstances are totally different. But the Chancellor of the Exchequer has to consider all these questions together, and I know from conversations I have had with him in connection with this particular proposal that each body of Members, and that
    1602
    representatives of outside bodies as well, who have waited upon him n order to press their claims upon him, have been able to show to their own complete satisfaction that their case differs so entirely from any other case, that it is such a particularly hard and exceptional case, therefore, although economies in other directions may be justified, the right hon. Gentleman is not justified in economising in their particular direction. That is our universal experience, and I think that if my hon. Friends, however anxious they may be to see these persons treated with the greatest liberality, will look at the matter fairly and squarely, they will agree that on the whole the change made in the pay of officers and men has been sonorous. That is, I know, the opinion of the great majority of the officers and men of the Royal Navy to-day. I say I know it, because representations have reached me, unsought by me and not asked for by me, from those who can speak for various ranks and grades in the Navy to this effect. Therefore I hope that those who would like to see the pay antedated from the 1st October rather than from the 1st February will remember that these claims, however strong they are, have to be considered in conjunction with many other claims, and all we can try to do is what we have tried to do in this case—to secure general fairness all round.
    There are other cases, those of the old pensioners and of the widows and orphans. As far as these two cases go nobody disputes the hardness of them. There is no dispute as to the hardship which many of those coming under these two categories, because they are not included in the advances, are called upon to suffer. But the Committee will realise that these two cases are not confined in any way to the Navy. They are of general application to the whole public service, and my answer in advance to our critics, supposing they should raise this question in the course of this Debate, is that we have been unable, and I think it is a reasonable view to take, to demand, or insist, supposing we had the power, that the Navy in this respect should be treated as separate and distinct from the other Services.
    So much for our expenditure. As I have said it is impossible to-day to make a forecast for the future. We must wait until we know a little more, but I do hope that in the course of a few months, we shall be in a position to put our proposals in a

    1603
    definite form, and when the Estimates are presented in the Autumn we shall be able to deal with the whole subject. We have, however, been able to make some progress with a portion of the work which lies before us, in addition to the pay question, which I hope and believe has been satisfactorily dealt with. We have had to rearrange our various naval commands, and to try to make some progress with a question which is of vital importance. This War has taught, both on land and sea, one little lesson. I imagine it is a mere truism to say it, but in this War there have been more lessons learned and more revelations made as to modes of warfare than any other War has ever produced, and it is our business and our duty to see that the lessons which have been learned in this War are not lost or forgotten. Anybody who has followed naval affairs very closely during the last ten or fifteen years knows that one of the pressing questions connected with naval administration has been the creation of an efficient and competent staff—called the War Staff—although we prefer at the Admiralty to call it the Naval Staff. Two things are, I venture to say, essential. One is that the staff should be competent, and should have full opportunity and a sufficiency of men to study all problems which present themselves from time to time, and to make as certain as man can make that the Navy of this country is kept in front and has all the advantages which science and inventions may put at its disposal. It is also essential that the staff side of the Admiralty should be in very close connection and touch with the administrative side, so that there may be community of knowledge as -to what is going on and that the whole Board of Admiralty may have the benefit of the work being done by the staff and be able to keep themselves thoroughly abreast of the times.
    The foundations of the Naval Staff were laid when my right hon. Friend the present Minister for War (Mr. Churchill) was First Lord of the Admiralty, and on those foundations gradually the staff has been and will continue to be built up. When the War came upon us the staff at the Admiralty was, as far as I am able to ascertain, not able to do all that was demanded of it if we were to avoid some of the troubles which in fact did overtake us. That is one of the lessons we have learnt and by which I hope we shall profit.
    1604
    When I came to the Board of Admiralty the other day, the First Sea Lord was-Chief of the Naval Staff, and there were three officers under him, the Deputy-Chief of the Naval Staff (Admiral Sir S. Fremantle), the Assistant Chief of the Naval Staff (Admiral Sir Alexander Duff), and Admiral Hope, the Assistant First Sea Lord. Now the war is over the-Assistant First Sea Lord is no longer required. But at all events for the present, whatever we may find to be necessary when we have had a year's experience, I do not think we can hope to deal with the staff problem without two-high officers in the Admiralty in the position of the two officers I have referred to, the Deputy and the Assistant Chief of the-Naval Staff. We owe a great debt to these distinguished Admirals for the work they did during the War in coping as they did with problems, many of them brand new ones, which arose from time to time, and enabling us to deal successfully with our enemies. Admiral Fremantle is now in command of the Second Battle-Squadron. Admiral Duff has got other China Command, and Admiral Hope, the Assistant First Sea Lord. has now command of the Fleet. In their place we are to have the advantage and the assistance of Sir Frederick Brock, who was Chief of the Staff of Sir David Beatty, and Admiral Fergusson. This is as far as we have got at present in the transition of this Naval Staff. Our desire is that there should be there a competent body of men, whose business it will be to be always studying these great war problems and to be. able to keep the Admiralty abreast of all that is going on in the world; and in addition to that we are profoundly anxious that we shall take advantage also of the wonderful inventions of the War. To a very great extent it seems, further, that in future we shall learn by our ears that which we used to rely upon our eyes to see Inventions of that kind are, of course, of the utmost importance, and we are profoundly anxious that, so far as we are able, we should continue, through the Science Branch, to take advantage of what we know and keep up this scientific development.
    I recognise fully that it is the business of the Board of Admiralty, as of every other Government Department, to do everything in its power to avoid the unnecessary expenditure of money. It is sometimes said that heads of Departments seem to forget that there is any other

    1605
    Department except their own, and are reckless in regard to the expenditure of money. There is one very simple fact in connection with this which always seems to be forgotten, and which I should have thought would be patent to everyone, and that is that heads of Departments, whether they be good, bad, or indifferent, are always taxable, and I am sure in these days every individual has sufficient reminders of our financial position himself to make it very unlikely that he would be reckness if he has the control of any branch of public expenditure. The Board of Admiralty never has out of its mind this need for the most rigorous economy. I know it is sometimes thought that naval members of the Board do not share these views, that they are always driving you on to expenditure and that it is always a civil member, particularly my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary, who is constantly held up by those who do not know him or his work as being the one person who is trying to cut things down. If anyone could be in a cupboard in which he could hear what is going on in the board room of the Admiralty when our discussions are in progress, I am quite certain he would be unable to discover, by the remarks made, who were civilians and who were Naval Lords on this question of economy. The Naval Lords are just as anxious to see economies effected as we are. Through all these preparations and statements which have to be made the need for avoiding anything that is avoidable has never been lost eight of. I regard either to the existence of a competent staff or to the development of scientific discoveries and inventions it would be the very worst economy not to spend such money as is necessary if they are I be efficiently and properly carried through. If we are really to take advantage of invention we must not hesitate to spend such money as is necessary, and when it comes to invention and scientific development it is obvious that money must not only be spent but it may easily result in the end in immense saving rather than additional expense. In addition to what we have done in connection with the Staff, we have appointed a Committee under Rear-Admiral Phillimore, to whom we have referred certain questions connected with the experiences of the War, and it is sitting constantly at the Admiralty, and I hope from its investigations we shall have very helpful and very valuable recommendations.
    Captain WEDGWOOD BENN: Could the right hon. Gentleman find an opportunity to speak about the construction of airships and the transfer to the Air Ministry of that Department?
    Mr. LONG: I understand the hon. and gallant Gentleman is going to put one or two definite questions, which will be answered. As a matter of fact the final arrangements between the Air Ministry and ourselves have not been completed.
    Sir D. MACLEAN: Can the right hon. Gentleman now tell us what the eighty-four warships under construction consist of?
    Mr. LONG:There is one battle-cruiser, the "Hood," which was in a very advanced stage of construction—we cancelled the other three—fourteen light cruisers, four destroyer leaders, thirty-three destroyers, and thirty-two submarines. Some of these were essential. Before the War, when we were threatened with the German menace, it was impossible to have ships for every purpose, and we had to abandon some of the work which our Navy has to do, and which it is essential it should do. I mean, for instance, what is known as showing the Flag in different parts of the waters of the Empire. I have no doubt from all I heard that the advantages which follow from our flag being shown all over the, world are enormous. For this purpose, of course, light cruisers are essential. With regard to the other ships, they are either necessary or they were under construction and so far advanced that it was not possible to take them up.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Could the right hon. Gentleman distinguish between those which were necessary and those which were too far advanced to make it worth while to discontinue construction?
    Mr. LONG: Of course during the War, whilst it was possible that the War would still go on, we had to lay down every kind of ship required for any purpose. Ships were in various stages of construction, and as one was finished another was laid down If our naval advisers could have had their choice, they would probably have wished some other form of ship than the eighty-four which were actually laid down. Of course, there were other reasons which had to be borne in mind. The War came to an end very suddenly.

    1607
    Our productive power was at a maximum, and in the spring of this year it would have been bad policy, even if we had thought it right to do so for other reasons, suddenly to throw on the market a vast amount of labour, a great deal of which is of a specialised character, and unless you could have found room for it it would not have been a legitimate thing to do. But it is no exaggeration to say that all these ships, which we still retain, were so far advanced that it would have been bad economy to take them up. Most of them will come in for completion this year, and the last of them in the early part of next year.
    Sir D. MACLEAN: Before the Debate closes, could the right hon. Gentleman let us have the number of battleships, battle-cruisers and light-cruisers of modern type 1 There may be a number of battleships which are so out-of-date as to be non-effective. Could he tell us how many could be described as effective in a naval sense'? Bach one would can with it certain other warships which are necessarily attendant on it, but the figures with regard to these three classes would be of very considerable use to the Committee.
    Major Sir B. FALLE: Could my right hon. Friend also tell us what will happen to the dockyards when they no longer build warships?
    Mr. LONG: I am not sure that I can give the figures the right hon. Gentleman asks for before the Debate closes in any way which would be effective for him or the Commitee. Really we are not in a position at this moment to say what is an effective battleship. No one knows as yet—I hope we shall have more definite information shortly—what is going to be the precise form of naval warfare in the future. It has been suggested, for instance, that the submarine should be forbidden. Assume that it possible to forbid it and secure that there shall be no submarines in the future. Of course, the moment you get rid of the submarine it is obvious that you have to look at other arrangements from a totally different point of view, so that I do not think I can give at the moment the information that is asked for. It is not because I am concealing anything. I think it would be better if the Committee would wait until we can produce this information. It must be given, of course, in the Estimates, but before giving any figures I would rather wait
    1608
    until our final calculations are made. My hon. Friend (Sir B. Falle) asked about the dockyards. With the exception of two light-cruisers which are in hand, the whole of the work done in the dockyards is repairing and recommissioning. As long as that goes on, and certainly for some time, the question that he raised will not arise, I imagine.
    Before I conclude, there is one word more I wish to say. I do not think I should be doing my duty if, having regard to recent events, I did not offer a word of congratulation to the Royal Navy upon what we have recently seen. We had that great, magnificent and touching procession in London on Peace Day—a procession in which the Navy, I venture to say, played a part well worthy of its ancient glories and ancient history. On Tuesday, many Members of this House and of the other House and other people had an opportunity of seeing many of His Majesty's ships in the river. I think all those who saw them will agree that the Navy as presented to them was worthy of the history of this country and of the Navies of this country. It was a most impressive sight. To praise the conduct of the British sailor is, I think, quite unnecessary. I have discussed the question with others who have known the Navy intimately for twenty or thirty years. They assure me that there has been an improvement in this respect. The general conduct of the men of the Navy, scattered all over the area of warfare as they have been, subject as they were to many temptations, was beyond all praise. There is only one word to be used in connection with it, and that is that it was "exemplary." The men never forgot that they were gentlemen; they never forgot that they were wearing the King's uniform; and we must all have felt proud as we saw them, whether on parade or walking about the streets, or in their camps, or wherever they were. They were in every sense a credit to the great Service to which they belonged.
    I can only say that, so far as the present Board of Admiralty are concerned, we shall do our best to avoid spending one penny of the country's money which ought not to be spent. At the same time, we shall spend ourselves in doing our utmost to be worthy of the place we have the honour to hold, regarding it as our solemn duty to see that the Navy shall be efficient and sufficient, and that the establishment

    1609
    shall be maintained with the most complete provision of all kinds. In doing that I am confident we shall be supported by the House of Commons. It is in that belief that I now venture to move that this House grant a Vote of £60,000,000 on account, in order that the Navy may be able to do its duty, I hope not in war, but in peace.
    Captain BENN: Before the right hon. Gentleman sits down, may I ask one question?
    The CHAIRMAN: It would be interminable if every right hon. and hon. Member were to put questions to the First Lord in this way.
    Mr. G. LAMBERT:The First Lord, I think, can rightly claim that his Board has done broad justice, but no more than broad justice, to the officers and men of the Navy. His administration will be memorable from the fact that the Board over which he presides with so much ability has remedied many undoubted grievances that existed amongst the officers and men. I congratulate him, therefore, upon having achieved a long-overdue reform. I can associate him with that, I know; I can associate his colleagues on the Board with that work; and I know also, from my past experience, that in dealing with the grievances of the men of the Navy my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary (Dr. Macnamara) is always extremely sympathetic. My right hon. Friend the First Lord has stated that there is no praise too high for the Navy. Everyone agrees. I do not think there is a single person who fails to realise that the British Navy has stood between us and German domination during the last five years. Recently a magnificent spectacle was arranged by the Admiralty. I was talking with one of the Admirals, and ho told me a little anecdote which illustrates the spirit of the men. One dark and rough night in. the winter they were ordered to steam from Rosyth into the North Sea. The men did not funk it. Some of them lashed down the piano; they also lashed down the music-stool, and finally they lashed down the musician, who had to play tunes while they sang around. That is the spirit of the British Navy. I am quite certain they never would have surrendered their ships—never! There is just one word more. In view of some rumours in the Press, I hope that if any
    1610
    acknowledgment is to be made of the Navy's services it will be spread all over the Naval Service, and not limited to one single individual. The personnel has been worthy of the heroic Nelson, yet we have not had a Nelson, unfortunately, in this War.
    My right hon. Friend stated that he proposed to continue the Naval Staff that was commenced by the present Secretary of State for War. Of course, one hates to think of war, now this terrible catastrophe is over, but there is no doubt, judging from what I have been able to learn by experience at the Admiralty, and since, that we did lack at the beginning of the War a thinking department—a department that was not over laden with administrative work. But I hope that they will not have to think in terms of war—well, ever again. I hope that war is over, at any rate, in our generation. In reference to the money which we are discussing to-day, we have to recognise that it is not an Estimate at all; it is simply a request for £60,000,000. It is plainly unilluminating to the ordinary Member of Parliament — to myself, at any rate. I am sure it is unavoidable. On 12th March the First Lord said that he proposed to issue Estimates in June and July. I know he would have done it if he could. We shall look for-word to those Estimates. It is only right that Parliament should know how the money is spent, what ships are being built, and what is the naval policy of the Government. The eighty-four ships that are now in course of building, including one battle-cruiser, fourteen light cruisers, four destroyer leaders, thirty-three destroyers, and thirty-two submarines, make a big after-war programme. There is no German Navy now; the menace is gone. In regard to these eighty-four ships 1 hope it will be shown that they could not be scrapped, so to speak, or the contracts for them, without undue inefficiency to the Navy itself. I hope, moreover, that if these new ships are put in commission a sufficient number of older ships will be put out of commission. The right hon. Gentleman has said that it is essential for us to conserve our financial resources. That is a paramount duty. If we continue as we are going on now, we shall have a strong Navy but nothing to protect, because the country will be in a state of unrest, almost of revolution. There is one thing which, 1 trust, will form no part of our naval policy,

    1611
    and that is, that in future naval construction we shall build against America. I know there is a school which thinks we must build against that great English-speaking people. I do not believe it.
    My right hon. Friend talked of getting rid of submarines. Some very distinguished men think that submarines will be used in greater numbers in future. I doubt very much if we shall get rid of the submarine, but still it will be the duty of the Admiralty to study the naval conditions that have been revealed by the War, for undoubtedly they have changed our general position entirely. Another question to which attention will have to be devoted is the war establishment. I notice that the hon. Members for Devon-port and Portsmouth are very anxious as to the future of the dockyards. I do not know what the establishments of the dockyards are to-day—how many men are included. I will simply give a general indication of my view of what the Government should do. They have at present as bases Devonport, Portsmouth, Chatham, and Rosyth. Will it be necessary to maintain all those dockyards in future? That is a grave question for the Admiralty. I am quite certain that, unless they do reduce these establishments, they will not be able to bring down the Naval Estimates to an amount that should pro-ride for the country.
    Sir B. FALLE: Wait and see !
    5.0 p.m.
    Mr. LAMBERT:My hon. Friend is adopting a phrase which, I think, he condemned at the election. There are all sorts of establishments. What does the First Lord propose to do with Inver gordon, Portland, and Dover? These establishments mean enormous expenditure. They were necessary for the War. I doubt if they are necessary now, and everyone of these establishments is a great cause of expense. I hope, indeed, that we may see that these establishments are very largely reduced. We must remember that even to maintain a pre-war Navy—I hope that will not be necessary, because during the time that I was at the Admiralty our naval expenditure went from £30,000,000 up to £51,500,000. A prewar Navy of that strength, costing £51,500,000 in 1914, would cost at least £100,000,000 to-day, and therefore, as the great German naval menace has gone, I trust that the Government will bring down
    1612
    their expenditure in consonance with the removal of that menace. Personally, I think the Germans did the best service they possibly could to us in scrapping their ships in Scapa Flow. Now, at any rate, there will be no desire, I hope, on anybody's part, not even on the part of the greatest fire-eater, to build against the ships that are at the bottom of the sea. May I suggest to the Financial Secretary whether he is not a little unduly secretive in his information? Questions were asked by the hon. and gallant Member for Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) as to the monthly consumption of coal and oil in the Navy. Why should we not know it?
    Mr. LONG: The Board.
    Mr. LAMBERT: But the Board of Admiralty is subject to Parliament, and I really cannot understand why, now that Peace is declared, we should not be able to know the monthly expenditure on coal and oil in the Navy. I am putting these points because it is so essential to conserve coal and oil at the present moment. I know full well the Board will issue very strict injunctions that coal should be economically used.
    Mr. LONG: It has done so.
    Mr. LAMBERT:But those instructions must be carried out, and I think that if the Board had the assistance of the House of Commons and the country they could possibly be carried out with greater efficiency. I hope the Board of Admiralty is really seeing that this order concerning coal is carried out. Officers are away, they burn coal and oil somewhat recklessly, and in ordinary times it would not so much matter, but now it is really essential to conserve coal and also oil. Oil is a foreign product. We were told by the President of the Board of Trade the other day that it was essential to prohibit the imports of boots a id clothes in order to keep up the exchange with America. How much more essential, therefore, is it to restrict, so far as we can, the use of oil, which is a foreign product, in order to keep up the exchange, so that our food may be sold to us at something like a reasonable price. Is it not possible for my right hon. Friend to draw on his great reserves of oil? I know full well—I was partly responsible for it—that we put up enormous tanks holding enormous quantities of oil, and it is surely not necessary now to maintain great reserves of oil fuel in the country, because

    1613
    after all is said and done there is now no navy for the British Navy to meet. They can get the oil across. We had then to keep up a large reserve of oil, fearing that the supplies might be interrupted, but now, at any rate, I suggest that these stocks might be drawn upon. There is one point which has been alluded to here by my hon. and gallant Friend on my left (Captain W. Benn), and that is the question of the air. Is the Navy to have its own air service, or is it to be placed under the Air Ministry? I think the Air Ministry, if it is under the War Office, will have considerable difficulty in persuading the Admiralty that the air service of the Navy should be under the War Office. Possibly a little later on my right hon. Friend may be able to give us some information.
    Mr. LONG: It is not settled yet.
    Mr. LAMBERT: I assume it will be settled when the right hon. Gentleman next presents his Estimates to us. There is one point of policy upon which I should like to ask my hon. Friend for information. We are greatly in the dark as to affairs in Russia. The Fleet is operating in the Baltic, and there are, I know, some ships under the control of the Admiralty in the Caspian. My right hon. Friend told us yesterday that the operations in the Caspian will be concluded and that our personnel will be withdrawn before winter. Does that also apply to the ships in the Baltic? I do not want to press the Government, but I do think the country is gravely anxious as to what policy is being pursued in Russia. They do not understand. I read the Prime Minister's speech in this House on 16th April, when he said:
    "To attempt military intervention in Russia would be the greatest act of stupidity that any government could possibly commit." — [OFFICIAL REPORT, I6th April, 1910, col. 2042, Vol. 114.]
    One wants to know, in view of the action of the Army, whether it is the policy of the Government to go on with military intervention in Russia. I will explain its relevance, Mr. Whitley, because I see your watchful eye upon me. Its relevance is that not a soldier can get away from these shores without being protected by the Navy.
    The CHAIRMAN: It might be discussed then on a telegraph vote, on the ground that nothing could be done without a telegram being sent
    Mr. LAMBERT: It will, at any rate, be relevant to ask if it is proposed to bring the ships that are now in the Baltic away. I do not want to press or to embarrass the Government. I want rather to help them, but if they can clear up their policy and give us some information as to what their naval policy in Russia is to be, I shall be very much obliged. I understand that directing this policy there is a kind of Eastern Committee. Is the Admiralty represented on this Eastern Committee of the Cabinet?
    Mr. LONG: Oh yes.
    Mr. LAMBERT:I am very glad to hear it, because I understand the Eastern Committee have a good many grandiose ideas, and I am sure my right hon. Friend will endeavour to keep them well in order. I hope before the Debate closes we may have some information, if it can be given, in regard to the policy of the Government in Russia. I will reserve any criticisms that I have to make in detail on the Naval Estimates until they are produced. Meanwhile, I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his great concessions in the pay of the Navy.
    Rear-Admiral ADAIR: I beg to move,
    "That the Vote be reduced by £100."
    In doing this, I should like to say at once that I am not doing it with a view to hampering in any way cither the Admiralty or the Government in the maintenance of this great force, which is perhaps the best asset that the world has towards the maintenance of peace—the British Navy. I should like to congratulate the First Lord on the statement which he has made, and in particular on the last few sentences of it, which ran thus: that with a due regard to economy the Admiralty were going to ensure that the Navy should be sufficient, efficient, and should advance with the times and maintain a proper war staff. That, I think, is all that the House of Commons would expect—a due regard to economy with what is essential. I observe on the Paper to-day a Motion to the effect that in the opinion of this House the Army, Navy, and Air Force should be brought under the supreme direction of one Cabinet Minister, and that there should be one War Staff College. I assume that I should not be in order in referring to this, but it comes rather àpropos of the reference which the First Lord made to an efficient war staff. May I remind the House that in respect to its strategy the Navy stands alone. It is not dependent

    1615
    in any way on the Army and must be considered toy its own staff on its own bottom and on nothing else, and, therefore, the strength of the Navy and its strategy lie wholly with the Admiralty and nobody else. The Army can do nothing towards the command of the seas, and that is all the strategy that the Navy has to consider. The Army, whether it be horse, foot, artillery, or tanks, can assist in no way in commanding the seas, but, on the other hand, the strategy of the Army does depend entirely on the Navy, because except under the protection of the Navy there could be no overseas expedition at all. Having regard to that, I sincerely trust that the Admiralty will see to it that the Navy is maintained sufficient, efficient, and thoroughly ample for all the work it has to do, with due regard to economy. It may be that in course of time the institution of the League of Nations may enable us to reduce our Navy, as it may also, of course, enable us to reduce the Army, and all our fighting forces, but if any of the Members of this House have been to that charming town, the Hague, they will remember that on the outskirts of it there is a most elaborate palace, built some five or six years ago. for the purpose of housing "Peace." I believe at present that that palace at the Hague is one of the few houses that there are to let. Let us bear that in mind, and let us not depend as yet on any League of Nations. Let us see it first firmly established and competent to prevent national crime, and then we can think about reducing our Navy, which at present is the great police force of the whole world.
    I do not wish to make any more general remarks on the Vote, but I wish now to come to that part as to which I have moved the reduction by £100. I refer to the increases in Navy pay, both to officers and men, as set out in the two White Papers that have been recently issued. That which concerns the lower deck, that is, all the ratings of the Navy and the Marines, was published in May, and one has had sufficient time to criticise it and to hear what the Navy really think of it. That referring to officers I was only able myself to obtain yesterday, and therefore it has been quite impossible to investigate it thoroughly. There may be criticisms to make, and I shall refer to that only very briefly after I have dealt with the case of the men. On the whole, the increases that have been made to the
    1616
    men, I believe, have, as the First Lord has said, given satisfaction. I think they are generous on the whole, but there are one or two decisions of the Admiralty which do not quite agree with the recommendations of the Committee that advised on the subject, and in respect of those I know there is dissatisfaction amongst the men. I quite appreciate that though a Committee may be set up by the Admiralty to inquire into the subject of pay, it does not by any means follow that the recommendations of that Committee should be followed exactly by the Admiralty in their decisions. I am quite sure that where the Admiralty decisions do differ from the recommendations there are weighty reasons for it. The First Lord has only mentioned the matter in a somewhat vague manner, and I hope later on he will tell us definitely whether it is the-decision of the Board itself or whether it is the Treasury that prevented the whole of the recommendations being accepted.
    Mr. LONG: I stated quite plainly and distinctly that the decision was one of the Board of Admiralty and the Cabinet.
    Rear-Admiral ADAIR: That clears the air as to the decision, but it is not the reason. We are asking for the reason, and I think we should enforce that request, because, although I think the Admiralty are within their rights in not publishing reasons, and it would be most improper to do so, yet it is desirable in these democratic days that the men if they are not satisfied with the decision, as compared with the recommendation, should really know what the reason for the difference is. There is so much propaganda going on nowadays, and such an enormous number of newspapers, and the better education of the men and easy communications, and all those lead them to be much more critical and particular in their sense of justice and to think far more of themselves than they did in former days. I do think it is most desirable, where the men's welfare and that of their dependants is under consideration or is being decided upon, that the men should know the real reasons for any decision which is contrary to the recommendations which have been made. These men are perfectly loyal, and that has been clearly exemplified during the War. They are ready to submit to the severest discipline without reasoning at all when it is in respect of their duty. They have performed their duties-without reasoning and without question. When.

    1617
    it comes to their welfare they like to know the reasons, and I think in these days it is most desirable that they should. The whole bottom of discipline is contentment, and if the men think there is any reason for discontent, and if they have any grievance, it is well to disabuse their minds by giving the reasons which, as I hope when we hear them, shall prove thoroughly satisfactory to them. I hope we shall hear them.
    The first principle cause of dissatisfaction—though I will not say dissatisfaction, but want of entire satisfaction amongst the men, and, perhaps, disappointment is a good word—is that the new rate of pay is not dated back to the 1st of October, as was recommended in the Report, and so to apply to all men serving on that date. By the decision the new rate dates back to the 1st of February and applies only to men who are serving on the 1st of May. I know exactly what has been done for these men during the War, and, apart from the separation allowance awarded in 1914, and which has been gradually increased, practically nothing has been done in the way of rise of pay and allowances until the 1st of February. 1919. The result is that the men discharged between the 1st of October and the 1st of February have gained very little indeed, while the men discharged between the 1st of February and the 1st of May get appreciably less advantage than those men who remained in the Service and were serving on the 1st of May. This is thought to be unfair, and I am bound to say, on behalf of the men, that any dissatisfaction they feel in connection with this is on account of the men who have been discharged, rather than on their own account. There has been a very large number of men discharged between the 1st of October and the 1st of May. The lower deck do not consider that those men have been treated properly, and that is the cause of the dissatisfaction there is on that particular point.
    The second point on which there is some little dissatisfaction is the application of the new scale of pensions The First Lord gave us as the reason for that that it meant bringing in the whole of the Civil Service and the Army and Navy, and that, in fact, all pensioners would have to be considered. That, of course, is a very serious matter, but, after all, the subject is one which requires some little consideration. The right hon. Gen-
    1618
    tleman the Leader of the House the other day discriminated between those who had risked their lives in the course of the War and those who had not and who are pensioners. There are a great many men who are pensioners, or are shortly going to be, who have been serving during the War in comfortable billets very far from any risk, whereas there are a good many pensioners who volunteered for active service, but were not accepted and, therefore, got no rise. If there is any line to be drawn between those who risked their lives and those who did not, I think it is only due to the pensioners to remember that though they have not risked their lives in this War, they have very probably done so at some previous time, and, at any rate, they have taught the young men who have served during the War how to risk theirs. I am aware that this is opening up a very big question, and I hope the First Lord, if he says any more on the subject, will make it quite clear what the reason is. If it is that it would cost such an enormous sum of money, or any other reason, let the men understand the reason, and let them, if possible, have their minds disabused of any idea that there is cause for dissatisfaction. That is my sole object in pressing for the reason. Disabuse the men's minds of any idea that there is reason for dissatisfaction. They are very strong on this point, and I hope the First Lord will say something more about it. The third point which has been concerning the lower deck is the subject of pensions to widows and orphans and the decision not to award them. As to this I personally uphold the decision. It is an enormous question, and I understand that the whole subject of pensions for all widows is before the Government, and, I think, pending the consideration of that it is really unnecessary to go into that of the widows and orphans of the Army and Navy.
    One reason why the lower deck think there should be pensions for men's widows and orphans is that officers' widows get pensions. So they do if their cases are necessitous, but even then they are exceedingly small. For example, if a man retires as an admiral on a pension of £900 per year and dies, his widow if her case is necessitous, is given £120 per year, which is rather less than one-seventh of his pension. I presume that at the bottom of this there is the idea that an officer has been able to save money or insure his life. In most cases officers who have not private

    1619
    means when they marry do insure their lives, very rightly and properly. That is a very heavy charge on their pay, and that fact perhaps is not realised by the men. Further, I do not know that there is any real reason why officers and men should be treated exactly alike. If they are to be treated exactly alike then every officer may justly at once ask for a free kit and the upkeep of it. That would be of far more value to him, as it would enable Mm to insure his life by a still greater sum to provide for his widow. In this connection with regard to widow's pensions, I should like to draw the attention of the First Lord to Item 34 of the Recommendations, which proposed a gratuity of £20 to be granted on the discharge of men. That was not approved. I dare say the First Lord will remember that in the Tweedie Committee Report there was recommended a system of contribution by the men in order to build up a small sum which should in any circumstances whatever be his to take when he left the Service, or for his widow to take should lie unfortunately die. I think that is really the true line on which the men should work towards providing for their widows; by a contributory system which might or might not be added to by the Admiralty. I suggest most strongly to the First Lord that the Admiralty should, in collaboration with the representatives of the men, take this matter up with a view to its adoption for the joint purpose of providing the man himself with a fund with which to start life after he leaves the Service, or to provide a lump sum for the widow should he unfortunately die. There is one other point which causes a little dissatisfaction. The pension of the chief petty officer is superior to that of the petty officer. Owing to a separate rota of promotion in the three home ports, it is quite possible that a petty officer at Plymouth might get his promotion to be chief petty officer in advance of a man at Portsmouth who is really his senior. This is considered by the lower deck to be unfair find unjust. As it is a very small matter I think it might be dealt with on the lines of the recommendation of the Jerram Committee. It will cost the country practically nothing, but is most desirable as it would be pleasing and fair to the men.
    With regard to the officers' new scale, at first sight it looks distinctly generous, and I congratulate the First Lord on his
    1620
    apparent generosity, but I find that occasionally what is given with one hand is taken away not to the full extent, but to a certain extent, with the other. For instance, there is a certain proposition as to the whole civilian Income Tax being paid in 1920. That would be a most serious diminution of the officers' income, and I trust it may be considered. There are also allowances such as command money, which are reduced, and hard lines money which has been abolished altogether. I do not wish to enter into detail on these questions at present, but prefer to leave them until we hear what the Navy themselves think, but I hope that when the Estimates come on afterwards we shall be able to criticise them properly and ask for reasons. There is one question which I wish to ask the First Lord in connection with the pensions to officers, Will those retired officers who, not being eligible to work in the Navy itself, took commissions in the Royal Naval Reserve or who took commissions in the Army and did good service in France, come under the new scale?
    i do not know whether the Committee is aware that there is a number of Admirals who had arrived at an age which would justify them remaining amid the comforts of their home, but who volunteered and took inferior positions as captains and even in positions of lower rank in the Royal Naval Reserve, and did most excellent service, dangerous, arduous, and efficient service, around our coast in small craft, elderly men as they were. No men. deserve this rise in pension more than they, and I shall be glad to hear whether these old officers are to have it or not? I am very glad to have this, opportunity of drawing the attention of their fellow-countrymen to this very noble example of that spirit of self-sacrifice which is so cherished in the Navy.
    In conclusion, may 1 remark that a soldier or seaman has no power of enforcing consideration for what he may consider a grievance. He may individually represent it to his commanding officer, but he cannot strike. Mutiny during war is at once death to the offender, and it is penal servitude even in peace time. It is, therefore, the duty of the administrators of the fighting forces who are subject to this discipline to prevent any discontent; and I am sorry to say that in the case of the Navy I fear that there was a slight forgetfulness of the need for increasing their pay in the

    1621
    course of the War, while at the same time most generous increases were being given to the industrial workers at home.
    The fighting forces did at least equally strenuous work as the industrial workers at home, and, moreover, they were in peril of their lives or of mutilation at the hands of the enemy at any time. I think there has been some forgetfulness in dealing with these men, and I regret to say that this House, or rather the last one, is very largely to blame for that. I think that they ought not to have allowed these high increases to the industrial worker without doing something at the same time for the Army and Navy, but thanks to the splendid loyalty of the men and officers, and, in particular, thanks to the forbearance and tact and sympathy of the officers, all serious trouble was averted and discipline survived. But I would ask the First Lord of the Admiralty to bear in mind that discipline is founded on contentment, and that it is our duty to see that our fighting men are contented. If not, discipline is jeopardised. But fortunately it prevailed last year, during which there was some discontent in His Majesty's Navy, and it always will prevail so long as the men have that absolute trust and confidence in their officers, which I am happy to think exists now in His Majesty's Navy.
    Mr. A. LAW:This is the first time on which I have attempted to take part in a Debate in this House. I preferred rather to listen to others who are much more competent, and also to make myself gradually acquainted with the rules and usages of our Parliamentary Debates. I am quite sure, therefore, that the courtesy and kindness always shown to a new Member who rises to speak for the first time will be extended to me. We are all quite aware that during the War the financial resources of our country were drawn upon very liberally, but there was this characteristic, that we did not complain. Our taxes were raised deliberately, but they were paid ungrudgingly, and our obligations were met without a murmur to provide the means of carrying on the War and supporting our incomparable forces in the field and our splendid men of the Royal Navy. I do not think that we ought to expect all at once that the expenditure which has been incurred' in respect of the Navy should immediately be very greatly lessened, because the First Lord of the Admiralty has shown clearly
    1622
    this afternoon that a considerable expenditure over and above the expenditure of pre-war times is still necessary. The right hon. Gentleman spoke of the ships that were building during the War, but which are now reduced to the number of eighty-four, and the right hon. Gentleman opposite criticised the building of even eighty-four ships, but we all know that if the War was to continue they were necessary, and it would have been false economy to stop building ships.
    There were several matters in the speech of the First Lord of the Admiralty which interested me. On 16th April he referred to the tremendous work of the Royal Navy, particularly in its transport during the War. It would be absurd for me to enumerate the details which he gave then by way of showing my admiration for the Navy on which we in Lancashire place great reliance. We know that if it had not been for the Navy we should have suffered more severely in the War than we have suffered. It makes one shudder to think what would have happened during the first months of the Wax, if it had not been for the Royal Navy. We have heard from the Prime Minister to-day that the War would have collapsed in the first six months if it had not been for the Navy. I was glad to notice among the points which the First Lord mentioned was that of economy, which is the chief point to be, aimed at. Notwithstanding the necessity which he says we are under of still keeping our Navy fully equipped, the Admiralty have in their minds at the same time the principle of economy as regards new construction. New construction of ships does not now exist—that is, new construction commenced recently. A third point which I wish to refer to is demobilisation. Many of us receive every day letters from our constituents asking for demobilisation, and we are glad, therefore, to have it from so high an authority as the First Lord that one of the matters which they are attending to is demobilisation. Perhaps still more important is the matter which is being referred to by the hon. Member who spoke last—the increased provision for widows and orphans; and finally there is the question of taking advantage of the wonderful lessons of inventions made during the War. I will not detain the Committee longer on this, my first venture at addressing it. At the same time, I appreciate

    1623
    very much the kindness the Committee has shown to me while I was making these few observations.
    Commander Viscount CURZON: I only wish to ask for a few moments' indulgence in order to deal with the question of pay. The First Lord of the Admiralty, in introducing the Vote on Account, took credit for the fact that no less a sum than £10,000,000 additional money has been granted to the Navy as a result of the concessions in the Halsey and Jerram Reports. I think that this shows the measure of injustice from which the Navy has suffered in the past. At the same time I would like to reinforce what other speakers have said as to the generous scale of pay which both these Reports have given. I think that the Navy fully appreciates the rise of pay which it has received, for both officers and men, and whatever remarks I have to make are merely in the nature of criticism, and I hope that they will result, at any rate, in a few reasons being given for some of the decisions which have been taken.
    I would like to deal first, if I may, with the question of officers. In doing so, I would like to draw attention to the great delay which took place in producing the Report on officers' pay. The men's pay was dealt with very promptly. We had the Report on the men's pay, and the Admiralty's decision upon it in May. It was only last week that we heard of the Admiralty decision with regard to officers, and it has not given either the House of Commons or the Navy sufficient time to go into the question of officers' pay and to consider what it all means. But I have taken the trouble to try to ascertain, so far as lies in the power of any Member of this House the views of officers in regard to the Report, and so far as I have been able to ascertain, the criticism of the Report mainly centres on the subject of Income Tax. Paragraph 3 of Admiral Halsey's Report says that the new rates of pay are based on the Service rate of Income Tax and should be raised if the civilian rate of tax is charged. The Admiralty decision upon that as that the new rates are to be taxed at the Service rate up to 31st March, 1920, and thereafter at civilian rates. I do not know whether it is realised that that may possibly lead to grave anomalies in certain cases. I will give one particular instance of an anomaly arising out of it. Take the case of a lieu-
    1624
    tenant on the junior staff. His pay goes up by two shillings a day as a result of the Halsey Report. On the other hand, a reduction has been made in the gunnery allowance amounting to not less than 1s. 6d., and the net result is a gain of 6d., or £9 a year. Supposing he is paid on the civilian rate of pay for Income Tax he will actually lose on what he has been receiving up to now at the rate of £29 a year. The only proviso that I can find in the Report to cover this case is Clause 40, which says:
    "In any cases in which officers may be in receipt of a higher rate of pay and allowances than that for which they would be eligible under the new scales, they shall continue to draw their present rates of pay and allowances during the period of their appointments, or until their new rates, either on account of increments or promotion, equal or exceed the old rates of pay or allowances."
    I should like to know if the right hon. Gentleman can tell us whether that Clause would cover the case of officers who suffer positive diminution in. their income owing to their being paid on the Service rate of Income Tax. Until this Report has been studied a little more carefully, it is difficult for any hon. Member to produce really good instances of what the effect actually will be. Now I come to Clause 27 of the Halsey Report. The recommendation of Admiral Halsey was that
    "officers going abroad to take up stationary appointments, or to non-seagoing ships abroad, should have pas-ages provided for their wives and families and a reasonable allowance for effects."
    This was also included in the Jerram recommendation as regards the men. In both cases it has not been approved. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether some better reason could not be given than a blank refusal? The other day there was published in the Press the new rates of pay for the Air Force, and I see there is a clause which relates to the conveyance of families. Apparently the Air Force are to have the cost of conveying wives, families, and baggage charged to the public in respect of changes to stations. Will it be possible for the Board of Admiralty to extend the same provision to the Navy It is also done in the Army where men are on the strength, and I believe it is the practice in the Indian Civil Service. The men have strongly urged this, and I hope it will be possible to grant this concession. Clause 36 of the Halsey Report recommends that an allowance should be made to officers serving in London, which is to

    1625
    be called "London Allowance.'' The Report does not say what the London allowance should be. Presumably it is to provide for the extra cost of living in London as compared with the living at the naval ports. The Admiralty decision on that is that the additional allowance shall be paid to officers serving at the Admiralty only, according to the responsibility of their posts. I submit that that draws a somewhat invidious distinction. I do not see what extraordinary responsibility devolves upon a post-captain serving in an office at the Admiralty compared with a post-captain serving with his ship at sea. The decision also appears to include all officers who are serving in London but not employed at the Admiralty, and there are a good many in other branches of the Service. I do hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be able to give us some reason for the Admiralty having arrived at that decision.
    Clause 44 of the Halsey Report recommends that the children's allowance should continue for the present and that the whole question should be reviewed about the end of 1919. All I have to say about that, and the Admiralty decision that the children's allowance is to be abolished at the end of 1919, and that it will press particularly hard upon some classes of officers. Take the case of a mate just promoted to lieutenant. He will draw, under the new scheme apparently, 18s. a day, but he may be a man of forty, with a large family. I should like to quote the recommendations of Committee A in regard to children's allowances which was included in the evidence considered by Admiral Halsey:
    "Those passed over have probably increasing expenses due to education of children, and we therefore propose to continue the progressive increases of pay up to ten years seniority, as in the case of the other branches."
    I hope, if possible, that the Halsey recommendation will be allowed to stand, and, if so, it would be valued as a great concession.
    Clause 46 deals with Income Tax uniform allowance, and recommends that it should be doubled. The Admiralty have not approved of this. The present Income Tax allowance for uniform is £35. I have some figures of the expenditure of officers upon their uniform. Roughly, the cost to a ward-room officer for the upkeep of his uniform is £50 a year, and that does not allow for the increase in the price which has taken place this year. I hope that in
    1626
    view of the fact that officers are to be placed upon the civilian rate of Income Tax in the coming year that it will be possible for the Admiralty to make a further concession in that regard. There are two other points in regard to officers' pay. On page 21 of the Halsey Report, part C, Clause 3, amongst the allowances approved to be abolished is the specialist allowance to commanders, except for commanders actively employed on navigating duties and surgeon-commanders qualified as specialists. That seems rather an extraordinary decision, and I know that it is not in the least understood in the Navy. Why the navigating officers should have been singled out to retain their specialist allowance, while the gunnery, torpedo, wireless and various other commanders should have to lose their allowances, I cannot understand. It should be remembered that a navigating officer is able to draw pilotage allowance, and he is also to be allowed to retain his specialist allowance. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be able to give us some explanation as to why the navigating allowance only is to be retained. Then in regard to the hard-line men. The Admiralty have abolished hard-line money incertain classes of ships, notably destroyers. There is no class of ship which did greater or harder service than the destroyer. I should like to point out in this connection that the military officer the moment he goes under canvas starts to draw field allowance. The hard-line money earned in destroyers is, I think:, clearly analogous to field allowance drawn by the Army officer, and I urge that the reservation which the Admiralty attach at the end of that paragraph, namely, the discretionary power to pay the allowance at any time when special circumstances render it advisable, will be exercised as liberally as possible.
    6.0 p.m.
    I should like to make a few remarks about the pay of the men. I have had many opportunities of getting in touch with men on the lower deck on this question and I know exactly what they feel about it. They are very pleased with the rise in their pay, but there are three really main points in regard to which they ask further reasons should be given. There is the question of ante-dating. In May this year a, large meeting was held at a certain place in London of members of the lower deck which I had the opportunity of attending, and I was able to gather at that meeting

    1627
    the opinions of the lower deck upon the new scales of pay. The lower deck attach great importance to their pay being antedated if possible to the 1st October, 1918. The hon. Member for Glasgow (Admiral Adair) pointed out that it was only the men who remained in the Service on the 1st of May who actually would benefit by the scale recommended by the, Jerram Committee. The First Lord took credit for having raised their pay from the 1st February, but it really only applies to the men who were actually in service on the 1st May, and between these two dates I have reason to believe that a very large number of men were demobilised. I do urge that, if possible, the recommendations of Admiral Jerram should be allowed to stand. With regard to the widows' pensions and the compassionate allowances for children, Clauses 54 and 55 of the Jerram Report make certain recommendations which are not approved. I strongly urge the First Lord of the Admiralty to give better and further reasons for the Admiralty's decision in these cases. Ho has told us that this is part of a great general policy, but I would point out that widows pensions and compassionate allowances for children are granted by the Metropolitan Police, and I believe also by the London Metropolitan Fire Brigade, and those are analogous cases. I know that this matter is part of a large policy, but I do hope that the First Lord will be able to give us a better reason than we have already had. I do not know whether hon. Members realise the strait in which a man may leave his wife and family as a result of this decision. I can give the case of a stoker who, having served on the China station for, roughly, two years, came home and unfortunately went mad. He had a wife and three children A sufficient sum was deducted out of his pension in order to keep him in an asylum, and that left his wife and three children with 7s. 6d. a week. That is the sort of state of affairs which may arise under the present scheme. If possible, I hope that this question will be considered in the future. The only other point I wish to make is one I have also made in regard to Clause 59—men appointed to harbour billets at home and abroad, free conveyance for furniture and family to be provided. The Admiralty were not able to agree to that. In view of the fact that this concession has been
    1628
    made to branches in other Services, I hope it will be possible for the Admiralty to reconsider their decision in this case.
    With regard to the question of secrecy at the Admiralty, the country is longing to know a good deal more than it has been told already about the naval war. Various actions have taken place during the War about which nothing was said at the time. Probably for very good reasons nothing could be said. But now the War is over I urge that the Admiralty should tell us a little more about them. Large numbers of men lost their lives in two conspicuous instances, and the country has been told nothing about them. The first engagement I refer to was that at Coronel. Admiral Craddock was sent with a force which was inadequate and had no chance whatever of facing the best shooting ships, the very cream of the German Navy. Those ships were known to be inadequate before they left. I know the figure of value which the War Staff attached at the time to those ships which Admiral Craddock had under his command, and I know the War Staff figure attached to the German ships. I most earnestly hope that the First Lord will be able to give us a little more information than we have had up to now about the Battle of Coronel. The other case I refer to is that of the ships "Aboukir," "Cressy," and "Hogue." It should be recognised that about 1,500 officers and men lost their lives on that occasion. Very little has been said about it, and very little is known by the country. No one quite knows what those ships were doing, what the operations were on which they were employed, and whether, indeed, those ships were lost owing to a mistake of the Higher Command, and, if so, who was responsible? The country wants to know who was responsible for these things. I hope the First Lord will be able to tell us.
    There is another question in connection with the policy of secrecy pursued by the Admiralty. I do not know whether it is generally known by hon. Members, but there is a society called the Naval Society composed entirely of naval officers. They have a "Review," which is produced for private circulation only. Early this year, as soon as the censorship was removed, the first number of this "Review" came out. Apparently as a result of that first number, which contained an excellent account of the Battle of Jutland and some other engagements I cannot recall for

    1629
    the moment, the circulation of this "Review" was suppressed.
    Mr. LONG:The Noble Lord really must forgive me. What happened was that in a particular article there was a publication of confidential matter which ought not to have been given, the effect of which was immediately to create a very strong controversy, and it was in respect of the publication of (that confidential matter that action was taken by the Board of Admiralty.
    Viscount CURZON: I accept the correction of the right hon. Gentleman. I hope it will be possible for the Admiralty to put an end to all instances of this nature by telling us as much as they can—
    Mr. LONG: Hear, hear !
    Viscount CURZON: —in order to stop all uninformed criticism and not with any idea of hampering the Admiralty or getting at anything which should not be known.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE:I was amazed when I heard the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Molton (Mr. G. Lambert) deal with the question of warships in the manner he did. One would have supposed that we were back in the old days of the Little Navy party. It was refreshing to hear the gallant Admiral the Member for the Shettleston Division (Rear-Admiral Adair) reply to that speech, and I believe that every Member of the Committee will thoroughly endorse what the gallant Admiral said on that point. He referred to the League of Nations and gave us some very good advice to the effect that we should not begin cutting down the Navy until we knew what the League of Nations was going to be, or, at any rate, until it was in being. We heard the other day the Prime Minister and the Noble Lord the Member for Hitchin (Lord R. Cecil) say that the League of Nations was by way of an experiment. We cannot afford experiments where the safety and security of the British Empire are concerned. Let me tell my right hon. Friend the Member for South Molton—whom I do not see in his place now—that America is not relying on experiments. There is no change in the Monroe Doctrine, and there is a decided increase in the Navy. America, at any rate, does not regard the experiment of the League
    1630
    of Nations as sufficient for the safety and security of the people of America or of the interests of America, and I do not think the First Lord of the Admiralty will regard that experiment as sufficient to rely upon for the security and safety of the British Empire. I do not propose, however, to follow the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Molton any further, nor do I propose to discuss the question of programme. I will, however, ask the-First Lord of the Admiralty to assure us that at any rate the pre-war standard of employment in the Royal dockyards will be maintained for some considerable time to come. The right hon. Gentleman did say something about building in the dockyards, but I do not think he went quite far enough. A great number of men are employed in the yards. What we, who represent ports where there are Royal dockyards, want to be assured about is that there will be sufficient work in those dockyards for the men who are employed there, and that that work shall be on the same basis as before the War.
    I pass on to the two White Papers which have recently been issued containing statements showing the recommendations of the Committees which have been sitting on naval pay, pensions and allowances. First, I would make a few observations on the Report concerning officers' pay. I agree with the Noble Lord the Member for Battersea (Viscount Curzon) in regard to the Income Tax. There is no doubt that the decision of the Government has been received with a considerable amount of misgiving. The recommendation said:
    "The new rates of pay are based on the service rate of Income Tax and should be raised' if the civilian rate of tax is charged."
    The Government decided that
    "The new rates to be taxed at the service rate up to 31st March, 1920, and thereafter as civilian rate."
    As the Noble Lord pointed out, this must-affect materially the junior officers of the Navy. One word in regard to naval engineer officers—No. 8 of the Halsey Report. I am glad to see that the distinctions with regard to pay between the engineering officers of the old and the new schemes have been abolished. That is a matter of great satisfaction, and will be favourably received by all ranks of the Navy, whether officers or men. At the same time, dissatisfaction exists with regard to the recognition of war service of

    1631
    naval engineer officers. They do not think they have been sufficiently recognised, particularly as to promotion from engineer lieutenant-commander to engineer-commander. During the War it was provided that engineer lieutenant-commanders should do five years and three months before promotion. On 1st July last a batch of promotions was 'due but did not appear. When it was asked why that batch of promotions had not appeared the answer given was, "We have reverted to peace-time routine in this matter." I would ask the First Lord to make some further inquiry into that matter and see if he cannot meet the point raised as to engineer officers. Paragraph 31 deals with the rates of subsistence. These rates have been increased, and very properly so, but they are still inadequate to meet the present cost of living. Why should there not be a flat rate? It costs the flag officer who gets 30s. a day, or a captain who gets 25s. a day, or a lieutenant who gets 18s. 3d. a day, or the lower ranks with their 15s. a day, the same to live. The man who is a captain does not spend less money on living than a flag officer. I therefore suggest that, if possible, a fiat rate should be substituted for these different rates. I congratulate the First Lord very heartily on the treatment of kept-on officers. This has been a matter which a great number of us in this House have brought up over and over again, and we are glad to see that the Committee have recognised the facts, and that all these officers are now placed upon a proper footing. There is one point I should like to make with regard to retired officers. So far as I can make out from the decisions of the Government on the findings of the Halsey-Jerram Committees, they limit the new scales of retired pay to officers who have retired and to those who retire in future, or to those who have served during the War. To all officers who retired before the War this concession is not to be given. That is not quite fair. Again, I ask the First Lord to consider that point. Then I very much regret to see that the Government refuse to accept the Committee's recommendation for the increased rates set out in Appendix iv. of the Report with regard to widows and children. I do not, however, propose to discuss that matter; I merely wish to point it out.
    I now pass on to the Jerram Committee's recommendations with regard to the
    1632
    lower deck and the decisions of the Government thereon. Let me say at the outset that these rates of pay have, on the whole, given satisfaction to the lower deck, but there are certain matters which require reconsideration. I am not going to ennumerate these now. I do not want to take up the time of the Committee, but they are obvious to anyone who looks through the scales of pay. There are certain scales of pay which must be, and no doubt will be, reconsidered. But there are three points on which I wish to lay special emphasis in regard to the decisions of the Government on the findings of the Jerram Committee with regard to the lower deck—

    (1)The changes made by the Government in the recommendation of the Jerram Committee that the scales of pay be antedated to 1st October, 1918.

    (2)The changes made by the Government with regard to the Jerram Committee's recommendation that the revised scale of pensions should apply to all pensioners now on the rolls.

    (3)The non-acceptance by the Government of the recommendation made by the Jerram Committee with regard to grant-(a) widows' pensions in certain conditions, and (b) compassionate allowances to the orphans of naval ratings.

    The First Lord said the date did not make much difference.
    Mr. LONG: Six months.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: I apologise for the error into which I seem to have fallen. At the same time, I would point out to the Government that their decision makes a great deal of difference to 200,000 men. If the Government decision is allowed to stand, 200,000 men demobilised since 1st October, 1918, will be deprived of advantages which, I think, it may be reasonably supposed the Government intended to give them.
    Mr. LONG:I did not say that this did not matter, or that it made no difference. Obviously it makes six months' difference. I have been criticised for not giving sufficient reason. What I suggested was that those who advocated 1st October should give a reason for that. It is not enough to say that a Committee recommended the 1st October, but what makes the 1st October a more legitimate date than the 1st February. What I did say was that any fair-minded man must realise that, in. giving six months' recognition, we are doing that which is just and fair.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his explanation. He asks me why this particular date was chosen. I cannot tell him that, but I can toll him that the men of the lower deck, who were selected to go before the Jerram Committee, asked for this date to be given, and they brought forward certain evidence that so satisfied the Jerram Committee that the Committee recommended that date.
    Mr. LONG: Do you know the reason?
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: No; I am not in the secrets of the Admiralty.
    Mr. LONG: It is nothing to do with the secrets of the Admiralty.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Let me make one other point on this matter. There was an Admiralty Order issued when the bonus was brought up. That Order stated that it was only to be a temporary measure.
    Mr. LONGassented.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: From this statement the lower dock gathered, as any ordinary person would gather, that all men then serving would be included when the new scales of pay were announced. That was the ordinary deduction that would be drawn, and that was the deduction they did draw, and they are very much perturbed, not to say vexed, that the ordinary deduction which men would draw has not been taken into consideration by the Government. It is suggested that it is because the Accountant-General has no machinery available for the additional clerical work. If that is the case, let the Admiralty inform the post offices of the amount due to each man, and let the men take their protection and identity certificates to the nearest post office and receive the amount due, and any adjustments can easily be made at the Naval depots. I do not say that is the reason. One word on the question of pensions. Not only did the Jerram Committee recommend the revised scale to apply to "all pensioners now on the rolls," but they added "in consideration of the increase of living and the higher standard of comfort normally aimed at," this should be carried out. No words are needed to show that this consideration at any rate applies with equal force to all pensioners, whether they are under or over fifty-five years. Therefore, why limit it to fifty-five years? How many are affected? What is the number of pensioners over, fifty-
    1634
    five? What is the cost to the Government? I venture to suggest that the cost to the Government is a bagatelle; it is a mere few thousand pounds. What is the answer of the Government? The First Lord has given it to-day. He has told us that he cannot carry out this decision of the Jerram Committee, because, it affects all the public services and he cannot legislate for the Naval Service only. I think that is the effect of the words he used. My reply to that is, that British legislation is always framed on the principle of equity, and I suggest it is hardly the time to make a change in that respect. I do not want to weary the Committee with any letters, but I should like to quote a few words from a letter I received this morning from an old pensioner's daughter:
    "May I write a few words with regard to the poor, obsolete old pensioners so cruelly left out in the cold, of whom my father is one. He is now 78 years of age, and his pension was 15s. 3d. a week, but has now been increased to 17s. 2½d. I have looked after him for 32 years, but am not able to do much now as I am suffering from rheumatism and neuritis. I have been compelled to seek parish relief—a bitter blow to me."
    With regard to widows' pensions and compassionate allowances, these have been refused altogether, and yet they were cardinal issues in the programme of reforms laid before the Jerram Committee by the lower deck. The men who went before the Jerram Committee pressed that the men's dependants should be treated in these respects on the same principle as the dependants of officers. I do really think the Government might consider some scheme; by which they could give pensions to widows and make compassionate allowances to children. It might possibly be met by an insurance scheme—not an altogether abstract suggestion. Such schemes have been introduced in other eases, and why should it not be done with regard to pensions for widows and compassionate allowances for children? I must say a word in regard to the mechanicians. The mechanicians are not dealt with on a very equitable basis by the decision of the Government. The Government decided that E.R.A.'s were to receive 1s. a day extra for watch-keeping, but no extra money is to be given to the mechanicians for their trade work. The mechanicians claim a right to the 1s. a day given for their trade qualification, and Is. a day on becoming second-class mechanicians, and being in possession

    1635
    of a Charge and Maintenance certificate. The only difference between an E.R.A. and a mechanician Royal Navy is that the one is trained for his trade work before joining up, and learns his watch-keeping in the Service, whereas the other gains his knowledge of both while at sea. Yet one is to receive a 1s. and the other 2s. I do not think that is quite fair, and I beg the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider that point.
    There is one class of men left out altogether in the consideration of this Committee, and that is the Royal Fleet Reserve, Class B. Although the Royal Fleet Reserve men have left the Navy, they are really still in the Service, and they are given 6d. a day as a retainer, and are liable to be called up for active service at any time. All have to serve twelve years in the Navy, when they have the option of continuing to serve for pension or join the Royal Fleet Reserve. If they remain there until forty years of age, they receive a gratuity of £50, and if they remain till fifty-five they get a pension of £12 a year. What they claim is a retainer of 1s. 6d. a day, that the gratuity be increased to £150 and the pension be granted at the age of fifty, and made £36 instead of £12. I submit that that is a very small request, and is one to which I beg the right hon. Gentleman will give his serious consideration.
    With regard to the dockyards, not very long ago, as chairman of the Dockyard Members and Navy Committee, I received an application from the established men in all yards, and, with the consent of my fellow members, I asked them all to come up to the House of Commons and discuss the matter with us. They came, and they asked for five concessions. The first was that all intermittent overtime worked during the War be counted for pension. That is not a very large item when you consider that these men have performed, during the War, work of a very strenuous nature. The Parliamentary Secretary has often spoken in this House of the strenuous nature of the work which these men have performed. Again there have been a greater number of injuries during the War and a greater proportion of ill-health and disease arising out of this strenuous work. Surely it is not very much to expect; in fact, I think it is a very reasonable request, and I trust the First Lord will see his way to accept it. The second concession they
    1636
    asked was, that an option be granted of retiring to pension at the age of fifty-five. This concession would not involve any extra demand on the Treasury, and would enable the younger men to become established. The third concession put forward was that both apprentice time from fifteen years of age, and all hired time, be counted for pension. At present, only half hired time is allowed to count for pension, and apprentice time does not count at all. Again, a man who enters as a yard boy counts his service from seventeen years of age, but an apprentice does not begin to count until he is twenty-one, and that is obviously an anomaly which ought to be set aside. The fourth concession asked was that pensions be based on gross wages, and not on the amount received after deductions for pension purposes. That is an obvious reform. The fifth concession was that in place of ten years established time counting for one day's pay pensionable, eight years be conceded. This, I think, is met to a great extent by the recent concession to Civil servants, but unfortunately that concession does not apply to men already pensioned. The concession, in my opinion, should be made retrospective. I have already brought this matter up in this House, and the Leader of the House has told us that the Government cannot consider the question. I have put the matter to the test and asked Members of the House of Commons to sign a memorial to the Prime Minister, and the number of Members who have signed that-memorial is 325, which indicates the view that is taken by the people's representatives on this point.
    I do not wish to say any more except to point out that I have been the recipient from old pensioners. Civil servants, and dockyard pensioners, of letters which are of a most distressing character, from men whose pensions are only about 10s. 6d., 15s., and 19s. per week. How is it possible for men to live upon that money I do not know. Certainly, as the Leader of the House told us, these men did not fight in the War. But then other men did not fight who have got pensions. Neither did men fight in the War who have got the concession. But all belong to the same class of workers. They have been employed in the same class of work and they should receive the same recognition. Let me, in conclusion, repeat what has been said by other speakers: that without the British Navy we could not have won the

    1637
    War. We should now have been under the heel of Germany, Yet these are the men—and men of whom I have just spoken, who are not to receive any concession whatever—these are the men who built the ships which not only brought victory to our arms, but have enabled us as a nation to hand on unimpaired that pride of race, that unity of sentiment and purpose, which knit together and can alone maintain the integrity of the Empire.
    Sir T. BRAMSDON: I would join with all those who have extended their thanks to the Admiralty for the generosity and liberality with which these reforms have been introduced. I congratulate the Committee upon the exceedingly excellent way in which they conducted their investigations. If this Committee's recommendations had been carried out to the full there would not have been the slightest objection or dissatisfaction existing in the Navy at the present time. But it is, unfortunately, because certain items of those reforms have not been carried out and have been stated to be ''not approved,' or, as the sailor man would say, have been "turned down,'' that we here in this House, representing the naval ports, are appealing to the Admiralty still to give to the matter further consideration. The First Lord has said this afternoon in effect that these complaints, of which so much has been made this afternoon, practically do not exist. I am sorry that he put it that way, because I was in hopes that where possible the way in which the various Members of this House have and may put these matters before him, the arguments they may use, and the explanations they may offer, might induce my right hon. Friend to alter his views. I am, however, inclined to think that had the Admiralty themselves had the decision in this matter I think possibly the full recommendations of the Report would have been granted, but we all know that there is an institution known as the Treasury. I am inclined to think, as I shall endeavour to show to the Committee in a moment, that the present position is very possibly due to the Treasury.
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara)was understood to dissent.
    Sir T. BRAMSDON: My right hon. Friend I note shakes his head, and I am glad to have his confirmation. If, then, what I suggest is the fact we may still live in hopes that we may be able to convince
    1638
    those concerned of the justice of the case we have presented. I am bound to a certain extent to go over some of the ground again, but I shall endeavour to give further arguments in support of the case to those we have heard. The House will, doubtless, appreciate the fact that I represent one of the Divisions of a naval port, Portsmouth, and they will also appreciate the fact that the men of the Fleet come to me in great numbers. I have attended a great number of their meetings, and am, therefore, able to speak with something like authority as to what are the views of the Fleet.
    Let us come to the first point mentioned, the question of the date of the commencement of this pay. The actual date is the 1st of February. My right hon. Friends have, in their own answer on Report, said it applies to all men who are in the Navy and have not, in effect, been demobilised before 1st May. I should like to ask why is it necessary to take 1st May because it makes such a very considerable difference in the result? May 1st was put in by the then Admiralty, not on purpose perhaps, but as a matter of fact they demobilised a very large number of the men of the Navy and tills has caused them to be ineligible for this pay at the present time. I cannot imagine why the Admiralty did this. It seems to be indefensible. In the absence of any explanation which the right hon. Gentleman may make I hope the matter will be reconsidered. My right hon. Friend asked: "What are the reasons why the amount should not date from the 1st October?" I can give him three or four reasons. The first reason, and a strong one, is that it is recommended by the Jerram Committee in their Report. The Jerram Committee took evidence and went into the whole matter. They judged it like a judicial tribunal, and, having heard the whole of the evidence, they came to the conclusion that this pay should be dated from 1st October. Surely, so far as it goes, that is an excellent reason to begin with?
    The men of the Fleet say that that is the commencement of the quarter. It will be recollected the Armistice came in November, and it should be antedated to the quarter preceding the Armistice. But I think a stronger reason than all that is that the men in the Navy are loyal and devoted—as we have heard over and over again from our Friends on the Treasury Bench. It was not up to them to make any complaint or to show any grievances,

    1639
    or opposition, or unpatriotic action before the Armistice was granted. Even then they showed no unpatriotic action, but considered that the time had arrived when the miserable pay which they had had for so many years should be represented to the Admiralty, and to remind them of the altered circumstances. That is an extremely good reason why the pay should commence in the quarter preceding the Armistice. Had the men been unpatriotic enough to strike, as someone said—but the Navy cannot strike—it is out of the question—but had they been partially unpatriotic and tried to convince the Government in dubious ways that they should have more pay than they had, the 1st of October would probably have been the date. After these arguments, I trust my right hon. Friend will consider what we have put before him, and particularly whether this pay might not very well be antedated.
    Pensions have been referred to. This is a great grievance, not only with the old pensioners themselves, but with a lot of the other ratings in the Navy. The men who are in the Navy, and who were in it, have in the past defended our shores. They have made the Navy what it is. They have conduced to the affection in which the Navy is held. They have preserved our shores inviolate for many years, and, as my right hon. Friend has made a point of it, let me also point out that only those who have been in the present War are participating in this increase granted to pensioners. Yet I need scarcely remind the House that the old pensioners themselves have been in previous wars, and have fought for our country. It will be agreed that they did extremely well defending this country against all comers. Let us see how this would affect them. What is the pensioner? The pensioner is a man who has been in the Navy some twenty-two years. He gets ½d. a day for twenty years of service. But let me speak first of the pension which he gets. He gets a pension, provided for twenty years he has been in the Navy, of 10d. He gets 2d. per day for three good-conduct medals; 1d. per day for all "very goods" during the period of his career, and 1d. for long-service and good-conduct medals. Think how this is made up. For the twenty years the men are in the Service they get l0d. That is not a very handsome pension. They get 2d. if they
    1640
    have got three good-conduct medals—and I can assure the House that a man must be an extremely good man if he can get three good-conduct medals in the Service—and 1d. pension if during the whole of the time they have been there they get their reports all "very good" during each year. Men in the Navy will appreciate the fact that a man must be extremely good to achieve all this, and how hard-earned the money is. The man altogether gets 8s. 2d. per week. This does not apply to all men. I am speaking, of course, of the able seaman who has managed to get 8s. 2d. a week as a pension. They may get the supplemental items to which I refer, but if they do not then their pension becomes correspondingly reduced. There is a difference, as we have heard, in the purchasing power of money now to pre war times, and a pension of 8s. 2d. a week now cannot he worth more than half the money.
    This brings me to the pay which existed in the Navy before this particular point arose. The pay of the able seamen in the Navy was 19s. 3d. a week, which included 5s. 10d. for food rations. What can you expect a man to-day to save out of that money? He gets a halfpenny a day for each year of service. "A pensioner who is called up on 4th August, 1914, who is under fifty-five on that day, or is employed at the time in civil Government employment, and continues in this employment, gets the increased pension. If he is under fifty-five years, but is incapacitated through injury outside the Service, and therefore unable to be employed afloat, he gets nothing extra. If he its over fifty-live he gets nothing extra unless he volunteered and was accepted." I have spoken about the pay of the men of the Navy. That reminds me of an advertisement which has been issued by the Admiralty for a very long time, and is meant to encourage men to enter the Navy. That advertisement runs: ''Royal Navy, men and boys wanted: good pay and prospects." Well, I fail to see where the good pay is given. An able seaman gets 19s. 3d. a week. I am inclined to think that it is all prospect. How can we expect to attract people into the Navy if this is all that is given to encourage them in the way of pay and pensions? Its broad effect from time to time in the Navy has been to encourage the men to think that they would get pensions payable to them of an encouraging nature, and this has

    1641
    enabled the authorities to attract so many men. Look at the pay—19s. 2d. a week. Of course, I know it is higher with men in higher positions in the Navy. I do, however, suggest that the increase should now be given not only to those men who have served in the War, but also to the men who have built up the Navy, and who are now old pensioners. They, I suggest, are worthy of consideration.
    The same remark surely applies to widows' pensions and allowances. What can a man expect to save out of 19s. 3d. a week? and that is the old rate of pay. How can he expect to set up for himself and provide for his wife and children? It is fair to say that an able seaman is skilled and trained. Fancy anyone out of the Navy being paid wages like that when they belong to a skilled trade! Every man in the Navy is skilled and trained, and we are proud of them. It is right that ho should be trained in every capacity, but. in return for that qualification, lot us hope that the pay will be commensurate. In connection with the widows of these men, what is asked is that they shall be placed on the same basis as officers. I sun delighted to find that officers do get a pension, and we are all glad that their children will get a compassionate allowance, but is it too much to say that the men should also be put on the same basis? What is the result if you do not give this allowance? It is that many of the widows of sailors and their children will have to accept Poor Law relief, and no hon. Member in this House wishes that to be the ease. Our sailors and marines who have, worked so well and fought so bravely are the pride of our country, and they ought nut to be required to appeal to the Poor Law. We must do one of two things. They must either have an increased amount or go on the rates. I know there has been a 50 per cent. increase in connection with old ago pensions, and surely our sailors arc entitled to the same consideration as our old age pensioners.
    Reference has been made to the position of our chief petty officers. There was a regulation made during the War that petty officers who had served over eight years should eventually reach petty officers' ratings. This was a condition made during the War. The Secretary for the Admiralty stated that this was done be-cause there was no acceleration, and that they were in a different position now. Look at the position. I have got my information from the lower deck ratings,
    1642
    and I understand that, as a matter of fact, it was quicker during the War than before the War. It took from ten to eleven years for a petty officer to get a chief petty officer, whereas before the War it was twelve or thirteen years. I do not know what it will be after the War, but I. have no reason to suppose it will be less.
    I want to appeal to my right hon. Friend to consider the question of promotion of the higher ratings in the lower deck. It is only to be expected they should hope that they will get better promotion, or as good as they have done in the past. I have been in communication with the Admiralty in regard to the sick-berth staff. He gave me an answer which has been very much controverted, and the same applies to the chief petty officer, and it is said the promotion is different. I am not asking too much when I request the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider the question, so that the promotions in the different ratings may be fairly rapid and do justice to the men. When it is understood that the men have to gain their positions by skill, energy, ability, and tact, thon there should be some form of encouragement to the men to attain these higher positions. That can only be done by making their position a little better than at the present time.
    Another point is the recommendation of the Jerram Committee Report. that twenty years should be allowed for a man to complete his first period of service. When a man completes his first period of service he gets no pension. He is placed very often on the Fleet Reserve, and ho gets no pension unless he serves the second period of service. It is contended that if the men want to leave at the expiration of their first term the Admiralty should give them a sum of money to enable them to go into business or follow some pursuit, and not be troubled as to their future position. If they should afterwards be reengaged that £20 which is paid to them should be returned in some way or another, and I do not think that is unreasonable. It was a recommendation made by the Jerram Committee. The lower deck think that in this respect the recommendation of the Jerram Committee was very modest, for they recommended that the £20 should be £30. This is a matter that 1 feel the right hon. Gentleman will give full consideration to, and if it can be accorded to the men they will very much appreciate it.

    1643
    I should like to mention the subject of the interpreters. There was a recommendation in the Jerram Committee's Report that these men should get 1s. an hour whilst performing the duly of interpreting if they had qualified, but it should not be paid unless they were actually performing the duties, and there was a maximum of 5s a day for pay. There is a goad deal of skill wanted for a man to become an interpreter, and if he qualifies it is only fair that he should be able to have a reasonable amount of remuneration. In this respect there is a difference between the officers of the Navy. When they get a qualification they get paid, but in the case of the men they do not get it unless they are called upon to do certain things. The hardship is that they may never be called upon at all, and therefore they may qualify as interpreters and they may get nothing out of it. The men of the Navy are grateful to the Admiralty for the excellent Report and its recommendations, but they think they are certain members of the lower deck that have not been treated so well as the circumstances warrant.
    I wish to refer to the junior ratings. Let me say what has been the result of the increases in these new recommendations. The ordinary seaman has got an increase of 1s. 6d., an able seaman 2s. 2d., a leading seaman 2s. 2d., a petty officer 3s. 7d., a chief petty officer (seaman branch) 4s. 3d. What they hope for, if not immediately later on, is that there should be a flat rate of 4s. increase. That is lower than the lower deck themselves originally represented to the Admiralty that they should have. They are extremely grateful for the increase, which, after all, only makes up for the difference in the cost of living now to what it was before the War. There are some improvements in the compassionate allowances during the War, but they will cease by and by. What they hope is that these allowances will be brought more into consonance with the pay and position of the men in civil life. Every man in the Navy is skilled and trained. They are subject to discipline, and they are splendid fellows who have done good work. Their training goes on from day to day and they are perfect in it, and the Navy would not occupy the high position it does but for all that training, and I think they should not be paid less than the civilians outside.
    1644
    My hon. Friend referred to the mechanicians. I do not want to say anything more than to express the hope that their lordships will reconsider the mechanicians. My right hon. Friend knows as well as I do that there is a good leal of bitterness existing in this direction because one rating has been granted of which another does not get the equivalent. What they ask for is very small, and I think it-would conduce to satisfaction and to a large amount of pleasing results if my hon. Friend can see his way clear to grant it. My hon. Friend spoke about the Royal Fleet Reserve. I only want to say that I agree with all he has said, and it would be an advantage if we could conciliate the men of the Royal Fleet Reserve, which constitutes a very sure shield to the Admiralty in regard to men required for war purposes. They cost very little, and they are always at hand in case of difficulties, and right well they have served the country during the War. They have been called up; they are trained men who have undergone periodical training; they are retained for a very small figure and have to answer their country's call as soon as the nation demands it. Surely they are entitled to some consideration. I regret that they were not sufficiently or properly represented at the inquiry before the Jerram Committee. They want to be considered as active-service ratings, and what 1 suggest is that, irrespective of the recommendation to give them consideration in connection with this necessary increase in consequence of the advance in the cost of living and other matters, they should be permitted to attend the autumnal conferences and make representations as to then own case.
    7.0. p.m.
    I should like to refer no the terms of reference of the Jerram Committee. One of those terms was
    "To hold an inquiry into the present rates of pay and allowances, and retired pay and pensions of all ranks and ratings of the Royal Navy and Royal Marines."
    There is no limit as to what they should inquire into, and they went fully into the whole question. They took evidence and made a Report, and three of the points were those we have been debating this afternoon. It is not too much to say that, inasmuch as these points were really included in the terms of reference, they were quite in order in considering the question, and, having done so, and taken all the evidence, and having made recommendations, and presumably the Treasury

    1645
    being fully aware of the terms of reference, I do not think it is too much to say that those recommendations should be carried out. My right hon. Friend knows that I put some questions to him upon the subject of acting rank in the Navy so far as it affects executive officers who were passed over for promotion before the War. In the Navy promotion among executive officers is by selection. During the War acting rank was granted to certain executive officers, but not to all or by seniority. They were gazetted as promoted to acting rank. They were promoted in consequence of the War and bore the strain of war conditions. The shortage of experienced officers was acute, and even retired officers of an advanced age were called up. The retired officers were automatically promoted and they retained their rank, but it was not so with the acting officers. The retired officers ranked above the acting officers, many of whom were senior originally. The acting officers did their work well and no fault was found with them. When the Armistice came the Admiralty reverted these officers as a class, though they made some special promotions. The acting officers feel humiliated, and consider that inbeing reverted back they have been practically disrated. There is no class in the Service which has received similar treatment. There is no analogy between the Navy and the Army in the acting ranks nor with the temporary or auxiliary officers. The officers in the Army are still open for promotion, but acting officers in the Navy get nothing but reversion and retirement. I am going to make a suggestion, because the acting officers are very disappointed that they were not mentioned in the Report and that no attempt was made to give satisfaction to them. After all, they did participate in the War, and they did their best. I suggest that as a class they should either be permitted to count double the time of service in the acting-rank towards pension, or that on retirement they should be granted a step in rank above the acting rank that they held. I believe I am right in saying that it affects some forty-nine men only. If this point were conceded to them it would be only an act of justice and some recognition for the service that they rendered during the War. A number of executive officers were passed over as being unfit for promotion, but some of them have been called up during the War and have done their
    1646
    work so well that they have been specially promoted. That shows, although they were passed over, that they were not so bad as they were painted. If, therefore, some concession could be granted to these men, I am sure that they would be grateful.
    I wanted also to ask whether this question of Income Tax affects the retired officers, the pensioned officers, and the widows' pay and allowances for children? I am putting this question at the request of some of the officers. Very likely it does not affect them. If there is one thing more than another which has pleased me in connection with these reports, and particularly the Jerram Report, it is that the Admiralty have conceded the right of representation to the men. I have been intimately associated with the men of the lower deck for a period of nineteen years, and it was one of the original points of their grievances. Over and over again they said, "If they would only let us put our own case, but the Admiralty always turn it down; they always seem to think that it is a step towards mutiny." We all know that the only mutiny that occurred in the British Navy was the mutiny of the Nore. and it was because the Admiralty would not listen to the men. The Admiralty were wrong on that occasion and the men were right. If they had listened to the men the mutiny would not have taken place. There is going to be no mutiny and never will be in the British Navy as long as you treat the men well and properly. You have given them the right of representation and you have established autumnal conferences, the finest and best bit of work ever done by the Admiralty, and I congratulate you warmly upon it. As long us you listen to the men and pay attention to their requirements, you will always have to deal with Common-sense and reasonable men.
    Lieut.-Colonel MALONE: I had given notice to move to reduce the Vote by £100. I do so in order to call attention to one or two items of the Jerram Committee's Report which requires further explanation and indeed modification. First of all, I would like to join with my right hon. Friend in the tribute which he paid to the men of the Royal Navy. As one who has served in the Navy for a great many years, I am proud to take this opportunity of paying my tribute to the men of that Service. Last Saturday we carried out in this city the final stage of what has been the

    1647
    most bloody, the most complex, and the most gigantic war in the whole world. I consider that the victory was due in no small part to the work of the British Navy. There is not a man or a woman or a child in this country who does not think that we owe a very great debt of gratitude to the officers and men of the Navy, and it is up to us in the House of Commons to sec that we are not at all niggardly in according them the recompense to which they are entitled. I would also join in the tribute to those who organised the trip to South end last Saturday, a trip which was so well organised that a great many Members hardly had time to notice the Fleet.
    The first point to which I wish to draw attention concerns the antedating of the increases. The First Lord of the Admiralty has simplified our case, because he has not given us any arguments or reasons at all why these legitimate recommendations should not be adopted, and I take hope from that fact. I feel sure that he will be able to listen to our arguments and reasons, and, perhaps, to some extent "be able to modify the decisions. He says that he has not heard any arguments why the date should be the 1st of October. It seems to me that shows a lamentable lack of staff organisation inside the Admiralty. That date is chosen after careful consideration, because it is the first quarter pay-day preceding the Armistice. If any date after the Armistice is taken a large number of men will be disfranchised from the benefits. I think I am right in saying that between the 1st of October, 1918, and the 1st May, 1919, at least 230,000 men were demobilised. That means that no less than 230,000 men have been disfranchised from receiving the benefits under this Report. That alone is sufficient argument to justify dating back the new rates of pay to the 1st October. What are the arguments against dating them back? We are told that there are very great clerical difficulties. I am fully aware that there are clerical difficulties, but if they are so great that they prevent this antedating it would be quite possible to arrive at an average, not necessarily an accurate amount, and grant the men a bonus for the interval between 1st October and 1st May. I hope that the matter will be very seriously considered by the Admiralty and the War Cabinet. I look upon it as a most necessary and vital clause in the Jerram Report. It
    1648
    affects so many men who otherwise will not receive the benefits to which they are entitled.
    The next point is that of the widows' pensions. I was in some doubt when this question was first raised whether one should press it, but I am now quite determined that it is a point to which the men of the lower deck art legitimately entitled. There were two clauses in the Jerram Report: First, the increases of pay, and, secondly, the widows' pensions. The increases of pay have not been conceded in toto, and the widows' pensions have not been granted. There is a strong case for the reconsideration of the matter, and all the more because I see from the Appendix that a very generous rate is to be granted to the widows of officers. If there is one thing we want to avoid more than another it is any differentiation between officers and men. Everybody agrees, and especially those who have had an opportunity of serving in the Navy, that there is no ill-feeling between the officers and the men of the lower deck. Fur from that, there is a great bond of sympathy between the two. Therefore, I do appeal to the Admiralty to see that there is no differentiation between the officers and the men in carrying out the recommendations of this Report.
    The next point relates to old pensions. I have discussed this matter with some of the men who were responsible for the recommendation. The recommendation was that the revised scale of pensions should apply to all pensioners now on the register in consideration of the increased cost of living. The scales, as approved by the Cabinet, were to apply, as from 1st April, 1919, to future pensioners, pensioners now-serving, and to all pensioners who have served during the War, but not to other pensioners. The new rates of pay were based on economic grounds, and had no regard to the War. They were based solely on the increased cost of living and the increased cost of maintaining the same standard of comfort. I see no argument whatever to justify this discrimination between one set of pensioners and another. They have to live in the same world, in the same district, and under the same conditions. There is no reason at all why an old pensioner, who has served in past wars and helped to bring the Navy up to the state it is now in—who has performed loyal service, in fact—should be compelled to live on a sum which is totally inadequate to meet the cost of living. There are

    1649
    men in Portland and other towns to-day living on 5s. and 7s. per week. Why, a Member of this House can hardly live on that amount for one day! What does it mean? It means that these old men— sixty-five, seventy, or more years of age—have to go on working for a living at a time when they ought to be resting on a sufficient pension granted by a grateful country.
    Another point which I wish to draw attention to is that of gratuities, dealt with in Section 34. The proposal was that a gratuity of £20 should be granted on discharge on completion of the first period of service, and that in the case of re-engagement it should be refunded in three years. I understand the motive underlying the granting of the gratuity was to give the man a small sum to tide over the period between the date of his discharge and the date of his re-engagement. I would like to bring this point to the notice of the right hon. Gentleman. The principle of granting gratuities already exists in certain branches of the Service. It obtains, I believe, in the Chaplain's branch, in the Medical Officers' branch, and in one or two other branches where there is a gratuity granted on termination of the period of service. These are the most important points in the Jerram Report. There are a great many others, not, perhaps, quite so important, but equally necessary to be dealt with, although I do not propose this evening to detain the Committee by going into them. They all require, however, very careful and very deliberate consideration. The Jerram Committee was appointed to inquire into the grievances of the lower deck. and after long, earnest, and careful consideration they presented their Report. What has happened? The Government has modified it. I know myself what happens when Reports like these are sent to the War Cabinet. That body has very little time to deal with them. Everybody on the staff of the War Cabinet is overworked. Rut the Minister has to show his authority by using the blue pencil. Everyone who has worked in a Government Department must be aware of that fact.
    We have had no real arguments from the Government why all the recommendations contained in this Report should not be given effect to. What happened the other day? We had an important Coal Commission. It was composed of carefully-selected men. It spent months on its inquiry, and then the Government found
    1650
    itself unable to accept, the Commission's recommendations. The same thing applies in the case of the Jerram Report, and if no arguments are put forward to justify the refusal of the Government to put the recommendations into effect, or if the arguments advanced do not satisfy the men, then it will cause a great deal of unrest. I am proud to say there is absolutely no sign of Bolshevism in the Fleet. I do not think there is likely to be any, but we do not know what may arise if unsatisfactory conditions are not removed. I would like to point out there is hardly a class or rating on the lower deck that has not got a great charter of points which require to be dealt with. There is, for instance, the question of the promotion of stewards, and there are a number of other matters, and what I really want to suggest is the setting up of some machinery whereby these innumerable grievances can be adequately dealt with. The time has come to realise that, while a man must be subject to discipline and to the Regulations of the Service, he has at the same time a legitimate right to express his opinion on conditions which affect his own life.
    Those who have served in this great Service know only too well that in the past the men's conditions have been too dependent on the idiosyncrasies of individual officers, and in this connection I welcome the institution of welfare committees. In welcoming them I would like to ask that before we pass this Vote we may have a more explicit definition of their constitution. It is now six months since the Admiralty issued the Order under which the constitution of these committees was explained in scanty form, and yet I understand that not a single welfare committee has so far been elected. It may be that I am ignorant, or that the men are ignorant, but surely it shows that the fact that these committees may be elected has not been conveyed to many men in the force. I am rather afraid that absolutely nothing has been done in the matter of the institution of these welfare committees. It means just the same thing in the Navy as is being applied in the industrial world; it is the application to the Navy of that principle which is associated with the name of the Chairman of this Committee (Mr. Whitley) in the industrial world. It is the application of the principles of democracy to the lower deck without in any way whatever taking away from the rights of discipline or the authority of the officers.

    1651
    One could give a great many examples of the work which these welfare committees would be able to do, and I hope myself there will be a real organisation of the men of the lower deck in their classes and grades—one that will cover the whole Navy. Lower-deck organisation is very incomplete. It certainly does not cover the Navy as a whole. I do not go so far as to advocate the institution of complete trade unionism in the Navy. But there should be some organisation by which the men can express their opinions, and do so collectively, if they so desire it. What happens if a man has a grievance—well, I will not say a grievance, for that word does not exactly express what I mean—but what happens if a man has a suggestion to make for the betterment of his conditions? He sends it forward to the Master-at-Arms. Thence it goes to the Officer of the Watch, thence to the Senior Captain, thence to the Rear-Admiral, and so on, right up to the Commander-in-Chief and the Admiralty. I do not see how by that means it is possible for the Admiralty to get the real opinions of any lower-deck rating. How would it be possible for the Admiralty to get the opinion of the shipwrights as to a new form of tool, or that of a naval seaman with regard to a new form of uniform? I venture to suggest that the introduction of democratic institutions will go a long way indeed to preserve those conditions of prosperity and happiness which at present exist in the Navy.
    I am not sure what the object of the Admiralty is with regard to the institution of welfare committees, and I hope my right hon. Friend will give us some indication of what is going to be ultimately the organisation. I have no objection at all to the setting up of a Department with a very close connection with the Admiralty. It might be inside the Admiralty, with an additional member of the Board of Admiralty to be solely responsible for the welfare and condition of the men of the lower deck. Preferably, that member of the Board should be a civilian, rather than a Sea Lord. There are Sea Lords and Sea Lords, and a distinguished admiral of great, powerful personality would be inclined to overrule the men on his staff. Therefore, I think a civilian member of the Board would be more suitable. Or it might be better to have a. Department outside the Admiralty,
    1652
    meeting at Whitenall once a month or once a quarter, to discuss these matters. I do not think, however, by chat means it would be possible to get such close touch with the men of the lower deck as is essential.
    Let me enumerate some of the matters which could be dealt with by such a welfare committee. Take the case of new construction. The programme of the Admiralty I am glad to hear is not a very extensive one this year. But imagine the value which could be. obtained from having the Director of Naval Construction in a position to confer directly with representative delegates from the lower deck to discuss the question of their accommodation—bath rooms and drying rooms, for instance, and all those innumerable problems of domestic economy which go to make up the comfort of the 700 or 800 inert who have to live on board these large ships. At present these points are very inadequately dealt with. Say a man on the lower deck puts forward a suggestion for an improved type of bath room. By the time such a suggestion, if ever it is sent forward, has passed through the various channels I have discribed—by the time it has reached the particular Department concerned, probably a period of five years will have elapsed before it can be incorporated in the new designs for ships. But if we had a Department of the Admiralty presided over by an additional member of the Board and having on his staff representatives from all classes of the lower deck, you could at once and without delay get the advice of the men mostly concerned on matters relasing to new construction. That is a very important point indeed. At present many points, such as questions of uniform, are not decided after any adequate consultation with men of the lower deck. Everyone will probably agree that there is a very great deal of antiquated clothing issued to the seamen. and no machinery exists to-day for obtaining opinions of the lower deck on the question of necessary changes. If you have a Department of the Admiralty constituted on these lines, before bringing out a new type of uniform the Admiralty can consult this Department and get an opinion which is really representative of the whole of the lower deck and bring out a regulation which will be acceptable to the men. Regulations are very often framed without any real regard or without any touch of sympathy with the men who have to carry them out. They are, I am

    1653
    afraid, too often framed by men, possibly in civil Departments, who must, by the very position they hold, be out of touch with the men for whom they are framing the regulations, and in a great many instances it would be very simple to refer a list of regulations to a welfare department before issuing them in the form of an Admiralty Order. There is a very real need for granting to both officers and men of the lower deck greater facilities for increased education, and I think such matters as these could be dealt with much better in consultation with the men of the lower deck than by leaving it to chance, as it were, to mature at the odd suggestion of someone in the Admiralty. None of these points would in any way abrogate from discipline. On the contrary, they would engender a better feeling between all classes, and I hope the Admiralty will carry out this Weekly Order 737 in that spirit. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will accept the full principles of democracy which are prevailing in the industrial world and in every part of the world. When I read that Weekly Order I had some hope, but seven months have elapsed since it was put into force and hardly anything has been done at all. I cannot help thinking the Admiralty arc frightened of putting it into force. The mere fact that the elections are to be carried out under the Commander-in-chief at a home port seems to me to indicate that it will be carried out on undemocratic conditions. It will be a very great mistake if these elections are carried out under Admiralty jurisdiction. You have to accept facts as they arc. You have to face realities. The men of the lower deck are organised in every branch and in every rating, from E.R.A. s down to able seamen. There is no question that every branch, from the top to the bottom, is absolutely loyal. Therefore make use of this organisation. That is the appeal I make to the right hon. Gentleman. I feel very strongly on this matter because from my own past experience of the Admiralty I have grown to believe that it is the home of conservatism. Whatever has happened during the War, and no one will deny the work done by the Navy, the Admiralty missed great opportunities. This is not the time or the place to pursue recriminations, but the right hon. Gentleman and his advisors know some of the difficulties which we encountered at the beginning of the War and some of the mistakes which were
    1654
    made by the Admiralty. It is for these reasons that I have learned to my cost that the Admiralty is inclined to be too conservative. I therefore hope, in spite of the magnificent opportunities which they missed during the War, in spite of the lack of provision and of initiative which was shown repeatedly in carrying out new operations, and new stunts, they will now turn over a new leaf and show more initiative in carrying out their reconstruction of domestic organisation.
    I feel, as we shall not have another opportunity of discussing Admiralty organisation, this question ought to be dealt with to-night. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Long) mentioned that he thought the present Admiralty Staff arrangements should be allowed to continue on trial for another twelve months.
    Mr. LONG: I did not say anything of the kind. I said we were turning the Staff organization which had existed for war into a Staff organisation for peace. I was referring only to numbers.
    Lieut.-Colonel MALONE: I am glad to hear it. It makes it all the more possible for our suggestions to have effect in the new organisation which will take place very soon. It seems to me that this question of the reorganisation of the Naval Staff must be approached not from the naval point of view, not merely from the British point of view, but from the imperial point of view. We had before the War the Committee of Imperial Defence, which undoubtedly did good work. It was only empowered to make recommendations to the Admiralty, the War Office and the Air Ministry.
    The CHAIRMAN: This is really going beyond the scope of the Vote. It is a subject that belongs to the Resolution which will come on later. The question of organisation must be confined to the Naval Staff.
    Lieut.-Colonel MALONE: The question of the reorganisation of the Staff comprises the complete organisation and amalgamation of all three Staff's under the Imperial Staff and I do not sec any better Vote on which the matter can be discussed, because the Admiralty section of the Staff is the, most important.
    The CHAIRMAN: It certainly cannot be discussed on this Vote. There used to be a Vote for Imperial Defence for the very purpose of discussing the joint

    1655
    action of the various Services. Now it can only be discussed on the War Cabinet Vote.
    Lieut.-Colonel MALONE:We might have some indication from the right hon. Gentleman as to the future development on Naval Staff policy, and I would ask that we may be assured that the whole question of Imperial Defence will receive consideration, with the possible formation of a Ministry of Defence, which, I understand, is being considered, and an Imperial Naval Staff with a view to coordinating the naval forces of all our Colonies and Dominions. If we can have some indication of the lines on which the Admiralty is working in that respect, it will satisfy in a small degree the Motion which we have put down. The right hon. Gentleman has not given us any reason why this should be turned down. The men of the lower deck deserve to have these arguments presented before us. I ask him to give the men of the lower dock some arguments which, if he cannot see his way to modify these decisions, will at least be acceptable till they can be reconsidered.
    Commander BELLAIRS: I think the Admiralty must now see that they would have been wise to adopt the suggestion I made about a fortnight ago, that the First Lord should issue an official printed statement of policy. It always was the practice in peace time.
    Mr. LONG: It has never been done on a Vote on Account.
    Commander BELLAIRS:We have to deal with a practical proposition. The only occasion on which we can debate Navy Estimates is on Votes on Account, and the conditions of war secrecy have passed away.
    Mr. LONG: That is not so.
    Commander BELLAIRS: Anyhow, we have had no discussion on general policy during the whole of this Debate, though we are dealing with £60,000,000. My right hon. Friend issued a statement in regard to the pay of officers and men, and we have had a general discussion on the whole question of the pay of officers and men ranging even round small Committee points. The result is that we have had a very valuable discussion, in which we have had very informing speeches deal-
    1656
    ing with grievances which, I hope, will be looked into. The hon. and gallant Admiral opposite rightly said the main object we have in view is to get the men contented. From that point of view I will not say anything myself which will in anyway tend towards creating discontent. When this question of the pay of officers and men was before the House, or rather when the Navy Estimates were under discussion, I ventured to say that I had complete confidence in my right hon. Friend and the Board of Admiralty to deal with it. I have not withdrawn that confidence in any way. I think that on the whole they have dealt with the main grievances. I would ask my Friends in this House who deal with the smaller points to remember this: The Committee that was appointed was a purely Naval Committee, and the House has shown its generosity in allowing a purely Naval Committee to deal with the whole of this question of pay. The second point I will ask naval representatives to remember is that it is very unlikely indeed that this House will ever consent to differentiation with regard to Income Tax for the Navy and the rest of the country. We did it during the War, but we are never likely to do it during peace. I think the Committee would have been better advised if they had ruled that question out altogether. Anything, therefore, in the way of grievances in regard to Income Tax ought to be redressed by increased pay. I think that the ground has been so fully covered in regard to pay that anything I might have to say is better deferred to the Vote which deals with the pay of officers and men, and that is the course I propose to take.
    In dealing with general policy, if we are ever to get our naval affairs straight, we must not allow my right hon. Friend the First Lord to use exaggerated language in regard to the past history of this War. He implied that at the beginning of the War the Navy did not run any risks.
    Mr. LONG: I did not say that.
    Commander BELLAIRS:I would like to get the matter straight. I inferred from what he said that the provision in regard to the Navy was so adequate that no risks were run.
    Mr. LONG:I do not know from what the hon. and gallant Member is quoting, but I have never said anything of the kind. On the contrary, I said only a short time ago that, although the foundations of

    1657
    the Naval Staff were laid, the Naval Stall had not been sufficient for the purpose, and that had it been sufficient at the outset of the War we would not have run the risk to which we were undoubtedly exposed.
    Commander BELLAIRS: I understood it was something entirely different. I am pleased to hear from my right hon. Friend now that great risks were taken. We have had it from a previous First Lord that this country was without any defended bases on the East Coast, and without any provision for the defence of trade. All that was the outcome of inadequate war staff work. There was no war staff at all. We had a thing called a war staff, but it was an apology for a war staff. Personally, I do not think we have nearly got the right war staff now, though the right hon. Gentleman appears to be perfectly satisfied.
    Mr. LONG:I am reluctant to interrupt. I must ask my hon. and gallant Friend to be good enough to quote what I did say, and not what I did not say. I never used any language to justify his making the misleading statement that we were absolutely satisfied or anything like it.
    Commander BELLAIRS:I am very glad that the First Lord is not satisfied with the War Stall as it exists at this moment, because there are many of us why are completely dissatisfied with the War Staff. I have no desire to attack my right hon. Friend, and have said already that I have the most complete confidence in him in regard to the settlement of the pay questions of the Navy. If I had had any desire to attack him I would not have expressed my confidence in that way. A war staff proper should not advise, but should decide matters. Apart altogether from the staffing of this War Staff, we want a, staff which will decide the policy of the Navy. We have not got that. Supposing the War Staff comes to any decision on any great matter of policy and advises the Board of Admiralty. Who sit in judgment on it? It is true the First Sea Lord, who is on the War Staff, is there, but the Board of Admiralty consist of other Lords, purely administrative Lords, the Second Sea Lord and the Third Sea Lord, who deal with purely administrative questions. They will sit in judgment on a decision which has given the War Staff days find flays of hard work. My right hon. Friend has not yet reformed
    1658
    the Board or Admiralty. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cambridge did make some effort in that direction, but was met with such conservative prejudice, using "conservative" in the worst sense of the word, that he was unable to achieve his object. My right hon. Friend—again I hope I am not misquoting him—strained my imagination very much when he said that the sailors were just as keen on economy as the civilians. Possibly that object can be achieved some day. It is not the case to-day. While we have a system of Treasury checks and no trusting of naval officers they cannot be blamed if they look upon the Treasury as the enemy I think it is possible throughout the whole Navy and Army so to educate officers and to trust them that they will become not only keen on efficiency but also keen on economy. I would point out that there was nothing that Nelson's captains were prouder of than their economy in spars and sails, so that they could keep out of dockyard hands. I believe the same spirit can be got in the Navy and Army. It you get rid of Treasury checks and trust the naval and military officers, and make it part of their education to work for economy as well as efficiency, you will reap a rich reward in economy.
    The next question to which I wish to draw my right hon. Friend's attention is the question of promotion. There is a great deal of anxiety in the Navy in regard to promotion. There have been several cases of officers retiring from the Admirals' list and nobody being promoted in their places. There have been no promotions by selection in the Navy during the whole of the War. In the Army there have been numbers of promotions from colonels to the Generals' list by selection. The only case which came, after considerable pressure in this House and elsewhere, was the promotion to acting-rear-admiral, but not to a real vacancy, of Sir Reginald Tyrwhitt. Now we are getting to a new position. Admiral Sir Lewis Bailey has retired from the Admirals' list. Admiral Christian was promoted from vice-admiral to admiral, but no rear-admiral was promoted in his place and no captain promoted. Rear-Admiral Bartoloméhas gone to assist the Member for Cambridge on the Transport Board. He has retired from the Navy. No captain has been promoted in his place. I recognise that the list may have to be cut down, but what I suggest to my right hon. Friend is this. The Admirals' lists are fixed by Orders in

    1659
    Council, and, if he is going to vary those lists, it is his duty to take the House and the Navy into his confidence, and to tell us what he is going to fix the lists at. I could give him the names of over a dozen admirals who either have not hoisted their flags during this War or who have never gone to sea during this War, having served in shore appointments. It is only fitting that if the lists are going to be cut down those officers should quit the Admiral's list and make room for younger men who have done well and borne the burden and heat of this War. There is the other question of promotion from the lower deck, to which the men attach a great deal of importance. There is the mate system, which the Financial Secretary is constantly trotting out. The mate, system gives no opportunity to a boy on the lower deck to feel that he can reach the rank that Sir David Beatty has reached, the rank of Admiral of the Fleet. Napoleon had the idea that every soldier in his Army should have the encouragement of the thought that his knapsack might contain a field-marshal's baton. We ought to have the same sort of feeling in regard to the Navy. Unless a boy has the opportunity of passing to sub-lieutenant at the age. of eighteen and a half, I very much fear that there is no chance of his reaching the higher ranks of the Navy. If the direct entry system for midshipmen is done away with the probability is that the chance of promotion from the lower deck will be done away with too, because if you revert to the Osborne system you will have such an entirely different system of education for officers and for men that it will not be possible for a boy from the lower deck to compete. While you have the direct entry system for midshipmen and a more advanced age for the Osborne boys it is possible for the boys from the lower deck to go in for the same examinations as the boys from the public schools. It is rumoured that the Admiralty contemplate doing away with the direct entry system for midshipmen. The Service holds the very highest opinion of this system; it is very economical. The products of it show more initiative than the Osborne boys. In striving for economy the right hon. Gentleman ought not to permit any prejudice by officers who are in favour of the old Osborne system to blind him to the advantages of this direct system of entry.
    Mr. LONG: There has been no suggestion of the kind.
    8.0 p.m.
    Commander BELLAIRS: I am very glad to hear it. I want to say a word or two about the Osborne system. It was brought forward by Lord Fisher. I attacked it from the first. Almost the whole Press of the country was in favour of it. In 1905 the ''Daily Graphic" opened its columns to me to attack the system. I think I can claim that nearly every forecast of mine about that system has turned out correct. It was to produce one system of entry for executive, marine, and engineer officers. In part you had to revert back to the old system. You have several classes of engineer officers now instead of having one. The wheel has turned full cycle, and the artificer engineers are now demanding that they should be recognised as the engineers of the Service. I do not see how you can refuse that recognition, because they can show you how efficient they are. The engine-room artificer branch has had charge of the engine-rooms of ships, it has had charge of ships. They can show they are much better practical engineers than ever you will get from Osborne, and you have nothing whatever against: thorn except sometimes it is alleged in the Service that it is against them that they belong to a trade union. I respect them for belonging to a trade union. I think they are right, and this particular union, the Amalgamated Society of Engineers, has this record behind it that it has never on a single occasion interfered in any way with the discipline of the Service. It has done what it has a right to do, namely, it has represented to engineers on shore that it is undesirable to enter the Navy while the conditions of service in the Navy were not good. That is simply what the trade union of doctors has done in regard to the Army and Navy, and when you talk of trade unions I know there is a complaint in the Navy that the trade union of admirals is the strongest in the world. I know it is the admirals who prevented my right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Sir E. Geddes) from introducing promotion by selection from the captain's rank to the admiral's rank. No man can say that if a captain has distinguished himself and shown himself to be a thoroughly efficient officer he is not entitled to what was done for Hawke and Howe, and numbers of other admirals in

    1661
    the past, and that is to be promoted by selection over the heads of senior captains, and yet the admirals of the Navy prevented that being done.
    My hon. and gallant Friend (Rear-Admiral Adair) spoke about the Staff. I am not going to go against the Rules of Order in any way, but the hon. and gallant Admiral misrepresented the terms of the Motion I had on the Paper. He said I wanted to amalgamate all the Staff colleges, but that is not the case. To assemble the Staff colleges is not to merge them. I want to have the naval men who have been trained for the Staff at Camberley training side by side with the military men and with the airmen, so that we got interchange of ideas and interchange of lectures and the Services are coordinated, as they should undoubtedly be, and pull together better than they have done in the past. The hon. and gallant Admiral spoke of the strategy of the Navy as being something apart altogether from the strategy of the Army, but that is not true. I will take one single instance in this War when that disaster took place to General Gough's Army. A large part of the Army in England was sent to reinforce the men at the front. They had been kept in England all the time on the idea that this country was open to invasion. That is largely a combined naval and military question, and if it had been flogged out properly, as it should have been, I think we could have prevented that disaster to General Gough's Army ever having occurred. In regard to my Motion on the Paper, if we want representation of the Navy in the new Cabinet, it will be impossible to put into the new Cabinet all the heads of the great spending services. Therefore if the Navy is to be represented in the War Cabinet it will stand a better chance if we have one Minister of Defence in charge of all three fighting Services. It is not a new recommendation. It is a recommendation which is not my own. It was made by Lord "Randolph Churchill.
    The hon. and gallant Member for Battersea (Viscount Curzon) made a strong plea to the First Lord that he should get rid of the secrecy which has characterised the Navy in this War, and he pointed especially to two cases—the Battle of Coronel and the loss of the three "Cressys." It is necessary that we should know why the War Staff and the Admiralty failed in those cases. After all, in the case of the three "Cressys," every midshipman in
    1662
    the Fleet was talking about the live-bait squadron. It was known to every midshipman in the Fleet that those ships were almost doomed to torpedoed, and yet they were kept in that position, where they wore exposed to submarines, without any destroyer defence to screen them from the attacks of submarines. It is not merely those incidents, but in regard to nearly every naval incident in this War we have had secrecy. It is impossible for the Navy to learn about this War, or for the public to learn about this War, because we have not had revealed to us what actually took place. They have been dealt with by Courts of Inquiry whose proceedings and whose decisions are never published Had they been dealt with by Courts-martial, minutes would have boon kept, and this House would have been able to call for them and to have them published. This is a democratic country, and the democracy docs not like secrecy, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby (Mr. J. H. Thomas), whose illness every Member of this Committee regrets, hoping his eyesight will be fully restored, made a most informing speech in the course of this War, in which he attributed much of the discontent and so-called Bolshevism to the fact that the public had never had revealed to them what was taking place in this War, and also to the fact that the people who failed were not punished. I think those charges arc perfectly true, but the result of all this secrecy, and of the Board of Admiralty discouraging officers from taking part in discussions and from writing papers, is that we never had such an absence of discussion. There is an entire absence of informing articles and papers, such as took place in the French Army before the War and this state of affairs has gone on for years, both before and during the War. I am myself a member of the Council of the Royal United Service Institution, and I can say that, so far as the active service Navy is concerned, we might just as well be the Deaf and Dumb Institute, because officers hardly ever come forward to write papers or to take part in the discussions.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: They are not allowed to.
    Commander BELLAIRS: My hon. and gallant Friend says "They are not allowed to," but they are not allowed to unless they submit their papers to the Admiralty or unless they ask permission of the Admiralty to take part in a discussion, and

    1663
    there is a feeling throughout the Service that an officer who asks if he may contribute such-and-such a paper or take part in such-and-such a discussion will have a black mark put against his name, and his promotion imperilled, as I think it would be. I do not think that state of affairs can go on much longer. I would recall to the Committee what Pitt said on 18th July, 1803, about secrecy. He said:
    "It is quite impossible that a people will make adequate efforts to resist a danger of the nature and extent of which they are studiously kept in ignorance."
    What is the attitude of the Government to the public whenever the Government fails? Lord Haldane recently blamed the public for the mistakes that had been made in this War. My right hon. Friend, after the South African War, when he addressed the bankers at their dinner in Bristol, said much the same thing and said that if mistakes had been made it was the public that were to blame for not insisting that adequate provision should be made. How can a public, which is kept in the dark in regard to everything, give an instructed public opinion on any question of naval strength or military strength or naval or military preparation? You have got to take them into your confidence. The same kind of reckless charge is made by the sailors themselves. Lord Jellicoe, in his book, blames the politicians for the want of preparation which he reveals in that book. I can only say, in regard to this House, that that charge is wholly untrue. There has never been in the history of this House a single case where a demand made for the Navy by the responsible men on Government Benches has been refused. It would be equally untrue of the Army if we except the case where it was proposed to quarter Dutch troops in London. It was first refused by the House of Commons and was afterwards assented to. The House of Commons will always back up the naval demands, because it recognises how dependent this country, and this House itself, are on the Navy. We owe all our liberties to the Navy, and the only cases that I know of where the responsible admirals have resigned because their demands were not granted by the Treasury are the cases of Admiral Berkeley in 1845 and Admirals Seymour and Hay in 1867. But the moment they revealed the reasons why they resigned, the pressure of the House of Commons was so great that the Government gave in. Admiral Berkeley resumed his
    1664
    seat on the Board of Admiralty in 1845 and won his points, and in 1867 Admirals Hay and Seymour resumed their seats on the Board of Admiralty, at Lord Derby's request, and the whole of their points were conceded with regard to provision for the strength of the Navy. May I say that my right hon. Friend is entirely mistaken in thinking I want to attack him. I want to get certain things achieved. I want to see the Navy run by a properly trained war staff, so that the advice which this House gets is good naval advice, which is not always the case now. I say, Trust the House, trust the country, get rid of secrecy, and in the discussion and the invention that you stimulate you will reap a rich reward in progress
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I would ask the First Lord to listen to one or two criticisms which I make to him and which, I hope, will be as constructive as those to which he has just listened from the hon. and gallant Member for Maidstone. I ask him to do this because, a few short weeks ago, I was commanding a group of armoured cruisers. I now stand on the floor of this House, and therefore, I think, I am in a position to speak a little on this subject. I say, in the first place, that unless the First Lord, in his reply to this Debate, makes some very substantial concession as regards the findings of the Jerram Committee and the Admiralty action thereupon, my hon. and gallant Friend (Bear-Admiral Adair) will press his reduction to a Division, because I think the First Lord will agree that from all parts of the House have come very strong condemnations of certain defects in what would otherwise be a matter for congratulation for the Admiralty. The Admiralty are to be congratulated on the rises in pay and the humane view they have taken of the whole matter, both as regards pay and pensions of officers and men, but there are those three blots, three principal weak points. which I make no apology for mentioning again only by name—first of all, the antedating of the pay. There is another reason for the date of 1st October, and that is that in October there was very wide-felt discontent in the Fleet, and this was very properly brought to the notice of Admiral Sir David Beatty, who did a most admirable thing. He called together some committees of officers and of petty officers and blue-jackets and requested them fully to discuss the whole matter, and to put to him the recommendations that they suggested

    1665
    as the minimum demands for pay and pensions in the future. He gave them to understand that if they continued to carry on their work in the loyal and splendid way they had been doing it, he would assure them that the Admiralty would see they did not lose by it and that any concessions given would be antedated. Therefore there is a feeling in the Navy that the fact that these concessions have not been antedated to October, but only to February, is in the nature of a breach of faith. We do not want that sort of thing to prevail in the Navy at the present moment. Therefore I do appeal most earnestly to the First Lord to reconsider this matter and, if possible, give some assurance and some hope this evening. The other two points are these: First of all, in regard to widows' pensions, there is a strong feeling among all ranks throughout the Navy that this should not be a matter of compassion, but rather a matter of right. The third point is the matter of the old naval pensioner—the old seamen, the fathers of the present Navy, the men whose traditions and code of honour have contributed so much to the results we have recently achieved. It is felt very strongly that they should not suffer. We know what a large subject this is, and that whatever is done by the Admiralty will have a reaction on other Departments in the State, but, nevertheless, the feeling is so strong, and I am sure the country would not grudge the money to these men, but rather that they would insist on this payment being made to these old men so that they shall not be obliged to die in penury. Might I, as regards the question of pensions, once more point out another reason why these should be granted to widows? This is because I think it will be agreed by everybody who knows the Navy that it is most desirable to encourage marriage, and early marriage, among the blue-jackets. They are men who pass a very severe medical test, they lead a healthy life and are well looked after, and I think I am not wrong in saying that the men of the lower deck are the flower of our race. Therefore it is most desirable that marriage among these men should be encouraged, and I think that is perhaps a reason why their Lordships might consider that this claim should be conceded. The only other thing I want to say about the subject of pay is that the pay of the junior ranks does not seem to me to have been sufficiently raised. If my right hon. Friend will turn
    1666
    to page 10 of the Officers' Paper he will find that the pay of sub-lieutenants and the junior ranks is indeed very low.
    Mr. LONG: The increase is very small.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: There are two ways of looking at it. The one is that a young officer in the Navy is not usually married, therefore it is considered he does not require the same amount of pay as the older officer who may be married. There is a lot to be said for that, but nevertheless there is another side to it. There is the question of the future. I hope we are going to see many more men promoted from the ranks in the Navy, and if that is the case they do need adequate money with which to support their position with dignity and honour. These men will not have private means, as so many officers of the Navy have, and for that reason I think it is a pity that the pay of the lower ranks of officers has not been increased. It was low before the War, and was admitted to be low. But to-day the cost of living has doubled. We hope it is going down, but it has at least doubled. That being so, in sheer equity the pay should have been doubled too. Therefore, while congratulating the Admiralty on the bold step it has taken, I desire to call attention to these two points. Furthermore, I hope that no attempt will be made in the future to cut out the separation allowances, otherwise the men who are married on the lower deck would be very hard hit. May I remind my right hon. Friend that the man before the mast in the Merchant Service is at present earning £14 10s. a month, and that pay is not likely to go down. I think the bluejacket in the Navy, with his high training, should be equally paid, and the men feel this too. Now, with the separation allowance, a married man in the Navy, taking into consideration his other advantages, compares favourably with the seaman in the Merchant Service. I am allowing for his free doctoring, and the fact that when he is not working he is paid, whereas the other is not. But if the separation allowance is cut out in the future, the man in the Navy will compare badly with the man before the mast in the Merchant Service, and next time there is a Board meeting perhaps my right hon. Friend will put that view, if he has not already done so, before his colleagues.
    Another point that has not been touched upon in the House is the question of the

    1667
    warrant officer. Now, the right hon. Gentleman will agree with me, I am sure, that the warrant officers of the Navy are the backbone of the Service. That is a truism in the Navy, and I think it will be agreed to by everyone in this House. The warrant officers deserve very well from the State, and at the present time they have to go too long a period before they are promoted. Now, too long a time in one rank is a bad thing. At the present time it is possible for a warrant officer to be twenty-five years in the same rank. Well, that sort of thing kills ambition; it makes a man discontented, and he gets into a rut. It is no good for the Service, because it does not encourage smart youngsters to enter the Navy. I think that all warrant officers ought to get a stop in rank and should be made chief warrant officers after a period of, say, eight years, if there has been no misconduct, and I think that if a warrant officer has put in fifteen years' service—and personally I should prefer to make it twelve—he should be promoted to lieutenant. If a man has taken eight years to reach the rank of warrant officer, and if he has done twelve years in that capacity I think myself he deserves a commission.
    Now may I have the First Lord's attention for a moment to touch on a matter that has not been dealt with as yet in this Debate, and I would want to deal with it very briefly, because it affects the City of Hull, which I have the honour to represent. That is the future of the trawlers and drifters which have been built for the Admiralty. As my right hon. Friend is aware, over 300 magnificent trawlers and 150 drifters are available for service. These are being reconditioned and they will be presently returned to the fishing industry in one way or another. Now the Admiralty Reconstruction Department have the admirable notion that the skippers and the crews of our mine-sweeping trawlers and anti-submarine trawlers during the War should have the first choice of these ships—that they should have the chance of acquiring them. I think everyone will agree that that is an admirable thing. Let me point out the the fishing industry of this country is in a very healthy state. A great many of the ships are running on a profit-sharing basis and have been so for many years, the skipper and the crew having a share in the takings. They are hard-working men, men
    1668
    of desperate courage and high honour, as this War has proved. They have been a godsend to this country, and without them we could not have beaten the submarine. The fishing industry should not be unfairly competed with. I think the First Lord will admit that. Therefore any suggestion of forming a subsidised company with a Government subsidy, which will be practically controlled from the Admiralty, means that there will be a danger of that unfair competition. I say that competing with the fishing industry in this way would be a national danger, and I hope that it will not come about. But the suggestion has been made. If skippers can get credits, and I think most decent men can, and money can be advanced on easy terms, they can purchase their boats and possibly form themselves into little companies to carry on the industry. Well, that is a thoroughly healthy thing. But if you are going to try and run an Admiralty fishing industry from the Admiralty, although you may give a number of very interesting jobs to a certain number of retired or not retired officers who would otherwise have to go out to sea, I do not think it would be a good thing for the country, and there is also a feeling among many of the skippers themselves that they have had enough naval discipline during the War and do not want it in peace time. They are men of initiative. But there is this idea that there may be some unfair competition from Government subsidised fishing companies.
    Mr. LONGdissented.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: At the same time, we all agree, I think, that these men should be given the chance of acquiring these vessels on fair and just terms, and I hope it will be possible for my right hon. Friend to make a short declaration on this matter, because it will relieve the minds of very many excellent citizens of the town of Hull, and will be highly satisfactory to people in other parts of the country.
    Before I leave the question of personnel, may I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to see that some nucleus, a very small nucleus is all that is required, is maintained of the women's organisation in the Navy? This War has given birth in its later stages to the Women's Royal Naval Service. The members of that organisation are now being demobilised, and quite rightly too. They were only enrolled to fill a temporary emergency, to save man-

    1669
    power. But still there is a tremendous lot in tradition, and it will seem a pity it all connection is severed between the Women's Royal Naval Service of to-day and what it may be in the future, if we are ever so unfortunate as to be launched into another war. In that case I think it will be found that we will have again to call on the women to do the clerical and some of the shore-going jobs in the Navy, and if so it will be a. healthy thing if they have some traditions to look back upon, and if they can be told of what was done by their forbears in the Great War 1914–1918.
    I entirely agree with what my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for East Leyton has said about the Welfare bodies. I particularly congratulate my right hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary on this real stroke of statesmanship by the Admiralty. It is the finest thing, I think, that the Government has done since the Armistice—the recognition of the men of the lower deck and the taking them into consultation about matters concerning their welfare and seeing into their grievances. It is a splendid thing, and I do hope it is not going to die out. It is thoroughly healthy and real democracy. It helps to preserve discipline, and the men deserve it. Most advanced captains of the Dreadnoughts at The present time have a regular committee of their men, whom they consult on all subjects affecting such things as recreation and the welfare generally of the lower deck. I did it myself for years with excellent results, and I am glad it is being carried on. The same thing should be done in the ports also. Now let me come to the point about the Welfare Committee at the Admiralty. I hope that the Second Sea Lord, who is responsible for the personnel, will add to his Staff as soon as possible a few representative men of the lower deck in an advisory capacity. This is a suggestion which I put forward when I myself was on the Admiralty War Staff for a few weeks in 1917. I do not propose to suggest how these men should be selected, as long as they are in touch with the lower deck and have lived there themselves, and if they are changed once a year or once every two years; men who can advise the Second Sea Lord, and who will be able to see the dockets and write the minutes if required to do so—having a separate sheet if necessary—in order to give the Second Sea Lord, whoever he may be, the lower-deck point of view. If
    1670
    you get that, the men at sea and the men in the dockyard ports will feel contented; they will know that some of their own fellows are at the Admiralty.
    I will now, if I may, say a few words about the distribution of the Fleet. My information here is taken from the "Times" of 5th June, in which the new post-war distribution of the Fleet was given, and I am going to make two criticisms. I believe that this distribution was worked out in a great hurry. It is an unfortunate fact that the matter was not considered before the Armistice. I am sorry to say that one hears as common knowledge afloat—I was in the Fleet at the time, and heard it—that the principle they went on was, What did we do before the War? They looked up the old Navy Lists, saw where the ships were, and made their recommendations on that. I am afraid that is only too true. In the first place, I am going to criticise our reversion to the nucleus crew system. The nucleus crew system was originated by Lord Fisher to meet an emergency, namely, the challenge to our far-flung sea power by the concentrated German Fleet in 1906. The disadvantages of that system were admitted by Lord Fisher and by the Naval Staff. With any nucleus crew system there is a falling off in the efficiency of the personnel and in the efficiency of the Fleet, and it should not be reverted to except in case of emergency. It is better to have the ships in the dockyard reserve, where they can be well looked after, or else in full commission. It is better to have fewer ships in full commission than to have many of these nucleus crew ships. In the nucleus crew ships the men are overworked, and they are not really efficient. Altogether it is a bad system, and I am sorry the Admiralty have gone back to it, and I believe the Navy also is sorry. I tell the First Lord what the officers and men say at sea, that the reason for the inclusion of nucleus crew ships in the Home Fleet is that you have two admirals' billets, and that is why the system commends itself, namely, because there are two more jobs for flag officers afloat.
    Mr. LONG: I am very sorry to interrupt the hon. and gallant Gentleman, but I do not think that is correct. I can assure him that the redistribution of the Fleet was not based on hard and fast rules arrived at before the War. I am speaking now from my own personal knowledge, which is the result of most exhaustive inquiries. Nobody would have nucleus crews

    1671
    if they could help it. But if you are limited as to the number of men, which governs everything in the Fleet, the advice given to me certainly is not in concurrence with the view that it. would be better to have a smaller number of ships in full commission and no nucleus crews than to have the present system, which, whatever its drawbacks may be, does give what is required, namely, in peace time a Fleet which can be easily expanded in war time, and the crews made up to their full complement.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY:I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman, and I assure him that I did not make that statement in any spirit of banter. It is the common talk of the Fleet that the system was introduced again because it means more jobs for admirals. I hope that that is really not even a sub-conscious reason, but I must repeat that it is the opinion afloat, though possibly it may not be known to the right hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. LONG: The hon. and gallant Member really must not say these things. The First Lord of the Admiralty is not dependent upon the advice given by the Naval Lords. I have the privilege of seeing the commanders-in-chief, all flag officers, and every captain when he comes to London. They all pay visits to the Admiralty. I see every flag officer, all the senior officers and many of the junior officers. The opinions which I express here on behalf of the Navy are not derived from my advisers at the Admiralty, but are the result of constant interviews and discussions between myself and flag officers of all grades, and officers below flag rank.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: The right hon. Gentleman did not allow me to finish. I was saying that when men and money are limited it is better in every way for efficiency, and I think in the long run for economy, to have more ships in full commission, and do away with nucleus crew ships. It is better for efficiency and for saving money and wear and tear of ships. That is a widely held view. I know that the First Lord does consult with everyone with whom he comes in contact, and is very open to listen to views, and for that reason I ask him to listen to this view of mine, which is very widely held at sea, that it is better to have fewer of these nucleus crew ships, or none at all when normal conditions return.
    1672
    The next point about the redistribution of the Fleet is the question of the Mediterranean Fleet. Before the War the position, as we all know, was that we were faced with a possible hostile combination of Austria, Italy, and Germany, which we might have to be prepared to tackle. Under those circumstances, with possibly hostile Italian and Austrian fleets in the Mediterranean, our interests in the Mediterranean were guarded by a battle-cruiser squadron and an armoured-cruiser squadron. We had, I think, three battle-cruisers and four armoured-cruisers, together with supplementary ships. The position now is that the Austrian fleet has disappeared, and the Italian fleet is our Ally, while never have two nations been so closely bound together as the British Empire and the French Republic, and the French fleet is in all its glory, practically untouched in the Mediterranean. Yet at this moment, we are sending to the Mediterranean, according to the newspaper reports which I have, six battleships, six light-cruisers, and a destroyer flotilla.
    Mr. LONG: None of those numbers are really fixed.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: We have several battleships in the Mediterranean now. There is the Mediterranean battle squadron. At the present moment the Turkish fleet has disappeared, and the Russian Black Sea fleet is negligible. Therefore the only reason is to guard British interests, and the subsidiary reason that the Mediterranean is an excellent training ground for the Fleet. British interests in the Mediterranean, as things are at present, with friendly Italian and French fleets and no other fleets at all, could be adequately guarded by a cruiser squadron. As regards training the officers and men of the Fleet, it would be much better to send the squadrons of the Home Fleet in turn to the Mediterranean for a cruise in the winter They could then do their gunnery practices in the good weather out there, and do their training by turns. You would not have the added expense of a battle fleet in the Mediterranean, with all the expense of sending stores out and keeping up large dockyard establishments at Malta and Gibraltar, and you would avoid keeping four or five thousand men separated from their families for two or three years. I consider that that Mediterranean fleet is unduly "large. It is not strategically correct to have it there, because the strategic

    1673
    danger-points now are in the Pacific and the Atlantic, and that is where the Fleet ought to be. Our flag would be shown with dignity and honour in the Mediterranean by a cruiser squadron, and you would gain the advantage of an excellent training ground in Southern waters by sending one battle squadron in turn each winter, while you would get the educational advantages for the men as well. I commend that in the most friendly way to my right hon. Friend. It is a constructive criticism; it would save money, afford a better strategic distribution of the Fleet, and be more just and more pleasing to the men, and I think also that it would foe better for the whole efficiency of the Navy.
    With regard to Staff organisation, I am sure my right hon. Friend is fully alive to the need for an improved Naval Staff in the future, and I think he understands that our Staff organisation was not what it should have been before the War, or in fact during the War. May I remind him of the fact that the essence of efficient Staff organisation is the separation of operations from administration, of the planning part from the executive. That is borne out by the great German writers, Shellemdorf and Moltke, and I would also recommend to my right hon. Friend Marshal Foch's work on "Staff and Command," in which the necessity of completely separating administration from operations is pointed out. The people who are engaged in the executive details of administration must be separated from the people who are thinking out policy and the plans ahead. That is the essence of the whole thing. This is well understood by a large school in the Navy, but, unfortunately, it is not so well understood by the senior people in the Navy who carry the greatest number of guns, if I may use that expression, at the present moment. I entirely support the view of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Maidstone as. regards the necessity of having the Naval Staff work in close co-operation with the Army and the Air Force General Staffs. That particularly applies to the college where the young idea is taught its Staff work. It is in the work done by the young officers when they first become Staff officers or first go through a Staff course in their early days that the foundations of future policy, and, let us hope, of future victories, are laid. The position has been taken up that the Staff College, which is
    1674
    the most important thing in the Navy, will in future be at Greenwich. That is a mistake. Greenwich is not a suitable place for the War Staff College. For one thing it is too far from Camberley; for another thing it is too near London. It has all the disadvantages of being near London and none of the advantages of being right in London. If you are right in London, you want to get away from it; if you are near, you want to go to it; and I am afraid that one of the arguments was that the senior officers might like to be near London, and Camberley was too far away. That is a blunder which I hope will be corrected. The Naval Staff College should beat Camberley, and in easy and close touch with the Army and Air Force colleges, because you want exchange of ideas between the young officers of the three branches. They should be together, know each other, talk together. It is the clash of minds which is so useful in the early days of these young men's careers. In connection with the Staff training, I want to commend to the right hon. Gentleman the suggestion that every officer who does a course of Naval War Staff training should do three weeks or a month of it in a class in one of our big industrial cities like Manchester or Liverpool, studying the exchange and finance part, which should be part of the training of everyone who is going to do Staff work for the Higher Command. That will have the advantage that officers will get into touch with a very important class of, citizens, namely, the English business men of the North and the Midlands, with whom, unfortunately, the naval officers of the past, before this War, have not been sufficiently in contact.
    The question of airships concerns the Admiralty, and I should like to ask the First Lord to give pause before he proceeds to relate the programme of airship building. These airships cost £350,000 each, and there are great sheds which will be of doubtful value in the future. The reason is that aeroplanes and seaplanes arc advancing in efficiency so rapidly that an airship will have about as much chance with the aeroplane as a sailing ship has to-day with a cruiser. The analogy is this—that the sailing ship was useful for a certain time, and then it became obsolete, and this is the same as the airship, which, I believe, will be dead in spite of a non-inflammable gas or any other improvements. Therefore I do beg the right hon. Gentleman not to spend too much money on airship building programmes. The

    1675
    money should be spent rather on aeroplanes. There is little enough money, and it should be laid out to the best advantage. I do not think of the airships from the military point of view. People on airships are naturally keen on their weapons, but unfortunately the Admiralty is responsible for airships, and the Air Minister for aeroplanes, and therefore the airship schools have an unfair pull in the councils of war at the Admiralty. The First Lord should weigh up these points and consult with all the branches of the sea service—particularly the Navy—with regard to which is the best investment for the country's money. I throw this out as a helpful suggestion.
    The Navy in the past has had great traditions. It has been an instrument for ensuring the freedom of the seas. Its exploits against Spain, Napoleon, and the freeing of the slaves, will live in history. It is also a Service in which discipline and moral are particularly fine. The discipline of the Navy is good through all the ranks from the highest to the lowest, for they all do their best to work for the safety and the honour of the Realm. Because of that, those at the head of the Navy should be particularly careful of the use made of it. I am not going into too great details. My right hon. Friend will know what I mean. There is a not over-strong fleet in danger i in the Eastern Baltic at the present moment, and I wish with all the earnestness I can to give this public warning to my right hon. Friend. The Navy there has to be in more than one place at once. They were in the unfortunate position in the War with Germany of never knowing when the fleet was coming out, and I assure the right hon. Gentleman that the shooting of the enemy fleet is as good as the German fleet was in the War. Officers who fought the Germans in the Bight assure me that the gunnery we are up against now is every bit as good as was that of the German shooting. That squadron must be sufficient. It must not be overworked, and above all, I hope the policy which sent it there, and which is keeping it there, is a policy which will bear investigation, and a policy which squares with the great and high traditions of the Royal Navy, which has proved such a sure shield in the past.
    Sir A. WILLIAMSON: I should like to join with the previous speakers in the praise of the service of the Navy. But I
    1676
    think it would be a pity if this Debate were to pass without reference to the service to the country by the fishermen. I suppose that until this War neither the country nor the Admiralty fully realised the dependence of the nation on the service of our fishermen for our defence. Their seamanship, their bravery in facing risks—all the more terrible because they were unseen—is beyond praise, and I only regret that in that great procession the other day when, amongst those who passed along, none receiving more cheers and applause than the merchant seamen, there was not a distinct and definite section of our fishermen.
    I should like to call the attention of those who represent the Admiralty to one or two points in connection with the fisherman branch—as it may be called—of our naval administration. There are several complaints made by our fishermen which, I think, largely arose from misunderstanding, and it would be as well if I, who am one of the members representing a fishing constituency, were to state in this House some of the comments and, shall I say, complaints, or, at any rate, want of information, which exists amongst the fishermen as to the attitude of the Admiralty on various points. The first thing to which I direct the attention of the representative of the Navy is the question of the repair of the fishing boats and the return of those fishing boats to the fishermen. There are on various parts of the coast, and particularly at Lochness, a considerable number of steam drifters lying up with only a caretaker in charge, while there are at the same time fishermen in the fishing ports anxious to get the boats whereby to follow their calling and to supply the country with food. I understand that the Admiralty is returning these boats to the fishermen after having put them in a state fit for service, but that the Admiralty find difficulty in overtaking the work of repairing these boats, and rapidly conditioning them again for trade and returning them to the fishermen with that promptitude we would all desire. I should be glad if we could have an explanation as to the course, procedure and means to expedite the conditioning and return of the boats to their usual service, because disquieting rumours exist that as much as a year will elapse before all these boats will be returned. It is said that all available means are not being taken to hurry on the reconditioning. We

    1677
    will be told, I hope, that inquiries will be made and steps taken more rapidly, and on a greater scale, to recondition them. It seems to me a misfortune that we should have these boats lying idle and the fishermen idle while the country would only be too willing to have the produce of the sea.
    The allocation of the boats by the Government during the War were to serve as drifters and patrol boats, and I should like to ask the Government, in regard to the allocation of new boats to fishermen, to consider all classes of fishermen, and especially those who, in their loyalty and haste to serve their country, did not wait to join the Royal Naval Reserve, but hastened into regiments of Infantry. Now they come back and may find that as they have not been acting as sailors during the War they are not equally qualified for joining with others in the purchasing of some of these boats. I hope I may receive a reply to the effect that their claims will be considered equally with the fishermen who served in the Navy. I hope the Government will go as far as possible to make the conditions such as the fishermen can accept in regard to the payment for these boats. It is quite clear we cannot treat this as an ordinary case of selling off salvage. These fishermen deserve consideration beyond that, perhaps, due to any other class in the community. They are comparatively poor men, although many of them have some means, and their honesty is known, and I think their ability to pay has been proven by the scores and hundreds of times they have built boats on advances and have paid off all advances to those who lent the money. Consequently, the Government will, I hope, go as far as they possibly can towards making these conditions easy.
    9.0 p.m.
    Another point I should like to bring to the attention of the right hon. Gentleman is one connected with demobilisation. I have heard the complaint made that some of the fishermen have been demobilised, and that their pay from the Government has ceased, while their boats are still held up by the Government either in service or waiting for reconditioning. Now, it is a very hard position for a fisherman to be demobilised—a fisherman with a wife and family to support—without having the means of carrying on because his boat is held up. It may be said it is impossible for the Government to deliver the boats
    1678
    because they cannot get through the work with sufficient rapidity. I think, in that case, means should be taken for the fisherman to have some remuneration to keep going until his boat is returned. Questions have been raised as to the delay in settling claims—especially claims to gratuities. But the complaint has been made and questions have been put to me frequently as to why there should be such difficulty and so much delay in obtaining a settlement of the financial matters in which the fisherman who has been demobilised is interested.
    I would like to call attention to another matter. Many of these fishermen belong to boats which, at the outbreak of the War, were chartered by a Government Department. Most of them so chartered were either used on patrol work or on boom defence. At a later date, as I understand it, these boats and their crews were transferred from the chartered basis and were made part of the Royal Naval Reserve, or at any rate a more formal part of the Navy. Now comes the question of gratuity, and it seems that the position is that the date of their service for gratuity only counts from the time when they were transferred from one department to the other, and that the months and years during which they served on equally dangerous work, equally serving their country, are not to count for gratuity. If that is correct, I do not think it is just. These men were running the same risk, whether they were serving one department of the Government or the other, and their service for gratuity ought to count from the date of the commencement of their service of the Government afloat in any capacity whatever.
    I wish to draw the attention of the Admiralty to the question of the recruiting for the Royal Naval Reserve, and to ask whether they are now recruiting for that Reserve, and if so what sort of success they are having. I refer particularly to the fishermen, but also to the merchant seamen. I should be glad if the Government could tell us whether, in view of the great services rendered by the merchant seamen and the fishermen during the War, they are taking any steps to mate the Royal Naval Reserve even a more popular service than it was amongst these men before the War. It does seem to me that we have come to realise now, as we have never realised before, what an immense

    1679
    service can be rendered to the country in case of danger both by the Merchant Service and the fishermen. If that service is recognised, as I think it is, we ought to take more active steps than we have ever done before to render the service of the Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve attractive both to the fishermen and merchant seamen. I hope, in his reply, the right hon. Gentleman may be able to say something as to the attitude of the Government towards this very important aid to our naval defences.
    Mr. HOHLER: I desire to congratulate the Admiralty upon the improved pay and conditions of service in the Navy. I quite admit that there are matters in regard to which some further improvement is asked for, and indeed required, but I confess that in my judgment, and probably it is true to say in the whole history of the Navy, the Admiralty have never acted on any previous occasion as they have done on this. I believe I express the feelings of the men in His Majesty's Navy when I say that they greatly appreciate what has been done. I am not going to follow those speakers who have already dealt with the question as to from what date the new rates of pay should commence. I agree that the 1st October would be preferable, and I think there are good reasons for that, but at the same time I do not think that this is the essential point on which improvement is still asked for. One of the two great points arc the question of the increase of pensions to pensioners now on the roll. A new scale of pensions has been given to pensioners called up to serve during the War, and I think that that scale at once in itself demands that something should have been done for the old pensioners on the roll. I quite agree there is force in the argument which the Admiralty use, namely, that the difficulty is that directly you touch existing pensions you have to consider them from every point of service, not only in the Navy but in the Army and also in the Civil Service. I agree that that is perfectly true, but I do not for one moment admit that it in any wise allows the Admiralty to escape from their obligations to the men who have served them in their Department, and I would point out that the arguments which they should have urged and which are cogent with regard to the old pensioners are these. First of all, under the Old Age Pensions Act,
    1680
    so far as it was an administrative matter, the Government have granted an increased old age pension. They did so on the ground that the expense of living had gone up to such an extent that it was impossible to suppose that industrious men who had got the old age pension could live on that which they received. Surely, that is equally true of those who have served the Crown in the Navy? But they have not stopped there. Those who went to pension because they received a wound got an increased scale of pension. Why not these pensioners on the roll? The Government have not stopped there. We passed an Act in this House, in 1917, compulsorily compelling all employers who had had servants injured in their employ, and to whom they were paying compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act, to increase that compensation by a matter of 25 per cent. The Government have done that, and they have, therefore, set up a universal rule. They have recognised in every respect that these pensions were inadequate. They have, by Act of Parliament, compelled civilians to increase the pension in the case of wounds or injuries in industry. They have increased the amount in regard to old age pensions, and also in reference to those wounded in previous wars, yet they refuse to do so in this particular case. One of the great requests on the whole of the body of the men in the Navy is that these pensions should be increased, as they are wholly inadequate, and were intended, when originally granted, to keep them out of poverty and to enable them to get along and lead a decent life. Though I fully recognise what has been done, I do not decry it in the least, and the men appreciate the extension of the Greenwich age pension, which is, at any rate, an advance, yet it does not generally meet the case of these men and provide them with adequate subsistence. I hope the Admiralty will do something on this point; if so it will be a source of the greatest possible pleasure to the Navy. They attach the utmost importance to this, though they will not benefit by it themselves, and think more of it than they do of the question whether the pay is antedated to the 1st October or not.
    The only other point is a very important one. It is the question of pensions to the widows of men in the Navy. It should be realised by this Committee—I think I am right in saying this, though I am subject to correction—that the widows of every commissioned and every warrant officer in

    1681
    the Navy are entitled to a pension. Why is it, when you come to anybody below the rank of a warrant officer in the Navy, that his widow gets no pension at all? It is not right. You will not be introducing any innovation by remedying this, you will merely be extending what already exists, and what you realise is right in regard to the higher ranks of the Navy, in respect to everybody down to a warrant officer. We all know promotion is so slow in the Navy that it is difficult for a man to attain that rank. That is the whole difficulty, and I urge the right hon. Gentleman to see what can be done. I am sure, if he made inquiry among the lower ranks of the Navy as to whether, in order to obtain this great advantage, they would be willing to con-tribute out of their pay towards a scheme which would provide pensions for these widows and orphans in case of their death, he would receive the response, "Yes, we will." I invite him to take this step.
    I should like my right hon. Friend to make some statement as to what steps the Admiralty are taking to get back the dockyard apprentices from the Army. I hope he will give some answer to-night as to what he is doing or what he intends to do. Many of these young fellows were kept back because they are considered so important. They were subsequently called up, and I should like to know what is being done to get them back, because the loss of these years of training, where they are well advanced in their apprenticeship, is a matter of very great importance to them and is creating very considerable unrest in the borough I have the honour to represent. Then there is the question which has been agitated for the last fifteen or twenty years, and the Committee may be familiar with it, with regard to the title of the old "carpenter" in the Navy. For something like fifteen or twenty years they have been agitating for a change of the title from the name of "carpenter" to that of "constructive officer." An actual inquiry by vote was made among these men as to whether they would accept the name of "commissioned shipwright." They refused; everyone was against such a change, and they all rejected it. The whole matter came before Admiral Hyde Parker, and, after a careful inquiry, he reported in favour of the change, and that, instead of the name "carpenter," it should be "constructive officer." Everybody would have supposed that, in these circumstances, after a careful inquiry by an Admiral appointed for that purpose, that
    1682
    name would have been sanctioned, but, notwithstanding, the Admiralty ultimately issued an order giving these men the title of "commissioned shipwright" or "shipwright lieutenant." Not one of them wished for it; they all objected to it; they all object to it now, and yet they cannot get that wrong righted. I have been carefully into it, and I have raised it with my right hon. Friend, and he held out hope 'to me that it would be granted and the matter was not closed. The Admiralty still adhere to their decision to thrust upon these men the title of "commissioned shipwright" and "shipwright-lieutenant," a title which they did not ask for, and they will not grant them the title of "constructive officer" which was reported favourably upon by Admiral Hyde Parker's Commission. Now that the matter has been thoroughly discussed, I find that the wholes thing is held up by the naval constructors, so that you have now in the Admiralty a civil Department, the great Department of architecture, holding up the change of the name of men who are of executive rank and an active service rating in the Navy. That the Report of an admiral appointed to inquire into this subject should be hung up by a purely civilian body seems to me really monstrous, and I do ask my right hon. Friend to see that this is put an end to. The nearest resemblance they can find to the name is that they have got in the dockyards a constructive department. How can that possibly conflict with the constructive officer on one of His Majesty's ships? He is an active service rating. The only other resemblance they have got in name is that there are some people called constructors. Nobody could confuse that with the name of constructive officer, and, as I have pointed out, one is a civilian department and the other an active service rating, recognised and long known in the Navy. Those who pass to naval constructors were trained as shipwrights, and those who pass into the Navy were trained as shipwrights. Why should those who rise in an active service rating not be called constructive officers? They are truly constructive officers. They have rendered magnificent service in the present War. They have been highly commended for saving endless vessels in the sea after being blown up by enemy mines, torpedoes, or guns. I submit that they are most clearly entitled to that which Admiral Hyde Parker reported they should have, and the only reason it has been

    1683
    turned down by the Admiralty is because this civilian Department says they cannot have it. They ought not to have been asked. What have they got to do with it? I do ask my right hon. Friend to correct this complaint, which has been insistent, and will continue. It is causing unrest among the men. I have urged the change of name for years, yet now, when the change comes, he has thrust upon these men a name for which they never asked and to which they specifically object.
    Dr. MURRAY: I wish to deal with one or two points with reference to the position of the Royal Naval Reserve. My right hon. Friend the Member for Moray and Nairn (Sir A. Williamson) referred to the particular interests of the fishermen section of the Royal Navy. On the West Coast of Scotland we have a very large number of fishermen in the Royal Naval Reserve. It has always been a very popular service with the young men of the Western Isles, and I hope it will ever remain so. I think it will be admitted that these men did good service during the War in every department of the Navy, and, therefore, I make no apology for saying one or two words on their behalf this evening. So far as I can make out, as regards the Jerram Report, I assume the pay of the men of the Royal Naval Reserve on service will rise automatically with the same ratings in the regular Service, but, so far as I can make out from the Report, nothing is to be done for them in the matter of increasing the retainer or the gratuity. In view of the services these men have rendered, and will render in future, and in order to make this Service more attractive in the future than it has been in the past—because I think it will be, perhaps, a little more difficult to get recruits in the years to come, especially if the conditions are not made more attractive—and from the point of view of justice to these men, I think it would be little enough if the retainer, which is given to members of the Royal Naval Reserve, should have been raised in proportion to the improvements in the pay and other emoluments in the regular Service. It will be necessary to do so in order to encourage recruiting in years to come. So far as I can understand, the Jerram Report does not touch these very important items in the financial reward given to the fishermen and sailors who join the Royal Naval Reserve, and I hope the naval authorities will see that something
    1684
    is done in that direction to improve the conditions of the men in the Royal Naval Reserve.
    I should like to support my right hon. Friend in his plea for the fishermen who have been serving in the Royal Naval Reserve. I saw some time ago that the Admiralty were preparing a scheme for helping fishermen in the Naval Reserve and the trawler section when they went back to civil life. I understood that that scheme was to be published, but I have not seen it appear yet. I hope it will appear before the speech of the Secretary for War is published. I should like to see the scheme published, for, apart from the recognition which it would give of the services these men rendered in the War, it would make the Service much more attractive, and it would make recruiting easier, because if the men are compelled to go into boats, in which they will be employed all the year round, it will not be possible for them to do their drill, whereas if they are-fishermen on their own hook, so to speak, it will be much easier to perform the necessary drill. In any case, I think the Admiralty ought to encourage men who have been serving during the War in every possible way to have boats of their own. I do not think the Admiralty would lose any money by a scheme of this sort, and, if so, I hope they will make a fair allocation of the boats, and that the West Coast will not be forgotten. There is one little matter which I came across to which I wish to draw attention, and that is the case of men discharged as medically unfit within a few days or a week or two of the time when they would have qualified for the gratuity. I have three or four cases in mind which have recently come within my purview. One or two particularly hard, where, if the medical authorities of the Navy had left the men for a few days more in the Navy, they would have attained their twenty years' service and qualified for the gratuity.
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Does my hon. Friend suggest that these cases were discharged because they were getting near the time of the completion of service?
    Dr. MURRAY: I would not make a charge like that. I do not know. I would not make a charge of that sort against any officer in the Navy. I am simply stating the facts. But I should have thought, although they did not—at least I do not suggest it—positively discharge

    1685
    the men because they were getting towards the gratuity that they might, at least, have had sufficient imagination and sympathy to remember that if they allowed these men to remain for a few more days in the Navy they would have got their £50—these men who had served just upon the twenty years! It was very remiss on the part of the authorities responsible. I would not for a moment suggest that they did it deliberately. On the other hand I suggest that there was a certain amount of what I may call criminal neglect. If it can be proved that men physically in the condition I have stated have been discharged as medically unfit within a few days or even a few weeks of the time they would have qualified for gratuity, does not the right hon. Gentleman think it would be very mean on the part of the Navy and not in keeping I should say with the spirit and tradition of the Navy—unintentionally, I admit—to rob—I am sorry to use the word—these men of their £50 by this method? If such eases as those are brought to the notice of the right hon. Gentleman, I hope he will deal with them sympathetically.
    Captain W. BENN: I desire to raise a somewhat large question of policy relating to the construction of airships. Although I recognise the great authority in certain aspects of naval matters of the right hon. Gentleman opposite, it is not he who has charge of shaping the policy of the Admiralty.
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Except as a member of the Board.
    Captain BENN: As a member of the Board the right hon. Gentleman, of course, has his full weight of influence. Before I conclude my remarks I trust the First Lord himself will be present, especially as notice has been given that this subject will be raised, and seeing also that this is a matter of direct policy concerning the Board of Admiralty. Let me explain what it is. At the present time there is a programme of airships. The right hon. Gentleman opposite has been good enough privately to give me figures. There are six big airships being built at a total cost of over £2,000,000. These are being built by the Admiralty, and under the control of the Board of Admiralty. They are being manned—I am not quite sure of this—by the Air Force personnel, or by the Admiralty personnel. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will tell me?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I should say offhand by the Admiralty personnel, but I speak subject to correction.
    Captain BENN:I wish to make it quite clear that I have received nothing but courtesy from the right hon. Gentleman, but the First Lord of the Admiralty, when I ventured to ask him to make a statement on the subject, brushed the whole matter aside and refused to deal with it; so that the Committee will not lay it to my charge if I had not got all the information that I ought to have for this purpose. There are, I repeat, six airships being built at a cost of £2,000,000, and being manned, my right hon. Friend thinks, by Admiralty personnel.
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I am not sure.
    Captain BENN: Well, the right hon. Gentleman thinks so. The contention of those who have had any experience of the Air Service of all parties—for, of course, this is not in the slightest sense a party matter, and they are unanimous in this matter—is that everything that flies in the air should be under one control. The hon. and gallant Gentleman has had the distinction of being Pilot No. 1, and whoso authority in the matter of the air no one-is entitled to question, agrees with me, and so, I think, does every Member of this House who has served in the Air Force. Everyone with experience in air matters is unanimous that everything that goes in the air should be under one control. I make bold to say that in the early days of the War divided control was one of the causes of our failure to secure mastery of the air at the time when we ought to have had it. I am very anxious, and everybody who has experience of the air, is anxious that everything that goes in the air should be under one control. This is a fundamental principle, both as regards construction, manning, and operations. What is the reason? The right hon. Gentleman says that everybody is agreed.
    Mr. LONGdissented.
    Captain BENN:Then the right hon. Gentleman says everybody is not agreed. I shall be very glad to give him my experience, which is only the experience of everybody who has had practical experience of the Air Service. One of the great mistakes made by the first Coalition Government was that they did not unify the Air Service in 1915, or we should have had the Germans beaten in the air much sooner than we did. Why is it absolutely essen-

    1687
    tial that you should not have two Departments of the Government both constructing air parts? The reason is perfectly obvious. The Department over which the right hon. Gentleman presides, in the olden days, used to go into the market and compete for the same engine with the Department presided over by the Secretary of State for War. I know cases—everybody knows them—where the manufacturer had bids from the War Office and the Admiralty for the same machine. Very wisely he made the beet bargain he could. But is it not ridiculous that you should have two Departments of the same customer competing for one article? Yet the right hon. Gentleman opposite says that everybody is not agreed that they ought not to exist.
    Mr. LONG: I did not really say that.
    Captain BENN: Well, if the right hon. Gentleman did not say anything of the kind he interjected a remark to that effect?
    Mr. LONG: No, no, no. I did not.
    Captain BENN: Then what did the right hon. Gentleman really say?
    Mr. LONG: The hon. and gallant Gentleman said everybody was agreed that there should be one control of the Air Service. All I suggested was that everybody was not agreed.
    Captain BENN: The right hon. Gentleman when I put a question this afternoon did not concede to me the right of interpolating while he was speaking. I am very anxious now to have the advantage of his opinion. He is now denying the principle which has been repeatedly affirmed in this House by members of the Government. We know we have no Cabinet. The whole system has broken down. But it is a most extraordinary thing that the Secretary of State for War of this House should assert the principle, which is not questioned for a moment, of an undivided control of air matters, while the right hon. Gentleman opposite tells us that, so far from it being unquestioned, it is a highly debateable point.
    Mr. LONG: I said nothing of the kind.
    Captain BENN: Then what does the right hon. Gentleman say. I do not know. The Committee must judge.
    Mr. LONG: Hear, hear.
    Captain BENN: I lay it down that the unanimous opinion of all those competent to form an opinion is that everything that flies in the an should be under one control. I understood that that was the policy of the Government. If it is not the policy of the Government perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will say so; then we shall have a Debate to see what the opinion of the House of Commons is on the matter. As to materiel, take an airship and an aeroplane. Is it not absurd that you should have two Departments constructing the same thing. The R 34 had the same make of engine as is used in an aeroplane, except, of course, the gasbag, which is of a totally different material, and there is not much in that point. As regards the war equipment of an airship, it is very similar to the equipment of an aeroplane. You have the machine guns, the bombs, and the releases, a set of photographic apparatus, and the like, and I think it is an uneconomical and thoroughly bad system under which you have the Admiralty and the Air Ministry both constructing the same thing. I understand that that had been abandoned, and that it was one of the four points upon which the second Coalition Government was formed. I should have thought the matter was so clear that it did not need to be elaborated, and you ought to have one Department and not two to control ail things that fly. With regard to the use of these things, even for war, you should have a unified control. There is no difference in many respects between the work done by an airship and an aeroplane. Take some of the things we are most backward in, such as correct bombing and aerial gunnery. Aerial gunnery is in its infancy, and two persons go and fire point-blank at one, and that is the state into which we have got. The airship affords the most direct means of making experiments and progress in aerial gunnery, and yet the airship is under one control and the aeroplane is under another Department.
    Take the question of the Davies gun. That has been experimented with in aeroplanes, but the airship is a better platform for it. Now the right hon. Gentleman is going to make those experiments, and the thing is absurd, and this is a very highly reactionary step in the policy of the Government. I do not want to elaborate this point, because anyone who has been in the air agrees that the whole thing should come under one control. Take

    1689
    photography. The difficulty of working photography in an aeroplane is very great because of the speed, the rush of air, and the quick movement of the machine, and the constrained state in which you work. If it does not work it is very difficult to put right, whilst in an airship you have much more room, and you can walk about, and therefore you can make experiments in photography in an airship which you cannot make in an aeroplane. We get one right hon. Gentleman controlling the aeroplane, and another the airship, and consequently the benefit of united experience is wasted.
    With regard to the manufacture and use of airships it is absurd that there should be division of control. I have been speaking of these machines as war weapons. I understand that this kind of aircraft is being arranged entirely to carry as their load war munitions, and they are not being fitted to carry commercial loads, and the whole arrangement is being made so that they can carry munitions for offensive or defensive purposes. I think it is folly to spend these enormous sums on the provision of a war weapon which has been proved a failure. Everybody knows that as a fighting weapon the Zeppelin is a failure because of its gigantic size, and of its lack of power of manœuvre, and, most of all, because any scout which can get near it and put a tracer into it sets it on fire and destroys it. If you are spending £2,000,000 upon airships of this kind for war purposes, I think that is a policy which this Committee should never sanction.
    Now I turn to a really much more important side of the question, which is the civilian use of this craft. Everybody knows that the airship possesses certain great advantages over the aeroplane. It possesses much greater endurance and a much greater lifting power. It can stop easily, alter its speed, and all these qualities give it very great advantages. It can be navigated in bad weather, and can grope its way to its moorings, while under similar conditions the aeroplane is in constant danger For these reasons the airship has got a very great commercial future. I hope the right hon. Gentlemen opposite (Mr. Long and Dr. Macnamara) will give me their attention, as it is not much to ask. It is only the courtesy of debate in this House to do so, and this is just as urgent as any of the grievances which have been raised in debate to-day.
    1690
    There is no doubt that there is a big commercial future for the airships which can contribute very materially to an advance in aviation, although in its capacity as a war weapon it is of no great importance. Nevertheless, as a means of testing the atmosphere and making experiments in the way of aerial navigation, there is no doubt that the airship has got a very great future before it. In an airship you can carry a very much greater load. You have more convenient conditions, and as regards wireless telegraphy at the beginning of the War the Naval Air Service was a long way ahead of the Royal Flying Corps. As regards aerial navigation or atmospheric navigation, it is quite obvious that in an airship, where you have room to lay your charts and to carry your instruments, you will be able to navigate in a way that is impossible in a small cramped machine going at the rate of 90, 100, or 150 miles an hour. We must, therefore, look to the airship to enable us to make advance in the matter of aerial navigation and to learn something about the meteorological conditions which we have to face. If anyone wants to sail a boat, whoever it may be, however experienced, he is able to get charts which show him exactly what currents he has to expect on the course that he intends to take. Of course, information of that kind collected over many years, and carefully and scientifically collated, is of the greatest value, and, in fact, has been the making of the possibilities of sea navigation.
    As regards the air, we are very largely without anything of the kind. For example, we have not the observations for the Atlantic flight. I imagine I am right in saying that there is no collated information about the atmospheric conditions which make for the success or otherwise of the Atlantic flight. It is to the airship that we must look for giving us information of that kind, and for giving the necessary data for the Meteorological Department of the Air Ministry. But the airship is under the control of the right hon. Gentleman and has nothing to do with the Ministry. The right hon. Gentleman would be the first to resent the idea that any part of his Department is under the control of the Air Ministry. We thus see a tendency to divide once again the Air Service, and all the experience which The right hon. Gentleman's Department has collected under the guidance of sailors, who are the very people who can contribute most at this

    1691
    time to aerial advancement, is not in any way correlated to the work of the Air Ministry. What is the real work from the point of view of national defence or of commercial advantage in the air at the present time? It is not to keep up masses of old or obsolete types; it is to keep this country in the van of scientific knowledge of the air. Therefore, to turn it to practical use, what should be done by the Air Ministry with a unified control should be to make experimental flights over the routes which perhaps are destined to become the postal routes of the world. If you have the airships and the aeroplanes under one control, you may hope to make some advance, but if you have them under separate controls you cannot hope to do so.
    Supposing you are making experimental flights for the Egyptian mail, and you have an airship which is going to Taranto and Port Said. If the Air Ministry are testing a big machine with multiple engines over the same route, are they to have separate crews doing the same thing? It is absurd. It is perfectly obvious that to secure the necessary experience and the necessary certainty for these aerial routes you must have everything that flies under one control. I speak with some feeling in this matter. I recognise the very great service that the Admiralty have rendered to the cause of aviation. At the beginning of the War, when the present Secretary of State for War (Mr. Churchill) was at the Admiralty, great advances were made in the way of aviation in the Royal Naval Air Service, but that was succeeded by a period of blight, when, instead of encouraging aviation, the Admiralty did the very reverse. I know what I am speaking of, because I served in the Royal Naval Air Service for some part of the War, and I know that the thing was controlled in some cases by people who had no sympathy and no knowledge. I am an enthusiast, and I hope always to remain an enthusiast, for this country, being in the van in matters of aviation, and I should be very sorry to see that same thing happen again. I do hope when the right hon. Gentleman answers that he will be able to give us some assurance both as regards materiel, personnel, and operations that there will be a unified control of everything that flies in the air.
    Lieut.-Colonel MOORE-BRABAZON: It is not very often that I agree with my hon. and gallant Friend (Captain W. Benn)—we differed the other day on the question of the protection of such things as chicory and saccharine—but we do agree to-night on the protection of the dear old gas-bag. As the Member for Chatham, I am a believer in the Blue Water School, but I am also a believer in the Blue Sky School, if one may pay such a delicate compliment. To night I want, not to attack the Admiralty, but, I suppose, the Navy. The Admiralty in the matter of aviation appear to me to have done very well, but the whole tradition of the Regular Services, not excluding the Army and the Navy, has been always to be behind the spirit of advancement and always to have it forced upon them. I have reminded the House before that it was upon the initiative of the Aero Club that the pilots in the Navy were taught to fly. There is no doubt, however, that aviation relatively to naval matters did come into its own towards the end of the War, but that was forced upon the Navy by the civilian element in this country in the same way that the tanks were forced upon the military.
    I want to say a word with regard to airships in general. We have come rather to the parting of the ways. If we had built these aircraft energetically at the beginning of the War, there is no doubt that they would have rendered very useful service from the point of view of scouting, but we clearly saw that the airship was a very vulnerable thing in war, and, as we know, towards the end of the War no airship dare cross into this country, because it knew that even in the dark it would be destroyed. The only possibility of any future for the airship from the military point of view is the substitution of one of the inert gases for the present highly inflammable gas, but that is a very difficult and expensive matter, and it will be long before we shall see one of those invulnerable airships flying in the air. It is a very curious thing that the Admiralty, through the most amazing obstinacy, has gone on, right through this War, building an airship which clearly was of no use during the War, but now turns out to have a certain use from the commercial point of view. We must remember now that aviation is to be found to be of use to this Empire, and I am serving on a Committee which is to see in what way we can help to link up our

    1693
    various Dominions by air service. We must remember that aircraft in general have certain advantages over other forms of transit. The first and greatest is that of speed. As soon as that is established, you are straight up against the lack of load you can carry. But even over long routes there is no doubt the airship will compare favourably with big aeroplanes in view of the enormous loads they can carry.
    Notice taken that forty Members were not present; House counted, and forty Members being found present—
    Lieut.-Colonel MOORE-BRABAZON: I was just about to conclude my remarks. I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman two questions. The first is, whether he has any news as to the allocation to Great Britain of the big Zeppelins made in Ger-many that have been surrendered to the Allies? Some of these are as good as the latest big airships, and we ought to know as soon as possible what share of them will come to this country. My second question is as to the policy to be taken by the Government with regard to airships in future?
    10.0. p.m.
    Sir D. MACLEAN: I want to put one or two questions to the right hon. Gentleman before he replies. He has, I know, a very large number of points to deal with, and I am sure the rest of the time of the Committee can be more usefully occupied by him than by very many others. First of all, I am glad to notice—as far as my observations are worthy of any responsibility at all—that there has been a very marked reduction in personnel, which, after all, is one of the surest tests as to whether the establishment is being maintained at its war height or correspondingly reduced to the position in which we find ourselves today. According to the figures I took down at the time of the Armistice, the personnel of the Navy was 407,000 men. That number has now been reduced to 180,000, as compared with the pre-war standard of 151,000, a difference only, apparently, of 29,000. As far as I can see that is a really satisfactory condition of affairs. It was a pleasant surprise to me when I heard the figures. I am sure the whole Committee was very glad to note that the promise given by the First Lord last November as to the cancellation of contracts for three great battle-cruisers—the "Anson," the "Rodney," and the "Howe"—has been fully carried out, and that the only one really great ship-of-war which has been added to the
    1694
    strength of the Navy since the Armistice was declared is the ''Hood." Then the First Lord of the Admiralty was good enough, in reply to a question from this side of the House, to give us details of the eighty-four warships which are still under construction. As far as I am concerned, I am unable to criticise that. I will only say I am very glad to notice that with one exception no great battleships are under construction, because, after all, great ships always carry with them ancillary craft, which means a great deal of expenditure both in material and men. When you come down to the cruiser you find that it is necessary they should have many other craft with them. We can deduce from these figures, both of men and of ships, that there has been a real reduction in our Navy.
    I wish that one could be as satisfied with regard to the Army. I am not nearly so satisfied there, but I do wish to express my gratification at this obvious, definite and clear sign that the Navy is accommodating itself to the new conditions. My right hon. Friend made a remark which I heard—"As long as sufficient strength is kept up." As far as I am concerned, and whatever may be the case with regard to other arms, I hold very strongly that the very last thing we should reduce is our Navy. We are above all things a sea Power, and if our sea power goes all goes with it. I wish to say briefly one or two things with the understanding that that is the basis of my position. I want to urge upon my right hon. Friend, in so far as he can, consistently with what he conceives to be his public duty, to bear in mind what I am sure all thinking people in the country are bearing in mind, that every opportunity should be taken of reducing as far as possible our expenditure on this branch of our defensive forces. What is happening, as has been already pointed out is—and you cannot rub this in too often—that the German sea 6menace has disappeared, for several years to come at any rate, while America, we are told through the voice of her very able naval representative, Mr. Daniels, whom I had the pleasure of meeting at a private dinner and who I am sure was talking as a responsible spokesman when he said it, "has no desire to rival us, at any rate." They desire, of course, to have adequate protection for America, but, as to competitive rivalry and mastery of the seas, America does not wish to challenge us. In the horizon of politics, at any rate,

    1695
    we need not fear France or Italy, nor, as far as we know at present, Japan, on the sea. The whole competitive factor has been so far minimised that there is a real opportunity now for the Government to cut down any unnecessary expense and accommodate the strength of our Navy to the new position which we hope will continue for many years. I should like to know, in further support of the position, which happily we can now rely upon, how many cancellations of the shipbuilding programme other than what the Frst Lord gave us have taken place.
    There was a friendly understanding reached across the floor of the House between the Leader of the House and myself as to the resubmission of Estimates for our fighting forces. We have had Estimates of a sort with regard to the Army. We have had no detailed Estimates whatsoever of the Navy. It is clearly understood, is it not, that the earliest opportunity will be taken when we reassemble after the vacation to submit Estimates on the old pre-war basis. We shall know what are the effectives from the naval point of view, what battleships are contemplated in construction, and the whole area of what I may call the ancillary craft which will be necessary if those ships are laid down. We all appreciate that the right hon. Gentleman's action in the matter will be dictated by the general policy which is laid down by the Government for the time being. We know the right hon. Gentleman's undertaking will not be broken, and that we shall have the particulars which the country is wanting to know. We want to take stock and find out where we are, because the financial position is of the greatest concern to anyone, man or woman, who thinks consecutively for five minutes on the question, and can only be dealt with in so far as this nation can, consistently with its vital defences—and the Navy is the vital defence—see that non-productive expenditure—it is a very heavy rate of insurance, and to that extent it is productive, but essentially, from a purely economic point of view, it is non-productive expenditure—is reduced as far as possible. I say again that, as far as I am concerned, I recognise that there has been a very remarkable diminution in the number of men employed on the declaration of the Armistice and those we now find employed at the declaration of Peace. I am glad to find that the reputation of the Navy,
    1696
    which has always been a very good one, especially on the business side, is maintained. In regard to the purchase of coal, I have some knowledge of that reputation. Business men have known that in dealing with the Navy, with respect to the buying of coal, they had to deal with some of the smartest and acutest business minds, and I believe that view applies to other Admiralty departments. I hope that that business acumen, which was to some extent set aside during the War, will be once again in full play, so that the nation may have the benefit of those stores of knowledge and experience which we are glad to know the Navy still possesses.
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for his tribute to the administrative capacity and efficiency of the Department. I think I could best help this discussion by going back for a moment to the general situation which called for this further Vote on Account. We are in the first financial year after the termination of hostilities, and a quarter of that year had gone before Peace had been signed. We asked on 12th March for a Vote on Account of £50,000,000 to carry us on for three or four months, at the end of which time we hoped to be in a position to lay the detailed Navy Estimates for 1919–1920. That expectation has not been realised. We are, therefore, obliged to come here to ask for a further Vote on Account of £60,000,000 to carry us on again for three or four months, which will bring us to the Autumn. When we asked for the original Vote on Account, we did submit for the information of the House a provisional sketch of the course which naval expenditure might be expected to take so far as we could for see it with the information then at our disposal. My right hon. Friend will probably remember the figure for 1919–20 of £149,200,000. I would warn him that, as far as I can see, the £149,200,000 will be exceeded. Our expectation was that by to-day we should have been in a position to submit full detailed Estimates for the year. We are not in that position. The original Vote lasted as long as we expected it would last—it has been a very good Estimate—but since it is practically exhausted we have to come and ask for another Vote on Account. We give this undertaking: When we meet again we shall submit to the Committee the full Navy Estimates for the year. It will be very late in the year, and

    1697
    entirely unprecedented. It is unprecedented, as far as I can remember, to suhmit so late in the financial year Navy Votes or any Votes. But the circumstances in which we find ourselves are entirely unprecedented.
    But I would warn my right hon. Friend, in regard to the detailed Estimates for 1919–20, when he gets them, that you can-not take those Estimates, which bear so heavily the aftermath of war, and expect to see in them an index of the post-War permanent naval expenditure of this country. There will be non-recurring expenditure due to the War, and you cannot have a clean cut between peace and war, as the First Lord put it earlier in the day, and all our Votes, practically, are charged with expenditures which are the result of war. Therefore, to take the Estimates which we shall submit in the autumn and say they are an index of the permanent post-War peace Navy would be very misleading, and any endeavour to compare them with 1913–14, and from the comparison to say, "This is your view of the policy which shall determine the naval strength of this country," would again be extremely misleading, because there arc very heavy permanent charges which have arisen as a result of war conditions; and prices, again, labour, and material; all our Supply Votes have to be divided, roughly, by two to get back to the 1913–14 basis. As the First Lord said, to take one illustration only, we have added in 1919–20 £10,000,000 permanently in pay and allowances and pensions for the Navy over and above the standard of 1913–14. All these things have to be very carefully considered in any comparison between the two years, because otherwise you would be trying to compare like with unlike.
    My right hon. Friend referred to the fact that the construction of eighty-four ships and craft of various sorts has been continued during this year. It has been continued because they had reached such a stage of construction that it would be uneconomical to scrap them, or it would have been, in certain cases, a very unwise policy to cast vast numbers of workmen gathered together for ship construction at any given moment on the labour market. He asks me if I can tell him the other side of that story, namely, if we have gone on with eighty-four ships, how many have we cancelled? I can tell him. We have cancelled since November eleven ships and craft to the total of 326. I will read the
    1698
    details. First, the three "Hoods"—the three battle-cruisers—and then the three light cruisers, two mine-layers, four flotilla leaders, thirty-three destroyers, twenty-six submarines, two sloops, thirty-five twin-screw mine-sweepers, five paddle mine-sweepers, thirty-one patrol gunboats, 82 trawlers, apart from 133 trawlers which are being completed as fishing vessels; 64 drifters, apart from 108 drifters which are being completed as fishing vessels; 14 seaplane towing lighters, 21 tugs, and one boom defence vessel. The net saving of those ships cancelled in that time is £42,500,000.
    My right hon. Friend (Mr. Lambert) asked some questions about airship policy, and these have been asked with very much greater closeness arid in great detail by two hon. and gallant Gentlemen who have taken part in the Debate later. On this question I do not pretend to be able to speak with anything like practical knowledge, but for the moment, at any rate, the responsibility of the Admiralty for aviation is confined to the construction and maintenance, including repairs, of such rigid and non-rigid airships and airship stations as the Naval Staff desire for war services. The Director of Air Division looks after the requirements of the Navy, and maintains the necessary relations with the Grand Fleet, the Senior Naval Officers of Bases, the Air Council, and the Admiralty Departments concerned. That is, for the moment, the shortest possible statement which I can make. If my hon. and gallant Friend had looked at the two answers given—one on the 2nd July to the hon. and gallant Member for Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy), on the other on the 9th July to the same hon. and gallant Member—he would have seen that we are going on with the construction of six rigid airships, at a total estimated cost of about £2,200,000, and further the R 34 cost approximately herself £350,000, the cost of the housing shed, together with extensions and wind screens, feeing about £166,000. The R34, I should say, goes on Naval rates, but I will communicate with my hon. Friend opposite when I get the facts more reliably. My; hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Shettleston Division, in a speech which we all heard with great pleasure, if I may say so, raised three of the recommendations of the Jerram Committee, and three very important recommendations, which, as he said, have not been approved by the Board

    1699
    and the War Cabinet. Those three are these: The failure of the Government decision to carry out the Jerram recommendations to antedate the increase of pay to the 1st October; secondly, the failure of the Government decision to give the new base rate of pension to all the old pensioners on the roll to-day, over fifty-five years of age; and, thirdly, the failure of the Government decision to make provision, as asked by the men, and as recommended by the Jerram Committee, for the widows and orphans of men dying in the Service, but not from causes attributable to the Service, and, further, for the widows and orphans of pensioners dying.
    These are the three points upon which my hon. Friend laid great stress. I am bound to say he was by no means the only one. There were the hon. Members for Devonport, Portsmouth, Chatham, Hull, etc., and in what they said I recognise a very formidable body of comment on the alleged failure to which they referred. Certainly the men of the Fleet may feel that they have here a body of advocates forcible and eloquent. I am afraid that on these points I have no authority to add anything to what the First Lord has said in defence in the speech he made this afternoon at the outset of the Debate. There I must leave it. My hon. and gallant Friend opposite put a question to me about retired flag officers who accepted temporary commissions in the Royal Naval Reserve. He inquired if they will be eligible for the increased rate of retired pay. Yes, they are eligible. Reference was made by the Noble Lord the Member for Battersea South to the change which takes place next financial year from the service rates of Income Tax on salary to civilian rates, and especially upon the point that it would in certain cases mean an imposition which would wipe out part of the increase in salary which had been granted by the Halsey Commission. I shall be very glad if he would look at the documents before me—it is too long to go into now—and consider the statement. I admit that the change in the rates of Income Tax, while different in one or two cases, or in the junior ranks, would wipe out the last increase, not, of course, the whole increase, but the last increase. It will wipe it out in the case of sub-lieutenants, lieutenants, on promotion, and lieutenants after two years; certainly in
    1700
    the case of sub-lieutenants, who will be paying Income Tax next year for the first time. Assume that such an officer gets those abatements for uniform, etc., as at present, and he has no wife or children, he will pay £3 1s. 10d. I think you have to look at it from the point of view of what his salary was on 31st January of this year compared with what it now is. On 31st January it was £136 17s. 6d., and is now £182 10s. less £3 1s. 10d. That I think is the right way to lake that case. Of the other two cases, take the lieutenant on promotion. The difference between the two methods of assessment of Income Tax means to him £13 2s. 10d. Take his former salary, it was £219 on 31st January; it is £301 2s. 6d. now. The same difficulty is true of the lieutenants after two years' promotion. In no other case will the change in Income Tax leave an adverse balance compared with the last increase in salary. My hon. and gallant Friend referred to other decisions in the White Paper with which he disagreed. I have no authority to vary those decisions or make any comment on them.
    I was asked why should the London allowance be allowed only to officers attached to the Admiralty Office. It is payable to all officers in Admiralty establishments in London. There were a recommendation with regard to reduced fares for officers proceeding on leave to be continued, and that is being considered with the War Office and the Air Ministry. Then there was the question of two free passages a year for officers proceeding on leave, and that has been deferred for future consideration in connection with leave arrangements. With regard to officers going abroad to take up stationary appointments in shore stations to have indulgence passages for their wives and families, we had a series of similar proposals for the men. But it is not usual for these ratings to be permanently posted to stations abroad for long periods. It is difficult to draw the line, and if we agree to this suggestion you would certainly accentuate the housing problem which is already acute in certain stations abroad.
    Having said this suggestion cannot be approved with regard to the men, we have no alternative but to say that we could not differentiate between officers and men, and therefore these proposals were not approved. My hon. Friend the Member for Leyton referred to the recommendation to increase the pensions of widows and the compassionate allowances for chil-

    1701
    dren, and he argued that we had in our decision differentiated between the officers and their widows and children, and the way in which we treated the recommendations in regard to the widows and children of the men. Nothing could be further from the truth, and I do not know where he gets his information. What was put to us by the Halsey Committee was this: We were invited to grant increased rates to an existing system of allowances to widows and orphans of officers. The proposal was set out in the Appendix. Our reply was that no change could be made in the present rates. It was a matter that affected the whole of the public service, and we could not legislate for our own service alone. I think I have made it quite clear that it would be untrue to say that we have unfairly discriminated in favour of the officers as compared with the men. I cannot pretend to have covered all the points raised on the Halsey and Jerram Reports, but I have endeavoured to cover the great bulk of them.
    Lieut.-Colonel MALONE: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us any indication as to whether the important points will be reconsidered?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I have said that I have no authority.
    Lieut.-Colonel MALONE: Will you recommend it to the Board?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: It is a question for the Board and not for me. I am afraid that I cannot carry the matter beyond the decisions already announced by the Government.
    Sir T. BRAMSDON:I had hoped that I might hear something from the right hon. Gentleman on some of the points that J have raised, and notably that with regard to acting officers.
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I say that I could not cover the whole of the points. My hon. Friend dealt with the case of officers of acting rank, outside the zone of promotion, who have been passed over for promotion, but who got acting rank during the War, and who have made good. He suggested that they ought now to be met either by double time counting for pension or by a step in rank on retirement. That is one of the subjects that I really felt I had not time to cover to-night.
    Sir T. BRAMSDON: Will the right hon. Gentleman give it consideration?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Yes, certainly; and I will communicate with my hon. Friend. With regard to the trawlers and drifters, we have a scheme, but we are still in negotiation with the Treasury, and it is not settled yet, so that I cannot give my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) the details of it. We are endeavouring in some way to recognise the services that these men have rendered us during the War. I can assure my hon. Friend the Member for Moray and Nairn (Sir A. Williamson) that all expedition is being used in reconditioning the trawlers and drifters so that they can get back to their fishing work. He called my attention by letter this morning to a collection of trawlers and drifters in Loch Ness. I have got a report, and I find that a certain amount of reconditioning is being done at the Inverness yard. Fraserburgh, Buckie, etc., have been taxed to the full with work and, at times, have appealed for no further vessels to be sent owing to the lack of accommodation. It has been pointed out that the ports have also to accommodate other vessels. In addition, to hasten their return to owners, Scottish drifters have been reconditioned at Liverpool. Falmouth, Lame, Southampton, Cowes, Dover, Brightlingsea, and other places and if anything can be done to expedite matters still further, it certainly shall be done.
    Sir A. WILLIAMSON: Could not some of the work be done at naval yards?
    Dr. MACNAMARA:We will do all we can to expedite this work. As regards delay in settling the claims of the men, if my hon. Friend can give me any particular cases of hardship I will look into them personally. As regards the future of the Royal Naval Reserve, I should like, if I may, to consult my colleagues on the question, and give a full and considered answer on that point. With regard to the apprentices, the return of them from the Colours is really a matter for the War Office. I do not know that I can make out any special—
    Mr. HOHLER: Have you taken any steps to get them back?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I rather fancy we have made representations already, and. that we cannot ask for special consideration for our apprentices over and above that consideration which is given to other apprentices. I will, however, look into

    1703
    the matter again, but I repeat it is really a matter for the Secretary of State for War.
    Sir A. WILLIAMSON: What about the refusal of gratuities to men of the Mercantile Marine for war service?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: We did not grant them a gratuity because the men were on mercantile rates of pay, and not on naval rates of pay. The mercantile rates were higher than the naval rates, and it was not considered inequitable not to allow their demand for war gratuities. If my hon. Friend will send me any cases in which he thinks there is any hardship, I will have them looked into. Withregard to the title of commissioned shipwrights, I thought that was satisfactorily settled in a way agreeable to the persons concerned, but I find that I am wrong. My hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Hohler) says the decision is the result of opposition on the part of the Royal Corps of Naval Constructors, but that is not the case. It is a decision of the Board of Admiralty and not of the Royal Corps. The Board's decision was taken because the term "constructor" is misleading. These men are not constructors, and they do not do constructive work. They do repair work, and it would not be right to give the title in such cases. I am bound to say I see nothing derogatory in the old English word "shipwright." I do not understand what is derogatory in it, and indeed I believe there is a Worshipful Company of Shipwrights. I do not know whether they think there is anything derogatory in the title.
    Mr. HOHLER: It was not suggested that it was derogatory, but it was not the title the men asked for, and they object to it.
    Dr. MACNAMARA:The hon. and learned Gentleman thought it was due to a civil body, the Naval Corps of Constructors. It is the decision of the Board of Admiralty. The only other thing I can deal with is the important question of the welfare committees. In order to make permanent arrangements for bringing to notice from time to time matters affecting the well-being of the men the Board issued, in February last, orders that at stated times, and preferably in the autumn, the three home ports should arrange for the election of representatives of the various branches, who would put forward in writing to the president of
    1704
    the committee of officers appointed by the Admiralty representations which the different classes desire to bring to notice The whole of the lower dock representatives will then sit in an advisory capacity, and the welfare committee which would thus be constituted would be authorised to receive and discuss representations in respect to the following matters Pay and allowances, promotion, messing and canteen arrangements, uniform and clothing arrangements, pensions, retirements, and similar matters affecting the whole of the interests of the men. They would not be authorised to receive or discuss representations on matters of policy, discipline, individual claims, and so on, matters affecting individual ships, etc. The institution of this system of welfare committees was not to be held in any way as conflicting with the principles laid down in Article 11 of the King's Regulations. Furthermore, these conferences will not in any way be regarded as the alternative channel for the representation of individual claims or grievances, nor in any way to diminish the responsibility of the captain for the discipline and well-being of the officers and men serving under his command. My hon. and gallant Friend rather put it that we had not been in earnest about this—that we had not gone on and the committees had not been appointed. No; because the Fleet has been at sea, and the proposal was from the beginning to call them together in the autumn. They will be called together in October. The Board of Admiralty really mean that the representatives of the various branches of the lower deck shall be elected by the ratings in the freest possible manner. Let there be no mistake about that. That is our desire, and that is what will be carried out by the Commanders-in-Chief. When they are called together, it will deal with the men after the freest possible election and not selection. I look forward with very great hopefulness to these new bodies, and I believe they will contribute very much indeed to our knowledge of the day-by-day conditions on the topics which they will be the properly constituted authority to deal with. I hope I may now ask the Committee to give us the Vote.
    Sir T. BRAMSDON: Will the right hon. Gentleman kindly say what the position is with regard to Income Tax paid by retired officers?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Whether they will be on the Service rates or civilian rates? I think after the next financial year the Service rates will go—that is to say, they will be on civilian-earned rates—but I am speaking subject to correction. If the hon. Gentleman will put a question I will give a considered answer.
    Sir T. BRAMSDON: There were other points such as interpreters, the Fleet Reserve, and so on.
    Dr. MACNAMARA: With the utmost good will in the world it is impossible in the time to cover the many details which arise in a debate which lasts from half-past four to a quarter-past ten.
    Rear-Admiral ADAIR: I am sorry the First Lord has not found it possible to answer my questions as to the reasons—that is all I asked—for the difference between the recommendations of the Jerram Committee and the Admiralty decisions upon them. As I am sure no one appreciates more than the First Lord, the Navy likes everything straight and above-board, and I think it would have been reasonable to have let the men know the reasons for the decisions not being in accordance with the recommendations. I assume that the reasons are too weighty even for this
    1706
    House to know them, though, if this House is not entitled to know them, I should like to be informed who is entitled! I regret, too, that the refusal to reconsider these decisions, which are not in accordance with the recommendations of the Committee, was expressed with some want of sympathy—the terms in which we were notified that there would be no reconsideration were not sympathetic. I think they should have been. I beg to withdraw my Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Original Question put, and agreed to.
    Whereupon the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
    Resolution to be reported To-morrow; Committee to sit again To-morrow.
    The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

    ADJOURNMENT.
    Resolved,
    "That this House do now adjourn."— [Colonel Sanders.]
    Adjourned accordingly at Four minutes before Eleven o'clock

COAL.
  IRON AND STEEL TRADES (LOSS).
  IRON AND STEEL TRADES (LOSS).
  RATIONING.
  RATIONING.
  COAL MINES DEPARTMENT (STAFF).
  COAL MINES DEPARTMENT (STAFF).
  MINERS' ABSENTEEISM.
  MINERS' ABSENTEEISM.
  SUPPLIES FOB ABKRDEEN.
  SUPPLIES FOB ABKRDEEN.
  GERMANS' ENGLISH WIVES (PROPERTY).
  GERMANS' ENGLISH WIVES (PROPERTY).
  TELEPHONE SERVICE (SELECT COMMITTEE).
  TELEPHONE SERVICE (SELECT COMMITTEE).
INCOME TAX.
  FINANCE BILL CONCESSIONS.
  FINANCE BILL CONCESSIONS.
  GENERAL ELECTION (RETURNING OFFICERS' EXPENSES).
  GENERAL ELECTION (RETURNING OFFICERS' EXPENSES).
  CIVIL SERVICE (ENTRANCE EXAMINATIONS).
  CIVIL SERVICE (ENTRANCE EXAMINATIONS).
IRELAND.
  KLLOVARNOGUB OUTRAGE.
  KLLOVARNOGUB OUTRAGE.
  ORIEL HOUSE, DUBLIN.
  ORIEL HOUSE, DUBLIN.
  EDUCATION BILL.
  EDUCATION BILL.
  HOSPITALS (MAINTENANCK).
  HOSPITALS (MAINTENANCK).
  AGRICULTURAL PRICKS (RETURN).
  AGRICULTURAL PRICKS (RETURN).
  PRISONS SERVICE.
  PRISONS SERVICE.
  BALTIC (NAVAL FORCES).
  BALTIC (NAVAL FORCES).
  BATTLE OF JUTLAND.
  BATTLE OF JUTLAND.
DEMOBILISATION.
  APPLICATIONS FOR RELEASE.
  APPLICATIONS FOR RELEASE.
  ROYAL ENGINEERS (BANDMASTER).
  ROYAL ENGINEERS (BANDMASTER).
  SOLDIERS UNDER SENTENCE.
  SOLDIERS UNDER SENTENCE.
  RIFLE RANGES (CLEARANCE PITS).
  RIFLE RANGES (CLEARANCE PITS).
  SOLDIERS' PAY (DEDUCTIONS).
  SOLDIERS' PAY (DEDUCTIONS).
  UNEMPLOYED ARMY OFFICERS.
  UNEMPLOYED ARMY OFFICERS.
  ROYAL RESERVE TERRITORIALS (BOUNTY).
  ROYAL RESERVE TERRITORIALS (BOUNTY).
  SOLDIERS' ACCOUNTS.
  SOLDIERS' ACCOUNTS.
  TEMPORARY RIFLE RANGES.
  TEMPORARY RIFLE RANGES.
  SURPLUS GOVERNMENT PROPERTY (AUCTIONEERS).
  SURPLUS GOVERNMENT PROPERTY (AUCTIONEERS).
  WAR RIBBON (CHARGE).
  WAR RIBBON (CHARGE).
NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  QUEEN MARY'S ARMY AUXILIARY CORPS.
  QUEEN MARY'S ARMY AUXILIARY CORPS.
  WAR GRATUITY (DELAY).
  WAR GRATUITY (DELAY).
  TRAINING COLLEGE STUDENTS (MILITARY SERVICE).
  TRAINING COLLEGE STUDENTS (MILITARY SERVICE).
  INDIA (CURRENCY RESTRICTIONS).
  INDIA (CURRENCY RESTRICTIONS).
  THAMES BALLAST.
  THAMES BALLAST.
  POLICE PENSIONS.
  POLICE PENSIONS.
  CABLE COMMUNICATION, ST. LUCIA AND BATHURST.
  CABLE COMMUNICATION, ST. LUCIA AND BATHURST.
  EX-SERVICE MEN (EMPLOYMENT).
  EX-SERVICE MEN (EMPLOYMENT).
  PRISONS SERVICE, SCOTLAND.
  PRISONS SERVICE, SCOTLAND.
  BULLSDOWN FARM, BRAMLEY (COMPENSATION CLATM).
  BULLSDOWN FARM, BRAMLEY (COMPENSATION CLATM).
EGYPT.
  EDUCATION (EXPENIUTURE)
  EDUCATION (EXPENIUTURE)
  MINISTRY OF EDUCATION (OFFICIALS).
  MINISTRY OF EDUCATION (OFFICIALS).
  PASSPORT CONDITIONS.
  PASSPORT CONDITIONS.
Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

BEDWELLTY URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL.
WORKINGTON CORPORATION BILL.
PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDERS BILL.
ELECTRIC LIGHTINC PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
GAS AND WATER PROVISIONAL ORDERS BILL.
Read 2a.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON): My Lords, I beg to make the Motion standing in my name.
Moved, That Standing Orders No. XXI and XXXIX be considered in order to their being suspended for this day's sitting, so that the Treaty of Peace Bill and the Anglo-French Treaty (Defence of France) Bill may have precedence of the other Notices and Orders of the Day, and that it may be possible to pass them through all stages.—(Earl Curzon of Kedleston.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

TREATY OF PEACE BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: My Lords, this Bill, to which I have the honour to ask your Lordships to give a Second Reading, is not, for the reasons which I explained the other day, a Bill ratifying the Treaty of Peace that has been concluded between the Allied and Associated Powers and Germany, but it is a Bill giving power for the execution of the Treaty in certain respects for which Parliamentary sanction is required. They are defined in the clauses of the Bill. There is practically only one substantial clause, with three subsections. The first of those subsections gives power to His Majesty to make appointments, to
1008
establish offices, and to issue Orders in Council for carrying out the provisions of the Treaty. The second subsection provides that the Orders in Council may impose penalties, and shall be laid, according to the ordinary practice, before Parliament. The third subsection provides that any expenses incurred in carrying out the Treaty shall be placed on the Parliamentary Votes in the usual manner. Any explanation that your Lordships may desire on any of these points I shall be willing to give. I do not think that it is any part of my province to-day to enlarge upon the Peace Treaty itself. I am afraid that I consumed a very great and perhaps almost unreasonable space of your Lordships' time ten days ago in attempting an analysis and a summary of the provisions of the Treaty. I certainly have no intention of repeating that this afternoon, but will hold myself ready to answer any questions that any noble Lord may think it desirable to put. With this brief explanation I now move the Second Reading of the Bill.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Earl Curzon of Kedleston.)
VISCOUNT BRYCE: My Lords, the Motion made by the noble Earl for the consent of Parliament to action by the Crown in carrying into effect the provisions of the Treaty of Peace raises the whole question of the Treaty, and gives us an opportunity of entering into an enormous and boundless field of comment and discussion. Into that field I shall not enter. A famous line of poetry says—
"Not Heaven itself upon the past has power."
Parliament cannot alter what is past. We are presented with a Treaty which has taken a long time to discuss and settle. It has been the result of immensely complicated negotiations, and I do not see how we can reopen it now. Had we known more of what was passing while those negotiations were going on, Parliament might perhaps have profitably, at some stages of the discussions, said something which would have been of value to the negotiators. Of course, I should be the last person to suggest that negotiations can be conducted in public. Those of us who have had any experience of diplomatic discussions know how impossible that is. But I may ask, I think with. propriety, what information is going to be given to us as to the means and methods which guided, and

1009
the considerations which influenced, the Powers in coming to the conclusions that are embodied in this Treaty.
I have had on the Paper for some time, having postponed it from time to time at the request of His Majesty's Government, a Question which appears on the Paper to-day, which perhaps I may put to the noble Earl now as it is undoubtedly germane to the purpose of our discussion this afternoon. It is this—
To ask His Majesty's Government in what form it is proposed to present to Parliament an account of the negotiations which have led to the settlement of the terms of peace proposed to Germany and Austria, and to the conclusion of whatever peace may be ultimately signed with the latter State?
Your Lordships will remember what happened at the time of the conclusion of the Treaty of Berlin. There was presented to Parliament an immensely long Despatch enclosing a report of the discussions of the Congress of Berlin. It was, I think, a report of 180 folio pages. It gave us a very full account of what passed at the different sittings of the Conference presided over by Prince Bismarck. I do not, of course, know what the methods followed at the Berlin Congress were, but probably they were entirely different from those followed at the Paris Conference, and I do not suggest that an equally full narrative is possible now (if rumour be true as to the way the discussions were conducted). Still, in some form or other, I think we I may take it that His Majesty's Government will wish to present to us a report explaining the methods by which the conclusions embodied in the Treaty were reached. Therefore I ask the noble Earl, when he replies, if he will be good enough to answer the Question which is on the. Paper, and which it might be convenient to dispose of at once.
I pass away free that and the contents of the Treaty altogether, except in so far as the Treaty embodies the League of Nations. I shall have a few observations to make presently upon the League of Nations, and they will, I take it, be in order, as the Covenant of the League of Nations is part of this Treaty. I will only say that while there are many things to rejoice us in the Treaty, there are also some things to regret. I am sorely
1010
tempted to comment upon one of those things—namely, the case of Shantung. But I suppose I had better refrain from raising that question at this moment.
And I will not use more than a few sentences about a question which, though not of permanent and intrinsic importance, has provoked a. large amount of debate and discussion -the question of whether it is desirable to indict and try the German Emperor, and, if so where and how he shall be tried. Just one remark I will make upon that which seems to me to go to the kernel of the matter. There are two aspects of the proposal to have, such a trial. One relates to ourselves and the other Allies, and the other relates to the neutral countries and the countries recently at war with us. So far as the question relates to ourselves, we have already completely formed a judgment that nothing is likely to alter. A more grass violation of international morality as well as of treaties, and one which was fraught with more terrible consequences than the invasion of Belgium and the detestable treatment of non-combatants which followed upon that both in Belgium and Northern France, it is impossible to imagine. There has hardly been a greater crime recorded in history. We, therefore, are completely convinced of the greatness of the crime, and I think we are convinced of the responsibility not of one person alone—the nominal head of the State—but of all those who surrounded him and in whose hands he was. We have full evidence of their responsibility, and history has already ample materials for forming a judgment upon the matter.
But if we turn to the effect to be produced upon neutral countries and upon the countries which have recently been at war with us, the matter assumes a somewhat different aspect. It may be asked, in the first place, what precedent there is for any such trial. What precedent is there for the trial of the head of a State? A good many instances have been cited, but curiously enough the only instance. I have been able to think of which is parallel to this is an instance very far back in history—the instance of the judicial murder of Conradin, King of Sicily, by Charles of Anjou in 1268; and that was considered at the time such an atrocious act that no one would think of citing it as a precedent. Further, what precedent is there for trying an offence committed in another country over which we and the

1011
Allies have no jurisdiction? What precedent is there for holding a trial of this kind in the country which has been at war with the country of the person who is to be tried, and what effect will be produced by the trial of an offender of this eminence by his enemies? All these are questions of some importance. What is said to be desired is that this trial shall be a vindication of international morality, standing as a monument for the future, and influencing the opinion of the world now. But so far as we are concerned, it does not seem to be needed; and so far as neutral countries and the enemy countries are concerned may it not rather tend to make the culprit who is arraigned an object of commiseration and sympathy, and in that way produce a different effect from that which its advocates desire?
I pass away from that—I mentioned it merely in order that I may not appear to ignore a matter that has aroused so much public interest—and I turn to the future. There are, I think, very few people in England or in the countries associated with us who realise the vastness of the task to which the Conference had to address itself in Paris. If we go back to all the great European settlements of the last 300 years; if we compare the problems that lay before the Conference at Paris with those that occupied the people who negotiated the Peace of Westphalia in the middle of the seventeenth century or with those dealt with in the Peace of Utrecht, or with those of the European settlement made at the Congress of Vienna, or with those in our own memory which arose at the Congress of Berlin where a sort of settlement was made—then we feel that none of those are in any way comparable to the magnitude of the task which has been carried on and is being carried on in Paris.
Neither is it yet generally understood how much remains to be done and how comparatively small a part of the re-settlement of the territories of the world has been completed by the Treaty which is now before your Lordships. There are three groups of countries remaining in which difficulties of the utmost intricacy and complication arise, which it will need all the energy and all the wisdom that the most skilled and best-informed men possess to solve. And the Treaty of Berlin in that respect is a warning to us. It left many injustices and many dangers existing, and they proved a constant danger to the peace of Europe.
1012
And its provisions were never fairly carried out. More than thirty years of unrest and suffering were caused to the. Balkan peninsula—and I might add in Western Asia also—be the settlement which was attempted to be made in the Treaty of Berlin. It is not too much to say that the Failure of the Treaty of Berlin to settle the question of time Balkans was one of the causes which brought about the present war. It is surely incumbent upon us to try to be warned by that disastrous precedent. Of course, I am not saving this by way of recrimination or condemnation of those who negotiated the Treaty of Berlin. They had great difficulties to face, and if there is any blame it is to be divided in many quarters. I am merely pointing out what was the result of leaving these questions ill adjusted. Let us try, therefore, to avoid leaving unsettled questions which give no peace to nations, both in the remaining treaties which have to be concluded—with Austria, Turkey, and Bulgaria—and also in carrying out the provisions of this Treaty with Germany.
I venture respectfully to suggest to your Lordships and to His Majesty's Government two methods in which these difficulties may be dealt with and the dangers incident to the conditions of the groups of countries still remaining to be handled may be avoided. One of them is to appoint, where there are grave difficulties and disputes regarding frontiers and regarding the rights of the nationalities which inhabit those countries, impartial Commissions to make an investigation upon the spot, where necessary, and to report to the Conference upon the facts which they have ascertained. Hasty and ill-informed decisions arrived at by the Conference may be fatal to future peace A Commission has already been sent out to Syria which, I believe, is engaged in making inquiries there, and I suggest the Balkan countries and the Baltic countries also require similar treatment. There are many controversies there of the greatest possible difficulty, and an impartial report made by competent men, who lay down the lines which ought to be followed, having respect to the principle of nationality, and to the Principle of self-determination, would be of the greatest possible value to the negotiators when they are completing their task.
The other suggestion is that, wherever possible, there should be taken a popular vote, or what is called a plébiscite, of the

1013
population concerned in order to ascertain their wishes. That is already provided for by the Treaty before us as regards a certain part of East Prussia which is inhabited partly by a Polish (i.e. Slavonic) and partly by a Teutonic, population, and also as regards the part of Schleswig which is inhabited partly by Danes and partly by Germans; and these provisions seem to have been very carefully considered, and may, I think, be carried out with perfect fairness under the supervision of the League of Nations.
It is true that there are many questions of this kind where it is impossible to arrive at a satisfactory solution, sometimes because the two races are inextricably intermingled and almost equal in number, and sometimes because there are considerations of commerce, or possibly even of strategy, which may affect the decision. All I would represent to your Lordships is that as far as possible we ought to follow the principle of nationality, because it is the principle which is likely to give the maximum of contentment and of ac-quiescence in the settlement arrived at.
No such gross violation of the principle should be sanctioned as that which has been asked in respect of the German-speaking part of Tyrol. There you have more than 200,000 people who speak German, who have always spoken German, who have never been under the Government of any Italian Sovereign, who belong to the ancient County of Tyrol, which had nothing whatever to do with the Italian Bishopric of Trentino, and it is now proposed to hand over these people to an alien Government to which they are extremely unwilling to submit. And although I gather from the answer which was given to me the other day that some sort of acquiescence was given to this by His Majesty's Government five tears ago, it must be remembered that circumstances were then entirely different. Italy was then confronted by the great Austro-Hungarian Monarchy, one of the great military monarchies of the world. She will now be confronted to the North by a petty State with only about 7,000,000 people, perfectly unable to cope with a nation of 36,000,000.
I believe it has been suggested, in answer to the demand for a plébiscite, that if yon took a plébiscite of the whole of the Tyrol south of the Brenner (and in that case why not take it for all Tyrol north
1014
as well as south of the Brenner?) but if you took a plébiscite for Tyrol south of the Brenner, you would probably have an Italian majority. That is true. The population of the Italian Bishopric of Trentino is much larger than the population of Central Tyrol, the district which is proposed to be annexed to Italy. You might as well suggest that, for determining the future of Lithuania, you should take a plébiscite of the whole of Russia, or to bring it a little nearer to our own experience—you might as well suggest that You should solve the question of Ulster, or of the four or six north-eastern counties of Ulster, by taking a plébiscite of the whole of Ira land. Clearly no one in Ulster will acquiesce in taking a plébiscite which covered, not only the people affected, but a very large population outside. And it would be just as absurd to settle the Irish question by taking a plébiscite of all Ireland and saying that that was giving effect to the wishes of the people of Ulster as it would be to take a plébiscite of all Tyrol south of the Brenner and to say that that represents the wishes of the population which is affected in this particular case. However, I pass by that, having merely mentioned it because it is an illustration of the principle that ought to be followed in taking plébiscite s to ascertain the wishes of the population concerned.
There are three cases in which very great difficulties arise with regard to the determination of boundaries, and where the principle of nationalities requires to be considered. One of those is the Baltic region Esthonia Lithuania, Lett-land, and the. Ukraine. Upon this I will say nothing, bacause it is very hard, even with the aid of a map, to remember where the nationalities are and what they are. But there are also the Balkans, with which, of course, your Lordships are much more familiar. There are two countries or rather two peoples—there which present particular difficulties. There is the, Albanian population and there is the Bulgarian population. The Albanian population is mixed on the North with the Slavonic population and on the South with the Greek population, and it would be a matter of very great, difficulty to settle where the lines ought to be drawn to give to the Albanians a certain part of what they claim which would recognise the claims of the Albanian people themselves to have their wishes respected. I

1015
believe there is some danger that the two neighbour States may get more of Albania than they ought to have. The only fair way to deal with this will be to have an impartial examination on the spot.
The other question is that of the Bulgarian population in Southern Macedonia and South-Eastern Thrace. There, of course, we have a population which is different in race, speech and feeling from either the Serb population or the Greek population, and it would be a very great danger to future peace in the Balkans, indeed to the future peace of Europe, if a part of that population were assigned to the government of States between whom and that population there had already existed feelings of bitterness, which have become still more bitter owing to the strife that has unhappily prevailed in those countries during the last ten to fifteen years. To hand over populations to the rule of a Government to which they do not desire to be subjected would be only to create more unrest and more discontent and to sow the seeds of future wars. I do not know how these matters can be dealt with except by having a very careful public Inquiry- held, to be laid before the Conference when it comes to settle these questions.
Similar questions arise in Western Asia. There is not only the question as to the Turks and how much the Turkish Government should retain. I do not think, if I may say so, that even those who are most anxious to champion the rights of the Christian nationalities would be justified in objecting to the constitution of a Turkish Sultanate which was ruling over a Mahomedan population; and if there is any uneasiness with regard to the feelings of Mahomedans elsewhere I take it that those feelings would be satisfied by having a Turkish Sultanate with its capital at Brusa or Konia, so that there would still be a. Sultan who might be a Caliph if the Mahomedan world pleased. Therefore we need not suppose there is any inconsistency in allowing a Turkish Sultanate of that kind to survive. There is also the question in which the noble Earl takes a particular interest—namely, the extremely difficult question of the peoples who inhabit Trans-Caucasia, where a problem exists as difficult as any of the others.
May I add to what I have said by saying that it is not only important to avoid creating any fresh grievances but it is
1016
also imperative to give the world, and especially the populations concerned, the sense that justice has been done. It has been well said that Courts of Justice exist not only to do justice but to assure the world that justice has been done. That maxim applies here. We want not only to arrive at a just settlement but to let the nationalities concerned feel that their eases have been properly stated and heard, that each has had every opportunity of putting its ease, and that the settlement arrived at has been reached after an impartial consideration. I would like to add also that we ought not to start the League of Nations with a heavy load of evils and discontents already made for it. I hear it said in some quarters. "It does not much matter, the League of Nations will set it all right.'' I remember having heard it said in an inferior Court of Justice when a wrong decision was given that it mattered little what the Judge decided because the Court of Appeal would set him right. 'We do not want to hand these things over to the League of Nations as a Court of Appeal. We want to start the League of Nations with a clean slate and let it go upon its beneficent work without having difficulties ready made for it.
This leads me to say a few words about the League of Nations itself. It is the one great achievement which can cheer the world after the sufferings of this war, and after the display of wickedness and brutality which this war has brought to our knowledge. It is the one great ray of hope for the future; and I think that our thanks are justly due not only to the President of the United States and his colleagues who brought forward and urged that proposition in Paris but also to His Majesty's Government and Lord Robert Cecil for the cordial and consistent support they have given to the idea, doing all they can to turn what was a distant aspiration into an accomplished fact. Therefore, if I may presume to do so on behalf of those who have been working for this idea ever since the beginning of the war. I would say that we appreciate, and I am sure that in the United States there will be warm appreciation for, the part that His Majesty's Government have played in bringing this result about. We have gone as far as it is possible safely new to go in the constitution of the Covenant of the League of Nations. There have been some sanguine spirits who have talked about creating a sort of super-State, or

1017
what used lo be called "a Parliament of the world." But the world is not ripe for anything of that kind. National feelings and jealousy are far too strong to allow any project of that kind to succeed; and it seems to most of us who have considered the matter that the Covenant embodied in this Treaty goes as far as would be useful in the direction of creating an authority charged with the preservation of peace. The nations, in fact, have to be educated up to this idea; it is still above them, and it has not been fully comprehended.
I do not want for a moment and I do not think anybody who has studied the matter would wish—to underrate the difficulties which attend this matter. We feel them, perhaps, more strongly than the cynics who in clubs and newspapers deride the whole project. We know that the difficulties will require the utmost wisdom and care if the. League is to succeed. But after all, it is a great, departure towards good. It is a recognition of the unity of mankind; it is a recognition of the duty which peoples Owe to other peoples. It is the one attempt that has ever been made in the world, with any prospect of success, to make a permanent provision against the recurrence of calamities which would destroy civilisation itself. We feel that strongly with regard to the provision for the mandates in the case of backward races. If there were nothing but that in the Covenant of the League of Nations we might be glad to have it. The treatment of the backward races of mankind, ever since the Spanish Conquest of South America and the days of the slave trade, has been the greatest blot upon Christian nations, or shall I say upon so-called Christian nations who have never tried to apply Christian principles? But the work is by no means put through by the creation of this mandate. The greatest possible watchfulness will be required on the part of those who have to superintend the execution of the mandate by the Powers to whom the mandate has been committed. Things will be quite safe where this country has to carry out a mandate, as far as British administrators are concerned, because we all know that we have set an excellent example in doing the most that humane official administrators can do to protect native races. It is against exploiters and selfish adventurers that precautions have to be taken.
1018
There are now one or two suggestions would venture to make with regard to the League of Nations. In the first place, there is a matter which hits engaged great attention in the United States, amid which has been particularly dwelt upon by two statesmen there who have been doing their utmost to promote the acceptance of the League of Nations—namely, ex-President Taft and Mr. Elihu Root—I refer to the importance of using the League of Nations in order to create a better system of Inter-national Law. That is scarcely mentioned in the Covenant, and yet it is of the utmost importance. One of the first duties of the League will be to set a Commission to work to endeavour to codify and amend International Law—that is the medley of rules almost destroyed by the war, that used to be called International Law. In the second place, there is the immediate constitution of an International Court of Justice. That is only foreshadowed in the Covenant, but it is really one of the most important things to be dealt with. It is mach better, instead of trusting to parties to choose their Courts from time to time, to have a permanent Court constituted of the very, best men in the world who can be found to undertake the duties, and to give them time to create by their decisions a sort of international jurisprudence based upon the precedents set by their decisions.
Further, it seems important that the proceedings of the League of Nations authorities, not only of the General Assembly but also of the Council, should as far as possible receive publicity. What we want to do is to form a public opinion in the world. It is very undesirable that the League of Nations should rely upon force, if force can be avoided. It is very undesirable that it should even have recourse to the weapon, powerful as that weapon is, of commercial boycot. It is very much better that the League of Nations should act by appealing to the conscience of the world, and it can only do so if it gives as much publicity as possible to its proceedings and to the information upon which its proceedings are grounded. When, for instance, it has to undertake tile work of reconciliation, the work of endeavouring to solve difficulties that are arising between two countries and to find a proper compromise between their respective claims, the public opinion of the world would be greatly helped if

1019
there were an Inquiry which ascertained all the facts, which summarised and stated all the arguments, and which also set out the conclusions to which those arguments led and in that way gave public opinion the opportunity of throwing its weight upon the side to which justice seemed to belong. Therefore although there must be parts of the business of the League of Nations which can only be done in private, the more its business can be done in such a way to carry the public opinion of the world with it, the stronger will the League be and the more rapid will be the education of public opinion itself.
What is wanted, my Lords, is to give the League of Nations a moral authority which every one will recognise because it is based upon the opinion of many nations and not only of the two nations immediately concerned—a moral authority which will check attempts at rapacity or outbursts of race hatred. The world needs appeasement. We have in the League of Nations, if it succeeds the means of appeasing those hatreds that have hitherto created strife and the means of creating an atmosphere of good will and a sense of solidarity. We have made war during these five years on behalf of great ideals of ideals of right, of justice, and of compassion, and the victory that we have won has been above all things a victory for those ideals. We are bound to adhere to them and to pursue them in peace. We believe that the British people and the American people are united in their loyalty to these ideals, and that they will support their governments in carrying out the principles of the League of Nations if they are properly instructed and appealed to. The League of Nations rests upon the feeling that the world has now become one one in a new sense never dreamed of before; that the fortunes of each people affect those of all other peoples, and that the well-being of each makes for the well-being of all. The League of Nations if it has any truth, or reality, or force, rests on the belief that the community of the world requires that a new spirit should prevail in international relations—a spirit which seeks to substitute friendship for enmity. Each of the European countries, our own included, emerged from the sanguinary welter of the Middle Ages by realising in its own domestic affairs that order and peace and respect by each individual for the rights and feelings of every other individual were better for all than ferocious strife. All the nations now have to do the
1020
same thing; they have to try to apply, far as is possible, Christian principles to international relations—to work for reconciliation, and to make even the peoples that have been alienated feel that they are members of one great community in peace and good will. That will do more for the happiness of each and of all than strife has given or ever will give to even the strongest.
LORD BUCKMASTER: My Lords, there are only a few words that I desire to say, but I should be glad of your permission to add those few. In the first place, I think that every one who is considering this Treaty ought to bear in mind what was placed before us by the noble Earl the Leader of the House when he first explained the terms of Peace to your Lordships. We ought to realise the difficulties that the representatives of this country had to face in securing those terms, not only the difficulties that are plain and easily seen by all of us, but the difficulties which are probably more grave—the hidden difficulties—about which we can only guess, and of which we have no real knowledge at all. I felt that, when the noble Earl asked us to express some measure of gratitude to those who have been engaged in completing this work on our behalf, that expression ought not to be mitigated or withheld by any one who was of opinion, as I am, that the Treaty falls far short of what they hoped it would provide. In one respect (to which the noble Viscount has referred) the Treaty, although it has not realised the hopes of all of us, has at least achieved a very notable success; and when speaking, as I know I do, not only for myself but for many who were during the last three Years associated with me in an effort to make popular the idea of the League of Nations, I should like, on their behalf, to express our sense of obligation and gratitude to Lord Robert Cecil for the work he did in Paris.
NOBLE LORDS; Hear, hear.
LORD BUCKMASTER: We feel that we owe much to his courage, and that we owe still more to the high principle with which he has attempted to inspire his public utterances and our public life upon this question. I feel, with the noble Viscount who has just sat down, that, though the League of Nations is newly

1021
born and though it is in many respects imperfect, Yet in its development and in its future work lies the only hope of rest and repose for this troubled and tormented world.
The only other matter upon which I wish to speak is that connected with the part of the Treaty that deals with the trial of the late Emperor of Germany. I desire to ask your patience while I lay before you reasons which are, to my mind, convincing why the Government ought not to pursue that project any further. I think it is important to consider how it was that this demand for trial arose in the first place. It suddenly came to life at the time of the Election and the demand then was not for the trial of the Kaiser; the demand was for the punishment of the Kaiser, and the trial was a mere needless and tiresome preliminary to what they hoped to secure. The gusts of passion that were fierce at that time are, I believe, beginning to die down upon these great events. We are, at any rate, now face to face with the question as to whether it is in the best interests, not only of this country but of justice and of the future security of nations, that this project should be further pursued. I believe it is not.
It is important, I think, in considering that question to divest it from the other question with which it is too often associated, and that is the idea that people who, like myself, deprecate this proceeding are seeking to shelter a criminal because of his rank. That certainly has no part whatever in fashioning the views I hold. There have been grave, indisputable crimes committed in this war—crimes which it is impossible either to expiate or to redeem; crimes such as those associated with the sinking of vessels in open sea without giving the men upon them the barest chance of escape; crimes like the murder of unoffending civilian people; crimes like cruelty to captive prisoners; crimes which one could multiply in catalogues like that indefinitely. They are grave, indisputable crimes against well-known and well-established law, and, if you can find that any man is guilty of any of these crimes, I would say let the law take its course and let hint be punished, whoever he may be. But it is not for those crimes that this trial is to take place.
The ex-Kaiser is to be tried for crimes against international morality and breach of Treaty. But, as the noble Viscount
1022
said, has any one lit history ever heard of such a charge? It may be said that now is the time when you should create your new rules. Well and good. What is the international morality which it is said has been broken? If it be a breach of Treaty it is perfectly plain that there is no need to try any one about that, because the Treaty is broken and nobody doubts it. There is nothing to try. There is no issue. If you are going to try whether, according to the Constitution of Germany, the Kaiser was responsible for the breach, you are going to embark on an elaborate inquiry which it may take months and months to settle. And how are you going to settle it? You will be entitled—in fact, you will be bound—to summon all the witnesses, not merely from Germany but from any other of the Chancelleries of Europe, that the Kaiser desires to call in order to prove that, in fact, according to the Constitution of Germany he wins not responsible at all. It is quite plain that, according to laws which we well know, it is not enough to show that a man speaks in the name of a nation. You must how that the act is his and not the act of the people behind him.
I should be glad to know what evidence there is before the Government at the moment to lead them to believe that such all inquiry would come to the only. conclusion which could be regarded as successful—a conclusion which will condemn the man who is tried. For let there be no mistake—if this trial is to end in acquittal, though justice may be satisfied, the offence that will be caused to the people of this country will be something beyond belief.
Several NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear.
LORD BUCKMASTER: And now, if this trial is to take place, how is it to be conducted and who are to constitute the Tribunal? It seems to be assumed in the newspapers that it will be the easiest thing in the world to appoint an English Judge to take part in this trial. I have already said in public, and I repeat, that this is no part of the duty of an English Judge. The names of two most eminent Judges have been mentioned in connection with the matter. People who have mentioned them do not seem to consider that both these eminent men have been associated, in one way or the other, with the Government during the prosecution of

1023
the war. You do not think you can get what will be regarded by neutral nations as an independent trial if you put one of the people who have been associated with the Government itself as one of the Judges; nor can you expect that other Judges will undertake this business gladly.
They may undertake it as they have, during the last few years, undertaken many distasteful and alien tasks, because they regard it as part of their duty to do what they can to help the Government of this country in a difficulty, but this work is not part of the work of an English Judge. The more the work of the English Bench is dissociated from active executive government the better. It is a great danger when you have Judges performing the work of the Government in any capacity except that in which they sit upon the Bench. It was a great Judge who said that an English Judge upon the Bench should neither court the smiles nor fear the frowns of any Government, and directly you associate them with the work of a Government and enable them to be thanked by a Government for what they have done, or to fear the Government's displeasure if they had not properly discharged the duty, you weaken the administration of justice in this country.
This is a moment above all others when it is of the utmost importance that the English Bench should stand perfectly free from the Government of the country. We are, as we all know, nearing a moment which may be very critical in the history of this country. There are great storms sweeping over Europe, and under the flood we may be submerged, but if you will leave the English Bench alone there is one thing which will remain steady and clear to time last—the light of English justice. I am anxious beyond all things that nothing should be done now by which that light may be dimmed; and to ask an English Judge to sit and administer a law he does not know, by a procedure which is not defined, in a Court where he has no control, and to inflict a punishment which is anticipated by everybody as the result of his labours, is to ask him to do a work which in my humble judgment he is unfitted to discharge. If this trial is to be a reality, acquittal ought to be regarded just as possible as conviction. You cannot make the Court into an ante-chamber, a waiting room, for the prison or the scaffold. It
1024
must be a place which one may have the prospect of leaving a, free man. I ask the Government, Is that what they contemplate as the result of this trial?
Finally, I wonder if the Government have considered what the effect of this is going to be on neutral nations and on our history. What is the position of this man at, the present moment? From the height of his, painted glory he has fallen to the lowest estate man ever occupied; and there in exile and loneliness, in dishonour, he can watch the ruin and the overthrow of the nation whose aggrandisement was the first care of iris life. It is not surprising that many people think that in the judgment which he is now working out they can trace the handiwork of something greater than man, and that they should fear lest man's interference should mar the august sublimity of that divine decree.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: My Lords, I suppose that I should be lacking in respect both to your Lordships' House and to those noble Lords who have addressed you if I did not attempt something in the nature of a reply to the observations to which we have just listened. Tire discussion was opened by the noble Viscount, Lord Bryce. The House listened to him, not merely with attention, but with that respect which his great authority demands. He is, if I may say so, almost if not actually the doyen of our Elder Statesmen, and from him on occasions of this sort we expect, and undoubtedly receive, words of moderation, of wisdom, and of prudent advice. There was, I think, hardly a word in his remarks with which I personally did not find myself in agreement.
I will, it I may, follow him in tile observations which he addressed to your Lordships and in the questions which he put. The first question was one which appears in a separate form upon the Paper, in which he asks in what form it is proposed to present to Parliament an account of the negotiations which have led to the settlement of the terms of peace proposed to Germany and Austria, and to the conclusion of whatever peace may be ultimately signed with the latter State. With the negotiations leading up to the peace with Austria, which is not yet concluded, I am, of course, unable to deal at the present moment; but the two cases are on the

1025
same footing, and what I say with regard to one no doubt will apply to the other.
In the speech that I made the other day I did give an indication to your Lordships of the Papers which we propose to lay. A good many of those have already been placed on the Table and circulated. As regards the remainder, it is a little difficult at this stage to pick out, in the enormous mass of type-written material (a great deal had not yet been printed)—involving discussions, reports of Commissions, and so on—the particular papers which it will be desirable to lay. A good many of them have not yet been translated. Some of them are necessarily of the most private and confidential character. The Government hope at no distant date to present to Parliament a compendium of such literature on the subject as it is possible to lay, and, agreeing as I do with the noble Viscount's general advocacy of publicity where it can reasonably be done, he can rely upon my seeing that it is made as comprehensive as possible. The noble Viscount will realise that it is not a matter which lies within the competence of the Foreign Office in Downing-street; it concerns statesmen in Paris, and publication can only take place by common agreement there.
The noble Viscount went on to make certain suggestions as regards methods for securing, as far as may be, in the future the success of the contemplated arrangements with regard to the League of Nations, and in the two concrete suggestions that he submitted I, for one, heartily concur. Be laid great stress—and here he was speaking not only from political but from great geographical experience—on the importance of Commissions for determining disputed frontiers in many parts of the world. It is quite clear not only that decisions arrived at in Paris will in many cases be hasty and provisional, but must in some cases be wrong, and will require not only revision but very likely drastic alteration. Circumstances connected with nationality, with local interests, with passing political views, will arise which may entirely transform the considerations that led to a particular issue this year before than decision has been effectively carried out, and I think he was quite right in saying that one of the sequels to the proceedings at Paris will have to be the institution of Boundary Commissions on rather a large scale to go to the disputed areas, and, by means of
1026
expert examination, to advise as to the proper solution.
The noble Viscount did, indeed, instance one case in which that is already being done—namely, the dispatch of a Commission to Syria. I am sorry, for my part., that once the policy of a Commission was decided upon, its tripartite character—French, British, and American—was not, for reasons with which the noble Viscount; is perfectly familiar, persisted in, and that the only Commission which has gone out to this country is the American Commission. There is another case in which, perhaps unknown to him, we are already utilising that method of investigation and determination, and that is the case of Smyrna. An acute situation has arisen there owing to the landing of Greek troops in that part of Asia Minor—a situation which is acute not merely because a great contest has already been provoked between Greeks and Turks, but because of similar competition, and in some cases collision, between the Greeks and the Italians. The only way to compose a matter of that sort is obviously by sending a Commission to inquire on the spot, and the Great Powers at Paris are at the moment deputing representatives to go out to that country with that object.
The second suggestion of the noble Viscount in this context; was a strong recommendation of the plan of a popular vote, or plébiscite, in order to determine the views of the inhabitants of an area affected. He named two cases in which that principle is being applied—namely, Schleswig and Eastern Prussia. There are two smaller cases that he will find in the Peace Treaty which he did not happen to mention. One is the future destination of the little district of Malmédy, on the frontiers of Belgium and Germany, the inhabitants of which will be given after the lapse of a certain time an opportunity of determining by vote their own future. The other is the case, also known to him, of the future of the Saar Valley, at the end of the fifteen years postulated in the Treaty. In none of these matters can one really lay down hard and fast principles. We, in the West, are so familiar with the custom of going into the polling booth and deciding every doubt by the narrowest majority of votes, that we are apt to think that the same principle is not only intelligible, but acceptable, to all the peoples of the world. Of course, that is not the case. Nobody

1027
knows better than the noble Viscount that a plébiscite in Eastern countries, more especially backward Eastern countries, so far from being a suitable means of deciding popular opinion, would in all probability be an opportunity for a row. Therefore there are many cases in which a plébiscite would be the very last solution we would attempt to apply.
The noble Viscount argues, I think fairly, that the right basis upon which so far as possible we should proceed in all these new arrangements is that of nationality, and it is in pursuance of that principle that the particular arrangements, complicated and open to criticism as in some respects they are, with regard to Danzig and the Polish Corridor, have been decided or attempted to be decided. Here, again, you cannot always lay down a principle. You find cross-currents—one principle being cut into by another principle. You find cases in which what principle suggests expediency condemns, and therefore you have every moment to adjust your principle, in no time-serving spirit but in the light of expediency, to the circumstances with which you have to deal.
Take Armenia, as affected by the two principles which the noble Viscount has discussed. If you decide the Armenian problem on the principle of nationality, you do your best to constitute or reconstitute an Armenian State. On the other band, if you decide upon the principle of population, those wretched people have been so oppressed, so dissipated and massacred, that if you go to the areas in which you want to set up a State and have a plébiscite, the last thing you would find, in all probability, would be an Armenian majority. I only quote this as a case in which we hare to be, careful that a rigid application of principle does not lead us wrong.
The noble Viscount went on to say, and here he was concurred in by Lord Buckmaster, who followed him—that he looked upon the one great achievement of the Paris proceedings as the constitution of the League of Nations. I was very glad to hear both these noble Lords once more pay a tribute of what I doubt not was absolutely sincere congratulation to my noble friend Lord Robert Cecil for the part he played in negotiating that instrument. Not only by common consent are the services he rendered in this respect at Paris conspicuous, but anybody who
1028
has read his speeches since he returned to this country, notably the speech he delivered across the way two nights ago, will find in them a combination of high idealism on the one hand and of practical common sense on the other, which is rare even in our foremost statesmen, and affords the best guarantee we can have of the success of the experiment with which he is so closely associated.
I do not know, when these two noble Lords thank His Majesty's Government, that we deserve as much credit as our spokesman on that occasion did. But both of them are right in saying that His Majesty's Government entered into this matter with the firm intention of making that part of the programme a reality, and when I look back on the debate we had last year, in which I think I was on the part of the Government the first to express general sympathy with the scheme and theory of the League of Nations, and when I remember that I was chided by an eminent member of the Episcopal Bench who is not now present, for not being sufficiently fervid on that occasion, I am glad to think that the lines on which the settlement has so far proceeded—which the noble Viscount has told us has gone as far as he thinks in the circumstances is possible or desirable—were almost identical with those which I ventured to sketch on that occasion.
I was rather glad to hear my noble friend Lord Bryce say a word about the new principle of Mandates, because that really, although it may be said to be involved in the larger issue of the League of Nations, is one of the great concrete constructive creations of the Paris Conference. The idea is not wholly new. It is true, as the noble Viscount said, that this is really a translation into international practice of a principle which we for very many years past have done our best to realise; but here for the first time you take the practice of one nation and find it invested with international sanction as the duty of all. I truly believe that when the history of this time is written, and whether the League of Nations does or does not fulfil all our expectations, the new system thus created for the government of backward countries and peoples hitherto too much neglected and oppressed will be regarded as one of the great triumphs of the twentieth century.

1029
My Lords, the noble Viscount also alluded, and with satisfaction to the creation by this instrument of a Permanent International Court of Justice, and I think he was right in saying that the main sanction of such a body will not be force—for many years it. will be difficult to exercise force—and that it need not even be commercial boycott, but may be public opinion; and that the way to consolidate public opinion on your side is to give as much publicity as possible to the proceedings of the League of Nations. That consideration is in the minds of those responsible for it, and I am sure that every attempt will be made to follow that general suggestion. Of course, the real tiling is, as the noble Viscount said, that the League of Nations is a recognition of a new spirit in the conduct of affairs in the world. It is the recognition of what we sometimes call the international spirit, the kind of idea that the future unit is not to be the race, the community, the small group, but is to be the great world of mankind, and that in that area you try and induce a common feeling, you try and produce co-operation which will be a better solvent of international difficulties than all the old and discredited methods of the past.
I have dealt with most of the subjects to which the noble Viscount alluded, with one exception—the topic upon which much grater and more solemn stress was laid by the noble and learned Lord who has just resumed his seat. I respect the reasoning, although I dissent from the results of the reasoning, which he placed before your Lordships. I am alluding, of course, to the observations that he made about the trial of the Kaiser. Both noble Lords commenced their remarks in this context by saying that, they condemned the heinous and abominable nature of the crimes of which the German nation and their Sovereign, as their representative, have been guilty, but both of them went on to impugn, as I understood, the policy of the trial. They drew a picture—the noble and learned Lord in particular drew a picture—of the German Emperor living in exile out of his country in loneliness and dishonour, an outcast not only from his own people but from the respect of mankind. And their argument was that you might just as well leave this man in the inglorious obscurity to which he had retreated, and that to take him out of it by any great public act of trial and of condemnation
1030
might be, as the noble Viscount said, to make him an object of commiseration and sympathy rather than of contempt in the world. I have seen it also argued that you might, by trying the Emperor, make him again a conspicuous figure and increase his chances of restoration to some active part in the government of his own country. I do not think that I agree with either of those criticisms.
I confess that the German Emperor does not appear to me to be in exile a figure at all comparable with those of the famous condemned Sovereigns or exiles of the past. After all, there was something picturesque and graceful in Charles I which has always enshrined him in the rather affectionate memory of large sections of his countrymen. There was something grand and almost heroic in the intellectual scope and imagination of Napoleon. Those are the two cases which are commonly quoted as justifying the belief that if you treat an individual with severity you not only make him a martyr but you create a legend. I confess I do not myself see in the German Emperor the stuff out of which a legendary hero can be made. The man who was not only pay of the atrocities to which reference has been made, but who ignominiously ran away from his country as soon as it was in a difficult place, is a man whom one cannot imagine either as a hero or treat as a martyr. I do not think my noble and learned friend opposite was correct when he suggested that the idea of the trial of the German Emperor was first heard of at the General Election; in fact, he treated the whole matter as if it were rather an electioneering cry invented by the Prime Minister and all the sinister persons associated with him. That is not my recollection of the case. It certainly was many weeks—I would even say months—before the General Election that the matter was under discussion between the Powers, and I myself on one occasion was deputed to discuss it with ref representatives of our Allies in Paris; and although it assumed a prominent place on the electoral platform, the decision had been arrived at long before, not only in this country but in France and elsewhere, and, if the noble Lord will allow me to assure him so, arrived at wholly independent of the baser considerations to which he referred.
Again, the noble Lord went on to say that in his view what our people wanted was punishment and not trial. Surely that

1031
is a very strange way of representing the mentality of the Englishman. It is exactly what the Englishman does not want. The Englishman was, I think, keen for punishment in the case of the Kaiser, but punishment only as the result of trial, and it seems foreign to all our ideas of equity and indeed of jurisprudence that we should concentrate ourselves upon the punishment without providing for the trial by which that punishment is justified.
One other point in reference to the suggestion that the Emperor might safely be left in Holland. Is the Kaiser, living just across the German border, so safe and so harmless in Holland as noble Lords appear to imagine? Is there not a party in Germany already agitating for his return? Are there not many evidences that the military party in Germany still regard him as their hero; and is Europe, is the cause for which we have been fighting and which we have won, really safe as long as he remains in the geographical position which he at the present moment occupies? The noble and learned Lord has stated with great emphasis the views which he holds upon the matter. They are not the views which commend themselves not merely to this country but to the Allied Powers. In the whole of his remarks there was implied the suggestion that it was we in particular who held these views about the trial and judgment of the Kaiser. That is not the case. If the noble Viscount will look at the Peace Treaty he will find that the demand for these proceedings is a unanimous demand. It was not put forward by England. It was not accepted only by the great belligerent Powers. There are appended to this clause, in common with the whole Treaty, the signatures of five great Powers and of twenty-two minor Powers—of twenty-seven in all. And that demand was met and was accepted at Versailles by the representatives of the German Empire.
What is the real inner meaning of the whole thing? Do we, any of us, at the bottom of our hearts believe that the German Emperor more than any other individual man was responsible for the shocking breach of faith by which the war began; that more than any individual man he was responsible for the terrible crimes and atrocities by which the war was disfigured; that more than any individual man he has upon his shoulders for all time the burden of the appalling, the almost
1032
immeasurable calamities, by which the world in consequence of the war has been overwhelmed? He was all-powerful. He never ceased to tell us that he was supreme in war and in policy. It was difficult from the tenor of his speeches to determine whether he regarded himself as a special protégé of the Almighty, or whether he regarded the Almighty as being under his special patronage. And he used that power to foster a spirit, hopelessly inconsistent with the ideals which are now ruling the world, to forge a weapon against the liberties of the world, and to prosecute a war which has been stained with every variety of abomination and crime. Surely such a man ought, if the opportunity occurs, to be tried, to be judged, and, if he is found guilty, to be condemned.
LORD BUCKMASTER: May I ask if it is proposed to try him for the atrocities which were committed on the battlefield and on the seas?
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: That is a perfectly fair question to put, and it brings me to the point of which I next took note in the speech of the noble and learned Lord. He said—and I think the noble Viscount said also—that this was an unprecedented procedure. Quite true. The case also is unprecedented, and I think the criminal, if one may so call him—the defendant—is also without precedent or parallel. But what is he to be tried for, and how is he to be tried? The noble and learned Lord, who is a great master of law, is perfectly entitled to point out that it is not proposed to try him under any recognised Code or Statute. So far as I know, there is no Code of law under which he is to be arraigned. The law by which he is being tried is the higher law—I think the noble and learned Viscount used a phrase "the higher law of international morality"—that is the basis of the entire new conceptions which are the result of this Peace Treaty and the League of Nations, and of which this is the first concrete exhibition.
Let me read the terms of the reply that was made by the Allied Powers at Paris to the protest of the German Government on this point—
"Finally, they wish to make it clear that the public arraignment under Article 227 framed against the German ex-Emperor has not a juridical character as regards its substance but only in its form. The ex-Emperor is arraigned

1033
as a matter of high international polity, as the minimum of what is demanded for a supreme offence against international morality, the sanctity of treaties, and the essential rules of justice. The Allied and Associated Powers have desired that judicial forms, a judicial procedure, and a regularly constituted tribunal should be set up in order to assure to the accused full rights and liberties in regard to his defence, and in order that the judgment should be of the most solemn judicial character."
Is it not clear under those terms that there can be brought up in the arraignment of the ex-Kaiser all the matters to which the noble and learned Lord referred? I, at any rate, assume that this is the case, and shall be very much surprised if it not.
The noble and learned Lord went on to mention, and, if I may say so, to magnify, the difficulties and delays that are likely to be caused by the summoning of witnesses and by the length of time that may be consumed in this procedure. I confess I think those fears are exaggerated. But what did surprise me even more was when the noble Lord came to the question of the tribunal itself, and when he argued to your Lordships that as this tribunal ought to be an impartial one it was not right that any British Judge should be asked to take a seat upon it, because he would be doing the work of the Government. I most utterly and emphatically repudiate that suggestion. It is not the work of the Government, it is the interpretation of the International Code of Morals laid down in Paris. That Code the Judge will be invited to interpret along with his colleagues from the other great Powers. The noble and learned Lord talked as if some invidious and impossible duty was being imposed upon an English Judge alone. He says, "You are always taking English Judges from their work and making them do all sorts of things. Why do you make him do this." He is to sit there with Judges from the other great Powers. He will be one of four or five (I forget what the total is); and, believing as I do just as emphatically as the noble and learned Lord, in what he called "the light of English justice" I see nothing whatever to dim that light in the selection of any member of the English Bench to sit upon this tribunal; indeed, the selection of England for the place where the trial is to take place largely rested upon the belief that from the English Bench you would be able to secure one Judge, at any rate, not only as impartial as, but, if possible, more impartial than, you would secure in any of
1034
the other countries affected. I can well understand that there may be differences of opinion as to the question of where the trial is to be held. It may very likely be that it will not be held in London. There is great force in that consideration—
NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: Not converting this into a spectacular show, and not producing a situation in which public opinion will manifest itself on one side or another, and not interrupting the daily threat of our national life, but allowing us to resume our own business without any distracting associations of that description. Those considerations I think are patent, and, as your Lordships' cheer shows, important. No final decision has been arrived at on that point, and when the trial takes place, if it takes place within these shores, it by no means follows that London will be the place selected for the holding of the tribunal.
I think I have now dealt with the whole of the remarks which were made by my noble friends, and I would only say one thing further. One of the strongest points of this Treaty, to which they did not allude, was this—that whereas all preceding Treaties have been regarded by their authors as sacrosanct, as instruments which it was impossible to revise until they were revised by the progress of events and very likely thrown into the limbo of obscurity, special provisions are made in this Treaty by which it can be revised and by which the League of Nations will have an opportunity from time to time, not merely to administer and interpret it, but to review and, if necessary, to alter its provisions. That, I think, is one of the most important provisions which it contains.
It only remains for me, in conclusion, to say that I think this debate has shown, as the debates in the other House of Parliament have shown, that although there are points in this Treaty which admit of very justifiable criticism, no substantial injury or wrong has been done to any interests or to any people. On the contrary, considering the great and complex field over which it wanders, it has been received with an almost unanimous endorsement, for which all the Powers are extremely grateful, and for which, on behalf of His Majesty's Government, I cannot but express my recognition this afternoon.
On Question, Bill read 2a.
Then (Standing Order No. X XXIX having been suspended). Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House forthwith.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL of KINTORE in the CHAIR.]
Clause 1:
Power of His Majesty to give effect to Peace Treaty.
1.—(1) His Majesty may make such appointments, establish such offices, make such Orders in Council, and do such things as appear to him to be necessary for carrying out the said Treaty, and for giving effect to any of the provisions of the said Treaty.
(2) Any Order in Council made under this Act may provide for the imposition by summary process or otherwise of penalties in respect of breaches of the provisions thereof, and shall be laid before Parliament as soon as may be after it it made and shall have effect as if enacted in this Act, but may be varied or revoked by a subsequent Order in Council and shall not be deemed to be a statutory rule within the meaning of section one of the Rules Publication Act, 1893.
(3) Any expenses incurred in carrying out the said Treaty shall be defrayed out of moneys provided by Parliament.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: When this Bill was in another place a question was raised about the Orders in Council which under the Bill will be required for carrying out is provisions, and the case was raised of an Order in Council which it might be the duty of the Government to issue when Parliament was not sitting. The question was asked, therefore, whether Parliament would have any opportunity, in its inability to deal with the matter at the time of its issue, to express an opinion, whether favourable or the reverse, at a later date. The Prime Minister promised to meet this point, and to introduce an Amendment enabling either House to present an Address against any Order which had been laid, with a view of, if necessary, expressing their dissent from it and censure of the conduct the Government had pursued. It is in pursuance of this pledge that I ask your Lordships' consent to this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Clause 1, page 1, line 24, at the end insert ("Provided that if an Address is presented to His Majesty by either House of Parliament within the next twenty-one days on which that House has sat after any Order in Council made under this Act has been laid before it praying that the order or any part thereof may be annulled, His Majesty in Council may annul the Order or such part of it and it shall forth be void, but
1036
without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done thereunder").—(Earl Curzon of Kedleston.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clause agreed to.
House resumed, and Amendment reported.
Bill read 3a and passed, and returned to the Commons.

ANGLO-FRENCH TREATY (DEFENCE OF FRANCE) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: My Lords, very few words will be needed from me to ask your Lordships' acceptance of this Bill, and to invite you to pass it through all its stages this afternoon. I explained and defended in my speech the other day the policy upon which this Bill, giving a guarantee from the Governments of this country and of America to France in the event of any unprovoked aggression, was based. In Article IV of the Treaty, which is printed as a Schedule to the present Bill, you will find it laid down by agreement in Paris, that the Treaty, before ratification by the Sovereign, should be submitted to Parliament for approval. The same will happen in Paris, and that is why I am asking your consent to the acceptance of the Bill this afternoon.
The case for the Bill can be stated in a sentence. France has had not only a bitter experience in this war but on more than one occasion during the past century. Her frontiers in the East are singularly defenceless, and she has seen them without provocation and almost without notice over-run by the military forces of a powerful enemy. In the future the League of Nations will be, as we hope, her protection against any such outrage; but for the moment the League of Nations is, I will not say in embryo, but at any rate not yet finally and firmly constituted. She desires, against any repetition of the kind of outrage of which I am speaking, the protect ion which this guarantee affords. Later she will turn to the League of Nations to give it; and that no disparagement or affront is offered to the League of Nations by this

1037
provision now is, I think, evident from Article III of the Treaty, which runs as follows—
"The present Treaty must be submitted to the Council of the League of Nations and must be recognised by the Council, acting if need be by a majority, as an engagement which is consistent with the Covenant of the League; it will continue in force until, on the application of one of the Parties to it, the Council, acting if need be by a majority, agrees that the League itself affords sufficient protection."
The idea, therefore, that the acceptance of this Treaty is in any degree a reflection upon the League of Nations may, I think, be dismissed.
The real test is, of course, is a Bill of this description—is the guarantee which we, and, I hope, the United States, are about to give, on the whole an instrument that will lead to the peace of the Continent of Europe and of the world? I do not think that any one can hesitate to answer that question in the affirmative. And I have not only been pleased—I have been almost surprised—at the absolute unanimity with which the undertaking of this pledge by ourselves—no mean undertaking; a very great thing in history—has been accepted by every body and section of public opinion in this country.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Earl Curzon of Kedleston.)
On Question, Bill read 2a.
Then (Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended) Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House forthwith.
House in Committee accordingly: Bill reported without amendment.
Bill read 3a and passed.

RAT DESTRUCTION BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD ABERCONWAY: My Lords, this Bill may seem a trivial matter compared with the momentous questions with which the House has just dealt, but if an authority is required for its introduction it is that it is part of that very important movement for sanitation and for the reconstruction of our country and our social life which is now occupying the attention of the public, and which I believe the Government are thoroughly in earnest in assisting.
1038
There is no doubt that the plague of rats is a matter that must be dealt with by legislation. The circumstances of the war have, I am afraid, unfortunately helped to develop the numbers of these vermin, and the time seems to me more than opportune for dealing with the whole matter from a national point of view. The amount of damage that is done to property by rats is notorious and known to everybody. No doubt noble Lords will remember that a few years ago it was clearly established that the rat was a carrier of the plague bacillus, and that when there was an outbreak of plague in this country a very strong effort was made by municipal and other public bodies to exterminate as far as possible these plague-carriers in their own localities, when very huge numbers of rats were destroyed at the public expense. The rat, however, cannot be wholly exterminated, and I venture to suggest that their numbers to-day are probably greater than they were at the period to which I refer. At that time a Committee was formed of very eminent scientists, bacteriologists, and other men interested in the question. They suggested to me that a Bill might be brought into the House of Commons. I prepared a Bill and introduced it in the House of Commons; but, of course, as a private member's Bill it stood no chance of passing into law, The Bill excited the greatest interest in the country. I received letters from all kinds of agricultural societies, farmers, and scientific persons giving me information and urging that something. Ought to be done to carry that Bill into law.
As your Lordships are interested in agriculture perhaps even more than the House of Commons, you will realise how important this matter is to the agricultural interest. Even since this Bill was introduced numerous letters have reached me from persons interested in the matter. This Bill has really been prepared by a new association which has been formed of eminent scientific persons and men of public note for the purpose of carrying into legislative effect the Orders in Council which were issued under the Defence of the Realm Act during the last two or three years but which have not been very vigorously acted upon. It is hoped that this Bill, will interest public opinion and help the Government. I see Lord Ernle is present to-day. I understand he intends to introduce a Bill on behalf of the Board of Agriculture, and I. hope the interest this Bill

1039
has aroused will assist him not only in carrying it through both Houses of Parliament but in inducing public bodies cordially to co-operate in carrying out its provisions. Though I ask the House to read this Bill a second time, I should not proceed with the further stages if I had the assurance that the Government are prepared to deal with the matter themselves.
The public imagine that rats are creatures which infest granaries, hay-lofts, rubbish-heaps, and so forth; but they little know the amount of damage the rat does to growing crops and to agriculture generally. It is not merely in stack-yards and in barns that the farmer suffers from their depredations. If you take counties where there is a light soil, such as Norfolk, Suffolk, and Hampshire, you will find the rat there in countless millions. If you go there in December or January when the winter wheat has been put in, in a big field of 100 acres you see straight roads, hard beaten tracks, terminating in central stations—roads that remind one of Roman roads with a castrum in the middle, and all round the field you see the ground torn up in innumerable little heaps of soil. That means that the rat has been digging up and eating the seed corn. You do not see rats in the daytime, but if you go along the hedgerows you hear them squealing at every step. That is the conversation of the rat. It feeds at night. In those counties the rats burrow very easily. There is plenty of cover in the hedgerows, and they never get drowned out. The population is so scanty comparatively that you do not even get the odd rat-hunt with terriers, ferrets, and boys with sticks that you get in more populous regions.
Where you have large towns you have a constant feeder for the rat population. You may clear out a particular farm-yard, but a rat will travel a very long distance, and one farm cleared of rats will probably be re-stocked in a very short time by rats coming from other infested districts. I think farmers are often very much to blame. They leave stacks of unthreshed corn on the ground far too long; they do not put the stacks on proper protective supports. If you had stringent regulations which could be enforced by the local authority you would not only stimulate the farmer to do his best to stop the rat plague, but you would be conferring a favour on him, which I am sure he would appreciate. He would be quite willing, I am sure, to pay
1040
his small quota towards the expense of local rates if he knew that there was a scientific organisation to help him to clear his stack-yard.
It is not my province here to say how rats should be killed. I believe there are all kinds of expedients. I have received letters from all kinds of persons advocating particular poisons or particular sorts of traps, and I have no doubt whatever that the county councils or the district councils will be able to settle the right course of dealing with them. The Bill that I have introduced contains powers for the local authority to appoint special officers technically qualified to deal with the matter, something like health officers. They will have the right to go about and inspect all premises where they have reason to suspect rats are too abundant, and to call upon the owner of those premises to abate the nuisance. If he fails to do so, then the County Authority or the District Council will have power themselves to deal with the matter at the expense of the delinquent, charging him with the cost of destruction.
Noble Lords will be surprised to hear how many rats are being killed under the present ineffective system. I had a letter from a gentleman in Hampshire who told me that over 10,000 rats had been killed to his knowledge on his own estate in two years, in addition to large numbers which were poisoned and not counted. In Leicestershire this year we have killed 65,000 rats In Anglesey I believe 19,000 have been killed, and in one small area in Suffolk no less than 12,000 were killed. I am also informed on credible authority that in Sussex on one estate a few years ago 27,000 rats were killed in one season. We know that in India there are enormous attacks on rats. I believe in the Deccan 12,000,000 rats were killed in one Government campaign. These numbers show the value of the foodstuffs that must be consumed in this country to enable those creatures to live at all.
These are only a few isolated instances, representative probably of thousands of similar cases, where the rats are allowed to breed with impunity. They not only eat the seed corn and the roots lying out in the field in the winter, but they will attack newly-farrowed pigs, and young chickens. They are also very fond of ducklings, squab pigeons, and newly-born kids; in fact, there is hardly anything they will not attack. Young game birds are

1041
killed by them; eggs of all kinds are eaten, and silk, leather, grain, and woodwork are destroyed. They even cut lead pipes. There are many cases were gas explosions have taken place by lead pipes being cut through by rats.
In these circumstances I think that the time has come when the thing must be taken up as a whole and not merely left to be dealt with by amateur efforts. The expenses, whatever they may be under the provisions of this Bill, would be quite trifling compared to the money that has been spent in other directions in view of the sanitary requirements. When we are told that the foodstuffs polluted by rats every year amounts to something between £15,000,000 and £40,000,000 it is quite obvious that a very considerable expenditure in destroying them would be more than justified by the result.
Rats are extraordinarily prolific. The female will litter when four months old and she breeds two or three litters every year. Therefore, it is pretty clear that you must make a thorough and drastic attack; otherwise, you really leave the matter very much as it was before. I do not think there is any justification for delay. I am quite sure the public is prepared for action and the public would welcome strong measures instead of leaving the matter to be dealt with as it is at present. Money is offered by public authorities for so many rats' tail. Many people think that is a great mistake. It encourages boys to breed rats for the purpose of bringing their tails and getting one penny or twopence each for them. I have a clause in the Bill which prohibits that.
The authorities in this country which have the carrying out of this war upon rats are, in the first place, the county councils, the Mayor, Aldermen and Common Council of the City of London, the councils of county boroughs and port sanitary authorities, and in Scotland county councils, town councils and port local authorities. They are enjoined in Clause 3 to have regard to any recommendation that may be made to them in England and Wales by the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries or the War Agricultural Executive Committee acting in the area of the local authority, with similar provisions as to Scotland. They have powers to prosecute and, if the local authority neglects its duty, power is given for the Ministry of Health to take measures to call attention to its neglect
1042
and to compel it to carry out the provisions of the Bill. I submit that this is a matter which can easily be carried into law during the present session, and I ask your Lordships to express your sense of the importance of the mater by giving this Bill a Second Reading.
Moved, That the Bill be now react 2a.—(Lord Aberconway.)
LORD LAMBOURNE: My Lords, I should like to associate myself with the noble Lord who has brought forward this Bill. It is a subject in which I have always been interested and I have taken a humble part in trying to arrive at some conclusions on the matter. I understand from the noble Lord who brought in the Bill that should the Government bring in a measure of their own dealing conclusively with the matter, he will not press his. In conjunction with the noble Viscount, Lord Chaplin, I wrote a letter some time ago to the public Press drawing attention to the damage done by rats and asking for co-operation on the part of the public in dealing with them. I received a great many answers, as also did Viscount Chaplin, but the whole crux of the matter is that, though we succeeded in securing individual co-operation, we did not get very much further.
At the present moment, although there are some counties which are taking a considerable interest and doing a good deal in the matter, there are other counties—very much like my own county of Essex I am afraid—which have done little or nothing in the matter. In the same way, in a parish you often get an individual farmer who will make every effort to keep down these destructive rodents while his neighbours take no trouble at-all, so that all his work is thrown away. As regards the damage done by the animal there can be no doubt at all, and I often think when farmers grumble—and very fairly grumble—about the harm done by rabbits, that that is a small item compared with the damage down to crops, both growing and otherwise, by the rats, to destroy which they really do not take any trouble.
We know that in Germany, Denmark, and other countries the whole country has combined to carry out a crusade against the rat and the consequence has been extremely good, especially in Denmark. In Germany considerable strides have

1043
been made, and what I hope the noble Lord below me (Lord Ernle) will inform us is that he is going to use compulsory methods on the county councils, and generally throughout the country, to carry out laws which will not only be destructive of the rat but will assist the sanitary authorities, because this undermining of building and eating into drains is undoing the work which has often been carried out at great expense. I do not wish to detain your Lordships upon a comparatively trivial subject, but it is one which affects us in rural districts very much indeed. Rats are very migratory. They travel many miles; and if one county does its work while the next county does not, the work of the county that does it at considerable expense is undone and has to be done all over again. I am very glad that the noble Lord has brought the matter forward.
LORD BLEDISLOE: My Lords, I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Aberconway, who has introduced this subject, has conferred a great service not only upon agriculturists but also upon the general public. This is a serious matter and it has become a very become a very urgent one also. Although I find it a little difficult to believe that the somewhat mild procedure by which my noble friend hopes to exterminate the large rat population of this country will be really successful in effecting his object, I feel that some legislation is urgently necessary, and I hope that the President of the Board of Agriculture will put in hand at once a measure of a more drastic character, and, if possible, pass it through the two Houses of Parliament during the current session. I was surprised to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Aberconway, that the damage which he estimates is done to food by rats can be put, so high as £30,000,000 or£40,000,000. I know that before the war the official estimate of damage done by rats to firm products was in. the region of £2.000,000 and I was going to venture to suggest, but for the much larger figure he has put to the House, that possibly the damage to-day might be in the region of £9,000,000 or £10,000,000. In any case, it is very large and it is increasing in proportion with the increase in the rat population.
My noble friend who has just spoken has reminded us that the rat is not only a predatory animal but also a migratory-animal and, because he is a migratory
1044
animal, it is quite impossible for the individual, however active he may be, to exterminate the rats in the area in which he lives. There is no doubt whatever that this nomadic animal, when he reaches the numbers that he has reached to-day, can only be effectively dealt with as the result of county or other organisations under not merely recommendations, as my noble friend suggests in this Bill, but under explicit and drastic directions from a Government Department. It is suggested that, there are various methods now in use for the extermination of the rat. Personally, I view with some doubt the efficiency of a good many of these so-called rat poisons, although during the last few weeks, as Chairman of the Royal Commission on the Sugar Supply, I have been asked to give up a considerable quantity of sugar for the manufacture of rat poison as I was told that no rat poison is effective unless it contains sugar. Personally, I should have thought that a good cat was better than any poison. It is necessary not only to kill rats but to persuade people to adopt certain methods, particularly in the matter of feeding their stock, which will prevent an increase of the rat population. I was interested to hear when I was in Belgium before the war that they were teaching in all the schools that if you want to avoid an increase of rats, pigs and poultry should be fed not on the ground but on a hard surface; if the food gets trodden into the ground it is a great encouragement to the rats to develop and increase.
I hope that the President of the Board of Agriculture is about to tell us that he is prepared at once to introduce a Bill more drastic in its character, and that he will also give us an assurance it will be carried through during the present Session On that footing I suggest to the noble Lord he should give place to the Government Bill so as to enable it to be carried into law with the full authority of the Government in the shortest possible time.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (LORD ERNLE): My Lords, I agree with all the three noble Lords who have spoken as to the importance of this -particular measure and also as to the impossibility of adequately coping with the rat plague unless it is done simultaneously over a considerable area at once. The three Departments who are interested in agriculture in England, Scotland and Ireland, are fully aware of the

1045
importance of dealing with this question. Up to the time when the Order, which in largely incorporated in the noble Lord's Bill, was passed in 1918 the Board of Agriculture had no powers of dealing with rats, and their powers under the Order are certainly not sufficiently effective to carry out a very strong campaign. Meanwhile, however, a very great deal has been done, as the noble Lord admitted, to deal with the plague of rats.
I am very much obliged to him for bringing forward his Bill. It assists us very largely in creating a proper public atmosphere which will enable the Government to pass its own Bill rapidly through Parliament. I certainly hope that the House will read this Bill a Second time on the understanding that as soon as the Government Bill is brought forward it shall take precedence over the present measure. Our own Bill, which is in draft and which I had hoped to have laid before the House before now, is held up by the difficulty of getting the other Boards of Agriculture to give their opinion upon it. That is the only reason which up to the present moment has prevented us from placing the Bill before you. I can assure Lord Bledisloe that it is more drastic in character than the Bill now brought forward. I suggest that this Bill should be read a second time and then suspended for the consideration of the Government measure.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

WOMEN'S EMANCIPATION BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: My Lords, I need only detain you a few moments as this Bill was entirely discussed last Wednesday when the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack introducing his own Bill mentioned mine, and purred it very intuit to pieces. He, however, suggested that there should be some kind of amalgamation of the two Bills. I have consulted my friends who piloted this measure successfully through another place, and they prefer that I should present it to your Lordship's House for Second Reading.
In his speech the noble and learned Lord rightly took objection to the first clause, but if you read the Bill a second time the clause can be amended in Com
1046
mittee. He also remarked—if I am incorrect he will correct me—that the Bill which was passed during the last Parliament enabling a women to have a vote was the result of a Conference, of which the Speaker was Chairman, and that it was there decided that women should have votes only after the age of thirty. This Bill is merely the corollary and the logical consequence of that measure. The Speaker's Conference was the result of what took place in the last Parliament. The arrangement made was carried out by the last Parliament. That Parliament is dead, and the Conference is dead. There is a new electorate. I think there is an argument in favour of your Lordships voting as you please on this question. It is impossible to argue against giving women the vote.
I have been told that if the Bill is passed we shall have more women on the register than men. I cannot help that; neither can you. If you are to have real democracy then you cannot help women being in the majority. I am not one of those who is the least bit afraid of that. If you refuse it will only be because you are afraid you will be swamped by women. I think my Bill is a better solution of the problem than the Government measure. This Bill gives a Peeress in her own right the right to sit in this House. In the Government Bill it gives some future gentleman who may be made a Peer the option of having it put in his Patent that if he has no male heirs it may go in the female line, and she may be allowed to sit in the House of Lords. I think that is not fair. I hope I have quite convinced your Lordships not to be afraid of the women. Let them have the vote. You have taken one bite at the cherry; why not take the other. You will have to do it sooner or later.
Moved. That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Kimberley.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD BIRKENHEAD): My Lords, I had hoped that before I intervened we might have had the guidance of some other members of your Lordships' House who have given consideration to this matter since I moved the Second Reading of the Government Bill a few days ago. In asking that a Second Reading should be given to that Bill I made a suggestion to the noble Earl, which I confess seemed to me a reasonable and convenient one, and one which I am very

1047
sorry he did not find it possible to adopt. I confess myself quite unable to conjecture the reason for the disinclination which he has shown to adopt that course, because the more I examine this Bill—and although he spoke of it as its father on the last occasion I may criticise the form of the Bill, because after all he is only its stepfather—the more I examine the form of it the more difficult I find it to understand the partiality which leads him to desire that his Bill should be afforded a Second Reading.
Let me say quite plainly what are the alternatives open to your Lordships in dealing with the noble Earl's Bill. Your Lordships may, in the first place—and this is the course which I should venture to recommend on the whole—decline to give it, in the circumstances of the case, a Second Reading; or if you think the course a useful one, the Bill may be given a Second Reading and then referred, together with the Government Bill, to a Committee to report upon the two Bills. I myself, I confess, am not specially prepossessed in favour of that course, because I cannot see any useful purpose which this will secure, and which cannot equally be secured, if it be your Lordships' pleasure, by making Amendments in my Bill; and, secondly, because the adoption of such a course, it seems to me, must inevitably lead to delay and must postpone the moment, already as many people think unduly late in the session, at which the more elementary and more universally admitted grievances of women can be dealt with. In order to test the feeling of your Lordships I shall take the course of moving that this Bill be read a second time this day six months.
Now, my Lords, I ask your indulgence if very shortly I try to explain, avoiding as far as I can repetition of the arguments which I used on the Second Reading of the Government's Bill, why it appears to me that the noble Earl is ill-advised in pressing for the Second Reading of his Bill, and why it may commend itself to you, as the most reasonable course, not to proceed with it further. The noble Earl's Bill consists of three clauses, and I shall not violate the convenient practice of discussing only Second Reading principles on the Second Reading if I say it is impossible to form any prospective estimate of the value of the noble Earl's
1048
Bill unless you see what each of the operative clauses specially contribute, and then see what is the aggregate result of those contributions. The first clause of the Bill is a very ambiguous clause. It ill becomes me to add anything to the criticisms which, as a lawyer, I ventured to direct against that clause on the Second Reading of the Government Bill—at its formlessness and pretentious futility—because the noble Earl has in the most magnanimous and candid manner admitted that those whom he has consulted told him that they were unable to make any suggestion as to its meaning, because it had none. That was a frank admission by one who accepts paternal responsibility for the Bill, and renders the task of further criticism unnecessary.
I pass to the second clause. I do not think that your Lordships will close your eyes to the fact that only a very few nights ago, and as I have already pointed out against not exactly a protest but against a suggestion which I made on behalf of the Government, your Lordships by a considerable majority reached the conclusion, on the Committee Stage of the Justices of the Peace (Women) Bill, that in order to bring that Bill into conformity with the Representation of the People Act you would impose an age limit, with the result that no woman however specially gifted—a Double First at Cambridge—and doubly recommended by the Lord Lieutenant and his Advisory Committee, and approved by the Lord Chancellor—your Lordships decided that even in such a contingency these gifted young women should not penetrate to the august judicial seat. It was put strongly in argument that having regard to the fact that the policy of Parliament was that women should not obtain the vote until they reached a certain age, it was not reasonable to give her judicial preferment until she had reached the age which qualified her to exercise the franchise.
The noble Earl did less than justice to the arrangement which was made on the Representation of the People Act. Constitutionally he was right in saying that it was an arrangement made by the last Parliament, that it could not bind succeeding Parliaments in perpetuity, and that it was open to Parliament and to your Lordships to reconsider the whole basis upon which that settlement rests. Technically and constitutionally he is entirely right,

1049
but I was unfortunate if I gave the impression that I was impeaching the legality of that. I was contending that politic considerations of the greatest importance arose if so soon after a conclusion was reached, and reached contrary to the expectation of all parties when that remarkable Conference addressed itself to its labours, an attempt should be made to revise the decision then come to upon a principle which those who were party to it looked upon as fundamental. It was upon purely politic grounds that I questioned the wisdon of such a revision. The noble Earl says this is a democratic Bill, but it adds 5,000,000 young women at this moment to the franchise. I cannot see the convenience of the course suggested by the noble Earl. If it is desired with the greater experience we shall have then to make this change—if it is desired at some later date before the Election to make a change—a very short Bill can do it. And the noble Earl can then introduce a new Bill which constitutionally would be very appropriate. But it is completely inappropriate that we should add 5,000,000 women at the present time when I believe no considerable body in the State desires that that addition should be followed, as it ought to be followed, by an appeal to the constituencies. So much for Clause 2 of the noble Lord's Bill.
If I am right or anything like right in the views that I have ventured to express about Clause 2, the only Clause on which the noble Earl can rely to persuade your Lordships to give a Second Reading at this stage is Clause 3 dealing with the admission of women to this House. I do not know how many of your Lordships were impressed by the argument on this subject that was addressed to the House, I thought with great force, by more than one speaker on the Second Reading of the Government Bill. In my view it would be foolish to choose this time of all others to introduce so great a breach of historical continuity in the history of this House. Your Lordships must reach a conclusion upon that matter, and it is a grave one which requires argument and decision, but the point is that, that conclusion is just as much open to your Lordships on the clause in the Government Bill as it is open to your Lordships in the further clause in the noble Earl's Bill. I pointed out to the noble Earl that he could amend the clause in the Government. Bill in order to press the view on this subject which is contained in his Bill, and which
1050
received some little degree of support in the course of the debate.
What is really important is that at an early date your Lordships should decide whether at this moment you are prepared to admit Peeresses as members of this House, or whether you are not. The other point is equally open to discussion, and is equally convenient for decision in the one way as the other. I have examined the noble Earl's Bill without hostility and partiality, and I would say to your Lordships that in my opinion no useful purpose could be served by reading it a second time, and I would ask you not to proceed further with it, but to let the noble Earl busily occupy himself in amending the Government. Bill.
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, the Bill is not a well-drawn Bill; in fact, to be quite frank with the noble Lord, I think it is a very badly-drawn Bill. I should have voted for him with considerable reluctance before the speech of the noble and learned Lord who has just sat down. I confess that reluctance has been very much increased by what the noble and learned Lord has said. I would submit to the noble Lord who has introduced this Bill that it surely is a fact that every object he desires can be attained by Amendments to the Bill before the House. I think, if I might say so, that tactically his position would be strengthened if he were not to take the course of forcing a decision upon this Bill, and personally I hope that he will not do so, although if he does I think I shall feel bound to support him. I feel, however, that everything can be done by Amendment of the Government's Bill and that this Bill, as drawn, is rather unfortunately phrased.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: I wish to say one word in reply. I think the argument which was put forward last time when it was said that there was likely to be some reform of the House of Lords was disposed of by the announcement of Lord Curzon that the Government had not promised to deal with the question of the constitution of this House in the next Session of Parliament.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: May I explain that the noble Viscount, Lord Bryce, said in the course of a speech that there was an undertaking that in the next Session of Parliament that reform should be carried out. I confess that at

1051
the time I had no recollection of any such promise, but I knew that the noble Viscount is very careful in what he says, and therefore I did not intervene to correct him at the time. There was some discussion as to who had given the promise, and later I discussed the matter with the Leader of the House who made the statement to which reference has just been made.
On Question, Motion negatived.

HOUSING OF THE WORKING CLASSES (IRELAND) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR(who was indistinctly heard): My Lords, in asking the House to give a Second Reading to this Bill, those of your Lordships who are specially interested in Irish affairs will desire that I should give some explanation, which I fear must in the nature of the case be a little tedious, of the special points on which this Bill differs from the English Bill. I have been asked by more than one Irish Peer to make one or two points plain, and I will do it with as much brevity as the circumstances admit of. The clauses of this Bill are virtually copies of the clauses in the English Housing and Town Planning Bill, with such drafting modifications as are necessary in order to deal with the different conditions which prevail in the two countries. That I May make it plain how close is the resemblance between the Bill which has already met with your Lordships' approval and the present Bill, I may say that the English Bill as it left Your Lordships' House contained forty-seven clauses, and the Irish Bill contains thirty-four. Of the thirty-four Irish clauses, twenty-nine actually correspond to the clauses which have been already the subject of debate, and in most cases of approval, in this House.
The point on which it is desirable to say a word or two is as to the differences which affect those five clauses. The principal Act of 1890 applied to Ireland as well as to England, but later Acts—the Acts of 1900, 1903, 1909—did not apply to Ireland, although some of their clauses were extended to Ireland by the Housing of the. Working Classes (Ireland) Act, 1908, and power is taken under Clause 28 of this Bill to extend certain provisions of the Acts of 1903 and 1909 to Ireland ht Order of the
1052
Lord Lieutenant in Council—a provision which in practice ought to prove a useful one.
One observation must be made, and that is that the Trish Housing Code is largely an urban code. The local authorities for the purposes of Part 3 of the Act in Ireland are urban district councils, and the commissioners in rural districts. There are twenty-eight small towns or villages with populations varying from 5,000 to 1,000, and for the purposes of that Act they are technically defined as towns. The rural district council is a local authority for the purposes of Part 2 of the Act of 1890, but the county councils are not local authorities under the Irish code. These differences have led to some practical results which require a word. The explanation of them is that rural housing in Ireland has been dealt with separately by a series of Acts called the Labourers (Ireland) Acts, under which the rural district councils are empowered to provide cottages and plots of ground, not only for agricultural labourers proper but for all persons working for hire whose wages do not exceed 2s. 6d. a day. Liberal assistance is given to a rural district council under these Acts, by means of free grants and loans at low rates. Under that what is actually a revolution in rural housing has been brought about. No fewer than 50,000 houses, with suitable plots, have been provided under the terms of those Acts. The conditions, indeed, were pre-war but it is encouraging to know that under the greatly more favourable conditions such solid progress was achieved.
But when you come to the present conditions in this respect you find a gap between the labourers' code and the housing code. The explanation is that the class of labourers in the rural districts which earns wages above 2s. 6d. a day cannot, under the terms of the Labourers' Acts or the Housing Acts, be dealt with, and the Chief Secretary some time ago publicly promised to introduce a Bill to bridge over that gap. I ought to make it clear that certain clauses of this Bill apply to rural as well as to urban districts.
Those of your Lordships who come from Ireland are well aware that the urban housing problem in Ireland is a very serious one indeed. The conditions in Dublin to-day have been frequently described in such terms as it would be impossible to exaggerate, and it may be in the memory-of some that a special Committee of the

1053
Irish Convention estimated that the number of new working-class houses urgently required was not fewer than 67,000. That figure may be an over-estimate or not, but that the state of affairs is extremely grave is a matter of common knowledge.
I ought, I think, to add that in the House of Commons this Bill was welcomed by Irish Members of all Parties—a circumstance so singular that it justly attracted an unusual degree of attention. I am unaware that it was criticised in any quarter. There was little or no controversy as to any of the provisions, and the only serious adverse criticism was directed against the details of the scheme, for the subsidising of the local authority. These details did not appear in the Bill, but the scheme was stated by the Chief Secretary on the Second Reacting. The form of it was that, for every £1 of rent which was charged And collected for the houses built the Government was to contribute £1within the margin of loss, and it is no exaggeration to say that almost the whole of the time in the Committee of the House of Commons was occupied with debates on this proposal, and Irish Members of both Parties pressed for more liberal terms. The Chief Secretary proved unable to resist this demand in its entirety, but he compromised the matter and induced the Treasury to extend the terms and to agree that for every £1 rent collected by the local authority the State should provide 25 s., rising in exceptional cases to 27 s. 6d.
One of the noble Lords interested in this matter has asked me to make these figures clear. It really amounts to this, that for every £8 rent collected the State has undertaken if this Bill meets with the approval of this House, to provide a subsidy of £10, rising to £11 in very exceptional cases. These terms, though not received with particular gratitude, nevertheless were ultimately accepted, and the obvious merit of this scheme is that it will ensure automatically, or ought to ensure, some reasonable degree of economy on the part of the local authority.
There is only one other point. Financial matters played a conspicuous part in the debates, and they arose in the following way. Where the rateable value of an area exceeds £200,000 it was pointed out that it would be necessary for the local authority to borrow in the open market, instead of obtaining the loans from the Board of
1054
Works. It will be readily imagined that the areas where the rateable value exceeds £200,000 are not, even in these days of Irish material prosperity, to be found everywhere; in fact, the only places in Ireland whose rateable value exceeds that amount are Dublin and Belfast. And accordingly the representatives of those towns all contended that it would be impossible for them to obtain loans in the open market.
It was pointed out that, after all, the rule in question was to be applied throughout the United Kingdom, that its application had not been the subject of serious criticism in the debates on the English Bill, and there was no very apparent reason why Belfast and Dublin should be treated in a different way. There was considerable discussion upon that point, and it was left with an assurance from the representative of the Government that he would have a further consultation with the Treasury, and see whether an amendment was still possible. There are a number of points which I have every reason to suppose that some of your Lordships who are specially aware of the circumstances in Ireland would desire to bring forward. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
THE EARL OF MAYO: My Lords, I do not think anybody will complain about the principle which is contained in this Bill. It is a somewhat complicated measure, and there is a good deal of legislation by reference in the Bill. Perhaps that cannot be avoided, but it is rather difficult to interpret the Bill and have its provisions carried out when you are referred here and there and everywhere to other Bills. I have had some of the points, especially with regard to Clause 1, explained to me.
What the Lord Chancellor said about the slums in Dublin is quite correct. The working classes and the poor in that town live in the most wretched way. They live in houses which were built for gentlefolk in the eighteenth century. They are totally unsuitable, and the sanitary arrangements are practically nil. To speak quite frankly, I should like to say that I would much rather that the Government had brought in a Bill dealing with Dublin first, because the slums of Dublin are a disgrace to the United Kingdom. And when we

1055
consider that the rates in Dublin are 16 s. 11½d. in the£ it is surely time that the Government should come forward and see that the housing of the poor in that town is carried out. This Bill does something for that, and I am very much obliged to the Lord Chancellor for having explained the financial provisions of the Bill. I believe I am right in saying that when an important member of the Government—and a member of the Cabinet, and the Lord Chancellor—says that those financial schemes will be carried out, they will be carried out. I am fortified in that by Clause 5, which says—
"… the Board shall, if the scheme is carried out within such period after the passing of this Act, as may be specified by the Board, with the consent of the Treasury, pay, or undertake to pay …"
The word "shall" being put in the Bill, makes it clear to me that we shall have those financial arrangements carried out.
I should like to say something about the Bill. It is headed "As Amended by Standing Committee D." It gives, I must say, enormous powers to local authorities in an urban district; in fact, in a town they can do what they like and take what they like. When I say that, I must draw your attention to the fact that in the Labourers Acts, the Congested District Boards Acts, and other Acts, demesnes and home farms have been protected. It has been the policy of the English Government to protect the demesnes and home farms, but in this Bill that is not done. It is curious to note that in Committee D the Chief Secretary brought forward a new clause dealing with this matter. There was bitter opposition to it, though I do not know why, and it was dropped. He then said that he would bring in a Regulation. But what we who live in Ireland feel is that there may be great difficulties put in the way of owners of demesnes in protecting their demesnes. Suppose I had a demesne and a home farm close to a town and they said to me, "We want to build a number of houses. We think you are a disagreeable sort of person—(that happens very often in Ireland)—so we choose to put these houses and streets on your demesne and home farm." I think that is the most unreasonable thing that could occur under this Bill. I feel very strongly about this because, as I have said, it has been the policy of the Government always to protect the demesnes and home farms. We do not
1056
want to be so bullied that we shall have to leave the country. It is possible to find other land near towns, and it is hardly fair that the Government should go back on their policy with regard to or homes, our home farms, and our demesnes.
I desire to refer to Clause 22. That clause says—
"…If the owner of any house suitable for occupation by persons of the working classes fails to make and keep such house in all respects reasonably fit for human habitation then, without prejudice to any other powers, the local authority may serve a notice upon the owner of such house requiring him within a reasonable time." etc.
The local authority can practically make you do anything—pull down the house, or alter it in every possible way; and that clause could be used most oppressively. In England that sort of thing is not done, but I assure you that in Ireland that kind of oppression can be and is carried out. It will be necessary for us to move an Amendment on this clause in order to safeguard the interests of those owners of houses who are likely to be oppressively dealt with under this Clause. I feel that the Bill is necessary, and if the Government will listen to the Amendments that we shall propose, which will not be unreasonable Amendments—the chief of them I may frankly say is the one with regards to demesnes and home farms—I do not intend to offer any opposition whatever to the passing of the Bill. But, as I said before, Dublin is a place that must be dealt with by the Government. It is a town which is a disgrace, and if the Government do not see that it is properly dealt with will be a very serious matter. The people there live in a filthy state, and people who are badly housed are the prey of every sort of agitator, and of every kind of wickedness you can imagine connected with agitation. The other towns are not so bad, though they might be better. With these few words, and the notice I have given that certain Amendments will be moved, I have pleasure in supporting the Second Reading of the Bill.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: My Lords, I wish to trouble the House as briefly as possible on this Bill, the more so as I personally welcome any effort which will give the working-classes in Ireland better housing than they have had up to the present. But while I am in the fullest sympathy with the object of the Bill, I

1057
think the lines of the English Bill have been followed much too closely in regard to an Irish measure. My noble friend who has just sat down has pointed out how badly the powers which have been in the hands of some of the biggest municipal authorities have been used in the past. No one who knows the state of Dublin can fail to realise that something has been lacking in the conduct of this business on the part of one of the most untrammelled municipal authorities in the world. Apart from that, however, the weak point of the measure—on which my noble friend has also put his finger—is that it has been assumed that some of the authorities in Ireland can be trusted to carry out these schemes which have not been particularly well carried out by some of the urban authorities. I challenge that conclusion. I am certain that, unless you put into the Bill considerable safeguards which are not there at present, you will have great corruption and a failure to carry out the objects which Parliament has in view.
I would call attention to one particular clause which deals with insanitary houses. It is there actually contemplated that the local authority—which as we all know in some of these smaller towns has had to have work taken out of its hands by the Local Government Board—can go to a landlord and say, "Some of your houses are insanitary," and they can give a notice, provided it is not less than three weeks, to put them right, and within that period, without appeal it is understood, they may take a month or two months and order the landlord to put a number of houses immediately into complete repair from top to bottom. Everybody knows that there is not at present either the staff or the material available. None the less, again without appeal, the local authority can proceed to put in their own men to do the work at whatever price they like and to charge it to the landlord.
I am sure that those who framed the Bill realise that this is not going to be a small question, because it is contemplated in the same clause that the local authority may have to give the landlord thirty years in which to pay the enormous sums they are going to spend on his property. Everybody must see that a provision of that kind is quite unfit to be put into the hands of some of these small rural authorities. There is no man alive who desires to see in-sanitary houses dealt with more severely
1058
than I do; but at the same time, to put into the hands of men who have failed in a great many instances in their most obvious duties such extreme powers, in a country where unfortunately political reasons more than any other govern appointments to those local bodies, is a thing I do not think your Lordships should do.
There are two further points which I should like to mention. My noble friend has pointed out that for the first time in an Irish Act protection has not been afforded to the demesne or farm or home park of a private inhabitant. It is absolutely necessary that you should have a different provision in Ireland from that which you have in Great Britain, when you consider than ninety-nine-hundredths of the land is in the hands of tenants who have got a tenant-right which is scarcely ever invaded by the local authorities. If you are going to levy your tolls of land for houses on such a very small section of the community you must have some safeguard that the power is fairly used. Beyond that we have had the rather elaborate system of finance described by the noble and learned Lord, on which I should like to say a few words and to ask for some explanation when we get into Committee. Not to trouble your Lordships further, what I would like to ask is that the noble Lord should give us some days, at all events, before putting the Bill down for Committee. We must introduce to the notice of the House certain Amendments, and I trust the noble Lord will not put the Bill down for Committee before say Wednesday or Thursday next.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I understood that an arrangement had been made with regard to the Committee stage. I gathered that it was to be put down for Thursday.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

HOUSING, TOWN PLANNING, ETC., BILL.
Order of the Day read for the consideration of Commons Amendments to Lords Amendments.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that these Amendments be now considered.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: It might not be inconvenient to your Lordships if I make a general statement as to the result of the consideration which has been given by the Commons to the Amendments of your Lordships. I think that we may properly congratulate ourselves that almost all the Amendments which were principally the subject of debate here have recommended themselves to the House of Commons, so that this House has made a real contribution to the Bill. The Amendments inserted here cover ten pages of print, and the Commons have accepted these Amendments without any alteration at all except in seven cases. Your Lordships made a great number of alterations in Clause 1, all of which have been accepted by the Commons. There is an important Amendment of the Marquess of Salisbury, a new subsection, and a further Amendment by the noble Marquess. All the Amendments in Clause 7 were accepted, and some of them were very important. An important Amendment to Clause 9 was accepted, also an Amendment to Clause 14. The Amendment to Clause 16 by Lord Muir Mackenzie was agreed to, and although the Commons did not accept Lord Stanhope's Amendment to Cause 22 relating to building societies, they dealt with it in an extremely sympathetic manner and I am sure he will have no complaint. The object of the noble Lord's Amendment was largely secured, having regard to the specific promise given that the whole subject should be explored. The Commons did not accept the Amendment inserted on the motion of the noble Viscount, Lord Midleton; but it accepted Lord Downham's Amendment to Clause 23. Lord Bledisloe's Amendment in Clause 25 was accepted, and Lord Lincolnshire's Amendment extending the acreage from two to ten was also accepted. They accepted a new clause as to the land in the New Forest and Crown land in Bushey Park. Omitting several less important Amendments, the Commons accepted the Amendment of the Marquess of Salisbury to the schedule enabling the co-option of other members to serve, upon the Committees. I think I have said enough to show the very careful consideration that was given by the Commons to the matters which appeared to this House to be of considerable importance when the Bill was under consideration here.
[NOTE.—The references are to Bill (77) as first printed for the House of Lords.]

LORDS AMENDMENT.
Clause 20, page 15, line 27, after ("solely") insert ("may exceed two-thirds but")
The Commons disagree to this Amendment for the following reason:
Because it affects the powers of the Public Works Loans Commissioners to advance money; and the Commons consider that it is unnecessary on their part to offer any further reason, hoping that the above reason may be deemed sufficient.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: In Clause 20, page 15, line 27, your Lordships made an Amendment, after "solely," by inserting "may exceed two-thirds but." On this the Commons said that they regarded it as a privilege Amendment. I think it is only due to Dr. Addison, who was in charge of the Bill, to say that he made a most gallant attempt to get the House to take a sane view, but Mr. Speaker gave a definite ruling upon the point. I do not know whether the noble Marquess will wish to carry the matter further. In order to afford him an opportunity of making such observations as occur to him, I move that the House should not insist upon this Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth not insist upon the said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I do not think I was personally responsible for inducing your Lordships to insert this Amendment in the Bill, and I do not desire to be father to it now. I do not know enough about the merits of it to urge it upon your Lordships. With reference to what the noble and learned Lord upon the Woolsack has just said, I am very glad that the right hon. Dr. Addison did his best to prevent this excessive plea of privilege being used for the purpose of opposing an Amendment which went down to the House of Commons from this House. It does not appear to be necessary to discuss the matter any further on the present occasion, because I personally do not propose upon the substance of the matter to ask your Lordships to insist upon the Amendment. I do not know what other Lords may do.
But I am quite sure of this, that the time has gone by when the country will allow really good Amendments, sent from this

1061
House to the House of Commons, to be blocked merely on the ground of privilege. If the House of Commons do not agree with our Amendments it is very possible they are wiser than we are. On the merits they may be perfectly right and we may be perfectly wrong, and we should, of course, be only too glad then to accept their view, if we were convinced. But to be told that, although the Amendment may be good, yet, because it offends this obscure rule of privilege, the country is to lose the advantage of a good provision in the law—I am quite sure the time has gone by when the country will endure it. On the present occasion I have nothing to say on the merits of the question. I would not have said so ranch as I have but for the kind observations of the noble and learned Lord. I do not propose to carry the matter further, and I shall not resist the Motion that is made.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENTS.
Clause 21, page 16, line 3, after ("solely") insert ("shall, in the case of persons being members of a building society incorporated under the Building Societies Acts, 1874 to 1594, be advanced upon the most favourable terms the Treasury by regulation may permit, and in any case")
The Commons disagree to this Amendment for the following reason:
Because the Amendment would be ineffective without the addition of a new scheme of financial assistance.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, these words were inserted in the Bill during the Report stage in this House. The noble Lord who moved the Amendment very candidly stated that it was incomplete in itself, and that other words would necessarily have to be added. Both the original scheme and the variant which, if my memory serves me rightly, was suggested by Lord Salisbury, would require a careful investigation, and I tried to point out that on the Report stage it was really hardly practicable that an adequate investigation of that kind could be made.
Everybody agrees—and I think everybody agreed who considered this question from the point of view of the House of Commons—that if a scheme could be devised for making fruitful use of the accumulated funds in the hands of the building societies without increasing the burden on the Exchequer, it would be a
1062
most admirable arrangement. I think acknowledgment is due to the noble Lord who made the suggestion, but I must say quite frankly that the particular schemes which have been suggested have not recommended themselves to the Treasury. In these circumstances the right hon. gentleman in charge of the Bill below did not ask the House of Commons to agree with the Amendment, though he dealt with it in an extremely sympathetic manner and promised that the whole subject should be carefully explored.
I hope that your Lordships will not think it necessary to insist upon the Amendment which, in fact, would be meaningless unless the Commons inserted some additional words such as those which the noble Earl suggested. For this reason, I beg to move that your Lordships do not insist upon this Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth not insist upon the said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
EARL GREY: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Stanhope moved this Amendment in my name in my enforced absence in Newcastle owing to the railway strike. I am very sorry I was not able to get back because, after putting down the Amendment, certain further knowledge bearing upon it did come to my notice which I should like to put before your Lordships. I recognise the truth of what the noble and learned Lord says, that it would be futile to ask your Lordships to re-insert the Amendment, because we are in the hands of another place and it is necessary that other words should be added. As they have said they are unwilling to add them at this stage there is nothing further to be done.
I welcome very much the words which fell from the noble Lord, in which he describes what Dr. Addison said as a specific promise that the whole subject should be looked into. The words which were actually used in another place, in recommending that this Amendment should be dropped, included the following—
"I am afraid it raises exceedingly difficult questions involving practically a subsidy to a private individual, and that is a very difficult matter, as the House knows."
I cannot help reminding your Lordships that the Amendment is to Clause 21, which is called "Loans to private persons," and it says that during a period of two years

1063
money may be advanced to any private person for the purpose of constructing houses for the working classes. I was always given to understand that the greater included the less, and if this clause took power to grant loans to private persons to erect houses for the working classes, it would naturally cover anybody who wanted to advance loans for the erection of a single house for that purpose. Still I do welcome the promise that this matter shall be further looked into.
Whilst I was at Newcastle I had occasion to have a conversation with five secretaries of some of the leading building societies there. As your Lordships know, it is especially in the North of England that building societies are so strong. I discussed this particular scheme which, as I say, came to my notice quite by chance, and, to my surprise, I was informed that it had been discussed by the building societies and very favourably viewed by them no less than two years ago. Although the Government professed great interest and anxiety, I was informed that the scheme had been forwarded to the Government, but it had received no sympathy at all. In view of the really favourable reception it has received I regret that it was not looked into at the time when the Government had plenty of opportunity to examine it in detail. I also put the point direct to them whether it would be possible for the building societies to finance the Government portion of the money which would be required to build the houses in contemplation, and I was assured that there would not be the slightest, difficulty in financing those houses.
Therefore, had I been here last Thursday, I should have been able to assure your Lordships, on the authority of these very prominent members of the building societies themselves, that this provision, had it been accepted in another place, would have enabled a very large number of houses to be built without calling upon the Treasury to find any large capital sum but only the interest on the capital. In view of the fact that this is the only way in which private enterprise really can be assisted, and the high character of those who are members of building societies, I hope the Government will look into this question with a view of trying to work out some method which will enable them to utilise the funds at their disposal.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT.
After Clause 22, insert the following new clause:
"Purchase of building materials in possession of a Government Department.
"23. Any bricks or other building materials in the possession of a Government Department which are available for purchase by a local authority for the erection or improvement of houses under the Housing Acts shall also be available for purchase on not less favourable terms by any owner of a house or building or site who enters into an agreement, with such security as may be prescribed by regulations made by the Local Government Board, to use all building materials so purchased by him in the erection or improvement of houses for the working classes."
The Commons disagree to this Amendment, but propose the following Amendment in lieu thereof: After Clause 22, insert as a new clause:
" Provisions as to sale of building materials.
".Subject to any conditions prescribed by the Local Government Board with the consent of the Treasury, any bricks or other building materials which have been acquired by a Government Department for the purpose of the erection or improvement of houses for the working classes, and which are not for the time being required for that purpose by any local authority or Public Utility Society may during a period of two years from the passing of this Act be sold to any person who undertakes to use the same forthwith for the purpose of erecting or improving houses for the working classes and to comply with the said conditions at a price sufficient to cover the cost of replacement at the time of sale of the materials so sold."
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This Amendment is concerned with the proposed insertion of a new clause after Clause 22, which I think was moved by the noble Viscount, Lord Midleton. The object of the noble Viscount was to secure that private purchasers of building materials should not be altogether excluded from some prospect of obtaining raw material by the operation of corporations in accumulating material. I took the view that the language suggested in the new clause was inapt to secure this purpose, and I pointed that out when the matter was under debate. The House of Commons, as your Lordships see, propose an Amendment in lieu of the noble Viscount's Amendment. Their Amendment undoubtedly is an attempt to secure the purpose of the noble Viscount. I understand that there has been some discussion between the noble Viscount and the draftsman, the result of which has been to suggest a further modification of the form of the new clause suggested by the Commons, which will at once satisfy the desire of the noble Viscount and not

1065
offend against the view taken in another place. I believe that effect can be given to that view by the Motion which I now make.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons Amendment, subject to the following Amendment—Leave out after the words ("working classes") where they first appear, the words ("and which are not for the time being required for that purpose by any local authority or Public Utility Society").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: I am much obliged to the noble and learned Lord for having endeavoured to meet the strong feeling which was expressed. As he has made this concession and taken out these words, I think we could accept the Common's Amendment. There is one other Amendment I should wish to make, and that is that the word "two" should read "five." It is really unreasonable to suggest, if a building programme is completed in two years' time, that at that moment all supplies should be cut off. I would ask the noble and learned Lord to substitute the words "five years" for "two years."
Amendment moved—
To omit from the proposed new clause sent up by the Commons the word ("two") and insert ("five").—(Viscount Midleton.)
LORD SHEFFIELD: Before we pass away from this Amendment I should like to ask whether the condition at the end of the Common's Amendment, that these materials are to be sold at a price sufficient to cover the cost of replacement at the time of sale, is not really possible in any case. It is putting the private purchaser under it worse condition as to price than the local authority.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Do I understand that the Lord Chancellor is willing to accept the suggestion that the two years should become five? I think it is a most reasonable suggestion. These building operations are not going to be done as quickly as some sanguine people imagine, and the programme of the Government must last for a considerable number of years, during which they will practically absorb the vast mass of building material in the country. Private owners are to be called upon to replace and repair buildings under very heavy legal obligations, some of which are included in this Bill, and it
1066
really comes to this, that they must repair although there is no materials to repair with. I do not mean that my noble friend has solved the problem altogether. He has been very modest in his demand, and has confined it to a small compass. I hope that the noble and learned Lord will accept the suggestion.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I would remind your Lordships that the original proposal of the Bill was one year, and that it was only after discussion that the one year was increased to two years. I would also remind the House that the view of the authorities is that before the end of five years the building programmes will be completed.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: If the building programme of the Government is finished in two years it would be no hardship for them to part with their building materials.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: That, no doubt, is perfectly true, but it is a question whether at this stage it is worth while sending the matter again once more to the House of Commons to be considered. But holding the view that there is very reasonable prospect that this matter will be dealt with long before five years are past, I do not propose to divide the House upon it.
On Question, Amendment ageed to.
Motion, as amended, agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT.
Clause 23, page 17, line 20, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall")
The Commons disagree to this Amendment for the following reason:
Because it makes expenditure by local authorities compulsory, and the Commons consider that it is unnecessary on their part to offer any further reason, hoping that the above reason may be deemed sufficient.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Speaker has ruled that this is a privilege Amendment, for reasons which are given. I am not prepared to debate the decision at which Mr. Speaker arrived, and I apprehend that your Lordships will be prepared to concur in the Motion which I now make.
Moved, That this House doth not insist upon the said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT.
Clause 27, page 22, line 27, after ("habitation) insert:
("Provided that the owner may within twenty-one days after the receipt of such notice, by written notice to the local authority, declare his intention of closing the house for human habitation, and thereupon a closing order shall be deemed to have become operative in respect of such house.")
Clause 27, page 22, Line 31, after ("with") insert ("and if the owner has not given such notice as aforesaid")
The Commons disagree to these Amendments for the following reason:
Because, in view of the present shortage of housing accommodation, it is not desirable to allow owners of houses by closing their houses further to restrict the supply.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: In regard to these Amendments I think it has been felt that there was a good deal to be said for the view taken by the Commons, but it was held by the noble Marquess that their apprehensions might be safeguarded while still carrying out his own purpose. I gather that there has been a discussion, and that the result of that discussion is the Motion which I now make and which I trust will not be unacceptable to the Commons.
Moved, That this House doth insist upon the said Amendments, but with the following Amendments—In line 1, after ("that"), insert ("if such house is not capable without reconstruction of being rendered fit for human habitation"); and at end insert: ("Any question arising under this proviso shall in case of difference between the owner and the local authority be determined by the Local Government Board").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
LORD SHEFFIELD: It is difficult to follow the Amendment as read, but, as I picked it up, the obligation to put the house in repair, no matter what it may cost, is to be enforced unless it is possible to show that it is not capable without reconstruction of being rendered fit for human habitation. There are many houses which, of course, if you spend enough money upon them you can put into repair. There are houses which the owner has kept standing because of the needs which have arisen during the war, though he would gladly have pulled them down. They are houses which no prudent owner would put into repair. Therefore I think it should be "where a reasonable owner can properly put them into repair." Otherwise you would be putting a very great obligation upon the owners.
LORD BLEDISLOE: As I was responsible for the Amendments and for the words which are now proposed to be inserted, I think I should say that in my opinion the House of Commons did not realise the exact point upon which we want to insist. In the case of ordinary repairs their objection would be unanswerable. If an owner can by ordinary repairs put a house in a state of repair fit for human habitation, it is only right that he should do so, but in the case of a good many old, picturesque houses the moment you touch them they, like a house of cards, collapse, and to put such houses into a habitable state would involve reconstruction. It would be obviously unfair, particularly to small owners—and it should be realised that two-thirds of these houses belong not to rich men but to very poor persons. It would cost four to five times the capital value of the house. Therefore this Amendment is proposed—namely, that where reconstruction is involved, as distinct from repairs, the owner is to be allowed to close the house rather than re-erect it. There are cases which have been already settled on this point, and I think there is little doubt that it would be possible to distinguish between one type of work and another. If, however, there is any doubt we ask that the Local Government Board shall decide.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: I only want to say that I think the minimum of protection has been given by this Amendment, and I ask the noble and learned Lord to realise that when the measure with regard to Ireland is read a second time it will be impossible for us to rest content with such a minimum of protection. Some appeal on the facts it will be absolutely necessary for us to press for.
EARL STANHOPE: It is very difficult for anybody to construe what the Amendment really means, and I suggest that if possible in another place the Amendment should be altered so that it should say that where the repairs would exceed say five times the annual rent the owner should be entitled to close the house. I think you require some definite language in order to decide what is impossible repair.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am very unwilling that further words should be added here, by way of explanation, but the suggestion made shall be considered, and I will ask the draftsman to do so.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT.
Page 29, leave out Clause 41:
The Commons disagree to this Amendment, but propose to insert the following new clause in lieu of Clause 41:
"Preparation of town-planning schemes.
.—(1) The council of every borough or other urban district containing on the first day of January nineteen hundred and twenty-three a population according to the last census for the time being of more than, twenty thousand shall, within three years after that date, prepare and submit to the Local Government Board a town-planning scheme in respect of all land within, the borough or urban district in respect of which a town-planning scheme may be mode under the Act of 1909.
"(2) Without prejudice to the powers of the council under the et of 1909, every scheme to which this section applies shall deal with such matters as may be determined by regulations to be made by the Loral Government Board.
"(3) Every regulation so made shall be laid before both Houses of Parliament as soon as may be after it is made, and if an address is presented by either House within twenty-one days on which that House has sat next after any such regulation, is laid before it, praying that the regulation may be annulled, His Majesty in Council may annul the regulation, but without prejudice to the validity of anything preciously done thereunder."
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: On this Amendment I think your Lordships will be able to reach a harmonious conclusion with the Commons. They attach very great importance to the provisions of this clause, and I think that very general disappointment was felt by all parties at its deletion by your Lordships. The new clause which the Commons propose is an improvement on the original, and I hope it will go some way to disarm opposition. The clause in its new form makes it clear that the intention is that the new code shall be determined by means of regulations to be made by the Local Government Board. Both Houses will have ample opportunity of criticising the conclusions, if they desire to do so. I hope that your Lordships will agree to the Motion which I make.
Moved, That this House doth agree wit h the Commons in the said Amendment. (The Lord Chancellor.)
LORD ISLINGTON: I think that the decision of your Lordships to omit this clause in its original form has enabled the House of Commons to improve it very considerably. It certainly now, as drafted in its amended form, substantially removes
1070
the extremely arbitrary nature of the power that was entrusted to the central authority over the local authority, and all the provisions by which regulations are to be drafted by the central authority are to be submitted and for a period of time to be laid upon the Table of both Houses of Parliament, thus giving an opportunity to those interested in the locality concerned to raise any objections that they may have to the regulations in so far as they may contravene local interests or present impracticable features in regard to local conditions. I think eat the clause as it now stands, and taken in conjunction with the Amendment that your Lordships inserted into the following clause, remove the main difficulties and the main objections that were in their original form. Speaking for myself, as one who opposed these clauses in their original form, I feel quite satisfied now that due and proper safeguards have been inserted to protect localities against any undue encroachment.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I am glad that the noble Lord has taken that view of this clause. There is no matter which is felt more strongly in the country, amongst those who are likely to feel the effects of legislation, than the desire to have an increased amount of town planning. And when you think that this town planning may deal with such subjects as the number of houses to be built to the acre, and whether there are to be open spaces or not, one cannot be surprised that the working classes feel very strongly that they ought to be protected from the mean streets without open spaces which have defaced our towns for so many years. I am glad that the Commons have added the later part of the clause, because, as the noble Lord has very properly said, we have an improved protection in control in case anything unreasonable is proposed. I am quite satisfied that the intention of the authorities is not to make unreasonable proposals, but to have reasonable ones, and no burden will be imposed greater than the necessities of the case really demand.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT.
Clause 42, page 30, line 15, after the second ("act") insert ("or in the case of a. borough the population of which is less than 10,000, or of an urban district the population of which is less than

1071
20,000, may, if the Board think fit, by order, empower the county council to act")
The Commons propose to amend this Amendment by leaving out ("the population of which is less than 10,000 or of an") and inserting ("or other")
VISCOUNT PEEL: I move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment in Clause 42, with this alteration—that after "20,000" the words "or of a rural district" be inserted. This is merely to make it clear that the county councils shall act in default.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment, with the further Amendment that after "20,000" there be inserted "or of a rural district."—(Viscount Peel.)
On Question, Motion agreed to

FINANCE BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.
PRIVATE BILLS.
[From Minutes of July 23.]

PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDERS BILL.
ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
GAS AND WATER PROVISIONAL ORDERS BILL.
To be read 2a to-morrow (The Lord Somerleyton).

COMMONS REGULATION (COITY WALLIA) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
  BIRMINGHAM CORPORATION BILL.
  Committee to meet on Tuesday next.

CITY AND SOUTH LONDON RAILWAY BILL.
SWINTON AND MEXBOROUGH GAS BOARD BILL.
LEICESTER CORPORATION BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and referred to the Examiners.

ARDROSSAN HARBOUR ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
A Bill to confirm a Provisional Order in relation to Ardrossan Harbour—Was presented by the Lord Stanmore; read 1a; to be printed; and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, section 7), deemed to have been read 2a, and reported from the Committee.
House adjourned at five minutes before eight o'clock.