Sitting of 1 March 1921

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Private Bills (Standing Orders not previously inquired into complied with),—Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bills, referred on the Second Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely:
Sutton District Waterworks Bill.
Portsmouth Water Bill.
Wrexham and East Denbighshire Water Bill.
Cambridge University and Town Waterworks Bill.
Bradford Canal (Abandonment) Bill.
North Staffordshire Railway Bill.
Ordered, That the Bills be committed.
Burnley Corporation Bill (by Order), Read a Second time, and committed.
Westgate and Birchington Water Bill (by Order),
Read a Second time, and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
Wigan Corporation Bill (by Order),
Read a Second time, and committed.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  ANGLO-JAPANESE TREATY.
  Lieut.-Colonel Sir F. HALLasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign
  1574
  Affairs, if the terms of the treaty arrangements between this country and Japan preclude the possibility of assistance to Japan in any conflict which might arise between that country and the United States of America; and if assurances on this point have been given to the American Government in connection with their consideration of their naval building programme?
  Mr. KELLAWAY (Additional Undersecretary of State for Foreign Affairs): Article 4 of the Anglo-Japanese Agreement of 13th July, 1911, provides that
  "should either High Contracting Party conclude a Treaty of General Arbitration with a third Power, it is agreed that nothing in this agreement shall entail upon such contracting party an obligation to go to war with the Power with whom such Treaty of Arbitration is in force."
  At the time when the Agreement was under negotiation, a General Arbitration Treaty between this country and the United States of America was being concluded, and this circumstance inspired the adoption of the terminology of Article 4 by His Majesty's Government and the Japanese Government. As to the true spirit in which that Article was conceived, the Japanese Government have always entirely shared, and continue to share, the views of His Majesty's Government. The General Arbitration Treaty was not ratified by the United States Senate. Subsequently, however, on the 15th September, 1914, a Peace Commission Treaty was signed and duly ratified, under which, when all diplomatic methods of adjustment had failed, all disputes between the two countries of "any nature whatsoever other than those disputes the settlement of which is provided for," are to be referred to an Investigation Commission. The Peace Commission Treaty is not technically a General Arbitration Treaty, but their objects are the same. My hon. and gallant Friend will understand from my answer that our relations with Japan are so arranged as not to involve us in the possibility of conflict with the United States of America. As regards the second part of the question, no official communication has been made to the United States of America as there is no reason to believe that the responsible authorities are in any doubt as to the true position.

  PEACE TREATIES.

    EMIGRANT TRAFFIC, GERMANY.
    Sir OWEN PHILIPPSasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the German Government is evading Articles 323, 327, and 368 of the Treaty of Versailles by withholding an emigration licence from the Royal Mail Steam Packet Company on the plea that, as a licence is stated to have been refused to a German line, no discrimina-is therefore being exercised against a British line; and whether, in view of the early inauguration of a passenger service by the Royal Mail Steam Packet Company between Hamburg and the United States, the Government will bring pressure to bear upon the German Government to carry out the Treaty, which clearly requires not only the abolition of German emigrant control stations, but that no obstacles should be placed in the way of any British steamship line participating in the emigrant traffic from, to, and through German territory on an equal footing with any German steamship lines?
    Mr. KELLAWAY: I am aware that an emigration licence has not yet been granted to the Royal Mail Steam Packet Company, and this matter is now under discussion with the German Government. My hon. Friend may rest assured that His Majesty's Government will take such action as may be necessary to secure to British interests their full rights under the Treaty in this matter, which they recognise to be of the greatest importance.
    Sir O. PHILIPPS: Will the Government take advantage of the presence of so many Germans in London at the present time to press the question?
    Mr. KELLAWAY: Everything that is possible will be done.
    Sir FORTESCUE FLANNERY: Is it not a fact that the Treaty provides positively that such interference with British ships as is suggested in the question shall not be possible by the German Government under the Article quoted in the question?
    Mr. KELLAWAY: I think the answer I have given shows that His Majesty's Government are fully aware of all these conditions.

    ROLLING STOCK.
    Sir H. BRITTAINasked the Undersecretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any progress has yet been made in dividing up the rolling stock, and particularly locomotives and goods wagons, between the various succession States; and whether there is any possibility in the near future of so overcoming the mutual distrust now obtaining between certain of these States in Central Europe that through goods trains may again be sent with impunity across the various frontiers?
    Mr. KELLAWAY: The Commission for the distribution of Austrian rolling stock, which was provided for in the Treaty of St. Germain, has not so far been able to arrive at a final settlement, but proposals have recently been made which, it is hoped, may accelerate a solution of the problem. It was decided recently in Paris to summon representatives of the Successor States to a Conference with the Allies at an early date to consider what steps can be taken to restore, so far as possible, normal economic relations, and in particular to improve means of communication, between the States of Central Europe.
    Sir H. BRITTAIN: Is not this almost the most vital question between these States to-day, and has there not been undue delay in this matter, which is holding up all trading?
    Mr. KELLAWAY: I agree as to its importance. We find the effect of the interruption of communications in almost every department, but, as the answer shows, a Conference has now been summoned, and I hope that something practical will result.

    MANDATES (MESOPOTAMIA AND PALESTINE).
    Sir PHILIP MAGNUSasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the terms of the Mandates for Mesopotamia and Palestine have been officially published; and whether any opportunity will be afforded to the House of discussing them?
    Mr. KELLAWAY: As has already been stated, instructions have been given for the publication of the Mandates, and they will be in Members' hands at an early date. After hon. Members have had an opportunity of examining them, perhaps

    1577
    my hon. Friend will address a question to the Leader of the House in regard to their discussion.

    GERMAN STEAMERS.
    Sir F. HALLasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that five German passenger and cargo steamers of over 1,600 tons gross register, trading in the Argentine, and belonging to the Hamburg South American Company, have been transferred by one Delfino, the representative of that company in the Argentine, to a new Argentine company formed for the purpose, with a view to avoiding the surrender of these vessels to the Reparation Commission of the Allies under the Treaty of Versailles; whether his Department and the Ministry of Shipping had their attention drawn to the matter as long ago as March, 1919; if warning was later given to those Departments that evasion by the Germans of their Treaty obligations in this manner was likely; whether the prestige of the Allies in South America is liable to suffer seriously if the Germans are allowed thus openly to evade the Treaty provisions; and what steps it is proposed to take to set matters right?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of SHIPPING (Colonel Leslie Wilson): I have been asked to reply. I am aware of the circumstances connected with the five steamers which are referred to in the question, and the matter is being closely watched. The question as to the delivery of the steamers under the Treaty of Versailles is a matter for the Reparation Commission and is being dealt with by them.
    Sir F. HALL: As the hon. and gallant Gentleman says that the Government are watching this project, is he aware that repeated notification has been given to the various Departments of the Government, including the Foreign Office and the. Department which he represents, calling attention to the fact that this would happen; and is the Government aware that owing to the slackness of the various Departments these steamers are being transferred practically to the German Government or under German management?
    Colonel WILSON: I really must disagree with my hon. and gallant Friend that it is due to any slackness on the
    1578
    part of any Government Department. We have been fully aware of all the circumstances in regard to the transfer of these particular steamers. My hon. and gallant Friend must realise that this is a very difficult and delicate subject and the Reparation Commission is awaiting a reply to a note sent to the German Government, and until we get that reply I cannot usefully add anything to my answer.
    Sir F. HALL: As the hon. and gallan Gentleman says he is waiting for a reply does he recognise the fact that these steamers have been transferred to the German flag and practically under German management, namely, the Hamburg Amerika Line; and does my hon. and gallant Friend think that now any alteration can be made?
    Colonel WILSON: I cannot agree that they have been transferred to the German flag. They are under the Agentine flag at present, and my hon. and gallant Friend will realise that when a country is involved which is not a signatory to the Treaty, it may be a somewhat delicate question, and I would rather not give an answer now.
    Sir F. HALL: I beg to give notice that I will repeat this question again in a week or two weeks' time.

    PLEBISCITE, VILNA.
    Mr. W. CARTERasked the Prime Minister whether he can make any statement as to the situation in Vilna; and what progress the League of Nations is making with arrangements for the plebiscite in that area?
    Mr. KELLAWAY: The question is at this moment before the Council of the League at Paris. Pending the result of their deliberations, I am not in a position to make a statement.

    GERMAN INDEMNITY.
    Sir F. HALLasked the Prime Minister if his attention has been called to the proposal introduced into the American Senate that the United States should intervene to limit the German indemnity to £3,000,000,000, part of which should be regarded as wiped out by the loss of the German trans-Atlantic cables and African Colonies, which should pass to America in settlement of the Allies' debt; and whether, notwithstanding the

    1579
    comparative insignificance of the losses sustained by America in the War, and the fact that she has refused to ratify the Peace Treaty, America is now taking part, in the settlement of the questions of reparation and other points arising under the Treaty?
    Mr. KELLAWAY: I have received no information about the proposal in question. The reply to the second part of the question is in the negative.
    Sir F. HALL: If the right hon. Gentleman has not received any notification, and has not seen any report, will he ascertain whether the statement in this question is correct or otherwise?
    Mr. KELLAWAY: Perhaps my hon. and gallant Friend will let me have the information on which his question is based.
    Sir F. HALL: With the greatest of pleasure.

    MANCHURIA.
    Mr. FREDERICK GREENasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether His Majesty's Government has received from its representatives in Manchuria any reports relating to the massacres of Koreans and others in Chientao, Manchuria, in October and November, 1920; whether these reports show that Japanese troops on non-Japanese territories have been engaged in military operations, involving great loss of life and wanton destruction of property; whether the officers in command of these forces have discriminated against Christians in these operations, and have burnt Church property over a wide area; whether His Majesty's Government has received any report of the facts in the case of the murder on 29th–30th October of a Christian colporteur of Sulchilgo without even a form of trial; whether His Majesty's Government accepts the explanation issued by Major-General Sato, on behalf of the Japanese War Office, namely, that the operations in the Chientao district have been rendered necessary because the Chinese authorities had expressed anxiety that the Japanese should stamp out outlawry and Korean plots as speedily as possible and then withdraw their forces; whether such operations are defended officially regardless of the fact that many innocent
    1580
    suffer;. and whether His Majesty's Government have taken any steps to defend the reputation of British citizens, missionaries in this district, who are charged in this official Japanese document with being themselves the cause of the tragedy?
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Before this question is answered, may I ask if the Japanese Imperial Government have made any complaint to His Majesty's Government about similar occurrences in Ireland?
    Mr. KELLAWAY: The hon. and gallant Gentleman cannot expect me to answer that question. Reports of the nature indicated have reached His Majesty's Government both through His Majesty's Ambassor at Tokyo and His Majesty's Representative at Peking. These reports, which are necessarily based upon information from unofficial sources, show that numbers of Koreans have been killed and Korean property has been destroyed in Chientao. There is no confirmation of the report that special discrimination has been shown against Christian Koreans or Korean Church property as such. His Majesty's Government have received from an unofficial source an account of the alleged circumstances attending the death of the Korean colporteur at Sulchilgo, just as they have received reports of punitive measures elsewhere in Chientao. The general nature of these reports has been such that His Majesty's Government have felt justified in bringing them to the notice of the Japanese Government. As regards the utterances of Major-General Sato, the precise statement attributed to him by my hon. Friend has not so far come before His Majesty's Government, nor would they be disposed to regard such a statement by a subordinate military official as in any sense authoritative. But as long ago as December last, a disavowal was made by the Japanese Minister for Foreign Affairs of the utterances of that officer and of those of Colonel Mizumachi in accusing British missionaries of encouraging Korean malcontents against Japan. As stated in this House, in reply to my hon. Friend's previous question of 21st December last, His Majesty's Government have no reason whatever to suppose that British missionaries are in any way guilty of aiding Korean malcontents.
    Captain Viscount CURZON: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us an assurance that it is not intended that we should interfere with the affairs of Japan in Korea?
    Lieut.-Colonel J. WARD: Is it not a fact that these operations of Japan have taken place really in Chinese territory, and how is it that one great State can invade the territory of another without some more general protest?
    Mr. KELLAWAY: I would rather not make any more definite statement than that contained in the answer I have given, which is very detailed.
    Sir J. D. REES: May I ask whether His Majesty's Government has any concern in this matter, unless a British subject is maltreated?

  EGYPT.

    PRESS CENSORSHIP.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is aware that newspapers in the English language published in Egypt are still being rigidly censored, and are frequently refused permission to publish articles which have appeared in well-known British journals; that all news from Ireland is systematically censored or mutilated; whether he can state the total number of persons employed in Egypt in censoring the Press; and whether their salaries and expenses are paid by the British taxpayer or from Egyptian revenues?
    Mr. KELLAWAY: The Egyptian Government still find it necessary to maintain a mild censorship on newspapers in Egypt irrespective of the language in which they are published. The censorship is designed to prevent the publication of matter liable to excite religious or racial animosity or the dissemination of false or alarmist reports calculated to disturb public tranquillity. I have no information as to the numbers of persons whom the Egyptian Government employ for censorship purposes, but no expenditure under this head falls upon British funds.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY:
    May I ask how the censoring of Irish news can have any effect on religious or racial feeling in Egypt?
    Mr. KELLAWAY: The reactions of Irish news are very marked both inside this House and out of it.

    MILNER COMMISSION (REPORT).
    Mr. W. CARTERasked the Prime Minister when the House will have an opportunity of discussing the Milner
    Report?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I am not in a position to name a date for this discussion.

    WORKERS' ORGANISATIONS.
    Mr. R. RICHARDSONasked the Prime Minister whether a Proclamation has recently been issued by Lord Allenby prohibiting the payment of Egyptian workers and workers in Egypt of other nationalities of all contributions to trade unions or similar organisations; whether this Proclamation was issued with the knowledge and approval of His Majesty's Government; and whether immediate instructions will be issued to Lord Allenby to cancel a Proclamation which violates the right of the workers to form and subscribe to organisations for the protection of their own interests?
    Mr. KELLAWAY: I would refer the hon. Member to the written reply given to the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. Neil Maclean) on the 24th instant.

    BULGARIAN PRISONERS OF WAR.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that out of the 17,000 Bulgarian officers and men taken prisoners to the west of Scopie by the French in the late War, and handed over to the Serbians, only 12,770 have been repatriated to Bulgaria; whether the Serbians report that there are no more Bulgarian prisoners of war on their territory; and whether it is possible to ascertain what has become of the 4,230 officers and men that make up the total number of Bulgarian prisoners that were handed over by the French?
    Mr. KELLAWAY: I understand that a certain number of Bulgarian prisoners are still detained in Serbia on the ground that these men are not ordinary prisoners of war, but individuals detained under

    1583
    the Treaty provisions affecting War criminals. The number and condition of of these criminals is being investigated by Dr. Nansen's Commission under the League of Nations.

    FEEDING OF CHILDREN, CENTRAL EUROPE.
    Sir H. BRITTAINasked the Undersecretary of State for Foreign Affairs as to the number of children who are being fed daily in Central Europe by American and British institutions?
    Mr. KELLAWAY: British institutions are feeding over a quarter of a million children daily, and I am informed, although I cannot vouch for the accuracy of the figures, that 2,750,000 children are being fed under the auspices of the American relief administration and further numbers of children by other American organisations.

    KASSALA RAILWAY.
    Mr. WADDINGTONasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if any encouragement has been given to the issue by the Sudan Government of a loan for the building of the Kassala Railway, having regard to the employment which will be found in this country for the production of the necessary material; and has his attention been drawn to the opinion of a high financial authority that the Sudan Government is now capable of successfully issuing a loan without British Treasury guarantee?
    Mr. KELLAWAY: The Sudan Government are most anxious to construct the Kassala Railway, but they must decide for themselves as to whether they are justified in issuing a loan for the purpose. The answer to the latter part of the question is in the affirmative, and the Sudan Government have been informed of the opinion to which the hon. Member refers.
    Earl WINTERTON: In view of the vast importance of this question to the Sudan, can the right hon. Gentleman ask the Leader of the House whether an opportunity will be given before, or just after, Easter to discuss the whole matter, especially in view of the fact that a loan
    1584
    has just been issued, guaranteed by the British Government?
    Mr. KELLAWAY: I will see that my Noble Friend's suggestion is conveyed to the Leader of the House.

    COSTA RICA (OIL CONCESSION).
    Major C. LOWTHERasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Government of the United States of America has protested against the acquiring by a British company of an oil concession in Costa Rica; if so, whether he can state the grounds for the protest; and if he is prepared to support legitimate British enterprise in a friendly country?
    Mr. KELLAWAY: His Majesty's Government are aware that the United States Consul at San Jose endeavoured to secure the cancellation of a concession in Costa Rica obtained by a United States Company, but in which British capital was interested. His Majesty's Government will afford all proper support to any legitimate concession obtained in accordance with the laws and constitution of Costa Rica.
    Major LOWTHER: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the recent trouble between Panama and Costa Rica was caused by this very question of the oil concession, and whether the territory seized by Costa Rica is territory in which oil has been found?
    Mr. KELLAWAY: I could not answer that question without notice.

    MEXICO.
    Major LOWTHERasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what are the reasons which prompt His Majesty's Government in delaying the recognition of the popularly and legally elected Government of Mexico; whether he is aware that this delay is causing prejudice to British interests in that Republic; and whether he can assure the House that the non-recognition of Mexico is in no way caused by the policy or attitude of the United States of America?
    Mr. KELLAWAY: His Majesty's Government have throughout been prepared to recognise the Government of Mexico as soon as they are convinced of its stability, and they are not aware that such a policy is prejudicial to British interests. I can assure the hon. and gallant Member that this is a predominant consideration by which the decision of His Majesty's Government has been, and will continue to be, guided.

    PASSPORTS AND VISAS.
    Mr. PERCYasked the Undersecretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he can hold out an early prospect for the abolition, or a substantial modification approximating to peace-time conditions, of the present passport regulations, so that continental travel and intercourse, especially with our Allies, may be further facilitated?
    Mr. KELLAWAY: There is no intention at present to abolish the passport and visa system. When the resolutions agreed to at the International Conference, held in Paris in October last, are adopted, a substantial modification in the system will result. The League of Nations is in correspondence with the various Governments on the matter.
    Mr. PERCY: Has the right hon. Gentleman any information as to the intention of France to modify their passport regulations?
    Mr. KELLAWAY: I would rather have notice of that question.
    Sir H. BRITTAIN: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell the House whether the Government intend to do something to persuade other countries to adopt the twelve months' visa system?
    Mr. KELLAWAY: I will see that that suggestion is conveyed to my Noble Friend.
    Lieut.-Colonel A. MURRAY: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind the necessity of continuing negotiations for abolishing the visa altogether?
    Mr. KELLAWAY: I would rather not commit myself to any statement on that point at the present time.

  RUSSIA.

    TRADE AGREEMENT.
    Mr. ALLEN PARKINSONasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether an answer has yet been despatched to the note sent by Commissary Tchitcherin on 4th February with regard to the Russian trade agreement; and, if not, what is the cause of the delay?
    Mr. KELLAWAY: Monsieur Krassin is expected to arrive in London very shortly, and the reply to the latest note from the Soviet Government will be made to him as soon as practicable.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY:
    Why is it necessary to wait until M. Krassin returns before replying to Commissary Tchitcherin's note of the 4th of February; and in view of the statement in the King's Speech that it is essential that trade with Russia should be started as soon as possible, why all this delay?
    Mr. KELLAWAY: Because personal negotiations are much more rapid than the prolonged method of writing.

    OVERSEAS TRADE.
    Captain R. TERRELLasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department, if many cases have been brought to his notice, more especially in British Colonies and Dominions, of the loss to British trade of contracts obtained by foreign competitors who benefit by the rate of exchange?
    Mr. KELLAWAY: My attention has been called to a number of cases in which contracts have been lost by British trade to foreign competitors who benefit by the rate of exchange. The great majority of these cases relate to foreign markets, and, so far as the Dominions and Colonies are concerned, I have not as yet received any definite information of important contracts for competitive goods having been lost to foreign competitors on account of the level of the exchanges. As, however, I indicated in my reply to the hon. Member for the Keighley Division on the 22nd February, it would be unwise to assume that European competition in Empire markets will not be more severe in the near future.
    Sir F. HALL: Is the right hon. Gentle-aware that the President of the Board of Trade intimated on the reassembling of Parliament that the Government would bring in a Bill to deal with the exchange system and what has been done in that matter?
    Mr. KELLAWAY: There was a reply given to that question yesterday.

    ARMY COUNCIL (LADY PRIVATE SECRETARIES).
    Major Sir KEITH FRASERasked the Secretary of State for War whether the duties of private secretary and assistant private secretary to a member of the Army Council are being carried out by ladies; and were these positions formerly filled by higher division civil servants?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Sir Laming Worthington-Evans): The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The post of private secretary to a member of Council is held sometimes by a lady, sometimes by a regimental officer, sometimes by a retired officer clerk and sometimes by a clerk of the higher division of the Civil Service. Only one member of Council at present has an assistant private secretary and this appointment will expire on 31st March next.
    Sir K. FRASER: Seeing that there are so many ex-officers unemployed, are these ladies considered indispensable?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I am in hearty sympathy with the desirability of giving every opportunity of employment to those not able to get work elsewhere, but there are special reasons why these particular appointments should be allowed to stand. I have gone into this question myself, and am satisfied with the arrangement.
    Sir H. BRITTAIN: If the women make themselves particularly efficient in these jobs, is there any reason why they should not be employed?
    Sir J. D. REES: Is not the right hon. Gentleman as head of the War Office prepared to lay it down that the bravo continue to deserve the fair?
    Viscountess ASTOR: Is that a very respectful way of speaking of women who
    1588
    are doing extraordinarily good work in the positions which they hold; and is it adding to the dignity of the House when an hon. Member speaks of women in that fashion?

  BRITISH ARMY.

    INDIAN UNITS.
    Colonel Sir CHARLES YATEasked the Secretary of State for War whether arrangements have now been completed for the relief of all Indian units who have been more than three years away from India on service overseas
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: With the exception of three Indian infantry-units in Mesopotamia, arrangements have been made for the relief of all Indian units which have been away from India for over three years. The relief of the remaining three units is at present under discussion with the Commander-in-Chief in India.

    TROOPS, NORTH-WEST PERSIA.
    Sir CHARLES TOWNSHENDasked the Secretary of State for War if any measures have been taken to withdraw the isolated detachment in the neighbourhood of Kasvin, some 600 miles distant from its main body?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON - EVANS: Arrangements have been made for the withdrawal of the British Force in North-West Persia as soon as the passes are clear of snow and the road is fit for the movement to be effected.

    MILITARY ATTACHÉS.
    Sir C. TOWNSHENDasked the Secretary of State for War why it is considered necessary since the War to have major-generals to carry out the duties of Military Attaché in foreign countries with aide-de-camps attached when lieutenant-colonels and colonels without aide-decamps were considered a suitable rank for such a post before the War?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: The Military Attachés at Paris and Washington are of the rank of major-general because their position and work at these important capitals at present necessitate this status. No aide-de-camps are borne on the establishment of Military Attachés.

    WAR DECORATIONS.
    Major HAMILTONasked the Secretary of State for War whether some medal will be given to those who volunteered for service in the early days of the War and served for long periods at home, their age or physical condition only preventing their services overseas?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: The question of the award of a medal for service at home during the War will receive further consideration as soon as the preparation and issue of the War medals is more advanced.
    Major HAMILTON: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that many old men may be passed into the next world before this modal is issued. It is two years since the Armistice, and these gentlemen, some over 60 years of age, who gallantly served at home in the Defence Force are still awaiting some recognition of their service?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: We are giving consideration to this question as quickly as possible, but the issue of medals is a long and tedious process.
    Earl WINTERTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman give the House an opportunity of discussing this matter before a final decision is come to, in view of the strong opinion in the country that medals should not be given to men described as physically unfit to serve their country?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: My Noble Friend will have an opportunity very shortly of discussing the question on the Estimates.
    Mr. LANE-FOX: How far has the issue of War medals gone?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I must ask for notice of that question.
    Mr. RENDALLasked the Secretary of State for War whether, over half a million war medals have had to be melted down owing to their being defective, and a further number melted because the War Office changed its mind as to the design; and what is the total cost of the medals which, owing to these causes, will have to be replaced?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: In reply to the first part of the question, I
    1590
    would refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave on 22nd February to the hon. and gallant Member for Fair-field. As regards the second part, the change in the finish of the Victory Medal does not involve any melting down, but merely re-treatment. I regret to say that it is estimated that the nugatory expenditure involved will be £9,770 in replacement of those medals melted down, and £12,000 for re-treatment of all the medals issued and made before it was decided that the medal should have a bright finish.

    PRK-WAR PENSIONERS.
    Sir EVAN JONESasked the Secretary of State for War whether, under Army Order 325, of 1919, pre-War pensioners employed by the Crown, and who-were refused permission to join the Colours in the late War on the ground of indispensability, cannot have their pensions reassessed; whether he is aware that the late Lord Kitchener issued a letter, which was posted up in the Army Ordnance establishments, to the effect that men serving in such establishments who were retained as indispensable were doing military duty equal in every way to those serving at the front; and whether, in view of this, he will give instructions-that Army Order 325 shall be amended so that the pensions of those men who were desirous of re-enlisting but were prevented from doing so shall be reassessed in the same way as those who re-enlisted?
    Sir A. WILLIAMSON (Parliamentary Secretary, War Office): Reassessment of pension is limited by the Royal Warrant to men who gave satisfactory re-enlisted service, and I regret it is not possible to depart from the general rule.
    Sir E. JONES: May I ask whether the term "re-enlistment" in the Army Order could not be construed so as to include the case of those men who applied to be re-enlisted but were refused permission and retained in Government employment, especially in view of the terms of the late Lord Kitchener's letter referred to.
    Sir A. WILLIAMSON: The question had been fully considered, and it was not found possible to alter the decision come to.

    ARMY OF OCCUPATION (GERMAN WIVES).
    Sir H. BRITTAINasked the Secretary of State for War whether he can inform the House as to the number of British soldiers in the Army of Occupation who have married German wives?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I am informed that the number of British officers and soldiers in the Army of Occupation on the Rhine who have married German women, up to 31st December, 1920, is approximately 112.

    PURCHASE DISCHARGE.
    Lieut.-Colonel DALRYMPLE WHITEasked the Secretary of State for War whether any appeal is allowed against refusal to grant an application for the discharge of a soldier by purchase?
    Sir A. WILLIAMSON: Appeals against an adverse decision regarding the adequacy of the grounds on which claims to purchase discharge are based are now allowed to the General Officer Commanding-in-Chief of the Command in which the soldier is serving. His decision on the matter is final.

    APPLICATION FOR DISCHARGE.
    Sir K. FRASERasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that Private F. Hind, No. 37676, enlisted on 5th July, 1920, and was posted to the 3rd Dragoon Guards, his age being then 17 years and 2 months; that he was shortly afterwards transferred to the 6th Dragoon Guards (Carabiniers), with whom he is now serving at the Curragh Camp, County Kildare, Ireland; that within a fortnight of his enlistment his parents claimed him, and the necessary birth certificate and letters, duly signed by the vicar, etc., were forwarded; that the officer commanding the Carabiniers recently applied for this man's discharge on compassionate grounds, particulars of which were furnished, but that his discharge was not sanctioned by higher authority; and whether, in view of the fact that this man joined under age and that there are good compassionate grounds for his release, and also in view of the fact that it is very undesirable that quite young soldiers should be employed in Ireland, where their duties may often necessitate being called out in aid of the civil power, he will take steps to get this man released from military service?
    Sir A. WILLIAMSON: Inquiries are being made into this case, and I will let the hon. and gallant Member know the result as soon as possible.

    MOTOR LORRIES (SUBSIDY).
    Mr. G. LOCKER LAMPSONasked the Secretary of State for War whether any estimate has been made of the total cost of the proposed subsidy of motor lorries in the event of their being required for purposes of war?
    Sir A. WILLIAMSON: The proposal under consideration is to subsidise vehicles sufficient only to provide for the mobilisation of a small force, in place of acquiring and maintaining in store a number of idle lorries; and the necessary provision for a beginning to be made in the current financial year was included in the Estimates. I have, however, already undertaken that nothing will be spent until the Vote on Account for Army for 1921–22 has been taken. The cost for that year would be £38,000. I take this opportunity of explaining that a similar scheme was in operation before the War; and that the forms to which reference was made last week were merely forms of enquiry, sent out after conferences at which the scheme had been discussed with representative makers and owners of vehicles, in order to ascertain whether the necessary numbers of vehicles would be tendered in the event of the scheme being adopted.
    Captain TERRELL: How many lorries is it proposed to subsidise?
    Sir A. WILLIAMSON: I cannot answer. It will be the number required for a small Expeditionary Force.
    Captain TERRELL: How can the right hon. Gentleman tell the cost if he does not know the number?
    Sir A. WILLIAMSON: We know the number, but I have not the figures with me. If the hon. Member will put down a question, I will get the information.
    Lieut.-Colonel J. WARD: Will the right hon. Gentleman promise to advise the Department not to proceed further with this, as I should imagine it is decidedly against the opinion of the whole House?
    Sir A. WILLIAMSON: I informed the hon. and gallant Member on a previous occasion that the question is not yet decided. It is only under consideration. Provision was made in last year's Estimates, but nothing was done.
    Sir J. BUTCHER: Is it not possible to requisition lorries without subsidising them?
    Sir A. WILLIAMSON: Yes, but there are other considerations. Requisitioning involves searching for lorries, but under an arrangement of this sort lorries are brought to us.
    Mr. W. THORNE: In case of war, are not the Government of the day in a position to commandeer anything they like?
    Sir A. WILLIAMSON: That is true, but you have to know where to lay your hands on them. A register of vehicles enabling you to get them at a moment's notice may be very important in a case of urgency.
    Lieut.-Colonel WARD: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman rely on getting through the police a thousand or two or three thousand lorries in less than two hours?
    Sir H. BRITTAIN: Is it not possible to have a register without a subsidy?
    Mr. SPEAKER: Hon. Members must not put further questions on this matter.

    SOLDIER'S ACCOUNT (SETTLEMENT).
    Mr. R. GWYNNEasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the War Office whether he is aware that Mr. A. T. White, of 60, Longstone Road, Eastbourne, late lance-corporal, No. WR/199068, Royal Engineers, has not yet received a settlement of his Army account owing to the non-receipt of his last pay certificate from India; whether his last pay certificate has been lost; and whether, seeing that this man has been demobilised for over a year and that the War Office are in his debt to the extent of about £80, including time-expired bounty, refund of compulsory allotment stoppage, and gratuity, he will have the account settled forthwith?
    Sir A. WILLIAMSON: No information has been received to the effect that the last pay certificate of ex-lance-corporal T. White, Royal Engineers, has been lost. It was cabled for on 29th January last,
    1594
    and a further cable has been despatched requesting that this document be sent forthwith. As soon as it is received from India, the account will be finally settled, but as his account stands in the Home Paymaster's book, he has already received his terminal credits.
    Mr. GWYNNE: If these papers have not been lost, may I ask why it is that this man has been kept waiting a year for money due to him, and has only just received, after urgent representations, a payment on account?
    Sir A. WILLIAMSON: I cannot answer that. I can only say that we are doing all we can to get these accounts settled. If the accounts are lost, we shall assume the matter, and deal with the man fairly.
    Mr. GWYNNE: How much longer is he to wait?
    Sir A. WILLIAMSON: We have cabled to our representative in India to take the matter up personally, and at once.

    MILITARY POLICE (NAVAL RATINGS).
    Major Sir B. FALLEasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the War Office if those naval ratings who enlisted in the military police before 23rd February of this year in the belief that they would receive the pay due to those who had done two years' service, will receive the increase of pay given to men of two years' service or if such increase is only for future enlistments; and if he is aware that Dominion soldiers from South Africa and Canada are drawing full pay?
    Sir A. WILLIAMSON: Yes, Sir. Naval ratings with two years' service will receive the increase of pay. Soldiers from South Africa and Canada who served in Imperial units and were paid from Imperial funds draw the increased pay, but, as I have already informed the hon. and gallant Member, Colonial service, as such, does not qualify.
    Sir B. FALLE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say from what date these naval ratings will receive the increase?
    Sir A. WILLIAMSON: I cannot answer that offhand, but if my hon. and gallant Friend will write me a note I will inform him.

  TERRITORIAL ARMY.

    DIRECTOR-GENERAL.
    Lieut.-Colonel POWNALLasked the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the reconstitution of the Territorial Army, he will consider the advisability of making its Director-General a member of the Army Council?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I am afraid that I cannot accept the suggestion of my hon. and gallant Friend. I am satisfied that the interests of the Territorial Army are very well represented on the Army Council by the Under-Secretary of State, who is the member of Council responsible for the work of the Territorial Army directorate in the War Office.

    COMMISSIONS.
    Lieut.-Colonel CAMPIONasked the Secretary of State for War what is the number of officers holding Territorial Army commissions who are at present commanding Territorial Army divisions, Territorial Army Infantry brigades, and Territorial Army Royal Artillery brigades, respectively?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: No officers holding Territorial Army commissions are at present commanding Territorial Army divisions; eight officers are commanding Infantry brigades; two are commanding Royal Artillery, and 55 are commanding Artillery brigades.
    Major M. WOOD: How many officers commanding Infantry brigades are on full-time duties?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I cannot answer that without notice.
    Lieut.-Colonel CROFT: Are these C.R.A.'s?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON - EVANS: There are two C.R.A.'s (commanding Royal Artillery) and 55 commanding Artillery brigades.

    NAVY AND ARMY CANTEEN BOARD.
    Major HAMILTONasked the Secretary of State for War when the complete accounts of the Canteen Board for the period ending 31st December, 1918, will
    1596
    be available; and what is the amount of the money in hand, and how is this sum to be disbursed?
    Sir A. WILLIAMSON: The balance sheet and profit and loss account of the Navy and Army Canteen Board as at 31st December, 1918, was published in Army Council Instruction 91 of 1920. In regard to the remainder of the question, I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the answer given to the hon. and gallant Member for Aberdeen Central on 22nd February.
    Major MACKENZIE WOODasked the Secretary of State for War whether the terms of reference of the Committee which is to inquire into the question of the Expeditionary Force canteen profits will enable the Committee to investigate the accounts of the Expeditionary Force canteens and the Navy and Army Canteen Board and to hear evidence as to any agreements made for the ultimate disposal of the Expeditionary Force canteen profits; and whether the evidence given before the Committee will be published?
    Sir A. WILLIAMSON: The terms of reference to the Committee are as follow:
    "To consider and advise as to the basis to be adopted for ascertaining the profits of the Navy and Army Canteen Board and Expeditionary Force Canteens available for apportionment among the various interests concerned, and to make recommendations as to apportionment, regard being had to the reduction of the organisation to a peace footing, and to its future requirements of working capital."
    It is the desire of my right hon. Friend that the Committee should have the fullest information and all relevant documents. It is for the Committee to decide as to the evidence to be called for. It is the intention to publish the Report.
    Major M. WOOD: Does the right hon. Gentleman think the Committee will be able to investigate the accounts mentioned in the question?
    Sir A. WILLIAMSON: I am only here to answer as to facts. I cannot read thoughts.

    WINE ORDERS (PREPAYMENT).
    Major HAMILTONasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department why the old war-time regulation that cash

    1597
    has to be paid to a wine merchant before delivery of the goods ordered is still maintained; and when he hopes to be able to restore liberty in such matters to the people of this country?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Shortt): Like another question with which the Prime Minister dealt last Wednesday, this is a matter which will come up for consideration on the proposed Licensing Bill.
    Major HAMILTON: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that the postponement of this small matter is causing infinite irritation throughout the country, and is doing infinite damage to his Government; and cannot he, therefore, consider the repealing of this stupid Regulation at once?
    Mr. MILLS: In view of the possibility of an alteration in the law by new legislation, will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the working classes have to pay cash on delivery?
    Dr. MURRAY: Is not the Regulation due to the fact that so many people drink more than they can pay for?
    Captain TERRELL: May I ask when the Government intend to introduce the Licensing Bill?
    Mr. SHORTT: That question should be addressed to the Leader of the House.
    Captain TERRELL: May I ask the Leader of the House?

    EX-SERVICE MEN (CIVIL SERVICE).
    Mr. J. ALLEN PARKINSONasked the Home Secretary if there is any likelihood of the higher positions in the Civil Service being thrown open to competition, by which ex-service men could secure these appointments by competitive examination?
    Colonel Sir R. SANDERS (Lord of the Treasury): I have been asked to reply. The question of the further steps to be taken for the appointment of ex-service men to permanent posts in the Civil Service is under consideration by Lord Lytton's Committee, whose Report on the subject must be awaited.

    BUSINESS PREMISES.
    Mr. RODGERasked the Prime Minister if the Government has considered the Report of the Select Committee on Business Premises; if he is aware that the matter is urgent; and if it is proposed to give effect to the recommendations of the Committee?
    Mr. BONAR LAW (Leader of the House): I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer given by the Prime Minister yesterday to a question by my learned and gallant Friend the Member for Moss Side (Lieut.-Colonel Hurst).

    WHEAT (HOME MILLING).
    Lieut.-Colonel CROFTasked the Prime Minister whether he will consider the desirability of introducing legislation which will have the effect of causing wheat to be milled in the United Kingdom instead of being imported as flour, and thereby providing employment for a very large number of ex-service and other unemployed, whilst at the same time providing cheap feeding-stuffs for British stock raisers and poultry farmers?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The only means by which the object which my hon. and gallant Friend has in view could be secured would be either by an import duty or by an absolute prohibition of the importation of flour. His Majesty's Government are not prepared to adopt either of these courses.
    Lieut.-Colonel CROFT: Is it not a fact that this will have no effect on the cost of living to the poor of this country, and will not the Government consider the matter with a view to providing by new avenues the employment which is so imperatively necessary, in view of the present cost to the taxpayer?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: That is a very difficult problem, as my hon. and gallant Friend knows. I spent a good many years myself trying to solve it, but I was not successful.

    EXCHANGE (STABILISATION).
    Mr. CLOUGHasked the Prime Minister whether the Cabinet is considering any scheme, and, if so, what, for the stabilisation of exchange; whether there

    1599
    is any likelihood of an early decision; and whether, if action can be taken in any profitable direction, it will be expedited so as to relieve the volume of unemployment?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I fear that it is beyond the power of His Majesty's Government to effect a stabilisation of the world's exchanges, but the Government has under consideration proposals, both in connection with the Ter Meulen scheme and otherwise, for facilitating the exports which are now checked by the state of the exchanges, and I can assure the hon. Member that there will be no delay on the part of His Majesty's Government in doing anything that may be found feasible.
    Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: In view of the immense importance of the rupee exchange to the trade of Lancashire, may I ask whether anything will be done to stabilise it?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: We quite realise the importance of that, but I cannot give an answer to my hon. Friend.

    INTERNATIONAL TRANSPORT CONFERENCE, BARCELONA.
    Mr. ORMSBY-GOREasked the Prime Minister to state who is to represent this country at the forthcoming International Transport Conference, which is to be hold at Barcelona on 10th March?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The British delegate at the Barcelona Conference will be Sir Hubert Llewellyn Smith, G.C.B.
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Is he the only one?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: That is my information. He will at all events be the head.

    CREDITS, CENTRAL EUROPE.
    Mr. W. CARTERasked the Prime Minister whether he will consider the provision of credits for Central European countries in order to facilitate the restoration of trade between them and this country and so to diminish unemployment?
    Mr. KELLAWAY: As the hon. Member is aware, an export credits scheme has already been set up with a view to facilitating trade with countries whose economic conditions have been disorganised by the War. The question whether any modifications can be made in that scheme with a view to facilitating its utilisation, and the question generally of the provision of credits in respect of the countries concerned is receiving the active consideration of the Government.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: May I ask whether the Government have not yet realised that their scheme has proved a comparative failure, and whether, in view of the urgent need of markets, they will hasten their deliberations?
    Mr. KELLAWAY: Every effort is being made. Deliberations are taking place continuously now, and my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade hopes to announce the Government's proposals in the course of a few days.
    Mr. CARTER: Is the right hon. Gentleman in favour of necessary modifications?
    Mr. KELLAWAY: My experience of the working of the present scheme has convinced me that some modifications are necessary.

    MINISTRY OF MUNITIONS.
    Captain TUDOR-REESasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has now received the revised Report of the Economy Committee on the staffing, etc., at the Ministry of Munitions; and, if so, whether he will publish it?
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Chamberlain): I have received, not a revised Report, but a Supplementary Report from the Committee, and I am making arrangements for the publication of the two Reports.

    HAVANA CIGARS.
    Lieut.-Colonel JAMESasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) whether he will give particulars as to the value and amount of cigars of Havana manufacture cleared from bond since the imposition of the additional Budget

    1601
    duties, and corresponding details showing clearances, value, and amount of similar cigars during the corresponding period in the years 1918–19 and 1919–20;
    (2) whether, in consequence of the heavy taxation imposed on Havana manufactured cigars, the Cuban Government has decided to impose a retaliatory duty of 40 per cent, or thereabouts on English goods imported into that island?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: In the case of goods cleared from bond, records are kept neither of the country of consignment nor of the values, and I regret, therefore, that I cannot supply my hon. and gallant Friend with the information he desires. As regards Question No. 58, I would refer him to my reply to the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Mr. Hood) on the 23rd February last.

    BANKS (GOVERNMENT AUDIT).
    Lieut. - Colonel DALRYMPLE WHITEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the distress and loss caused to the public by the failure of certain banks, such as the Charing Cross and Farrow's Bank, the Government propose to introduce any legislation to check the use of the name bank, except in the case of bonâ fide concerns, and also to check the issuing of fraudulent balance sheets by a periodical inspection by Government auditors of the books of banks or by any other method?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Sir P. Lloyd-Greame): I have been asked to reply. I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave on the 23rd February to the hon. Member for Ilford (Mr. Wise) and to the replies given yesterday by the President of the Board of Trade. I am sending my hon. Friend copies of these answers.

    TURNOVER TAX.
    Mr. HIGHAMasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what investigations he has made into the merits and demerits of the Turnover Tax; whether he will reconsider his decision re introducing a Turnover Tax to relieve the present Income Tax; and, if not, will he state
    1602
    what are the conclusions which he has arrived at which make it impossible for him to introduce a tax on turnover, particularly in view of the fact that the Belgian Finance Minister is introducing a tax on turnover in his next Budget, and that the Finance Minister of Canada says that the tax has been favourably received by the business community and the public generally, and the Inland Revenue Department of Canada has found that the tax may be administered and controlled without undue cost or effort?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: My predecessors and I have carefully considered the merits and demerits of a turnover tax on more than one occasion. I cannot, of course, enter upon them in reply to a question, but I may say that, whatever be the merits of such a tax, I do not consider the present moment favourable for introducing a new tax on trading transactions.
    Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that the British industrial community is by no means unanimous in the view that it would like to have a turnover tax?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have never known the British industrial community to be unanimous in favour of anything.

    UNITED STATES (LOANS TO ALLIES).
    Sir W. DAVISONasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer why France and Italy did not apply direct to the United States for such loans as they required after the entry of the United States into the War, instead of applying to Great Britain, who had no money to lend and had to borrow the money from the United States in order to lend it to France and Italy?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: As I informed my hon. Friend on Tuesday last, France and Italy applied for and received loans direct from the United States Government after the entry of the United States Government into the War. While His Majesty's Government would have much preferred a system under which they would have been relieved from the

    1603
    necessity of borrowing from the United States Government for expenditure in the United States of America at the same time as they were lending to the Allied Governments for their expenditure elsewhere, it was not possible for His Majesty's Government to refuse financial assistance to the Allies simply because it involved as a corollary borrowing by His Majesty's Government from the United States Government. It must be remembered that such refusal might have risked the whole Allied cause.
    Sir W. DAVISON: Why did not France and Italy borrow direct from the United States for the arms, accoutrements and money they required rather than asking this country, with no money to lend, to provide them with funds?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have tried to explain to my hon. Friend, but I have not succeeded in making it clear to him that the Allies did borrow from the United States for their expenditure in America. They borrowed from us for their expenditure elsewhere than in the United States of America. We might have avoided any necessity for borrowing from the United States if our whole credit had been free to meet our own needs, and if we had not used part of our credit to come to the assistance of our Allies.
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Did the United States lend no one any money which was not spent in their own country, and make no real bonâ fide loans to ourselves or the Allies in fact?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not know what the hon. Gentleman means by bonâ fide loans. They lent us money, no doubt, to meet our commitments in the United States. It was very essential to us under the circumstances that we should have that assistance, and I hope nothing will be said to lead people to suppose that we underrate the service that America rendered by making those loans.
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Is it a fact that America made no loans to ourselves or the Allies except to cover payments made to America?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I ought not to answer questions of this kind without notice. I hope my hon. Friend will put his question on the Paper.

    INCOME TAX.
    Sir W. DAVISONasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether nearly 15,000 workmen, chiefly colliers, in South Wales were summoned for non-payment of Income Tax during last year; whether one defaulter earned wages which in the aggregate amounted to £1,000 a year; whether £700 to £800 were common earnings; whether all arrears of Income Tax in South Wales have now been recovered; and, if not, in how many cases does the tax remain unpaid?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The number of manual wage-earners in South Wales who were, during the calendar year 1920, summoned for non-payment of Income Tax, was approximately 52,500, and of these about 35,000 were colliers. It cannot be traced that any one of these taxpayers was earning as much as £1,000 a year, and while in a number of cases colliers were in receipt of earnings amounting to £700 or £800 a year, the general average of their earnings was much below those figures. There are in South Wales, as in other parts of the country, a number of cases in which there are arrears of Income Tax due from manual wage-earners, and the collection of tax in these cases is proceeding in the manner provided by law.
    Sir W. DAVISON: In view of the difficulty of working men paying large sums quarterly or annually, has the right hon. Gentleman considered the advisability of collecting the tax from their wages weekly through the employers?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, that was, I think, the original proposal of my predecessor, Mr. McKenna, when the tax was first applied to manual wage earners. It met with strong opposition from both the workmen and the employers. It was examined by the Royal Commission on Income Tax and they said it would be inexpedient to adopt that system until there had been a sensible change of opinion among those affected.
    Lieut.-Colonel J. WARD: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think it is nearly time, seeing that miners in South Wales earn £700 and £800 a year, to increase the wages of poor Members who have to depend on this House for the miserable £400 they receive?
    Sir F. HALL: Is it not a fact that only a small number of miners earned £700 and £800 because they would not work more than three or four days a week?
    Mr. HINDS: Does not the right hon. Gentleman see the advisability of having these forms printed in a language people can understand—printed in the Welsh language?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not think the failure to pay arises from that, as the hon. Member knows from the correspondence I have had with hon. Members representing Wales. I would gladly have the forms printed also in Welsh if administratively I could carry it out, but the pressure on the Inland Revenue officials at present is so great that I cannot add to their difficulties.
    Mr. W. THORNE: Is it not a fact that the major part of the House all last year were urging the miners to produce a good deal more coal? In the name of common sense why are they growling now because they are earning more?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I hope you and the House will excuse me from taking further part in the Debate.
    Mr. ATKEYasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether provision will be made in the forthcoming Revenue Bill to give effect to the recommendations of the Royal Commission on the Income Tax as regards an increase in the present statutory allowance of 16⅔ per cent, for repairs in respect of small dwelling-houses, such recommendations being under Section 4 (c) of the Report, that for a period of five years an allowance of one-fourth should be made for houses not exceeding £20 in annual value, and one-fifth for houses not exceeding £40 in annual value?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I cannot undertake to include in the Revenue Bill, which I hope to introduce at an early date, proposals to deal with the particular matter to which my hon. Friend refers, or with the other recommendations of the Royal Commission on the subject of repairs to property. I would, however, remind my hon. Friend that under the provisions of Rule 8 of No. V in Schedule A of the Income Tax Act, 1918, as amended by Section 19 of the Finance Act, 1919, the property owners now
    1606
    question can obtain relief, from Income Tax in respect of the whole of any excess of the actual cost of repairs, on the average of the five preceding years, over the statutory allowance of one-sixth of the assessed annual value of the property.

    UNEMPLOYED PROCESSIONS.
    Lieut - Colonel GUINNESSasked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been drawn to allegations that men in full employment are taking part in unemployed processions with the object of sharing in the proceeds of the collections made; and whether he will take steps, in conjunction with the Ministry of Labour, to supervise street collections for the unemployed, and to ensure that a participation in the proceeds is only allowed to persons genuinely out of work and who an; British subjects?
    Mr. SHORTT: No case of the nature referred to in the first portion of the question has been brought to my notice. As regards the supervision of street collections on behalf of the unemployed, I will send to the hon. and gallant Member a copy of the special and additional conditions attached to the official permits issued by the Commissioner to accredited committees. The police cannot supervise the distribution of the proceeds: it is the business of the committee concerned to ensure that only genuinely unemployed British subjects are allowed to participate.
    Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: What steps are taken to prevent people who are not out of work joining these processions?
    Mr. SHORTT: We cannot prevent them joining, of course, but the committees concerned must take steps to see that they do not participate in the proceeds.
    Lieut.-Colonel CROFT: In view of the desire of the population, as has been shown every day, to assist cases of real distress, will it be made clear that no man who is in receipt of unemployed donation who takes part in these processions will continue to receive the donation if discovered?
    Mr. SHORTT: No, Sir.
    Lieut.-Colonel CROFT: Why not?

    UNEMPLOYED ORGANISER ARREST).
    Mr. ROBERT RICHARDSONasked the Home Secretary whether he can throw any light on the disappearance of Robert MacDonald, organiser of the Stepney unemployed, who was last seen on Sunday, 20th February, at about 1.30 p.m., in conversation with two policemen; whether he has been arrested; and, if so, what is the charge against him?
    Mr. SHORTT: The Commissioner of Police informs me that MacDonald was arrested on 20th February on a warrant for alleged fraudulent conversion. He appeared on 21st February before the magistrate at Clerkenwell Police Court, who remanded him in custody, till the 28th, and then further remanded him till the 2nd March.

  SCOTLAND.

    SUMMER TIME.
    Lieut.-Colonel MURRAYasked the Home Secretary whether, with regard to the introduction of summer time for this year, he has given full consideration to the views of the agricultural community in Scotland on the matter; whether he has been in consultation with the Secretary for Scotland as to these views and, if so, with what result; and whether it is proposed to introduce legislation for the fixing of summer time?
    Mr. SHORTT: The answer to the first and third paragraphs of the question is in the affirmative. With regard to the second paragraph, I have consulted the Secretary for Scotland and he concurs in the view that any disadvantages which might be felt by agriculturists were not sufficient to outweigh the advantages derived by the community as a whole from the continuance of summer time between April and September.
    Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the last paragraph, whether it is proposed to introduce legislation?
    Mr. SHORTT: I did so at the outset.
    Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: How does the right hon. Gentleman reconcile that with the statement made by his Under-Secretary last year to the effect that legislation would be introduced this Session?
    Mr. SPEAKER: When an hon. Member refers to an answer given last year he should give notice.
    Sir HARRY HOPEasked the Home Secretary whether, in view of the very serious effect which the prolongation of summer time up to 2nd October will have on harvesting operations in Scotland, and especially in view of the fact that thousands of acres of grain were lost last year from this cause, he will take steps to terminate the summer time on the 1st of September?
    Mr. SHORTT: I regret that I do not see my way to alter the decision which has already been announced, and which was arrived at after consultation with the Scottish Authorities. I must not be understood as admitting that there is any ground for the suggestion in the last part of the question.
    Sir H. HOPE: In view of the fact that the harvest in Scotland was so much destroyed last year because of this, will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to alter the time if representations are made from Scotland?
    Mr. SHORTT: I do not agree with the hon. Member's statement of fact.
    Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: Is not this the shortest way of turning land back to grass?

    EDUCATION RATES.
    Colonel Sir A. SPROTasked the Secretary for Scotland if he has now devised any form of relief for the rural parishes and small towns in Scotland where the substitution of the county for the parish as the rating unit for education has occasioned great hardship due to the enormous increase of rates?
    Sir J. D. REESasked the Secretary for Scotland what action has been, or will be, taken, and when, to deal with the intolerable situation as regards assessments upon rural parishes which has arisen in Scotland owing to the enforcement of the Education Act, 1918?
    The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. Munro): I am in course of appointing a Committee, of which Lord Dunedin has kindly undertaken to be the chairman, to enquire into the system under which taxation is raised for local purposes in Scotland. The incidence of

    1609
    taxation as between rural and urban areas will doubtless receive the Committee's careful attention. I hope to be in a position to announce the names of the members and the terms of reference at an early date.
    Sir J. D. REES: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether in the meantime these enormous rates, sometimes 700 or 800 per cent, above the past rates, will continue to be due or leviable?
    Sir J. HOPE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when he is asking this Committee to report, because the matter is urgent; and will he ask them to report within a month or two months?
    Mr. MUNRO: I do not think, speaking primâ facie, that a Report on this topic which was presented within a month would be of very great value. The Committee that is being appointed is fully aware of the urgency of the question.
    Sir J. HOPE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that already three months have elapsed since the Scottish Members pressed for the appointment of the Committee, and it has not yet been appointed?
    Mr MUNRO: It is not always easy to get suitable members to serve upon a Committee of this sort, which involves a great amount of time and labour. I have expedited the matter in every possible way. Pehaps the hon. Member will pardon me if I say that the suggestion as to the appointment of the Committee came from me and not from Scottish Members.
    Sir J. D. REES: Can the rates be suspended until the Committee reports?
    Mr. MUNRO: No.
    Major MACKENZIE WOOD: When does the right hon. Gentleman hope to be able to deal with this question by legislation after the Committee has reported?
    Mr. MUNRO: Certainly not before the Committee has reported, but as soon after as possible.
    Major M. WOOD: Will the right hon. Gentleman be able to deal with it this Session or next Session?
    Mr. MUNRO: I cannot answer that question until the Report of the Committee is presented.
    Sir J. HOPE: How does the right hon. Gentleman propose to give relief pending the Report of the Committee?
    Mr. MUNRO: I am afraid there is no possible relief that can be given pending the Report of the Committee.

    COWDENBEATH (NEW SCHOOL).
    Sir A. SPROTasked the Secretary for Scotland if the proposal to erect a new school at Cowdenbeath at an estimated cost of about £44,860 is being proceeded with, or is this in abeyance?
    Mr. MUNRO: I am in communication with the Fife Education Authority regarding their building proposals. The case of the Cowdenbeath School will fall to be considered in this connection.

  IRELAND.

    SINN FEIN MIGRATION, MANCHESTER.
    Lieut.-Colonel HURSTasked the Home Secretary whether he is aware of the recent destruction of plate-glass windows in Oxford Road, Manchester, by a Sein Feiner; what is the amount of damage; if there has been a considerable influx of Sein Feiners from Ireland to Manchester within the last few months; and if he will consider the desirability of issuing police regulations to stop such influx, obtaining, if necessary, statutory powers for that purpose?
    Mr. SHORTT: I have received a report on the incident referred to. The man who broke these windows was arrested, and is remanded until the 3rd March. I have no evidence that he is a Sinn Feiner. The damage is valued at about £500. A number of Irishmen have migrated to Manchester and other towns in this country during the last few months, but inquiries show no ground for fearing that more than a handful have come here with criminal intent, and I do not think that a system of Government control of passenger traffic from Ireland is necessary or practicable.

    CAPTAIN T. G. MACFIE.
    Lieut.-Commander KEN WORTHY(by Private Notice) asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether a warrant for the arrest of Captain T. G. Macfie, D.S.O., M.C., late Adjutant of the

    1611
    Auxiliary Division of the Royal Irish Constabulary, has been issued by the police adviser; and why is the arrest of the gentleman being sought?
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL for IRELAND (Mr. Denis Henry): My right hon. Friend has asked me to answer this question. No, Sir. No warrant has been issued for the arrest of Captain Macfie. The last part of the question does not, therefore, arise.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY:
    Was the warrant cancelled on the receipt of notice of this private question?
    Mr. HENRY: Certainly not.

    COURT-MARTIAL (PATRICK MORAN).
    Mr. WALSH(by Private Notice) asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether his attention has been drawn to the case of Patrick Moran, who, on the 17th ult., was convicted by court-martial for the murder of Lieutenant Ames; whether he is aware that at the trial 19 independent witnesses not related to the prisoner and in no way identified with Sinn Fein testified that he was at Blackrock, five miles from the scene of the murder, in or about the time of its commission; that the transcript of the shorthand notes of the proceedings is incorrect in many material particulars; whether the sentence of the court-martial has been confirmed on this transcript, and whether he will carefully consider all the circumstances of the case and give instructions that the sentence shall not be carried out in the meantime?
    Mr. HENRY: My right hon. Friend has asked me to answer this question. His attention has been drawn to the case of Patrick Moran. While not admitting the accuracy of the statements contained in the question, I cannot say more than that in this as in every other case due weight will be given to every material consideration before a final decision is given.

    ADMINISTRATION.
    At the end of Questions,
    Captain REDMOND: In accordance with the suggestion made by you, Sir, last week, I now beg leave to ask to move the Adjournment of the House in order to call attention to a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, "the lack of control of the Irish Administration
    1612
    as disclosed by the Chief Secretary in his admission that he had no knowledge of the resignation of General Crozier until 22nd February, and the great danger to peace and order in consequence of the action of General Tudor in accepting the resignation of General Crozier, Commandant of the Auxiliary Division, Royal Irish Constabulary, and the Adjutant, Captain Macfie.
    The pleasure of the House having been signified, the Motion stood over, under Standing Order No. 10, until a Quarter past Eight this evening.

    TELEPHONE RATES, NEW YORK AND LONDON.
    Mr. MILLSasked the Postmaster-General if he is aware that there was an inquiry into the New York telephones at the end of last year; and whether the business men of New York offered to pay higher telephone rates if they could secure an efficient system?
    The ASSISTANT POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Pike Pease): I am informed that the inquiry into the New York Telephone rates is not yet completed. The answer to the second paragraph is in the affirmative, judging from statements which have appeared in the Press.
    Mr. MILLSasked the Postmaster-General what, under the latest rates arranged, it costs in London and New York, respectively, for telephone subscribers to make 5,000 or 10,000 calls a year; and if he will state what area in square miles is covered by the respective payments?
    Mr. PEASE: The cost of 5,000 calls a year in London under the new rates will be £38 16s. 3d.; of 10,000 calls £68 10s. The cost to a New York subscriber under the proposed rates will be £52 0s. 3d. for 5,000 and £93 2s. for 10,000. Subscribers in the business centres in London will be able to communicate without further charge over 314 square miles, and in New York over 163 square miles.
    Mr. MILLS: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of having a publicity department in order to allay the fears of the traders?
    Lieut.-Colonel ARCHER-SHEE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the prices for New York telephone calls were taken at par of exchange or at present rates?
    Mr. PEASE: At the par rates of exchange.

    ALBANIA.
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE(by Private Notice) asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether information has been received by His Majesty's Government from the Albanian Government to the effect that Greek regular troops have concentrated during the last week at Koritza with a view to an immediate hostile advance into Albania; whether representation has been made by the British Government to the Greek Government urging them to desist from this military action against Albania pending the settlement of the Albanian frontier, and whether His Majesty's Government will take all possible steps to secure the independence and integrity of Albania?
    Mr. KELLAWAY: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. Friendly representations were made last June to the Greek Government that His Majesty's Government could not approve of the Greek occupation of Koritza at a moment when the whole question of Albania was under discussion; the answer to the third part of the question does not arise.

    POLICE INVESTIGATIONS, WOOLWICH.
    Mr. MILLS(by Private Notice) asked the Home Secretary if he will explain upon what grounds the houses of citizens in Woolwich were raided by armed forces of the Crown; whether he is aware that Councillor Purcell, whose private property was taken away, belongs to a constitutional organisation whose meetings are open to the public; that the other two citizens were in no way satisfied, as to the bona fides of the raiders, no warrant being produced; and whether the property taken will be restored?
    Mr. SHORTT: Police officers visited the houses of three persons in Woolwich in connection with investigations as to certain recent crimes. I do not know to what organisations Councillor Purcell belongs. The police officers were provided with the usual warrants, but I understand they were not asked to produce them. Of the papers taken away some will be returned, some are under consideration.
    Mr. MILLS: Will the police officers return the box used for a very intimate and private domestic purpose which they took away in mistake for a State document?

INDIAN ADMINISTRATION (QUESTIONS).
Sir H. CRAIK: I desire with your permission, Mr. Speaker, to raise a point of Order arising out of certain rulings which you gave on Wednesday and Thursday last, which rulings have given rise to anxiety in many quarters. That is due to an interpretation being placed upon them which I think they were not intended to bear. The point arose on Wednesday with reference to a question as to the action of a Governor in appointing a certain Minister, and you said, Sir,
"That does not seem to be a matter for this Parliament."
You further stated:
"The House having given practically Home Rule or something in the nature of Home Rule to these Councils, the lees it interferes with these Councils the better."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Wednesday, 23rd February, 1921, col. 901, Vol. 138.]
On Thursday in reply to a question of my own as to the responsibility of the Governor to this House through the Secretary of State, quite irrespective of any question of the Minister or the Council, you stated:
"The question was intended to hit the Minister through the body of the Governor."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Thursday, 24th February, 1921, col. 1149, Vol. 138.]
I desire to raise now no question in regard to the Minister or the Local Council, nor, so far as I understood, was either of these involved in the question of the responsibility of the Governor to this House through the Secretary of State for India. I venture to call your attention to the Preamble of the Act of 1919,

1615
wherein, in reference to the progressive realisation of responsible government in British India, it is stated:
"Progress in giving effect to this policy can only be achieved by successive stages,"
and further:
"The time and manner of each advance can be determined only by Parliament upon whom the responsibility lies for the welfare and advancement of the Indian peoples."
I would further call your attention to the fact that the appointment of the Minister rests solely with the Governor, and that under the Act and in accordance with strong recommendation from the Joint Committee responsibility to this House through the Secretary of State is strongly affirmed, and any rules restricting such responsibility must be approved by Parliament under Section 33 of the Act. I desire therefore to ask you whether we are right in assuming that nothing in your rulings of last week should be understood as limiting the powers of' Parliament to supervise the action of officers acting in India under the Secretary of State, or the right of Members of this House to raise questions as to such action.
Mr. SPEAKER: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for having been kind enough to postpone from yesterday to to-day the raising of this point of Order. That has given me more time to look into the matter and refresh my memory by reading again the Preamble to the Act of 1919. The more I look at it the more I am convinced that I was right. The last paragraph says:
"And whereas concurrently with the gradual development of self-governing institutions in the Provinces of India it is expedient to give to those Provinces in provincial matters the largest measure of independence of the Government of India which is compatible with the due discharge by the latter of its own responsibilities."
If, therefore, this House was of opinion that it was desirable to give the Provinces of India the largest possible measure of independence of the Government of India a fortiori, it is desirable that those Provinces should be given a large measure of independence of the Imperial Parliament. That was my reading and that is my reasoning upon the Preamble. I have also looked at the Act again. I have come to the conclusion that, having started upon this new departure of granting a
1616
measure of self-government to the Provinces of India, it is highly undesirable that this House should interfere in any way with the control by those provincial Legislatures of their own affairs. The Ministers who are selected by the Provincial Governors are selected under the Act of Parliament by the Governors, but the Ministers are responsible to the Legislative Councils of those Provinces, and even if this House were to pass some censure, either direct or indirect, upon such a Minister, it would be futile. Therefore, it is very undesirable that it should be done or that any step should be taken which would lead up to it.
It seems, therefore, to me that, taking the broad view of the situation, Parliament intended to transfer to these Provinces of India complete control, subject, possibly, to the action of the Indian Legislature, of the transferred subjects and. of the transferred subjects only—those are the only ones I am referring to. For that purpose the Governors of Provinces are empowered to select Ministers who will be responsible to the Provincial Legislative Council. Therefore, to permit criticism of the character or conduct of the Governors ii, the matter of transferred subjects appears to me to nullify the intentions of the Act. I have also come to the following conclusion. If it is desired to condemn the action of any Governor in a matter not transferred, it is open to a Member to make a Motion of a character similar to that which is made in the case of the Governor-General of India or the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland. That, I think, replies to the last part of the hon. Member's point of Order as to the power of this House to supervise the action of the officers acting under the Secretary of State.
Sir H. CRAIK: With all respect to your ruling, may I point out that I intended, and I thought I had conveyed my meaning, to confine my point solely to the question not of the case of Ministers dealing with transferred subjects but of the action of the officers responsible through the Secretary of State to this House in their general administrative acts. I was not referring to the transferred subjects at all. The appointment of those ministers is not a transferred subject. It is a matter for which the Governors are responsible, as I understand, to this House, but I gather from

1617
the last words that fell from you that you leave to Members the right to raise questions as to the action of such officers?
Mr. SPEAKER: That is so. I accept the view of the right hon. Gentleman, but upon the question of transferred subjects I still hold that there is no right of interference by this House.
Lord HUGH CECIL: Of course we recognise that it is for the Chair to determine questions of Order, but I do not quite understand how this is a question of Order. It may or may not be desirable to interfere with transferred subjects, but it is for the House to consider the question; it is not a matter for the Chair.
Mr. SPEAKER: The Noble Lord, I think, was not here when questions were put last week which raised the point of Order. That is why I was brought in.
Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: May I ask, in view of the judgment which you have now delivered, that the action of the Governor may be criticised whether an appointment by a Governor of A or B is not an act coming directly under your ruling, seeing that the Governor is responsible to the Secretary of State for his action? We do not want to ask the views of yourself or of any other Members as to the acts of individual Ministers, but may we not, under your ruling, ask whether a Governor has appointed A or B as a Minister?
Mr. SPEAKER: I thought that I had answered that question. As a result of my construction of the Act, it places him in the same position as the Governor-General. If criticism be desired, a Motion should be put down in the ordinary way, and discussed in this House.
Sir J. D. REES: Will not the difficulties of the Indian Governors, which are already sufficient, be immensely increased if the House is to discuss and criticise their appointments of Ministers?
Mr. SPEAKER: I am much obliged to the hon. Baronet for his support.
Mr. RONALD McNEILL: Are not the restrictions and rules with regard to the putting of questions in this House definitely laid down in the Manual of Procedure which is in the hands of all Members, and would it not be more desirable that the Standing Orders on which those
1618
rules are based should be altered to meet these growing requirements than that the existing rules should be extended, however desirable it may be, by the exercise and discretion of the Chair? It would give much more certain guidance to hon. Members, and, in view of the growing importance of the relations between the Imperial Parliament and subordinate Parliaments, this is a matter which may come up in the future in many respects.
Mr. SPEAKER: There are no Standing Orders applicable to the present case, but there is no reason, if the House think fit, why it should not introduce such a Standing Order as the hon. Gentleman suggests.
Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Is it correct to use the words "subordinate Parliaments" for the Legislatures of Canada and the Commonwealth of Australia? Is not that one of the things most resented in the Commonwealth, and is it not much more desirable, if we are going to frame a new Standing Order dealing with the powers of this House to question all these various Legislatures of the Empire, that the word "subordinate" should be carefully kept out in each case?
Lieut.-Colonel ARCHER-SHEE: Is it not the fact that India is a self-governing Dominion?
Mr. SPEAKER: We are getting rather far from the point from which we started.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
INDIA:—That they communicate that they have come to the following Resolution, namely: That it is desirable that a Committee of Eleven Lords be appointed to join with a Committee of Eleven Members of this House as a Standing Joint Committee on Indian Affairs.
PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMITTEE.
First Report brought up, and read; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 36.]
SELECTION (STANDING COM- MITTEES).

  STANDING COMMITTEE A.
  Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had

  1619
  nominated the following Members to serve OR Standing Committee A: Mr. Armitage, Lieut.-Commander Astbury, Mr. George Barker, Mr. Barrand, Major Barnes, Sir Thomas Bennett, Mr. Bigland, Sir Alfred Bird, Major Borwick, Major Cape, Sir Arthur Churchman, Mr. John Dennis, Colonel Du Pre, Mr. Edgar, Major John Edwards, Mr. Fildes, Mr. Forestier-Walker, Major Gray, Mr. William Greenwood, Mr. John Guest, Mr. Hartshorn, Major Hayward, Mr. Hirst, Captain Hotchkin, Mr. Joseph Johnstone, Sir Evan Jones, Mr. Kiley, Sir Robert Lister, Mr. Lonsdale, Mr. Mills, Dr. Murray, Mr. Myers, Mr. Reginald Nicholson, Colonel Sir Henry Norris, Major Godfrey Palmer, Mr. Allen Parkinson, Mr. Perring, Sir Thomas Poison, Mr. Rae, Mr. Raffan, Lieut.-Colonel Raw, Captain Redmond, Mr. Robertson, Mr. Rodger, Mr. Seddon, Mr. Alexander Shaw, Mr. Sitch, Mr. Stanton, and Lieut.-Colonel Sir Alfred Warren.

  UNOPPOSED BILL COMMITTEES (PANEL).
  Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS further reported from the Committee; That they had selected the following Eight Members to be the Panel to serve on Unopposed Bill Committees under Standing Order No. 109: Commander Bellairs, Mr. France, Major Hayward, Mr. John Parkinson, Lieut.-Colonel Pinkham, Colonel Sir Alan Sykes, Mr. Thomas-Stanford, and Mr. George Thorne.

  PRIVATE LEGISLATION PROCEDURE (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1899.
  Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS further reported from the Committee; That, in pursuance of the provisions of The Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, they had selected the following Twenty-four Members to form the Parliamentary Panel of Members of this House to act as Commissioners: Mr. Adamson, Major Birchall, Mr. James Brown, Sir Henry Craik, Captain Elliot, Major Farquharson, Major Glyn, Sir Park Goff, Mr. William Graham, Sir Harry Hope, Colonel Sir John Hope, Mr. John Deans Hope, Mr. Murray Macdonald, Sir Halford Mackinder, Mr. Macleod, Major McMicking, Dr. Murray, Major William Murray, Major Steel, Mr. Sturrock, Mr. Frederick Thomson, Captain Watson, Major Mackenzie Wood, and Mr. William Young.
  Reports to lie upon the Table.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  SUPPLY.
    AIR ESTIMATES, 1921–22.
    Order for Committee read.

    Mr. CHURCHILL'S STATEMENT.
    The SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Mr. Churchill): I beg to move, "That MR. SPEAKER do now leave the Chair."
    4.0 P.M.
    This is the third time that I have been responsible for presenting the Air Estimates to the House, and the Air Force for the first time in its history, not perhaps a lengthy history, has actually been under substantially the same administration for more than two whole years. We have had the same Chief of the Air Staff, we have had the same Controller-General of Civil Aviation, we have had the same Director of Personnel, we have had the same Director of Equipment, we have had in the main the same officers in command in the different areas or schools, we have had the same Secretary of State— that is an announcement which, no doubt, will be received with mingled feelings— and undoubtedly we should have had the same Under-Secretary of State but for the wayward proclivities of my right hon. and gallant Friend. I pointed out two years ago that, quite apart from clearing away the gigantic debris and enormous mass of material which the War had left, and which had to be dispersed in one way or other, it would take, in my opinion, five years to make an efficient, self-respecting, well-disciplined, economically-organised Air Force. About 18 months of these five years have now gone, and the progress has been very much greater than I had ventured to hope. It has been rendered possible solely by the fact that during the whole period we have had continuity of administration. There has been no chopping and changing either of men or of plant so far as the Royal Air Force is concerned. Everything is being carried out step by step as was intended, every superior officer or official is pursuing his work with a sense of being accountable, not for a week or for a month, but for the year after next, and possibly the year after that. Every subordinate
    1656
    is doing his duty with the sense that he has got to give satisfaction to superiors and seniors who are not going to be shifted and changed with every gust of service intrigue or of newspaper agitation—
    Mr. MILLS: Or anti-waste agitation.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Or of anti-waste agitation. I have often felt, when listening to someone else speaking, that I could improve the speech by adding a third point. I am very much obliged to my hon. Friend for contributing a very real and effective and extremely well-chosen point. Instead of being removed by any of these causes, to which my hon. Friend has added a third, these subordinate officers will feel that their work will continue to be judged by the same men and valued by the same men, and that praise and blame may be made to be factors which are definitely worth striving to achieve or to avoid. There is absolutely no other way in which you can form a disciplined force worthy of the name or worthy of this country. There is no other way in which you can form a service which will be a real source of strength and honour to the nation, and which, moreover, will give some trustworthy return for the expenditure and labour which it demands. If this be true of armies and of navies, or of any great organisation requiring a high standard of efficiency and obedience, it is true in a particular degree of the Air Service. No more complicated service has ever been brought into existence in this world.
    There are few people who have any idea of the complexity of the organisation of an Air Force. There are, for instance, no less than fifty-four trades, of which thirty are highly-skilled trades, involved in the production and in the repair of an aeroplane. That gives an idea of the immense complexity from a technical point of view. Almost every known science and art practised among men is involved in aeronautical research. The whole of this extraordinarily complicated material side of aviation, almost without compare in a technical organisation, is now brought into contact with an entirely separate set of complications, namely, all those arising from the art of war, almost indefinite in their scope and variety, and all the interplay of war considerations upon this very complicated material constitute, in your

    1657
    ultimate product, the complex proposition of an efficient Royal Air Force. The Navy and Army can each specify a large number of separate and particular functions, each requiring a special type of machine, each requiring a specially trained pilot, which they demand to have fulfilled for them by the Royal Air Force. For instance, machines are required for the Navy to spot the fall of shot fired at vessels which are completely concealed below the horizon owing to their great distance. Large machines of an amphibious type are required to scout far over the seas and take the place to a considerable extent of the far more expensive cruisers. Large machines are also required to attack the heavy ships of the enemy in their harbours and at sea with torpedoes and bombs and thus compete with the torpedo boat destroyers which have bulked so largely in the past. Small machines of high fighting quality and manœuvring power are required to rise up from the decks of ships and afterwards to alight upon them again, in order to attack the torpedo carrying, bomb carrying, and reconnoitring machines with which you are bound to assume a modern hostile fleet will be equipped.
    So much for the Navy. With the Army the types are already well known. You have got to have machines to mark for the artillery, machines to reconnoitre for the infantry, machines to fight with the infantry, the armoured machines which come very low down to fight, as they did in the last War, the machines which are to reconnoitre with the tanks, the machines which are to bomb at short distance or at a great distance, the machines which are to fight the aeroplanes of the enemy of different types in the air, and so protect not only all your own aeroplanes but the regular services of the Army. Everyone of those various applications of air power require a special type of machine, and the special training of men, and if you are to have an Air Force which is an integral, effective, scientific, military unit, you cannot afford to be ignorant of any of these duties or incapable of performing them. It is difficult to make an officer, to train men for the responsibility and bearing which an officer requires. It is difficult to make a pilot, to secure that extraordinary facility in the conduct of the machine in the air; but in the Royal Air
    1658
    Force, when you have trained a man both to be an officer and to be a pilot, trained the same man to both these important functions, even then you are not by any means at the end. The pilot, with all his skill in flying, with all his knowledge of his machine, would be a mere prey to an enemy unless he could, in addition, fulfil at least one of the highly specialised functions of aerial war-gunnery, bombing, torpedoing, photography, wireless telegraphy, spotting for artillery, observing, and other functions-of that kind. Our organisation must therefore provide for a large number of varied schools and training establishments, and this is what we have been steadily building up in different parts of the country, according to one scheme, in the last 18 months.
    Now I will tell the House about some of these establishments, because it is necessary that they should realise the complexity of the Air Service, compared with the Army, or even with the Navy itself. At Halton we are going to train 3,000 boys to be skilled mechanics, with' an eventual output of 1,000 a year, and here and at Manston adult recruits are now undergoing an intensive course of technical training. At Cranwell we are training cadets to be officers, and simultaneously a large number of the boy mechanics who are eventually to be accommodated at Halton. At Upavon we are teaching men to be instructors in flying, and officers are also given a course of practical engineering. At Netheravon and five other training schools, one of which will be in Egypt, we are training officers to become highly skilled pilots, not instructors, but pilots. At Andover a school will be opened to teach air pilotage and night flying. Eastchurch will be a station where armament, aerial gunnery, and bombing are taught. At Gosport they will learn torpedo dropping from aircraft, and experiments are being conducted to improve the methods of observation for naval guns, and the wireless control of surface craft, that is to say, of self-propelled vessels which move without any man on them through the sea and are directed in their movements by an aeroplane in the air with wireless. At Flowerdown there is an electrical and wireless school. I need scarcely say that each of the schools which I have mentioned is the head of an extremely elaborate, complicated, and mentally dominat-

    1659
    ing study and art, which has its relation to the general purpose we have in hand. At Larkhill kite-balloon training is undertaken. At Farnborough, photography in all its forms, that is to say, the taking of photographs, the reproduction of photographs rapidly, the understanding and reading of photographs, and the detection of the meaning of photographs taken from the air—a wonderful science in itself, which would, I am certain, fascinate any Member who had time to go and see even what its general scope is.
    At Uxbridge is the Air Force depot, and there we have a physical training school. At Salisbury and Farnborough artillery and infantry co-operation are taught to work with the aeroplanes of these two other Forces. At Calshott, air navigation over the sea, long-range flights by the stars or by other methods, and sea-plane flying. At Felixstowe, and Leuchars, in Scotland, are stations where the co-operation of the Navy is carried on. Then there are the great experimental stations at Martlesham, Grain, and Biggin Hill. Then there is the Royal Aircraft Establishment at Farnborough, an institution most vital for the general development of flying. There is a research laboratory with schools for medical officers at Holly Hill, to enable them to study the medical problems which are peculiar to aviation. There are a whole set of medical problems peculiar to aviation, which comprise the effects on the human being of the different altitudes, and an infinite study of the kind of tests to which recruits and would-be pilots are subjected before you can be sure they will stand the particular strain to which they will be subjected without risking their lives and the lives of others dependent on them. Lastly, there are courses of general instruction which we have arranged at Cambridge, Oxford, London, Capetown, and Sheffield in the great universities in these cities. These courses deal, firstly, with the theories underlying aviation, and, secondly, they provide specialised engineering instruction.
    I have unfolded the whole of this picture to the House, because every part of this complicated organisation is very largely interdependent. Like the organs of the human body, all are necessary for healthy life. I wonder how many of our critics have taken the trouble even to
    1660
    learn the exact articulation of an Air Service. Sometimes I think they are wise, because there is no doubt that the first effect of knowledge is to cramp the style. Our organisation has now been carried to a point where its entire scope can be discerned. It is still very new; it still wants the rest of the five years to complete it; but, at any rate, it is all blocked in, and you can see in actual working the whole of this organisation, and it constitutes what is, upon the whole, I venture to say, one of the most remarkable educational systems for imparting practical skill and scientific knowledge to young British lads of every rank and class in life which has ever been called into being in this country, or, as far as I know, in any other. Leaving war purposes out altogether, leaving the idea of war and the military application of the science out altogether, there can be no doubt that the enrichment and cultivation of national aptitude resulting from the educational and training establishments of the Royal Air Force are a great national asset, and an asset which, let me point out, is shared by all classes, which is designed to offer, and capable of offering, to the poorest lad clever with his brains, nimble with his fingers, stout in his heart, an opportunity to rise by industry and by conduct, grade after grade, to important and useful positions in the Service, or to pass out at any stage into the world when his Air Force Service is completed, highly equipped for the battle of life here in this country, and still more highly equipped for the battle of life open to the young lads of Britain in the great wide regions under the sway of the British Crown which need more than anything else these men who have this skilled, practical, quasi - scientific, quasi - disciplined training at their disposal. The training organisation of the Royal Air Force will, as it develops and perfects itself, become a great technical university for the nation, with the glamour and traditions of a gallant service super-added, and I should like to say this. Although only 18 months of the five years are gone, already the fact that there have been stability, continuity, something that people could look to and make their way towards and be sure it would not have changed before they had got there, the mere fact that that has been established has enabled us to obtain an extremely

    1661
    good type of boys coming forward to join as young mechanics, and other boys coming forward to be trained to be cadets, or to be officers, or to be pilots, and I should like in this connection to acknowledge the help and aid we have had from the local education authorities. They have secured us a flow, and an increasing flow, of young men who will be a credit to any organisation which this country is capable of calling into being.
    This whole system, with all its complicated establishments, has just been laboriously brought into being and is just beginning to work as a whole, and, of course, it has just reached the point in its development where it would be possible to do it the greatest amount of harm in the shortest possible time. When one looks at it as one sees it now, one cannot help saying to one's self, what an irresistible temptation this must offer to ignorant destructiveness. Now is the time when a change of policy would more completely, and more easily, and more swiftly throw away all the work that has been done; now is the time when those who never can pursue a single object for more than a few months or even a few weeks together, and always come hurrying forward with new projects and wish to scamper off with raucous cries in pursuit of some new hare, now is the time when such persons will find an irresistible temptation to destroy this nation's organisation, just as it is reaching effective but still juvenile life. Two years of consistent policy in the Royal Air Force? Why, how shocking! One can imagine them saying: "Is it not time that we had a new stunt?" You could not have a better moment for the impatient and shallow element in public thought and public expression—I am not, of course, referring to any hon. Member of this House—you could not have a better moment to swoop down upon this highly complicated and very delicate organisation and break it all up.
    Upon the foundation which I have described if these training establishments are maintained the fighting squadrons upon which we are relying to keep peace and order throughout the Empire and to preserve for us the means of defence at home. Without a complete training organisation you cannot have any efficient force of air squadrons; once you have got that organisation it will carry a few more or a few less without any
    1662
    particular inconvenience or additional expense There are 28 fully formed service squadrons, of which six are in Egypt and Palestine, five in Mesopotamia, eight in India, one on the Rhine, one at Malta, the last not yet fully equipped; thus 21 out of the 28 squadrons are overseas. The equivalent of three more squadrons are in Ireland, three are working with the Navy, while one is employed at home in giving refresher courses to pilots. The four additional squadrons which are the residue of the five sanctioned by the House a few months ago, will begin forming on 1st April, and that brings our total up to 32. These additional squadrons are wanted in many directions. They constitute the only reserve for all contingencies that we possess in the flying service. These fighting squadrons and training establishments comprise 2,900 officers, about 25,000 men, with a certain number of civil assistants. That is the Air Force upon which, rightly or wrongly, we have been labouring for the last two years.
    I think there is a possibility in the future of a higher degree of economy being achieved through our being able to make squadrons undertake more of the work of the training establishments. But we have not yet been able to do that because firstly, the squadrons have themselves been forming, and, secondly, because all these squadrons have been engaged in actual fighting, or in operations which have many of the unpleasant elements of actual fighting, during the currency of the last twelve months. In addition, we propose this year to begin the formation on a very small scale of a Territorial Air Force, for which £20,000 is taken in the Estimates. Our idea is to have six squadrons, stationed near centres where there is a large engineering population, and where aerodromes are available. Each squadron would have a small nucleus of regular air mechanics, and it hoped that the skilled voluntary element in the neighbourhood will form this small nucleus.
    Such is the organisation of the Royal Air Force. To repeat a metaphor which I have used before and which on subsequent occasions I have not been able to improve upon, I would say that the training establishments are the plum-trees and the fighting squadrons are the plums

    1663
    themselves. If the tree is mutilated or starved or poisoned you will have to pay for the trees but you will not get any fruit, you will not get any plums. If the tree is well nourished and well grown you can, within considerable limits, by pruning or otherwise—and no tree has been more severely pruned than the Air Force, which has been subjected to the most searching and rigorous pruning in every detail to endeavour to secure the result for the limited sum of money which has been placed at our disposal—if the tree is kept healthy you can increase or diminish the size of the crop of fruit which you wish to obtain from the tree.
    Mr. RONALD McNEILL: You must keep off the wasps.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I say this not for the House but for the public at large, and for those members of the public who are certainly very much at large and who write about these subjects with the very greatest economy both of knowledge and of thought. I am very anxious to illustrate to them how foolish and wasteful it would be if we were to take advice which is pressed upon us from more than one quarter at present. It is said, for instance, "Is not the war over, was not the last war the war to end war"—
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: The Prime Minister.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: "And has it not ended by leaving such a feeling towards one another among all the nations of the world, among all individuals of every class in every part of the world that all idea of violence is entirely removed from human affairs? Has it not put an end to all international rivalry, has it not led to general disarmament? Has not our Empire become so quiet and tranquil in every part that we really could afford to rely solely upon moral suasion?" and so on. It is also said, "What do we want all this service aviation for? Instead of this let us go in for some splendid new development of civil aviation. Let us take seven or eight millions from the Royal Air Force and devote them to the pursuits of running airships and aeroplanes all over the country and all over the world." I do not say for a moment that those are not good objects in themselves if only we had the money for them, but when it comes to cutting in
    1664
    upon necessities in order to provide what, after all, at their best are conveniences, surely we should be committing a very great folly.
    Let us see what would happen if such a course were adopted. First of all the present Air Force, moderate in scale, modest in demeanour, modern in outlook, would go to pieces. Its organisation would be completely broken up. The vital elements of the machine would be destroyed, the processes would no longer work, and you would have half your expense, but you would not have half your Air Force. You would have nothing that could be considered an integral organisation or an Air Force in any sense of the word. You would not be able to discharge any one of those duties of garrisoning the British Empire and maintaining order in the wide regions which the Air Force is showing itself increasingly able to undertake. Those duties would either have to be abandoned, or discharged by a large number of soldiers. You would not be able to discharge any of those duties in regard to the Navy which are essential to modern science and in which, in many directions, the possibilities are enormous. You would not preserve even in your own island the nucleus of an efficient force to enable us to protect ourselves against what is, after all, the most deadly attack, attack from the air, if ever such a danger arose again. You would still have a heavy expense and it would not be an expense which would produce any intelligible result, but the defensive arrangements of the Empire would receive a crippling injury and they would be permanently relegated to a position the future of which would be at once very costly and wholly unscientific. In place of what you had lost there would no doubt be a gain. You would no doubt establish some very convenient and imposing air services by airships and aeroplane, communications would be improved, mails would be carried quicker and a limited number of persons who could afford to pay very high rates would be carried and would be able to cross the world at unprecedented speed. I should very much like to see that done, I will do everything in my power to help that forward, but to say that such results are comparable to the solid and indispensable work done by the Royal Air Force m helping with the Army and Navy to

    1665
    defend our country and our Empire is an absurdity. You would throw away the one essential of your life in order to adopt what is undoubtedly a great convenience and an advance in civilisation.
    The story would not end there. A day would come when powerful nations, beginning to recover from the War, and to gather their power together again, would become the cause of rumours in this country. There would be rumours that in the heart of Germany or Russia there were great aerial developments of a very serious character, or of a character which might easily have a military complexion. Then you would have a war scare, and I have no doubt you would have a leading article in "The Times" on that subject—
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Why not?
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Perhaps an article in the "Sunday Pictorial."
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The people of this island would be told that there were a large number of machines in existence which at any moment could begin shattering the houses of London, and more important still, the dockyards, the power stations, the magazines, the oil tanks and the technical armaments upon which the scientific life and defence of this country depend. There would be a frantic effort to revive the Air Service and you would have more articles in the "Times"; I can even foresee the character of those articles—
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: What about the "Sunday Pictorial"?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: That is very clever, but it is not relevant at all to the live criticisms which I am endeavouring to meet. The hon. and gallant Gentleman, who is always very ready to cast an informing interruption on the course of the Debate, should really, having so much practice, study interruptions a little more no as to make them more effective in point and more relevant. I have no doubt it will be said that in the year 1921 a great mistake had been made. I shall he told by those who are advocating the exact opposite to-day, that a very great mistake had been made in breaking down the Royal Air Force just at the moment when, by the skill and labours of Sir Hugh Trenchard and others, it had been
    1666
    carried into complete existence, and that the Minister of the day, giving way to his volatile temperament, had been lured into all sorts of vague and airy schemes of civil aviation and had cast away the solid security and buckler of the State which an efficient Air Force presented. I have no doubt the leader writer would go on to say that it is no use recriminating about the past, that we must leave that and close our ranks and open our pockets to meet the difficulties that are before us. Money would be poured out like water to re-create what had been thrown away. But you would not have the science, the training, the disciplined and skilful men. We should begin making all over again the same blunders that we made, in the early years of the War, and perhaps we should not even have time to complete our blunders before the maroons and the sirens, almost forgotten now, broke once again upon the cars of our unhappy and justifiably indignant people. If that happened, I expect there would be some more of these articles, that is to say, assuming that Printing House Square, and Bouverie Street had been miraculously and providentially spared by the destroying hand.
    Therefore I say it would be most unwise to break up the Air Force which has been slowly and carefully re-created. I have gone very cart-fully into the matter and I do not believe that you could possibly have an Air Force which would discharge the essential and vital naval and military duties of the Empire for less than £15,000,000 or £16,000,000 a year, that is to say, £7,000,000 or £8,000,000 a year at the pre-War value of money. There is one kind of decreptitude and moral dishonesty which inspires me with indignation, and that is the form exhibited by persons who write and speak about the cost of the fighting services now without any reference to the change in the purchasing power of money. I see it stated to-day in a newspaper which always has rather prided itself on proceeding along-rational lines of thought on public subjects, that the Air Force was costing practically two-thirds of what the Army cost before the War. Nothing of the sort. The expense of the Air Force now, compared with pre-War, is not more than £8,000,000 or £9,000,000 sterling. You cannot have an Air Force for less than that, which is the very minimum. If there are to be great developments in civil aviation

    1667
    at Government expense the additional money must be voted by Parliament for that purpose. I should, of course, be delighted to receive from the House and from my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, larger sums of money for civil aviation, but in view of the grave financial stringency I do not feel justified in asking at present for more than the £1,000,000 a year which we are spending. Properly used, a great deal ought to be accomplished within the limits of this £1,000,000. We must do everything that is possible to help those who have it in hand. They have a very hard task to perform, and they have shown great courage and persistency and perseverence in their discharge of it. I think, however, that in view of the limited sum which is available it will be necessary to go on concentrating on a few routes and a few services to make sure that they are established and maintained, rather than to spread out your contributions on plans of a general character, not one of which can be carried more than half way to success.
    Last year the Admiralty reached the opinion that, as the need for economy was so great, we could not afford to develop both airships and aeroplanes for naval purposes, and that we had better give up the airships and concentrate on the aeroplanes. It was a melancholy decision, when you consider that, as a result of so much expenditure, we had reached almost the first place in the world in the construction of rigid airships. But I think it was a wise decision. It seems to me very probable that that will involve the abandonment by the Government of airship building in the civil sphere. We have hitherto been engaged in completing airships under construction when the War ended, in experimenting with those ships, and in building a new ship for the United States, for which we receive a sum of £500,000, owing to the enterprise and commercial activity of my right hon. Friend, in training their crew in the handling of this ship, and in carrying out certain experiments with mooring masts which are of great interest and importance. Unless, however, within the next few weeks private companies are willing to come forward and take over the airships and run them for commercial purposes, I shall not feel justified in continuing expenditure upon airships for civil purposes. If any company will come forward and give a
    1668
    reasonable undertaking to operate the vessels and to continue to experiment, they shall have all our airships free of charge, together with all the spare parts in our possession, and the necessary ground establishments. They can have them as a free gift, with any assistance that we can give, if they care to come forward. More than that we cannot do. There is nothing new in this. During the whole of this year we have been trying to induce commercial firms to come forward and take over the airships on very favourable terms, and I trust that in the next few weeks some proposal which can be taken up will be made to us.
    The task of fostering civilian aviation in the British Isles will be attended with much difficulty. The fogs and mists and other climatic conditions are a terrible hindrance. Moreover, the country is covered by a network of railways and roads, which constitute a most formidable competition with the air. Travelling by air does not mean travelling from one city to another, but from one aerodrome to another; the aerodromes are on the outsides of the cities and it usually takes from 15 to 30 minutes to reach or return from an aerodrome. Then you have to compete in an aeroplane with trains which carry passengers into the heart of the cities, and with motor cars which take them actually from door to door. If you add to that the danger and uncertainty induced by climatic conditions, it will be seen that we are much less favourably circumstanced, so far as domestic civil aviation is concerned, than countries like France, Italy, Spain or, I dare say, the United States of America. Therefore, I should not expect to see a very large or a very rapid development of domestic civil aviation within these islands. I think the Government might easily pour out very large sums of money with that object, without achieving any permanent result. There is, however, one route which we should keep open, and which certainly offers superior prospects of success. I mean the air route from London to Paris and the Continent generally. Here the British aeroplane, although still hampered by the weather conditions of these islands, has the enormous boon, the almost inestimable boon to bestow on a traveller, of eliminating the crossing of the Channel with its attendant delays and discomforts. It is not simply the incon-

    1669
    venience of the sea voyage which will be saved, but the long delay which takes place both before and after the passage. There is no more striking experience than to travel by air from London to Paris for the first time to one having been accustomed to make many laborious journeys by rail and sea. One really has a sense of enchantment when, in less than two hours, almost before one would have reached Dover, there is the beautiful city of Paris, with the Eiffel Tower and the Golden Dome of the Invalides, revealed in the sunlight far below. I cannot conceive that with a sustained effort to popularise this service it will not succeed, at any rate during the summer months. I think we should concentrate upon this now, when our funds are so limited, instead of dissipating our strength in enterprises which we may not be able to carry through.
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer has accorded to the Air Ministry a very wide discretionary power in the spending of the £1,000,000 allocated to civil aviation, provided that the total is not exceeded and that no commitment is made which involves future increases on the £1,000,000. The sum of £60,000 is included in the Estimates for subsidies to civil aerial transport firms, and this was based on a scheme proposed by Lord Weir's Committee for subsidising such companies to the extent of 25 per cent, of their gross earnings. Now, however, that the French Government have decided to grant to their own companies assistance on a most generous scale, I fear that if we adhere to the scheme of Lord Weir's Committee our firms will be so heavily undercut that there will be no encouragement for British lines to continue. I propose, therefore, to set up immediately a Committee, including members of the aircraft industry and the aerial transport firms, to devise the necessary alternative methods which will meet these changed conditions, and to make proposals for immediate action. If a saving can be effected on other parts of the civil aviation Vote, the inducements we now offer will be made much greater. More than that I cannot say at present.
    5.0 P.M.
    I am bound to deal with at least one further question. We are often asked, Is the Air Force to be simply an addition to the pre-War Army; is it an extra burden on the taxpayers of every
    1670
    country, or will it gradually become a substitute for an important portion both of the Army and the Fleet? There is no doubt that, properly handled and developed, the Air Force will become a substitute to a very important extent both for soldiers and ships. It may not, however, become a substitute first of all until it is formed and perfect, and it cannot become a substitute except in so far as it proves by practical steps that it is able to discharge the function which has hitherto been and is now being discharged from day to day by the Army and the Navy. So far as the Army is concerned, we are convinced that the Air Force has it in its power at the present time very sensibly to reduce the numbers and costs of the garrisons of certain Oriental territories for which we are at present responsible. We know that in the recent rebellion in Mesopotamia whole districts were prevented from rebellion by the mere fact that aeroplanes were seen cruising over those areas. So far as coast defence is concerned—the defence of naval ports and defence against invasion—there is no doubt that the Air Force can afford a real protection that will take the place of far more costly vessels necessary in the pre-War days. So far as the Navy is concerned, it is quite true that no sensible or well-informed person contemplates the Air Force being able in the next five or ten years to take the place of capital ships that have formed the British line of battle on sea. Harm is done when claims are made on behalf of the Air Force either in regard to maintaining order and security, unaided, alone, single-handed, in large disturbed countries or in regard to the prime defence of these islands and of our Empire on the sea. The Air Force can only at the present time act as a supplement, as an increasing supplement, but still only as a supplement to the Army and the Navy, but it should be a supplement which, from now onwards, should enable the number of types of warships to be reduced and considerable reductions to be effected in the number of troops we have hitherto employed in certain parts of the world. It may well be, for instance, that the capital ship will be increasingly watched and protected by aircraft in the future instead of by the larger number of small vessels, cruisers,

    1671
    destroyers, trawlers which have been found indispensable to its safety in the late War. It may well be that reconnaisance at sea by aircraft may be found a substitute for far more expensive types of sea-going ships. It may well be—this, perhaps, will be thought an extraordinary suggestion—that the submarine will find in the aeroplane another of those deadly menaces which threaten to curtail its sinister intrusion into the foundations of our naval security. I do not wish to prejudge those matters. Obviously, these questions of air and of naval and material are at present very largely in flux; but I am sure of this, and this is the point and the only point which I have been endeavouring to put before the House during the whole of the observations they have permitted me to address to them—this is the sole point to which all my arguments from whichever quarter they have originated, have been directed—I am sure that to scrap and break up the Air Force which has been created laboriously, which has just reached the effective stage, would not only rob you of an essential and vital means of defence, but will also cut you off from the possibilities of future reductions in the other services through the substitution of air power for man power and for sea power, which reductions may indeed be an essential part of our future security.
    That is all I will trouble the House with at the present time except to say this: I suppose I shall be asked to refer to the future of the Air Ministry, and I shall refer to it by saying it is a matter which ought to be dealt with by the Prime Minister or by my right hon. Friend (Mr. Bonar Law) rather than by me. I do not wish to seem to be making out a case for myself. To begin with, it would be difficult to do justice to the subject—[Laughter]—I mean without being accused of want of modesty. I can assure the House I shall be absolutely ready to hand over the seals of the Air Ministry at any moment that it may be found convenient to create a new Secretary of State for Air with a separate seat in the Cabinet. That is a matter to which I would raise no sort of obstacle of any kind, but so long as I am responsible for the Air Ministry the policy which I now submit to the House will continue in essentials, if the House supports me, to be what it has
    1672
    been during the last two years, that is to say, it will be first of all to spend £1,000,000 a year on civil aviation in whatever manner may be found best, but with particular regard to the importance of maintaining the Cross-Channel Services. Secondly, to build up in all its details a properly combined, efficient fighting service, a healthy, skilled, and well-disciplined body of officers and men; and, thirdly, to maintain a unified, separate, independent Air Force as a third and equal arm in the Service with the Army and the Navy, and to act continuously in close and harmonious co-operation and combination with them.
    Major-General SEELY: I am sure the House listened with great interest to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, but I think they were amused and, indeed, amazed at the conclusion of it. He told us that he proposed to retain the seals of the Secretary of State for Air at the same time as those of the Secretary of State for the Colonies. A more extraordinary arrangement I think the House has never heard of. There were many of us who thought that the combination of the offices of Secretary of State for Air and Secretary of State for War was an indefensible arrangement, but to say that a man could be Secretary of State for the Colonies and Secretary of State for Air at one and the same time, seems to be indefensible, comic, but it may be in the end somewhat tragic. I am sorry to have to ask the right hon. Gentleman to leave his somewhat rollicking mood of cheerful optimism, and look at the bedrock facts of what has been the effect of his maladministration in the past. He began his speech by saying everything was going on just as before. So it is, but it is going very badly. May I draw his attention to this? I do not propose to go into any details. We shall be discussing these Estimates to-morrow, and perhaps it is proper now to ask who will be replying for the Air Ministry tomorrow, when, as we understand, the right hon. Gentleman is going off on his proper business to Egypt. Will he tell us who will be the representative of the Secretary of State for Air in this House?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: My right hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Captain Guest).
    Major-General SEELY: There will be basis no one representing the Air Ministry except the Joint Parliamentary Secretary, who has a great many other things to do, and who does not in any sense represent the Air Ministry. Let us see what exactly has happened as the result of the indefensible arrangement of the combination of the offices of Secretary of State for War and Secretary of State for Air, and we can then consider what will be the result of the comic and tragic position. The plan which the right hon. Gentleman laid before the House when he first became Secretary of State for Air was that a certain sum should be expended in maintaining the military establishments, and he impressed this point that the only way to really maintain a powerful Air Force was that it should rest upon a commercial industry in this country. General Sykes, Controller General of Civil Aviation, who speaks for the right hon. Gentleman, said not many months ago:
    "The nation which is strongest in commercial air traffic will be the strongest also in the cardinal warfare of the future."
    Thus we see clearly that the object of the right hon. Gentleman was to maintain an adequate Air Force of a naval and military kind and, as General Sykes says, based upon a strong commercial aviation system in this country. All other countries concerned in this matter have taken the same view. What has happened? Would the House believe that when the right hon. Gentleman was describing how well flying was going on, that this commercial traffic which he himself says through his own subordinate is absolutely essential to our national safety has not only decreased in volume, but has from to-day absolutely disappeared. There is nothing left of it whatever. A year and a half ago there were many great concerns building aeroplanes, and above all with their designing staffs all busily trying to find out the best way to conquer the air for peaceful purposes. We were told by the Controller General of Civil Aviation that so many hundreds of thousands of miles were flown—it was nearly a million—and providentially also hardly a life was lost. Now no miles are flown; no aeroplane leaves these shores; and the right hon. Gentleman sits there with smug satisfaction, and asks the House to give him this grant of £18,000,000 when the whole
    1674
    basis on which the fabric was to be created has absolutely vanished away.
    When I resigned from the office which I held because of the fact that to attempt to do two things at once would mean failure, I never thought my prophecies would be justified so soon. All sorts of absurd things were said when I resigned. It was said- I wanted to usurp the place of my right hon. Friend (Mr. Churchill), and that I differed from the Prime Minister. That is absolutely untrue. I never differed from them on any other subject but this. I do not think any man, unfortunately, was ever so swiftly justified by events, for it is now the fact that the basis upon which the whole fabric of flying in this country was to be built up has absolutely disappeared. The House of Commons is entitled to demand an explanation from the right hon. Gentleman. It will not accept, and the country will not accept, these, airy statements. He seems to assume that nobody cares about it but the "Times" and papers under the same control. It is the greatest delusion as far as the Press is concerned, because papers as different as the "Manchester Guardian" and others are equally keen, and as I go about the country myself I find that every man sees the dangers we are running through the extraordinary course we are pursuing. It all arises from the fact that a Government office must be controlled by a whole-time man. When I said that was necessary before, you did not believe it, but now you see it is true.
    The present proposal is one so astonishing that I do not think the House of Commons ever listened to it before. It comes to something like this: The right hon. Gentleman tells his servant in the morning, "James (or whatever his name is), I am thinking of moving. I am going to Downing Street." James replies, "Yes, Sir, will you take the Air Ministry with you?" "Yes," replies the right hon. Gentleman, "put the seals in my bag." The right hon. Gentleman walks about towing the Air Ministry about with him as a sort of appanage, and he takes it with him wherever he goes. I suppose he will take the seals of the Air Ministry with him when he goes to Egypt tomorrow. When I had concern in this matter, he used to give about an hour a week to it, and now he is at the Colonial Office I suppose he will not be able to give more than 40 minutes. The Leader

    1675
    of the House has said—and this is a serious matter, in which the House has been misled—"I do not agree with the theory that you must have one man one job." He told the House that it was possible to combine these things, and for the offices not to come to grief. But it is not so, and it cannot be so, because any Government office is in the position of a public company which has a meeting of shareholders every day, many of its shareholders being hostile. The Minister responsible cannot allow anything to be done without his knowledge, because he has to defend it here. The consequence is that in the Air Ministry decisions can never be obtained from the Secretary of State, and that is the reason why the whole basis and foundation of the right hon. Gentleman's policy has absolutely disappeared, and we are left in the extraordinary position that the nation, which has most to gain and most to fear from aerial progress, which two years ago was in the forefront in every development, is now lagging behind all others, and the vital matter of keeping the industry going by fresh brains has disappeared altogether.
    I will not labour the necessity for having a strong Air industry in this country, because it has been said so often by the right hon. Gentleman himself and by the Leader of the House. It has been referred to by the Prime Minister. The policy was endorsed by this House when the Air Ministry was formed. I believe there are no two opinions about it. All that skill, knowledge and industrious and careful thought have practically disappeared. Yesterday for the last time an English aeroplane left these shores. Of course, this ought to have been foreseen. It could easily have been avoided. If the right hon. Gentleman says, "How can you expect us to keep this going in these hard times?" I answer that you are spending £200,000,000 on armed forces in this country. The foundation of the newest and the most important, which the right hon. Gentleman himself says may one day supplant the others, is civil aviation, and is it not madness to allow the whole foundation to disappear? I deeply regret to have spoken so strongly. Nobody has a greater regard for the right hon. Gentleman opposite than I have, and I say that quite openly. I believe him to have done most wonderful work for his country in the past, as I hope he will
    1676
    do in the future, but I am sure that, so long as he tries to do two things at once, he will lead us into trouble, and I will go further and say, if he does not change his mind, and devote his whole mind to one business, he will land the country into disaster.
    Colonel NEWMAN: I beg to move, to leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof the words
    "to promote efficiency and economy, a closer co-operation between the Air Force and civilian air services and aircraft manufacturers is essential."
    While congratulating the Secretary of State for Air on his speech, I must confess that I approach the discussion with a certain amount of terror. The right hon. Gentleman told us at the beginning a good deal about those who wanted to start new projects and who ran stunts. As a back bencher I try to represent the general public outside, and I will say this at once, that there are comparatively few outside this House who have the opportunity, or, indeed, even the wish, to study the 68 pages of highly technical matter in the Air Estimates. The average citizen will notice that the Air Estimates are down. He will, perhaps, read in his newspaper the resumé supplied by the Air Minister, and, at a time when a good deal is spoken about stringent economy, he will say that at any rate in the Air Service there is one brand saved from the burning. But if he thinks about it further he will say to himself that economy must mean spending the sum at your disposal to the best possible advantage, and that is where I am up against the Air Minister. These Estimates, like the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, are severely military from the first to the last page. The salaries in them range from £3,375 for the Chief of the Air Service down to £200 odd, which is given to temporary employés in the Air Historical Branch. The total numbers on the Vote are 30,880, and all these are on the establishment. I want to ask the House what on earth can all these people be doing? How many of them actually fly? I would also ask this question: Do we want an Air Force in this country of 30,880 whole-timers? I may be perpetrating something in the nature of a bull when I ask this further question: Should not our aerial force be, in the main, a territorial force?

    1677
    I recollect in the last couple of years of the War, after I came back from France, I listened to a speech in this House delivered in a Debate on the Air Force by the Noble Lord the Member for Oxford University (Lord H. Cecil). He was then a member of the Air Force, and he compared the air pilot with the knight of chivalry in olden days. Let us remember that those knights of old were not whole-timers. They were not part of an established army. They were Territorials, and when they were not called up on their military oath, they were able to devote their time to their own private quarrels and their own private affairs. Surely we want something like that in our Air Service in this country. We want these firms or individuals who had established these air services, we want those who are capable of turning out aeroplanes in their hundreds to act the part of the great feudal barons of the old time, and to hold at the disposal of the country, if need be, numbers of civilian pilots who can be called up to act as pilots of fighting machines; and to hold for the State vast numbers of artisans who would be enlisted on something of a Territorial basis. The directors and managers of these aerial services should have at the disposal of the State a large number of machines ready for flying, and in return, of course, get something in the nature of a national subsidy. You may have, besides, a comparatively small established flying force, absolutely up-to-date, absolutely efficient, consisting of a sufficient number of squadrons which, at a moment's notice, can go anywhere and do anything. That is what we want, and it may be said by those who listened to the right hon. Gentleman that that, in a way, is what he is aiming at, because he did speak of a Territorial service, and there is an Air Force Reserve mentioned in the Estimates; but how small it is! The total expense of the Territorial Air Force in the Estimates is £20,000, and of the Air Force Reserve £115,000. Within five years the Air Force is to reach maturity. After that time all we have spent on our Territorial Air Force will be the beggarly sum of £20,000, and, as the right hon. Gentleman has informed us, this Force is only in its infancy, and will grow very slowly.
    1678
    About the Air Force Reserve he told us nothing at all. But he told us a good deal about the amount in the Estimates to be spent on civil aviation. He mentioned the sum of £1,000,000—I think it is £880,000. Out of that, a very big slice indeed is taken for what is called "Meteorological Services," which cover many pages of the Estimates, and such things as Headquarters' Staff. In fact, there is everything, apparently, included under Civil Aviation except flying. A couple of years ago it seemed as though we had the ball at our feet for those great far distant aerial flights to India and Australia, and that we had established on a firm basis a service between London and Paris. That was two years ago. To-day, the right hon. Gentleman reminded this House that our last aerial service has closed down, unless it is revived again under the hints which were thrown out by the right hon. Gentleman the Air Minister. But, at the moment, our last aerial service has closed down. What does that mean? It means that we lose the services of an enormous number of skilled pilots who are accustomed to fly in all weathers. We lose a great number of machines. We lose the chance of making improvements in a great number of machines, and we see it taken from us by other nations. France, with a heavily subsidised service, is going to take over a service from Paris to London and London to Paris, and I daresay hon. Members will have noticed that Franco only yesterday inaugurated a service from her shores to Casa Blanca, one of the chief ports in the Mediterranean. We do not know what Germany is doing, but we can imagine that the air services in Germany are not being neglected. In America, the American postal service maintains no less than 35 distinct air services. This state of affairs we can hardly allow to continue, and it is for that reason I have put down the Amendment which stands in my name.
    I want closer co-operation between the Ministry of Air and our civilian air services, and our manufacturers of aeroplanes. I may be advocating a big change. I know it is a big change to have the present system torn up by the roots and turned into more of a territorial force, with a small established service capable of very quick and rapid extension, but for the main part my suggestion is that it should be based on what we call the territorial idea. That is a big change, and it

    1679
    is an ideal which it may be hard to reach. I am convinced, however, that if we were to put some scheme of that sort before the average patriotic ratepayer, and also allow the Air Minister to put his scheme forward at the same time, I am convinced that the taxpayer who wants to get the best value for his money would be inclined to take the scheme I suggest. I have not used in my Amendment the word "subsidy." I have used the word "co-operation" which is what we want. The taxpayer grants to the Air Ministry money, and the civilian air services and the manufacturers can and will give to the Air Ministry pilots, machines, and mechanics of the very best if a working agreement can be arrived at, and I trust it will be. Sir Charles Syke once said that the nation which had supremacy in civilian time would have supremacy in military time. It is foolish to let down our civil flying and to look only to our military flying, and it would be much better to devote a certain part of this £19,000,000 to subsidise in the best way we can some of these aerial services which will be of so much use in the future.
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I beg to second the Amendment. Before I deal with civil aviation, I should like to congratulate the Secretary for the Colonies on the speech he has made. I think, however, that his criticism upon leading articles was a little out of place, because I seldom heard a speech which read more like a leading article. It used to be said of articles written by George Augustus Sala that whenever he wrote an article he did not mention the subject more than once but other subjects at least quite a hundred times. Although the right hon. Gentleman said this was the third time he had brought in air Estimates, I am afraid that it is the eighth time that I have criticised air Estimates in this House. I do not know that there is so much to criticise now, and I wish to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman upon the speech he has made showing the work which has been done by the military side of the Air Ministry. There are one or two points not of destructive but constructive criticism which I should like to make. The right hon. Gentleman raised a question of airships. It seems extraordinary that the whole of our airships are to be scrapped altogether and that the hangars, buildings
    1680
    and apparatus are to be handed over as a free gift to any company that likes to take them over. I wonder if the naval authorities have been consulted upon this matter. I know that when the airships were taken from the Navy and given to the Air Force a definite pledge was given that the future of all the naval officers would be thoroughly looked after by the Air Service. I want to know what is going to be done with those officers now. If the airship service is going to be shut up there must be a large number of officers who were trained for that purpose, and who were not trained in any other branch of air work. I would like to know what is to be their future.
    I want to know also what we are going to do in the event of another war. Of course, the whole of these Estimates must be debated on the basis that there may be another war. If, in the event of the possibility of another war what are we going to do for airships? We have had the Report of the Battle of Jutland and other naval battles, from which it is clear that the Germans derived the greatest benefit by the observations made from Zeppelin airships on account of the enormous height, and the great radius of vision which those airships afforded. The right hon. Gentleman said he was going to give up the airships, but he did not tell us the views of the Navy on this question. I must associate myself with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ilkeston (Major-General Seely), as to the necessity for a separate Air Ministry. I want the Government to realise that the proposal for a separate Air Ministry was definitely considered by the Government, and it was thought to be so essential that the Government took the risk of altering the whole system in the middle of a great war, and they constituted then a separate Air Ministry. Now the War is over, and my right hon. Friend is occupying the dual post of Secretary of State for the Colonies and Air Minister, and I cannot help feeling that the original view of the Government was correct. If the Air Service is to be one which may ultimately take over a great deal of the work now done by the Army and Navy, it is essential that there should be in the-Cabinet one man who can speak for the Air Service not fettered with any preconceived ideas of the Army or even the Colonial Office.
    I do not think my right hon. Friend made out a case for still retaining himself

    1681
    in a dual capacity as Secretary of State for the Colonies and Minister of Air. I understand that the right hon. Gentleman is going to Egypt to-morrow, but he did not say a word from the flying point of view, except that we were going to have a training school in Egypt. At the recent Air Conference in London, where all the great air authorities were present, Air Marshal Trenchard said:
    "One cannot look at a map of the world without seeing that Egypt is the centre of it from an aviation point of view."
    That is admitted on all hands by anyone who has had anything to do with the Air Service. The right hon. Gentleman said that England is a bad place for the Air Service, but England is not the Empire. The Empire is a marvellous field for the Air Services, and the whole of them must impinge upon our position in Egypt. Whether you want to go to Palestine, Mesopotamia, India, South Africa, the whole of those great countries which owe allegiance to ourselves, the air routes meet at Cairo. The House knows, owing to the publication of the Report, that Lord Milner has made some kind of proposal for giving back complete Home Rule to Egypt, and I have heard no statement on behalf of the Government that the position of the air control, the aerodromes, and the air arrangements so vital to our air connection with our Colonies and Eastern Dominions has been thought of and considered, and certainly not preserved in anything that has been proposed.
    My right hon. Friend is going out to Egypt like some new Columbus on a voyage of discovery, and, although we were told that he will have nothing to do with the future of Egypt, he is still responsible for dealing with Egypt from an air point of view, and I trust he will see for himself the vital importance of Egypt as an air centre. My right hon. Friend, I notice, agrees with that, and I hope he will come back with such information as will determine the arrangement and the position of the Air Service, and that its future in Egypt will be completely preserved. I do not propose to criticise in detail the military side of my right hon. Friend's speech, because we shall have another opportunity to-morrow of going into
    1682
    further details. I want, however, to refer to two points. First of all, the naval side of the Air Service, and, secondly, the point which has been raised by my hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel Newman), the civil side of the Air Service. There has been a controversy in "The Times" on the question of "Big ships, or?" We know that Admiral Percy Scott, and Admiral Scheer, of Germany, have both laid down that the big ship is likely to disappear, owing to the enormous improvement of submarines in the near future. I want to tell my right hon. Friend that the reason why I dived into that correspondence was because I found that the Cabinet Committee appointed to go into this question had not anybody upon it qualified to consider this question of the future of the big ship and the torpedo.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The Chief of the Air Staff and the Controller-General of Aviation gave the Committee full advice in regard to that matter in a long discussion.
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I am pleased to have elicited that statement, because it has never been made public. Many of us who believe in the enormous possibility of an air attack have no idea that this position had been placed by Air Marshal Trenchard before that Committee. I want to tell the House how enormously the Air Service has developed. Hon. Members know how, at the beginning of the War, with only a few officers we were able to carry on until we had established our Air Service. The House knows what an enormous advance we have made, but I wonder if the House realises how much more effective our service would be if we had had an efficient torpedo-carrying aeroplane during the War. Nobody disputes the enormous power in naval warfare of the torpedo whether in attacking big ships or little ships. It is possible to have to-day torpedo-carrying aeroplanes flying at a height of over 10,000 feet, shutting off their engine so as to make no noise, and then gliding down at a speed of 140 miles per hour. They can carry a torpedo weighing 1,500 lbs., with 1,000 lbs. of T.N.T. All these details have been published in a technical paper so I am not giving any information away to possible enemies. I do not think that anybody yet realises the enormous possibilities of these aeroplanes. They would

    1683
    be absolutely invisible until within two or three minutes of the vessel to be attacked, whereas a destroyer is visible 10 or 12 minutes away. Then by means of an aeroplane letting out a smokescreen the unfortunate battleship can be surrounded, all the while knowing that there may be four or five or even ten of these hideous wasps about to attack it, travelling at a rate of 140 miles per hour, very difficult to hit even if they can be seen, and practically impossible to hit when they cannot be seen. After having discharged one of these great torpedoes, it can escape being hit by twisting and turning. No battleship could possibly cope with them under such circumstances.
    That is as far as we have gone at the present, time, but I see no reason to doubt that within another ten years we shall have aeroplanes carrying torpedoes weighing 3,000 lbs. Engines are being made to-day capable of lifting a torpedo-carrying aeroplane of that size. There is indeed very little limit in the possibilities of attacks by torpedo-carrying aeroplanes on battleships of the line. I realise, of course, that our Navy will make efforts, as in the past, to counteract all that. But just note for a moment the difference between the money we spend to-day on 100 destroyers and that which would have to be spent on these aeroplanes. There were, I believe, about 100 destroyers at the Battle of Jutland. A destroyer costs £350,000. A torpedo-carrying machine costs from £5,000 to £7,000, and one could have almost as many torpedo-carrying aeroplanes as he liked. In lieu of the 100 destroyers we had at Jutland we might have had several thousand torpedo-carrying aeroplanes. What would have been the fate of the German Fleet when trying to get away from Jutland if instead of being followed and attacked by our destroyers they had been attacked by 6,000 or 7,000 torpedo-carrying aeroplanes? Assume, even for a moment, that one-half of the aeroplanes were shot down. I venture to say that the remaining aeroplanes, flying at the rate of 140 miles an hour would have made short work of the German Fleet.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: It would be necessary to have vessels to carry the aeroplanes.
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Of course there would have to be ships to carry the aeroplanes, but we know there are magni-
    1684
    ficent vessels in His Majesty's Navy, with great level decks from which aeroplanes could get off and to which they could return, and it is quite possible that there will be ships in the future capable of carrying from 50 to 100 of these aeroplanes. Pictures have been published showing the enormous decks from which these aeroplanes will go off. But I might give an illustration showing how these torpedo-carrying aeroplanes could be used without any necessity for having carrying-ships. We had several raids on the East Coast by ships of the German Navy during the War. We know that many of these raiders got away practically unharmed after having bombarded women and children in our coast towns. It would be possible to give these ships a two and a half hours' start and then send a squadron or two of these swift flying torpedo-carrying aeroplanes which could overtake them in an hour and a half. The distance would be well within their radius, and having discharged their torpedoes, they could get safely back again. All this would be well within their limits of petrol supply.
    I was proposing to speak further on the naval side of this subject, but the right hon Gentleman has said that that is under consideration. I rather missed from his speech any reference to what is being done in the Air Service with regard to research. I think I am right in saying that practically every pre-Armistice machine is now obsolete, or if it is not so to-day it certainly will be by the end of this year. That at any rate is the view of most of our experts, and it is distinctly the view of the American Air Service. There is a tremendous improvement going on. In America, engines are being made much more powerful, and I should like to tell the House of a machine which is being built in that country, and 10 of which the American Government has given orders for. We have heard nothing of the orders which are being given by our Government here. The machine to which I am referring is a new armoured three-seater triplane, carrying two 12-cylinder engines, eight machine guns, and one cannon, and the crew and engines are protected by armour. It is infinitely more powerful than any machine used on either side during the War. The American Government, I say, have ordered 10 of them in order to try them I should like to know what we are doing,

    1685
    and if our Department are making any experiments either in building now machines itself or giving orders to those unfortunate manufacturers of whom we have heard so much of late. During the War I prophesied that before very long flying would take place at 200 miles an hour. Since the Armistice Lecomtè recently flew in France at a rate of 190 miles per hour and recently an officer of the American Navy flew a distance of 135 miles at the rate of 178 miles an hour, and at several times during the voyage he touched 220 miles per hour. I mention this in order to show that vast as were the improvements made during the five years of war, aeroplane effort has not stopped, and machines still more powerful are being rapidly built at the present time.
    I want to say a few words on the civil side of aviation. My right hon. Friend, in his speech, seemed rather doubtful as to the future of civil aviation in this country, but if he really is doubtful, why should he keep this great organisation going? Here we have, an Estimate for salaries of £178,000, £59,000 for stores and transport, £120,000 for technical equipment, £356,000 for building and lands, and £37,000 for petrol. Bearing in mind all these items, I cannot think civil aviation is in such danger as one might imagine. With regard to the petrol item, I confess I cannot understand the enormous expenditure on that account. I do not think the Department does very much flying. Still, the Estimate does show that much is being done on the civil side of aviation. We have a great Port at Croydon on which £2,150 is to be spent this year. Then there are stations at Kidbrooke, Lympne, and Pulham. There are also the Meteorological Offices and services, and if hon. Members will look at the Appendix they will see that there are about twenty different establishments which are kept up as meteorological stations in Great Britain. If my right hon. Friend is doubtful as to the future of civil aviation, why is he proposing to spend all this money on building hangars, buying petrol, and establishing meteorological stations, unless he intends to make civil aviation a possibility? My right hon. Friend the Member for Ilkeston (Major-General Seely) suggested that it was practically dead. We have, however, got a big organisation, a Controller, and a headquarters' staff. There were four
    1686
    aviation companies operating across the English Channel in October last year; two are in liquidation. One of the others ceased operations last week, and another one ceased operations yesterday. It is quite true that things are in a bad state at the present time. You cannot expect a baby to run unless you give it some help.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: This baby has got to fly.
    6.0 P.M.
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I am sure my right hon. Friend is really a believer in the possibilities of civil aviation, and I suggest that a little help from the Government is very desirable. Air routes must be made. You cannot fly from here to Cairo or from Cairo to Mesopotamia unless the route has, so to speak, been blazed out, aerodromes provided and supplies of petrol laid down. There are 20,000 miles of air route being projected this year. Someone is going to carry out the work. Yesterday we had under our control 100 miles of air route from London to Boulogne. France is giving a subsidy to different companies which enables them to carry passengers from Paris to London for five guineas and to take goods at from 1s. down to 7½d. per lb. Services are being started to Brussels, Antwerp, and to Scandinavian towns. There are routes being laid out to Strasburg, Nuremburg and Prague, and before the end of this year there will be a route to Belgrade, Bucharest and Constantinople. France-has also obtained a monopoly in Roumania and Hungary. There were possibilities there for our own manufacturers to have entered into arrangements with the Governments of those countries and to take-over the civil aviation of both of them. The House knows that they are a vital link on the route to Constantinople. That has fallen through as far as we are concerned. An hon. Member asked just now what Germany was doing in civil aviation. Two years ago an International Air Traffic Association was. formed at the Hague, and the chair was taken by General Sir Sefton Brancker, one of our foremost flying officers. Last month that Association met at Berlin, and the chair was taken by a German. The English companies are out of it altogether. Norway, Sweden, Denmark and Holland were willing to come in with Great Britain, to link up their civil aviation with ours, and to take their machines

    1687
    from our manufacturers. The whole of that is lost and gone, and before very long—probably this year—Herr Fokker, whose machines we used to know something about during the War, and who has since devoted his genius to the commercial side, will be running a line from Amsterdam to London, and, in all probability, on to Liverpool. The first thought that comes to one's mind is that we will not allow him to do it, but I am afraid we must. Situated, as we are, on an island, it is essential to us that we should retain the freedom of the air over foreign countries. It is no use our saying to any foreign country, "You may not run a service over England," because the natural reply would be, "Very well, you keep to your own island; you shall not run an English service across our country." It is vital to our future in the air that we should retain by agreement with foreign countries the right of running air services across them.
    It is humiliating to find that there is more than a possibility—a very great probability—of a German air service running across England in this way, while we here in England have no commercial air service at all. Mr. Handley Page and Mr. Holt Thomas have, as we know, done their best to keep going. I am told that a few months ago a new commercial machine was evolved, the D.H. 18, but my right hon. Friend has not given an order for one. During the War we said over and over again that the essential of an Air Service is that you should keep your factories in existence. You cannot institute factories by the wave of a magician's wand. You cannot get back the designers and staff necessary for making aeroplanes or air engines. You must keep your factories going. Ours have almost disappeared. Mr. Holt Thomas's is practically gone. Shorts, who made naval machines, are now making omnibuses, and have practically stopped doing air work. Sopwiths were broken up some few months ago, and eight of their best men, including the chief designer and the assistant works manager, have been taken over by Japan. They have gone there, and are working for the Japanese Government, which, I may say, is spending far more money on aviation than we are.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Military or civil?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Military, probably, but I believe both. I do not wish it to be assumed for a moment that I say that the civil side is the more important. I strongly agree with my right hon. Friend that, while civil aviation is of importance, military aviation is of vital importance. The House knows that I am, and have been for eight years, the strongest believer in it, and the War proved the correctness of many of the forecasts which some of us made in 1913 and 1914. I am as strongly convinced as ever that the future success of any country in war will be in the air. Whether the success will be Great Britain's will depend entirely upon how the leaders of thought in the Cabinet deal with this matter. I plead for civil aviation, not merely because I think it would be fatal to have no civil aviation lines while other countries have them, but because it will provide a reserve in personnel and on the factory side of aviation for our military aviation when we want to increase it. It cannot be increased on an emergency unless there are the factories and the reserves of men. If we had ample civilian air services, the pilots would provide an ample reserve for military aviation, and could be called upon in a time of sudden emergency to fill up the ranks of the military air service. If, however, you have no civilian air service to-day, if your men are going to Japan and your factories are shut up, how are you going to expand?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Money.
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I know it is money, money. My right hon. Friend is a little too frightened of the "Times." It never struck me before that he was either unduly modest or unduly frightened, and I should have thought that he would be able to stand up for the service in which he believes, and ask, if necessary, for a somewhat larger allocation of money. I really do not think, however, that any more money is necessary. We are spending £1,000,000 on civil aviation, and £880,000 of that is being spent on organisation, staff, meteorology, and so forth. What is the good of it unless you have some air routes? I am bound to confess that I stand here quite frankly in a white sheet. I have been against subsidies. I have spoken against subsidies. I have felt that the idea of subsidies is foreign to the whole trend of British opinion. In the

    1689
    past we have managed without them, but I have been forced, such is the position of the Air Service, to change my views, and say quite frankly that I cannot see how, for the next year or two, we are to have a commercial air service without some subsidy. My right hon. Friend has told us that he is going to appoint a Committee. I hope that that Committee will get to work at once, and will be a strong Committee, in which the manufacturing and the travelling side of the Air Service will have confidence; and I hope that, even while he is in Egypt, he will project his great mind into that Committee, and tell them that it is essential to get on quickly. If he does not do that, he will find that the civil side has gone from bad to worse, and, if we once let it go altogether, it will be a bad day for military and naval aviation.
    Rear-Admiral ADAIR: I should like heartily to congratulate the Secretary of State for Air on his admirable statement, with which I almost entirely agree. He referred to the complexity of the functions of the Air Force, and I thought that, in detailing them, he made an admirable case for a separate Naval Air Force. I have always been in favour of such a separate Naval force, and I regret that it ceased to exist after having been so ably started. That, however, has come about, and I am not speaking now with any intention of, to use the right hon. Gentleman's phrase, sweeping down upon and breaking up this delicate organisation. I agree that we must do nothing to break it up at the present moment. Sir Hugh Trenchard, however, in his memorandum of last year, referred to the Naval wing as having almost a separate constitution. I foresee that the Naval wing will gradually become separate from the other, and will eventually drop off and go back to the Navy. In the meantime, until that position has developed, I am by no means for breaking up the force as it stands to-day. After all, there are only three squadrons at present attached to the Navy. That is a very small item, and probably would not be a severe loss to the Air Force as a whole, but until the control and development of the Naval Air Force is in the hands of the Admiralty there will be no true development in that force. I associate myself with what
    1690
    was said by the hon. Baronet (Sir W. Joynson-Hicks) as to the lack of development and experiment in connection with the Naval Air Force. I believe that if it had been dealt with by the Admiralty its development would have been greater. I understood from the right hon. Gentleman that the Navy has given up the airship. I regret that very much, because I am a great believer in the airship for all sorts of purposes in connection with the Naval Air Force. For example, an airship that can cross the Atlantic in conjunction with a convoy would afford the most useful means of detecting submarines. An airship can hover over its object and practically do as it likes with it. I am not, however, going to find fault with the decision of the Admiralty, although I regret it. The hon. Baronet referred to the value of the aeroplane carrying a torpedo. I presume that he meant an automobile torpedo, or was it a bomb?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I meant an ordinary torpedo.
    Rear-Admiral ADAIR: I agree. I was associated with a party who put forward that idea eight years ago at least. The hon. Baronet was, however, corrected by the hon. and gallant Member behind him (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy). He referred to the possibility of some thousands of aeroplanes dealing with the German battleships in the battle of Jutland, instead of a few destroyers. Those craft have got to start from somewhere, and, if they are carried in ships, how many ships would it take to carry them, and are not all of those ships susceptible to attack, with the destruction of everything in them, just as much as any other vessels? Furthermore, it must be remembered that in the future we shall not be dealing with short distances, such as that from here to Jutland. We shall be in the Pacific, with distances of thousands instead of hundreds of miles. The circumstances, therefore, will be very different, and the hon. Baronet's idea of one carrier in the middle of the Atlantic achieving the most extraordinary results was very far-fetched. That one carrier would have been an easy victim of any light cruiser with a speed of 35 or 40 knots.
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I hope my hon. and gallant Friend will forgive me

    1691
    for interrupting him, but I proposed a carrier in the Atlantic for the purpose of stopping contraband traffic to Germany, and at that time, of course, there was no German fleet in the Atlantic at all. My suggestion was that an aeroplane carrier with a sufficient number of aeroplanes would have been a far cheaper means of stopping boats carrying contraband of war.
    Rear-Admiral ADAIR: I did not quite grasp that from the letter which the hon. Baronet wrote. The point I wish to make is that the carrier is as susceptible as any other vessel to attack, with destruction of everything in it. I trust that sooner or later—not immediately, by any means—the Naval wing will drop off and become a Naval Service pure and simple under the direction of the Admiralty, who, I am sure, will develop it much more rapidly and effectively than it is being developed at the present moment.
    Lieut.-Colonel BURGOYNE: The right hon. Gentleman referred to the fact that this is a young service, and that we must not anticipate that everything connected with it will progress at the same speed as in the Army and in the Navy. Last year, in the course of his speech on the Air Estimates, he referred to the possibility of utilising aircraft where at present we have to use the forces of the Army and Navy, and it seems to me now that we should ask him to tell us what has been the result of his efforts in that direction. This is what he said on 25th February, 1920:
    "I have directed the Chief of the Air Staff to submit an alternative scheme for the control of Mesopotamia, the Air Force being the principal force or agency of control, while the Military and Naval forces on the ground and river would be an ancillary power. Up to the present, the general staff have not been able to offer any solution of the problem of Mesopotamia except by the employment of a military garrison, the cost of which will crush the country. I propose to invite as it were competitive tenders from the Air Staff."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd February, 1920, col. 1354, Vol. 125.]
    That is one of the points on which I think this House has every right to have information from the right hon. Gentleman. The other point I desire to make is to suggest that he has not given us all the information he might as to the dual capacity in which at present he is working. First we have the right hon. Gentle-
    1692
    man as Secretary of State for War and Secretary of the Air Ministry. Now we have him as Colonial Secretary and Secretary of the Air Ministry. He is rapidly becoming what Rudyard Kipling would call a Ministerial "harumfrodite." I do not know how far this thing has got to go. I quite anticipate that in the next Academy we shall see a picture of him with a wideawake Colonial hat, smoking a corn-cob pipe and leaning against an aeroplane, entitled "Portrait of an officer by himself." We cannot anticipate that if he changes from his present post and goes to another he can still take the Air Service with him, but all we have had from him is the suggestion that if it is intended to take the control of the Air Service away from him he will not object. I do not think we can read it in any other way than that. Surely he knows perfectly well whether or not he is going to retain control of the Air Service in the future, and it is fair on this occasion that we should ask before he goes away, when he is leaving the Patronage Secretary to reply, that he should tell us precisely how he stands in that regard.
    Mr. MOSLEY: I rise to join my right hon. Friend (Major-General Seely) in deploring some, but by no means all the effects of the right hon. Gentleman's administration. But I cannot altogether accept his diagnosis of the case. The right hon. Gentleman ascribed the present condition of the Air Service to the fact that the right hon. Gentleman was undertaking two tasks at once, and possibly that was detrimental to the success of his work. But I cannot help feeling that an even more fundamental cause lies at the bottom of these troubles. I fear that even before that interesting volume, which I understand is to be entitled "My Part in the Last War," has seen the light of publication the right hon. Gentleman is completely obsessed with the preparation of his task in the next. I am sure that will be an equally magnificent task, but I entreat him, as far as civil aviation is concerned, to set aside these anticipations of the future for a very brief space and devote a little of his great energy to furthering the cause of civil aviation and research. I should like to call the right hon. Gentleman's attention to his previous remarks on the question of undertaking the dual functions of the

    1693
    War Office and the Air Service. In those days the right hon. Gentleman argued that it was entirely essential that the War Office and the Air Service should be under the control of the same chief. This matter was raised on the Estimates last year, and the right hon. Gentleman then explained that the public interest demanded the smooth working of the two Services and the building up of an independent Air Service working harmoniously with the Army and the Navy. He went on to say:
    "It the control of the two services is kept under one Minister at the present time, and in the near future, that can, I believe, be done, and it is being done at the present time, and in my judgment it is the only way it can or will be done."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th March, 1920, col. 1623, Vol. 126.]
    If the union of the War Office and the Air Ministry under the same chief is the only way of preserving the harmonious working of those two Departments, why are the War Office and the Air Ministry now separated and the Air Ministry and the Colonial Office linked up? The right hon. Gentleman described, in his customary vivid manner, the working of the Air Ministry. He took the analogy of the human body and compared its organs with the component parts of the Air Ministry. The only part I can see for the Colonial Office in that happy scheme of things is that which is occupied by the organ known as the appendix in the human body. It is inconceivable that there is any connection at all between the Colonial Office and the Air Ministry. I will not; stress the point, because I believe the right hon. Gentleman can fulfil a two-man job as well as most people can fulfil a one-man job when his great energy and extraordinary ability are employed in the right direction. But in this case, in my opinion, they are not altogether utilised in a direction beneficial to the Air Service.
    The question I desire to dispute in these Estimates lies in the realm of civil aviation and research. No one has touched upon research. In fact, the right hon. Gentleman himself did not mention at all the most vital topic of all, the topic of aerial research. The outlook of the right hon. Gentleman in these matters is reflected very vividly by the headings of this year's Estimates. We find that over' and above the amount spent last
    1694
    year there is an increase of £336,320 in the amount devoted to civil aviation and research, while on the military and mechanical side there is an increase of £1,615,450. I only wish some of the increase in the military expenditure could have been devoted to the more vital side of civil aviation. That desire is enhanced when one studies the figures prevailing in France in this connection. France this year is allowing £3,400,000 to civil aviation at, the present exchange—on the normal exchange, of course, about £7,000,000. £600,000 is devoted to aerial transport. In this country the whole amount devoted to civil aviation is £880,000, while to aerial transport you are allocating the piteous sum of £60,000, with the result that now all the private companies in this country have been forced to close down.
    But even more serious than that is the fact that, compared with our great expenditure on the immediate military-demands of the moment, we have allocated a very small sum indeed to experimental and research services. Under research we find only £1,835,000. That really is the crux of the whole situation. We have formed five new squadrons. We have now 32 squadrons in all to meet the immediate military situation. But to pay for those squadrons—the immediate outlay of the moment to meet troubles which we encounter through causes which are beyond our control all over the world—we are sacrificing the aerial development of the future and very possibly, looking at it from the right hon. Gentleman's own standpoint, the safety of our fighting services in the future. After all, aerial matters are in their infancy. Types change from day to day. Far more swift than changes in the construction of battleships are changes in the construction of aeroplanes. Types become obsolete far more quickly. In my own very brief connection with the Air Service, I should think at least six types became quite obsolete and new improvements and new designs rendered them quite useless. So in the light of these considerations, the ever-changing character of aerial discovery and aerial development, what is the use of expending our money on the immediate situation and starving research, which at any moment may throw out a new type which will not only render all existing

    1695
    aeroplanes entirely obsolete, but may revolutionise naval and military warfare? At any moment aerial experts, I believe, hold that we may, by diligent research, alight upon some discovery which will render the capital ship even more vulnerable to aerial attack than it is at present, and which may indeed occasion the waste of millions of money if we were so ill advised at this early stage of affairs as to embark upon a great programme of expenditure on capital ships. Surely it cannot be impressed too strongly that this side of research, in the case of a science which is in its infancy, is everything. Compared with that nothing matters to anything like the same degree. I deplore most strongly not only the right hon. Gentleman's utter failure to keep going civil aviation, on which in former days he informed us he intended to base the whole aerial power of the country, but the entire failure to allocate a proper sum or make proper provision for aerial research. Last year he appropriated practically the whole sum which was destined for research work and devoted it to the creation of these five new squadrons, for the maintenance of which we are paying this year. This year we find again a sum which I should imagine was totally inadequate to the claims of aerial research and all this because through a mistaken policy we are obliged to maintain military establishments totally beyond our means. I beg the right hon. Gentleman to turn his attention for a moment from the prospects of the next war to the immediate prospects of developing civil aviation and a research department by the aid of which in the future we might very possibly retain an aerial supremacy commensurate with that which we have maintained in the past.
    Mr. BARTLEY DENNISS: I listened with the greatest possible interest to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, which was a most brilliant, oratorical and literary effort, describing the perfection to which he has brought that delicate and elaborate machine, the fighting Air Force, during the last eighteen months. He begged, and that was the burden of his beautiful song, that nobody should come and thrust a poker into the delicate machinery and upset it just at the time when it promises to be the nucleus of what some day will
    1696
    become, perhaps, the supreme Air Force of the world. He began and finished on the same note, "Please do not scrap or injure the Air Force. It is mine. It is my own creation as it is to-day. I believe that it is as near perfection as the Treasury would permit me to bring it, and uninformed criticism, added to that which has already been made in the Press, might be very injurious to its future." Nobody who heard the speech would for a moment dream of doing anything that the right hon. Gentleman deprecates in that direction. Anybody who has the safety and the welfare of this country at heart must support an Air Force which we hope will be superior to that of any of the great countries of the world. I am sure that no well-wisher of this country would hesitate to vote any sum that was necessary for the purpose of achieving that most essential object.
    When the right hon. Gentleman came to the civil side of aviation, he did not tell us what had been done during the last eighteen months for commercial flying. I believe that nothing has been done, and I should like the right hon. Gentleman to tell us in a few sentences what has been done. Certainly, nothing has been done to help the commercial companies, which last year started under very favourable auspices and actually made profits in the first months of flying between London and Paris. The right hon. Gentleman says that he is for the first time, in 1921–2, about to devote one-tenth of the amount that the French are devoting to their commercial air service in subsidies for flying companies. It has come too late. Those companies have all stopped business, and it is extremely doubtful whether, even if they wished, they could ever get to work again, because France is now flying a sufficient number of airplanes to take all the possible traffic between this country and Paris at a price with which the previous air companies could not compete, even with the £60,000 subsidy. How are they going to start again in face of this competition? I hope the right hon. Gentleman when he goes to Egypt will make some arrangement by which, if anything can be done for them, it will be done whilst he is away, and that this arrangement will be absolutely effectual, because that there, all that he can do for flying, I suppose, is to mention the fact to those delegates from the

    1697
    Dominions and the various parts of the Empire who will meet him in Egypt for other purposes. The right hon. Gentleman says he will make arrangements. I should like to know if he would toll the House what the arrangements are likely to be, and whether the committee which he proposes to set up will have power to act. If ever the companies are to commence successful flying this year between London and Paris, Easter is the time when they ought to begin, because then the holiday season is on and people will be wanting to go to Paris. That is the time when the right hon. Gentleman will be away in Egypt.
    I have been speaking more particularly of the London and Paris route. What about the great routes which connect the various portions of the Empire. Out-side the defence of this country, that is the finest and best object that civil aviation could have. I know that the right hon. Gentleman thinks a great deal of a route from Egypt, and I agree with the hon. Member for Twickenham (Sir W. Joynson-Hicks) that that is the centre of the flying world, not only of this country, but of the whole world. There is a route which the right hon. Gentleman could well start from Egypt to Karachi in India. Will the right hon. Gentleman when he is in Egypt try to lay the foundation of that route, and see if it can be put into force immediately? If the only objection is that there is not sufficient money, will he have the courage to come to the House and say so, and in a Supplementary Estimate include what he should have included now as provision for such a route. I understand—I got it on very good authority—that such a route would shorten the voyage from Australia to this country by a month.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Ten days.
    Mr. DENNISS: Well, ten days is something. The passengers would come from Australia to Ceylon, take the railway from Ceylon to Karachi, fly to Egypt, and then come by boat and train in the usual way. Surely in the favourable atmosphere of an eastern clime it would be quite simple to have a route from Karachi to Ceylon, and save another week or so in the route from, the underworld to this country. I hope the right hon. Gentleman in Egypt will try to lay the foundation for an air service between Egypt and Karachi as an experiment. The importance of the Air Force to this
    1698
    country is so great that I am astonished, and always have been, at the apathy with which it has been regarded in this-country. If it had not been for the "Times" newspaper, I do not think there would have been any mention of it. Lately that newspaper, in spite of the animadversions of various Cabinet Ministers, including the right hon. Gentleman, has really performed a great national service to the country. Before the War we had practically no aeroplanes. I went to the War Office in 1914, where I saw a very fierce major with an eyeglass. He was one of those gentlemen who were called dugouts, and he had something to do with the Transport Department. I spoke to him with regard to Bosch magnetos, which were very much required in those days. I told him it was very important to have them made and how they could be made. He said he did not want any more; he had quite enough. I said that the present Minister for Air had stated that he wanted to have 1,000 aeroplanes immediately to go and bomb Berlin. That was in 1914. I very much wish that the right hon. Gentleman had been Minister for Air then. In that event we should have done a great deal better than we did in the War. We certainly did marvels, chiefly owing to the magnificent way in which the youth of this country displayed qualities that were scarcely to be expected in the circumstances.
    We were never supreme in the air. We were superior, but not supreme in the air. If we had had the right hon. Gentleman earlier in the War at the head of the Air Department, if there had been such a Department created, I believe we should, by the end of the War, have been supreme in the air. I believe that, because I am sure that my right hon. Friend who, in 1914, conceived the idea of sending 1,000 aeroplanes to Berlin, which idea the Cabinet did not realise until 1918, and they were prevented from carrying it out by the Armistice, would have had the right spirit for an Air Minister, and would have succeeded in making the Air Force very much more powerful than it was during the War. What is the present constitution of the Air Force? It is the very minimum that can possibly be provided, and simply on account of the present craze for economy. Economy is vital. Let us have economy by all means, but economy at the expense of national safety is a crime, or very near it. We

    1699
    have an irreducible minimum Air Force at the present time. It is totally inadequate for war.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Hear, hear!
    Mr. DENNISS: The right hon. Gentleman agrees, and I am glad to hear him say so. At the present time the whole of this country, leaving out Ireland, which has three squadrons, has only three or four squadrons to defend it. The rest of the squadrons are scattered all over the world. It is, therefore, the very minimum force that it is possible for us to have. Now I come to the real point of my speech, and that is, What would happen if we were plunged into another war in the next few years? How would the right hon. Gentleman expand the Air Force? From what quarter would he draw his reserves? Can he answer that question? I shall be very much surprised if he can, unless he answers it in this way: that he would look to the creation of a large and successful mercantile air fleet in the same way that the Navy looked upon our immense mercantile marine, which comprised more than one-half of the total tonnage of the world, as the source from which to draw good men. Without them where should we get our reserve of pilots, our mechanics, our designers, our factories ready to produce the large amount of aeroplanes that would be required?
    The right hon. Gentleman says in connection with the Air Force that there are no fewer than 54 industries to be studied and practised and employed, and the amount of scientific knowledge that has to be brought to bear he describes as being very great. Every argument that he put forward with regard to the fighting force applies equally to the commercial air force. Those 54 industries will be all required for the commercial air force, and in those industries you will have the means in time of war, which may be sooner than the right hon. Gentleman or the country expects, of expanding the Air Force, and in that you will have a large, reserve. At present we, have got an army which is more or less one of boys. The right hon. Gentleman was responsible for it until recently. He has done his very best, and I do not believe that anyone could have done better, but after all it is an army of boys insufficient in number. It has no reserve
    1700
    any more than the Air Force. As to the Navy we have not yet made up our minds whether capital ships are or are not required. We have not got capital ships. The others are getting obsolete. The United States are building 18 warships at a cost three or four times as great as each of our warships. They may be building on wrong or on right designs, but in the war in 1812 we were beaten by America with frigates, and America may become the great naval power in the future. The right hon. Gentleman may remember what appeared the other day in the "Times." [Laughter.] My hon. and gallant Friend may laugh at the "Times," but it is the finest—
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I was laughing at the allusion to the right hon. Gentleman and the "Times."
    Mr. DENNISS: The news service in the "Times" is the most reliable of any paper. It was stated in the "Times" that the "Chicago Tribune" the other day said that those battleships which America is building, the Navy which she is building—
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member had better get back into the air.
    Mr. DENNISS: I bow to your ruling, Sir. I quite agree that I was going a little wide of the subject, but it is in a sense germane. I apologise if I have gone too far, but I will certainly get back into the air again. I wish that we could have a commercial air fleet which would provide a proper reserve for the defence of the country. Let us have if necessary a Supplementary Estimate for the purpose which I have mentioned. I say this because the Air Force is the most economical force which we can have. The right hon. Gentleman has admitted that it saves an enormous number of troops in the field, particularly in countries like Mesopotamia and India. So we might very well commend it to the country on the ground of economy. We want rapid communication between the different parts of the Empire, which might be of the greatest possible value in the future to the Empire and to this country. For that purpose it is unwise to find the right hon. Gentleman taking up a small Estimate of this kind for the commercial side of the Air Service. I hope that he will consider the whole matter, and take

    1701
    care that in future Estimates or in some Supplementary Estimate the importance of commercial air flying is not disregarded by him or by the Cabinet.
    Sir D. MACLEAN: I listened to my right hon. Friend with the admiration which one always conceives for an address which, as I understood it, is a farewell ceremony, and it was couched in language which I thought entirely suitable to that, preparing the way for his successor, suggesting to the House that the work which had been done was work which was soundly founded, and if let alone, with no rude breath of criticism, would bear rich fruit very soon, and would have larger fruition in the seasons yet to come. But the speech filled me with deepest alarm, because it indicated quite definitely the hope, for at any rate sometime to come— the length of the life of this Government, be it short or long—he was still to preside over the destinies of the Air Service. I find some confirmation of that, because on page 27 the salary is set down at £2,500, and the Note says, "Also Secretary of State for the Colonies."
    Mr. CHURCHILL: And you save £5,000 a year.
    Sir D. MACLEAN: I would be glad if my right hon. Friend was about to get £7,500 a year. He is worth whatever he gets. I concede that with the greatest possible pleasure. But the whole burden of his speech was, "Here is this Ministry in its early stages, and so important is this present stage that an unjust and too hostile criticism may destroy this tender growth which requires the greatest possible care from those who are in charge of it," My right hon. Friend (Major-General Seely) said that when he was at the War Office the right hon. Gentleman managed to give about an hour a week to this.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: That is quite untrue.
    Sir D. MACLEAN: We will say that he gave up half an hour a day.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I did not contradict my right hon. and gallant Friend (Major-General Seely) on that point, but that does not at all represent the exertions which I made. I was very much surprised that my right hon. Friend made a statement of the kind. It is obviously one that
    1702
    could only be based on personal experience of his own.
    Sir D. MACLEAN: Whatever it was I know that the duties of Secretary of State for War demand the whole energies of the Minister in charge, and whatever the abilities of my right hon. Friend—and they are great—even he is not able to do justice to both these Departments. He is Secretary of State for the Colonies, and, for sometime to come at least, he i3 to remain the Minister for Air. Clearly the Ministry for Air requires the whole energies of some Minister specially set apart to look after it. He will have a special salary, and the House is entitled to demand that that man when appointed shall give the whole of his time in that special effort. This House is particularly concerned in that, as the Under-Secretary for State is in the other House. What about the Secretary of State for the Colonies? There has not been a more important year for the Secretary of State for the Colonies than the year on which we have now entered. In the course of a few weeks we shall have here the representatives of the Dominions beyond the seas and they will be here for the best part of two months and will be discussing the most important questions affecting, not only the civil side, but the military side of the British Empire
    7.0 P.M.
    When it last met the chairman of that committee was the Secretary of State for the Colonies, and I remember what trouble he took, and the immense expenditure of time which he gave to it. This same attention must be given this year to that overmastering duty. My right hon. Friend will be the chairman not only in the immediate sessions, but he will have to look after the preparations for it which must be very important, requiring immediate and close attention. In addition he is going to take over from the Foreign Office a new department for the Near East. That requires organisation, thought, and the whole of the work which is necessary to create such a department. In addition to doing all these things, to-morrow the right hon. Gentleman proposes to go to Egypt and this House is to be left to go through all these Estimates, which are in hands today comprising six or seven Departments, complex, important, varied, requiring not the casual attention of some

    1703
    Minister who is brought in to answer questions and say he cannot go any further, because his right hon. Friend the Minister is not available, but requires somebody who understands the business thoroughly. I am very much mistaken if this House will not insist, when these Estimates come before it, after you have left the Chair, on the Minister being here, or these Estimates being postponed until he is here. I shall move to report progress the very instant we get into Committee on these Estimates unless the Minister responsible is here to answer for them. As far as I am concerned I will use every Parliamentary opportuntiy open to me, subject to the control of the Chair, to prevent these Estimates being dealt with by my right hon. Friend the Patronage Secretary, though with no disrespect to him, as he well knows, but for the reason that he cannot know anything about them. I do not know of any greater affront dealt to this House since this Parliament began. Is there no warning in Friday last? This House is at last beginning to have some touch of self-respect about it, and quite time too. Here is an example of what they think of you, my fellow Members of the House of Commons. You have the Minister for this Department proposing to go to Egypt to-morrow, and to fling these Estimates into the hands, willing and able as they are, of my right hon. Friend one of the Patronage Secretaries of the Treasury. Is the House of Commons going to stand that? Is there no limit to its patience and docile apathy? The proceedings in the days of Charles, when the King treated Parliament with contempt, are fully equalled by the manner in which the present Executive propose to treat this House on these Estimates. I speak strongly on the matter because, as a House of Commons man, I feel strongly. These Estimates amount to nearly £20,000,000. They involve matters of high policy in respect of the relation of civil aviation to military aviation, a matter of really vital importance, but they are going to be disposed of by a quarter past eight, as far as anybody who can tell us anything about them is concerned. I will say no more about that, but if this House of Commons submits to it it will submit to one of the greatest affronts which have been placed upon it for the past 25 years.
    Mr. E. HARMSWORTH: As far as the dual position of the right hon. Gentleman in the Colonial Office and the Air Office is concerned I think we have something to thank ourselves for. If he had not his interests in the Colonial Office to occupy him, we might find ourselves saddled with far greater Estimates than we have to-day. As regards the right hon. Gentleman not being present in Committee, I should like to add my protest to what we have just heard. Surely it is essential to the House of Commons to have the person responsible for the Estimates present, so that we can ask him questions and gather information concerning various items. I listened with some surprise to a speech by an hon. Member opposite who said we should have to prepare for another war which might come upon us in a few years. It must be obvious to the House that if we are to have another war in three or four years and we do not husband our financial resources, we shall not have the money for that war. If we had spent in 1914 as we are spending now I very much doubt whether we should have won the late War. The late War was won by the silver bullet—behind the scenes—as much as by the fighting forces in France, and it is essential for this country to husband its financial resources for any similar occasion. As regards these Estimates, the point I should like to criticise is the fact that they are bigger than last year's. I have listened to a great number of speeches this evening, and every Member has advocated more expenditure, in either one way or the other. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no!"] Oh, yes. I am myself in the happy position of having never advocated any expenditure whatever in any speech in the House, and I hope I never shall. We have quite enough as it is at present without private Members advocating expenditure. This year we are asked to vote on these Estimates a net total, excluding War liability, of £16,940,000. Last year it was £14,998,230. So we are asked to vote an increase of almost £2,000,000. I know it is a new service, and I am just as keen on the Air Force, and on its being made a great arm of defence, as other hon. Members, but at this time, when our finances are in the state they are, I strongly deprecate spending more on the Air Force this year than we spent last year—on the actual running of the Air Force.

    1705
    In the explanatory statement issued with these Estimates the right hon. Gentleman said the most stringent scrutiny had been applied to them. By whom was the scrutiny applied—by the Treasury or by the heads of his own Department? Looking through the Estimates, I do not think the scrutiny has been very successful. In my view, the whole point is that the Air Force is costing the country practically two-thirds of the total expenditure on the Army and Navy before the War. I quite appreciate the argument that the Air Force will take the place, or might take the place, of some portion of the other arms, the Army and the Navy, but I cannot see that the increased expenditure on the Air Force this year brings any decrease in the expenditure on the Army and Navy. If the right hon. Gentleman could say, "We will spend more on the Air Estimates this year, but I will show you that, by having a better arm in the air, we can economise on the Army and Navy," I could understand the argument; but it appears to me that we are to pay a larger bill for the air without either the Army or the Navy bills becoming any smaller. An argument has been used that defence by air is cheaper than by the Army or the Navy, but I have not seen any proofs advanced that that is the fact, and I doubt it in view of the heavy cost of running aeroplanes at present. I should like to put in my protest against this increase in expenditure, because I have not heard tonight any argument sufficient to warrant the spending of so startlingly large a fraction of pre-war defensive expenditure.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I do not want to stand between the right hon. Gentleman and the House for very long, but I have one or two comments to make, and I should like him to hear them, as he will be away to-morrow. First of all, it is no good the last hon. Gentleman complaining about this expenditure. As an hon. Gentleman opposite said, with our present policy it is probably too small. We have only about four squadrons in this country, and they are insufficient for the defence of it. If we were suddenly involved in a European war, the squadrons in Ireland would have to be recalled, and if our present policy of being a benefactor all over the world, and trying to expand our Empire in every direction, is to be carried out, I think we have not a sufficient Air Force, and that the present
    1706
    expenditure is all too little. If in the future you are going to rely on force and trickery instead of reason and negotiation which the Minister for Air jeers at so eloquently, you have got to pay the price, and you have got to pay pretty dearly to-day, on account of the tremendous advance in scientific invention and its application to war, especially to war in the air. I agree with the Minister for Air that we shall get alarums about aerial navies preparing in Germany or Russia or other countries which he has taken jolly good care will be at enmity with us in the next generation. We will get these alarums, and we shall have to prepare to meet them, and to spend very large sums, until the peoples of the world learn a little sanity and get rid of their false leaders. The right hon. Gentleman jeered at us who think we can order the affairs of the world by reason and negotiation; in other words, he jeered at the whole idea of the League of Nations, and not for the first time, by saying, "Think of the amount of good feeling left by the last great War." There is a great deal of ill feeling, and the right hon. Gentleman has taken very good care that there shall be plenty of ill feeling, for if there is one individual who has had more to do with rousing ill feeling, hatred, and distrust of this nation it is he, with his ridiculous speeches and his still more ridiculous newspaper articles.
    Lieut.-Colonel J. WARD: Next to yourself.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: The hon. and gallant Member for Stoke says that I have aroused ill-feeling. I do not know. I could show him a few scores of letters from a good many different countries thanking me for standing up for the oppressed.
    Colonel GREIG: Libelling your own nation.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: General Botha said that South Africa was saved for the Empire by three words, "Methods of barbarism." I hope we shall have saved this country something by protesting on these benches against one or two of the enormities that the hon. Gentleman opposite supports. May I ask the right hon. Gentleman the Minister for Air when he replies to tell me why he is spending money? Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary will. Of course, it is

    1707
    very easy for a Minister to raise a laugh against a new Member by rising and leaving the House, but I am sure the Parliamentary Secretary will pass on my question: "Why are we spending money to-day on stations where training and co-operation between the Navy and the Air Force shall take place at Felixstowe and at Leuchars?" I presume the force at Felixstowe will co-operate with the naval base at Harwich, and Leuchars, I presume, is for training pilots to co-operate with the Navy from the Firth of Forth. In other words, the Ministry has still got a North Sea outlook. They still think, like the Admiralty, that the next war is to be fought in the North Sea. Nothing is more unlikely. As has been pointed out, the next war will be fought in the Pacific, and if not there in the Atlantic. To spend money on stations for co-operating with the Navy at Felixstowe and Leuchars is pure folly. It shows what I have suspected, namely, that there is no thinking department at the Air Ministry, and perhaps because it is a new Department, the most energetic officers have been overburdened with considerations of material, of training young cadets and mechanics, and of developing their arm in accordance with the lessons they have just learned. When the Air Ministry are spending money at Leuchars and the Admiralty are saving money by scrapping the new submarine base in the Firth of Forth, it shows that the machine is still grinding out a North Sea policy instead of a Pacific or Atlantic policy. I am still further fortified in that belief when I see that the right hon. Gentleman, in mentioning the different stations where these squadrons will be placed abroad, mentioned Malta, and Egypt and India, but did not mention the Straits Settlements. Above all, he said nothing, and I see nothing in the Estimates either, about the most important strategical point for us in the world, namely, Singapore and the Straits of Malacca. I referred to this subject last year, and on that occasion the right hon. Gentleman spoke about my solicitude for an isolated coaling station. The fact that he referred to it as a coaling station showed that his study of the strategy of any possible war in the Pacific had been the most meagre, or that he could not have applied himself to the problem at all, if he has any
    1708
    strategic sense, which I have more than once doubted.
    I am sorry that an hon. and gallant Member talks of the naval wing dropping off the bird of the Air Ministry and being taken up by the Admiralty. I hope there is no such intention. If the Air Service gets once more under the deadening hand of the Admiralty, Heaven help them? The Admiralty will strangle development and to take this step would be to take the most retrograde, step possible. The present policy of having the Secretary of State for the Colonies at the head of the Air Service is transitory. Give the Admiralty the wing and expose it to jealousies, and you will kill it. It would be a terrible mistake. The future of flying for the next few years will depend, as regards sea warfare, on efficient carriers. Owing to the short range of action of seaplanes, you have to rely on the right type of carrier. The policy at the Air Ministry for developing the naval wing of the Ministry should allow for the taking over the carriers. Just as the Army has its own transport for troops, so the Air Ministry should have the control of its own transports for aeroplanes, and those are the seaplane and aeroplane carriers. They carry guns, certainly, and there are naval ratings. But there is no difficulty at present in accommodating Air Force pilots on battleships and cruisers, and there should be no more difficulty in taking seaplane carriers under the Air Ministry and carrying naval gunners for the fighting of the gun armaments of the ships. I put that forward as a constructive suggestion which may have far-reaching results.
    The question of civil aviation has been dealt with very fully. I regret also that last year we managed to save £500,000, which was voted by this House for civil aviation, but owing to neglect of some sort was not applied to that purpose, with the fatal result that we see to-day in the closing down of so many aeroplane firms. The line taken by most critics of the neglect of civil aviation has been the necessity for having a reserve for our fighting forces. That is a legitimate line to take, but there is an even stronger reason for fostering civil aviation. Flying is going to bring about better relations between peoples by obliterating frontiers. It is the great reason why civil aviation should be developed to the utmost. In it lies the

    1709
    greatest hope for the future peace of the nations. The right hon. Gentleman jeers at the idea of settling the jealousies of the peoples of the earth by other means than war. I believe it can be done by-one people getting a better knowledge of another. We must check the atavistic tendencies of the Minister of Air and the parochial feeling, miscalled patriotism or super-patriotism, which has led to deadly wars. It is because of that that I hope the House will insist on more attention being paid to civil aviation.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I hope the House will now be prepared to allow us to get Mr. Speaker out of the Chair. We have had a Debate about which there is very little complaint to be made as far as the Government are concerned. It is quite true, as the hon. Member for Thanet (Mr. E. Harmsworth) pointed out, that the tenor of nearly all the speeches has been a reproach of the Government for not spending more money on the air, either in its military or its civil branch. Some have wished for a different allocation between one branch and another. My hon. Friend (Sir W. Joynson-Hicks) wishes for a different allocation which would facilitate further the development of civil aviation, without in any way prejudicing the importance of military aviation. That, means, I presume, that he would be in favour of spending more money.
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I referred to the fact that £880,000 has been spent on civil aviation, and a great deal of it on bricks and mortar. It was the better allocation of that sum for which I asked.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: With the one exception of my hon. Friend, it is quite true that the general trend of the comments during the Debate was criticism because we are not doing more. There were tremendous arguments which it would be wrong for us to ignore, pointing to the cruel pressure of taxation now, and the imperative need of denying ourselves oven the most attractive and desirable forms of public expenditure and of confining ourselves to those primary necessities on which the security of the country depends. So far as that part of the Debate is concerned, I have certainly no complaint to make. But I do think the speech delivered by my right hon. Friend the Member for Peebles (Sir D. Maclean)
    1710
    was a very unfair speech in every way, in its spirit, in its expression, and in its grossly extravagant emphasis. My right hon. Friend, knowing what the facts of the situation are, says that the fact that the concluding stage of the Estimates should be taken to-morrow is an affront to the House. It may be a great many things; it may be fortunate or unfortunate, but it is certainly not an affront to the House, and it is an abuse of language to use such a term. What are the circumstances? I have been requested by the Government to take over responsibilities in the Middle East, and those responsibilities in the forthcoming year are not far short of £30,000,000 of money. I am endeavouring to make an inroad on that and to secure a great curtailment of it. I cannot possibly do that unless I can see the men on the spot and procure their acquiescence in the withdrawal of the large bodies of troops from Mesopotamia. It is for that purpose, and not for my satisfaction or pleasure, that I have to undertake an exceedingly inconvenient journey to meet the officers, military and civil, who are coming to meet me half-way. They have to return at an early stage to Mesopotamia in order to conduct those very operations of contraction and in order to secure the safe return of the forces we are withdrawing from Persia, and I have to get back to my duty. This has been fixed as a perfectly simple and straightforward measure to secure some abatement of the public burden and to bring these matters more under control. I have not fixed the rendezvous.
    I was not aware when I undertook to go to Mesopotamia that I should be responsible for the Air Ministry at the time when these Estimates had to go before the House of Commons. I have been asked to do so, and I certainly expected, judging by the experience of two years, that practically every controversial question would be disposed of in the first day's discussion. That is what has always happened, and it is exactly what would happen now if my right hon. Friend did not think that here was an opportunity of taking advantage of a difficulty, and so making a great parade of the Parliamentary virtue and a great exhibition of the worked-up, mock indignation which we daily see. Owing to Parliamentary exigencies, a Debate on the Adjournment

    1711
    is coming on in the course of a few minutes, and consequently this Parliamentary day, which according to all experience would have disposed of all the controversial questions on the Estimates, certainly on the Committee stage, is cut in half by this unexpected Motion. I am not disputing the right of the House to claim the presence of the Minister when the Estimates are discussed; certainly not, and it is only with the permission of the House that the Minister could absent himself. But to say that this sort of thing constitutes an affront and a want of respect to the House, and that I am depriving it of its constitutional rights is an unfair attack to make, a very unfair and unfounded attack, and I leave it to the judgment of the House whether it is not in fact taking an undue advantage of fortuitous circumstances. That is all I have to say about that, and I regret very much that my right hon. Friend was led to try and take such an unfair advantage, with all that pompous language about Parliamentary procedure, language almost worthy of the Parliaments which preceded the great Civil War.
    I have no complaint to make of the speech of my right hon. and gallant Friend the late Under-Secretary for Air. I do, however, make one exception. I think it is not a proper statement for him to make when he says that in those days I gave only one hour per week to the Air Ministry. It is absolutely untrue. My light hon. Friend has no knowledge whatever of how and where and when I acquainted myself with my task. But if he says I was less than an hour a week inside the Air Ministry, that is true, and the reason also is quite true, and I shall tell the House what was the reason. My right hon. Friend objected violently to my even setting foot inside the Air Ministry. Although I could not help, by virtue of my office, being the President of the Air Council, my right hon. Friend objected and protested personally and formally to me whenever I appeared at the Air Ministry, and it was my right hon. Friend's conduct which made it very difficult for me, a long and intimate personal friend of his, continually to present myself there when I knew it caused him pain, and when I knew that in him I had a highly competent and skilled subordinate, a man of very great experience in public affairs,
    1712
    who had held the highest offices of the State with unquestionable distinction; and when, to meet his wishes and not to hurt his feelings, I did not obtrude on what he considered his own peculiar domain, I think it is an unfair point for him to come down here and say, "You never came more than a hour a week into the office."
    Major-General SEELY: My right hon. Friend's presence never gave me pain, and I never said—and he will see if he looks at the OFFICIAL REPOET—that he only gave an hour a week to the Air Ministry. It would be most unfair to make that criticism. I said he could only give an hour a week to air affairs, and, indeed, how could a Secretary of State for War, with all the strain of that Department upon him, give more than that time? I do not suppose he did, although he gave more than any other man could have done. If he thought I made an unfair imputation, of course, at once I say I did not mean it.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I have said my say, and my right hon. Friend has said his, and if he has no ill-feeling about me, I can assure him I have no ill-feeling about him. But I would seriously and most respectfully ask the House for their permission in this matter. I have laid the Estimates before them, and explained them, with very little opposition or criticism. I would in these circumstances crave of the House their permission to discharge this other public duty, which I am very anxious to execute, and for which arrangements have long been made. I suppose it would have been possible for me to have had a warship sent, but I thought it better in these hard times, as far as possible, to use the ordinary conveniences, and it was that, and that alone, which placed me in this position of embarrassment. Therefore, I would submit to the House that there is not the slightest disrespect or want of consideration in my request that they should allow my right hon. Friend (Captain Guest), who has been giving a good deal of attention to preparing himself for the discussion, to take the Estimates through the remaining stages. As I have said, in ordinary circumstances, one day has sufficed, and the other stages have been practically formal on the Air Estimates, and I think I might in all these circumstances ask the indulgence of the House in that matter.
    Colonel NEWMAN: May I withdraw my Amendment, Sir?
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Question put, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
    The House Divided: Ayes, 177; Noes, 50.

    Division No. 12.

    AYES.

    [7.40 p.m.

    Adair, Rear-Admiral Thomas B. S.

    Gretton, Colonel John

    Newman, Colonel J. R. P. (Finchley)

    Amery, Lieut.-Col. Leopold C. M. S.

    Gritten, W. G. Howard

    Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)

    Atkey, A. R.

    Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

    Nield, Sir Herbert

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

    Hallwood, Augustine

    Parry, Lieut.-Colonel Thomas Henry

    Balfour, George (Hampstead)

    Hanson, sir Charles Augustin

    Peel, Col. Hon. S. (Uxbridge, Mddx.)

    Banner, Sir John S. Harmood-

    Harmsworth, C. B. (Bedford, Luton)

    Pennefather, De Fonblanque

    Barlow, Sir Montague

    Henderson, Major V. L. (Tradeston)

    Perkins, Walter Frank

    Barnett, Major R. W.

    Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.)

    Perring, William George

    Barnston, Major Harry

    Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank

    Pickering, Lieut.-Colonel Emil W.

    Barton, Sir William (Oldham)

    Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

    Pollock, Sir Ernest M.

    Bennett, Sir Thomas Jewell

    Hope, Sir H. (Stirling & Cl'ckm'nn'n,W.)

    Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton

    Blake, Sir Francis Douglas

    Hope, James F. (Sheffield, Central)

    Pratt, John William

    Borwick, Major G. O.

    Hope, Lt.-Col. Sir J. A. (Midlothian)

    Prescott, Major W. H.

    Bowles, Colonel H. F.

    Hopkins, John W. W.

    Randles, Sir John S.

    Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.

    Home, Edgar (Surrey, Guildford)

    Rees, Capt. J. Tudor- (Barntaple)

    Breese, Major Charles E.

    Hotchkin, Captain Stafford Vere

    Reid, D. D.

    Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

    Hunter, General Sir A. (Lancaster)

    Remnant, Sir James

    Brown, Captain D. C,

    Hunter-Weston, Lieut. Gen. Sir A. G.

    Renwick, George

    Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel A. H.

    Hurd, Percy A.

    Richardson, Alexander (Gravesend)

    Campbell, J. D. G.

    Hurst, Lieut.-Colonel Gerald B.

    Roberts, Rt. Hon. G. H. (Norwich)

    Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.

    llingworth, Rt. Hon. A. H.

    Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Carter, R. A. D. (Man., Withington)

    Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.

    Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs., Stretford)

    Cautley, Henry S.

    Jodrell, Neville Paul

    Rodger, A. K.

    Child, Brigadier-General Sir Hill

    Johnson, Sir Stanley

    Roundell, Colonel R. F.

    Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

    Johnstone, Joseph

    Royden, Sir Thomas

    Churchman, Sir Arthur

    Jones, Sir Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Royds, Lieut.-Colonel Edmund

    Clough, Robert

    Jones, Sir Evan (Pembroke)

    Rutherford, Sir W. W. (Edge Hill)

    Cohen, Major J. Brunel

    Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)

    Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

    Conway, Sir W. Martin

    Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Lianelly)

    Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert A.

    Coote, Colin Reith (Isle of Ely)

    Joynson-Hicks, Sir William

    Shaw, William T. (Forfar)

    Cope, Major Wm.

    Kidd, James

    Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T.)

    Davidson, J. C. C.(Hemel Hempstead)

    King, Captain Henry Douglas

    Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander

    Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.

    Lane-Fox, G. R.

    Stanier, Captain Sir Beville

    Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)

    Law, Alfred J. (Rochdale)

    Stanley, Major Hon. G. (Preston)

    Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)

    Law, Rt. Hon. A. B. (Glasgow, C.)

    Stanton, Charles B.

    Denniss, Edmund R. B. (Oldham)

    Lloyd, George Butler

    Starkey, Captain John R.

    Dewhurst, Lieut.-Commander Harry

    Lioyd-Greame, Sir P.

    Stephenson, Lieut.-Colonel H. K.

    Edgar, Clifford B.

    Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (H'tingd'n)

    Stewart, Gershom

    Elveden, Viscount

    Lorden, John William

    Taylor, J.

    Eyres-Monsell, Commander B. M.

    Lort-Williams, J.

    Thomas-Stanford, Charles

    Falcon, Captain Michael

    Lynn, R. J.

    Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (Maryhill)

    Falle, Major Sir Bertram G.

    Macdonald, Rt. Hon. John Murray

    Townshend, Sir Charles Vere Ferrers

    Fildes, Henry

    M'Guffin, Samuel

    Waddington, R.

    Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.

    McLaren, Robert (Lanark, Northern)

    Ward, Col. J. (Stoke upon Trent)

    FitzRoy, Captain Hon. E. A.

    McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)

    Ward, William Dudley (Southampton)

    Flannery, Sir James Fortescue

    Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.

    Waring, Major Walter

    Ford, Patrick Johnston

    Magnus, Sir Philip

    Warren, Lieut.-Col. Sir Alfred H.

    Forrest, Walter

    Malone, Major P. B. (Tottenham, S.)

    Watson, Captain John Bertrand

    Fraser, Major Sir Keith

    Marks, Sir George Croydon

    Weston, Colonel John W.

    Gardner, Ernest

    Middlebrook, Sir William

    White, Lieut.-Col. G. D. (Southport)

    Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham

    Mitchell, William Lane

    Williams, Lt.-Com. C. (Tavistock)

    Gilbert, James Daniel

    Moles, Thomas

    Willoughby, Lieut-Col. Hon. Claud

    Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel John

    Molson, Major John Eladale

    Wilson, Daniel M. (Down, West)

    Glyn, Major Ralph

    Montagu, Rt. Hon. E. S.

    Wilson, Colonel Leslie O. (Reading)

    Goulding, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward A.

    Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.

    Winfrey, Sir Richard

    Gray, Major Ernest (Accrington)

    Moreing, Captain Algernon H.

    Wise, Frederick

    Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)

    Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert

    Yate, Colonel Sir Charles Edward

    Greene, Lt.-Col. Sir W. (Hack'y, N.)

    Murchison, C. K.

    Gregory, Holman

    Nail, Major Joseph

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Greig, Colonel James William

    Neal, Arthur

    Lord E. Talbot and Captain Guest.

    NOES.

    Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

    Finney, Samuel

    Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.

    Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)

    Galbraith, Samuel

    Maclean, Rt. Hn. Sir D. (Midlothian)

    Birchall, Major J. Dearman

    Glanville, Harold James

    Mosley, Oswald

    Bramsdon, Sir Thomas

    Graham, R. (Nelson and Colne)

    Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness & Ross)

    Briant, Frank

    Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Myers, Thomas

    Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

    Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

    Newbould, Alfred Ernest

    Cape, Thomas

    Grundy, T. W.

    Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

    Carter, W. (Nottingham, Mansfield)

    Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)

    Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

    Davies, A. (Lancaster, Clitheroe)

    Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)

    Royce, William Stapleton.

    Davies, Major D. (Montgomery)

    Hartshorn, Vernon

    Seely, Major-General Rt. Hon. John

    Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)

    Hirst, G. H.

    Sexton, James

    Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

    Irving, Dan

    Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

    Edwards, G. (Norfolk, South)

    John, William (Rhondda, West)

    Spencer, George A.

    Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)

    Williams, Aneurin (Durham, Consett)

    Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

    Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

    Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Stourbrdge)

    Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince)

    Wilson, W. Tyson (Westhoughton)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Waterson, A. E.

    Wintringham, T.

    Mr. Hogge and Mr. George Thorne.

    Wignall, James

    Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)

    Question put, and agreed to.

    Considered in Committee.
    [Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]

    NUMBER OF AIR FORCE.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a number of Air Forces, not exceeding 30,880, all ranks, be maintained for the service of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland at home and abroad, exclusive of those serving in India, during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1922."
    Mr. BONAR LAW (Leader of the House): I wish to make a suggestion to the Committee which unfortunately did not occur to me soon enough when Mr. Speaker was in the Chair. The House heard the discussion about the absence of my right hon. Friend (Mr. Churchill) when the Report Stage of the Votes would be taken. He gave an explanation so complete, so full, and, I think, so fair, that I am not going to repeat what he said, except perhaps to remark that it is certainly not in any sense the fault of my right hon. Friend that it so happens that he will not be present for the two days. When the changes were made we had to decide what was to be done with the Air Force. My right hon. Friend had prepared the Estimates. We had discussed them many times in his presence at the Cabinet meeting and at the Finance Committee, and the Prime Minister thought, as I also thought, that obviously whatever happens later on, the right thing was that the Estimates should be explained by the Minister who prepared them and had taken the responsibility. When my right hon. Friend agreed to that we quite expected that it would be possible to have the necessary time before he went away. The Committee knows how we have been pressed with one thing or another which we did not anticipate, and which has made it impossible for him to be here to-morrow.
    I am sure the Committee, in a case of this kind, will quite realise, as my right hon. Friend said, that the business on which he is going, from the point of view of cutting down expenditure, is certainly the most important that can be undertaken by any Minister, and that the Committee as a whole, in every part of it, will wish him success in the
    1716
    enterprise in which he is engaged. We all feel, as my right hon. Friend very fully and frankly said, that it is very undesirable that the House should be asked to go through the remaining stages of these Estimates in the absence of the Minister who is responsible. We quite recognise that, and the suggestion which I would make is that, after the comparatively short discussion which we have had, if the Committee will give us Vote A and Vote 1 now—I hope to finish the Committee stage to-night—I will undertake as soon as possible after the return of my right hon. Friend to give a day for the complete discussion of Vote 1, when the whole subject can be gone into in the presence of my right hon. Friend. I think that is doing everything we can do to meet the convenience and wishes of the House, and I hope they will consider it reasonable.
    Sir D. MACLEAN: My right hon. Friend the Minister for Air said that I used some words with regard to his conduct that were of an unfair character. That may have been so, but he certainly got back on me with full measure so far as any words to which he might take exception were concerned. However vigorously expressed they were, and however unfair he thought they were, it was a perfectly sound Parliamentary point which I made, and I am going to go on taking those points no matter what people say. It is the duty, especially of those who sit on this side of the House, to see that Parliament is fully protected in the exercise of its rights in its control over public expenditure. I will only add, that if my right hon. Friend was not occupying this dual position this difficulty would not have arisen. I am not at all anxious to do anything which would be in the least degree against the personal convenience of my right hon. Friend, nor do I wish to do anything which would appear to be meticulously hostile, if I may use the phrase, to the Leader of the House. I am very anxious, in the pursuit of the duties which fall to me and to others on this bench, to contest our position as fairly and vigorously as we can, but not to take too small points which would lead to unnecessary inconvenience to men engaged in the public service, or to put the

    1717
    Committee in the position of fighting on mere technicalities and of not trying to get to grip with realities. The offer my right hon. Friend has made is this—of course it must be subject to the Chair— that the Committee stage on these two Votes, Vote A and Vote 1, should be taken to-night, and that the general discussion, which quite properly and fairly arises—again with your permission, Sir— can be raised on perhaps some other Vote. I think, without your concurrence, Mr. Whitley, it would not quite be possible for it to be done. You have, however, observed the feeling of the House, and perhaps, judging by that, on some Vote such as Vote 5 for the Air Ministry, such general observations as hon. Members may feel bound or disposed to make could be heard by the Committee then. That being the case, and having, I think, made good the Parliamentary point which I desire to make, I am quite willing, and I think I carry the assent of hon. Members on this side with me, to assent to the course which the Leader of the House suggests.
    Major-General SEELY: If on Vote 5, the Air Ministry Vote, we could have, by the arrangement now proposed, the discussion which we should have had on Votes A and 1, I should say, speaking only for myself, that the suggestion is a reasonable one. Also it would be of advantage if it enabled the right hon. Gentleman to go to Egypt on the date named. It does not put him to a very great deal of inconvenience. It is owing to his dual office. He will have to be in Egypt because he is the Colonial Minister, and he will have to be here because he is the Air Minister. That is the whole difficulty, because he would not hand it over to somebody else. We do not want to inconvenience the right hon. Gentleman, but we think his position is inconvenient.
    Sir D. MACLEAN: Are we to take it, in view of what my right hon. Friend said, that the position my right hon. Friend holds with the two offices is a permanent one, or whether the whole position is still in suspense?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I understand—I was not present when my right hon. Friend (Mr. Churchill) spoke—that he made it quite plain, certainly it is his view as well as that of myself—that the whole matter is in suspense. For the
    1718
    present it is obvious that it is right, as he prepared the Estimates, that he should introduce them to the House. What will happen after he returns is undecided.
    Lieut.-Colonel J. WARD: Nearly every speech from the Opposition has been in favour of greater expenditure, and now there has been a suggestion made that a separate Ministry should be set up for the Air.
    Sir D. MACLEAN: There is a separate Ministry now.
    Lieut.-Colonel WARD: I know as much on this as the leader of the Opposition does.
    Dr. MURRAY: Do not be impudent.
    Lieut.-Colonel WARD: I think the hon. Member is much more in that way than I am. I have always dealt with an opponent perfectly fairly so far. There is a slight variation between impudence and impertinence, and probably the hon. Member would be able to explain on which side he is. The whole of the speeches to-day have been devoted to the idea that we ought to spend more. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no."] Only one speech, that of the hon. Member for Thanet (Mr. E. Harmsworth) was in favour of reducing expenditure.
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Quite incorrect.
    Lieut.-Colonel WARD: The speech of the hon. Member for Harrow (Mr. Mosley) was to the effect that we ought to spend at least another million in research work with reference to the science and technicality of aviation, and all the speeches have been delivered in that direction. I confess that even when the Labour men speak on some particular point it is money, more money. There is supposed to be a spirit of economy abroad, yet now attempts are being made to set up another Ministry, and the whole of the suggestion of the Opposition to-day is that there should be a Secretary of State for Air as well, I suppose, as a Secretary for War and a Chief of the Admiralty. That is the whole idea, and if the agitation by the Leader of the Opposition continues, that is what it is going to end in—an additional Ministry, with all the expenses attached to it. If this agitation is pursued, it must mean

    1719
    another Department being set up, with additional expenses. At present it is attached to another office and is not nearly so expensive as it would be if it were away from that Department.
    Major-General SEELY Major-General SEELY indicated dissent.
    Lieut.-Colonel WARD: I have my view and the right hon. Gentleman can have his. I know perfectly well that this will be another job for someone else. That is the whole idea of it. You may camouflage it as much as you like, but that is the real centre of the whole thing. For this reason I protest absolutely that, so far as the discussion is concerned, it has been more against the man who occupies the position than against the dual position itself. It is much more a personal question, and therefore we are not concerned with it as Members of this House. Right hon. Gentlemen on opposite sides can make their arrangements as they like. The opinion of ordinary Members of the House is that there are quite enough Departments, and that the portion of the Air Force dealt with by the Navy should go with the Admiralty, and the land forces should go with the Army. The idea that there should be another Department, another Secretary of State, and another item of expense, added as a further burden to the people, is not what the private Member intends at all. I am certain we are not going to have it, and if there is any suggestion that the attacks on the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Colonies are going to be used for the purpose of bolstering up another Department, both the Opposition and the Government too will be making the biggest mistake. The Air Force has got to be attached to one or other of the Departments. We are not going to have a separate Department without a struggle in this House. I hope the Leader of the House, in his statement to-night, in answer to the soft speech on the opposite side, does not mean that directly the Secretary of State for the Colonies comes back from Egypt that he will be asked to set up a separate Department. That is a suggestion that has been made all round the House to-day. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House does not imagine that that will be acceptable to the House of Commons, either to the ordinary Member on this
    1720
    side or the other. We have got enough of Departments, and we are not going to have another, and though there may be prospective candidates for the post, they have not got the seat yet.
    8.0 P.M.
    Mr. STEPHEN WALSH: As we have not spoken a single word this afternoon, I think I am entitled, especially after the impassioned words of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Stoke (Lieut.-Colonel Ward), to say that, so far as the Labour party is concerned, we have never had the slightest idea of urging a separate and distinct Department, but we had an idea that it was desirable that the right hon. Gentleman should not take with him the Air Ministry and the Colonies. Some of us last Session were a little uncertain as to whether he should have both the War Ministry and the Air Ministry. There is not a man in this House, or out of it— I say this with full sincerity—but who must admit the great abilities of the right hon. Gentleman. I leave it at that. But we were entitled to doubt whether even he could fill the two great posts. He himself, in that wonderful description this afternoon, pointed out to us the great elaboration and complexity of the duties that he had to supervise—54 trades, and so on. Surely we are entitled to consider whether it is a good thing for a Minister who is taking on an office which for five and twenty years, even before the Boer War, had become a highly responsible Department, and since the Boer War has become increasingly important, to also at the same time continue to hold the office of Air Minister. It has been all debated, and it has been debated in the best possible spirit. "The falling out of faithful friends is renewal of love," and I know two people who are all the better friends because of the little interlude this afternoon. If the Leader of the House says we can have a full and open Debate upon Vote 5 upon the Minister's return, then we all wish him well in the great venture he is taking, and hope he will be equally capable of defending his Department upon his return.
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I want to say something on Vote 4 where there is £3,000,000 to be spent on bricks and mortar. Part of my proposal will be to

    1721
    save money in that direction, and I want to make it perfectly clear that whatever Vote may be selected I will not be debarred from discussing Vote 4.
    The CHAIRMAN: In accordance with precedent, I would be prepared, if these two Votes be disposed of to-night, to allow on Vote 5, or on whatever Vote may be selected as the first Vote, as full and wide a discussion as if it had taken place on Vote A.

    PAY, ETC., OF THE AIR FORCE.
    Resolved,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £4,794,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of the Pay, etc., of His Majesty's Air Force at home and abroad, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1922."
    Resolutions to be reported to-morrow.
    Committee to sit again To-morrow.

  REPORT. [28TH FEBRUARY.]

    (UNCLASSIFIED SERVICES.) RAILWAY AGREEMENTS.
    Resolution reported,
    "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £21,000,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1921, to meet Expenditure arising from the Government Control of Railways in Great Britain and Ireland under the Regulation of the Forces Act, 1871."

    WAYS AND MEANS. [28TH FEBRUARY.]
    Resolution reported,
    "That towards making good the Supply granted to His Majesty for the service of the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1921, the sum of £21,000,000 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom."
    Bill ordered to be brought in by the Chairman of Ways and Means, the
    1722
    Chancellor of the Exchequer, and Mr. Baldwin.

    CONSOLIDATED FUND (NO. 1) BILL.
    "to apply a sum out of the Consolidated Fund to the service of the year ending on the thirty-first day of March, one thousand nine hundred and twenty-one," presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time to-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 27.]

    SUPPLY. [25TH FEBRUARY.]
    Resolutions reported,

    (1) "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £485,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1921, for Expenditure in respect of sundry Public Buildings in Great Britain, not provided for on other Votes."

    (2) "That a sum, not exceeding £20,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1921, for Expenditure in connection with temporary measures for the relief of distress caused by the Flood at Louth."

    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: We have not had a word of explanation in this matter. I want to know whether this is the last of the expenditure on the Louth flood. No one begrudges the spending of money in relief of distressed Louth, but we ought to know whether this is a final bill.
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Baldwin): This is a Vote for which my right hon. Friend the First Commissioner of Works is responsible, but I believe I am right in saying that it represents the total expenditure.
    Mr. SPEAKER: There is a Motion down for 8.15, and I shall suspend the sitting of the House until that hour.
    Sitting suspended at twelve minutes after Eight o'clock.
    Sitting resumed at a Quarter past Eight of the Clock.
    THE CLERK AT THE TABLE (Sir Courtenay Ilbert) informed the House of the unavoidable absence of Mr. Speaker from the remainder of this day's Sitting.
    Whereupon Mr. WHITLEY, the Chairman of Ways and Means, took the Chair as Deputy-Speaker, pursuant to the Standing Order.

    IRISH ADMINISTRATION.
    Captain REDMOND: I beg to move, "That this House do now adjourn."
    I move this Motion for the purpose of tailing attention to a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, the lack of control of the Irish Administration, as disclosed by the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland in his admission that he had no knowledge of the resignation of General Crozier until the 22nd February, and the grave danger to public peace and order in consequence of the action of General Tudor in accepting the resignation of General Crozier, Commandant of the Auxiliary Division, Royal Irish Constabulary, and the Adjutant, Captain Macfie. I feel confident that, in the facts I am about to give the House, Members generally will find substantiation for the charge, grave as it is, that I have thought fit to bring against the Government. What has come to be known as the Trim incident, is now well-known both inside and outside the House, and I do not intend to dilate unnecessarily in the statement of the facts. But what I would like to do at the very outset is to clear the air of what might be certain misapprehensions. In the first place, I would desire to let it be known that this is not a question of the discipline of the Regular Forces in Ireland. It has nothing to do with either the military as such or with the Royal Irish Constabulary Regulars. Personally, I have never attacked Regular officers or soldiers in their capacity as executive officers. I have attacked, and shall continue to do, those who are responsible for placing them in very often unwilling and difficult positions. I want to be quite frank with the House, and take it into my confidence. I have had no more to do with
    1724
    this matter than the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary himself. As he stated on the 23rd February:
    "I have had nothing whatever to do with it, and I knew nothing about it at all until it appeared in the 'Times' yesterday."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd February, 1921, col. 932, Vol. 138.]
    That is exactly my position. I read it in a letter that appeared in the "Times," and I was very struck with the gravity of the accusations that were made, and, in order to elicit information, and get at the truth, I placed a question, upon Private Notice, to the Chief Secretary. We are all acquainted with what followed. I think the House generally, and certainly I particularly, was astounded at the revelations that were there made. In almost every particular of my original question, the Chief Secretary concurred. When it is generally understood who the dramatis personœ are in this incident, I will be regarded as having no personal interest whatsoever in any of the individuals concerned. In the first place, Brigadier-General Crozier was in command of a battalion of the supporters of the right hon. Member for Duncairn (Sir E. Carson) known as the Ulster Volunteers before the War, and during the War he rendered distinguished service by commanding, I think, the 9th Battalion of the Royal Irish Rifles. I never had the opportunity of meeting this gentleman before I put the question, but I will admit—and the House will, see afterwards when I recite certain statements of his—that I have had constant interviews with him since.
    As regards General Tudor, I am really at a loss to know who General Tudor is. General Tudor has been described in many ways in this House. He is a General in the Army, I presume—a distinguished General. But he has also been described as Chief of Police in Ireland, an office, I confess, of which I have never heard, and I would like the Chief Secretary later on to explain when it came into existence. We have also been told that he is police adviser to the Lord Lieutenant. I believe that is an office that has recently been created, but it certainly has not been long in existence. What I would really like the right hon. Gentleman to inform the House is this: How is General Tudor responsible to this Government for the conduct of what is known as the Auxiliary Division of the Royal

    1725
    Irish Constabulary? Is he the head of all the police in Ireland? Does he take the place of the Inspector-General of the Royal Irish Constabulary in Ireland, or is that position still vacant? It was rendered vacant, perhaps hon. Members may be aware, by a singularly sinister proceeding. What took place was that General Sir William Byrne was kindly told to stay absent on leave. I believe he is still absent on leave. I would like the Chief Secretary, therefore, to inform the House what is the capacity and what authority General Tudor has got at the present time in Ireland. I do not want to weary the House by going into very great detail, but I feel it incumbent upon me to read a statement that has been given to me by General Crozier. It is his statement, not mine. It is a statement to which General Crozier has signed his name, and he has gone so far as to tell me that he is willing to attest to the facts in the statement upon his oath. It is a chronological record of events that took place, according to General Crozier, in connection with this Trim incident:
    "Two cadets came up to Dublin purposely to see me to inform me of certain disgraceful conduct which had taken place on 9th February near Trim. They arrived 12th February. Before seeing me they bumped into Tudor at a hospital where they had been seeing a wounded comrade. They told Tudor all about it. Shortly after I met Tudor at the Castle, and he told me all about it. I went to my headquarters then, because I knew those men were waiting for me.
    N.B.—Tudor said to me it was very good of these follows to give me evidence in this way. Tudor told me there had been a tremendous amount of looting.
    I interviewed the two cadets in my orderly room in presence of my Adjutant. In consequence of their statements, I went to Trim barracks to investigate on the 13th. Previously to this I 'phoned up Captain Robinson, private secretary to Tudor, and told him what I proposed doing, and he said 'Right.'
    I went on Sunday, 13th, to Trim with my Adjutant.
    I arrived unexpectedly and immediately had all available men fallen in. I addressed them on parade, and told them a report had reached me that a disgraceful episode of looting had taken place on the 9th. That I would hold an inquiry forthwith. I went to the Company Orderly Room and examined every available person separately. During this inquiry the Company Commander, Major Daniel, was present and the 2nd in Command of the Company was also present. My Adjutant took notes and I did the examination.
    This inquiry lasted 3½ hours. As the evidence came out bit by bit, because there
    1726
    were five witnesses who were good, the Company Commander and 2nd in Command became astounded.
    A 200-lb. sack of sugar had been stolen. It had been carried off the tender by one man assisted by another and put into the canteen. Some 20 to 30 head of fowls had been taken and had been pooled for a dinner. Some jewellery had been taken, a picture, two rugs, brandy, whisky, grocery stores.
    Everybody except the five people who gave information stoutly denied that any looting had taken place at all. I came to the conclusion that the Company Commander was not responsible as he was absent on duty with the Divisional Commissioner. I told the Company Commander on the conclusion of my inquiry to call the Company in again, which he did, while I went round and examined certain localities—canteen where sugar is stated to have been placed in full view of members of the Company drinking in the canteen. I also examined the Crossley tenders which had been used, and in the birdcage tender, and on the floor found sugar. Evidence had been given that bag had burst and a trail of sugar was made from tender to canteen. I tested the sugar. The notes I took were available in my orderly room at Headquarters when I left.
    During my search in the tenders it was reported to me that a man had thrown a kit bag full of groceries over the wall. I said nothing but sent somebody to search the other side of the wall, and under the grass and straw found other groceries in a kit bag with an old shirt on top. The kit bag and contents were retained by the Company Commander as an exhibit. The two rugs were found next morning in a barrack room. My time was getting short and I had to be back in Dublin before dark. The Company was now fallen in as I had ordered. I went over to them and spoke to them all. I stated that it was conclusively proved that disgraceful larceny had taken place by those who were in the Robertstown raid. I stated that they must remember it was a police constable's duty not only to detect, but to prevent crime and to report it, and although the idea of all hanging together was all right from one point of view, from the point of view of the police operating in a distressed country it was all wrong. I said it would be very much better if they made a clean breast of the whole thing, but I regretted I could not promise them anything less than removal from the Force, but that I would place the matter before the authorities in the event of further evidence coming forward.
    I said I was going to have a cup of tea and in half an hour's time I would be back in the orderly room, where I would receive any further evidence.
    I went back in half an hour's time but there was no evidence. At the inquiry a chit was put in as an exhibit that the house in question had been left intact by the search party. That chit was signed, I believe, by Mrs. Charles, and was obtained by force. Before leaving Trim I ordered the Company Commander to go straight out to Roberts-tow to apologise to Mrs. Charles in my name

    1727
    for what had been done, and to express my regret that owing to having to be back before dark I could not come myself, but would do so later; to recompense Mrs. Charles forthwith and to report to me that he had done so. I also informed him that in all probability the men concerned would come up to Dublin in the morning and be replaced by others, but I could not decide anything till I had seen General Tudor. I went up to Dublin, reached the Castle about .30, had tea with General Tudor, and discussed the whole thing, telling him exactly what I have stated now.
    I stated to him that I considered everyone who had been on the raid was implicated, and that I was satisfied on this point. I proposed that the ringleaders and one temporary cadet against whom was specific evidence should be tried by Field General Court-Martial and that the remainder should be dispensed with as unsuitable for the Auxiliary Division. On the raid they had arrested Mr. Charles and brought him back in lorry and placed him in the guard room. He identified some of the property as his.
    The five temporary cadets who gave information identified the ringleaders as being actually in possession of stolen property. For example, one was seen with a rug over his arm. Another man was seen with a bottle of burgundy.
    There is a statement made by Mrs. Charles saying exactly what had happened. This was given voluntarily to the Company Commander when he went to pay his compensation by my orders. She was paid about £35.
    All the men implicated arrived at Beggars Bush on the 14th, a.m., and I separated the five ringleaders from the others. They were then all disarmed and the five marched over to a prisoner's cage. Remainder were placed under open arrest and I interviewed them again in the orderly room at Beggars Bush and told them their fate. I had original notes before me. There were a few men whom the Company Commander had been unable to place before me the day before as they were out on another job.
    The Company Commander had investigated their cases and sent them up with the others. These cases I investigated myself in the presence of my Adjutant.
    None of the men denied that they had been on the raid.
    The five ringleaders were not only the seniors except one temporary cadet with the burgundy, but also were actually seen with stolen property.
    General Tudor had previously agreed to this action being taken. He had agreed that proper course was to dispense with services of the men who had been on the raid and to try the five or six ringleaders against whom was specific evidence that they were actual thieves and not only accessories. Having dispensed with their services I 'phoned to the Castle at noon to say I had done so.
    At 6.30 on the 14th of February, 1921. Tudor 'phoned to me and said, 'What about
    1728
    those cadets of yours at Trim? Do you think it is all right?'
    I replied, 'You mean my ex-cadets.' I said; 'That's all right. They are going over to-night. You must trust the men on the spot' (or words to that effect). He replied, 'Oh, all right.'
    Tudor went over on the steamer that night. He wrote this letter to me on board and addressed it 'Brigadier-General Crozier, c/o Captain Robinson, Dublin Castie.' I found it in my letter rack in the Mess the next evening at dinner time."
    I think it is important that I should read that letter at this stage. This is the letter that General Tudor wrote:
    "DEAR CROZIER,
    I think it will be best for you to keep these 30 temporary cadets suspended until I come back. I want to discuss it with the Chief Secretary. He gets all the bother. My main point is that it is an unfortunate time to do anything which looks panicky. I think also these temporary cadets will have a distinct grievance if the platoon commanders and sections leaders are acquitted. Tell these 30 they are suspended pending my return or, if you prefer it, keep them on by not completing their accounts till I come back.
    Yours Sincerely,
    H. H. TUDOR."
    This letter was dated February 14th and the envelope is from the London and North-Western Railway.
    Lieut.-Colonel ARCHER-SHEE: That quotation is not quite correct. General Tudor said:
    "Tell these 30 they are suspended, or if you prefer it, keep them on by not completing their accounts."
    Captain REDMOND: I thank the hon. and gallant Member for his correction. General Crozier proceeds:
    "On the 17th of February General Tudor said that he had talked over certain arrangements with Mr. Cope about the re-adjustment of the division; he indicated to me that the division would be broken up into two, and that I would have one half and someone else the other half, and that these men would be reinstated and put into the other division so that they would not be under me.
    The other details are set out in the interview which I granted to the 'Daily News' on Friday last and reproduced in that paper on Saturday the 26th."
    I am not going to trouble the House by reading the whole of that, but there are a few extracts I may have to take from it at a later stage. General Crozier goes on to say:
    "There is not the slightest doubt that when General Tudor returned from London and saw me at the Castle with the 17 Company Commanders, the Adjutant, and General Wood, that the intention he stated

    1729
    was to reinstate these men without further inquiry or trial.
    The 26 cadets returned not under arrest.
    General Tudor said at the conference: 'I have promised these men they shall be taken back, and will go back to their own Company.'
    (Signed) F. P. Crozier."
    I do not intend to offer any lengthy comment upon this statement of General Crozier, but what I would like to draw from these statements, or what I consider to be the meaning of them, is this: An order was issued and then a counter-order. Now there is disorder. Three, to my mind, incontrovertible facts—and I challenge the Chief Secretary to contradict them—have emerged from this welter of confusion which has arisen over this fearful piece of plundering. The first, and this, I take it, is the most serious of all, is in connection with the matter of discipline. The General who was in command or had superior authority in relation to these Auxiliaries decided, on political grounds, not on a question of discipline, or of military law, or of the rights of the convicted, or of the legality of the proceedings—but for political reasons, as is shown by the correspondence, decided to change his mind, which he did, and to go back on the decision which he had taken all through with General Crozier. The second fact is that a properly constituted trial took place, that proper proceedings were brought against these men, and that they were convicted, the case being conducted as all previous cases had been. The third fact, and it is brought out in this interview, and has been neither contradicted nor proved contrary to the fact, is that it was the intention of General Tudor, when he left London and came to Dublin, as expressed by him in front of General Crozier and 17 company commanders, together with the Second-in-Command and the Adjutant, that these men should be reinstated. That, to my mind, was nothing short of condonation.
    I repeat that the political action on the part of General Tudor is by far 1he most serious part of the whole question. Why did General Tudor change his mind? Whom did he see in Dublin? He was phoned at 6.30 in Dublin and told of the action which General Crozier proposed taking with regard to the cadets, and he concurred therein. But by the time he got on to the boat, as is evidenced by this letter, he had changed
    1730
    his mind. I contend the House should know whom General Tudor had met in the meantime, and what made him change his mind before he left Dublin. He said he was going to London as he wanted to consult the Chief Secretary. He did go to London; he did speak to the Chief Secretary, who admitted that on the 15th General Tudor informed him of what had taken place in regard to the cadets. The Chief Secretary has stated that General Tudor did not inform him of General Crozier's resignation. I wonder whether General Tudor and the Chief Secretary were merely conversing about the weather. Had General Tudor no conception of the attitude of mind of General Crozier on this subject, seeing that he had concurred with him on that point in every step he had taken? I challenge the Chief Secretary to deny that this action on the. part of General Tudor was political action, that it was dictated by political exigencies, and was in every sense outside his military duties, either as custodian of the men who had been charged, or as the preserver of discipline within the force.
    I come next to the question of the trial. I want to make it clear to the House that proper proceedings were taken. I challenge the Chief Secretary on this question also. These men were brought before their Commanding Officer. None of them denied that they had been in the raid. Specific evidence was brought against five of them by some of their number and immediately it was brought the five ringleaders and one temporary cadet were remanded for trial by Field General Court Martial. What about the remaining 26? They were not remanded because there was no specific evidence against them. But the whole point with regard to them is that they were policemen, that they refused to give any evidence, and refused to report upon these occurrences. Although they were all questioned about them, not one of them would come forward and make a report as to what had taken place. What General Crozier says in his statement is true, namely, that it is the duty of a police constable to report on occurrences like that. They, however, refused to divulge any information, and therefore after that investigation, and because of their refusal to report, with the sanction of General Tudor, their services were dispensed with on the ground that they were unfit for the police force. That was a most proper and customary proceeding

    1731
    according to the Regulations of the Royal Irish Constabulary which, I believe, also obtain in regard to the Auxiliary Force.
    By the way, I should like to pay a tribute to the very pertinent question put by the hon. and gallant Member for Stoke (Colonel J. Ward) the other day, when he asked if these men, having been tried once, could be legally retried. It may be said that, in reality, there was not sufficient evidence against these men, and I believe it is being said now, at this late hour, that the real object of recalling them was because General Tudor did not consider that the sentences were severe enough. It is very hard to swallow some things, and I certainly find it hard to swallow that, at this stage of the proceedings, as a reason for General Tudor's action. But supposing that that was the reason given, I would like the House to know exactly where the Government stand in this regard. I do not think that they know themselves; at any rate, we can only find it in the records in the OFFICIAL REPORT. The Prime Minister, in this House on the l5th February—the day of the opening of Parliament—speaking on the Address, when questioned concerning the action that had been taken in regard to cadets in a very similar case in Cork, made the following statement:
    "Seven of them whom all we can say is we suspect of being responsible for acts of indiscipline, although we cannot identify them, have been dismissed.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Dismissed?
    The PRIME MINISTER: You cannot do anything; beyond that without evidence against them.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWOHTHY: Why dismiss them?
    The PRIME MINISTER: After all, I believe an officer"—
    mark his words—
    "is entitled to feel that he has absolute confidence in those in his command. He had no confidence in these seven men for reasons that satisfied him, but for which there was no evidence."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th February. 1921, col. 43, Vol. 138.]
    He is allowed to dismiss them, and the Prime Minister concurred in the dismissal, coming down here and saying, on the Address, that, where there was no evidence, and simply because a commanding officer had no confidence in his men, and suspected them of certain acts, he had a right to dismiss them. The Chief Secre-
    1732
    tary may say now that these men did not get a fair trial, when undoubtedly there was evidence against them, and when their case was fully and thoroughly investigated by General Crozier, with the concurrence of General Tudor. How can these two actions be reconciled? Either the Chief Secretary's championship of General Tudor, or the Prime Minister's championship of General Crozier, goes by the board. I therefore challenge the right hon. Gentleman again on this question of fact, as to whether, as I state, there was, a proper investigation and a proper form of proceedings. If he says that there was not, then I ask, what case has he for accepting General Crozier's resignation, having regard to what the Prime Minister said on the 15th February last? We now hear that a court of inquiry is to be set up. I wonder would anything have been heard of a court of inquiry if there had not been a question in this House? I would like to know who suggested the court of inquiry and when it was suggested. Was it a military officer who suggested it? Did a General, with knowledge of military discipline and military law, suggest that, after these men had been summarily dismissed—and properly so, according to the code of the Royal Irish Constabulary—they should be brought up again before a court of inquiry? I do not think so, and I have my suspicions that the suggestion came rather from a legal than from a military quarter. The court of inquiry is at present sitting. I say that that court of inquiry is an improper court, that it has no legal standing; and it is only fair to the House that the Chief Secretary should inform us what prompted him, or whoever it was, to set up this court of inquiry, and why he thought it necessary to go behind the considered decision and action, according to proper procedure, of General Crozier in the matter.
    I come now to my third point, and that is the condonation by General Tudor. I will not mince words. The intention of General Tudor was expressed by him, as testified by General Crozier, before witnesses—very important and honourable witnesses. If the right hon. Gentleman could only get a statement from any of them that General Tudor had no such intention or made no such statement, we should all be very glad to hear it. I say that this statement of General Tudor—as yet uncontradicted by evidence—that he

    1733
    was prepared to reinstate these men in their former company or corps, was nothing short of condonation by General Tudor, and that that is what led to the honourable and upright and prompt course of action taken by General Crozier in sending in his resignation. In support of that, I would refer to the telegram sent from the Recruiting Officer of the Royal Irish Constabulary in London to General Crozier. It reads as follows:
    "Twenty-six T.C."—
    that is, temporary cadets—
    "report to Company to-night. Meet, Order of Police Adviser."
    There is no question there about these men being sent for retrial. There is no question about their being under arrest. As a matter of fact, General Crozier says that they were not under arrest. I say that that telegram, and the facts as stated by General Crozier, are a sufficient indictment, which has got to be replied to by the Chief Secretary and General Tudor, for condonation of this offence. If the Chief Secretary does not answer those three questions to-night—if he cannot deny that in a matter of discipline General Tudor acted on political grounds, if he does not deny that a proper trial took place and that General Tudor was guilty of condonation—I say that then there is only one course open to the right hon. Gentleman and to General Tudor, as honourable men who occupy very important and honourable positions in this country, the one a member of His Majesty's Army and the other one of His Majesty's Ministers, and that is to resign the positions which they now occupy. I say that they are called upon to resign but it is a matter for themselves and their conscience. From the point of view of Ireland, however, and from the point of view of this country, this irregular force should be immediately disbanded. It has proved to be nothing but a failure and a disaster from the point of view from which the right hon. Gentleman inaugurated it. It was to bring about and maintain law and order in Ireland, but since it has been inaugurated things in Ireland have gone from bad to worse. I have persistently demanded in this House that, if you will have martial law in Ireland—I am not now discussing your policy in regard to martial law—you should have proper martial law; you should have martial Jaw applied by responsible military officers, responsible
    1734
    to the proper heads of their districts, and responsible, through the proper medium, to this House and to this country. I think this state of irregularity and the position that it has brought our country and this country to in the eyes of the world is due largely to this method of dealing with the question. I therefore desire to place these facts before the House, and if the right hon. Gentleman or the Prime Minister will not deal in the manner I have suggested with them, at any rate I do not think I am making an extravagant demand—I do not think I have been extravagant in the statement of my case—when I say there should be appointed immediately a full commission of inquiry into the whole system of the administration of the Forces of the Crown in Ireland.
    Mr. NEWBOULD: I beg to second the Motion.
    The true sequence of events in this unfortunate affair has at last emerged and we are able to judge their real meaning and relation to each other. The fact that it has emerged is not due to, but in spite of the answers to questions given by the Chief Secretary. That is a grave reflection, but I do not think it is an unfair one. I have no desire to be unfair because I believe, although he is responsible, he should not take the whole of the blame. The fact is that on this matter, as on many other matters of equal and even greater importance, he has been either uninformed, ill-informed or, what is worse still, misinformed. The Chief Secretary cannot be expected to have first-hand knowledge of everything that happens in Ireland. He must depend on the information supplied to him by responsible people on the spot. That he is often without that information, and that when he gets it it is unreliable and incomplete, has been obvious for a long time to those of us who follow Irish affairs in this House especially since he took office. How many times has he had to admit that he had no knowledge of important and urgent matters that well well-known to hon. Members? How often has he had to say that he would institute immediate inquiries? The case under discussion is a case in point, and there are many others. What, for instance, does he know about the alleged looting of a bank at Strokes-town, where it is stated that the culprits were caught red-handed with

    1735
    some £1,200 in their possession, and what has been done about it? Or is he as ignorant on this point as he was last week on the point under discussion, and will hon. Members and the Press have to inform him, as they had to inform him of the Trim incident? I shall be very glad indeed if he can deny that any such thing as I have referred to at Strokestown ever took place. On more than one occasion the Chief Secretary has told the House there was not a tittle of evidence against the Forces of the Crown when their implication has been notorious and has subsequently had to be admitted by himself. I need not pursue this point any further. My point is that the Chief Secretary's information is often belated, usually incomplete, and frequently misleading. The Chief Secretary has my sympathy, and, I am sure, that of every Member in the House in the very difficult position which he has to fulfil, but he is responsible for Irish administration, and this House is entitled to complete, accurate and reliable information on Irish affairs.
    9.0 P.M.
    I shall deal with only one other point— the question of discipline in these Army Auxiliary Forces. When highly-placed police or military officers pause in the execution of their duty to consider the possible political consequences of their action, discipline must suffer. It is impossible to maintain the standard of discipline which is essential to the carrying out of the difficult and dangerous duties which are assigned to our Forces in Ireland to-day. That political considerations were the dominant factor in this matter is borne out entirely by General Tudor's letter to General Crozier. General Tudor says:
    "I want to discuss it with the Chief Secretary. He gets all the bother."
    What bother? Of course, the bother in this House and in the Press—the political bother. General Tudor wanted to ask the Chief Secretary—he says it in his letter in effect—what would be the political consequences if these men were dismissed? I want to ask the Chief Secretary, did General Tudor put that question to him, and, if so, what was his reply?
    The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Colonel Sir Hamar Greenwood): I can say at once he did not.
    Mr. NEWBOULD: I was quite well aware that when the Chief Secretary answered he would answer in his usual emphatic manner.
    Mr. DEVLIN: Did he say anything to you at all?
    Mr. NEWBOULD: The Chief Secretary's manner is all his own, but his answers are frequently supplied to him. The combination is an unfortunate one, and it ceases to carry conviction to this House. I quite anticipated that I should get that interruption from the Chief Secretary. The letter went on to say:
    "My main point is that it is an unfortunate time to do anything that looks panicky."
    Mr. DEVLIN: There were three bye-elections on at the time.
    Mr. NEWBOULD: Could the dismissal of these men look panicky from any other point of view than a political point of view? I think not. It is quite obvious on the face of General Tudor's letter that that was the important fact in their minds at the time. My point is that after approving of General Crozier's letter before embarking on the boat for England—and as General Tudor admits that he had approved of it—General Tudor had an appointment with or met some highly-placed official in Dublin, and that official placed before him the possible political consequences of the dismissal of these men. That, and that alone, is the explanation of that letter. Why was it an unfortunate moment when this might look panicky? It was the eve of the assembly of Parliament, and the Government had some very awkward snags to surmount in regard to Ireland. They had the suppression of the Strickland Report, and the publication of Judge Bodkin's Report. These were nasty snags to surmount, and they were the reasons why political considerations were taken into account. The suggestion that General Tudor's action was dictated by the fact that General Crozier's action had not been severe enough, is blown sky-high by General Tudor himself in the last paragraph of his letter:
    "If you prefer it, keep them on by not completing their account until I come back."
    Is there any suggestion there of sterner action? Is there any suggestion there of placing these men under arrest, either close or open? Nothing of the sort. Political considerations interposed, and

    1737
    they prevailed, and when political considerations prevailed a knock-out blow was struck at General Crozier's authority and any possibility of effecting a much-needed improvement of the discipline of this force was done away with. General Tudor came to London to see the Chief Secretary, and the result of his interview with the Secretary was that these men were returned to their units. To an honourable man and a gallant soldier there was no alternative left to General Crozier but to resign. I have said that an improvement in the discipline of this force was very necessary. It is not surprising that the standard of discipline in the force is not very high. The force lacks the greatest asset on which discipline is built and maintained. The force lacks tradition. As an old regular soldier, who served five years in the ranks, I attach enormous importance to tradition. The very difficult and dangerous tasks which have to be performed in Ireland to-day is such as makes it unsafe to leave it to a force of this nature. This force is hastily improvised, it is ill-assorted and it is ill-defined. However brave and gallant many of its members may be, and undoubtedly are, it lacks many of the attributes which are essential to the performance of its difficult task. Discipline cannot be achieved in a day or a week or a month, and in the meantime we cannot afford to run the risk of further acts of indiscipline such as the one we have now under consideration.
    What is the Government going to do? I would prefer to leave this task to the Regular forces, in whom our confidence is unshaken. As to the Chief Secretary and General Tudor, I agree with my hon. and gallant Friend that they should resign their positions. [Laughter.] Hon. Members think that is a joke. It is not a joke. If there is any honour in the Coalition Government they would have resigned before now. These 26 men cannot be re-tried. If it is not actually legal, it is against the tradition of the force; it is a breach of faith, because these men were returned to their units on the promise that they should be reinstated and not re-tried. They cannot be re-tried if they are reinstated. Then what is the use of the Government prating in this House about the maintenance of law and order, when they propose
    1738
    to condone larceny in the very force which is there to maintain order?
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Whitley): I must remind the House that the Motion, quite properly, is confined to a definite matter, and it is that definite matter we must discuss now, and not the general question of Irish administration. The matter in question is between General Crozier, General Tudor, and the Chief Secretary.
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: My only regret in speaking in this Debate is that, owing to the exigencies of the House, it was impossible to bring on the Debate at once when the question was first raised, so that I could have met criticism at an earlier date and could have checked in their dissemination a good deal of criticism and innuendo which I think, is both unfounded and unfair. I think it would be well, and the House would appreciate it, if I made a few preliminary remarks as to what the Auxiliary Division is, and cleared up certain misconceptions as to the Division. Let me say in the forefront of my remarks that no one realises more than I do the difficulties of obtaining rapid, accurate, and full information in regard to events in Ireland. Ireland in many parts is in a state of actual rebellion. Soldiers, policemen, civil servants and law-abiding people are frequently in danger of their lives, and it is a difficult thing to get all the information that any Chief Secretary would like to give to the House as rapidly or as fully as he and the House would naturally desire. That is said in reference to a matter mentioned by the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Newbould). The realities of the Irish situation are not always appreciated by the House of Commons. If I am asked a question about Cork to-day, I have to take some officer from his duty in that rebellious area, where the lives of officers of the Crown are in hourly peril, to deal with a very proper question raised in the House of Commons. No one regrets more than I do the inadequacy and belatedness of much of the information given to the House.
    The Auxiliary Division was formed in the summer of last year, and is entirely recruited from ex-officers of His Majesty's Forces. The recruits pass through the principal recruiting offices in London and Glasgow. They are then sent to Dublin,

    1739
    put into the depot and trained in police duties. The authorised total of this Force is 1,600. It is nearly recruited to its maximum. It is divided into companies of about 100 each, and these companies are sent to the most disturbed areas. For instance 7 of the 14 companies existing now are in the martial law area. I have the word of General Strickland himself vouching for the splendid services which these companies give him. This Auxiliary Division has its own transport, and was recruited for the specific purpose of forming mobile columns to move rapidly from one part of Ireland to another. The Royal Irish Constabulary is a county force in much of its administration, and it was essential to get a mobile force that could move where there was great trouble and operate there. The ex-officers are enlisted for one year only. They have no pensions rights. Take them altogether, they have been a most efficient and well-disciplined force, and that is borne out by the letter in the "Times" of 22nd February, which is part of the agitation now going on on this particular question. The writer of that letter, who obviously knew the force, paid a tribute to the efficiency, courage and discipline of these ex-officers of the Army, Navy and Air Force. General Tudor, though not known to the hon. and gallant Member for Waterford, at which I am surprised, was a distinguished Commander of the First Kitchener Division for some four years at the front. He was selected to be the head of all the police forces in Ireland, with the idea of coordinating the police forces, on the recommendation of the Secretary of State for War.
    Captain REDMOND: When was this office created? I think it is a new title.
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: In May or June. It was an ad hoc office to deal with the realities of the Irish situation. It was considered that an officer of distinction was the best man for the position. He was recommended by the Secretary of State for War after consultation with the General Officer Commanding, Sir Nevil Macready. He was appointed to this high position, and I must pay this tribute. He has never failed to show the greatest courage in the most difficult circumstances. He constantly motors throughout Ireland where it is dangerous to motor. His life is in constant
    1740
    danger. Only the other day in Dublin be missed by but a few minutes an ambush which was prepared for him. It is quite right that the House should severely criticise me. It is the lot that any Minister deserves. But I do think that to criticise an officer like General Tudor is going rather far. When one considers that Ireland is now in a state of war, criticism in this House of these gallant men, to whatever force they belong, does not help them to carry on.
    As to General Crozier, he did his part in the War, and he applied for a post in the Auxiliary Division. He was selected to take charge of the Auxiliary Division, and almost from its inception he has been the officer commanding the Division, responsible for its discipline, responsible for the officers appointed, only under the Chief of Police, and I have never heard from him personally, nor from any record that I have seen, other than the greatest agreement and good fellowship between General Crozier and General Tudor, until the 22nd of February. I first saw General Crozier at the inspection of "A" and "B" Companies of this Auxiliary Division, and I ventured, as I have done since, to make an appeal to them that they were in a disturbed country, and that high standards of discipline and conduct would have a great effect for good in curing the bitterness of Ireland. I saw General Crozier last on 22nd January at the depot of the Auxiliary Division, where I again met another company and made a similar appeal. I have never had any complaint from him, and I am not aware of any complaint that he has made in reference to the loyal support which he received from General Tudor or from myself, and I do not understand myself how an ex-general officer, instead of asking for an interview with the Chief Secretary, should use the medium of the public Press or the friendship of Members of this House, because how can it help the force of which he has been the officer commanding almost from its inception? After all, the persons in this matter count but little. This force is now in Ireland carrying out its duty, I think with some exceptions, adequately and well.
    Captain REDMOND: He was not a friend of mine. I never met him.
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: Let me bring the House back to the sequence of events in this matter that is called the Trim

    1741
    incident, though for me it is much more than an incident. It is a very serious event. It was General Tudor himself who on the 12th February was informed that there had been looting at Trim. Let me say here that there had been looting at Trim. The amount of looting is estimated at from £100 to £130. The material damage will be made good. But I admit that the moral stigma remains, and the breach of discipline must be adequately dealt with. General Tudor sent General Crozier, commanding all the Auxiliaries, to Trim. He went on the 13th inst., and reported to General Tudor on the 14th inst., and said that he had placed two platoon leaders, two section leaders, and one cadet under arrest on definite charges of looting. These persons are still under arrest, and will be tried by court-martial for looting. There is no question about that. General Crozier further proposed to dismiss the rank and file, some 25 in number, who he thought were implicated or who refused to give evidence. General Tudor approved his action in placing the five men under arrest, but expressed disquietude at the proposed dismissal of 26 temporary cadets without a full investigation. So we come to one of the points which have been urged. General Tudor informs mo that there was no full investigation that could possibly be called trial.
    Captain REDMOND: Produce the records.
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: I regret to say that there are no records of General Crozier's investigation except what I have given the hon. and gallant Member in Question and Answer and in my speech to-night. There is a conflict of evidence between General Crozier and General Tudor. One says there was an investigation, a proper trial, as the hon. and gallant Member for Waterford has said, General Tudor, and I am convinced he is right, says there was no such thing as a trial.
    Mr. NEWBOULD: There were plenty of witnesses.
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: The difficulty was that they could not get witnesses. One reason for the suspension of these 26 cadets was that they would not implicate anybody and refused to answer questions.
    Mr. NEWBOULD: Might I interrupt the right hon. Gentleman? General Crozier's Adjutant and the Officer in Command and the Second in Command of this company were present at the investigation. They can prove whether there was a proper investigation or not.
    Mr. STANTON: Where did you get posted?
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: I do not think the hon. Member advances the point at all. I admit the conflict on this, but I cannot see how it was possible to hold an adequate trial of 26 cadets in the 3½ hours which General Crozier occupied.
    Mr. NEWBOULD: Have you been a private soldier?
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: Yes, I have been a private soldier?
    Mr. NEWBOULD: I have been a private soldier, and tried.
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: The point is that there is conflict. I regret there is; no documentary evidence bearing out the suggestion that there was a fair trial of these men, and that is the first point of conflict. General Tudor left for London on the night of the 14th, after having seen, and discussed the matter with, General Crozier. Here we come to the letter, which I think is vital to this whole matter. Before he left on the night boat from Queenstown, which leaves about 8 o'clock, he wrote this letter, which I must read again, to General Crozier. He wrote this letter before he came to London, while the Cadets were suspended, and while the five were then, as they still are, under close arrest on the accusation of looting.
    "Dear Crozier,
    I think it will be best for yon to keep these 30 temporary cadets suspended until I come back. I want to discuss it with the Chief Secretary. He gets all the bother. My main point is that it is an unfortunate time to do anything which looks panicky. I think also these temporary cadets will have a distinct grievance if the platoon commanders and sections leaders are acquitted Tell these 30 they are suspended pending my return or, if you prefer it, keep them on by not completing their accounts till I come back.
    Yours Sincerely,
    H. H. Tudor."
    I submit to the House that that is a frank and honest letter of a senior officer to a brother officer. To suggest that there was anything political in this is, to my

    1743
    mind, as unwarranted as it is untrue. Let me clear up one miserable innuendo that is going round, and which has been suggested to-night, that I had anything to do with this breach of discipline, with the suspension or the return of these cadets. General Tudor mentioned it to me, and happily my Private Secretary, Captain Hemming, of the Treasury, and Sir John Anderson, Joint Under-Secretary, were present at the time. All I said was: "This is a matter of discipline, do what you think best for the discipline of the Force." That is all I have said. I have had long experience with troops, long experience; and that experience and the War has burned this into me, as an administrator, that if you put an officer in charge of a force, as I have put General Tudor, you either support him or you dismiss him. There can be no alternative. I have never interfered with his discipline, I have never hesitated to endorse every action that he has taken, and that is the position I stand in to-night. I am not going to desert this gallant soldier, who is risking his life in a way that no one who does not know Ireland intimately will realise, and who, for the rest of his life, will be a marked man by those who are causing all the trouble in Ireland today. I submit that from that letter there cannot be drawn any sinister or unworthy suggestion, as has been imputed in certain newspapers, and as has been suggested in this House. With regard to alleged political interference, I have made my position, I hope, absolutely plain. In order that there may be no doubt about it in future, let it be clear that what is done in the way of discipline in Ireland is not done at my instigation, but everything that is done has my support, and a severer and more drastic discipline, as long as it is just, will have my definite support.
    General Tudor left for London and arrived on the morning of the 15th, and he thought that General Crozier had received his letter, and that these cadets remained suspended in Ireland. Apparently, General Crozier never received the letter or did not receive it in time. Had he received it, he could not have sent the cadets over without disobeying the instructions of his chief. So that, therefore, he could not have received it. Not having received it the cadets were sent over. Then another set of circumstances
    1744
    arose. They undoubtedly waited on General Tudor; they complained that they had been dismissed, with the stigma of thieving upon each one, without a chance of a trial, without a hearing; and they asked him to give them a chance, before a court-martial, so that they might be convicted of looting if they were guilty, and that they might be free men if they were not guilty. I would remind the House that General Tudor did not intend that they should be sent here. They were sent here by mistake. He had to make up his mind whether, to meet the just requests of the 25, he would send them back for trial, or whether, having regard to General Crozier's act, he should sacrifice the 25 without trial to save the prestige of General Crozier, as General Crozier felt that his prestige was at stake.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Support the officer on the spot.
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: General Tudor took no action in England but returned to Dublin and met a conference of the company commanders of the Auxiliaries. It should be stated that the Company Commanders of the Auxiliaries are all distinguished soldiers. When we have difficulty in getting an adequate commander from the Auxiliary Force itself we get a senior officer from the War Office. General Tudor met all these senior officers, including General Crozier. This Trim matter with other matters was discussed frankly and fully. On that point the hon. and gallant Member for Waterford (Captain Redmond) wanted to know whether I could read from some evidence of someone at that conference contradicting General Crozier. I am very happy to be able to oblige him. General Wood, the second in command of the Auxiliary Depot, was at that conference and he says:
    "The statement appearing in the interview given by General Crozier to the Press has no truth in it so far as it concerns me. I was present at the conference held at General Tudor's office on the 17th inst., when General Crozier, his Adjutant, and the Company Commanders were present. It was very clearly stated by General Tudor that there was no question of condoning looting or other disobedience, and that the Cadets had been brought back with a promise of trial, and in the event of being found guilty of any offence, would be punished."
    That is from an officer of distinction whose word I accept. I wish it were

    1745
    possible to clear up these contradictions between General Crozier on the one side and General Tudor and his other commanders at the conference on the other side; but let me remind the House what that means. Here was a secret conference of the senior officers of the Auxiliary Division, called to discuss questions of discipline, of fighting, and other matters connected with this division, and I do not think it is quite worthy of any general to disclose in the public Press or to inform private Members in this House what took place at the conference. I am sure the House does not want me to disclose what takes place at conferences of soldiers and policemen, men who are endeavouring to carry out the very difficult task of maintaining peace and restoring order. I have quoted General Wood. After the conference and discussion of this matter General Tudor, not believing for a moment that General Crozier felt so strongly on the question that he would resign, sent a telegram to Major Fleming, who was a County Inspector of the Royal Irish Constabulary and an ex-Irish Guards officer during the War:
    "Send over the Twenty-six N. Company Cadets now in London for investigation by the Chief of Police."
    It is true one hon. Member to-night read the answering telegram, but he did not read this one, and this is the vital one, because it comes from General Tudor. The cadets were sent over. They were not returned to duty; they were not put into their old company; they are not now doing any police duty whatever. They are suspended from all police duty pending the inquiry now proceeding. That inquiry automatically follows any charge made against any member of the police force. It is an inquiry conducted in this case by Brigadier-General Barron, C.B., D.S.O., and Lieut.-Colonel Price, D.S.O. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] They are both distinguished soldiers. It is true, I believe, that Colonel Price was connected with what was known as the Ulster Volunteer Army.
    Mr. DEVLIN: No. Do you want to know about Price?
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: He is a most efficient and gallant officer, and carries out his duties satisfactorily to General Tudor and me. It is very hard on these men in Ireland, who risk their lives—
    Mr. DEVLIN: So do we all.
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: This Court of Inquiry interviewed, as is required by the regulations governing the constabulary, not only each one of the twenty-five suspended cadets, but every other member of N Company who was at all likely to have been connected with this business at Trim on 9th February. On the Report of this Court of Enquiry charges will be made against members of this company who can be accused of looting. A court-martial will be set up by Sir Nevil Macready and it will be composed entirely of British officers. These men will be tried and if found guilty will be sentenced, and after sentence will be dismissed from the force. That is the procedure now going on. It is fair. It will do justice to the innocent and certainly stern justice to the culprits. This will be the best thing in the way of discipline for the whole Force. I believe that the discipline of a force is made the stronger and the better if justice, however stern, is meted out deliberately and fairly by officers who have the confidence even of those who suffer.
    Captain REDMOND: Would the right hon. Gentleman kindly say whether he agrees with the statement of the Prime Minister in the House the other day, as to the action taken with regard to seven cadets after the alleged looting in Cork, that is, dismissal without any evidence whatsoever against them but on mere suspicion.
    Mr. NEWBOULD: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether General Crozier will be asked to give evidence at the inquiry now taking place?
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: I shall see that he is asked. I hope that in the interests of the old Force of which he was the commander, and which I believe he left largely because of the non-receipt of that letter from General Tudor, he will do his best to bring the culprits in this case to justice. As to the question put by the hon. and gallant Member for Waterford, whether I agree with the Prime Minister in regard to the dismissal of the seven cadets n Cork, I do. In the Cork case it was impossible to identify anybody. In this case it is possible to identify, but in this case the officer, General Tudor, has the power, if he suspects a person or considers a person unsuitable, for medical

    1747
    or any other reasons, to dispense with his services. General Crozier had that power, subject to this, that the man was informed that he had the right to appeal to the Chief of Police. After all, let us remember these Auxiliary officers had been invited to join this force. I do not believe it is right and fair to them, or to the prestige of any force, that they should be dismissed without an opportunity of stating their case. There is no force that I know of from which men can be dismissed on suspicion; you cannot do it in the Army, certainly. You can dismiss from this force on suspicion, subject to appeal to the Chief of Police.
    The next stage of this business was this. General Crozier had left for the south of Wales oh leave. While there, on 19th February, he wrote the following letter to General Tudor, who was in Dublin:
    "Dear General,—The more I think over the matter, the more I am of opinion that your attitude in the Trim incident has made my position quite impossible. As I am all out to have the discipline unquestioned, I therefore propose to resign at the expiration of my leave. I still consider thefts on the part of policemen in the course of their duty unpardonable, and I cannot honestly associate myself with a Force in which such acts are condoned."
    That is a very serious letter to write to a superior officer. I am glad to say that, in an interview since this letter, General Crozier has watered down this word "condoned" and said it was not used at the, conference on the 17th ultimo. I should like to see any evidence that can be produced to show there is any condonation of looting or any other misdemeanour in this or any other Force; it would be most helpful to me, and whatever the House may think of me as a Minister, I am sure they would all like to see the Forces in Ireland disciplined and any question of looting or crime dealt with. This letter was sent from Wales on the 19th. It was not received by General Tudor until the 22nd. On the morning of the 22nd, the fact of General Crozier's resignation appeared in the Press. General Tudor actually saw it in the Press before he received the letter of resignation from General Crozier. I do not understand that system of discipline among generals.
    Mr. W. THORNE: Postal delay.
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: I do not think it was a delay in postage. The first part of the Motion which condemns me deals with this non-receipt of this letter of resignation. It says:
    "The lack of control of the Irish administration, as disclosed by the Chief Secretary … in his admission that he had no knowledge of the resignation of General Crozier until the 22nd February."
    I had no knowledge of the resignation of General Crozier until I saw it in the Press. I wired at once to General Tudor. General Tudor wired again that he had just received the letter of resignation, and I do not see how I can be condemned, or how I can condemn General Tudor, for any laxity in administration. I want to read the letter of General Tudor accepting the resignation of General Crozier. It is dated the same day as the receipt of the resignation:
    "Dear Crozier,—I have received your letter and have accepted your resignation as Commandant of the Auxiliary Division from to-day. I have so informed the Chief Secretary."—
    He did, by wire, at once.
    "I regret there should have been a misunderstanding, as your letter clearly shows there has been. I hare nothing more to add, except to thank you for the work you have done as Commandant of the Auxiliary Division, which I know has been exacting."
    I submit that that is the letter of a simple, straight soldier. The point about this letter is this. After General Crozier had made an accusation of condonation against his superior officer, General Tudor tells me he felt he could do nothing but accept his resignation at once. I will admit to the House that other action might have been taken—the resignation might haw been refused until General Crozier had proved his words in regard to condonation, but General Tudor accepted the resignation, not from the date of the end of General Crozier's leave, 5th March, but from the date of the letter being received, namely, 22nd February.
    That is the Tudor-Crozier incident, and I will not be long in coining to the close of my remarks. I submit that there is not any evidence, and there could be no suggestion, except that founded on malice or ill-nature, to accuse me of having any political motive or interest even in this matter. My interest is entirely in the interests of the sternest discipline, and I would never think of suggesting anything political to an officer like

    1749
    General Tudor, or to General Sir Nevil Macready. Never for a moment would either of these officers tolerate it. The point about the trial raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Waterford in his opening remarks I have dealt with. There was no trial; there will now be a trial. There is no question of re-trial, because there never was a trial. It was not the intention of General Tudor that these men should be reinstated. These men must stand their trial, and take the consequence. I hope I have made it clear to the House that in this matter General Tudor has acted always with regard to the discipline of the Force, which is his primary consideration. In this matter let me say that I have discussed it with General Sir Nevil Macready, the General Officer Commanding, who tells me that General Tudor has taken the only possible step in the interests of the discipline of the force. No one is sterner in his views on discipline than General Sir Nevil Macready. The splendid discipline of his Army is a testimonial to his success. He gives me every possible help that he can in endeavouring to maintain the highest discipline among all the Forces in Ireland.
    Now General Crozier has left. His adjutant is said to have resigned. We have no record at all of any resignation of his adjutant. Officially, his adjutant is on leave. On the question of writing to the Press, I must say that I do not think it helps the Administration in Ireland. If every officer who resigns or every officer who is dismissed or who is asked to resign starts writing to the Press, or informing private Members of this House, the difficulties of the Irish Administration will grow greater. It is not the Chief Secretary who suffers, except that he suffers the anxieties and the natural worries of those who are carrying out the orders of this House in trying to restore law and order. Any questions involving discipline should be kept within narrow limits, and the responsibility should be always placed upon the Chief Secretary. No recriminations or criticisms should be urged against officers who enjoy his confidence and the confidence of this House. I have put in the place of General Crozier, on the recommendation of General Tudor, General Wood, C.M.G., D.S.O., who served in Rhodesia, in the Boer War, and in the Great War, where he got the D.S.O. with
    1750
    three bars. In appointing officers I always get reports from the War Office, which, as every service man knows, discloses the whole record of a man. The report of the War Office on General Wood says:
    "He is a very gallant and fearless soldier"—
    and it goes on in eulogy of this gallant officer. I have appointed, on General Tudor's recommendation, as second in command, Lieut.-Colonel Guard, C.M.G., D.S.O., who was for a time in command of one of the Battalions, Royal Scots, in the War, who was also G.S.O.I., and who was with General Ironside in the North Russia campaign. I name these men in order to give the House an idea of the efforts being made to secure for this Auxiliary Division officers whose records will command the respect and confidence not only of those men over whom they have command, but of this House. No one has more often voiced the importance of discipline in Ireland than I have. I have felt from the start that when you are dealing with a fraction of the population in rebellion you must have the best possible discipline in your force, or you will fail to defeat the rebels, and, what is of as much importance, you will fail to secure the support of law-abiding people. That is what makes this Trim business so humiliating to me. You need discipline, to retain the respect of law-abiding people in Ireland, on whose support you must rely for good government, and by whose support, and whose support alone, peace can be ultimately brought to Ireland. General Tudor has had my instructions from time to time on this particular matter. I have had him at different Debates seated in this House so that he could realise what the House felt about the importance of this question and take it back to his police officers in Ireland. He has done his best and is still doing it. I submit that this Trim business—a nasty business it is, I am compelled to say—
    Mr. DEVLIN: Is it the only one?
    10.0 P.M.
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: No, it is not the only one, but that one and every other one is inquired into by officers in whom I have confidence, and the culprits are tried by officers in whom General Sir Nevil Macready has confidence. I hope this incident, as General Crozier

    1751
    calls it, will not persuade the House to lose perspective of the realities of the Irish situation. Breaches of discipline have been dealt with and will be dealt with. The realities of the Irish situation remain.
    Mr. HOGGE: And you remain.
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: Yes, as long us I have the confidence of the House in my efforts to secure the sternest discipline for the forces in Ireland, in the interests of Ireland, as well as for the good name of this country, I will remain.
    Mr. ASQUITH: The right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down has perorated with his accustomed vigour, this time on the theme of the importance of maintaining discipline in the forces of the Crown in Ireland—a very appropriate subject. It is curious that we should, for the first time, I think, have heard him deal with this matter with such energy and even vehemence of language. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO."] With more vehemence and vigour. It is the only case, so far as I know. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."]
    Mr. DEVLIN: If the Leader of the House rises he will not be allowed to speak.
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Perhaps the hon. Member for Belfast will please allow me to preserve order.
    Mr. DEVLIN: Then keep hon. Members opposite quiet.
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member does not always keep quiet himself.
    Mr. ASQUITH: It is the only case, I think—certainly it is one of very few cases—in which an actually proved instance of misconduct on the part of the Auxiliary forces in Ireland having been examined by the General in command of that force and visited by him, with the approval of his superior officer, with condign punishment, his action has been disavowed and is now overruled by the Chief Secretary. [HON. MEMBERS: "No," and "Withdraw."] I repeat what I have just said. I hold no brief in this matter for any of the Generals concerned. I know very well the admirable service which General Tudor rendered in the War as Commander of the Ninth Divi-
    1752
    sion. Of General Crozier I know nothing personally. I have never seen him in my life, and I have never had any communication with him, but I believe he also had a good record in the War, or I am quite certain he would not have been appointed to the post he had in Ireland. But I must say instantly, before I come to the real point, that I do not understand the view of discipline taken by the Chief Secretary when he says that a General who has resigned his office, and whose resignation has been accepted by his superior, is not at liberty to communicate with the public through any channel. But I am not concerned with the merits or demerits of the parties. I want to look at the actual facts What are they? I take the undisputed facts first, and then I will come to those which are in dispute.
    This company of the Auxiliary Force went out one night to this place somewhere near Trim on what was really a marauding expedition. They looted the principal shop or store in the town. They brought home with them on their lorry a considerable quantity of spoil of a miscellaneous kind, some of which, at any rate, was distributed among and retained by the ringleaders. It is a lurid illustration of the state of discipline of this force that out of the whole number of people engaged in this expedition there were only two who informed their superior officers when they had returned of what had happened. The whole of the rest were silent. General Crozier most properly, and I think the right hon. Gentleman told us under General Tudor's instructions, proceeded to hold an investigation. He declares he went minutely into all the facts of the case and had every one of these men before him, and the conclusion he arrived at was this—that there were five ringleaders who had actual concern in the looting, and who had appropriated the spoil. As regards the remainder, he spent a great deal of time in company with his adjutant and the other officers. [HON. MEMBERS: "How long?"] Three and a half hours, and afterwards in Dublin, a supplementary inquiry. He was a man, remember, who a fortnight ago had been for months considered fit to command the whole of this force. He made this investigation, and came to the conclusion that there were five cases in which actual theft and looting was proved, and

    1753
    some 25 or 26 other cases in which the men, although they had not engaged, or could not be proved to have engaged, in actual pillage and theft, were cognisant of what was going on and took no steps to prevent it. As General Crozier thought, it was their duty not only not to violate the law, but the prevent its violation and to report violation when it occurred. That was the charge made against them. It was not a charge of theft; it was a charge of not having done their duty in preventing and reporting. Thereupon he ordered the five men, the ringleaders, the actual suspected thieves, to be tried by court-martial, and, as regards the other cases, he came to the decision they had shown themselves not fit any longer to be members of the force, and that dismissal was approved by General Tudor.
    Mr. BONAR LAW: That is disputed.
    Mr. ASQUITH: It is the first time I have heard it disputed. It is asserted most positively by General Crozier that it was so approved, and I think General Tudor's own letter when he was on the voyage to England proves that it was the case. So strongly was General Crozier of that opinion that a précis of the decision was drawn up and was circulated through all the companies of the auxiliary force in order to be read at three successive parades. That was the state of things, and except for this point, raised for the first time to-night, that General Tudor did not approve of the dismissal of these men, there is no dispute about the facts I have given, absolutely none.
    Lieut.-Colonel CROFT: Would the right hon. Gentleman tell the House whether in his opinion, private soldiers or policemen should report to their seniors?
    Mr. ASQUITH: Yes. If they have been engaged in theft and pillage, certainly. What are they in Ireland for? They are not sent as combatants; they are sent as policemen, and if they are engaged in committing crime, certainly they ought to report. What happened then? These men were dismissed, and sent back to England. General Tudor had an interview with the Chief Secretary, and—I am now coming to a fact in controversy—he had his interview with the men. I would like to know exactly what passed between General Tudor and these
    1754
    men. Did he say to the men, "You have to go back and be put on your trial" and "on your trial" for what? or did he say, "If you will consent"—I use one of the phrases I have seen—"to be good boys in future, and be on your good behaviour, this thing will be overlooked, and you will be reinstated in your position?" Which of these statements was made? They went back, not under arrest; they went back quite voluntarily to Ireland. Did the men go back under the impression they were going to be put on their trial?
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: I am informed they did.
    Mr. ASQUITH: That is what I would like to know. It is a very extraordinary proceeding. And what offence were they going to be charged with? That is the first question I ask, and about which there is considerable controversy. Then I come to another. What happened at this meeting in Dublin when General Tudor met the assembled officers from General Crozier downwards—General Crozier, General Wood, the Adjutant and the Company Commanders at Dublin Castle? General Crozier's statement is perfectly plain. The whole question was a question of reinstatement. I hear for the first time to-night that General Wood makes a contrary statement. Have the Company Commanders been asked their recollection of this matter? What do they say? Because, unless General Crozier is either making a misstatement, considerable discussion took place as to which of the various companies of the regiment these men should be put into. It does not look as if any of them had been brought back there for the purpose of being tried. I am not expressing any opinion one way or the other as to which of these statements is true, but I say you cannot accept the statement made by the Chief Secretary to-night without taking into account the absolutely contradictory statement made by General Crozier and all those who agree with him. On this point there is a complete conflict of evidence between them. We are in this position. Admittedly there was a gross breach of discipline by persons who were no longer fit to be members of the police force. Admittedly, after inquiry, they were dismissed by their Commanding Officer. Admittedly the order was promulgated

    1755
    and circulated throughout the whole of the Force in Ireland.
    All these are admitted facts, and I should certainly myself draw the inference, though General Tudor may, on second thoughts, as he undoubtedly did, have believed it would have been a wiser course not to resort to those extreme measures—I should certainly draw the inference, in the first instance, that General Tudor approved, or, at least, did not disapprove. About subsequent events, as I have said, there is complete conflict of testimony as to what was said to the men by General Tudor and what was said in Dublin by General Tudor to these various officers. Therefore, it seems to me that in this ease, as in so many of these cases, what you need is a really independent and impartial inquiry, not conducted by a military court, or according to military rule, but an impartial, independent inquiry to get to the real truth of the case. We start with the presumption that discipline has been grossly violated and has been vindicated by the General commanding the force. What happened subsequently is now a matter of conflict of testimony. An hon. Gentleman a few-minutes ago represented me as prejudging the case. I am not pro-judging. I must say I do not think the time of the House has been wasted by the discussion of this matter, but it is a comparatively small question.
    It is, after all, a case of looting. As far as I know, it was not accompanied by any violence, and certainly not by loss of life, on one side or the other. How many cases have there been of a far graver and more serious kind, from the burnings at Cork downwards or upwards according to the scale upon which you regard the magnitude or the unimportance of these matters for which no disciplinary action has been taken. The feeling of this House and I am sure the feeling of the country is, as I have said more than once and as I repeat now with the additional illustration which this particular incident affords, you will never be able to convince the people that you are going the right way to work to establish the authority of the law in Ireland until you have had an independent impartial inquiry into all the circumstances.
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I remember with regret that the last time I spoke on this
    1756
    subject I succeeded in irritating hon. Gentlemen who do not agree with me. I hope to avoid that error to-night. Undoubtedly this is a subject upon which there is strong feeling on both sides, and I confess to my right hon. Friend that I could not listen to his speech without feeling that his mind is entirely taken up with one side of the case, which fails entirely, both in his own mind and in the minds of others, to let people have an understanding of what is the whole problem. First of all, in regard to the particular points raised in my right hon. Friend's speech. I do not know General Crozier, and I have certainly no intention of saying anything against him, or of referring to him in any way, except to the extent that the clear evidence justifies. My right hon. Friend (Mr. Asquith) has been Prime Minister and Secretary of State for War, and yet he actually told us to-night that there was nothing irregular in a General Officer communicating his opinions to the Press before his resignation had been received by his superiors. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO!"] If I have in any way mistaken the right hon. Gentleman, I should be glad to be corrected. I cannot imagine how anyone who talks of discipline can hold such a view as that. We recognise that in the Constabulary discipline is not so strictly enforced as in the Army. I think that even this House of Commons, or any House of Commons, would be astonished if one of my right hon. Friends were suddenly to resign for some reason, and, before the Prime Minister had received the resignation, were to send to the newspapers his letter containing it.
    Let us look at this incident. My right hon. Friend (Mr. Asquith) is, I think, in the unfortunate position of having prepared the speech he intended to make the night before he heard the statement of the Chief Secretary. He came here to make a speech on a case he had read in the newspapers, which was entirely different from the actual facts. The case we saw first in the newspapers was this: that the officer commanding this company, exercising discipline, had dismissed a certain number of men; then that the Chief of the Police, his superior officer, being afraid of the political effect, wished to delay matters. He saw the men in London, and sent them back without any punishment or any trial against the de-

    1757
    cision of the officer who had sent them away. There is not a word of truth in any one of those allegations. My right hon. Friend says—and it is the very essence of his case—that it was General Crozier who took the disciplinary action. It was nothing of the kind. General Tudor, hearing from cadets who had gone to visit a comrade in hospital that there had been a breach of discipline, told General Crozier to take action to have an inquiry, and he at once sent—
    Mr. ASQUITH: I said so.
    Mr. BONAR LAW: My right hon. Friend's speech implied that the man who wanted disciplinary action was General Crozier. The very essence of this case is that the first action to secure discipline was taken by General Tudor, who we are now told wanted to allow the men to escape, and in fact condoned the offence. Next it is said that General Tudor approved of the arrest of these five men and of the dismissal of the remaining 26. General Tudor denies that. He is most emphatic, and those who know him and who served with him in France—whatever opinions they may have—will agree that they can rely on anything he may say. I do not, however, rely only on General Tudor's statement. I rely on the clear evidence of facts. The letter he wrote from Kingstown bears out the statement that he had doubts about the dismissal of these men. He wrote to General Crozier that he thought they should be suspended until he returned to Dublin. Does not that in itself prove that General Tudor was doubtful about the wisdom of dismissing these men? My right hon. Friend suggested that it was a second thought; but General Crozier made this visit on the 14th, and the letter of General Tudor's was written on the 14th. How is there a second thought? It is quite evident that at that time he had doubt as to the wisdom of sending the men over, and he told them not to send them, but to keep them till he came back.
    Then my right hon. Friend makes an insinuation which I really do not think is worthy in regard to a man in General Tudor's position. He makes the insinuation that what General Tudor meant was to re-instate these men without any question of examination—that that was his intention, and that all the rest was an after-thought, as the result, I sup-
    1758
    pose, of what has happened in the House of Commons. What are the facts? He saw these men in London, and they made the complaint to him—the very complaint to which he had referred in his letter to General Crozier—that it was not fair to dismiss them as thieves without a trial. What did General Tudor do? He said, "I will take no decision till I get back to Dublin. You will remain here, and I will telegraph what is to be done with you from Dublin." He went to Dublin, and he then had a meeting with all the senior officers of the Auxiliary Force. The right hon. Gentleman says that he would like to know what was the intention as regards these men. Surely he cannot have listened to the speech of my right hon. Friend. It is not a question of what was his intention; it is a question of what he said; and in the telegram telling them to send these men back he said in the most clear way that they were to be sent back, not to be reinstated, but in order that their cases might be investigated. My right hon. Friend says that he would like to know what the men themselves thought about it. I will tell him. General Tudor noticed the kind of things which were being said in the House, of Commons about him, and which have been repeated by my right hon. Friend; and he sent an order to General Wood to see these men, and to put to them categorically in Dublin questions as to what was said in London. I will read what they said. It was not General Tudor, but General Wood, who saw them, and this is signed by the whole 26:
    " Question: When you saw General Tudor in London, did you express a wish to go back to N. Company?
    Answer: Yes, he told us that we should be sent back to Ireland, and, if sufficient evidence was forthcoming against any individual member of the party, we should have to stand our trial."
    My right hon. Friend asks what was said. That is what the men declared he said to them in London. Does not my right hon. Friend feel that his whole case is gone?
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: It is all the stronger.
    Mr. BONAR LAW: My hon. and gallant Friend says that it is all the stronger, but it seems to me that it is all invention. Let us consider further what happened. General Tudor called together all his officers in Dublin to discuss

    1759
    the whole matter with them. Among the other communications which are quoted in the Press is a statement of General Crozier that General Wood was one of those who agreed that his position was made difficult by the action of General Tudor. But General Tudor said that then: was not a word of truth in that—that there was no question of condonation, and that the whole discussion was as to the best method of having the case investigated. My right hon. Friend is quite right in saying that this question, is trivial. It is very trivial, from his point of view; but it does, I think, throw full light on the nature of the campaign that is being waged against these people who are carrying out on our behalf one of the most difficult tasks that was ever undertaken by anyone.
    My right hon. Friend says there has been no attempt to secure discipline. Is that quite true? Not only the Chief Secretary, but every one of us, would have to disappear if that were the case. I wish the House of Commons and the country— I think they have—to have a clear picture in their minds as to what are the conditions with which we are dealing in Ireland. One hon. Member, I think the hon. Member (Mr. Newbould) implied that it is only the police who are bad boys, that the soldiers are behaving very well. If that be true would he explain to me why it is that since the beginning of last year 60 soldiers have been murdered and 150 wounded—I do not know how many last month. Would he explain this further? Many hon. Members know General Macready. They know what good work he did as a soldier and as Chief of Police here. They know also that when he was in Ulster he was just as fearless in doing what he thought his duty as he is at this moment; and everyone who knows him realises this, too, that though it is his duty to try to restore civilised conditions in Ireland, there is not a man in this country or in Ireland who longs so vehemently to have all this horror ended in Ireland and to see peace established in that country. That is the kind of man he is. Did the House notice the communication he made to his troops the other day? He said deliberately that two of his soldiers had been brutally murdered, for what purpose? To try to drive them to reprisals, in order
    1760
    that we might have Debates like this in the House of Commons. These are the conditions which are prevailing in Ireland. It is all very well to imply that everything would be satisfactory if we would stop creating new offences. An Amendment to that effect was actually supported by my right hon. Friend (Mr. Asquith), who kept martial law in force in Ireland for ten months himself. I wish that were possible. But does the House remember that before there was any question of reprisals, upwards of 80 policemen had been murdered in cold blood, and not one of the murderers could be brought to trial, because of the terrorism which prevailed?
    We have to deal with a situation of that kind. Let the House—let even those who are condemning what we are doing—try to look at it. We have a very large force both of soldiers and policemen in Ireland. Discipline is a very difficult thing to secure. Tradition has a good deal to do with it, but there is more than tradition. Discipline in the Army is secured to a considerable extent because of the immediate touch of each body with someone superior arising behind him. If you are dealing with a police force in conditions such as prevail in Ireland, where they are acting largely on their own responsibility, there is infinitely greater danger of want of discipline than in a military force, and it depends to a large extent on something that is not easy to get, and that is the kind of officer who can at a word control his men. We know there has been a breach of discipline, but surely it is not enough to say that unless you say we have not taken every reasonable means to secure discipline. We have.
    My right hon. Friend said that he had only one choice, either to support General Tudor or to dismiss him. I do not think he did himself justice in that. My right hon. Friend (Sir H. Greenwood) has to answer the kind of speeches which are made, and has to be careful not to give the impression—as unfortunately my right hon. Friend opposite did when he was responsible—that the police cannot rely upon the support of the Executive Government when they are doing right. My right hon. Friend has to be careful in condemning not to condemn in such a way as to give the police impression that where they are only acting rightly he will not support them

    1761
    to the utmost of his power. I know from correspondence, and from interviews, at which I have been present, with military chiefs and police chiefs, that through the whole of these months my right hon. Friend has impressed upon them that, without discipline, our whole policy must fail. Only two or three weeks ago General Tudor was present at a conference between the Prime Minister and myself, and we said to him—although we did not need to say it, because he knows it as well as any Member of this House—that breach of discipline among the police absolutely destroys it as a weapon for the purpose for which we are trying to employ it in Ireland. We said that there is only one thing that can make our policy fail in Ireland: and it is not the excesses of the murderers, it is not the screeching of people in this House or in the country. The one thing that will make it fail is that the police cannot secure adequate discipline in the force which is acting on our behalf. We have tried, and we intend to try, to maintain discipline. It is a great mistake to suggest that His Majesty's Government like what is going on in Ireland any more than the hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool. We would be thankful to see it ended.
    Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR: You can end it.
    Mr. BONAR LAW: Yes, but there is one way in which it can be ended. The reprisals, if they exist, only come after brutal murders. The whole situation would end at once if the murders ceased. Han. Members opposite and right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Bench opposite could make no greater mistake than to imagine that they are going to get peace in Ireland by trying, however ineffectively, to give the impression that this country will ever surrender to crime.
    Lord HUGH CECIL: I find myself not quite in agreement either with the supporters or the opponents of this Motion After the lesson which my right hon. Friend has been trying to teach the Leader of the Opposition, I will do my best to see both sides or all sides of the lamentable position of affairs in Ireland. Under the ruling of the Chair we are not entitled to discuss that at length. No doubt there will be other opportunities. I feel very strongly that my right hon. Friend opposite is under a profound mis-
    1762
    take in supposing that the methods which are alleged, not merely by irresponsible, but by responsible persons, to have been adopted by the police in Ireland had ever any precedent in the history of the restoration of law and order by previous Governments in the nineteenth century, or can in any way lead to anything but the demoralisation of the Irish people, and, in a degree, of the English people as well. I have heard it very wittily said that the Government say "there is no such thing as reprisals, but they have done a great deal of good." I think some day or other they must elect between the two horns of that dilemma. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman means that there are no reprisals, or that they are a good thing. He does not know himself. The Government never know how to answer a straightforward question.
    As to this particular controversy, like most of these controversies, it is impossible to get beyond the stage of saying that there is a conflict of testimony. I listened with great interest to the able speech of the Chief Secretary. With almost every word of it I was in great sympathy. Almost everything he said would command my own assent, and I think ought to command the assent of this House. But I felt that he did not completely meet what was really causing the greatest anxiety at present. I am not concerned to judge and do not attempt to judge between General Tudor and General Crozier. Both are very distinguished officers and for both of them I have a profound respect because of their past record in the service of the King. And this House is not a good judge in a dispute of this kind. But I do think that what made people anxious, though there was something in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman to reassure them, was that grave charges of indiscipline are brought by responsible people and that one of these charges brought against the auxiliary police turns out to be well-founded. A great many charges have been made, some credible, some incredible, some by responsible people and some by irresponsible people—many of them much graver charges than any charge relating to looting. There was, for example, the extremely grave charge contained in the letter of Cardinal Logue—a charge of murder in county Armagh. When there were so many charges of that

    1763
    kind, people could not believe that there was nothing in them. On the other hand, I should be very sorry to believe that they were true. Here we find a charge of looting now admitted. That is an indescribably grave matter. It raises a much greater presumption in favour of these other outrages than appeared hitherto to exist. I should hoar with greater sympathy the indignant language of the Government if they did not set their faces against anything like an inquiry. No one wants to condemn brave men, as the Chief Secretary told us, risking their lives for the common cause of law and order—certainly not without a hearing. What we want is simply—
    Earl WINTERTON: What support did they got from my Noble Friend and his followers?
    Lord H. CECIL: These are not my followers. I do not think that in this House the Government has received any unreasonable criticism. Outside this House I have seen a great many things said against the Government with which I thoroughly disagree. Inside this House I think the criticism has been moderate and reasonable. I am obliged to say that as long as the Government refuse an inquiry they throw a sinister light on the whole of the transactions, nominally in the vindication of law. Let us not be told, as my right hon. Friend has told us again to-night, that there are two sides in this matter, the side of the assassins and the side of the police. That is a false hypothesis, altogether. There are only two sides I recognise in Ireland in a matter of this kind, the sides of right and wrong, and everybody who commits a murder, or loots, or commits an act of lawless violence, whether in the police or in Sinn Fein or anywhere else, is the enemy of God and of this country. I care nothing for those claptrap appeals which the Government are never tired of making to stand by brave men—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh!"]. They are dishonouring the country over which they preside. [HON. MEMBERS: "Give us an example!"] No, I will not give an example. What I care about is the vindication of God's Commandments in this case. I certainly do not want to make anything which would in any case be an unfair attack. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh!"] I
    1764
    want to vindicate the country from the complicity of acts of lawless violence. When we are told that General Tudor himself said there was a lot of looting; when we find so grave a charge is admitted and that the Government will not have an enquiry, I ask myself, where are we going? Things do not get better, apparently, in Ireland. We read with consternation and horror of the abominable crimes committed by criminals and rebels. I do not regard it as a state of war, of which the Chief Secretary has unfortunately spoken to-day. There is no war in the matter. I think the Government are the last people to call it so. It is a state of rebellion in some districts, and it is much more than a state of violence, it is a state of widespread assassination. The only way you can get rid of that is by restoring the atmosphere of law. You will never do that by allowing the police to commit acts of lawlessness. The thing has been faced before. Other Governments have had to deal with it in the Nineteenth Century, whether in so critical circumstances or not I do not know, and they succeeded in dealing with it by observing the law and enforcing it. I heard with great pleasure the Chief Secretary say that the only way to control the auxiliary cadets was by the strict enforcement of justice. What he said of the cadets was true of the whole Irish policy; we want a strict enforcement of law. The language of the Government was reassuring to-night, and I am certainly not going to vote against them. But we shall not do any good on the lines on which they have been going in the last six months. They must make up their minds effectively to control the Forces of the Crown. We are always glad to see the Chief Secretary in his place in this House. He has, no doubt, much information to give us. But I would rather he was in Ireland.
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: I am here only because the House demands it.
    Lord H. CECIL: I would much rather the right hon. Gentleman was in Ireland. He no doubt regards himself as the person responsible for the government of Ireland, and we must not attack officials of the Government except through him. He has very able colleagues who could quite well defend him here. He ought to be in Ireland in control,

    1765
    and he ought to bring the auxiliary forces under military law. We know now how extraordinarily ambiguous is the legal position of the force. No one knows whether they observe the rules of military discipline or whether they are in the legal position of civilians, whether trial before a commanding officer is legal or not, or what their obligations are under King's Regulations with respect to communications to the newspapers, and so on. They do not appear to be under military law or in the position of ordinary civilians. They would be much better under full military discipline.
    If the Government will honestly devote themselves to enforcing the law and get rid of the horrible suspicion that haunts the minds of so many, that this corps is organised to do work which the Regulars would not or ought not to do for fear of demoralising them, they would have no more hearty supporter than I am, for I hate the Sinn Fein movement from the bottom of my heart.
    Question put, "That this House do now adjourn."
    The House divided: Ayes, 60; Noes, 253.

    Division No. 13.]

    AYES

    [10.58 p.m.

    Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

    Grundy, T. W.

    Rondall, Athelstan

    Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

    Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)

    Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

    Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)

    Hayward, Major Evan

    Royce, William Stapleton

    Barton, Sir William (Oldham)

    Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Widnes)

    Sexton, James

    Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish

    Hirst, G. H.

    Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

    Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

    Hogge, James Myles

    Spoor, B. G.

    Bramsdon, Sir Thomas

    Holmes, J. Stanley

    Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)

    Briant, Frank

    Irving, Dan

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)

    Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

    John, William (Rhondda, West)

    Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

    Cape, Thomas

    Johnstone, Joseph

    Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince)

    Carter. W. (Nottinham, Mansfield)

    Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.

    Waterson, A. E.

    Davies, A. (Lancaster, Clitheroe)

    Kenyon, Barnet

    Wignall, James

    Davies, Major D. (Montgomery)

    Klley, James D.

    Williams, Aneurin (Durham, Consett)

    Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)

    Lawson, John J.

    Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Stourbrdge)

    Devlin, Joseph

    Lyle-Samuel, Alexander

    Wilson. W Tyson (Westhoughton)

    Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

    Maclean, Rt. Hn. Sir D. (Midlothian)

    Wintringham, T.

    Edwards, G. (Norfolk, South)

    Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness & Ross)

    Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)

    Galbraith, Samuel

    Myers, Thomas

    Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

    Glanville, Harold James

    O'Connor, Thomas P.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Graham, R. (Nelson and Colne)

    Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

    Captain Redmond and Mr. New-

    Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

    Raffan, Peter Wilson

    bould.

    NOES.

    Adair, Rear-Admiral Thomas B. S.

    Butcher, Sir John George

    Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.

    Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. C.

    Campbell, J. D. G.

    Flannery, Sir James Fortescue

    Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte

    Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.

    Ford, Patrick Johnston

    Ainsworth, Captain Charles

    Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

    Foreman, Sir Henry

    Amery, Lieut.-Col. Leopold C. M. S.

    Carter, R. A. D. (Man., Withington)

    Forrest, Walter

    Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Colonel Martin

    Cautley, Henry S.

    Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot

    Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Birm. W.)

    Fraser, Major Sir Keith

    Atkey, A. R.

    Chilcot, Lieut.-Com. Harry W.

    Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

    Baird, Sir John Lawrence

    Child, Brigadier-General Sir Hill

    Geddes, Rt. Hon. Sir E. (Camb'dge)

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

    Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

    Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham

    Balfour, George (Hampstead)

    Churchman, Sir Arthur

    Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel John

    Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.

    Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H. Spender

    Glyn, Major Ralph

    Banner, Sir John S. Harmood-

    Clough, Robert

    Goff, Sir R. Park

    Barlow, Sir Montague

    Coats, Sir Stuart

    Goulding, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward A.

    Barnett, Major R. W.

    Cobb, Sir Cyril

    Grant, James A.

    Barnston, Major Harry

    Cohen, Major J. Brunel

    Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)

    Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)

    Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale

    Greene, Li.-Col. Sir W. (Hack'y, N.)

    Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.

    Coote, Colin Reith (Isle of Ely)

    Greenwood, Colonel Sir Hamar

    Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)

    Cope, Major Wm.

    Greer, Harry

    Bennett, Sir Thomas Jewell

    Cory, Sir C. J. (Cornwall, St. Ives)

    Gretton, Colonel John

    Betterton, Henry B.

    Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

    Gritten, W. G. Howard

    Bigland, Affred

    Croft, Lieut.-Colonel Henry Page

    Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Hon. W. E.

    Birchall, Major J. Dearman

    Curzon, Commander Viscount

    Hallwood, Augustine

    Bird, Sir A. (Wolverhampton, West)

    Davidson, J. C. C. (Hemel Hempstead)

    Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)

    Blair, Sir Reginald

    Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.

    Hamilton, Major C. G. C.

    Blake, Sir Francis Douglas

    Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln)

    Hanson, Sir Charles Augustin

    Borwick, Major G. O.

    Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)

    Harmsworth, C. B. (Bedford, Luton)

    Bowles, Colonel H. F.

    Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)

    Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)

    Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.

    Denniss, Edmund R. B. (Oldham)

    Henderson, Major V. L. (Tradeston)

    Brassey, Major H. L. C.

    Dewhurst, Lieut.-Commander Harry

    Hennessy, Major J. R. G.

    Breese, Major Charles E.

    Du Pre, Colonel William Baring

    Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.)

    Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

    Edgar, Clifford B.

    Hewart, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon

    Brittain, Sir Harry

    Elveden, Viscount

    Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank

    Brown, Captain D. C.

    Eyres-Monsell, Commander B. M.

    Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

    Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.

    Falcon, Captain Michael

    Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard

    Burdett-Coutts, Rt. Hon. William

    Falle, Major Sir Bertram G.

    Hood, Joseph

    Burn, Col. C. R. (Devon, Torquay)

    Fildes, Henry

    Hope, Sir H. (Stirling & Cl'ckm'nn'n,W.)

    Hope, James F. (Sheffield, Central)

    Molson, Major John Elsdale

    Smith, Sir Allan M. (Croydon, South)

    Hope, Lt.-Cot. Sir J. A. (Midlothian)

    Montagu, Rt. Hon. E. S.

    Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander

    Hopkins, John W. W.

    Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col, J. T. C.

    Stanler, Captain Sir Beville

    Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

    Morden, Lieut.-Col. W. Grant

    Stanley, Major Hon. G. (Preston)

    Hotchkin, Captain Stafford Vere

    Moreing, Captain Algernon H.

    Stanton, Charles B.

    Hunter, General Sir A. (Lancaster)

    Morrison, Hugh

    Starkey, Captain John R.

    Hunter-Weston, Lt.-General Sir A. G.

    Morrison-Bell, Major A. C.

    Steel, Major S. Strang

    Hurd, Percy A.

    Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert

    Stephenson, Lieut.-Colonel H. K.

    Hurst, Lieut.-Colonel Gerald B.

    Murchison, C. K.

    Stewart, Gershom

    Inskip, Thomas Walker H.

    Nall, Major Joseph

    Sykes, Colonel Sir A. J. (Knutsford)

    James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert

    Neal, Arthur

    Taylor, J.

    Jephcott, A. R.

    Newman, Colonel J. R. P. (Finchley)

    Terrell, Captain R. (Oxford, Henley)

    Jodrell, Neville Paul

    Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)

    Thomas-Stanford, Charles

    Johnson, Sir Stanley

    Norman, Major Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

    Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

    Jones, Sir Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Norris, Colonel Sir Henry G.

    Thomson Sir W. Mitchell- (Maryhill)

    Jones, Sir Evan (Pembroke)

    O'Neill, Major Hon. Robert W. H.

    Townley, Maximilian G.

    Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)

    Palmer, Brigadier-General G. L.

    Townshend, Sir Charles Vere Ferrers

    Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Lianelly)

    Parry, Lieut.-Colonel Thomas Henry

    Turton, E. R.

    Kelley, Major Fred (Rotherham)

    Pennefather, De Fonblanque

    Vickers, Douglas

    Kerr-Smiley, Major Peter Kerr

    Perkins, Waiter Frank

    Waddington, R.

    Kidd, James

    Perring, William George

    Walters, Rt. Hon. Sir John Tudor

    King, Captain Henry Douglas

    Philipps, Sir Owen C. (Chester, City)

    Ward, Col. J. (Stoke-upon-Trent)

    Knights, Capt. H. N. (C'berwell, N.)

    Pickering, Lieut.-Colonel Emil W.

    Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull)

    Lane-Fox, G. R.

    Pollock, Sir Ernest M.

    Ward, William Dudley (Southampton)

    Law, Alfred J. (Rochdale)

    Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton

    Waring, Major Walter

    Law, Rt. Hon. A. B. (Glasgow, C.)

    Randles, Sir John S.

    Warren, Lieut.-Col, Sir Alfred H.

    Lloyd, George Butler

    Rankin, Captain James S.

    Watson, Captain John Bertrand

    Lloyd-Greame, Sir P.

    Raw, Lieutenant-Colonel N.

    Weston, Colonel John W.

    Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)

    Rees, Sir J. D. (Nottingham, East)

    Wheler, Lieut.-Colonel C. H.

    Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (H'tingd'n)

    Reid, D. D.

    White, Lieut.-Col. G. D. (Southport)

    Lorden, John William

    Remnant, Sir James

    Wild, Sir Ernest Edward

    Lort-Williams, J.

    Renwick, George

    Williams, Lt.-Com. C. (Tavistock)

    Lowther, Major C. (Cumberland, N.)

    Richardson, Sir Albion (Camberwell)

    Williamson, Rt. Hon. Sir Archibald

    Lowther, Col. Claude (Lancaster)

    Richardson, Alexander (Gravesend)

    Wilson, Daniel M. (Down, West)

    Lynn, R. J.

    Roberts, Rt. Han. G. H. (Norwich)

    Wilson, Colonel Leslie O. (Reading)

    M'Curdy, Rt. Hon. C. A.

    Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir M. (Bethnal Gn.)

    Mackinder, Sir H. J. (Camlachie)

    Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes., Stretford)

    Wilson-Fox, Henry

    McLaren, Robert (Lanark, Northern)

    Rodger, A. K.

    Winterton, Earl

    M'Lean, Lieut.-Col. Charles W. W.

    Roundell, Colonel R. F.

    Wise, Frederick

    Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.

    Hoyden, Sir Thomas

    Wood, Sir J. (Stalybridge & Hyde)

    McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)

    Rutherford, Sir W. W. (Edge Hill)

    Wood, Major Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)

    Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.

    Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

    Worsfold, Dr. T. Cato

    Magnus, Sir Philip

    Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert A.

    Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.

    Mallaby-Deeley, Harry

    Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange)

    Yate, Colonel Sir Charles Edward

    Manville, Edward

    Scott, Sir Samuel (St. Marylebone)

    Young, Lieut.-Com. E. H. (Norwich)

    Middlebrook, Sir William

    Seely, Major-General Rt. Hon. John

    Younger, Sir George

    Mitchell, William Lane

    Shaw, William T. (Forfar)

    Moles, Thomas

    Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T.)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Lord E. Talbot and Captain Guest.

    The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

    ADJOURNMENT.
    Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Lord E. Talbot.]
    Adjourned accordingly at Seven Minutes after Eleven o'clock.

IRELAND.
  PREROGATIVE OF MERCY.
  PREROGATIVE OF MERCY.
  MALICIOUS DAMAGE (COMPENSATION).
  MALICIOUS DAMAGE (COMPENSATION).
  BRIDGETOWN CO-OPERATIVE CREAMERY.
  BRIDGETOWN CO-OPERATIVE CREAMERY.
  DINGLE PENINSULA AND WEST KERRY.
  DINGLE PENINSULA AND WEST KERRY.
  CASUALTIES.
  CASUALTIES.
  OUTRAGES AND REPRISALS.
  OUTRAGES AND REPRISALS.
  SINN FEIN (NEGOTIATIONS).
  SINN FEIN (NEGOTIATIONS).
POST OFFICE.
  PENSIONS (RE-EMPLOYMENT).
  PENSIONS (RE-EMPLOYMENT).
  TELEPHONE SERVICE.
  TELEPHONE SERVICE.
  TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH WIRES (RAILWAY COMPANIES).
  TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH WIRES (RAILWAY COMPANIES).
  EVENING MAIL TRAIN, DUBLIN.
  EVENING MAIL TRAIN, DUBLIN.
  EXTRA DUTY.
  EXTRA DUTY.
  PART-TIME TELEPHONE OPERATORS.
  PART-TIME TELEPHONE OPERATORS.
  WIRELESS TELEGRAPHY (EMPIRE CHAIN).
  WIRELESS TELEGRAPHY (EMPIRE CHAIN).
FOOD SUPPLIES.
  GENERAL FARM COSTING.
  GENERAL FARM COSTING.
  SUGAR COMMISSION.
  SUGAR COMMISSION.
  FLOUR STORES, STOCKTON-ON-TEES.
  FLOUR STORES, STOCKTON-ON-TEES.
  CHINESE FLOUR.
  CHINESE FLOUR.
  WHEAT COMMISSION.
  WHEAT COMMISSION.
  BEER AND SPIRITS (PRICES).
  BEER AND SPIRITS (PRICES).
  COLONIAL HOPS (IMPORTS).
  COLONIAL HOPS (IMPORTS).
  AGRICULTURE ACT, 1920.
  AGRICULTURE ACT, 1920.
  RIVERS MOLE AND IMBER.
  RIVERS MOLE AND IMBER.
  SMALL HOLDINGS (COMPULSORY ACQUISITION).
  SMALL HOLDINGS (COMPULSORY ACQUISITION).
BRITISH ARMY.
  TERRITORIAL ARMY (FOREIGN SERVICE).
  TERRITORIAL ARMY (FOREIGN SERVICE).
  MESOPOTAMIA FORCES.
  MESOPOTAMIA FORCES.
  EXTRA PERIOD OF SERVICE.
  EXTRA PERIOD OF SERVICE.
  WAR MEDAL (TERRITORIAL FORCE).
  WAR MEDAL (TERRITORIAL FORCE).
  ALLEGED ASSAULT BY BKLGIAN SENTRY.
  ALLEGED ASSAULT BY BKLGIAN SENTRY.
  ARMY LIST (TERRITORIAL ARTILLERY UNITS).
  ARMY LIST (TERRITORIAL ARTILLERY UNITS).
  EX-SERVICE MEN.
  EX-SERVICE MEN.
NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES.
  ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES.
  BROMLEY PENSIONS COMMITTEE.
  BROMLEY PENSIONS COMMITTEE.
NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE.
  PANEL DOCTORS (REMUNERATION).
  PANEL DOCTORS (REMUNERATION).
  MEDICAL RECORDS.
  MEDICAL RECORDS.
HOUSING.
  BUILDING MATERIALS.
  BUILDING MATERIALS.
  UNSUITABLE PREMISES, LIMEHOUSE.
  UNSUITABLE PREMISES, LIMEHOUSE.
  REGISTRAR-GENERAL (REMUNERATION).
  REGISTRAR-GENERAL (REMUNERATION).
  POOR LAW INSTITUTIONS (DIET).
  POOR LAW INSTITUTIONS (DIET).
  TUBERCULOSIS.
  TUBERCULOSIS.
STATIONERY OFFICE.
  PRINTING WORKS, HARROW.
  PRINTING WORKS, HARROW.
  CENSUS (PRINTING).
  CENSUS (PRINTING).
  STORAGE DEPOT, HOLLINWOOD.
  STORAGE DEPOT, HOLLINWOOD.
  TELEPHONE DIRECTORY.
  TELEPHONE DIRECTORY.
  TAXATION AND EXPENDITURE.
  TAXATION AND EXPENDITURE.
EDUCATION.
  UNIVERSITY OF LONDON.
  UNIVERSITY OF LONDON.
  CONTINUATION SCHOOLS.
  CONTINUATION SCHOOLS.
TRANSPORT.
  LIVERPOOL RAILWAY SYSTEM.
  LIVERPOOL RAILWAY SYSTEM.
  RAILWAY ACCIDENT, ABERMULE.
  RAILWAY ACCIDENT, ABERMULE.
  FISH TRAFFIC (FREIGHTS).
  FISH TRAFFIC (FREIGHTS).
  COMMERCIAL LORRIES (TAXATION).
  COMMERCIAL LORRIES (TAXATION).
  SCOTTISH RAILWAYS (GROUPING).
  SCOTTISH RAILWAYS (GROUPING).
TRADE AND COMMERCE.
  KEY INDUSTRIES BILL.
  KEY INDUSTRIES BILL.
  WILLOW WOOD (EXPORTATION, NETHER- LANDS).
  WILLOW WOOD (EXPORTATION, NETHER- LANDS).
  CUBAN CIGARS (IMPORT DUTY).
  CUBAN CIGARS (IMPORT DUTY).
  SUGAR INDUSTRY (FOEEIGN COMPETITION).
  SUGAR INDUSTRY (FOEEIGN COMPETITION).
INDIA.
  HOUSE ACCOMMODATION (ARMY OFFICERS).
  HOUSE ACCOMMODATION (ARMY OFFICERS).
  KING'S CADETSHIPS.
  KING'S CADETSHIPS.
  ESHER REPORT (RECOMMENDATIONS).
  ESHER REPORT (RECOMMENDATIONS).
  HONG KONG (CHILD ADOPTION).
  HONG KONG (CHILD ADOPTION).
  LIQUOR TRAFFIC, DOMINIONS AND CROWN COLONIES.
  LIQUOR TRAFFIC, DOMINIONS AND CROWN COLONIES.
CENTRAL CONTROL BOARD (LIQUOR TRAFFIC).
  FINANCIAL STATEMENT.
  FINANCIAL STATEMENT.
  WAR CRIMINALS, TRIAL.
  WAR CRIMINALS, TRIAL.
  DRUNKENNESS, SCOTLAND.
  DRUNKENNESS, SCOTLAND.
UNEMPLOYMENT.
  PAYMENT OF BENEFIT (MR. J. MILLAR).
  PAYMENT OF BENEFIT (MR. J. MILLAR).
  KEW GARDENS.
  KEW GARDENS.