Sitting of 18 July 1922

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Private Bills [Lords] (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 Bill, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely:
Black Country Tramways and Light Railways Bill [Lords.]
Bill to be read a Second time.
Ramsgate Corporation Bill [Lords,]
Shepton Mallet Waterworks Bill [Lords,]
Bead the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.
Grangemouth Burgh Extension Order Confirmation Bill.
Read the Third time, and passed.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  INDIA.

    REVOLUTIONARY DOCTRINES.
    Colonel Sir C. YATEasked the Under- Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been called to the report in the Indian Press regarding the meeting of bodies of men from time to time for the purpose of considering how and when the revolutionary doctrines which they hold shall be put into practice and the Government rendered incapable of performing its functions, and stating that it is almost incredible that the formulation of plans for destroying the existing régime should be permitted
    1872
    without let or hindrance; and whether he can state what steps are being taken in the matter?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Earl Winterton): I have seen reports of a character somewhat similar to those referred to in the question. I have every reason to believe that the Indian Government are doing and will do all that is necessary. It would ciearly not be in the public interest to give details of the action taken or contemplated by them.
    Sir C. YATE: Is it a fact that there is not a man in the Government of India who has sufficient backbone in him to take action?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Member is expressing his own opinion.

    POLITICAL PRISONERS.
    Colonel WEDGWOODasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he can say how the Government of India define the political offenders of whom they tell the Press that they have only 5,000 odd in gaol: and does this figure include all those in gaol for breach of the Seditious Meetings Act and the Criminal Law Amendment Act?
    Earl WINTERTON: I am not aware that the Government of India have told the Press that they have only 5,000 odd political prisoners in gaot In fact, they have just reported that there are in all 3,836 persons confined in gaols in all provinces for offences in connection with political movements, excluding Moplah rebels. The offences include the two named in the question.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Are all the people in gaol under the Criminal Law Amendment Act or the Seditious Meetings Act included in this 3,400?
    Earl WINTERTON: Yes.
    Captain Viscount CURZON: Do the figures just given by the Noble Lord apply to the position before or after the gaol delivery reported in the Press to-day?
    Earl WINTERTON: I do not know to what the Noble Lord refers. I have seen no reference to a gaol delivery in the Press to-day: perhaps the Noble Lord has been more fortunate.
    Viscount CURZON: Is the Noble Lord not aware of the report in the Press of a large gaol delivery which has just taken place, and were the figures he has just quoted obtained prior to or subsequent to that gaol delivery?
    Earl WINTERTON: It has always been laid down that a Minister is not responsible for what appears in the Press. If the Noble Lord puts down a question based on that report I shall be prepared to answer it.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Will the Noble Lord state when the figures were obtained?
    Earl WINTERTON: Yes, I shall have much pleasure in stating that. They were telegraphed for by instruction, in answer to a charge made by the hon. and gallant Member, that there were 20,000 persons in gaol for political offences, and they have just been received.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: The Noble Lord must have made a mistake. I understand these figures were asked for, in response to questions put by me about two months ago, and prior to any suggestion being made that there were 20,000 in gaol.
    Earl WINTERTON: Yes, but a telegram was sent, asking that the answer should be expedited after the speech of the hon. and gallant Member.

  BRITISH ARMY.

    LIEUTENANTS (COMPULSORY RETIREMENTS).
    Lieut.-Colonel HILDERasked the Secretary of State for War whether he will give further consideration to the case of lieutenants who have served during the War, whose services have been satisfactory throughout, and who will be com-pulsorily retired owing to reduction of the strength of the Army; whether he is aware that these officers will receive no advantage as regards rank under the terms of Army Order 376 of 1918; and whether he will consider the advisability of recognising these officers' services by granting them a step in rank on retirement?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Lieut.-Colonel Stanley): Officers who are compulsorily retired
    1874
    under Army Order 179 of 1922 are eligible for the rank authorised under the provision of Army Order 376 of 1918. It is not proposed to grant them higher rank than that to which they are entitled under this Army Order.

    MEDALS (BATTLE CLASPS).
    Captain Viscount EDNAMasked the Secretary of State for War whether a decision has been arrived at with regard to battle clasps for medals awarded for service in the late War; and has his attention been drawn to the fact that battle clasps are being worn by officers of His Majesty's Navy?
    Lieut.-Colonel STANLEY: No, Sir. I regret that I cannot at present make any announcement on this subject. With regard to the last part of the question, I understand that no official issues of battle clasps have been made to the Navy.

    WIMBLEDON COMMON.
    Sir ARTHUR FELLasked the Secretary of State for War how many acres of land in the centre of Wimbledon Common are still in the occupation of the military authorities, and how many soldiers are now quartered there?
    Lieut.-Colonel STANLEY: The answer to the first part of the question is 30 acres. There is at present one battalion of Foot Guards quartered at the camp, with a strength of 26 officers and 610 other ranks. I understand that the battalion is now undergoing its annual course of musketry training at Pirbright.
    Sir A. FELL: Is it suggested there are 600 men at present on Wimbledon Common?
    Lieut.-Colonel STANLEY: If the hon. Member listened to the answer I stated they are quartered there, but at the present moment they are undergoing the annual course of musketry training.
    Sir A. FELL: In the circumstances—I believe there are only about 20 men on Wimbledon Common—will it shortly be restored to public use?
    Lieut.-Colonel STANLEY: I cannot say with certainty.

    CIVILIAN EMPLOYEÉS.
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir F. HALLasked the Secretary of State for War (1) whether he is aware that some time after

    1875
    the commencement of the war it was decided that the conditions of employment of unestablished civilian employés who had been engaged at Army headquarters, and elsewhere, in this country, should follow the Regulations then in force for civilian subordinates, and that under those Regulations there was a provision enabling the Army Council to recommend the payment to employés not entitled to a pension of a compassionate gratuity, subject to their having served a period of seven years; that on the 16th December, 1921, the officer commanding-in-chief the Eastern Command communicated with the War Office strongly supporting the application of Mr. Frederick Buck, who had been employed in the office of the assistant director of supplies and transport, Eastern Command, for seven and a half years, for a retiring allowance, and that the application was refused; if he will state whether, at the time it was decided to apply to temporary clerks and other civilian employés the Regulations for civilian subordinates, they were notified that they would be excluded from the benefit of the Regulation authorising the grant of compassionate allowances;
    (2) whether he is aware that the War Office, in a circular dated 1st June, 1922, laid down the course to be followed as regards the grant of compassionate gratuities to unestablished civilian employés on their discharge; that at an early period in the War such employés were made subject to the Regulations for civilian subordinates, numbers 160 and 162 of which deal with the question of gratuities on discharge; that in the circular referred to it is intimated that the cases of employés in supervisory technical, clerical, or analogous posts, who were engaged for the purposes of the late War, are not to be regarded as falling within the category of employment to which the two Regulations in question were intended to refer; that in the same circular it is laid down that employés engaged on manual labour are to be treated as being eligible for the grant of retiring allowances; if he will state what is the basis of this distinction to the detriment of clerical and technical employés, many of whom were in receipt of less remuneration than that of the manual employés, and who in a number
    1876
    of cases necessarily made greater sacrifices when giving up their former employment and placing their services at the disposal of the Government; whether, at the time it was decided to make unestablished civilian employés subject to the Regulations for civilian subordinates, it was laid down that clerical and manual employés would be treated on a different footing as regards eligibility for compassionate gratuities; and if he will take steps to have the matter reconsidered?
    Lieut-Colonel STANLEY: I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the answer on this subject given to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for East Woolwich on 4th May.
    Sir F. HALL: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in the replies to which he has referred me there are no replies to these questions at all, and may I ask for a specific reply to the last part of question No. 7, in which I ask whether at the time it was decided to make unestablished civilian employés subject to the regulations for civilian subordinates, it was laid down that clerical and manual employés would be treated on a different footing as regards eligibility for compassionate allowances?
    Lieut.-Colonel STANLEY: I think if my hon. and gallant Friend looks it up, he will find that the reply of 4th May deals with that question.
    Sir F. HALL: I am sorry to press my hon. and gallant Friend, but may we know whether clerical employés have been treated in a disadvantageous manner as compared with those nominated as manual workers? Is there a difference between them?
    Lieut.-Colonel STANLEY: No, Sir, I do not think there is.
    Sir F. HALL: Will my hon. and gallant Friend look into the matter and see whether there is a difference in this respect between the clerical staff and those termed manual workers?
    Lieut.-Colonel STANLEY: I shall be glad to look into it.

  IRELAND.

    REFUGEES.
    Sir W. DAVISONasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what is

    1877
    the total number of refugees from Southern Ireland who have applied for assistance to the British Government; what is the nature of the assistance given and the total amount expended to date; what is the total number and amount of the claims which have been lodged in respect of damage to person and property in Southern Ireland; how many of such claims have so far been dealt with; and what is the total amount of compensation which has been paid?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Churchill): The total number of refugees from Ireland who have applied for assistance to the Committee presided over by my hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea is 425, and assistance has been granted to 337 of these cases. In about 90 per cent. of the cases dealt with by the Committee the applicants came from Southern Ireland. The assistance given by the Committee consists of giants of money or loans on the security of malicious injury decrees. The amount expended in grants is £1,956 and in loans £1,365. I regret that I cannot give the figures asked for by the hon. Member in the latter part of his question, but it may assist him if I state that the number of decrees awarded to supporters of the Crown in respect of criminal injuries to the person prior to 11th July last, all of which will fall to be paid by the British Government, is approximately 1,750 since 1st April last. Final payments have been made in 261 of these cases and interim payments in 726 cases, the amount of money so expended being £390,000.
    Sir W. DAVISON: What is the position of the people referred to in the latter part of the question, who have obtained decrees, but are in urgent need of funds with which to carry on? Do I understand temporary assistance will be given to them, even though the whole payment may not immediately be available?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Yes, Sir.
    Captain CRAIG: Are we to understand from the answer that, at any rate, a certain number of people from Northern Ireland have applied for assistance to this Committee? The right hon. Gentleman states there are 90 per cent. from Southern Ireland; are we to understand
    1878
    10 per cent. of these people come from Northern Ireland?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Yes, I think so.
    Captain CRAIG: What class of oppression do they complain of or on what ground do they apply for assistance from this fund?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I shall have to ask the Chairman of the Committee.
    Mr. GIDEON MURRAY: Has any further sum been allotted to the Committee over which the hon. and gallant Member for Chelsea (Sir S. Hoare) presides?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I do not think the need has yet arisen. Undoubtedly, if more money were needed, that would be a matter which the Treasury would have to take into consideration.
    Mr. MURRAY: Is it not a fact that only £10,000 has been allocated so far?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: It is also a fact that only £3,000 has been distributed so far.
    Mr. MURRAY: Is not that owing to the policy of the Government?
    Mr. MURRAYasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that there are many Trish refugees congregated in the western ports of Ireland who are unable to obtain transport to Great Britain owing to lack of steamers and owing to the cargo steamers which call at those ports being prevented by Board of Trade Regulations from carrying more than a very limited number of passengers: and whether the Government will take steps to provide transportation for these unfortunate people?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: His Majesty's Government is aware that a situation exists in certain of the western ports of Ireland comparable with that described by my hon. Friend. The shipping companies operating upon the western coast have, with the approval of the Board of Trade, instructed the captains of their vessels to accept passengers wishing to cross to this side in emergency without reference to the number allowed to be carried under the vessel's certificate, provided that the number of passengers so carried is not, in the captain's opinion,

    1879
    in excess of what it is safe for the vessel to carry.
    Mr. MURRAY: Is the right hon. Gentleman taking steps to find out and get into touch with the situation in these western ports?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I have received from the Admiralty assistance in the shape of a good many of His Majesty's vessels which are cruising in the neighbourhood of Irish ports and putting in from time to time, but I have no means of acquainting myself with the situation which prevails inland at the present time in districts which are occupied by the Republican forces.
    Mr. MURRAY: Is the Government taking any steps to bring away all these refugees? Supposing a similar case existed on the coast of France and there were civil war, would not the Government bring them away? In view of the unsatisfactory reply given, I beg to give notice, Mr. Speaker, that at the end of Questions I will ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House in order to call attention to a definite matter of urgent public importance.
    A t the end of Questions—
    Mr. MURRAY: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, "The failure of the Government to take adequate steps to provide for the transportation of Irish refugees from the western seaports of Ireland, and the insufficient means employed by the Government to deal with the relief of the Irish refugees."
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Before that question be put, and leave asked, may I suggest that the word "western" would very much narrow the discussion which may take place? Would it not be better to strike out the word "western" and let it read simply the "coast of Ireland," so that the state of the refugees from Northern Ireland may also be argued?
    Mr. SPEAKER: I think that that would make the question more indefinite than it is, and it fails already on the ground of indefiniteness. The hon. Member for St. Rollox (Mr. G. Murray)
    1880
    introduces two quite different questions. With regard to the first, it is, except as far as the Board of Trade is concerned—and on that an answer was given in the House during Questions—outside the jurisdiction of this Government; and the latter part is entirely indefinite.
    Mr. MURRAY: Supposing that there were British refugees assembled on the coast of France or any other country, it surely would be incumbent upon this Government to send vessels in order to bring them to this country? The same position exists in Ireland to-day, and the Government, although it is very largely due to their policy that these refugees are congregated where they are in these western ports—and I submit that that is not indefinite, because there are five well-known western ports on the coast of Ireland—the Government, notwithstanding that they know that those refugees are there, have told us at Question Time that they are unable to provide adequate transportation to bring them from those places.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: That is quite inaccurate.
    Mr. SPEAKER: Certainly that was not my idea of the answer. The hon. Member in his question asked if the Board of Trade Regulations would be relaxed in the case of steamers calling at those ports, and the answer given, a I heard it, was that instructions had been given to that effect, subject only to the safety of the ships.
    Mr. MURRAY: In the last part of the question I asked that adequate transportation should be given. The words exactly are, "and whether the Government will take steps to provide transportation for these unfortunate people."
    Mr. CHURCHILL: On a point of Order. May I submit to you that no evidence has been brought before the House or the Government that the transportation which is available is not adequate to the comparatively small number of persons who wish to leave?
    Mr. MURRAY: On that point, the right hon. Gentleman in his reply implied that there was insufficient accommodation. He said that he had given instructions, or instructions had been given, to men-of-war and steamers to be on the look-out.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Certainly. In order to meet any emergency which might arise at some particular point, the ships have been given this latitude, but that dealt only with a contingency which has hardly at all arisen so far, and does not at all represent the general state of affairs in Ireland.
    Sir FREDERICK BANBURY: May I ask the hon. Member for St. Rollox (Mr. G. Murray) if he will substitute, for the words "the western seaports of Ireland," the name of three ports? Would that make the question sufficiently definite to allow you, Mr. Speaker, to allow the hon. Member to ask leave to move the Adjournment?
    Mr. SPEAKER: I am afraid I must have some prima facie evidence of neglect on the part of the Government, and I have no such evidence.
    Vice-Admiral Sir R. HALL: May I put this point? The point at issue is whether the House is to understand that the removal of these refugees is a matter, as some suggest, of private enterprise, or whether it is one for the Government to undertake.
    Mr. SPEAKER: There, also I must have some prima facie evidence that there are persons with regard to whom the Government has an obligation, and that is a point on which I have no evidence at present.
    Lord HUGH CECIL: May I ask whether it belongs to the functions of the Chair to determine what are really the merits of the question, and not strictly to confine itself to the question of order?
    Mr. SPEAKER: I think it is my duty to look for prima facie evidence of an allegation, in order to be sure that it is urgent, definite, and of public importance.
    Mr. MURRAY: What difference does prima facie make?
    HON. MEMBERS: Order, order!
    Mr. SPEAKER: Let us imagine the Noble Lord coming with any allegation he might make, and asking leave to move the Adjournment of the House. It would then be my duty to administer the Rule for the purpose for which it was intended.

    KIDNAPPING, BELCOO.
    Sir W. DAVISONasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the
    1882
    11 Ulster Special Constabulary who were kidnapped at Belcoo have yet been released; whether it is known where these men are being detained; and what action the Provisional Government have taken to secure their release?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: According to the latest information I have received, these 11 constables, who are believed to be confined at Athlone, have not yet been released. I am assured that steps are being taken by the Provisional Government in response to the continued representations I have made to them to secure the release of these and other inhabitants of Northern Ireland who are being detained in the South.
    Sir W. DAVISON: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied as to the safety of these men meanwhile, and will he make representations that the Provisional Government will be held responsible for the safety of these citizens?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I have made every representation, and I hope they will have effect regarding this case, and also the case of the 15 men taken at Pettigo.
    Captain CRAIG: Is not Athlone in the hands of the Free State authorities, and what difficulty can Mr. Collins have in obtaining the release of these men?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I suppose the difficulty of the strain and stress under which that Government is labouring at the present time.

    ATTACK ON BRITISH VESSEL, WATERFORD.
    Mr. PENNEFATHERasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he is aware that a report has reached this country to the effect that during the last few days armed men forcibly removed from a British vessel, in Waterford Harbour, its wineless equipment, and shortly afterwards returned and kidnapped the wireless operator; whether he has any official information on this matter; and, if so, what action has been, or will be, taken?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: A report of these incidents has been received from the shipping company which owns the vessel referred to, and I have received further particulars from other sources. The information has been passed on to the Provisional Government in Dublin, who will, I have no doubt, take all steps in

    1883
    their power to defeat the consequences and prevent the repetition of such lawless acts committed by those with whom they are engaged in open conflict.
    Mr. GWYNNE: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied really that the Provisional Government will be able to stop a repetition of this sort of thing?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Fighting is going on on an increasing scale in many parts of the country, and the Provisional Government are doing their utmost to establish order. I shall certainly not attempt to forecast what the result of that fighting may be.
    Vice-Admiral Sir R. HALL: Have the Free State Government under their control any armed sea-going vessels?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: They have, I think, one or two small steamers that were connected with fisheries protection, which they have used to transport troops, stores, armoured cars, etc., to different points on the coast where they are urgently needed for the prosecution of the operations.
    Mr. PENNEFATHER: Is it the case that the British Government cannot really take effective steps to protect British vessels going into ports like Waterford?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Of course, we can take steps by sending ships of war to these different places, but I am sure it would be very much better to give the responsible Irish Government full opportunities to make the will of the Irish people effective throughout the territory under their jurisdiction.

    MURDERS, ALTNAVEIGH.
    Mr. LINDSAYasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he received from the Moderator of the Presbyterian Church in Ireland an account of the massacre of Protestant families at Altnaveigh in June, and an appeal on behalf of Protestant residents in Donegal which called attention to the indignities inflicted upon them; what reply has been sent to the Moderator; and if any considerable delay took place in sending such reply?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I have received the two letters to which my hon. Friend refers. The former was acknowledged within a few day6 of its receipt. The
    1884
    reply to the Moderator's second letter was deferred until I should have received from the Provisional Government an answer to a letter which I was addressing to them on the general state of affairs in Donegal. In this letter I incorporated the substance of the Moderator's representations. The subsequent rapid developments in Ireland caused me to postpone addressing the Provisional Government in the sense intended, and I regret that any semblance of discourtesy should have been shown to the Moderator by the omission to inform him of the action which I contemplated.
    Mr. LINDSAY: Does the right hon. Gentleman know that the massacre referred to in the question meant the death of six people, and has he made representations to the Provisional Government in regard to that?

    BOUNDARIES.
    Captain WEDGWOOD BENNasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what is the Government's present policy in the matter of the boundary between Northern and Southern Ireland?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I have nothing to add to the previous statements made on this subject.
    Captain BENN: May we take it that the Government adhere to the Clause in the Treaty respecting this Boundary Commission?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I should not have thought an answer was necessary to such a simple question.
    Captain BENN: If the question be so simple, why has not the right hon. Gentleman given a simple answer? May we take it that those provisions of the Treaty stand?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Of course, the provisions of the Treaty stand.

    MALICIOUS INJURIES (DECREES).
    Colonel NEWMANasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, having regard to the low bank rate and to the sums of money now seeking employment, he will consider the possibility of making an arrangement, in conjunction with the Government of this country and of the Provisional Government, with leading British and Irish banks whereby amounts up to one-half of the sums awarded as

    1885
    compensation in respect of malicious injury to property by the Irish County Courts could be advanced to those who hold the decrees, at a rate of interest not exceeding 2 per cent. above bank rate?
    Sir J. BAIRD: The answer is in the negative.
    Colonel NEWMAN: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman say when the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be in his place, so that I can repeat the question?
    Sir J. BAIRD: I will communicate with my right hon. Friend.

    AFRICAN DEPENDENCIES (EXPORT DUTIES).
    Mr. JOHN WILSONasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether His Majesty's Government ceased to provide further subsidies towards cotton growing in Uganda and East Africa in 1914; at what date His Majesty's Government decided to impose an export duty on cotton produced; and whether the effect of this export duty has been to encourage production?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The grant of £10,000 a year to the British Cotton Growing Association from 1910–11 to 1915–16 did not concern Uganda or East Africa, and apart from the special grant of £1,000 to the association in 1916–17, partly in respect of its work in Uganda, no subsidy towards cotton growing in those countries has been given.
    The Uganda tax on exported cotton was proposed by the Governor in 1918 and brought into force from the beginning of 1919. The exports of cotton in hundredweights were

    in 1918

    …

    …

    91,000

    in 1919

    …

    …

    128,000

    in 1920

    …

    …

    186,000

    in 1921

    …

    …

    290,000

    But I cannot trace any connection between this increase and the imposition of the tax.
    The tax has certainly not prevented this increase.
    Mr. J. WILSONasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that the duty on the export of hides from Northern Nigeria has
    1886
    rendered impossible the export of all but the finest skins, and that thousands of hides have had to be destroyed owing to the heavy cost of marketing; and will he consult the Governor of Nigeria as to the advisability of abolishing the export duty without delay?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: It would, I think, be more accurate to say that the fact that recently it had not paid to export ordinary hides from Nigeria has been due to the great fall in the value here of such hides, rather than to the cost of marketing them. The price obtainable for them was, I understand, about 1s. 3d. a pound when the export duty of 2d. a pound was imposed, and the price has now fallen to 5d. or 6d. a pound. As the House was informed on 4th July, large reductions in the export duties on Nigerian hides and skins have been approved. The reduction in the case of raw hides will be from 2d. to ½d. a pound, and it is hoped that this will enable exporters to pay prices to the natives which will revive the trade. It is not proposed to remove the export duty altogether.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Why should not this duty be removed altogether if it is the wish of the people of Nigeria that it should be removed and if the money could be raised in other ways to which they are already accustomed in the Colony?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: It is the wish of a great many people in a great many countries that a great many duties should be removed. Unhappily, it is not possible to balance the Budget under those conditions.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Why not leave the selection of the alternative tax to them, as was done in the case of settlers in Kenya and elsewhere, where the Colony itself is prepared to suggest an alternative tax?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I think that, while we have the responsibility for the administration, we must be the judges of the best method of balancing the Budget.
    Mr. WILSONasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the French Administration of Dahomey imposes an export duty upon palm products, and how this compares with the export duties imposed by Great Britain upon the

    1887
    exports of the palm products of the native producers in the neighbouring territories of Sierra Leone and Nigeria?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I am not certain what the exact rates of the export duties in Dahomey on palm oil and palm kernels are at present. My latest information was that they were 49 francs 50 centimes and 24 francs 75 centimes per 1,000 kilos respectively. The Nigerian rates are £3 and £2 a ton respectively, and the Sierra Leone rates, £1 0s. 10d. and £1 a ton.
    Sir DONALD MACLEANasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the policy of imposing heavy duties upon the export of raw material of the African Dependencies was adopted by the local Governors upon their own responsibility, or whether this departure in British Colonial policy was first considered and sanctioned by the Cabinet?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I would refer the right hon. Gentleman to the reply which I gave yesterday to the hon. Member for the Western Isles (Dr. Murray). I am not aware that such revenue export duties in the Colonies have been submitted to the Cabinet of this country by past Secretaries of State. Export duties, of course, exist in a large number of Colonies.
    Sir D. MACLEAN: Does the right hon. Gentleman not think it would be a good thing to submit duties of this kind to the responsible authorities here?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I was under the impression that I was one of the responsible authorities here, and that this was a sphere particularly confided to me upon which to exercise my responsibility.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Would it not be advisable to have some sort of coordination of taxes? Why should there be export duties on the West Coast and import duties on the East Coast? Why this difference? Would it not be possible to have some sort of Committee appointed in order to co-ordinate these systems of indirect taxation?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: What a pity my hon. and gallant Friend did not raise this question when the matter was before the House.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: I did raise it.
    Lieut.-Colonel A. MURRAY: In the case of Crown Colonies—
    Mr. SPEAKER: This is a matter that should be debated on the Estimates.

    NAVAL ESTABLISHMENTS (POLICE).
    Sir JAMES REMNANTasked the Home Secretary if it is proposed to withdraw the police from His Majesty's dockyards and magazines and substitute inexperienced men; if so, what date has been fixed for this; and will compensation be given to the displaced men to meet the costs of removal of their homes and families to London and elsewhere?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Amery): I have been asked to reply. Solely in the interests of economy, and in compliance with the recommendation of the Geddes Committee, the Admiralty are arranging, as I explained in the Debate on Navy Estimates on the 16th March last, to substitute a special Marine Pensioner Police Force for Metropolitan Police for the work of protecting some of our establishments other than the Royal Dockyards. The introduction of this new Force is being pressed on as rapidly as possible, and I hope that the substitution will take place in the autumn. The Metropolitan Police thus relieved will be transferred by the Commissioner to other duties at no expense to the men themselves, in accordance with the usual procedure adopted in the case of transfers made in the "interest of the Service."
    Sir J. REMNANT: I could not hear half of what the right hon. Gentleman said, but will he answer this point? If these men have to return to London, will they have money found for them to pay the cost of their removal; and, secondly, are the men who are to take the place of the Metropolitan Police to get a less wage than that paid to the Metropolitan Police?
    Mr. AMERY: I did explain that the men will be brought back to whatever work they undertake at the cost of the Service. The new Marine Pensioner Force will be a cheaper force than the Metropolitan Police.

    DEER FORESTS, SCOTLAND.
    Lieut.-Colonel MURRAYasked the Secretary for Scotland whether he is now in a position to say whether legislation will be introduced at an early date to carry out the suggestions for immediate action contained in the Deer Forests Report, namely, the extension of deer forests to be forbidden by Statute, except with special sanction from the Secretary for Scotland, an annual return of the stock of sheep and cattle in each deer forest to be made to the Board of Agriculture, and local committees, with independent chairmen, to classify the deer forests and determine the stock that each should carry?
    The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. Munro): Clauses dealing with the points mentioned by my hon. and gallant Friend are included in the Bill which has been drafted to give effect to recommendations of the Committees on Game and Heather Burning and Deer Forests. I hope that it may be possible, after the Recess, to proceed with the Bill as a whole, but, if not, I shall keep in view the question of proceeding separately with the Clauses in question.
    Major M. WOOD: Will it be possible to introduce the Bill before the House rises, so that we may have an opportunity of considering the Bill in the Recess?
    Mr. MUNRO: I think not.

  POST OFFICE.

    WIRELESS BROADCASTING.
    Lieut.-Colonel MURRAYasked the Postmaster-General whether any decision has been reached as to the terms and conditions under which licences for wireless broadcasting are to be issued; and whether the licences are to contain a provision that only British instruments shall be used?
    The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr.KeMaway): I have intimated to a committee, representing the manufacturers of wireless apparatus in this country, the conditions on which I propose to grant licences for broadcasting, and I understand these proposals will be submitted to the general body of manufacturers forthwith. I have informed the manufacturers that, in the event of
    1890
    their supplying the capital required and providing efficient broadcasting services, I will agree that the apparatus, which it will be permissible to use under the Post Office licence for the reception of those services, shall for two years be restricted to apparatus manufactured in Great Britain.
    Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: May I ask the Leader of the House whether, before any definite understanding is come to in that connection, the House will have an opportunity of discussing what is a novel form of procedure and of monopoly?
    Colonel NEWMAN: Before the right hon. Gentleman replies, may I ask whether he has power to do this?
    Mr. KELLAWAY: Yes, Sir; power is given to me under the Act passed by this House.
    Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: What, to impose a protective system?
    Mr. KELLAWAY: No, to issue licences, and it is inconceivable to me that we should allow a new form of communication in this country to be exploited by foreign manufacturers.
    Captain BENN: Does that mean that the right hon. Gentleman is going to undertake advantage of his powers of license to impose in this hole-and-corner way a protective system in this country?
    Mr. KELLAWAY: It is not a protective system, but merely a proper method of protecting a new means of communication in this country.
    Mr. HANNON: In view of the widespread unemployment in this country, is not the decision a perfectly proper one?

    RURAL TELEPHONES.
    Mr. FOOTasked the Postmaster-General what progress has been made in respect to the installation of rural telephones since the Post Office Estimates were introduced; and whether he will state to what extent the party-line system has been adoped in such installations?
    Mr. KELLAWAY: As a result of the more liberal terms for rural extensions of the telephone system announced in the Estimates Debate, support has already been obtained for 13 new exchanges. They will be installed as soon as possible.

    1891
    Canvasses are also in progress at a number of places where there is good prospect of securing adequate support. Since the 1st May, 662 additional rural party-line telephones have been installed and 151 call offices opened at provincial post offices, chiefly in rural districts. Statistics are not available as to the total number of exchange lines added to existing rural exchanges during the same period, but they are probably considerable. It has also been possible, in view of the recent concessions, to authorise the extension of the trunk system to the existing exchange at Fort William. The service will probably be available about the end of this month.
    Mr. HURD: How many railway stations in rural areas now have telephones?
    Mr. KELLAWAY: I cannot say without notice. I shall be glad to get the information.

    HALFPENNY POST.
    Mr. W. CARTERasked the Post master-General whether he is aware that for such familiar communications as orders for goods, invoices and statements the advantage of the halfpenny postal rate is largely destroyed by the condition that unless posted before 3.30 p.m. in London and 3.45 p.m. in the country they will not be despatched on the day of posting; and if he will give instructions that some effective distinction be made between ordinary circulars and communications of a special and individual nature which, although coming within the halfpenny rate, possess a degree of importance both as regards their nature and time of posting and delivery?
    Mr. KELLAWAY: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. A. T. Davies) on the 6th July. I regret that I could not see my way to make a distinction between packets sent at the halfpenny rate, based on the nature of their contents. Such a course would defeat the object for which the new Regulation was framed.

    NEWCASTLE-UNDER-LYME OFFICE (STATUS).
    Colonel WEDGWOODasked the Postmaster-General whether, with reference to the representations he has
    1892
    received from the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme in favour of securing that Newcastle may be in future not a sub-office but a branch office of Stoke-on-Trent, he has given attention to the inferior service and facilities that a sub-office could supply; and whether, in view of all these facts, he has yet decided on the future status of the post office at Newcastle?
    Mr. KELLAWAY: The whole matter is under inquiry. I may say, however, that the administrative status of an office does not as a rule affect the public facilities provided.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Can we take it that is this case, whatever happens, the public facilities will not suffer?
    Mr. KELLAWAY: The whole matter is under inquiry, and I would wish to reserve any statement until I see the developments.

    HIGH-POWER: WIRELESS STATION.
    Sir HARRY BRITTAINasked the Postmaster-General whether the site for the proposed high-power wireless station has been selected; and by what date it is hoped to have the installation completed?
    Mr. KELLAWAY: A site for the proposed high power station has been selected provisionally, his final adoption depends on the result of certain inquiries which are now in progress. It is not possible at this stage to say by what date the installation is likely to be completed.

    SALARIED SUES-POSTMASTERS (PAY).
    Mr. AMMONasked the Postmaster-General whether the Treasury sanction was given on the l5th September, 1921, for the revised rates of pay for salaried sub-postmasters; if so, in how many instances has this recommendation been carried out; and when it is proposed to apply the new scale to all officers concerned?
    Mr. KELLAWAY: Treasury authority for a revision of the pay of salaried sub-postmasters was received in September, 1921; but the revision could not be carried out independently of the revision of the pay of head postmasters, which was closely associated with it. The revised

    1893
    basis of pay for these grades was promulgated at the end of January last. About half the offices have been dealt with, and the remaining revisions are being carried out as quickly as possible.

    LICENSED PREMISES, LONDON (SUNDAY HOURS).
    Sir F. HALLasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that great dissatisfaction has been expressed by members of the public at the decision of the licensing justices in insisting on the evening hours at which licensed premises shall be open in London on Sundays being from 6 to 9 p.m.; and whether he will forthwith take steps to have the hours on Sunday filtered to 7 to 10 p.m.?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Shortt): I am aware that the decisions of the justices in this matter have given dissatisfaction to some persons, but it is by no means the case that there is agreement on the question. I have no power to take any action such as is suggested in the latter part of the question.
    Sir F. HALL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that when the Bill passed through the House, the House compromised, and it was understood that reasonable latitude would be allowed with regard to these various hours; and is he aware also that the Bill would not have passed through the House if there had been any suggestion that on Sundays these houses would be closed at 9 o'clock?
    Mr. SHORTT: Of course, I cannot tell what would have happened.
    Mr. W. THORNE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that on one side of the road licensed premises are opened at 6 o'clock, and on the other side at 7 o'clock, and that on one side they close at 9 and on the other side 10 o'clock? Does he not understand these anomalies?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member should confine himself to a question.
    Mr. THORNE: It was my first shot in.
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member has given information which, I think, we all have.

  TRANSPORT.

    TRAFFIC REGULATIONS, LONDON.
    Lieut.-Colonel HILDERasked the Home Secretary whether, in view of the great congestion of traffic at some hours of the day within the Metropolitan police district of London, and the consequent grave loss of time to the business community, he will consider the question of a revision of the traffic regulations, particularly with a view to securing some classification of traffic and some provision that certain classes of traffic should be restricted from passing along certain thoroughfares except during fixed hours?
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport whether his attention has been drawn to the great increase in motor vehicles in the streets of London, and the corresponding decrease in horse-drawn vehicles; if he is aware that the whole traffic in certain streets is frequently held up by slow-moving horse-drawn vehicles, especially in the City and its environs; whether this matter is being dealt with in any way: and whether he will consider the desirability of reserving certain avenues of traffic for motor vehicles only?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of TRANSPORT (Mr. Neal): As the hon. and gallant Members are aware, the whole question of London traffic was considered exhaustively by a Departmental Committee under the chairmanship of the late Member for the Hornsey Division (Mr. Kennedy Jones). Legislation would be required to give compulsory effect to the suggestions of the hon. Members, and, in view of the consideration of the whole question of London government which is now being given by a Royal Commission, I do not think it desirable to introduce legislation. A Committee, however, on which the police authorities and the principal traffic agencies are represented, meets regularly at the Ministry of Transport, and has, by agreement, secured many improvements.
    Sir F. HALL: Does the hon. Gentleman know that, notwithstanding all these Commissions and Select Committees that have been set up the Reports are put in the archives, and nothing is done?
    Lieut.-Colonel HILDER: Does the hon. Gentleman realise the great loss of time, and the great loss of money as represented by the waste of petrol and time?
    Mr. NEAL: Quite so, and for that reason many of the matters are being dealt with by the Committee I have mentioned.

    ROAD FUND GRANTS.
    Sir DOUGLAS NEWTONasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that the Ministry of Transport have, at the instance of the Treasury, refused to pay grants out of the Road Fund to highway authorities in respect of the repayment of principal and payment of interest on loans raised prior to the 15th August, 1919, for the reconstruction of main roads classified by the Ministry; and, seeing that this decision is inequitable in its operation, inasmuch as it penalises those authorities which have taken early steps to improve the condition of their roads in accordance with the requirements of modern traffic, and benefits those authorities which are only now undertaking similar work, in these circumstances, he is now prepared to reconsider the matter, and to give instructions that the repayment of principal and payment of interest on loans raised prior to 15th August, 1919, shall be regarded as charges for maintenance and repair, and admitted for grant accordingly?
    Mr. NEAL: I have been asked to reply, and, as I informed the hon. and gallant Member for Royton on the 11th instant, I am unable to hold out any hope of a reversal of the Government's decision.

    ARTERIAL ROADS (ESSEX).
    Lieut.-Colonel HILDERasked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that in the work of constructing the new arterial roads at Eastwood and Rayleigh, Essex, over 500 men resident in the London area are employed: that these workers, who are employed five days a week, have to travel long distances to their task, thereby involving them in additional travelling expenses and adding greatly to the length of their working day, making it necessary in some cases for workmen to be absent from their homes 14 hours of the day; that if the weather is unsuitable for work they still have to travel to the site of the work and then return home
    1896
    without doing work or receiving any pay; and will he consider the advisability of forming temporary camps under canvas on sites near their work, where the men could be accommodated from Monday to Friday, the working days of the week returning to their homes for the weekend?
    Mr. NEAL: I have been asked to reply. The men's travelling expenses are paid between the London terminus and the site of the work, and every endeavour has been made by means of arrangements with the railway companies and the contractors to reduce to a minimum the inconvenience of travel. The formation of temporary camps presents considerable difficulties, and although this expedient has not been lost sight of, it has not been found possible to adopt it.
    Mr. W. THORNE: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that on some parts of these roads the men during certain parts of the day have to wait 2½ hours before they can get back to their homes.
    Mr. NEAL: I have made a personal inspection of these roads and shelter is being provided as far as possible.

    MUNITIONS (BREAKING-UP).
    Mr. L. MALONEasked the Home Secretary whether, as reported in the trial arising out of the Tipton explosion, the Disposal Board are under no obligation to inform purchasers of munitions for breaking-up purposes that a licence is required, and that the police also have no orders and no information on this matter; and whether, with a view to affording some protection to workers in this dangerous industry he will introduce legislation, either by way of an amendment of the Explosives Act or otherwise, requiring that the Disposal Board shall inform the purchaser of the necessity of obtaining such a licence, and shall inform the Home Office of the purchase made and of the place where it is proposed to deal with the explosives, and that before workers may be employed the Home Office shall inspect the premises, and also within a very short period after work is begun?
    Mr. SHORTT: The Disposal Board have in every case informed purchasers of the necessity for complying with the

    1897
    requirements of the Explosives Act. The breach of the law at Tipton was due to the licensed firm sub-contracting with another firm, which was unlicensed, to do part of the breaking down. This was done without the knowledge of the Disposal Board. The Board now make it a condition of all such sales that no subcontract shall be entered into without their consent. They are also notifying all sales to the Home Office. As regards the last part of the question, the works are always inspected by the Explosives Department before a licence is issued, and the earliest opportunity is taken of inspecting them after they have started working. Fresh legislation does not appear to be necessary.
    Captain GEE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether any sub-sales have taken place by the disposal of these articles to rebels in Ireland?
    Mr. SHORTT: That question had better be put on the Paper.
    Mr. MALONEasked the Home Secretary whether he has read the Report of the trial arising out of the Tipton explosion, and the comment of the judge that there was at the factory concerned a gross exploitation of the work of little boys and girls; and whether, in view of the fact that several children of 14 and 15 perished in the explosion, he will introduce an Amendment to the Explosives Act prohibiting the employment of these young persons in the highly dangerous occupation of handling and breaking up explosives?
    Mr. SHORTT: The Explosives Act already prohibits the employment in a danger building of any person under 16 years of age, except in the presence and under the supervision of a grown-up person. I will consider whether the Act should not be amended so as to make the prohibition absolute.
    Mr. WATERSON: Is it not a fact that the Government might have taken the wisest course by controlling these munitions, and then these children's lives would have been saved?

    DRUNKENNESS (STATISTICS).
    Mr. HURDasked the Home Secretary if he has statistical or other informa-
    1898
    tion which enables him to say whether the substantial decrease in drunkenness, as evidenced by convictions in the year 1920 as compared with 1919, has since been maintained?
    Mr. SHORTT: There was an increase, not a decrease, of convictions for drunkenness as between 1919 and 1920. In 1921 there was a decrease, as shown by the Volume of Licensing Statistics recently published. I have no figures yet for 1922.
    Mr. HURD: Will the right hon. Gentleman kindly say whether the figures just published relate to 1920 or 1921?
    Mr. SHORTT: They are published for both years, and those for 1920 show that there was an increase over 1919, and those for 1921 show a decrease compared with 1920.

    CINEMA EXHIBITIONS.
    Mr. HURDasked the Home Secretary whether following upon the representations of the Somerset County Council and other bodies, he will invite their opinion as to the mental, moral, and physical harm done to children and young persons by certain classes of cinema exhibitions and the means of remedy most suited to their local conditions?
    Mr. SHORTT: I shall be glad to consider any information which the Somerset County Council or any other local authority may think it useful to submit to me on this subject, but I do not propose to make any special inquiries.

    WOMEN POLICE.
    Mr. TREVELYAN THOMSONasked the Home Secretary whether the statement of nspector Wyles contained in the Paper which he recently laid upon the Table of the House was made direct to the Commissioner of Police or through the inspector's immediate superior officer; and is it in accordance with police discipline for subordinate officers to communicate with headquarters except through their immediate superior officers?
    Mr. SHORTT: Inspector Wyles' statement was made to the Assistant Commissioner charged with the immediate control of the branch which administers the women police. As I stated last Tuesday,

    1899
    the whole matter will form the subject of disciplinary inquiry; and it is not desirable that I should offer any comment at the present stage.
    Mr. THOMSON: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the second part of the question, which raises the general practice, and not a particular case?
    Mr. SHORTT: It is a pure matter of the circumstances of each case. In some cases it is right, and in some cases wrong.
    Captain BENN: When the inquiry is completed, will the House have an opportunity of reviewing its decision, which was so much influenced by the statements of the Home Secretary?
    Mr. SHORTT: That question should not be addressed to me.

  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

    ROYAL MARINE LIGHT INFANTRY (PRIVATE'S PENSION).
    Mr. GWYNNEasked the Minister of Pensions whether his attention has been called to the case of Private A. G. D., Royal Marine Light Infantry, who was discharged from the Navy in November last suffering from spinal consumption, and was informed that his pension would be sent him in due course, but in spite of this promise later received a communication that he was not eligible, and on further inquiries being made it-was admitted after much delay that the mistake arose by a misreading of the doctor's report of "yes" for "no": and, in view of the great inconvenience suffered by this man, will he have special inquiries made and see that mistakes of this kind do not occur again?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of PENSIONS (Major Tryon): The Ministry were not in a position to deal with this case until the end of May when the invaliding papers were received. I much regret that an erroneous notification of rejection was sent to the man; but I may say that the mistake was discovered within a week and corrected by an award of pension. Pension is now in payment and all arrears owing have been issued.
    Mr. GWYNNE: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that at the end of last week this pensioner had not been paid?
    Major TRYON: I am giving my information up to date. I have already ordered an inquiry to see how this mistake came to be made, so as to avoid the like in future.
    Mr. GWYNNE: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that I received a letter from this man on Saturday, saying he had not been paid, although he wrote earlier saying he had been?

    OFFICERS (DISABILITY RETIRED PAY).
    Mr. GWYNNEasked the Minister of Pensions whether the officers' wound pensions and disability retired pay are likely to be reduced in 1923, or whether those at present in receipt of them canrely on no reduction being made on the 1914 warrant?
    Major TRYON: The present rates of disability retired pay generally were fixed in accordance with the recommendations of the Select Committee on Pensions and are, by the provisions of the Royal Warrant, subject to re-adjustment in 1923 in accordance with the rise or fall in the cost of living. Retired pay where drawn concurrently with a wound pension, at the rate and subject to the conditions authorised by the Pay and Pension Warrant, 1914, is preserved by the provisions of the Royal Warrant of the 2nd July, 1920, as an irreducible minimum. I am sending my hon. Friend a copy of this warrant, and I would invite his attention to Article 30A and the Fourth Schedule.
    Captain LOSEBY: Is my hon. and gallant Friend aware that the recommendations of this Select Committee in regard to the sliding scale ware not adopted by the Government, but were altered when the Bill was brought in?
    Major TRYON: I was asked for certain information, and I have answered the original question. The hon. and gallant Gentleman's question raises another point. Perhaps be will put down a question.

    FINAL AWARDS.
    Sir D. NEWTONasked the Minister of Pensions what action has been taken to carry into effect the provisions

    1901
    of the War Pensions Act, 1921, for the making of final awards; and whether he has received any, and, if so, how many appeals in respect of final awards which have so far been made?
    Major TRYON: Regulations to give effect to the provisions of the War Pensions Act, 1921, for the making of final awards were issued in January last, and have since been in active operation. The latest figures available show that 8,500 appeals against final awards have been received, and these are being dealt with as rapidly as possible by the Ministry and by the independent Assessment Appeal Tribunals set up under the War Pensions Act of last year.

    AREAS (REORGANISATION).
    Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSONasked the Minister of Pensions what progress has been made in carrying out the reorganisation of war pension areas in conformity with the provisions of the War Pnsions Act, 1921: and what will be the paving in staff as a result of these changes?
    Major TRYON: Sixty-five War Pensions Committees have been established under the provisions of the War Pensions Act, 1921, and 63 other Committees are actually in course of formation. Very considerable reductions in staff have already been effected, and it is anticipated that the re-organisation of War Pensions Areas throughout the United Kingdom will bring about a reduction in the staff of local offices of more than 25 per cent. It is estimated that this reduction of staff, together with the more economical disposal of accommodation, will result in a saving of £300,000 in administrative expenses in the present year.

    WIDOW'S CLAIM (MRS. F. ALSOPP).
    Mr. AMMONasked the Minister of Pensions whether the widow of the late Mr. F. Alsopp, No. 477120, sapper, Royal Engineers, has not yet received any pension or allowance as the result of the death of her husband from an illness alleged to be due to military service; and whether, having regard to the urgency of the case, he will expedite the necessary inquiries?
    Major TRYON: This case has been fully considered in the light of all the available evidence, but I regret that it has not been found possible to admit the widow's claim to pension. She has been informed of her right of appeal to the Pensions Appeal Tribunal against this decision.

  ROYAL AIR FORCE.

    DIRECTORATE OF RESEARCH.
    Viscount EDNAMasked the Secretary of State for Air whether it is proposed to move the directorate of research from London to Farnborough; what is the total number of personnel involved; whether the difficulties of housing the present royal aircraft establishment staff at Farnborough have already been made more acute by the transfer of the staff from Biggin Hill; whether suitable arrangements for providing adequate housing will be made before such transfer is effected: whether he will guarantee that reasonable notice is given to the staff concerned before such move is made: and that no member of the staff be requested to move without at least six months' notice, in order that the hardship and inconvenience inevitable to those having houses or flats in London may be reduced as far as possible?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Captain Guest): The answer to the first and second questions is that it is proposed, for purposes of economy, subject to Treasury approval, to transfer some of the work of the Directorate of Research from London to Farnborough, but the extent of the transfer has not yet been settled, and consequently I cannot, at present, state the number of personnel concerned. To the third, that there is no difficulty in regard to unmarried staff, for whom quarters are provided, and there is still room in these quarters for an increase of scientific staff. On the other hand, no married quarters are provided, and the construction of married quarters for civilian staff is not considered practicable. To the fifth and sixth questions, that the staff generally have been aware of these proposals for some months, and when the proposals are approved those who are to be transferred will be given as much notice as possible.

    SITES AND BUILDINGS (EXPENDITURE).
    Sir WILLIAM DAVISONasked the Secretary of State for Air what is the total sum which has been authorised by the Ministry for expenditure on sites and buildings; and what is the total sum which has been authorised for expenditure in the building of aeroplanes and for the assistance of civil aviation?
    Captain GUEST: I assume that my hon. Friend refers to the sums authorised in the current year's Estimates. On this assumption, the answer to the question is that £1,622,000 is taken in this year's Estimate for capital expenditure on buildings and purchase of lands; of this sum, half is for services overseas and half of the remainder is for purchase of land already in occupation and for improvements to existing accommodation at home. In this connection, I would remind my hon. Friend that, as the Air Force is almost entirely accommodated in temporary huts of War-time erection, these require a considerable amount of attention and repair to maintain them in a habitable condition. The remaining 25 per cent., i.e., about £400,000, is mainly devoted to meet the most urgent requirements for the replacement of accommodation which has become wholly inadequate.
    The answer to the second part of the question is that £1,517,600 is taken for the purchase and reconditioning of aeroplanes, seaplanes, engines, and spares, including experimental work; and £335,000 is taken for civil aviation exclusive of meteorology, inspection and research services.
    Sir M. DOCKRELL: Is it proposed to make any part of this expenditure in Ireland, seeing that during the Bill she contributed so largely—
    Mr. SPEAKER: Would the hon. Member put that question down. It does not arise here.
    Sir M. DOCKRELL: On a point of Order. Does it not arise—
    Mr. SPEAKER: I must be the judge of that. It does not arise on this question.

    OBSERVER-OFFICER HAROLD SMITH.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Secretary of State for Air if his attention has been drawn to the circumstances in which Observer-Officer Harold Smith has been retired from the
    1904
    Air Force; whether it is considered that the offence committed by this officer in August last on the night of the annual sports of his unit was of a nature serious enough to merit dismissal from the force; whether the incident in which Mr. Smith was involved during previous service in India was taken into account in the determining of his punishment for the later offence; why has he been given a character on retirement of such an unsatisfactory nature as to prevent him taking up other employment which was open to him; and if an inquiry will be held into the whole matter at an early date?
    Captain GUEST: In answer to the first question, I personally investigated all the circumstances connected with the service of Observer-Officer Harold Smith in the Royal Air Force before he was called upon to resign his commission, and was satisfied that his retention as an officer was not desirable in view of the reports which had been received as to his conduct. In answer to the second and third questions, the incident referred to was the culminating offence which, taken by itself, might not have entailed upon the officer the call to resign his commission, but considered in conjunction with his previous record, which had necessitated his being placed under the strict supervision of his commanding officer on his return from India, indicated his unsuitability for retention as an office:. As regards the fourth question, the facts are that a fidelity guarantee company applied to the Air Ministry for confirmation of the statement that Mr. Smith had served in the Royal Air Force as an officer and inquired whether his service was entirely satisfactory. In accordance with their usual practice, the Ministry confined their reply to a confirmation of the fact that he had served as stated, and gave a reference to the "London Gazette." in which notice of his removal from the Air Force was published. No statement as to character was made. As regards the final question, I see no necessity for any further inquiry into the matter.
    Lieut.-Commander KENW0RTHY: Is my right hon. and gallant Friend aware that this officer, who won the D.F. Cross, is unable to get any employment because the Ministry will give him no character of any sort, and is it not rather hard

    1905
    to continue the punishment of this officer after he has left the Force, and so practically to prevent him getting work?
    Captain GUEST: My hon. and gallant Friend is an ex-service man, and he will clearly see that I have said as little as I possibly could.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that what he says in this House does not matter: it is the reports that are made to prospective employers of this officer that injure him. Will he look into that?
    Captain GUEST: If the hon. And gallant Gentleman will look in at the Ministry he can see all the documents and reports.

    NAVAL WING.
    Viscount CURZONasked the Secretary of State for Air whether any of the machines working from, or with, H.M.S. "Argus" have recently crashed, and how many aeroplanes were available for service, working with the Royal Navy on 16th July, 1922, for bombing, fighting, torpedo carrying, observation, and training, respectively?
    Captain GUEST: The answer to the first question is that, since the 15th May last, only two aeroplanes have been seriously damaged, and written off, during deck landing practice. Damage to aeroplanes is to be expected in training exercises of this kind, but this does not affect the number of aeroplanes available, damaged machines being at once replaced from the supply held in immediate reserve.
    The answer to the second question is, that aeroplanes are available in the following numbers, including the 50 per cent. first line reserve, which is kept at the unit and provides immediate replacements for any damage to unserviceable aeroplanes:

    Reconnaissance. —18 ship planes, 18 float planes, 15 flying boats.

    Spotting. —18 ship planes.

    Torpedo-carrying. —18 ship planes.

    Fighting. —9 ship fighters.

    Training. —9 float seaplanes, 12 flying boats.

    Development. —6 flying boats, 4 torpedo ship planes.

    1906
    Thus, there are 127 service aeroplanes in active commission and first line reserve engaged in aerial and naval peace exercises or in naval air training and development. In addition to this, two of the reserve squadrons, comprising 36 aeroplanes, including immediate reserve, are, inter alia, being used for certain other special forms of naval co-operation. Finally, there is maintained behind these units a main reserve of the various types, amounting to over 200 aeroplanes without pilots, all of which would be available for the reinforcement of the above naval units. The actual grand total of aeroplanes available for all purposes connected with the Navy is 359, exclusive of the two reserve squadrons mentioned above.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Does not the difference between this answer and the answer given by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty show a great lack of co-ordination between the Air Service and the Admiralty?
    Viscount CURZONasked the Secretary of State for Air whether pilots working with the Royal Navy are interchangeable with pilots working with the Royal Air Force in other areas; whether such changes are in fact made: and whether any of the pilots borne in or attached to His Majesty's Ship "Argus" have recently been changed?
    Captain GUEST: In answer to the first question, pilots working with the Royal Navy are interchangeable with those working on other duties, as it is considered necessary to give them the widest possible experience. A certain amount of special practice work is needed in connection with co-operation with the Fleet, and pilots so engaged are, as far as possible, retained in their appointments for a period of four years; though in practice, on account of promotion, or owing to their being required for special appointment, or for some other similar reason, the full period is not always served by all officers.
    The reply to the second question is in the affirmative. With regard to the third question, two pilots have been changed during the current year. One of these was required for a course at the Royal Air Force Staff College, and the other for experimental work.

    TORPEDOES.
    Viscount CURZONasked the Secretary of State for Air whether the Air Ministry are satisfied with the torpedo supplied by the Admiralty; and, if not, what steps are being taken to obtain a satisfactory torpedo?
    Captain GUEST: The answer to the first question is that the design and development of torpedoes for use from aeroplanes are carried out in close collaboration between the Air Ministry and the Admiralty, who are in complete agreement on the subject. The second question does not therefore arise.
    Viscount CURZON: Does this explain the recent institution of an Air Force torpedo school within sight of the "Vernon"?
    Captain GUEST: Perhaps my Noble Friend will put that question on the Paper.

    SQUADRON LEADERS.
    Lieut.-Colonel MOORE-BRABAZONasked the Secretary of State for Air whether his attention has been drawn to statements in the Press that there are 200 squadron leaders in the Royal Air Force for 31½ squadrons; and will he state on what duties other than leading squadrons these officers are employed?
    Captain GUEST: The actual number of squadron leaders on the general list of the Air Force is 200. The title of squadron leader is a rank in the Air Force equivalent to that of lieutenant commander in the Navy and major in the Army, and the duties of officers of this rank are not confined to commanding service squadrons. They are also employed in posts in connection with training, research, technical and staff duties, where officers of at least equivalent rank and experience would be similarly employed in other Services. My hon. and gallant Friend is doubtless aware that, in addition to the service squadrons, the Air Force has large flying and mechanical training schools, repair shops, supply depots and experimental establishments, which require their quota of officers of the rank in question.

    PEACE TREATIES (REPARATION DUTY).
    Lieut.-Colonel MURRAYasked the Prime Minister whether, having regard to the fact that, although when the reparation duty imposed upon German goods was sanctioned by Parliament it was understood that the Allies had agreed to take joint action in the matter, neither France, Belgium, nor Italy has yet imposed such a duty, and that if a French, Belgian or Italian merchant buys goods from Germany and then sends them to this country no reparation duty is levied, whereas if a British merchant buys and imports them direct from Germany duty is exacted, he will introduce legislation to abolish this anomaly?
    Sir JOHN BAIRD (for Mr. Hilton Young): With regard to the position of German goods imported into this country from other countries, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the reply given to a question asked by the hon. Member for Whitechapel on the 4th instant. His Majesty's Government see no reason to introduce legislation to alter the existing provisions of the Reparation (Recovery) Act, which has served as a means of collecting from the German Government on account of its liabilities under the Reparation Chapter of the Treaty of Versailles a sum of over £5,000,000 in a little over a Year.
    Captain BENN: Does the hon Gentleman say that money has been collected from the German Government—
    Sir J. BAIRD: Yes.
    Captain BENN: Should it not rather have been paid to the British trader?
    Sir J. BAIRD: No.
    Lieut.-Colonei MURRAY: In view of that statement will the hon. Gentleman consider the desirability of removing this particular anomaly?
    Mr. KILEY: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in order to collect 5s. worth of reparation duty 7s. 6d. in costs are incurred? Why cannot his Department do the same as our Allies, and instead of this costly procedure receive payment in

    1909
    bulk, per month, or per quarter from the German Government, and so also save delay?
    Sir J. BAIRD: We have got £5,000,000: I am afraid that our Allies have not.

    RENT RESTRICTIONS ACT.
    Mr. FOOTasked the Prime Minister whether the Committee to deal with questions arising under the Rent Restrictions Act has yet been constituted; and, if so, whether he will state the names of the members of the Committee and the Terms of Reference?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN (Leader of the House): The constitution of the Committee is not yet finally settled, but I hope to be able to give the information asked for by the hon. Member in a few days' time.

  UNEMPLOYMENT.

    NECESSITOUS AREAS.
    Mr. TREVELYAN THOMSONasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the fact that, notwithstanding a slight decrease in the amount of unemployment in most districts, there are certain areas where unemployment is increasing, the Government will favourably consider the possibility of making such districts a grant based on a formula somewhat similar to that formerly employed to relieve necessitous school authorities or on some modified form of the same?
    Mr. MALONEasked the Prime Minister whether he has received suggestions as to the definition of a necessitous area in regard to Poor Law relief for unemployment expenditure; and whether any decision has yet been arrived at by His Majestys Government?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: As stated by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health on the 13th July, a scheme has recently been submitted on behalf of certain Poor Law authorities which is at present under consideration.
    Mr. THOMSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this is a matter of very great urgency in certain districts and can he expedite a decision?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir. I think the Minister of Health is acting as expeditiously as he can in order to arrive at a rapid decision, and he is a business man.

    PUBLIC WORKS.
    Mr. CAIRNSasked the Minister of Labour if he will consider the possibility of further reducing the number of unemployed by tree planting or road making, and by undertaking other public works?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Sir Montague Barlow): Local authorities were recently invited by circular letters issued by the Unemployment Grants Committee and the Ministry of Transport (of which I am sending copies to my hon. Friend) to submit further schemes of road and other public work, which might be undertaken with Government assistance during the autumn and winter of 1922–23. The question of the provision of further sums of money for schemes of tree planting is at present under consideration.

    GREECE AND TURKEY.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Prime Minister whether he can report any further progress in the negotiations for bringing about peace in Asia Minor: whether a meeting has been arranged in principle between the Turks and the Greeks in the presence of Allied representatives: where this meeting will be held and when; and whether Greek warships will be permitted to continue to interfere with seaborne traffic to Turkey while the negotiations are in progress?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Cecil Harmsworth): The question of a meeting between representatives of the Allied Governments and of the Governments of Athens. Constantinople and Angora is still under discussion and it is hoped that pro-gress will be made. As regards the last part of the question, His Majesty's Government see no reason to reconsider their recognition of the belligerent right of search, which under international law is the corollary of the admission of the neutral right of private trade in arms. The exercise of belligerent rights is not suspended by the initiation of negotiations unless this is specially provided for

    1911
    by the terms of an armistice. The Greek Government have, however, declared their intention of only stopping absolute contraband of war.

    NATIONAL EXPENDITURE (EDUCATION).
    Mr. HURDasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has considered the fact that the administration of the Ministry of Education cost's the taxpayer nearly twice as much as in 1913, while much of its former work has since that date been thrown upon local authorities and the ratepayers; and what steps he is taking to induce the Ministry to effect further administrative economies?
    Sir J. BAIRD: My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer is aware of the increase of cost referred to. It is due in a small measure to an increase in the number of the staff of the Board, but the greater part of it is attributable to changes in rate of remuneration on cost of living grounds. While it is true that the Board are, so far as is possible, pursuing a policy of decentralisation much new work has been thrown on the Board since 1913. The expenditure on the Board's staff has already been brought below the figure suggested by the Committee on National Expenditure, and the numbers will continue to be the subject of very careful scrutiny with a view to making such reductions as may from time to time be found practicable.
    Mr. HURD: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether there is any truth in the statement that the Ministry of Education is one of the Departments which has recently received an intimation from the Treasury to revise its Estimates?
    Sir J. BAIRD: That intimation has been sent to every Department.

    OLD AGE PENSIONS.
    Mr. T. THOMSONasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware that, under the present administration of the Old Age Pensions Act, where an old couple have both been receiving pensions, when the wife dies the widower not only loses his wife's pension but his own
    1912
    is reduced because their joint income is charged to his account: and will he seek to amend the present Act so as to remove such hardships?
    Sir J. BAIRD: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative; in reply to the second part of the question, the Government, as has been frequently stated, are not prepared at present to re-open the settlement of the calculation of means for old age pension purposes which was embodied in the Old Age Pensions Act, 1919.
    Sir J. BUTCHER: Would my hon. and gallant Friend consider the desirability of appointing committees to again go into the question of means, in order to remove some of the real hardships and anomalies of the present system?
    Sir J. BAIRD: I will pass that suggestion on to my right hon. Friend, but I cannot hold out any hope as the matter has been settled so recently as 1919.

    CURRENCY NOTES (METALLIC RESERVE).
    Mr. HANNONasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer why the metallic reserve against the currency note issue has recently been largely reduced; and whether it is his intention to replace the whole of the gold reserve by Bank of England notes?
    Sir J. BAIRD: Gold has been withdrawn from the reserve for the purposes of shipment to the United States of America in connection with the dollar requirements of the Government, more particularly the approaching interest payment on the British debt to the United States Government. There is no present intention to replace the whole of the gold in the currency note reserve by Bank of England notes. A?, however, the Bank of England notes and currency notes may be regarded as forming together a single system of paper currency, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer would suggest to my hon. Friend that, as pointed out by the Cunliffe Committee, what is important is the gold reserve against the two issues taken together, rather than the amount of gold in each of the reserves taken separately.

    FOREIGN EXCHANGE.
    Brigadier-General SURTEESasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the differences and variations in the rates of exchange in foreign countries and the revolutions thereby occasioned in trade, invariably to the advantage of those countries which show a decreasing currency rate, he will appoint a Departmental Committee to inquire into the effect of the variations of the rates of exchange, especially with reference to their effect on British trade?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Sir W. Mitchell-Thomson): My right hon. Friend will consider the suggestion made by my hon. and gallant Friend, but as at present advised he is doubtful if such a Committee would serve any very useful purpose.

    SAFEGUARDING OF INDUSTRIES ACT.
    Captain BENNasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the forthcoming Debate on the proposed orders under the Safeguarding of Industries Act, he will lay upon the Table copies of all official information relating to employment in the industries affected which he provided to the committees concerned?
    Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I can only refer the hon. and gallant Gentleman to the replies given to him on the 27th June and on subsequent dates in answer to questions on this subject.
    Captain BENN: Is it the fact that the Board of Trade have supplied to the Committee the information which they now refuse to the House of Commons?
    Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: No, Sir. My hon. and gallant Friend still apparently thinks I have something up my sleeve. I can assure him again that that is not so—as I have already told him on three occasions. The Board of Trade have no official information other than that contained in the reports of the Committees.

    WAR RISKS COMPENSATION SCHEME,
    Mr. PENNEFATHERasked the President of the Board of Trade the total
    1914
    number of applications to the Board of Trade under the War Risks Compensation Scheme, the number sent on to the Advisory Committee, the total number-decided against the applicants, and the number decided in their favour?
    Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: The War Risks Compensation Scheme has been in force since May, 1915, and over 12,000 awards of one kind or another have been made under it. It is not possible to give the total number of applications. An Advisory Committee was first set up in April, 1021, when the Board of Trade took over the whole administration of the scheme. Since that date, 119 cases have been referred to the Committee, of which 53 were admitted and 66 rejected.
    Mr. PENNEFATHERasked the President of the Board of Trade whether members of the Mercantile Marine and their dependants, who claim pensions or allowances under the War Risks Compensation Scheme and who are dissatisfied with the decisions of the Board of Trade or of its Advisory Committee, can appeal to any tribunal against such decisions, or whether it rests solely with the Board of Trade to grant or refuse applications and stop or reduce pensions, and, to decide whether cases should or should not be sent for the consideration of the Advisory Committee?
    Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: There is no special tribunal to which appeal can be made against decisions of the Board of Trade under the War Risks Compensation Scheme, and there is no specific right of appeal to the Advisory Committee which assists the Board of Trade in dealing with border line cases, but, in fact, every case in which there is any ground for thinking that an award might be made under the scheme, that is, every case that is anywhere near the border line, is referred to the Committee and is dealt with in accordance with their advice.

    LEGITIMATION BY MARRIAGE.
    Mr. NEVILLE CHAMBERLAINasked the Home Secretary when it is proposed to introduce the Bill dealing with the legitimation of children by the subsequent marriage of their parents?
    Mr. SHORTT: I regret I am still unable to fix a date, and can only repeat that I will do all I can to secure the introduction of the Bill at the earliest possible date.

    CURRENCY DEFLATION.
    Mr. FINNEYasked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been drawn to resolutions adopted by the National Council of the Pottery Industry, calling attention to the effects on industry caused by the policy of deflation recommended by the Cunliffe Committee on Currency, stating that the Cunliffe Committee, consisting as it did almost entirely of bankers, was not constituted in a manner calculated to give confidence to producers, and begging His Majesty's Government to adopt the suggestion of the Federation of British Industries and appoint a Committee to make further inquiries; and whether he proposes to take any action on these resolutions?
    Sir J. BAIRD: The attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer has been called to these resolutions.

    WAR SERVICE CANTEENS (DISPOSAL OF SURPLUS) BILL.
    Viscount WOLMER(by Private Notice) asked the Lord Privy Seal whether the Government intend to take the War Services Canteens (Disposal of Surplus) Bill for Second Reading to-morrow. Whether he is aware that the Bill was only printed and circulated to hon. Members to-day, that the Bill is of a most controversial character, and that it affects every ex-service man in the country; and that the accounts of the Expeditionary Force canteens, the Navy and Army Canteen Board, and the Navy and Army and Air Force Institutes, covering a period from 1918 to 1922, with which it deals, were only printed late last night in a document of 36 pages; and whether he will give an undertaking that the Bill will not be proceeded with until hon. Members have had an opportunity of studying the facts revealed in these papers?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I only received notice of the question after I came into the House. I have been making inquiries on the subject. I do not intend to take the Bill to-morrow if the Noble Lord and his Friends desire further time to consider it. But perhaps they will allow me to say that the difficulties are less than my Noble Friend would lead the House to believe. The Bill contains only two Clauses, which will not require a great deal of study. The accounts are prefixed by a statement by Sir William Plender, which summarises them, and will, I think, be found an easy guide to knowledge by those who care to study it. I understand that the Bill deals with a sum of money—five millions sterling— which is not the property of the Government, but which cannot be devoted to the advantage of the beneficiaries without legislation, and therefore, in the interests of the service men, this Bill should be dealt with rapidly, and although I will not attempt to take it to-morrow, I shall have to ask the House to consider it on a very early date.

    LEAGUE OF NATIONS.
    Lord ROBERT CECIL(by Private Notice) asked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the unfortunate failure of the British delegate to attend at the meeting of the Council of the League of Nations yesterday, and whether he can explain to the House how that took place?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, Sir. Owing to the breakdown of the motor-car in which he was travelling to the railway station early yesterday morning, the British delegate arrived at St. James's Palace too late for a meeting of the Council of the League in the morning. No one regretted the accident more than the British delegate himself, and I feel sure that all Members of the House who have experienced a similar mishap will be disposed to sympathise with him. I should add that, in spite of the unfortunate delay in opening its proceedings, the Council was, I understand, able to dispose, by the and of the day, of all the work which they had expected to complete.

HONOURS LISTS.

  SIR ROBERT BALFOUR (PERSONAL EXPLANATION).
  Sir ROBERT BALFOUR: With your consent, Mr. Speaker, and by the leave of the House, I should like to make a personal statement with regard to certain charges which were made in this House last evening by the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. R. McNeill). I left the House at about 7 o'clock, and I had no intimation whatever, nor had my partner, Lord Forres, who was in the Lobby at about that time, that any such question was to be raised, and it was quite a surprise to me this morning to find that so long, so numerous and so grave charges had been made, for which, I beg to state, there is no foundation whatever. Before going further into the matter I should like to thank my light hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Ilkeston (Major-General Seely) for the remarks that he made, and for asking that the House should not accept the statements without further consideration. Also, if I may, I should like to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth (Sir A. Shirley Benn) for the personal remarks which he made, and which I appreciate very greatly.
  Two main statements were made by the hon. Member for Canterbury, and I will read one of them. The hon. Member stated that my partner, the recent Member for Moray and Nairn, had written to our firm in Chile stating that it was quite unnecessary for them to pay too much attention to the Government Regulations against trading with the enemy, as he was in a position to see that they did not get into trouble. That statement was absolutely untrue. It is more important, in one sense, than the other charges relative to the delivery of oil to German consumers, because it suggests that my partner was in a position to use, and would have used, influences to prevent certain measures being taken. Obviously, that is a charge which cannot be too strongly repudiated, both on my partner's behalf and from the point of view of the Government interest in the matter.
  But the more important of the charges, and those, perhaps, which will dwell more particularly in the minds of the House, are those with regard to the delivery of
  1918
  oil to German consumers in Chile. I should mention that those German consumers have been for a very long time situated in Chile. They are German companies producing nitrate, and we all know that nitrate is an essential factor in connection with warlike operations. Some years before the War, our friends there had entered into contracts running for a considerable period with a number of consumers in Chile for fuel oil, not for their own account, not for our account, but for account of an important company in the United States which I need not specially mention. As the hon. Member for Canterbury will admit, such contracts made in Chile are subject to Chilean law, and they had to be fulfilled in any circumstances, or, at all events, it was a question for the Chilean courts to decide whether they should be fulfilled or not. The fulfilment of those contracts spread over a considerable period—some four or five years—and they were continued after the War commenced. Subsequently, some of those contracts fell out and were renewed, but they were renewed with the consent of the British Government. I will read a letter here which bears on that particular point. We asked for the approval of continued delivery of oil to these German nitrate companies. We pointed out that, if we did not do so, we should be subject to claims for damages, and the American sellers—the United States not being at that time in the War—would have made the deliveries themselves. In June, 1915, we received a letter in the following terms, written from the office of the Parliamentary Counsel, Whitehall:
  "Further, in reply to your letter of 17th June, no objection will be taken under the Acts and Proclamations relating to trading with the enemy to the fulfilment by the firm of Williamson, Balfour & Company, of Valparaiso, of a contract for the sale of Californian fuel oil to be consumed in Chile to representatives in that country of a German nitrate Company or to the negotiation of a new contract for the delivery of such oil over a period of three or four years. (Signed.) ARTHUR T. THUING."
  At a later date, under the Trading with the Enemy (Extension of Powers) Act, 1915, a system of licences was introduced for the purpose of permitting transactions in neutral countries, and the Foreign Trade Department was set up at Lancaster House. We thereupon again approached the Government with regard to that, and we received a letter, written

  1919
  under the instructions of Earl Grey, and signed by the present Secretary of State for War, authorising us until further notice
  "to act as agents to transact the business of the supply of oil to any person or body of persons whose name is or may hereafter be on the Statutory List for Chile, Peru, Bolivia or Ecuador, so long as the transactions with such persons or body of persons are in the ordinary course of business and do not include the supply of oil for shipment abroad."
  Subsequently, when the United States came into the War, the situation changed, and the Government refused to allow deliveries to be continued. We cabled to our firm to stop deliveries, with the result, as was foreseen, that the German companies in question sued for the fulfilment of the contract, and placed an embargo on the tanks of oil which were in existence on the coast. The result was that other consumers could not obtain supplies, and a very difficult situation was created. Ultimately—I rather think as the result of discussions between this Government, the United States and Chile—arrangements were made to remove that embargo, and deliveries were continued. If I am not mis-informed, the nitrate manufactured from that fuel oil was actually used for war purposes, both by this country and the United States. I believe that is true, though I am really not personally familiar with these matters, because my time and thought are almost fully occupied with our business in other parts of the world, and I am dealing with these matters, having had very little time to make the necessary inquiries. Anyhow, the embargo was raised, and deliveries were continued. As I have already stated, the German companies had brought suits against our friends who were parties to the contract, and these were defended with the assistance of the ablest lawyers in Chile, in consultation with the late Mr. Hanna, an eminent lawyer and ex-Minister at Ottawa, and Sir Francis Stronge, the British Minister in Santiago. The case was not settled when the War ended, but it has since been compromised at considerable cost, which course, I may say, was strongly recommended by Sir Maurice de Bunsen on his visit with the British Trade Mission to South America. These explanations, I think, will show—and the Government are in a position to verify
  1920
  them—that the charges which have been made by my hon. Friend have no foundation, and I think it was most unfair to bring up a charge in this House without giving notice to those interested. I do no wish to dwell on any services which may have been rendered by our people during the War, but a number of our employés on the West coast of America, and on the North-West coast also, came home and joined up. There was no obligation on them, and they could not have been brought home under any law. Practically every young man in our own office joined up. Two sons of Lord Forres joined up. My own two sons joined up, and one, unfortunately, lost his life. I may say here that we, like many other firms in London and elsewhere, paid full salaries to those men who left our office to join up, and they were reinstated in their places when they returned.
  I would like to add one word, if I might crave the indulgence of the House. I think the House is familiar with the fact that caterpillar tractors were largely used in the early part of the War. I myself went to see the chief of the Ordnance Department in the early part of August, 1914, with a cablegram from my partner at San Francisco, Mr. John Lawson, who took an active part in the matter. He had seen the British Consul-General there who had sent a cablegram to the Foreign Office here, which cablegram I saw in the office of the chief of the Ordnace Department. That cablegram recommended that arrangements should be made to obtain these tractors which were used for agricultural purposes—for ploughing soft and uneven land—and the result was that the War Office obtained several of those tractors which happened to be on the way to this country and Europe, and, further, they entered into very large contracts for similar tractors. I hope that I shall be pardoned for going into these matters. There is one more matter. Mr. John Lawson, of whom I have spoken, took steps at the time that the German Fleet was at large in the Pacific to do what he could to stop supplies from going from San Francisco. One vessel did go, and he informed the Consul-General in San Francisco and gave him all the assistance which he could in order to en-

  1921
  deavour to stop that steamer, which, however, was not accomplished.
  I hope that I may be pardoned for making these remarks, but very grave charges have been made, and I feel very strongly that they should have been verified before they were made. I thank you, Sir, for giving me the opportunity of making these remarks, and I thank the House for listening to me so patiently.
  Mr. RONALD McNEILL: After what has fallen from my hon. Friend, I shall be glad of the opportunity of repeating what I said last night with regard to the obligation of giving notice to my hon. Friend of my intention to refer to his firm —that I had not the slightest knowledge, until after I had spoken, that the hon. Member was a member of the firm in question. The Leader of the House, in the course of his speech, charged me with carelessness. I do not in the least mind pleading guilty to that extent. It may have been that I ought to have found out how many gentlemen of the name of "Balfour" have seats in this House. I know of two now. There may be more, and I might have asked them if they had had any connection with this firm I admit that did not occur to me at all. With regard to giving notice to anyone outside, so far as my knowledge of the etiquette and proceedings of this House is concerned, which now extends over some years, I have never heard it suggested that there was any obligation on any hon. Member of this House to give notice of what he was going to say to anyone outside this House. With regard to what the hon. Gentleman has said, I never intended, and I did not in fact say, anything reflecting in the slightest degree on the patriotism of my hon. Friend. I have followed as closely as I can the statement which he has made, and I do not understand him to contest what was the main feature of my remarks, that an indictment of the proceedings of this firm was prepared in the Foreign Office here, was sent out to South America for confirmation, was there confirmed, and was sent back to this country, that legal opinion was obtained from Chile with regard to the action which was brought in the courts there, and that that legal opinion confirmed the suspicion that was entertained in this country, rightly or wrongly, as to the bonâ fides of the proceedings out there. Those were the two
  1922
  main points which I brought to the notice of the House last night, and of which, so far as I understand my hon. Friend, he does not contend the accuracy.
  Sir R. BALFOUR: I do not know anything about the alleged indictment which was sent out to Chile and which was mentioned in the House yesterday. I do know that my partner and I were asked to interview the present Attorney-General (Sir E. Pollock), who then occupied a position in connection with war matters, and he showed us certain official communications which he had received from Chile. We made our explanations with regard to these, and, so far as I know, he was perfectly satisfied with the explanation which we gave.

ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE.
Mr. MACQUISTEN: I beg to move
"That leave be given to bring in a Bill to repeal Sections two and three of the Administration of Justice Act, 1920."
By that Act the citizens were deprived of their right to have, as a matter of law, their civil rights decided by a jury of their peers, which had been one of the fundamental institutions of this country. This right had existed in England, at all events, since the earliest time: indeed, I believe that juries were in existence in Anglo-Saxon civilisation before judges. The judges were ultimately brought in to guide the juries on question of law. The system had worked admirably for hundreds of years. During the War the system of trial by jury was largely abrogated. This was purely a War measure, and all citizens expected that at the conclusion of the War the citizen's right to have his civil rights decided by judge and jury would be restored. The suspension of jury trial, however, was continued for some time under a continuation Act. Then, on 20th December, 1920, a Bill was brought in from another place, which was called the Administration of Justice Act, and by the terms of that Act the citizen was deprived of his right to have his civil rights decided by a jury of his peers. The legal profession, excepting His Majesty's judges, knew nothing about this proposal, and they have really only recently discovered it. The citizens themselves did not know of it. I remem-

1923
ber quite well how it was introduced. I saw it coming. I saw it was on the Paper, and I tendered an Amendment, and I was told the Second Reading alone was to be taken that day. Members of the House will scarcely credit that a fundamental right of citizens was cut from under their feet at 2 o'clock in the morning when there was about five Members in the House. In the course of five minutes a Bill to deprive the citizens of jury trial in civil causes was put through all its stages, with the remark, by the Attorney-General of the day, that this was a highly technical subject. I am sure you, Sir, had not a full grasp of the change which was being made in the rights of citizenship or you would have prevented all the stages of the Bill being taken at once and so great a change being made so suddenly and with so little discussion. On the following evening a protest was made by myself and others. The Statute has now had some time on trial, and the results, which I then indicated, have come about very much as I outlined them when I protested against hasty legislation. May I read from the decision of two of the most eminent judges in a recent case. Lord Justice Atkin has taken part in two cases where jury trial was refused in an ordinary civil action. In a case, which was in this week's "Law Times," he says:
"The importance of these cases is that they call attention to the provisions of the Administration of Justice Act, 1920, by which, for the first time in history, the British subject is permanently deprived of his right to have common law actions tried by a jury. For the future, the right to a jury is taken away; whether a jury shall try a dispute is left to the uncontrolled discretion of a master or a judge. I speak reluctantly because I cannot bring myself to believe that this far-reaching result was intended by the Legislature. Trial by jury, except in the very limited classes of cases assigned to the Chancery Court, is an essential principle of our law. It has been the bulwark of liberty, the shield of the poor from the oppression of the rich and powerful. Anyone who knows the history of our law knows that many of the liberties of the subject were originally established and are maintained by the verdicts of juries in civil eases. Many will think that at the present time the danger of attack by powerful private organisations or by encroachments of the executive is not diminishing. It is not without importance that the right now taken away is expressly established as part of the American Constitution."
1924
Similar statements were made in the same case by Lord Justice Bankes, who said:
"The standard of much that is valuable in the life of the community has been set by juries in civil cases. They have proved themselves in the past to be a great sale-guard against many forms of wrongs and oppression. They are essential to a good tribunal to decide cases in which there is hard swearing on either side, or a direct conflict of evidence on matters of fact, or in which the amount of the damage is not large and has to be assessed."
It is a very great change that happened, and where the injury comes in is this. In almost all civil actions for damages—motor actions, railway actions and other actions of that kind—the parties are covered by insurance. It is a curious thing that defendants like Judges and plaintiffs like juries. The former blend of having a Judge and jury together made an ideal tribunal for trying matters of fact; but if you take either of them separately you ruin and destroy the Court of Justice as a means of trying matters of fact. The very result has happened which was anticipated. When a citizen is run down or injured by some carelessness on the part of a motor driver or there is some accident, the defending insurance company makes a tender of as little as it dares. The Judge knows of the tender, but the jury do not. Subconsciously and necessarily the Judge is affected by the tender, and experience of those who have had to do with juries and Judges is that the sum that a Judge will give is a comparatively small figure in all cases of civil damage as compared with what the jury, with its wider knowledge of facts of our daily lives, will give. One of the principal reasons for jury trial was that they are men skilled in the common affairs of life, which lawyers who sit on the Bench are not so skilled in. I know there is a strong body of the legal profession which has always been against jury trial, but these are more what one might call men with Chancery minds, men who are not apt in the conduct of jury cases, and they are more what you might call defendants' counsel. But for the general average of plaintiffs' cases, the universal consensus of all legal opinion in all Anglo-Saxon countries is that a jury of one's peers is the best way of assessing civil damages in questions of fact.
The Bill was introduced and run through without a moment's discussion. There was only one lawyer in the House,

1925
and he was a Chancery man, unacquainted with jury trial. When it was introduced in another place by Lord Reading he said it would only affect a very few cases. As a matter of fact, it is affecting all cases, and it is for the Commons of England to decide whether the citizens lose their jury trial and not for another place to decide it, and although it was stated that a large number of the Judges had decided in favour of this change it is not for His Majesty's Judges to decide whether the citizens are to have jury trial or not. It is for the Commons and people of England. The House of Commons was totally ignorant that this Bill was to be and had been passed and did not know that the citizens had been deprived of their jury trial, and I bring this Measure forward for the purpose of ventilating the fact that a Bill of this great import was run through in the small hours of the morning without disclosure as to its real purpose. There were other Clauses in it which were beneficial, about taking divorces on circuit and things of that kind. I ask the Government to give time to this Bill this Session so as to restore jury trial at once. If ever we should wish to abolish jury trial it ought to be properly discussed and the consent of the Commons, aye and the people too, got to so great a change in the constitutional right of citizens.
Lieut.-Colonel NALL: The hon. and learned Gentleman has spoken with some experience of Scotland, but he has not produced any evidence in support of the Bill as it affects England. So far as I am in touch with feeling in England, especially in commercial quarters, the present practice of sitting without a jury is regarded as facilitating the settlement of cases and as a great saving of time, helping considerably towards economy, and certainly this is the first time such allegations have been made in favour of reverting to the more costly and less expeditious system. The hon. and learned Gentleman has not produced any reat evidence relating to the present practice in the English Courts in support of his Bill by showing that the present practice is unsuitable or unfair. His argument, so far as we have had argument, is all the old argument in favour of the old system as we knew it before the present
1926
system was introduced. The present system is giving general satisfaction in the quarters concerned.
Mr. MACQUISTEN: No, to insurance companies only.
Lieut.-Colonel NALL: I ask the House not, under the 10 Minutes Rule, to give leave to bring in a Bill to repeal a Measure—whether it was taken at 12 o'clock in the morning or not is immaterial—which was brought in and passed through its proper stages as a Government Measure, and did not excite the opposition which the hon. and learned Gentleman's allegations would lead one to think, and I propose to divide the House against it.
Question put, and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Macquisten, Mr. Percy, and Mr. Kidd.

ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE.
  ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE BILL,
  "to repeal Sections two and three of the Administration of Justice Act, 1920," presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 202.]

  TELEGRAPH (MONEY) BILL.
  Reported, without Amendment, from Standing Committee B.
  Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
  Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed.
  Bill, not amended (in the Standing Committee), to be taken into consideration To-morrow.

  CELLULOID AND CINEMATOGRAPH FILM BILL [Lords].
  Reported, with Amendments, from Standing Committee B.
  Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
  Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed.
  Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee) to be taken into consideration To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 201]

STANDING COMMITTEES (CHAIRMEN'S PANEL).
Mr. JOHN WILLIAM WILSON reported from the Chairmen's Panel: That they

1927
had appointed Sir Samuel Roberts to act as Chairman of Standing Committee B (in respect of the British Nationality and Status of Aliens Bill) in place of Mr. J. H. Thomas, discharged; that they had appointed Sir Halford Mackinder as Chairman of Standing Committee C (in respect of the Railway and Canals Commission (Consents) Bill): and that they had appointed Mr. Hodge to act as Chairman of Standing Committee B (in respect of the Oil in Navigable Waters Bill [Lords]), in place of Mr. T. P. O'Connor, discharged.
Report to lie upon the Table.

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).
  STANDING COMMITTEE B.
  Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had added the following Members to Standing Committee B (in respect of the Celluloid and Cinematograph Film Bill [Lords] and the Telegraph (Money) Bill: Mr. Murchison and Mr. Pike Pease.
  STANDING COMMITTEE C.
  Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS further reported from the Committee; That they had added the following Ten Members to Standing Committee C (in respect of the Railway and Canal Commission (Consents) Bill): Sir Ernest Pollock, Major Barnes, Mr. Gillis, Mr. Thomas Griffith, Captain Hacking, Sir Joseph Hood, Mr. Johnstone, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur Murray, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Robert Sanders, and Major Steel.

  STANDING COMMITTEE D
  Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS further reported from the Committee; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee D: Mr. Albert Green.
  Reports to lie upon the Table.

  ECCLESIASTICAL TITHE RENT-CHARGE (RATES) BILL.
  Lords Amendments to be considered upon Monday next, and to be printed.[Bill 203.]

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to—
Bread Acts Amendment Bill, without Amendment.
Ecclesiastical Tithe Rentcharges (Rates) Bill,
Port of London and Midland Railway Bill,
River Cam Conservancy Bill, with Amendments.
Amendments to—
Halifax Corporation Bill [Lords], without Amendment.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  SUPPLY.
  [18TH ALLOTTED DAY.]
  Considered in Committee.
  [Sir EDWIN CORNWALL in the Chair.]

  NAVY ESTIMATES, 1922–23.

    NON-EFFECTIVE SERVICES (NAVAL AND MARINE), MEN
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £4,499,600, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expenses of Non-Effective Services (Naval and Marine), Men, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1923, in addition to a sum of £1,023,000 to be allocated for this purpose from the sum of £12,000,000 voted on account of Navy Services generally."
    Sir T. BRAMSDON: I desire to call attention to the case of a number of seamen and pensioners who were engaged in a civil capacity at the Greenwich Hospital School before the War. When the War broke out all men who were naval pensioners were called up for service with the Navy, and this was done under the Naval Coast Volunteers Act, 1853. As this Act, which is a short one, has a very important bearing upon my case, I crave leave of the House to read it It is entitled "An Act for the Establishment of a Body of Naval Coast Volunteers and for the temporary transfer to the Navy in case of need of seafaring men employed in other public services." The date is 15th August, 1853. Section 16 states:
    "Whenever any emergency shall arise which in the opinion of the Lord High Admiral or Commissioners for executing the office of Lord High Admiral renders it advisable to require the services in Her Majesty's Navy of any of the persons who may have served as petty officers, or seamen in Her Majesty's Navy, and may be in receipt of pensions for such service, it shall be lawful for such Lord High Admiral or Commissioners to order any of such persons to join Her Majesty's Navy, and those so ordered shall join such of Her Majesty's ships or vessels of war as the said Lord High Admiral or Commissioners may at any time or times direct, and shall form the crews or part of the crews of such ships or vessels, and shall continue to serve in Her Majesty's Navy during such time as such emergency may in the opinion of the said Lord High Admiral or Commissioners continue, and while so serving shall be entitled"—
    1938
    this is the point to which I wish to draw attention—
    "to the same pay and allowances according to their respective ratings on board such ships or vessels, as officers in Her Majesty's Navy and men in Her Majesty's Navy entered for 10 years' continuous and general service, and shall also continue to receive their pensions."
    On the outbreak of War, for my purpose on the 2nd August, 1914, there were 23 naval pensioners engaged in a civil capacity at the Greenwich Hospital School. I think the House knows that the Greenwich Hospital School is a school for the education of boys belonging to men who have served in the Navy. These men were, under this particular Act, called up for active service. They went to their stations, and there they remained for a time. When they had been there a certain time, it dawned upon the Admiralty that these naval boys at the Greenwich Hospital School had no instructors, and they, therefore, thought it advisable to send back to Greenwich as instructors these seamen pensioners, and the school then became their War station. They were engaged on active service by doing duty at the Greenwich Hospital School. They remained there continuously, but when their pay was about to be received, it dawned upon them that they were not receiving the pay of active service ratings There was a difference between the pay of civilians and the pay of active service ratings, consequent upon the War, and there were various allowances and gratuities to which these men were entitled. Included amongst these 23 naval pensioners were four marines. These four marines appealed to their Marine Department and were placed upon naval ratings, naval pay and naval allowances, and continued so until the end of the War, until the Armistice. The remaining 19 men were not so treated, and they, therefore, came to the conclusion that they were not placed upon a proper and equitable basis.
    These men made their appeal to the Admiralty, but their appeal was not allowed. Naturally, they continued to appeal, because they considered they had a grievance which should be remedied. They were not allowed any other position or occupation. They were not allowed to be demobilised Had they been placed in an ordinary free position, or had they been taken on as naval ratings in the

    1939
    ordinary active way they might have been sent to some ship or station and might have been engaged actively in the War and have obtained promotion, with additional pay and pension, but they were kept at the Greenwich Hospital School. I want to emphasise the fact that this is a naval school. As the War was prolonged these boys were growing up into men, and it was very important for the Service, and particularly for the Navy, that the boys should be instructed particularly in the requirements of the Navy, so that should the War last, as unfortunately it did last some time, they might gradually become competent and be able to take up their positions in the Navy. When you consider the cases of these men it must be realised that they were not there altogether in a civil capacity. They were ordered there. They first went to their depots, and they were then sent to the school as their War station, and there they remained.
    A good deal of discussion arose, and in the year 1918 the following letter was addressed to the Admiral Superintendent of the Royal Naval College at Greenwich, in which Department these men were serving:
    "Admiralty.
    2nd May, 1918.
    To the Admiral President,
    Royal Naval College, Greenwich, S.E.
    I am to inform you that their Lordships have had under consideration the position of the Seamen Pensioner Instructors at the Greenwich Naval Hospital School and have decided that these men are to be regarded as serving at their War stations, and are accordingly to be remobilised as from the 1st January, 1918. A list of the men concerned is attached.
    By Command of their Lordships,
    (Signed) For Secretary of Admiralty."
    That letter clearly shows that in 1918 their Lordships recognised that these men were at their War stations. If they were at their War stations in 1918 there can be no reasonable argument to contest the fact that they must have been there in 1914, when the War broke out. As and from that date these men were treated as naval active ratings. The trouble that has arisen, and which I am putting to the Committee, is that these men between 1914 and 1918 were not properly treated. The men consider that they ought to have been placed on the basis of active service
    1940
    ratings, and ought to be entitled to the pay and emoluments of that position. I cannot conceive what objection there can be to this. I know that my right hon. Friend will say that they wore sent there by mistake. If by mistake these 19 seamen pensioners were sent to the school, were the four marine pensioners sent there by mistake. The four marine pensioners were recognised as active service ratings, and had that position, pay and emolument. It is a very irritating and annoying, not to say an unjust thing, that these four men should have the pay and position of active service ratings, and that the other men, serving side by side with them, in exactly the same position, should be denied their proper pay and position. I know the difficulty of my right hon. Friend. He is always very good, and the Admiralty are always very good with their men, and they know my feelings in regard to that matter. I have never been able to say that they have treated men unfairly on any actual facts, but I can quite imagine that behind the Admiralty we have to meet the Treasury—an excellent institution, which at times takes it into its head to be economical. Economy ought not to be practised at the expense of these men.
    There are three years during which these men claim that they must have pay, emoluments and pensions on active service ratings. I now make a proposal to my right hon. Friend which I hope he will consider fair and which I hope he will put to the Treasury as a reasonable proposition which might be very fairly met. He knows that the pay of these men during the period in question would represent a very large sum which, especially in these hard times, would be a very great amount to pay over. I think it would amount to something like £9,000. I suggest, on behalf of these men, that it would be an act of justice and equity if they simply ask to be paid pension only for war service, and do away with the claim for balance of pay. That is a very fair proposition, and if my right hon. Friend can see his way clear to put the case on that basis to the Treasury I think justice will be done for these men. That course will be advisable instead of leaving a bad sore, as it is at the present time. Unfortunately, one of the men has died. If my right hon. Friend can see his way clear to advise the Treasury to

    1941
    pay these pensions it will not amount to a large sum, and it will do justice to a body of men who consider that they have a grievance.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: I want to mention the question of compensation under the schemes by which officers and men are allowed to retire from the Royal Navy. I refer particularly to the case of the schemes of retirement affecting Warrant officers, Royal Navy and commissioned officers promoted from that rank. These men are quite satisfied with the schemes generally, but desire to point out some defects. The Parliamentary Secretary will remember that, under Article 37, taken in conjunction with Article 38, it is provided that the new age of retirement is 50 years for the majority of officers promoted to and from Warrant rank, instead of 55 as heretofore, and therefore five years' employed time will be lost to officers who will continue to serve in His Majesty's Navy. Many officers who will be compulsorily retired under Article 38 have already earned the maximum pension of their rank, and if they had been permitted to serve until the age of 55, the majority would have attained the rank of lieutenant; but this step is now denied them without any compensation for loss of rank and of pension sustained. With regard to Article 39, many officers, by reason of age and the advantages accruing under the scheme, are impelled to apply to retire voluntarily. A large proportion of these officers have already earned the maximum pension of their rank. In consequence, two years' additional service added to their seniority for the purpose of commuting retired pay is of no value.
    In regard to Articles 37 and 39, officers who, by reason of their domestic responsibilities or for any other reason, do not apply to retire, or those officers who do apply to retire under Article 39 and are not permitted to do so, will, in future, be compulsorily retired on reaching the age of 50. According to a recent statement made by the Parliamentary Secretary these officers will receive no compensation for five years' loss of employed time. Both cases are unfair, and the latter is accentuated by refusal of pension to retire as provided by Article 48. In the latter case it may be presumed that it is considered necessary to retain the services of those
    1942
    officers or that officers permitted to retire have prior claim. Article 45 perpetuates a distinct and unfair anomaly which is difficult to understand. By Article 41 of A.M.O. 2483A/19, and subsequent Orders, only separation allowances, now regarded as marriage allowances, of naval ratings were to be the subject of further consideration in the light of the course taken by the cost of living, and are revised annually until a fixed minima is reached, whereas both pay and retired pay of officers were to be subject to revision up to 20 per cent. in 1924 and subsequent years, but were denied the grant of marriage allowance granted to their subordinates. Under Article 45, the retired pay of officers who retire under the scheme is subject to revision of 20 per cent. either upwards or downwards on the 1st July, 1924, and subsequently, whereas under Article 23 the basic rates of pension of ratings who revert to pension under A.F.O. 1359/22 are not subject to reductions up to 20 per cent. as in the case of officers. Articles 38 and 39 have created a distinct anomaly which affects a few officers of various classes.
    For instance, consider how a lieutenant promoted from commissioned officer from warrant rank, if he be over 50 years of age, is affected, and how a lieutenant promoted from commissioned officer from warrant rank is also affected, if under 50 years of age. The senior officers will be retired compulsorily with the retired pay of lieutenant which they would have earned if they had remained in the Service until they were 55 years of age, plus the maximum gratuity of £500, while the latter would only receive the retired pay earned plus two years' additional service added for the purpose of commuting their retired rank. The effect of these Orders is that, in order to obtain a maximum pension, officers must be promoted prior to reaching the age of 50. The maximum rates of pay are obtained after 19 years' complete service after obtaining these ranks, and in both these cases, that is practically impossible for any class owing to the age of promotion. Promotion in future must be earlier, or the increment rates of pay ought to be altered to meet the new ages of retirement. I am not in any way opposing the compensation scheme. It is most generous in every way, but I am pointing out certain defects which, if not changed quickly, may act in a way which is

    1943
    different from the way which the Admiralty desire.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I will stand only for two minutes in the way of the next Vote, which provides a wider field of discussion. We have only a handful of Members present when these Estimates are being discussed, but we are used to that. I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary if he will look into the question of the payment of prize money—
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Amery): Prize money does not come under this Vote.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I submit that it does.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Perhaps the hon. and gallant Member, on a point of Order, will tell me where it is.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I cannot find it anywhere else This is for non-effective services, and surely includes the payment of prize money, which is a non-effective service. The particular question to which I wish to draw the attention of the Admiralty is the hardship suffered by pensioners—
    Mr. AMERY: On a point of Order—
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: If I might finish my point of Order, I wish to refer particularly to the case of pensioners.
    Mr. AMERY: On this Vote there are the actual payments by the Admiralty for non-effective services. Prize money comes from other sources, and not from Admiralty votes.
    Mr. MALONE: This is a point which I was about to raise. The real hardship is caused by the delay in paying prize money to the men who come under this Vote, the pensioners and the old people. We are not raising the general policy of prize money at all. That, I know, would come under another Vote. The particular case which we are raising is the question of delay in paying prize money to the old pensioners, while going on paying it to the men who are getting full pay and full rank. The case of hardship which we want—
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: We are dealing with money rather than with individuals. That had better be taken on the next Vote.
    Mr. AMERY: I wish to reply briefly as to the particular grievance of the seamen pensioners at the Naval School, Greenwich. The circumstances of the case are these. These naval pensioners, and the whole body of naval pensioners, were called up and mobilised on the outbreak of War. Three weeks later all those pensioners, whose services were not required for war purposes, were again demobilised and reverted to their civilian occupation. Many of them went to work at munitions and in various other civil capacities. These particular men went back to their civilian occupation as I nstructors at the hospital school at Greenwich. Undoubtedly, by teaching the boys who were afterwards to become members of His Majesty's Forces, they contributed to the general efficiency of His Majesty's Service, but it was purely civilian work. It also happens that by an oversight the Adjutant-General of Royal Marines was not informed of this demobilisation and four marine pensioners, who were also teachers at Greenwich Hospital, went back to teach and were never demobilised and went on drawing, what they were not entitled to draw, their money as being on active service. This was not discovered until the year 1917, and the question then arose what should be done with these four men. At that time, perhaps owing to the kindheartedness and generosity of the First Lord of the Admiralty, it was decided instead of demobilising these men to re-mobilise again, from the 1st January, 1918, the seamen class, to relieve them of any possible sense of grievance. They had no claim whatever to be re-mobilised. It was a very special concession made to them. Those seamen pensioners now claim that they should receive full active service pay for the period during which they were not mobilised, and that their pension should be increased on the assumption that they had been on active service during the whole of this period.
    I am afraid that, however generous our disposition might be, we have no legal power under which the Treasury could agree to make this concession. They have been very fortunate in getting what they did. It is true that four marioes

    1945
    are still more fortunate. I am afraid that we cannot take that money back, but their exceptional good fortune is due to the fact that they were overlooked for three years in the stress of war. I am afraid that that constitutes no reason for giving an equal increment of good fortune to those seamen pensioners. I believe that it is put forward—I do not know how far my hon. Friend the Member for Central Portsmouth (Sir T. Bramsdon) sustains the argument—that under the Act of 1853 to which he referred, the Admiralty were bound at once to mobilise these men and keep them mobilised till the end of the War. I am afraid, looking at the Act of 1853, that that contention could not be sustained—that the Admiralty could demobilise no one until hostilities were officially at an end. I quite sympathise with the feelings of men who realise that next door there are four men who do the same work as themselves, and secure higher pay and afterwards higher pensions, in consequence of an oversight, but I am afraid that it is impossible to remedy a grievance which extends to everyone, who has not been the recipient of a lucky windfall and that they will have to be content with the good fortune of this concession, by which they were mobilised from the 1st January, 1918, up to the Armistice.
    I will now refer briefly to the point raised by the hon. Member for Devonport (Sir C. Kinloch-Cooke). He says, and I think that he is right in saying, that the scheme for retirement in the exceptional circumstances which was framed for the lower deck was a generous scheme. We were particularly anxious that there should be no feeling that the lower deck hands were treated less generously than the officers, and, judging by the figures already published, there can be no doubt that we achieved our object. Because I think that practically the whole of the reduction required—very nearly the whole of it, and I believe that when the returns come in from the foreign stations, the whole of it—will be found to have been secured in this brief space of time by voluntary retirement. That shows that the offer made was a generous one. Also I think that it will result in a very considerable economy, owing to the fact that the generosity of the offer has led to a very prompt acceptance of our terms, and therefore relieves the taxpayer of
    1946
    the expense of maintenance. But I agree with the hon. Member who raised certain points of detail, and I do not think that he will expect me to answer them in full detail.
    It is very difficult to frame any scheme under which you do not get hard marginal cases. When we were faced with the problem of ascertaining the class of warrant officers and others to whom paragraphs 38 and 39 refer, we had to consider both the prospect individually, and the whole prospect of the branch, of promotion, and after very careful consideration we came to the conclusion that the fairest course all round to the individual, and, in the long run, the best course in the interest of the Service, was to bring down the age to 50, and to retire from the Service all those over 50, in that way giving much better prospects of promotion in future to younger men. But undoubtedly—and I do not sec how it could have been avoided—there are men who, in the natural course of events, will in a few years be 50, who had hoped to serve after 50, perhaps getting, after 50, promotion which they are not likely to get before 50, and some of those will, undoubtedly, see their prospects in the Service diminished by the lower age of retirement. It happened in certain branches of the officers' Service, in the Medical Service. It is true that there will be a compensating increased prospect of promotion for younger men in the same branch, but what I have said is true, and I admit it with regret. I have tried to look into the matter, and I do not see how the scheme could be altered so that that mischance can be remedied. There are some individuals in the Service whose chance of promotion in future are materially reduced by the fact that their future retiring age will be 50 instead of 55.
    Sir T. BRAMSDON: I do not desire to controvert what my hon. Friend has said, but he will allow me to add, on behalf of these men, that they claim that they were not properly and legally demobilised, and that they were continued on at their War stations. Therefore, perhaps, he will consider the suggestion which I made.
    Mr. AMERY: I do not hold out any prospect. The matter has been gone into, very fully, several times.
    5.0 P.M.
    Major Sir B. FALLE: I cannot allow my right hon. Friend to ride off on the idea that these officers and men have retired on generous terms. Many cases have been brought forward where these men have retired, not because they thought the terms were generous, but for very different reasons. In some cases the Admiralty's own schemes, such as the scheme for giving lieutenancies to Commissioned Warrants, have been blown away. These people are certainly not moved by the generosity of the Admiralty, but are disgusted with the terms they are compelled to accept.
    Question put, and agreed to.

    ADMIRALTY OFFICE.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £1,157,800, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of the Admiralty Office, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1923, in audition to a sum of £263,000 to he allocated for this purpose from the sum of £12,000,000 voted on account of Navy Services generally."
    Sir GODFREY COLLINS: I beg to move to reduce the Vote by £100.
    I wish to call attention to the cost of the Admiralty offices. On page 155 of the Navy Estimates the Committee will see the total cost. It will be agreed that the amount of bonus paid to civil servants and others working at the Admiralty is outside the jurisdiction of the Admiralty. The Admiralty, therefore, cannot be held responsible for an increase, or take credit for a decrease, in the amount of that bonus. Setting aside the bonus, we find that the total cost of the Admiralty offices this year is £879,000, and that last year the total cost was £881,000. In other words, as the result of economies effected in the Department the total reduction this year is only £2,000. I would draw the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty to one or two items in these figures. On page 156 we see that the cost of naval assistants at the Admiralty offices has increased this year, in comparison with last year, by about £7,000. The naval staff has increased from £89,000 to £93,000; the Medical Department has increased from £13,324 to £15,788: the Department of the Director
    1948
    of Naval Equipment from £7,100 to £12,100, and so on. It is quite clear that the cost this year of the Admiralty offices is £879,000, in comparison with last year's total of £881,000. The Geddes Committee's Report told us that the audited expenditure of the Departments in the last complete year before the War was £460,000. This year the taxpayer is being burdened with practically 10C per cent. increase, putting on one side the bonus. I would like some explanation on the point. Bearing on that subject the Geddes Committee's Report, on page 31, has the following observation:
    "We are convinced that a large staff at the Admiralty itself tends to create high costs and big establishments elsewhere."
    The Report of the Geddes Committee has been received in various ways in different quarters of the House. If the Geddes Committee were able to examine any Department of the State successfully, they were surely more able to examine the expenditure of the Admiralty than any other Department. The Admiralty was presided over by Sir Eric Geddes during a critical period of the War. He was supported on the Committee by the Minister of Shipping, whose natural activities in that Department must constantly have brought him into touch with the Admiralty; and, in addition, he had the services of Lord Inchcape, one of the most noted shipowners in the world. These three individuals applied their minds to the expenditure of the Admiralty. They not only pointed out the enormous savings that could be effected, but said they were convinced that a large staff at the Admiralty "created high costs and big establishments elsewhere." Let me analyse the total cost of the Navy Estimates. The total net figure is £64,880,000. The Parliamentary Secretary will agree that to this figure must be added several big items He takes credit on page 117 for £1,100,000 for the sale of ships. On page 254 the Committee will find that the Admiralty have consumed stores, or estimate to consume stores during the present year, valued at upwards of £2,250,000. On page 42 a sum of £800,000 is to be saved this year through the Admiralty drawing on their stores. In other words, the total cost to the taxpayer this year is not £64,880,000, but £69,230,000. Let me compare that

    1949
    figure with the Report of the Geddes Committee. On page 32 of the First Interim Report the Geddes Committee said:
    "The Navy Estimates for 1922 should be reduced to £60,000,000."
    Further on they say:
    "in these recommendations no account is taken of large savings which might result, such as the discontinuance of the construction of four capital ships, for which the Estimates for 1922–23 include £11,800,000."
    In the present Estimates there is a figure of £721,000 towards the cost of two new ships. But the Geddes Committee considered that if the present Estimates were not burdened with the cost of four capital ships the Estimates should be £48,200,000. Add to that figure the £721,000, which is the cost this year for the two new ships, and we have a total this year of £48,921,000, in comparison with the actual cost of the Navy for the present year of £69,230,000—a difference of about £20,000,000. The Parliamentary Secretary may reply that certain of the Geddes Committee recommendations were not specified. Making every allowance for these unspecified recommendations or reductions, it is quite clear that the Admiralty have brushed on one side the recommendations of that very competent Committee to the extent of £15,000,000 to £20,000,000.
    I suggest that during the present year these Estimates should be reduced. Why, for instance, should we spend this year £27,614,000 on shipbuilding, repairs, naval armaments and works? That is really for new construction, repairs, and new works in all portions of the globe. I say nothing now of the further sum of £23,000,000 required this year for the wages of the men and their upkeep. The Admiralty will say, no doubt, that these ships are necessary. In the course of the Debates last year, when their policy was being criticised, they stated that the sums required were necessary. I agree that technical experts of the Admiralty could demolish any argument which I could advance on that score. I will not attempt to submit any technical argument to the Committee. On the Report of the Geddes Committee the necessity for these ships is not apparent to the ordinary man. The money could be spent to better use, either being left—to use an old phrase—"fructifying in the pockets of the taxpayer," or being spent in the reduction of debt. In the present state of our
    1950
    finances, and taking into account the position of fleets in every portion of the world, I submit that Admiralty policy is not conducive to the best interests of the Navy in the long run, that it brings hardships to the taxpayer, and that it tends to delay the recovery which all parties in the House are anxious to secure.
    Captain Viscount CURZON: I was interested to hear the speech of the hon. Member for Greenock (Sir G. Collins), and I was not surprised to hear him attack the Admiralty on the subject of capital ships. It is the fashion to attack the Admiralty on the subject of capital ships, and before proceeding to deal with other points, I wish to make some references to that question. The question has been raised: Are the Admiralty right to go in for a further programme of capital ship construction? The critics of the Admiralty never mention, and do not seem to appreciate the fact, that there has been a Conference at Washington and that we are bound by that Conference. That Conference allowed us to build two capital ships in substitution for four old ships. If we were to postpone the laying down of these two ships, consider the situation which would arise at the end of the period allowed by the Washington Conference. Presumably the situation would then be reviewed by the Powers concerned, and presumably they would agree to go in for a further replacement of capital ships. Supposing the United States and Japan and ourselves agreed then to replace, let us say, eight ships, should we then claim the right to build two additional ships? Should we claim to build 10 capital ships to replace obsolete ships? I think that would be, to a certain extent, taking an unfair advantage of the other Powers, and would place them in a difficult situation. In fact, I think it is a proposal with which they would not agree and one which would not carry out the spirit in which this country entered into the Washington Conference.
    Apparently the critics, including, I think, the last speaker, do not quite understand why we should want these capital ships. I submit we cannot face a situation in which the British Navy would be below a one-power standard, and we cannot attain a one-power standard unless we get these two capital ships

    1951
    —two not one. In modern naval warfare—it is one of the many lessons of the War—gun-power is developed in concentration. You must have a concentration unit, and it is impossible to concentrate effectively two or more ships on the one target, unless their guns are of the same size and calibre. The minimum effective concentration unit is a two-ship concentration, and therefore, for fleet purposes alone, we must have two capital ships and not one. Therefore, in answer to the question of whether we are to have any at all, I say that in order, both to carry out the spirit of the Washington Conference and to bring the Navy up to the one-power standard, we must have two. Japan has two post-Jutland ships. The United States has three, and we have only one ship partially constructed since the battle of Jutland.
    Further, there is a definite saving involved in the substitution of two capital ships for four obsolete ships. Lord Lee, the First Lord of the Admiralty, speaking in another place, made it quite clear that when the substitution has been carried out we shall save in personnel 1,100 men, and in money £750,000 a year, as compared with the upkeep of the four ships. It will also be a good opportunity to try out their guns and mountings. I only mention these points in passing, because the question of capital ship construction has so often been brought up. The wisdom of capital ship construction is called in question chiefly owing to the menace from above the water and below the water attack. In above the water attack I include aircraft. In a certain interesting and very bright little morning paper I have noticed large headlines, such as, "The power of the seaplane," "Surprising result of tests with warships," "Many hits." It is quite obvious that all is not as it should be with regard to the Royal Navy and the air. I do not think the experts can deny that fact for one moment. There is a great question as to whether or not we should have an Air Ministry, but with that I do not propose to deal, and that is not the point so far as the Admiralty is concerned. The question for the Admiralty is this: Is the situation at sea regarding air fighting satisfactory, and, if not, why is it not satisfactory? We have to realise
    1952
    that the Navy of the future must be prepared to take to the air, and the Navy which cannot take to the air will be at a hopeless disadvantage against the Navy which can. What is being done to enable the Navy to take to the air?
    At the present moment the position is this, that we have aircraft carriers for operation with the Fleet—I think, speaking from memory, the number is five—but while the Admiralty have built aircraft carriers, they are not able to get the machines put into them. That is an astounding situation. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary, are the Admiralty satisfied with the number of aeroplanes, seaplanes, amphibians, and so on, allocated to the Navy? The Admiralty should face the question squarely and give the House and the country some information. At present we have none. We never get any account of the work of the wing of the Royal Air Force which is operating with the Navy, I asked the Secretary of State for Air to give an account of it, but he practically refused to give me any information on public grounds, and he never alluded to it on introducing the Air Estimates. I asked the representative of the Admiralty in this House to say what aircraft had taken part in the various exercises carried out by the Fleet this year, but we have got no information. We want to know what the Admiralty is really doing to meet this menace. We want to know if they are in a position to do so. I maintain they are not.
    I presume the manœuvres alluded to in the newspaper to which I have just referred, are the manœ carried out before His Majesty the other day. The paper says there were many hits. Can the Financial Secretary to the Admiralty give the House an exact account of what took place and say if there were many hits, and will he say what was done theoretically or otherwise, in the way of counter-attack against aircraft? There is no difficulty in aircraft flying over a ship as long as the aircraft are not counterattacked. Were the ships attacked during those manœ in a position to send up machines to defend themselves and drive off the attacking force? The whole question hinges on that. A further paragraph in the newspaper says that the Air Ministry intends to carry out further experiments in regard to seaplanes. We should be delighted to learn as to these

    1953
    experiments and to know if the Navy to-day is using, or is there in being anywhere, a seaplane which was not in use in 1918? If not, is the Admiralty prepared to say there has been no improvement, and can be no improvement, as the result of our experiences? Was this attack in fact carried out by seaplanes, and, generally speaking, what is being done in this connection? We have to review the whole situation as regards the Admiralty control of aircraft. We have had articles from Brigadier-General Groves, in which he has stated:
    "England's first line of defence is an aerial striking force, and her second line of defence is the Fleet which is also the main bulwark of the Empire. Our present air policy has ensured that the first line does not exist and the second line is already handicapped to the paint of inefficiency by the inadequacy of its air development."
    In order to find out what the Navy is getting in the way of aircraft resources, I put a question to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty on the 12th July. I asked how many aeroplanes, pilots and observers were now available for working with the Royal Navy for reconnaissance, fighting, torpedo carrying, bomb dropping and observation respectively, and how many were actually required to bring all aircraft carriers and ships fitted with flying platforms up to full establishment. The answer I got was that the aircraft allotted for working with the Fleet from ships and carriers were 18 reconnaissance planes, six fighters, 12 torpedo planes, and 18 spotting-planes. If that answer is correct it discloses a most serious position. It is an answer which was reviewed most seriously throughout the country, and created quite a sensation, if the Press is any guide on the subject. Subsequent to that question being put, the Air Ministry published in a certain London morning paper a sort of apology or explanation. Their contention is that the British Navy is better equipped in regard to aircraft than any other Power. I ask them to give the comparative figures of aircraft, comparing the navies of the United States, France, Japan, Italy and this country. I happen to know the number of fighting machines actually available for the American Navy. It is no less than 86. I put a question to the Secretary of State for Air to-day and
    1954
    was told we have now nine fighters the Navy.
    In face of that it cannot be said that the Navy is sufficiently prepared for war and prepared to repel air attack. Think of the fleet we have scattered all over the world with only nine fighting machines to deal with hostile air attack. We must remember that when the Navy is in European waters, it is accessible to attack, not only by the air forces of the navies of Continental countries, but also by their land machines, seaplanes and amphibians, their converted civil machines and every machine they can get. These can all be concentrated in an attack on our Navy, and I do not see how our Navy is in a position to repel an enemy attack of that kind at present. I hope the figures will be given to the country, and we shall be allowed to know what the position is. The second point made by the Air Ministry is that the number of fighting aircraft available for the Navy can be expanded at the briefest notice, and so can the pilot supply. I can hardly believe that that statement was issued by the Air Minister. I cannot imagine any expert Department issuing such a statement. If it was not published by the Air Ministry, but only issued by somebody in the Air Ministry it should be made clear; but if this is all they know about it, the sooner they have nothing to do with the Navy the better. Is it not a fact that flying on to and flying off an aircraft carrier is about the most difficult thing an airman could possibly have to do? Is it not obvious that only experts can do it?
    Take the observers who have to spot for the guns. How are they likely to be able to make the correct wireless spotting signals to the ships depending on them for observations unless they are really experts and trained for work with the ships? Take the reconnaissance observers, those who go in an aeroplane to identify foreign ships, scouting—quite one of the most important duties they can perform. Unless a man be absolutely trained to it, he will not know whether he has seen a submarine or a battleship. Cases occurred repeatedly in the late War where most absurd mistakes were made, and trawlers were reported as battle cruisers, and all sorts of extraordinary things like that. Only an expert can possibly tell,

    1955
    only a man with naval training can possibly tell, and I say that the branch of the Royal Air Force working with the Navy must be an expert and a specialised branch, and it must be under the Navy's absolute control, so that they can work in with it and get the maximum possible value out of the co-operation which they have every right to expect. Only by cooperation, and perfect co-operation, can the present arrangement, as we know it to-day, succeed, in my opinion. I say that pilots cannot be supplied at the briefest notice, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will bear me out in this.
    I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman if the Admiralty consider that the ordinary working branch of the Air arm operating with the Fleet can be expanded satisfactorily by hundreds of machines and the necessary personnel at the shortest notice, and I should like a specific answer on that point. I would like to know how many observers we have trained in fleet work, and how many more do we require in order to bring the existing establishment up to full strength. I would like to know how many carriers we can complete with machines and pilots skilled in deck landing forthwith, which is a most important point. Why have we got only one aircraft carrier operating with the Fleet? What has happened to the "Eagle," to the "Hermes"? Why have they been for so long under construction? What hope is there for the Navy unless they can carry out experiments with all these various ships, and unless they can really get ahead with their work? The most absurd things happen under the present arrangement. I have heard of a case—and I believe it to be true—where a portion of the Fleet was going to carry out a progressive gunnery programme, and they were to work up for a definite date. They carried on with the programme until the ammunition ran out for the year, so it was agreed to interrupt the programme where it stood and recommence it with the following year's allowance of ammunition, when that became available. The following year the Fleet was ordered to go ahead with the important gunnery experiments and progressive training, but when they came to try it out they found that all the pilots and observers on whom they had been
    1956
    relying had been drafted to another quarter of the globe. The training had to be started de novo, and all the ammunition fired away the year before was absolutely wasted. Where is the co-operation there? There is absolutely none.
    The Air Ministry stated that
    "important new types of machines for the use of the Navy will shortly be adopted."
    But when is the Navy going to see these machines under the present circumstances? The right hon. Gentleman has admitted that the Admiralty have had to resign themselves to the fact that they cannot get any more machines than are already allocated to them. There fore, how are they ever to get the new types? Where are they coming from? There is no more money with which to get them, because the Navy have no control and no say as to how the money spent upon aircraft is to be allocated. In the case of a submarine, the Admiralty lay down their requirements, and they say to the designing staff of the Admiralty what kind of a submarine they want; but in the case of the air, do the Admiralty lay down an air policy, or do they have to take what the Air Ministry give them? I would like to know that. Are they able to say, "We have a carrier with a certain tonnage to perform certain duties, and we want certain machines to perform those duties?" Are they able to have any say in the design of the machines, or do they have to take what the Air Ministry give them?
    Take torpedoes for aircraft use. Today I had a question to the Secretary of State for Air to know whether the Air Ministry are satisfied with the torpedo supplied by the Admiralty, and, if not, what steps are being taken to obtain a satisfactory torpedo. Hon. Members may not know that the torpedoes carried by aircraft operating in our service at sea to-day are old 14-inch torpedoes, with a maximum range of 1,000 yards. They are very unreliable, their explosive effect is very small, and, as hon. Members will see from their range, it is really only a very short one, and these very small torpedoes will have only a very small effect against modern battleships. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman can give the House some sort of idea as to how many torpedoes would be required to sink, say, the "Hood." Surely, the Navy are not

    1957
    going to remain satisfied with a 14-inch torpedo. The answer I got to-day was to the effect that the design and development of torpedoes for use from aeroplanes are carried out in close collaboration between the Admiralty and the Air Ministry, who are in complete agreement on the subject. Therefore, I take it that the Admiralty and the Air Ministry are satisfied with an old 14-inch torpedo, which is very unreliable, and which has a maximum range of 1,000 yards.
    This old torpedo which is used by our aircraft is an old torpedo designed for use from a ship's tube. Is it not possible that a special form of torpedo to be used in aircraft would give much better results? You would not have to have the same structural fittings inside the torpedo that you now have in order to discharge it from a tube. I want to know whether the torpedo experts of the Admiralty have been called upon to design any torpedo which might be more suitable for discharge from an aeroplane and not from a tube, and whether the Admiralty are satisfied that no such torpedo could be designed. I have recently become aware of the fact that the Air Ministry have started a torpedo school of their own at Portsmouth, within sight of the largest, the most efficient, and the best equipped torpedo school there is, with absolutely unlimited service, which they could take advantage of at once, but they cannot do that, and though working with the Navy—and it is entirely a naval problem—they cannot go to the naval torpedo school and carry out their experiments and do their research work, but they have got to have a special torpedo school of their own. That is waste and duplication, and I hope hon. Members who talk about that sort of thing in this House will support me in this matter. I would like to know, seeing that we have got a Navy more or less up to the one-Power standard, whether our Air Force operating with the Navy is up to a one-Power standard, and if not, why not? We do not accept a lesser standard than the one-Power standard in submarines or destroyers; then why with aircraft? What sort of a standard have we got? It is essential that we should know. The country is anxious, and I suggest that sufficient attention is not being given to the whole thing.
    1958
    I would like to know what steps are being taken to train naval officers to grapple with air problems, whether the Commanders-in-Chief of our principal squadrons are in a position to meet all possible air attacks. One of the most important problems, as far as the Admiralty are concerned, at the present moment is the Burney airship scheme. Quite the most efficient aircraft carrier that can be conceived is an airship. She can cruise above the Fleet at any height she likes, carrying a load of aeroplanes ready to be called away and slipped at any moment. The most dangerous menace that a warship can face is a dawn attack. A dawn attack will be most difficult to counter-attack and to repel, and if you have to wait for your air machines to get off an aircraft carrier—and I am informed that they can only get off at the rate of one every three minutes —it is obvious that from the time the attacking aeroplane is first sighted you will only get off about one machine to fight off the attack, and probably the aircraft carrier will be sunk, because it will be concentrated upon for a start in all probability. On the other hand, if you have an airship cruising above the Fleet, her aeroplanes can be slipped at a proper height. They will not have to spend time in climbing up to that height, and they are in a position to counter-attack at once. That is why the Burney airship scheme is so valuable to this country. [An HON. MEMBER: "Have we ever tried it?"] Are we ever likely to try it under present circumstances? We have no airships, and therefore it is all the more important that we should take advantage of every private individual who will come along and propose a scheme which is likely to give us airships of a sort. No, we have not got airships, but other Powers have.
    I believe the United States of America have no fewer than four airships with the Navy. They are doing experimental work, and our Fleet, it is obvious, would be at a hopeless disadvantage compared with any other Power experimenting with them. I do not contemplate war with America, nor does any other hon Member for one second, but we cannot afford to be behind other Powers in this matter. It is too great a risk. I would like to draw attention to the opinion of the American First Lord of the Admiralty. Recently, in the Senate in America, the Secretary of State for the

    1959
    Navy and the Secretary of State for War were asked for their opinions as to forming a separate Air Wing of the Navy, more or less on our lines. I will not bore the Committee by reading the whole thing, but this is the opinion of the American Secretary of the Navy. He says:
    "Naval training and qualifications are so closely woven into those attributes which make a successful naval aviator that to divorce his schooling from the direct naval associations into a separate air training establishment is considered most detrimental to the Navy's interests and to the purpose for which the Navy equips its aviators. An efficient naval aviator must be thoroughly trained in all naval subjects, including ordnance, gunnery, scouting, tactics, types of ships, tactical movements of the Fleets and their units, customs of the sea, etc. He must be conversant with the problems of the officers and men who direct and handle the surface naval ships. His duties, which are and will continue to be closely associated with the tactics and strategy of the Fleet and its various units, require an intimate knowledge of the sea, of naval conditions, and of naval warfare.
    The actual piloting and manœuvring of a plane represent only a small element of the work and experience required of him. The close co-operation required between battleships, cruisers, submarines, destroyers, and the Air Force will require a knowledge which can be gained only by service connected with all the various elements which go to make up the Navy."
    That is the opinion of America on this subject, and I do say we cannot afford to disregard the experts of other countries. I hope the right hon. Gentleman, when he comes to reply, will deal with the many questions which I have ventured to put to him. I put them to him from the point of view of a friendly critic. I know that the present arrangement is working as badly as possible, from the point of view of the Navy. I know that every officer in the Navy, who has tried to work it, has condemned it in no unmeasured terms, and I know it only arises from two things. It is partly due to the system, and it is partly due to the spirit which prevails at the Air Ministry. I assert this—and I assert it definitely—that we shall not do any good unless we have a thorough reconstruction of the Air Ministry. You will not get any forwarder with the naval side until you do. I see no hope of closer co-operation, which is the only means by which the Navy can run the present system. Therefore, I hope very much that the right hon. Gentleman will
    1960
    treat this question seriously, and will give me an answer to my many questions which will be understood, and easily capable of being interpreted in the country.
    Lieut.-Colonel M0ORE-BRABAZON: I wish that the Secretary of State for Air were present. The last speech seems to me an interrogation of him, rather than of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty. I do think that the Noble Lord is taking up an attitude of pontifical infallibility in this matter, which is rapidly earning him the reputation which his Noble kinsman in another place has already earned, because if he is going to lay down the law in this House on such difficult questions as the merit or demerit of airships, and everybody is going to take his word, without any reply from exports, then, I think, this House may very easily drift along lines which will involve us in enormous expense for no definite object at all. After all, it is a question for experts, and we knew during the War that a hydrogen filled airship, from a military point of view, was one of the things most easily knocked out that ever went into the air. I grant you that America, from the naval point of view, looks with some hope to the airship, but that is because in America helium is found. There is no possibility of getting it in this country, or anywhere else. She may have airships which may do some good, but there is no hope of our doing it, because helium is never findable in our country.
    What is the complaint of the Noble Lord? It really is a complaint that we have not got enough machines. Is not that the complaint all round? Is it not the complaint of the Army, and of the Navy, and also of the Air Force? That I admit, and everybody admits. But that is a question of money expenditure. If the Noble Lord were First Lord of the Admiralty, no doubt he would have an enormous Navy and an enormous Air Force, but the poor taxpayer would not love him at all. I am perfectly convinced that the system under which we run our aircraft to-day is the most economic way of doing it. There is no duplication of schools, or of ordering, or of research, and if you go back to the old system, you are bound to get duplication, which is so extravagant. The torpedo school is

    1961
    a question raised only to-day, and I know nothing about it, but I know on the torpedo question there is a lot to be said from the point of view of the torpedo from the air and from the ship, and if the torpedo be one from the air, it is surely a question for the air people, and not the Navy. The Air Force to-day has £10,000,000—just over the cost of one battleship—and it has with that to try to keep the Army efficient, the Navy efficient, and to run its own independent air force, and, besides, sink money in capital undertakings such as buildings, because we cannot; have first-class mechanics kept in hovels. If the Air Force be to blame for not having sufficient aircraft, I think they have been put in a very difficult position. At the end of the War the programme was always two years ahead. Machines have been destroyed, but all over the country there are still thousands at disposal, and there are still in the reserve aircraft parks thousands of machines. What was the question before the Air Ministry? Whether to scrap old machines and order new ones—
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: May I point out that, under this Vote, hon. Members are only entitled to discuss the provisions of aircraft for the Navy? The Committee must not discuss the separate establishment of an Air Force, or the duties to be carried out by the Secretary of State for Air. In so far as the hon. and gallant Member can adduce arguments as to the provision of aircraft for the Navy, it will be in order. I am only mentioning that now, because I do not want the Debate to get on to the Air Ministry.
    Lieut.-Colonel MOORE-BRABAZON: The Noble Lord made a complaint that there were so few machines connected with the Fleet. That may be true, but there are in reserve many machines which could still be used for work in the Fleet. I want to point out the difficulty. Either you must keep all these old machines made for the Fleet, or order new ones. If you scrap the old machines, and order new ones, you put yourself in a position to be very seriously attacked from the point of view of economy, and if you do not order new ones, you are told that you are using old machines. Although I admit that machines used for the Navy to-day are as good as those of any other
    1962
    country, there must come a time, and that early, when the subject of more efficient machines must be gone into. The Noble Lord brought up on this Vote the hardy annual of his own Air Force, and he complained bitterly, I thought, of the personnel attached to the Navy. But if they are short of trained personnel at the Admiralty, whose fault is it? Was not the Admiralty asked to find 400 officers for the air and they were to go back to the Navy? Who refused that? The Admiralty, and nobody else. I have read in the "Times" column after column of arguments between the Noble Lord and Admiral Sir Percy Scott in which the Noble Lord maintains how wonderful is the capital ship, and how it cannot be knocked out by any aircraft. I am not going to dispute that, but I do notice to-day the amazing nervousness of the possibility of what might happen, and the plea that the capital ship should be defended, not by its own inviolability, but by other aircraft. I do admit that the Navy should be made more efficient than it is from the point of view of aircraft, but that is a matter not of policy, of organisation, but of pure money—nothing else. The question now of transcending importance is the question of the invasion of this country, and the invader of this country does not meet our Fleet now. That is what has changed everything, and, if you have got the money, surely the first thing to do is to defend yourself, rather than to equip a service which does not come into the question of invasion? I would ask the Noble Lord in future to see that he presses for the expenditure of more money upon another Vote. If he presses for more money to be spent on the Air Force, he may get a little smaller Fleet, but he will get it a good deal better equipped in aircraft.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: I do not propose to carry on the Debate raised by my Noble Friend opposite. I only say this, without entering into the merits of the question, that I am well aware there is great public uneasiness on the question of co-ordination of air force work with the Admiralty, and I do sincerely hope that when my right hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty replies, he will really tell us what is the opinion of the Sea Lords on this question. That is what we really want to know. It is extraordinarily difficult for

    1963
    anybody who is not an expert to form a judgment, and, after all, it is the judgment of the country which counts in this matter. But how are we to form a judgment, when the experts differ so widely, as they do? I believe that the country has faith in the seamen of the Royal Fleet, and those who are capable of expressing their opinion, and I differ from what was said by my hon. and gallant Friend who has just spoken, that it was only a matter of money, and not a matter of policy. I feel that it is quite as much a matter of policy as of money, and it is an extraordinarily difficult matter of policy. It is hardly possible to find anything more technical, or on which the layman can less readily express an opinion. All he can say is, that he is uneasy when he sees people, in whom he has confidence, on both sides expressing diametrically opposite opinions. What the country wants is the best security it can possibly get for the money it can afford to spend, and many of us who see the present quarrel—if I may use that expression without using it in any extreme sense—the present difference of opinion between the advocates of a separate and an independent Air Force and those who advocate that these aircraft must work with the Navy, and be generally under naval control, either in peace or war, or both—I think those of us who see that quarrel going on feel that it is a real danger to the country. Certainly, after many years' experience at the Admiralty, I learnt to trust the naval view. I do not think the value of the view of the Navy on a technical question of that kind can be exaggerated. It would be a very great help to know what the Navy thinks, and not what the Government think, because the Government cannot have any technical knowledge on this matter. If we can know what the Navy thinks, it would assist us to form our opinion, and I must say that many of us are at present uneasy on the subject.
    6.0 P.M.
    What, however, I got up to speak about is a totally different matter. I apologise to the House for raising it, but I am unable to get any satisfaction by approaching the Admiralty or the Treasury, and there is a principle of considerable importance attached to the matter. The principle is
    1964
    whether the prerogative of the Crown shall be used to deny the subject his fair rights of compensation either for money spent or for injury received. I had to deal with this matter when I was serving at the Admiralty, as I did for a good many years, and the principle I learned that was always followed by Government Departments and the Crown—and particularly by the Navy—was that the Navy had a right—and very properly—to use docks, harbours and all the accommodation available to ships under the Royal prerogative free of charge—and very proper too. When, however, in the use of any private property damage was done, or services were rendered, which were of actual value, then, although there could be no legal claim in the case, an ex gratia payment was made equivalent to the value of the services rendered or the damage done. That, I believe, is a principle which has been approved by this House.
    Here is an incident which occurred in Harwich harbour, and which the Commissioners there have asked me to bring before the House. During the War, in November, 1917, the paddle minesweeper "Marsa" was lying in the fairway in the harbour when she was run down by a light cruiser and sunk. The Admiralty attempted to raise her, but they did not succeed in doing so, she broke in two. They then sent, after some time, a couple of tugs, which towed her out of the actual fairway of the harbour into shallow water, and deposited her out of the way of vessels, in two or three fathoms of water. Subsequently the Admiralty sent down divers who proceeded to strip the vessel of her fittings and everything of value which they could get out of her. This, of course, they were perfectly entitled to do. They afterwards tried to raise her and failed. In July, 1919, after the War, and nearly two years after she had been sunk, the Conservancy Board wrote to the Admiralty and asked them to take the necessary steps to dispose of her, or to remove the wreck, which was a danger to the craft using the harbour. In reply to that the Admiralty sent a letter saying that they abandoned the vessel—in other words, left her to the Harbour Board.
    The Harbour Board, in reply, stated they were prepared to remove the vessel and do the work if the Admiralty would pay for it. The Admiralty refused to give

    1965
    a definite undertaking to pay for the work —I have the letters here—but they advised the Harbour Board to get a contract for the vessel to be removed. The Admiralty wrote on 29th March, 1920, and said that before proceeding further they would like an estimate from the Conservancy Board as to the cost that would be incurred in dealing with the wreck Tenders were invited which were not satisfactory, and finally the Admiralty approved the acceptance of a tender from the Stanlee Ship-breaking Company to disperse the vessel for £1,650. That was done. The Stanlee Company did disperse the vessel on that contract for £1,650. The Harbour Board then wrote to the Admiralty and asked the Admiralty for a grant towards the payment of this work. The Admiralty sheltered themselves under the prerogative and refused any grant whatever. I do not think that is the sort of treatment which the Harbour Board ought to have received from a public Department. You have one war vessel sinking another in the fairway of a harbour. The Admiralty attempts to salve the vessel, which they had admitted they sunk. They leave her a danger to navigation after taking away any fittings which are of value. Two years after she has been sunk, when they find they can do no more with her, they tell the Harbour Board to remove her at their own cost, and refuse to pay one single farthing towards the cost of removal.
    I submit to the House that that is really not according to Admiralty tradition. I do not like to raise a question here about Government Departments, and I have no knowledge of the communications that have passed between the Admiralty and the Treasury. I cannot raise this question on the Treasury Vote, but only on the Admiralty Vote, and it will be the duty of the Parliamentary Secretary to defend the action which is ostensibly taken by his own Department. From my own experience of Admiralty policy this action is one foreign in principle to the principle which the Admiralty has hitherto followed. I cannot help thinking this is one of the measures of economy which we all support as measures of economy, but, after all, there is such a thing as honesty as well as economy. Although we all desire to be economical in our own accounts we are obliged to be honest, whether we
    1966
    like it or not, and if not we suffer for it by being penalised. I should not like to move a reduction of the Vote. I should feel doing that after serving at the Admiralty so long; but this matter has created a bad impression in the district of Harwich, and the name of the Admiralty is not in the repute it was. There is a very strong feeling, and comments have appeared in the local Press—a very strong feeling that the high dues of vessels which use the harbour of Harwich have been increased, as everybody complains, in order to find the money to pay for raising this Admiralty vessel. This matter almost amounts to a breach of faith on the part of the Admiralty. Here is a letter sent by the Minister of Labour, who was then Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty. In that letter he says:
    "I should be prepared to consider favourably the question whether we could assist the harbour hoard in their present difficulty with regard to the wreck on the understanding that any assistance we gave would be entirely ex gratia and not as a matter of legal obligation."
    Of course, it would have to be an ex gratia payment under the prerogative. We know the formula; it always is that. No Government Department is ever allowed to admit a claim. All it can say is: we cannot admit the claim, but if you make your case good we will give you an ear gratia payment. That means really in principle the same thing. There are the words which I have read, which amount to an undertaking, and that is followed up by a consideration of tenders. I have copies of the letters that the Admiralty wrote, and in which they say:
    "With reference to your letter of 14th September forwarding tenders received for the salvage of the wreck of His Majesty's Ship 'Marsa', I am commanded by the Lords Commissioners to inform you that nothing is known at the Admiralty of the firm mentioned, and it is noted that the tender is not backed up by a banker's reference. The Admiralty would suggest if time permits that tenders should at once he invited from reputable firms.…"
    Here follow the names of six salvage firms whom the Admiralty think might be employed—
    "In view of the lateness of the season, it would seem desirable that tenders should be hastened. The Admiralty advise the board to accept a tender."
    The board accepted that tender, got to work, carried it out, and wrote to the Admiralty for the grant which they practically promised. On 15th March they

    1967
    replied, and in that reply said that not one penny could they give at all. I will not repeat the case, but I do put it to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty that he will, either on his own account or in negotiation with the Treasury, secure fair and honest treatment for this harbour board, and will observe the principle which I think is really of very great importance—a principle of great importance to subjects of the Crown—that Government Departments should not take advantage of the prerogative to withhold the actual rights of the subject, whether the Government Department has taken money from the subject or services. Although the subject can make no claim, yet on ex gratia grounds the principle I have mentioned should be observed. The prerogative can still be maintained. It is asked that a fair and reasonable payment should be made. This, as I say, is a principle of very great importance. It has been flagrantly departed from as here. Therefore, on the ground of the case itself, and the principle involved, I hope the harbour board will get a favourable reply from my right hon. Friend.
    Mr. G. LAMBERT: Very briefly, I should like to intervene in this Debate. Let me first, however, refer to the very wise words uttered by my right hon. Friend who has just resumed his seat. I cannot express any opinion on the subject he has mentioned, except to say it is very bad policy on the part of the Admiralty or any other Government Department not to deal with the subject as would any other subject. They should suspend, one would think, the prerogative of the Crown. However, I cannot say anything particular about that. I should like rather to enforce the argument that fell from my hon. Friend who opened this Debate. We are spending an enormous amount of money on the Air Force and the Admiralty. I do not think the House really realises how much it is. The Navy is costing £70,000,000 this year, and the Air Force £15,000,000. What I want to ask, very briefly, but very emphatically, from the representative of the Admiralty is: Is the Admiralty to-day satisfied with the present position? If not, there must be a tremendous waste of money. I do not want to put it on the taxpayer to-day to find that enormous sum when between the
    1968
    experts of the Air Department and the Admiralty apparently we are not getting value for our money.
    If we are not getting value for our money, that is the fault of the Government. It is the fault of someone. It is between the Admiralty and the Air Ministry? If they quarrel, who is to decide? They are quarrelling to-day. No one can doubt that. What remedy has the House of Commons for this extremely unsatisfactory state of affairs? We are told that there may be some reference to the Committee of Imperial Defence, and that they can report. Is the taxpayer's money going to be properly spent on the defence of the country, not in squabbles between Departments I The enormous naval expenditure to-day may be rendered quite useless by the lack of aircraft. There is no doubt whatsoever that aircraft to-day are as essential for naval purposes as are guns, or engines, or anything else. The Navy without eyes is absolutely useless. Do let us have some considered policy from the Government. We have a right to ask them, as representing the taxpayer, who is paying a very large sum of money--infinitely more than before the War:—yet we have not got value. I must here make complaint of the Admiralty, because, in my judgment, the heart of this Empire is Great Britain, and the first duty of these defensive forces, whether Army, Navy, or Air Force, is to defend this country. Can the Admiralty say—I do not anticipate that there will be any attack upon us immediately—can the Admiralty say that from the defensive point of view that the money of the taxpayer is being spent to the best advantage? They are going to spend, as I understand it, on the statement of the First Lord. £13,000.000 on two new battleships. Personally, I do not pretend to express an opinion as to the value of the capital ship. Surely it is useless, wasteful and extravagant to spend money on capital ships unless you have sufficient aircraft to protect them. I should like to ask whether some of this money would not be better spent upon aircraft, and that is the point upon which we want an answer from the Admiralty. We want to have the question settled as to whether this £16,000,000 should be spent before the Navy has secured a sufficient air force.
    One thing everyone will take to heart is that if Departments are squabbling

    1969
    there is certain to be extravagance. If Departments are self-contained, and spending money one against the other, you are bound to get inefficiency and a large expenditure without value being given. I could not help being struck by the remark that there was actually a torpedo school being established for the Air Force in contiguity to the Naval School at Portsmouth. These torpedoes are not to attack aircraft but ships. If that be so, surely there should be the closest co-operation between the Navy and the Air Force, but apparently each Department is to have its torpedo establishment. We know that these different establishments mean more bricks and mortar and more men to look after them. Why cannot the two Forces have one torpedo establishment? I think this fact alone shows that there is a great waste of money.
    Do let some Commission or some body of laymen come in and adjudicate between these warring Departments. We are told that they are experts, but my experience when at the Admiralty is that experts differ. Air and Admiralty experts differ, and the commonsense layman has got to come in somehow. Do let us get some body which is superior to both the Admiralty and the Air Ministry, and let that body decide which is right. Really, it is not fair to the taxpayer that there should be this squabbling between Departments, resulting in inefficiency as well as extravagance. To-day we are paying large sums of money for defences which we have not got.
    I do not think the country is very much alarmed about this matter, or there would he a larger attendance during the discussion of the Navy Estimates. I maintain that it is our duty to see that the taxpayer's money is used to the best advantage. I do not want to make any charges or to criticise or appear to be nagging, but I ask the representative of the Admiralty to give us a clear statement on this subject. Is the Admiralty satisfied with the present position as regards aircraft? With regard to this discussion, although we have two very able representatives of the Admiralty present, we have not got the Air Minister here. I know that we were told at Question Time that the Admiralty and the Air Force were operating with the closest possible co-operation like brothers, but it struck me that the brothers were mere like Cain and
    1970
    Abel than two very loving and embracing brothers. I would like an answer to my question as to whether the Admiralty is satisfied with the present air position, and, if not, what steps are proposed to remedy it?
    Vice-Admiral Sir REGINALD HALL: The hon. and gallant Member for Chatham (Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon), who spoke from the Benches below me, has stated that the complaint of the Navy was they had not sufficient material for the Air Service and the Navy, but I venture to say, speaking for the Navy, that is not the gravamen of the Navy's complaint, which is that they have not the control and the training of the personnel. It is not a question of materiel, the Navy rightly claims that everybody serving on board ship must be of the Navy and in the Navy. It therefore follows that to all officers and men so serving there must be give a certain amount of naval training, and therefore they must be available for all naval duties.
    We have to-day in the Navy a most anomalous position, one which Drake would not tolerate for one minute, because he laid down that he would have a gentleman to haul and work with the sailors. We now have four or five aircraft carriers in the Navy. These carriers provide means of transport for aircraft and the personnel for manning them and keeping them in repair, but these officers and men are not part of the Navy. They live on board the ships and are used only for flying.
    Where you have day and night work going on in the Navy, every man has to pull his pound, but in those aircraft carriers you have certain men who only do flying, and they take no part in the duties appertaining to the routine work of a ship. In my opinion, that can only cause friction amongst the personnel. There is nobody more anxious for the development of the Air Force than the average naval officer, because they fully understand and realise its possibilities, but if you are going to develop a new arm like the Air Force and associate it with an established force like the Navy, you can only develop it to its full extent by securing the full co-operation of the rank and file and their enthusiasm. By that means you will get everybody working towards one end. The pity of it is that we have not got that co-operation to-day. I admit

    1971
    that at one period we had it in the Navy, but it has now been taken away. The Navy had its own Air Force during the War, and I think I am right in saying that the Director of the Air Service had the loyal co-operation of naval officers in endeavouring to make it efficient.
    What I want to see is some arrangement come to whereby this quarrel between Departments shall cease. Here we have a great service like the Navy threatened by an attack from the Air Force, and they are not allowed to organise their own defence against it, in fact they have to depend upon an outside force for their defence. That is a point which ought to be considered by the members of this Committee. It is not quite right that the Navy, which may be attacked from the air, should not have the power to defend itself, and it should not be absolutely dependent upon an outside force for defence against an air attack. If we can get some arrangement whereby the Navy can secure the cooperation of the rank and file of the Navy to develop air power at sea, I think we shall have reached the nearest approach to idealism we can get.
    I think also this is necessary from a purely economical point of view. To-day we are closing down training establishments and discharging large numbers of young officers and trained men, some of them under the age of 25. I would like to know if the Royal Air Force is prepared to take those men in, or are they going to train other men instead of training the young men who have been discharged from the Navy who are fully qualified with sea experience. If so, this policy does not seem quite right from the taxpayers' point of view. We were told that some 18 months ago the Air Force asked for 400 officers to train. I would like to go further and say that so highly do I value the service in the air and its possibilities that I ask whether we could not make it part of the training in the Navy that every sub-lieutenant should be trained in the Air Service. In this way we should get officers and men trained to the Air Service, and then we should get commanding officers who would understand the Service. To-day the Navy is cut off from all that, and there is no officer in the Navy who can go into the Air Force and come back, for not a single officer
    1972
    or man has a possible chance of doing this. I venture to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty when he states his case—and I do not suggest for one moment he should make a promise to-day—to give favourable consideration to my suggestion bearing in mind the fact that the Navy desires the highest development of the Air Force and that the only way to secure it is to fire the enthusiasm and to educate the rank and file.
    Rear-Admiral ADAIR: The right hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Pretyman) made a very encouraging remark in the course of his speech. He said he trusted the naval officer. I entirely agree with him, and I would add that, if the House will do the same, I am sure the Naval Air Force will be as efficient as possible. It was in connection with battleships the right hon. Gentleman made that remark. The Naval Lords of the Admiralty consider two battleships essential. That is quite sufficient for me. I do not wish to enter into any argument about it. If they say they are essential I am quite sure they are. Some 18 months ago I suggested that we should defer building battleships for at least a year on account of the iniquity of spending vast sums of money on armaments generally, and because I considered that were safe for some years, but as soon as the Naval Lords expressed the opinion that that was not the case, I waived my view. Only six months after that, the Washington Conference brought about what I had been advocating, namely, a great reduction in naval armaments. So far as building battleships is concerned, the Board of Admiralty are unhampered. They have to consider no other Department, and we can safely trust any conclusion they come to and any action they take in consequence. But when it comes to the Air Force they are hampered by the fact that there is an Air Minister. For three years I have been advocating with every argument used to-day that the Navy should have its own separate Air Force, that it should be part and parcel of it, that its officers and personnel generally should be comprised of naval men, primarily seamen, and that their air duties should be secondary to their seamen's duties. These are the lines I would like to take, and had they been followed I am sure the progress of aircraft in connection with maritime war-

    1973
    fare would have been further advanced than it is to-day.
    We are too apt to be misled by experiments taking place round our shores or what is done in the North Sea. We are told in the papers of several hits being made on the Fleet off Portland by an air force based, I presume, on Portsmouth. It is perfectly right that a force based on the shore, a territorial force for the defence of our territories, should be Air Force people, and the right people to handle it is an Air Ministry. But it is different when it comes to a purely naval function, such as spotting for heavy gun firing, which is essential to the control of gunfire now that the ranges are over 10 miles, and when we are dealing with naval reconnaissance, speedy reconnaissance, which is so necessary in these days, because if an admiral is not acquainted speedily with the movements of the fleet he is approaching, he may miss it, as we very nearly did in the Jutland case, where our admiral was ill-informed of the whereabouts of the enemy fleet; remembering too the fighting aircraft or craft carrying bombs and torpedoes which may be attached to a fleet carried in carrier ships the control of which must be in the hands of the admiral, and which should be handled by naval people who understand what they have to do, who can recognise their enemy and so on. In all these cases, I say, this naval air force should be entirely under the orders and administration of the Admiralty. They should have nothing to do with the Air Force; just as the ships which carry aeroplanes are manned by naval officers and men who are part and parcel of the Navy so should be the aircraft and personnel carried in them be part and parcel of it too.
    It is a ridiculous system to have branches of two different services on board a ship used by the Navy for purely maritime warfare. I have said we are misled by the experiments which take place round our coast and that is most dangerous, because such experiments within a radius of a hundred miles around the coast are so misleading. I would ask the Committee to look at the map of the Pacific Ocean. If we were at war in the Pacific the probability is that we should be working our capital ships, supposing they were out there, from a base some-
    1974
    where in the neighbourhood of Admiralty Island, north-east of New Guinea, 2,000 miles from Sydney, 2,100 miles from Yokohama, 3,000 miles from Singapore and 3,000 miles from Honolulu—right in the middle of the trade routes. Think of these distances. Of course there is no aircraft that could cover them on their own, although I hope there will be some day. They will till then have to be conveyed in carriers which are part of the Admiral's Fleet, and anyone in them should be immediately under the Admiral's control and not under the control of any other Department. I hope in the future there may be aircraft which will be independent of carriers—almost destroyers which can, if they wish, take to the air. This will come; we are on the way to it. There is already a craft in Southampton Water far in advance of anything else, and surely if such craft come, vessels which can be kept and are intended to be kept on sea except on exceptional occasions when they can take to the air—these must necessarily be part of the Navy and must be manned by naval men, primarily seamen. That will come. But leading up to the development of that aircraft I feel sure about this, that if the Admiralty do not take the matter in hand and endeavour to assist invention and progress in such directions as I have pointed out we shall never advance. It is the duty of the Admiralty, and I venture to assert that they have not done their duty in the last three years.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: The discussion for the last half hour has been purely naval and highly technical, and I hope the Committee will excuse me if I follow one or two of the speeches made. It is most regrettable at this Debate, which has been so valuable, the Air Minister has not been present. I think the least he could have done would have been to be in his place. I do not suggest that the discourtesy is wilful. Perhaps there is good reason why the right hon. Gentleman is not here, but I think some effort should have been made to secure his presence. The most enlightening speech made has been that of the hon. and gallant Member for the West Derby Division of Liverpool (Sir R. Hall). I am sorry he has left his seat. Apparently his charge against the Air Ministry is that when the officers attached

    1975
    to the naval wing of the Air Service are sent to sea to fly aeroplanes used by the Fleet, when they are on board ship, they are not available for watch keeping, they wear a different uniform, and are under their own discipline. If the idea of the Admiralty, as represented by the late Director of Naval Intelligence is this, if he wants to get control of officers trained in naval flying in order to make them naval officers first and secondly air officers, if their air duties are to be secondary to their naval duties, then heaven help the Air Service and heaven help the Navy. If that is the attitude of hon. and gallant Members I do not wonder that the Air Minister is keeping a tight hold of his own naval air wing and is resisting the attempt to reabsorb it in the Navy.
    I am sure I shall be acquitted of any desire to rob the Navy of what it needs. I think what my Noble Friend the Member for Battersea (Viscount Curzon) said of the neglect of the naval wing of the Air Service is very largely justified. I think the figures given already both by the Admiralty and the Air Minister are most alarming. The trouble is of course that we have not the money to go in for a big shipbuilding programme and also to have a good Air Force. If we could go in for building ships of the hyper-super Dreadnought class against the United States, and at the same time find money for an Air Service able to meet the 200 air squadrons our French Allies could put into the air within a few hours of a declaration of war; if we could control the Middle East with their aid, if we could supply army craft for the Army and aircraft for our outlying stations, some of which are useless under the totally changed strategic conditions, if we could afford to do all these things, we could sleep comfortably in our beds, we could wave the Union Jack, we could sing patriotic songs and we could throw out our chests with other people in the world. But unfortunately we cannot afford these things and we must address ourselves to the best expenditure with the limited amount of money we can afford. That being so, I do not consider that a case has been made out for building the two capital ships of under 35,000 tons which the Admiralty have already commenced. I should like to repeat the statement I have before made as to the history of
    1976
    capital ship building since the Armistice. At that time the Admiralty were building four Hoods: the "Hood," the "Rodney," the "Howe," and the "Anson," They continued building those ships for some time. I have been unable to find out for how long. Apparently, they went on for some little time, and then stopped building three of them. They completed the "Hood," but they stopped building on the "Rodney," the "Howe," and the "Anson," and the contractors who were building these three ships claimed £860,000 odd for compensation for work put in. I understand that the engines of these three great battle-cruisers were taken to pieces again and the parts used where they could be used and the metal for the hulls was sold. What happened to the guns I do not know, but I suppose they are available for other ships, and are, therefore, not entirely wasted.
    At any rate, we altered our policy; we only continued the "Hood," and these three capital ships were scrapped. The work was stopped, and what had been put in was wasted. The next thing was that, after various Committees had sat— and, in particular, the Committee presided over by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Central Glasgow (Mr. Bonar Law), which dealt with the whole question of capital ships, aircraft, submarines and so on, and the finding of which was kept secret—the Admiralty announced, through the mouth of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Colonies, that we were going to build four great capital ships in the year 1921, and that they were to be followed by another four capital ships. I do not know whether those ships were to be Dreadnoughts or battle cruisers, but I rather think I am right in saying that the first four were to be battle cruisers and the next four battleships.
    Then the Washington Conference came, and building on these four new ships has, I suppose, been stopped. I do not know-how much money has been spent on them, but presumably some has been spent. I think the contracts for two of them were given up, but the whole of our information regarding them is rather vague, and it is rather difficult to get exact details. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary, if he has time when he comes to reply, will give us some information as to how much money was actually spent on these four

    1977
    new capital ships, which were announced by the Colonial Secretary in a very truculent speech last year., It was so truculent that I wonder it did not destroy the hopes of success at the Washington Conference. The right hon. Gentleman's speeches usually destroy the hopes of some movement, but at any rate, the. Washington Conference succeeded in spite of it. The four new ships were not proceeded with further. Now, as the result of the Washington Conference, we are laying down two new ships, and the First Lord of the Admiralty, speaking in another place a few days ago, said we were going to exercise great economy by building these two new ships, because when we had done so we were going to scrap four ships, and that was going to represent the saving of money.
    That, very briefly, is the position of the Admiralty's policy with regard to capital ships. They are going to build two ships of under 35,000 tons, and that is the result of the Washington Conference, because we only have one ship that is called post-Dreadnought, namely, the "Hood," and I think that that is only claimed as partially post-Dreadnought. I do not at the moment remember the figures for Japan and the United States, but I think that the United States has two and Japan three. Anyhow, the position is that the whole of our Navy that won the Great War at sea is ignored. The idea that is carefully put about is that all ships built before Jutland are useless for their purpose, and we start on this great building programme once move. It is a great building programme, because, although it does not sound very much to talk about two ships, yet, on the admission of the First Lord in another place the other day, the expenditure will come to £16,000,000. His exact words, I think, were, "Between £13,500,000 and £16,000,000," including the armament and all the accessories that these ships will require afloat and ashore. Only quite recently the Government introduced an extraordinary Bill for saving money. They were going to abolish the inspection of seamen's food, they were going to charge for admission to the British Museum, they were going to charge shipowners for every inspection made by Board of Trade officials and they were going to do a number of other mean things of that sort to scrape together a few thousand pounds. I will not go into their other meannesses, such
    1978
    as supplying only half-a-crown a house for clearing away slum houses in our great cities—
    The CHAIRMAN: That would be in order on the Economy (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, but it is not in order here.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I said that I was not going into it, and I only mentioned it to indicate the financial state of the country, as expounded by the Government, when it comes to constructive expenditure—expenditure for social improvement and the like. The Admiralty, however, apparently embark quite lightheartedly on an expenditure on capital ships which will amount to £16,000,000—more than we spend on our whole Air Service, and wiping out any economies we can make, as far as I can gather, by these scrapings and savings and petty injustices. Now they are going to carry out further experiments with various means of attack against capital ships, on one of the ships that we are scrapping, namely, the "Superb," a monitor, and, I believe, on other vessels. What is the danger to this country, really, in case of war? It is a two-fold danger. It is, firstly, mass attack from the air by scores of aeroplanes flying by night at the very outbreak of war, and scattering poisons and disease germs in our cities. Secondly, it is the cutting off of our food supplies by commerce raiders, whether surface ships or submarines. To what purpose can these two new capital ships, at a cost of £16,000,000, be put that will ward off those two dangers, or prevent them by timely counter-attack? They will not stop the aeroplanes flying across the Channel or across the North Sea to scatter death and disease on our cities. It will not be possible to use them as commerce protectors on the great ocean routes over which our food and raw materials and trade pass. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Shettleston (Rear-Admiral Adair) mentioned Admiralty Island, which was going to be the centre of our commerce protection in the Pacific. Is it fitted for the reception of capital ships at the present moment? Are there docks that can take these new ships? Are there breakwaters to protect their harbours? Are there aerodromes that can house aircraft and beat off hostile air attacks?
    Viscount CURZON: There were not at Scapa.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: No, there were not at Scapa, and, if the Germans had known that, and had been a little more bold, they would have wiped out the British fleet in the first days of the War. The Germans were prepared for every possible movement that our Fleet could make, and they sat down waiting for us to make the next move; but we had prepared nothing at all, and so did not make any movement, and during those few weeks we had time to sink merchant ships and put down nets and mines and so on at Scapa. Surely we have learnt our lesson. My hon. and gallant Friend knows that Admiralty Island is not fitted to take in and succour these capital ships, and we cannot afford the money and will not spend it to make it a fit place for that purpose.
    Rear-Admiral ADAIR: I dealt with that 18 months ago.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: My hon. and gallant Friend dealt with that 18 months ago. He is far-sighted in every speech that he makes in this Chamber, and I only wish the Admiralty would listen to him. I dealt with the same question and asked what preparations were being made at Singapore two and a half years ago, and also again two years ago and last year, and still I should like to ask, although it was not my purpose in rising, whether Singapore is being prepared as a base for big ships? The fact of the matter is that the Navy is lamentably short of aircraft, of trained air personnel, and even of an air practice— of an air doctrine and its practical exercise with the Fleet. Continual practice and continual expenditure will be necessary to perfect mass attack and defence from the air, but we have not the money to spend on it, and I am sorry to see, from what information I get, that the Fleet is not getting sufficient sea training at the present moment.
    It is lamentable that at the present moment, with a Navy which is already costing us £64,000,000, we should be spending what will amount eventually to £16,000,000 on these two capital ships, when, as I maintain, the need for an improved Naval Air Service is very much greater than the need for more great super-Dreadnoughts, the utility of which, to my mind at any rate—and I believe that many naval officers of the highest attainments and experience share
    1980
    the same view—is very doubtful, indeed, in a great Pacific War. There is a use for the cruiser, and even for the battle cruiser, but I believe, myself, that in future, war will be fought chiefly by submarines and light cruisers, and, possibly, later on, by the sort of aircraft which the hon. and gallant Member for Shettleston described, that can go to sea for days. Where the capital ships that are, apparently, to be immune from under-water and above- water attack will be, and how they will be used, is extremely doubtful. In these circumstances I feel that we are simply building these two new super-Dreadnoughts for traditional reasons and not for sound strategical reasons; and, because we are spending that money, we are neglecting the much more vital Naval Air Service. I appeal, therefore, to the Committee to look upon this matter with great gravity, and, if we do not get some satisfactory assurance, to join us in the Division Lobby.
    Mr. WALLACE: We have listened to a very interesting dissertation from my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Ken-worthy). It was one of his characteristic speeches, full of positive assertion, showing a very considerable knowledge of naval affairs, and also that innate retiring modesty, which he never fails to show in any speech he delivers in this Chamber. I am reminded that he did not mention Rosyth, and it was about the only thing he did not mention. He covered all the seas of the world; he referred not only to strategy, but also to general policy, and, as he proceeded with his speech, the old couplet came to my mind:
    "The people wondered and still the wonder grew.
    How one small head could carry all he knew."
    I think that that old couplet is very applicable to my hon. and gallant Friend at the present time. I myself do not feel qualified to enter upon that technical field which has been so well covered by the two Admirals who have spoken. It is not for me to refer to technique or to strategy in the Navy, but I think that even a layman like myself may be allowed one word when we hear so much in these days as to the relations which exist, or are alleged to exist, between the Ad-

    1981
    miralty and the Air Force. It seems to me that, if our defence is to have any cohesion and to have any real effect, there must be no division, no jealousy, but the most active co-operation, between these two great forces upon which we depend so much for the safety of the country.
    7.0 P.M.
    I do not apologise for bringing this discussion back to some matters of local rather than general interest. In various Debates which have taken place in this Chamber I have referred to the Admiralty policy in connection with Rosyth, and I wish to say just a. word or two on that question this evening. I am aware of the important influence on world policy exercised by the Washington Conference, and I, for one, welcome the decisions of that Conference, but I still think that the application of the policy in this country was somewhat unfair and invidious and bore very hardly upon Rosyth, which, according to common agreement and knowledge, is one of the most modern dockyards in the country. However, that policy has been decided upon. Arising out of its application certain obligations rest on the Admiralty to which I should like to direct the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary. The first obligation is to give us a clear statement as to the future policy regarding Rosyth. We have suffered all along from a vacillating policy on the part of the Admiralty Suggestions have been made from time to time, whether on extensions at Rosyth or on the provision of housing, and a certain policy has been announced. There seems, however, to be a continual quarrel between the Admiralty and the Treasury on all these matters. It is the intense desire of the local municipal authority there that we should now have a clear statement as to the future policy in regard to Rosyth. The policy has been changed from time to time, and I trust that my right hon. Friend, who has this question very much at heart, will give us some statement which will satisfy the local feeling.
    Arising out of the discharges of Rosyth, there is another obligation which rests on my right hon. Friend. That is to mitigate, so far as may be, the severity attaching to the dismissals which have taken place. Some piteous cases have been brought before me, and although hardship in matters of this kind is un-
    1982
    avoidable, they ought to be dealt with by the Admiralty as sympathetically as possible. I wish to acknowledge, quite frankly, that the right hon. Gentleman has treated the various cases which I have brought before him with a courtesy and sympathy which have been very much appreciated. If he can only realise the hardship and suffering which has taken place as a result of the reductions at Rosyth, he will continue to extend to those cases of hardship that consideration to which they are entitled. Another obligation rests on his Department, and that is to see that the dockyard and all its appointments are kept in an efficient state of repair with a view to future commercial development. We have great hopes in Scotland of future commercial developments at Rosyth, but their realisation will very largely depend on the policy which the Admiralty intends to follow. I feel sure I do not require to do more than refer to this question in a single word, and to express the hope that the future commercial development of Rosyth will not be overlooked by the Admiralty.
    My right hon. Friend is aware that when the Rosyth dockyard area was taken over by the Dunfermline Corporation very great expenses were incurred in providing the necessary public services. The Corporation accepted these responsibilities at the urgent request of the Admiralty and other Government Departments, and, although they may have no claim, legally, to reimbursement there is certainly a claim in equity. What happened? They provided all the public services necessary for what was expected to be a great dockyard development. They spent enormous sums of money and now, owing to the Washington Conference—with which we all agree—the policy of development at Rosyth has been reversed. My right hon. Friend is aware that on this subject I introduced a deputation to him at the Admiralty some little time ago, and he promised consideration to the claims of the Dunfermline Municipal Authority. Last year the Corporation there lost about £10,000 in revenue alone through the financial responsibility they had taken over. It is time that this subject were dealt with in a frank and liberal way by the Admiralty. We can only claim that, at a time of grave national crisis, we took over great financial responsibilities, and we do not consider, having as a small community

    1983
    become responsible in this way for what was a great national requirement, that the loss incumbent upon the reversal of that policy should fall upon this community. I hope my right hon. Friend will give that matter serious consideration, and not let us have only his sympathy. As a matter of fact, what we want is his money.
    There is one other matter about which I wish to say a word. In this Vote the Accountant-General's Department is mentioned. The Accountant-General, I understand, deals with the question of gratuities. There are very great complaints in the dockyard at the present time regarding the delay in paying gratuities. I do not know how far the restricted and reduced staff is responsible for that delay. If it is due to the Admiralty being understaffed in that Department, that is no consolation to the poor fellows who have been denied these gratuities for such a long time. I had a case this morning where a man had been waiting something like six months for a gratuity of £100. Delays of that kind should not occur. I hope to hear later from my right hon. Friend that he is prepared to give consideration to the various matters I have brought forward.
    Mr. ROSE: The only thing I have to say about the Air Service in connection with the Navy is that I hope that whatever the proper authorities are doing in this matter they are keeping their plans private and are not satisfying what seems to me to be personal inquisitive-ness. If the Admiralty Authorities were to tell us everything they were doing in the way of developing an Air Force in the Navy it is altogether probable that the proposals would end in smoke. I am not speaking as a naval or military man, but I have always been under the impression, if you are going to do something, either for defence or offence against your enemies, you do not tell all the world about it. I sincerely hope that the Admiralty, or whichever authority has this matter in hand, is doing something. Whether it is or not, I hope it is not going to make public property of its proceedings. I rise tonight particularly for the purpose of directing attention to something which, on two previous occasions, I have brought before the Committee. I hope
    1984
    this is not going to degenerate into a sort of hardy annual, and it is because I fear that the complaints I have to make may be of a more of less stereotyped character that I am going to pass by, with just a reference, much that I have said on a previous occasion.
    I want again to call the attention of the Committee and of the Admiralty to the whole dockyard system of our country. I am not trying to differentiate between Rosyth, Devonport, or Pembroke, or any other yard; it is the whole system of dockyard administration that I want to attack now and that I have tried to attack before. In the first place, I want to give the Committee a few figures to indicate exactly what the position is, and how-hopeless it is under the present system of administration in our Royal Dockyards to compete with what is known as private enterprise outside. The total number of workmen employed in our dockyards at home and abroad is roughly 46,000. The salaried staff, which includes police at the bottom and some very useless admirals at the top, is 4,035. That means that for every 11 producing workmen there is one non-producing official. That is an utterly abnormal percentage. I do not care what practical engineer or shipbuilder you may take, if you were to ask him whether he would consider that one non-producing official to every 11 men he employs on productive purposes is anything like fair or reasonable, I am perfectly certain he would answer you in the negative, and very emphatically. The cost of these salaries is £1,083,828, and the cost of all the productive labour is £6,760,000, so that just about 17 per cent. of all that is spent on the personnel of the dockyards is absorbed in the salaries of non-producers.
    While this system prevails, we are being told on all hands that the Government dockyards cannot compete in shipbuilding. Last year some experts—I presume they were experts of a sort—came before the Geddes Committee and stated that the percentage of the cost of material was as £1 to every £3 of labour expenditure in the Government factories. The proper percentage in competitive shops or yards should be just about half the amount of labour for the same quantity of material, that is, 30s. for the material to every £1 of the labour. There was some agitation, owing to a sudden slump last year or the year before last,

    1985
    and the Colvin Report, which was issued, recommended the propriety, or at least the possibility, of building merchant vessels on contract. One of the deterrents was that the men refused to work piecework. Now, that difficulty has been got over. This is a result of the acceptance by the men in the dockyards of what is known as the squad piecework system. A vessel called the "Hassa," an oiler, has just been completed at Devonport for the Anglo-Saxon Petroleum Company. The labour costs to date were £106,766 and the material costs were £106,000, so that labour and material worked out to the very extraordinary proportion of £ to £. The commander of the Anglo-Saxon fleet says she is the finest oiler in the Kingdom. In the face of evidence of this kind it seems to me—and I speak partly for my party, but much more for myself—that all that the Government yards can do in the matter of hull building is to assemble the parts which are sent in by the manufacturers. I have a suggestion to make, if it is not too late to make it—and it ought not to be too late. I do not believe in building capital ships. I am with those who believe they are useless. I am with those who believe that spending money upon them is waste. You have decided, whether in obedience to the dictates of the armament ring I do not know. You have not decided according to the dictates of the nation's necessity, but I presume the Admiralty has had to build these ships because they were told they had to. We do not want that these two ships shall be built at Devonport and Portsmouth respectively, because they are the only two yards which can take them, but I am going to ask the Secretary for the Admiralty pointedly if he will let the dockyard authorities in those two places tender in competition, because they have not been allowed to do it yet.
    May I say a word on general policy. I am not in the least ashamed, nor do I hesitate for a moment to declare the policy that I and all my colleagues believe in. We believe that no armament work of any sort or kind should be made by this or any other nation except under the auspices of the State. I believe that is the policy of what is known as the League of Nations. Certainly it is the policy of the League of Nations' Union. But this is what I want to put as pointedly as I can. Supposing both these ships were
    1986
    placed in Government establishments, what would that take away from the people outside? I am in a position to say that the hulls of these vessels can be constructed, that is to say, the portions can be assembled, for something under £15 a ton and that the authorities of both those dockyards are ready and willing to undertake that work. £15 a ton amounts to. just 10 per cent. of the whole of the work which will be necessary. All the guns: will be made elsewhere and all the armourplate and all the material will have to be supplied and the work will be only 10 per cent. of the whole because that is the only portion of the work which can be done in Government dockyards.
    Another objection has been raised to. placing these boats under construction in dockyards. It is said the slipways will not take them. When the four ships which are abandoned now, owing to the Washington Conference, were under discussion, the estimate for the cost of altering the slips of these two dockyards was about £900,000 —an estimate made at a time when wages were very high and material prices were very much higher than they are to-day. There was an alteration in the design and the two ships which are to be built now would require a very small extension of the dockyard. There is a ship being built called "The Eagle"—a mother-ship for aeroplanes. She has a 92 ft. beam, and they are putting 5 ft. blisters on each side of her, and these two new ships are only to be 105 ft. beam, and any slight difference which would be needed to give more room in the dock could easily be effected by raising the keel blocks. The lengthening is not a great deal. Some day you will have to adapt them unless you are going to scrap your dockyards altogether. You can make the alteration now for £450,000. More than that, I am in a position to say that the authorities in one of these dockyards are ready and willing to make that provision for alteration of the dock in order to take this ship and include it in the price. It is idle to say these vessels cannot be built there. It is idle to-say it is going to impose any hardship or wrong upon private enterprise in any other part of the country. It is a reasonable thing to ask. It seems to me there is no need to hesitate for a moment in respect of this. Let it be clearly understood that if these two ships are placed in Government dockyards it does not mean that any more than 10 per cent. of

    1987
    the work is done there, because no more than 10 per cent. can be done there.
    There are other phases of this question. There is the phase which was dealt with in the Colwyn Report. The population is dependent upon dockyard activity and dependent upon the Government for its life. They have expanded in the confident belief that they were always to have at least a sufficient share to keep them reasonably going. You are cutting that off. You are leaving the local authorities in all these cases in a perfectly pitiable position. You had to climb down from the project of shutting up or selling Pembroke. The story of Rosyth is bad enough, Heaven knows. Whether this or some other Government faces it, it will have to be faced. Is all the money and all the human interests that are involved in the Government factories, dockyards and arsenals—is all the interest that is bound up in this sort of thing to be flung away, and is private enterprise to choke every prospect of any kind of betterment in this direction? I say fearlessly that the Government dockyards, instead of being starved, should be expanded in every possible way. I wish more of my Labour friends were here, because it is necessary that they should re-echo what I am going to say now. There is an idea abroad, which I frankly admit has been more or less justified, that in Government dockyards the men do not work their best, but there is now a tendency for the men to accept payment by results, with the consequences I have tried to indicate. But besides saying to the Admiralty and the Government authorities, "You must do this thing in the interest of the nation," we have also to say to the workmen, to whom perhaps we are much more responsible, that they must, as a first principle, be ready and willing to do as much for the State, of which they are citizens, as for any private employer in any private yard, and until they agree to do that sort of thing, the Admiralty, or any other authority, is quite right in withholding work from them, as they have done. But not in this case. This is a case in which the men have already shown that they are ready and willing to make the best of things. Therefore, it is essential, on grounds of mere propriety, that they shall be allowed to tender. If competition is
    1988
    a good thing, let them stand in with it. If private enterprise is private enterprise at all, let there be enterprise about it; but it seems to me that the real type of your modern enterpriser is the unhappy Captain Peel, who backed horses after they had won. Most of them have very little enterprise as far as I can judge. When they come up against a snag, they come here snivelling for subsidies, or asking to be exempt from some obligation they ought not to resent bearing. As far as I can judge, the modern private enterpriser has no enterprise at all. He is a misnomer.
    Are our own people, for whom we are responsible, to be allowed to enter into this competition? Are they to be allowed to say at what price they will assemble these elements? If that request is fairly and honestly considered, I will answer for at least most of the skilled men in the dockyards, that they will justify any confidence you like to repose in them. I ask the Committee to refuse to believe all this rubbish in the Geddes Report about the high cost of work there. It has never been anything like that. It is a preposterous figure, and even under all the great difficulties, which I recognise as clearly as anyone else, the figure was never anything like that. Under conditions which are daily and hourly altering for the better, I am certain the men in our Government establishments—not only the dockyards, but all our Government factories—are quite ready and willing to compete successfully with anyone else. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will give us some indication that this very modest and very moderate claim for consideration on the part of Government workers will be viewed sympathetically by himself and his Department.
    Mr. AMERY: This Vote is one which justifies a very wide discussion, and hon. Members certainly have availed themselves of their rights in that respect. I hope the Committee will forgive me if, in the first instance, I deal with the immediate subject matter of this Vote, namely the cost of the Admiralty Office, which was raised by the hon. Member for Greenock (Sir G. Collins) in introducing his Amendment for the reduction of the Vote. The hon. Member referred to page 155 of the Navy Estimates, and came to the conclusion that, after deducting War bonus, the total reduction in the

    1989
    Admiralty Vote was only £2,000. Unfortunately, the hon. Member, by a slip which may happen to any of us, took the wrong page, the page which summarises Sub-head "A." If he had looked at page 154, which gives the total Admiralty Vote, he would have seen that the decrease in the whole Vote, including War bonus, was £332,000, and that after deducting War. bonus the decrease is £164,000—a very substantial reduction in the total strength of the Admiralty Headquarters.
    Sir D. MACLEAN: It is £154,000.
    Mr. AMERY: I may have added it up wrongly. The hon. Member for Greenock made it a matter of protest that the Admiralty Vote should have been so much higher, after making allowance for war bonus and for increase of salaries and costs, than the Vote before the War. This is a matter that has been raised so often, both in the Press and in questions in this House, that I think it is only fair that I should deal with it with some measure of fulness. Several questions were raised by hon. Members, including the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy), which were based on certain statements on the Admiralty figures which appeared in the Press. There was a letter from a certain Admiralty contractor, which pointed out that the numbers in the Admiralty, according to the Navy List, had increased from 1,489 to 3,900, an increase of 170 per cent. Whoever compiled those figures assumed, in perfect good faith, that the Navy List is a statistical record of the total number employed at headquarters at the Admiralty. It is nothing of the sort. It is a list compiled for the convenience of the Service, and before the War a great many people were not put in the list, both at headquarters and at the out-stations of the Admiralty, who are included to-day. The result is that these figures are very far from corresponding. The real increase—a substantial increase, I readily admit—between the figures of 1914 and the figures of last April, when the statistics were produced, is as between 1,734 and 3,493. The hon. Member for Central Hull pointed out the other day, in a supplementary question, that the Naval Constructor's Branch had increased by 400 per cent. That figure was taken from the figures adduced in the Press. It is perfectly true that those are
    1990
    the figures as they appear in the Navy List, of the names in the Navy List. What is the truth? In 1914 neither the draftsmen nor the modellers at the Admiralty, nor the experimental workers, nor the whole of the overseeing staff were included in the Navy List, whereas in the present Navy List they are included. By that means you get the apparent difference between a staff of 82 and a staff of 335. If, however, you take the number of people who were included in 1914 on the same basis as the number included to-day, the staff in 1914 was 418, or 83 more than the staff to-day. There has been an actual reduction of 20 per cent., and not an increase of 400 per cent. I have drawn attention to this matter, because it is important that, in the first instance, we should have the accurate facts as to the strength of the Admiralty Office.
    I should like to bring before the Committee certain other considerations. The assumption is that the staff at the Admiralty was adequate for its work in 1914. That is an assumption which I absolutely deny. The staff of the Admiralty in 1914 was, from the point of view of efficiency and economy, woefully inadequate in many material respects. Let me take, first of all, the important question of the Admiralty Staff. The Admiralty Staff was only initiated by the present Secretary of State for the Colonics in 1911. It was in process of being created when the War broke out, and only numbered 47 officers. To-day it numbers 139, and I think no one who knows anything about the work which has to be done, or about the character of the problems that have to be considered, would dream for a moment of going back to the staff of 1914. If there is any form of extravagance that is culpable, it is that of throwing away millions of money on mistakes in policy. It is perfectly easy if you make a mistake as to your objective, or as to your real strategical aims, or the manner in which those aims ought to be carried out, to squander millions of money. The foundation of naval economy and naval efficiency is an efficient and adequate general staff.
    Let me take certain other Departments. The experience of the War showed that all the Departments which had to deal with guns, with ammunition, with mines, and with torpedo equipment were woefully deficient in personnel. The pro-

    1991
    blems had not been sufficiently worked out, and at terrible cost of life and also of national wealth we had to make good in a hurry what might have been largely saved if the staff of these Departments had been more adequate. These staffs today number three times what they were before the War, and I believe that the figures on that side are fully justified. Let me take the more purely business aspect of the case. In 1914 we had in the Admiralty only one trained accountant officer. Would any business man in the Committee consider it reasonable that you should have only one trained accountant to look after expenditure amounting, as it did before the War, to £50,000,000, or something like £100,000,000 reckoned on the value of money to-day? The experience of the War, and still more the experience of trying to clear up the problems left after the War, showed us that we must have an adequate accounting staff. We have to-day a staff of eleven permanent officers, with special accountant training, and eleven temporary officers in the Costings and Investigation Department.
    That Department costs the nation, I believe, something like £50,000 or £53,000 a year. I have had the figures looked into with regard to some of the work they have done in the last twelve months. In the last twelve months in connection with claims put forward, as primá facie reasonable claims, by contractors in connection with business left over from the War, they have secured a saving of very nearly £3,000,000. That is good business. At this moment, before the matters left over from the War are effectively cleared off, the reducing of this staff might be of benefit to the Admiralty contractors, but certainly it would not be for the benefit of the taxpayers. Let me take another purely business consideration. I have made inquiries which have revealed the astounding fact that in the Admiralty before the War there were only ten shorthand-typists for the immense business of a staff of nearly 2,000. This meant that large numbers of the higher officials, including the Sea Lords themselves, had to do most of the work of writing their minutes and other important correspondence, laboriously with their own hand instead of dictating it. What business
    1992
    firm would dream of maintaining a procedure of that kind The staff in that respect has been increased to something like 200, a figure well justified by the increased efficiency of the work done. Such as it was, the whole of the staff during the period immediately before the War was grievously overworked, and the need for relieving the pressure was under the serious consideration of the Admiralty and the Treasury when the War broke out.
    If the Admiralty was under-staffed for the problems with which it had to deal in 1914, the nature of the problems themselves has changed to a very marked degree since then. The whole of the work of the naval service has become immensely more complicated. Innumerable new devices and arms of war have been introduced. It is the exsent and the complexity of the problems that have to be dealt with, and not the total numbers and strength of the Navy, that necessarily reflect themselves in the personnel of the Admiralty. If we had a Navy consisting of nothing but torpedo-boat destroyers, however large and however costly it might be, the staff at headquarters would be comparatively small. Let me give the Committee a comparison to illustrate what I mean, The keyboard of a typewriter depends not on the amount of typing that has to be done but on the number of letters that have to be used, even in the shortest piece of correspondence. The larger the number of letters the more complicated and larger the keyboard, because every letter has to have its own lever and its own key on the keyboard. That is true of the Admiralty. Every one of these new services and every one of these new technical developments which have been introduced have to be considered and dealt with at headquarters, and that has created, inevitably, additional staff.
    I do not want to go into the whole of the developments since the War, but let me remind the Committee of a few. There is an immense increase in submarines, in mines, in aircraft, and a corresponding increase in all the devices for dealing with submarines, for detecting and attacking submarines, for dealing with mines, and for coping with aircraft. Each one needs consideration at the Admiralty and necessitates the employment of some portion of the

    1993
    Admiralty staff to deal with it. There has been a, very great development in wireless. Our largest battleships to-day have nine different sets of wireless, whereas, before the War, at the most, they had two sets. There has been a very great development of power control, gyro control, and a complete revolution in the whole of the electrical equipment of warships. That is going on all the time. Then we have the immense development in the use of oil in place of coal. At the lower end of the scale, in respect of the unskilled worker, the stoker, there has been an immense saving in consequence of the introduction of oil. But, as I mentioned on a previous day, that does not necessitate or make possible a saving in the higher ratings or officers, and when you come to the Admiralty, it has necessitated an increase. You have to deal with the problem of oilers. The construction and looking after of tanks, and a number of other problems arising out of oil, have all to be considered. The technical, strategical, constructional aspects of these developments have all to be considered by the central brain of the Service.
    I have dealt so far with complexities introduced by the art of war, but other complexities have been introduced in the interests of the Service itself, and by the wish of this House. This House has decreed, very rightly, that there should be a marriage allowance for dependents of the men on the lower deck, but it does not follow from that decree that the marriage allowance drops like manna from Heaven upon the families of the men in the Service. It has to be sent out to each family. It has to be calculated. Somebody has to write the letters and sign the necessary documents. The marriage allowance involves an additional staff at the Admiralty costing over £60,000 a year, and the work could not be done without it. Again, the House has decreed, and I agree with its decision, that the men and officers of the naval Service should not lose their right of voting, and should be able to continue to exercise the right of voting while serving at sea. That means that the Admiralty becomes the registration officer for a constituency of something like 100,000 outvoters, and many Members of the House know the complexity caused by having even a few thousand outvoters in their own constituency.
    1994
    Then we have a great extension of welfare work. My hon. Friend the Member for Central Portsmouth (Sir T. Bramsdon) takes the greatest interest in it. He is brought into continual contact with myself and others in the Admiralty, and he will appreciate that that welfare machinery cannot be operated without a certain amount of work at headquarters. There has again been a great growth in the whole question of dealing with labour. The Whitley Councils are admirable things, but the Committee will appreciate that they mean work. All these things mean an increase of staff in the Admiralty. Those considerations account for what I might call a certain normal increase, which is bound to remain even when we carry out our reductions in full. But, of course, we have not carried out those reductions in full. At the present moment we have a staff of fully 500, largely the Accountant-General's Department, still dealing with questions left over from the War. If there were more of them, they could dispose of the prize money distribution as rapidly as the hon. And gallant Member for Central Hull would wish. They could also deal more rapidly with the question of gratuities which has been raised by an hon. Member. They are necessary for clearing up the problems left behind by the War, and as fast as those problems are cleared up, hat staff of 500 is being got rid of.
    There are still further reductions which we hope to be able to carry out when the present reduction in the Navy has been completed. But nothing, to my mind, is more unfair than to suggest that we are reducing the Navy in order to keep a number of bloated clerks living at ease in the Admiralty. I would ask the Committee to consider that we cannot carry out reductions without involving a great deal of correspondence. Every single case requires consideration, and the whole of this business of drastic reduction, following the Washington Conference and the recommendations of the Geddes Committee, necessarily means, during a very considerable part of this year, employing a staff which it will be possible to dispense with when the reductions are finally completed.
    I will now deal with one of the other main points raised by the hon. Member for Greenock and other hon. Members, more particularly the hon. and gallant

    1995
    Member for Central Hull. That is the question of the capital ships. On that matter the policy of the Government and of the Admiralty has been made clear, repeatedly, in this House and in the other House, and at the Washington Conference, not only to the Powers with whom we were negotiating, but to the great Dominions and India which joined us at that Conference. We accepted at Washington a very great revision of our whole conception of the naval position in accepting the principle of equality—of co-operation, not competition, but still an equality—with the United States in a one-power standard. But below that one-power standard we cannot go, and no government and no Board of Admiralty in this country would be prepared to go below that standard. The right hon. Member for South Molton (Mr. Lambert) and, I think, the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull, seemed to think that this question should be treated purely as a matter of the local defence of Great Britain, and therefore a question in which air defence or anti-commerce-raiding craft would meet the needs. I must demur to that point of view.
    We can only continue to exist as Great Britain by holding open and free the great highways of the sea to this country, and in the long run we can only continue to exist as Great Britain if Great Britain remains part of a united world-wide Empire. There is only one way of holding open the pathways of the sea. That is by having a navy strong enough to defeat any other navy that stands behind the commerce destroyers or other craft who dispute our command of the sea. From that point of view we cannot go below the one-power standard. The question has been raised—and it is a different matter—whether the building of capital ships is essential to the maintenance of that one-power standard. All I can say is that this matter Has been decided in that sense by every other great naval power in the world, and it has been decided in that sense by the Government of this country after a long series of most careful investigations, first of all in the Admiralty itself, and finally by a very powerful Committee presided over by the late Leader of this House. And they came to the conclusion that while there is no doubt that recent developments will increase the importance of the part
    1996
    played in the whole complex of the battle fleet, and of naval strategy, by the submarine and by aircraft, the basis and foundation of the fighting fleet still remains the capital ship, and nothing has-happened since that conclusion was formed which would in the slightest degree invalidate the report of that Committee.
    There is nothing either in the offensive power of new weapons that have been introduced, or in their defensive power,, which would enable them to compete with or challenge the strength of the capital ship, that is always assuming, as we must assume, that that capital ship is accompanied by a reasonable number both of surface and of super-surface auxiliaries. There is nothing in recent experiments to justify the idea that the capital ship is not capable of defending; itself against the menaces with which it is threatened. But, having said that, I do agree wholeheartedly with what was said by the Noble Lord the Member for South Battersea (Viscount Curzon), that, in an ever-increasing degree, the Navy must get into the air. We have to consider the importance of the air factor, not only from the point of view of the defence of these islands against air attacks, but as an integral part—
    Lieut.-Colonel MOORE-BRABAZON: Do I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that the Navy should be charged to defend this country against air attack?
    Mr. AMERY: I did not say that. I am afraid the hon. and gallant Member has misunderstood me. What I meant to say was that, apart from the immense and growing importance of defence against air attack which is for the Air Ministry, the air work of the Navy itself in the narrow sense, the work that is vitally and integrally connected with the actual operations of the fighting fleet, is increasing in importance, and that it is essential that it-should do so. The Noble Lord, and one or two other Members who intervened in the Debate, raised a wider question than I am prepared to discuss to-night. That is the question of the relation of the Admiralty to the Air Force. Over the marginal region where they come into contact it is vital that their co-operation should be of the fullest kind. One thing which I will say is, that there is not the slightest idea of challenging the general

    1997
    position laid down by the Leader of the House in March as to the existence of a separate and independent air force.
    That aspect of the question is not in issue at all. There is no question, as the right hon. Member for South Molton suggested, of the attitude of the Admiralty to the Air Ministry resembling that of Cain towards Abel. That is not under discussion or in issue at all. The only question in issue to my mind is that of considering how the integrity of naval control over the air units actually working with the fighting fleet can be most effectively secured, and secured consistently with the fullest training of the personnel of those units in every aspect of air science, and how that co-operation can be secured most effectively, most economically, and in such a way as to encourage to the greatest extent the development of this aspect of the work of the Navy. The question is at this moment under discussion. My right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Pretyman) said very rightly that it is an extremely difficult and technical question. I am not going to presume either to argue it or to pronounce judgment upon it. That question is under discussion by the Committee of Imperial Defence, and it is also being considered in a friendly spirit by the Chief of the Air Staff and the First Sea Lord, together with the help and advice of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies.
    Viscount CURZON: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether the Admiralty are satisfied with the provision indicated in the answers I got to-day from the Secretary of State for Air in regard to the provision made for the naval flying services?
    3.0 P.M.
    Mr. AMERY: The word "satisfied" has occurred very frequently in this Debate. All I can say is that we are satisfied that this matter is receiving the full, careful and sympathetic discussion which it is receiving at this moment, and that whatever the conclusion at which the Government may arrive, the Admiralty will co-operate to the best of their ability and the fullest extent of their loyalty to make that form of co-operation a success. The Noble Lord asked other detailed questions. Many of them were questions which would be more properly addressed to the Secretary of State for Air. Some
    1998
    of them are questions which I can endeavour to answer, not perhaps fully, because they impinge on the sphere of the Air Ministry, but answer from the point of view of the Admiralty. The Noble Lord asked who actually lays down the air policy for the Fleet and the policy of construction and design. The air requirements of the Admiralty are, in the first instance, laid down by the Admiralty, and the Air Ministry endeavours to supply those requirements as fully as the financial conditions of the country permit. An hon. Member was right in saying that, necessarily, in the matter of air provision, there is a very considerable margin between what we would like to see, between experiments we would wish to make, between the strength of the air establishment we would like to have in our hands, and what the finances of the country allow. At any rate the policy is laid down by the Admiralty, and the Air Ministry then endeavours to meet the requirements of the Admiralty to the best of its ability.
    When it comes to a question like the design of carriers, the design in the first instance are a matter for the Naval Construction Department of the Admiralty. But, of course, aircraft can be designed only in closest consultation and touch with the Air Ministry. There is a joint technical Committee of the two Services, the members of which collaborate in studying details of design. Actual experiments in that connection are carried out, some at the National Physical Laboratory and others on board, and they judge from the experiments what alterations or new investigations are required. The same applies to the designs for torpedoes. Torpedoes have always been designed, so far, by the Admiralty in conjunction with the Air Ministry. A question was raised as to what work the Air Ministry is doing on a special torpedo to supersede the old torpedo. That question should be more properly ad dressed to the Air Ministry. I was also asked questions about the present position of aircraft carriers. We have two aircraft carriers, one with the Atlantic Fleet and one with the Mediterranean Fleet. They are the "Argus" and the "Pegasus." Three more carriers are being completed. We hope that the "Hermes" and the "Eagle" will be ready before the end of the present financial year. The "Furious," I hope,

    1999
    will be ready by the end of 1923. When the "Eagle" and "Hermes" are put into commission we shall require a larger provision of aircraft for their full equipment than we have available to-day. At present we have the pilots and the aircraft for the two carriers that are actually in service.
    A question was asked to which it is very difficult to give an answer. It was as to the comparative figures in the case of other nations. The Committee will realise some of the difficulties of comparison when I point out that a navy like the United States Navy has a naval air wing which in the estimates of the present year is put down at a cost of something like £3,250,000. It does the work for the Navy and also does a certain amount of work from the shore, and at present is doing its work mainly from the shore. But under our organisation that work would come under the regular coast defence work of the Air Ministry. The Noble Lord mentioned a figure and asked whether it was the fact that the United States Navy now had, compared with our six fighting aeroplanes, a strength of 86 fighting aeroplanes. Our figures are as stated, six—actually six with pilots and with the Fleet. Also there are three more in immediate reserve and another three in general reserve, the latter group being under the control of the Air Ministry. The figure which my Noble Friend gave, of 86 fighters in the American Navy, is not the figure of what they have to-day, but is a figure derived from the United States House of Representatives Paper of the proposed strength for 1923. They propose to have 86 fighters, 73 spotting planes, 36 torpedo planes, and 18 reconnaissance planes. These are among their proposals. Of course, there is always a considerable margin between what is proposed and what is actually carried out. By the time these proposals are carried into effect, we shall have a larger provision of aircraft carriers, and, I trust, also, we shall have a larger provision of aircraft with them.
    The Noble Lord dealt with the question of training officers with the Navy in the sea sense. That is of the greatest importance. A certain number of naval officers have been trained as observers. Twelve have already completed the six months' preliminary training in flying and six months' work actually with the Fleet,
    2000
    and they are to receive their Admiralty certificates. I hope we may extend that number very rapidly. References were made to a suggestion some 18 months or two years ago that the Air Ministry should have a large number of naval officers seconded to the Air Service for training. It is quite true that negotiations broke down on a difference as to the number of years such officers should be seconded to the Air Force. The period desired by the Air Ministry was in the opinion of the Admiralty such as would cause the naval officer to lose touch with naval matters. There, again, we have a problem for which I hope a satisfactory solution will be found in the future.
    Viscount CURZON: Can the right hon. Gentleman give any information as to a paragraph published in to-day's newspapers, regarding air operations that took place in the Channel?
    Mr. AMERY: Yes. I can give information, at any rate, from the naval point of view, though that point of view naturally wants supplementing by the information of the Air Ministry. These exercises were not, as the papers seem to suggest, of a wholly novel character, but were one of a series of very valuable and instructive exercises which have been carried out for some time, the latest experience of which confirms in the main the result of previous exercises. It is not true that these aeroplanes employed a smoke screen. That is an interesting detail thrown in by the newspaper but not based on actual facts. There was not a surprise. The torpedo-carrying aeroplanes were sighted about 15 minutes before firing their torpedoes. They were attacked in dummy by fleet fighting planes as they approached. They were under dummy gunfire from escorting light cruisers and destroyers when at a low altitude before firing their torpedoes. Hon. Members will realise the great difference upon the morale and steadiness of a flier between dummy fire and real fire directed against him. The attack was developed under conditions which were necessarily favourable to the attack. The number of hits reported under these favourable conditions was not considered to be at all large, from the Admiralty point of view, or at any rate not beyond what was expected.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: How many did they get?
    Mr. AMERY: I cannot say now. I will turn to some of the more detailed points that have been raised. The right hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Prety-man) raised very temperately and fairly the grievance of the Harwich Harbour Board against the Admiralty in connection with the sinking of the mine sweeper "Marsa." That ship was sunk in consequence of a collision in Harwich Harbour waters, and after an effort by the Admiralty to salve her, which necessitated a certain amount of fittings being taken out of her, the Admiralty abandoned her. There is one point on which I must differ from my right hon. Friend. In abandoning this wreck and leaving her to the Harwich Harbour Commissioners to dispose of as they could, we were not sheltering ourselves behind the Royal prerogative. It is a general right to abandon a wreck.
    Mr. INSKIP: Anybody can abandon a wreck.
    Mr. AMERY: As my hon. and learned Friend says, and as he knows quite well because of his special knowledge of this subject, anybody can abandon a wreck.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: They have to declare at once whether they will abandon a wreck and make that declaration to the local Trinity House or local harbour authority or whatever it is. My complaint is not that they abandoned the wreck, which they had a perfect right to do, but that they did so two years afterwards.
    Mr. AMERY: I do not think the Admiralty's rights were abrogated either by the previous attempt to salve the vessel or by the delay. At any rate, this is the advice which I am given. What is perfectly true is that at several stages during the War the Admiralty did consider the matter of giving financial assistance to the Harwich Harbour Board in view of the financial difficulties in which that Board found itself, and in view of the very large use of Harwich Harbour which the Navy made during the War, and in that connection the Admiralty paid to the Harwich Harbour Board at one stage a sum of £1,460 to make good a deficit in the year ended September, 1919, and they also lent them a further sum of £1,385, which was repaid. At a time when Harwich was in serious financial difficulties they did conider the ques-
    2002
    tion of making some ex gratia payment, in view of the deficit which it was understood the Harwich Board had to meet in connection with these operations; but when the Harwich Harbour Board, if they had not got a surplus, had, at any rate, reached conditions which would enable the sum to be paid by themselves, then the view of the Admiralty and of those responsible for the finances of the country was, that the Admiralty was not entitled to make this ex gratia payment to the Harbour Board. The right hon. Gentleman suggests that in consequence of this having to be met by the Harwich Board they are compelled to levy much higher dues. Their dues are, I believe, 50 per cent. higher than they were before the War, but, as I understand, a great many other ports in this country have dues which are not only 50 per cent., but substantially more than 50 per cent. above what they were under pre-War conditions. Though I sympathise with my hon. Friend in taking up this matter on behalf of the Harwich Harbour Board, I do not think I can hold out the hope that there will be a decision different to that which has already been arrived at after full and careful consideration by the Admiralty.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline (Mr. Wallace) raised the general question of Rosyth. I do not think I need recapitulate the arguments which I used when I introduced these Estimates in March, more particularly the general reasons which brought us to the conclusion that we had to make a specially heavy reduction in a particular dockyard, namely, Rosyth, in view of the unfinished condition of that dockyard in many respects and the very heavy expenses which we should have had to face if we had continued to keep it as a first-class dockyard. Consistently with those reductions we have, as my hon. Friend very generously admits, done our beet to ease the situation for the individuals affected, and very hardly affected, as I readily admit. We shall continue to do our very best to mitigate the hardships which have resulted. I may say we have already given instructions to do so, not only as regards particular cases, but as regards the number. We had decided to bring down the purely dockyard staff to something like 2,000 but we are leaving it at present at a figure something like 300 men higher than we had contemplated,

    2003
    and consideration is being shown for the disabled men especially. I may say, in parenthesis, that we have practically reached or shall reach in a very few weeks the limit of our dockyard reduction, not only in Rosyth, but in all the dockyards, and will have reached a position from which I have no doubt the dockyards will, as the hon. Member for North Aberdeen (Mr. Rose) suggested, show what good work they are capable of in the future. Anyhow, we have endeavoured to make that special concession to Rosyth and we are doing it by carrying on the work on the "Furious" to a rather more advanced stage than we had intended.
    Mr. WALLACE: What will be done about the claims of the Dunfermline Municipal Authority?
    Mr. AMERY: As my hon. Friend knows, I have met the representative of the Dunfermline Municipal Authority and we have gone into the case, but this also has to be considered with those who are responsible for the national finances. I am afraid I cannot at this moment give my hon. Friend a more definite answer, but I will endeavour to do so at the earliest opportunity.
    Mr. WALLACE: It is under consideration now.
    Mr. AMERY: Yes, it is under consideration now. I should like to refer to the criticisms and the eulogies which the hon. Member for North Aberdeen has passed upon the dockyards. I think he is quite right in saying that some of the criticism based upon the comparative cost of dockyard work and work outside are beside the mark and unfair. It is suggested in the Geddes Committee Report that the ratio of labour to material in the dockyards is far higher than in the case of outside contractors.
    Mr. ROSE: Double.
    Mr. AMERY: It may interest the Committee if I briefly analyse that criticism. I think it is quite true that, on new construction, the work of the dockyards is rather more expensive. We have had figures worked out, and I think the ratio of labour to material worked out in the case of the dockyards at 1·8, as compared with 1·3 in the case of the private yards. There are two considerations materially
    2004
    affecting it. One is that the outside contractors reckon as material everything they get from the sub-contractor. On the other hand, the dockyard analyses these things back into their constituents of labour and material, and that inevitably increases the proportion of labour to material. There is also the fact that the dockyard exists for a great variety of purposes, not only construction and repair, but a great many other administrative purposes connected with maintenance. All that increases the overhead charges, and makes the comparison between the work of the dockyards and the work of the private contractor, who is simply out to construct ships, a misleading comparison.
    On the other hand, when you come to repair work where close supervision is required, where the interests of the dockyard and the Admiralty coincide but where the interests of the contractor and the Admiralty do not coincide, where it is practically impossible to put things out to tender and where you have to pay by results, then our experience—an experience extending over a great many years—is that this repair work is more cheaply done in the dockyard than by private contract. We have had figures of repairs to a number of cruisers, and the proportion of labour to materials is as 3 to I in the ease of the dockyard and as 4·3 to I in the case of the ships which were given to private firms to repair. That clearly snows that where you have got a great mass of intricate and detailed repair work, where the judgment of people of special naval experience is required. you get greater economy at the dockyards than you do-at the naval contractors. That is also the explanation of the overhead staff at the dockyards of which complaint has been made. Every re-fit is a matter of an enormous number of detailed requirements brought forward by the captain of the ship, which he says are urgent and necessary, and no one who has not-got naval experience or has not been in command of a ship himself is competent to judge how many of these are, shall I say, a try-on, how many are desirable but not absolutely necessary, how many may be necessary next year but are not necessary this year, how many may be desirable for the sake of the ship itself but had much better not be carried out at all if the ship is subsequently going

    2005
    to become obsolescent and to be written off the Navy List altogether.
    All these are the first considerations that arise when a ship comes in for refit, and they are none of them considerations which the ordinary naval contractor can have in his mind, or which he is interested in having in his mind. The first essential stage of a re-fit are the conferences between the officers of the ship and the naval, engineering, and constructional officers of the dockyard really to thrash out between them what are the necessary items and what the items which can be left over for another year or which are not really required. Then again, the naval dockyard is a great establishment for many other purposes, such, for instance, as stores. It requires police to prevent peculation and the taking away of material, which is so much more natural to the human mind when you are dealing with Government material than when you are dealing with the material of a private contractor. You cannot, therefore, compare the overhead organisation of the naval dockyard, with all its miscellaneous duties and purposes, with the overhead organisation of a commercial shipyard, which is only out to build certain ships, those that pay best, and to build them on purely commercial lines. I think I have covered most of the points that have been raised so far. There may be other points to be raised subsequently on this Vote, or perhaps on other Votes on the Paper, and, if necessary, I will reply to them as well, but I thank the Committee for the courtesy with which they have remained and listened to the somewhat lengthy statement I have had to make.
    Sir DONALD MACLEAN: Everybody must appreciate not only the care but the particularity with which the right hon. Gentleman has replied to the various criticisms which have been addressed to him, and what remains of the Committee will, I am certain, pursue the inquiry as to naval expenditure and policy with the care and industry which have already distinguished it. There is one point which has been very present to my mind during the somewhat lengthy attendance which I have put in to-day in listening to these various speeches, and it is this. I hope the day is not very far distant when, on those occasions when Navy Votes come before the House, or Air Votes, or
    2006
    Army Votes, we shall have the Parliamentary representatives of each of these Departments here to listen to the several Debates.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: The Leader of the Opposition, too.
    Sir D. MACLEAN: That is one of those futile interruptions with which the hon. Member favours the Committee, and it is singularly inappropriate to-day, because the Leaders of the Opposition have been here during the whole of the Debate. It really shows how rapidly, and, I hope, successfully, the idea is developing that it-is the business of the House of Commons,, not only to consider the separate Votes, but as far as possible to get a conspectus of the whole idea of defence. I do not know myself whether the right way of doing that is to set up at some time a. Ministry of Defence. I have not sufficient technical or other knowledge to justify me in expressing an opinion on that point, but I am certain that if the heads of the other Departments, the Royal Air Force and the Army, had been here to-day, they could not have helped deriving considerable benefit from the criticisms and, as I thought, most fruitful suggestions which have been made. My right hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty opened his reply with some comments on the criticisms addressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock (Sir G. Collins), on the subject of the Admiralty Vote, Vote 12, and the defence which was put forward was, I thought, one of considerable interest. It was this. We have so very much more work to do than we had when the War broke out. I would not describe it as ungenerous, but the rather unnecessary defence was put up that when the War broke out the Admiralty was unprepared in many material respects for that War, and particularly in regard to Vote 12. I am not a qualified judge, but I should have thought that, if there was one Department of the defence of this country which responded' with more efficiency to the call of duty than another, it was the Navy, and it seems perfectly clear, therefore, that the Departments represented under Vote 12 were not inefficient. Besides which they were then face to face with a war position which had been clearly defined for some years previously. Everybody was discussing this thing and either saying that there was no danger of war or that

    2007
    there was a danger of war. It was present in the public and the professional mind that war was to be contemplated, and it was almost on a war basis that you had the Admiralty Office staffed and at work.
    Surely that is not the outlook which we have to-day. It is not a war outlook but a peace outlook, and our military and defensive forces should be on a peace basis. What is the test of that? There are two basic facts upon which, I submit, our defensive policy should move, particularly as regard the Navy. One is the basic fact of the disappearance of the German Navy, and the other is the existence of the Washington Agreement. East and West there is, on the one hand, the disappearance of a well-equipped, dangerous, deadly foe; on the other, there is the disappearance of the cloud of suspicion and dread which hung over our naval Debates last year. Those are the two great facts of the situation, and I should have thought that that would have reflected itself in the position or the financial requests of the Admiralty to the House of Commons to-day. Before I leave that, let me add one or two other comments as to the peace outlook. Undoubtedly, according to one or two of the spokesmen of the Cabinet—I think even the Prime Minister himself—their outlook was that there would be no great war for ten years. On the 2nd May of this year, the right hon. Member for Central Glasgow (Mr. Bonar Law) said in this House, in dealing with expenditure on the Navy:
    "Look at the immense sums expended to-day on the Navy, for instance. I have not had the opportunity of judging as to whether the Geddes Committee was right or wrong, but I am quite sure that when the Cabinet began to examine it it was in the same frame of mind as I did, and it was this, that so far as human foresight can tell. there would be no world war for a very long time to come."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd May, 1922; col. 1203, Vol. 153.]
    There you have the view of His Majesty's Government still. That being so, what justification is there for this fact, that when the War broke out a really efficient Department was costing the country £483,500, and to-day, with the peace outlook, and no great war for a very long time to come, that same Department is costing us net £1,420,800? I state the matter broadly, and it requires, I submit,
    2008
    a much better answer than my right hon. Friend has given the Committee to-day. Let me take one or two of his illustrations. He said that when the War broke out, this Department required ten typists and now it has got 200, because of the additional work which has been thrown on it owing to the developments after the War.
    Mr. AMERY: That was not one of the things of the after-War development. That was one of the points, to which I drew attention, of the inadequate equipment, from the business point of view, of that great Department before the War.
    Sir D. MACLEAN: I suppose I am a little bit of a business man myself, but I should have been alarmed if my Department, however greater my work might have been, had shown such a large increase in the number of typists, from 10 to 200. It is a symptom of the spirit of spending and of general extravagance which has not yet been eradicated as a result of the War from the Admiralty as from other Government Departments. That is my criticism on that point. Let me turn to another general point which I wish to make on the whole cost of the Navy. These figures were indicated, though not specifically mentioned, I think, by my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock (Sir G. Collins) when he opened the Debate to-day on this Vote. I ask why, in the circumstances which I have indicated, namely, the peace situation, which has been admitted by the Government themselves, and evidenced by the great events to which I have alluded, our Navy Estimates to-day are £64,880,000 net? It is not brought about by new capital ships, whose cost this year is something under £800,000. That represents an expenditure which, as far as I can gather from what was stated by my right hon. Friend to-day, does not foreshadow any great and sweeping reduction next year. It looks to me very much as if we are likely to be faced, under the most favourable conditions so far as His Majesty's present Government are concerned, with no less an expenditure than from £50,000,000 to £55,"00,000 for years to come.
    Is that consistent with the general policy announced from time to time by His Majesty's Government and agreed to by all parties? It is far, far greater than before the War, when you

    2009
    had the war scare, the war dread; whereas now you have the peace outlook. I need not add anything to the point which was made by my hon. Friend as to the real weight of authority behind the recommendations of the Geddes Committee. The men who made those recommendations are not amateurs in naval affairs. Sir Eric Geddes ought to have known something about it, and he knew a good deal about it, and nobody can charge either Lord Inchcape, or Sir Joseph Maclay, or Sir Guy Granet with any lack of patriotism, or with not belonging to what you may call the big-Navy school. I am quite certain there is a very large amount of unrest in the public mind as to whether many more millions could not have been saved from the Navy Estimates.
    Let me say a word on the question of the capital ships. I was very much struck with the Debate between the experts in the Committee to-day. It is a very favourite comment of mine, when I am discussing the House of Commons, that no matter what Debate comes up, you will find on the back Benches, if I may say so, far more than on the front Benches, a wealth of information of a thoroughly authoritative kind which you get in no other assembly in the world. We had to-day Members discussing this matter whose authority and experience were both interesting and valuable. They brought out this point to my mind, very clearly, that there is undoubtedly a period of transition and experiment going on as between the great ship and the development of defence and attack in the air, in which considerable progress is being made. It seems desirable to meet criticism on that matter before launching the country into very large, and, indeed, I should say, excessive expenditure upon capital ships. The Government are the responsible body, but that does not absolve any Member of this House from the duty of criticism. Faced with that criticism to which I have alluded, directed with such a genuine public sense of responsibility and of duty, I wonder whether His Majesty's Government are meeting it all as fully as they ought to at the present time. I think they should, at any rate, only have proceeded with one capital ship. I imagine that the position of aircraft is clearing up with a certain amount of rapidity. People know a great deal more, infinitely
    2010
    more, than they did nine or 12 months ago. There are more authoritative statements made on the subject. We are learning something more of it every day. Then as I have said we have the peace outlook. There seems no great war, humanly speaking, likely to happen for years to come. Why should we commit ourselves to these vast sums during this transitional stage?
    For myself, I think the situation will be met by either delaying construction or laying down only one of these capital ships for some time to come. I heard a remark this afternoon from the hon. and gallant Member for South Battersea (Viscount Curzon) which suggested to me that in his mind the result of the Washington Convention was that we must lay down two capital ships. But the maximum in all these matters automatically tends to become the minimum. There is no compulsion on us to lay down two capital ships which, I understand, is the maximum. There is the probability of a more intensive period of experiment and investigation as to the relation of the Air Force to defence and offence than in any other country in the world. I should have thought it was well within the margin of safety to have delayed this great expenditure, at any rate, for some considerable time. After what one heard from hon. Members in different parts of the House, submitted with great conviction, it appears to me there is very much room yet for drastic economy in Vote 12.
    Major Sir B. FALLE: I should like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty several questions on a few points I have here. The first relates to prize money. Is it possible in any way to expedite the payment of prize money this year? There is a good deal of unemployment, which causes a good deal of suffering amongst people of small means and smaller pensions, and they are in real need of this money. There is another point with which I wish to deal. It is a question which has interested my colleague the Member for Central Portsmouth (Sir T. Bramsdon) and myself for a very considerable period. It is an important matter. I think, perhaps, my hon. Friend has done even more work on the subject than I have, and I should almost apologise to him for asking the question. But I am happy to say we work together in these matters. The question relates to schoolmasters' pay, which is a

    2011
    very important one, not only for Portsmouth, but the whole Service.
    On the subject of capital ships I should like to say a few words. I do not pretend to be an expert on this matter, but I have the advantage of hearing a great many experts, and they all agree that while our possible enemies have capital ships we must have them as well; while they have capital ships which are post-Jutland we have only one ship which is even partially post-Jutland, and we are, therefore, in a position of inferiority in this respect. My right hon. Friend seems to think that we are going to have no more wars for many years. That is a very pleasant notion. He probably will be old enough to remember, or he will have read of the time of the outbreak of the Franco-German War. Our Foreign Minister, a man of great ability, only a fortnight before the outbreak of that war declared that there was no cloud on the horizon. Within a fortnight that war was being fought. Need I refer also to our Prime Minister, who in January, 1914, thought there was no moment so good as that to reduce the Navy? The right hon. Gentleman was not ignorant. He was well-informed. He had his expert advisers. Yet he thought of a possible reduction in our Navy.
    The best way, it seems to me in this matter, is to keep our powder dry, and for our ships to keep in power and efficiency alongside possible opponents. By that means, you, at any rate, diminish the risks, the very great risks, of war. We have been reminded of the necessity, by the Debate of yesterday, of giving notice to those whom we are going to attack, even if they happen to be in the other House. I have no hesitation to-night in making, not altogether an unfriendly attack on the First Lord of the Admiralty —whom I saw in the Gallery to-day—because he has two very capable hon. Friends in this House to answer for him, hence the arguments used in yesterday's Debate about the necessity of notice do not apply to me now. I do not consider that the First Lord has acted up to his reputation in his present position. I think he has prejudiced the Navy which he represents. Neither the First Lord nor the First Sea Lord seem to me to possess much initiative and appear to do nothing but give away, and to take things
    2012
    lying down. They pursue the line of least resistance. Whenever they meet trouble it appears to me they put it to one side. Under their care the Navy has lost her pride of place. We have lost our command of the sea, which was never abused, never used to bully but to succour and to help the downtrodden and keep the peace. It was used to assist those people who, in Mr. Gladstone's words, were rightly struggling to be free, if and when, and where they were to be found. Under their fostering care the Navy has been cut to the bone. Officers and men have been turned out of their life's profession—men who have fought for us and won and saved us and cannot be replaced. If the time comes when they are wanted, I can only hope they will be found. In the meantime, however, they are to be thrown away, when there is an appearance of peace, like a pair of worn gloves. Our ships are being sold and broken up, the men are being dispersed, and the Service neglected. What for? Simply to please our opponents, to make our foes rejoice and to make the world laugh! I have travelled considerably, and I say without the smallest hesitation that in the whole wide world, with the exception of our Dominions, we have not a friend, not one who will come to our assistance, as we found out during the Great War. There are far more people against us than appearsion the surface.
    Nations, like people, do not understand that kind of madness, and they call it weakness. Undoubtedly it is weakness, and it has to be paid for by this country in blood, as has occurred already. It is not the strong who make trouble and cause wars, it is the weak, and only the weak. We began this weakness and the spirit of gambling about the time of the late Lord Tweedmouth, and that weakness has continued to this day. Who will say that, had this country been prepared, had our Navy-been ready, if the Governments of France and Russia had had strong men at their head and a strong army and navy, that Germany would have dared to provoke war? Is the lesson we then learned to be so soon forgotten? It was almost at the eleventh hour that our Government awoke to the fact that our Navy was not ready, and this was about 1911 and 1912. In any case, it was not as ready as it ought to have been, with

    2013
    the result that our Estimates jumped up to £50,000,000.
    9.0 P.M.
    We let the Navy clown and then in a moment of panic our Estimates go up by £50,000,000. All was hurry and skurry, trying to remedy the wasteful and wilful neglect of previous years and we know the result of that hurry because it was patent to the whole world. We had no mine layers, we had 34 mines in the whole country, but no ship to lay them; we had a bad system of night signalling and of night firing and we had only one big powder magazine in each ship, while the Germans had 50. Our torpedoes were inferior and ship for ship we were inferior to the Germans. The result was that our ships were more easily sunk than the German ships. We had an insufficient number of torpedo catchers and we were only saved in the War by the valour, the vigour, the initiative, the discipline and the devotion of our officers and men, there at any rate we were pre-eminent. It is time the country realised that we are now throwing these trained men out of the service in which they have been trained for long years, the service which is now being neglected and impoverished. They are being flung out of the profession which they chose for themselves and which they loved, a profession of which they were the ornament. This is the service which stands between us and ruin and destruction. It stands between us and the loss of Empire and all that we hold dear in that respect. It stands for us and our Empire, for without it we are reduced to the position of a small island unable to feed our people. Therefore the Navy is the arm which stands between us and starvation and slavery.
    We are risking all that by flinging our advantages away and it is time that the nation understood what we are doing. Some of these things are being done on the score of economy, but I call it extravagance. I made to two great Departments a proposition showing how they could save in one small place £40,000, but they laughed at the idea as too small to be considered. We could make temporary economies at any rate amounting to millions and millions without touching the effectiveness of our force. What we expend on the naval service is money very well spent for it is spent to keep what we have, and we have a great deal. If hon. Members will
    2014
    think of what we have they will understand the need of the Navy. We own a quarter of the surface of the world, and we have more than a quarter of the population of the globe, most of our possessions are within the temperate zone. We have almost all the desirable places on the earth. We have the greatest markets, the biggest ships, the bravest and best men, and the most beautiful women. We wish to keep them. We profess surprise that people should covet what we have, but, undoubtedly, they do so, and would take them from us if they could. They do not because we have a Navy to defend our possessions, and yet there are people who wonder whether it is necessary to have our fighting Services in a state of efficiency—our sea, air and land Services lest covetous people should attack us. Our Services are kept for the protection of the nation, and, in my opinion, the Government is neglecting those Services. This is extravagance of the most unwise kind. It can only invite misunderstandings and war. I was very glad to hear the hon. Member for North Aberdeen (Mr. Rose) had become a convert to our views, and was of opinion that good work can be done in our dockyards—better, if possible, than was done outside.
    Mr. ROSE: I have always been of that opinion. I am not a convert to it.
    Sir B. FALLE: I thought the hon. Member last year was rather against our dockyards, against the premier port of Portsmouth.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: What?
    Mr. ROSE: My attack was not on the dockyards, but on the higher officials.
    Sir B. FALLE: I quite thought that the hon. Member had been converted to the view that the dockyards can do good work, and I was anticipating he would soon come round to the opinion that the Admiral-Superintendent of the dockyard was a very desirable and useful person. He would do so if he could come to Portsmouth. I repeat not only are the Government neglecting the Services, but they are also neglecting the adjuncts to the Services. I wish to warn the Government seriously on that particular point. With private yards I am not so much concerned. They are carried on with the object, no doubt, of securing a good return for the shareholders in them. The Royal Dockyards,

    2015
    however, were brought into existence by the needs of the Navy in wonderful natural ports, especially in the case of Portsmouth and Devonport.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Devonport and Portsmouth.
    Sir B. FALLE: The Government has kept them as dockyards. It has prevented them being used as commercial ports except possibly in the case of Plymouth and Devonport, where there is a great port for many important liners. At the present moment the Royal Dockyards are not allowed to undertake commercial work. There are a few struggling firms on the fringe of the dockyards attempting to do commercial work, but the dockyards themselves are not allowed to undertake it, and now, apparently, they are to be put out of action. They are not to be given building of ships of war. We know that there are not slips in any of the yards on which we can build new capital ships. I believe we have not a dock that can take in the "Hood," except possibly Rosyth. There ought to be in these Government yards docks which can take big ships, and there ought to be slips on which big ships can be built. Men are being put out of the dockyards every day. Last week I had a visit from a man of 46 who had been 28 years in the dockyard. Some time ago he was offered establishment but his health was not good enough to allow him to take it. He has been thrown on to the labour market, and there are already 6,000 unemployed at Portsmouth. It means starvation to him or resorting to one of the most dreadful things started in late years, the dole as it is carried out at the present moment. Unless wisdom comes to the Government before very long, I believe a terrible heritage will be reaped in a few years, either by ourselves or by our sons, and I appeal to the Government to be wise in time. It has the finest dockyards in the world, it has the finest workmen, but at the moment it is misusing them.
    Mr. WILKIE: I want to preface my observations with a few personal remarks. When I first came into this House I had as a colleague a Civil Lord of the Admiralty. Since then another colleague of mine for many years was First Lord of the Admiralty. Therefore, I can almost say I have been connected with the Navy ever since I have been
    2016
    here, and certainly I represent thousands of dockyard men whose livelihood is being discussed to-night. While not a dockyard Member, I feel I represent a considerable number of the constructors of the Navy. We have been talking recently about a truce for 10 years or 20 years. We have tried truces in the industrial world, and we are aware how little they can be relied upon. I have always stood for an efficient Navy in this House. I have done so from the beginning. While we are all economists, I would like to point out there is a false economy as well as a real economy, and I do claim that, whatever economy is effected, it should not be always at the expense of the workers. The economy must be carried out with fairness and equity and justice to all concerned, but I am one of those who yet want to be assured of its reality. I hope it is real, but I do not want us to be misled. I am for economy, but I want real economy, and I want it to be spread over those who can best-bear it
    Coming now to the workmen whom I represent in the dockyards, they are asking, and I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary, is it true that there has been a refusal to allow our own dockyard officials to estimate for the two super-Dreadnoughts at the same time that private contracts were asked for? We have been told by the hon. Member for North Aberdeen (Mr. Rose), and I have been reading it for longer years than I like to state to this Committee, that there have been continual charges made against the workers, but we never could get a fair comparison between the estimates from the dockyards and the estimates from outside. All we want is a fair comparison. I have been told that if it had not been for the National dockyards we should have been paying through the nose for battleships in the years that have gone by. Nothing, however, can be said against the dockyard workmen. It cannot be said that they do not work. I have challenged that in this House and elsewhere. Why are they not given a chance to prove it? If they get a chance to estimate and they are too high, they will know where they are. I do not want great charges for the Admirals who are over these dockyards to be put on the price of the ships. Let us have fair overhead charges, as is the case with the private contractor. If we are beaten in

    2017
    the dockyards, we shall take our beating as other men do outside, but we do say that the officials ought to be given the same opportunity that is given to the private contractor.
    I do not want to go into the details of the figures as regards the alterations that are necessary to certain building berths, but those alterations will be required sooner or later. There are one or two large docks where those capital ships could be built without any cost for preparing the berths, and indeed, that cost would have to be incurred outside as well as in the dockyards. As the hon. Member for North Aberdeen has said, the men are willing to accept payment by results, and to give as fair value to the Admiralty as they can get anywhere else. With the reorganisation of work at Devonport, the cost of labour on the oilers built there has come down to a very considerable extent, namely, according to my information, from £3 to £1 per ton. The high cost was not the fault of the workmen; it was the fault of the system, and we want the system rearranged. We want the charges—the barnacles—wiped off. The late Secretary of the Admiralty used to tell me that we had to have over 4,000 auxiliary vessels to support our Navy during the War, and we shall want some hundred of them even now in time of peace. Why do not the Government build these ships themselves, and give the men employment, instead of casting them out on the scrap-heap to get the dole, which is demoralising to all? It would be far better that the Government, and also some of the shipowners who made so much money out of the War, should build some ships even at a greater cost, and get some return for the money.
    I know that the Government are often blamed, but I often ask myself, when I hear so much blame put upon the Government, what I should do myself in that case? The workmen in the dockyards will endeavour to satisfy the officials if they are only given a fair chance. As the Parliamentary Secretary has stated, the Whitley Council has been of very great value in that respect. Some of us know the old style of what we should call the blue-water admirals, with their quarterdeck manner, who would listen to no one. We believe that that has been very much changed, and that the reduction of costs in the dockyards has been considerable.
    2018
    I am also informed that, supposing the contracts were given to the dockyards, only something like 10 or 15 per cent. of the cost of building the ships is spent in the dockyards. Any amount of work is sent out. Besides the armour and guns, there are very many other things. The Admiralty buys hundreds of thousands of pounds worth of stores and fittings that could be made in the dockyards at a less cost than we are paying for them, and it would help to keep the men employed. You have in the dockyards at the moment a set of skilled men whom you cannot replace. If you throw them out in this inhuman way, you cannot replace them. Therefore, we want the Admiralty to look into all these little matters, and see what they can do. National shipyards should be used for national ships and all that they require. I know I may be challenged, but since I have sat in this House whenever I have had convictions I have always had the courage to express them, and I am going to do so to-night. I believe in the principle of national shipyards for national work, and other necessary work should be done there. Let the Committee consider a small thing. The Admiralty actually buys wooden tallies at 1s. 3d. per hundred, and sends outside for the spars, masts, handspikes, etc., which could all be produced equally well in their shipyards, and at a lower cost.
    With regard to the proposed ten years' holiday, if that can be carried out it is worthy of consideration. If we are going to have it, however, we must have some other productive work to keep the men employed. Whether or not it is the duty of the Government to do it the people have got to be fed, one way or another, and the worst way we can feed them is by giving merely doles. The hon. Member for Dunfermline (Mr. Wallace) referred to Rosyth Dockyard. Since I have been in this House it has always been my lot to fight for fair play for Scotland. My very first speech, long years ago, was on that point. Owing to the German menace the centre of gravity changed from England to Scotland. Who can tell where we may be threatened next? I think, after all the money that has been spent on Rosyth, it would well pay the country as well as the Admiralty to give the dockyard a fair chance and to use it for necessary work. We need a whole lot of these auxiliary vessels. Why

    2019
    cannot the dockyards be used for that purpose, and our skilled men be kept at work earning wages and not be put on the scrap heap? The hon. Member for North Aberdeen (Mr. Rose) gave the Committee some figures showing the cost of non-productive officials. I do not know if those figures are confirmed, but I am not one who desires to pull the highest down. Rather I wish to raise up the lowest, and if anything can be done in the matter suggested, I shall have no objection.
    A lot has been said, and I have read a lot about the capital ships. I happen to know something about ship production in America, France and Germany as well as in this country. As a ship constructor, I say without egotism, that we stand equal —I do not say above, but equal—to any country in the world. There are two schools of thought—the air ships and the floating ships. I say that the Navy overcame the submarine; and the Navy, if you give it a chance, will overcome the airships which may attack it. What Member of this Committee would like to have been on a capital ship when, as in the Japanese-Russian War the Japs during an engagement, walked about as if they were on parade? Why was that? It was because every one of those Japs was more or less educated, and they knew that their ships could strike the Russian ships and could give them a mile or a mile and a half to spare. The sailors aboard the Russian ships knew nothing about it, although their officers did, and while some people cried out against the officers giving way, those officers could do nothing else, because they knew that the Japanese ships could hit them without them being able to retaliate. Would not hon. Members rather stand on a capital ship, with a range of a mile or a mile and a half to spare, than on a ship which is outranged? One capital ship is worth a Fleet. Of course, it would have to be protected by submarines, aeroplanes, and a mosquito Fleet. We want an efficient Navy—I do not care if it is submarines or airships, or whatever it be—this country, our island home, demands that we should hand on safe to our successors what we have received from our predecessors.
    There is another point to be considered, and that is the discharges of the men I was pleased to hear the Parliamentary
    2020
    Secretary to the Admiralty say that he thought the worst of that was over. I hope the Admiralty will put on their thinking caps and devise means of providing work which will bring a return to the country in time to come, and possibly even now. What has the Navy been for us but an insurance? People pay large sums for their life insurance, though they do not want it. We are paying a sum for the life insurance of our country in an efficient Navy and a well equipped, even if a small Army. I trust that we shall not be too much carried away by this great economy stunt. In some places we are making too much of it, and I hope whatever is done will be done equitably and with fair play to all concerned. We are told that we have now passed away from the War outlook, and that we are in a peace outlook. That is only an assertion. Vessels may be sailing along on a smooth sea, and suddenly, within half an hour, one may run into such a storm as has never been seen, and ship after ship may go down. We shall only save ourselves and our island home by being prepared for whatever may come. I am not in favour of exorbitant expenditure, but of a fair outlay to enable us to maintain our position. I am not asking for any preferential treatment of the dockyards, but I want fair play, equity and justice, and estimates compared with their like and not with figures which will not bear comparison. National dockyards should be used for national purposes, though we are not opposed to private yards having an equal opportunity. We shall only invite disaster unless we maintain an efficient Navy to guard our island home.
    Sir C. K1NLOCH-COOKE: I am sure the Committee has listened with the greatest interest to the speech which has just been delivered. I go back 13 or 14 years, and on every occasion we have had a useful speech from the hon. Member. He always takes the right tone and hits the nail on the head. I congratulate him on his re-appcarance, because he was not here on the last occasion when the Naval Estimates came up, and upon his very excellent contribution to the Debate. I cannot say the same for the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Peebles (Sir D. Maclean), who has disappeared quite as quickly as he re-appeared just now.
    Mr. P. WILLIAMS: He is hungry.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: I do not care where he has gone.
    Notice taken that 40 Members were not present; Committee counted; and 40 Members being present—
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: I was saying at the time of that unfortunate interruption, that I regretted to find the right hon. Gentleman is not in his place, because I should like to have made some observation about the very kind remark he made to me. However, I do not think the Committee will be much grieved at his absence, because the futility, if I may be allowed to repcat the word he used towards myself, of his speech is well known and well appreciated by the Committee. I am sure the little he did say will have no effect on the Division. Certainly, he was unable to refute in any kind of way the observations of the Parliamentary Secretary in his very brilliant speech in defence of his office. I think these Motions for reduction, with a view to economy with regard to the Navy, are very unfortunate. Not only are they mis-read in the country, which is rather given to the idea that we spend too much money on the Navy, but they do not represent the real feeling of the House of Commons. The House of Commons and the country want a Navy, and an efficient Navy, and they do not want an economic Navy in the sense that it is not equal to what is required and what it is required to do. The Parliamentary Secretary said this was a wide Debate and most matters had been mentioned during it. In his own speech he did not mention one rather important matter and no previous speaker has mentioned it. I refer to the Imperial Conference. We were told we were to have an Imperial Navy. We were told at the Imperial Conference that the great Dominions were only too anxious to contribute to that Imperial Navy and that as soon as the Treaty of Washington was signed they would show some sign of what they intended to do in regard to contributions to this Imperial Navy. I should like to ask my right hon. Friend whether by now he has received from any of the Dominions any suggestion as to what contribution they should make to this Imperial Navy. In Canada there is a tendency to cut down the Navy and there is the same tendency in Australia, and here we are cutting down the Navy. Surely the time has arrived
    2022
    when it would be best to have some kind of Imperial Naval Conference—I am not talking about an Imperial Conference on the usual lines, but a special Naval Conference to try to bring about the idea of an Imperial Navy, and I will suggest that the time has arrived when it would be useful if the Parliamentary Secretary were to bring the matter before the Government.
    The dockyards have been so much touched upon that one' could only reiterate what has already been said if one continued to talk in the same strain, but I should like to know whether these discharges from the yards are going to cease, and when they are going to cease. There is great disturbance in all the naval ports where there are dockyards becase they do not know when these discharges are going to cease. Lord Long told the House, when he was First Lord of the Admiralty, that so far as Devon-port Dockyard was concerned, the numbers would not be reduced lower than they were before the War. I believe the number now is very much less than it was before the War. We cannot go on like that. We must know exactly where we stand, and I should like the Parliamentary Secretary to tell us whether or not these discharges are to cease and how many men it is proposed to allow to remain in Devonport Dockyard. The cutting down of the Navy has meant the cutting down of the dockyards. I do not find any fault with that, but I do find fault with the system by which these men have been sent out of the yards. The hon. Member for Portsmouth cited the case of a shipwright of 28 years' standing in the yard who had been sent out into the streets. That is the case of a great number of men in all the yards. Men with families have been sent out on to the streets to pick up a living where they can. Everyone knows that in the dockyard towns there are no industries. The Admiralty did not allow industries to grow up in the dockyard towns; a very proper principle, no doubt, at the time it was laid down, but the effect of that is that we have men turned out from the dockyards who are unable to find any other means of livelihood in their native town. There are boys who have been brought up to think that they would enter the dockyard, in fact, boys who have been to school and have been apprenticed in the dockyards, and who had some

    2023
    right to suppose that they would one day become men in the dockyards and rise in the walk of life they had chosen. The result is now that you have these boys, these ex-apprentices, turned out. They have some right to expect something better from the Admiralty, because they have passed examinations and have done good work. Nevertheless, they are turned out, one after another, on to the streets. You have the older men who are also being turned on to the streets.
    Apparently there is no system. No one knows who is to go one day or who is to go the next day. There is a great deal of dissatisfaction in the dockyards owing to the want of system. Many men come to me, and no doubt many men go to other hon. Members who represent dockyard towns, and say: "We are turned out, and we do not know why we are turned out. There is so and so who has been a shorter time in the dockyard, and he is not as good a worker as I am, and he is not turned out." These complaints ought not to go on from day to day, and if we had some better system of discharge I do not think these complaints would arise in this way. I do not wish to say anything more about the dockyards, except that I regret that the result of cutting down the Navy, as the Parliamentary Secretary said the other day, to the bone, has resulted in cutting down the dockyards also to the bone.
    There is one other point of the policy of the Government in regard to the Navy that I should like to mention, and that is the policy with regard to the electrician class The electricians have a very reasonable complaint. The stagnation in their class is due, I think, to the lack of decision with regard to the future policy of that branch, it is time the Admiralty made up its mind what is going to be done with the electricians. Retirements are taking place and no promotions are being made to fill the vacancies. The difference of appointment authorised by Form I and the Order in Council is very pronounced, then there is a difference between the position of the electrician and the engine-room artificer. All these points could be settled by the policy which the Admiralty ought to lay down at once. Another matter which I should like to mention is the death of a writer, not very long ago, I think in the
    2024
    Udal Torre Sanatorium, from tuberculosis. This man's case is closely associated with the question of ventilation in His Majesty's ships. The places in which these writers have to work in the ships are not properly ventilated, with the result that the men sometimes work 12 hours in a very hot place, come out very heated, and often they catch severe colds which in time generates tuberculosis. I have communicated with the Parliamentary Secretary about it, and he sent me a very courteous reply. He told me that the matter is being inquired into, and that something will be done. I would like to take this opportunity of impressing upon him that the time has arrived when we must have a strict and very careful inquiry into this question of ventilation on board ships where the writers are required to do their work. It may be possible that some of the work which falls to the writers might be done on shore, and so lessen the amount of work which has to be done on board ship. In any event, the time has arrived when something must be done to see that the places where men are required to work are properly ventilated.
    Then there is the, question of naval schoolmasters, which we have discussed over and over again. We have been told that this matter was going to be settled, and that they were to receive increase of pay. It is almost two years, certainly 18 months, since that announcement was made, and it is not asking too much of the Parliamentary Secretary that he will to-night give us a definite answer as to when the naval schoolmasters may expect their rise in pay. The question of prize money has been touched upon. That question is felt very much in the naval ports, and especially at Devonport, where there are a great number of people who are very much distressed on account of not receiving their prize money. I am not referring to the men who are now-engaged in the work of the Navy, but pensioners and widows, and the next of kin, who are in a very distressed state. I receive letters every morning from people who beg me to see if they cannot get their prize money. In these days of stress and strain I think the Admiralty might perhaps make a little more effort to distribute the prize money quickly. We have heard to-night of the number of people that it is necessary to employ in

    2025
    order to do the work of the Admiralty. If sufficient people were employed to see that prize money in distributed, there would not be the serious delay that is taking place at the present time. I appeal to the Parliamentary Secretary not to overlook the observations I have made, even though he has already made a very useful and very practical speech. If he has the opportunity of replying, he might take note of the points I have raised before we go to a vote. When we do go to a vote, I trust that no one will vote against the Admiralty, except the two tellers.
    Sir T. BRAMSDON: I want to thank the Parliamentary Secretary most warmly for the conclusive defence that he has set up of the good work that is done in the dockyards. That defence was unexpectedly enhanced by the praise which was bestowed upon the dockyards by the hon. Member for North Aberdeen (Mr. Rose). I join in emphasising the distress which exists in the: dockyards on account of the recent discharges, and I was very glad to hear from my right hon. Friend that these discharges will very shortly come to an end. We know that the Admiralty have, to the best of their power, set out to retain in the dockyards the most efficient workers. That has been the object in connection with the discharges, and I think we may say now that we have in the Royal dockyards the most efficient workmen of their class to be found in the world. That ought to do something to maintain the very high standard of efficiency which we know exists in the dockyards, and which I am sure will continue to exist.
    We were told to-night something about the cost of the work of construction in the dockyards and in outside establishments. We have the official figures, and there has been a good deal of discussion in connection with them. My right hon. Friend showed that the cost of construction in the Royal dockyards was very little more than the cost in outside yards. One thing with which you will agree is that all that is made up by the superority of our dockyards. That is a thing which is generally admitted. We were told some time ago that in order to build those super-dreadnoughts it would be necessary to spend something like £900,000 on the two main dockyards. The hon. Member
    2026
    for North Aberdeen (Mr. Rose) gave figures to show that that expenditure was very much over-estimated, and he argued that half that amount was all that would be necessary to put those slips into proper and efficient condition. The Committee will agree that those slips sooner or later will have to be reconstructed so that they may take the biggest ships of the Navy. It is unthinkable that the naval dockyards should not be able to build, as they always have done in our history, the biggest ships in the Navy. My right hon. Friend will answer that that is a question of the cost of the alteration of the slips. I would ask him to give us the latest evidence upon this point, whether the view held by the hon. Member for North Aberdeen is the correct view, or whether he still adheres to the larger figure. We know that the cost of working the dockyards and other places is very much lessened by the fall in the cost of material and labour, and if there is a substantial reduction in the cost of carrying out this essential work everyone will agree that it should be done. In building ships by contract there is sometimes the danger of a combination to keep up prices, but if the Admiralty can in their own dockyards build the biggest kind of ships with the most efficient work, that should be done. I should also be glad if my right hon. Friend will say what are the prospects of the future in reference to these ships.
    Mr. FOOT: The right hon. Gentleman expressed regret at taking so long a time to cover the points which had been raised. No expression of regret was needed, because the facts with which he dealt were of vital interest, and to me, as a comparative newcomer in this House, his speech was packed full of instruction on the very interesting points with which he dealt. But I was in the end disappointed, because for some reason he failed to deal with the matter that was raised by the hon. Member for North Aberdeen (Mr. Rose)—the respective claims of the dockyards and the private yards in the construction of ships, I was glad to hear what the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty had to say about the comparative cost of the private yard and the dockyard, and I think that the figures which he gave were a convincing answer to the cheap criticism made by those who have never

    2027
    troubled to ascertain the facts themselves.
    10.0 P.M.
    The claims of the dockyards have been emphasised in previous speeches tonight, and I do not want to reiterate them, except to urge this upon the right hon. Gentleman, which I have no doubt he has heard almost every week since he occupied his present office—that the dockyard is, after all, a deliberately artificially-created community, and it is a community built up deliberately upon special lines to meet special needs, and because of that it has a special claim upon the Government whose creation it is. Reference was made to-night to Plymouth, as I prefer to call it, by the hon. Member for the Devonport Division of Plymouth (Sir C. Kinloch-Cooke). Plymouth has in itself the most exceptional natural advantages. For more than 100 years, while that community has been growing, those natural advantages have never been capable of development. We have one of the finest harbours in the world. In the ordinary course of things Plymouth would have been a great commercial port, but every step taken, in the way of local enterprise, to develop the commercial interests of Plymouth has been immediately stopped by the Admiralty themselves, who, very rightly, have said that the claim of the nation, as represented by the Admiralty, should be predominant.
    That, as the hon. Member for Central Portsmouth (Sir T. Bramsdon) said just now, is a perfectly proper claim for the Admiralty to have made from time to time. But we are entitled to say, because of those conditions, that the community that has been artificially restricted in its ordinary development has now a special claim upon the nation at this time when the national policy is being considerably changed. I was interested in what was said by the hon. Member for North Aberdeen as to the cost of extending the two slips at Portsmouth and Devonport which was estimated at £900,000. I wish to raise a question which was ruled out of order on a previous occasion, and which has given great anxiety to those of us who are concerned with Plymouth, and that is the making of the slip at Devonport. I put on the Paper the other day a question asking the present esti-
    2028
    mate of the cost of making a slip at Devonport equal to building the biggest ships required by the Navy, or the building of any one of the two new battleships, and the answer given was that no new estimate had been made, but that the estimate arrived at some time since, when one of the super-Hoods was in contemplation, was £350,000, and the right hon. Gentleman said that he thought that that figure need not be considerably altered. It is a smaller ship that is now contemplated and further the cost of labour and material must have decreased considerably since the figures were gone into last.
    I had the honour almost 12 months ago, with the three Members for the borough of Plymouth, and many members of the corporation and those representing various interests in Plymouth, to wait-on the right hon. Gentleman at the Admiralty, and he then informed us that it was the definite policy of the Admiralty to make the Devonport Dockyard equal to all the real needs of the Navy and that it was not intended that Devonport Dockyard, with all its great traditions, and its great capital, should fall into a secondary position, but he told us that at that time it was impossible to spend the money on making one of the slips necessary for building one of the ships contemplated at that time, because it was so urgent to get the ships built at once. That was before the Washington Conference. It was urgency for the ships that made it impossible for him at that time to consider the comparatively small cost of making a new slip there. That argument of urgency no longer has any force. We are told now that we need not contemplate a war for 10 years. At any rate, Washington has effected a complete change in the situation, and while there was point in the argument of urgency then, there is certainly no point in it now. I want to ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether the policy of which he then spoke still holds good, and whether he will have regard to the fact that in Devonport Dockyard, as in other dockyards, there are millions of public money sunk, and that it is a real economy and a far-sighted policy to spend a small sum in order that you may make these many millions available for national purposes. At present they are not available, because the ships cannot be built, but the expenditure of a quarter a million of money, or less,

    2029
    would make the dockyard available for the purpose for which it was constructed. As long as you have no dockyard in which any big ship can be built, you lose all the purpose of your dockyards, and you are practically in the hands of private interests in this country.
    Commander BELLAIRS: Not always. They are also for the purpose of repairing ships.
    Mr. FOOT: I admit that their purpose is largely for repairing. But I do not think the hon. and gallant Member would contend that it is not also very important that the dockyards should build ships. A small expenditure would make the dockyard equal to the meeting of that need. It is a very sad thing that we are having dispersed the workmen at the yards. Take the position of the father and mother in the home. With some difficulty and at some expense, they have educated their boy. They have seen him sit for his examination as a dockyard apprentice and secure his position, and now that the lad has gone through his period of apprenticeship, he is out on the labour market. That has happened in a large number of cases. It means in these homes very real disturbance, loss and disappointment, and, having regard to the fact that these lads at a very important period of their lives are to be dependent on the dole, and for a long time may be out of work, I do not think their dispersal will in the end be any real economy. I suggest that where these national yards exist, it is to the advantage of the nation that they should be given the first chance.
    After conversation with those who have been engaged in the yards, I am able to say that all they are anxious for is that they should have an opportunity of putting their work into comparison with what can be done elsewhere. There has been a piece of work done lately at Devonport which reflects very great credit upon all concerned. The dockyard men do not ask for any favours. They are quite prepared that their work shall be compared with any work done elsewhere. What disturbs them is that, owing to the withholding of the small expense that is needed, they have not an opportunity of doing this work. I do not know that a contract can be given, but an estimate can be obtained, and I think that at Devonport, and no doubt at Portsmouth, the cost will be
    2030
    found to correspond very closely with the estimate. Such an estimate could be put in comparison with any contract obtained elsewhere. At any rate, I ask the Admiralty to give the men whom they have specially trained for this work a fair opportunity of doing the work in competition with others. I trust that some such assurance can be given on this point.
    Mr. AMERY: The Committee will, of course, not expect me to deal more than very briefly with the points raised. The right hon. Member for Peebles (Sir D. Maclean) raised the issue of the capital ship. I have already dealt with it, but I would only add that he has been dealt with most effectively in the speech of the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Wilkie). He and others have expressed their anxiety about the whole dockyard position. As to discharges, I would like to assure them again that we have very nearly reached the minimum figure which we want to get, and that by the end of the month, or not many days after the end of the month, I hope that the reductions will come to an end. We shall then have reached rock bottom, and from that point we may see a beginning of really fruitful and effective activity in the dockyards. On behalf of the Admiralty I welcome the statement made by the hon. Member for North Aberdeen (Mr. Rose), and by the hon. Member for Dundee that the men in the dockyards are willing to make trial to the fullest extent of the system of payment by results. Certainly we sympathise with that point of view, and we believe that the system can be adopted without the danger of a man having any feeling that he is taking wages away from others. I can give an assurance to the workmen that if they do better work individually, they are not in any way taking work away from their fellows.
    The hon. Member for Dundee and the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Foot) have raised the question of enabling the dockyards to compete with people outside. As far as it is possible to do that, I think the Admiralty are sympathetic to the proposal. It is good for the dockyards to be tested in fair competition. If they can compete fairly with outside work, we are only too glad, in view of the responsibility which we feel towards the great dockyard population. When it comes to the question of the two new capital ships, we reach a consideration of a rather different

    2031
    character. It is perfectly true that the cost of enlarging the slips for these two ships would now be somewhat reduced in comparison with the estimates framed some time ago. There has been a fall in the cost of wages. These ships will be somewhat shorter than the four super "Hoods" originally proposed. But they will be just as broad, and it is the breadth that causes the chief difficulty in construction. The reduction in cost will not be very large. There is the question of delay. That operates in two ways. The hon. Member for Bodmin suggested that there was no longer any urgency. He said that we do not contemplate war in the near future. Last year we did not contemplate war in the near future. But we still regard it as urgent that we should not fall below the one-power standard. Apart from that, there is another difficulty in the delay in extending and enlarging these slips which will mean that for a period of something like 21 months, I think, in the case of Devonport, the work of the unskilled men will be holding up the work of skilled men. I cannot at this moment say we are able to put new slips into the Royal Dockyards.
    Mr. FOOT: Can you put one?
    Mr. AMERY: I am afraid we could not put one. I again repeat to the Committee that we cannot go on in the Royal Dockyards indefinitely in the position of being entirely dependent on the private contractor. The hon. Member for Devon-port (Sir C. Kinloch-Cooke) raised the question of ventilation on board ship. I quite agree it is a most important consideration and one to which far more attention is now being given in the construction and design of ships than formerly. I hope it may be possible to ensure such conditions of health on every one of His Majesty's ships as will be satisfactory and consistent with a perfect fighting machine. With regard to the particular case he mentioned of a writer suffering from tuberculosis, we have in the past taken in writers of a somewhat lower physical standard than other ratings, and we are inquiring whether this is altogether a satisfactory policy and whether it may not be wise to raise the standard. The hon. Member for North Portsmouth (Sir B. Falle) raised the question of prize money. He wishes the payment accelerated and the hard cases more
    2032
    promptly dealt with. We are trying to deal with the hard cases ahead of the other cases, and we have (lone something in that respect already, as a great many other hon. Members know. The result of doing so is that we have elicited such a number of hard cases that the existing staff dealing with prize money is at present entirely devoted to hard cases, and the other work is falling behind. There is no other way of getting a more rapid distribution of prize money, except by taking on additional staff at the Admiralty, and that, I know, my hon. Friends opposite would deplore and disapprove of.
    Several hon. Members have asked a question to which I have often had to give a postponing reply, and that is as to the schoolmasters. After long discussion with the Treasury that has now been settled, and I think settled satisfactorily. An Admiralty Order will be issued at the end of the week containing all the details, but the Committee may be interested to know the main, salient points of the new scheme. The new scale for naval schoolmasters is a uniform scale rising from the initial salary of £223 a year by equal annual increments of £9 2s. 6d. to £456 at the end of 25 years. The London Burnham scale for non-graduated teachers rises from £210 to £450 in 20 years. The new naval scale over 30 years, is about 3 per cent. less than the London Burnham scale. It is about 5½ per cent. or nearly 6 per cent. better than the provincial Burnham scale, not taking into account the 5 per cent. reduction now being introduced as contribution towards pension. Taking that into account the new naval scale is at least 2 per cent. better than the London Burnham scale and correspondingly better still than the provincial scale. It is 21½5 per cent. better, taken over 30 years, than the scale in force at the present moment. I reckon that the ultimate addition to the Estimates, for the 205 schoolmasters, will be about £15,000 a year. There was another question which the hon. Member for Portsmouth, and other hon. Members, raised, and that is the position of these officers from the point of view of promotion to commissioned rank. We have secured, there also, a substantial advance, from their point of view, for the period of service for promotion from warrant rank to commissioned rank has been reduced

    2033
    from 20½ years to 15 years, and the rank of Commander, that very coveted distinction, has now been granted, by selection, in conjunction with seniority, to one per cent. of the schoolmasters. Those schoolmasters now serving will reckon their qualifying term of service for full pay, promotion, and retired pay, or retirement gratuity as though they had been entered as schoolmaster candidates on the dates of their original con-
    tinuous service engagements. I think hon. Members who have taken a keen interest in this particular question will welcome this as a solution which, though delayed for some time, has been satisfactorily settled.
    Question put, "That a sum, not exceeding £1,157,700, be granted for the said Service."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 44; Noes, 157.

    Division No. 227.]

    AYES.

    [10.25 p.m.

    Acland, Rt. Hon. Francis D.

    Guest, J. (York, W. R., Hemsworth)

    Newbould, Alfred Ernest

    Ammon, Charles George

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

    Richardson, R. (Houghton le Spring)

    Banton, George

    Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)

    Robertson, John

    Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

    Hayward, Evan

    Rose, Frank H.

    Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)

    Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Widnes)

    Sexton, James

    Barton, Sir William (Oldham)

    Hirst, G. H.

    Swan, J. E.

    Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)

    Irving, Dan

    Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)

    Birchall, J. Dearman

    Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

    Waterson, A. E.

    Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

    Kennedy, Thomas

    Watts-Morgan, Lieut.-Col. D.

    Bromfield, William

    Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.

    Wilson, James (Dudley)

    Carter, W. (Nottingham, Mansfield)

    Lawson, John James

    Wintringham, Margaret

    Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)

    Lunn, William

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

    Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

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

    Edwards, G. (Norfolk, South]

    Malone, C. L. (Leyton, E.)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Galbraith, Samuel

    Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness and Ross)

    Mr. Penry Williams and Mr.

    Gillis, William

    Naylor, Thomas Ellis

    Hogge.

    NOES

    Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte

    Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)

    Lane-Fox, G. R.

    Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M.S.

    Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M.

    Larmor, Sir Joseph

    Armstrong, Henry Bruce

    Falcon, Captain Michael

    Lloyd, George Butler

    Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick W.

    Faile, Major Sir Bertram Godfray

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

    Atkey, A. R.

    Fell, Sir Arthur

    Lowther, Maj.-Gen. Sir C. (Penrith)

    Baird, Sir John Lawrence

    Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.

    Loyd, Arthur Thomas (Abingdon)

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

    FitzRoy, Captain Hon. Edward A.

    Mackinder, Sir H. J. (Camlachie)

    Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.

    Foot, Isaac

    McLaren, Robert (Lanark, Northern)

    Barlow, Sir Montague

    Ford, Patrick Johnston

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

    Barnston, Major Harry

    Forrest, Walter

    Mallalieu, Frederick William

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

    Fraser, Major Sir Keith

    Mason, Robert

    Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.

    Fremantle, Lieut. Colonel Francis E.

    Mitchell, Sir William Lane

    Bennett, Sir Thomas Jewell

    Ganzoni, Sir John

    Molson, Major John Elsdale

    Bird, Sir William B. M. (Chichester)

    Gee. Captain Robert

    Moore, Major-General Sir Newton J.

    Borwick, Major G. O.

    Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham

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

    Bowyer, Captain G. W. E.

    Gilbert, James Daniel

    Moreing, Captain Algernon H.

    Bramsdon, Sir Thomas

    Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel Sir John

    Murray, Hon. Gideon (St. Rollox)

    Breese, Major Charles E.

    Gray, Major Ernest (Accrington)

    Nall, Major Joseph

    Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

    Green, Albert (Derby)

    Neal, Arthur

    Brittain, Sir Harry

    Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)

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

    Brown, Major D. C.

    Grenfell, Edward Charles

    Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)

    Brown, Brig.-Gen. Clifton (Newbury)

    Gretton, Colonel John

    Nicholson, Brig.-Gen. J. (Westminster)

    Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.

    Hallwood, Augustine

    Nicholson, Reginald (Doncaster)

    Burdon, Colonel Rowland

    Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

    Norris, Colonel Sir Henry G.

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

    Harmsworth, C. B. (Bedford, Luton)

    Norton-Griffiths, Lieut.-Col. Sir John

    Cayzer, Major Herbert Robin

    Henderson, Lt.-Col. V. L. (Tradeston)

    Parker, James

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

    Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

    Parry, Lieut.-Colonel Thomas Henry

    Chamberlain, N. (Birm., Ladywood)

    Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank

    Pease, Rt. Hon Herbert Pike

    Churchman, Sir Arthur

    Hills, Major John Waller

    Perkins, Walter Frank

    Clough, Sir Robert

    Hinds, John

    Pollock, Rt. Hon. Sir Ernest Murray

    Coats, Sir Stuart

    Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

    Pratt, John William

    Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

    Houfton, John Plowright

    Purchase, H. G.

    Conway, Sir W. Martin

    Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer

    Raw, Lieutenant-Colonel Dr. N.

    Coote, Colin Reith (Isle of Ely)

    Inskip, Thomas Walker H.

    Remer, J. H.

    Cory, Sir J. H. (Cardiff, South)

    James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon, Cuthbert

    Richardson, Sir Alex. (Gravesend)

    Cowan, Sir H. (Aberdeen and Kinc.)

    Jephcott, A. R.

    Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)

    Curzon, Captain Viscount

    Jodrell, Neville Paul

    Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)

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

    Jones, Sir Evan (Pembroke)

    Rodger, A. K.

    Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.

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

    Roundell, Colonel R. F.

    Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert Arthur

    Davies, Sir William H. (Bristol, S.)

    Kellaway, Rt. Hon. Fredk. George

    Shaw, William T. (Forfar)

    Dawson, Sir Philip

    Kenyon, Barnet

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

    Dewhurst, Lieut.-Commander Harry

    Kidd, James

    Smith, Sir Allan M. (Croydon, South)

    Doyle, N. Grattan

    King, Captain Henry Douglas

    Smith, Sir Harold (Warrington)

    Edge, Captain Sir William

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Stanley, Major Hon. G. (Preston)

    Steel, Major S. Strang

    Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

    Windsor, Viscount

    Stephenson, Lieut-Colonel H. K.

    Thomson, Sir W. Mitcheil- (Maryhill)

    Wise, Frederick

    Sturrock, J. Long

    Townley, Maximilian G.

    Wood, Hon. Edward F. L. (Ripon)

    Sugden, W. H.

    Wallace, J.

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

    Sutherland, Sir William

    Walters, Rt. Hon. Sir John Tudor

    Taylor, J.

    Weston, Colonel John Wakefield

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES —

    Terrell, Captain R. (Oxford, Henley)

    Wilkle, Alexander

    Colonel Leslie Wilson and Mr.

    Thomas, Brig.-Gen. Sir O. (Anglesey)

    Williams, C. (Tavistock)

    Dudley Ward.

    Thomas, Sir Robert J. (Wrexham)

    Wilson, Col. M. J. (Richmond)

    Original Question put, and agreed to.

    Original Question again proposed.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Before we leave this Vote I want to raise one point that I called attention to earlier, but I also make no apology for raising the question again, as it affects every serving officer and man of the Fleets. I refer to the matter which I think I am right in saying has caused a good deal of comment and distress amongst the men, and that is the question of travelling facilities for men going on leave. Take the case of an able seaman receiving 4s. per day. He is serving in the Fleet and gets three times a year long leave. His home, say, is in Glasgow and his ship is stationed at Devonport. If that man spends only 1s. per day on his food, recreation, and so on, and if he saves the other 3s., the railway fare to take him on leave from his ship at Devonport to his home in Glasgow—to put it no further away—eats up half that pay. Before the War a concession was given by arrangement with the railway companies by which officers and men could go the double journey for the single fare. That was a privilege they very much appreciated. In those days their pay was smaller, but railway fares were less—
    The CHAIRMAN (Mr. James Hope): That is a matter which seems to me to be outside our purview at the present moment. In the days of control of the railways, the hon. Member might have raised the point here, but I do not think he can now raise it.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I think I can explain the position. The Admiralty, I think, recently made a contribution to the railway company. In any case, the privilege was in force before the War, when we had no control; also, as I shall presently show, the Admiralty can help men in this respect in a very practical way. I understand that the question of policy has been raised. These are the days of economy, and the case against may be that this privilege has been withdrawn on the suggestion of the Geddes Committee. But the Geddes
    2036
    Committee are wrong when they say in their Report—on one of the few occasions when they are inaccurate—that this privilege did not exist before the War. It did, and it was very much needed then, and is now?
    I believe a proposal was mooted, which was only stopped by the Admiralty, the object of which—there was a contributory scheme for the officers and men of the Fleets—to pay a certain amount of their pay every month, in return for which they would get either reduced railway travelling or—it was suggested—free travelling altogether. I believe I am right in saying that the Admiralty, for some reason or another, objected, although the railway companies were agreed, and the great body of the men and officers were agreed, to the scheme, which did not come to pass. I should like to know whether the Admiralty have of late considered some contributory scheme; whether they have discussed it with the welfare committees of the lower deck; whether they have discussed the idea with the officers, whose opinions they can easily get at; and whether they have discussed the matter with the railway companies. The men who live at a distance from their home ports are at the present time penalised very severely by the expenses of railway travelling. This is a class of the community which I believe is hit most hard of all by the high cost of railway travelling, and if the Admiralty can do something to help them it is their duty to do so. My suggestion is that the idea of a contributory scheme should be explored, and if the Admiralty can see their way to give some small grant-in-aid, I do not think the country would begrudge that to the Navy after all that has happened in recent years. In any case the complaint of men and officers is very real indeed to-day, and I hope that the Admiralty will bear this matter in mind and explore all means of relieving those concerned.
    Viscount CURZON: I would like to support the point which the last speaker has raised. It is a question which presses

    2037
    very hardly in the case of the men whose ships are sent to Rosyth and whose homes are in Devonport or Portsmouth. These men are faced with the difficulty of getting back to their homes, and I think the Admiralty ought to take up the suggestion made by the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull, and see whether some kind of contributory scheme cannot be instituted for ships refitting at Rosyth. It is a fact that more work is being done at Rosyth than was done there before the War. Previously, prior to the War, an arrangement was made to allow these men reduced travelling facilities, but this privilege has now-been withdrawn, and it has created a great feeling of resentment amongst the men. If the Admiralty will only give a helping hand in this matter it will do a great deal of good.
    Another question I wish to raise is that of the lieut.-commanders whose promotion should have taken place on the 1st January, and has been delayed. If the Committee will bear with me, I will just explain exactly what happens. On the 1st January every year promotions are made, and this year the Admiralty propose to promote a certain number of lieut. commanders to commander rank. The Treasury stepped in and said they considered the list was already too large and that the number of suggested promotions should be reduced. The Admiralty had a long discussion over this matter, and finally, as a result, no promotions from the rank of lieut.-commander to commander were made in January. Finally the requisite number of promotions were made on the 31st March and dated back to the 1st January.
    Of the officers who were promoted, some were granted back pay from the 1st January to the 31st March, but to others the back pay has been reduced. There is an Admiralty instruction to the effect that an officer does not get back pay when dated back unless they are reappointed. Some of these officers were reappointed and some were not, but my submission is that it is extremely unfair to differentiate between these officers, and there can be no ground for refusing the back pay to which they are entitled. It was never the intention of the House or the country that these officers should have suffered as they have done, because it was through no fault of their own.
    2038
    Their promotion was delayed owing to a quarrel between the Treasury and the Admiralty, and I submit that the Admiralty should see to it that these officers do not suffer in consequence of the difference of opinion between the two Departments. It seems grossly unfair because the officers themselves do not understand why you should differentiate between one officer and another for no reason except that you have reappointed them in some cases and in others you have not. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will bring this case very strongly to the notice of the Treasury and I trust the right hon. Gentleman will be able to give some further explanation before we pass from this Vote.
    Mr. AMERY: My Noble and gallant Friend the Member for South Batter-sea (Viscount Curzon) will be glad to hear that the technical difficulties which stood in the way of paying these officers full commander's pay, have been overcome, and they will receive their commander's pay as from 31st December last. As regards the point raised by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Ken-worthy), I would remind him that these railway concessions before the War were given, not by the Government, but by the railway companies as a matter both of business and of sentiment. When the railways came under Government control, it was decided that the concessions should figure on the Admiralty Vote, and not on the Railway Vote. Now, however, through the action of the Geddes Committee, the concession has been withdrawn from the Admiralty Vote, and it is left with the railway companies to restore it. So far they have declined to revive it, but we have by no means abandoned the hope we may induce them to do so. We are still pressing them. Meanwhile, Commanders-in-Chief in the Home ports have been able to arrange certain concessions locally with the railway authorities. The London and South Western, the Great Western and the London, Brighton and South Coast Companies are giving return week-end tickets at 1⅓ single fares. The South Eastern and Chatham are also issuing week-end tickets at 1$ single fares on their own line and cheap period return fares over their system. But the Northern lines have not felt, so far, disposed to grant any concessions as regards the harder case of the men who have leave

    2039
    from Rosyth, with the exception of cheap return tickets to Edinburgh and some local stations. But we do not regard the matter as finally settled, and we are continuing communications. In view of that, I do not think we need, at the moment, consider the other suggestion of a contributory scheme as we still have hopes the railway companies may meet us in the matter.
    Lieut.-Colonel NALL: I think the right hon. Gentleman has been misinformed about the week-end tickets. It is easy for any one to get a week-end return ticket at single fare and a quarter. Does the right hon. Gentleman mean that the cheap tickets are issued at any time in the week? That would be a real concession, and not merely one which is available to any civilian on any railway in the country. Will the right hon. Gentleman look into the matter from that point of view?

    VICTUALLING AND CLOTHING FOR THE NAVY.
    Resolved,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £14,650,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Victualling and Clothing for the Navy, including the cost of Victualling Establishments at Home and Abroad, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1923, in addition to a sum of £1,050,000 to he allocated for this purpose from the sum of £12,000,000 voted on account of Navy Services generally."

    NAVAL ARMAMENTS.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £4,126,500, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Naval Armaments, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1923, in addition to a sum of £938,000 to be allocated for this purpose from the sum of £12,000,000 voted on account of Navy Services generally."
    Sir D. MACLEAN: I beg to move,
    "That Sub-head G [Projectiles and Ammunition] be reduced by £10,000."
    This Vote is for Naval armaments, and on Subhead G—Projectiles and Ammunition—I desire to refer to the comments of the Geddes Committee. It will be observed that the Item is for no less a sum than £1,255,800. That, of course, is a reduction as compared with last year, but, even as it stands, it is subject to
    2040
    this comment, which the Geddes Committee made:
    "As regards projectiles and ammunition, estimated to cost £1,800,000, the largest item is for the manufacture of shell for the larger guns of capital ships. The expenditure under this head alone accounts for some £800,000. It is admitted that of this type of shell the ships already hold one complete 'outfit' on board, and there is half an 'outfit' ashore. This means that half an 'outfit' is still required to complete the authorised reserve. The Admiralty propose practically to complete this reserve during the coming financial year, but having regard to the existing stick of this particular ammunition we are of opinion that the completion of the full establishment could be spread over a longer period."
    Then they make a comment on what happened during the War. They say:
    "We are informed that in the four years of the War the Navy fired only half an outfit out of the three outfits which were then authorised. At this rate of expenditure the two and a half outfits which remain are equivalent to 20 years' consumption on the basis of the late War, and yet it is proposed to spend close on £2,000,000 on ammunition alone."
    I want to know what explanation there can be on the grounds of economy or of the necessary protection of the country. There cannot be any fresh grant of ammunition for the new classes of guns, except, I suppose, on the "Hood," and therefore it leaves the subject very much open to comment, and requiring an explanation, when such a clear-cut and definite statement and recommendation as that is made.
    Viscount CURZON: I am not sure whether the right hon. Gentleman who has moved this reduction really appreciates the extreme importance of this matter. He has asked why there is an increase on this Vote, and I should like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether it is not a fact that a good deal of the increase may be accounted for by the necessity for getting ahead with the ammunition for the new ships that are to be laid down? They are equipped with 16-inch guns, as against 15-inch guns.
    Sir D. MACLEAN: They have two years.
    Viscount CURZON: Yes, but I hope the shells provided for the Fleet now are a great improvement on the type that we had before, with the new explosive and so on. I do not know whether the Geddes Committee really took all these facts into consideration. I hope the Parliamentary

    2041
    Secretary will be able to say, in replying to the criticisms which have been advanced by the right hon. Gentleman, whether the Geddes Committee had before them, when they made their recommendation, the necessity of changing practically the entire big-gun ammunition of the Fleet in order to provide for the new pattern shell, filled with the new type of explosive now supplied to the Fleet as a whole. I think a full statement on that point might clear up a certain amount of the opposition to this Vote.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I am sure the Parliamentary Secretary will be glad of another moment to look at his notes, and I might also ask him a question as well. Would it not have been better to economise a little on ammunition for the next two years—and this is in reply to my Noble Friend also—because the last word in projectiles has not been said at all? If hon. Members will look at this item, they will notice that no loss a sum than £13,000 odd is asked for for experimental purposes. The recent improvements in projectiles and explosives have been very great indeed, and we are still on the curve of fresh research and discovery in regard to ammunition. That being the case, of course, we ought to hold our hands and not expend great amounts on ammunition for these new ships. We have plenty of ammunition to go on with, even plenty of 16-inch ammunition—
    Viscount CURZON: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman say on what ships 16-inch guns are mounted?
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: In any case, we have plenty of ammunition for the four ships projected and started last year, the building of which was stopped. I think there is a case for holding our hands here. The same thing applies to the whole of the new construction on which the Admiralty are embarking, at the beginning instead of the end of the eight years' naval holiday that Washington provided.
    Mr. AMERY: The right hon. Member for Peebles (Sir D. Maclean) complained of the very small reduction of this Vote. At first sight it seems to be a reduction of a mere £600 on a vote of £1,900,000. A reduction of something like 35 per cent. is not in itself an inconsiderable reduction
    2042
    unless you assume that last year's Vote was grossly and hopelessly extravagant.
    Sir D. MACLEAN: So it was.
    Mr. AMERY: I think I can explain the matter in very few words. The right hon. Gentleman said it had been pointed out by the Geddes Committee that in four years of the Great War we had only consumed half the ammunition. What happened was that during the four years there was only one large fleet engagement and that was not very prolonged. It might very easily happen in another war that more ammunition might be fired in the first fortnight than was the case in those four years. With regard to the point put by the Noble Lord the Member for South Battersea (Viscount Curzon), it is quite true that as the result of experience we had constructed an entirely different type of shell and we are slowly beginning to build up that new type, but the provision of that new type accounts for only a comparatively small portion of this Vote. The Vote this year is £1,250,000.
    The normal practice consumption of the Navy costs £1,250,000. It may seen a very large figure, but practice is absolutely essential to success in battle. One successful broadside may sink an enemy ship and turn the whole scale of a battle. Nobody with any knowledge of the subject would venture to suggest that you should cut down the practice firing of the Navy. How can we keep within £1,250,000, not only for practice firing, but for gradual provision for the rearmament of the whole fleet with two outfits of new shells and the provision of £421,000 for the ammunition of the 16-inch guns, and the two new capital ships? We are only enabled to do so by, as the hon. and gallant Member for Hull suggested, using up old stocks of ammunition, and not spending more than £350,000 at the outside in new expenditure upon shells for practice firing, but drawing the greater part of our shells from existing stores.
    Captain BENN: Were these facts, which the right hon. Gentleman has just brought before the Committee, in justification for a figure in excess of what the Geddes Committee recommended, brought to the notice of the Geddes Committee?
    Mr. AMERY: They were all brought to the notice of the Cabinet, who finally decided upon them.
    Captain W. BENN: Then we have the Geddes Committee set up with a great fanfare of trumpets to cut down the expenses of the country. Certain facts were presented to the Committee, which was presided over by an ex-First Lord of the Admiralty. The Committee recommended
    Resolutions to be reported To-morrow.
    a reduction, and the Government does not carry it out. That being so, I shall vote with confidence for the reduction.
    Question put, "That Sub-head G be reduced by £10,000."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 43; Noes, 144.

    Division No. 228.]

    AYES.

    [10.58 p.m.

    Acland, Rt. Hon. Francis D.

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

    Roberts, Frederick O. (W. Bromwich)

    Banton, George

    Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)

    Robertson, John

    Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)

    Hayward, Evan

    Rose, Frank H.

    Barton, Sir William (Oldham)

    Hirst, G. H.

    Sexton, James

    Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)

    Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

    Swan, J. E.

    Birchall, J. Dearman

    Kennedy, Thomas

    Thomas, Brig,-Gen. Sir O. (Anglesey)

    Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

    Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.

    Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)

    Bromfield, William

    Lawson, John James

    Waterson, A. E.

    Carter, W. (Nottingham, Mansfield)

    Lunn, William

    Watts-Morgan. Lieut.-Col. D.

    Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)

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

    Wilson. James (Dudley)

    Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Wintringham, Margaret

    Edwards, G. (Norfolk, South)

    Malone, C. L. (Leyton, E.)

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

    Galbraith, Samuel

    Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness & Ross)

    Gillis. William

    Naylor, Thomas Ellis

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Guest, J. (York, W. R., Hemsworth)

    Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

    Mr. Penry Williams and Mr. Hogge.

    NOES.

    Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte

    Gee, Captain Robert

    Moreing, Captain Algernon H.

    Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.

    Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham

    Nall, Major Joseph

    Armstrong, Henry Bruce

    Gilbert, James Daniel

    Neal, Arthur

    Atkey, A. R.

    Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel Sir John

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

    Baird, Sir John Lawrence

    Gray, Major Ernest (Accrington)

    Newton. Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

    Green, Albert (Derby)

    Nicholson, Brig.-Gen. J. (Westminster)

    Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.

    Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)

    Nicholson, Reginald (Doncaster)

    Barlow, Sir Montague

    Grenfell, Edward Charles

    Norris, Colonel Sir Henry G.

    Barnston, Major Harry

    Gretton, Colonel John

    Norton-Griffiths, Lieut.-Col. Sir John

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

    Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. Frederick E.

    Parker, James

    Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.

    Hallwood, Augustine

    Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike

    Bennett, Sir Thomas Jewell

    Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

    Pollock, Rt. Hon. Sir Ernest Murray

    Bird, Sir William B. M. (Chichester)

    Harmsworth, C. B. (Bedford, Luton)

    Pratt, John William

    Borwick, Major G. O.

    Henderson, Lt.-Col. V. L. (Tradeston)

    Pretyman, Rt. Hon. Ernest G.

    Bowyer, Captain G. W. E.

    Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

    Purchase, H. G.

    Bramsdon, Sir Thomas

    Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank

    Raw, Lieutenant-Colonel Dr. N.

    Breese, Major Charles E.

    Hills, Major John Waller

    Remer, J. R.

    Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

    Hinds, John

    Richardson, Sir Alex. (Gravesend)

    Brittain, Sir Harry

    Hood, Sir Joseph

    Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)

    Brown, Major D. C.

    Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

    Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)

    Brown, Brig.-Gen. Clifton (Newbury)

    Houfton, John Plowright

    Roundell, Colonel R. F.

    Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.

    Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Ayimer

    Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert Arthur

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

    Inskip, Thomas Walker H.

    Shaw, William T. (Forfar)

    Chamberlain, N. (Birm., Ladywood)

    James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert

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

    Churchman, Sir Arthur

    Jephcott, A. R.

    Smith, Sir Allan M. (Croydon, South)

    Clough, Sir Robert

    Jodrell, Neville Paul

    Smith, Sir Harold (Warrington)

    Coats, Sir Stuart

    Jones, Sir Evan (Pembroke)

    Stanley, Major Hon. G. (Preston)

    Colfox, Major Wm- Phillips

    Jones. Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Stephenson, Lieut.-Colonel H. K.

    Conway, Sir W. Martin

    Kellaway, Rt. Hon. Fredk. George

    Sturrock, J. Leng

    Coote, Colin Reith (Isle of Ely)

    Kidd, James

    Sugden, W. H.

    Cory, Sir J. H. (Cardiff, South)

    King, Captain Henry Douglas

    Sutherland, Sir William

    Cowan, Sir H. (Aberdeen and Kinc.)

    Lane-Fox, G. R.

    Taylor, J.

    Curzon, Captain Viscount

    Larmor, Sir Joseph

    Thomas, Sir Robert J. (Wrexham)

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

    Lloyd. George Butler

    Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

    Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)

    Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)

    Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (Maryhill)

    Dawson, Sir Philip

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

    Townley, Maximilian G.

    Dewhurst, Lieut.-Commander Harry

    Lowther, Maj.-Gen. Sir C. (Penrith)

    Tryon, Major George Clement

    Doyle, N. Grattan

    Loyd, Arthur Thomas (Abingdon)

    Wallace, J.

    Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)

    Mackinder, Sir H. J. (Camlachie)

    Walters, Rt. Hon. Sir John Tudor

    Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M.

    McLaren, Robert (Lanark, Northern)

    Waring, Major Walter

    Falcon, Captain Michael

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

    Weston, Colonel John Wakefield

    Falie, Major Sir Bertram Godfray

    Mallalieu, Frederick William

    Windsor, Viscount

    Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.

    Mason, Robert

    Wise, Frederick

    FitzRoy, Captain Hon. Edward A.

    Meysey-Thompson, Lieut.-Col. E. C.

    Wood. Hon. Edward F. L. (Ripon)

    Foot, Isaac

    Mitchell, Sir William Lane

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

    Ford, Patrick Johnston

    Molson, Major John Elsdale

    Forrest, Walter

    Moore, Major-General Sir Newton J.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Fraser, Major Sir Keith

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

    Colonel Leslie Wilson and Mr

    Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

    Morden, Col. W. Grant

    Dudley Ward.

    Ganzoni, Sir John

    Original Question put, and agreed to.

    Committee to sit again To-morrow.

SALE OF TEA BILL
Order for consideration of Lords Amendment read.
Motion made, and Question, "That the Lords Amendment be now considered," put, and agreed to.—[Sir W. Mitchell-Thomson.]
Lords Amendment considered accordingly.

SALE OF TEA BILL

  CLAUSE 6.—(Short title and application.)
  (1) This Act may be cited as the Sale of Tea Act, 1922.
  (2) This Act shall not apply to Ireland.
  Lords Amendment: At the end of the Clause insert a new Sub-section:
  "(3) This Act shall come into operation on the first day of September, nineteen hundred and twenty-two."
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Sir W. Mitchell-Thomson): I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
  This Amendment was inserted in another place because it was felt desirable to give a little more time to those engaged in the trade to make preparations for enabling the Order to be worked as it should be done under the Bill. There is also an administrative advantage, as the existing Order is up to the 31st August, and it is therefore convenient that the new Bill should come into operation on the 1st September.
  Question put, and agreed to.

  EASTGATE BAPTIST CHAPEL AND PROCEEDS OF SALE OF CONGRE-GATIONAL CHAPEL (LOUTH) CHARITIES BILL.
  Read a Second time.
  Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for To-morrow.—[Mr. Lane-Fox.]

  EMPIRE COTTON GROWING CORPORATION BILL.
  Read a Second time.
  Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for To-morrow.—[Lieut.-Colonel Null.]

  HONOURS LISTS.
  Order read for resuming Adjourned Debate on Amendment to Question [17th July],
  "That it is expedient that a Select Committee of seven Members of this House be appointed to join with a Committee of the Lords to consider the present methods of submitting names of persons for honours for the consideration of His Majesty, and to report what changes, if any, are desirable in order to secure that such honours shall only be given as a reward for public service."—[Mr. Godfrey Locker-Lampson.]
  Which Amendment was to leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof the words:
  "An humble Address be presented to His Majesty praying His Majesty that he will he graciously pleased to appoint a Royal Commission to consider and advise on the procedure to be adopted in future to assist the Prime Minister in making recommendations to His Majesty of the names of persons deserving of special honour, and to assure His Majesty that this House will concur in empowering such Commission to take evidence on oath, to compel attendance of witnesses, to grant certificates of indemnity to witnesses in such cases as may be desirable and proper, and to call for all necessary-records and documents."—[Mr. Marriott.]
  Objection taken.
  Mr. SPEAKER: Debate to be resumed what day?
  HON. MEMBERS: To-morrow!
  Mr. SPEAKER: No instruction.
  Captain W. BENN: I seconded an Amendment to the original Motion. Does that qualify me to ask that it should be taken to-morrow?
  Mr. SPEAKER: I am afraid not. That is for the Proposer of the Motion.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Can we not ask for time to debate it?
  Mr. SPEAKER: Only the hon. Member in charge of the Resolution is entitled to name a day.
  The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

  ADJOURNMENT.
  Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Colonel Leslie Wilson.]
  Adjourned accordingly at Ten Minutes after Eleven o'Clock.

BRITISH ARMY.
  EDUCATIONAL ESTABUISHMENTS.
  EDUCATIONAL ESTABUISHMENTS.
  ROYAL GARRISON ARTILLERY (PROMOTION).
  ROYAL GARRISON ARTILLERY (PROMOTION).
  AIR MINISTRY (TEMPORARY TECHNICAL OFFICERS).
  AIR MINISTRY (TEMPORARY TECHNICAL OFFICERS).
  SHORT AEROPLANE (TESTS).
  SHORT AEROPLANE (TESTS).
  SMOKE ABATEMENT BILL.
  SMOKE ABATEMENT BILL.
UNEMPLOYMENT.
  SINGLE PERSONS (BENEFIT).
  SINGLE PERSONS (BENEFIT).
  LECKHAMPTON QUARRIES, LIMITED.
  LECKHAMPTON QUARRIES, LIMITED.
  IMPORTED CATTLE AND MEAT (TRANSPORT).
  IMPORTED CATTLE AND MEAT (TRANSPORT).
  FOREIGN HONOURS (BRITISH OFFICERS).
  FOREIGN HONOURS (BRITISH OFFICERS).
  COCAINE.
  COCAINE.
  LICENSING STATISTICS.
  LICENSING STATISTICS.
TRANSPORT.
  LONDON TRAFFIC (RULES).
  LONDON TRAFFIC (RULES).
  LONDON UNDERGROUND RAILWAYS (FARES).
  LONDON UNDERGROUND RAILWAYS (FARES).
  RETRENCHED OFFICIALS, PALESTINE (COMPENSATION).
  RETRENCHED OFFICIALS, PALESTINE (COMPENSATION).
  BOXER INDEMNITY.
  BOXER INDEMNITY.
  IRISH FREE STATE (CITIZENSHIP).
  IRISH FREE STATE (CITIZENSHIP).
Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
PORT OF LONDON AND MIDLAND RAILWAY BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
RIVER CAM CONSERVANCY BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

PERSONAL STATEMENT BY LORD FORRES.
LORD FORRES: My Lords, I crave the indulgence of your Lordships to make a personal statement regarding the grave allegations made in another place last evening. I think I am entitled in the first place to complain that these allegations were made without notice either to me or to my partner, Sir Robert Balfour, who was in the House of Commons during the afternoon. I also was in the precincts of this House and the Lobby of the House of Commons until about 7 o'clock, so that there could have been no difficulty in communicating with either of us. The allegations refer to events of five or seven years ago. I may say at once that the statements made are misleading and untrue. Some are of an indefinite nature, but three are specific, and with these I propose to deal as shortly as I can.
My firm were pioneers in the oil fuel business on the west coast of South America, where they acted as agents for the Standard Oil Co. and its subsidiaries. As to Buenos Aires, we have not even a house or any business there. On the outbreak of war they had numerous contracts extending for three or five year periods for the supply of fuel oil for nitrate works and railways. Amongst these were two with important German companies. These were made in Chile, and were expressly declared to be subject to the jurisdiction of the Chilian Courts. In 1915 we

517
approached the Government, informing them fully of the position, pointing out at the same time that quite a large section of the trading community in Chile were German or half-German, and that in a neutral country we would have to implement our contracts. We asked for approval of our continuing to deliver oil to these German nitrate companies, and pointed out that if we did not do so we should be subject to claims for damages, and that American concerns, who at that time were not in the war, could deliver direct.
In June, 1915, we received 6, letter in the following terms:—
"Office of the Parliamentary Counsel,
Whitehall.
22nd June, 1915.
"Dear Sir Archibald Williamson,
"Further in reply to your letter of 17th June no objection will be taken under the Acts and Proclamations relating to trading with the enemy to the fulfilment by the firm of Williamson, Balfour & Co. of Valparaiso, of a contract for the sale of Californian fuel oil to be consumed in Chile to representatives in that country of a Gorman nitrate company or to the negotiation of a new contract for the delivery of such oil over a period of three or five years.
"Yours sincerely,
"(Signed) ARTHUR T. THRING."
At a later date under the Trading with the Enemy (Extension of Powers) Act, 1915, a system of licences was introduced for the purpose of permitting transactions in neutral countries, and the Foreign Trade Department was set up at Lancaster House.
We thereupon again approached the Government, informing them of the circumstances, and applied for the necessary licence. On 15th July, 1916, we received a letter written under the instructions of Sir Edward Grey, and signed by Sir Laming Worthington-Evans, authorising us until further notice "to act as agents to transact the business of the supply of oil to any person or body of persons whose name is or may hereafter be on the; Statutory List for Chile, Peru, Bolivia or Ecuador, so long as the transactions with such persons or body of persons are in the ordinary course of business and do not include the supply of oil for shipment abroad."
In 1917, America having come into the war, the attitude of the Government changed, and further delivery of oil to the Germans was stopped by us on instructions from the British Government. We had previously had several interviews with
518
Sir Ernest Pollock, who succeeded Sir Laming Worthington-Evans as Controller of the Foreign Trade Department. No step was taken throughout without the cognisance of His Majesty's Government. As was foreseen, when the deliveries ceased the German companies entered a lawsuit against my firm and their principals for non-fulfilment of the contract, claiming a very large sum by way of damages. They took steps in addition to embargo the oil in tanks at the ports, so that supplies were not available for other consumers as well as themselves.
It is stated that pressure was brought to bear upon the Chilian Government by the United States and British Governments, but of that I have no knowledge. All I do know is that the embargo was raised and deliveries were continued to other consumers than the Germans referred to. It is absolutely untrue that the embargo was in any way concurred in by my firm or by the Standard Oil Company, and the idea that we desired to stop the manufacture of a commodity so vital for explosives is too fantastic to require; refutation. As a matter of fact, the nitrate which had been made by the German companies was, I believe, all bought by America and used for the manufacture of explosives for the Allies.
The defence of the action was entrusted to two of the ablest lawyers in Chile, and was conducted in consultation with, and with the assistance of, the late Mr. Hanna. an eminent lawyer and ex-Minister at Ottawa, and Sir Francis Stronge, the British Minister in Santiago. The case, was not settled when the war ended, but has since been compromised at considerable cost, which course, I may say, was strongly recommended by Sir Maurice de Bunsen on his visit with the British Trade Mission to South America.
Thus with regard to the two points— first, the contracts referred to, so far as they were carried out, were implemented with the full knowledge of the British Government at every stage; second, with regard to the defence of the action brought against us, it is absolutely untrue to state that it was not defended with the utmost vigour and with the best legal skill obtainable. There remains only the third point, that I personally had written to my firm in Chile "saying that it was quite unnecessary for them to pay too much attention to the Government Regulations

519
against, trading with the enemy, as he was in a position to see that they did not get into trouble." This statement is absolutely untrue.
As regards the attitude of our firm abroad, they wrote us—
"Not only have we tried to comply with the Regulations, but have done much on our own initiative to render enemy business impossible, and in this way gone far beyond the mere compliance with the letter of the law. We recall the fact, for instance, that we were the first firm of importance here to shut our doors to German brokers, which we did early in the war. It was we who spontaneously devised and adopted the Jute Guarantee Clause, stipulating that the goods sold should not be resold by our buyers to enemy buyers …
"You can have no idea on your side of the vigilance we have to exercise throughout all our offices to prevent goods reaching enemy hands, and to avoid being taken in by their many subterfuges in their efforts to obtain them. It is a constant anxiety to us. This anxiety is not diminished by the fact that while we have been urged by the authorities and have done our best to capture German trade, on the other hand the number of reliable men on our staff has grown less as they have gone home to fight."
After the enactment of the Statutory Lists, a small Inter-Allied Commercial Committee was formed in Valparaiso, whose efforts were primarily directed to crippling German trade, and to the unmasking of the numerous men of straw who were acting as cloaks for firms of enemy origin and sympathy. One of my partners was an active member of this Committee. The same partner later became Chairman of the British Committee of Information which was established in Chile, to conduct British propaganda, before the Ministry of Information came into being. Help and information was constantly given both to the Legation and the various Consulates in Chile.
I think I am entitled to complain of the reckless nature of these charges, which reflect, not only upon me and upon my partners, but upon the good name of British commerce generally. It is also despicable that they should be brought forward in connection with my becoming a member of your Lordships' House. Four years ago I was offered and declined the honour of a Peerage, and at that time was made a member of His Majesty's Privy Council. It is obviously incredible that my name would have been submitted to His Majesty at all if there was any foundation for these wild allegations and outrageous insinuations.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT BIRKENHEAD): My Lords, I think all your Lordships must appreciate how difficult and, indeed, impossible it is for this House, constituted as we are, to form or express an opinion upon charges of this kind, but all of us, I think, must feel deep regret that the first speech addressed by the noble Lord to your Lordships should have necessarily been a speech of this kind and on such a topic. There is very great difficulty and danger in making charges of the most wounding character in circumstances which invest the member who makes those charges with privilege, which places him, in other words, in this position, that whether that which he says is true or false, whether it be said with an honest desire to assist the deliberations of Parliament or whether it be said through faction or spleen, he is absolutely privileged.
The charges in this case were made against the noble Lord who has just spoken. He has told your Lordships, though I apprehend he was not anxious to make the statement, that so long as four years ago he was offered the honour of a seat in this House. I may carry the matter further. The noble Lord entered Parliament in the year 1906, the same year in which I entered the House of Commons, and it is within my knowledge that thirteen years ago he was offered the Chairmanship of the Port of London Authority with a seat in this House. I will add this, that there was no one then in the House of Commons who was in a position to render greater public service by his commercial position and reputation than the noble Lord had he seen his way to accept that honour.
The charge that has been made against him is one which cannot be misunderstood. It is pointless to object, in relation to the acceptance of an honour, that the noble. Lord was trading with the enemy, unless you mean that he was trading with the enemy in circumstances which were improper and discreditable and which make him a traitor. If it. be the fact, as I gather from what the noble Lord has said, that at every stage in those transactions he invited guidance from those people in the Government to whom the decision of these delicate matters was committed, and received guidance and advice under which he consistently acted, he has been cruelly wronged by a charge of this kind being made without notice to himself or to his partner, who is a member of the House of

521
Commons and who might have dealt with the charges if he had known they were to be brought forward.
The course open to Mr. McNeill is a simple one. No man who claims the position and privileges of a member of this House or the other House can afford to make a statement of this kind deeply reflecting upon the honour of a member of another House, unless, if that statement is impeached, he is prepared to make the statement in public in circumstances which are not privileged. I hope that course will be adopted.

HAMPSHIRE RIVER FISHERIES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (THE EARL OF CRAWFORD): My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend the Earl of ANCASTER, I beg to make the Motion standing in his name.
Moved, That the Order made on the 4th day of May last, "That no Provisional Order Confirmation Bill brought from the House of Commons shall be read a second time after Thursday the 15th day of June, next," be dispensed with, and that the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Crawford.)
On Question, Motion agreed to: Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed.

BREAD ACTS (AMENDMENT) BILL.
Read 3a (according to Older), and passed.
ECCLESIASTICAL TITHE RENT CHARGES (RATES) BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments (according to Order), and passed, and returned to the Commons.

FINANCE BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Crawford.)
On Question, Bill read 2a: Committee negatived.

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE (No. 2) RILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE EARL OF CLARENDON: My Lords, this is a Bill to deal with the gaps in the uncovenanted or free benefits under the Act which was passed last April. It has been thought necessary to modify the terms of that Act on account of urgent representations which have been made by boards of guardians in the hard hit areas. Happily, however, the change which is proposed does not involve a demand for any increased contributions from any of the three parties contributing to this fund; that is to say, the employers, employed and the State; nor does it seek for increased borrowing powers on the part of the Minister.
I do not propose; this afternoon to weary your Lordships with figures dealing with the cost of unemployment in this country during the last, few years. It will be sufficient for my purpose, I think, if I call your Lordships' attention to the fact that, in January of this year, there were registered as totally unemployed approximately 1,900,000'persons, and 300,000 person's were registered as doing only part-time work. The situation has very materially improved to-day, for we have slightly under 1,400,000 persons registered as totally unemployed at this time, and slightly under 100,000 registered as doing only part-time work. For the purpose of the recent Insurance Act, some forecast had to be made as to the cost of unemployment up to the, end of July, 1923. The assumption was that it might, by the end of June this year, fall to about 1,500,000, and remain at that figure for the next twelve months, but, as I have already indicated, things are better at the present moment.
Now let me turn to the Act of last April. Your Lordships will recollect that, under that Act, the Minister was empowered to borrow a sum of £30,000,000. His borrowing powers were increased from £20,000,000 to that figure. Up to date he has, as a matter of fact, borrowed a sum of £15,000,000. It was found that, with the provisions contained in this Act, thirty-seven weeks' benefit could be granted from last April up to the end of June, 1923, but it was thought prudent, in view of the fact that unemployment is likely to be more severe during the winter months,

523
to reserve twenty-two weeks for this winter and the early spring, thus leaving fifteen weeks in the period of thirty between April and November of this year. It was thought expedient to divide those fifteen weeks into three periods of five weeks each, laying it down that, when five weeks' benefit had been drawn, no further benefit should be drawn until after an interval of five weeks.
From April of this year, therefore, to the end of October, the benefit under the Act of April of this year would have been paid in the following way: five weeks' benefit; five weeks' gap; five weeks' benefit; five weeks' gap; five weeks' benefit; and five weeks' gap. But since the first gap of five weeks was entered upon, the poor law authorities in certain areas represented that the effect of this gap was to throw large numbers of persons upon the local rates. Very naturally, this hit the areas where the rates are high very hard, and representations were made to the Prime Minister by a deputation which waited upon him, I believe I am correct in saying, on June 20, that the system of gaps should be abolished altogether.
The situation has been very carefully reviewed and examined. We are better off, as I have indicated, not only as regards unemployment, but as a consequence of that betterment in so far as the financial condition of the fund itself is concerned. In addition, steps have been taken to reserve the benefit for those who are most entitled to it, and the claims of boys, girls, young men and women have very materially eased the situation. It was anticipated that £19,000,000 would have been borrowed up to date, but, as a matter of fact, only £15,000,000 have been borrowed. In response, therefore, to the demand that has been made, it has been found possible to grant, from the period between April 6 and the end of October of this year, twenty-two weeks' benefit instead of fifteen weeks' benefit, as laid down in the Act of April last.
Those who have been continuously unemployed since April 6 have received, up to date, five weeks' benefit; they have entered upon and passed through the first gap of five weeks, and they are now in their second period of five weeks' benefit, which comes to an end on July 20; that is to say, Thursday of this week. The principle of the gap is to remain under this Bill,
524
but it has been decided to reduce the intervals between the periods of benefit from five weeks to one week. This means that, from July 20 of this year until the end of October, those who have received ten weeks' benefit, and who can prove that they have been continuously unemployed since April, and are still unemployed, will draw their benefit in the following way: one week's gap, five weeks' benefit; one week's gap; five weeks' benefit; one week's gap, and two weeks' benefit. This is the purpose of this short Bill, and, in view of the urgency of the demand, I should like to ask your Lordships to give it as expeditious a passage through your Lordships' House as possible. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.— (The Earl of Clarendon.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

PUBLIC WORKS LOANS BILL.
Read 2a (according to Order), and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

HOUSE OF LORDS REFORM.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (VISCOUXT PEEL)THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (VISCOUXT PEEL) rose to move, That this House do resolve itself into Committee in order to consider the following Resolutions—
"1. That this House shall be composed, in addition to Peers of the Blood Royal, Lords Spiritual, and Law Lords, of—

(a) Members elected, either directly or indirectly, from the outside.

(b) Hereditary Peers elected by their order.

(c) Members nominated by the Crown, the numbers in each case to be determined by Statute.

"2. That, with the exception of Peers of the Blood Royal and the Law Lords, every other member of the reconstituted and reduced House of Lords shall hold his seat for a term of years to be fixed by Statute, but shall be eligible for re-election.
"3. That the reconstituted House of Lords shall consist approximately of 350 members.
"4. That while the House of Lords shall not amend or reject Money Bills, the decision as to whether a Bill is or is not a Money Bill, or is partly a Money Bill and partly not a Money Bill, shall be referred to a Joint Standing Committee of the two Houses, the decision of which shall be final. That this Joint Standing Committee shall be appointed at the beginning of each new Parliament, and shall be composed of seven members of each House of Parliament, in addition to the Speaker of the House of Commons, who shall be ex officio Chairman of the Committee.
"5. That the provisions of the Parliament Act, 1911, by which Bills can be passed into law without the consent of the House of Lords curing the course of a single Parliament, shall not apply to any Bill which alters or amends the constitution of the House of Lords as set out in these Resolutions, or which in any way changes the powers of the House of Lords as laid down in the Parliament Act and modified by these Resolutions."
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, it is a matter of great regret to the noble Marquess the Leader of this House, as I know it is also to your Lordships, and certainly to me, that the noble Marquess has been prevented by the retardation of his recovery from moving these Resolutions himself. I am glad to say that the noble Marquess hopes to be so far recovered as to be able to attend your Lordships' House about the beginning of August. The Motion takes this form—
"That this House do resolve itself into Committee in order to consider the following Resolutions."
As to the question of whether reform of the composition of this House is necessary, your Lordships may have various opinions, and I think it is unnecessary to me to address myself to your Lordships at length upon that subject.
It might, of course, be argued, on the one hand, that the long duration of your Lordships' House through so many centuries, through so many great constitu-
526
tional revolutions, is itself an argument that your Lordships' House has adapted itself to the changing circumstances of the times. It might, however, be urged, on the other hand, that, after the successive extensions of the franchise, ending with that vast extension of some four years ago, there is, perhaps, a growing incongruity between a purely hereditary Second Chamber and another Chamber which is based on a vastly and widely extended franchise. Anyhow, so far as this Government are concerned they are pledged to bring forward proposals on this subject to your Lordships, and, so far as your Lordships are concerned, many very eminent members of this House have on various occasions presented schemes for the alteration of the constitution of this House, and I believe that your Lordships have given a considerable measure of assent to those proposals.
I think it will be agreed that if any Party or Government is capable of dealing with the subject it is a Coalition Government. Consider the other 'Parties. The Labour Party, so far as we know its views, however-much it may haw, changed on other matters, is resolute and confirmed on the lack of necessity of having a Second Chamber at all. As regards the Independent Liberals, many of them are indifferent and many of them also will rest in plethoric contentment on the bosom of the Parliament Act. The charge has been often made against the Coalition Government that their besetting sin is a love of compromise, but in a question of this kind, when you wish to carry with you as far as you can the general assent of your Lordships' House, and perhaps of the other House, I think you will admit that this besetting sin may become a besetting virtue.
Now, I freely admit, at the outset, that these Resolutions as set out are a sketch, and a general sketch, laying down principles only, which will afterwards have to be filled up. I might even say that these outlines are themselves rich in undisclosed articulations. They are presented in the form of Resolutions and not as a Bill. The modern Merlins of draftsmanship have not yet applied to them the complicated canons of their mysterious art. The hand of the master is no doubt there, but it is the hand of a master not enmeshed or entangled in a wilderness of inordinate detail. It is well known that we have had in the past no written Constitution, but we have

527
latterly attempted to write one. Other States, of course, have established a very solemn and elaborate procedure, which distinguishes the methods applied to constitutional changes and the procedure which is prevalent in the case of ordinary Bills. We, in our usual piecemeal and haphazard manner, have stumbled into a written Constitution, and we have made no such provision for these distinctions. Therefore, to get something of that permanence which one hopes for from a changed Constitution we have to secure, so far as we can, if not a general assent yet a very large measure of assent. Nothing, I think, could have been worse than the atmosphere in which the Parliament Act was passed. It was one of hostility, of storm and even violent Party debate.
I think there is another reason why these matters should be presented in the form of Resolutions. Many of your Lordships are not wholly uncritical admirers of the Coalition Government. On some occasions, I admit, with comparative shame, the Government have drunk the bitter waters of defeat, and reform, I suggest to your Lordships, ought in large measure to come from the seemly evolution of public opinion in your Lordships' House. Although I do not forget for a moment the burden of Government responsibility, it is well that changes should appear to rise at least from the weighty opinions of the Lords themselves. None of the ungodly, and there are plenty of them outside your Lordships' House, should ever be able to suggest that changes were forced upon this House, or that in considering any alterations any of your Lordships were moved by fear, favour or affection, or by any motive except devotion to the public weal. There is also another advantage in placing the matter in the form of Resolutions. You can have a far freer and easier texture of discussion when the matter is in this loose form than when it is in the definite lines of a Bill. You can, as it were, discuss these matters as if you were in your smoking jackets rather than decked out in all the panoply of full Court dress.
Before discussing the Resolutions let me, if I dare to do so, lay down briefly some of the principles which should govern those who are approaching the construction of a Second Chamber. First of all, a Second Chamber should not have equal powers with, or become a rival of, the
528
House of Commons, nor have the power of dismissing Governments or making the Executive equally responsible to both Chambers. Secondly, the Second Chamber should be powerful enough, self-confident and fearless enough, to oppose the House of Commons when it is convinced that the other House does not respect, and turns away from, the settled opinion of the people. It must, again, be composed of persons so weighty and experienced as to command public confidence and to influence public opinion. I may add, perhaps, that in these days it is rather important to have in any House a certain number of people of marked and powerful peculiarities and idiosyncracies, to engage the attention of cartoonists and the Press, and enlist the popular ear. Perhaps, too, in these days of rapid shift and change some admixture of the youthful element is necessary among the sedater persons of settled reputation and conviction.
The first point I should like to discuss on that basis is the question of the numbers of your Lordships' House. That is dealt with in the third of the Resolutions, although I think that, logically, it comes first. In deciding the numbers of the House of Commons a reference is generally had to the necessary and comfortable size of the constituencies to return those Members, and there is a relation between the numbers in the House and the size of the constituencies; but in the case of your Lordships' House the Peerage, is really settled by the degree of distinguished service which the Prime Ministers of the day, in their submission to His Majesty, may think necessary to entitle a person to a seat in your Lordships' House. There is thus no real relation established between the staff and the business that they have to discharge. Many of those persons, in fact, when they have had the honour of a Peerage conferred upon them, do not seem to think that legislative duties are very closely connected with the grant of the honour. They make a short, brilliant, mediaeval appearance in this House, and then, like meteors, so far as this House is concerned they pass away and are extinguished for ever. Again, the large number of persons in this House, over seven hundred, is surely too great for the volume of business to be transacted— always assuming that this House does not deal with taxation or with the voting of Estimates.
There is also too great a discrepancy between the average attendance of your Lordships and the formidable number of Peers. It is difficult to conduct legislation like an army, with a fighting line on active service and a large potential reserve. The public, critical always, is rather inclined to question the right of those, who for the greater portion of their lives are engaged on other business, to select rare occasions for legislative demonstrations. The Government therefore suggest that 350 would be a suitable number, and would provide sufficient margin for sickness, business, enforced absence, and the other casualties of legislators.
In coming to the composition of your Lordships' House I think you will agree that a suggested reduction of numbers would alone render it necessary to make some change in the composition of the House. I need not refer your Lordships to the very important and authoritative Committee over which the late Viscount Bryee presided. The persons on that Committee thought it would be an advantage if the Chamber could have some direct popular authority behind it, and that a proportion of the members should sit by virtue of election rather than by virtue of selection or hereditary right, so as to give the House the full weight of their increased popular authority. Your Lordships will see that the Resolutions do not lay down any fixed proportions between the different elements in the proposed new Chamber, and I am dealing, and only can deal in the few minutes during which I shall now address your Lordships, rather with principles than with arithmetical proportions.
It is suggested in the Resolutions that the Peers of the Blood Royal, the Lords Spiritual, and the Law Lords should remain members of your Lordships' House. The Lords Spiritual would sit for a term of years. If you consult history you will find that there is no body in this House who have a more indefeasible right to sit here than the Lords Spiritual. They trace their history and their origin right back, with the exception, perhaps, of the break during the dismal episode of the Commonwealth, to the Norman Conquest and to the Great Council in Saxon times. They look back to a time far distant before Celt and Saxon, Angle and Norseman, had contributed their several streams into that mighty blend which we now call the British nation;
530
indeed, before the Reformation, on various occasions when the mitred abbots still sat in this House, the Lords Spiritual composed something like half of the total House.
But I feel sure that apart from the claims of history and of tradition we should regret their disappearance and the setting up of a purely secular Chamber. We remember the disestablishment of the Welsh Church and the bishops who sat in your Lordships' House before that time. All who heard the cultured and polished eloquence of the Bishop of St. Asaph will, I am sure, regret his loss, and the more homely utterances of the Bishop of St. Davids put us more closely in touch with the rural life of Wales. This House would be far poorer by the loss of those who have such peculiar opportunities of studying social, and the high duty of dealing with moral, questions.
I now come to the second category, the Law Lords. Whatever our opinions may be, I am sure we all admire with the greatest zest their learning, tbeir high critical faculty, their temperance in debate, sometimes even their philosophic profundity. Even into this not very turbulent Assembly they bring a serener air. What a pattern and ensample they are to the lay Lords! Who on tie bare assertion of the separation of the legislative from the judicial, on the mere authority of some eighteenth-century pedant, would dare to sign the warrant for their departure? It is suggested, therefore, that the Law Lords should remain in full.
I next come to the Temporal Peers, the hereditary Peers. With an hereditary Monarchy we should all desire to retain some hereditary element in this House. It is not the time for me to indulge your Lordships with a dissertation on the virtues of the hereditary principle, because you are so familiar with it; it is held in the highest respect in so many relations entirely outside this House and outside legislative matters. But perhaps I may be allowed to remind your Lordships that in many parts of the Empire it is still held in the greatest possible respect, and that in India, apart from new Assemblies and Councils, there is no principle to which more real devotion is shown. Indeed. Indian Ministers, when appointing to posts, are sometimes accused, though they have regard to other signs of competence, of attaching peculiar importance and giving full weight to blood relationships with themselves.
I remember on one occasion, some years ago, talking with a great Indian Ruling Chief, and he expressed to me the greatest respect for the late Lord Salisbury, then Prime Minister. But I found that this respect was not based so much upon his great ability, or upon his foreign policy, as upon the fact that, having been Prime Minister himself, he had been able to secure the reversion of the Prime Ministership to his nephew. And when I was able to assure him that even other members of the family formed part of the Government his admiration rose to the verge of ecstacy.
We shall all agree, I think, that, to maintain the continuity of over a thousand years of history, we should maintain some portion, at least, of this great hereditary element which will hand on the traditions of wide tolerance, of order, of courtesy, and of freedom from the devastating restrictions of debate. As regards the proposed new Chamber, I think that even new members in all the pride of election might be attracted if they could link their legislative fortunes with many at least of the hereditary Peers, and the rudest Communist, the most acid reformer would pause if he could study in the great landmarks of history the dazzling achievements of the hereditary Peers. It is proposed, therefore, as suggested in the Resolution, that one great element in the reformed Chamber should be hereditary Peers elected by their own order.
Then I come to the proposal as to elected Peers. It is quite true that on a great number of occasions your Lordships have been more correct interpreters of public opinion than the reputed popular House. But I have alluded to the advantages of direct popular authority, and the spirit of the times seems to demand more direct popular access for all classes of His Majesty's subjects to the Second Chamber. It may be suggested by some of your Lordships that there is at the present time no great popular demand for reform, but in this particular period of comparative calm as regards that question we may, perhaps, arm ourselves for a more controversial era, and make the advocates of direct action and of the disavowal of Parliamentary institutions even more hopeless in their programme than they are to-day.
The old charge frequently brought against your Lordships' House is that it represents
532
too much the opinion of one particular class. If I may speak for one moment of myself, I have had the duty of introducing a great number of Bills to your Lordships during the last five years, and I am bound to say that I have been much more impressed by the high critical faculty of your Lordships and the innumerable facets from which criticisms descend upon the head of an unfortunate introducer of Bills. It might be wise, possibly, and again it might be doubtful, if all opinions should receive equal expression in both Houses. On the other hand, it may be useful that opinions not often expressed in this House except by proxy should have an opportunity of more direct expression.
It will not have escaped the observation of your Lordships that the method by which these Peers are to be elected is not set out in the Resolutions. That is a matter of great difficulty and complexity, and no doubt your Lordships will freely express your opinions upon the subject. Those who are familiar with the Bryce Report will know that it suggests several methods. I will only say a very few words on three of the methods suggested. The first is direct election; that is to say, from large constituencies either on the same franchise as, or on a restricted franchise as compared with, that on which the House of Commons are elected.
There are some who argue—and I think there are representatives of that view in your Lordships' House—that if you are making a change you should make a complete change from the hereditary to the elective principle. But I think the majority of your Lordships, and. I believe, of people outside, would oppose that complete cut with the past, and the loss of that respect and dignity which come from tradition and from history. We are still in many ways much as our ancestors were, who were fond of describing constitutional innovations, often when they were real innovations, as a revival of the customs of the past; and our people, our wise conservative people, fortified by fresh experience in other countries are, I believe, in no mood to turn their backs upon the past whether from the constitutional, the moral, or the: economical point of view.
That distinguished Committee condemned generally direct election, mainly on two grounds. One was that it was a misfortune to try to reproduce too nearly

533
in the Second Chamber the composition of another place; and the second was the necessarily vast size of the constituencies with the reduced numbers in your Lordships' House. They too, of course, make a suggestion that local panels of members of another place should elect members to your Lordships' House. I confess that I feel myself rather doubtful whether these small bodies, many of them composed of men who are not local, would really select the best men in the different areas, and whether the men so selected by this secondary election would really add great force and dignity to your Lordships' House. They might, possibly, be content to follow too closely the views of those who chose them, and not to adopt, as they ought in many cases to adopt, an unfilial attitude towards their creators.
The third suggestion, and one favoured by many, is that a selection should be made by local authorities or by groups of local authorities. It has been stated that this would tend to introduce Party politics into local elections in which they do not exist at the present time. Personally, I am inclined to think that view is a great-deal exaggerated, and that local needs would be far more dominant in selecting persons to those local authorities than in the ten-yearly possibility of having a share in the election of one or two members of the Upper House. On this point the Resolutions are silent, but I hope your Lordships will not be silent. Then there is the nomination by the Crown. It will be seen that in the Resolutions it is provided that the Crown should be able to nominate a certain number of eminent persons who might; have failed to enter your Lordships' House by the two doors to which I have already alluded. These numbers, of course, would be limited by Statute, because the dangers to which we were exposed some ten or twelve years ago would no longer present any difficulty in the reformed House.
Such is a very brief sketch of the proposals as regards composition; but I know very well that many of your Lordships are less interested in the question of the composition of the House than in that of its powers. It is well known that many members of your Lordships' House advocate—combined, of course, with this alteration in composition—the repeal of the Parliament Act and the full restoration to the House of the power of dealing with all legislative matters except, perhaps, as
534
regards finance; that you should have the power, putting it briefly, to destroy as well as to delay legislation. There are, I think, several considerations that are worthy of mention on this point. There is no question that in the present condition of affairs the repeal or the attempted repeal of the Parliament Act would give rise to very acute and very prolonged constitutional controversy, and it may well be doubted whether, amidst all the controversies now raging among us, both foreign and domestic, it is well to throw upon the already loaded table one fresh apple of discord.
Moreover, it raises again two very difficult questions—very difficult and very controversial. If you repeal the Parliament Act, the question at once arises how you are to deal with difficulties which are at issue between the two Houses. It raises the question of whether, in case of determined difference between those two Houses, you should have recourse to the Referendum. Again, you would have to consider whether that Referendum might have an effect in weakening the responsibility of the Houses of Parliament, or, possibly, of disturbing the country unnecessarily by a succession of miniature elections. Supposing you are to try to determine the differences between the two Houses by the system of joint sessions, it is quite clear that you would have to scrutinise with unusual care the exact relation between the different elements, elected or non-elected, which composed the reformed House; and, indeed, every point would be examined with the greatest care to see what majority in the Second House, shall we say, was necessary to override majorities of a certain size in another place. The question of dealing with those majorities in a joint sitting, and whether a bare majority or a proportionate majority should have the right of throwing out a Bill, would be matters of the most acute controversy.
There is, further, undoubtedly in your Lordships' House some change of opinion on the weight and bearing of the Parliament Act itself. The Parliament Act is, no doubt, a very imperfect instrument. It has often been observed that it is least efficient in the early days of Parliament when newly elected members believe in millenniums and distrust experience; and is most powerful in the latter days of Parliament—especially with the reduction

535
of the period from seven to five years— when Parliaments have gathered experience, and do not require so much the curb of checks or the weight of balances. On the other hand, many have now realised the great difficulty of driving the same Bill, in the same form, through three successive sessions of Parliament, in two years. To do the same foolish thing, in the same foolish way, on three occasions, in succesive years, is a deliberateness of folly which Erasmus himself could hardly out-parody. Again, that shortening of the years of Parliament gives no doubt far greater grip to the Act.
Although these considerations might cause your Lordships to weigh very carefully whether you should or should not repeal the whole of the Parliament Act— as I said before that Act is a very imperfect instrument—there are two very valuable Amendments for strengthening your Lordships' House which have been placed upon the Paper. The first deals with this point. It has been felt that the determining of what is or is not a Money Bill should not be left entirely to the presiding officer of the originating House. Criticism in one House of the presiding officer in the other is not an agreeable task, and with some presiding officers, at some remote period, of course, in our Parliamentary history, it might be consistent with considerable encroachment on the rights of the Second Chamber. This provision of the Act has even been criticised by the authors of the Act, by those who might, therefore, be disposed to take the view that their own creation was very near perfection.
We all remember very well that on the occasion of the Safeguarding of Industries Bill the noble Marquess, Lord Crewe, and others holding his view, contended that a Bill like that ought freely to be discussed in your Lordships' House, as it could not under any consideration be regarded as a mere Money Bill, and that to call it a Money Bill was in itself a travesty of the Bill. Obviously, it is extremely difficult to define what is and what is not a Money Bill, and perhaps the, proposal in the Resolutions is the best that could be made, by which a Committee of seven members of either House, with the Speaker presiding, is set up in order to decide, on the general consideration of the case, what is and what is not a Money Bill. Furthermore, there was one grave
536
defect in the Parliament Act, and it was that the machinery under that Act might be used to destroy the very Chamber whose powers it was designed not to destroy but to limit. This danger may be averted by the fifth Resolution which declares that such Bills cannot be passed into law without the assent of your Lordships' House in the course of a single Parliament.
That is a very brief sketch of the Resolutions that have been set down for your Lordships' consideration. Looked at as a whole, they constitute a House different from, and not a mere replica of, the existing House of Commons. Further, they retain in considerable measure the old historic links with the past. They strengthen the position of the House by a popular element, and they give the opportunity to all ranks of His Majesty's subjects to find a place in the Second as well as in the Representative Chamber. It is quite true that many of the details are lacking, and no doubt your Lordships, in the course of discussion, will raise, the question of those details. The Government invites the fullest and freest discussion from your Lordships on all these matters that are set before you. You will have, I agree, a very difficult task. You will, I am sure, have regard to the past, to tradition, and to that great continuity of history which binds one generation to another. You will, further, not be insensible to those pressing, swaying tides of public opinion, so complex and so inter-connected as to baffle the wisdom and penetration even of the wisest, and you will lend an attentive ear to those voices, confusing, contradictory and yet insistent, the dim premonitions of the coming time. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House do resolve itself into Committee in order to consider the following Resolutions:—
"1. That this House shall be composed, in addition to Peers of the Blood Royal, Lords Spiritual, and Law Lords, of—

(a) Members elected, either directly or indirectly from the outside.

(b) Hereditary Peers elected by their order.

(c) Members nominated by the Crown, the numbers in each case to be determined by Statute.

"2. That, with the exception of Peers of the Blood Royal and the Law Lords, every other member of the reconstituted and reduced House of Lords shall hold his seat for a term of years to be fixed by Statute, but shall be eligible for re-election.
"3. That the reconstituted House of Lords shall consist approximately of 350 members.
"4. That while the House of Lords shall not amend or reject Money Bills, the decision as to whether a Bill is or is not a Money Bill, or is partly a Money Bill and partly not a Money Bill, shall be referred to a Joint Standing Committee of the two Houses, the decision of which shall be final. That this Joint Standing Committee shall be appointed at the beginning of each new Parliament, and shall be composed of seven members of each House of Parliament, in addition to the Speaker of the, House of Commons, who shall be ex officio Chairman of the Committee.
"5. That the provisions of the Parliament Act, 1911, by which Bills can be passed into law without the consent of the House of Lords during the course of a single Parliament, shall not apply to any Bill which alters or amends the constitution of the House of Lords as set out in these Resolutions, or which in any way changes the powers of the House of Lords as laid down in the Parliament Act and modified by these Resolutions."—(Viscount Peel.)
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: My Lords, I join with my noble friend in deploring the absence of the Leader of the House. No man could have contributed more to this discussion than he, for he has made this one of his life studies. My noble friend opposite will not think it disrespectful on my part if I do not follow him throughout all the meanderings of his eloquent speech. I fasten on one statement, that the Resolutions are a mere sketch to be filled up. I think a better simile would be a skeleton which he invites the House to clothe with muscles and flesh. But he deliberately invited suggestions from all your Lordships for this purpose, and I propose to accept that invitation, and to ask your Lordships for a few minutes to
538
concentrate on what seems to me to be a great omission from these Resolutions.
These Resolutions ignore the statement as to the proper powers for a Second Chamber formulated by the Bryee Conference and the recommendations made by that Conference in respect thereto. I do not intend to say anything about composition; I am going to speak about powers. It is true that the noble Viscount alluded more than once to the Bryee Conference, but he dealt with it and its work quite inadequately. What was that Conference? It was called a Conference on the Reform of the Second Chamber; it was appointed by the Government in the year 1917, and its terms of reference were—
"To inquire and report as to the nature and limitations of the legislative powers to be exercised by a reformed Second Chamber; as to the best mode of adjusting differences between the two Houses of Parliament; as to the changes which are desirable in order that the Second Chamber may in future be so constituted as to exercise fairly the functions appropriate to a Second Chamber."
It is scarcely an exaggeration to say that the Resolutions of the Government entirely ignore the second reference, and the recommendations made upon it, and only very inadequately and very meagrely touch upon the first reference.
I ask your Lordships to remember how the Bryee Conference was composed. I do not suppose a stronger Conference was ever got together within the walls of Parliament. Lord Bryee was Chairman, and he was the greatest constitutional authority in the country en this subject. I will read the names of noble Lords who were on the Conference. They were: Lord Balfour of Burleigh, Earl Beauchamp, Lord Burn-ham, the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Marquess of Crewe, Lord Denman, the Earl of Donoughmore, the Earl of Dunraven, the Earl of Durham, the Marquess of Lansdowne, Earl Loreburn, the Duke of Rutland, Lord Stuart of Wortley, Lord Sydenham, and myself. The Members of the House of Commons were equal in authority and experience, and it is most extraordinary how the whole work of this Conference, in respect of the method of settling differences between the two Houses and the powers of the Second Chamber, is ignored in the Resolutions.
Let me refer to Resolution 4 which proposes to substitute a Joint Standing Committee of the two Houses for the Speaker in order to decide what is or is not a

539
Money Bill. That adopts one of the recommendations of the Conference, but only part of the recommendations in respect to the treatment of Money Bills. I will tell your Lordships presently how this Resolution leaves the difficulty wholly unsettled. It merely establishes one authority in place of another. It does not say what is to be done when the Committee has pronounced that a Bill coming before your Lordships in the guise of a Money Bill really contains other and quite different propositions.
The purport of Resolution 5, as the noble Viscount has said, is to take out of the operation of the Parliament Act any question relating to the existence of this House. At the present moment the only exception to the automatic operation of the Parliament Act is a Bill for prolonging the life of the House of Commons. A Bill of that kind is by its provisions excepted from the operation of the Parliament Act. Resolution 5 proposes to add another exception; that is, a Bill dealing with the existence of this House. So far so good. I shall be able to show your Lordships that if the recommendations of the Bryce Conference were accepted in respect of powers and settling differences between the two Houses this special exception would not be required, because it would be dealt with automatically by the operation of the recommendations of the Bryce Conference.
Before I come to these recommendations I want to remind your Lordships of the state of things which the Bryce Conference had before it in respect of the working of the Parliament Act. You will forgive me if I remind you of the main provisions of that Act. They were very drastic in the matter of a Finance Bill. A Finance Bill may be passed by the sole will of the House of Commons in any one session. The House of Lords cannot delay the passage of a Finance Bill more than, I think, a month, and the sole authority for deciding what is or is not a Finance Bill is the Speaker. He may consult the Chairmen of Standing Committees in the House of Commons, but he is not obliged to take their advice. But, as regards any Bill that is not a Finance Bill, if the House of Commons enacts it three times within two years, and if the second and third enactments are of identically the same Bill as on the first occasion, then if the House of Commons so wills that Bill is presented for Royal Assent without relation to any
540
Amendment on the part of your Lordships or any vote on the part of your Lordships to which the House of Commons has not agreed.
I want to insist upon the point that the Parliament Act has not been working at all for the last eight years. Almost a generation of younger Peers has grown up in this House who have never seen the Parliament Act in operation. Since war was declared we have been working under exactly the same conditions as we were before the Parliament Act was passed. The Parliament Act operated for three years, from 1911 to 1914, and if you want to understand the problems which the Bryce Conference had to face you will forgive me for reminding you how that Act worked within those three years. Let us consider its operation in the House of Commons. Ministers could look ahead with perfect certainty of carrying their measures into law within two years so long as their majority in the House of Commons remained faithful to them. Therefore, they could in advance measure out their time, and give each Bill just so much time as they chose. If they had thirty working days and only one important Bill the House of Commons might have thirty days for the different stages of that Bill. If they had two Bills, then the House of Commons would have fifteen days for all the stages of each of those Bills. So it came to pass that Bills came up from the House of Commons with great chunks of clauses which had never been discussed by that House at all. They were passed by means of what is called the "kangaroo" and the "guillotine," and whole blocks of clauses came up here which had never been discussed in the House of Commons.
What was the effect of that upon Members of the House of Commons? I remember very well that, at that time, attendance in the House itself perceptibly fell off, and that, although Members could not be absent from the building, they were found much more in every other room of the House of Commons than in the Chamber itself. The proceedings in the House of Commons itself, even on the first appearance of a Bill under the Parliament Act, assumed an artificial and unreal aspect. But if that was true of the first occasion, what about the second and third introductions of the Bill? There could be no change in the Bill, except a mere change of date, because, if any Amendment was

541
made, the Bill ceased to be the same Bill, and consequently the Parliament Act did not work. The Bill had to be the same Bill. It had been already discussed for several weeks in the previous session, and the Government, of course, gave about two days for discussion on the Second Reading.
When it came to Committee, there could be no discussion at all, because there could be no Amendments. The Government allotted one or two days to Committee, but no Amendment was made in Committee, and consequently there was no Report stage. Therefore, a most important Bill, which had passed on the first occasion by means of the "kangaroo" and the "guillotine," and whole, blocks of clauses of which had never been discussed at all, was put through on the second occasion in about a week for all its stages, and the same happened on the third occasion. Nobody who was watching the operations of the House of Commons at that time could possibly fail to admit the deplorable effect on the House itself of the operation of the Parliament Act.
Then the Bill came here, and your Lordships were told that you could make no important Amendments, because no important Amendments would be accepted. They had nothing to bargain with. I remember perfectly well noble Lords reproaching us for not attempting to amend the Homo Rule Bill. But take a Bill like the Government of Ireland Bill, or an Insurance Bill, and you find that finance is worked through every clause in the Bill. We are not allowed to touch finance in any shape or form, and consequently effectual amendment was practically impossible. All we could do was to say whether we were prepared to take responsibility for the measure itself or not. What happened in this House? Those who remember the years immediately after the passing of the Parliament Act will recall how deplorable the attendance in this House became. Noble Lords were not prepared to cooperate in enacting the farce under which they were working.
We were told—we may be told to-day— that, if public opinion is against the Bill, the delay which this House can interpose under the Parliament Act, and which is, at the most, sixteen months from the date on which the Bill reaches this House, will enable public opinion to manifest itself. How is public opinion to manifest
542
itself? So long as the predominant Party in the House of Commons is obedient to the Government Whips, what has the Government to fear? And what about the Press? Now that we know that the whole of the Press, in the Metropolis at any rate, is controlled by a small group of gentlemen, many of whom are confidants of the Ministry, and practically, you might say, members of the Cabinet, who do not sit in Downing Street, the Press gives us no help. It is a deliberate invitation to direct action of some kind. Suppose that a Bill was brought in for a large capital levy. How is public opinion to manifest itself? Is it suggested that all taxpayers should strike, and refuse to pay? I know of no other effective method of voicing public opinion, in the short interval which the Parliament Act allows before a Bill is presented for the Royal Assent.
That is the position which the Bryce Conference had to meet, and Lord Bryce, with his great constitutional authority, took considerable pains, in his letter to the Prime Minister, to lay down what he thought ought to be the functions of a Second Chamber, and what he understood the Conference over which he presided thought those functions ought to be. These statements are; so important, and have been so completely ignored by the Government in their Resolutions, that I ask your Lordships' permission to read them. On page 3 I find this sentence from Lord Bryce's letter to the Prime Minister—
"Not less difficult was it to adjust the respective functions and powers of the two Chambers, vesting in the Second Chamber strength sufficient to enable it to act as a moderating influence in the conduct of national affairs, and yet not so much power of delay as to clog the machinery of Government, or dispose that Chamber to embark on controversies for the sake of asserting its own power."
Then, on page 4, under the heading "Functions appropriate to a Second Chamber," I find among those functions, this sentence—
"The interposition of so much delay (and no more) in the passing of a Bill into law as may be needed to enable the opinion of the nation to be adequately expressed upon it. This would be specialty needed as regards Bills which affect the fundamentals of the Constitution or introduce new principles of legislation, or which raise issues whereon the opinion of the country may appear to be almost equally divided."
And on page 5, under the heading "Position which the Second Chamber ought to hold in our Constitutional System,"

543
there are three paragraphs to which I draw your Lordships' attention—
"It was agreed—"
that is, by the Conference—
"that a Second Chamber ought not to have equal powers with the House of Commons, nor aim at becoming a rival of that Assembly. In particular, it should not have the power of making or unmaking Ministries, or enjoy equal rights in dealing with finance. This was prescribed, not only by long established custom and tradition, but also by the form of our Constitution, which makes the Executive depend upon the support of the House of Commons, and would be seriously affected in its working by extending to a Second Chamber the power of dismissing a Government.
"The Second Chamber should aim at ascertaining the mind and views of the nation as a whole, and should recognise its full responsibility to the people, not setting itself to oppose the people's will, but only to comprehend and give effect to that will when adequately expressed.
"It should, by the exercise of this authority, and especially by evincing a superiority to factious motives, endeavour to enlighten and influence the people through its debates and be recognised by the people as qualified, when a proper occasion arose, to require the reconsideration of important measures on which their opinion had not been fully ascertained."
And lastly, on page 13, under the head of "Legislative Functions of the Second Chamber," the Report says:—
"It has always been understood in this country—and this is the practice in nearly every country where a Second Chamber exists—that the Second Chamber should be entitled to full power in the sphere of such legislation as is not of a financial character. It may revise and amend, and in some cases refuse to proceed with, a Bill brought to it from the other House. It may initiate ordinary Bills both Public and Private. It may discuss all questions of general domestic and Imperial policy. In financial matters alone is its range of action limited by the long-established superior rights of the popular House."
I venture to say that those quotations with which I have troubled your Lordships lay down clearly, and with the greatest authority, the lines on which the functions of a Second Chamber should be drawn, and, speaking for myself alone, I say that I unhesitatingly adopt every word of Lord Bryce's statement.
Now, how did the Conference proceed to deal with the problem thus put forth by Lord Bryce? I do not propose to trouble your Lordships by reading it, because you can refer to the document, but under the head of "Adjustment of Differences between the Two Houses" the Conference sketched out a process by means of a Free Conference and a Free Conference Committee of the two Houses,
544
which dealt with the whole of this problem. You will find it on pages 14, 15, 16 and 23 of the document. But that to which I want particularly to draw your attention is that this process recommended by the Byrce Conference was meant to be in substitution of those provisions of the Parliament Act which enact that the House of Commons can get a Bill presented for Royal Assent within two years, if it passes it a third time in the same form within those two years.
The Resolutions which are before your Lordships entirely ignore these recommendations. They ignore them, and they propose no substitution for them. I ask your Lordships to turn back with me for a moment, and to consider this question of what is and what is not a Money Bill. I have endeavoured to show your Lordships that the Resolutions of the Government only touch the fringe of that question by changing the authority by whom the decision is to be given as to what is or what is not a financial measure. But if you turn to page 14 of the Bryce Report you will see that Lord Bryce and his Conference dealt with the subject very differently.
Again, I must ask your Lordships' permission to read extracts from the Report. It says—
"A Bill brought into the House of Commons whether to raise revenue or to appropriate revenue for particular public purposes may, while purporting to be concerned only with the raising and spending of money, have effects—industrial, commercial, social, or political effects—more important and far reaching than would be its direct financial effects. Many large changes— indeed, some revolutionary changes—might be carried through by measures purporting to be financial. The Conference thought that, if the new Second Chamber, elected as proposed, is to be of real service, its views ought to be heard regarding such changes. It would appear to be required, in the interests of the people, and that not merely as taxpayers, but as citizens also, that such measures should not be hastily hurried into law without due consideration; and a Second Chamber constituted as proposed would seem fitted to furnish a safeguard for this purpose."
Then, a little lower down, the Report says—
"An examination of the cases of doubt—"
that is to say, what or what is not a financial measure—
"which had arisen in this country and elsewhere, showed that most, perhaps nearly all of them, could have been disposed of after a not very protracted discussion round a table by a dozen practical fair-minded men; and the Conference was thus led to believe that the best method of

545
treating these doubtful and disputable Bills would be to refer them to a small carefully selected Joint Standing Committee of both Houses of Parliament, making its decision final."
Now I come to the way in which such Bills would be dealt with when that Standing Committee had given its decision —
"It would be the duty of such a Committee to consider not only the professed objects, but also the underlying purpose and the probable effects of such a Bill, in order to determine its character and to report which (if any) of its clauses are, as being strictly financial, fit to be dealt with by the House of Commons alone, and which (if any) may properly be subjected to examination and amendment by the Second Chamber in respect of the economic or social results to be expected from them, these matters being of general national policy. Should the Committee report in the latter sense, such provisions as were declared to be non-financial would be open to rejection and amendment by the Second Chamber, subject always to the ancient rule that no amendments should be made by the Second Clamber which could increase any charge upon the people. If amendments were made in Bills declared to be non-financial, and these, were not accepted by the House of Commons, the differences between the two Houses would fall to be adjusted in the manner … provided for the ease of an ordinary non-financial Bill."
The meaning of that, I think, is quite clear. Suppose some great revolutionary change to be tacked on to what is ostensibly a financial measure. The Standing Joint Committee of the two Houses would state which clauses of that Bill were financial and which were not, and those clauses which were not financial in the strict sense could be dealt with by the House of Lords just as any other Bill. And then, if difference arose between the two Houses, the matter would be settled in the manner recommended by the Bryce Conference for the adjustment of differences between the two Houses. The Bryce Conference provided a complete method of dealing with the case of revolutionary finance as well as for adjusting differences between the two Houses on other measures and, what is of extraordinary importance, those proposals were practically unanimously agreed to by the Bryce Conference. Lord Bryce says, on page 18 that there were only one or two dissentients. I remember perfectly well who they were. One was the representative of the Irish Nationalist Party and the other was the representative of the Labour Party. Otherwise, those most important recommendations were accepted by all the Conservatives and all the Liberals on that Conference.
546
The Resolutions, as I have already said, ignore these recommendations altogether, and they propose no substitute for them. Although I am one of those who agreed to the recommendations of the Bryce Report in this respect, I admit there are other methods in which a difference could be settled. There is the method of the Referendum—carefully guarded, reserved for very special and great occasions, but a method which I have personally always liked. Then there is the method of the joint sitting, to which my noble friend referred—favoured by many people, though not by myself personally. There is also another proposal—namely, that the Bill should not go automatically for the Royal Assent immediately after the House of Commons has passed it a third time, but should be held over till after the next General Election, and then, if in the first session of the new Parliament the House of Commons passed a Resolution requesting that that Bill should be sent to His Majesty for the Royal Assent, that it should be so sent. Those are three alternative methods to the method of the Bryce Conference.
But I submit that in any case, whatever method is adopted for settling differences between the two Houses, the process of the Free Conference is absolutely essential. I believe that if there was real machinery, as recommended in the Bryce Report, for a Free Conference between the two Houses, differences would be settled three times out of four, without any crisis arising or any real deadlock. And therefore, whatever method is proposed, I hope your Lordships will agree, to a proposal for a Free Conference.
I would ask your Lordships to consider for a few moments why some such method of dealing with differences of opinion between the two Houses is required, and why Lord Bryce was abundantly justified in the careful language he used as to the powers required by a Second Chamber. I am prepared to show your Lordships that there is at the present moment under the provisions of the Parliament Act—I do not say the whole of the Parliament Act, but under certain provisions of the Parliament Act—no real stability for liberty, for property, or for the Constitution. I have described the method of the Parliament Act. By that method there is no assurance whatever that some fundamental measure affecting liberty, or property, or the Constitution might not be passed into

547
law within two years—and, if a so-called financial measure, within one session— although a large majority of the electors might be opposed to it. Your Lordships have only to look at what has happened in Russia and what has happened in Ireland to see that, if once reckless fanatics get control, they will stop at nothing.
I will give your Lordships an indication of the kind of measure which, if such men did get control, might be passed under the Parliament Act in the time I have mentioned, although a majority of the people might be altogether opposed to it. You might have a measure for prohibition: if that could be introduced in the guise of finance it could be passed in one session; if not, in two years. A measure for suspending Habeas Corpus might certainly pass into law within two years. A law did that during the war, and that is absolutely a precedent; and I will show your Lordships presently how that precedent might be used. Any form of nationalisation of property might take place: if under the guise of finance, in one session; if otherwise, within two years. Land might be nationalised; railways, ships, banks, or, indeed, the whole of our industrial and commercial system, as at present known, might be abolished. And we know there are many people in this country with whom the abolition of that system is a political and almost a religious creed. A capital levy-might be made most certainly within one session under the guise of a Finance Bill.
The Government themselves have partially recognised the truth of this statement by their proposal in Resolution 5—that the constitution of this House shall not be dealt with under the Parliament Act. There is a deliberate proposal specially to safeguard the Second Chamber as proposed to be reconstituted. But I ask you to consider whether, after all, the Second Chamber is really the most important part of the Constitution. Are not the House of Commons and the Crown more important parts of the Constitution? But there is no proposal to safeguard either the House of Commons or the Crown. Your Lordships may ask me how the House of Commons could be endangered. I think I can show you that without difficulty. The case of the Crown, of course, is quite clear. Under the provisions of the Parliament Act this country could become a Republic within two years. Is not the Crown more important than the House of Lords?
548
Now I come to the House of Commons. How could the House of Commons be dealt with under the Parliament Act? Do what was done in the war—give the Cabinet the power by Orders in Council to legislate: the House of Commons is gone, a soviet is established. And you have a precedent for that, because it was done during the war. We know that there is a Party in this country that is impatient with our Parliamentary methods even under the Parliament Act. Their course is very simple. When they have got their Cabinet, in two years they can get through a measure enabling the Cabinet to legislate by Orders in Council, and the whole House of Commons is destroyed, as well as the House of Lords. And yet these provisions contain no safeguard either for the Crown or for the House of Commons.
If a majority of the people of this country really wish for these revolutionary changes, of course no Second Chamber will be able to stop them, whether reformed or not reformed. The whole point of what I am trying to put before your Lordships is that by the Parliament Act a Constitution has been framed under which these things could be done easily, even although the majority of the people of England should be against them. And no other civilised country is in this position—nor one single Dominion of the British Empire. The Irish Free State will not be in that position. We alone in England, Scotland and Wales will be in that position.
To secure constitutional stability by the method recommended by the Bryce Conference, or by one of the other methods to which I have referred, in my judgment this House would be doing a patriotic thing if they consented to changes, to great changes even, in the constitution of this House. If I saw real powers such as Lord Bryce has laid down as essential to the constitutional stability of this country once more granted to the Second Chamber, reluctant as I should be, I would vote for very great and even drastic reforms in the constitution of this House. But if we are not going to secure that stability, if we are going to be put off with a kind of tinkering with the great subject contained in these Resolutions, I cannot imagine who thinks it worth while to propose great changes in the constitution of this House. If the Government are really in earnest, if they will allow us to clothe the skeletons of Resolutions 4 and 5 with muscle and flesh, and, not going one hair's breadth

549
beyond the functions laid down by Lord Bryee as essential to the Second Chamber, if they will agree with us in giving the House such powers, then, as I have said, I for my part would vote for great changes in the constitution of this House. If we are going to be put off with a sham, I, for my part, will have nothing to do with the wrecking of the ancient constitution of this House. If we are to be a sham and not a reality, let us at any rate preserve the traditions of a thousand years.
The Marquess of LANSDOWNE: My Lords, like my noble friend who has just sat down, I deeply regret that the noble Marquess the Leader of the House should not be here this evening to take charge of these Resolutions. I know well how intense is the interest he takes in the subject, and I know we are right in believing that nothing but absolute necessity would have prevented him from being with us to-night. But I own that I doubt whether Lord Curzon's greatest friends and most enthusiastic admirers can pity him very much for having been spared the task of taking charge of this, to my mind, very incomplete and unsatisfactory scheme. I am quite disposed to make every allowance for the circumstances under which it has been prepared. We know well the immense difficulty of the subject. We know, too, how severe the strain of business, both at home and abroad, must have been on Ministers of late, and I confess that if His Majesty's Government had come to us to-night and had done what Lord Curzon did a year ago when he spoke upon this subject—thrown themselves upon our indulgence upon the ground that it had been physically impossible for them to deal adequately with the question—I should certainly not have been extreme to mark the omission. But pressed, no doubt, by their critics and feeling the weight of the pledges by which they are bound, they have made their effort, and I am afraid the result has been to lay upon this Table what I can only call a very half-baked scheme of House of Lords reform.
I wish I could believe that its production has really brought us an inch nearer to the solution of this immense problem. I do not think it has, and yet His Majesty's Government certainly have had abundance of materials upon which to work. I had occasion not long ago to look at my own I
550
accumulated papers, and I was dismayed to find the bulk of those which deal with the question of House of Lords reform. They carried me back to the old days when Lord Rosebery came forward as the pioneer on this question. Then I remember there was a Bill of Lord Newton's, I think another Bill of Lord Dunraven's, and I must confess that I found among these abortive projects a little infant of my own which I had the temerity to produce somewhere about the year 1911, and which has now been completely forgotten, unless, indeed, it be recalled by some who desire to prove by quotations from it that my opinions then were not precisely the same as my opinions this afternoon. But apart from these, there is the monumental Paper laid before the Government by the late Lord Bryee—a Paper from which my noble friend, Lord Selborne, quoted largely and with such effect.
To me it is a matter of surprise that Lord Bryce's Report should have been, I will not say completely ignored, but so much ignored as it has been in the framing of these Resolutions I know it has been said, and I dare say it will be said in this debate, that Lord Bryce's scheme was a kind of compromise, that it is not conclusive, that all that he did was to readjust the- opinions of his colleagues. It is true that there was not absolute unanimity amongst the members of the Committee, but this I am able to say, and with the utmost confidence, that as regards those striking passages which the noble Earl, Lord Selborne. read just now as to the proper functions and duties of a Second Chamber, Lord Bryee had the whole of his colleagues at his back.
Now I turn for a moment to the Resolutions on the Table. They are much compressed. They are remarkable for their omissions, and they seem to me to fail altogether to carry us to an adequate conclusion. I dare say many of your Lordships may remember a very clever comedian, who a few years ago used to delight his audience by producing what he called "potted plays." They were short productions, they had very little correspondence with the plays which they purported to epitomise, and nobody took them very seriously. This scheme, it seems to me, might be described as a potted scheme of House of Lords reform. I think it may salve the conscience of the Ministers who have promised to pro-

551
duce a scheme, but I do not believe for a moment that it will satisfy the appetite of those who believe, as my noble friend opposite does, that a proper solution of this question is really vital to the future and the welfare of this country.
My noble friend pointed out that in this question we are concerned partly with the powers of a Second Chamber and partly with its composition. My noble friend, I think very rightly, puts the powers first, because it seems to me obviously of no use to set up a scientifically constituted Second Chamber and then to give it powers which are wholly illusory and inadequate. I will say two or three, words, and two or three words only, upon the question of the composition proposed in these Resolutions. I agree generally with what I presume is the general idea of the first Resolution, that it is desirable to have a Second Chamber which shall be of mixed composition; but when we turn to the Resolutions and see how it is proposed to carry out this mixture, I am struck by the number of important points on which we are left almost entirely in the dark. The new House is to consist, besides the Peers of the Blood Royal, and Lords Spiritual and Law Lords, of members elected either directly or indirectly from outside, of hereditary Peers elected by their order, and of members nominated by the Crown. Not a word is said as to the number of each of these categories. Surely, it it not merely a detail whether you are to have one hundred hereditary Peers or two hundred, or whether you are to have a larger or smaller fraction of members nominated by the Crown, or members elected from outside.
Another point upon which the Resolutions are curiously silent is this. We are not told anything as to the mode of election. Now the mode of election is one of the most difficult points which has to be encountered when this question is discussed, and to bring this scheme forward without a syllable to show how these elective Peers are to be elected seems to be a confession of weakness and irresolution far from creditable to the authors of this scheme. With regard to the nominated Peers, I cannot find in the Resolutions a word to tell us in what direction the Crown is to look for these specially nominated members. The subject has often been debated, and different categories have been suggested which might be represented in this House with great advantage to it,
552
but there is not a word upon that point in the Resolution.
Then, I understand—and this seems to be rather a novel suggestion—that all the Law I Lords and all the Spiritual Peers are to be retained. I have always held very strongly that it was desirable that the Spiritual Peers should be strongly represented in this House, but one may hold that opinion: and yet not be quite convinced that it is necessary that the whole Episcopal Bench should be retained when other parts of the House are being so materially diminished.
There is, further, one small point about which nothing is said, and which may, I dare say, be of interest to a good many I of us. Under this scheme there will be two kinds of Peers. There will be the chosen Peer who will continue to be a legislator, who will, with an attenuated body of his compeers, be found looking I dare say wistfully round these Benches for the comrades by the side of whom he has sat for so many years, and perhaps wondering at the novel surroundings which he will have to encounter. But what is to become of the remainder? There will be a great balance of at least several hundred Peers who, I suppose, might be distinguished from the elected Peers as the common or garden variety of Peer, i without a seat in this House. When Lord Bryce's Conference dealt with this subject we were careful to stipulate that the ordinary Peer, if he found the door of this House shut to him, might at least attempt to knock at the door of the other House of Parliament. I think that is an omission which certainly should be made good.
But these three Resolutions are, after all, a very crude sketch, and what really matters are the subsequent Resolutions dealing with the question of powers. My noble friend dealt so fully with that question that I am not going to follow him at any length. I think that as far as it goes the fourth Resolution is sound in principle, but, as my noble friend pointed out, it only touches the fringe of the question, and it leaves outside a great area of unexplored ground full of difficulty which will have to be explored sooner or later. The proposal of the Resolution contains, however, one blot—I mean the suggestion that the Chairman of the Joint Committee which is to decide whether a Bill is or is not a Money Bill should be the Speaker of the House of Commons. If you wish your

553
Committee to be obviously a dispassionate Committee, the way to do it is not to appoint as Chairman a member who, in spite of himself, cannot fail to be a strong House of Commons man. I very much prefer the proposal made by Lord Bryce, or, if you like it better, the proposal that the Chairman should be chosen by the members of the Committee themselves.
The real blot in the scheme, however, is the manner in which it deals with the question of ordinary legislation. Unless I misunderstand the Resolutions, they leave ordinary legislation exactly where it stands now, under what I cannot help speaking of as the illogical and ill-conceived legislation of 1911. I noticed, not without satisfaction, that the noble Viscount told the House that the Parliament Act had been passed in, I think he said, an atmosphere. That is perfectly true. The atmosphere in which the Parliament Act was passed was not an atmosphere conducive to wise and temperate legislation. An attempt was made to justify it on the ground of charges against this House which were wholly unfounded and unfair. The country was asked to believe that this House had stood between the people and a great body of beneficent legislation. That charge absolutely broke down. What were the leading cases? One of the leading cases was the rejection of the Home Rule Bill of 1892 by this House. What followed upon the rejection of that Bill? There was a General Election, and the people of this country, by an overwhelming majority, supported the action of the House of Lords. I would almost venture to say in passing that if you were, to put the same issue to the country now the verdict of the country would be the same as it was on that occasion.
Then we come to the famous Land Taxes of 1909. We all know the fate of those Taxes. They failed absolutely as a revenue-producing proposal and have been igno-miniously scrapped after costing the country several millions of money and finding employment for a large number of useless officials. The real feeling of the country in 1911, and probably now, is not that this House has exceeded its rights or deprived the country of useful legislation; the real feeling is that in these democratic days people do not like a Second Chamber composed almost entirely of hereditary Peers. That is a feeling which has always
554
seemed to me to be natural. Most of us are quite ready to respect that feeling at the present time and to make suitable changes in the direction of these Resolutions. But if you are going to assume that we are sooner or later to have a Second Chamber not based upon pure heredity but constructed on scientific and democratic lines, what right have you to assume that that Chamber, when the two Houses disagree, is always in the wrong and is to be automatically overruled by the mere lapse of time? And what right have you to deny to that Second Chamber the right of meeting the other House of Parliament on terms of equality, or the right, if necessary, to require an appeal to the country on the question at issue?
In the course of his speech, the noble Viscount suggested that the question was whether this House should be in a position to delay legislation or destroy it. I maintain that we have never desired to destroy legislation. We have desired to prevent legislation being hurriedly forced upon the people; we have desired that the people should be given a full opportunity of judging; but we have never suggested that we should have an absolute right of destruction pure and simple. That part of the question has been left untouched by the Resolutions. The Government had, however, only to look at Lord Bryce's Report in order to find the means of dealing logically and coherently with the question. Lord Selborne has quoted that part of the Bryce scheme, and I will not repeat what he has said. Let me, as to these Resolutions, remind you of what Lord Curzon said when we were discussing the possibility of dealing with House of Lords reform last year. He told the House that the subject was one which could not be dealt with by rough-and-ready methods. My complaint of these Resolutions is that they are rough-and-ready and ill-considered methods.
We had a right to expect that His Majesty's Government, having all these materials before them, would investigate the subject thoroughly for themselves, would make up their minds as to the line they would take on the more important issues, and would then come down here with a complete scheme which they were ready to justify, and on the details of which they were prepared to give the House all the guidance in their power. The Government are apparently not prepared to do

555
that, and I own, if that is the position, that I cannot see that we shall gain very much by debating these Resolutions in detail or by attempting to transform them into the flesh and blood of a Bill likely to be accepted by Parliament.
The Marquess OF CREWE: My Lords, I am so fully in agreement with what has just fallen from the noble Marquess as to the futility of attempting to discuss this question at any length that I shall be as brief as possible in using the few words I am obliged to say from having been so closely identified for many years, in different capacities, with this particular question. Every speaker so far has complained of the form in which the Government have produced their scheme. It has been described as a fleshless skeleton, and it is only possible to ascribe the form in which it has reached the House to the fact that after all the examination that has been given to it— I am bound to say I am inclined to defy contradiction—the members of His Majesty's Government, whether in the form of a Committee or the whole Cabinet, have been absolutely unable to agree on any of the important details of this measure. It does, as the noble Blarquess implied, make it something of a mockery to bring this shapeless monster down for consideration by your Lordships' House. Therefore, I most heartily join, while regretting the absence of the noble Marquess the Leader of the House, in congratulating him on the fact that he cannot be here. As was said of another Minister on a former occasion, he is felix opportunitate morbi, and all the eloquence and rhetorical skill of the noble Marquess, had he been here and had we heard a speech from him instead of the most competent essay which the noble Viscount in charge of the Resolutions gave us, would not have enabled him to make a case.
I have very little to say about the Resolutions on the Paper. I entirely agree with Lord Lansdowne that as regards the first, the proposed composition of your Lordships' House—composed partly of here ditary Peers, partly of Peers elected somehow, no one; knows how, and partly of nominated Peers—everything depends on the numbers of the respective classes. If you are going to have 350 Peers and 300 are to be hereditary members of your Lordships' House, twenty nominated and thirty elected somehow, then this House will not differ greatly from its present appearance,
556
because there are not so many as 300 Peers who habitually attend our debates. If you are going to have 300 elected Peers and divide the remaining fifty between nominated and hereditary Peers, then the case will, no doubt, be altogether different. I do feel we have a right to complain that His Majesty's Government have not deigned to give us some intimation, without tying themselves down to particular numbers, of what their ideas are on this subject.
This point really has a very important bearing on the matter which was raised at great length by the noble Earl behind me, and was also fully alluded to by the noble Marquess opposite—namely, the fact that the Parliament Act is, in its main features, being continued in the proposals of His Majesty's Government, because it is only right to recall that when the Bryce Conference reported in effect that the Parliament Act should be repealed and something else substituted for it—the system of Free Conference, if not that of joint sitting —it was intended to alter the composition of this House almost completely. Roughly speaking, the proposals of the Bryce Conference were that there should be 246 members elected by groups of the House of Commons, and somewhere about eighty, drawn in the first instance from your Lordships' House, to be named by this Joint Committee, of which mention has already been made, with the ultimate view that that number of hereditary Peers should be gradually reduced as fresh selections were made, only with the proviso that the number within this House of 320 members should never fall below thirty hereditary Peers, or three occupants of the Episcopal Bench.
That complete change in the composition of the House may have made it somewhat natural that the provisions of the Parliament Act should be departed from, but if, on the other hand, the House is going to remain mainly hereditary, with a mere sprinkling of introductions from outside, then it becomes quite another story and the question arises whether the Parliament Act ought to be departed from at all, while we are left in so great a condition of uncertainty that it makes it exceedingly difficult for many of us to say precisely what steps ought to be taken in that regard.
Lord Selborne is not in his place, and I do not want to enter into a discussion,

557
either with him or with the noble Marquess, about the circumstances in which the Parliament Act was introduced, or the reasons which seemed to us to make its introduction necessary, and which, I still hold, did so. The noble Earl made no attempt to describe the difficult circumstances in which the Government of that day found themselves, in being unable to proceed with legislation as they desired, because the House of Lords, as it then was, appeared to make a claim to deal on a large scale with questions of finance—though not in detail—and it also claimed to be able, in effect., to force the dissolution of Parliament whenever it chose. That made our position, as we conceived it, intolerable.
And when the noble Marquess opposite points to the Land Taxes of the Budget of 1909–10 when the present Prime Minister was Chancellor of the Exchequer, and speaks, not without satisfaction, of their presumed failure as a method of raising money, I must be allowed to remind the House that they were thrown out by your Lordships, not because you believed that they were going to fail, but because you feared they might succeed, and that very large sums of money would be extracted from the pockets particularly of large urban owners of land, and, indeed, of landowners generally. I do not want, however, to carry on a discussion about the merits or demerits of the Parliament Act. It was avowedly a measure, passed hastily and to meet a particular occasion, and how far it needs modification, I repeat once more, depends to my mind very greatly upon the conclusion as to the composition of this House, and any intention there may be of setting up a Second Chamber which is to be something of a rival of the House of Commons.
I have really nothing more to say about the Resolutions. I do not know that, as they stand, I could vote for most, of them, certainly not for Number 1, because I have not the least idea what it implies. As regards Number 4, for the reasons which I have stated, the powers of the House have to depend so largely upon its composition. Resolution Number 5 which was explained, I think, by the noble Viscount, is justified on the ground that it would be possible for a Labour Government— the Labour Party, even the most moderate members of it, having expressed preference for Government through a Single Chamber—to bring in a Bill if they came
558
into power, in the first year of their office, decreeing a form of Single Chamber Government, and abolishing the Second Chamber altogether, and that could be passed, under the Parliament Act, without any power of resistance.
I remember that, in the course of the Bryee Conference, there were a great many discussions as to how far constitutional legislation ought to be placed on a different basis from ordinary legislation. As no doubt your Lordships know, in almost every country, constitutional legislation can be passed only under far greater difficulties and with many more safeguards than ordinary organic legislation. But we found great difficulty in dealing with that question as a whole. His Majesty's Government are apparently making an attempt, in the fifth Resolution, to deal with one item of if, and I should be sorry to express a final opinion upon it until the whole matter has been argued at length, whenever we come to that Resolution. I must, however, once more, in sitting down, join the noble Marquess in complaining most explicitly that His Majesty's Government have placed us all in a position of very great difficulty by not appearing to have any fixed mind on any one of the important points with which we shall have to deal when the Resolutions come to be considered singly.
Lord BUCKMASTER: My Lords, I think it may be doubted whether any Resolutions more vague and tenuous were ever introduced to the notice of your Lordships' House for the purpose of dealing with a grave and complicated subject. I have never disguised my anxiety to see some reform of this House effected, and for reasons rather different from those which have already been given in this debate. I have always been apprehensive lest, in the quick changes that are taking place in popular opinion we may find a Government installed in the House of Commons which will be quite unable to obtain effective representation in this House under its present constitution. It seems to me to be a great risk that the Constitution of this country will run, if it remains so constructed that it is unable to give effect to the quick beating of the pulse of popular opinion.
Supposing for a moment that the Labour Party be returned to power, not necessarily at the next General Election but the

559
one that succeeds: how could it possibly work with this House constituted as it now is? It seems to me quite unthinkable. It could not find in this House its representative anywhere. I believe my noble and learned friend, Viscount Haldane, whose absence and the reason for it I greatly regret, is the only member of your Lordships' House who has ever expressed any approval of the Labour Party, and I do not know any one else who would be able to represent it.
Several Noble Lords: Lord Russell.
Lord BUCKMASTER: I should doubt it; but suppose we say that there are four or five Peers who would represent the Labour Party, it would be perfectly impossible to constitute a Labour Government upon the lines on which the constitution of this country is now constructed. It has always been a matter of great anxiety to me to see if it were not possible so to reform this House that our constitutional machine may be able to operate, whatever may be the result of the Elections for the return to power of a Government which take place from time to time. These Resolutions, so far as I can see, go no way at all to help in that difficulty, and indeed I cannot help thinking that they have not been seriously put forward, because, supposing they were all agreed to, what would be the result I The Government would be no nearer the solution than it was before, because all that would have happened would have been that there had been an agreement that a Joint Committee should examine what was a Money Bill and a Resolution passed that this House would be better constituted with 350 members than with its present total of 700 odd. As has already been said, the means by which these men are to be elected—which is at the heart of reform—is left completely untouched.
Again, bearing in mind what I have ventured to trouble your Lordships with, see what they do with regard to the Episcopal Bench. I suppose no one would desire that the House should be constituted without having the representatives of the English Church here, but I think I am not misquoting the most rev. Primate when I say that he himself would welcome the addition in this House of representatives of other spiritual bodies besides the Church of England, and I am satisfied that you would make this House
560
much stronger if it were possible for them I to be introduced. But no such thing is even hinted at in these Resolutions. You are to keep the House exactly as it was, retaining some of the elements which have given rise to some of the most acid and most unjust criticism in the past. You are doing nothing, so far as I can see, either to alleviate the popular demand for alteration in this House, or to render its construction any more secure, or any more capable of defence, than is the House as it now stands.
Of course, everybody knows the difficulty in which the Government stand. They are faced, on the one side, with the danger of giving to this House too extended powers, and, on the other side, with this consideration: that if they make a strong House, a House based on a strong representative basis, it will not be content with attenuated powers; and as between the two—the powers you are to give and the way in which you are to constitute the House—they have a difficulty which I admit is extremely hard to solve. I have merely risen for the purpose of pointing out the reason why I regard these Resolutions as perfectly useless. I cannot believe your Lordships will accept them, or if you do I think you will do so because they accomplish nothing at all and there is no mischief in doing so. I cannot help thinking that the wiser plan would be to reject them altogether and to let us have another set produced after more mature reflection, which may afford a valuable contribution to a very important question.
Viscount BURNHAM: My Lords, the only reason I rise is that I was a constant member of the Constitutional Conference which has been so much alluded to this evening, and I would remind your Lordships for a moment why that Conference was appointed. It was appointed by the Prime Minister because of the common admission that there were new dangers and added difficulties in the State on account of there being passed through Parliament at that moment a Bill to establish universal suffrage. I do not think anybody' can say-that those difficulties and those dangers are overpast, when you have regard to the vast masses of unpolled electors every time that an appeal is made to any constituency in the country, and I say unhesitatingly, in agreement with my noble friend, Lord Selborne, that the basis of our discussion, the stipulation of our agreement, was that

561
there was to be drastic amendment of the Parliament Act, so as to rescue us from our present impotence; and in that agreement I Lord Crewe, and those who act with him, did not differ from the rest of the Conference.
The Conference worked, as Lord Bryce said, laboriously for six months and held some fifty sittings. If ever there was a free conference in the whole of our Parliamentary history I believe it was the Bryce Conference. Every member said the thing which was in him, and many opinions were expressed. Of many meetings it might have been said quot homines tot sententiœ. Allusion has been made to the fact that in the Resolutions the whole bench of bishops are retained. I well remember when Lord Hugh Cecil threatened the most rev. Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury i with his dire displeasure, because he said he had given up the whole of the innate rights of the Church of England, in consenting to reduce the number of bishops holding diocesan See? to five, who were to be drawn from the number allotted to the hereditary Peerage.
The Government, it is said, has paid but scant attention to the recommendations of the Conference. I do not think, however, that there ought to be any objection taken to the fact that they are introducing Resolutions, however nebulous, as a possible basis of legislation. It was by a Resolution that this House once took the most foolish step, I think, in the whole of its history, when in 1856 it resolved in the case of Sir James Parke that no Lord of Parliament should be summoned here for the term of his natural life. If that had not been done I think a good deal that has followed would have been avoided. It was by a Resolution that Lord Inchiquin strove in the 'seventies to limit the prerogative of the Crown to add to the number of the Irish Peerage. Therefore, I am the last to think that the Government has done wrong to present Resolutions, and I differ there from my noble and learned friend i who has just spoken, because surely it is an advantage that these things should be thrashed out now, and there is no more convenient way of doing it.
What seems to me, however, the real test is whether these Resolutions and the scheme they incorporate will make or re-make this House into a real legislative Chamber. What the Conference of Lord Bryce fully ascertained was that without
562
any question this is the weakest legislative Chamber in the whole of Europe. There is not one, except perhaps that of Norway, which is in a position of such degradation as ourselves. And in one of the Reports that we made it was laid down that in almost all countries, whether democratic or not, the Second Chamber has, at all events in theory, equal powers of legislation with the Lower House. Where a Constitution is federal in many cases the Second Chamber has greater power than the Lower House, and in nearly every case of a federal State, though the Lower House may originate financial measures, the Senate reconsiders and advises upon them.
We all know that, after all, this place, with its proud traditions, has become a gilded monument of departed greatness. It cannot be said that we have here any large feeling of responsibility in the legislative affairs of the country. We may have had it before, but certainly have not had it since the Parliament Act was passed. I am not one of those who think that the whole of the danger which is run now is due to the Parliament Act. I tried with others to fight it clause by clause, and I look upon it as a legislative atrocity. On the other hand, I do not fancy that those who joined in passing it adequately foresaw how much its danger's would be increased by the subsequent course of events. Whilst the House of Commons retained its old position, and whilst the distribution of political power was the same, though the evils may have been great enough, they were not so great as they are now. Everybody admits that we are coming to a government by groups, and as the government by groups is increased so the power of the Executive Government is increased. It cannot be avoided.
And that makes it all the more necessary that in respect of legislation there should be some power of revision, giving time to the electorate and the country for the second thoughts on reflection, of which Lord Bryce speaks so wisely in his Report. Even in financial affairs it seems to me that the Resolutions, as presented, do not improve the existing state of things. We must credit the Speaker of the other House with a high conscientiousness which, if he were left alone to decide whether a Bill is a finance Bill or not, would probably lead him to a just and right conclusion. If he is merely the Chairman of a Com-

563
mittee with a casting vote, being, as he always says he is, the voice of the House of Commons, he is almost bound to vote with those over whom he presides and for whom he speaks. I look upon the present as the worst of all solutions in respect of Finance Bills. It certainly was not that which was contemplated by the members of the Conference. A majority dependent on that sort of corporate feeling is likely to be a very mechanical one. I hope, therefore, that when we have, in the freedom of discussion, to consider these Resolutions, we shall at any rate pay some respect to what our Conference thought to be the right way of dealing with the subject.
It seems to me that you gain nothing for this House in the restoration of legislative power by anything that could be framed by virtue of these Resolutions. You must lose something in the prestige and the dignity which were always attached to this Assembly. You break the continuity of our constitutional life, because you cannot think that the House which will take the place of this, different in all its features, is likely to have the same standing which has been given to the House of Lords by its long-drawn history. May I say you are not likely to gain in the personnel of the House? While this House is the weakest in Europe in its constitutional position, I venture to think it is the strongest in its personal composition. The quality of its membership is not disputed. Of late years it is no longer true to say that it is all drawn from one class. The leaders in all the walks of national life find their way here by different ways—some people think them devious, but, at all events, they find their way here. Therefore, you are not likely to gain in that respect.
Is it worth while to pass any Bill framed on the Resolutions that are now presented to us? If we are free to amend them according to our likes, and in view of the findings of the Conference of which so much has been heard this evening, then I certainly do not think our time will be wasted. I should not object to any amendment of our Constitution because it does not fit, with taste and symmetry, into its ancient fabric. Part of this House is true Gothic, far the larger part is Victorian Gothic, and nobody will quarrel with any amendment of our status merely because of some loss of decent draperies which have so long enveloped it. But
564
on other grounds I hardly agree. On other grounds it seems to me it is not worth while to disturb the foundations of the State for any petty purpose. If we understand that the Committee on these Resolutions will be as free in the spirit of its procedure as was the Constitutional Conference, then I welcome it. Otherwise, I am afraid your Lordships will waste your time to no effective end.
Lord WILLOUGHBY DE BROKE: My Lords, I do not suppose that any of you have ever heard any important Resolutions, dealing with a highly important subject, brought forward by a responsible Government that have received less support than these Resolutions. We have now been debating them for two hours and a half, from very different points of view, and not a single speaker has been found to stand up for any single part of the Resolutions.
Viscount PEEL: They never do.
Lord WILLOUGHBY DE BROKE: I have no doubt that some of the noble Lords seated on the Front Bench beside the noble Viscount will get up later and propose to justify these Resolutions. They are very much to be congratulated on having such a suave and persuasive advocate as the noble Viscount, who has come to the rescue of the Government to explain divers measures on different occasions. I feel very much inclined to agree with what I think was passing in Lord Lansdowne's mind and certainly in that of Lord Buckmaster, which I may translate into the vernacular. I think the noble Marquess and the noble and learned Lord thought that these Resolutions were not worth powder and shot, and that there was not a very great deal of advantage to be gained by debating them in detail.
I had made up my mind to move that the House should go into Committee on these Resolutions this day six months, but I found, after consultation with some of my noble friends, that the view seemed to prevail that it would be a good opportunity of thoroughly debating the subject. I do not desire that there be any mistake about my own position on the question, which does not matter to anyone but myself. I do not think that we shall be taken any further by Resolutions in this form, and if the Motion to go into Committee is carried, I wish it to be clearly

565
understood that I am not committed to the acceptance either of the substance or the purport of these Resolutions in any way whatever.
Your Lordships will allow me, perhaps, to make one or two very brief remarks with regard to this proposal to reform the House of Lords. The question has been under consideration for a long time, and, like many of your Lordships, I am not exactly the first of my family who has had the honour of a scat in this House, ft appears to me that the constitution of the new House of Lords as recommended by these Resolutions would really be satisfactory to nobody except those who wish to make an inroad upon the hereditary principle. I would submit to all those who think that the House of Lords would be strengthened if part of it was elected, part of it nominated, and part of it ex officio, that there are very strong arguments in favour of having a House of Commons or a House of Lords whose members are all there upon the same engagement. If the Peers are partly nominated, partly elected, and partly ex officio, there will be two or three different classes, and you will run the risk, when an important decision is taken, of having the Division lists carefully scrutinised by active and ingenious persons outside to see how many hereditary Peers, how many elected Peers, and how many ex officio Peers voted in favour of a certain course being followed. I have given serious consideration to a possible reform of the House of Lords, and I have always thought that once you begin to interfere with the hereditary principle there is nothing very much between that and having the whole of the House of Lords elected, either directly or indirectly.
But the composition of the House of Lords is a matter to which we can refer later on. Do you not think that what those outside who have given serious thought to this subject are mostly concerned about is what the powers of the House of Lords are to be rather than its composition? These Resolutions, even the fourth and fifth, leave the Parliament Act virtually unaltered. It is perfectly true that there is an attempt to remove one of the greatest vices of that Act—namely, the vice of leaving the decision with regard to Money Bills to the Speaker. It is proposed, I admit, to alter that; but if the Speaker decides in an adverse sense, the whole force of the Parliament Act is
566
brought to bear upon the House of Lords which is to be set up by these Resolutions, and we shall be no better off than we are now under the Parliament Act. There is so little gained by the fourth and fifth Resolutions that it is really not worth while talking about them and, as far as I am concerned, I do not propose to be a party to giving up my seat in the House of Lords in return for the very slender improvement in the Parliament Act which these Resolutions suggest.
It is not good enough, my Lords! If you wish to get rid of that very serious flaw, that very serious defect in the constitution set up by the Parliament Act— namely, that of leaving in the Speaker's hand the decision as to whether a Bill is a Money Bill or not—surely (and I submit this perfectly seriously) that could be done by a Bill without altering the composition of the House of Lords. The hereditary Peerage as we have it in the House of Lords can carry on perfectly well if the Parliament Act is amended. I submit to your Lordships that the hereditary Peerage is not half so unpopular in the country as it thinks it is. It is the fashion to say that the hereditary principle is out of date and all that sort of thing. It is, however, the only really sound principle upon which you can found any institution—
A NOBLE LORD: It is eugenic.
Lord WILLOUGHBY DE BROKE: Yes—whether it is the Monarchy, or the House of Lords or a pack of fox hounds, the three most important institutions in the country that I can think of. I wish to treat this subject seriously, and the proof that the hereditary principle in selecting legislators is sound is before your Lordships this afternoon. Here we are! What else can you want? I have often argued this matter on the platform in Manchester and the north of England, places where they are thought to be against an hereditary Peerage. They are really very much in favour of it, particularly in regard to themselves and their own families. The thing is perfectly sound and it can be explained to the people in I the country. It is the fashion for speakers to say that it is impossible to defend the hereditary principle on the platform. I have been extremely irritated by Conservative speakers who have made that ignorant criticism. Nothing is easier, and the way to do it is this. Some gentleman is

567
ennobled by his Sovereign on the advice of the Minister, for some specific act into which we will not inquire too closely— we heard something about it yesterday afternoon and I do not wish to pursue it; but generally speaking he is ennobled by his Sovereign on the advice of the Minister for some specific act towards the State. He is deserving of his Peerage, and the experience of the hereditary Peerage has been, throughout the hundreds of years that it has existed, that that man's family has from time to time, not always, thrown up members who have taken their seats and have reflected lustre on the debates in the House of Lords.
I am not at all sure that the hereditary principle is not as popular as it used to be. The noble Marquess, Lord Lansdowne, whose voice I heard again in this House, like the rest of your Lordships, with the greatest pleasure and with the deepest sense of association, gave a splendid defence of the hereditary Peerage this afternoon. He said in that Parliamentary language of which he is so complete a master, and which I will translate into my own vernacular, that the hereditary Peerage has been absolutely right every time. The Prime Minister, when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer, did everything that he could to discredit the hereditary Peerage. I dare say from his own point of view he was perfectly right, but there was no form of rhetoric to which he did not resort in order to attack the House of Lords collectively and, in some cases, individually. My own name, amongst others, had the honour of being mentioned at the time.
The Budget of 1909 was presented to Parliament as a deliberate challenge to your Lordships, and, as the noble Marquess has reminded your Lordships, what was said in this House about the Budget— the main reason for rejecting that Budget being the Land Taxes—has turned out to be absolutely right. It is the Land Taxes and their author that are discredited, and not the House of Lords. The Land Taxes have had to be abandoned. They have been nothing but an expense to the country, and the rejection of the Budget by your Lordships shows that we were absolutely right. The people of the country are not such fools as not to recognise these things.
I am not particularly anxious to put myself up for election among the members of your Lordships' House. I do not wish to say this in an ungracious way, but
568
backwoodsmen will very likely stand a very poor chance of election. If there are only to be about a hundred or a hundred and fifty Peers, it seems to me that the tendency will be for both Front Benches, and people who desire things to be comfortable, to put their heads together and create such a House of Lords as will be amenable to the opinion of the Government of the day. Some of the most valuable members of the House of Lords, from the outside point of view, are those so-called backwoodsmen who are not afraid to state their opinions without reference to either Front Bench. I am afraid that that class of Peer, to whom I always listen with so much pleasure—I am not listening to one now—will tend to disappear from your Lordships' House.
I am well aware that it may be said, and may be said with justice, that if you reject these Resolutions, and if you set your face against any reform of the. House of Lords, you will have nothing but the Parliament Act to fall back upon. It has been rightly pointed out this afternoon that the Parliament Act, as it stands, constitutes a very great danger. It seems to me that there is this to he said. It is difficult to believe that the propertied classes, and others who desire the stability of the State for various reasons, will be able to dig themselves in against a socialistic or confiscatory Government behind a reformed Second Chamber. If a Government of that kind got a sufficient majority of the country behind it to vote in favour of passing confiscatory measures, and doing away with the Monarchy, then a Government fortified in that way would equally be strong enough to sweep away any sort of reformed Second Chamber that might have been put up in the meantime as an earthwork against it.
But in case we may not all be thought too intransigeant and not constructive I will tell your Lordships what my terms are for considering a reform of the hereditary system. My terms are the complete and absolute repeal of the Parliament Act, and the return to a Second Chamber, without any qualifications, of full pre-Parliament Act powers. On those terms I, for one, am perfectly prepared to debate with your Lordships the construction and the personnel of the Second Chamber. It seems to me that in regard to these Resolutions we shall not get very much further. I think there is a great deal to be said for the Amendment in the name of Lord

569
Raglan, in favour of "such modifications of the Parliament Act as will give the House a more effective control over all except purely financial legislation," and if he presses it to a Division I shall be very much inclined to support it.
Lord PHILLIMORE: My Lords, when the noble Lord, Lord Oranmore and Browne, proposed his Amendment, during the last Irish Home Rule Bill, for a Second Chamber, I ventured to support his proposal with certain arguments which I think received favour from your Lordships' House. I gather that we are all supporters of a Second Chamber, and of a strong Second Chamber, and as the authority of my old friend, our great statesman Lord Bryce, has been referred to, I would ask any noble Lord who has any doubt, on the subject to study that melancholy book, his "History of Modern Democracy." You will see there both the necessity of a Second Chamber, and the difficulty of providing, artificially, for a Second Chamber; the attempts that have been made in various countries, and in our Dominions, to find a source of explanation for a Second Chamber, and the melancholy failing that there, has been because it has been almost impossible to get an origin for the Second Chamber different from that of the First Chamber, the result being that the Second Chamber is only a pale imitation of the first. The United States of America is probably one example to the contrary, and there the extent of the several sovereign States requiring representation has made it possible to have; two different constituent bodies. Probably, in one or two small countries something of the same kind can be traced.
In this country we have the enormous advantage that we have to our hand the elements of a Second Chamber having a reason in itself and an origin for the Second Chamber different from that of the First. I am but a recent member of your Lordships' House. I never had the honour of being in the Lower House, and, being a man much immersed in business, and I employed publicly and privately, I was seldom able to be present as a spectator at the debates of either House, and when I came as a new member into your Lordships' House the thing which struck me most was the difference in your Lordships' House when seen from inside compared with what it was when seen from outside, If I, living in the world of business
570
and in London, was so ignorant, what must other people be? I confess to your Lordships I had no idea how much the control of this Chamber was in the hands of noble Peers who had such claims upon popular estimation that really the other House could not possibly stand comparison. When I found that those who really swayed this House were people of the rank of Cabinet Ministers, Governors of our great Dependencies, leaders in my own profession and in the great Services of the State, I felt that if any ordinary citizen had any knowledge how far this House was ruled by noble Lords of the calibre I have described much carping against the House of Lords and much unfair criticism would be dissipated.
This leads me to the reason of my rising to trouble your Lordships this evening. I have followed the racy utterances of Lord Willoughby de Broke, and I agree with a great deal he has said. I agree that it is not worth while tampering with the hereditary Peerage; I agree that it is not desirable to have an admixture, and I also agree that what is most; desirable is the repeal of the Parliament Act, root and branch. But it is obvious that we shall not get that, done yet. What should be done at the moment is to prepare the way for a sound popular opinion which would lead ultimately—we must wait patiently—to a repeal of the Parliament Act. The reason why this House does not have the weight it ought to have in the opinion of the nation is this. As a rule the business of the House is done by noble Lords who attend, who have political experience and knowledge, who have great intellectual qualifications. What the public feels is that, at any moment the sober opinion of men who are in touch with popular opinion, in touch with business, who really have governmental instincts, may be overruled by an inrush of Peers who do not attend, who have not trained themselves, who are not in touch with business, Peers who come merely to vote, with minds steeped with prejudice and assisted by ignorance.
That brings me to venture to trouble your Lordships with a scheme which I thought out some years ago when I did not know that I should ever have, the honour of being a member of this House, but when, as a close student of constitutional history all my life, I thought it worth developing. The idea of this scheme is not to interfere

571
with the hereditary Peerage but to require that every Peer who not only speaks but votes should have some training, should give some attention to business before he is qualified to vote in your Lordships' House. Let me trouble your Lordships with a brief outline of my scheme:——
"(1) In future a Writ of Summons shall not issue to a Peer upon his succession to the Peerage unless upon his application in the form of a Petition to the Crown.
"(2) The Petition shall contain an undertaking that the Peer will for five years after the receipt of his Writ of Summons, unless and except when employed in the public service, attend in his place in the House and serve upon Committees as may be directed by the Standing Orders of the House.
"(3) Standing Orders may define this attendance and provide for dispensation on good grounds and attach penalties for non-compliance.
"(4) If the Petition be presented within six months of succession to the Peerage, or within six months of a Report by the Committee of Privileges, the Peer shall be entitled to his Writ of Summons forthwith. But if it be not so presented no Writ of Summons shall issue to him till the next Parliament is called."
Two objects would be gained by this proposal. In the first place, Peers who are unwilling to put themselves under discipline to qualify themselves for the exercise of their high duties would never apply, and would remain self-disfranchised. In the second place, those who take their seats will be workers, will be taught business especially by serving on Committees, and will be in association with political thinkers and the heads of business and captains of industry. An obvious penalty under the third provision would be suspension from voting, and another provision of the scheme would prevent sudden qualification in order to vote on a particular occasion.
I conceive that an hereditary Peer on succeeding to the Peerage would put to himself this question: Am I prepared to discharge my duties in the House of Lords? If he is he presents his petition, he applies for his Writ of Summons, and submits himself to the duty of attending the House for so many years, for the duration of that Parliament, or whatever the case might be. Those who were idle or dissipated, or who
572
had no care for political business, those who felt that their line did not lie that way, that they were better rearing cattle or hunting foxes, would never apply. There would be no danger of a sudden vote of Peers who were described on one occasion as Peers whom the doorkeepers did not know; they would be disqualified. If later on they repented, if they married and their wives insisted on their taking their seats, they might apply at any time and qualify. But a great number would be eliminated, there would be a purge of your Lordships' House in respect of a large number of Peers, and the public would feel that only those did vote who had qualified themselves by experience and practice.
The moral effect would be such that it would be felt that your Lordships' House was a House of experts; not a representative House, but a House of experts. Although many would be here by hereditary training, great families throwing up from time to time in accordance with all well-known physical laws hereditary statesmen, the House would be composed of people who could be regarded as experts; of those who had received Peerages, who would at once sit, under my scheme, on the theory that they were people of distinction, as, I trust, in nine cases out of ten they would be. In those circumstances this House would so gain in moral weight that it would be possible to carry the repeal, or at any rate a drastic amendment, of the Parliament Act, which, old Liberal as I am, I heartily join in desiring.
Lord STUART of WORTLEY: My Lords, on behalf of the most rev. Primate the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury, I beg to move that the debate be now adjourned.
The Earl of CRAWFORD: I suggest that the Motion should be put down for Thursday.
Moved, That the debate be now adjourned.— (Lord Stuart of Wortley.)
On Question, Motion agreed to. Debate adjourned accordingly till Thursday next.

EX-SERVICE TERRITORIAL SECRETARIES.
THE Duke of NORTHUMBERLAND: My Lords, I beg to ask whether any steps have been taken to give effect to the Resolution which was moved by me on 17th May and accepted by the Govern-

573
merit, "That secretaries of County Territorial Associations, who served as such during the war and were, prior to the war, in receipt of retired pay or pension, thereby performed paid military service within the meaning of the Royal Warrant for Pay and Promotion, as amended by Army Order 324 of 1919."
The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (LORD GORELL): My Lords, I must thank the noble Duke for his courtesy in postponing this Question until I was able to return from Paris in order to reply to him. I do not think he will wish me to traverse again the reasons for and against the Motion which we debated fully on May 17. In view of the expression of opinion manifested in your 'Lordships' House on that occasion, the Secretary of State for War felt bound to lay the whole matters before the Cabinet. I had hoped that, with the postponement of a week to which the noble Duke agreed, it might be possible to give him a final answer on the Question, but, as the noble Duke will understand, there have been many matters of very great importance before the Cabinet, and I am sorry to say that this matter has not yet been decided upon. It may be, therefore, that a decision in
574
the sense desired by the noble Duke may [yet be come to. At the same time, I think it would be misleading if I were to suggest that that is likely. The whole f the facts of the case will be fully considered by the Cabinet, but, at the same time, the arguments which I ventured to lay before the House on behalf of the War Office— arguments which, I must admit, did not bring conviction to many of your Lord- ships—are still, in the opinion of the. War Office, such as to make it undesirable that this reassessment of pensions should be granted. As I have said, however, no absolutely final decision has yet been reached.
THE Duke of NORTHUMBERLAND: My Lords, I am very much obliged to the noble Lord for the very full explanation which he has given. I am sorry he cannot hold out better hopes, and I would suggest, in view of the very strong expression of opinion which has been given by this House, that the House will probably feel inclined to take some further action, if the Government cannot see their way to meet that view.
House adjourned at half-past seven o'clock.

SOUTH WALES ELECTRICAL POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments: The said Amendments considered, and agreed to.
SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE.
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House that His Majesty had (by Commission) revoked certain Letters Patent and had appointed the Duke of Devonshire, the Lord Kintore (E. Kintore), the Earl Waldegrave, the Lord Granard (E. Granard), the Viscount Hutchinson (E. Donough-More), the Earl Beauohamp, the Earl Loreburn, the Viscount Haldane, the Viscount Finlay, the Viscount Birkenhead, the Lord Ribblesdale, the Lord Denman, the Lord Hylton, the Lord Herschell, the Lord Stanmore, the Lord Colebrooke, the Lord Buckmaster, the Lord Sumner, the Chairman of Committees for the time being, and any person who shall have been Chairman of Committees, Speakers of the House in the absence of the Lord Chancellor: The said Commission was read.
DURHAM COUNTY WATER BOARD BILL.
Reported, with Amendments.
GRAMPIAN ELECTRICITY SUPPLY BILL.
The King's consent signified, and Bill reported with Amendments.
LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (TRAMWAYS AND IMPROVEMENTS) BILL.
  FIFE TRUST ESTATE BILL, [H.L.]
  Reported, with Amendments.
PILOTAGE PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 4) BILL.
  MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 10) BILL.
  Reported, with Amendments, and recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House to-morrow.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 7) BILL.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 8) BILL.
BOARD OF EDUCATION SCHEME (DEWS-BURY ENDOWED SCHOOLS FOUNDATION) CONFIRMATION BILL.
PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 1) BILL.
Reported, without amendment, and recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House to-morrow.
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, That the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificate from the Examiners that the Standing Orders applicable to the following Bill have been complied with:
Ministry of Health Provisional Orders (No. 9).
The same was ordered to lie on the Table.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 1) BILL.
Report from the Committee of Selection, That the following Lords be proposed to the House to form the Select Committee for the consideration of the said Bill; namely,

L. Willoughby de Broke,

L. Sempill,

L. Erskine,

L. Oranmore and Browne (chairman),

L. Treowen;

agreed to; and the said Lords appointed accordingly: The Committee to meet on Tuesday next, at eleven o'clock; and all Petitions referred to the Committee, with leave to the Petitioners, praying to be heard by Counsel against the Bill to be heard as desired as also Counsel for the Bill.

FRAUD AND FALSIFICATION BILL. [H.L.]
House to be in Committee (on recommitment) on Tuesday next.
WHALE FISHERIES (SCOTLAND) (AMENDMENT) BILL.
To be read 2a on Thursday next (Earl Strange (D. Atholl)).
POST OFFICE (PNEUMATIC TUBES ACQUISITION) BILL.
Order for the Second Reading on Thursday next discharged and Bill referred to the Examiners.
EXPORTATION OF HORSES BILL. [H.L.]
To be read 2a on Tuesday next (Lord Lambourne).
HOUSE OF LORDS OFFICES.
Consideration of the Fourth Report from the House of Lords Offices Committee (which stands appointed for this day) put off till to-morrow.